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

The past year has been characterised by the transfer of a tremendous number of functions and powers to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, and therefore to hon the Minister himself. As a result, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning is quite probably the most important department in the Government as far as the further constitutional development of the RSA is concerned. In the light of this tremendous responsibility which rests upon the hon the Minister and his department, I should like to extend our best wishes to them on behalf of this side of the Committee. I should also like to add that naturally we have taken cognisance of the transfer of a great number of officials from other departments to that department. I think the hon the Minister can consider himself lucky that such competent, serious and dedicated people have come over to his department. We extend our best wishes to them as well.

As a result of the multiplicity of activities and functions, and also taking the length of this debate into account, one can inevitably touch on only a few aspects in a speech such as this one. In the course of the next few days my hon colleagues will deal with the other aspects, viz those concerning the physical planning and certain aspects of constitutional development and Black affairs.

Although I have understanding for the fact that the hon the Minister and his department have found themselves in difficult situations because of all the developments, I think it is a pity that the annual report was not available to us, because without the annual report, an intelligent discussion of the activities of the department is extremely difficult.

Of course, one of the most important functions of the hon the Minister and the department is the broad constitutional planning of the future South Africa; in other words, what constitutional changes and adjustments must occur if we want to ensure stability and peace in the country. As a premise I am using the statements made by the hon the Minister and the State President on several occasions, namely that the present Constitution must not be seen as the final product, as a point of departure. The hon the Minister has said this and very clearly and pertinently a number of times.

Apparently the fundamental points at issue, the fundamental problem, revolve around that question. This problem is the inclusion of Blacks in the political decisionmaking process; that is, in the central legislative and executive authority of the country.

I unreservedly accept the State President’s undertaking that a constitutional structure that will make provision for the participation of all South Africans in that decision-making process must be created. At the same time the State President has expressed a few reservations of which I think those I am about to mention are the most important ones for the purposes of the discussion.

Firstly, such a constitution must be the product of negotiations. Secondly, such a constitution must prevent one group from dominating another. Thirdly, he said any future constitution should make provision for the maintenance of the individual identity of the respective groups. What one can call the distinctive properties of each group must therefore be properly protected. Fourthly, any such fundamental change, such as the introduction of Blacks into the constitutional dispensation, must at least be approved by the White electorate by means of a referendum or an election. I have singled out those four reservations as being pertinent problems which we must consider in this debate as well.

Let us take a closer look at those four points. I think each responsible person in our country will endorse the premise that Blacks can no longer be excluded from participation in the political process. By that I mean participation in this central legislative and executive authority, because naturally Blacks do participate in the governments of the national states. Furthermore we probably all endorse the premise that any new constitution, if it is to enjoy general legitimacy, can be achieved only through negotiation and agreement. I think the present Constitution has at least taught us that unless the constitution has real legitimacy and is the product of real negotiation and agreements, that constitution will not and cannot be accepted by the majority of people in South Africa.

The fundamental question concerns the possibilities of such negotiations taking place with responsible leaders from the other communities. It would appear that the State President is of the opinion that the proposed national statutory council must serve as the mechanism within which those negotiations must take place.

The question, therefore, is whether Black leaders with sufficient status and support in their own community would be prepared to serve on that body. In this regard I want to say that if it is a statutory council, naturally it must be laid down in legislation by this Parliament. If I am correct, I should very much like to know from the hon the Minister when legislation will be submitted to Parliament in this connection.

It seems that there are four problems in particular in regard to the negotiating process and I want to highlight them during this discussion. The first is that unfortunately there is a lack of faith in the Government’s bona fides on the part of many non-White figures in the South African society. If one takes history into consideration, that suspicion, mistrust and lack of confidence are surely understandable and extremely difficult to remove. Before we can begin to think about the possibility of successful negotiations, that suspicion, mistrust and lack of confidence must be removed. In that regard the hon the Minister and the Government have a task of the utmost importance, but also a very difficult task.

I can only say I think personal contact on the highest level, from the State President right down to those in authority in the Government, will be one of the most essential prerequisites in convincing other people of the Government’s good intentions. Secondly, I think one must look more and more at the symbolic deeds which will convey the message to the people that the Government is in earnest. Thirdly, concrete steps must be taken by way of the amendment and repeal of discriminatory legislation. At a later stage I shall come to the whole question of the White Paper and that which stems from it.

The continued existence of apartheid remains a stumbling block. I know we can talk for a long time about how apartheid should be defined and about the statement which has been made here several times that apartheid is dead and has in essence disappeared. It is true, and I want to give the Government its due, that in the past few years it has moved away from the traditional apartheid policy in many respects and from legislation in which that apartheid policy was stipulated. In many fundamental respects there has been a move away from the traditional ideology of apartheid. I have no difficulty in telling the Government that what it has done is being noted and appreciated. I am getting a bit tired of those who refuse to acknowledge that the Government has taken these steps and who, every time the Government moves forward, simply say it is not good enough, it is not going far enough and so on. [Interjections.]

You are coming round!

I do not think those people have a particular contribution to make in our situation. Their accusation that the change is purely cosmetic is surely nonsense. It is not true.

It is equally true, however, that there are still a number of aspects in the country which must be seen as a part of the apartheid policy and which will have to receive serious attention. I do not have to enumerate everything. It seems to me that the White Paper on Urbanisation as well as the Bill which was tabled this morning touch on these aspects to quite an extent. One had to look at it briefly in the light of the time available to one.

It seems that we are faced by certain fundamental problems in the negotiation process. There seem to be certain non-negotiable principles in the Government’s policy. One of them is that the groups must participate in the political process as groups and that the individual’s participation in the political process can only occur via his membership of the group to which he belongs or in which he is classified. That means that such a system can only succeed if we adhere to a rigid race classification according to which voluntary political association is impossible.

It would appear that if we think about a new constitution which is founded on that basis, we shall run into difficulties. In all honesty I want to suggest that it is a fundamental aspect to which the Government will have to give serious attention, because as long as the impression exists that these principles are non-negotiable, it is going to be extremely difficult to establish that trust of which I spoke initially. If the Government does not look at this matter, I do not know whether or not we can hope for successful discussions, because the impression that the Government is not prepared to go to such a negotiating table with an open agenda will remain. The negotiations will therefore not be “open-ended”. The Government must therefore pay serious attention to these principles.

The further problem is who the Government can negotiate with; in other words, which Blacks would be prepared to consult with the Government. I think that problem is known to all of us. The whole question of Mandela and the unbanning of the ANC emerges in this regard time and again. We know the Eminent Persons Group has tried to create or suggest the necessary negotiating machinery in this connection. At least that is how it appears from our newspaper reports. I shall be pleased if the hon the Minister feels free to give us more particulars about this.

The fundamental question which must be put to all of us in this regard is whether a greater risk is involved in freeing Mandela and unbanning the ANC than there is in keeping him in prison and in continuing the banning of the ANC.

I should like to suggest that that is not a measurable alternative.

Yes, it is not measurable. It is not quantitatively verifiable, because there are certain uncertainties, but once again I want to ask whether those uncertainties weigh heavier in this regard than resolute action.

Unfortunately it is true that there are militants in the Black communities who are not interested in negotiation and who, in fact, have the perception that this regime is collapsing. They are interested only in negotiation about the takeover of power and not in negotiation about power-sharing.

Does that not include the ANC?

It is an unfortunate situation, because as long as that perception and attitude exist, there can definitely be no negotiation with those people. None of us is interested in discussing a takeover of power.

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

I am sorry, Sir, but I have no time, because I am not going to speak for half an hour.

In my opinion, the people who hold that perception and attitude are making a serious error of reasoning. I do not think they know the people of South Africa. They do not know the Whites and the Afrikaners if they think we have reached the situation in which we are simply prepared to discuss a takeover of power.

Does that not include the ANC?

The message that we are not prepared to negotiate a takeover of power should be conveyed to those people clearly in one way or another.

There are a number of things one wants to say in this regard, but in the limited time at my disposal I should like to react to one point that was raised in the discussion of the State President’s Vote before I say anything about the White Paper. I am referring to the PFP and Parliament. On occasion of that debate I said we accepted Parliament as being the only body which could bring about constitutional change in South Africa. I should like to repeat that premise very clearly here.

The PFP’s national convention was also mentioned in this regard. The State President and the hon the Minister referred to it. Again I should like to emphasise that on the basis of our assumption it is only the Government of the day that can call a national convention, and Parliament is the only body that can bring about constitutional reform at whatever time. It is quite conceivable that while a national convention is in progress, Parliament may bring about possible constitutional reforms. Surely no one can exclude that possibility. It will be this Parliament and none other that will bring about those changes. I want to make it very clear so that there can be no confusion or uncertainty about our standpoint in this regard.

It is very clear to me that any constitutional reform must be based on general franchise, regardless of the reform or the level at which it occurs. I hope the Government realises that it can no longer equate the PFP’s attitude on general franchise with an intention of establishing a Black majority government in South Africa.

Our alternative in this regard has been put very clearly. Unfortunately the NP has exploited that aspect for short-term party-political ends through the years. Unfortunately that is so. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture is shaking his head, but time and again there have been claims that the PFP’s alternative was based on the premise of a Black majority government. We have denied this consistently.

The problem is not the damage the NP has caused us, however; the problem is the damage which the NP has caused the general public by means of that misconception, so that it is all the more difficult for the Government today to bring about that essential reform which it has to establish.

We have only to look at the composition of this Committee as proof of what I am saying. The presence of the CP and the HNP here, as well as the more right-wing elements at large, are the very proof of the kind of climate the NP has been creating for years with its preposterous attacks on the PFP policy. [Interjections.]

This does not apply only to constitutional reform; it also applies to the apartheid policy as a whole. When we made appeals here for the removal of the policy of apartheid, we were accused of all kinds of things, inter alia that we were not taking the interests of the Whites into consideration. Now that the Government is however moving away from apartheid itself, however, they have to contend with the problem of negative reaction among our people which was created by their own doing. [Interjections.]

That will suffice at this stage, because I want to dwell on the White Paper for a moment. I want to congratulate the department on an excellent piece of work in the shape of that White Paper on Urbanisation. Had that White Paper been applied 20 years ago, we would not have experienced anything like the problems we are experiencing at the moment and have been experiencing for the past decade or so. The setup and the statistics which are fundamental to that urbanisation policy, can surely be endorsed by every right-thinking person. I am grateful that the traditional system of influx control which we had has finally been abandoned in the White Paper and also in the Bill.

