Mr Chairman, when the committee reported progress yesterday evening, I was arguing, in consequence of evidence we heard in this Committee that the hon members for Pietermaritzburg South and Greytown had attended a memorial service in honour of the late general secretary of the SA Communist Party, that the reasons why a person attended a funeral or memorial service could be classified in three categories.

They may firstly be classified in the category of one’s personal friends, relatives and so on. A second reason is that one may attend officially as a Minister, Member of Parliament, city councillor or whatever. The third reason for attendance is that one does it as a mark of respect to a leader or as indication of support for or sympathy with a cause.

Whether a political, cultural or religious cause or a religious leader is involved, this type of memorial service or funeral, for instance that of Johannes van der Walt or the funeral of the victims of the Westdene bus disaster, is often characterised by the fact that the mass of people present did not know the deceased concerned personally. They are aware, however, of the cause the deceased represented and that is the reason for their presence at his memorial service or funeral.

†Let me put it this way. I should like to ask those hon members—in fact, I appeal to the party as a whole—to please come clean. They owe it to this Committee, they owe it to Parliament, and they owe it to the country to come clean. They should tell us why they attended that memorial service in honour of a very prominent and well-known communist. We must know. In the light of the circumstances prevailing in the country at the moment, it is important for us to know that.

*Hon members will appreciate that, if a doctor is on the way to carry out an ordinary task and an emergency crops up, he first has to attend to that emergency. I think this is a serious matter which crossed my path while I was standing with a prepared speech in my hand. This is an emergency and we have to receive a reply to that question so I shall leave my prepared speech—that task I would have accomplished—at that for the moment.

In the short time at my disposal I wish to make a few comments almost off the cuff although I have a few loose notes here.

I first want to say that the obvious flirting of certain people, groups and also newspapers with the ANC and people like Winnie Mandela is beginning to irritate even me a little and I do not regard myself as the most unenlightened person in this House. I am starting to wonder whether these people, these groups and these newspapers in their flirting with Winnie Mandela are not perhaps finding after her most recent honest and sincere utterances—I must say I regard Mrs Mandela as an honest and sincere person, just as I regard Prof Carel Boshoff as honest and sincere—about matches and necklaces with flaming petrol and tyres about the living bodies of those the Bible terms our neighbours, that the fiery embrace of that fiery woman is becoming slightly too hot and slightly too suffocating for their ordinary thermometers. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the point I wish to make. I wonder whether we may not learn a lesson from these so-called “Mandela manoeuvres”. I saw in yesterday’s Vaderland: “Britse Pers veroordeel Winnie” and “Sy grawe haar eie graf”. I wonder if we may not learn a lesson from this that, if we had perhaps permitted this woman to have her say long ago—because she has credibility; if I say something, they do not believe me, but if she says something, she is believed—it would have led to the world knowing long since precisely what it was all about, precisely what she stood for and precisely what the ANC stood for.

The hon member Mr Van Staden and the hon member for Helderkruin spoke of the development of the NP policy from “segregation” through “apartheid” to “separate development”. It is interesting that each stage lasted approximately two decades. In speaking of credibility, I recall that at some stage during my early student days I wondered whether the NP had a moral policy and creditworthiness if it were not prepared to say there would be “total apartheid” and “total territorial apartheid”. We thought the NP had credibility when Dr Verwoerd said total apartheid was his policy; we thought it was the solution for the NP and for the country.

It has now been proved to be no solution although it has brought partial solutions like the separate states to which hon members referred. It is abundantly clear that large parts of the problem have not been solved and that is why we have had to change policy because we would have retained no morality if we had still clung to that policy.

At the opening of Parliament the State President made a speech which inspired one to scale mountain peaks and cleave the oceans. That is NP policy today.

I now query the morality of people who are still clinging to that old policy while it has been proved to offer no solution. I said a short while ago Winnie Mandela was an honest and straightforward person. I think Prof Carel Boshoff is as well.

Prof Boshoff consistently adopted the standpoint that, when this policy came to full fruition and when there were separate states, apartheid would have disappeared and apartheid signboards no longer be in use. That was Prof Boshoff’s standpoint. I wondered what his standpoint was now after proof that the policy did not work. If he persisted in supporting that policy, I would find his credibility and morality becoming suspect.

Subsequently I received a booklet from Sabra with a covering letter from Prof Boshoff. Then I saw the light and thought Prof Boshoff’s credibility and honour were being maintained, for what did he say? Sabra said under the signature of Prof Boshoff on page 45 of its publication Hervorming en Geweld:

Order! I regret I cannot permit the hon member to continue reading. His time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I will deal with certain aspects of the hon member’s speech in the course of my comments.

I want to raise a few matters but I think many of them have been overshadowed by the report which was tabled yesterday by Prof Van der Walt investigating the events in the Vaal Triangle with especial emphasis on education. I feel the country is indebted to Prof Van der Walt for his incisiveness, thoroughness and for the frank way in which he has expressed himself in respect of his commission.

The report was directed primarily at education but, when one reads it, it has much wider implications than the educational aspect only. While the educational aspect will be dealt with by other speakers during the course of the debate on the various votes I want to deal with one or of two of the more general aspects which emerged.

First of all, when one looks at this report in its entirety one sees that it is a massive indictment of the Government for having allowed this country to slide into economic, social, political and educational conditions which made revolt against the authorities and the system which they stood inevitable. [Interjections.] It is a massive indictment. Perhaps it has been the most severe and the most blunt indictment of this Government in the 38 years in which the NP has ruled this country.

Secondly, it points to the direct correlation and the linkage between education, socio-economic conditions, politics and revolution. These factors are all intertwined in a way which makes it impossible to unravel them. One cannot be solved without the other, and problems in one area inevitably lead to problems in the other. It is not without significance in this correlation of socioeconomic conditions and politics that 3 September 1984 was not only a black day because of the deaths in the Vaal Triangle but also a black day for South Africa with the introduction of the malformed tricameral system in this country.

The report spells out Prof Van der Walt’s perception of the legitimate grievances of the Blacks, their appalling living conditions, the educational system, the insensitivity of the authorities, the lack of effective political participation and the breakdown in communication. As one reads it one can see the conflict and revolt coming closer and closer with all its tragic human consequences. The tragedy is not only that it happened; the real tragedy is that this need not have happened because we had the warnings from moderate as well as radical Blacks. We have had them from people outside the House and from hon members of the PFP inside this House. The hon member for Houghton time and time again has drawn attention to these conditions, but they have been ignored. We have had commission after commission which has reported on socio-economic conditions and the consequences these would have in the conflict situation, but these were ignored till the explosion took place.

This Government has either done nothing or, if it has done something, it must now admit that what it has done has been little or too late. Therefore we have now locked ourselves into a situation in which—unless there is a massive positive action by the Government—we are going to experience continued revolt and a revolutionary spiral. South Africa cannot afford a Government like this! [Interjections.]

This is why we say to the State President that we—and I think I speak for the people for South Africa—are sick and tired of a Government from which we got only words, words, words, speeches, speeches, speeches and promises, promises, promises. [Interjections.] We are sick and tired of Rubicons being crossed and recrossed. We want to see positive action and the fundamental structural reform of our socio-economic and political systems in South Africa. [Interjections.] Let us look at one or two brief extracts from the report. I want to quote from the summary:

1. 3. Humanly speaking the entire crisis situation could have been prevented had there not been such an incomprehensible lack of sensitivity and communication. Alarm signals were disregarded; legitimate grievances fell upon deaf ears; mistrust and suspicion mounted visibly, and sooner or later the situation simply had to explode.
2. 4. Since other channels were either blocked or non-existent, the schools were, next to the labour force, the obvious means by which to try to register a radical protest through strikes, boycotts and stay-aways.

Prof Van der Walt points to living conditions and simple things like amenities, roads and houses. He also points to unemployment. When describing this Government, he talks of “ostrich politics.” How much longer can we continue with ostrich politics in South Africa? He links it very specifically to the feeling of exclusion which Blacks experienced as a result of the tricameral system. He says:

What worries us even more is that this report which was tabled in the House today must obviously have been given to the Government in draft form long ago, possibly in December 1984. The report says: “Decisions must be taken as a matter of urgency, and it would be a distinct mistake to allow this kind of vacuum to arise between now and 9 January 1985.” Therefore, the Government had the warnings prior to last year’s state of emergency and the massive unrest. We want to know what the Government actually did. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with another matter which is touched on in this report. It is something which should concern us all in this House. It is certainly disturbing to us in these benches. I am referring to the extent to which the actions of the security forces—the Police in particular—in the course of their handling of crisis situations have radicalised Blacks and Coloureds and consolidated these communities in their hostility towards the authorities. This is a matter about which we should be concerned because we would all like to see the Police and security forces as part of the solution to the problem, not as something which aggravates it. We can simply gloss over this. It would be totally counter-productive to engage in operations which are supposed to resolve conflict when these operations actually intensify the mood of conflict.

Hon members on this side of the House have been engaged in an intensive monitoring of the unrest situation over the past months. They have done so with a view to trying to understand some of the basic causes and, in their own way, reduce the level of conflict and possibly the rising death toll wherever they could. On many occasions my hon colleagues engaged in this work have received co-operation both from leaders of the local Black communities and from the Police. There has been a spirit of co-operation in many of these investigations. I am satisfied that the actions of my hon colleagues in many instances have been instrumental in preventing the conflict situation from getting worse, even preventing a loss of life on certain occasions. This has often been a difficult and demanding task, and I want to place on record my appreciation for the work they have been doing and the sacrifices they have been making in this regard.

The hon members for Pietermaritzburg South and Greytown have worked especially hard in this mediating role. It is disgraceful and cheap party politics for the hon members Mr Schutte and Dr Vilonel to try to make cheap political capital out of the fact that, at the request of the local Black community leaders and with the full knowledge of the Police in Pietermaritzburg, these hon members of the PFP were present as observers at a memorial service in Pietermaritzburg last Sunday afternoon. [Interjections.] Instead of trying to make cheap political capital out of this, the hon members on the other side of the House should acknowledge that these two hon members have been working hard during recent months. I believe that they have played a significant part in ensuring that Pietermaritzburg stands out in this country as one of the areas where there has been no conflict and unrest. [Interjections.] I believe that these hon members should, at least in a small measure, be congratulated on this. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the question of interrelationship between the security forces and people in a conflict situation. I understand that it is perhaps inevitable that there should be conflict, given the nature of the situation and the task which is imposed on the police, but the State President should nevertheless take into account the political implications of police and security action. Is the State President aware that this is a problem? It is referred to once again in a slightly different form by the Van der Walt Commission, but is he aware of a problem which is created by the actions of security operations in a conflict situation? Has he, as the Head of State, taken a personal interest in the political implications of these operations? Has he in fact through his National Intelligence Service monitored and tried to evaluate the political implications of this interrelationship between the police and the people? Is the State President satisfied that the tactics in general which have been employed, and in particular the attitude and the manner of the people employing them, have been appropriate to deal with the particular situation? Is the State President satisfied that everything humanly possible is being done to minimise the negative political implications of security operations? Has the State President taken special steps to see to it that those people who are charged with difficult and tough but very sensitive operations understand the meaning and the intentions of the Government’s reform programme, and that the lower echelons of the police are not riddled with right-wingers and supporters of racist groups in South Africa? I believe that the State President should have an interest in this. He should explain what he has done to try to get maximum efficiency with the minimum negative political reaction as a result of these operations.

In the past few weeks much has been said about Parliament and it relevance and the whole question of constitutional reform. I want to say a few words about that. As far as Parliament is concerned, the fact that we, the PFP, are in Parliament, is evidence of the fact that we believe that Parliament with all its glaring inadequacies remains important and relevant. It is an important link in the chain of constitutional government in South Africa.

However, we who believe in parliamentary government and constitutional change or reform in South Africa, should not be complacent about the role or the status of Parliament in the eyes of the people of South Africa. The fact is that the nature of South African politics has changed. Parliament is not the only site of political power or political action, but it is a very important site because it has the unique quality that it is in Parliament where the laws are made and the laws are changed and where a new constitution has to be enacted. Parliament is unique in the sense that we can challenge the Government of the day to give public account of their stewardship of the government of the country. However, because of this, if Parliament is to be effective it has to be relevant, not merely to the voters of South Africa but to the wider South African society. That is why the game of White electoral politics which is being played day after day, week after week, month after month across the floor of this House—this nauseating, futile exercise between the CP on the one hand the NP on the other—is in fact denigrating Parliament and is making debates in this House more futile than they need be.

If Parliament as a political institution is going to fulfil its prophetic, its real role in South Africa, it must be a mechanism for resolving conflict in a peaceful way. If Parliament is going to be able to do this, it has to respond not just to the pressures of the White voters but to the total pressures which have been generated in South Africa. We in these benches have tried and will continue to try—as occasionally members on the other side have done—to make this House and this Government aware of the realities of the pressures that are building up inside and outside this country. However, we will be the first to admit that our efforts, no matter how hard we try, are no substitute for the direct representation of those nationwide pressures right inside this House. This means that the franchise for Parliament should be extended to all citizens of our country. The continuing unrepresentative composition of Parliament is not only undermining the concept of constitutional government but is also undermining the legitimacy of this Parliament in the eyes of the majority of the people of this nation. We must put this right, because if we believe in constitutional government and in Parliament, we must see to it that this Parliament reflects the views of all of the people of South Africa.

Nothing has undermined the status of Parliament more in the eyes of the people of this country than the introduction of the tricameral system of government two years ago. [Interjections.] The deliberate exclusion of Blacks, the deliberate inclusion of new apartheid structures of own affairs entrenched in the Constitution of South Africa, and the deliberate manipulation of numbers to ensure the domination of the White majority group have debased the concept of what Parliament should be.

We want to say to the State President that if he truly believes in the parliamentary system as we believe in it, if he truly believes in constitutional government, then I believe he owes it to this country to scrap this tricameral system and to replace it with a truly democratic system, one fully representative of all the people of this country. [Interjections.]

The State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning have indicated that they want the process of negotiation of new constitutional structures to begin. We want to repeat that we are bitterly disappointed at the lack of progress to date. We blame the Government particularly for this. Bilateral discussions held secretly, arm-twisting sessions behind closed doors are no substitute for meaningful collective and open negotiation.

That is not true!

The State President has announced the establishment of a National Council. He talked of a National Forum a year ago and then of a National Statutory Council, and now we are going to have a National Council. We want to see the details of the legislation relating to the powers, functions and composition of that council. We want the process of negotiation to succeed, because we as a party stand for the process of negotiation as an essential feature of any new constitutional dispensation. We want the process of real negotiation to succeed. However, if the National Council is going to contribute to the success of the negotiation, the people who take part in its deliberations and decisions will have to be the genuine leaders of the communities they purport to represent. If the Black members of the National Council are not representative of the broad cross-section of our Black fellow South Africans, we say now that the activities of the National Council will turn out to be an exercise in futility.

We understand and we realise that, given the history of the situation, getting real negotiation going on a truly representative basis is not going to be easy. Yes, there is mistrust. Even moderate leaders were shocked at the implications of the State President’s repudiation of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House on 7 February of this year. If negotiations are going to get off the ground in a meaningful way, the State President must make it clear that he is not locked into the concept that constitutional development can only take place within the framework of racially based constitutional structures founded on statutory race classification and compulsory group membership. He must make this clear, because this must imply a willingness on the part of the Government to have open-ended negotiation. It has to imply a willingness on the part of the Government at least to reconsider its attitude on the question of racially composed structures in South Africa. It must imply willingness on the part of the Government to consider abandoning the costly and divisive constitutional monstrosity known as own affairs.

The Government’s commitment to these apartheid concepts is damaging the whole process of constitutional development. One has only to see what is happening at local government level where the introduction of regional services councils based on separate racial local authorities …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon Leader of the Official Opposition a question?

No, Mr Chairman. I do not have time at this stage, perhaps later on.

The introduction of regional services councils is meeting massive resistance from the Black citizens of the country. It is meeting increasing resistance from Coloureds and Indians who resent apartheid at local government level and want full participation in non-racial structures. The stage has been reached in South Africa where, just as the issue of the vote for all South Africans in whatever system may prevail has become non-negotiable, so too is a constitution based on racial structures and determined by race classification no longer an option in any negotiated solution. It is simply no longer an option. Apartheid is not an option for a future constitutional dispensation in South Africa. The State President must take note of even the moderate Black leaders in this regard. To a man, they reject the concepts of race classification and population registration as well as the premise that a future constitutional dispensation should be based on racially separate structures.

If, as it says, the Government wants to achieve the recognition of cultural diversity—and the State President has emphasised this—and if he wants to achieve freedom of religion and ensure the genuine protection of minorities, then he must look at whether this cannot be achieved more effectively through structures based on freedom of choice and freedom of association rather than structures based on compulsory separation. We ask the Government to state its willingness to explore the non-racial alternative in an effort to determine whether the objectives can be met in this way.

The State President and his colleagues have in recent times stated that apartheid is not a principle. They have said it is not an end in itself. At best, they have said, it is a means to achieve an end. The State President has stated that it is not a principle but a means to an end. If it is not an end, and if the real objective is a democratic South Africa free from discrimination and functioning in terms of civilised values with effective protection for minorities, then I believe that the State President should be willing to explore every means of achieving that objective. He must stop committing himself to pushing through second and third tier government on the basis of separate racial structures.

I hope that the Government will be prepared to do what the people in Natal are doing right now in respect of the Natal Indaba. They are looking at an open-ended approach towards a constitutional settlement in that area. I must say that the Government’s response has thus far been lukewarm and disappointing. I do not believe that sending observers there is nearly good enough. This Government and the NP should have played an integral part in the deliberations that are taking place there. It is my hope that the Government will do what those people are doing. Moreover, I want to put it to the Government that it should suspend the process of forcing regional services councils based on racial structures onto the people of Natal, at least until the people of Natal have, by way of that indaba, decided on the structures they want for themselves. [Interjections.]

It is my belief that if this National Council is going to get off the ground, and if it is going to consider a new constitutional dispensation, then this Government must stop its present process of introducing and extending further racially-based local government and regional government and provincial government. It must suspend that operation until the new second and third tier structures become the product of negotiation rather than an imposition upon the people of South Africa by the present NP Government.

We hope the process of negotiation will get off the ground. If it is to get off the ground, this Government will have to adopt a far more open-ended approach. Furthermore, it is our belief that the values which we believe in—the values of individual liberty, religious freedom, free enterprise, protection of individuals and minorities—can best be promoted through a non-racial constitution, and we urge this Government to include that in one of its options. Only if it is prepared to include that will one find that meaningful negotiation can get off the ground and achieve some measure of success.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has to a certain extent demonstrated to this House the schizophrenic attitude of the PFP. On the one hand they state that they believe in constitutional government and support the institution of Parliament as the method to bring about change. On the other hand—and that appears to be the preponderant declared attitude, at least of the major spokesmen of the PFP—they lend credence to extra-parliamentary participation in and the undermining of all progress that has been made on the road towards negotiation.

I should like to refer to some of the aspects of the extra-parliamentary attitudes of the PFP. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition deplored the statements made by the hon members Mr Schutte and Dr Vilonel when they referred to the participation of the hon members for Pietermaritzburg South and Greytown in the memorial service held for a prominent leading communist who had died in Mozambique.

Their presence of their participation?

They referred to their presence at a memorial service to give honour to a communist agitator who had died.

You did not say that. [Interjections.]

It was a memorial service to give honour to a deceased communist agitator and revolutionary who had been involved in a direct fight against the system in this country.

I have just evidenced the “Heil Hitler” sign by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, and to a certain extent their support for the parliamentary system is typical of the declared attitude of Adolf Hitler who said: “We must use the parliamentary system to undermine it.” [Interjections.] The attitude of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens can very well be described as such. [Interjections.]

Let me also say that last year in September the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, whose attitude has been lauded by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, addressed a highly emotional crowd of some 500 Blacks in Sobantu, and stated at that meeting that enemy number one of the Blacks was this State President. If that is part of the laudable attitude of negotiation of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South in bringing peace between Black and White, then it is quite obvious what the attitude of the PFP is. [Interjections.] It is a schizophrenic attitude in which they publicly declare their support for the parliamentary system but, in practice, they polarise the explosive population situation in this country. [Interjections.]

The problem that we face in this country, as a country in which there are at least 12 ethnic minority groups, is that we must of necessity try to build confidence among the respective groups. However, with regard to every effort that is made by this Government to try to establish bridges of understanding in an attempt to build confidence, the attitude of the PFP is, on the one hand, the cast doubt on the credibility of every single move by this Government and, on the other hand, to act as apologists for the revolutionary reactionaries. When we consider their attitude as reflected in the Press—in the Cape Times and in the other newspapers—there is absolutely no doubt that the PFP acts as apologists for the revolutionary, reactionary elements who want to … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not believe that statement is parliamentary. [Interjections.]

Order! I listened very carefully to the hon member for Klip River. He referred to the PFP and not in particular to any hon member of this House. [Interjections.]

Absolute nonsense!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Does the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition have the right to say that the presiding officer is talking nonsense? [Interjections.]

Sir, I shall leave the Chamber before you have any difficulty in that regard. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to the hon Chief Whip before he leaves the Chamber. May I just establish why he is leaving the Chamber?

Mr Chairman, I am leaving the Chamber because you have indicated that you are not prepared to call the hon member for Klip River to order.

Order! The hon Chief Whip is free to address the Chair on the point. I indicated that I had listened to the hon member for Klip River carefully and said that he had referred to the PFP. If that includes hon members of the House it is a different matter. I was going to ask the hon member to address me on the point to ascertain whether he included hon members of the PFP in this Chamber in what he was saying.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I want to dispose of this point of order first. [Interjections.] Order! I am dealing with a point of order! When the hon member for Klip River referred to the PFP, was he referring to any of the hon members of that party here in this House, or was he referring to members of the party outside the House only?

