Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction on 1 January 1979 of the equalization levy, the aim of which was to finance any increases in the purchase price of crude oil or petroleum products, it was decided by the Government that all products of base oil would be subject to the levy in order to ensure that all consumers of the different categories of fuel products each contributed their rightful share to the higher prices of crude oil. The uniform application of the levy on all fuel products with a crude oil base consequently ensures that the users of one category of products do not subsidize the sale of certain other petroleum products.

From time to time earnest representations have been received from certain consumers for the reduction of the levy on certain petroleum products and in regard to the higher prices of petroleum fuel in general. As the amount of the levy is directly related to the purchase price of crude oil, it was in the past considered inadvisable, for the reasons mentioned, to favour certain groups of consumers. In considering these requests it became evident that an extremely heavy burden was being placed on the lower income group of our community. A market research project carried out last year has indicated that the cost of paraffin required by a household of seven people for the use of two paraffin stoves, two paraffin lamps and one paraffin heater during winter time, represents 18% and 27% respectively of its average monthly income during the summer and winter months. These percentages are considerably higher in relation to the average monthly expenditure of the more privileged section of our community on the use of the electrical power which is generally at their disposal.

The Government has given serious consideration to whether it would be justified in making an exception to the uniform levy on all petroleum products, and is convinced that relief in this instance is not only desirable but imperative. The Government has therefore decided to reduce the levy on paraffin from the existing levy of 10,3c per litre to 5c per litre as from 1 March 1980. This reduction will result in a loss in revenue of R1,99 million per month in the Equalization Fund and will make a more than commensurate contribution to the lot of the underprivileged, since the distributor’s margin, which is of the order of 50%, will also be reduced in absolute money terms. Strict control will be applied to ensure that the full advantage of the reduction is passed on to the consumer.

Section 1A(3) of the State Oil Fund Act, 1977, as amended, empowers the Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to reduce the amount of the levy by notice or to exempt a product from the imposition of a levy.

The Government has not taken this decision lightly, and it is trusted that the concession will contribute considerably towards alleviating the heavy burden on households dependent on paraffin for their energy needs, whilst still making a modest contribution to the high cost of fuel. By linking this announcement to my announcement last night concerning the prevention of an increase of lc per litre in the price of fuel at the pump, the Government has decided to reduce the consumer’s potential expenditure on fuel, directly and indirectly by more than R70 million per annum.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in associating myself with the hon. the Prime Minister and other members who have already referred to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the new position in which the hon. member finds himself. I should like to say to the hon. leader that I have great appreciation for the important political and parliamentary position he occupies at present.

I think he will agree with me that over the past few days, and even earlier, he will have found out that it is an enormous and risky leap to pass all at once from a back-bench to his present leadership position. However I hope that things will go well with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I should like to refer to the speech last night by the hon. member for Musgrave. I just wish to remark that he really addressed his speech to another hon. member of the House in the hope that that member would reply to him. The hon. member asked, inter alia, that Natal be thrown open to Black land ownership. Basically, all this is, is his party’s policy of an open community, a principle which is totally rejected by the voting public in South Africa. In his endeavour to bring about an open community in Natal, the hon. member can take that as being true of the voting public in Natal as well. I should like to ask the hon. member for Mooi River, or any other member of that party, including the hon. leader of the NRP, whether they would not do the House a favour. I ask whether a member of that party could not explain further to this House how the party would protect the position of a minority group in the federal connection. The hon. member and the hon. leader know what we are debating. I have the best intentions in saying this because I want it to be placed on record in Hansard, since it forms an important part of the political discussion in progress. I therefore ask hon. members to place it on record for us in Hansard. I think this is very important.

Mr. Speaker, there are other aspects I should like to raise. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition identified certain fields concerning which he wishes to conduct a debate with the Government. The circumstances of our time require that attention also be given to internal security matters and standpoints relating to security matters. This does not affect members of his party alone, but is important to all the inhabitants of South Africa. Over the past few months the security forces of South Africa have achieved outstanding successes. Our Defence Force is in control of a difficult situation and is doing extremely well. The S.A. Police are achieving one success after the other, and sustained brilliant detective work has led to various breakthroughs. All these things also contribute to the fact that the people of our country are engaged in a lively debate on security matters. In this regard they also assess the official Opposition, and they take cognizance of the standpoint expressed the day before yesterday by the hon. member for Pinelands, viz. that the Government’s total denial of civil liberties is a breeding ground for terrorism and that the Government bedevils the total onslaught against us by the methods it adopts. The hon. member compares our methods with communistic methods and takes us to task for using them.

Quite right.

I say that the voting public takes cognizance of this. The first accusation has already been replied to in full. I should like to confine myself to the second accusation. Silverton showed us that our methods can be successful, and confirmed that we are prepared for such eventualities. The S.A. Police acted very effectively; every right-thinking person in South Africa recognizes that. In this regard I should like to repeat the warning which the Prime Minister has already issued to the country, namely, that those who come to South Africa with ideas of terrorism will come up against the authority of the State. We shall act mercilessly and relentlessly.

In this regard I should like to single out and stress two aspects. Unfortunately there is insufficient time to refer to other matters in the course of this debate. The first aspect is that the terrorist onslaught against us affects all the inhabitants of our country, and is not merely a confrontation between Black and White. Our Black people are already suffering from it and all Whites must bear this in mind when considering the events at Silverton. In the course of the past year the ANC has already killed five Black members of the S.A. Police and two Black police witnesses; attacks have been launched on police stations in Moroka, Orlando, Soekmekaar; a hand grenade has been thrown into the home of a lieutenant in the police at Ermelo, causing very serious injury to five of his children.

Another aspect relating to Silverton which I should like to single out is that Silverton identified certain problem areas for us. The first is that we cannot permit details of demands made by terrorists to the S.A. Police and to the State under such circumstances to be published without being released by the responsible Minister or the chief of police concerned. In the second instance we cannot permit the facts relating to the police operation to be published in detail in the course of those events unless this is permitted by the Minister concerned or the chief of the S.A. Police concerned.

Now I should like to touch on a third aspect, and that is that there is no police investigation into the police action at Silverton.

It is unnecessary.

It is unnecessary. The S.A. Police is relentlessly tracking down terrorists in South Africa, and the results after Silverton and Soekmekaar confirm their successes. The public can rest assured in this regard, but that does not mean that similar occurrences could not take place again. However we are doing everything humanly possible in an attempt to prevent this.

However our methods have also been successful in other spheres, and in this regard I should like to refer to one specific aspect. The most important terrorist onslaught on the RSA is being conducted by the South African Communist Party, the SAANC and the PAC. The SAANC regards itself as the only real liberation movement, and it is supported in this standpoint by various foreign pressure groups. The people of the SAANC regard 1980 as the year of action. These people are, for the most part, trained in Angola and other countries, the PAC’s people chiefly in Tanzania and other countries, but none of the three organizations make any secret of the fact that they wish to topple the existing order in the RSA by force of arms and violent revolution, and to establish a Marxist socialist State here. They regard force of arms as the foremost method with which to bring about political change in the RSA.

Joe Slovo, a very important member of the revolutionary council of the joint SAANC and South African Communist Party, an exiled communist from Africa, put their standpoint very clearly to a group of young members at his house in London when he sent them back to South Africa with final instructions. He said the following—

That is the message with which he sends people back to South Africa This same Mr. Slovo, this same fellow, is now in Maputo, and is in control of the South African Communist Party’s operations against South Africa there. According to recent information in my possession he is very dissatisfied with the attack on Silverton because too few White people were killed.

These three organizations, but particularly the SAANC-SACP combination, also have a very strong influence, not only on many organizations abroad but also on a number of organizations within South Africa. One of the most important supporting organizations is the International University Exchange Fund. This is an organization which openly furnishes aid to terrorist organizations with which to topple the Government of our country and of South West Africa. The director of this organization puts it as follows—

And also—

This organization is nothing but a nest of revolutionary espionage. This organization obtains 85% of its funds from the Governments of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada and Britain, and a small portion from Finland and Algeria. The rest comprises donations from other organizations. Over the past two years, for example, the Government of Britain contributed amounts of £238 000 on one occasion and £450 000 on another occasion to this fund, intending the money to go to Christian Care in Rhodesia—not for terrorist activities. However I can assure hon. members that very little of the money donated by the British Government with good intentions reached the organizations concerned. The total budget of the fund for the past year was R6,5 million. Of that, almost R2 million was transferred to terrorist organizations in Southern Africa, to certain persons and to certain groups. It appears that some of the Governments concerned to which I have referred are being misled by this fund as to the way in which their donations are spent. The Governments still think that the money is being used for humanitarian purposes, but that is not so. For example, the Danish Government is being deceived by way of false documents as to the uses the money they donate is put to. Their donation is paid directly to the ANC, whereas the Danish Government itself is unaware of this.

There are also organizations in South Africa that receive money from this fund but they only get it after it has been approved by the ANC. In general, no organization or activities in the Republic of South Africa are supported by the fund concerned without the prior approval of the SAANC. This organization lends support to the Black Peoples Convention and Saso—organizations that are banned at the moment—to enable their members to undergo military training in Nigeria. They support the SA Youth Revolutionary Council to enable them to have members trained in Lagos, Nigeria. A member of the SA Police infiltrated this organization at the request of SAANC after having become a member of the ANC, once again at the request of the SAANC, while he was a Vice-President of Nusas. The ANC instructed him to accept a position with the fund in question. Within two years he had progressed to assistant director of the organization. Accordingly he was in the inner circle of the SAANC abroad and performed work of the utmost importance for South Africa in this regard. He was a member of the information and propaganda cell of the ANC and of the SA Communist Party and regularly operated between London and Lusaka, where their headquarters are situated. After Stephen Jenkins and a fellow by the name of Lee were arrested in Cape Town three years ago, he was placed in control of the propaganda and information cell of the whole of the RSA. Therefore, for the past three years we have been in control of the distribution of propaganda in the RSA from this source.

However, the ANC and SAP combination do not only operate through terrorist gangs or by way of this specific fund and associated organizations. They are also active in other spheres. Let me identify a few of them. Firstly, the ANC gave orders that fully-trained White national servicemen should be recruited in South Africa as members of the ANC. They also instructed that the PFP should be infiltrated for their purposes. [Interjections.] It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It is a serious matter that this political party in South Africa—and I have the documents in question before me—has to be infiltrated for their purposes. These people gave instructions that the Southern Cross Fund should be infiltrated so that they could try to obtain information about our troops by way of the packets despatched by that fund. Nor is the membership of the organization limited to Blacks; it has a number of White members in South Africa as well. For example, a few of the Nusas students—I shall furnish only one example—who were banned a few years ago and about whom the hon. member for Houghton in particular made a tremendous fuss, were at that stage members of the ANC. Each of the last four Nusas presidents were either members of the ANC or had or had sought contact with the SAANC in one way or another. The SA ANC had already even infiltrated the International Red Cross Association and attempted to promote their interests in South Africa through that organization. I do not believe the International Red Cross knows it, but we know it. They even gave instructions that the offices of the Red Cross in Pretoria should be infiltrated so that they could have closer links with those of their people detained in our prisons. The fund in question, the IUEF, is also the biggest contributer to the Committee on S.A. War Resistance. This is the organization which encourages our young people not to perform military service. The task of this fund, as they put it, is to be “the leukaemia of the armed forces”. The Committee on S.A. War Resistance is wholly controlled by the SAANC and the S.A. Communist Party. Then there are a few other organizations within South Africa that are wholly controlled by the ANC, but at present they are so unimportant that I do not even wish to identify them. Then, too, the Director of this particular organization was also directly involved in the Okhela-Breytenbach affair of a few years ago.

These are some of the methods being used against us by the communists and through which our entire existence is threatened. Then the hon. member for Pinelands expects us to fight them with kid gloves, or with our hands tied behind our backs, because after all, according to him, our cause lacks merit because we are supposedly the cause of the onslaughts on us. There are critics of the Security Police who are concerned, equally hypocritically, that the police should not act as agents/provocateur, since such an agent could easily lead young people astray and encourage them to do wrong things.

That is right.

The hon. member says “that is right”, but former members of the student council of Wits and former members of Nusas have openly confirmed in public over the past few days that captain Williamson never did anything of this nature.

I should like to give the assurance today that the SA Police will under no circumstances involve innocent young people, but then I should also like to warn that all people who co-operate with subversive organizations, or take an interest in them, must cease their activities or bear the consequences.

There is another important offensive of the SAANC to which I want to refer, and that is the issue of civil disobedience and war resistance. The aim of civil disobedience is to create a situation in which the concept “freedom fighter” and “political change” must become morally acceptable, while the State machinery for the maintenance of law and order is immoral. Therefore the situation must be attained in which people refuse, on so-called moral grounds, to take up arms for the defence of the Republic. The entire campaign is aimed solely at breaking down the morale of the people. They want to create a situation in which law and order collapses in ruins and when the State is in consequence obliged to take vigorous action, that must elicit a revolutionary reaction resulting in wide-spread lawlessness and leading to general chaos. This serious matter affects all of us, particularly in view of the decisions of the SA Council of Churches in this regard and statements by religious leaders such as Dr. Allan Boesak, among others, who has said the following—

The Methodist Church referred a similar decision to their church bodies to be considered and decided on at next year’s meeting. This is being officially accepted by the Cape Synod of this Church. The Anglican Church goes even further. They decided at Grahamstown that as far as they were concerned, there was no difference between a person who wants to defend the country and those who prefer to take up arms against their country. To them there is no difference between these two kinds of people. They appreciate the decision of the SA Council of Churches concerning civil disobedience, and went on to decide that no member of the SA Security Police may be elected or appointed to a religious office.

That was denied.

Is it not an outrageous decision, when a church intimates in so many words that a member of the Security Police may not be a Christian in their church? That was an official decision of the Anglican Church and it is on record. I am in possession of it. These, then, are the so-called Christian norms and principles of a Christian church, but there could have been members of the Anglican Church at the bank at Silverton, and the police did not ask who were members of the Anglican Church. A police officer could storm that building to rescue members of any church in South Africa. I could also say to the House that this same police officer to whom I refer is himself a member of the Anglican Church—and that is the thanks he gets from, inter alia, his own church.

The leader of the PFP in Natal, Mr. McIntosh—if he is still leader—went even further and made an important announcement which was reported in Die Vaderland of 11 December 1979, a statement in which he says that he agrees with all these decisions. He said it as leader of the PFP in Natal. He went on to say that one ought to be more obedient to the demands of the Bible than to the laws of a country, and that if the State persisted in interfering in the affairs of the church and wanted to prescribe to it who may and who may not be admitted to church buildings, the church would have to oppose the State.

If, then, that is the standpoint of the church I should like to say to the Anglican Church, with all responsibility, that I want to confirm that neither I nor any member on this side of the House—and I have discussed the matter in depth—wish to intimate in any way that we want or are seeking any confrontation with any church in South Africa. We do not want that. We should like to have this matter thrashed out. However, I want to say to the Anglican Church that as long as a member of the SA Police cannot be appointed or elected to a religious office in that church, I shall personally consider whether a clergyman of the Anglican Church may be appointed as chaplain to the police.

I now wish to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition what his party’s policy and standpoint is regarding these matters I have touched on today. What is the standpoint of his party in regard to civil disobedience as it has been manifested over the past few months? We ask him to adopt a serious standpoint in this regard so that we in South Africa may know what the position is.

My standpoint is that the Government does not seek confrontation with any church, but I must warn that there are leftist clergymen who are going too far. It is not in the interest of our country to play into the hands of revolutionary powers such as the South African Communist Party, the SAANC and other organizations. This cannot be permitted. The Opposition has a very important role to play in this regard, and we are all waiting to see what role the official Opposition in particular is going to play in this regard. Our standpoint is clear. We are not going to permit law and order to be broken down in this country.