It appears from the Bill that non-racial squatting is being accepted as a criterion, and now the hon the Minister will readily concede that fundamentally no one can approve of unlawful squatting. In that sense one cannot disapprove of the powers given to the hon the Minister and to the Government either. Let me say immediately, however, that the problem which exists because of the mistrust to which I referred earlier, gives rise to the question as to whether this is not merely going to be new mechanism. I do not want to feed that mistrust by saying …

I should really be pleased if the hon member did not do that, because the general perception among the public at large is that that is not the case.

Correct. I hope the hon the Minister will be aware of the fact that we cannot afford another Modderdam or a Unibell. I know the hon the Minister does not hold that premise.

Broadly seen, this urbanisation strategy has really made a positive contribution to the solution of one of the most inescapable problems brought about by urbanisation. I wish the hon the Minister and his department the best of luck in carrying out of that task.

Mr Chairman, before I reply to the hon member Prof Olivier, I should like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the officials of this department. There cannot be many officials who are as dedicated as the officials of this department and who render as many hours of devoted service to get a difficult process under way.

I must add that to work under a Minister who works such a great many hours himself, is something rare. I must make it very clear that the hon the Minister not only has the capacity to work overtime, but also to devote all his time to promoting the process of reform as well as the all-embracing activities of his department. I want to pay tribute to him for all the negotiations which he holds behind the scenes to make progress in the terribly difficult task which lies ahead and which will be to the advantage of the whole of South Africa and all the population groups.

I should like to address a few words to the hon the member Prof Olivier. I must admit I was somewhat surprised that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was not the main speaker in this debate.

He is not here.

If he is not here, I understand.

He spoke about the State President’s Vote.

We are not dealing with the State President’s Vote now. Normally the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition acts as the main speaker in the debate on this Vote. [Interjections.]

I must say the hon member Prof Olivier took a particularly moderate stand in his introduction to the debate on this matter. His standpoint differs very much from what we could have expected from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. An article in which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition aired his views on reform appeared in last week’s Sunday Times. It gave me the impression, to say the very least, that he was following the example of one Martin Luther King, Junior of America. On a previous occasion the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition took the advice of Mr Don McHenry, and he had to bear the brunt of it. Martin Luther King, Junior came up with the slogan: “I have a dream” while, according to this report in the Sunday Times, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition based his standpoint on “I have a vision”. I do not want to expand upon that now, because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not here now, and there will be no real point in my elaborating upon it in his absence.

While we are involved in the process of reform on the constitutional level, I do want to refer to the commentary of the hon member Prof Olivier in which he referred to the group character which is very important in the process of reform to us on this side of the Committee.

I want to refer to a certain lack of confidence in South Africa 76 years ago when South Africa became a Union, among the various groups, where there was a lack of willingness to transfer everything to a central authority. That is why the provincial system was brought into being, in which certain powers, inter alia those relating to education, were assigned to provincial authority.

Therefore, when we today say that we want to reserve education as an own affair, in the process of getting to know one another and learning to trust one another, it fits in exactly with what happened 76 years ago when education was also reserved as an extremely important matter. The hon member for Pinetown will testify that even today, after 76 years, there is still a feeling among the teachers and the parent community in Natal’s education circles that there should be a cultural involvement for the various groups.

If we say today that in the multi-ethnic, multicultural situation we are experiencing at present, there should be recognition for the desire to continue to maintain what is cultural in respect of education as an own affair, it is essential to build a foundation of trust. I say that because one can go a very long way with constitutional reform, but the most important factor is that confidence in the maintenance of own values, own norms and the freedom of own communities must not be violated.

That is why it is extremely important to us that the group character should not be disregarded, should not be eliminated. Just as it is said that certain laws should not be regarded as being sacred cows, I want to say people must not insist on the total removal of this own character which is important to us. They must not claim that the demand for its abolition is a golden calf and that therefore there must be no maintenance of own character.

Now who says that? [Interjections.]

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

Unfortunately I am not in a position to answer questions, because I only have ten minutes.

The problem we are experiencing today, is that all forms of change which are being introduced are considered suspect, as if too little is being done too late. One of the most important problems in the whole situation is the interference from abroad, which hampers negotiation in this country. We would have made much more progress with negotiation on the basis of a peaceful involvement of all population groups in this country in the decision-making process, had it not been—I want to put it this way—for the subversion resulting from foreign interference to prevent various groups in this country from participating in the negotiating process. This is the biggest problem we have to contend with at this stage. What is essential, therefore, is to be able to build a basis of trust.

Another matter which I want to raise in the bit of time at my disposal, is that the reform process must occur at a rate which can be accommodated by the various population groups. I want to quote from a leading article in the Natal Mercury in which they say:

There must be no insistence, therefore, on simply proceeding with reform unless the people, both Black and White, have already experienced it and it can be stabilised. The reform process in Iran, for example, occurred at a rate which the people of Iran could not absorb and that is what led to a revolution. That is what led to anarchy and that is why there is chaos in Iran today. [Interjections.] If overseas countries do not learn a lesson from this gradual process, their interference will lead to chaos and anarchy in South Africa instead of stability. [Time expired.]

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

The hon member for Klip River lauded the officials for being able to work under a Minister who not only works overtime, but who also devotes his attention full time to the future constitutional development of South Africa.

The annual report of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning arrived on the desks of hon members a moment ago while the hon member Prof Olivier was speaking. I did not even have the opportunity of paging through this annual report before I had to participate in this debate. [Interjections.]

I think this is the best demonstration of the fact that the words of the hon member for Klip River are hollow, empty words. [Interjections.] I think it is a crying shame that something like this is able to happen in the House of Assembly! I think it indicates contempt for the House of Assembly that the annual report of an important Government Department such as Constitutional Development and Planning is made available after the debate in the Committee has already started.

For the past three years this hon Minister has tabled highly contentious legislation during the death throes of the Parliamentary session, and then steamrollered it through the standings committees and Parliament. This year is no exception. Week after week we read in the newspapers and we hear in the meetings of the Whips about a host of Bills which the hon the Minister wants to pilot through Parliament this year. It is moreover highly contentious legislation, in which he is gambling with his self-determination and survival of the Whites.

Since Parliament adjourned last year until 5 March 1986, the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning has not convened once. Not a single item of legislation was considered by the standing committee during the 1985 recess for presentation during the Parliamentary session of 1986. There simply was no such legislation. Until today the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning has not been able to submit a single Bill to Parliament.

That is not true!

No, the hon member for Klip River knows it is true!

You were not there.

Sir, that legislation has not been presented to the House yet. The standing committee will be inundated with contentious legislation in the death throes of this session. The assistance of two other standing committees will have to be called in in order to dispose of it. Such legislation will again be steamrollered through Parliament in order to give recognition to the ill-considered and recklessly dangerous legislation which this hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning wants to promulgate.

After Parliament has probably adjourned on 20 June this year, it must reconvene by 18 August, at enormous cost and to the immense inconvenience of 308 members of Parliament and thousands of officials and their families, in order to give consideration to the legislation which this hon Minister plans to submit. Many people will be inconvenienced, and the taxpayer will have to foot the bill because this hon Minister did not do his work during the recess. [Interjections.] It is also because his party is changing its policy so frequently and so quickly, mostly under pressure, that it is not in a position to prepare legislation during the recess and present it to the standing committee so that it can be discussed during the normal annual Parliamentary session.

The empire which this hon Minister—who according to the hon member for Klip River is ostensibly the hard worker in South Africa—has build up for himself has become too big for him! [Interjections.] South Africa cannot afford to have a Minister such as this! [Interjections.] Therefore I move as an amendment:

An example of the kind of legislation which is going to be introduced during the death throes of the Parliamentary session is the Bill on Regional Services Council, that has already been passed. [Interjections.] In June 1984, the Second Reading debate of the Bill took place in the House of Assembly. Blacks were not involved in it. In June 1985, precisely a year later, the Bill on Regional Services Councils was piloted through Parliament, with Black participation in this multiracial local government system.

Without a mandate.

June 1986 is just around the comer—and it will be precisely a year later—and not a single regional services council has been established in South Africa under this Act. So far the hon the Minister has been unable to succeed in getting this multiracial local government under way. One conference and meeting after another has been presented by the hon the Minister and his department to those interested in the local authorities in order to explain the workings and functioning of this mixed system of local government. Each time these people had to return home more confused than they were when they went there.

The implementation of the Regional Services Councils Act is probably the very best proof of the total inability of the hon the Minister to put his expensive, unworkable, conflict-ridden and mixed local government system into operation in practice. [Interjections.] I want to congratulate him on his total inability to do so and ask him not to waste any more of the taxpayer’s money— throw the Regional Services Councils Act into the dustbin and hold a general election instead. The White voters of South Africa are ready to extricate him from the reckless course of integration which he has embarked upon with this Act.

Before the referendum the clear standpoint of the NP was that Blacks would not be involved in participation in the new constitutional dispensation—an important reason why many thousands of people voted “yes” and wanted to give the new constitutional dispensation a chance. Hon members must listen what the hon member for Hercules said in his letter to his voters. [Interjections.] He said:

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning told the Natal NP congress:

That was said by the hon the Minister, but in October 1985 he announced that the Government had accepted the principle of power-sharing with Blacks.

The State President announced that Blacks could be admitted into the President’s Council as well. This hon Minister also announced that Blacks would be admitted into the executive committees—those are the bodies which will replace provincial councils. By means of the regional services councils Blacks have representation on this multiracial local government body on exactly the same basis as Whites, Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.]

The State President said at the beginning of the year in his Opening Address:

He also said:

In this expensive item in front of me he wrote that he had made it clear that no South African would be excluded from full political rights. He said:

The promises from before the referendum and the former standpoint of the NP are lying in shreds. [Interjections.] The NP have, without a mandate, made the Blacks part of South Africa’s constitutional future, and are planning further steps in this direction. [Interjections.] This Committee, which has to approve a budget for constitutional development, has the right to know where Pres Botha and his chief lieutenant, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, are talking South Africa.

The head boy.

The State President is a very powerful man in the present constitutional dispensation. He can decide on own affairs, he can declare war and make peace. He can even suspend an Act of this Parliament, as has now happened with the legislation on influx control. He is head of the South African Defence Force.

The hon member for Hercules wrote to his people before the election:

He wrote that and after that the people voted “yes” in the referendum.

Domination!