Mr chairman, I was referring to the schizophrenic attitude of the PFP who participated in extra-parliamentary actions as evidenced now by the former member for Pinelands, Dr Alex Boraine, as evidenced by the expressions in newspapers—in the Cape Times and other publications—and I was referring to this schizophrenic image of the PFP.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! The hon Chief Whip may leave the matter in the hands of the Chair.

I ask the hon member for Klip River again: Did he include in his statement members not necessarily presently in the Chamber but members of the PFP serving as hon members of this House at the moment?

Mr Chairman, I obviously did not refer to any single hon member in this House as such. I was speaking of the image of the PFP as a political organisation that is active in this country, and at least a substantial portion of those activities is extra-parliamentary.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on the point?

The hon member for Hillbrow may address me.

Mr Chairman, I ask you please to consider the statement made by the hon member for Klip River in the light of the debate that is taking place at this moment in time. The subject under discussion is the activities of the hon members of the PFP for Greytown and Pietermaritzburg South in this House. There has been a clear reference to the fact that these two hon members are apologists in this House for reactionary elements. With great respect, the implication is absolutely clear.

Order! I am still dealing with the first point of order—the question of the schizophrenic image. Does the hon member for Klip River intimate that the policy of the PFP is schizophrenic?

Mr Chairman, I was referring to specific instances. When I referred to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, I was referring to his specific participation in addressing an emotional crowd in September—not in Parliament, not through his statements in Parliament, but through statements he made outside Parliament— where his involvement, whether he is a member of not, and his attitude as member of the PFP, polarised the situation in this country.

Order! I ask the hon member for Klip River again. He used the term “a schizophrenic image”. I want to ask the hon member specifically, did he mean by that that the policy of the PFP is schizophrenic or did he not?

Mr Chairman, it is not the policy that is schizophrenic; it is the actions of the PFP that are definitely schizophrenic. [Interjections.]

I think the hon member has a paranoid image!

Mr Chairman, the point of order taken by this side of the House is not in connection with the so-called schizophrenic attitude of the PFP but the apologist attitude in respect of reactionaries.

Order! That was, as I understood it, a second point of order.

Mr Chairman, that is the point on which we raised the point of order. We did not raise a point of order in regard to the question of a schizophrenic attitude but in fact to the accusation of being apologists for reactionary elements.

Order! Did the hon member for Klip River say—so many different interpretations of this point have already been offered that I am not quite clear on it—that the hon members of the PFP who are members of this House are apologists for the revolutionary elements?

Mr Chairman, I did not say so, but if the cap fits, let them wear it. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow the hon member for Klip River to say by innuendo what he may not say outright. If that is what the hon member seeks to imply then I must request him to withdraw the remark. [Interjections.]

If you rule so, Mr Chairman, then I unconditionally withdraw that specific remark. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman on a point of order: I request you to ask the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition to withdraw the remark which he made towards the Chair.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the remark. I made the remark in the heat of the moment and intended no reflection upon the Chair.

Mr Chairman, talking about schizophrenic attitudes, I think that an example par excellence of a schizophrenic attitude was the NP’s attendance as observers at the kwaNatal Conference. They should either stay away from that conference or they should attend it an play an active part in its proceedings. It is no excuse for them to say that they are members of the Government and that it is the Government that has finally to decide upon whatever plan emanates from these deliberations. After all, the Government has the Commission on Plural Development, of which the hon member for Ermelo is the chairman. That is a commission which consists of NP members only. They report to the Cabinet and the Cabinet then takes certain decisions. It is an indication of their wishy-washy attitude to attend that indaba only as observers. [Interjections.]

*Arising from the State President’s statement on terrorism instigated by Libya, we of this party wish to state that we approve of the action of the USA forces in attacking Libya in terms of the provisions of the Charter as a self-defensive action. In addition we support President Reagan in his saying that terrorism should be eradicated wherever it may exist in the world. We only hope the USA will appreciate that we attacked Angola and Botswana in similar circumstances and that we do not intend recalling our ambassador in Washington for consultations in this case. [Interjections.]

A second point I wish to make is that one aspect of the State President’s speech very clearly indicated the difference between the NP and the CP. The State President said inter alia that he had abandoned the preferential policy as regards the Western Cape in consequence of realism. As food for reflection and recall I also give him the fact that Gen Cronjé succumbed at Paardeberg because of realism. [Interjections.] Gen De Wet’s forces sent him the message that they were there to come to his rescue. In turn we say to the State President we are here to come to his rescue in spite of the so-called “realism”. [Interjections.]

I next refer to the National Statutory Council to which the State President alluded in his Opening Address and also in his speech yesterday. The National Statutory Council is not actually something original; we know for instance it goes as far back as the Mahlabatini Declaration of 1974 which everyone in this House—including hon members of the PFP—ridiculed. I cannot improve upon the description published by the Oosterlig in 1973:

This is the second year of the new dispensation and I think we are in agreement—as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning emphasised—that no one in this House is satisfied with the present dispensation. We know Parliament is costing nearly three times the amount prior to the establishment of the new dispensation and that it is less productive. We know own affairs make a farce of the right of self-determination; we know the State President’s promise that the nature and character of the House of Assembly would remain unchanged has come to nothing.

The first report of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council requested that the State President should become a “supra-ethnic figure” in the new dispensation. In the anxious times in which we live and in the deeply divided plural community in which we find ourselves, it is not fitting for the State President to identify himself so intimately with the governing party and its political struggle. It is not fitting for him to sit in the NP caucus as the chief leader of that party; it is not fitting for him to be the NP leader in the Cape Province; it is not fitting for him to be the chief trump card in nearly every by-election in the NP’s struggle.

You are afraid of him. [Interjections.]

It is all very well that he is the NP leader but he should remember he is also the Head of State. That is dualism which further contributes to the failure of this new dispensation. I advise the State President to re-examine the position of the presidents of France and the USA who are not in the political dust nor move in the political scrum in any way while they are heads of state.

Under present circumstances the State President should not be perturbed if he does not gain the honour and respect he is entitled to in the post he holds. Is there not perhaps a degree of truth in the PFP’s words that the Government is turning its back on the parliamentary system? We participated in the Budget debate last week for instance, one of the three most important debates of the year. Frequently the hon the Minister of Finance was the only Cabinet member in the Chamber. This type of action occurs while there is a degree of contempt for the actions of the House of Assembly.

We now hear that the State President is to hold an NP congress on 12 August. We know he wishes to receive certain powers and instructions at that congress. Before he goes to that congress, we wish to suggest for his consideration and reflection that he review the history of the United Party from 1970 to 1979. Terry Eksteen wrote a book The Decline of the United Party which is in our library. He said the two main reasons for the decline of the United Party were firstly the emergence of the Reformist Group in the United Party …

New Nats.

… which came increasingly strongly to the fore and he quoted from Die Burger in saying:

Mr Eksteen then concluded:

The Pik Bothas and the other 30 New Nats—

The State President should decide for himself whether he can retain the midfield or whether matters will follow W B Yeat’s description in his poem “The Second Coming”:

Like the hon the Minister of Transport Services—

There sit the hon members for Randburg and Krugersdorp and the hon member Dr Vilonel “full of passionate intensity” but the moderates “lack all conviction”.

The second reason for the decline of the United Party was that the Press supporting the United Party at the time increasingly ranged itself with the hon member for Yeoville and his followers. We may also observe this in the current dispensation: The Press supporting the State President is totally on the side of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his 30 “New Nats” and they will sweep the NP with them. Not only the Press but the SABC-TV with its brainwashing is creating an image of the Enlightened. This includes a person like Breyten Breytenbach who is a revolutionary. He is praised to high heaven in SABC programmes. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I tried to listen very attentively to the hon member for Brakpan. He spoke about kwaZulu and Natal, Angola, the Western Cape and the National Statutory Council. He launched attacks on many fronts, but all of them failed. He proved one thing to me: In this country there is no alternative to the NP Government and there is no alternative to the person of the State President. [Interjections.] In that respect I want to thank the hon member for Brakpan for making these points very clear to us. [Interjections.]

I would very much rather try to be positive. I want to start with two incidents which took place during the past week and proved one very important thing to me, namely that there was only one satisfactory solution for us in this country. Last week I had the privilege of listening to a foreign diplomat who was talking about his country’s attitude to South Africa and specifically about the policy and future of our country.

His speech was very objective and realistic, but what I found really interesting were his replies to certain questions put to him. One question was whether the elimination of apartheid—ie all remaining discriminatory measures—would prevent further unrest and violence in South Africa. I must tell the Committee that I was very grateful that he did not make the same naive reply as certain hon members in this House. His reply was very clearly “no”.

There was a second question. Someone in the audience—it was definitely not an Afrikaner and I do not think it was a South African either—asked him what would happen after apartheid. He was asked what form of democratic solution he would prescribe as a very senior diplomat. In reply to this he admitted frankly that he did not have a miraculous solution for South Africa.

The other matter I want to refer to is a very interesting book by J K Celliérs, Counterinsurgency in Rhodesia, which appeared recently. It is also concerned with the lessons South Africa should learn from this. The White Rhodesians thought that it was a military onslaught, an external threat which had to be combated by means of force. They would not and could not understand that basically it was also a political struggle on which there had to be negotiation.

There is no doubt in my mind that basically we in South Africa have precisely the same problem; it is also a combination of the two here. On the one hand it is a cunning onslaught of a Russian imperialism, not only on our borders, but also on the hearts of people, and on the other it is understandable, legitimate political demands of our fellow countrymen. We simply must face up to this. There is only one satisfactory solution in South Africa, and that is definitely not revolution and violence. Civilisation as we know it in this country, cannot survive a violent revolution.

What we need is another kind of revolution—a revolution of the hearts and minds of people. All South Africans—White or non-White—will have to undergo a radical change, and the most radical change which can take place in one’s life, is conversion. Conversion really means “to turn around”. South Africa will have to undergo a change of heart which will have to be virtually comparable to the radical change of conversion.

This will have to happen to everyone, Whites, non-Whites and even radicals. It will also have to happen to the AWB and the ANC. South Africa with its “haves” and “have nots” is a fertile breeding ground for exerting influence on people. If one does not have a home or work or anything else, one has nothing to lose, and then a communist system can look more attractive to the ordinary man than the present capitalistic system which according to this perception means nothing to him in any case. We shall have to go out of our way to make it worthwhile for everyone in the country to co-exist peacefully, but then we will have to put right our relations with each other.

I want to say at once that I do not want to fall into that naive trap of thinking that there is a miraculous solution to achieve this. It will require hard work by everyone in this country. We shall have to forget who is paying for what and for whom, and for whom and what must be paid, and the CP does not want to do this. We must also stop thinking that we can carry on in this country as if nothing has changed. One is inclined to seek own interests for oneself, one’s group and what one belongs to, but unhappy human relations can easily result from this.

I want to compare this country to a large laboratory in which the art of peaceful coexistence must be achieved. Because the State President is striving for a policy of good neighbourliness and co-existence in this country, he deserves the support of us all.

It is interesting that mankind is not left in the dark regarding the way in which this can take place. I do not think it is necessary to seek a new type of theology of liberation and prophecy as was done in the recent Kairos document. We need only read the Sermon on the Mount in which the best recipe for peaceful co-existence is to be found. We are too inclined to see each other’s faults. Langenhoven said:

For good human relations we will have to know each other and be prepared to communicate with each other.

Good relations and attitudes do not start with grandiose schemes, but with the individual. In life one gets what one gives. It is of no avail to remove apartheid signs from the trains and public buildings if we are not prepared to remove them from our hearts. We must do to others what we would like them to do to us.

We cannot act like a lot of scorpions in a bottle and then think we can live together in this country. We shall destroy ourselves and the country, and play right into the hands on the real enemy of South Africa. We shall have to start this revolution of the heart enthusiastically, and start with ourselves first. It will have to be contagious and it will have to be sincere.

The greatness of a country does not depend on its cities or how large it or its population is; it depends on the quality of its people. This is the challenge facing us. Many people are asking whether the rate of reform is right. For those people who have and must give away, the rate of reform is always too fast, but for those people who only have expectations, the rate if always too slow. We are living in an era in which we as Whites can no longer take all the decisions. If we have to do this together, let us do so enthusiastically and without hesitation.

In conclusion I want to put in a good word for a large group of people in this country who go unmentioned. They are the Black mothers of this country. I want to pay tribute to the Black mother for her efforts to bring about peace in this country. Millions of them—we do not always know this, but I am aware of this—are praying for peace and are doing everything in their power to retain their children. They are not engaged in politics, but they are trying to understand their children and they are really working for peace. In conclusion …

Order! I am sorry that I cannot allow the hon member to conclude his speech; his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Paarl always makes a well-considered speech, and I agree with many of his points about reform. I also want to talk about that.

†Today we are discussing the State President’s Vote. He is the leader of our country, and he is also by statute and by tradition the Paramount Chief of all the Blacks in this country. He has to deal with three major issues in the history of South Africa—reform, a critical economic situation and an even more critical situation of unrest. I will not touch on the economic situation but I should like to deal with the other two.

As far as the lawlessness is concerned, the circumstances are difficult and interwoven with reform. We see lawlessness very definitely as a symtom of the underlying problem, and not as the cause of it. However, that is certainly no argument for not treating those symtoms, although that treatment will be very temporary and even ineffectual if the cause is not honestly acknowledged and treated concurrently with the utmost urgency, imagination and initiative. Any Government has a basic duty to its citizens to prevent lawlessness, and in our case today that includes murder of the most horrendous kind, and absolute savagery. We cannot fail our citizens in this respect. Some of the measures will be harsh and will lead to harsh reaction and responses, but that is in fact the nature of what is going on. It is very difficult for one side not to be caught up in the horror of that situation of lawlessness.

What about reform? It is terribly dangerous to allow a situation in which the reform which is brought about is perceived as a response to violence. On the other hand the Catch 22 situation of putting down unrest first, which will only exacerbate the situation, looms very large on the horizon of probabilities. It is trite comment to say that reform has been too long coming and is too slow. That solves nothing. The fact is that the Government alone cannot solve the lawlessness or the unrest and neither can it reform the country. It needs a spontaneous response from all the people of this land, from our total population.

In response to the points made by the State President, specifically about the question of the Bill on the National Council, and other matters which he listed, activities which the Government has been involved in such as multilateral ties with the former protectorates, the Development Bank of Southern Africa, the South African TBVC summit in 1982, 50 committees and working groups, 310 multilateral meetings, a multilateral Council of Ministers, a permanent secretariat formed in 1985, etcetera, I want to say that those things do not get to the people whom they need to help solve the problems of lawlessness and reform. Essential as they may be in creating the infrastructure and doing the background work, they are not perceived or felt in any way to be assisting in the necessity of taking people with one.

On behalf of the NRP I would like to mention two points in support of the announcement concerning the Bill on the National Council. The one point is not original but I believe this is a time in our history for something of this nature to be considered because we really do not need anymore ad hoc, unplanned reform. We need a concurrent situation to develop. Prof Julius Jeppe has the following to say:

Concurrent with that we believe that the filling of the void in the heart of the man in the street—those people whom we need to support us in the process of reform and in leadership in controlling the unrest and lawlessness problem—requires a leadership style which will tell them that we know where we are going. We believe a leader must tell his people where he is going. If he does not tell them that, it is either because he does not know himself where he is going, or that he does not want to tell them what his plans are. We think this is critical. We believe that we could fill that void without instilling any fear of loss at the expense of gaining new ground. We will create a welling-up of hope by not making grudging gestures but noble gestures which will symbolise genuine generosity of spirit.

Concurrent action by co-ordinating the efforts of the National Statutory Council, with changes in citizenship, the question of a change in respect of the Land Act bringing about land ownership changes, and the creation of a confederation, we believe to be essential. We see a confederation as a situation in which the linking up of South Africa’s communities in a formal structure will be a great opportunity to symbolise this geniuneness and real generosity of spirit. I see our future in that confederation which could possibly have as its national anthem ’Nkosi Sekelel’i Afrika. I believe that is a prayer accepted throughout Africa, and that is very likely going to be the situation. It is possible that that confederation could have its own flag signifying participation by the people of this country.

We must outmanoeuvre the present unrest. We must go around it as in mobile warfare and come back to mop up the small pockets afterwards. We must turn the ignominy of apartheid into a glittering success in the Southern African region, with “saamheid” as opposed to “apartheid” as the catchword.

Africa pulsates unquestionably with a spirit which consumes. Its harsh sun can be either a vital life force or bring a scorching end to a promising beginning. It engulfs weak, smaller men with selfish interests, and they will be brushed aside as if by the swish of a buffalo’s tail. The strong, however, can be triumphant. The State President has the task of leading the Afrikaners.

*In this respect I mean much more than just those of Afrikaans-speaking origin. I mean all Afrikaners—White, Black and Brown—all who regard themselves as Afrikaners. [Interjections.]

†He has the task of leading them to a destiny which is not limited to a choice between survival or self-destruction, but which is a far greater fulfilment of their true role in Africa. I believe that our Creator will smile upon us and look upon us with favour and grace and will indeed bless Africa if that is our approach.

The question is: Will Pieter Willem Botha lead us—can he lead us—into a new era in Africa? There are hundreds of thousands of people who are asking that question, and we would all like to say “yes”. We believe the hour has come when he must surround himself with men of great vision, with greatness and faith, and go ahead with concurrent actions of the nature I have described. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to express a few ideas which are fairly closely linked to those of the hon member for Mooi River.

At the present moment there is a fairly vehement debate underway in this country concerning political rights of Black people outside the national states. If we want to participate in that debate, there are a few realities we must take cognisance of. The first reality is that the Black people outside the national states are to a great extent already urbanised and will become urbanised to a greater extent. Consequently political rights for Black people will in the main mean political rights for urbanised Black people.

Another reality is that the material possessions of Black people outside the national states will in the main be material possessions which are linked to the urban environment in which they live and work. Meaningful political rights consequently mean effective control over the living space, that urban living space, in which these Black people find themselves.

Another prerequisite for the meaningful transfer of political powers is that there must be a responsible, but particularly a credible nucleus of Black leaders from this group to whom the political rights are transferred. I now want to make the statement that the greatest prerequisite for the acquiring of credibility is that effective control over the instruments of authority of a State must be placed in the hands of such a nucleus of Black leaders.

The nucleus of Black leaders in the independent Black states is in effective control of the instruments of authority of their states. That is why the national state solution is accepted by the 10 million who find themselves in these states as a satisfactory political solution. Proof of this lies in the fact that these people never advocate that this independent status which they have acquired should be taken away from them. Like any other independent state in the world, these national states are also limited in their independence by economic realities. The more economic realities and geographic realities bind states together, the more important it is that there are constitutional structures within which they will be able to take joint decisions.

When I think of the RSA, the TBVC countries and even the BLS countries, it is clear that such informal confederal structures have already been established. They are functioning satisfactorily, and the question now is why this is the case. They are functioning satisfactorily because those states are linked to each other economically. The welfare of one is also the welfare of the other. Another reason why they are succeeding is that these state are so independent of each other politically that they can take political decisions with regard to their own living space. This is also succeeding because participation in such a system is voluntary.

Now the question is to what extent this confederal option can be applied to meet the legitimate political aspirations of Black people outside the national states. These people are already 60% urbanised, ie 60% of them already find themselves in the five metropolises of South Africa. In a few years’ time this percentage will be as high as 75% or 80%.

If we also consider the fact that the Black people outside the national states, like the Black people inside the national states, are mainly dependent on the selling of their labour for the acquiring of wealth, I want to state that the Black people outside the national states are in an even better position to develop their own living space to a level which is satisfactory to them.

That is why to me the granting of political rights to ‘these Black people up to the highest level is as meaningful as the political rights Black people enjoy in the nationals states. I foresee that Black city-states—let us now use this word—can be established on the same basis as the national states. As is the case with the national states, this will allow a responsible and credible nucleus of Black leaders to develop, with the political instruments of power to exercise control over their own people. I foresee that economic co-operation and joint decision-making between the RSA, the independent states, the self-governing states and these city-states may come into existence.

I maintain that the system of national states has brought an acceptable political solution for the 10 million Black people living in them. If for a variety of reasons it is not possible to take the people to the solution which the national states affored, we must consider bringing the solution to the people! This can be achieved by the creation of Black city-states in which the political aspirations of the Black people in South Africa can be met up to the highest level—I repeat, up to the highest level. A form of confederal co-operation with the RSA and other national states will be a further logical consequence.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry to have to point out, but the speech the State President made yesterday was exactly the type of speech Mr Ian Smith would have made ten years ago in Rhodesia.

In 1976 Mr Ian Smith and most of the Whites in Rhodesia did not yet regard the war as a liberation struggle; instead they regarded it as communist terrorism with a view to destroying Christian civilisation.

What is in fact remarkable is that in April 1976 Mr Ian Smith proposed his own solution in respect of the deadlock in his negotiations with Mr Joshua Nkomo. Mr Smith’s plan in April 1976 was to include Blacks in the Cabinet in order to give his government a semblance of multiracialism and to try to gain more Black support by moderating racial discrimination in Rhodesia. The cooption of Blacks into the Smith Cabinet and the moderation of racial discrimination were by that time acceptable to the Rhodesian Front since neither measure affected the basic existence of White power.

The State President has not yet announced a specific plan for the co-option of Blacks into his Cabinet. However, I have a strong feeling—it is general speculation in the papers—that we have almost reached that point. And perhaps it has a great deal to do with the federal congress of the NP in August this year.