Mr. Speaker, in reaction to what the hon. the Minister of Police said, I think that his question about what standpoint this side of the House adopts in regard to civil disobedience, was totally unnecessary. Various pronouncements by the previous leader of this party, the present leader of this party and the spokesman on defence matters have pointed out very clearly what this party’s standpoint on civil disobedience is. Perhaps we should advance the argument that the hon. the Minister’s own standpoint on the matter and his unsympathetic way of dealing with this problem, will not do the SA Police or the SA Defence Force any good, because it cannot be denied that young people are sometimes faced with a moral dilemma when they feel that their own Government is behaving in a way which is sometimes very similar to the behaviour of those powers that we fear are going to intervene in South Africa’s domestic affairs. [Interjections.]

Despite the abhorrence of apartheid, there are still many good arguments why South Africa should still be defended and why it is still the duty of every South African to defend this country. There is no doubt about this. However, one must raise the argument that many hon. members on the other side of the House sometimes make it very difficult for young people to understand that standpoint very clearly … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe cannot shout like that in this House.

This no-confidence debate has most probably been a grave disappointment to many South Africans thus far. It is quite clear that very few, if any, of the expectations which have been raised, will be fulfilled. During the course of this debate, several senior National Party members have objected to elements outside their National Party raising false hopes in connection with change which may possibly come about in South Africa. However, the National Party missed no opportunity to make political capital out of every political advantage they could possibly gain from these very expectations which they are now criticising in this House. There was a lot of talk about new initiatives taken by the hon. the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues. Now it appears that there were never any definite plans regarding any substantial changes to be made.

As an example of this I simply have to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s own pronouncement, viz. that he was prepared to consider proposals for the improvement of that suffering and misery caused by section 16 of the Immorality Act. This pronouncement—and we must bear this in mind—was made amid widespread speculation about and requests for the abolition of this section of the Act. Now if we consider the fact that neither the hon. the Prime Minister nor any of his followers had the vaguest idea of how this section could possibly have been improved in order to remove its sting and to make the misery that it causes less hurtful and troublesome, the blame for raising false hopes must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the hon. members on that side of the House. Of course, my personal opinion is that it is simply a political egg-dance, like those we have often seen in the past. The verkrampte supporters of that party began to object and to ask questions after the hon. the Prime Minister’s pronouncement. Strangely enough, many of their supporters understood the pronouncement of the hon. the Prime Minister in exactly the same way as the English-language Press is alleged to have understood it, viz. that if there was a possibility of it leading to the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act. Once these supporters began to object, we saw the biggest political “hands-up” movement ever carried out by any political party in South Africa. Special pamphlets were drawn up and issued and exorbitantly expensive quarter-page advertisements were placed in the Afrikaans newspapers in the Transvaal, and all of this was done in order to deny something which allegedly had never been said. I cannot help but think that the hon. member for Florida, who is suppose to be a verligte, must have found it very difficult, as his party’s information officer, to write fat cheques in order to pay for this pathetic political back-pedalling. There is not the least doubt that many National Party members want to see this particular section abolished, but the verkramptes have clearly won the argument here.

During the course of this debate, this House was also regaled with a series of arguments aimed at justifying racial discrimination. As usual, this was done in the National Party’s own specious terminology. Expressions like “the maintenance of identity” and “self-determination” are misused and it is being said that it is quite justified from a moral viewpoint to have legislation to separate people from one another solely on grounds of the colour of their skin. The hon. the Prime Minister, among others, quoted Van Wyk Louw, and it is interesting to learn that this celebrated poet and author himself speaks about White Afrikaners and Coloured Afrikaners. Naturally, it suits the apartheid policy of the National Party to ignore Afrikanerhood completely in this instance, and to take skin colour alone into account.

The hon. the Minister of Mines himself made an interesting concession. Possibly it was a slip of the tongue, and he did not do so intentionally. For instance, he alleged that the constitutional plan of the PFP makes no provision for the recognition of identity but he conceded that provision was indeed being made for the maintenance and preservation of cultural matters. He says very clearly, however, that this is not enough. What else remains to justify racial discrimination, enforced racial separation? This statement is an interesting one, because the Minister concedes here that culture and cultural diversity have nothing to do with apartheid. Therefore, what we have left is simply the naked truth that skin colour and the prejudice based upon it, is obviously fundamental to the whole policy of apartheid. We are therefore back to the old wrangle about skin colour. The policy of this Government has therefore, very clearly, been formulated and based on the same intolerance and lovelessness which prompted certain people in Saldanha to object to a Coloured clergyman occupying his rectory in a White group area. This is something that could bring that community to its knees financially. To be sure, in this case the Government did grant a permit to allow this clergyman to remain there, but it is probably a comfort to those racists—I call them racists—that their Government keeps a law on the Statute-book which gives effect to their intolerance and racial hatred and which makes a permit of this kind possible in very exceptional cases only. It is particularly irritating to hear the Government trying to deny the fact that apartheid legislation arouses racial prejudice or racial hatred or that it indicates a feeling of superiority amongst White nationalists. This simply cannot be denied. Merely the way in which this legislation is being put into effect, affords very definite proof of this.

How are you going to designate the borders of your federal states?

The hon. the Minister will have to admit in all reasonableness that it would take a speech to reply to that question. If King Solomon had ever had the unfortunate task of putting the Group Areas Act into effect, he would have been wise and just enough to allow one party to have the responsibility of dividing the land and would have allowed the other party to choose between the two sections. However, the selfishness of apartheid is so inherent in the NP Government that there can be no question of such an approach on their part.

In this regard I must refer once again to the case of District Six. Here we had a territory that was 90% inhabited by Coloureds when it was declared White by the Government.

That is rubbish.

I should like hon. members to deny it and then to take a look at the figures. Thousands upon thousands of people were forcibly resettled in other areas as a result of that proclamation. It was argued that the proclamation was issued because District Six was very run down. But this argument is not correct, because hon. members who advance it, know that even at that stage the Cape Town City Council had extensive plans for the improvement and renovation of District Six and that those plans had been approved by the Government at the time. As a matter of interest, I want to mention that that argument implies further that a territory cannot be improved and renovated as long as Coloureds are living there, but that it has to be declared a White area first. Of course, this is an extremely cynical argument, but probably comes quite naturally to hon. members of the opposite side of the House. The mere fact that such specious arguments have to be used in justification, make the District Six case probably the most hurtful and ghastly case of racial discrimination that has ever occurred in South Africa. Apart from the original arguments and reasons for the Government’s action in District Six, we must ask yet once more today why Coloureds cannot live in District Six once again.

†The Group Areas Act and its application is a major concession to racial intolerance and to those bigoted but very vociferous individuals who feel that they are entitled to qualify the biblical instruction that one should love your neighbour. The example of District Six bears this out. No single cogent reason has been advanced why Coloured people cannot return to District Six. It is abundantly clear that there is no White demand for housing sufficient to bring about any significant housing development in District Six. In consequence the Department of Community Development produced some weird projects to generate some sort of interest in the area. These were desperate plans, and as so often happens with desperate plans they are bound to fail, if they have not failed already. Let us look very briefly at some of these plans. A shopping centre has been built for Asians, where Asian traders are supposed to gather from all the corners of the Cape Peninsula to conduct their business in the vain hope that their clientele will follow them over long distances, maybe only to buy a morning newspaper or a pint of milk. Great antipathy already exists against this commercial ghetto and at least one traders’ association has pleaded for a boycott of this centre. What effective chance has this centre to produce anything if this is the attitude that people have against it? However, what else can we expect?

It has furthermore been announced that 50 dwelling units of a very high standard will be built in the area at a cost of R1,5 million in order to make it more attractive to wealthier people in the area. I believe it is not the duty of the Department of Community Development to produce high-priced dwellings under any circumstances, least of all to pursue idle ideological ends. It is clearly not their duty because they are supposed to provide housing for those who cannot afford it. [Interjections.] It is a scandalous waste of the taxpayers money to … [Interjections.] … to use that money in order to achieve an ideological aim. [Interjections.] Plans are also afoot for the renovation of the Bloemhof flat complex. After renovation it will be made available for use by White occupants, leaving 500 odd Coloured families to be housed elsewhere, all this in spite of a combined waiting list of over 20 000 in the Cape Peninsula alone. These are only some of the plans for the area. There are others also, some of them more ridiculous, some of them more grotesque.

The Government have also changed their plans for the development of the area. It is quite understandable that they have done so because every plan they have produced has led to reactions and has created doubts about whether it would be feasible at all. Therefore, one can understand that such plans have been opposed by sensible people, by town-planners, by architects and by those who have a sensitivity for the people of District Six, the Coloured people who want to live there. In all those plans the only element of consistency, running like a rotten thread throughout all of them, is the Government’s insistence that Coloured people will under no circumstances be allowed to live in District Six.

The resettlement of people from District Six into areas far away from the city is racial discrimination. It is unnecessary racial discrimination. It is hurtful racial discrimination. It will be idle to try to deny it. For many of those people who have to live far away from their places of employment it means increased transportation costs. Many of them who used to be within walking distance of their places of employment can ill afford the high travelling expenses which have become their lot. In many cases it also means a lengthening of the time those people have to spend away from home every day. What can be loosely described as their total work day is now, in many instances, some two hours longer than it used to be. I know of a great number of cases in which people spend an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon travelling from home to work and back.

Does that apply only to Coloured people?

No, but you threw them out! [Interjections.]

I shall deal with that later. However, through this many of those people have to suffer tremendous hardships. In many instances it means that a father does not arrive home in the evening in time to see his children at all before they have to go to bed. It also means that it may become impossible for a mother to arrive home and feed her own children. In many cases it is not at all possible because the mother gets home too late. It also means the difference between whether a Coloured person can participate or not in sport or in any other extramural activities, which are the essence of communal life. This is what makes it so difficult for them. This is what is discriminatory about living far away from one’s place of employment without having the choice of moving nearer. White people are by no means not in the same position as Coloured people who live far away from their places of work. However, White people do it out of their own choice, and there are many, many compensatory factors for those who prefer to live far out. Their homes are normally cheaper. Perhaps their life-styles, or their after-hour activities are such that it suits them to live far away from town. They have a choice, however. It is very clear in all our urban areas at this stage, that people have become very aware of the need to live nearer to town.

The property market in and around our towns are booming, and people are desperately trying to get rid of their homes in which they have been living happily, but which are situated 30 or 40 km from the cities. This is discrimination, because that choice does not exist for Coloured persons. That choice does not exist for the Coloured persons who have been moved from District Six. Let us look at the most recent statement concerning District Six which came from the other side of the House. It came from the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Sea Point dealt with that very briefly yesterday. The Prime Minister made the point that 75% of the land in that area belongs to White people and Indian people and not to Coloured people. What is the relevance of that? There are many housing estates in and around Cape Town which belong entirely to the Department of Community Development. So what is the relevance of that? It has no relevance whatsoever. The other point that the hon. the Prime Minister made was that the land had now become too expensive, too expensive for the use of lower and middle income groups. In what group do the members of the Police Force fall who are going to occupy flats in District Six? They would be very surprised indeed to hear that they are being classified as being in the higher income group. What about the ACVV home which is going to be established there? What about the flats in Fawley Terrace? Are these people in the higher income groups? It is not true to say that land has become too expensive and that Coloured people are therefore unable to return to those areas. It is furthermore a callous argument.

He is a callous Minister.

It means that according to the attitude of this Government, even if a man cannot afford the cost of transport, even if he cannot afford to live away from his place of employment, he will still be forced to do so. Those people prefer, and it has been proven, to live further away from town because they can afford cars and the cost of transport. Those people are invited by every possible means to come and settle in District Six. This is what I call discrimination, and it would be idle and ridiculous to deny it for one moment. The hon. the Minister of Community Development knows what efforts he has made to produce some kind of development. Now, out of desperation, they have allowed a technikon to be built there. Out of desperation they will do anything …

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

Is the hon. member prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir. They will make a White scrapyard out of District Six, rather than allow Coloured people to live in the area.

I now come to an area which is adjacent to District Six, viz. Woodstock. An investigation was started in July of last year to establish whether it would be possible to proclaim Woodstock as a Coloured area. The attitude of the Government was very interesting, because certain lobbies immediately began developing in that area. My party, and I personally, took part in this. We tried to explain to people what the odds were, because the area consisted of roughly 50% Coloured people and 50% White people, and we were backed to the hilt. More than 80% of the people supported our stand that the area should be deproclaimed so that all those living there would be able to remain. What was the attitude of the Government? After months of deliberation, they are still unable to come to a decision. They have decided not to make a decision. This is the kind of …

That is not the position.

It is indeed the position. This is precisely what that hon. Minister himself announced in October last year.

A decision has been taken.

Then we do not know about it.

You should do your homework.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point is not a leftist. That is why I think it is a pity that he adopted this typical Opposition attitude today to a simple matter raised by the hon. the Minister of Police, a matter to which he thought fit to react. He said he supports military service, but they are making it very difficult for the men to do it. It is this type of spunkless half-heartedness on the part of Opposition members, when it comes to this type of thing, which is of cardinal importance to South Africa and which causes people outside to doubt the loyalty, sincerity and love for the fatherland of some of these people. [Interjections.] These people never want to say something candidly. Their words are always followed by a “but” and this “but” is always there to protect those who are undermining the best interests of South Africa; not just his or mine, but also those of all the population groups of this country.

Try to defend District Six.

I shall come to that, don’t you worry. The hon. member referred to the misery and distress being caused by section 16 of the Immorality Act, and the Group Areas Act, etc. Abolish that legislation today and then you will see just how much misery and distress these things are going to cause. [Interjections.]

Order!

I work with the results of this type of thing every day, and hon. members are aware of this. Those who speak so easily about the abolition of this statutory apartheid, should first sit down and calculate what it is that they are asking. Group areas and separate schools exist precisely in order to preserve law and order in communities.

White privilege.

Abolish that legislation today, abolish the Group Areas Act, and there will be social chaos in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston is making too many interjections.

How does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to establish his federal States, which form part of his constitutional dispensation, if he does not make use of group area divisions or group boundaries? I do not know how these areas are situated, but are Houghton, Soweto, and Parktown all going to fall within one State? Of course they are going to make use of lines that are drawn to bring people within certain areas.

They fall within one State at present.

Order!

Those hon. members often discuss things without ever taking into account the practical effect.

To my dismay the hon. member also raised the matter of the mission church minister at Saldanha. I was shocked. I was irritated. There was one verkrampte woman who moved heaven and earth to obtain signatures. The hon. member for Moorreesburg told me that after days she had managed to rake up a few signatures, but who were the people who then took over the agitation when that verkrampte person did not succeed? Who are the people who did this when we gave the Coloured clergyman a permit to live there in the mission rectory? It was the local English newspapers who went snooping around from house to house in that community, asking the people whether they, too, were annoyed that the Coloured was being allowed to go and live there. To one man they said: The man across the road is afraid that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that more Coloureds will move in; are you not afraid too? Ultimately of course they spread an unsavoury rumour about the matter. Otherwise no one would have taken any notice.

It is on this point that I am asking for the assistance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today. [Interjections.] The things that have been done up to now by the Department of Community Development to make the sharing of facilities possible, have not been an easy task. We are being hampered in our task in that Opposition members and Opposition newspapers incite not only the leftists, but also the HNP against us in order to stir up the inherent suspicion which exists among certain Whites and Coloureds. This is being done wilfully. In this way incidents are being created and then exploited in order to present the Whites in South Africa as a lot of racists and suppressors.

Sir, now I want to come back to District Six. Let me say that I cannot discuss District Six to the exclusion of all else. The hon. member talked a lot of nonsense about District Six. I do not blame him, but on another occasion I shall give him a lesson on District Six. He arrived here only the other day, whereas I have been in the Cape for a long time. Allow me to tell the hon. member for Sea Point how it came about that the State became involved in District Six. As far back as 1938—as the hon. members will know, the Slums Act came into force in 1934—it was already realized that things were getting out of hand in District Six. At that stage the SAP Government purchased a small piece of land there with housing funds at an interest rate of ¾%. Subsequently they did nothing further about the matter. Then war broke out and again they did nothing; they were waging war. In this way 20 years passed without the Cape Town City Council doing anything about the matter.