The NP explains it as follows at their meetings, and especially at their oeloe-oeloe meetings. They say the electoral colleges consist of 50 Whites—they are all members of the NP caucus—25 Coloureds and 13 Indians, and the NP caucus therefore has a majority of 12 members in this meeting. Recently, after the State President’s letter and his announcement, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs came forward with the logical consequence of the present NP policy, and it was that a Black man could in future in fact become State President of South Africa. It seems to me a foregone conclusion that there is consensus in the NP that Black South African citizens also must be given a say in the nomination of the State President.

I should also like to quote the hon member for Innesdal, and I have the typed Hansard version of his exact words here in front of me, which I have also checked on the tape. I asked the member whether Blacks should also be jointly responsibility for the election of the State President. The hon members words in reply to this were: “Net soos die Kleurlinge en die Indiërs nou”. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the PFP are saying hear, hear to this. I put this question to the State President.

I asked the State President whether Black South African citizens would be given joint responsibility in the nomination of South African Head of State in the same way as Whites, Coloureds and Indian South African citizens. I also asked him whether he agreed with the hon member for Innesdal. However, the State President circumvented my direct question by saying that South Africa had a White State President for the next five years, and that Parliament would decide how the electoral college which had to nominate the State President would be constituted.

Now I am asking this hon Minister what he, as the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, is going to submit to Parliament in respect of this matter. Is he going to submit to Parliament that Black South African citizens should be given joint responsibility in the electoral college which nominates the State President, or is the hon the Minister going to deny them this right?

Let us take a look at the statements and standpoints of political parties in Parliament, the Parliament which will have to effect amendments to the electoral college, as the State President said. According to the statements of Coloureds and Indian political leaders, it is clear that 130 Coloured and Indian members of Parliament are in favour of joint Black responsibility in the nomination of the State President. What does the PFP say?

Definitely.

The PFP says honestly and sincerely that the Blacks should be given joint responsibility. What does the NRP say, who have five members? [Interjections.]

Very good members.

The NRP also says the Blacks should have joint responsibility in the nomination of the State President. It boils down to a 163 members of Parliament who openly and honestly say “yes” to Black participation in the election of the Head of State. [Interjections.] Therefore there only 145 members of Parliament remain—already a minority. There are only 19 members of Parliament—those are the hon members of the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg— who unconditionally say “no” to Black participation in the nomination of a State President. There remain a further 126 members, namely the hon member of the NP. My question today is therefore: What are they going to do, they who accept power-sharing with Blacks, they who were elected on the policy of separate development in 1981 and who now accept power-sharing with Blacks? They are the most powerful partners in the consensus decisions of Parliament without having received a mandate for it from the voters. Once again I ask the hon the Minister what he is going to tell these 126 hon members of the NP to do. [Interjections.] They will applaud the hon the Minister. They are going to do as he says.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon “king’s son, prince Pik Botha” and his approximately 46 followers inside the NP, have also adopted a very clear standpoint in this regard. They accept joint responsibility for Black South African citizens in the electoral college which has to nominate the Head of State. They accept the possibility of a Black State President as a logical consequence of the NP’s policy of power-sharing with Blacks. In addition an MPC for the Cape—he is the hon member for Kimberly North’s provincial colleague— says he has no objection to serving under a Black State President. But I have not heard the hon the Minister or the hon member repudiating that MPC yet. Nor did they repudiate the hon member for Randburg when he asked for this.

The future of the Whites of South Africa, who created prosperity, development, progress and opportunities for all in South Africa, is in danger in the hands of this hon the Minister. The Whites of South Africa, especially the Afrikaners, have no confidence in the hon the Minister and the path of integration he has chosen. [Interjections.]

Now I should like to put another question to the hon the Minister. On 15 October at Griekwastad the hon member for Prieska— unfortunately he is not here at the moment—spoke about the urban Blacks. He said that the NP was working on a system which would, as far as the Blacks were concerned:

Then someone in the audience asked: “In this country?” To which the hon member for Prieska answered: “In this country.”

That is encouraging.

Yes, it ought to encourage the hon member for Parktown.

With reference to what the hon member for Prieska said, I now ask the hon the Minister whether he envisages an own Parliament for South Africa’s Black citizens. I ask the hon the Minister whether the Parliament the hon member for Prieska is referring to is going to be constituted on an ethnic basis. The hon member for Klip River had a great deal to say today about group identities. Is the Parliament which the hon member for Prieska is referring to—I do not know whether the chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning knows about that parliament, but I am asking the hon the Minister—going to be constituted on an ethnic basis? [Interjections.] Are all Black South African citizens who are 18 years and older, going to obtain the right to vote in the election of members of the Black Parliament?

Yes, definitely.

I am not asking the hon member for Parktown, because I know he will do it; I am asking the hon the Minister who is so silent, to tell us. [Interjections.] Are the members of that parliament going to receive the same salaries and allowances as the hon members of this Parliament? I am asking the hon the Minister because that is what the voters of Prieska are asking pursuant to the speech made by the hon member for Prieska.

You might as well go and ask Vilo.

What does the hon member Dr Vilonel say? [Interjections.]

Order! No hon member is supposed to say anything. The hon member may proceed.

Is that parliament also going to have a Ministers’ Council and are they also going to have representation in the Cabinet, the Government of South Africa? I want to put that question to the hon the Minister, especially after the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said that he was prepared to relinquish his post so that a Black could take over his portfolio in the Cabinet. Are only urban Blacks going to receive representation in that way, or members of the self-governing national states as well?

Now we come to the important question: If what the hon member for Prieska proclaims is true, can there be more than one parliament in the same country, more than one legislative authority? That is the question which the hon the Minister must answer because I think that is the reason why the CP came into conflict with the NP and why we are sitting on the opposition benches today.

I ask whether the hon the Minister would enlighten us further in respect of the revelation by the hon member for Prieska. I think South Africa and we in this Parliament who have to agree to this budget, deserve to know. Otherwise the hon the Minister must repudiate the hon member for Prieska if he has informed his people incorrectly.

Let us consider the Group Areas Act for a while. The hon member for Innesdal said in this House recently that the NP was prepared to make dramatic adjustments to the Group Areas Act. The State President said during the discussion of his Vote that the Group Areas Act was not a sacred cow. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at Worcester that he thought that the person who needed that Act in order to stay White, was not worthy of staying White.

Do you not agree? [Interjections.]

Surely it is not a matter of staying White or not staying White.

As far as the group areas are concerned, he also said: “It is strange that although Whites and Coloureds live in close proximity to each other on farms, and although servants quarters in towns and cities are part of the house, there are nevertheless still objections to the abolition of the Act.” That is what the hon the Minister said to a group of NP ladies who had advocated grey group areas. According to the report, the NP ladies were in favour of own group areas, but they also said that the creation of grey group areas were essential in order to bring about better human relations. [Interjections.] I assume that the hon the Minister provided them with guidance at that meeting.

I ask the hon the Minister whether he is prepared and is planning to effect dramatic amendments to the Group Areas Act. Does he therefore envisage creating grey areas in which everybody lives on an integrated basis and, if so, are grey residential areas going to be created in every town of South Africa? Does he envisage compelling mixed couples to live in the grey residential areas? Will a White man with a house in a White residential area, who marries a Black woman, be obliged to sell his house and to go and live in the grey area or will he by means of a permit which the hon the Minister is going to grant him, be able to stay behind in the White residential area with his Black wife?

Local authorities are, according to the Constitution, part of own affairs. Now I want to ask whether the grey residential areas which the hon the Minister and his party colleagues envisaged at Worcester, fall under the jurisdiction of the White municipalities or under what local authority’s jurisdiction is this mixed, this grey residential area going to fall which the hon the Minister or rather the people of his party have proposed in order to bring about better group relations.

The hon the Minister and his party are trying to make a grey society of South Africa.

A grey mess.

If a Black State President can be elected if only 13 Blacks are admitted to the electoral college, then the hon the Minister is taking us along the path— even though he says that that is not the idea—of Black majority rule, the path of destruction for the Whites in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman makes the same speech with slight variations in each debate. [Interjections.] This morning he rose to rant and rave at the Government as is his habit. I do not intend to do the same, since I do not think it gets us or the country any further. The same applies to the hackneyed proposals of ministerial salary decreases which the CP has been submitting in the debates about the Votes lately. Surely that is just a useless and empty gesture.

With the possible exception of the HNP, we in South Africa all agree that the present constitutional situation cannot continue indefinitely and unchanged. I do not want to debate with the hon member for Kuruman today as to whether or not the CP’s policy of complete partition and nation-states for each ethnic group is attainable. We know it is not, in any case. The point I want to make, is that this endeavour of theirs does indeed imply a drastic change. The Afrikaner Weer-standbeweging’s ideal of partyless autocracy in a White nation-state necessarily means a drastic change. We do therefore have broad consensus about the necessity of change.

The true debate concerns how this change is to be brought about. Is it going to be along a peaceful, constitutional and democratic way or by means of a destructive and violent revolution?

We want an election! [Interjections.]

I concede that that is part of the constitutional process. Ultimately there are only these two possibilities.

Recently I took part in a symposium about disinvestment in Johannesburg. One of the other participants is a member of one of the radical Black trade unions, and naturally he was in favour of disinvestment and sanctions. The drift of his argument was more or less as follows: Hungry, unemployed people are not peaceful people. The unrest in the Eastern Cape is worse than anywhere else in the country because the Eastern Cape has the poorest economy and the highest unemployment rate. He therefore wants disinvestment and sanctions so that the whole of South Africa will become like the Eastern Cape and worse. He feels the present dispensation cannot be reformed and must be destroyed to the very roots. He thinks South Africa must be laid in ruins so that a new order can arise from these ruins.

When he was asked where he and his kindred spirits would find the means to build their new order from the ruins, he told the American businessmen and industrialists who were present: “We shall ask you to come back to help us.”

What the radicals in their amazing naiveté seem unable to understand, is that industrialists invest in countries only to make money and profits, and not for reasons of misplaced humaneness and charity to save socialist revolutionaries from their sorry plight.

Once South Africa has been reduced to ruins, it will be impossible to restore it in one lifetime, if ever. In the approach of the ANC, the UDF, Azapo and their radical hangers-on, one merely sees a repetition of the story of the 19th century Xhosa witchdoctor, Nongquase. As hon members know, she commanded her people to destroy their cattle and burn their crops, and then the Whites would disappear into the sea and the Xhosas would emerge as a powerful, ruling nation.