According to Mr Smith’s plan for the so-called Africanisation of his Cabinet he wanted to include four Black tribal chiefs as full members and six as Deputy Ministers in his Cabinet. According to his plan he did in fact succeed in including Chiefs Jeremiah Chirau and Ndweni, but he could only get three of the proposed six Deputy Ministers. It is common knowledge that in the end the whole plan was just another failure, another error of the Smith government. I maintain that the State President is going the same way as Mr Smith. Exactly the same way.

†I take the opportunity to remind the House once again of at least six important parallels between the two situations—the policies of the leadership of Mr Smith and the leadership of the State President.

Firstly, there is the underlying commitment of both regimes to the doctrine of White supremacy in central government, whether or not one co-opts members of other race groups as window dressing. Secondly, there is the commitment to racial segregation in political institutions, and also to a degree in social institutions. Thirdly, there is the commitment to land segregation; fourthly, the commitment to a homeland policy in respect of many Blacks; fifthly, the heavy reliance on brawn as opposed to brain, on security legislation and tough arm tactics; and sixthly, there is the reliance on constitutional manipulation approved at White referenda in an attempt to prop up the regime.

I regret to say that the leadership of the State President has all the characteristics of a Greek tragedy, where the spectators must watch the central players proceeding inexorably to their doom. It is a situation which cries out for bold new leadership and initiative but in this respect the State President is failing the country.

I would now like to turn to another matter which is the question of a general election. A general election is the one matter in the political sphere that only one man bears responsibility for and that is the State President. It is the State President who must be held accountable for the fact that there has been a delay, because in twelve days’ time it will be the fifth anniversary of the general election of 29 April 1981.

Do the Progs want an election?

Yes, I am going to call for it. [Interjections.] Let us consider some background facts. Since Union in 1910 there have been 18 general elections, including the fist one on 15 September 1910. In 76 years there has been an average interval of four years and approximately two months between those 18 general elections. This average interval has also been the consistent average interval since May 1948, when the NP Government first came to power. In other words, the State President has already departed from the average pattern set by his predecessors, although at this stage it must be said he has not yet crossed the Rubicon. [Interjections.] He is about to.

Let us consider the legal position. In terms of the previous constitutions the provision relating to the life of a Parliament was to the effect that every Parliament would continue for five years from the day on which it first met in its first session “and no longer”. According to this legal position under the old Constitution, section 47(1), if the Constitution of 1983 had not been introduced, then the State President would legally have had until 31 July 1986 to hold a new general election.

The closest South Africa has ever come to this ultimate constitutional deadline was the life of the eighth Union Parliament, which was elected on 18 May 1938, but which met for the first time on 22 July 1938. When the general election for the ninth Union Parliament was held on 7 July 1943 there were only 15 days left to the ultimate deadline of 22 July 1943. My point, therefore, is that it is absolutely unprecedented for South Africa, even in wartime, not to hold a general election within the constitutional five-year period.

We all know that in terms of section 39 of the new Constitution of 1983, the State President can permit this Parliament to endure until 4 September 1989. Therefore, the delay is legal and it is constitutional. However, it is not honourable and it is not democratic. [Interjections.] It is my contention that by all the rules and conventions of South Africa’s electoral traditions, the Government should already have called a new general election to renew its mandate. The State President’s mandate to be in office was granted at the last election under the 1961 Constitution, and the next general election should be held in the spirit of that mandate.

Therefore, every day that passes after 29 April 1986 will, to my mind, represent a drift into the different traditions of a banana republic. [Interjections.] After 5 June this year the State President will have crossed his Rubicon, because after that day it will no longer be possible to call an election within the minimum 56 day cycle prior to 31 July 1986. Even though the delay will be legal in terms of the small print of the new Constitution, I say that history will judge the delay to be a massive political “schlenter”. Moreover, it will judge this State President as the perpetrator of that “schlenter”.

Various arguments have been advanced as to why a general election should not be held now. We have heard that it is too soon after the Coloured and Indian elections in 1984. Between 1920 and 1921, however, there was a general election for the South African Parliament. In that case there was only an 11 month gap. So there is a precedent for the holding of a general election now. Moreover, it is common practice in democracies around the world for there to be short periods between elections in special circumstances.

Another argument we hear is that the Government renewed its mandate at the referendum in 1983. However, the referendum that was held in 1960 was followed within a year by a new general election in October 1961. Furthermore, a referendum mandate is not a mandate to govern. It is a mandate on a single issue.

We also hear that elections cannot be held because of unrest. What sort of admission would it be, now that the state of emergency has been lifted, if the Government were to say that it cannot control matters in times of unrest? It would be a frightening admission. Apart from that, in Rhodesia, where they had war and states of emergency, they held elections in 1965, April 1970, July 1974, August 1977 and in April 1979 prior to the independence elections in April 1980. As a matter of interest, that is a sequence of 5:4:3:2:1.

For South Africa to condone the State President’s extension of his own mandate of 1981, is to condone a drift down the slippery slope of dictatorial rule and, as a matter of principle, that is unacceptable! I therefore call upon the State President to call an election this year.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react to the speech of the hon member who had just sat down. My reason is simple: Whenever that hon member stands up to deliver a speech, he always makes a personal attack on the Minister handling the particular portfolio. Today he has done exactly the same thing.

*What I do in fact want to do is to react to the speech of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on language and accents, which he made last week in this House. He thought it proper to criticise the Afrikaans accent of Afrikaans-speaking TV announcers when these people make announcements in English. [Interjections.]

Order!

I find it strange that the hon member said nothing about the accents of the English-speaking announcers when they give reports in Afrikaans. [Interjections.] Nor did he point out that there were some English-speaking announcers who cannot speak Afrikaans at all. [Interjections.]

Order!

I think it is correct to say that the majority of TV announcers are fluently bilingual. However, I wonder if the hon member can say the same of himself. [Interjections.] During the five years that I have served in this House I have not once heard the hon member speak Afrikaans—that is to say if he can speak the language! [Interjections.] Furthermore, if the hon member can in fact speak Afrikaans, how does he speak it?

Order! Too many comments are being made.

With which accent does the hon member speak Afrikaans? Does he speak Afrikaans with a strong English accent or does he speak Afrikaans like an ordinary South African?

†When South Africans speak a language which is not their mother tongue, all kinds of accents creep in but this is not a serious situation; it just confirms our diversity. The hon member needs to look no further than to some of his own colleagues for different accents when they are speaking the other language. I wonder how they felt about these remarks.

They are not employed by the SABC.

Order! The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has made his speech and he must now contain himself.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That was a very legitimate interjection. That was virtually the first interjection the hon member has made. I would ask you, Sir, not to overreact and to be very restrained.

Order! The hon member for South Coast may proceed.

Was the reason for his outburst cheap publicity or was he attempting to drive a wedge between the English/Afrikaans relationship in the country? Or otherwise, he is so short on good debating material that he has to lower himself to the same level as the HNP and the CP with their preoccupation with their “taal en volk” but, of course, in the reverse situation? It is amazing that that hon member belongs to the so-called “liberal” party who supposedly should be the most tolerant party in this House. By their own admission they would allow the Communist Party to be legalised and to operate legally in this country. We have confirmation of that in that two of their members attended a memorial service for a well-known communist. They have no opposition to Black majority rule being implemented. One just has to go back a few years and note that the present Leader of the Official Opposition signed the Buthelezi Commission’s report without any reservations whatsoever. What would that commission’s political recommendations, if implemented, have meant for Natal? They would have had only one result—Black majority rule! What is good for Natal must surely be good for the rest of the country. He is supposed to be so tolerant as a liberal yet the hon member complains about accents. I say to the hon member that he is selective in his liberalism and he is selective in his tolerance.

You are a disgrace to English-speaking South Africa.

There appears to be an attempt from some quarters to polarise White South Africans, for obvious reasons, of course. They are promoting the outdated concept of clinging to the old formulae, the old prejudices, because it is a familiar and a comfortable way of viewing political life and its conflicts only because of personal political considerations and party positions. Consensus politics demands today not only from Whites but also from Blacks, that all moderates must reassess their political positions, and that means courage to cast aside those old prejudices and show some political maturity. If we as the White community cannot set the example and overcome this Boer-Brit syndrome to reach consensus as White South Africans, what hope have we Whites of encouraging the Black South Africans to sit and talk with us, let alone reach consensus? There is a proper season for everything: There is a time to sow; there is a time to reap; there is a time to compete; and there is a time to co-operate.

And a time to sit down!

The State President has enough realism to understand that the peoples of South Africa are not united and he is trying his utmost to rectify that position. He has introduced a new dimension into the Republic’s political arena, and many people are impatient for results but there are no quick solutions. He has set the tone and the framework for Black leadership to state their aspirations and negotiate their future on their own behalf. To this end, over the past few months, he has visited every independent and self-governing homeland— bar one, I believe—and met, and continues to meet, with Black leaders right across the spectrum, trying to find a solution to our problems.

However, what we must accept is that there are two different visions of the future, two fundamentally differing ways of governing—the one of governing by an elitist group of communists with its government of limits, suppression, fear and eternal poverty for the masses, or our way which is a government of hope, reconciliation, growth and confidence for the future where everybody will enjoy his place in the sun. Goodwill, hope and words will not yield the results that we are looking for. The results we require depend on a change of attitude and deeds—not only words—from all sides.

In this regard the State President has committed the Government to eight major changes to existing legislation during this present session of Parliament. The Government will not be satisfied with cosmetic improvements that will not stand the test of time. We want reforms to be real and lasting. We must be candid with each other. There are differences between the various groups but we intend to bridge those differences to ensure that we have a safer, a more peaceful and a more civilised South Africa. The only way to resolve those differences is to understand them and to try to diminish the distrust and suspicion that separates our people.

We have taken the constitutional initiative in seeking reform. It is true that we face complicated negotiations but we must also accept that lasting and satisfactory results will take long, hard work. We have many mountains to climb because of our diversity. I believe, however, that that diversity is our strength. Unless we become united and join forces against terrorism and subversion we will find that there will be a permanent place for terrorist bombings and senseless violence in our society.

The Government has resolved that there will be no turning back or hesitation on the road to future reform. Having said that, however, we also cannot walk into the future with childlike faith. History and logic compel us to be realistic, sure and unflinching in finding the solutions. It is no use escaping from the bear by running into a pack of wolves.

Everybody wants satisfactory solutions to our problems but those solutions cannot be a carbon copy of Britain’s, America’s or only Blacks solutions because we are not they. History has shown us that we cannot afford an African democracy where rival tribes murder each other to gain power and end up as one-party states—bankrupt into the bargain!

True peace rests on accepting the plural nature of our society and reconciling those plural entities in an acceptable form of power-sharing for all. The State President has chosen to walk the path of reconciliation, to find common ground, to remove sources of tension and to find lasting peace. His dream is not an impossible one. Equally so, reconciliation is not one-way traffic, it requires effort and a change of attitude from all those who wish to participate in seeking a South Africa where all our citizens can worship, have a state in determining their own future and benefit from their own risks for a posperous and free Republic.

Failure on our part will mean that the little we have will not be worthy having. What we need right now is faith and courage—faith to believe that the majority of moderate and like minded people can overcome the obstacles to secure a peaceful future for all, and courage to put aside our prejudices and to forgive the mistakes of the past. We must also have courage to accept what Thomas Jefferson said 150 years ago: “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs.”

Mr Chairman, in a time of crisis, uncertainty about the future, financial restraints, unrest and riots, the State President took up more than an hour of our time yesterday without giving us any clarity about the times we live in. On the contrary, the State President’s speech made the already muddy waters of South Africa even muddier. His contribution was characterised by a lack of direction, contraditions and a vague defence of his decision to relinquish the principles of the old NP.

The State President is a great distance from the Rubicon; at the moment he is drowning down here in the Liesbeeck. The State President has made a desperate attempt not to address the serious problems of South Africa. He has not addressed the fundamental challenges facing our country and its peoples. Nor has he addressed the problems he encounters in his own party. He has left South Africa uninformed about the future.

At the beginning of the year the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said (The Citizen, 72. 1986):

After the State President had apparently convened a meeting of the Cabinet on the crisis within the Cabinet, in obscure terms he spelled out his standpoint concerning the utterance made by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What happened then? Quite probably the same Minister of Foreign Affairs held discussions with President Reagan of the USA. What did President Reagan have to say? I quote from The Argus of 10 April 1986:

He finds the NP’s past “repugnant”! [Interjections.] The State President is the only person in this House who has been here since 1948. For some particular reason he supported every measure that was introduced and was aimed at separation or apartheid. But now he not only finds separate development or apartheid, but also his own political career, “repugnant”. It is shocking to have the State President, who has devoted most of his life to finding a “repugnant” solution for South Africa, negating it all now that he has achieved some measure of control.

In the space of five years the State President has twice appended his signature to a document aimed at the South African electorate. Five years ago he said that power-sharing with Blacks would bring about integration and conflict and would swallow up the Whites in South Africa. He appended his own signature to that statement.

That is a half-truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

At the beginning of this year he said that power-sharing with Blacks would bring this country peace and progress, and he appended his signature to that.

The State President does not have a mandate from the electorate to embark on power-sharing with the Blacks. I am grateful to the hon member for Constantia for also having requested an election on behalf of the PFP. I am convinced that my colleague, the hon member for Sasolburg, will do the same. We now want to ask the electorate for a mandate. [Interjections.]

The State President has extended this session of Parliament into the second half of the year. The real reason for this is that the State President does not have any plan. If he does have one, it is in the process of backfiring or is not being accepted. The present tricameral Parliament is being rejected by all the opposition parties in the House of Assembly. The 30% of the Coloureds who originally supported it, and the 20% of the Indians represented in Parliament, also reject it. Even amongst the so-called moderate Blacks there is not a single one who intends to participate in the State President’s dispensation.

There are a few reasons why the State President wants to gain time. He wants to try to get back the stream of NP supporters leaving the party and those who are in the diaspora. He is attempting to gain time to see whether there is not some further trick with which he can hoodwink the South African electorate.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member to accuse the State President of hoodwinking people?

Mr Chairman, if it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The State President is merely treading water in South Africa; and he is floundering. [Interjections.] He does not say a word about the serious divisions in his party, from the Cabinet right down to the most junior backbenchers. [Interjections.]

Mr Dries van Heerden is a friend of the verligtes in the NP.

A “New Nat”.

Yes, he is one of the “New Nats”. A newspaper report in The Sunday Star of 30 March 1986 reads as follows:

What I am saying today is that what Mr Van Heerden says is true. One can tick off the left-wing, the “New Nats”, from the hon member for Innesdal to the hon member for Rustenburg. Those hon members not only say that there is going to be Black majority government in South Africa, but that it is essential. The split in the NP, from the hon member for Fauresmith to the hon member for Middelburg, is so great that there can never be a linkup with the “New Nats” sitting there.

In his long speech yesterday the State President told us: “However, I lost against reality. What has the State President done since he left university to become an NP organiser? After all, there are many realities in South Africa. After having devoted his entire life to the principles of the NP, the State President says: “I lost against reality.” This State President is a loser. [Interjections.] Let me tell the State President that there are many more realities in South Africa than that of the influx of Blacks into the Western Cape. There are many more realities than that. What he has forgotton is the reality of a White people in South Africa. It is a White people which has, for more than 300 years, struggled for its freedom and independence. He has forgotton that reality.

The reality of a people which has been struggling for more than 300 years for its freedom and independence will bring the State President to a fall, because we will have the first opportunity of going to the polls and ridding ourselves of this State President.

The Afrikaner people is one of the most peace-loving of peoples the world has ever seen. We have never started a war, but when our freedom is threatened, we fight to the very last. We put up a fierce struggle. The Afrikaner rejects anyone who misleads his people, and the Afrikaner does so with a coldness and frostiness that Genl Smuts, Louis Botha, Jan Hofmeyr and Piet de Wet can all attest to. The rejection of this State President by the Afrikaner, by the Whites, will be the coldest and frostiest in the history of our people.

Mr Chairman, in recent years we have had nothing but sickly spitefulness here whenever the hon member for Rissik has taken the floor. His is a sickliness one cannot find words to describe. When that hon member speaks, he does so to rid himself of the deep-seated hatred he carries around with him. We must not pay him much heed, but I just want to tell him that since the rotten apples are no longer in the basket there is a unanimity and a wonderful new lease of life in the NP caucus that signals the end for a party such as the Conservative Party. [Interjections.]

The word “negotiation” is on everyone’s lips at present, and I think it could become a magic spell, the prelude to a magic formula if it does not merely remain a matter of negotiation and we transform our words into action.

During the Second Reading speech on the Appropriation the hon member for Yeoville asked what South Africa would be like in the year 2000. We shall not be able to give him an answer to that question. We know what we do not want South Africa to be like in the year 2000, but the circumstances prevailing in the year 2000 will be determined at the negotiating table and will depend on what happens there. I want to make two statements.

We cannot forget about governing this country in anything like a democratic manner if we cannot reach agreement with people of colour. The converse is equally true. If Black people want to become and be part of a democratic system of government in the true sense of the word, they will also have to reach agreement with the Whites in this country.

Having made these two statements, let me say that I think that that ideal can be transformed into a reality, and then it will be possible for Whites, Asians, Coloureds and Blacks to govern jointly in this country if we comply with certain conditions, and I only want to mention a few of them. We shall have to reach some kind of agreement, we shall have to overcome the crisis of confidence that exists at the moment and all parties concerned will have to temper their demands with realism.

Who are the people entrusted with the task of reaching an agreement? Not people overseas. They are not the ones sitting on the sidelines. They are not the ones formulating one-sided plans and wanting to force them down other peoples’ throats. If that was the method adopted earlier, those days have gone forever. Those who live and work and learn and play here will jointly have to tackle the task because they have an interest in creating living space for themselves here in the RSA, which is our common domain.

On the shoulders of Whites there rests an enormously responsible task, that of playing a decisive role, and of continuing to play such a role, in the search for a practical and satisfaction solution. There is, however, another side to the coin.

Here I am referring to the responsibility of people of colour. Nothing will come of this unless we can reach agreement. What are chances? We need time. Unfortunately there is little time, but we need a great deal of time. We are faced with that dilemma. I am not, however, one of those eleventh-hour people. I believe that we shall be given the time and that we shall have more that that last hour if all interested parties demonstrate the will to reach agreement. If we do not demonstrate the will to reach agreement, we do not deserve that extra hour. I do hope the day will never dawn when it is said that White people made it impossible for Black people to co-operate with them. Equally I hope the day will never dawn when it has to be said that Black people made it impossible for White people to reach agreement with them.

What is more, agreement will have to be reached on what I want to call a cease-fire arrangements, so that we can negotiate and decide on these matters at leisure. We shall have to be given the opportunity. When we visited Chief Buthelezi, on occasion, he said that he did not doubt the State President’s integrity. A few days ago, when we spoke to representatives of Black education, they said: “P W is the man of the hour.” It is no use having people say this kind of thing if the State President is not given an opportunity to do what he thinks is right in the interests of this country.

Coloured, Asian and Black leaders could play a very important role in that cease-fire agreement that I am advocating. In this connection let me refer again to Chief Buthelezi, because I believe he has the power to say the word and have a significant number of Black people become part of such an agreement that aims at creating an atmosphere of tranquility in which we could then do what is necessary. In his letters, the theme of which is the search for constructive dialogue between Blacks and the Afrikaner, he states, amongst other things:

I think that we could also tell Chief Buthelezi that a very important and possibly decisive responsibility rests on the shoulders of sober-minded Zulus to convey the message to their fellow Blacks. It is no use Inkatha’s saying, as was reported in The Citizen of 14 April:

The members of Inkatha must remember that they form part of the group of soberminded Zulus who ought to be able to convey a message to the other Black people of this country.

I believe that Chief Buthelezi could be instrumental in bringing about this cease-fire agreement and the resultant successful negotiations. Now more that ever we have to prove to everyone whose interests the Government has to look after, that we are serious in our intentions.

Chief Buthelezi makes no secret of the fact that he is not interested in consolidation with a view to eventual independence. Nor does he make any secret of the fact that he definitely is interested in land for his people. Let us use the transfer of land as a means to an end. Let us prove our sincerity by persuading people, in this and many other ways, to come to the conference table. Because we are morally and legally compelled to transfer land to Black people, what I want to advocate is that we make a concerted effort to address the land question.

In terms of acts of this Parliament land is only transferred to Black states with the advent of independence. Otherwise it is merely allocated, and this means that kwaZulu has no land. Not even Ulundi, which is the seat of government, is land belonging to kwaZulu. Furthermore, the policy is that land is only transferred or allocated if there is sufficient proof that fitting or productive use will be made of it.

If we are serious about granting more powers and greater autonomy to self-governing States, I want to advocate a statutory amendment that will make it possible to transfer land to self-governing States too. Land about which a decision has already been taken, apart from land earmarked for special purposes, should be transferred without delay, with the offer of ensuring its maximum utilisation based on mutual interest and co-operative effort.

If we suit our action to our words in this way, and in many other ways too, we shall again begin to gain the confidence of our partners. Let us make a pro-active effort. My plea is also for much more: Let us act in such a way as to demonstrate our sincerity to the people of this country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rustenburg made a very positive speech and I would just like to deal with one or two aspects of it.

The first specifically refers to the question of the further consolidation of land in self-governing states. I made it very clear in a previous speech that I felt the time had come for further consolidation proposals to be halted. I again maintain that many consolidation proposals are creating uncertainty within the rural areas because of the perpetual fragmentation that takes place whenever the question of consolidation is raised in these areas. I feel that the Natal-kwaZulu consolidation proposals in particular should be halted until such time as the climate is right for a discussion with kwaZulu regarding the areas in contention, and this could be effected on a more equitable basis at some time in the future.

