Mr. Speaker, I move—

14h15 to 18h30; and
20h00 to 22h30.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I am dealing with this Vote. I am aware of the attendant responsibilities and also of my own limitations. From the beginning I have regarded myself as a member of a team in the performance of my duty in this capacity. Only then, I think, is success possible, and of course also with exceeding grace from on High. I believe in leadership that is the culminating point of a team. I am therefore requesting hon. members to bear with me this afternoon when I deviate somewhat from the normal practice by making certain announcements to the House at the commencement of this debate. In my view, it could make the debate more meaningful and in any event I owe this to the House because, on account of circumstances that are known to all, I did not have such a ready opportunity earlier.

On 28 September last year, after my election as chief leader of the NP, I made certain points on the steps of the Senate building and for the record. I wish to repeat here some of the points I made at the time, because I wish to couple certain announcements I wish to make today, with what I stated at the time. On that occasion I stated—

1. 1. The maintenance and development of orderly government;
2. 2. At all times to uphold honest public administration and effective government;
3. 3. To apply a positive policy to improve the relations between our different population communities, taking into account the inalienable right of self-determination of all peoples. I believe that we have enough common ground in this country to work together to make it one of the most wonderful countries in the world;
4. 4. The application of a positive policy to build friendly relations with neighbouring States on the basis of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs;
5. 5. Economic development through dedication in our work and economic patriotism;
6. 6. The determined maintenance of law and order through an effective Police Force and well balanced Defence Force to guard the integrity of our borders;
7. 7. Co-ordination and a mutual cooperation between State departments, the Government and the private sector as far as possible; and
8. 8. We believe in a system of private initiative and we will protect it as far as is humanly possible.

That, Mr. Chairman, was my exposition of my personal view of what road South Africa should take. For that reason I am again quoting here this afternoon these goals I set myself and the Government I was going to lead. At this stage I do not intend to issue statements in connection with all these matters today, but I do intend, in the course of this debate which will extend over several days, to deal with certain of the matters arising out of this stance of mine. I shall therefore deal with them as the debate progresses. Nor do I intend to give priority today to matters we have been debating here during the past few months since the short session last year. If necessary, time will be found for that in the course of the debate. I now want to deal with a few other matters, matters which are, in my view, of urgent concern and I request hon. members to bear with me while I do so.

†Mr. Chairman, I think we are all very pleased that under present world conditions South Africa could be presented with a budget as sound as the budget introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

*I think all of us are also delighted at the good news today in connection with one of our most important industries.

†As I take stock today of South Africa’s economic and political situation I find it impossible to disregard the present international currents. It has quite correctly been stated that the increasing strains on the world order are no less ominous for being obvious. The world is engaged in two simultaneous struggles that exercise, and will continue to exercise, a vast influence on the affairs of the entire globe, embracing nations both large and small. The one struggle is between the values of Western civilization and the doctrines of Marxist-Soviet imperialism. The other struggle is a conflict of aims and aspirations between the developed and the under-developed world. There is an interaction between them, an economic dimension, viz. the choice between free enterprise systems and the concept of centrally controlled economies. There is also the issue of poverty versus plenty. It has quite correctly been pointed out that there is disillusionment with the results of aid programmes and that development aid is distributed more out of habit and opportunism than from a sense of conviction. The overall attitudes of the world’s major powers, their self-interest, are shaped by their specific attitudes to these issues. In the Republic of South Africa our attitude is complicated because our multinational complexities are being exploited by our opponents to their own opportunistic advantage, and nobody denies that. During January of 1979 the Canadian Minister of Defence made an important statement, from which I want to quote a paragraph or two because I am in full agreement with him. He said—

He then goes on to say—

A further example of what he spells out here is proved by the visit of a prominent East German leader to Angola, Mozambique and Zambia recently. I agree that the Soviet Union seeks imperial domination by force, whatever its own problems might be. No better illustration is required than the presence, in the South Atlantic in recent weeks, of a Soviet Black Sea task-force led by an aircraft carrier. The Soviet Union now has a blue water fleet capable of intervening throughout the world. In part this is the result of Nato’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for the security of the South Atlantic. In these circumstances many countries feel compelled to review their position. There is growing doubt about how far the United States is still willing to honour its commitments of support. South Africa, too, has been forced to the conclusion that a review of her position has become imperative. We shall have to endeavour to remove ourselves, politically, as far as possible from the East-West disputes and avoid involvement in their future conflicts while we trade with whomever it is in our interests to trade. Secondly, we shall be guided solely by our own interests and the interests of our region. We have been taught the hard way that in international relations there is no friendship, especially from great powers, but only self-interest. Consequently we must most determinedly and unequivocally follow the signposts of co-operation in Africa and especially Southern Africa.

I have referred to this earlier this year. During the no-confidence debate I accentuated the necessity of co-operation in various fields, e.g. health services, housing, power supply, agriculture, technology and many others.

I mentioned the possibility of the nonaggression pact between us and the different Southern African States. Let me add that I am in favour of discussions between Governments of independent States in Southern Africa. We shall certainly take the opportunity as soon as possible to bring this about. I sincerely believe that Southern Africa could have a secure future, and I know for a fact that there are reasonable, well-balanced and moderate leaders in Africa with whom it will be possible to co-operate and we shall do everything in our power to make that possible. Southern Africa, with its abundant natural resources, has a vast potential and we in the Republic of South Africa have gained considerable experience in improving standards of living and can be of service not only to some countries in Africa as a whole, but also and more specifically to Southern Africa. In an objective second report on South Africa in December 1978 the Dallas Securities Investment Corporation stated the following about South Africa—

In the light of this report, and in the light of the facts we are all aware of, there is, to my mind, no reason why a constellation of States in the Southern African region should not proceed on its own to create a better future for itself.

In our policy of dialogue with Africa, we naturally experienced setbacks in the past. This does not, however, derogate from the validity and sincerity of our commitment.

Not only the Republic of South Africa, but the whole Southern African region, is directly affected by developments in Rhodesia and South West Africa. Consequently I deem it necessary to refer to these two important factors for the Southern African region.

In Rhodesia all the principles insisted upon over the years by the international community are now being realized, yet somehow the West seems to fail to recognize this as progress. Even this morning we had to read a statement by one of the cynics about Rhodesia’s future. They seem to align themselves against the voters inside Rhodesia—White and Black—who are currently electing a majority Government. Similarly in South West Africa everything the United Nations have been demanding for over 30 years, a commitment to territory-wide elections on a “one man, one vote” basis under United Nations supervision leading to early independence, the removal of discrimination, the release of so-called political detainees, have all been achieved. South Africa, almost a year ago, and after consultation with the leaders of South West Africa, agreed to a Western plan incorporating these ingredients. The West have since then acquiesce in certain Swapo demands in spite of the fact that Swapo has from the beginning been unwilling to subscribe to a peaceful settlement. On the basis of this departure from the settlement proposals, Swapo now professes to support its implementation.

I said earlier that I would accept a decision by the people of South West Africa by way of the polling-booth, by way of the vote. Whether it is the present majority party in South West Africa or any other party that wins such an election, I will accept such a verdict, provided it is constitutional and is achieved by way of the vote. But I am not prepared to accept dictation from the barrel of a gun to the majority of the people of South West Africa from quarters who are not representative of the majority of the people of South West Africa.

The real intention on the part of Swapo as they are behaving now is to scuttle the agreement. Swapo knows it that they cannot win an election and therefore intends to seize power through terrorism. That we cannot accept. The tragic element in this situation is that there are those who support Swapo’s unjustified and unacceptable demands on the people of South West Africa with the intention of contriving South Africa’s rejection and then placing the blame on her. For its part, South Africa remains committed, subject to the advice we are expecting shortly from the Constituent Assembly and the democratic political parties in South West Africa, to implement the settlement proposal as it was formulated in April 1978. But after the West’s departure from its own commitments and proposals over Walvis Bay, the size of the military component of Untag, and now over the non-monitoring of Swapo outside South West Africa and the establishment of Swapo-basis inside the territory, we have lost confidence in the West’s willingness to stand by their own settlement proposals.

In the case of South Africa itself, we have constantly been urged to change. In the course of the normal evolution of our policies there has been, and continues to be, significant renewal: politically, economically, socially and constitutionally. The pressure even from those countries who have professed to be our friends has not abated. On the contrary, it appears to increase in an inverse proportion to internal development. We shall nevertheless continue on our course for the benefit of all South Africa’s peoples. We shall seek to promote the solution of our problems in consultation with each other. Threats will not divert us from our duty, even though their implementation will make our task more difficult and may place a particularly heavy burden on the less developed peoples in our society. We realize that we must solve our problems through our own efforts, both in the Republic of South Africa and in Southern Africa.

To sum up briefly, what do we stand for in the international relations to which I have referred? Firstly, steadfastness on principles coupled with a willingness to go to the limit to avoid confrontation and to seek a modus vivendi which does not involve sacrifice of principles or undermining of our stability; and secondly, similarly with our internal relations, steadfastness on principles, avoidance of confrontation, search for the most effective modus vivendi and intensification of consultation. This can naturally only take place with the maintenance of our national self respect and in the spirit of “South Africa first”.

*Sir, on 28 September 1978 I stated as one of my political objectives that I would strive for honest, frank and effective public administration and orderly government. It speaks volumes for the effectiveness of the Public Service that over so many years only a few isolated cases of irregularities have occurred. Our public servants still rank among the best in the world. We have reason to be proud of the quality, efficiency and unselfishness of our officials.

I wish to direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that with the constitution of the Cabinet I already started placing portfolios which were functionally interrelated under the auspices of the same ministry. I intend to continue this process.

Cabinet procedure has also begun to receive attention. In the first place a Cabinet secretariat has been established with the aid of the Public Service Commission. That secretariat is now being effectively expanded.

In the second place, the various Cabinet committees that have come into existence over the years, have been reduced from almost two dozen to approximately half a dozen in order to effect greater co-ordination.

In the third place the functions of the State Security Council have been tightened up and at the moment it is functioning very effectively. The functions of our security services have already been co-ordinated and I am still awaiting a final report on the basis of which it will be possible to make them even more efficient. Furthermore, constant attention at the highest level is being devoted to the formulation and maintenance of national strategy.

After discussions between myself and the hon. the Minister of the Interior and Immigration, the Public Service Commission was requested to take the process of rationalization further by advising the Government with regard to the rearrangement of Government departments with due observance of the functional activities of departments in the envisaged new constitutional dispensation. This is being done with circumspection in order to obviate disruption. The chairman of the Public Service Commission has just returned from a study tour in other countries where he tried to ascertain whether there is anything we can learn with regard to rationalization and these envisaged changes.

In the fourth place, the Public Service Commission consulted with departmental heads on 6 March 1979 on how this rationalization should be undertaken. The departmental heads promised their wholehearted cooperation enthusiastically and without a single exception. Since then, I have personally met all departmental heads and I was impressed with the manner in which they are making this matter their priority.

†It would be totally wrong to think that a reflection is cast upon the previous Administration, but the circumstances of today are not those of yesterday or the day before. Renewal in administration is a natural need which arises from time to time and which must be satisfied. The proposed reorganization should as far as possible be approached as a rationalization of structures and practices. The large number of State departments should be reduced to a smaller number through a process of functional rationalization and consolidation. In this way a more meaningful division of governmental functions and a more streamlined machinery of government can be obtained. It has already been suggested in some quarters that we might eventually, in the course of time—not immediately—succeed in reducing the number of State departments through a process of reorganization to 18. It is expected that consolidation of State departments will offer several advantages.

I want to refer to a few of them: Firstly, the elimination of overlapping activities and duplications; secondly, more expeditious completion of tasks; thirdly, better utilization of high grade personnel; fourthly, greater scope and better prospects for officials; fifthly, saving in manpower; and sixthly, easier co-ordination of Government actions. A planned and orderly change-over from the existing departmental structures to that desired structure, is envisaged. The Government has also in view, as part of the rationalization plan, the revision of existing legislation. Briefly this entails the checking of all existing legislation, the rescinding of obsolete statutes and the consolidation and simplification, where possible, of all remaining measures. The rationalization will naturally be closely linked to the redivision of functions and consolidation of State departments. The Public Service Commission is already drawing up a programme of revision and will execute it in collaboration with the departments. Furthermore, as part of the in-depth studies which are to be undertaken, functions will be identified and demarcated for allocation at the appointed time to the Indian and Coloured authorities under a new dispensation.

*In this connection, I wish to point out, in conclusion, how essential it is to create a spirit of co-operation and goodwill between the Government institutions and the private sector, as well as the academics of our country. I referred to that in my New Year’s message. Various steps have already been taken by the Government in order to start moving in that direction. Practical examples during the past six months have been the following: Discussions have taken place between the Public Service Commission and acknowledged leaders of commerce and industry with regard to the utilization of manpower. These will be continued. I even wish to raise the question, without giving a final decision on the matter, whether the time is not perhaps opportune to give one or two representatives from the private sector permanent representation on the Public Service Commission. In the second place: Discussions and co-operation between the Ministry of Plural Relations and professional men as well as business executives on the development of the South African Black States. Recently 30 or so well-known South African business executives held a meeting here in Cape Town with the Minister of Plural Relations and the Black leaders to exchange views on the matter. It was a resounding success. In the third place: Discussions are taking place between various Government departments and agricultural leaders with regard to depopulated border farms. In the fourth place, there is a continuation of the policy of utilizing leaders from the private sector on the boards of directors of State corporations. Regular discussions take place between Ministers and organized commerce and industry and labour organizations. During the past few months, on-going discussions with the leaders of the Black, Brown and Indian population groups have increased to a large extent.

With all these and other steps, the idea of greater co-ordination and national strategic planning is being pursued. In my view, this is the most effective manner in which to approach the challenges of the future.