The cattle were destroyed and the crops burned, but the Whites did not disappear. Nongquase’s only achievement was to cause thousands of Xhosas to suffer in hunger and misery.

When the new Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town pleads for sanctions and disinvestment, therefore, and when the Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops of Southern Africa pleads for economic pressure— meaning sanctions and disinvestment—they are promoting the objectives of those who want to reduce this country to a heap of ruins by means of revolution, and reducing the role and statements of the Church to those of a 19th century heathen witchdoctor by the name of Nongquase.

Let me add that ministers who exclude people from the church at funerals and weddings simply because they are of a different colour, play one and the same part, because this causes rancour and hatred in the hearts of moderate and peaceloving people and drives them away, into the hands of revolutionaries and the perpetrators of violence. [Interjections.]

Hatred and denigration cannot be reconciled with the message of peace, reconciliation and co-existence with which God sent his Son to earth. The Church definitely has a part to play in the process of constitutional and socioeconomic reform. One must ask, however, what part this should be. Must it be a revolutionary or a constitutional part?

†After his election, the Archbishop of Cape Town, the Very Rev Desmond Tutu, declared that he was accepting the position as an appointment by God himself. He is not the first prelate in history so to declare and then to proceed with heinous and wicked iniquities against humanity.

There are numerous examples. Let us recall, for example, the Conquistadores of Mexico who drove the Aztecs into a river, had them baptised en masse and, when they emerged on the opposite bank, mowed them down with their muskets to prevent the loss of their immortal souls—all in the name of the Church!

Many hon members are descendants of the Huguenots. Would they have come to South Africa had the long knives not been unsheathed in the name of the Church on Saint Bartholomew’s night? Was not this merciless murder and persecution of fellow Christians by men of the cloth carried out by arrogant men who too claimed divine appointment?

None of us can fail to recoil with horror when we recall the merciless cruelties and tortures of the Spanish Inquisition carried out in the name of the Church by men who claimed divine appointments by God to do so. Nothing will convince me that these cruelties and iniquities were the will of God or that it is the will of God that this country should be reduced to ashes before a just order can come about. Nothing will convince me that it is the will of God to have people burned alive, be it at the stake as ordained by the mediaeval grand inquisitors or with “necklaces” as carried out by the comrades of today.

Let those who give succour to remorseless revolutionaries by calling for sanctions, disinvestment and other pressures, be they churchmen, hon members of the Official Opposition or overseas pressure groups, think again. There is no future in the theology of revolution. There is no hope in the Kairos Document which is nothing but the Gospel according to Karl Marx.

*There is no need for violence in this country. In terms of the Christian values and civilised norms we strive for in this country and which are contained in the preamble to our Constitution, this Government has committed itself to the equal treatment of and the equal opportunities for everyone living in this country. To achieve this, it is prepared to negotiate with everyone who strives for constitutional change and denounces violence and terror. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this debate, as has been indicated, is one of the more important debates in that it is a debate dealing with constitutional matters. The hon member, Prof Olivier, indicated that he considers—as we do—this to be one of the more important departments of Government today in this period of change. He also congratulated the Government on moving away from its traditional policy of apartheid and into the realm of removing apartheid. I also would like to add my congratulations to that.

However, as far as congratulations go, I have some difficulty in going any further. In the debate last year I made two speeches in the course of which I asked a number of questions and made certain comments. Some of them, I believe, would have justified a reply. However, the hon the Minister in his wisdom decided that because my speeches were—and I use his words—“crude and hostile”, he was not prepared to respond. Now, I have reread those speeches I made and, quite frankly, whilst I consider that they may well have been rather forthright, by no stretch of the imagination could they be considered crude in the sense that the language was intemperate, and neither could they be considered hostile. When a member of the Opposition criticises the Government, that is part of his function. It is not, I believe, reasonable to construe it as being hostile. So, I hope that on this occasion the hon the Minister will perhaps be a little less, should we say, irritable on the issue of criticism and consider it to be justified criticism, and reply accordingly.

I believe that his real reason for not replying was perhaps not pettiness but rather an inability to provide answers. Perhaps he did not really have the answers at the time. I think that was genuinely the reason, and he used his criticism of my speeches as a dodge to avoid a number of issues. [Interjections.] Last year the hon the Minister gave the impression that we could expect effective and synchronised action and that—I quote (Hansard: Assembly, col 4902)—

The hon the Minister was of course referring to provincial councils and other new constitutional authorities being created. In that same speech he said that there was a new and strengthened executive committee with “extensive statutory … legislative … powers”. That was quoted from item 6 in col 4906. Mark the words “extensive statutory subordinate legislative … powers”. This intrigues me. This executive “will be directly answerable to Parliament… possibly via a special standing committee”. These are all points made by the hon the Minister last year.

Furthermore, the executive will be from the political arena, and that presumably means members of Parliament, as it is clearly stated that any members of Parliament so appointed will have to vacate their seats. This was in fact the case.

The eighth point that the hon the Minister made was that the Administrators would be executive administrators in the same manner as the State President is an executive state president. Bearing in mind the large sum of money that has been allotted to his Vote this year, I should now like to ask the hon the Minister whether he now has any answers to some of these questions relating to the future of the provincial administrations. I propose to put a few straight questions to him and I believe they justify straight answers.

Bearing in mind that he stated on 7 May 1985 that the members of an executive committee would be appointed on merit, and bearing in mind that in his own speech he indicated that the CP would be excluded, how are these exco’s to be appointed? He indicated that they would be appointed à la Cabinet style. We are particularly interested in the fortunes of Natal, of course, but naturally we are very interested in what happens in the other provinces also.

Secondly, bearing in mind that the provincial councils go out of existence at the end of next month, we should like to know whether any of the members of those councils have been appointed; whether all race groups are represented in all the provinces and how many of each race group there will be in each provincial executive committee.

Legislation in a democratic country is normally created by an elected body. As it has been indicated that the new executive committees are going to have certain legislative powers, we should like to know how this is to be done in such new executive committees. Has the special standing committee to handle the executive committees been decided upon? Hon members will recollect that the hon the Minister indicated previously that special parliamentary standing committees were to be set up to look after the affairs of the provinces. It is still not clear what is to happen, and certainly nothing has been announced, and there has certainly not been any legislation put forward in this regard to indicate whether there is going to be one special standing committee with certain powers and authorities for the whole of South Africa, or whether there is going to be one special standing committee for each individual province. I believe this is a relevant and very important question to have answered.

A further question I want to ask is: Where is the Bill that will give our Administrator provincial powers similar to those of the State President? If that Bill is in the process of being prepared, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he will indicate whether these powers will be absolute, or whether there will at least be a system of appeal whereby aggrieved parties will be able to appeal either to the State President himself or to Parliament or to the courts. If an Administrator is to have these absolute powers à la the State President, I believe that because an Administrator is at a subordinate level to that of the State President, there should certainly be the possibility of an appeal of some sort.

Further, what, if anything, has been done to give statutory or any other effect to the advisory councils that will be the link between the executive and the electorate? The hon the Minister indicated that there was to be such an advisory council …

There could be!

Yes, but it was pretty clear that that was the intention at the time.

These are just a few of the questions I want to put to the hon the Minister about merely one facet of his portfolio. I believe his portfolio is multifaceted, and therefore I do not feel that it is possible to cover a wider spectrum of these facets in the time available. This is why I have focused on one particular angle. However, I believe that urgent answers are absolutely vital in view of the abolition of provincial councils within the space of a month or so. I do not believe that hon members of this House should be left in the dark any longer.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity of completing his speech.

The hon member for Umbilo may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip of the governing party for his courtesy.

After the last parliamentary session, those of us who serve on the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning were informed that meetings of that committee were to be held toward the end of November or the beginning of December, in order to deal with constitutional legislation. Arrangements were made—at least as far as I was concerned—to attend those meetings, and then we were informed that those meetings had been cancelled because there was no legislation available. We are given to understand that after the current session of Parliament, we are to have another session to deal with legislation, a substantial proportion of which is likely to be of a constitutional nature. We in this party, and I am sure all hon members of Parliament, have no objection whatsoever to devoting all the time that is necessary to the work of this Parliament in the interests of South Africa. However, I believe that we in this party—and again, all hon members of this Parliament—have every right to feel aggrieved if the reason for their being unable to do their work is not in the interests of South Africa but simply because a department has been dilatory in getting on with its job of producing the appropriate legislation.

While I appreciate that we are all subject to stresses in these hard times, and while I appreciate that much of this legislation is not that easy to prepare, I do sincerely believe that in the time that has elapsed between the last sitting of Parliament in 1985 and today, appropriate constitutional legislation could and should have been prepared. To date, however, even after progressing this far into the current session—four and a half months of the year have already elapsed—we have had very little constitutional legislation at all and virtually none of any serious consequence. This is something which I believe I must criticise. I believe that the hon the Minister is a hard-working Minister but at the same time I wonder whether he is directing his efforts as efficiently as he might. I wonder whether he is in fact too diversified and whether—to use the expression of the hon member for Kuruman—he has created an empire which makes it almost impossible for him to keep his legislation up to date and to bring it forward. Perhaps he should be very careful, because the history of empires and emperors in Africa is not a very good one. The last one was Bokassa. I am not sure where he is living now but he is not in Africa at the present moment.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo entered into a specific discussion on very specialised matters with the hon the Minister, and so I shall not specifically follow on after him.

But the hon member for Kuruman made two statements which I cannot allow to go by without comment at this stage. These are actually two statements which the CP and HNP repeat with boring regularity and which the hon member also repeated this evening.

One is that the Government supposedly does not have a mandate from the voters to involve itself with the political rights of Blacks.

That is not what he said!

Let me just once again draw the CP’s attention to the pamphlet entitled Constitution ’83 in a Nutshell of which tens of thousands were distributed throughout the country during the referendum. Pertaining to a question specifically regarding Blacks which is dealt with in the booklet, it is stated on page 11:

That was a clear declaration of intent to give immediate attention to the question of the political rights of Blacks within and outside the homelands as soon as the dispensation which includes Coloureds and Indians had been implemented. We dealt with that question from public platforms on numerous occasions during the referendum, and we did receive a very sizeable mandate in that referendum.

The same argument basically applies to the question of whether the Government is empowered to lengthen the term of office of this House of Assembly by another few years. In the Constitution under discussion at that stage, provision was made to extend the term of office the House of Assembly so that it would correspond to that of the other two Houses. That section of the Constitution was approved along with the others by means of the referendum. That is why the CP’s allegation that the Government’s term has expired, is completely unfounded. The extension of the term of office takes place in terms of a section in the Constitution, and a mandate for that has in fact been obtained. [Interjections.]