In the time at my disposal, I want to deal briefly with the matter that was raised by the hon member Mr Schutte in regard to two members of the PFP who attended the memorial service of a communist leader in Pietermaritzburg. I do so because I feel that this was an act of complete and utter irresponsibility. [Interjections.] It is incidents of this nature that makes one question whether the impressions they give and the claims that the PFP make in regard to being a moderate party, can really be accepted.

Come on Ralph, you know better than that.

No, I think we have to accept that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is also particularly disquieting to note that greater respect was accorded by those two members of Parliament to the deceased communist leader than to the State President himself. Whether one likes it or not, one must accept the fact that the State President is the executive Head of State as well as the ceremonial Head of State. That position is deserving of the respect which that office holds. Therefore, may I just say that I myself had no hesitation in accepting the invitation to attend the Playhouse function. [Interjections.]

However, I want to add something to that. I want to refer to a speech that was made by the hon member for Umbilo during the discussion of this same Vote last year. He pointed out that there could be occasions when such incidents as we have experienced recently could be used to lower the dignity of the position of the State President by virtue of the fact that he is, after all, the leader of a political party. Perhaps this is something that the fundis on constitutional matters could look at in the future.

I would like to raise a matter in regard to another invitation which I received. I refer to an invitation to attend the opening of the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly. As one who attended this function for the first time, I found it to be a most impressive occasion. However, there were certain matters which arose out of Chief Minister Buthelezi’s speech on which I would like to touch briefly here.

The first matter to which I would like to refer is that Chief Buthelezi and his government felt that they had been insulted in that they did not know who was going to open the legislative assembly up to 36 hours before the ceremony itself. One can fully appreciate the exasperation they must have felt.

The second point I wish to raise has to do with an apparent misunderstanding with regard to the status of Mr Speaker. Apart from just mentioning that, it is not my intention to deal with it any further. I may just say, that as a member of this House, I felt extremely embarrassed at some of the statements that were made.

The third point which I think was highly significant was that Chief Minister Buthelezi indicated that there had been no acknowledgment of any sort from the central Government—and I want the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to lend an ear to this—regarding the decisions that had been taken by that legislative assembly during their 1985 session. No comment whatsoever had been received, and there is no doubt that members of the Assembly felt that they had been treated discourteously. One also gained the impression that a sense of frustration and annoyance existed because members had not been accorded the recognition that their services deserved.

The State President’s reference yesterday to the fact that legislation was being drawn up to give effect to the establishment of a National Statutory Council is well supported by those of us in these benches. We have repeatedly stressed the need for people to get around a table and to start negotiating. Every effort must be made to capitalise on the goodwill that still exists in the Black community. We must also bear in mind that the whole infrastructure of this country has been built up on a spirit of goodwill among all races. If the country is to progress, goodwill again will have to be the underlying factor.

We are already experiencing reactions to unrest, and the big cry at the moment is for a return to normality. We must not place ourselves in a position where Black leaders are placed in a position where their discussions with Whites can be regarded as a let-down by the people whom they represent. I would like to refer—and perhaps we can learn a lesson from it—to the scene that was set in the talks that led to the Natal and kwaZulu Indaba that is taking place in Natal at the moment. The build-up to these negotiations was done openly between the NRP executive committee and the kwaZulu cabinet and, while it would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of this Indaba at this stage, I know that I express the views of many that these discussions may be a pointer to the way in which future negotiation machinery in this country can be set in motion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River has adopted an attitude of reasonableness, an attitude of wanting to improve relations among the population groups in this country. One can obviously only wish him well in his attitude of trying to further better understanding.

In this country, because of the multi-ethnic structure of our situation, we have an extremely difficult problem of trying to bring about an improvement in relations among the various groups in this country. In any multicommunity state, as we have in South Africa, we must be certain of one thing. That is that insofar as we strive to achieve democracy, we must realise that democracy does not necessarily mean majority rule. Democracy in a multicommunity state in fact cannot mean majority rule.

I should like to refer to Zimbabwe and call as evidence the attitude of Mr Joshua Nkomo. Joshua Nkomo in Zimbabwe certainly does not believe that democracy is majority rule. I would say that in a state such as Northern Ireland the Catholics do not believe that majority rule furthers democracy, and in any multicommunity state majority rule per se does not mean democracy. In fact, democracy should guarantee an equitable participation in decision-taking by all communities on those matters which are of vital relevance to them.

We all desire peace. We all desire peace in a multicommunity situation, but it must also be stated that peace cannot be attained unconditionally. It was President Reagan who said recently: “Peace is our goal, but with freedom as our guide.” Peace can also mean the peace of a graveyard. In a graveyard there is peace, but that is not the type of peace that we can subscribe to.

We have the situation in this country in which genuine efforts are being made by the Government and by the State President to build bridges of understanding and to be accommodating of all the relevant groups in this country—those who desire freedom by means of peaceful participation in decision-making. We do have the problem, however, that not all groups are prepared to contribute towards peaceful negotiations on a basis of guaranteed freedom for all the respective groups.

The State president yesterday had reason to refer to what I would call the interference of outside interest groups, outside governments and outside parties in our efforts to bring about a negotiated situation in this country. I have reason to believe that many of the legitimate leaders of the Black community in this country would have gone much further in participating in open negotiation on finding solutions to our problems if it had not been for the interference on the part of outside parties in the progress made in this situation. I also have reason to believe that the attitude of certain overseas governments will continue to make it extremely difficult to accomplish real progress on a basis of negotiation.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred earlier to negotiation to an open—I do not remember the exact term he used—or collective basis. Mr Chairman, we have the problem that there are many leaders who are prepared to participate in negotiation but who are being prevented from participating in open and frank negotiation because of the circumstances of particular pressures which are being brought to bear on them. Many of them are being intimidated into not participating in discussion, and many of them are only prepared to participate in negotiation in secrecy. That makes it extremely difficult to make public progress in the negotiations which we are trying to bring about.

There is, however, another aspect I should like to touch on briefly, Mr Chairman. That is that in the whole process of negotiation it is necessary that the credibility of genuine negotiation among what we popularly refer to as the moderate leaders in this country should not be undermined. I am afraid, however, that insofar as organisations and individuals are overkeen to participate in discussions with the African National Congress they undermine the credibility of negotiation with these moderate leaders. They are in fact trying to put across the message that for negotiation to succeed one must talk with the African National Congress. Insofar as they project this image that one must talk with the ANC in order to be able to make any progress with discussion and with negotiation, those elements are undermining the possible progress that could and that should be made in relation to negotiation among the legitimate leaders of people who are prepared to live with the consequences of their negotiations.

The problem that we have, though, with the undermining of this process of negotiation …

Order! The drone of voices, especially in a particular part of the Chamber, has become far too loud. The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

The undermining of the whole process of negotiation as a result of interference from abroad must also be seen in the light of the fact that overseas elements are not interested in the genuine benefit of the internal communities. They cannot be seen as the genuine leaders—leaders who will lead through thick and thin—of all the various Black communities in this country. If it suits their foreign policy, they will abandon the Black people of South Africa. They are interested only in projecting an image which is likely to help them carry out their foreign policy. They are not interested in an improvement of the internal situation. If Britain, America and other countries in the world project a certain image, they do so because they want their foreign policy to be seen as a possible success. They do not do so because they are interested in the welfare and progress of the communities here.

We have seen recently how American factories and factories of other overseas firms here have closed down because it became uneconomic for them to continue to abide by the demands of the Sullivan code. However, because they closed down, hundreds—even thousands—of people became unemployed. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in his second attempt the hon member for Klip River covered a number of points, many of which offered excuses for the fact that open negotiations have not taken place or proceeded further. There are certainly difficulties, that I acknowledge. However, I think the hon member should also recognise that the blame cannot be laid elsewhere. He would do well to look at a part of the Van der Walt report that was tabled yesterday. I quote from that report:

I do not think either that the hon member should always look for excuses as far as overseas people, overseas countries or other influences are concerned when he tries to explain why negotiations cannot get going. [Interjections.]

Prof Van Der Walt’s report is of great importance, and I hope we will have an opportunity to have a special debate on this report. The report contains far more than can be covered in a few brief speeches. For the moment, however, I wish to refer to certain aspects of the report.

The first aspect to which I want to refer is a statement in the summary on page 56. I think that statement is very germane to this debate. He says:

I hope, Sir, that the alarm signal I want to sound today will not be ignored.

The State President mentioned yesterday, quite correctly, that reform was not just political but also social and economic. Moreover, he said, because of heightened expectations it was seldom easy. One thing that is certain, however, is that for reform to succeed, people need to benefit from the reforms instituted. They need to develop a vested interest in stability as their position improves. By this I mean better education, better jobs, a high standard of living and an improved quality of life. These will result in a resistance to violence and revolution.

In his Opening Address the State President expressed support for “the promotion and protection of the self-determination of population groups and peoples”. He has on various occasions interpreted that as meaning, inter alia, racially segregated residential areas. He has also pleaded for stability and “evolutionary reform”.

I want to suggest that, in the conditions that exist in South Africa today, these concepts are incompatible with one another. I should like to focus on two laws which bring about enforced residential segregation. These are the Group Areas Act, 1966—originally 1950—and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945. The effects of these laws include the misery, bitterness and hatred that they have caused, for example the forced removals under the Group Areas Act. Since 1950, 126 000 families have been moved of which only 1,9% have been White families. Another effect is a shortage of land for all groups except Whites. The total surface area of land proclaimed for occupation by Whites, Coloureds and Indians amounts to 895 000 hectares of which 84% is reserved for Whites.

More recently the Black and Coloured areas have experienced unrest. It is widespread, disruptive and has a massive detrimental impact on the quality of life of the residents of these suburbs and townships. The unrest has prevented tens of thousands of people from enjoying in full the fruits of their labours. The combination of segregated residential areas and widespread unrest has resulted in there being little chance for the beneficiaries of social and economic improvements to experience them. Therefore, instead of increasing stability we have more politicisation, radicalisation and polarisation than ever before. The emergence and growth of groups with middle-class values and a vested interest in stability is being severely retarded if not destroyed. That is the reality.

Because of the Group Areas Act and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, these people are locked into this pressure cooker situation, locked into an unpleasant, hostile and often dangerous environment for themselves and their children. They are accused of being part of “the system” of collaborators with the enemy if they have or acquire material comforts which they have earned. They are also faced with no prospect of escaping from it at all. Here I would like to quote further from Prof Van Der Walt’s report, pages 27 and 28, in which he says:

Further down on the same page he says:

He says on the following page:

The ground is being cut from under those who favour evolution rather than revolution. In South Africa today racially segregated residential areas and evolutionary reform are fast becoming mutually exclusive. We cannot have both. Again I want to quote finally from Prof Van Der Walt’s report on page 58, where he says in his summary:

In motivating the introduction of the Group Areas Act in Parliament in 1950, the then Minister of the Interior said, and I quote:

On the contrary, it has increased frustration and bitterness, encouraged an “us” versus “them” syndrome and made reconciliation more difficult than ever to achieve.

The PFP has always believed that enforced segregation on the grounds of race is morally wrong and politically unwise. However, I appeal to the State President today to get rid of the Group Areas Act and the equivalent provisions of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act and to provide more residential land in urban areas as matter of urgency. It is in his interests to provide people with an alternative, to improve their quality of life and to develop a strong vested interest in stability. If the State President is not prepared to do these things I believe he can kiss goodbye to evolutionary reform and to co-operative co-existence or whatever else one chooses to call it. All South Africans will be the losers as polarisation intensifies, and peace and prosperity become unattainable dreams.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is one of the younger hon members in this House and one can see that he has learnt a great deal from his predecessors about merely making statements. There are a few things in connection with separate residential areas which the hon member omitted to mention, and I want to give only a few examples. He omitted to mention that during the period before specific areas were allocated to the Coloured population in terms of the Group Areas Act, the Coloured population were for the most part, with a few exceptions, the inhabitants of the backward areas. This is a fact which cannot be denied. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is an old parliamentarian, and he will know that this is true. The Coloureds were the inhabitants of the backward and slum areas. They had very little land tenure in urban areas.

It was as a result of a progressive policy …

The PFP!

No, I am using the word in a better sense than the PFP. [Interjections.]

It was as a result of a progressive policy of the creation of areas in which they could acquire rights of ownership that the Coloureds succeeded in becoming the owners of land and of houses. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will concede that.

What about the areas in which they were living? What about District Six?

I am still coming to District Six, because I am going to deal with it this afternoon. I just want to say in passing that they did not own District Six. They were exploited in District Six. But I shall come to that later.

In terms of the application of the Group Areas Act the Coloureds, apart from their rural areas, acquired almost 100 000 ha which they had not previously possessed. Between 1980 and 1985 alone, R791 million was spent on housing for the Coloured population. During that period more than 46 000 residential units were erected. Why did the hon member for Cape Town Gardens not mention that?

Because I only had 10 minutes!

No, the hon member does not know it, and if he had known it, he would have concealed it because it does not suit him. He grew up in bad company.

Why do the Coloureds hate the Act?

I shall come to that.

Now the hon member is saying that we must simply scrap the Group Areas Act. This Government has stated that it is not so deeply committed to any Act that it wishes to make a sacred cow of it. The hon CP members wanted to eat me alive when I said that. I say again today that no Act is a sacred cow. It can be changed to suit the new circumstances. That is why the Government referred to the Group Areas Act to the President’s Council. Previously it referred the Act to a technical committee. We are now awaiting the report of the President’s Council.

What I am advocating in fact is not the retention of a specific Act in a specific form, but what I do advocate is the protection of minorities in their residential areas where they can practice their own culture and way of life. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens is shouting against the South Easter. The hon member in particular will know what that means.

Like Prof Van der Walt!

I shall reply to the matter of Prof Van der Walt when I deal with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

This morning the hon member for Brakpan did something here which I did not expect of him. He is a decent person. [Interjections.] He knows that I think so too. The hon member for Brakpan must not avail himself of insinuations. That was never his way of doing things, his way of doing things was always to speak candidly. Without actually saying it, he insinuated this morning, in connection with my standpoint on the Western Cape, that I was acting in the same way as General Cronjé. General Cronjé does not have a very good reputation in the history of South Africa, but I do want to tell the hon member this: General Cronjé did not surrender on account of the realities, but on account of stubbornness. He did not want to listen to his advisers when they told him he should get out of the women’s laager.

There are still Afrikaners today who have remained behind in the women’s laager, figuratively speaking. I want to tell them that their stubbornness will be their downfall. General De Wet wanted to rescue General Cronjé from his stubbornness, but he refused to listen.

I want to add that the hon member for Brakpan need not enlighten me on this matter. My father was one of those who wanted to save him from his untenable position in his women’s laager. The hon member must get his historical facts straight, and then he will think differently.

I am asking him to free himself from his narrow-mindedness. He must come out of that laager, in which he is trapped, while the world passes him by, and while other people are reaching out a hand to him and saying: “Come and help us in the struggle!” He must be careful that he is not trapped in that laager, and get left behind like General Cronjé. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Mooi River referred to the question of consolidations. I am waiting for the relevant information, and I shall return to the subject this afternoon.

He also referred to the opening of the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly. I am very well acquainted with what happened on that occasion. It was not intended as an insult, and I suggest the hon member raise the matter during the debate on the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who will provide all the information. There is also, however, another side to the picture to which I took the strongest exception, because Mr Speaker was insulted in the process. I object most strongly to that. The hon the Minister will be able to give the hon member all the particulars as to why the person who was originally supposed to open the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly could not do so.

*The hon member for Rustenburg emphasised that we needed time, and said people were in too much of a hurry. I agree with him. I keep on hearing that it is five minutes to midnight, or the eleventh hour, and we must get a move on because we do not have any time left. At certain conferences and certain symposiums in particular we keep on hearing how late it is. We have been hearing for 300 years how late it is in this country.

I want to give a reply this morning which the late Dr Malan once gave: “For people who do their duty it can never be too late.” All we can do is to do our duty within the means at our disposal and to the extent to which we have the ability to do it. When Dr Malan was a young student in the Netherlands, he said he was in a hurry to get back to South Africa, because there was a crisis here. Then Dr Malan’s professor gave him these words of advice which he never forgot: “Malan, do not be in a hurry; God is not in a hurry”.

If we do our duty, we can leave the fate of this country in the hands of the Creator who brought us here. In His eternal pattern He willed it that different people and nations and cultural groups should live here in this country, and we need not be in a hurry to carry out His will. We must simply be determined to do justice to everyone.

History left us with a backlog in respect of certain population groups, long before this party came into power. History left us with a backlog under a colonial system. The main cause of the gap which exists today between the First World economy of the Whites and the Third World economy of especially the Black people in South Africa is directly attributable to colonial administration in this country, and to nothing else. Nor is it applicable in this country only; it is also applicable in Africa.

The backlog which Africa has today with vast burdens of debt which they cannot pay and with underdeveloped economies is the direct result of colonial exploitation and colonial neglect. The same is also true of South Africa. That is why all the backlogs which exist should not incessantly be placed on the shoulder of one political party in South Africa. There is a long history that caused these backlogs.

I have several articles in my possession, including an article recently written by a professor from Ghana who taught at an American university. I can quote to hon members what he said about Africa. There is no apartheid. There was paternalism, yes, but there was no apartheid. He paints an appalling picture of conditions to the north of us, and surely there is no apartheid there. Why, then, is this the case? I say it is attributable to colonial domination and colonial paternalism, which caused a backlog. The same applies in South Africa. That is why it is a false charge to want to crucify the NP every time, to want to nail the NP to the wall and hold it responsible for all the backlogs which exist in South Africa. I want to thank the hon member for Rustenburg for saying that we must take the time granted to us to do our duty.

†The hon member for South Coast raised the question of the necessity for us to resolve to have more unity and more positive approaches in tackling the challenges we are facing. I fully agree with him. I also want to make an appeal. Let us get rid of this negativism. I am not against criticism; I invite criticism, but it must be reliable and responsible criticism. Let us get rid of the negativism displayed so often in our debates and come forward and help the Government with proposals. If hon members say “We think you are wrong here, and we think you should apply this”, we can make headway.

But we do that.

No, they do not do that, but I shall come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in a moment. For now they can relax and enjoy their lunch.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, when proceedings were suspended, I had promised the hon member for Mooi River that I would deal with the question of consolidation of land. I do not want to deal with the whole problem of consolidation. It is a vast problem. I have, however, been told that all the land pledged in terms of the legislation of 1936 has been bought by the Government. That is the first point. We are therefore now approaching the finalisation of consolidation in those terms.

*I have been told, with reference to the inquiries and evidence heard by the Commission for Co-operation and Development in connection with the consolidation of the following states, Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Venda, kwaNdebele, Qwaqwa, Lebowa and Gazankulu, that the Government’s resolutions have already been announced.

†The plans for those states have been published. I went to Bophuthatswana myself to discuss certain of the implications with Pres Mangope.

*In the case of Transkei, kaNgwane and kwaZulu, the position is as follows: In kaNgwane the enquiries of the Commission for Co-operation and Development have been completed. The Government will announce resolutions soon with a view to the hearing of evidence. The proposals in respect of Transkei were announced on 18 March. The evidence of interested parties will be heard soon. As far as kwaZulu is concerned, provisional proposals have been announced and evidence has already been heard. Final resolutions still have to be adopted.

I have been told that the purchase of land is progressing satisfactorily. Land is being transferred after proper planning and after proper talks with the states involved about the manner and date of transfer, and taking into account the availability of funds.

†That is as much as I can tell the hon member for Mooi River. If the hon member wishes to know more, I suggest that that he takes it up with my colleague during the discussion of his Vote.

*The hon member for Constantia basically made two points. Firstly he said he had a premonition—that is how I understood him—that I was going the same way Rhodesia had gone. I want to tell the hon member to be careful. He should not believe in forebodings. The old people said one could only believe in forebodings if one had been born with the caul. [Interjections.] I do not know now whether the hon member was born with the caul. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that it was my privilege on more than one occasion—on repeated occasions—to participate in talks with the Smith Government in those days. I was repeatedly involved in talks in which my predecessors tried to steer the Rhodesian issue in the right direction. With the knowledge I have of those talks and of what the Rhodesian Government said it advocated, a comparison cannot in a million years be drawn between the standpoints of this Government and that of the Rhodesian Government of the time. In fact, my predecessor warned Mr Smith that, with the standpoint which he was adopting, he would find himself in the position in which he did find himself.

That comparison is completely incorrect. There is no possibility that we will enter into a Lancaster House agreement. After all, our circumstances are completely different. The hon member had another foreboding, but it was merely a fabrication. He need not have any sleepless nights about it.

The principles and the policy are the same.

No, the policy is not the same. [Interjections.] I shall give the hon member only a few examples. The Smith government did not advocate independent states.

[Inaudible.]

No, wait, give me a chance. The hon member is having his foreboding again. [Interjections.]

The Smith government did not stand for the retention of self-governing states. The Smith government did not deal with urban complexes the way we are trying to do. Those are only three of the differences. The Smith Government stood for an eventual one man, one vote situation in one parliament. [Interjections.] There are drastic differences between what they advocated and what we advocate.

There were drastic similarities.

When the hon member had gotten rid of that omen, he conjured up another one.

†He referred to the question of the general election and he created the impression that this Government was trying to …

Run away.

… run away from its responsibilities. Thank you. [Interjections.]

I agree with you.

Let me quote to the hon member what is stated in the Constitution. Section 102(8) states that:

*It is written in the Constitution. In terms of the obligations imposed upon me by the Constitution Act, I had to make a certain proclamation. [Interjections.] If I am not mistaken, that proclamation was made on 4 September 1984 and according to the proclamation the life of this Parliament, and therefore of this House of Assembly, was consequently extended for five years to bring it into line with the other two Houses.

I admitted that.

If the hon member said that, why he is complaining?

The intention is not honourable.

But is written in the Constitution of the country. [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many interjections.