Meanwhile the situation deteriorated. These are the people who allowed the slums to develop around the Peninsula, the blemishes which the NP Government had to clean up after we came into power. They permitted those scandals for a White community. They did nothing about the matter. By 1960 the publicity and incidents surrounding District Six were such that they far exceeded the conditions we have in Sea Point today with the influx there. The Government could no longer turn a blind eye to the matter and the then Minister asked Mr. Fouché, who is now Secretary of Community Development and who was then an official of the department, to go and see what was going on in District Six. He was aided by Dr. Solly Morrison, a very competent City Engineer of Cape Town at that time. He and Dr. Morrison …

Morris!

I am sorry: It was Dr. Morris. The hon. the Deputy Minister next to me need not feel bad about it because Dr. Morris is not a bad fellow.

Dr. Morris then called in the assistance of the University of Cape Town and asked them to carry out a socio-economic survey in District Six. That was in 1960. The facts brought to light by this socio-economic survey—hon. members must bear in mind that it was not Nationalists in Stellenbosch who carried out this survey, but Ikeys—were so shocking that everyone realized that something had to be done about it. Only then did the City Council come forward with a so-called “pilot scheme”. As put by the hon. member opposite, it seems to me they wanted to turn District Six upside down. So, it was a piffling little plan that they had to build a handful of houses—I don’t think it exceeded 200. The small piece of land which they bought in 1938 and which they had done nothing about for 26 years they then wanted to develop. Consequently they came forward with a plan.

And it was approved by the Government.

Of course they were afraid that we would intervene in terms of the Group Areas Act, otherwise they would have done nothing yet at that stage. The Government then said that this “pilot scheme” could not clear up this mess in District Six. Then the Government appointed a State committee under the chairmanship of the former Secretary for Community Development, Mr. Fouché. All the parties concerned were represented on it. Dr. Morris served on it as well. After a year, in 1965, that State committee published a report. What were its findings? It said inter alia, that owing to the advanced state of disrepair of the buildings, mostly dating from the previous century, overcrowding and inadequate services, a complete clearance was the only solution for this slum area. They referred to a complete clearance and not to a “pilot scheme”. Now the hon. member for Pinelands said that we turfed out the people there simply because they were Coloureds. To make such an allegation is disgraceful. Surely it is aimed at stirring up racial feelings and whipping up an emotional feeling over this matter. Of course this is the ultimate objective of the hon. member.

Why did you proclaim it White?

Owing to the fact that the whole area then had to be cleared, the area was only declared White the following year. We did not simply barge in and declare the area White.

[Inaudible.]

I shall furnish all the replies. The hon. member should just tell us whether a Black man may walk through Pinelands yet.

The hon. member for Pinelands is now keeping up a running commentary. I shall allow any hon. member a few interjections, but certain hon. members are now overdoing it.

Unfortunately I cannot go into the whole saga of District Six as far as the social evils existing there are concerned. The hon. member knows this is history which he can go and read about. I could just mention to him that there were a large number of people who did not want to live there. For example, there were 533 unemployed heads of families and 534 heads of families who were pensioners, i.e. 1 067 heads of families, with their families, who might just as well have drawn their pensions or been idle somewhere else instead of District Six.

The hon. member said that the people have now been taken far away from their work. I consider Cape Town’s boundaries to end at Observatory. Of the heads of families in District Six 1 265 worked far beyond Observatory, for example in Simonstown and Kuils River, so that story of his is not true either.

The fact is that on some days at that stage more than 50 heads of families reported to the local regional office to request decent accommodation because they no longer wanted to live among the skollies. At this stage we have already removed 125 families, with their permission and of their own free will. Newspapers often report that a stream of decent Coloureds are leaving the place and that the skollie element is taking their place. Now hon. members are making it out to be a paradise. The people fled from dives and I now want to leave the matter at that.

Furthermore the hon. member advanced the perculiar argument that because such a high percentage of the inhabitants of the area were Coloureds, the Coloureds have a legitimate claim to the area. We know what the situation was. Of the total number of properties there, the Coloureds owned only about 25%. The fact that slum owners exploited those poor Coloureds abominably was also disclosed. Mr. Gerry Ferry, a former mayor of Cape Town, said at the time that the whole agitation behind the clearance of District Six was led by the slum owners for reasons of financial gain. This is still the case today. These are the facts the hon. member has to face.

They are now making an emotional appeal and the hon. member maintains that because so many Coloureds once lived there, it is their rightful area. In that case what about Jan Niemand Park in Pretoria that belonged to the Black people? Do we now have to return Jan Niemand Park, which is today an excellent, purely White residential area, to the Black people, simply because only Blacks lived there at one stage? Must we return Kensington, today one of the finest Coloured residential areas in the Peninsula, to the Blacks because 3 000 Black families used to live there as opposed to 450 Coloured families when the clearance began? Surely this is not the argument the hon. member should advance. No, let him rather discuss the matter with me like a reasonable man.

I want to say that like other right-minded people I believe that the Coloureds of the Peninsula have a legitimate claim to occupy a part of Old Cape Town. No one on this side of the House negates that need of the Coloureds. We did not drive them out of Schotsche Kloof. In District Six we took 95 hectares of land, but we gave them far more. We gave them Walmer, which comprises 66 hectare. In its day Walmer was the elite White residential area—this is before the hon. member’s time—with a wonderful view over the bay. We also gave them 24 hectares in Salt River. Instead of the 95 ha in District Six, we gave them 150 ha in the old Mother City. I am not referring now to Kensington situated away from the Cape Flats complex. I say that the National Party Government ensured that justice was done to the Coloureds. In addition there is also a grey area in Woodstock. I do not think that the Government is not unsympathetic to the Coloureds of Cape Town.

I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point, what he can agitate about. He can agitate for better beach facilities for the Coloureds of the Peninsula and then he would be fulfilling a useful function. For years now the matter has been in the hands of the Cape City Council. I am not surprised that there are people who say that they are not getting anywhere. I want to praise the Cape Town City Council for the co-operation the Department of Community Development has received from them in the construction of houses for the middle and less well-to-do classes in this country. They are doing excellent work, but when it comes to the creation of beach facilities, they are dragging their feet. The time has arrived for something to be done about this matter, for owing to the conditions which arose as a result of this negligence on the part of the hon. members for Green Point and Sea Point and their like-minded friends in the city council, the Government is blamed every time and people run to the police. The police have to act and then they get the blame.

What is happening now? On Old Year’s day and New Year’s day hundreds of Black families come from Crossroads and Guguletu to squat and camp on the pavements and the islands of the streets of Sea Point. Can any hon. member who is sound of mind believe that this action is a spontaneous one from the Black people? But of course it is “Father” Van Rensburg and the leftists who incite these people to do this type of thing. Does the hon. member believe that this type of blatant and wilful provocation on the part of the Black people facilitates our task? While I cannot condone this type of provocation on the part of the Black people, I say to the Cape City Council that by this time the Coloureds may justifiably become impatient about the fact that there are no decent beach facilities for them here in the Peninsula. I shall leave the hon. member at that.

The hon. member for Sea Point spoke of a “showdown between the Coloured leaders of the Executive Committee and the Prime Minister” and went on to say “these are indications of the strained relationships which have grown between the representatives of the Coloured people and the Government”. Who provoked this “showdown”?

The Prime Minister.

I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that I know that there are certain elements who have tried to tell the Coloureds since that meeting that the Prime Minister of South Africa is a bully who does not have time for the Coloured people. However, all of us in this House as well as everyone outside knows what the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude to the Coloured people is.

Only too well.

Surely it is only a malicious fool and a trouble-seeker who could ascribe to the hon. the Prime Minister any hostile motives towards the Coloureds. Throughout his public life he has showed that he is a friend of theirs. In his own constituency there are thousands of Coloureds who have respect for him and who are grateful to him for what he has done for them over the years. In the Departments of Coloured Affairs and of Community Development there are monuments to the work he has done for them. They are there to this day. In the Department of Defence he gave the Coloureds their rightful place in the heart of each section of the Defence Force as well as in armaments production. As Cape leader of the NP at every congress and at any time he acted as champion for the legitimate interests of the Coloured. Now this leader, who undertook a pilgrimage through the length and breadth of South Africa, to offer all the peoples the hand of friendship, is being denigrated by certain Coloured leaders and the hon. member for Orange Grove. He is now being denigrated for ostensibly looking for trouble; this man who offered his hand of friendship to all the national groups. It is now being said that he is looking for trouble with the Coloureds. Surely this goes against the grain of his entire public life. I had the honour of attending those discussions in Pretoria last year; there were preliminary discussions and I know with what goodwill and high expectations the hon. the Prime Minister approached those discussions.

I do not think that everything is lost as far as the Coloureds are concerned. It is very clear to me that the few Labour leaders are not speaking on behalf of the majority of the Coloureds when it comes to dialogue with the Government. The Leons, the Du Preezs and the Adams are living and vocal proof of this. Take, for example, Reverend Hendrickse, this leader, this hero of the hon. member for Orange Grove. What kind of leader is this?

The elected leader of the Coloured people.

What kind of leader is this who drove his predecessor, a respectable, decent Coloured man to whom I take my hat off—whether I agree with him on his politics or not—a person of the quality of Sonny Leon, out of his party? For what reason? He turfed him out of his party because he attended the State President’s funeral. He turfed him out because he, who is an ex-soldier, went to the front to visit his people there. What type of leader is this Hendrickse? I do not think we shall get far with him. However, he is not representative of the majority of the Coloureds; he does not speak on behalf of the Coloureds.

He was elected.

Yes, he was “elected”, but he did not use the opportunities he had. These Labour leaders with their preconceived goal of confrontation, boycott and subversion of the CRC, can say today with bravado that they succeeded in their work of destruction in causing the CRC to reach a deadlock. On the part of this Government we had honest and sincere motives in respect of the CRC. We wanted to expand and transform it into an instrument in the hands of the Coloureds, a body which has power over a wide field of Coloured interests in this country.

We admit that the CRC also had its shortcomings—this the Government said repeatedly—but who must bear the blame for its coming to the end of its road? Must the blame be laid at the door of the Government? Is it not true that this body was never given a chance, was never allowed to prove its worth? Is it not true that hon. members of the Opposition sided wholeheartedly with the militant leaders who undermined the status of this council from the outset, boycotted its functions and thwarted it to such an extent that its task could not be fulfilled?

Nevertheless, in the midst of all this opposition, the Council served a purpose. It undoubtedly brought together Coloured leaders from all over South Africa, leaders we did not know. It created a platform where the Coloured person could make his voice heard. Although it was often heard vociferously, it was heard and hon. members cannot deny this. It was there as an instrument which could be used in a valuable way as a link between the Coloureds, the Government and other bodies.

The tragedy is that the people had this instrument—an instrument which provided so many opportunities and challenges, by means of which they could have done a great deal for their own people—but they did not use it. Instead of using it in the interests of their own people who really need it, they delighted in choosing instead the path of confrontation, the path they are now following. This brought them nowhere and they now find themselves in a cul-de-sac.

It was the postulated aim of our party that this Council should become something: A true instrument in the hands of the Coloureds. After the first five-year term of that Council the previous Prime Minister told it that it could develop into a full-fledged Coloured Parliament. After the third term all members could be elected and the members of the Executive Committee could achieve ministerial status. He said that as far as the Government was concerned, there could be liaison on the highest level between the Coloured Parliament and its ministry and the White Parliament and its Government. The hand of friendship was held out to them. We did not want to force these things upon the Coloureds, but wanted to discuss matters with them. We wanted them to join us on the road of development.

However, the hand of friendship was slapped away and the confrontations and boycotts continued to an increasing extent when the Labour Party came into power. The situation became untenable. More than R300 million which this Parliament made available to them, was taken and disposed of by this Executive Committee, but they refused to account for themselves to this Council, the representatives of their people, like democrats. They did not want to go back to the Council and tell their people that they wanted to discuss everything affecting them. No, they acted unilaterally, but nevertheless drew their salaries. Is that democracy? Is that the way in which one meets one’s responsibilities?

Whatever happens, I believe with all my heart that my leader and my people will ensure that the Coloureds will receive their rightful place in the future constitutional dispensation so that they can realize their South African citizenship to the full. If I did not believe this, I would not have allowed myself to participate in this matter. That is why the Department of Coloured Affairs, under the competent leadership of Minister Steyn, has great visions and why we are doing these things for the Coloureds with great enthusiasm, because there are still many people in many spheres, on the level of leaders of education and businessmen, and on the level of local management, who are prepared to co-operate with us on those levels in the interests of their own people. They do not always approve of everything the Government does or omits to do, but they are prepared to co-operate because they are upright people who do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Prime Minister began processes and initiatives in this country. It would be a pity if Coloureds exclude themselves from these things. For that reason I believe that there are people among them who will come forward, that people among them must come forward, who will decide these things with us, will identify the problem areas, but will also co-operate to build a fine future for us as neighbours in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the time I have to speak is so limited that I shall not be able to elaborate on the Coloured Representative Council on this occasion. I just want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister: No one on this side of the House undermined the CRC. [Interjections.] For years, it was in the power of the Government to give greater powers to the CRC. However, the simple political fact is that the powers of this Parliament cannot be divided effectively enough ever to make the CRC a meaningful body. That matter is now being dealt with by the constitutional commission. Therefore I shall leave it at that.

Obviously, there are political differences between us and the governing party, otherwise we would not have been sitting on opposite sides of this House. Some of the differences are undoubtedly great and will not easily be bridged. However, it is true that South Africa is threatened by very grave dangers today. Only a fool would fail to realize that our survival is indeed at stake. In the light of this, I believe that the least we can do in this Parliament, in the light of the circumstances in which we live, is clearly to define the differences which do exist between us, in order that we may discuss these in depth, but also in order that we may ascertain what levels there are on which we can follow a more united approach. Therefore, I wish to devote the short time available to me to a discussion of the constitutional ideas which we believe in.

Perhaps I should just remind hon. members of the fact that I was one of the four members who served on the Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to work out and draw up the constitutional policy of the PFP. For that reason I feel that I have as much right as anyone in the party to say what that policy entails and in what direction we want to move. Before I come to that, I want to point out that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concluded his speech and that the hon. the Prime Minister began his speech with quotations from the works of N. P. van Wyk Louw, our greatest philosopher and our first “verligte”. This was music to my ears, and I cannot think of anything more encouraging than for both sides to associate themselves with the views of Van Wyk Louw. The only thing I could not understand was why the hon. the Prime Minister quoted Van Wyk Louw to us in the form of a lecture to the PFP. [Interjections.]

Your own Leader concluded with him. That is the point.

That is quite correct. He started it; but I do not know why the hon. the Prime Minister had to do it in the form of a lecture to the PFP. There was in fact not a word in that quotation of his which we could not agree with. [Interjections.] Look, for example—and I am referring now to the quotation read by the hon. the Prime Minister—at Van Wyk Louw’s definition of the peoples of South Africa. He says—

Do all hon. members on the other side agree with Van Wyk Louw that the Coloured community is not a people in its own right, that it is not a separate people, but that they are Brown Afrikaners and Brown English-speaking people?

Never!

No. What Van Wyk Louw is actually telling us in that quotation is that only when this fact is accepted in practice—the fact that the Coloured people are not a separate people—will the true multinationalism of South Africa, on which the Government places so much emphasis, attain the credibility which it deserves in the eyes of all. Only then shall we attain the point where we shall finally have moved away from discrimination on grounds of colour and where the crucial issue in politics will be, not colour, but the peaceful co-existence of peoples.

The hon. the Prime Minister went on reading what Van Wyk Louw had said, i.e. that we are a multinational state and not merely a multiracial one. Sir, who would be so stupid as to deny that? It is interesting that the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor argued, however, that we were not a multiracial country, but only a multinational one. Van Wyk Louw says we are both—not only multiracial, but mainly a multiplicity of peoples. In other words, a multinational, plural community, and he is quite right. We not only agree with that; it forms one of the basic premises of this party’s constitutional policy. I want to read article 5 from our programme of principles—

Our constitutional policy fully provides for this.