What I actually want to talk about today, is the role of violence in the whole ideological struggle that is being waged in South Africa today. One of the problems we are experiencing is that those who advocate violence against the Government and the system in South Africa, justify their standpoint and actions on the basis that the system in South Africa is supposedly inherently violent. According to them violence which is being pitted against violence, is justifiable. If one’s opponent resorts to violence first, according to them it is completely justifiable to use violence against that opponent. [Interjections.] It is in fact also the argument which the hon member for Sasolburg raised here the other day when he referred to the violent tendencies amongst the right-wing groups.

The argument that the system is violent and counterviolence is therefore justified, is based on the concept of structural or institutionalised violence. The theory is that although physical violence is not being used against people, the structure is of such a nature that it prevents people from doing what they have to do, and that in certain cases it even leads to people dying of hunger. Consequently violence is being perpetrated against people, and counterviolence is justifiable.

The concept of structural violence has in my view been specifically drawn into revolutionary ideology to try and justify the violence that revolutionaries in any case want to commit. If one analyses this concept of structural or institutionalised violence and takes it to its logical conclusion, one arrives at the kind of statement such as the one in the work of a White South African academic at one of our universities. He says:

Who is he?

I am quoting from Prof Degenaar of Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] He alleges that if a parent in any way restricts a child’s development, he is doing violence to the child. There is another example of this, according to Prof Degenaar, he says, amongst other things, that teachers do violence to their pupils by indoctrinating instead of educating them.

And so what is taking place here is the kind of situation where one has children in a classroom with a teacher in front of them, and according to this academic, that teacher is doing violence to them while neither the teacher nor the children are aware of it. The violence is therefore the entirely subjective interpretation of an outside observer of the situation.

This concept is then used to justify violence. According to this it would be justifiable for the children to physically attack their parents or teacher, because so-called violence is being done to them by indoctrinating them instead of educating them. Hon members know themselves that the difference between indoctrination and education is sometimes so vague that one really cannot differentiate between the two.

This concept is now being used in the sense that it is being said that apartheid is an inherently violent system, because it prohibits people from doing specific things: They say the South African system is inherently violent, and that is why the revolutionaries do not reject violence for the purpose of meeting the demands which we have put to them.

I can associate myself with the statement made by the hon member for Benoni here this morning. Specifically coming back to an organisation such as the ANC, which not only preaches violence, but also practices it, one could perhaps still argue that in the late 50s and early 60s there was no alternate road open to the ANC other than turning to violence. I do not want to concede that point at this stage, because I think that one could argue the point, but even if one were to accept that point, the South African Government has put through so many reforms on the one hand, and on the other, has so unequivocally declared to be prepared to negotiate on the political participation of Blacks in the system, that there is no justification to act with further violence.

What is forgotten sometimes is that the ANC is very strongly influenced by communism, particularly when it comes to their theoretical views of the situation. If one takes a look at analyses of the South African situation, which have been stated in the mouthpieces and other publications of the ANC as far as our situation is concerned, one finds that they are very strongly influenced by communism. Communism has an inherent leaning towards revolution, in the sense that it believes that any change has to be brought about by violence so that violence can be a kind of rebirth of the system. That is why their protest that violence is only pitted against violence, is completely bereft of all truth.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Helderkruin spent most of his time on the speech of the hon member for Kuruman. All I would like to say is that I hope that the Eminent Persons Group will bring about some reconciliation as far as the ANC is concerned.

Today I want to refer to the Regional Services Councils Act, 109 of 1985, which went through this House in June last year. It was assented to on 10 July and gazetted on 31 July 1985. It followed a series of laws affecting local authorities. For record purposes I would like to mention them. There are the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, 91 of 1983, the Remuneration of Town Clerks, 115 of 1984, the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act, 117 of 1984, the Local Government Training Act, 41 of 1985, and the Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill, 105 of 1985, which postponed elections until 1988.

Last year the hon the Minister said initially that the RSCs would be established in January. Then he said they would be established in April, and still later that they would be established in June. Now they are to be established in September starting, I understand, with Bloemfontein. In terms of section 13, regulations must be framed by the Administrator, except for regulations relating to matters referred to in section 12 which have to be framed by the Minister of Finance. Moreover, regulations can only be framed “after consultation with the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs established by section 2 of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act.” To date, to the best of my knowledge, neither the regulations in terms of section 13 nor the regulations in terms of section 12 have been completed or published. Up to now, therefore, the RSCs cannot function. So there is still time to halt these proceedings, and this is our earnest and sincere appeal.

We oppose this Act but not for the sake of opposing because we are in opposition and the members on that side of the Committee are in Government. In fact, we will willingly support the Government on all measures that will lead to meaningful reform and change and that are aimed at bringing about peace and restoring order to our country.

I am encouraged, for example, by the recent steps taken in regard to the pass laws and by the statement that apartheid is dead. The RSCs, however, will not lead to meaningful reforms and will not bring about peace; on the contrary, through the RSCs the Government institutionalises apartheid because the RSCs are based on racially structured and segregated local authorities. Secondly, the establishment of the RSCs presupposes the permanence of the Group Areas Act, and with it the Population Registration Act—and that is not getting away from apartheid! Thirdly, the fundamental object was to bring Coloureds, Whites, Asians and Black together in one forum. We have no quarrel with that concept. However, as long as this is done on a basis that is structured on apartheid—in other words, on a group basis—it will lack legitimacy. As long as representatives elected to the RSCs come from local authorities that lack credibility and legitimacy, the Government will fail in their objectives.

Black townships are presently in a state of turmoil, unrest and violence, and Blacks are defying authority. How many Black community councils are functioning properly today? There are only five councils functioning. Some 240 councillors and 28 mayors have resigned. Councillors’ lives are endangered and they are living in barricaded houses in their townships. How many of those will be nominated to the RSCs? The very low polls at the election of Black communities is telling evidence of the rejection of the basic structure.

Although Black attitudes against the present Constitution have hardened in the past year, as far back as 27 August 1985, Dr Sam Motsuenyane, President of Nafcoc, after being summoned to Jan Smuts Airport, angrily rejected his brief meeting with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as any kind of formal consultation on RSCs. He said, and I quote:

Therein lies the key. We must start with the Blacks from the top, not from the bottom. Even the kwaZulu Government have reservations about the RSCs, and I understand Chief Buthelezi is opposed to them as well.

The question of credibility applies equally to the Coloured community. I quote David Curry, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives. He speaks, for example, of:

The same applies to the Indian community. Both the NPP and the Solidarity Party have come to this Parliament to fight apartheid, to fight group identity.

If Blacks, Coloureds and Indians oppose this measure, what is the point in the Government’s pursuing it? Their objective is lost. As was once said: “Changes to the system must have the support of the people the system is designed to serve.” That is not all, however. There are also Whites who are opposed to this measure. The NP support it because they have to but the PFP oppose it and the CP—although for different reasons—also oppose it. The business community also opposes the measure because businesses are expected to pay for this by paying payroll and turnover taxes. What is more, they have to pay these taxes at a time of difficult financial stringencies in one of the worst economic situation we have experienced and where insolvencies and liquidations abound. It is an unfair tax on all, especially firms with large turnovers and small profits and firms with large staffs. Moreover, it is a tax that has been imposed at a time when the whole tax structure is the subject of an investigation by the Margo Commission.

Furthermore, RSCs will place a heavy burden on White local authorities because the latter will be deprived of services listed in Schedule 2 that have given them a substantial income. There is no relief to them by way of additional sources of revenue which they have asked for some time.

In actual fact the core city will have to do the dirty work of the RSCs to collect these unpopular and unwelcome taxes that the RSCs will impose on the region. If Johannesburg, for example, is a core city, they will have to find staff at a cost of approximately R300 000 per year; data processing will cost about R60 000 per year; and items like postages, stationery and microfilming will cost another R211 000 per year. They say, in other words, that its recurring expenditure will be something like R610 000 per year and the capital expenditure for computers and so forth will be R500 000. This is a heavy burden that will have to be borne by the taxpayer in the end. I ask the hon the Minister who will assess these firms in order to collect these taxes. Will the Receiver of Revenue make available his tax files to the local authorities? What remedy will the local authority have if the business concerned fails to pay or fails to reflect the correct figures? Who will prosecute them? How will the money be recovered and to whom can the firms themselves appeal if they need to appeal?

The local authorities encounter great difficulty with the demarcation boards. Why does the Government want such large areas for these groups? The areas have not yet been finalised but let us take the Witwatersrand as an example. The suggestion is to have an area from Carletonville to Delmas and from Ennerdale to Midrand—that is an enormous area. As far as Cape Town is concerned they are pressing for an area to cover the divisional councils of the Cape, Stellenbosch, Paarl and the Swartland, measuring 259 km from east to west. There is a distinct lack of consensus. There is a direct conflict of interest and a conflict of ideology within the regions themselves. Will the demarcation boards impose their will on the people and, if so, what form of co-operation does the hon the Minister expect?

Surely you know that the demarcation boards serve only in an advisory capacity. How can they enforce their will on anybody?

That is what I am asking! What is really happening here is that the power lies with the central Government and there is a devolution of functions. There is also a lack of co-ordination in the establishment of the RSCs. They are to be elected for five years. Elections for city councils have been postponed to 1988 and they have to be elected for five years. Why are the RSCs being established in 1986 when the whole pattern of municipal elections is going to change in view of the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act where one person may have three votes in one particular ward? These people may not be elected again, so the whole pattern of the RSCs will be disrupted and there is no co-ordination between the demise of local authorities and the establishment of RSCs.

We say, firstly, that the whole structure of local authorities must be changed so that they have a non-racial basis with equal franchise rights given to each person living in that local authority area to elect any person irrespective of the colour of his skin. Secondly, a local authority fund must be established to ensure that each local authority provides basic services and has a sound infrastructure. Thirdly, local authorities must be allowed on a voluntary basis to liaise with one another on services that can be shared on a regional basis. Fourthly, a metropolitan board should be established to co-ordinate physical planning.

In conclusion, as far as this aspect is concerned, I want to say that group identity should be done away with so that legitimacy can be restored to all.