What that hon member is trying to say is that he wants to have his cake and eat it. No, what, in that case we may as well drop the matter. I just wanted to rectify the facts. The hon member should occupy himself with more important matters if he wants to deserve my attention. [Interjections.]

Big deal!

Who is this “big deal”?

Can’t you think of anything to say? [Interjections.]

Why is the hon member so red? [Interjections.]

The point concerning the State President’s position was also raised—I think this was also done by the hon member for Mooi River. Any hon member is at liberty to try to change the constitutional position of the State President if he wishes. This is a democratic institution. But surely he must not use President Reagan and Mr Mitterand as examples when he explains why he wants to change the system, because the fact of the matter is that President is the leader of his party and he participates in elections. I have even read reports of how he participated in by-elections.

During the latest general election in France, Mr Mitterand was in the forefront of the struggle during that election. Consequently the hon member must not use those examples. He can try to come up with other examples, but those are not good ones. I hope he will go back and reflect on this matter a little more.

What I do want to concede—I am saying this here and I have tried to adhere to this since I accepted this position—is that under this system I do not think the State President should lend himself to petty politicking during elections. I challenge any hon member to indicate to me where I acted in a vindictive or petty way as far as party-politics were concerned on political platforms during by-elections or on other occasions at which I appeared since I have been occupying this position. I have refrained from making attacks on opponents, and I have tried to state the Government’s case. I think that is what can be expected of me.

On the other hand hon members must not infer from this now that if every Tom, Dick or Harry insults me, I shall let him get away with it. I am not referring to that hon member now, when I talk about Tom, Dick, or Harry; I am referring to other people! [Interjections.]

†Before continuing, I wish to deal with another important matter. I wish to address the issue of a Joint Executive Authority for kwaZulu and Natal. On 11 March this year, the Chief Minister of kwaZulu and the Administrator of Natal presented certain proposals to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. These proposals contained suggestions for the establishment of a statutory body to co-ordinate co-operation between their two administrations.

The Cabinet supports the principle of such a Joint Executive Authority. The parties propose a body which will be able to harness the existing resources of the two administrations. Areas of co-operation include health, roads, traffic control, physical planning and nature conservation. Similar areas in which a rationalised combined effort makes good practical sense at the operational level can also be considered.

It will be required of the Joint Executive Authority to account to the Executive Committee of the Province of Natal and/or to the Cabinet of kwaZulu, as the case may be. Equal representation will be afforded to both Natal and kwaZulu on the joint executive authority. The chairmanship of the Joint Executive Authority can alternate on any mutually agreed upon basis. Decisions will necessarily have to be reached by way of consensus. In the event of disagreement, the matter at issue will be referred to the Administrator of Natal and the Chief Minister of kwaZulu jointly for determination. A small secretariat will in all probability be necessary.

It is contemplated that the powers, duties and functions of the Joint Executive Authority will be exercised and performed either jointly or, where this is not possible, on an agency basis by the party which is in the best position to provide an effective and economic service. It is further contemplated that joint services and functions of this nature will have to be financed from an account to which the respective parties will contribute on an agreed basis, with a further possibility of annual grants from the central Government.

The way ahead will be to submit special draft legislation to Parliament which, if approved, will enable such a Joint Executive Authority to be established. Because of the infinite variation of detail and circumstances to be dealt with, it was recommended by the two parties that the necessary legislation should take the form of an empowering enactment. In terms of this the State President will be empowered with the concurrence of the Administrator of Natal and the Chief Minister of kwaZulu to establish the Joint Executive Authority by proclamation.

*The Joint Executive Authority of kwaZulu and Natal will possibly not be the last of its kind. That is why provision will be made for draft legislation on the self-governing territories and on provincial government for the creation of similar bodies elsewhere. This is being done in view of the fact that the need which gave rise to the co-operation between kwaZulu and Natal also exists in other parts of our country.

†The Government’s support for the proposed Joint Executive Authority is not in any way to be associated with the current Indaba in Durban, which I understand, relates to the possibility of a combined legislature for the region. The Government is not opposed to a conference of this nature. The Natal NP has in fact assigned three of its senior members of Parliament to be observers at the conference. It must be realised, however, that representations to the Government relating to a legislative body hold deep political implications. It is an entirely different matter from the establishment of joint structures for administration and technical co-operation, such as the one I have dealt with.

I have been requested by the chairman of the kwaZulu/Natal Indaba to place a moratorium on all changes to the Natal provincial system until 1 October 1986, in order to allow the indaba to put forward specific proposals of their own about a possible joint legislature for the region concerned. The life of the provincial councils has already once been extended from 29 April 1986 to 30 June 1986. The request for the moratorium, if acceded to, would imply that the life of the provincial councils will have to be extended for a second time until 1 October 1986. A further extension of the present term of the provincial councils will, however, have no effect on the negotiations of the indaba about the proposed legislature or the time-scale of such deliberations. Parliamentary legislation is in any case necessary to implement such proposals, if they are acceptable. This would only be possible during the following legislative session of Parliament. It is also not possible to extend the political life of only one provincial council. All provinces must, in terms of the provincial government legislation, be treated in the same way. Because changes in the executive and administrative systems of a province would have no detrimental effect on deliberations at the indaba, the Government has decided that it cannot delay such urgent reform measures at a provincial level any longer.

In September 1982 I addressed the Administrators’ Conference in Durban.

*During that conference I opened the door to negotiations on the particulars of provincial reform. Since then there have been deliberations on this matter from time to time. Particulars of a new provincial dispensation have now been drawn up by the Government, and will come before Parliament soon. I think that replies to the question.

I now want to deal with a few other matters which emerged during the course of the debate. First I want to deal with the speeches made by a few hon members.

I want to refer to the hon member for De Kuilen who in his reaction to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stated correctly that all the reform we were envisaging would avail us nothing if those who did not wish to share power, but who wished to grab everything for themselves, were to come into power. I agree wholeheartedly with that. This is the power clique to whom I referred yesterday.

The hon member for Waterberg is not present in this House at the moment. He apologised for his absence. I shall possibly reply to him on Monday, together with the hon member for Yeoville. That is, if he is back on Monday.

Next I want to thank the hon member Mr Van Staden for the fine words he addressed to me. I agree with him when he says that there has been a great deal of selfishness in the history of South Africa. However, we must be very careful not to begin suffering from another ailment as well in South Africa, and that is that we should not begin to become apologetic for our existence.

Like Kobus Meiring!

We must acknowledge our selfishness, but we must use our existence to discharge our obligations. In fact, I think that is what the hon member wanted to convey to us.

I found the speech made by the hon member for Helderkruin very interesting; that is always the case of course. He addressed this House with reference to certain things that were said about apartheid, which I will in fact deal with later.

The hon member for Soutpansberg addressed the question of the Government’s mandate. Mr Chairman, on reform, and on the progress we had made with it, we were given a clear mandate by way of a referendum. During that referendum—in all the documents which were distributed then—we said that we also intended to address relations between Whites and Blacks. One of the hon members referred to it. I think it was the hon member for Krugersdorp. To that I added that if progress was made during the process of negotiation to what I considered to be drastic deviations from the accepted policy, we would go to the country either by way of a general election or a referendum—or even more than one referendum. Statutory provision was made for that. Consequently the hon member for Soutpansberg need not fear that we will proceed in an irresponsible way. However, if he wants to prepare himself for such eventualities, I suggest that he begins to do so now.

Never mind, we have already begun to prepare! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Krugersdorp made a good contribution, and I agree with him that we should hold more discussions with everyone about improving the quality of life, and should not merely become bogged down in a discussion of structures. I think this also lies at the root of what a person such as Prof Tjaart van der Walt clearly pointed out. We must begin right at the bottom—we must begin at the grassroots—and rectify those things which are needed the most—interpersonal relations, relations between officials and the public as well as relations in the administration of our country. It is part of our task to rectify those matters.

The hon member also said that I should talk to Black people to a far greater extent. Well, I can give hon members the assurance that if I were to talk to them to a greater extent than I have been doing during the past few months, I shall not have time to do anything else. No, I think we should all have more discussions with them. We must take care, though, that we do not talk nonsense to them. [Interjections.]

In his contribution the hon member for False Bay emphasised the general consensus that influx control as such was not effective, and that urbanisation was primarily the result of socioeconomic factors. I know that he speaks from experience, and I agree with what he said. I concur with the line of thinking he revealed here.

†The hon member for Houghton displayed her usual cynicism regarding the security situation in the country. I do not think that it is very easy any longer for the hon member to convince me; but then again, it is also very difficult for me to convince the hon member. [Interjections.] I would not say that the hon member was disloyal, for I do not think she is. She is very obstinate, however. [Interjections.] Sometimes she contemplates actions which are somewhat incomprehensible to anyone who tries to understand the ways of women. [Interjections.]

Let’s leave sex out of it, shall we?

I want to refer to the hon member to what King Solomon said.

Oh, no, not the old “drip” stuff!

No, no, not the “drip” stuff. [Interjections.] The “drip” stuff was said by King David, I think. [Interjections.] I might be wrong, but King Solomon said that one of the things in life he could not understand was the way of a woman with a man. I do not think, however, that King Solomon knew the hon member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

I’m not that old!

Otherwise he would have said that he did not know the way of a woman with her country.

As far as the hon member’s actions here yesterday are concerned, to my mind she created a smoke-screen for those hon members’ attempts to hijack the deeply felt concern of all reasonable people for the plight of the less fortunate in our society. The Government is continually addressing the socioeconomic upliftment of the less privileged. Moreover, they have not only been doing it since last year or since the introduction of this Budget; and if the hon member really wants to be honest—she is intelligent enough to be able to recognise it—she will acknowledge that no Government in South Africa’s history has done more to improve the living conditions of underprivileged people. [Interjections.] No Government in the history of South Africa has done more to uplift the underprivileged in terms of housing and health services—and the figures show to what extent we have succeeded!

The hon member referred cynically to arrests in terms of the so-called “pass laws” and influx control measures, thereby implying that the Government will not honour its undertaking in this regard.

No, I asked you a question.

Yes, but I said that the hon member was very sceptical about our honouring our undertaking.

Well, will you?

Wait a bit, just wait a bit.

Order! The hon member for Houghton has already made her speech, and the State President is reacting to it. This is not the opportune time for the hon member for Houghton to comment on everything the State President says.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton must talk; you cannot make her happy if she does not talk. [Interjections.] She must talk, Sir. Help her, therefore, and let her talk. [Interjections.]

†In this respect, however, the decision has already been taken. So she must listen now and she must leave the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition alone. [Interjections.] She has already wrecked quite a number of leaders of the Official Opposition … [Interjections.] I think, Mr Chairman, we will have to arrange for a different seat for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

As I was saying, a decision has already been taken in this respect to the effect that, as from the date of the tabling of the White Paper on Urbanisation—which will be next week—to which I referred in my address yesterday, no further charges will be preferred in terms of those measures.

Hurrah!

Hear! Hear!

All right, “hear, hear”. Now listen further. [Interjections.] Furthermore, people who have been convicted on such charges will be released forthwith.

Hear! hear!

They say “hear! hear!” [Interjections.] Those who are being detained pending such charges will likewise be released.

Hear! hear!

They say “hear! hear!”. [Interjections.] The hon member must just not walk over to me! [Interjections.]

Furthermore, legislation for the issue of a uniform identity document for all the population groups will be tabled during next week. Sir, no “hear! hear!”? [Interjections.] The Department of Home Affairs will be ready from 1 July to handle requests for the new document. Sir, no “hear! hear!”? [Interjections.] I wish to emphasise that in future the present pass books will be treated only as a temporary identity document and it is therefore important that holders of such documents keep them until they have been issued with new documents. Sir, no “hear! hear!”?

The hon member also raised the question of Moutse. There is a court case in progress at present…

I know that.

… so I cannot go into the merits of Moutse …

That is …

… but I am going to deal with one aspect of it, namely that I went out of my way personally to arrive at a peaceful solution in connection with Moutse. When this matter was raised with me I was still Prime Minister. I immediately invited the main leaders concerned to go with me by helicopter to the area for personal inspection. When we arrived back in Pretoria I made a proposal to the leaders concerned that they should come to terms with each other and that whatever they recommended to me I would accept. I gave them an opportunity to discuss it on their own, which they did, and after I think weeks or months—the hon member for Houghton must not shake her head …

No, I am talking to the hon member.

After weeks or months they came back and said they could not agree.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the State President whether he is referring to the leaders of Lebowa and kwaNdebele?

Yes.

But not the Moutse men?

The hon member must wait a minute. I told them they could consult with all the leaders concerned and whatever they recommended to me I would accept. I told them they were the two responsible men and they could consult with whomever they wished. I also told them that I was usually accused of wanting to prescribe to others so that was an opportunity for them to show that they could deal with their own problems. Then they reported back to me that they could not agree. I told them if they could not agree I would provide them with an independent chairman and that they had to try again to reach agreement. The hon the Minister then appointed, with my knowledge, a chairman who is a well-known planner in South Africa, an authority and an expert. He tried for a year. I do not know how many meetings they had but I know that he went out of his way to find a solution. Then after a year he came back and he said: “No go.”

We then had another discussion with the leaders separately because it did not help any longer to bring them together. I called a big meeting in the Union Buildings. Among others present there were Dr Phatudi and all the local chiefs. It was nearly a public meeting; they filled the whole conference room. We addressed the problem and I tried to point out to them to what extent we were trying to find a solution which would be fair.

It was not only the Moutse that was on the table; it was also the Nebo farms. They were also under discussion. Other proposals in connection with consolidation came up for discussion as well.

Eventually I had to make a decision and the Government had to take a stand because we cannot simply let things go. That is when I am accused of not acting. Whatever we do is wrong.

Why don’t you just leave them where they are?

One cannot simply leave people in the air.

They were not in the air!

They were. From a planning point of view it was quite wrong to leave them where they were.

Why?

[Inaudible.]

See how the hon member carries on again. I now want to put two questions to the hon member.

May I answer them, Mr Chairman?

No, I want to put the questions now and the hon member must listen very carefully. Firstly, did the Black Sash interfere?

No, I was asked to go and see them myself.

Very well. Did the hon member see the Black Sash in this connection?

Certainly.

Yes. I want to put a second question to the hon member: Did she also get in touch with the British Foreign Ministry in this connection?

Yes, when I was overseas last year … [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member if she impressed on them that they must pressurise us on Moutse?

Yes, indeed. [Interjections.] I will do it again!

I now leave it to the House to judge. The hon member is a busybody and she is creating trouble throughout the country.

Nonsense! I was asked to …

Order! I cannot allow the hon member for Houghton to keep on interrupting the State President. I must appeal to the hon member to refrain from doing so.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The State President asked two questions and thereafter he acted as an inciter. [Interjections.]

I leave it to the judgment of the House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to call the hon member for Houghton someone who creates trouble throughout the country? [Interjections.]

Order! The State President may proceed.

The hon member for Houghton is far more able to cause trouble than the other hon member who has just spoken. People still take notice of her, but not of that hon member. [Interjections.]

I come now to the hon the leader of the Official Opposition.

†Let me say that I noted with interest the remarks made by him yesterday. He said he rejected violence and I was very glad when he made that statement. Secondly, he spoke about the necessity of tough—as he called it—and effective action concerning violence. He said in fact that it was a duty to do so in order to be effective in dealing with it. He also said one must be tough. He said one should act against anarchy, terrorism and unrest. I thank him for that part of his speech, but to my disappointment he retracted those sentiments this morning. He suddenly started to retreat. [Interjections.] He suddenly clouded his remarks of yesterday by really giving me the impression that he was retreating. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition shakes his head. Very well, I accept his word. If he did not retreat, I shall hold him to his statement yesterday that we must be tough and effective in our action against violence.

“Effective” is the key word.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says “effective” is the key word. [Interjections.] I shall remember that.

*The hon member for Waterberg also said he agreed with that, and the hon member for Durban Point, on behalf of his party, also committed himself to that. In other words, we in the House are united when it comes to dealing with violence.

†We must act in a tough way against violence and terrorism, and we must be effective.

Whatever that means.

That is right, whatever it means. [Interjections.] I take his word for it, and we shall keep him to his word. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also put a question to me this morning. He asked if the State President was properly informed and was taking an interest in the way the security forces were handling this problem. I think I owe him a reply.

*In the first place the State President— whoever he may be—is chairman of the State Security Council which was established by an Act of this Parliament.

I went even further. In terms of the provision of that Act I added certain other people to the State Council because I wanted co-ordinated action, because I believed that one could not control these things by solely means of violence and force, but that one should also adopt social measures and that one should also take action in other areas to try to repel the onslaught on peace and order in South Africa.

Apart from the State Security Council I established two legs in the government of this country, ie a security leg with a co-ordinating secretariat as well as a welfare leg with a co-ordinating secretariat. In turn I caused those two secretariats to be co-ordinated by a Minister who presides over their administrative work.

Every day I receive evaluated intelligence on the situation in the country. Every day I also receive evaluated intelligence from abroad about actions directed at South Africa. In other words, from time to time and sometimes more than once a day, I am briefed on the course of events as far as these matters are concerned.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to Prof Van der Walt, and he verged on claiming credit for his report. One would almost have sworn that he had appointed Prof Van der Walt. At one stage I was completely dumbfounded and I thought: “Am I dreaming or am I part of the same dream as the hon member for Constantia?” Who appointed Prof Van der Walt? It was this Government!

Why did we appoint him? We appointed him because we had information at our disposal that certain things were not right. We appointed a reliable friend of this Government—I still consider him to be a reliable friend—and asked him, because he was reliable and because we believed him, whether he would not investigate this matter for us and tell us what the truth was. He made a start and carried out this investigation.

We did not wait until now before we began to take action. Last year already we announced a process of job creation, the upgrading of urban areas and the making available of elementary services. We made more than R100 million available for that purpose. [Interjections.] Wait a minute, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not crack a joke with the hon member behind him, I am talking to him now. In this Budget—the first time we had an opportunity to do so—we said that we would make R1 000 million, or rather R1 billion, available over a period of three years to counteract these evils the urban areas. We began on a large scale with the provision of employment, although it is not the primary task of the State to provide employment. It is the task of the private sector to create jobs; not the task of the State. The State is secondary in this connection. [Interjections.] We do have to create the infrastructure; that is true.

The Government must create the climate.

The hon member at the back there must not run away from the points I am enumerating now.

The Government must create the infrastucture, but the private sector must create the jobs. [Interjections.] In my opinion the private sector has not up to now—I shall discuss this on Monday—created sufficient employment in South Africa. I am not saying this accusingly; I am stating it as fact.

In the second place we are engaged in a drastic, positive programme to bring about upgrading and improvements. What is more, we receive reports about this almost every week. These structures which we created and which have to keep me informed, receive information on these matters almost every week. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is therefore being extremely unfair if he wishes to claim any credit for Prof Van der Walt’s report.

No, not at all.

Very well, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should preferably work out his own policy, and leave the people we appoint to give us advice in our hands.

Is it not an important report?

Yes, it is very important report, but it is not a report for the PFP to kick around. [Interjections.]

I am not levelling the accusation at the hon Leader of the Official Opposition that he would allow himself to be influenced by Tambo—oh please, I am not accusing him of that—but it is strange that, since his return from Lusaka, he wishes to eradicate the entire system. After his return he suddenly want to abolish the whole system. I now want to ask him what his party’s policy is. His party’s policy, if they were to come into power tomorrow, is to maintain the status quo, until the national convention has worked out a constitution. Is that not true?

Interim measures will of course be adopted.

Suppose a bolt of lightning were to strike the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tomorrow morning, and he found himself in office— suddenly he is standing in the light of that lightning flash and he has to govern—then his policy states that he has to maintain the status quo until a national convention has worked out a constitution.

[Inaudible.]

What is he going to do in the meantime? Is he going to govern in vacuum? [Interjections.] But I am talking about a new constitution now! [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wants me to abolish Parliament. [Interjections.]

No!

Order! I am under the impression that the State President is addressing the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can speak for himself. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, just like the hon member for Waterberg, has a great deal to say, day after day, about what is wrong, while the PFP itself does not have a plan for South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to remind the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition the he and his predecessor tried to launch a national convention. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr Chairman. We challenged them to do so, and they subsequently tried to do so. [Interjections.]

Alliance!

An alliance! What is it otherwise? [Interjections.]

You do not understand what a convention is! [Interjections.]

Secondly, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked me about District Six. Firstly I want to place this matter in its correct historical perspective. I was a member of the Government which declared District Six to be a White area. But I was not the person who signed that declaration.

Jan Haak was.

No, that is not relevant how. I am simply saying that I was not the person who signed it. My task, after District Six had been declared a White area, was to deal with the matter. I did not act incautiously or in an irresponsible way in regard to District Six. Firstly we caused a scientific survey to be made of the conditions in District Six. We asked a scientific body at the University of Cape Town to make a thorough survey for us and to bring out a report on the position there.

It appears from the history of District Six that it was originally, during the period from 1829 to 1884, a much-sought-after White suburb. Subsequently that suburb began to decay. The survey by the University of Cape Town disclosed the following information, ie that 72,8% of the dwellings had a maximum of three habitable apartments. This survey was made by the University of Cape Town and indicated that 72,8% of the dwelling in District Six had a maximum of three habitable apartments. There was an average of 2,5 people per habitable apartment. They were small places. Those hon members who do not know District Six, must not talk about it. I went in there with the Police. I went to see what was happening there. It was the worst breeding place of violence and misfortune in Cape Town. The poor occupants who were crammed into those houses because of their poverty, were the victims of that misfortune and violence.

I shall mention additional facts to hon members. The average income per family in District Six was R50 per month. Eighty per cent of those inhabitants earned less than R100 per month per family. In addition 55% of the properties, to a value of R17 516 000, were White properties, and this is where the crux of the problem lay.