In the third place, I wish to refer briefly to the progress that has been made after my announcement during the no-confidence debate on machinery the Government was going to create in order to take action in connection with an investigation into the consolidation of Black States. The Cabinet has approved of the formation of a Central Consolidation Committee which will assist the Commission for Plural Affairs in the investigation. Apart from this committee, four regional committees will also be appointed. The Central Consolidation Committee is constituted as follows—

1. 1. Chairman: Chairman of the Commission for Plural Affairs:
   Mr. P. T. C. du Plessis, M.P.
2. 2. Members of the Commission for Plural Affairs:
   1. 2.1 Mr. P. Cronje, M.P.
   2. 2.2 Mr. J. M. Henning, M.P.
   3. 2.3 Dr. W. D. Kotzé, M.P.
   4. 2.4 Dr. G. de V. Morrison, M.P.
   5. 2.5 Mr. V. A. Volker, M.P.
3. 3. Dr. J. J. S. Weidemann: Economic Adviser to the Commission for Plural Affairs.
4. 4. Dr. S. S. Brand: Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister and Chairman of the economic committee of the Commission for Plural Affairs.
5. 5. Dr. F. H. le Roux: Chairman of the agricultural committee of the Commission for Plural Affairs.
6. 6. Government institutions:
   1. 6.1 Department of Foreign Affairs—Mr. P. Snyman.
   2. 6.2 Department of Finance—Mr. S. A. Visagie.
   3. 6.3 Department of Mines—Mr. L. N. J. Engelbrecht.
   4. 6.4 Department of Environmental Planning and Energy—Mr. W. F. Visagie.
   5. 6.5 Department of Plural Relations and Development—Mr. J. J. van Wyk and Mr. H. S. Pienaar.
   6. 6.6 Department of Defence—General M. A. de M. Malan.
   7. 6.7 Bureau for Economic Research: Cooperation and Development—Mr. F. J. van Eeden.
   8. 6.8 Chairman of the Planning Advisory Council of the Prime Minister—Mr. P. Pretorius.
7. 7. Organized Agriculture—Mr. J. Wilkens; and a representative from each of the following institutions:
8. 8. Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut.
9. 9. S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries.
10. 10. Assocom.
11. 11. Chamber of Mines.
12. 12. Academics:
    1. 12.1 Prof. C. Boshoff (U.P.)
    2. 12.2 Prof. A. R. C. de Crespigny (U.C.T.)
    3. 12.3 Prof. H. J. O. Jeppe (U.S.)
    4. 12.4 Prof. J. A. Lombard (U.P.)
    5. 12.5 Dr. L. P. McCrystal (Planner)
    6. 12.6 Prof. D. Smith (INCR—U.O.F.S.)
    7. 12.7 Prof. F. Potgieter (P.U. for C.H.E.)
    8. 12.8 Prof. P. R. Botha (U.P.), and
    9. 12.9 Prof. C. Hanekom (U.S.)

My colleague Dr. Koornhof will in due course supply further information with regard to the regional committees. In that way we have, in my view, now taken practical steps to approach this matter with the greatest possible measure of co-ordination and expertise.

Next, I just want to refer briefly to a report on the South West matter that appeared in one of our morning papers yesterday. The report in the paper emanated from Washington and I just want to read out the relevant portions of that report—

†I must say that I find this report rather strange, especially the words—

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is wise to publish correspondence between leaders of different countries dealing with each other. It is in any event not customary for South Africa to publish such correspondence. Let me remark that this is obviously a leakage which creates wrong impressions. If it is continued, we shall have no option but to publish the relevant correspondence in order to stop this sort of propaganda. I am not going to be put in a position where certain allegations can be made against South Africa and the Government, whether it be by innuendo or by very carefully planned propaganda. I want to make a public appeal to the people who are responsible for this leakage—it must be a leakage, but it did not originate from South Africa—to stop this sort of propaganda or we will have to publish the correspondence. I hope my appeal will be accepted in the spirit in which it is made.

*In conclusion I wish to refer to an unpleasant incident that occurred here a week ago. I am referring to the espionage incident and I just wish to furnish the House with certain information in this regard. Since 1944 there has been an agreement between the RSA and the USA concerning the use of a private aircraft for American personnel in the RSA. In its latest form, this agreement is dated 3 February 1966. Inter alia, it provides—

1. 1. The aircraft may only be used for the conveyance of American military and other Government personnel in the performance of their official duties.
2. 2. The use of the aircraft is subject to South African legislation on the utilization of aircraft.

Further to the agreement, the following arrangements, laid down by the S.A. Defence Force, were also brought to the attention of the American military mission—

1. 1. That a monthly programme of intended flights shall be furnished by the American military mission.
2. 2. That flight plans shall be submitted 24 hours before the flight is undertaken.

This aircraft initially made use of Waterkloof as its base. That was the spirit in which we handled the entire matter. Waterkloof is, after all, a military base. Then, last year, we had to ask that the aircraft be moved elsewhere. On the grounds of the conduct of the American representatives during the past few years, a strong suspicion arose that they were engaged in espionage. Against this background it became essential in the interests of the security of the RSA to monitor their activities from a security point of view. This was done on the grounds—I am taking great care with what I am saying, because I do not want to create unnecessary difficulties—of the following:

Attempts were made by means of prohibited literature to place members of the S.A. Defence Force in a position where they would have to supply classified Defence Force information. In the second place, classified information was obtained in an irregular manner after a request for such information had been officially turned down. In the third place, unauthorized visits were paid to restricted South African areas. In the fourth place, members of the S.A. Defence Force were questioned about classified Defence Force matters. In the fifth place, unauthorized contact was made with members of the S.A. Defence Force, contrary to the rules applicable to military representatives. In the sixth place, a member of the US Information Service obtained access to a restricted area under false pretences.

In the past, this was pointed to the military attaché of the USA and he was also warned that they should abide by the prescribed rules in respect of their activities. On 9 February 1979 it was pointed out to the American military attaché involved that his conduct and that of his military mission was not in keeping with the conduct of a military attaché and his staff, and that the RSA expected different conduct from him. He was personally interviewed by a most senior officer, the officer dealing with military attachés. A series of matters—which I do not want to mention now—was brought to his attention during the course of that personal interview. On that occasion he undertook not only to take cognizance of the admonition but also to do his best to rectify the matter. But that did not help. Matters did not remain at that. After that, the rules were again not observed. They proceeded to take photographs with a 70 mm aerial survey camera—photographs of which appeared in the Press—of selected areas which the S.A. Defence Force regards as sensitive. The rest of the story has appeared in considerable detail in the Press.

I just want to make two further observations. We considered it advisable to take the most moderate action, the action that would give least offence, namely to request those gentlemen, through their ambassador, to leave the country within seven days. We could have taken much stronger measures. If this had happened in America or in Russia or in France, much stronger measures would have been applied. We gave these gentlemen a week. We summoned their ambassador and told him that in view of what had happened, which I have now related to this House, we could not allow those gentlemen to stay in the country any longer. The reply we got was not a proper explanation, nor an apology, which one could have expected between friends. The reply we got, was that Commodore Du Plessis and Colonel Coetzee—whose terms of service in America would have expired within a month or two—were summarily requested to leave that country, and that without their having violated a single rule in America.

South Africa is a middle-ranking country. We cannot vie with the great powers. As far as our strength is concerned, we cannot be compared with them either. However, we do have the same self-respect as the great powers and we are not going to be pushed around. We will stand firm on our rights. We are not the door-mat of any great power. I am pleased to learn that there has been a reaction from America. I am referring to a report that has just come to my notice of what a retired admiral, Admiral Morris—Rear-Admiral Morris—of America is reported to have said. He was formerly “Commander of the United States Naval Academy and served as an alternate United States delegate to the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.” In other words, he must be a comparatively important person in the American Navy, even though he is on the reserve list He is reported to have stated—

In this statement Admiral Morris requests that there should be an inquiry in depth into this matter. I shall leave it at that.

South Africa has tried under the most difficult conditions to preserve its relations with the USA, because there are good friends of ours there. There are large numbers of friends of South Africa in the USA. We do not want to quarrel with the USA; we do not want to clash with them; but in my opinion the USA, which considers itself to be the leader of the Free World, owes it to the Free World to investigate this matter in depth and to explain to the Free World why it did such a thing to a country with which it was negotiating on the most delicate of matters. I think the USA should explain to the world why certain selected areas were being photographed, areas affected by onslaughts on South Africa. Until such time as we obtain complete clarity on this, we should not be blamed if we regard every act of certain people with suspicion.

I wish to conclude. I trust that in this debate we shall find the Parliament of South Africa united on this point. I trust that we shall find our country united on this point I trust that in spite of all our problems and in spite of our mutual differences, we shall act in such a way that South Africa will prove to be a shining example of stability and determination in this world.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

I think the hon. the Prime Minister has started well. I believe that by covering a number of important issues, the hon. the Prime Minister has added stature to the debate and has ensured that the debate will be much more meaningful. We, from our side, shall analyse what he has said and ask him certain further questions while dealing with some of the things he mentioned.

At the end of his speech he commented on the question of spying in the sky. I must say that I have not found any other issue on which the people of South Africa are more united in their anger on what had taken place. One only has to read the Press and its reaction across the country to this, I believe, despicable act. I should like to read into the record the reaction which I made officially on behalf of my party. I said—

I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister. I went on—

Let us differ on a whole range of issues, but there is one thing which we are not going to tolerate and that is a violation of the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister has raised a number of other issues and I shall deal with them in due course. I am very grateful to hear about the whole process of streamlining and re-organizing to see whether the Public Service administration, right from the top to the bottom, can be made more effective and more efficient.

He has also dealt with the issue of consolidation, and on this we shall hear much more, because it is one thing to set up committees and to state guidelines, but another thing to find the method. If it does not have the money to purchase the land, will the Government be prepared to extend the jurisdiction of the boundaries of those territories without actually purchasing the land for the accommodation of Black citizens?

We shall not at this stage deal with the issue of international relationships, but shall deal with that in due course. Right at the outset the hon. the Prime Minister touched on what I believe to be the most important international and national problem, a problem which is one day to become a domestic problem. I am referring to the growing conflict between the developed and the underdeveloped, both on a national and a regional basis, within South Africa. It is a problem of the haves and the have-nots. When one day we have got rid of racial discrimination in South Africa, we shall have got rid of one of the obstacles, but shall not yet have solved the problem of trying to get rid of these gaps and preventing the radicalization and the polarization which flow from a disparity between the rich and the poor. I believe this is still going to become one of the great issues confronting us in South Africa.

I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister has started off in the way he has, and I trust that in the course of this debate he will develop, even more fully, his vision of the future of South Africa. The people of South Africa are confused. I believe they would like to see, from the Government and from the alternative, some message of hope, confidence and trust in what has become a topsy-turvy world. The hon. the Prime Minister must, however, go further during this debate, and give us his vision of the relationship between individuals and groups within South Africa, of the whole question of how decisions are going to be made, decisions affecting the daily lives of individuals and affecting the various racial communities, and also his vision of how South Africa is going to relate to its neighbours in Africa and in the rest of the world.

We in the PFP, the official Opposition, will go on presenting our alternative of a society living without enforced discrimination or apartheid, a society in which individuals and groups can set their own pattern of free and voluntary association. We shall develop still further our concept of an economy fuelled with the entrepreneurial spirit of private enterprise, with the State playing the important part of seeing that equality of opportunity is available to all citizens. We shall also develop still further the question of political discussion and political decision-making within the framework of a federal South Africa in which there will be neither discrimination nor domination.

We are going to continue in that vein, but the circumstances of this debate make it necessary for us to remove two more personal matters from the debate than the ones to which I have referred. One such issue involves me, as the Leader of the Opposition, and the other relates to the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to come now to what, to my mind, was an unexpected and, I want to say, unbridled attack that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs directed at me in this House on the afternoon of Tuesday, 3 April. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to be very frank with the hon. the Minister and other hon. members here and say that that attack angered me. It angered me because it was not directed at my judgment, or my discretion or my ability, but directed, in fact, at my integrity. [Interjections.] It was an attack which accused me of wilfully and deliberately damaging my country. As a proud South African, I become angry when attacks of that kind are levelled at me. [Interjections.] I reject these attacks today, as I did when they were first made, with anger and with contempt. [Interjections.]

Order!

Time and time again hon. members of my party and others have called on the hon. the Minister to come forward with substantial and detailed evidence to substantiate his charge. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister’s reply was—

I do not have the time to deal with the Government’s strategy in this particular regard. However, let me say at the outset, and I want to keep my “cool” as much as the hon. the Prime Minister did on this occasion: Attack us in the PFP if you will, attack us on our policy, our performance and personalities, but let no one dare impugn the PFP’s commitment to South Africa and its people. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. Having heard the hon. the Minister of Finance and others, let me remind you, Sir, that it was a Helen Suzman and not a Jimmy Kruger who argued the case against disinvestment in South Africa on 14 campuses in the USA last year; it was an Alex Boraine and not an Andries Treurnicht who faced the exiles on television to argue the same case; and it was a Colin Eglin and not a P. W. Botha who argued with militant Blacks in West Africa that they should accept…

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

No, Sir. As I was saying, it was a Colin Eglin and not a P. W. Botha who had to argue with militant Blacks to get them to try to accept the born fides of the South African Government in wanting a negotiated settlement in Namibia. I say to the Government: At a time when South Africa faces great and common dangers, stop this stupid and destructive game of trying to divide our people between those who are patriotic and those whom they say are not. The reality is that, while we might differ with one another, we are all South Africans and we are all going to stand or fall together. [Interjections.]

Let me now deal directly with this issue. On Monday, 26 February, three events took place. First of all, there was the Prime Minister’s statement anticipating Waldheim’s final report. Seconly, there was a briefing by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of certain Opposition members, a briefing that dealt with the Waldheim report and certain underhand activities at the Secretariat of the United Nations. Thirdly, that same evening the Waldheim report was made public. That was the situation on 26 February. The question was asked, first of all, why the Opposition contacted others in connection with the Waldheim statement. It is perfectly clear: It was the duty of the Opposition; it is the duty of an Opposition to keep itself informed as best it can on sensitive foreign policy issues, and none more so than the South West African independence issue. The official Opposition has at all times endeavoured to adopt a bipartisan approach on this issue. We have supported the Government in almost every one of its actions in relation to Namibia. This support, however, has to be founded on sound and independent knowledge of the relevant facts. On the South West African issue in particular, the official Opposition has over the past 18 months made a major effort to keep itself informed. In this it has enjoyed the cooperation of the representatives of the Western contact group and it has kept in touch with experts in South Africa and elsewhere.