The provincial councils are going to be phased out in June 1986. The Transvaal Provincial Council has had its last meeting. We would like to hear from the hon the Minister what functions are now going to be left with whom. What for example, will happen to horse-racing or hospital services? Do hon members in this Committee know that they will have to take over the functions of the MPCs when they leave? They will have to take over the responsibility for the schools in their constituencies as from 1 April of this year. They will have to serve on hospital boards and be responsible for hospitals in their areas. All the functions that fell previously on the shoulders of the MPC will now be the responsibility of the MP. Are the hon members in this Committee aware of the functions and duties that will be incumbent upon them when the provincial council system is changed?

Mr Chairman, I have prepared a different subject, and I ask the hon member for Hillbrow to pardon me if I do not react in detail to what he has just said, seeing as he spoke exclusively about the regional services councils. But I do just want to say that I think it is a pity that the hon member for Hillbrow did not adequately ask himself about the necessity for local authorities of the nature of the regional services councils. He should rather go and immerse himself in the question of how one provides a given community in a particular geographical area with services on the basis of what is best for that particular community. Then one may evaluate the regional services council to see whether or not they at least fulfil these needs. I do not want to spend too much time on that because I do not have enough time, but it seems to me as if the hon member for Hillbrow contradicts himself in some of his arguments. It is contradictory to his own point of departure if he says that it is a continuation of the concept of apartheid on the one hand, but on the other he says that an area is too large to be able to make provision for the variety of interests within it.

I showed where the problems lay!

I am going to leave the argument at that.

I should like to refer to what the hon member, Prof Olivier, said in the Committee earlier on today. I think he placed on record a few very important standpoints of his party this morning. I think one should note this with much appreciation. There are two matters in particular referred to by the hon member which I think are of fundamental importance.

First of all he says we—that “we” includes amongst other things the Government and the authorities in general—cannot afford to negotiate on handing over power. I think that is a very important point of departure put by the hon member. Secondly, he says that reform can only be brought about by this Parliament as an institution. It is the only legal authority through which “grond-wetlike hervorming” can be brought about.

*Mr P C CRONJÉ: He was referring to “konstitusionele hervorming”

But that is what I am talking about, am I not? What is the difference? The hon member for Greytown is confused. [Interjections.]

I think here the hon member Prof Olivier has confirmed two very important points of departure which have been expressed by this side of the House a long time ago. I think it is a responsible point of departure which leading to common ground for a meaningful debate between us and that party.

Bedfellows!

No, this shows precisely how the hon member for Kuruman interprets incorrectly, once again. What I am saying is that the statements of the hon member Prof Olivier create a favourable climate for a meaningful debate on the solutions to this country’s problems.

You are in the same bed!

Let us ask the hon member for Kuruman if he does not want to come and join us as well.

Not on the road to integration!

Please just listen to what I am saying. Does the hon member not want to help as well to create a climate for a meaningful debate on constitutional development to find a solution to this country’s problems?

You are following the road to integration!

It does not help to speak to the hon member over there. It seems to me as if they want to be ignored as far as this discussion is concerned.

You give up too soon!

We are not going to join you in surrendering!

I just want to make another remark while I am dealing with the hon member for Kuruman. Before I argue with him any further, I just want to welcome him back to the Committee, we are pleased to see that he is up and about again and that he is feeling better. It does not seem to me as if his way of thinking is any different to what it was before, but we accept that his health does not count against him.

One does not have to become sick to accept integration!

The hon member for Kuruman put forward an argument to show that it was the fault of the hon the Minister and the officials of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning that Parliament had to continue with the present session in August. That is what the hon member said. He said that such a large amount of money was going to be wasted.

I said it was the hon the Minister’s fault!

Fine, the hon member said that it was the hon the Minister’s fault. But has the hon member considered yet what it would mean if the Bills were ready by now? It would merely mean that the present session would have to continue after 20 June for another 6 weeks, or for whatever length of time.

You people should work during the recess!

Order! I am not prepared to allow a continuous dialogue between the hon member for Johannesburg West and the hon member for Kuruman. The hon member for Johannesburg West must be afforded an opportunity of making his speech. The hon member may proceed.

I am going to content myself with the remark that it is an entirely senseless argument to say that it is the hon the Minister’s fault that we have to come back. That legislation would in any case have had to be dealt with this year, and whether it is done six or eight weeks after 20 June, or during the same period of time later on this year, makes no difference. We in any case have to discuss that legislation.

I should like to associate myself with an argument put forward by the hon member for Helderkruin concerning violence in general. I want to focus on it from a slightly different angle, but I want to argue according to the same basic points.

It is unfortunately a fact that in South Africa today we have many people who do not realise how urgent the problems we are experiencing really are. Some people in the country completely underestimate the situation and others again have a completely biased viewpoint of it.

Those who underestimate it, do not notice that there is a revolutionary climate present in South Africa. They accept that it is probably a repetition of earlier similar events, for example the Soweto riots of 1976 or the events at Sharpville. They think that it can be tackled by putting a few people in jail, and that it would then blow over. We have now been experiencing violence for a year and eight months, and it is very clear to all of us that this matter is not going to simply blow over without any further ado or that it is going to be brought under control as we have done in the past. We are trapped in a spiral of violence which certainly has to be addressed in a different way.

The second group, the one which makes a biased evaluation of the situation, thinks that the problem can only be solved, and done so simply by tackling the South African Communist Party, the ANC, the UDF and their sympathisers, and that everything would then be settled. It is a fact of course that the SACP, the ANC and the UDF form a real part of the problem in that the communist elements cleverly and effectively exploit the problem in the country to serve their own dubious ends, ie to establish a communist dictatorship in the country by means of force and violence. In so far as they want to tackle the communist element, these people are correct in their view, but unfortunately this is not the complete answer.

The problem is that even if these organisations were put in their place, the underlying causes of the problem would still exist, and similar organisations with new names and under new banners would in turn simply make their appearance.

The basic causes are the fact that Blacks are aspiring to political rights and the improvement of their social conditions. As long as this is not addressed and solutions to it are not found, we cannot hope to placate matters finally.

In regard to valid demands and grievances, it is therefore necessary for reform to take place as quickly as possible, but at the same time it is also clear that reform is not possible without the maintenance of the greatest possible measure of law and order. That is why these two matters will have to go hand in glove. It seems as if it may be necessary at a given time for the security situation to be given preference and priority attention to calm down the unrest as opposed to the other leg of the matter, the reform action.

For the sake of complete perspective it is necessary that we should differentiate throughout between terrorism and valid demands for citizenship rights. In our evaluation of the situation we should not regard everyone who pleads for the abolition of apartheid as terrorists. Those who want to do away with apartheid in non-violent way, are in fact precisely our greatest allies in the fight against terrorism. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman is not listening to what I am saying, but I should like to put him to the test in regard to this. Let us find a particular point on which we can test his party.

Does the CP agree with my argument that those who are against apartheid and want to do away with it in a non-violent manner, could perhaps be our greatest allies in the fight against terrorism? [Interjections.] If he does not agree with this … [Interjections.]

Of course not!

… then let me ask him what his hon leader was doing visiting the king of the Zulus. [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg must have known beforehand that the king of the Zulus was against apartheid. He nonetheless went to speak to him because he surely wanted to find another area of common ground with him.

You should rather leave him out of politics. [Interjections.]

You are pro-ANC. Say this if you …

That is political opportunism!

Order!

The hon member for Brakpan did not listen at all to what I was saying, but he is ready with his slogan of “opportunism”. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just taken his seat would do well to have recourse to a little protocol, if he knows what that means. He should leave the King of the Zulus, who is a non-political figure, out of politics. [Interjections.] Hon members laugh about this. My hon leader will reply to this, but I just want to say that it is a very sensitive matter that the King of the Zulus is a non-political figure. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Johannesburg West said that the Government is not negotiating on handing over power, but I just want to point out that his Government is indeed relinquishing the sovereign power which the Whites had in Parliament, having subordinated us to the veto right of Indians and Coloureds. [Interjections.] But surely he has handed over power!

The hon member for Helderkruin has set up a very scrawny old straw doll and did not even manage to shoot it down properly. He said the CP stated that they did not have the right to involve themselves in Black political rights. We never have said that. Involvement means reconnaissance, and that we can all do.

But there is an enormous difference between political reconaissance and a mandate. The Government has received no mandate in regard to constitutional principles as far as the Blacks are concerned. They have no right to call power-sharing with Blacks their mandate. They do not have that mandate, and it surprises me that the hon member for Helderkruin who is a political scientist, could come to light with such academic drivel here.

On 11 March this year we held the partition debate, and then the hon the Minister said that it was a good thing that we had to debate the alternatives. Today it is his turn to spell out the Government’s alternative, and we want to ask him most seriously to in fact do so.

But I do want to point out to the hon the Minister that there are two stumbling blocks in his way, that is the Government’s lack of credibility and lack of direction.

As far as the lack of credibility is concerned, let me ask who still believes the NP today. Who still trusts the NP today? [Interjections.] Opposition parties neither believe nor trust the Government any more. The radicals do not believe or trust them either, and a British journalist told me this week that the British as well as the American policy-makers no longer believe or trust this Government. [Interjections.] Sir, let me ask how the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs could have any credibility abroad. We know that it is his personal standpoint that a Black should become President, but he was rapped over the knuckles for this. Now who could be expected to believe him abroad? [Interjections.]

There is one essential reason for the Government’s lack of credibility and that is that the Government has purposefully introduced lies as a political instrument into the political arena in its attempt to carry through its reform programme. By doing so the Government has based its reform programme on deceit—it has therefore built on sand.

From the wealth of evidence available for this lack of credibility, I want to mention the following: Firstly, as far as the question of the mandate is concerned, the hon the Minister knows that the Government’s mandate regarding Blacks is the twelve-point plan. Since the twelve-point plan the Government has not received any mandate from the voters for Blacks. According to this twelve-point plan the linkage policy is the Government’s mandate. It has no other mandate excepting the linkage policy. I now ask the hon the Minister to prove me wrong and to say where the Government’s mandate for power-sharing with Blacks is, because that is now the policy.

What is your majority?

The hon member does not have to be concerned about my majority. I do not mind if I lose an election, because I represent principles here. [Interjections.] I left at the time, and I did not care if I lost my seat. If I lose my seat, it would not matter to me, because I stick to my principles—this is apparently a strange concept to these hon members. [Interjections.]

What also proves the Government’s lack of credibility, is that the Government misled the voters when the split occurred. We split from them because of power-sharing. We said at that time that the Government is moving in the direction of power-sharing. No, the Government said, that was not the case, they believed in shared responsibility and healthy power-sharing, and definitely not in the power-sharing of the Progs. Today we have power-sharing in all its glory. Who used lies to mislead and deceive the people? The NP did.