These White owners crammed those hovels with indigent Coloureds, whom they exploited for their own gain. Those fat cats who owned properties in District Six live elsewhere in the Cape Peninsula, where they could safeguard themselves against that misery. [Interjections.] That is why we acted. That is why we immediately said that an urban renewal plan should be instituted here. A proper urban renewal plan was drawn up, but one could not draw up and carry out that urban renewal plan unless one had first taken the people out of that area, because it had to be totally replanned. The services had to be replanned. New services had to be introduced and we acquired the services of some of the world’s most renowned urban planners to come and help us.

It was intended for Whites.

Wait a minute! Does the Leader of the Official Opposition not want to give me a chance to tell my side of the story?

In the meantime we had to resettle these people because we could not replan and rebuild the place if we did not resettle them somewhere first. We could not simply take those Coloureds, that 70%, and leave them hanging in the air somewhere. Sea Point would not have taken them in any case. [Interjections.] Then we had to give them new housing, which is what we did. We did that.

Under the urban renewal plan which was carried out, it was decided that a large area of District Six would not be utilised for housing because the land was too expensive for housing. Ultimately the Government decided to establish a technikon there, which is also going to be to the benefit of the Coloured population. [Interjections.]

Secondly we then, under my leadership, advertised a portion of District Six for Coloured occupation, and it was declared a Coloured area. A portion of the original District Six was declared a Coloured area.

When the hon member therefore kicks up a great fuss here—I do not know for what purpose—he must simply stick to the facts. I do not mind if he differs with me, but he must simply stick to the facts. That is my reply to the hon member as far as District Six is concerned.

Various hon members, including the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and certain hon opposition members, as well as hon members of the CP, broached the question of apartheid with me. The hon member for Helderkruin also raised the matter. This afternoon I want to state my standpoint on the matter.

I want to begin with the hon member for Koedoespoort. Yesterday the hon member wanted to preach to me in a bombastic way about Dr Malan. I now want to tell the hon member what Dr Malan’s philosophy of life was. I am going to quote to him what Dr Malan said to an audience of Christian students. He said:

He told the students:

That was his philosophy, and that was what he proclaimed. [Interjections.] That is why the hon member must not try to tell me about Dr Malan. I do not know where he was when I accompanied Dr Malan. [Interjections.] Earlier this year when I opened Parliament, I used two sentences which I want to deal with this afternoon. I said:

The second sentence I used was:

Paternalism means to look after others in a fatherly way without giving them any responsibility. Colonial paternalism with a racial connotation, to which I referred this morning, originated through centuries of contact between the Europeans and the coloured people of other continents—we know this; it is part of history. More than 400 years of White domination therefore cause Western man to adopt an attitude of haughtiness and superiority as the master of the coloured peoples on earth and to look down on them as inferior.

Colonial paternalism in South Africa was a heritage of European paternalism and it implied the following: Whites governed non-Whites without the non-Whites who were being governed having any responsibility or co-responsibility. The constitutional system was of such a nature that non-Whites were not in a position to obtain a meaningful say over their own affairs and did not have a joint say over general affairs. Whites in general looked down on the non-Whites from a position of superiority.

This obsolete system of colonial paternalism can no longer be accepted in South Africa today. I said it and I stand by what I said:

Apartheid is defined—the hon member for Helderkruin referred to this yesterday—as:

What are the historical facts? In the first place, let me say that if apartheid was a concealment of paternalism as I have now described it, it was wrong from the start.

The NP came into power in 1948. I played a major part in that process; I make no apology for that. However, we did not come into a power solely on the strength of the slogan of apartheid. We also came into power as a result of the ex-servicemen’s bitter disillusionment in their Government. The ex-servicemen put us in office.

I now want to say this about apartheid. On the evening after it became clear that Dr Malan would come into power, a small group of us met at Fernwood. There were only a few of us, for only we believed that he would come into power; most people thought it would not happen. There were in fact a few who told him this would happen and the late Advocate Erasmus, who at a time was Chief Secretary of the party in all the provinces, told him: “Doctor, you are going to take office,” and he was right.

Dr Malan thereupon prepared a speech. I just want to recount an interesting piece of history to hon members. He gave a radio broadcast, during which he said the following:

I accepted it in that spirit.

We still accept it.

If only the hon member for Kuruman would go and do his talking at home.

There was another man who spoke about apartheid in this House, also inl948, during the September session of Parliament. Hon members can look it up in Hansard. He attacked Dr Malan and said:

Do hon members know who that man was? The late Genl Smuts. There you have it. [Interjections.] A monument has been erected to Genl Smuts in front of the British Parliament, although he stood for this kind of apartheid, but this Government is being crucified because it wanted to uplift people in accordance with Dr Malan’s views.

Because of what he did in two world wars.

[Inaudible.]

Now I could also ask the hon leader where he was during the battle of Blood River. [Interjections.] We must not talk nonsense now. The point is that we are discussing apartheid now, and I am explaining my standpoint to the hon Leader.

After Dr Malan, and also during his lifetime, I think we went too far with certain measures under the apartheid principle. We made a mistake. I have said this repeatedly. The country, the public, for the most part agree with me on this score.

For example, a man drove with his servant in the car—in the same car—to the Post Office and then the servant had to enter through the one door to buy a stamp while he went through another door. This kind of absurdity was the result of this situation being taken too far.

The Tomlinson Commission was appointed early in Dr Malan’s term of office. The Tomlinson Commission brought out a report, in which those things which the hon member Mr Van Staden discussed yesterday were dealt with, ie the development of the Black areas. Yet the Tomlinson Commission said something else as well; it said this word “apartheid” was not understood; it was the wrong word and should be dispensed with. Consequently it was gradually dispensed with. But our enemies saw in this short Afrikaans word their chance to create an effective perception abroad. To a great extent we … Does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition want to listen to what I am saying or not? If he wants to listen, he must please stop talking to the hon member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

All I am saying is that the policy of apartheid was wrong after all.

I am saying there was an exaggerated form of apartheid, which was in fact wrong. Very well.

But that is how the caricature of apartheid was created!

Then the late Dr Verwoerd came into power. It is also very interesting to read his speeches. In one of his most recognised and important speeches he said the day would come when discrimination on the grounds of race or colour would have to be eliminated if we wanted to make our policy succeed. He said furthermore that he wanted to introduce a policy of positive upliftment in regard to the peoples of colour. Among other things he directed me in 1958—and this brings me to my own position—as the then Deputy Minister of the Interior to try to work out a policy in regard to the Coloureds in particular. On repeated occasions in this House of Assembly—hon members can look it up if they like—I spoke about a policy which had to be constructed on good neighbourliness, on respect for one another and on reciprocal assistance.

Shortly after he became Prime Minister my immediate predecessor, the late Mr John Vorster, took the first steps to begin to terminate these undesirable offshoots of apartheid which we had to contend with. He was the first man who displayed his personal involvement in regard to apartheid in sport. He was also the first man who touched upon the abolition of aspects of discrimination in labour when he appointed a commission of inquiry into the matter. He also began to lead us towards the abolition of offensive social practices that stemmed from this system.

The point I want to make, Mr Chairman, is that the concept which Dr Malan expressed in that well-known speech of his to the students, lives on in the hearts of all his old followers. We are indeed no racists. I also deny that hon members on this side of the House were ever racists. We were, however, severely provoked in our own fatherland. That I must say.

You were exploiters.

What do you mean by exploiters, Colin?

Really, Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is going altogether too far now. I believe he is going altogether too far when he accuses hon members on this side of the House of being exploiters. When it comes to exploitation, I shall present him with cases of where people were plunged into misery …

Political exploiters! [Interjections.]

Oh, now he is changing his story!

Do you remember the Oudtshoorn by-election?

Do you remember the George election, when you came home after receiving a hiding you will remember for the rest of your lives? [Interjections.]

*But that is a side-issue now. [Interjections.] I think a person can only make mistakes when he does something. A person who does nothing, makes no mistakes either—he cannot make any mistakes. In its history this Government has made many mistakes, but it has also done a great deal. Under my predecessors and under the present Government, far more has been done in regard to housing, health services, education and so on, for other population groups than was done by any other government before us in the history of this country.

If we want to be honest towards the outside world, let us tell them as South Africans that we are not a bunch of racists. English-speaking South Africa is not racist; Afrikaans-speaking South Africa is not racist; I do not know the Jewish community in South Africa to be racist; and the Austrians, the French, the Greeks and all the other minority groups living in this country, are not racists, but we simply ask for the right to ensure that our own culture, our own way of life and the safety of our children will be protected under all circumstances in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

That, then, brings me back to the hon member for Koedoespoort; not as a result of the importance of his speech, but as a result of the nonsense he spoke! [Interjections.] Yesterday I was surprised to observe the bitterness in the conduct of the hon member because the hon member is a clergyman. He is a man who has to convey Christ’s message. I have never seen greater hatred in a man’s eyes and in his conduct than I saw in the hon member yesterday. [Interjections.] The hon member quoted Dr Verwoerd against me repeatedly. In addition he accused me of everything under the sun. Let me quote to the hon member, however, what Dr Verwoerd wrote to Mr Menzies.

I know it.

Oh, the hon member knows it. Then why did he not say it? I was Dr Verwoerd’s Minister of Coloured Affairs, and I associated very closely with him on Coloured matters; that is why I know that he was prepared, at a given moment, to allow the Coloureds to be represented in this Parliament by Coloureds. [Interjections.]

He said it was a possibility. [Interjections.]

Precisely! How could he have presented it to Mr Menzies as a possibility if he did not intend to give attention to it? [Interjections.] Now they are accusing him of having written an untruth when he wrote to Mr Menzies. [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that, but the hon member must be careful.

Before I go on to the next subject, I still want to point out one aspect. In the world and in certain circles in South Africa the word apartheid is used as a label, and it is applied particularly to the Afrikaner, but what is the situation in countries where there is no “institutionalised apartheid”? “Institutionalised apartheid” is after all the usual excuse if one confronts them.

I have here in my possession a very interesting article. The caption is “A Nation Apart”, and the article appeared in the US News and World Digest of 17 March 1986. I want to quote only a few paragraphs from this article. The author deals with the position of Negroes in America. Let me say at once that the Negroes in America cannot be compared to our Blacks. This is what we must bring home to the Americans: The Negroes cannot be compared to our Black population groups. Hon members must just listen to this. The author said:

Then he says, and this is very interesting:

That is in the USA, the leader of the West, where this bunch of “Boere” or “racists” do not live and where this “cruel” policy is not being applied. Forty per cent of them are living in deplorable conditions. How does one explain that?

There is another interesting matter which I referred to only in passing yesterday. I want to draw a conclusion from what I am now going to quote to the Committee. These are very important facts, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must ponder them. In the January edition of this publication, Journal of Defence Diplomacies, which is a publication of excellent quality, two articles appeared. The one was written by Harold Williams, Chairman of the Forum on Africa Public Policy, and the other by George B N Ayity, a native Ghanaian who is an assistant professor of economics at Bloomsburg. Neither of them is positively disposed towards this Government, but let me quote what this professor said:

They then proceed to and point out the tremendous inability to save Black Africa.

The conclusion I want to draw from this is that it is wrong to imply that a new heaven on earth will commence if one could only get this Government out of the way, or if the systems of the past are suddenly terminated. That is what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wants.

It is a new starting point.

A starting point like the one in America or the one in Africa?

A new South Africa.

No, I am asking the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to listen. We can only get anywhere if the First World economy in this country is allowed to adopt a policy of upliftment towards the Third World economy.

Quite right.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition agrees. Secondly, we can only get somewhere if White leadership is not undermined; and we can only get somewhere if the security of Whites in South Africa is not undermined. That is what this Government advocates. That is what we are moving towards. That is what we want to see coming into existence. That is what we are asking for: Co-operation on the part of others.

I want to conclude. I see that some oaf wrote in Beeld the other day that it was strange that it had been years since the State President last spoke to Chief Minister Buthelezi, thereby implying that I do not speak to Black people. Not only do I speak to Black people who come to my colleagues, but I also speak to Black people who come to me on the quiet and express their concerns to me about things that are wrong in this country. I now want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—I shall tell him in a private conversation who that person was, but not across the floor of this House—that this morning before this House began to sit, I spoke for almost an hour with one of the most prominent Black leaders in South Africa.

Was it on tape?

He is not even the head of a self-governing state. What did the hon member for Houghton say?

I said “Was it on tape?”

If the hon member comes to my office, I shall have a recording made, because one never knows what she is going to say outside. If a decent Black man comes to my office, however, I shall not have a recording made. [Interjections. ]

He said two things to me which impressed me. He said we must protect the sensible Black people in this country, because they were being intimidated. He said we should utilise our security forces in such a way that there could be even greater security for those people. In the second place he said to me: “You must go down to the grassroots as you are doing now because you must come to the ordinary people. They are with you in the fight against terrorism and communism. We are afraid of it and we do not want it in this country.”

We in this House of Assembly must learn to talk to one another about the real issues; we must learn to talk to one another about the real issues without shouting at one another.

At the end of the discussion that Black man stood up and said: “I do not want to go out of your office this morning before I have prayed for you.”

The Church of Zion!

No!

Not the Church of Zion?

No. In any case the hon member knows nothing about the Church! [Interjections.] If the hon member sees a church, the church runs away. [Interjections.] The hon member is so objectionable; why does she not sit still?

You are becoming too personal!

The hon member is too objectionable. After all, I was talking on a high level. Why is she so objectionable? And so what if it was the Church of Zion? So what?

[Inaudible.]

Is the hon member Almighty God who alone is righteous in this world? The hon member must come to her senses.

Stupid!

Woman! [Interjections.]

That was a chauvinist remark!

I am making an appeal to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon. He must also examine his ways, and particularly his ways outside this House.

Such as?

I am coming to that; and with that I want to conclude. The hon member will not get away with that evasive statement of his about the two hon members who attended the funeral service of the secretary of the Communist Party.

†The hon leader will not get away with it.

In what way?

He will not get away with it; he owes this country an explanation.

I gave an explanation.

No, he did not give us a proper explanation, [interjections.] Why did the hon members go there? Why did they want to be there? [Interjections.] Why did they want to be in a communist meeting?

*Why did they attend a so-called funeral service, while the hon members know that communism rejects religion? They know that wherever there is a communist regime, religion is no longer free.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will have to explain this. We will not leave him; we will continue putting questions to him and if he is a strong leader he will get up and say: “I repudiate them”.

Order! I want order in the House before the hon member for Bryanston proceeds. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pity that I only have ten minutes in which to reply to the very long speech by the State President, but it is indeed a great privilege to have an opportunity to address the State President and to make certain statements and put certain questions to him and to expect certain answers from him. That is, in fact, part of the democratic process, although in South Africa at this stage it is not an ideal democratic process.

It goes without saying that we greatly appreciate the announcement by the State President about a moratorium on all prosecutions related to the provisions of influx control legislation. I think that I can say, on behalf of the whole of South Africa, that this announcement will meet with a great sense of relief and much rejoicing.

The State President mentioned his standpoint about the contentious word “apartheid”. Let me put it very clearly: We in the PFP are praying for the day when we can say there is no longer any apartheid in South Africa. [Interjections.] On that day a new future will dawn for South Africa. New opportunities and possibilities for stability, peace and progress will be created in this country. That word and all the policies, principles, utterances and action related to that word over the years—inhuman, humiliating discrimination—have been at the root of all South Africa’s problems for more than three decades. I just want to make one point about that, however. Apartheid is not only discriminatory. If the discriminatory aspect were abolished, we would still not have rid ourselves of apartheid completely, because apartheid is also segregation. By this I mean the systems and the means employed to segregate people.

I have frequently asked: What right has the Government, supported by less than 10% of the South African population, to prescribe to me that my children may not attend a school with the children of Black people, Coloureds and Indians who are fellow citizens of South Africa? What right has the Government to prescribe that South Africans cannot get together with one another and share the country’s facilities. I am speaking of all the country’s facilities in places where people want to get together and where it is their free choice to associate with one another. Surely the Government is not allowed to interfere with that basic human right.

I just want to refer, for example, to apartheid in the present constitutional dispensation in South Africa. Less than 50 metres from this House there are members of the Coloured community discussing and debating matters pertinent to them. The average hon members of this House does not know more about what is going on there than he does about what is going on in the British Parliament. The people in that House are fellow-South Africans who ought to be sitting here and ought to have an opportunity to enter into discussions with us so that we can communicate and so that we can reach a better understanding. They are 50 metres from here, and as far as communication, understanding and co-operation are concerned, they could just as well be on the moon. That aspect of apartheid will also have to go.

I want to put it very clearly to the State President that if we in South Africa wanted to get rid of all apartheid, once and for all, we could all come to the negotiating table and negotiate a new constitutional future for this country. [Interjections.]

The State President mentioned the Van der Walt Report, and I just want to make a few brief points in connection with that report. We greatly appreciate the report. It is a fact—whether the Government wants to acknowledge it or not—that every finding and recommendation contained in that report accords with what the PFP has been telling South Africa for 30 years now about the circumstances in the Black areas of the country. [Interjections.] It attests to a lack of communication and to ignorance on the part of the officials and legislators when it comes to the interests, aspirations and fears of these people. It attests to false points of departure being employed when decisions are taken. It also attests to an enormous lack of sensitivity. I hope the Government will give urgent attention to that report.

We in South Africa, however, must also be grateful for the fact that such an investigation can still be carried out in this country, and we must also be thankful that such a report, despite its fierce criticism of the Government, could still appear in South Africa. I think our many enemies would do well to take note of this proof of the democratic setup that still pertains in South Africa.

The NP cannot understand why their reform endeavours are not crowned with success. Why is there so much violence? Why the continual overseas pressure on South Africa and foreign intervention in our affairs? The Government frequently asks why no one believes what the Government says any more and why no one trusts the Government any longer. I just want to put forward a few ideas for the Government to consider. Firstly one must acknowledge one’s guilt fully, once and for all, before one can embark on reform. The Government must be prepared to say: “Look, we accept that it was wrong and we are sorry for all the grief, suffering and misery we caused. We apologise and are going to make amends in the following way.” If a man has sinned he must first confess to his wife and ask forgiveness. Then he must make amends, and then perhaps things will come right. [Interjections.] That is a very important aspect, and the Government has not yet done so. I could teach the Government a thing or two about this.

Secondly it is a question of attitude. [Interjections.] It is no use being apathetic when tackling reform, or grudging or clumsy. The Government must make a concerted effort and take positive steps. It was in 1976 that Dr Piet Koornhof said, at Palm Springs, that apartheid was dead. At that time the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs also said it in the UN. [Interjections.] The State President also said it last year in August and this year in January. If there are so many announcements about the death of apartheid, but it nevertheless continues to pop up all over the place, one loses confidence about the apartheid system really being dead. [Interjections.] One hears, does one not, that the more the Government does with a view to bringing about reform, the less it helps— “nobody notices, and nobody cares.”

The most serious aspect of this is that the Government has let the idea take root amongst the Blacks that it would only bring about reform if it were forced to do so owing to violence. The Black people are not to blame for that; it is the Government itself which allowed that idea to take root in the minds of the Black people of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should just like to react to two points made by the hon member for Bryanston. Apparently he did not understand when the State President spoke to us here a mere ten minutes ago. The State President took an entire hour and a half to explain certain aspects. Apparently the hon member for Bryanston had a prepared speech which he had to make here.

In the second place I do not think that the Government has done anything it needs to apologise for or confess to. The Government has established a great deal which this country would not have had if the NP had not been in power. I think we must thank the State President for this.

I want to talk about something else which is a eliciting a great deal of criticism in South Africa, but the State President must get the credit for what is happening in South Africa in this connection, namely privatisation and deregulation. These are two concepts which are mentioned fairly frequently since the State President said that these were things which this country had to start considering at this stage in its development. But I gain the impression that the people are running away with this idea of the State President. What is needed now, and what I am advocating, is a balanced standpoint on privatisation and deregulation. I shall quote from various sources to indicate how people in different quarters are running away with these two ideas. The first quote comes from the Financial Mail of 29 March 1985, and it reads as follows:

At more or less the same time Die Afrikaner addressed this matter, under the caption “Privatisering ’n modegier?” In this article the following was said:

This report is a tragic example of journalism. This country was not only built up by the Afrikaners. Three or four days ago the hon the Minister of Finance made a long speech to indicate that everyone contributed to the building up of this country. These people talk only about the Afrikaner, after the State President suggested to us that we should also be a privatisation in mind for everyone. I do not think we should debate this further, but should rather reject it with contempt. All population groups in South Africa have contributed to the prosperity and to everything we have established in this country. Consequently these two reports reflect two divergent, even contradictory viewpoints of the same subject. But let us look at the facts.

Who has done more to make privatisation and deregulation a talking point than the present State President. The idea for this first took hold when the State President held the Carlton conference. The President said that the Government could not continue governing in this way as far as certain regulations and certain duties of the State were concerned. The idea of looking into this matter, was born at the Carlton conference. The State President said that we must be careful and not run away with this idea. The most important principle which resulted from that Carlton conference was that it should borne in mind that privatisation and deregulation were not two magic words which would solve all inequalities or problems in the national economy of the RSA overnight. We must bear this in mind when we talk about and discuss these two concepts.

At the Carlton conference the State President said that he supported the fundamental principles of the protection and, as far as possible, the promotion of the system of private enterprise. In his speech at that conference the State President indicated why he wanted us to talk about that. In September 1985 the State President announced that he was appointing a Cabinet Committee. I shall explain in a moment why I agree that it is essential that we consider this difficult subject calmly. The State President took the matter further and appointed an exceptional man, Dr Wim de Villiers, to assist this Cabinet Committee as an advisor on this problem.