McHenry?

Its members have flown to South West Africa and they have discussed the problem with diplomats and others while they have been outside the country. I want to make it clear that I believe that the official Opposition would have been irresponsible if it had not made this all-out effort to keep itself informed on the South West Africa/Namibia issue.

The next question was: Why did I speak to McHenry? Two of us have been deputed by our caucus to keep the caucus in touch and informed on the South West Africa/Namibia issue. I believe that that was a very natural thing to do. This man is an ambassador carrying out the policy of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. He is not a South African, but an American. He might have a different point of view, but he played a key role and perhaps he was the one man to give a definitive clarification of the Western interpretation of these proposals. During the course of that day Mr. Basson and I met with the Western envoy and had a long and extensive discussion. We spent most of that day examining and re-examining the various proposals, ranging from those of February last year to this particular one. In the end I mentioned to the hon. member that I thought one could get a definitive answer, amplifying the point of view that had been given to us by the Western diplomat, by taking this to Mr. McHenry. There was nothing secretive or secret about my action. I raised the matter with my colleague on my right before it was done. I discussed it with my colleague afterwards. Immediately afterwards, at quarter to six that evening, we phoned the office of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and requested and appointment as we would like to have a discussion with him. That evening I discussed it with the hon. member for Parktown. The following morning we went and spoke to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Did you tell him about the phone call?

As we strolled over to keep our appointment we discussed whether we should identify the ambassadors or whether we should talk in general terms.

But you did not tell him you phoned.

I have no doubt, because we agreed as we walked in … I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has repudiated this. I have no doubt that what we came to tell the hon. the Minister was about the additional amplification of the Western proposals given to us by our contacts from the West, that we had been in touch with a Western ambassador here and that I had phoned New York. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, because that was what the discussion was about. [Interjections.] We sat down and we explained, and after a short while the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance. He listened in silence to the hon. the Prime Minister.

But he talks so much nonsense.

Order! The hon. member for Welkom must give the hon. Leader of the Opposition a chance to put his case.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said to us that he had heard all this before. He said that he did not trust the West and then took out a further letter blaming the West for the activities. Immediately after this we came back and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I reported to the PFP caucus on what we had been doing. So, there was nothing clandestine or secretive about it. It was a genuine and a positive attempt on the part of the official Opposition. It was not to check on information which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had given us. When Waldheim made his report and after the hon. the Prime Minister had made his statement, it was clear that there was a clash. It was clear that there was a clash, and we had to try to establish from the Opposition’s point of view, in order to be positive, constructive and helpful, what the variations and the interpretations were. It was not a check on the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was to try to get a clarification of the Waldheim proposals, in particular of clauses 11 and 12, in order to help us to make a helpful and balanced judgment on this matter. I have no reservations whatsoever that that was the object of the exercise which myself and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout were engaged in. That was what our discussion with the Western envoy was about. That was what our analysis was about. That was what our telephone calls to people in Windhoek were about and that was what my call to McHenry was about.

The hon. the Minister’s attack on me came in three particular fields. He said, first of all, that some time earlier I had asked McHenry to make an appointment for me with Waldheim and later went on to say “Ek het hom gebel”. Let me put this into perspective. On 19 December last year I decided that I was going to go to America for four days, having already arranged to go to Britain, Senegal and other countries. It was holiday time. I wrote to McHenry. I did not ask him to make an appointment. I said I would be there and could he help me. [Interjections.] I wrote to McHenry and said that I was going to be in America and I would like to see him, and it was just possible that he might feel that he could help me in setting up an appointment. I added that “perhaps protocol required that this request should be made via the South African authorities”. He did just that. He passed it on and sent me a message saying that he had passed it on to the South Africans. When I got to Washington, I contacted the ambassador and all the arrangements to see Waldheim, were in fact made by the South African Embassy. I made it very specific that it should go via the South African authorities.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister, from a sentence in a very brief speech that I made, drew the inference that McHenry and I were “kop in een mus”. The speech which I made on South West Africa was made when, I think, the hon. the Minister was overseas. This was a sentence in a a short paragraph in the introduction of a speech made during the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill. It was to the effect that one had always to bear in mind the difference between principles and details. The hon. the Minister does that as well. He realizes that. But that happened to be a key factor in trying to identify some strange and sinister relationship between myself and McHenry. That is absolute nonsense. I was not even aware that that phrase was used.

The hon. the Minister went on and drew an inference from a telex he had received from our representative in New York six weeks before, a telex he read out to the House.

*I just want to come back to the series of attacks made and inferences drawn by the hon. the Minister as a result of that telex and the particular paragraph in a speech which I delivered here. The hon. the Minister said that McHenry and I were hand in glove. I maintain that that is untrue. I quote from his speech (Hansard, 3 April 1979, col. 3917)—

That is untrue. I did not reject anything which the hon. the Minister said. I quote again (col. 3914)—

That is untrue. The hon. the Minister went on to say (col. 3917)—

There was no checking up on the hon. the Minister. During that conversation we discussed the Waldheim report, clauses 8 and 12 in particular. With reference to me he said (col. 3919)—

As far as I am concerned, that is untrue. With reference to me he went on to say—

I did not launch any attack on the Government on their South West Africa policy. A week afterwards, when we were conducting a full debate, there was a fair measure of unanimity between the Government and the Opposition on the approach to South West Africa.

We even went further and said that the West should show that it was more determined to see that Swapo toed the line than it did before.

I want to refer to the telex quoted here. It reads (Hansard, 3 April 1979, col. 3912)—

That is presumably the telex which he received.

Not presumably, but definitely.

We did not see it. The hon. the Minister quoted from it here.

†I do not want to argue about that. I want to say that whatever our representative understood McHenry to say to him, I cannot deny, but I want to deny categorically that this is what I said over the telephone to McHenry. Does the hon. the Minister accept and understand that? It may have been what he said to him. I do not know as I was not there, but I deny categorically that that is what I said over the telephone to McHenry. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs dealt…

Did you accept the Prime Minister’s word when he told you…

When I have finished my speech, the hon. the Minister may stand up and speak. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs dealt with the underhand issues, the things that were happening inside the Secretariat, but we, Mr. Japie Basson and myself, had no reason to doubt that information. We had no doubt about what he was telling us. We did not believe that on that issue any further inquiry was necessary. No further inquiry was, in fact, made. The questions that were put to Mr. McHenry were about the Waldheim proposals, more particularly about clauses 11 and 12. I want to reiterate that I did not ask McHenry about “things happening around Ahtisaari and Waldheim in New York”. I did not reveal any secret information, even by implication, to Mr. McHenry.

I must make my position very clear. Over the past 20 years I have often been in a privileged position as far as important confidential information was concerned. That is how it has been. I have been to many countries, some friendly and some hostile to South Africa, but I have never ever—nor will I ever—divulge information which was secret or confidential and which could do any damage to my country, South Africa. That is my point of view and philosophy. I would hope that across the floor of the House we can accept one another’s bona fides as loyal and patriotic South Africans. Let me say that I would be the first to accept responsibility if I had done so and if South Africa had been damaged in any way.

In conclusion, I realize that for our parliamentary system to work effectively there must be trust between the Government and between the parliamentary Opposition. That is vital. Whether we disagree, whether we are rivals for power, whether we are rivals for votes, on the issue of loyalty and commitment to South Africa, I believe there has to be mutual trust and there has to be mutual respect. I therefore hope that in the days that lie ahead we are going to change and hon. members on that side of the House are going to realize that all of us in this House, although differing in party policy, differing in our performance and our level of performance, will have to trust each other. Because heaven help South Africa if we do not trust each other to do what is right and if we do not trust each other as South Africans. [Interjections.] I say that with all the strength at my command, because I believe that the corner-stone of parliamentary Government in South Africa is that we are hon. members and that we have a commitment to see that the Constitution of South Africa, the sovereignty of South Africa and the welfare of South Africa are maintained inviolate.

I have examined this matter and my colleagues have worked with me examining this matter, and I have no doubt that I acted honourably. I believe that by making the inquiries that I did, I was acting in the best interests of South Africa and I believe that the consequence of the inquiry and the discussions that we made it possible for the official Opposition, far from trying to score points off the Government, when the hon. the Prime Minister made his decision on the night of 5 March and when he spoke in this House on 6 March, in spite of the gap which separates us from the Government, to endorse the attitude of the Government on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, there is an Afrikaans saying I should like to paraphrase here: “When the jackal howls, you know the shot has gone home.” [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition talks sanctimoniously about the confidence we ought to have in one another and how we ought to conduct our debates on a higher level. However, I want to ask him one question. Did he accept the word of the hon. the Prime Minister that not a single member of his Cabinet had been aware of the irregularities of the former Department of Information? [Interjections.] Did he accept the word of the hon. the Prime Minister, yes or no?

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Did he accept the word of the hon. the Minister of Finance that he had not been involved and had not known about these things?

I made it quite clear that I withdrew any accusation…

That is not the point.

Is the hon. member now asking us to accept his word, but not the word of the hon. the Prime Minister? That is what he is doing. Once again the hon. Leader has been guilty of shocking conduct. I cannot understand it. The jackal has been wounded. That is quite clear. Allow me to recapitulate to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the sequence of the events of that day in this House. The date was 3 April. I asked him quite calmly—that was the first question that day—whether he had tried to arrange through Mr. McHenry for an appointment with Dr. Waldheim, and his reply was “No”. It is recorded in Hansard. His reply was “No”. Irrespective of what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I shall repeat the facts about those events. The ambassador concerned, Mr. Sole, who represents South Africa in the United States, happens to be here at the moment. And if it is necessary, we shall appoint a Select Committee to decide whether I am telling the truth or whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is telling the truth. [Interjections.] The fact is that I have a written letter in my possession, a letter written to my private secretary by Mr. Sole. Mr. Sole says that he sent the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a telegram in December 1978 after he had learnt that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was coming to visit America. In the telegram, Mr. Sole offered the assistance of his embassy in arranging the appointments of the Leader of the Opposition. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition never replied to his telegram.

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition arrived in Washington, Mr. Sole pointed out to him that he was no longer just the leader of a political party, but that he was the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa. An ambassador of this country had to teach him his manners concerning the correct channels to be followed. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is looking for a quarrel about this, he will get it. It was not necessary for him to raise this matter here today. The hon. the Prime Minister made a statesmanlike speech, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is looking for trouble, which he is now going to get. In the first place, he misled the House by saying that he had not tried to arrange that appointment with Dr. Waldheim through Mr. McHenry. I am deliberately accusing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in order to provoke him into challenging me to ask for the appointment of a Select Committee on this matter. I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition misled this House. I should like to hear what such a Select Committee would have to say about this matter. Secondly, I asked him whether …

Order! The hon. the Minister must refer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as “the hon. member”.

I shall obey your ruling, Sir. I then asked him whether he had phoned Mr. McHenry. He replied that he had not.

Not in the morning.

But everyone knows that when it is morning in America, it is afternoon here in South Africa. What does that matter? [Interjections.] How technical do those hon. members really want to be? The fact of the matter is that the hon. Leader alleges that he “suspects” that I received a telegram from our representative at the UN, after I have read from it in this House. The person who sent that telegram is now in Cape Town. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not ask him whether he did in fact send such a telegram? Our representative in New York is in Cape Town at the moment and he will be able to give the hon. Leader the answer. He has the fullest permission to approach Mr. Eksteen, our representative. They can then sit down in a room so that Mr. Eksteen can tell him what happened. After all, I did not ask Mr. Eksteen to send me that telegram. Nor did I distrust the hon. Leader after he had come to see me for the first time on 26 February. What happened is this: Out of the blue, Mr. McHenry asked on 27 February to see Mr. Eksteen in New York. Mr. Eksteen did not know that I had talked to hon. members of the Opposition the day before. In a long conversation about South West Africa, Mr. McHenry asked Mr. Eksteen in annoyance: “These things that Mr. Eglin phoned me about; these questions concerning what happened in the offices of Waldheim and Ahtisaari, what are these things which your Minister tells Mr. Eglin and which Mr. Eglin comes to tell me?” [Interjections.] I am only giving a version of the facts now. I did not listen to the conversation.

Why do you not ask McHenry?

What is the position now? Several people now know that such a telegram was sent to me: I did not know about the telephone call when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to see me for the second time that Wednesday… The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can say what he likes, but—and that is what he does not understand—the concept on the American side is precisely that they can introduce substantive changes into the proposals for the settlement in South West and then present it as mere detail with which we must be satisfied. According to them, we should not be obsessed with detail, but we should be led by the principles which are at stake, according to them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout can say whatever they like, but that Wednesday morning in my office, on 27 February, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition kept stating the American point of view in all the questions he asked me. He showed clearly that what I had told him the day before had not made any impression on him. That was the clear impression I gained. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not say much that day; he was silent while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did most of the talking. [Interjections.] If they want to allege that this is not so, I shall have to have more people in my office when they come to visit me in the future. From what happened that day, it was clear to me that nothing I had told the hon. members of the Opposition the day before had made any impression on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He must have spoken to someone who was opposed to our standpoints, the day before or any other day. That had given him a point of view which caused the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me in my office that the Government should keep negotiating. He said that we should not terminate the negotiations, but that we should find a way of implementing the plan, because it would be better in the long run. He was not so sure about the validity of the points I raised either. Where did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition get that viewpoint from? What is more important, let me ask the hon. leaders of the NRP and the SAP whether, after I had informed them of the role played by the American representative concerned, they would ever have phoned him to check up on something about South West.

I shall speak on that later.

What is the reply of the hon. the leader of the SAP?

No, of course.

Of course not. Therefore I am not the only one who believes that the conduct of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was in fact a breach of confidence. [Interjections.]

I want to come to another point. The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition involved an ambassador of another country in the matter by saying that that ambassador had advised him to phone New York. [Interjections.] However, what did the ambassador say? The ambassador said that he had not done that, after which the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition said that he would set the matter right at the first opportunity. [Interjections.] However, what did he do?