I shall mention another example. When the split occurred who said: “Andries Treurnicht is lying, if he says there will be a mixed Cabinet”? That was the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. Hon members may read die Beeid of 8 March in which it is stated that there would be no mixed Cabinet, and that Treurnicht is a liar if that is what he is saying. But what has history shown? Who is the liar? Who lacks credibility? The NP does. [Interjections.] History has shown that the Government uses lies as an instrument.

Thirdly, the Government’s lack of credibility prominently comes to the fore in its motivation for its policy. The NP consistently for many decades rejected power-sharing. Why? According to this hon the Minister it was because it would destroy South Africa. This is what they taught us for many decades—power-sharing would destroy South Africa and all its minority groups. Now the Government accepts, without a mandate, another policy that what they have always called lethal, is now merely the “healthy” medicine which we need. The Government’s lack of credibility is to be found in the fact that at present it is trying to sell as the best medicine that which it has warned us for decades is strychnine.

Fifthly, in my constituency, Jeppe, every street and stone bears testimony to the Government’s lack of credibility. Separate residential areas and grey areas are after all “non-negotiable”, according to the hon the Minister. He goes from platform to platform to announce it, does he not. I had a survey done in my constituency and we looked at who was now living in 80 of the blocks of flats there, and I can tell hon members what the result of the survey was. Of approximately 10 000 people who are living in 80 blocks of flats, 51% are Blacks, Indians and Coloureds. In a White residential area of 10 000 inhabitants the majority of Whites have already been crowded out by people of colour. Four hundred Coloureds and 10 Whites live in one block of flats. In another block of flats there are 250 Black residents.

The situation worsens daily. The Government does nothing about it. The Police say they have been instructed not to prosecute. The streets and stones of Johannesburg are witnesses to the Government’s scandalous lack of credibility.

Last week the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs pleaded for us to forget the past. Let me tell him that he is asking for too much. He is asking us to condone political deceit.

As far as his lack of credibility is concerned, that will be the word which will be noted down as the cause of death of this Government on its death certificate after the next general election.

The lack of direction of the Government is an equally serious problem. The Government’s lack of direction is to be found in that it has deviated from its policy of the past without a mandate. Now it is merely indicating a general direction without spelling out the details. We are now moving in the direction of love, peace and reconciliation, but we are given no positive explanation from them. South Africa is trapped in the mindboggling tactics and rhetoric of Chris the Emperor. The powerful constitutional planning and development empire of this emperor is the only institution that can provide answers. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members who are making far too many interruptions.

Mr Chairman, they do not bother me. [Interjections.]

If one comers one of these Nats today— which happens very easily—they then say, like the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare: “Ask Chris.” [Interjections.]

No one can tell one what the Government’s plans are. Let me ask hon members if this is not the truth. No one knows where the Government is heading, but it says that it has a mandate not to go anywhere.

My time is virtually up and I must now conclude my speech. But I want to ask the hon the Minister if he can give us clear details on the method that he wants to follow to protect minority groups in his new South Africa. He who was the one to say that we are going to be destroyed in South Africa, how is he going to protect the minority groups? The Progs lay down certain measures, but what protection measures is this hon the Minister going to give us?

I want to conclude by saying that on last night’s television programme Dr Savimbi said that the lie was a one-way ticket. It does not include a return journey. With this lie that the Government has brought into politics, it has bought a one-way ticket to a general election. It does not have a return ticket. After the next general election we shall be governing the country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, after the tirade by the hon member for Jeppe I am inclined to say, like a Job of old: “What you have said is an insult, but I know how to reply to you.” The hon member for Jeppe has made a great fuss about the Government not having a mandate for powersharing. I just want to remind him of what the former Prime Minister, Adv B J Vorster, said:

What is that if not power-sharing? [Interjections.]

In his book Understanding Revolution in South Africa, Woodward makes the allegation that the revolt of Adam and Eve in Paradise was the first form of revolution on earth. He also makes the allegation that the fall of Lucifer was the first example of a successful counterinsurgency measure. [Interjections.] I want to leave Adam and Lucifer at that for the time being and express myself on reform as a counterinsurgency measure.

On this subject too there are differences of opinion. There are experts who point out that it is precisely reform which as such is a catalyst for revolution, and examples mentioned in this connection are the great revolutions of this centure, those which took place in Russia and Iran. It is pointed out— the hon member for Klip River also pointed this out this evening—that these revolutions were preceded by far-reaching reform measures.

On the other hand there are experts who state that reform is in fact capable of combating a counterrevolutionary onslaught, and one of the examples taken from history is that of Athens in the year 507 B C, and let me concede that this does go back rather far, but one could possibly go and look at those reform measures of Cleisthenes in the city of Athens. [Interjections.]

Are there examples in Africa?

At the moment in South West Africa, yes. [Interjections.] Two further examples which are mentioned, are the reform measures of Bismarck in Germany towards the end of the previous century, and the reform measures in Britain at the start of this century. I am also convinced that reform as such could be a counterrevolutionary measure, and I want to call to witness a foremost revolutionary, ie Lenin. Lenin immediately realised that all reform measures in Russia which were being applied by the transitional government after the fall of the Tsar, would be counterproductive to his own revolution and that is why he went out of his way to sabotage them.

Also in South Africa too today a vendetta is being waged against reform measures because it is fully realised that every form of reform actually chisels away at the revolutionary power-base.

But the revolution is growing worse!

The hon member for Lichtenburg says the revolution is growing worse, but I think it stems precisely from the fact, as I mentioned, that those who resist reform are the very ones who encourage revolution. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon member for Lichtenburg this: Even if reform measures did not immediately check a revolution, it would deprive a revolutionary onslaught of a moral basis. Any revolution that starts to take on the form of a holy war—whether it is in a political sense, or a religious sense or a combination of both—eventually becomes uncontrollable. Also, if one says—as the hon member for Lichtenburg said in a debate last Wednesday—that one should discontinue all reform measures, one actually by implication provides the revolutionary onslaught with a moral basis.

When I say that I am on the side of those who regard reform as a successful counterrevolutionary action, I do not say so unconditionally. I think there are a few conditions connected to it. I think one of the conditions is that one should not create expectations in one’s programme of reform which one would not be able to satisfy in the long term. This has wrecked previous reform measures. An important precondition for the success of reform as a counterrevolutionary measure is in my view that it should be preceded by a thorough social analysis.

The most successful revolution of this century, that of Russia, was preceded by a thorough, exhaustive social analysis carried out by Marx, which was then as such virtually used as a blueprint in Russia. If a counterrevolutionary is to succeed, we should do an equally valid, thorough social analysis. If we do not do this, I am afraid that reform can only be patchwork.

You are after all applying total surrender!

I am not talking of surrendering.

Order! The hon members of the CP must give the hon member the opportunity to make his speech.

What I want to say is this, perhaps we should not think that political participation at a given time is the alpha and the omega, while the real needs perhaps lie in the area of unemployment or poverty, or vice versa. Neither must we think that the major need at a given moment is perhaps equal education, while the real need lies in the authority crisis between parent and child, or vice versa.

In my view the social analyses that have been made up to now, have been very meaningful. I want to refer to the Van der Walt report on the unrest situation in the Vaal Triangle, the HSRC investigation into the attitude of Blacks to capitalism, a series of articles on this question which appeared in Die Burger and to the scientific work Understanding Revolution in South Africa. I think there is a need for these social analyses to be co-ordinated and then to be scientifically evaluated, because they directly contradict each other on certain points.

In one of the series of articles in Die Burger, for example, Mr Motlana alleges that the greatest need is for political participation, while the HSRC investigation into the attitude of Blacks to the free-market system points to political participation as a very low priority. Let me once again say that, in my opinion, what is necessary is a thorough, valid social analysis in accordance with which one could allow one’s programme of reform to develop.

In conclusion, I just want to make the remark that a revolution as such does not happen overnight. [Interjections.] Experts point out that it actually extends over three generations. And so I think an effective counterrevolutionary action cannot take place overnight. I think it would be wrong to say that reform is only being initiated now. What else was the announcement of the homeland policy two decades ago if not a counterrevolutionary strategy? [Interjections.] It then became apparent that it was only effective in the rural areas.

Until the liberals took over!

The events at Sharpeville, Soweto and what is happening in the country at present, prove that this counterrevolutionary strategy is only effective in the rural areas, and that one therefore has to come up with another counterstrategy.

Are you sure?

That counterstrategy is the meaningful participation of Blacks in the areas where they live, work and reside. Surely that is a meaningful counterrevolutionary strategy! Every responsible Government that does not pay attention to it, is surely gambling with our country’s future.

I now arrive at a second point with which I want to conclude.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

There is a final idea which I want to express very briefly. I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Johannesburg West said, and then I want to use the words of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He said that no matter how far we progress with reform, there would always still be revolutionaries who would wage a vendetta against us. That is why, like Nehemia, we simply have to do our thing in South Africa with a trowel in the one hand and a sword in the other. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is always pleasant to listen to the hon member for Randfontein. His speeches are always well-considered and it is always illuminating to listen to arguments he puts forward.

I wish to associate myself with him today in the statement that intimidation has become a popular pastime in South Africa. If one is unable to convince the rest of the members of the community of one’s standpoint, one uses intimidation to force one’s views on them. For some years it has been the practice of the SA Communist Party, the ANC, the UDF and other leftist radicals to force their views on the Black, Brown and Asian communities in particular by means of intimidation.

I am afraid, however, intimidation has also become an instrument in the hands of certain radicals in White ranks. [Interjections.] In South Africa today the AWB is forcing its views on Whites, and especially members of the rightist radical party, by means of intimidation. [Interjections.] We therefore do not find it strange to hear increasingly militant utterances from members of the rightist radical party. They are forced into such acts through intimidation from the side of the AWB.

I think it is also important today that we devote a little attention to the alternative to the NP model of power-sharing in which the group security of the various groups present in this country is guaranteed.

Tell us how.

The strident way in which the rightist radical party obfuscates the true meaning of the concept of partition is an indication of exactly what its members are doing today. This is to ensure that the voting public is not aware what partition stands for. We on this side of the Committee are very well aware by this time of what they do not stand for but we do not know what they do stand for.

What do you stand for?

We hear about partition, we hear about geographic areas of jurisdiction but we do not know what this means.