†The constitutional approach of the PFP is based squarely on a recognition of the fact that South Africa is a culturally plural society and that a new constitution should provide for and safeguard both individual and group rights. That is why we firmly reject as unacceptable for South Africa the concept of a unitary system of Parliament with “one man, one vote”. We also reject the concept of majority rule and of the winner-takes-all system which is basic to Westminster. In a multi-national country such as ours a unitary system based on majority rule would be a ready-made recipe for the worst kind of domination.

When were you converted?

That is why we are opposed to centralization of all power in one Parliament or in one seat of government. That is why we are federalists.

*Allow me to point out only one crucial problem which would arise if we were to accept a unitary system with “one man, one vote”. Who would then decide what the official language or languages of the country would be? What guarantee would I have as an Afrikaner, for example, that my language would remain the official language of the country? There is no way in which this can be effectively entrenched in a unitary system of majority rule. It is only possible in a federal system. Langenhoven said quite rightly that the language is the people. If one’s language and one’s language rights disappear, one’s identity and one’s whole survival disappear with them. Fortunately, there are Black nations that wish to retain Afrikaans as an official language even after they have become independent. President Lucas Mangope and the people of Bophuthatswana are among these. I want to pay the highest tribute to them for the recognition they have given to Afrikaans in their State. I should like to say that we should stay on friendly terms with such people. However, look in the case of South West Africa, which may be heading for a unitary political system, and that is not our fault. It is stated in Swapo’s programme of action today that English will be the only official language if it comes into power. Afrikaans as an official language and German as a national language will disappear. This can be done with a stroke of the pen under majority rule. There are groups in our country that have similar attitudes.

Unfortunately I do not have time in this debate to deal with the other major problems which may emerge in a unitary parliamentary system. I merely wish to emphasize again that there is no question of a unitary system of majority rule being accepted by us on this side. I should like to take this opportunity of addressing a word in all friendliness to the other population groups, or peoples, of our country. White people have their shortcomings and have made mistakes in the political history of our country, but they have nevertheless made an enormous contribution to the development of the country and the future welfare of us all. White people are Africans, too, just like any of the other nations in this country. It is true that in the past, we as Whites have demanded special rights for ourselves merely because we were White—although I believe we are approaching the end of that episode, no matter what attitude the Government may be adopting at the moment. Apartheid based on colour will die. No matter what party is governing, it will die of its inherent weaknesses and failings, and no government will be able to prevent this in the long run. As a White man I say that the rights which the Whites should and will then demand for themselves will not be demanded by them because they are White, but because they are members of people or cultural group which for that reason has rights of its own and a right to survival. This is the approach we have to arrive at.

Now I come to the appeal I wish to make. As an Opposition party, we have sat down and worked out a constitutional plan to the best of our ability, a plan which is so structured that cultural diversity in our country is recognized and safeguarded, and the rights of all peoples are recognized, while the domination of any one of them by any other will be prevented. However, what is still lacking, in my opinion, is the fact that most of the Black, Coloured and Indian parties are not doing the same. I think it is time, therefore, that the political parties in our country—and this applies to the Coloured and the Indian parties as well—should also sit down, just as we have done, and commit themselves to constitutional plans which will be seen to ensure the survival and identity of all our various peoples and cultural groups.

But you have turned Nationalist, Japie.

Order!

If they do that, they will be surprised to see how soon we shall arrive at a workable new dispension for South Africa, a dispensation which will include all South Africans.

The hon. the Prime Minister spoke again yesterday about the right to self-determination and about the sharing of power and the division of power. The two have a bearing on each other, of course. The right of a nation to self-determination is a splendid ideal which every reasonable person must accept. It is an ideal which is even written into the constitution of the UN, but at the UN it is mere lip-service. But I am afraid I must make the same criticism of the Government, that for the Government, too, it is lip-service. The hon. the Prime Minister referred yesterday to certain apartheid laws which he was finding it difficult to abolish or to change. I understand his problems, but there is a question I should like to put to him: Is he prepared to test those laws against his own declared principle of self-determination for all? That is the question I ask. If the segregation measures had been the result of joint decision-making by the various population groups affected by it—say, for example, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians—there could have been no objection to such laws in principle, at least, and one could have defended even the worst apartheid legislation of this kind. One could have done that if everyone affected by it had accepted it. However, every one of the laws discussed here is based on unilateral White control. The determination by the White man of his own destiny, yes, that is so, but also of the destiny of others who were not given the right to exercise their self-determination in producing the legislation.

You want to put the cart before the horse.

This is actually the principal objection to the laws, i.e. that they are laws of White supremacy which are directly contrary to the principle of self-determination for all which the Government advocates.

We cannot expect the hon. the Prime Minister to implement the policy of this side of the House. Nor are we asking him to do so, because he was not elected by his people to do so. The least we can expect and ask of the Government, however, is that they should implement in practice the finer principles which they themselves profess. If it is their basic policy that every nation or group, as they see it, in South Africa should have an equal right to self-determination, then every law must be tested against that principle and rejected or changed without delay if it does not comply with it. The enemy is at our door. We are on the Soviet imperialists’ list of “Afghanistans”, and every day we allow to pass without uniting the permanent parts of our population in a system of co-operation with preservation of cultural identity, brings our own “Afghanistan” a step closer—but with the difference that if we should be swallowed up by the powers of darkness, no one will come to our aid. We as nations in South Africa have to rely entirely on ourselves today, on our own powers, and it would be a tragedy for our country if this parliamentary session, too, were to pass without drastic changes towards co-operation.

I am sorry to say that I think it was unreasonable of hon. members on the other side to accuse the Opposition of having raised false expectations in the country concerning the intentions of the Government. Surely this is not so. I do not want to quote anyone in order to embarrass him or to play him off against anyone else. If I had wanted to play that little game, I would not have quoted Van Wyk Louw today, but a book such as Credo van ’n Afrikaner, or Dr. T. E. W. Schumann’s Treurnicht aan die Woord. However, that kind of superficial politics does not appeal to me. If I quote a responsible man, I do so because I believe that he believes in what he wants and that he did not speak without a purpose.

I ask hon. members on the other side: If members of the Cabinet are sent overseas to plead South Africa’s cause there and to speak there as members of the Government before the powerful world Press, and they say what I shall presently quote, is this not the raising of expectations? I want to quote from a speech presented to the world Press by our embassy staff in Washington. Then hon. members can say whether this does not amount to the raising of expectations. With reference to the Government one reads in this official text—

This is power-sharing—

I go further. Referring once more to the Government, the member of the Cabinet said that the Government—

Finally, one more quotation: The Government will—

It does not say that apartheid “as interpreted by the Opposition” is dying. Of course, there are misinterpretations of as well as many lies about apartheid abroad, and especially at the UN. However, no one can deny that “apartheid as you know it and as you came to know of it” essentially is or at least includes apartheid as interpreted in the laws of this country. If members of the Cabinet tell the world Press that “we are in a period of reformation”, on these grounds, then it raises expectations inside and outside the country, which have nothing to do with the Opposition. We, as the Opposition, regard it as our duty, when such important things are said in the interests of South Africa, to support them, as I in fact did, and to publicize them further when we come into contact with foreigners. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that his good image abroad and in South Africa was built on statements such as these. The speech of this member of the Cabinet concluded with the words: “Rejoice beloved country.” I am afraid that in the debate so far, the country has not received much from the Government side to rejoice about.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I have appreciation for some of the statements he made and for his having set at rest—or tried to set at rest—certain misgivings which people had felt, by saying that he and his party were also opposed to majority rule in a unitary state, etc. However, I do not think he was expressing the actual, official viewpoint of his party today. I shall come back to that in a moment. I do not want to go into his quotation from N. P. van Wyk Louw in any detail. It is clear, and we all know it, that Van Wyk Louw made certain statements and wrote certain things which were not always consistent. The hon. the Prime Minister, however, reacted to a quotation by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by means of which he was actually trying to tell us in the words of Van Wyk Louw that we should not try to be an unjust nation. It was in that context that the hon. the Prime Minister, too, quoted Van Wyk Louw. I can quote Van Wyk Louw from memory. If the hon. member were to read page 108 of Liberale Nasionalisme, he would find that Van Wyk Louw has exactly the same objection as we have towards the PFP, viz. that they want to try to bring about an equality in this country which can only be established over the dead body of an entire nation. The hon. member is making a big fuss about his loyalty towards the concept “nation”. It seems to me as if he and his hon. leader are not speaking the same language in this regard.

The hon. member also made a great deal of fuss here about our allegedly one-sided White control. Were the independence of Transkei, of Bophuthatswana and Venda examples of one-sided White control? Was this one-sided White control? These were historical events in the history of South Africa brought about under a Government which did not simply deal with people in a one-sided way, but which gained the co-operation of these people in regard to a plan and a vision of that Government. I want to add that we do not, of course, intend to pool the right to self-determination which the Whites have built up over the centuries in South Africa, with the rest of South Africa at some stage and then, mog het treffen, to hope that one may possibly save a remnant of the right to self-determination of the Whites. We are not prepared to pool it in a consociation model in the way that hon. members of the Opposition want to do.

I was rather surprised that while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was referring to things that I had written, he did not go ahead and make use of the opportunity to run me down as he wished. I am not ashamed of what I have written. I can defend it anywhere. My people have not yet told me that they are ashamed of what I have written.

As far as the hon. the Minister to whom the hon. member referred is concerned, I want to say that that hon. Minister did not propose a unitary state. If he spoke about citizenship for everyone in South Africa, he did not imply that all citizens have equal rights in all situations. Nor did he, in doing so, repudiate the policy of national states for the various Black peoples in South Africa. On the contrary, one can still see the policy of the Government being carried out in terms of those statements if one interprets it as being citizenship for those people within the broad South African context, but also within their own national state where those citizens exercise their political rights. I challenge the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to say here that the hon. the Minister to whom he referred, advocates a unitary state and a unitary political system for South Africa.

We do not advocate that either.

Then the question is why the hon. member cast a reflection on this hon. Minister. This hon. Minister did not expound what the hon. member alleges he expounded, and I can attest to that, because I discussed that matter with the hon. the Minister as a colleague. We discussed that matter with one another on a public platform. I just want to tell the hon. member that I did not withdraw a single standpoint, on that platform, which I had adopted in public, nor did this hon. Minister say the things which the hon. members impute to him.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister alleging that I made a false quotation?

I am not saying that, but the construction he places on the quotation, does not cover his argument.

It is quite clear that grave disappointment prevails in some circles after the long speech which the hon. the Prime Minister delivered in the House yesterday. It was a major, and comprehensive speech which indicated the direction we ought to follow. It is also very clear that there are cries of “no change”. However, an important direction was indicated by the hon. the Prime Minister, which quite simply means that there will be changes, but changes emanating from the basic principles and policy of the NP. That is why we are hearing cries of “no change” and “it is just the same”. The people who are disappointed, are those who want an open community in South Africa, and that party advocates an open community, in spite of the pious noises which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made here this afternoon.

The hon. the Minister also refers to the question of an open community in his speech.

I should like to take a closer look at that. Those people who advocate the abdication of the White man, are deeply disappointed by the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. Those who advocate revolution in South Africa, are deeply disappointed and very seriously warned about any possible idea in that regard. They have been warned by the hon. the Prime Minister.

There is no doubt about certain basic things which the NP advocates. We have not yet achieved all our ideals, nor have we actualized all the objectives inherent in our basic principles and policy. We are well on the way, but we need stand aside for no one when it comes to respect for persons, their claim to protection, their opportunity for an existence based on human dignity and their group awareness. Why has the hon. member for Bezuidenhout suddenly dragged up the concept of “nationhood” and its importance? This party has always been consistent in advocating that truth as well as consistently developing the political implication of nationhood and of national consciousness. Now we are hearing noises from that side too, and if they are encouraging noises, then we are making progress.

It is of fundamental importance to have respect for the group awareness of people, their nationhood, their national consciousness, their claim to joint fulfilment in the social and educational and in the broader cultural and political spheres.

Then there is also the establishment of political machinery for the highest degree of self-determination for the various peoples. I know that some people may find the word “self-determination” rather fluid. We use it too. Now I understand that hon. members on that side of the House are also using it.

Furthermore, the levels of common interest must be established for the various peoples and groups, and opportunities for consultation must be created for those matters. This is NP language. This is our objective.

A fifth objective is to avoid a political set-up in which the self-determination of peoples will be threatened or destroyed. I maintain that the proposals which the official Opposition are submitting to the country in this regard, in so far as they can be clearly interpreted, do not steer clear of this danger of threatening or forfeiting the right to self-determination.

A sixth point which is important to us, is to assist in creating and to protect a happier community life for the different population groups and communities, with economic prospects for all, with social structures which every one may be proud of, with political fulfilment for all and a feeling of security—security in their work, in their residential areas, in their schools, in their universities, in their sport, in their transport, in their family life and so much more.

My observation is that there is still a great deal to be done as regards providing for the need for their own community facilities for the various groups and communities. There is still a great deal to be done. My second observation is that there are still many people who feel that they are being threatened and supplanted in their own residential areas and living space. That is why it is obvious that it is not conducive to good neighbourliness and good group relations when groups—whether they be White or non-White—feel that they are being threatened within their own living space by members of other communities. If this continues or increases, we shall have to grant the necessary protection to those communities for the sake of all communities. We shall have to do so. Otherwise we do not guarantee the freedom, the freedom of communities in our country. And I think people are entitled to expect that from us.

I said that party does not comply with the requirements which a political model must lay down for our country. Without mincing matters, I say here today that the PFP is an integration party. Sir, I do not even hear a protest! And since they are agreeing with me here, we may possibly agree on other matters too. We had a motion here last year moved by the present Leader of the Opposition; and the then Leader of the Opposition also participated in the discussion. The latter answered certain questions put by the previous hon. member for Durbanville. I quote (Hansard, 1979, col. 867)—

How does that sound to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout?

Is that integration? [Interjections.]

Then Mr. Louw asked—

Yes, of course.

[Interjections.] Then Mr. Louw went on to ask—

Yes.

What is this but political integration? I wish that I had the time to discuss the book by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with him. I should have liked to discuss it with him as intelligently as possible. He makes very important statements in that book. One of them is that he and his co-author, Prof. Welsh, do not know of a single case where a multiracial political party—this is what it boils down to—has actually succeeded. Am I correct? This is more or less the idea. I can refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the place if he wishes. He puts it rather more mildly and says that he would be in favour of “voluntary integration”. I quote the following from The Citizen of 30 October 1979—

These are the voters of Edenvale—

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

Unfortunately, my time is very limited and I think it would be as well if I said what I want to say. It is very clear that these people do not deny it. How voluntary is this integration of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? I want to read to him a quotation from page 157 of his book. He quotes a certain author there, but before he does so, he says—

America with its compulsory “bussing” and compulsory integration is being held up as an example for us to follow. The question is why anyone quotes a man like this without any additional qualifications. He does not qualify himself anywhere after this quotation. It reads as follows—

What this actually means, is that we might as well adopt the American way, especially if it suits the political objectives of the PFP, so that we may go ahead and have forced integration, because the people may possibly become accustomed to it.

What type of integration is opening Post Offices?

Post Offices are not integrated. Post Offices are public buildings which are put at the disposal of various people. However, we still have control over them when they are within a White area. This, however, is a public facility which is at the disposal of people in that area. [Interjections.]

Order!

I thought the hon. member wanted to ask me a question in connection with the passage which I quoted! I want to tell him that his so-called voluntary integration is not voluntary integration at all. He would want the law behind him in order to enforce it, and then he hopes that our people would fall in with him. This reminds me very much of what Dr. D. F. Malan said at Stellenbosch 69 years ago. On that occasion he said, inter alia—

If the hon. member for Yeoville does not understand that, I can translate it into English for him. In actual fact, it means the following: I am not asking you to commit suicide, but if I want to strangle you, you must please not resist. This is the dictatorship of liberalism, the dictatorship of the tolerant!

I want to quote one more passage. Perhaps it will give him something to think about tonight. His party is playing a game with group identity, with peoples, and at the same time they are disparaging them. I want to refer him to pages 130 and 133 of his book. On page 130 he speaks more or less the same language as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just spoken. He says there—

Here he foresees a vigorous White community exercising its own rights. However, only about three pages on I read—

Anyone who has a logical, consistent mind will see that these two statements are diametrically opposed. One could continue in this way.