He has not done anything yet.

When the hon. the Prime Minister made a statesmanlike speech in this House today, holding out a new vision for South Africa and giving South Africa new hope and expectation, he deliberately refrained from indulging in the kind of politics in which the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition has been engaging up to now. The hon. Leader was not interested in putting an end to the embarrassment of the ambassador, but left a cloud hanging over him. That ambassador approached the Department of Foreign Affairs. He was worried and he told the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs that he found himself in a terrible embarrassment [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. The ambassador said that he found himself in a terrible embarrassment and did not know what to do, because it was true that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition had been to see him. However, the ambassador never advised the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to make that telephone call to America. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition got the opportunity to rectify the matter in this House today, but he was so worried about his own reputation and good name that he did not care about the embarrassment he was creating for other people. We got the same emotional outburst from him when an attack was made on his house. With that outburst he provided an alibi for any evil-doer to commit such crimes. He told people of that kind in advance what story if they were caught, they should tell the court. I cannot imagine a more direct attempt to provide an alibi for a lot of evil-doers and a lot of irresponsible people. [Interjections.]

I do not like to mention it, but I have served South Africa abroad for a number of years, sometimes under difficult circumstances. I have suffered abuse and scorn in the Security Council, at the United Nations and elsewhere. I have had to endure constant threats. While I was conducting negotiations in Europe with the previous hon. Prime Minister and Dr. Kissinger in 1976, a petrol bomb was thrown at my house in Washington, where my wife was alone. I did not say then that it was as a result of the Opposition’s unsavoury remarks about my and the Government’s policy, as reported, in the newspapers in Washington. I did not blame the Opposition for the hate and the threats directed against me as the ambassador of South Africa, which were caused, among other things, by attacks made on the Government by the Opposition. My speech here in 3 April was made under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker and the Opposition objected to certain words. When objection was made, I told Mr. Speaker that I would withdraw the words if they created any problems for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker then said categorically that he found my speech in order. It is under those circumstances that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to make his unsavoury and improper attack on me by alleging that I was partly to blame for the attack on his flat [Interjections.] To my question whether he had asked Mr. McHenry to arrange the appointment with Dr. Waldheim for him, his reply was “No,” but, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that the reply should be “Yes”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not simply ask Mr. Sole to make the appointment. Mr. Sole explained to him that appointments of this nature should be arranged by our representatives, after which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went along with that. [Interjections.] He went along with that decision after he had by implication been reprimanded and told that this was not the proper way for him to conduct himself… [Interjections.]… after he had arranged for all his appointments through an American source. Now he moans here today. Now he complains here today. It was in that context that I told him that day, after he had consistently replied “No” to all my questions and after he had failed to give the House a proper explanation in this respect, although I had given him an opportunity to do so, that I believed he should resign as Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] The poor judgment which the Leader of the Opposition showed again today…

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No. [Interjections.] A fool can ask a single question in a few seconds which a wise man cannot answer in an hour. [Interjections.] What is important now is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must explain what he discussed with Mr. McHenry. [Interjections.] After I had divulged highly sensitive evidence to him, evidence from an absolutely reliable source, that the American representative was playing a double role and that in my opinion he deliberately wanted to favour Swapo, as well as paragraphs 11 and 12 of the latest Waldheim report were unacceptable to us because they provided that bases outside South West Africa were not to be monitored, why did he not come back to me or say immediately: “We stand by the Government; these deviations must not be allowed?” If, when he phoned Mr. McHenry, he had asked him why they had deviated like that, if he had put it to him that the South African Government and the Opposition parties were united and would not tolerate America’s having assisted in effecting these deviations because it would amount to a violation of an agreement, I could have understood it and one could have given credit for it. Now I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he said that the ambassador of a certain country advised him, after he had talked to him, to phone New York.

No. [Interjections.]

Did he not say that?

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I have a Press statement here which I shall make available to the House shortly. [Interjections.]

Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say in this House that he had talked to a senior representative of another country and that he had advised him to phone New York? The hon. Leader need only reply “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.]

But he said so in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I was given an opportunity of giving a personal explanation, an opportunity during the course of which, under a barrage of interjections, I made two conflicting statements. [Interjections.] The one statement was that… [Interjections.]

Order!

The one statement… [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asking a question?

Mr. Chairman, I was asked to give a personal explanation… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not allowed to speak on a point of personal explanation without the permission of the Chair. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I have said in all sincerity that I did not listen to the telephone conversation. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must do, however, is, in the first place, to explain properly and not deny the letter he wrote to Mr. McHenry asking him to make appointments for him with Dr. Waldheim. Secondly, he must explain to us exactly what he wanted from Mr. McHenry. Why was it necessary to phone this man—whom I had warned him against, saying that he was dangerous and could not be trusted with sensitive information—without telling me that he had done so? The third matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must clear up is why he has not yet apologized to ambassador Eick. He said that he would do so at the first possible opportunity. It would be embarrassing to me to have talks with the ambassador while his name is mentioned against his will in this House and he is without any remedy. He cannot defend himself in this House. What is he to do? He cannot address this House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in honour bound to furnish the facts concerning that ambassador as soon as possible. Until the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepts the word of the hon. the Prime Minister and the word of my hon. colleagues in the Cabinet, he must not ask me to accept his word. [Interjections.] If he can put that matter right and restore mutual confidence, I am prepared to say “yes”, i.e. if we can do it that way.

Finally, I want to point out that there are obviously people in the PFP who are patriots. That is so. [Interjections.] Certainly there are. Hon. members need not thank me for saying that. I think it would be very wrong of us to say that there is no one amongst them who would not like to put South Africa first and who does not do a great deal for South Africa. If the hon. member for Houghton advocated investment in South Africa while overseas, as she is alleged to have done, we thank her and we congratulate her. [Interjections.] Obviously. The same applies to the hon. member for Yeoville. I personally know how much he has done overseas on missions and in discussions with various persons and bodies abroad. There are also the hon. member for Parktown and other hon. members I could mention. [Interjections.] However, we are not concerned with that today. We are concerned with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. After I had made sensitive disclosures to him, and to other hon. members of the Opposition as well, he phoned Mr. McHenry. Mr. McHenry then went to our man in the UN and asked him where his Minister got the information from which he was alleged to have discussed with Mr. Eglin. He asked why it had been mentioned and what it meant.

I ask hon. members to judge for themselves. I did not come here with false accusations. I quoted from the documents available to me. I gave the facts as reported to me, and who is the one who stumbled over the facts? Who is the one who said “no” when he should have said “yes”? Who is the one who involved the German ambassador when he should not have involved him? Who is the one who has still not apologized to the German embassy after he said in public that he would do so? Yes, we can go back, and I suggest that we go back to the high standard maintained here today by the hon. the Prime Minister and the commendable foundation on which he built his speech. Let us do so for the sake of a healthy debate on the serious situation in the world outside, on the situation of South Africa, on the duty and the role which South Africa has in the era to come, a positive role and a positive duty. We thank the hon. the Prime Minister for having given this House and South Africa a speech of such high quality, in spite of the petty attempt which was made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal explanation about the matter relating to the German ambassador. [Interjections.] I want to correct the incorrect statement which I made in this House on Tuesday, 3 April.

You slipped up badly, eh?

On that day I made two statements which were contradictory… [Interjections.]

Order!

On that day I made two statements which were contradictory, statements in reference to an envoy of the Western contact group. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the one statement I said (col. 3917)—

The other was (col. 3917)—

May I just say that that part of Hansard, at that stage, had question marks and underlining in it. In the meantime the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had made a speech on the basis of the uncorrected Hansard; so there was no point in changing it at that stage, if it had to be changed. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance to finish his explanation.

I would have attempted to correct the position across the floor of the House there and then. As it happened, I was concerned that the latter statement did not reflect the position correctly. I decided to discuss it with Mr. Eick, who was not mentioned at that stage as the ambassador concerned, and to put the matter right in Parliament as soon as I could. I did then take the initiative by discussing this with Ambassador Eick, giving him the assurance that I would amend the statement in Parliament. So, I must say that the words “The gentleman said: ‘Why did you not check with the other side?”’ are incorrect. The other statement was correct, in other words that it was what the gentleman said that prompted me to check with the other side.

I apologize to the hon. members of the House for not having stated the position correctly and want to advise hon. members that I have already expressed my regrets to Ambassador Eick for any inconvenience it may have caused him.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

Let me say at the outset that I do not intend to get caught up in the crossfire between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I had intended to deal with this matter in the course of my speech but I shall do so now before going on to other matters. What I was going to say at a later stage in my speech was that at a critical time the telephone call of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition fell into the Government’s lap like manna from heaven. He dropped the ball when the Government was on the defensive. He let them off the hook. Strangely enough, Sir, although it was not I who made the telephone call, I have been criticized all over the place because I dared to take issue with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What was I supposed to do? Here was an issue in which I was involved. I had been present at the briefing and knew what was said there. I had, with the permission of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, read the telex from New York which referred to one of the issues on which we had been briefed. I have been criticized because I got up and dissociated myself from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Because you were playing petty politics.

I did so because this party believes that South Africa is entitled to know where parties and politicians stand on any matter that concerns the public interest. This was a matter of public interest and I was not prepared to sit in silence, with folded arms, expressing no opinion and being neutral. It was an issue on which I had to take a stand. I was satisfied, on the basis of my information, that I did not want to be associated with that telephone call and I therefore dissociated myself from it. As it has developed now, I think someone should give this to the TV director of “Nommer Asseblief” because it would perhaps be a good theme for a further serial of that programme. I do not, however, intend to get tied up with this issue. I believe it was my duty to state where this party stood and I did so. In doing so, I warned the Government that this would not let them off the hook. I said that, however ill-advised the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s telephone call was, it was not going to let the Government off the hook.

This is the traditional occasion on which the hon. the Prime Minister is called to order before Parliament, the occasion on which he reports to Parliament on his stewardship. This year it is not just his six months’ stewardship that is at issue. I believe it is Parliament itself that is on trial. Events this afternoon have made me even more convinced of that. I believe that, until the hon. the Prime Minister’s statements this afternoon on foreign affairs and on the reorganization of departments, which I shall deal with later, this third session of the sixth Parliament has gone on record as a black session in the political history of South Africa. What is more, I believe it is entitled to carry the curse of the young people of South Africa of all races, languages and groups for what it has done over the last 2½ months. While the future of those people rests in the hands of this Parliament and their destiny and the destiny of South Africa is at stake, I believe this Parliament has been playing party politics. It has been playing party politics for 2½ months. This is the occasion on which we must bring the debate back to the responsibility of this hon. Prime Minister and his Government towards the people of South Africa, all the people.

At this moment the destiny of our country and, indeed, of the whole of Southern Africa is being reshaped. At this moment, as I speak, the people of Rhodesia are voting and the outcome of that event is going to change the whole scene in Southern Africa. What, however, are we arguing about this afternoon?—A telephone call to McHenry. We have talked about the Information scandal for 2½ months. I blame the hon. the Prime Minister because I believe he could have put an end to the interminable debate on the affair. If he had acted immediately, if he had prosecuted Gen. Van den Bergh and he had given Dr. Mulder the opportunity to stand up and be questioned and cross-questioned—I believe he could have killed the whole affair. But the hon. the Prime Minister has allowed this issue to drag on and on until, as the hon. the Minister of Finance correctly said, people are sick and tired of it. It has, however, not been solved yet and it will drag on and on until the hon. the Prime Minister does the only thing possible to put an end to it, and that is to make the evidence of the commission available, when it is complete, to a Select Committee of Parliament so that we can carry the responsibility and not have this continual accusation and counter accusation of which everybody is sick and tired.

What else has been happening? We have had the shocking shooting affair. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that it was a shocking business. I want to congratulate the police on their quick action and say that I look forward to the law taking its proper course in this matter. What else have we talked about? There is the serious issue of the spying incident. I, too, want to go on record as saying that it is absolutely unforgivable that this assault on South Africa’s independence and sovereignty should have taken place, and what is more, that it should have occurred a week after the United States had protested because South Africa had called Ambassador Don McHenry “hostile” to South Africa. They said that they were not “hostile” but a friendly State. It makes it all the more unforgivable that, a week after that assurance that America was friendly towards South Africa, this should have happened. But it has happened elsewhere before and I do not believe that we should overplay this, because now South Africa has been warned and we can have no further illusions on this issue. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to go further than he has gone—if he has the information—and to say whether he believes that there has been any leakage of information which has hindered the effectiveness of any of the strikes South Africa has made into Angola or Zambia against terrorist forces. If information has been leaked out of South Africa, then it makes the position even more serious and even more unforgivable than it is at the moment.

I think that it is only right that I should say that I appreciate and have taken advantage of the opportunity I was given to see the films involved in the spy plane incident, and I am satisfied beyond any doubt that this is not a trumped up charge. South Africa certainly did not plant the camera and those films could only have been taken for one particular reason which is now clear beyond any doubt.

As I see it, it is only this last issue which can influence the long term destiny of South Africa. But the things we have been talking about are the information affair, telephone calls and personality politics; we have been squabbling across the floor of the House. What has happened, is that the Government has been let off the hook, it has been able to sweep under the carpet its failures in the day to day administration of South Africa. If ever we wanted an example of it, the hon. the Prime Minister has this afternoon saved me the trouble of providing one. For years this party and its predecessor have complained that the Government administration was top heavy, was not functioning effectively and had to be completely overhauled and streamlined. What has happened, is that in the post-information paralysis administration in South Africa has been paralysed and strangled. I welcome enthusiastically the announcement that there is to be a complete review of the day to day administration of South Africa. By sweeping things under the carpet one does not get rid of them, but merely pushes them out of sight. The time has come to lift that carpet and clean up the mess underneath and not simply keep it out of sight.