I want to commend the State President that we are not trying to solve a difficult matter overnight but that, in the first place, we are debating it in the correct manner and that we shall also continue to implement it in the correct manner.

The most important fact we must remember in this connection is that we admit—and I support the State President’s efforts in this connection—that we must continue to investigate what can be privatised and what can be deregulated. There are many advantages in this. The State President spelt this out. One of the advantages which the State President has mentioned and which I should like to quote here, is that difficult matters which are now politicised can be depoliticised if we take them away from the State and place them in other “hands”.

I should also like to make the point that the successful handling of privatisation will depend mainly on positive attitudes regarding the advantages this can have for the individual. Without this the idea is stillborn. In the main we must remember here that misunderstandings and misconceptions exist regarding this subject. We must also consider it from that viewpoint.

An important aspect I want to mention here, which is very frequently quoted as the reason why the Government cannot move fast enough, is the concept of own interest. I do not think we should apologise for this. Own interest plays an important role in these possible services.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There is not a quorum present in the Committee. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I proceed?

Just a moment.

Mr Chairman, there are 50 hon members in the Committee. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

It is essential for clear guidelines to be drawn up on the total concept of privatisation. In particular I want to advocate here that the successes of privatisation will depend on the guidelines we use to do this. The guidelines, only a few of which I shall mention here, should be as follows, for example:

In the first place we must not replace a public monopoly with a private monopoly. This will not solve the problems. In the second place, the location of privatised undertakings must be as wide-spread as possible and the shares in them must be distributed among the population as widely as possible so that one does not have a concentration of these shares in the hands of one man or one group that already has a great deal of economic power. The second aspect which is linked to this is that participation by the community in the economy affords us an opportunity to persuade people who may be susceptible to the philosophies of destructive revolution.

The third point I want to quote is that the concept of privatisation will have to be tested and measured against strategic supplies and security interests. In addition the process of privatisation will also have to be evaluated on the basis of future costs and tariffs for the community in its totality. It would be a big mistake not to take cognisance of the fact that certain cases will crop us where privatisation will result in certain social costs for the community.

Today I want to make a friendly appeal to the State President—if he sees fit—to publish a White Paper in which the Government spells out the guidelines for privatisation in the first place and the general objectives in the second. In my opinion such a White Paper would have two basic advantages.

The first advantage is that it will afford everyone the opportunity to know precisely what the Government’s objectives are. Such a White Paper will afford everyone the opportunity to say precisely what is meant under what circumstances the Government would like to privatise. The second advantage is that it will contribute to the orderly discussion of privatisation.

As far as deregulation is concerned, I do not think we need say much. At present there is legislation before this Parliament which we are going to debate one of these days, and then we can go into this in detail. This will make deregulation possible and under certain conditions and subject to certain investigations and certain consultations by the State President, it will be possible to eliminate contradictions and delete regulatory legislation which is no longer necessary. I have indicated and want to support the State President that privatisation is not an end in itself; it is merely a means which can be used in the struggle for a sound and balanced relationship between private undertakings on the one hand and the State administration on the other. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Primrose must please excuse me; I am not going to react to his speech.

On receiving the latest issue of Die Nasionalis, I found it exceptionally interesting to see the banner headline: “Waarheen Suid-Afrika?” It reminded me of what an NP friend of mine said when I asked him where the NP was taking South Africa. His reply was significant: “Heunis alone knows!” [Interjections.]

In this debate we have had a few interesting speeches. I want to refer to the speech of a venerable member of this House, the hon member Mr Van Staden. He told us that prior to 1984 he and the present State President both served on a committee under the chairmanship of Mr Paul Sauer, a committee in which the word apartheid had its origins. The hon member Mr Van Staden told us that the word that was coined at that time was not coined in order to give expression to a policy. According to him it was more of a slogan. He said apartheid was not a policy. Let me tell the hon member that if that was so—and I doubt it—we as the young Nationalists were shamefully misled by the NP! [Interjections.] I refuse to accept that.

That reminds me that as a young Nationalist, after the 1948 election, when the late Mr Hofmeyr came to live very near to our hostel, I joined a few other young people in accepting his invitation to discuss our view of the future of South Africa with him. One evening he told me: “My boy, if you could convince me that your leaders saw apartheid as you do, I would join you tomorrow!”

In the light of what the hon member Mr Van Staden said, I must now conclude that the late Mr Hofmeyr was correct. We in the CP are today being accused of being small-minded, of being racialists and of adopting a begrudging attitude towards others.

But that is true!

What is our standpoint? It is nothing short of the traditional NP standpoint. [Interjections.] It is nothing but a search for a solution to the problems of South Africa on the basis of separate freedoms. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, all that yapping will not silence me! [Interjections.]

What is the NP doing today? It is systematically destroying—one after the other—the separate structures that the NP brought into being. [Interjections.]

The State President told us to get rid of our laager mentality; we should supposedly relinquish it. That could possibly be good advice. It is necessary, from time to time, to move out of the laager. I am afraid, however, that today the NP has thrown wide the laager gates—to allow the enemies of my people to comes in too. [Interjections.]

The NP is dismantling the separate structures, both political and social, which have been the foundation stones of the political dispensation that has applied until recently. They are today being dismantled, without the NP giving us any indication of what we, and particularly they, have to face the future with. We are told that the standpoint is now one of negotiation. What is the new State President’s statutory council—when it comes into force—but a permanently sanctioned mini-national convention? What else is it? The very least that I expect of a governing party under the leader of the country is to tell us what cards the NP will be holding when it goes to that convention.

You will be coming along with a joker! [Interjections.]

We do not, however, get that answer from the NP. We expect a party in power to govern. I am sorry to say that it has recently become increasingly clear that we are not dealing with a government which is governing, but with one which is merely reacting. [Interjections.]

The State President’s announcement about Natal this afternoon is an important one. It is perhaps one of the most important announcements made in recent times. What is it if not a reaction? What is it but a reaction to an experiment which the NRP of Natal want to carry out in conjunction with kwaZulu? [Interjections.] In principle the Government, the Cabinet, has now accepted Natal’s proposal for a joint multiracial executive authority for that part of our country. In principle a multiracial legislative authority for that part of the country has been accepted. The State President made the announcement this afternoon. [Interjections.] What is more, the State President also announced that this was going to be extended to other parts of the country. Deny that! Is that not, in essence, what the State President said in his announcement today? [Interjections.] Then let me ask where the NP’s mandate is for embarking on such a project? Does the NP have a mandate from the NP electorate of Natal to do that? Does the NP have that mandate? The answer to this is no. It is no. [Interjections.]

I want to state, with all the conviction at my command, that we shall fight the NP to the bitter end on the course it has now adopted. [Interjections.] We are accused of having split Afrikanerdom.

Yes!

The hon member for Winburg says yes. Who is it who turned their backs on the traditional standpoints of the NP? [Interjections.] Who are the people who stand up in this House today—one after the other—to confess and apologise for the sins of apartheid? Are we doing so, or is it the hon members of the NP who are doing so?

We have nothing to apologise for.

Are we the ones who stand up here now and confess that apartheid has failed, or is it the hon members of the NP who are doing so? Are we the ones who are saying apartheid has been a failure? [Interjections.]

I now want to come back to the hon member Mr Van Staden who told us yesterday that apartheid was dead. We have, however, been listening to the State President this afternoon. We should now like to have matters clarified, because here in the House hon members are telling us apartheid is dead. When one gets to the Free State, however, the people there tell one that is not true, that is only the outdated concept of apartheid that it is dead. If I understood the State President correctly this afternoon—if I am wrong, he must please correct me—he left us with the impression that his view was not that apartheid was dead, but that it was the outdated concept of apartheid that was dead. We should like some clarification of this issue, Sir. We should like some clarification indicating whether it is either the one or the other. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton will, I trust, be here in the Chamber for a little while yet. I shall be getting around to him in a moment.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to participate in the discussion of the Vote of the State President of our country. It would be a privilege for anyone in this House. It is a privilege to be able to be even a small part of what, in these difficult times, is instrumental in governing this country.

When we had the tranquil years in politics, and the road was one without any steep inclines, we sat around our congress fires with the members of the Conservative Party—all those hon members who are now sitting there. The hon member for Barberton was also there with us. We sat around our congress fires with our lofty words and our lofty ideals. We who sat there were a serious bunch. We also prayed as we sat there. We prayed: “May things go very well with our country in the future, in the important decisions we must take.” I am quoting from a 1981 congress motion in Pretoria. It was a motion addressed to the then Prime Minister—now of course the State President—and the last point read as follows:

Which was the forerunner in the development process—

And now hon members must listen carefully:

Here mention is made of a realistic political dispensation. Mr Chairman, surely realism has to do with realities. After all, that is what the word means. The hon member for Rissik said earlier the State President was losing sight of realities. The State President is specifically in the very midst of these realities. Let me quote further from the aforementioned motion:

Mr Chairman, now we come—at least I think so—to a very fine piece:

Such as exemplary unification of peoples must be created, not for the good of a specific group, but for the good of everyone in this country. Amongst those who moved that motion there is the name of the divisional organiser of the hon member for Barberton’s constituency right at the top. Precisely what they envisaged there is the very goal to which our idealism and our realism are leading us. [Interjections.]

When we were sitting round those congress fires, all was well. They were then with us. Then, however, we were given a job to do. We all had to get up from the fire and get to work. And that was specifically when things started happening. It was in November 1981 that we were given the job to do. In February 1982, however, we saw a group of them get up and walk away. They walked out, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] They walked out! When we were given the job to do, they walked out. Mr Chairman, that reminds me of a little story that my late father-in-law once told me. He was, in fact, a reliable gentleman.

In the Anglo-Boer War my father-in-law was a young cub. Somewhere in Gen De la Rey’s part of the world—on the Transvaal Highveld—so he said, he was sitting on the stoep listening to the adults talking about the strategy they would adopt. That was just after the news that war had broken out. This led to a serious discussion amongst the older men. And there were, in fact, a few of them who said: “Let us start shooting right away. Let us go right out and start shooting.” A small group, however, said: “No, wait a minute. Wait until we get the command from our field cornet.” Then came the orders to go on commando. Those who were prepared to go right out and start shooting then sat down in the ditches singing “Die Heer sal opstaan tot die stryd.”

Mr Chairman, those hon CP members were with us round our congress fires. All very nice, yes! And when they had eaten enough, had satisfied their hunger, they stood up, groaned a few times and walked away. They then went off, leaving the work for others to do. [Interjections.] That is what happened there, Mr Chairman. Then one of those hon members comes along and tells us we do not know what the realities are.

Yesterday the hon member for Sasolburg said—I do just want to mention it in passing—that amongst other things the Government had no mandate to involve Blacks in a discussion in the forum in regard to which the State President extended an invitation— whether the discussions concerned Governmental structures or the problems of Blacks! Now I just want to refer hon members of the CP to the document that the hon member for Vryburg made available to every voter in the Vryburg constituency in the by-election. According to this document the voters had to decide whether, in the context of present-day realities, they would vote for the NP or not. As I have said, the document was sent to every voter and the voters could decide. In one of the paragraphs there was the following:

I want to repeat the last sentence:

“Van elke bevolkingsgroep” was what that hon member said; and today he is sitting in this House. He was, amongst other things, elected on the basis of this data, and amongst other things this data embodies the fact that Blacks would also be given the right to have a say. [Interjections.]

When the task was set, those hon members packed their bags and left. Let me quote another example. With the by-election in Potgietersrus the hon member for Lichtenburg and I held a personal discussion. I am sorry the hon member is not here, because he would be able to confirm this since one of his lieutenants had a hidden microphone in his pocket and taped the discussion. [Interjections.] The two of us held a discussion, he with his small group of supporters and I with my supporters. He said the following: “I knew the day would come when we would be faced with the problem of deciding about the Coloureds and the Asians. I knew that day would come, and on that day I shall decide”.

As I said, the hon member sat round the NP fire, he attended the congresses and was a member of the Cabinet, but he knew the day would come when he would have to pack his bags and leave. [Interjections.]

Together with the problems of the realities we have struggled with, the Government encountered circumstances which affected our country as a whole and over which we did not have much control. The hon member for Barberton is aware of that. I am referring, for example, to the drought and its alarming consequences, which have made demands on the Government. We did not have any control over that. Then there was also the levelling off in the world economy, which knocked our economy flat, thereby giving rise to unemployment. In conjunction with that, the rest of the world unleashed its venom against us in the form of boycotts, disinvestment, sanctions and so forth. Then there was also the South West Africa question that we could not solve, not because of our unwillingness to do so. After all, South West Africa is a heavy burden on our Exchequer. What is more, we had internal problems. We saw the unrest situation unleash itself.

Experts tell us that the potential for unrest in our country, the potential for revolutionary insurrection, is contained within the very ethnic and racial fabric of countries such as ours. That is what the experts say!

The experts also say—we trust that the great leader of the West, America, will realise this—that revolutionary warfare, when fully realised, has the same destructive consequences as a nuclear war.

We now have to struggle with those problems. The Government must face those problems, those realities, as the hon member for Rissik requested. Now our Government is saddled with two major problems. The first is the unwillingness of our own people to co-operate; or to put it differently, our own people’s over-eagerness when it comes to living vibrant, prosperous lives, as if this were a land of plenty. Is that not true? Parents complain of hard times, but when one goes to pick up one’s children one cannot find a parking spot on the university campuses. Our people’s unwillingness to make sacrifices at this time is therefore problematic.

Our second major problem lies in our prejudices, the prejudices of the Whites about the Blacks. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I can only agree with one statement made by the hon member for Barberton and that was that the State President made an important announcement this afternoon when he announced the acceptance of the proposals for a Joint Executive Authority between Natal and kwaZulu. I believe the importance of that far transcends the content of the agreement itself and its operation. What it has proved is that the initiative which this party embarked upon to negotiate with the kwaZulu government has proved that it is possible to meet around a table and, starting from widely divergent starting points and attitudes, to negotiate to a point of agreement which now has been accepted and will become part of the constitutional machinery of South Africa. In the same way as we negotiated with the Coloured and Indian communities’ elected representatives in 1978 and achieved the first ever signed constitutional agreement between race groups for third tier government, we have now achieved the same at second tier government level.

The indaba which is now in progress is not another parliament or a secession movement; it is to seek agreement on a way to implement by way of ordinance, after the provincial councils have disappeared, the necessary authority to put into ordinance form the necessary rules and regulations— loosely called legislation—to enable the Joint Executive Authority to administer those matters falling under its control. I believe this too is an important exercise proving that it is possible, if the goodwill is there and the mutual trust is there, for different race groups to come together and to find agreement by debate and negotiation.

The State President spoke of time. He referred to the people who spoke of its being five minutes to twelve. I too get irritated by the people who are perpetually saying it is one minute to midnight. However, we cannot ignore time because, each month and each year that goes by, the price of peace, harmony and agreement gets higher and higher. In 1978 we agreed with the Coloured and Indian communities on a local government system based on groups working together through group local authorities. In 1986 that is totally unacceptable and we have lost eight years of experience in working together at third tier. We have now achieved it at second tier but we must make progress. It is not a question of being one minute to midnight; it is a question of the ability to find agreement becoming ever more difficult because each month, each year that the unrest goes on, that there is conflict and confrontation and people are teargassed or shot in order to maintain order—and I accept that; I have committed this party to firm action to restore law and order—people are further alienated and it becomes more difficult to find the solutions which bring them back into the fold of democratic and responsible coexistence in a common system in one country.

That is why time is important and that was why I emphasised it in my first speech on this Vote. Time is the measure of the price of finding solutions, and I think we have to bear that in mind.

I welcome too the announcement that the Group Areas Act is not a holy cow. Once again I believe—we said it in the debate earlier this week and it was repudiated—that the answer is one of local option.

My time has run out. I would like to have dealt with the question of those who hide their motives behind religious masks. I want to say how angry and disgusted we feel in regard to churchmen who use their positions in the church to become political activists to the detriment of South Africa and to the detriment of agreement and peace among our peoples and in conflict with their calling as men of God.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point must pardon me for not reacting to his speech.

The NP’s reform process started when it took office in 1948. The NP’s first responsibility was to the White population of South Africa because the old United Party was not able to lift the White man out of the deleterious consequences of the Second World War. The Whites of South Africa were fragmented in various ways. The Whites, especially the Afrikaners, were divided on social, economic and various other issues. That is why it was, as the State President said, that ex-servicemen helped put the NP into office.

The NP came into office on the so-called “apartheid policy” to which various speakers have referred. There are specific concepts associated with the word “apartheid” and in the case of the National Party Government, it is associated with a particular form of government.

Many people, especially the left wing, want us to confess the sins of apartheid. In my opinion it is not necessary, for why must we today confess as being sinful, a form of government with which we have governed successfully and which was a means to an end and was not a means of suppressing people? The object of this system was to uplift the Whites in the various spheres in which they were fragmented, binding them again into a greater cohesiveness.

The success with the Whites which we attained with this system soon overflowed to other population groups so that very soon we were able to implement point four of our Programme of Principles, namely “the fair and equal treatment of all parts of South Africa”. One of the greatest landmarks along the way was the establishment of a Republic.

The reason for the successes of the NP Government was its correct timing and political intuition. These things could only be done with the majority support of the Whites of South Africa. The NP is not moving away from its power base, namely the White voters of South Africa.

The hon member for Rissik said that the State President had no plans, but the NP operates in quite another way. The State President discusses his plans with his power base, as he is now going to do at the federal congress and at the subsequent provincial congresses. He does not behave like the hon member for Rissik, who sits and makes his own plans in Parliament. I want to warn him against that.

There is a very good tale about a dung-beetle and an apple that were floating down a drainage ditch. While they were floating along in this way the dung-beetle tried to strike up a conversation with the apple. The apple replied: “No, man, I am not going to speak to you; you do inferior work and the things you roll along ahead of you do not concern me.” [Interjections.] They were still floating along when a young farm worker passed by and saw the beautiful apple. He picked it out of the water and wiped it dry on his trousers. While he was taking a bite out of the apple, the dung-beetle shouted to the apple: “So long, pal; I’ll be seeing you tomorrow!” [Interjections.]

We saw this proof of support by the power base of the NP in the successes we achieved in the establishment of a Republic and the new dispensation.

Now the Whites at last found themselves in a position in which they were able to reform the other population groups in South Africa as well, not only in order to comply with their reasonable demands, but also because we had arrived at a point at which 4,5 million Whites could no longer accept full responsibility for all the people in this country. In the meantime other population groups had also attained greater political maturity.

What is the attitude of the opposition parties, especially the CP? In the debates so far they have delved into history and quoted from tattered Hansards. To what purpose? Hon members want to explain who said what and when, but we can confront the CP for hours on end with what they said before they walked out of the NP, and with the obvious standpoints which they still adopt.

Go ahead and do it!

What do we prove by doing that? We prove that nobody can correctly predict the future. If someone were able to predict it correctly, he would not receive any credit for it either because no one has ever referred to the past 20 years during which the State President warned our people about a total onslaught on South Africa, which has now become a reality.

Everyone makes mistakes in their predictions, if only we were honest enough to admit it. But the CP only wants the NP Government and the State President to admit it; they themselves do not want to make any admission about mistakes they have made in their statements.

If we have made mistakes, surely we cannot adhere to a rigid policy and try to implement such incorrect statements at the expense of the safe survival of our country.

Was apartheid a mistake?

That is the difference between the NP and the CP. The NP tries to implement incorrect statements correctly but the CP tries to implement incorrectly the correct decisions which they made with us. The CP advocates a policy which cannot be implemented, in which they themselves do not believe. The policy sounds popular and is emotionally charged with the object of seeing whether they cannot become Official Opposition and then eventually take over the government of this country. [Interjections.] If they were to take over the Government, they would be confronted with the real facts of South Africa.

You are losing against the real facts.

Then they would have to walk the same path as the NP. If they believe that they would be able to implement their policy, we know that it would cause chaos internally and would terminate our relations with the outside world.

I am sorry the hon member for Sasolburg is not here today. HNP politics are no longer relevant. Their absence of 16 years from this Parliament have left them in the dark politically. In our present circumstances the HNP is nothing but a glorified cultural organisation. The hon member for Sasolburg would do extremely well if he were instead to traipse around the countryside addressing folk festivals.

I should just like to say a few words about housing in South Africa and especially labourers’ housing. Firstly we should like to express our thanks to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works for the investigation which he caused to be instituted into housing needs. We want to bring housing within reach of everyone in South Africa and we shall have to dispense with conventional building methods. We do not want to create inferior housing in this country but we shall have to come up with simpler and cheaper constructions. Local authorities will have to be standardised in this regard so that the housing need can be alleviated.

Our farmers come in for a lot of criticism today as far as labourers’ housing is concerned. There is one difference, though. Agriculture has to provide its own housing while workers in the service of trade and industry live in the housing provided in towns and cities. In agriculture we have 1,3 million workers—together with their families they comprise 5 million—for whom accommodation has to be provided. All we ask is that the amount of R10 million, which has been made available for schemes introduced by the department, be increased in order to help us to provide housing.

The farmers also want to make a contribution to the reform process in South Africa because reform is not merely political. The NP wants to accept the problems of South Africa as a challenge and under the leadership of the State President, who is a God-fearing person, the NP is on its way to the greatest moments in its existence.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Gordonia will pardon me if I do not react to what he said. I shall, however, be touching on some of the points he made.

It is a pity that one does not have enough time to react adequately to the truly interesting speech made by the State President. Allow me, however, to come back to one or two points in it before I bring certain other matters to the attention of the State President. Like the hon member for Bryanston, I should like to express my appreciation for the Government’s decision to introduce a moratorium on prosecutions in terms of the influx control measures. I trust that this also includes the provision of the curfew regulations, because these are just as important as those which fall under influx control.