One of the most important statements that they make, is that we should try, by means of negotiation and evolutionary methods, to establish a democratic form of Government in South Africa. What is a democratic set-up for South Africa? According to those people, a democratic set-up is a unitary system in which all the people in South Africa, all individuals, form the so-called demos. Therefore, this is what they consider to be a democratic system.

Now, what is their own comment on this? I shall quote from page 90. (I think the hon. Leader should give me credit for at least having taken note of what he and his co-author wrote.) I quote—

We all agree with that. However, to do so according to the consociation pattern of the proposal of the hon. the Leader of the consociation party … Well, that party’s policy is not equal to doing so in South Africa according to that pattern.

I refer to another statement which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes. He says it will be difficult to achieve democracy in South Africa because of the divisive factors, ethnic division in particular. He should go and read pages 16 and 17 of his own book. On page 16 he says—

Therefore, those hon. members are aware of the difficulties that exist when an attempt is made to bring about a unitary system in a multinational country. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says they do not advocate a unitary system. Nor do they advocate a federal system. What other kind of system does one get? [Interjections.] What other kind of system is there? [Interjections.] Do those hon. members not advocate a federation? [Interjections.] They do not advocate a federation. I must tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is to his credit that he does not accept federation as a solution in his book.

Of course I accept it. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. the Leader accept a federation?

Yes, of course. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then there are a number of arguments in his book that he did not check. [Interjections.] May I put a suggestion to him? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a well-read man. May I recommend that he reads an article called “Federalism in Africa”? It is in Plural Societies, Spring 1978. Right on the very first page they furnish a whole table of unsuccessful federations in Africa—ten of them in all, ten unsuccessful federations. This is without counting the quasi-federations. Here he quotes Max Beloff, who says—

Then he goes on to say—

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party want to dump something on South Africa by way of experiment, something which is of mere sentimental value in Europe, where there is a possibility of succeeding, but where it is no longer a practical programme for a political dispensation. To my mind, this is irresponsible politics; it is irresponsible in regard to the realities in South Africa. My time has expired. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Tourism told us right at the outset that there was no difference between his idea and that of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in regard to what facet of apartheid is dead. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not at least have told us today what his interpretation is of what facets of apartheid are dead. Does he accept that certain facets of apartheid are dead, or does he not?

Those in which you believe.

The hon. member now says: “Those in which you believe.”

†I think it was the hon. the Prime Minister who said yesterday that it is the caricature of apartheid that is dead, but in the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in the United States of America, the caricature of apartheid was never mentioned. He spoke of apartheid as those people know it and, naturally, as based on legislation passed by this Government, and not on the basis of the interpretations now given to it. The hon. the Minister once again rejected the idea of any federal arrangement, and quite rightly so, because if it is only going to be a geographical federation, it would not help. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, however, that he cannot quote one example in Africa where one has been tried. What the NRP is suggesting, is a federation in a common geographical area where the units of the federation consist of various racial components. It is therefore very unwise for that hon. Minister to reject the concept of federation, because it is the concept of federation and confederation which will provide the solution to our problems. [Interjections.]

This debate has so far confirmed that indeed the Government is entering this new decade without clear-cut policies on a number of key issues. After having listened carefully to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, I am more than ever convinced about this. This is very disturbing because no one can deny that the threats to South Africa are far greater today than a decade ago. A decade ago we did not have so many of our young men defending our borders, and examples of terrorism were solely confined to Ireland. Attacks on police stations, of course, were quite unknown. During the past decade we still had time, in this country, to bring about changes without undue external pressure. I must remind hon. members, however, that the Rhodesian issue which is, I believe, virtually the last lightning conductor which can take pressure away from us in South Africa, will have to be settled soon, for better or for worse. Under those circumstances, there will be tremendous pressure on South Africa, and therefore it is imperative that the Government of today, if it wishes to have the confidence of the people, should have an all-embracing policy to accommodate, in a logical way, all racial problems we are faced with in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister yesterday illustrated to us, in respect of two aspects, that there is no hope for such an all-embracing policy. In the light of that I beleive that this Government is recklessly gambling with the security of South Africans.

Let us consider some of these weaknesses. In spite of all the explanations and apologies, and after having listened to the Prime Minister, it is clear to me that the Government still has no logical policy with regard to the urban Blacks of South Africa, and this is creating a most dangerous state of affairs. Hon. members opposite say that with this tremendous new deal for urban Blacks they will obtain more rights than those of municipalities. I can only say “Ag, foeitog!” Do they honestly believe that the problem is so simplistic that all one has to do is offer people a few more rights than municipal rights and one will solve the problem? Do they honestly believe that at this time, when we have already had an election in South West Africa a year ago on the basis of “one man, one vote”, and with Rhodesians participating in elections for the second time, all that is required is merely to offer municipal rights, or slightly more, and that the problem will thus be solved? This has been the problem with this Government, the fact that ever since 1948 it has regarded the problem as being so easy to solve. First of all the Government told us that all one had to do is to carve boundaries and, hey presto, everything would be solved. The Government said that by 1978, as a result of the down curve, there would no longer by any urban Blacks. Now however, after 30 years, the Government says all we have to do is give them a little bit more rights than municipalities. We also had to listen yesterday to the ease with which the hon. the Prime Minister explained things to us about this great constellation of States. What did he, in fact, tell us? He said that in that constellation of States there will be only independent States. Of course, we know that today there are three of them, three areas that were previously part of South Africa. He said, however, that the non-independent self-governing Black areas—including 5 million Zulus, 2 million Ciskeians and the rest—would fit in too, but do hon. members know how? They will merely have observer status, whilst the mother country, the mother Government, does the talking for them. Our problems are not that easy to solve.

I said by way of an interjection, and I want to say it again, that if that is the Government’s attitude, not only is it downright paternalistic, but it also stinks of colonialism. [Interjections.] This is evident even from the very phrases that have been used in this respect. Coming to this session of Parliament, I was one of the people who believed that the Prime Minister was, in fact, prepared to carry on but that perhaps his party was holding him back. I do not think that is the case any longer. I no longer think there is any willingness on their part to move. That is why one can have declarations of that kind here.

One has had people like Wimpie de Klerk in Rapport pleading with us please not to push the Prime Minister too far. Last year, during the by-election campaigns, we were told: Give the PM a chance. What sort of cotton-wool-wrapped attitude is this on the part of the Prime Minister? My scepticism has been confirmed in this debate, and the speech of the last hon. Minister is a good example. We have no hope, or very little hope, of real fundamental change in South Africa. There was absolutely no indication in the State President’s speech to confirm that any single piece of apartheid legislation would disappear.

Advance in reverse.

As far as policy is concerned, there is no clear-cut commitment. I thought there was a commitment. By the utterances last year I was led to believe that there was a commitment towards eradicating apartheid legislation in South Africa, but I no longer believe that there is such a commitment. All that one can say, perhaps, is that it is still, in some respects, the policy of the Government today to break down tomorrow what was created by their old policies yesterday. Unfortunately we apparently never seem to reach tomorrow. We only seem to be bogged down in the politics of today.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the present Nationalist Government is the fact that it has the habit of first doing things the wrong way and then coming along and trying to do the right thing afterwards. In this respect it must surely hold a world record. The list is a long and growing one. Through their own actions, over the last couple years, the Government has conceded that it was wrong about mixed sport, trade unions, job reservation, the sharing of political power with the Indians and Coloureds, open hotels, home-ownership for Blacks, the permit system, etc. Those hon. members want us to have confidence in a Government that holds a world record in having been wrong first. This is not, however, confined only to issues involving race relations. This is not the only area in which their wrongness has manifested itself. They are also wrong when it comes to matters of effective administration and Government. I am now going to refer to the drive we have had for the general registration of voters. What a mess this was! True to form they did all the wrong things first and only afterwards came and told us they would in future do things the right way. I see that unfortunately the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior is not here now. Also, he has already spoken. I want to quote what he said in a statement which appeared in The Argus of 24 January under the heading “General registration drives should be replaced in future”—

That is 100% correct. I could say to him “touché”; but why discover this only now?

The hon. the Deputy Minister also said in this statement that it is correct to say that the registration of voters should be decentralized. It was for him a great discovery, but in 1974 he and the hon. member for Durban Point went overseas to study effective electoral systems. On their return they made recommendations for decentralization. If, however, the NP had in 1974 accepted the recommendations, they would have broken their track record because they would then have done the right thing first—that would have been two years after the previous general registration and five years in advance of the next one. Again they have to do the wrong thing first. When a government cannot even conduct an effective registration drive, how do they think they can run a country properly? If one looks at how they have conducted the last one, I believe we can just as well reach the stage where we have elections the way they have them in South West Africa and Rhodesia where the voters simply dip a finger into indelible ink. Then we can try to cope with our voters’ roll.

I know there has always been an outcry in the past and that in the end the voters’ rolls have been cleared up through the efforts of political parties, but what has made this one so bad is that, added to all the errors, there has also been confusion caused by people being notified that they have been deleted from the roll and transferred to other electoral divisions while in fact nothing of the sort has happened. What is more, these people, on receiving notification to the effect that they must please object within 23 days from the date stamped on the notification, invariably found that they had only received the notification after the 23 days had passed. Consider the situation in my own constituency where there are a number of elderly people who would like to stay on the right side of the law. They are upset and frightened when they receive things like this. It appears to me that the Department of the Interior has computers but no programmers, so that the computers must program themselves.

Why is it that the metropolitan areas, the central city areas, where there is the largest concentration of Opposition voters, are the areas that have been grossly under-registered? I know it is said that buildings have been demolished and that there has been a depopulation in these areas. In my own constituency there has been a drop of some 4 000 voters on the basis of the 1973 delimitation. One notices, however, that the actual number of buildings demolished in the central part of town has been minimal. Two hotels, a hostel for women, the YWCA, and one block of apartments have been demolished. Let me give a further example. In one building consisting of 25 flats four people were registered, two others were registered but had left and 19 others were not registered. It will probably be said that they were immigrants. I do not know whether people with the surnames of Pretorius, Van Wyk, De Jager, Snyman, Bezuidenhout, Bester and De Bruyn would in fact be immigrants. One must also take into consideration that there has been a drop in immigration in South Africa. Sir, the job was not done properly. Clearly, not sufficient monetary incentive was given to the enumerators. There has been the complaint that enumerators made mistakes. If that is true, the other side of the coin must be that they were not properly trained or that the system used was unnecessarily complicated.

I raise this matter here because a new delimitation is pending. Without a proper registration one cannot have a fair delimitation. It is only logical that, in order to bring the areas which are under-registered up to quota, one has to add to those areas other areas where there has been gross under-registration. The result will be that by the time one has an election, there will be constituencies in which there will be thousands of voters above the quota. Those voters will have been registered by the political parties. In that way, however, the very principles of a fair delimination which we expect to be of the order of the day in a democratic country, will be defeated. It is quite clear that the job of registration was not done properly. In a constituency like Durban Central we found a large number of flats where people were not registered. Why must the political parties do the duty at their expense which should have been done by the Government in the first place?

*Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to notice that the hon. the Minister of Police is in the House. Up to now we have been concentrating in the debate on other matters of policy, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister now that the Government doubly deserves the lack of confidence in it on account of a number of aspects in South Africa, particularly in respect of certain groups of people who are doing invaluable work for South Africa, but who are evidently being forgotten by the Government. In this connection I am thinking of the police, the nurses, the teachers and the pensioners.

Are you supporting our argument?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asks whether I am supporting his argument. His party has merely introduced a motion of censure of the Government, whereas the Government deserves a motion of no confidence in view of the terrible neglect of which they are guilty.

Like the hon. the Minister, we feel grateful to the police and we congratulate them on the arrest of terrorists and criminals. It is fitting that we should do this, but I feel the time has come for us to express our appreciation to them in a tangible way as well. The hon. the Minister knows what the position is and I also believe that it would be wrong to single out individual police stations to indicate that there is a shortage of policemen, since that could only push up the crime rate. It is a fact, however, that there are indeed police stations in the country that are as much as 50% below strength.

No, that is not true.

That is my information, but I am not going to tell the hon. the Minister where the police stations are situated. My information is …

There is not a single police station that is 50% below strength.

Well, then the figure is 40%. [Interjections.] It is a well-known fact that resignations from the police force are not confined to the younger policemen. We are being told that an economic upturn of the economy is in the offing, and it is our experience that there is always an outflow of people in the service of the State to the private sector whenever an economic upturn occurs. If there is already a shortage at this stage and the economic upturn occurs, then it is therefore something that deserves the urgent attention of all hon. members of the House.

For decades, there has been a problem in respect of nurses. They are a group of dedicated people and it appears to me the attitude towards them is that since the Government could never really compensate them for the work they are doing, no attempt to do so will even be made. They must simply continue to do the work of two or three persons at a meagre salary.

I am raising the point because when one listens to the State President’s address at the opening of Parliament every year, he gives no indication that attention is going to be given to the plight of such people. Everybody in South Africa is elated at the gold price and the economic upturn, but these factors do not mean more money in the pocket of the ordinary man. It is often denied that a problem exists. That is wrong. That is typical ostrich policy, to try and bury one’s head in the sand when confronted with the problem, because the problem cannot vanish.

An ostrich does not do that.

I do not know about that, but I do know that some ostriches kick. [Interjections.]

As far as teachers are concerned, the State President stated in his address that a committee had actually been appointed to ascertain the position of educationists. I quote—

Then he says—

That is something I welcome, but the Government cannot get away with that so easily after neglecting for so many years to do the right thing. On the shelves of government departments and Ministers there are reports and recommendations on this very matter and all these years they have been lying there gathering dust.

†I should like to read out of, for instance, the 1968 consolidated report of the National Advisory Education Council of Teachers. One finds that it refers to factors which determine the status of the teaching profession. I quote—

Imagine it! Twelve years later they want to rediscover this. They then say that it continues to enjoy high priority. Where does it enjoy high priority? In a pigeon-hole? That is what has been happening.

*I am not even going to try to pretend that there are not cases where there is a surplus of certain categories of teachers. Only last year, for example, there was great excitement because an ideal salary structure was being negotiated, in respect of which there was a solemn promise that it would be implemented. What happened then? Once again, it merely remained a promise. A problem is being experienced in connection with scarce subjects. I wish to point out a personal example. The first telephone call I received during this session, came from the Transvaal.

The only one?

The first one. The caller asked me whether there was something I could do for them. I can do nothing for them, because it is a task for the Transvaal Provincial Administration. The person said that for the first time in many years they had a acquired the services of graduate science teacher, but that they were going to lose her since she was receiving a salary of R375 per month, whereas she would earn R700 per month if she went to the private sector. That is only one example I wish to point out. These are the facts confronting us.

†Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch upon one or two points concerning pensioners. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance have said by implication that of course the pensioners are well off, because all the time their pensions have been rising ahead of the cost of living. However, the cost-of-living index consists of all sorts of items. The pensioner, however, basically has to spend his money on food. In that respect the pensioners’ position has in fact deteriorated. I also want to make the point that as far as the gold bonanza is concerned, it would be a cruel thing once again to announce increases in April, and then humiliate the senior citizens of South Africa by letting them wait until October before any increases are made in their pensions.

Finally, I wish to return to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday. I want to say that the attitude he displayed in respect of mixed marriages and the Immorality Act really caused one of the saddest moments in this debate so far. I cannot help but say to the hon. the Prime Minister that it is now clear to me that somehow a cruel trick has been played on a number of people in South Africa. These are people who have been living in a twilight world and who have to cope with the anxieties which are caused by the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Undoubtedly, their expectations have been aroused by the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement. [Interjections.] But the hon. the Prime Minister repeated what he said. One fact became very clear to me after his speech yesterday, and that is that as long as there is a NP and that hon. Prime Minister, they will not abolish the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act or the Immorality Act.

Quite correct.