I want to say again that I believe that this Parliament itself, and not just the hon. the Prime Minister, is to an extent on trial today. We cannot get ourselves into knots over personalities. Emotional patriotism is a very heady mixture. It is not new; it goes back to the time of the Lumumba-election when the Lumumba-drum was beaten, the later election when the Mau Mau-drum was beaten and the 1977-election when the Carter-drum was beaten. However, we are not in an election now. I want to say to the Government members that real patriotism makes a greater demand on South Africans than waving flags or beating drums, because real patriotism at this moment in time requires of people the courage to face the cold realities of what is happening in South and Southern Africa. These events require a fundamental change in thinking. These events have developed past the point of no return in Rhodesia and in South West Africa, and they force South Africans, whether they like it or not, to take a complete new look at their way of thinking in order to adjust to a new set of circumstances.

I believe that the Rhodesian election has already shown that the democratic process is working. I believe that at the conclusion of this election, Rhodesians will have proved their ability to implement a peaceful settlement by agreement, a settlement which South Africa should accept. Having accepted it, and provided it remains a stable democratic Government, I believe South Africa must share responsibility for the security of the whole Southern African region and give its moral, and whatever practical aid it can give, to ensure that the Red tide does not move south of the Zambezi.

I do not want to deal with South West Africa, except to say that I still back the attitude of the Government that we stand by the agreement of April 1978.

I briefly want to come to another issue. I shall merely summarize my feelings in this regard. I think all South Africans are naturally disillusioned with the super powers, once the cradle of the idealism and standards on which we built South Africa. Because of our revulsion, the very natural temptation is to say: “Let us cut the ties”. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. Whatever the temptation to say that the West is rotten and that its moral standards are in decay, let us think beyond the immediate emotional reaction, because there is more than mere emotion involved in this. There are, for example, trading, cultural, economic and communication links and many other aspects. I hope that in our natural anger at what has happened, we shall not take steps which will put beyond repair the rebuilding of communication with countries which I hope will one day come back to normal.

I agree that our destiny lies in Southern Africa. We should have a common purpose and aim, but I am afraid that there is one missing link which must be provided before that can be implemented. The hon. the Prime Minister’s concept of a Southern African constellation can never come about without that missing link. That missing link is to make of South Africa a trusted, stable, peaceful and strong neighbour which can form the sheet-anchor of his “constellation”. The key word is a “trusted” neighbour, a neighbour in whom the rest of Southern Africa will have confidence. That missing link is the settlement of our own inter-race relations in South Africa. I believe we need a new dynamic in South Africa’s internal policies. It must not just be an administrative dynamic, but a new dynamic in thinking. This is where I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has failed South Africa. He is tied to old policies, dreams and hopes which are now in ruins. The hon. the Prime Minister himself and his Government are looking for a new constitutional structure. He has thrown it back into the melting-pot, to a Select Committee, because he accepts, as we all do, that the old apartheid dream has gone forever. We have got to build bridges across the rubble of those ruins so as to create something new in its place. We cannot afford to drift around rudderless in circles, paralysed by the internal dissensions in that party and by differences in philosophical thinking.

There is a road; there is also a beacon to guide us to it, namely the concept of a Southern African confederation. We have heard Bishop Muzorewa in Rhodesia saying that he foresees friendly and close relations with South Africa. We have heard representatives of Bophuthatswana saying that they wish to come into a Southern African federation. I have heard it from Transkeian leaders. I have also heard it from our own homeland leaders. This is the beacon, a confederation of Southern Africa. I am not just talking about a loose constellation, but a formalized confederation, binding together the common links and the common interests of Southern Africa.

We should be debating that here and now in this House. It should not just be debated in simposia, at universities and in newspaper columns. I have cuttings here for Africa, cuttings from the Nationalist Press. More and more it is becoming clear that there is one issue dominating the debate on South Africa’s future and that is the question of community identity and security from domination. I believe that a solution which ignores community identity and ethnic identity not only has no hope of ever achieving electoral support from the Whites, but can also never provide a friction-free and conflict-free solution.

In this respect the official Opposition has excluded itself because it rejects ethnicity as a basis for political or community structures. The official Opposition has made a clear decision on this. But the people, as I have said before, who are destroying ethnicity as an instrument for rebuilding the ruins of apartheid are those in the Government itself. They claim to stand for ethnicity, but they have made it a swearword and have tainted it. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that his opinion-formers are veering more and more towards the concept of a federal-confederal solution for South Africa, towards NRP thinking. Whether they like it or not, it is also reflected in those benches.

Finally, I want to put a clear issue to the hon. the Prime Minister, an issue which I believe prevents him and the hon. members in his ranks from crossing the fundamental divide to reality. The hon. the Minister of Health said earlier this year that there would always be Black South Africans.

*There will always be Black South Africans; not Blacks in South Africa, but Black South Africans.

Of course.

I should now like to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister: Will there always, as that hon. Minister says “of course”, be Black South African citizens in South Africa? I am not referring to Black citizens of other countries, but to Black South Africans. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations says “of course”…

No. I am saying you should ask the hon. member for Mooi River to illustrate it with his “Glockenspiel”.

I also wish to ask the hon. the Prime Minister. Does he accept a joint say in the areas common to White, Indian, Coloured and certain urban Blacks in South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister will not reply to me now, but at the same time I should also like to ask the hon. the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal whether he accepts that there will always be Black South African citizens.

Surely you know what the policy of this party is.

Tell us.

Will there always be Black South African citizens in South Africa? I challenge the hon. leader of the NP in the Transvaal to say whether or not he accepts that there will always be Black South African citizens. Does he accept that there will be a joint say between Whites and people of other colours in South Africa. I am not referring to consultation, but to a joint say on a proper and planned constitutional basis. The hon. the Deputy Minister will not reply to me.

†That is the hon. the Prime Minister’s whole dilemma: He knows he cannot move as far or as fast as either he or a minority section of his party wants to move, because he is being held back by the other section which he says there will be no Black South Africans, no joint decision-making; that there will be complete separation. They are prepared to consult, but there will be no sharing of power and no joint decision-making. He knows that his Government cannot solve this dilemma, and that it will take a new Government—I have called it a “Government of national reconciliation”—of which he might well be part, a Government that can face the new Southern Africa on which the future of young South Africa depends. I hope the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and a whole lot of his colleagues, will also be part of this new Government.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the leader of the NRP did not really make a speech this afternoon and if I had to describe it, I would say that to a certain extent he was on a “fishing expedition”. Before coming to the official Opposition, I want to react briefly to one allegation made by the hon. the leader of the NRP this afternoon. He made the allegation with reference to the important announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon in connection with further rationalization in the Public Service. I think it was absolutely inappropriate and not worthy of the hon. leader of that party to have tried to dismiss that important and constructive announcement and decision of the hon. the Prime Minister’s as cheap propaganda and to have referred to it as an attempt “to sweep the mess under the carpet”. I think it was totally unworthy of him and inappropriate as well. The hon. the leader of the NRP did this in the same speech in which he maintained that we in this House must move away from petty politics. That is totally unforgivable. Consequently it was almost ridiculous to hear from that side of the House that we should move away from petty party politics, while we have heard nothing whatsoever but petty party politics from the official Opposition as well as the NRP in recent months.

That only applies to the official Opposition.

However, is it not strange that since the official Opposition and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in particular have been personally affected, there has been an outcry? That outcry emanates not only from the official Opposition, but also from the Press which supports them. There is a cry from those ranks for peace to enter the political debate in South Africa. It emanates from the same Press which from morning to night for a matter of months has continued to call into question the integrity of the Government, the hon. the Prime Minister and each member of the Cabinet in the most irresponsible manner. Now that their favourite is in a fix, however, an appeal is suddenly made to us to be calm and not to hurt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I have suspected for a long time that as far as the official Opposition is concerned, we are not dealing with a South African party, but in fact with the internal wing of a party. What has happened over the past few days has only reaffirmed that suspicion. We are not dealing here with a South African party, but merely with a wing of a party. That party must have an external wing.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that it was imperative for him to telephone Mr. McHenry as he wanted to hear the other side as well, since, he said, he had to inform his caucus. I want to know from him whether he informed his caucus that he had telephoned Mr. McHenry. [Interjections.] Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition inform the hon. member for Yeoville, for instance, that he had telephoned Mr. McHenry?

Get on with your speech; you have heard his reply.

I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he informed the hon. member for Yeoville that he had telephoned Mr. McHenry. I do not think he did. If he did not do so, why did he not do so? Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition inform all the members of his caucus that he had taken those steps? If he did not do so, why did he not do so? Does he perhaps trust only certain members of his caucus and not all the members? [Interjections.] I take it that the hon. member for Yeoville will participate in this debate at a later stage and we should like to know from him whether he was consulted in this matter by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We are looking forward with interest to whether this will, in fact, prove to be the case.

Did Helen know?

He telephoned the next day; he told you the whole story.

In the first place this debate concerns the Vote of the Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who has definitely had to take that heavy responsibility on himself under the most trying circumstances in South Africa’s history. The hon. the Prime Minister made an announcement here this afternoon which, to a large extent, constitutes a watershed for South Africa as regards its foreign relations. Today the hon. the Prime Minister indicated the road ahead for South Africa and today he in actual fact finally cut the umbilical cord between South Africa and the West. For years we have largely been the doormat of the West in our over-eagerness to demonstrate our loyalty to the West. For that reason the announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister has become necessary and I welcome his saying that as far as our country and we were concerned, the West would not automatically be able to depend on South Africa’s unqualified support in future, because in the first and last instance we too shall, like any other country in the world, place the interests of our country, South Africa, first and foremost. This is one of the most important announcements yet made by a Prime Minister in this House. We should like to know from the official Opposition, as well as the other Opposition parties, their standpoint in this regard. Up to now there has been no reaction from their side to this important announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister. We do not know whether or not they agree with it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done no more than to try to use this debate to escape from his own dilemma.

Then he plunged himself even deeper into that dilemma.

My time has almost expired. Today I am grateful for the fact—not that this has ever been conceivable—that I am not a member of the official Opposition.

Heaven preserve us!

If I had to be under the banner of someone like the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition—I do not know for how long he is going to remain leader—it would be an impossible situation. In the eyes of South Africa the patriotism of the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition is suspect.

That is absolute rubbish!

The conduct of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this House this afternoon as well as his poor explanation, his repeated explanations and admissions, does not lead us to believe for one minute that he has strengthened his position, not only in this House, but also outside this House. In fact, we believe that he has infinitely weakened his position. [Interjections.] The patriotism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been called into question in this House. He was free to…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Barberton allowed to call into question the patriotism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? [Interjections.]

There has been no ruling against that in the past In any event, the time of the hon. member has expired.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first occasion on which the hon. the Prime Minister is handling this Vote. I should therefore like to congratulate him formally on his appointment and to wish him well. I also wish to commiserate with him because I do not believe that any Prime Minister in the history of our country has taken over the reigns of office in more difficult circumstances than the present hon. Prime Minister. He has only been Prime Minister for six months. In our view it is impossible to judge him on his performance during such a short term of office. We do think, however, that it is possible to comment on the steps he has taken and the general direction he has indicated for the country, more particularly the direction he has indicated today, a direction which at first sight and prima facie seems to be a sensible and courageous step forward into the future.

The hon. the Prime Minister appointed the Erasmus Commission and arranged for a full debate here in Parliament on the occasion of the tabling of the first report of the commission. Thereafter, in order to deal with this specific involvement of hon. Ministers, he arranged for a special report to be brought out at the end of March. The third report is to be tabled at the end of May. Our attitude is that we will withhold judgment until the commission has fully reported. Then we will seek a proper opportunity in this House of debating the report in full. I want to call upon the hon. the Prime Minister in advance not only to table the report, but to table also all the evidence supporting all the reports, except such evidence as in the opinion of Mr. Justice Erasmus will be contrary to the interests of national security. When the report is tabled, I think, we must have a full and final debate on these matters, because South Africa cannot afford this Information matter to drag on indefinitely. We cannot continue in South Africa with what Americans call breast-beating. America’s Watergate should alert us to the dangers that are inherent in allowing this dispute to drag on.

I recently read an article by Phillip C. Clarke, a former general editor of Newsweek and at present the communications director of the American Security Council, a man holding a very responsible position. He said of Watergate—

He went on to say—

I say that South Africa cannot afford to be paralysed, as we have been for too long. My greatest criticism of the Government is that it has shown signs of paralysis, there having been reaction upon reaction to every single disclosure and every single news report while the Government’s duty, in my opinion, is to get on with the business of governing the country in the time of its greatest danger. We need strong and single-minded leadership and not leadership that is constantly diverted from its duty of ensuring our national security. The hon. the Prime Minister has enlarged and expanded the terms of reference of the Commission for Plural Affairs to enable it to examine the possibilities of greater consolidation of the homelands and the whole question of the position of their independence. This, we feel, is a commendable step, and it may well be that the future of Southern Africa lies in the direction of greater consolidation of the homelands, and possibly partition, provided the mistake is not made of granting independence to States unable to run their own affairs because of the absence of an adequate infrastructure consisting of a civil service, a police force, a viable economy and a society with skills, which means not a society which is just a peasant proletariat. In short, it must be a State that is able to run itself and progress, and not stagnate and degenerate in independence.

*The hon. the Prime Minister recently appointed a committee to investigate a new deal in South Africa on the basis of a new constitutional framework. We think it was a wise decision to refer a draft constitution to a joint committee. It is something which should be approached with patience, tolerance, and an open mind. In spite of political statements and views in the past, all of us are looking for what would be practical in the light of our present and future circumstances. Due to the appointment of this committee, the opportunity was created to obtain the cooperation of moderates from all sections of the population, and that is to be welcomed.

The future of South Africa does not depend on negotiations with false friends, but on the strength of the South African economy, the strength of our military force and the national unity and patriotism we are able to build up amongst the various races and population groups. Improved domestic relations among the various population groups, among White, Brown, Black and Indian communities, should be priority number one. It is no use saying that that is the purpose and the aim. More positive steps must be taken. Old and obsolete legislation, which is merely a reflection of the prejudices of the past, should be removed enthusiastically. Take, for example, the ridiculous system in terms of which Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking children are separated at school. That is one of the most detrimental heritages from former Governments. The hon. the Prime Minister has himself had experience in the Defence Force, for example, of the advantage to South Africa when English-and Afrikaans-speaking people serve together in the same units. There the young men of South Africa learn to know, appreciate and respect one another. There we build true and good South Africans without losing our identity and, without losing their identity, the two language groups can indeed enrich one another. This is proved in the Defence Force every day. Why can it not be proved in our schools as well?