I am also grateful that the State President intimated here that to him the Groups Areas Act is not a sacred cow. That opens the door to further deliberation and negotiation, and for a more realistic assessment of that legislation.

May I interrupt the hon member and tell him that I did say as well that the principles of own residential areas and community lifestyles were not going to be affected.

Right. I want to tell the State President that if he can get away from this compulsive element and can negotiate on how we can attain those things which he prescribed without the compulsion of race and colour being added to it, then we can really make progress. I think the possibilities do exist that one could come to some agreement or other in this regard. I do not think, however, that the State President realises the extent of the resentment that the Groups Areas Act has caused among the non-White people affected by it. With this I should like to tell the State President that the difficulty with the Act lies therein that it goes far beyond occupation and property ownership in the usual sense of the word. Here, before me, I have Proclamation No 17 of 1986, which was issued in February this year. It replaces Proclamation 228 of 1973. This Proclamation refers to the prohibition of occupation in respect of:

Then this proclamation was issued by the State President, the co-signatory being the hon the Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning.

I should just like to ask, but good heavens, I thought that if we were going to move away from apartheid, there would be no room in our society for this kind of proclamation …

I signed the proclamation, but do you know what it means?

Pardon?

Have you read it?

Yes! Yes!

What does it mean?

It simply means that the restrictions under the Group Areas Act of all those proclamations relating to licensed premises in particular can still be maintained.

It is a substitution. That is all. [Interjections.]

That is correct.

It is still apartheid.

That is correct. That is all it is. The hon the Minister can come back to this point when we discuss his Vote.

A third point I want to touch on is a matter to which the State President referred, namely the national convention and the status quo. Apparently the State President does not understand the PFP policy. That alliance we tried to form was not a national convention. Our policy makes it very clear that only the government in power can convene a national convention because that government has to implement the recommendations of the national convention.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

I have only ten minutes, but the hon the Minister is free to ask a question.

I shall be quick, Mr Chairman. I should just like to know from the hon member whether it is true that his party’s standpoint is that should they come to power, the status quo would remain until the national convention has provided them, who then will be in power, with the answers to the problems?

Mr Chairman, our policy is very clear. The Parliament continues to function. In that sense the status quo remains.

Unchanged?

Look, the changes brought about by Parliament while the national convention is in progress is something for Parliament to decide.

Oh!

No, let me make it quite clear, Mr Chairman. We have always said that there is only one body that can constitutionally give us another constitution and that is this Parliament. I should like to make that quite clear.

You did the same thing!

I am sorry I cannot explain any further but it is a question of my time being limited.

The problem with the apartheid policy—I listened very carefully to the State President—is something which the State President is unable to realise, and that is that apartheid today is incorporated into the Constitution itself. It is embedded in the Constitution with its racially-structured composition and its concept of own affairs. We can argue as much as we like, but this Constitution is today the incorporation of the apartheid policy. In order to be rid of apartheid, it is quite correct that we must have another constitution. I realise that the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning have said that we are going to get a new constitution but in order to make that new constitution more acceptable, I believe that it shall have to be established on a different foundation to the present one.

The State President spoke about the situation in Natal. I am thankful that the willingness exists to recognise an executive authority for Natal. What is being envisaged with this Indaba, however, is the creation of a joint legislative institution for the province. In that regard the State President’s argument does not convince me. His argument does not convince me when he tries to explain why the transformation of system of provincial councils into another system cannot be delayed, at least as far as Natal is concerned, and why we cannot wait until the Indaba has completed its task.

I should also like to make an appeal to the State President, because he is the only one that can do it, to reconsider his decision concerning the people of Moutse for the sake of the principles and the premises which the State President himself laid down.

The State President referred to the matter of the Van der Walt Report. The Van der Walt Report has been tabled and in that sense it is no longer merely the possession of the Government. The report of the Van der Walt Commission is now public property. It is also the possession of this Opposition, and the Opposition would be shirking its duty if it did not deal with that report and if it did not point out to the Government that the findings of Prof Van der Walt have been paralleled many times by previous commissions of enquiry. Since 1948 one commission after the other has pointed out the mistakes that have been made in the policy which has been applied to Blacks. The problem is that if the Government now says that it is going to take the Van der Walt Report seriously and implement it we would be grateful. However, I have here a list of 18 or 19 commissions of enquiry into the unrest in Black communities whose reports have been tabled in Parliament. One of the latest ones was the Cillié Report of 1976. The harsh fact of the matter is this: Those reports have shown us time and again where policy premises and administrative actions were wrong and time and again the Government has failed to implement those recommendations. That is the point which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised here, namely that that report should have been implemented long ago.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier referred to what the State President had said about the Group Areas Act not being a sacred cow, and that no Act was a sacred cow. What he did not say, however, was that the State President also said that an own community life and own residential areas still remained the policy of the NP.

I should like to turn now to another discussion, namely to what the hon member for Pietersburg inferred during the Budget debate last Friday when he said that we were unable to orientate ourselves in terms of an own fatherland. He said that the desire did not exist on this side of the House to have or enjoy an own fatherland. The hon member for Koedoespoort also referred to this in his speech yesterday. We must take cognisance of this emotional statement by the hon member for Pietersburg, which was followed up by the hon member for Koedoespoort. I assume that it is also the standpoint of the CP.

They asked whether we did not want an own fatherland. But surely we do have our own fatherland. [Interjections.] We are not looking for a fatherland. We have a fatherland. Surely we have South Africa. The soil of South Africa is surely our fatherland. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House— the NP—are proud of South Africa; we are proud of our fatherland.

It is very clear to me that the CP is still looking for a fatherland. It seems to me they want to renounce South Africa as a fatherland, or have already renounced it. We are not looking for a fatherland. The NP is not looking for a fatherland. We have South Africa, and we are proud and grateful for such a fatherland.

The CP doubts the existence of a fatherland. We possess that fatherland. [Interjections.] We do not doubt the existence of our fatherland. The only conclusion I can draw from what the hon member for Pietersburg said is that he does not like his fatherland. It seems to me the hon member and his colleagues have a deep aversion for our fatherland. Something about our fatherland—the fatherland of us all—upsets him. It makes him feel insecure and unwelcome; it scares him. It fills them with a great fear! I get the feeling they would like to create another fatherland, a fatherland far removed from today’s fatherland. [Interjections.]

We in the NP do not argue about our fatherland, but I know why they want another fatherland. They have become afraid of their own fatherland. They have become afraid of being in South Africa because they have discovered that there are also people other than Whites in South Africa; that there are other groups in South Africa who say that South Africa is also their fatherland, and that is what they have become afraid of. It was a total disillusionment for them that other groups could claim South Africa as their fatherland as well. Surely it was that discovery that led to the establishment of the CP and the HNP; the only difference was that the HNP discovered it 10 or 12 years before the CP did. The discovery of being together, playing sport together and existing and deciding together was suddenly too great for them—so great that they broke away and ran away from the NP. [Interjections.]

For them the White man is the absolute master, the sole ruler in South Africa. I am telling them that they are erring; it is a crazy idea, a chimera they are conjuring up for themselves. Out of this chimera they want to create a White Afrikaner national state, a White homeland in which they want to isolate themselves and continue their existence in that way. They want to be in another fatherland.

In this House I represent Whites who have by means of a democratic process decided that I should act as their NP representative. Those Whites—Afrikaans—as well as English-speakers—who have elected us to this House definitely have certain expectations of us, and quite rightly so. They can demand that we protect their rights and look after their interests in this House. The White person who elected me to this House did not vote for me to enhance his position as a White so that he could, with an attitude of self-glorification, like a self-made angel with a halo, be given an unfair advantage over others. The White, ie the kind of Afrikaner I am acquainted with, does not want to be the kind of self-glorified monster that the CP, the HNP and the AWB want to make of him. I repeat that there are also people other than Whites in South Africa.

I should like to refer hon members to events which occurred during the by-election in Springs last year. The respective parties agreed that they would take turns in serving the officials who were on duty there with refreshments such as coffee and meals. It was the CP’s turn to serve early morning coffee to the officials. Two of our ladies then came to me and said that the CP had served coffee that morning, but only to the White policemen who were on duty there—not to the Black policemen as well. I immediately told them that they should give those Black policemen coffee as well. But what happened when our ladies walked out to give the policemen who were on duty at the civic centre some coffee? They were booed by the hon members of the CP who were on all-day there. The ladies who served them with refreshments were booed. [Interjections.] It is a total indictment against us as Whites if we behave in such a way in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

They are presenting an image of the Afrikaner to the world which is taking on a frightening form. It is an image of autocratic rule and government; an image of everything for me and nothing for the others in South Africa. It is an image of seeking ascendancy over others and trampling them underfoot.

I do not want to be part of this self-glorified super and superior Afrikaner. The White person, and specifically the kind of Afrikaner that I am acquainted with and from whom I descend, accepts that he has a certain acquired position in South Africa. Surely he does not merely happen to be here. Surely it is his fatherland as well; a fatherland in which he has played and is still playing a significant role.

In future, under the leadership of the State President, the contribution of these Whites will continue to be significant and meaningful. Under the leadership of the State President we are not going to isolate ourselves in a kraal. We as Whites—as Afrikaans—and English-speakers in this country—wish to and will continue to make future contribution in order to create a new and more beautiful fatherland in South Africa; a South Africa which will be our fatherland now and in time to come.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to ask the State President to give attention to something that is very important to me, and in particular, in my opinion, to South Africa. It concerns foreign debt. We all know the story about the moratorium’s being imposed. Something that is even more important is that it was reported that Leutwiler had said—after returning from his first visit—that South Africa’s aircraft would be seized if we did not pay our foreign debt.

Naturally that is a serious matter, but what is very serious is that the hon the Minister of Finance purportedly wrote a letter, about which I should like to read a report from a magazine I have here in front of me:

This is a very serious matter. This article appeared in Business Day of the 15th. Now I ask the State President whether the Cabinet takes such decisions. Is the Cabinet, in which there are lawyers too, aware of the implication of this decision? I cannot believe that this matter came before the Cabinet We have to deal with a whole number of matters in the State President’s Vote today. The State President is correct when he says one should not raise petty matters. That is why I shall not reply to the hon member for Gezina.

The important question is what happened in history, and how difficult it is for a person who is still involved in the process of history, to look at it objectively. That is why I shall rather refer now to the occurrences of 1960, when Die Burger argued incessantly that South Africa was then ready to involve the Coloureds in its political system. At that stage, according to this writer, it was actually Die Burger, rather than the politician, which was waging the struggle. The heading reads:

The book I am going to quote from is titled The Press as Opposition and was written by Elaine Potter. She is one of the greatest experts regarding opposition, newspapers, and also South Africa’s politics. In her book she writes:

This was in 1960, and many of the people who were involved are still here today. Dr Verwoerd then replied in Die Tranvaler— also in 1960, but on 24 November, I quote from the book once again:

Let us speak about 1986.

The hon member Dr Vilonel is correct. We are in 1986. Dr Verwoerd should not be quoted then, however, as allegedly having wanted Coloureds in this Parliament. [Interjections.] That should not be done.

The State President made a fine speech today. I sympathise with him, since there is so much that he has to hear in respect of the problems of this country, that he cannot always evaluate the commentary. He rightly said…

When did I say that?

No, that is what I am saying. I say the State President cannot always evaluate the commentary on the problems, since there is too much commentary at present.

As far as one aspect is concerned, the State President has indeed proclaimed the truth. He said God chooses the time He wants to do something. We must also know God is the One who knows what is truth and what is not. The NP can tell all the tales about the recent period, but God knows what happened in the caucus that day. The hon members can refer to Die Burger or TV, but the NP knows that one day God will be the judge and that all of us—no matter who we are—will have to answer on that day for what we have wrongly proclaimed to the people in the public at large about the caucus meeting. I ask today whether it is the CP members who left the NP. [Interjections.] The hon members must wait a bit. They must examine their own consciences, analyse themselves and go down on bended knees tonight.

Will you return to the NP tomorrow?

No, never in his whole life has S P Barnard yearned for something when he had finally decided it was wrong. The State President said along with Gander: “Adapt or die”. He became a student of Gander, who later had to pay R150 because he said:

The hon State President must read this book, and see where the NP is heading. He must remember that General Cronjé’s obstinacy was the reason for his letting a laager of women and children go under. He must consider that at this time, while he knows it is wrong, it is because of obstinacy that he does not intend to return to the old ways.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the speech made by the hon member for Langlaagte, I want to begin by making an admission and an apology. When we back-benchers came to this House five years ago, the hon member was still one of us. At that time I could understand something of what he said now and again. I have to admit now that I did not understand a thing he said today, and I apologise for being so stupid. I tried to make notes so that at least I could respond to the hon member’s speech, but I shall rather say nothing further about his lecture-cum-speech.

Real Boland superiority.

Another hon member spoke of a “lang laagte” earlier.

I should like to say something about reform in respect of the Coloureds and what we have achieved and have not yet achieved in this connection. New words are sometimes used in the House, and sometimes an old word is refurbished and then presented as a new word or concept. So we get the CP’s polished word “partition”. The CP is trying to make the voters believe that the self-governing and independent Black states that exist today are actually the product of their policy, and not of the NP’s policy. May I ask the hon members who established those states? Surely the NP Government did. This government will continue with that process where this can be done meaningfully and where the people ask for it. I shall return to this statement later. I want to ask the CP to stop bluffing the voters in respect of this matter. If we make a fundamental analysis of this matter, what is the difference between the policies of the CP and the NP? We are willing to address the problem of the urban Blacks, a problem they run away from.

We are honest and you are not.

Then they use the refurbished word “partition” and apply it to the Coloureds. The House must forgive me if I want to say something about this as a born Bolander. [Interjections.] It is not a “Boelander” but a “Bolander”.

Giel, are you in favour of a Black State President?

The CP’s leaders, the men who are sitting here, and their supporters, go from one platform to another and, in the north especially, proclaim a myth and demarcate homelands, and in this way, around the braaivleis fires, the whole of the Western Cape is demarcated as Coloured area. That is very convenient, because at the same time they are getting rid of the group of Cape liberals. In our presence they act a great deal more carefully. I remember a speech made by the hon member for Kuruman, in which he demarcated the Cape Flats inter alia. When someone pointed out that D F Malan airport is in that area, he said: No, we shall keep that aside for the Whites.

That is not true.

That is what the hon member said!

That is untrue, and you know it!

Order! Did the hon member for Kuruman say it was untrue and the hon member knew it?

I said it was untrue, and he knew it, Sir, but I withdraw it.

The hon member may proceed.

I know the contrary is true, and we can call on the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance and of Trade and Industry. [Interjections.]

During the by-election campaign the hon member for Kuruman’s own leader had a meeting at Vredendal, and there he demarcated a kind of homeland. During question time a voter rose and asked: “Dr Treurnicht, is Vredendal inside the homeland or outside?” The hon member for Waterberg said it was outside. I was born not far from here, and I know the Cape. If I were to choose a capital city for that homeland, I would choose Vredendal, simply because it is centrally situated.

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! [Interjections.]

Let us see what this homeland will look like. The CP says it will consist of the present Coloured areas plus the Coloured towns. Goodness knows how many there are—probably about 300. Is that a viable project? Is it meaningful?

There are 23 Coloured rural areas of which two are situated in the Free State. That covers a total of 1,722 million hectares. That may sound very nice, but 1,628 hectares are desert, semi-desert or, at very best, cattle region. The hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services can affirm that that is true—an extensive cattle region. That leaves 94 000 hectares which the CP wants to give the Coloureds, but there are seven small towns which cover 64 000 hectares in all.

Jan will have to lend them his bakkie.

One of those small towns is Pella. Pella and its environment cover 48 000 hectares.

The total population of that area in 1983 was 73 500 people, with a total income of less than R3 million.

What is the CP talking about? Why do they bluff the voters with this myth? Making that area viable will cost three times our country’s Budget. In a holier-than-thou way, it is said that because Black states which consist of separate sections, asked for and received independence, we can throw these 23 larger spots and the 300 small spots together. That is the wonderful Coloured homeland.

It is a myth, a dream and a bluff. In fact, it is a blatant lie.

And they know it!

Taking everything into account, what is the norm for a homeland? Surely a homeland is something that can be given to people who ask for it, something that will satisfy them. The hon the leader of the CP said he had a letter in his pocket from a Coloured who supported a homeland. I challenge him three years ago to show us that letter or to supply the name of the writer. To this day he has not done so. [Interjections.]

I put it categorically to the hon member for Kuruman, no Coloured wants a homeland; he knows that. Are 2,75 million people going to be taken by the scruff of the neck and pushed in somewhere?

Those are lies! The hon member is misleading the White voters in the process. Then hon member of the CP say they are the old Nationalists. According to them the “new Nats” are sitting here. We are all “new Nats”, however, because we all think new. The hon member for Rissik has quite an image of himself as one of these old Nationalists, but according to Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 100, col 3970, he said on 31 March 1982 that a Coloured homeland had never been NP policy. Now it is his policy. Who is an old Nationalist now and who is spreading a lie among the voters? Even Dr Verwoerd, whom the hon member for Sasolburg praised so, dit not support a homeland for the Coloureds. He made that very clear. [Interjections.] I do not want to speak to that hon member at all. He does not want a Christian Coloured next to him, but a White man who is an atheist is welcome. [Interjections.]

It is necessary to think about today’s problems in South Africa in a calm and collected way. We need reasonable people. If reasonable people can get together, people who do not mislead the voters, we shall definitely be able to accomplish something in South Africa.

No one in this House can say the present dispensation is perfect. Nor do I say so. Only reasonable people can improve upon the present dispensation, however. The hon member for Paarl pleaded for new thoughts and attitudes. I truly plead that the CP will help us to make this process of change meaningful. Can we not rather speak to one another meaningful? We know things have to change. Can we not build upon the realities of South Africa together? Can we not escape from the dreams and myths we present to the voters for the sake of a vote? I plead with the hon members, for the sake of our country, to do this.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat discussed CP policy during the State President’s Vote. I think he did this for lack of anything to boast about in this debate. [Interjections.] I could slash his totally irrelevant arguments one after the other but I do not wish to waste my time on them. [Interjections.] He was instructed by the Chief Whip toward off the CP attack on the State President.

Yesterday the State President said here that the Group Areas Act was not a holy cow; the hon member for Innesdal said recently the NP was prepared to modify the Group Areas Act dramatically. I want to know of the State President whether the NP is to make dramatic modifications to the Group Areas Act, whether the hon member for Innesdal spoke on behalf of the NP and, if so, what dramatic modifications he is prepared to make to the Group Areas Act. I want to know of the State President what he is prepared to do about this.

Last week the hon member Dr Vilonel, in reply to a question in the debate whether the voting qualifications for a Black man, the Black South African citizen, would be the same as that for a Coloured or an Indian: “Probably yes”.

I still say so!

He still says so! [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister of Minerals and Energy Affairs will grant me the opportunity, I wish to put a question to the State president.

This is what the State President thinks of Parliament: When other hon members are making a speech, he does not even listen to what is being said in the House. [Interjections.] That is what happens. Last year, before a Bill was piloted through the House of assembly, the State President has already referred it to the President’s Council.

I now wish to put a question to the State President. The hon member Dr Vilonel has just said that the voting qualification for the Black South African citizen will probably be the same as that for the Coloured and the Indian. I want to know of the State President whether that is true. Does he agree with the hon member Dr Vilonel? [Interjections.] I assume the hon member Dr Vilonel said this because he knew the State President had said:

I assume the hon member made that statement because the State President had said the following:

If the voting qualification for the Black South African citizen in an undivided South Africa is not the same as that for the Brown, Indian and White South African citizen, that is no equal franchise and we know the Black people will not be satisfied with that. The Black people in an undivided South Africa will then continue fighting for equal franchise within and outside joint governmental institutions. One concession after another will be made within joint institutions as this Government and the State President made one concession after another to satisfy the Coloureds and the Indians last year. [Interjections.]

To my mind the State President, unlike the PFP, does not stand for a system of one-man-one-vote on a common voters’ roll in a unitary state; he stands for a system of one-man-one-vote in a unitary state with separate voters’ rolls and separate structures in which Whites, Coloureds and Indians may decide jointly on matters of common concern. He has already said Black people should be represented on the President’s Council, in regional services councils and in these provincial councils which have been announced. When we told him he had no mandate to carry out these actions, he said he had received such a mandate in the referendum.

Before the referendum the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at the Natal Congress:

The hon member for Hercules wrote to his constituents:

Nevertheless the State President claims he has a mandate to make these announcements and to bring about power-sharing with Black people. This is what he has come to tell us today! [Interjections.]

On 10 April the hon member for Innesdal said in this House that, just as Coloureds and Indians now had the vote in the electoral college electing the State President, Black people should receive it too. I assume the hon member had it right because, if that is not so, the State President’s promises of equal treatment, equal opportunities and full political rights are hollow, meaningless words. I now wish to ask the State President whether the hon member for Innesdal had it right in saying Black South African citizens should acquire the same right as Coloureds and Indians to sit in the electoral college which elects the State President.

Those were not his words! [Interjections.]

I want to know whether Black South African citizens are to receive representation in the electoral college which elects a State President every five years. Elections are certainly a general affair and the State President heads the South African nation. I now ask the State President whether he will give the Black man co-responsibility in the election of a State President. If he does not do so, I want to tell him in that case the Black South African citizen will not receive equal treatment and equal opportunities; he will not have the same political rights as other people. [Interjections.] Surely that is true! If the Black man does not have the same rights as the Coloured or the Indian, there is no question of equal rights. [Interjections.] If it is true, however, that the Black man is to acquire the same political rights as the Brown man and the Indian in the electoral college, the Black people in South Africa require only 13 votes in the electoral college to elect a Black State President.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.