That hon. member says: “Heeltemal reg.” That is the only point which we have to go by and which has now been confirmed in the clearest terms. That is all we have had—and that is why I say it was a cruel trick to say matters would be improved and then to sit back, apparently to wait until a certain amount of time has passed, and then to say that there had been no suggestions of how matters were to be improved. The hon. the Prime Minister clearly displayed that attitude when he asked one of the hon. members on this side of the House whether he had submitted suggestions of how to effect improvements. In other words, he was typically trying to pass the buck by saying: “I am prepared to, but you do not want to help me; you are negative because you do not want to help me.” This is the problem. I believe that last year the hon. the Prime Minister, for the sake of expediency and in order to project a certain image of himself, made these statements knowing full well that he cannot improve the position, because yesterday he gave us the reasons why the relevant provisions have to be retained. He gave us the age-old reasons which the NP have been using since 1950. He knew, when he made his announcement, that these things are incapable of being improved.

You cannot understand it.

It is for that reason that I believe that expectations have been shattered. However, now that we have entered this debate, the hon. the Prime Minister has been playing to a different gallery. The gallery to which he has been playing consists of the hon. members sitting behind him. Yesterday, when he played to that gallery, he made one thing quite certain and that is that, as long as there is a NP and as long as he is the Prime Minister, one can forget about it: There will always be prohibition on mixed marriages and there will always be section 16 of the Immorality Act.

You have not understood anything.

The hon. member says: “You have not understood anything.”

You are “dense”.

He also says: “You are dense.” I think he should rather ask the hon. the Prime Minister what is “dense” in this instance.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by saying that it is for that reason that I feel that we as elected members of this House have a duty to pass a vote of no-confidence in this hon. Prime Minister on the strength of his deeds of today, not on the promises which may never materialize. On his track record up to now he and his Cabinet deserve a vote of no-confidence from this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central has offered us a potpourri of subjects. There is hardly a section of the wide spectrum of the South African population on whose behalf he does not have something to say. There are a few issues on which we could differ from him, but I find it interesting that the hon. member is cultivating good relations with the Transvaal and other teachers’ unions and associations specifically. My information is that the hon. member will be in need of that good relationship after the next election. I do not know, however, whether they will accept him. He can woo the electorate in Natal as much as he likes, but he cannot win them any more. I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that we have appreciated his stay in this House! The hon. member also pleaded here for the payment of larger pensions to our senior citizens. To do so really shows opportunism of the worst kind. After all, the hon. member knows that whenever the opportunity to do so has presented itself, this Government has made generous provision every year for the social and other pensioners in this country. He will not be able to claim that this happened with his help because he knows after all that this Government takes care of it.

The hon. member should rather have made use of the opportunity to clarify the obscurities in the constitutional plan of the hon. member for Mooi River. However, he did not make use of that opportunity and as yet we still do not know whether the NRP is going to hold a convention or what it is going to do. If they are not going to hold a convention, they will have to forfeit some of the White Parliament’s powers. Surely that is very clear. Once they have done that, how long do they think it will take before they will have to establish local authorities and other government bodies for Blacks? They want to do it overnight but that is impossible, it is impracticable. That brings me to another point and that is the hon. member’s reckless plea for change. It is clear that the hon. member for Durban Central has a lesson to learn from the hon. member for Mooi River on what the concept of “change” means.

But I was not talking about that.

Of course you were. The hon. member was not listening to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Police. The hon. Minister pointed out that the whole concept of “change” is part of the strategy of the ANC.

I was not talking about that.

If the hon. member was not talking about that he should have been talking about it, otherwise his party has nothing to talk about. The concept of “change” is being introduced to South Africa through various agents and media to achieve various aims. The hon. the Minister of Police pointed out that the concept of “violent change” is being used by the ANC, the PAC and the South African Communist party. By this they mean bloodshed. Bodies such as the Christian Institute, Nusas and Saso again speak of “fundamental change” and by this they mean a “redistribution of power, land and wealth”. By the concept “meaningful change” others again mean that we have to get equal treatment in all areas, therefore also, “one man, one vote”. The advocates and endorsers of this concept are the PFP, the USA and other groups. When we speak recklessly of “change” in this House, when we impart these ideas to the outside world and say that the party on the other side advocates “change”, each one of the various revolutionary groups understands by that what it wants to. In this way an Opposition party becomes a puppet in the hands of these revolutionary bodies and can be manipulated by them merely on account of differences in interpretation. The National Party uses the word “change” circumspectly, because by that we mean very clearly, positive changes and development.

Having said that, I want to deal with an issue which has already been raised by the hon. the Prime Minister and to which the hon. member for Houghton has also referred. The hon. member for Sea Point also asked a few questions about the matter. The hon. member for Sea Point was very concerned about certain aspects which he felt still had to be explained. I think the hon. the Prime Minister has dealt fully with them but since the hon. member for Sea Point has put further questions, I shall answer him.

In his speech the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that there were various categories of people who could receive attention from the Department of National Security.

†For the purpose of replying to the hon. member for Sea Point I shall have to elaborate on the one category mentioned. That category comprises those persons who, as a result of their position and the influence they wield, the access they have and the knowledge at their disposal, can be and are being manipulated by foreign intelligence and other hostile elements, wittingly and unwittingly. In other words, these people, individually or as a group or organization, may be the target of espionage by foreign agencies or instances.

So you tap all MPs? [Interjections.]

Oh really, Bamford, nobody will tap you. You are simply not important enough.

If the hon. member should care to listen he may learn something about the techniques of espionage. [Interjections.] We should realize that in the case of South Africa a few—fortunately very few—legal agencies and foreign organizations not only collect information but also initiate and practise subversion against the security of the State. This process of collecting information and practising subversion is a part of the multi-dimensional warfare against South Africa. As a matter of fact, secret agencies seem to have become the medium through which secret wars are being won or lost.

The hon. member for Sea Point is an ex-soldier. So also is the hon. member for Yeoville. I should like to refer them to recent publications on the secret war that was waged during the period 1939-’45. It now appears, from publications by people like Stevenson and Johnson, that World War II would not have been won had it not been for the activities of secret agencies established by Sir Winston Churchill during his term of office as war-time Prime Minister of Great Britain. As a matter of fact, these secret agencies seem to have become the medium through which secret wars are being won or lost. The very importance attached by Russia to its KGB supports this very point. We should not be surprised to find out that members of the Russian secret service are actually infiltrating Rhodesia, for instance, under the guise of observers or journalists.

According to all available information, South Africa is today a prime target for espionage and subversion. Such targets are for instance our military services, including our national services. The hon. the Prime Minister already referred to that. It also involves our armaments industry. Another target is our infrastructure, our railways and harbours and communications systems. Knowledge and detailed information about all these are being gathered. Our young people, White, Black and Coloured, especially the talented ones and their organizations, including some of our labour organizations, are also targets of this kind of espionage and subversion. Other targets include political and cultural organizations of the various ethnic groups, especially those who themselves tend towards subversion.

Pausing here for a moment, I must add that it is an acknowledged fact in the world of intelligence that hostile intelligence services employ such organizations and manipulate members of subversive organizations or organizations operating outside constitutional and political structures in order to fulfil their objectives. More often than not members of an organization, or individuals for that matter, are unaware that they are being explored and exploited by intelligence services. It is possible that only the head of a subversive organization may be a party to all this, while his followers may just be dragged along. No Government, no State, nor the public or the private sector can tolerate a situation where hostile foreign instances and agencies infiltrate and abuse internal, political, economical and security structures, let alone those organizations, subversive organizations and individuals who themselves aim at overthrowing the State and its institutions. Every company today safeguards its own secrets against competitive espionage, and more so when it comes to hostile espionage. The State, therefore, also has a duty in this regard and also has a duty to take care of the security interests of all our peoples. Therefore, what we, and notably the Department of National Security and other departments, have to practise is counter-espionage. The country and its people are under attack. To put it crudely: Spies create work for our Department of National Security. We are not offenders; we are on the defence, and the only way for us to perform our duty is to find and uncover the hostile intelligence activities and to counter them. If we want to act positively, we must take cognizance of all those persons who deliberately use and abuse naïve, innocent, and often not so innocent, people and organizations. I have to stress that the abused ones are not the primary objects of interest of the Department of National Security.

Perhaps I could explain to the House the interest the Department of National Security has in the people who purport to write in the name of the hon. member for Houghton.

Who are those people? Would you like to identify them?

When I have finished, the House will realize why this kind of correspondence is material and that it may have a bearing on the interests of security of the Republic. This brings me to an individual called Mr. X.

That is helpful!

It is a delicate subject, and if the hon. member for Houghton has no knowledge in this regard, she should tell the House, and that will be the end of the matter.

I told you …

Mr. Speaker, may I continue?

Why do you not tell me …

He is telling you now.

Robert Molteno, a former lecturer in politics at the university of Zambia, where he worked from 1968 to 1976, exposed this man at a conference held at Dar es Salaam in 1975. That conference was sponsored by the UN. He exposed this man as an agent or co-worker for a foreign intelligence agency. This accusation was repeated in two more pro-African publications, namely The African Youth Movement of April 1976 and Covert Action of April/May 1979. I am sure that hon. members on that side of the House will accept the sincerity of these publications, which are violently anti-South African.

In these publications Mr. X is accused of penetrating liberation movements, of being hostile, of using his contacts at very high levels in a certain African government, of misrepresenting his projects in order to go ahead to achieve ulterior objectives and also of harbouring manipulative intentions. Such a person coming to South Africa is begging for attention. Mr. X not only obtained a security permit to visit prisons, but also gained other positions of influence.

How did he do that?

His every action was in accordance with a set pattern.

*In 1978 this person wrote a letter from Johannesburg to someone abroad. The letter was written on a printed letterhead of the hon. member for Houghton. Mr. X’s own name as sender was omitted from the cover. In its place was written: “Mrs. H. Suzman, M.P.,” followed by her full address.

What address was that? Was it the House of Assembly or my home address? I should like to know.

For the purpose of this matter it is not necessary for us to identify that. Not at all. We are protecting the hon. member for Houghton. Does she not realize that? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member has already told The Argus that she does not know about it.

But I do not.

Well, then what is she complaining about? We are only showing her how subversive people can be.

[Inaudible.]

What does this man write? Now the hon. member for Houghton can hear what he says in the letter.

Order! Did the hon. the Deputy Minister cast a reflection on the hon. member for Houghton? Did he imply that she is subversive?

No, Mr. Speaker! Never! What does he write in this letter? From the letter it appears that a certain person has shown seven hours’ television material to a certain audience, and I quote—

What is the destination of these films in the USA? I think the hon. member for Houghton will now agree with us. They are very clearly propaganda films against the Republic. We know that these films are being used in the USA to influence boards of directors and workers to encourage opposition to South Africa for one purpose only and that is to have capital withdrawn from the Republic thus causing unemployment and, therefore, eventually revolution.

What has this got to do with me?

Indirectly—and as she says now, without her knowledge—the hon. member for Houghton is involved. In view of the aforegoing, therefore, it is clear that the hon. member was not the target of the unfavourable attention of the Department of National Security. I can see that she feels very bad about it, but it was another person who was the target …

Is it necessary to open every letter I send?

… and the reason was the misuse of the name and address, envelopes and letterheads of the hon. member and the recognized practice of hostile espionage services and other hostile elements to misuse the titles of important persons to avoid interception.

How many letters were there and why did you not tell me then?

I am not going to participate in fishing expeditions. I shall come to that just now. I shall reply to that. I shall tell her why we did not warn her. As I said, it was done in the light of the practice of misusing the titles of important persons to prevent interception. After all, it is very clear that that is a very good method, and the hon. Prime Minister pointed that out. The case of Churchill should be regarded in this light.

[Inaudible.]

The assurance can be given that neither the hon. member for Houghton, nor Mr. Churchill were direct targets. The hon. member for Houghton wants to know why she was not warned.

Yes.

Sir, should we have warned her in view of the attitude that she assumes? Would she have appreciated it?

Of course.

Why did you not ask her to help you?

The hon. member for Yeoville’s question is absurd. The hon. member for Houghton has, with her attitude here, immediately drawn all the blame and so on upon herself in spite of the hon. Prime Minister’s explanation and his full elucidation of the various categories.

Do you think I would approve of people stealing my notepaper as you say they have done?

He did not say that.

Oh, then I gave it to them?

He might have picked it up.

Order!

You are just a shabby crew.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

That they are just a shabby crew.

Who?

To whom is the hon. member referring when he makes that remark?

There is nothing wrong with that.

Who are “a shabby crew”?

The hon. members in general.

The hon. member must withdraw that. Referring to hon. members in those terms is definitely not parliamentary.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, from the arguments of the hon. member for Sea Point and those of the hon. member for Houghton, it is clear that in this matter she lays claim to immunity for her privacy in terms of the report of the Potgieter Commission. The hon. the Prime Minister told her that she has that immunity and reaffirmed it in the guidelines he laid down. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she also claims immunity for people who abuse her mail facilities and her name and address.

You have got to give very good reasons for invading privacy and I have not been given one good reason at all as yet.

Mr. Speaker, I have just explained that we have not even touched the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

Will you show me, Mister, and, if not, why not?

Order!

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton has also, through the hon. member for Sea Point, put quite a number of questions to us.

I do not believe a word of it.

Order! If the hon. member for Houghton does not stop with her interjections, I shall have to ask her to leave the Chamber.

What? Again?

Make it a hat trick, Helen.

The hon. member for Sea Point has put a number of questions.

†One of the questions he asked was whether Mrs. Suzman was a security risk. I have tried to explain that that was never the case. However, the treatment the hon. member has suffered at the hands of the Defence Force hardly a week ago contradicts any hope she may have of our considering her as a security risk. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Houghton attended a briefing by the Defence Force. Is that correct?

Correct.

Mr. Speaker, that was a closed briefing. It was done in the belief that the hon. member for Houghton is not a security risk—and that was subsequent to the so-called McGiven disclosures.

Why did you try to apply the provisions of section 118A?

The hon. member for Houghton has no right to come and tell us that she was defamed in any way and was accused of being a security risk. But we have correspondence in our possession and we may perhaps be prepared to discuss it with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If the letterheads were not used with her permission then she must tell us that they were stolen.

Of course!

She has said that about six times already.

Who steals things like that?

It’s the first time I have ever heard of it!

Order!

If that is the case, I say that the Department of National Security does a splendid job. They protect all members of Parliament, even the PFP, from such disorderly conduct, from inveiglers and infiltrators. Surely it is only logical that we are in fact doing it. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, will you reconsider your ruling?

Order! I have given the hon. member for Houghton enough latitude and have also warned her.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point? Sir, you will understand that directly, not indirectly, the rights and privileges of an hon. member of Parliament are now being debated. The victim, certainly the hon. member who believes she is the victim, of this particular situation is in the House. It is obviously a delicate matter and obviously she feels strongly about it. With great respect, I would ask you to give her one more warning.

Order! I gave the hon. member a couple of warnings and I have now given my ruling.

I will go.

Mr. Speaker, will you not reconsider your ruling in the light of what I have said?

You do not have to bother. I am going.

(The hon. member thereupon withdrew.)

It is a disgrace! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to refer you to the audi alteram partem rule.

Order! Did an hon. member say “It is a disgrace?”

Mr. Speaker, I said so.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I will not.

The hon. member must then withdraw from the Chamber.

(The hon. member thereupon withdrew.)

Mr. Speaker, I also said it was a disgrace. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point must also withdraw from the Chamber.

(The hon. member thereupon withdrew.)

Mr. Speaker, I also said it … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will you please indicate … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville still has the floor on a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental rule of justice which says that one does not deal with a person’s case unless he or she is present. What has happened now is that the case of the hon. member for Houghton is being debated in this House where her political position is fundamentally affected, and it is a transgression of the audi alteram partem rule. [Interjections.]

Order! I gave the hon. member for Houghton enough latitude. The hon. member must now abide by my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

I have already given my ruling in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a different point of order. May I ask you in terms of what rule you asked the hon. member for Houghton to withdraw from the House?