†Mr. Chairman, in this morning’s Cape Times there was an article by Stanley Uys under the heading “South Africa warned on the danger of Rhodesia’s involvement”. This article contained an interview with Dr. David Owen, the British Foreign Secretary. This article did not appear in our Press by chance on the day of the Prime Minister’s Vote being discussed in Parliament. Dr. David Owen must have been one of the most disastrous Foreign Secretaries ever to have held office in Britain. He has done more deliberate damage to South Africa and British relations than any other British politician I can recall. He is an inveterate enemy of the White man in Southern Africa. His interviewer, Stanley Uys, is known to the older school of journalists in South Africa as a man who was a onetime communist and, judging from his writings, he still is an ardent admirer of the communist cause. In this interview Dr. David Owen did nothing more nor less than threaten South Africa. There have been years of unbearable pressure on South Africa to leave Rhodesia in the lurch. There was an internal settlement in Rhodesia in March of last year. At the moment it seems that there is a successful poll among all Rhodesians for a Black majority Government.

South Africa has helped Rhodesia. South Africa did not participate in the sanctions war imposed by the international community against Rhodesia. It has always been South Africa’s belief that the Rhodesians should be allowed to determine their future for themselves. So today Rhodesia is deciding for itself, and I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that South Africa must recognize the new Government in Rhodesia, that South Africa must sustain that Government and that South Africa must support Rhodesia, in whatever way our support is required by the Rhodesians, because it is in the interests of all of us in South Africa that this should be done.

Mr. Chairman, without reacting to all the details raised by the hon. member for Simonstown, I just want to say that we on this side of the House agree with him whole-heartedly as regards the idea that we should give all possible sympathy and support to the newly elected Government in Rhodesia. I agree with him that Dr. Owen, as British Minister of Foreign Affairs, most certainly has very little sympathy, not only with Whites in Rhodesia, but with all Whites in Southern Africa. However, I think we can leave it to the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the rest of this Government to deal with this in due course.

The hon. the Prime Minister made very important and positive policy statements today with regard to South Africa and our future. In this regard I want to refer in particular to his statement on the development of the Black states and homelands and his new plans in connection with the consolidation of these areas. In this regard I think it a pity that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition was so busy trying to get out of the mud today that he did not have the time to attend to these very important matters. He simply disposed of the whole affair with a statement that the official Opposition was looking forward to the day when there would be, as he put it, a “society without enforced discrimination or apartheid or segregation” in South Africa. That is the expressed standpoint of the official Opposition, but it is a standpoint which does not take into account in any way the ethnic situation and the political situation in South Africa. I want to state that it is impossible for us in South Africa to have a so-called “society” which will bear no semblance or trace of discrimination. In South Africa we must of necessity deal with peoples and population groups with totally different backgrounds, that not only speak different languages but are also at different stages of development In addition, we in South Africa have to deal with what are unmistakably conflicting nationalisms. There is no such thing as a general South African nationalism. I just want to remind hon. members of what one of the Committee of Ten of Soweto, Mr. Motlana, said recently. He referred to the need for group domination. Before an audience of students of the University of the Witwatersrand he made the statement that “die dag sal kom dat ons julle sal oorheers”. He was enthusiastically applauded by those students. This is just an indication that these people have a completely different view to ours, and that their aims and ours differ totally. Even the Chief Minister of Ciskei, who is a reasonable, well-disposed and positive-minded Black leader, says that he is developing a homeland, but that he will not divert his gaze from the wealth of greater South Africa. The problem is that the underdeveloped peoples in South Africa in particular are too busy looking at the so-called wealth of greater South Africa, whereas the particular areas at their disposal are areas with exceptional potential and capable of exceptional development. I want to express the hope that the new steps towards consolidation which will become a reality in time, will assist the various Black peoples of South Africa to fix their eyes on those areas in our country which belong to them, areas which have been set aside for them as it were. I differ totally from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he indicated that the borders of those areas should be eliminated and that there need not be a territorial basis for the future development of the various population groups in South Africa. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is leaving the developing Black peoples in South Africa completely in the lurch, because it is simply a fact that if it were our approach that no territory belongs to a specific population group, we would simply be selling out the Black man in South Africa The prosperous and enterprising Whites would then of necessity buy him out of his own fatherland. We cannot afford this in South Africa, because this is the foundation for racial friction, dissatisfaction and a permanent backward position for these people.

We adopt a different approach. Our view is that we in South Africa want to reserve and retain a part of South Africa for ourselves as a White fatherland, but that we also want to accommodate the various Black peoples. The consolidation idea expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister, makes provision for more meaningful consolidation. This shows that the Government is in earnest with regard to this important matter. Our point of departure is that each of the Black peoples in South Africa will have a specific area to itself, because among those peoples, too, conflicts and different nationalisms are developing. We are making provision for more meaningful consolidation of their territories. We will assist them in developing those areas. During the past number of decades the Government has been carrying out such a programme. I am convinced that this programme will be accelerated and that larger amounts will be spent in future. For that reason I want to support fully the idea that we should proceed with the mobilization of our White voters, so that they will not only express their support of this idea, but will also contribute willingly to meaningful consolidation, as well as the meaningful development of our Black states. It is only on a territorial basis and on the basis of development of those areas that lasting peace can be established in South Africa—and this is not going to be an easy process.

However, the official Opposition is standing in the way of this development. They are the people who are standing in the way of the development of the Black man in South Africa. They are the people who are not providing for this underdeveloped part of the South African population to be given a real opportunity to develop, because in competition with the Whites they will never be given a full opportunity to do so.

Let us build the future of South Africa in this way. Let us, by adopting this course, eliminate disparity in wealth or, as the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition would have it, the difference between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Let us help the Black man not only to see the potential of his own land, but also to develop it in the interests of his own future, and to promote his own prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, when one discusses the Prime Minister’s Vote in this House, it is natural that one should also look at the Opposition parties because, after all, it should be their duty to aspire to be the alternative Government in South Africa. If one looks even superficially at the performances this afternoon, at the speeches by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point, I think that everyone will agree with me that it is pretty obvious why the NP is on this side of the House and not one of the other parties. The statesman-like speech of the hon. the Prime Minister was in direct contrast with the rather petty little speeches by the other two hon. gentlemen. Even the hon. member for Durban Point, whom one certainly cannot accuse of being unpatriotic or working against the interests of South Africa in any way, made a very negative speech. That has always been the trouble with the Opposition in this country. They do not have any confidence in their own policies, in as much as they have policies at all. If they had confidence in their policies, they would go to the electorate and say: These are our policies; these are the issues on which we should be elected. Instead of that, we hear from the hon. member for Durban Point what the Government is not doing. He said that it lacks dynamism and various other things, and shirks its duty, but if that is so, why does he not offer alternatives? Why does he not come with the dynamism? Why does he not show us how to do it? Negative criticism is not the way. I want to say to him, too, that little toy models consisting of skeletons of tinker-toys and ping-pong balls are not the answer to this country’s problems or future. All the dynamism there has ever been in the past over many years…

Why do you not stand up when you talk?

That is a very petty remark, just like your party. As I was saying, that is not the answer to South Africa’s problems. I regret that the hon. member for Durban Point is not in the House, but he knows very well that Bishop Muzorewa’s willingness to enter into some sort of wider Southern African arrangement with us, as well as that of Bophuthatswana and Transkei, is as compatible with our policy as with his. But since he has nothing positive to offer, I do not think that I should really devote very much more time to the NRP. There is an old saying that “oor die dooies praat ’n mens niks anders as goed nie”. Therefore I shall now devote my time to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition.

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

No, I do not have the time and the hon. member knows it. We all have got only 10 minutes in this debate. The hon. Leader of the Opposition put up some kind of a defence of himself here. It was, however, one of the most dispirited and unconvincing defences of anybody’s actions I have ever seen. He even admitted to the House that he had made contradictory statements. If one makes contradictory statements, one of them must be untrue. That there was a barrage of interjections is not a reason why one should tamper with the truth.

A very imposing figure!

Order! I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston not to make personal remarks.

It was my very first one today.

It must also be the last. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, it was quite clear that he had in fact sought the good offices of Mr. McHenry to arrange his foreign tour for him in the United States. He conceded as much in his letter, which he quoted and in which he said that “perhaps” protocol requires that their request be made through the South African diplomatic channels. Thereafter he said: “I specifically indicated to Mr. McHenry that it would be correct”. “Perhaps” and “specifically” constitute another contradictory statement. If Mr. McHenry had acceded to his request, the “perhaps” request, I have no doubt that he would not have gone back to the South African Embassy and even heeded the Ambassador’s, Mr. Sole’s, telegram.

What is the question that now arises? He has been going about in Africa. He admitted here this afternoon that he has visited many countries, many of them friendly to South Africa but equally many of them hostile, as he himself said. I should like to know from him through whose offices he gets to visit hostile countries. Undoubtedly, it is through Mr. McHenry’s good offices and those of the United States Government. The trouble with the Opposition is that, from the moment when it decided no longer even to aspire to be the alternative Government of this country, it began disregarding the South African electorate and directed its attentions to electorates outside this country in the form of so-called world opinion. That is why in this House we constantly hear from their mouths what world opinion thinks. This kowtowing to world opinion and to the United States adequately explains for me the Eglin-McHenry scandal. If one views world opinion, the opinion of the Western World and especially the American electorate as one’s electorate, naturally one takes one’s instructions from that Government and one uses that Government’s good offices to arrange one’s overseas tours not only in the United States but also in hostile countries.

Every time the hon. Leader of the Opposition has come back from his African tours, he has reported a hardening of attitudes. One has also invariably seen statements by President Senghor, Dr. Waiyaki of Kenya and others to the effect that they will not enter into dialogue with South Africa until we have dialogue between Blacks and Whites. The phrase “national conventions” also comes up in their statements. It is quite obvious to me because of this that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not been, as he said this afternoon, trying to persuade hostile Black Governments to accept the bona fides of the South African Government. He has in fact done exactly the opposite. He has carried South Africa’s domestic politics into Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya to the disadvantage of his own country.

Prove that.

I have proved it.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I say that they follow the policies of the United States…

You are not in the SABC now.

I want to prove the allegations. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said he tried to convince hostile Governments of this country’s bona fides. He used the example of the hon. member for Houghton going to the United States and pleading against disinvestment on the campuses there. That is perfectly true, but when did she do that?

1979.

Yes, it was this year.

Last year.

However, when it was fashionable for the American Government and other Governments to plead for more economic pressure to be brought to bear against this country and to plead for disinvestment in this country, what did she do? She welcomed the United States, with the pressure it was applying, as an ally to change this Government.

Of course I want to change the system.

First of all, at the same time when disinvestment and pleas for sanctions against this country were fashionable, the hon. member for Parktown made his statement that, if he were to look at South Africa clinically, he would not invest in it, etc. At the time when the United States was advocating pressure and sanctions, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, too, appeared on television in the United States and, on being asked whether he found this pressure in order, his reply was: “Yes, we do find it in order, because it agrees with what we think.” But when the Big Five came to Pretoria in October 1978 and suddenly found that South Africa was prepared rather to accept sanctions than to bow to some of the things that they demanded of us, things which would have meant suicide for this whole nation, White, Black and Brown, and for the people of South West Africa, they started to talk against sanctions. Dr. Helmut Schmidt then went to London and warned that, if sanctions were to be implemented against South Africa, up to 7 million Germans would be unemployed because they got more than 50% of their raw materials from this country. It was then that Andrew Young said that sanctions were possibly not the best way of dealing with the situation. It was only after that, when the Americans changed their tune, that the hon. member for Houghton and the PFP changed their tune. There are, of course, exceptions within that party, as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out. I was in Germany with the hon. member for Yeoville and he did there make constant pleas against disinvestment in and sanctions against South Africa, saying that those were not the means to a peaceful solution. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville is also the only hon. member of that party who in yesterday’s debate on the Defence Amendment Bill could ask for a Select Committee to be appointed to prove that he was not untrustworthy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still not prepared to have that and his honour has been impugned, not only in previous debates, but again today.

If one wants to become the Prime Minister of South Africa, one must be trusted by the people of South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not even trusted by his own party. Even his own Press says the following about him—

I am quoting from the Sunday Express. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, matters of urgent national interest await the attention of the Government and I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister gave an indication of a positive approach this afternoon. I hope that we shall have an opportunity during the course of the debate to discuss all the important points which he raised and to state our standpoint in regard to them.

In the short time at my disposal I want to say a few words about the question of South West Africa. I should like to draw a distinction between the international aspect and the internal aspect of the matter. At present it would appear as though the negotiations for an internationally recognized independence have reached a deadlock which will be incapable of being easily resolved. I am not blaming the Government for this deadlock, nor am I blaming the democratic parties in South West Africa for it. The Government and the democratic parties in South West Africa pledged themselves to comply with the principles of full independence for South West Africa after a free and fair general election, under peaceful conditions and under the supervision and with the co-operation of the UN. In this respect they arrived at a firm understanding with the five Western powers in the Security Council, an understanding which is known to us.

I hope the Government and the democratic parties in South West Africa will keep this option open as long as possible. I believe that if the appropriate internal steps are taken, which I shall deal with in a moment, there is no reason why there should be over-hasty action in the sphere of the international issue. Before I deal with the internal position, I just want to say that the PFP is in full agreement with the democratic parties in South West Africa that the parties involved should adhere to what the UN itself requires, viz. “a free and fair election”. In a “free and fair election” it is only fair that all the parties participating in that election should do so in peace and should be prepared to accept the outcome, and should also enjoy equal treatment. Consequently it is ridiculous that one of the political parties, in this case Swapo, should arrogate to itself the right to continue to maintain a private army, to establish armed bases in South West Africa, even if they are monitored, and on top of that to maintain a military force across the border. A political movement which makes demands of this nature can only have one object in mind, and that is to resume its politics of violence if the result of the election is not to its liking. It seems to me fair and logical that if there is to be any question of a “free and fair election”, as South Africa and the democratic parties in South West Africa are prepared to allow, and one which takes place under the supervision of and under the joint control of the UN, then all the parties participating in that election should be subjected to the same discipline. One of them should not have more rights than another. One party cannot be allowed to participate in an election with a rifle over the shoulder, as it were. I hope that, in regard to this matter, the Government will stand firm. The option of implementing the accepted settlement plan should, we think, be kept open for as long as possible, but without sacrificing the principle that all parties should receive equal treatment and be subjected to the same discipline.