I gave my ruling in terms of Standing Order No. 106, which states that no member shall interrupt another member whilst speaking. To interject is not a right, but a privilege afforded by the Chair. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Sea Point alleges that a slur has been cast on the integrity of the hon. member for Houghton and is therefore asking for a parliamentary Select Committee …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to speak to and deal with an hon. member who has been ordered to withdraw from the Chamber? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Standing Order No. 106 reads as follows—

1. (a) to call attention to a point of order or a question of privilege.

May I ask you whether you regard this whole matter as a question of privilege, or not?

I gave the hon. member enough latitude and I asked her to stop her interjections. This is a right of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, may I comment on that?

I have given my ruling.

Sir, I believe it is important that you understand that we believe that the hon. member’s privileges as a member of Parliament are being circumscribed.

Order! I have given my ruling. The Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point has made the allegation that a slur has been cast on the hon. member for Houghton and asked for a parliamentary Select Committee to examine her case. My reply to the hon. member is that if she feels that a slur has been cast on her and that a charge has been levelled against her integrity, credibility and loyalty, she can clear herself quite easily by assuring this House that she had no knowledge that she was being abused by some of her correspondents …

You have said that about ten times already.

… and that she is not in cahoots with them in their actions against the security of our country and that she deplores the practice of being abused. Apparently the hon. member for Pinelands does not listen …

Nor have you.

… and has not taken it in yet.

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

Order! Is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to reply to a question?

I have already resumed my seat, Mr. Speaker.

He is scared to answer a question.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said that he was scared to answer a question.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark. It is unparliamentary and the hon. member must withdraw it.

No, Sir, I am not.

Well, get out then.

Will the hon. member please withdraw that remark?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot withdraw it.

In that case the hon. member must leave the Chamber.

(The hon. member thereupon withdrew.)

Mr. Speaker, my time is very limited and therefore I shall not react to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. This party’s standpoint on security matters was in any case clearly put by the hon. member for Simonstown and we accept the standpoint put by the hon. member for Simonstown. I must say I am sorry that the hon. members for Pinelands and Orange Grove cannot be present, for I have told the Chief Whip that I specifically wanted the hon. members for Pinelands, Orange Grove and Green Point here. In my speech I shall be reacting to their speeches.

Just after World War II politics in South Africa was more a case of White against White, and there were differences of principle between us, and also differences of principle and opinion between us and other races. There have always been threats against South Africa, but everyone could utter his threats and statements in his own way. We are now dealing with a completely different situation. America is almost helpless. The citizens of the most powerful Western country are no longer safe. Countries which supported America and the West with a view to the future, are disillusioned. The oil producing countries have, to a certain extent, brought about the collapse of the economy of the Western countries. In Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Angola, the Marxists are taking over by force. Democratic elections are out of the question. The West is abusing the Marxists and threatening them with sanctions, but the countries taken over by the Marxists, are not being saved. Those countries remain the victims. The blood of South Africans and of our good neighbours is being spilt on our borders. We cannot depend on the West. Even if they were better disposed towards us, the destiny of all South Africans will be decided by the leaders here in South Africa and in the other African countries and by the guidance they give their people. We must strive and work for a better relations with the West, but our first priorities are here in Africa. Africa can retain her position if everyone stands together. In South Africa it will be no use running one another down. There are people in Southern Africa and in South Africa who seek confrontation. One can try to reason with such people, but if the leaders of these people do not want peaceful solutions, they must get what is coming to them. One cannot allow extremists to throw a spanner in the works. The hon. the Prime Minister has offered the hand of peace to those who wish to take it. On the road to peace there are sacrifices and the people of this country should not ask: What can my country do for me? They should rather ask: What can I do for my country? There are undoubtedly people within and outside this country who, for their own purposes, wish to trip up the hon. the Prime Minister on the road ahead.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister has set his sight on a vision of a peaceful and prosperous South Africa where private initiative and incentive will be encouraged to play its full role. In the short period that he has led the country he has taken far-reaching decisions in relation to the Public Service, in relation to the 1936 Act, the Wiehahn Commission, the Riekert Commission, private enterprise, a constellation of States, and he has had discussions with the various leaders of the various people of South Africa. He has gained the respect of friend and foe alike in his actions. We in the SAP believe firmly in merit as the criterion, and as long as decisions are taken on merit, the petty squabbling will disappear. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the unique position at a time when all South Africans will have to stand together if we are to withstand the onslaught and if we are to retain our stability in an unstable world. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can strengthen the hand of the hon. the Prime Minister in many ways without compromising his principles in any manner whatsoever.

The choice of the Leader of the Opposition is whether he is going to allow the sterile debates of the past between White and White to continue or whether he will lead the Opposition to making a meaningful contribution. As far as I am concerned he started with a new slate and we shall watch him from now on to see whether he is able to achieve this purpose.

Whilst dealing with the PFP as a party, I want to appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to get his party not to traffic for publicity on the misery and suffering of the people of the Walmer Township in Port Elizabeth. The hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Green Point have sought publicity from this highly sensitive issue. The situation could have been handled far better if it had not been used as a political football. I have an article here dealing with the hon. member for Green Point. It is accompanied by a photograph showing the hon. member standing in the Walmer Township with some young Black residents. The article said that he was on a flying visit to the township. The hon. member for Green Point came on other political business to the Eastern Cape and his so-called flying visit to the Walmer Township was nothing but a publicity stunt. Besides this stunt has he made any written or verbal representations to the Minister, the Deputy Minister or the Administration Board? I have no doubt that he has made no representations whatsoever to them. His party traffic and trade on the misery and hardship of others in order to get themselves into the limelight. If the hon. member for Green Point has constructive suggestions to make, one welcomes constructive suggestions, but in my view he came there purely to seek publicity. The American, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, has seen fit to poke his nose in as well. Mr. Moose the United States Secretary of State, came, according to the newspapers, to the Walmer Township a week after the unrest flared up in the township and in the wake of the police arrests at Pebco. The presence of Mr. Moose at hat point in time in the Walmer township does not in any way solve the problem, but in fact aggravates it. It is an effort to internationalize the matter. I want to appeal to the South African Government to lodge a protest along diplomatic lines with the American Government about the interference of American officials in our internal affairs. The question of the Walmer township should have been kept out of the political arena so that the interested parties could come to conclusions objectively. The facts are easy to establish and there is more than one proposed solution. Something must be done to improve conditions of those living in the Walmer township. Normally this sort of decision could have been taken in consultation with the people concerned and a fair and equitable solution could have been found.

I am still convinced at this stage that a fair and equitable solution can be found and that discussions can be had with the people concerned. Some people are using the Walmer township affair as a political flashpoint. There can be no question that the matter cannot be resolved unless there is dialogue between the parties concerned. We have raised this matter by way of questions in the House, by way of debate and by way of discussions with the Minister, the Deputy Minister, the chairman of the administration board, the director of the board and with other officials. The impression we gained was that these were people who were prepared to listen, who were sympathetic and who were looking for solutions. In the circumstances, as all the witnesses and all the information are readily available, we believe that a judicial commission could be appointed and that the matter could be resolved urgently. My discussions with the authorities lead me to believe that there are also other peaceful solutions. I call on the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some answers in this debate on how they see the problem in regard to the Walmer township being resolved.

The other matter I wish to raise concerns the budget. The introduction of the budget is still some time away, but the problem is that, when the hon. the Minister has delivered his budget speech and laid the budget before us, no changes to it are possible. Therefore, we in the SAP feel that there are certain matters that should be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance so that he can consider them now and perhaps incorporate them in his budget. People who live on fixed incomes are in a most invidious position. Some planned their retirement and found that their capital and income were sufficient, but now with inflation neither the income nor the capital is sufficient. Building society investment rates have dropped. I see the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs smiling and gather from that that his rates and his income has also dropped. Because building society investment rates and participation bond rates have dropped, people getting money from those sources have found that their incomes have automatically dropped. Retired people on fixed incomes should not be forced to sell their houses because of their inability to pay rates. In fact, they should be exempted from paying rates. In this regard an income limit could be set. The Brown Committee is due to report to the hon. the Minister early this year and I hope that this committee is going to come with suggestions to alleviate the plight of local authorities and their ratepayers. It happens that retired people who have hired and furnished flats are then forced to leave their flats because of the sale of those flats under sectional title, or because of the increase in rent due to the relaxation of the Rents Act. The relaxation of the Rents Act and the sectional title provision are both necessary in a growing economy, but why can people whose income is below a certain amount not receive a subsidy on their instalments or rental as was done a few years ago in regard to houses? A few years ago there was a subsidy on housing, but that subsidy was done away with. Why can this subsidy not be reintroduced? To keep supply and demand in perspective and to encourage the building of more flats, there should be a special depreciation allowance and reduced company and personal taxation. The abolition of the means test is now long overdue and the payment of pensions that at least take into account the cost of living is vitally necessary. The Government has made tremendous strides in housing, but in this year of plenty they should spend the maximum in order to overcome the backlog. At the same time they should make sufficient money available to be allocated to the creation of necessary amenities where they are required. I am thinking now, for example, of something like the electrification of the various townships. Home-ownership remains one of our strongest means of defence. It is one of our most effective ways of creating a class of people who have a stake in the country. Someone who has a stake wants to protect it and will look after it. General tax reductions are required, as is the elimination of the surcharge in so far as it affects industry. It must be abolished. This will bring more money into the private sector. An abolition of the surcharge will be of substantial assistance to the motor industry and other industries as well.

Food is at present most important. However, in the future it is going to be a most powerful weapon in the search for peace throughout the world. A commission recently reported in America urging President Carter to increase the budget in order to ensure that increased assistance in the provision of food could be given. Any farmer producing food deserves a proper return on his investment, and the only way in which this can be achieved is by making it possible for the consumer to pay the price of the foodstuffs. It is a fact of life that the only way in which the consumer can pay that price is if the Government fills the gap by increasing the subsidies on the food. A contented and satisfied population is the strongest weapon we can have against the total onslaught on South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has to declare war on unemployment by creating such concessions that will make it irresistible for commerce and industry to expand. The defence of South Africa is a priority in our spending. The cost the nation should be prepared to bear is an ever-increasing defence expenditure. That expenditure must go hand in glove with improving the quality of life of all the peoples of South Africa. The Government has the financial means at its disposal to lay the foundations for a happy and a prosperous South Africa. We in the SAP should like to receive the assurance that all the people in this country will have a place in the sun.

I am sorry the hon. member for East London North saw fit to attack the hon. member for Simonstown and the SAP for our stand on the principle of non-interference by America in the domestic affairs of South Africa. This is the same stand we adopted when we were still in the United Party. It is the same stand, at least I thought, that the NRP has always adopted.

In moderate terminology.

I shall show you the moderate terminology right now. In fact, the leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point, on one occasion in 1976, publicly told the former American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to go to hell. It appeared on the front page of several newspapers. Then the hon. member for Durban Point was applauded by other United Party members in the caucus. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member for East London North is quite out of place in the NRP. The hon. member for Simonstown gave specific examples of interference by America. He also included incidents such as the American spy-plane. In rejecting the hon. member for Simonstown’s demands for non-interference the hon. member for East London North in fact condones interference in our domestic affairs. [Interjections.] By doing that he also condones the incident of the American spy-plane, as well as other incidents. [Interjections.]

In 1977 the hon. member for Houghton indicated that she welcomed American interference. As such the hon. member for East London North is on the same wave-length as the hon. member for Houghton. No doubt, he will soon join her in the same party. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No. I do not have the time to answer questions. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London North went even further. He made an appeal for people who believe in the sharing of power to come together under one umbrella. As far as I am aware the policy of the NRP is one of, in the first instance, division of power by the legislative assembly and, in the second place, a coming together in the federal assembly. The party that believes in the sharing of power under one umbrella is the PFP, and as such the hon. member for East London North, if he wants to follow his appeal logically, should have the courage of his conviction and join the PFP.

The NRP wants to share power.

I shall not be in Cape Town tomorrow when the voting on this motion takes place. If I were here tomorrow I would, as is our custom, have voted for the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Simonstown.

Mr. Speaker, I have great appreciation for the way in which the hon. member for Walmer approaches the whole question of the Black residential area in Walmer. There is a hysterical outcry in Port Elizabeth about this township. In the first place the outcry is politically motivated—I do not know for what reasons—and in the second place it is being conducted at a hysterical level without any desire on the part of the people involved to acquaint themselves with the facts. The hon. member for Walmer has put several questions to me which I shall now reply to.

The entire project with regard to the resettlement of the Black people of that township was approved, inter alia, by the Administration Board, the Community Council and the old Bantu Advisory Council, which stipulated the condition that they wanted to be resettled as a group in another Black residential area. My information is that the Greater Algoa Bay Planning Authority indicated that such resettlement of this township fitted into their overall planning and that they had indeed included the resettlement of the Black residential area of Walmer in their planning. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, a road has to be built through the area and secondly, this land is required for the extension of the airport. The planning division of the Department of Co-operation and Development has approved of the resettlement of these Black people. The Department of Environmental Planning has investigated the matter and has approved of the resettlement. The Department of Community Development has approved it. I am just mentioning the organizations involved in this and how much investigation was done to ascertain whether it was not possible to retain the township there. The residential area has been the subject of intense investigations since 1968 and all possible ways of retaining it there, have already been investigated. I want to read out to you what the chairman of the Administration Board says of this township—

That is the finding of the health division of the Department of Health. I also want to read out to you what the health division of the Port Elizabeth city council has to say about this—

It may well be that several of the brick buildings can be utilized.

†We are now being accused, however, that we have not adequately examined the alternatives. The fact is that all possible alternatives were considered, but none of them were feasible, practical or economically justified. On the other hand, not one of those people who hysterically opposed this resettlement, has come forward with any feasible alternative. I am very sorry that a certain amount of emotionalism has clouded the issues at stake, which have, after all, been designed to better the quality of life of the inhabitants of Walmer.

One feels rather suspicious of the motives of some of those who are agitating against the resettlement of the Walmer people. It was, for instance, reported in the Sunday Times that a certain gentleman, whose name I would rather not mention, said—

It is absolutely scandalous that these people have to be exploited, that they are expected to live in hovels, in slum conditions, just because they are perhaps, to a certain extent, economically exploitable in Walmer. Some of Walmer’s Whites are not so much concerned about the condition of the township, which can only be described as a slum, being more concerned about the inhabitants’ buying power and about having a ready and cheap supply of labour on the doorstep. I want to accuse the official Opposition of instigating this action against the removal of the Walmer township for political ends, because the letters we get, we get from people …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permitted for the hon. the Deputy Minister to state that the official Opposition instigated this outcry?

Order! What did the hon. the Deputy Minister mean by that?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that if it is unparliamentary, but they are behind this whole agitation.

There, you have just said it again.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot say that any member is behind any agitation. He must withdraw that.

Well, they are behind the opposition to the removal of these people from Walmer.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order The hon. the Deputy Minister is now explaining himself, and yesterday …

Order! Does the hon. the Deputy Minister withdraw the word “agitation”?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is now continuing his speech.

Yes. I say this because the letters we get are from office-bearers and supporters of that particular party, e.g. the Black Sash.

They are not office-bearers of our party.

I now wish to clear up all misunderstanding as far as the removal of the Walmer Black township is concerned. Firstly there are a significant number of Blacks in the Walmer township who freely and voluntarily want to be resettled at Zwide location. Their resettlement would have started during June 1980, but owing to a delay in the allocation of the necessary funds for building, their resettlement has perforce had to be postponed till January 1981. What I am now going to say I want to say very emphatically. Nobody will be forced to leave Walmer township. Attempts will be made by the administration board to first resettle those families who live in hovels and shanties under the most unhygienic of circumstances. If this source, those people wanting to be resettled, dries up, the situation will again be reviewed and assessed. The steps that will then be taken will be determined by the conditions and circumstances pertaining at that particular point in time. It is therefore perfectly obvious that neither the Government as a whole, nor I in particular, have ever suggested or planned to move the inhabitants to Zwide in one fell swoop.

Mr. Speaker, do I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister to have said that nobody will be forced to move? Is that what the hon. the Deputy Minister said?

At this stage nobody will be forced to move. As I have said, once the source of voluntary people—and there are hundreds of them—has dried up, the whole matter will be reviewed in the light of the circumstances pertaining at that particular point in time.

How long will this stage last?

It is therefore obvious that we are not going to force people out of Walmer at this stage.

Finally, I want to plead with people to think rationally and not to act emotionally in this matter because it is a delicate one, and that being so one can do more harm than good with emotional utterances, statements, etc. I also direct a special plea at the media to be rational about this whole matter.

It gives me no joy to house people in slum conditions which are virtually indescribable. If that particular party or their supporters find joy in such circumstances, I feel very sorry for them. I plead that this matter now be allowed to rest. It is true that this matter also has repercussions overseas. What is said and done about the Walmer township today is published in the New York Times and the Washington Post tomorrow. People want to use international influence to get us to keep these people in this particular township. As I say, it gives me no joy allowing people to live under such conditions. I shall do everything in my power to resettle them in decent houses in areas where there are schools, sporting facilities, etc. I plead that the emotional and hysterical outbursts of some of the people of Walmer will now cease.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak at the end of what is a sorry day for Parliament. The very bad taste displayed by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence has made it a particularly sorry day. Without providing answers to the questions asked by the hon. member for Houghton, he continued to discuss her case after she had been asked to leave this Chamber. I find that behaviour lacking in courtesy and extremely poor parliamentary procedure; but then that hon. junior Deputy Minister is not possessed of one tenth of the parliamentary courtesy of the hon. member for Houghton, but then we have come to know that courtesy is not a trait to expect from hon. members on that side of the House.

Personally I know very little about the issue of Walmer township but I find it very strange that an hon. Deputy Minister, who is obviously trying to state a case to cover up for a difficulty he is experiencing in that area, namely the conditions which have existed there for a long time, has as his main defence, not that he has erred in any way, but that agitation has been stirred up by the Opposition. Whenever the Government goes wrong, whenever the … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You ordered me to withdraw the word “agitation”. Is the hon. member allowed to accuse me of using the word?

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to discuss that matter any further.

I shall use the word “campaign” instead. Whenever the Government is in error, it blames the Opposition for raising the issues and bringing them to the attention of the public. The Government should not blame the Opposition or the English-language Press for those things, but it should look to its own actions and right the wrongs in that area.

In the few moments available to me, I would like to discuss four areas of concern relating to the constitutional development of South Africa. The first area which I want to mention was also mentioned by my hon. colleague for East London North, the hon. member for Randburg and the hon. the Prime Minister. I speak of an independent judiciary, the independence of the Bench and what we are going to do to maintain that tradition. I believe it is regrettable that the Bench has in recent months fallen into controversy. I think it is even more upsetting that two eminent and respected judges have seen fit to resign their high positions in past weeks. What, however, causes me even greater concern is the open secret that the hon. the Minister of Justice finds it no easy task to persuade suitable senior advocates to accept permanent appointments to the Bench at the present time. This state of affairs has not come about without good reasons being prevalent. Allow me to state them. Senior Counsel earn today anything from R50 000 to R100 000 per annum. In addition, many are active in private business, industry or commerce. They work hard and they earn well. Upon becoming judges, their income for life often drops to less than one third of what they received in the past. In addition, they are required to resign their private business activities. The first reason, therefore, is directly related to the financial sacrifices they and their families, often young families, are obliged to make when leaving private practice.

The second reason has nothing whatever to do with finance. It has to do with the increasing legislative interference in the administration of justice. Every year more and more powers are removed from the jurisdiction of our superior courts. The court, no matter how great the injustice, has virtually no power to interfere in any of the decisions, often affecting the very lives and liberty of people, taken in terms of South Africa’s security legislation. Except for the extremely limited right of review, the court in terms of current legislation may not adjudicate upon the actions of a plethora, a host, a wide variety of Government agencies—the Publications Board, Escom, even down to town planning matters in the Transvaal—and a number of other Government-appointed boards and committees whose decisions vitally affect the individual at large. Far-reaching invasions of the privacy and the freedom of the individual are immune from judicial scrutiny in South Africa. An independent judiciary must, I believe, be free to provide safeguards against the abuses of the beadledominous executive. The courts must be independent and free from interference by the legislature or the executive in their judicial function. In South Africa the powers of the courts to redress wrongs are being dangerously whittled away.

That is, however, not all. There is a third reason. Most, but not all, judges are appointed entirely on merit. In some cases, one very recently, I believe political actions were not totally irrelevant to their appointments. I do not wish to mention the names of the gentlemen concerned unless pressed by the hon. the Minister, but the Government knows of the instances I am speaking about, for the Government has a guilty conscience.

Order! I think the hon. member is on very thin ice. It does not behove any hon. member of this House to question the integrity and impartiality of a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The hon. member is at this very moment starting to do just that.

I regret to contradict you, Mr. Speaker, but I am not intending that in any way at all.

I shall listen carefully to the hon. member.

Sir, such appointments lead to a breakdown of confidence on the Bench and at the Bar. May I explain myself? I am not reflecting on the judges, but on the motives behind the appointment of certain judges—that is all. This also applies to judges within other aspects of the judiciary.

Is the hon. member then not by implication saying that the judge is not completely fit for …

Mr. Speaker, allow me to leave that point then. I shall take it no further. Allow me to make three positive suggestions which, if accepted, cumulatively will go a long way in the re-invigoration of that vital constitutional pillar of our society. Firstly, judicial appointments should be removed from the politically controlled executive and placed in the hands of an independent appointments board, representative of the Bench, the Bar, the Law Councils and the executive. The Minister of Justice should be no more than the chairman of this body. Secondly, in the recently announced revision and rationalization of laws a real effort must be made to restore to the courts the inherent jurisdiction to intercede at the instance of any aggrieved party where injustice is perpetrated by means of administrative decisions.

Thirdly I believe that judges should be paid what they are worth. I believe that the Bench should be lifted out of the realm of financial debate and hardship. A free, independent and properly staffed judiciary must play a crucial role in the guarding of the security of the State, in the protection of the rights of the individual and in the furtherance of justice in South Africa. To tamper with this institution, or to allow it to fall into decay, would dim even further the lights of freedom in our country.

I should like to mention another aspect related to constitutional development, which has enjoyed very little attention during this debate. I honestly believe that not enough serious consideration has been given to including a Bill of Rights in the constitutional dispensation of our country. Such a document, which is to be found in the constitutions of most civilized countries, and even in some countries which are not so civilized, should not be seen as a defensive mechanism, nor a negative protection of privilege, but rather as a statement of bona fides, evidencing that all persons are equal before the law, evidencing that racial discrimination or inequality of opportunity will not be condoned in our country and also evidencing that all citizens will have a say in the making of laws which affect them. An early commitment to a Bill of Rights would inject a positive element into the presently flagging process of achieving reconciliation, consensus and mutual trust.

Another aspect of a democratic constitution was mentioned somewhat boastfully by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday. I refer to his alleging that we have one of the free Presses in the world. I want to ask him whether he could have been serious. Anybody who knows anything about the Press in South Africa will tell one that the Press is under siege and under almost constant attack by the Government. In the last two years six or more journalists have been hauled before the courts for failing to disclose their sources. At least six editors have appeared in court on various charges. In the wake of the withdrawal of that notorious Press Bill two sessions ago, at least five laws have been amended which have made it more difficult for the Press to report the facts. The presidents of the only organizations of journalists in South Africa have both been convicted for refusing to disclose their sources. Ironically the one gentleman was dragged before the court as a result of his telephone being tapped, not by a foreign influence, but by the Government. The other gentleman’s allegations, which appeared in print, were subsequently proved to be true. Over 90 pieces of legislation have, under this Government and this Government’s predecessors, come onto the Statute Book, legislation which directly relates to curbs or limitations being placed on the Press. Today it is, for instance, almost impossible to report in depth on conditions in prisons, or on matters relating to the police or the Defence Force. We have had an announcement earlier today that the hon. the Minister of Police wishes to arrange a state of affairs in which news is managed by the police, so that the Press may only receive handouts from the police and may not report from other sources.

Do you agree with that?

I disagree with that injunction completely. Apart from what has been announced by the hon. the Minister of Police, and that is frightening enough, it is rumoured that the Government yet wants more. I ask hon. members and hon. Ministers who may know whether it is, for instance, true that pending the decisions of the Steyn Commission, the Government is contemplating legislation which, as a Sunday newspaper put it last week-end, would effectively place a blanket ban on all reporting on anything connected with defence unless it is covered by an agreement between the NPU and the Minister concerned. Is there any hon. Minister who can answer that question? All the pillars of the free society, all the pillars of the constitution, instead of being strengthened, are being chipped away, chip by chip. A free Press is one of the main supports of a constitutional democracy, for unless injustices, corruption, incompetence and malpractices can be freely exposed, without fear of prosecution, a Government is given nothing more than a free slide down the slipway towards authoritarianism. The erosion of free speech, no matter what the demands of a total strategy may be, is tantamount to the erosion of the freedom of the individual.

Are you Andy Capp?

This is, after all, what democracy is supposed to be all about, although that hon. member obviously knows very little about it.

I now wish to turn to a last issue.

Andy Capp!

Order! The hon. member cannot keep up a constant stream of interjections.

Sir, he does not worry me.

Order!

I now wish to turn to a question relating to a national convention, a national convention which was called, by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, a recipe for chaos. I believe that in the implementation of this governmental total strategy the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are making grave errors. These errors are not easily discernible, but they are serious none the less and are gravely endangering the security of South Africa. The first error that is being made relates to the question of attitude, highlighting the difference between negotiated solutions and paternalistic hand-outs. We all applaud the fact that Soweto is at last to get electricity, be it late. However belated, we applaud that fact. The whole of South Africa is delighted at the reprieve which was granted, after much heartache, to the residents of Crossroads, Alexandra and the Fingo village. The assistance proferred in balancing the budget of the Soweto council can only be appreciated. To give another example, the decreed moratorium last year, in respect of the registration of Black urban dwellers, saved a nasty situation.

However, signing cheques, spreading governmental largesse, wandering around the Black areas of South Africa like a bald-headed Father Christmas with a bag full of toffees …

Who are you talking about?

I am talking about the hon. the Prime Minister and his strategy. We are alike in that respect, so I can say that. Those actions will not solve the problems of our country. To be respected, these handouts, these changes which are being made, these concessions, if you would call them that, should not be of a unilateral nature. They should be negotiated, agreed upon improvements, deals and accommodations. Secondly, ad hoc, unstructured or cosmetic changes to the South African society can never be a substitute for overall agreement. They do no more than spark further pressures from left and right. They satisfy nobody. For some such changes are never enough; for others they are always too much. The more concessions that are granted, the more those concessions will be used to confrontation. A properly structured, national negotiation, and a commencement of the negotiating process is now, I believe, mortally urgent, and there is much to negotiate—a meaningful political structure, a way of bringing all South Africans into the free enterprise system, the rapid elimination of race discrimination and, not least, the rights of, and a permanent place in South Africa for, Whites as well—a South Africa where our values are not in jeopardy, where our children will be secure.

Make no error, this work cannot be done by an all-White constitutional commission, nor can a dispensation succeed which has, as its corner-stone, the principle that Black citizens of South Africa are excluded from the reckoning. In rejecting a national convention the Government seems deliberately to misconstrue and discard a valuable tool in the negotiating process. Such a negotiation does not imply that the existing Parliament loses its powers. I do not, nor does my party, see a national convention as being a once-off national jamboree where a majority will dictate the tune. A national convention can be structured in many ways. South West Africa’s Turnhalle, for example, which endured for many months, was a form of national convention. In a negotiation the consensus principle, and not the majority principle, would operate. A national convention sitting in full council, for instance, might only convene to endorse agreements which have already been reached after negotiations on many aspects have been thrashed out by smaller leadership groups. Such a convention, structured carefully, conducted over a period of time and engaging, at different times, all the groups and communities domiciled in this country, is probably the only way in which national consensus can be reached.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he and his party have considered the consequences if such a convention does not succeed? What would the consequences be?

Has the Government considered the consequences if its constitutional changes do not succeed?

Answer the question.

There can be no guarantee of the success of a constitutional dispensation, but there can be a genuine attempt at finding a way to reach consensus among the various races, groups and communities in South Africa. What I am doing, and what my party is doing, is proposing a formula, a means, whereby the negotiating process can be meaningfully begun. I believe that only by reaching national consensus, supported by the majority of Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites in South Africa, can South Africans together face, with total confidence, by means of an agreed total strategy, the total onslaught that we know is before us.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to enter the debate, but I was asked to be present when the hon. member spoke, and a few matters were raised to which I feel I should respond.

Since the hon. member for East London North also raised this matter in my absence, I should like to say that that hon. member and the hon. member who has just sat down have both resorted to action which I find reprehensible in allowing certain sections of the English Press to build up gossip around the two judges who resigned.

The Afrikaans Press did the same thing.

I am not really concerned about the Press but rather about the behaviour of the hon. member. What in actual fact happened? Mr. Justice Mostert simply made a telephone call to me and said that he was resigning without giving any reason for so doing. Mr. Justice King sent me a letter of resignation without giving any reason. As far as I am aware these two hon. gentlemen did not give any reason for their resignation to their Judges-President or anybody else. Their reasons are private, therefore, and I respect that. I hold these two gentlemen in high esteem. However, what is happening now? Certain sections of the Press and these two hon. members have thought fit to start a gossip campaign on the basis of the resignations of these two hon. gentlemen. I find that most reprehensible.

I did not raise it in that context. The hon. the Minister is misconstruing my words.

I contend that the hon. member did so deliberately with certain things in view … [Interjections.] If hon. members will read his speech they will see that he did so deliberately in order to suggest certain reasons as to why judges are resigning at the moment.

And why judges will not accept appointments.

Order! The hon. member must respect the Chair. The hon. member for Sandton must contain himself. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I want to go further …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Sandton has said that he did not refer to the resignation of these two judges in the context of the reasons they gave or should have given. It was made purely in a passing reference to the Supreme Court Bench. Does the hon. the Minister accept that or not?

Order! At the moment I am not going to go into the matter as to whether that is a point of order or not. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss this question much longer because you stopped a discussion of this matter. The hon. member said, however, that there had been political motives behind the appointment of a certain judge. As is known, the person who is most involved in the appointment of a judge on behalf of the Government is the Minister of Justice; in other words, I myself. I want to tell the hon. member that I hurl that insinuation he made back at him with contempt.

He also spoke about an appointments board. Here we now have a typically droll situation. I think the hon. member for Groote Schuur will admit that he wrote an article in one of the English-language newspapers recently in which he pointed out that we are following the British system as far as this matter is concerned. Did the hon. member write that article?

Yes. I said that there was no good reason for retaining it.

That is the droll situation in which we find ourselves. If something is done in England, it is right, but in South Africa nothing is right to the official Opposition.

I said exactly the opposite. The hon. the Minister could not have read it properly. I said the fact that it came from England was not a good reason for keeping it.

Order! The hon. member is now making a speech. He must listen to the hon. the Minister’s reply.

The same thing is applicable to the so-called “legislative interference” to which the hon. member referred. All modern Western countries have the kind of legislation in terms of which certain things are withheld from the Bench, either in whole or in part, but once again, because it happened in this country, it is wrong and wicked. I wish to say on behalf of the Government that we are not considering such an appointments board and that in future appointments will be made as they are being made now.

One sphere in which I can agree with the hon. member—and I want to say that there are very few spheres in which I can agree with him—is the question of the remuneration of judges. That is in fact a matter which has merit. I shall make representations to the best of my ability in order to rectify this matter as far as possible. It is not for me alone to make a decision on this matter but for the Government as a whole. The fact is, however, that advocates in private practice are earning a great deal of money at present, and I do not begrudge it them. One would really also like to see young people being attracted to the Bench and, if possible, it being made easier for them financially to do so than is the case at the moment.

As far as the constitutional questions are concerned, I do not believe that I should react on the hon. member’s speech in my position as the chairman of the constitutional commission. I think this is a matter which I should not discuss here across the floor of the House, at least not at this stage.

It is sub judice.