It is high time Swapo was finally confronted with the choice of being able to participate in the free election, but as a peaceful force and on an equal footing with all the other parties, therefore laying down their arms and ending their violence. If Swapo is not prepared to do that, the independence process must carry on without it. In that case we shall obviously have to give the new regime in South West Africa all the support it desires.

At present I am in fact more concerned about the internal position in South West Africa. There are various hon. members on this side of the House who have tried to the best of their ability to keep in touch with the developments in South West Africa. During the recent parliamentary recess I was there again. Today I do not want to enumerate the errors which were made in the past. That would be of no use to anyone. But I must point out that since the days of the Odendaal Commission and the discussion of that commission’s report here in this House it has been the outspoken standpoint of myself and other hon. members that a properly representative central Government should be established in South West Africa: A national Government with local powers over the entire territory, and representative of all its people. It is a pity that this was not done years ago. I am obliged to mention that I have consistently upheld that standpoint because I want to make it clear that it is not a new concept or that I suddenly wish to echo the opinions of many political leader or alliance in South West Africa. The simple fact is that the need for a central Government with local authority over the entire territory is more essential today than ever before. Every day the South African Government neglects to allow this to be established, it is guilty of dereliction of its duty to South West Africa.

The present position is untenable. The Administrator-General has certain powers and he is doing his best. However, he has no control of the Treasury and has no exchequer. The exchequer and the Treasury is in the hands of a Legislative Assembly. The five-year term of office of that Legislative Assembly expires on 17 May this year, although its life has been extended by a year. It has been extended because everyone knows that that body, in its present form, must disappear. Then there is the newly elected Constituent Assembly in which the DTA has an 80% majority but which, like Mohammed’s coffin, remains suspended in mid-air, waiting for an effective part to play. To crown it all there is an entire system of semi-State bodies, such as the Coloured Council and others, which still form part of the old order with its lack of co-ordination. This unco-ordinated situation cannot continue. It means that there cannot be any proper planning for the future and that no effective and immediate attention can be given to priorities and urgent national problems in South West Africa. [Interjections.] It also means that the various population groups do not learn to co-operate with one another in the political sphere and to govern together, something which they will have to do in any case tomorrow or the day after. The Government ought to know that this disjointed situation is frustrating the democratic parties and playing directly into the hands of the revolutionary forces. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members on the left-hand side must please stop conversing so loudly.

I think it is the duty of the Government to act at once. [Interjections.]

Order! I am referring specifically to the hon. member for Pretoria Central now.

What is the problem, Mr. Chairman?

Order! I have just asked hon. members to talk less, but hon. members simply continue talking.

I want to repeat that I think it is the duty of the Government to act at once in this matter, and that a central Government representative of all the population groups and all the regions, a central Government with defined authority on matters of national importance, ought to be established without delay so that the people of South West Africa, at least in practice, can begin to decide their own future. I know the Government has encouraged the local political parties to try to sort out the issue among their own ranks, but unfortunately the personality differences among the political leaders are so prominent that it may become necessary, for example, to put the Administrator-General, for example, in a position to establish a Cabinet which is representative of the principal regions and the strongest political groups and which may serve as a provisional national Government with full control over the revenue of the territory.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you kindly whether you have made provision for the time-consuming interjections?

Unfortunately I cannot make provision for that.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to react to the points raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because I wish to refer to one or two matters raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked us, in the House yesterday, to accept his bona fides in connection with the 25 minute explanation he gave to the House about his telephone conversation with Mr. McHenry and his discussions with other ambassadors. It is not, however, a question of hon. members on this side of the House accepting his bona fides as Leader of the Opposition. The position is that he has to prove his bona fides in this matter to the general public, the voters of South Africa, and not only to hon. members of this party but also to and not only to hon. members of this party but also to hon. members of his own party.

Especially the voters of Sea Point.

Yes, especially the voters of Sea Point. Surely, if doubt has been cast on the bona fides of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and this has been so very graphically illustrated by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs—there are certain recourses open to him. The obvious parliamentary recourse, if he feels that his honour has been impugned, is for him to resort immediately to the parliamentary procedure of standing up, in the course of this debate, and asking for the appointment of a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated that the witnesses whom he has called are, at present, here in South Africa, and there would consequently be no better time than the present for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, without any undue delay whatsoever, to call for such a Select Committee. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition expects me and other hon. members on this side of the House to accept his bona fides. I shall accept his bona fides if he is prepared to stand up and ask for a Select Committee to investigate this matter. I challenge him today to do so.

What is the charge?

The Chief Whip of that party asks what the charge is. Does he not realize that the integrity, patriotism, the feelings and the decency of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as a South African, have been brought into question? Surely he must realize that.

Only by you.

It is beyond my comprehension that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is a potential alternative Prime Minister of South Africa, can sit there and still accept the situation as it prevails at present. I think that it is shocking and I hope that South Africa will take note that the hon. gentleman does not even have the courage to stand up, like the hon. member for Yeoville did, and ask for a Select Committee if his honour has been impugned and his credentials as a leader have been called in question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has never yet in the time that he has held that position had such an opportunity of showing that he is a leader as was afforded him today by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister made a statesman-like speech in which he cast a vision for the future of South Africa. He showed us a road and one would have expected that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have risen above his pettiness as a political puppet in this House and made some attempt to react to the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister.

There are certain fundamental issues on which we and the Opposition differ. I am going to state what my fundamental beliefs are as a patriotic South African and an English-speaking Afrikaner. I believe these are fundamental principles we should accept when we approach the affairs of our country. The hon. the Prime Minister has clearly shown today what our calling in the land of our fathers and our task in South Africa, as a nation, is for the future—and it is based on fundamental beliefs. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he will accept five principles I will mention, because if he is prepared to accept those five principles, I can debate the merits of his party and policies with him. I want to ask him further whether these principles are enshrined anywhere in the so-called constitution or in any statement of principles of his party.

I believe that the retention of our political power over matters that solely affect us as a White nation is absolutely essential. It is difficult to differentiate between matters that primarily affect us and those in respect of which we must share with other nations in our multinational society, but I believe that it is essential that we retain political control over at least those issues which affect our group interests, our national interests and our White interests. The second principle which I believe is fundamental to us is that our spiritual and educational life must be so organized that, as a nation, we remain motivated to preserve the national interest to have it grow and flourish; that our educational activity is not just a neutral activity, but that it is there to stimulate our culture and traditions. This means clearly, therefore, that there must be separate education for the different national groupings within our country. The third principle that I believe is in that, within the multinational context of the South African society, separate residential areas are essential for peaceful co-existence. The fourth fundamental principle is the retention of the very essence of our national existence, the family, and of respect for their birthright, so that, with or without laws, we can ensure our White national identity. Finally, the fifth principle is that we recognize that it is not only our biological presence that will ensure our continuance as a nation here in South Africa, but that our cultural life is of such a quality that it will identify our nation throughout the world. In the light of these fundamental issues I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he still stands by his philosophy which I believe he stated at one time in Bloemfontein, viz. that he recognized that our identity as a White tribe in Southern Africa could be ensured only in an open society and that the revival of our identity could be assured by sharing power in a common society.

I state these fundamental issues for a very good reason. At one time I was fortunate to discover what is referred to as a “Plain Man’s Guide” to the PFP plan. This was apparently published in the Sunday Times very shortly after this conception of a new consensus policy—or whatever it is called—was arrived at by the PFP in Durban. This was drawn up by a gentleman by the name of Joel Mervis, whom I think is a PFP member of a provincial council. The interesting thing about this is that in the “Plain Man’s Guide” to the PFP plan for peace in South Africa this gentleman makes it very clear that it cannot and will not work unless a convention is held. The concept of the convention is, of course, that these fundamental principles which I have outlined must be thrown on one side, because to achieve the concept of a convention one must first relinquish any responsibility one holds as a White man towards the furtherance of the interests of the other national groups of our country. That is the basic concept of a convention, viz. that one surrenders completely all one’s responsibility as a leader of the White opposition. [Interjections.] That is so. One cannot argue away the logic of that, because Mr. Joel Mervis accepts that concept. However, he goes further. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman…

Before I call upon the hon. member to speak, I should like to congratulate him on his birthday!

Mr. Chairman, originally it was twice as easy for me to participate in this debate, but since you have been so kind as to congratulate me on my birthday, I want to say that it is now three times as easy to participate, because today we succeeded in winning this political all-in wrestling competition by two falls to one. The first fall we scored was in fact not scored in the spirit of a political all-in wrestling competition, but concerned what the hon. the Prime Minister said at the beginning of his speech when he laid the foundation for this debate. To a certain extent I am disappointed that none of the arguments the hon. the Prime Minister advanced has been meaningfully followed up. In this all-in wrestling competition we scored one fall after the other against hon. members opposite. However, the aim here is certainly not a mere scoring of political debating points, because the purpose of this debate is to weigh up the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, the person of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the leader of the Opposition, who intimated that he is an alternative Prime Minister.

In the light of the invitation issued to us by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition earlier in this debate, i.e. to “tackle our performance and our policy”, one cannot but question their style of debating and their policy. When one does that, one should have an appropriate source at hand. I believe there are quite a number of sources available according to which one can set one’s criteria, but I believe that for the purposes of this debate the most appropriate sources are definitely the Parliamentary records. These are the purest sources, the most original sources. If one reads through the Hansards, one can try to make a reasonable construction of the political style and policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Let us now look at the style of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as manifested in the course of the present session in the debates in which he participated. When I do this, I should point out that I do not want to slight him—nor shall I do so—but I do not believe that he will take it amiss if I adopt his style when, during a previous debate, he neutralized one of his political opponents in a lighter vein by way of a humorous remark. The example I want to give him is that of a certain lawyer who, on arriving at court, was asked by the prosecutor: “Sir, could you kindly disclose your defence to me at this stage?” His only reply was: “Defence? I have no defence—I am here today only to sow doubt.” That is the political style of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

Looking at the policy of the PFP, we find a golden thread running through five policies. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says they recognize the plural nature of the South African society and they are striving for a constitution drafted by agreement. Furthermore there are certain basic requirements, i.e. that on the one hand there should be no discrimination and on the other, that one group should never dominate another group. They go on to say that they want to create self-governing federated units. Finally they say that all fundamental decisions must be taken by way of consensus.

Against this we see in the records of Parliament the political style and policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. His point of departure is that South Africa is a threatened country and then he goes on to say that we are looking for a national strategy to counter this threat. He says that we are going to create a community of nations in Southern Africa which will be bound by nonaggression pacts, trade treaties and other treaties. He says that those communities will enjoy separate freedom. The hon. the Prime Minister has shown—he did so again this afternoon in the course of the debate—that not only does he have the ability to formulate policy and display practical, stylish politics, but that he also has the insight to be able to administer his policy.

It might seem, when we just apose these opposing standpoints, that there should be meaningful communication between the political parties in the light of the points I have listed. However, meaningful communication takes place when the receiver of a message receives that message as it is meant by the sender of the message. In scientific terminology it is very difficult to receive such a message due to the noise or atmospherics in between. I believe the circumstances surrounding this debate, all the previous debates this year and the special session last year as well, indicated why there are atmospherics in the communication between this party and those parties. The atmospherics were of such intensity that in my opinion we can say without fear of contradiction that political debating in this country on the concepts I have mentioned, has broken down completely. This forces us to have recourse to other quarters for meaningful political contributions. I want to leave the official Opposition at that, because I believe that hon. members have shown clearly the intensity of the racket and noise which spoil this communication.

I feel that we can adopt a new approach in considering the role played by our academics and other opinion-makers in this country. The hon. the Prime Minister rightly indicated how he believes in leadership, but also in leadership-in-council. By the composition and implementation of his policy and strategy he has in fact also indicated how he endeavours to involve the gentlemen to whom he referred in the formulation of a national strategy.

There are, however, a few issues in this regard which we shall have to settle with one another. In my opinion it is definitely time for us as politicians to admit that we do not have a monopoly with regard to politics, political concepts and political constructions, but that we should understand the worlds of experience of the academic and the politician. The academic with his unlimited observation and research must display the necessary realism and understanding by realizing that the politician’s actions are limited and confined by realities and responsibilities. To illustrate and encourage this new political discourse which should in my opinion take place in South Africa in order to formulate a joint national strategy, I should like to mention two aspects to this House.

I believe that sound national administration is based on three elements: correct policy formulation, implementation and the necessary control mechanisms. These very three elements are inherent in the standpoint the hon. the Prime Minister put forward when he announced that we should consider afresh a matter such as the 1936 legislation if we want to create separate freedoms for Blacks and Black states. In the second place it is also illustrated by a report in the Gazette, in which the hon. the Minister of the Interior extends an invitation to everyone who wants to make a contribution to the task of the Select Committee which will be examining the Constitution. Therefore those people will be able to make a meaningful contribution in that way too. By doing this we shall in my opinion have some pleasant surprises and discoveries. We shall get creative and critical ideas from those people, something we do not get from that side of this House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I too, should like to congratulate the hon. member on his birthday and at the same time tell him that he will find that we in the NRP agree with many of the matters he mentioned, especially his invitation to others to assist in the creation of a new Constitution. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to listen calmly to what I am going to say now. I use the word “calmly” not to be sarcastic or to annoy people, but I do it because I know full well that the matter I want to mention is potentially explosive. It is a matter that can be taken out of context very easily and I know from experience that it is also an emotional matter.

Today I should like to speak to the hon. the Prime Minister about the role of the Afrikaner in the present political set-up, and I want to refer specifically to the use of the Afrikaans nation for political purposes. In this regard I have to put the question whether the hon. the Prime Minister, seen against his own political background and past, and the NP, as it is constituted now—the emphasis is on the word “now”—are the proper person and political party to place the Afrikaner in a position from where he can proceed to play a leading political role. I believe there is no argument about whether the NP and its leaders succeeded in the past in mobilizing the Afrikaner politically and using him for political purposes. That is a general and historically acceptable fact. However, what is very clear today, is that the Afrikaner of today, especially the young Afrikaner, is in revolt. Do the hon. the Prime Minister and the hierarchy of his party realize that? I do not believe that they realize it.

What knowledge do you have of the Afrikaner?

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg sounds sceptical, but I am going to give examples. This can be observed at the cultural, social and political levels. If there is any doubt about that, allow me to mention a few examples. When it happens that Prof. Floors van Jaarsveld, who has published many reference works in history and who has been a pillar of the Afrikaans establishment for years, is tarred and feathered by a group of young Afrikaners in Pretoria, only a blind person can believe that we are living in normal conditions. If, apart from this, we also take into account that the point at issue was the Day of the Covenant, one realizes the gravity of the matter. I do not want to get involved here in a dispute about the Day of the Covenant, about who is right and who is wrong—instead I shall merely confine myself to the facts, to what happened.

The question which should be asked, is what is the reason for a dyed-in-the-wool Afrikaner such as Prof. Floors van Jaarsveld, to feel compelled to make the statements which unleashed such violent emotions. Can he now be summarily dismissed as a traitor, and will the Afrikaner of his type and nature be allowed to play a political role in the future, or will he be cast out? Or will the AWB be written off as traitors on account of their intolerance?

I doubt whether the NP is mature enough to accommodate effectively a person such as Prof. Van Jaarsveld. A further example of the growing revolt in Afrikaners ranks is manifesting itself among the youth and even among the ASB. In the past the ASB wore a cloak of verkramptheid. Hon. members would do well to listen to what the president of the ASB, Mr. Theunis Eloff, has to say. I quote from Die Vaderland—

A whole new language is being used here. Do the hon. the Prime Minister and the hierarchy of his party realize that? I do not think so. Everyone who knows something about history, and about the growth of nationalism in particular—not only in South Africa, but also in the rest of the world—surely knows that hero-worship has always been one of the mainsprings behind orthodox nationalism. In this country, hero-worship more than anything else contributed to the manipulation of the Afrikaner nation by the NP for political purposes.

You are merely repeating history.

The hon. member says that I am merely repeating history. But now it is being questioned, not by me, but by the young Afrikaner in the ASB. It is not being questioned by outsiders, but from within the inner circle of Afrikanerdom.

The NP simply cannot accommodate the new phenomenon which can be detected amongst young Afrikaners. They think they can, but that is not the case. Before I quote further examples, I should like to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that…

You are totally mistaken.

The hon. member can keep on living in a dream world if he wants to. I am not trying to give out that the hon. the Prime Minister is not a good nationalist. He is, in fact, a good Nationalist. The problem, however, is that he is a good Nationalist of yesterday. [Interjections.] As a Nationalist the hon. the Prime Minister cannot act successfully in the present position. [Interjections.] It is in the interests of the hon. the Prime Minister to realize that television is not the only reason why one of his Cabinet Ministers is a three times more popular than he among the people. He will have to realize that he cannot always live in the shadow of one of his Cabinet Ministers. [Interjections.] Why is it so? Is television the only reason? Is it not also the case that the nation regards someone else as a more acceptable Afrikaner?

I leave it at that and come to the next example of the growing revolt among Afrikaners. In an ASB paper, mention is made, for example, of the falseness of the view that it is supposedly the vocation of the Afrikaner alone which gives the Whites the right to order and control South Africa. Now hon. members believe that Messrs. Van der Walt and Odendaal who drew up this paper, are out of step. They think so, but I do not believe it. The frustration prevailing among young Afrikaners with regard to their political leaders and the policy of separate development can be understood when one looks, for example, at the following illuminating conclusion which is reached in this ASB paper—

This is what the writers of this thesis say. The hon. the Prime Minister cannot escape his political past. For the greater part of the 30 years of NP rule, he has been in a leading position, for example as leader of the party in the Cape Province, as Cabinet Minister, and later as a senior member of the Cabinet. He was, therefore, in a position to achieve positive results. Therefore, when the young Afrikaner feels—and this is clear from this paper—that he has been let down by his leaders in the past, surely he is also going to feel that this hon. Prime Minister has let him down. It will be useless his arguing that he only assumed the reins of power six months ago. The hon. the Prime Minister is part of his own historical past. The young Afrikaner is not arrogant. He does not blindly reject everything his leaders offer him. In point of fact he asks, through someone like Thenis Eloff, for leadership for the young Afrikaner as far as criticism of political matters and the formulation of standpoints are concerned. That is what the young Afrikaner would like, what he needs.

Now it seems to me as if hon. members on the opposite side are not concerned about this. Why is that? Why is it that when Wimpie de Klerk, when he states his first choice for South Africa, does it in a way that amounts to nothing but NRP policy? [Interjections.] That is true. It is nothing but NRP policy. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central said in the beginning that he was presenting his case with circumspection. He intimated that he was very hesitant to present his case. Now I understand why. It is obvious when the hon. member speaks of the Afrikaner youth that he has become completely estranged from them, and he shows this clearly. [Interjections.] He has no idea whatsoever what is happening among the youth. He observes them from a distance. The hon. member also referred to the compilers of a paper of the ASB. I happen to know the particular young people well. In fact, they grew up with me. We know one another well and there is a fine understanding among us. [Interjections.]

The episode with Prof. Floors van Jaarsveld and the conduct of those who tarred and feathered him, is something which hon. members of the NP condemn in the strongest terms. We cannot approve of that in any way. But the hon. member for Durban Central spoke of the young Afrikaner. As far as I know, the average age of the men involved in the incident with Prof. Van Jaarsveld, exceeds 40 years. Therefore, it is obvious that the hon. member simply conjured up something in an attempt to strengthen his argument. He never had any argument at all. He did not know what to present to this House. The hon. member also referred to the question of hero-worship, and alleged that this was to be questioned. I want to put it clearly to the hon. member that the NP would not have remained in power for so many years if it had not enjoyed the support of the youth. Critical discussions do, of course, take place. We, unlike the Opposition, are not at logger-heads with the youth of South Africa. Hon. members of the Opposition who make wild allegations that the NP is at loggerheads with the youth, are obviously wide of the mark. We talk to the youth. There is interaction between us and the youth. But look what has happened to hon. members of the Opposition. There they sit split into three small parties. Every year they predict anew a split in the ranks of the NP. Now, I want to suggest to the hon. member for Durban Central to look at his own problems rather than at ours. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise another matter, and that is the question of freedom of the Press.

That is the hobbyhorse of the hon. member for Simonstown.

I am very pleased the hon. member has made that interjection, because a question that has often occurred to me whenever reference has been made to the freedom of the Press, is why we do not hear arguments on merit, but remarks such as the one the hon. member for Durban North has just made. The Press is in fact the body which expresses most criticism in this country, and this is the right and the function of the Press. The Press, in other words, expresses more criticism than any other body, but the moment we on this side of the House want to direct the spotlight at certain sections of the Press, we do not get answers based on merit, but the kind of remark the hon. member for Durban North—who is one of the intelligent members—has just made. I do not know whether the hon. member is trying to carry favour with the Press in this way, but I think he is doing the Press a disservice, because it is a good thing when the spotlight falls on the Press.

During the past year the Press has been waging the most virulent campaign against politicians, the Government and the officialdom of this country. At this stage I am not suggesting for a single moment that this campaign has been unfair or wrong. It is the right of the Press to do so, and we in South Africa pride ourselves on the fact that we uphold this right. It is the right of the Press to investigate, to investigate all fields of society in South Africa, and to make a critical assessment of matters in all fields. We know what has happened. We know that the Press has made pronouncements and that admonitions have been addressed to the Government, the officialdom and individual politicians. Judgments have been passed and even trials have been conducted in the Press. Therefore I think it is necessary for the general public to know more about the background of the Press and what influencing there is of the Press. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but the general public should realize that the Press is not under the control of the State alone. The control which the State has over the Press, is well known. If at times the State wants to exercise control, then the Press fights for its freedom—and quite rightly so. However, I want to refer briefly to the other controls that are being exercised over the Press. These other controls relate, for example, to the owners of the Press. Who are the owners of the Press? I am not referring now to only a single English or Afrikaans Press group. I just want to the general public to realize that the Press is not sacred and that the Press also has problems in presenting the truth to the public. A former editor of the Cape Argus, Mr. Morris Broughton, who is held in high esteem, said that an editor of a newspaper did not really have power. He said the real power of the South African Press was in the hands of the owners, and I quote him as follows—

It is said—in many cases certainly rightly so—that an editor is free to express his independent opinion. Nevertheless he is already a prisoner by virtue of his appointment. No matter how adopt an editor may be at the art of journalism, an owner of a newspaper is not going to appoint him if he does not meet the requirement of giving expression to the convictions of the owner of that newspaper or to the political philosophy of the newspaper group.

There are other restrictions which have their effect on the Press every day. The gathering of news is a fast process and it is easy to make a mistake. Selection is practised. Every newspaperman has prejudices of which he cannot rid himself, because he is an ordinary human being. Surely a newspaperman finds it just as difficult as any other person, for example a politician, to get to the truth. In recent times some of our newspapers have left the impression that a newspaperman automatically tells the truth, simply because he is a newspaperman, but surely he can make a mistake just as easily as any other person. In the selection he has to make in view of the format of the newspaper, he abbreviates a summary still further. A newspaperman retains and publishes what is more acceptable to him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in this fresh, bracing breeze which is blowing through this House at present as a result of the positive announcements made by the hon. the Prime Minister, it is a pleasant privilege for me to take guard at the wicket in this short night watchman innings which has been allocated to me. I do so very gladly because what we are dealing with here is a very positive matter, viz. the consolidation plans.

I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister announced the appointment today of the central consolidation committee. I should like to say that I have just been attending an agricultural congress of the North-Eastern Cape in Aliwal North. At that congress a definite and unequivocal instruction was issued to me. I want to discuss that in this debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. It concerns the areas which are destined to be bought out with a view to consolidation. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I know that he is aware of the problem and that it is a recurrent one, but we are obliged to bring it to his attention yet again, particularly owing to circumstances which arise and change from time to time. For that reason I feel that it is my duty to bring to his attention what is happening there, and particularly the resolutions adopted at that congress on matters pertaining to consolidation.

The trouble is that the farms in the Umga area—i.e. the Pitseng area of Elliot, Ugie and Maclear—have already been allocated to the Transkei and all that remains is for them to be bought out. Now the Transkeian citizen is on his side of the fence, knowing that the land is earmarked for him and that he will be able to use it for grazing purposes. We always look with longing at greener pastures on the other side of the fence. If there is one thing that is true then it is that the people in that area along the border of Transkei see the green pastures on our side. As a result that border fence is no longer a fence, and the farms of those farmers that were earmarked to be bought out already form the pasturage of the livestock, sheep and cattle of the Transkeian citizens. I want to point out that a few nights ago nine strands of wire were cut. When the farmer woke up the next morning, his farm was teeming with livestock that was completely strange to him.

These people have been patient for a long time. We ask them to be patient. However, I want to ask in all honesty: Is it reasonable to expect them to continue with their farming operations under these circumstances? Why I maintain we are dealing with an exceptional case here is that the Transkei has received its independence. It is not like other States that still have to become independent. Therefore I can see no reason—I am saying this in all humility—why the lands which must go to the Transkei should not receive priority and be bought out. This would immediately create a better understanding between ourselves and the Transkei. In this connection I am referring in particular to foreign relations. I am convinced that if we could prove to Transkei that we are eager to carry out the consolidation in an active way and to give them the land which they are entitled to at once, we would be creating far better relations with these people. After all, all of us look forward to preserving sound relations with our neighbours, with the States created by us and to whom we have in the meantime granted independence.

At present the Transkeian is looking forward to having this land, and unfortunately it is true that if he cannot obtain it voluntarily, he is exercising his own right. The result is that there is quite a degree of dissatisfaction among the farmers whose farms are earmarked for consolidation. In this connection I am making an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister for this matter to be considered with special urgency. It must be considered whether the farms lying in that horseshoe, as we call it, and which are surrounded by Black States—Lesotho on the one hand and Transkei on the other—could now finally be handed over to Transkei.

It will definitely, as I have said, improve relations and it will enable us to erect that much-requested border fence which ought to be erected. As in the case of farming neighbours, a border fence is in the end absolutely the best guarantee for good relations between them, so that border fence is going to be the guarantee of good relations between the Transkei and ourselves when it is erected on the place where that border must be.

I am not committing myself to anyone, but I have personally taken the trouble to make an estimate of what may be required to buy out all that land. I arrived at a figure of plus-minus R8 million. I do not think this is too large or too important an amount, or an amount which is too high if we are able, by means of it, to create an improvement in relations as well as satisfaction among those people whose land must, after all, be taken. They have already made their sacrifice in this sense that their land is earmarked for consolidation. There are farms there which have been in the hands of certain families for generations. It is not easy for them to part with that land and my request therefore is that we do not allow them to wait any longer before they are paid out.

Finally I want to touch upon one other point, and that is the unsatisfactory economic position prevailing in the Eastern Cape. I do not want to encroach on other hon. members’ constituencies, but I was in East London a short while ago, and when I compared East London of today with the East London I knew a few years ago, I find that development in that city is at a complete standstill. The reason for that is that it is continually being stated in the newspapers that East London is going to become Black. It is said that the corridor between the Ciskei and the Transkei, which people are talking about, is going to become Black. This has a detrimental effect on the economy of the Eastern Cape. To rectify the matter, we request that we solve this matter once and for all and that the hon. the Prime Minister simply indicates in a statement which parts will remain White and which parts will become Black. We must eliminate any uncertainty.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.