The heartlands.

They speak about heartlands but we have no idea what this means. [Interjections.] We do not know whether it means that a massive relocation of people will take place within those so-called geographic areas of jurisdiction. Are Black people to be moved, for instance, from the White heartland or are they to remain there? If it is not their policy to relocate people on a massive scale, what is to become of the political rights of those people remaining within that so-called ethnic state? Are they to have any political rights or not?

Not a word from them, not one!

The rightist radical party, and especially its hon leader, refuses to make any statements in this regard but I do not doubt that we may just as well examine AWB utterances because AWB statements are the policy which will ultimately be forced on the rightist radical party through intimidation.

The Sasolburg voters succeeded.

Driesie is just a passenger. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me refer to Sasolburg. We lost the election there; we have no excuses and we are not howling about it.

You are the excuse!

The rightist radical party has sat there since 1982. The hon member for Koedoespoort is still the hindmost backbencher of that party today. No new faces have been added to that party over the past five years. [Interjections.]

Let us see what the AWB itself has to say about the rightist radical party. [Interjections.] I am referring here to its publication which it calls Sweepslag. I am quoting from Sweepslag No 2 of 1984 referring to the founding of the Afrikaner Volkswag:

The publication continues:

There has been no indication of direction for the almost five years they have been sitting over there. The AWB says of the rightist radical party that “KP” stands for “koerslose party”—a party without direction. That is basically what it says.

Consequently I say we should examine the idea. The first characteristic of the entire idea of partition, as spelt out by the AWB in its Sweepslag, is that of ethnic absolutism. The Whites are called a White people in South Africa throughout. That party does so itself. The cultural and the constitutional are mixed here as if it is simple to be able to do so. There is no talk today of an Afrikaner people; the talk is of a White people. Why do its members talk about the various peoples among the Blacks if there is only a White people according to them now? They also speak of a Coloured people. The ethnic idea is absolutised for a single reason and that is to make the concept of an ethnic state possible. Let us examine the meaning of the term ethnic state (“volkstaat”) according to the AWB. What does this term comprise at bottom? I shall quote again from page 8 of Sweepslag as follows:

The AWB says that only members of the White ethnic state party will have the vote to elect political representatives.

What does PWB say?

Mr Chairman, surely that is a one-party dictatorship regardless of the name given to it. However one wishes to define it, it remains nothing but a one-party dictatorship. Only the members of one party will be able to elect the political leaders of that state. That is partition. That is partition because, according to that, the political rights of other people living in the same geographic area are being denied them. This can only be brought about by the establishment of a one-party dictatorship.

Why don’t you confine yourself to agriculture instead?

Mr Chairman, the last important aspect I wish to refer to— the last characteristic of this entire idea of partition—is the mixed land (“basterland”) as the AWB clearly explains. After the respective ethnic states have been carved out for the White people and the various Black peoples, an area remains which a person may call the mixed land. Obviously this is the Cape Province in the main because the White ethnic state will comprise the Free State, Transvaal and certain parts of Northern Natal. The hon member for Kuruman had better take note that he will be the leader of the mixed land. [Interjections.] They are certainly suffering from an escapist syndrome with the typical symptom that, where insoluble problems are encountered, they are abandoned in a mixed land.

Are you going to move, Jan? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is very important that in every constitutional reform process the position of the Whites should be safeguarded. That is very important.

One can see now why you lost! [Interjections.]

Nevertheless one can never safeguard the position of the Whites if one attempts doing so at the expense of the rights of other people. The National Party will go to the electorate—and I am referring specifically to the Whites …

When?

We shall go to the electorate, either by means of a referendum or a general election. In this we shall state our conditions and the model for instruments in terms of which Black people’s political rights will be able to be handled.

You are going to lose!

That rightist radical party, Mr Chairman, will not escape having to state its alternative on that occasion as well.

And give you a hiding to boot!

Order!

I am convinced, Mr Chairman, that that party will be repudiated in such an election. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Odendaal totally forgot one important matter in connection with the rightist radicals—as he referred to us. This is that he himself provided quite the best and most decisive evidence—this was after the by-election in Sasolburg—that the voters of Sasolburg had voted against this Government because they were not prepared to accept this Government’s reform policy. Full stop! Finis! That was the entire story! [Interjections.] I therefore wish to express my appreciation once again toward my opponent in that by-election because he so roundly and honestly analysed the result on conclusion of the by-election. In doing this I believe he contributed to the welfare of South Africa and of this Government which quite often—actually most of the time—does not want to face up to these tendencies in by-elections—obviously because they are so exceedingly unfavourable.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to refer to the hon member for Randfontein’s speech.

A good speech!

Yes! Interesting too! He spoke about Lenin and Bismarck. This is quite true. Bismarck brought about a long series of reforms in Germany in his time—and that without a revolution taking place there. Nevertheless Bismarck did this in a very homogeneous state; he led one people with a single political allegiance to reforms by which that people never lost political power over itself. That is the whole story! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, in the case of Russia we can learn just the opposite lesson from what took place in Germany. This is a lesson the hon member for Randfontein cannot or will not learn for some reason or other. This is that the Czar and Kerensky came up with strings of reforms which played beautifully into the hands of the Marxists who acted in a multinational, racially mixed state in a way which ultimately did not permit reforms to succeed but actually permitted the revolution to do so. [Interjections.]

At this time South Africa can learn nothing from Germany; Germany is no example. Russia is! The reforms of Kerensky and the Czar played into the hands of the communists. That is precisely what that czar over there, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, is doing. [Interjections.]

In recent times the NP has repudiated Dr Verwoerd. The NP makes no secret of its change of policy over past years. I do not think we need argue this. The NP policy changed from racial separation to racial intermingling as the Deputy Postmaster General put it in a letter to his officials. [Interjections.]

If a party changes its policy, it has also changed its principles. There is an organic, direct connection between policy and principle. A party cannot have the same set of principles and move in the direction of racial separation for some decades and subsequently move in the direction of racial integration with the same set of principles for the next few decades. This would be absolute nonsense. As emerges from its change of policy, NP principles have also changed and, if a party changes its principles, that party is no longer the party it was. [Interjections.] That is not all. A political party can make of itself what it wishes but, if it changes its principles, it has broken its contract with the electorate.

When one enters public life, one enters on a set of principles and, while one stands by that set of principles, the public can understand and appreciate and trust one. If one changes one’s principles, however, one should retire from public life because one has then broken one’s only contract with the electorate. [Interjections.] That is why the voters are repudiating the NP. [Interjections.] They will spit the NP out of their mouths! That is what they will do. [Interjections.] The NP has broken its contract with the voters of South Africa.

That hon Minister—we have known each other for years—said in August 1982 at the Natal NP congress that, if Black people became part of the envisaged new constitutional dispensation, South Africa would be destroyed—“Schluss”!—because, the hon the Minister said, the protection of minorities would then disappear. The report continued that this hon Minister produced a tour de force at that congress. [Interjections.] I think he requires a tour de force here today. He has to come up with a tour de force here today but is unable to produce it. He wants a second session because he is struggling to get into his stride.

I now ask the hon the Minister: If it was his honest and considered opinion in August 1982 that bringing Black people into the envisaged new constitutional dispensation would destroy South Africa because the protection of minorities would disappear, what has led him to alter his standpoint within two and a half years? [Interjections.] Now he says it will not destroy South Africa and he is prepared to bring in the Blacks now. The fact that it took the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid 17 years to repudiate Dr Verwoerd at least testifies to a decent effort but that this hon Minister should deviate from such a fundamental statement within two and a half years sounds like reckless irresponsibility. He is playing with South Africa, he is playing with the Blacks and he is playing with his own political career. [Interjections.] That is why a great crisis and a great disaster in South African politics are awaiting that hon Minister.

The State President said South Africa was not a White man’s country. This hon Minister went even further and said there had never been a White South Africa. I therefore ask: What was the Republic of the Orange Free State? What was the Republic of the Transvaal? What was South Africa over many years under Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd and obviously also under Gen Hertzog? [Interjections.] Not one of those people intended that only Whites should live in White South Africa. They intended White South Africa to be a country in which only the Whites would have political power and authority in their hands. [Interjections.] That is what they intended! The hon the Minister is therefore …

Order! There are too many hon members who feel called upon to reply to the hon member for Sasolburg’s questions. The hon member may proceed.

Yes, it is hurting them, Mr Chairman! They are howling.

Consequently I wish to repeat to the hon the Minister today that the policy of the HNP, the CP, Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd and the policy of Gen Hertzog was for many years that the White man should have all the political power in his part of South Africa and that the situation would develop in time that the Black peoples and the Coloureds would ultimately have all the political power in a part of South Africa—in a homeland or a fatherland.

What about the Indians?

I have already said the HNP and the CP differ on the Indians. You are not scoring any point off us on that. [Interjections.]

The State President recently said we had previously occupied ourselves with folly in trying to carry out the policy of apartheid. He said Post Office apartheid in particular was folly. Now I ask the hon the Minister whether that clever man, Dr Verwoerd, was occupying himself with folly over all the years when he spoke of a “White South Africa”. Was that clever man who was murdered in this Chamber—just next to the hon the Minister over there—involved in folly because of the policy he advocated for South Africa? No, he was not involved in folly.

Now the hon the Minister says—the Cape Times quoted him very beautifully—he rejects any form of discrimination. Now we are faced with a very interesting situation. Is this hon Minister, like the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, also in favour of a Black being able to become the State President of South Africa? The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said so and we said that, if one examined it closely, one would see the State President had not repudiated him. Now the hon member Dr Vilonel comes—look at him nodding his head—and says according to Die Transvaler of 6 May 1986:

The caption to the report on what the hon member Dr Vilonel had said was “Swart President vir SA … PW het nie gesê dis on-moontlik.” [Interjections.]

Now we have reached the crux of the entire debate. The Opposition parties, the Press, South Africa and the entire world are waiting to see whether the hon the Minister has the inner conviction, the honesty and the courage to rise here today and say the hon member Dr Vilonel is correct and, as the hon member is correct, he has opened the way to the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister is safe in also adopting a standpoint on the matter—even if it is a personal opinion—and he can declare together with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he has to open the way to a Black State President in South Africa as he does not wish to discriminate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Sasolburg’s speech. This hon member and his party are soiling the political atmosphere in which the Government is seeking solutions to the problems of South Africa in a peaceful way. I should like that to suffice for the time being as I shall revert to the hon member for Sasolburg’s speech later.

I should like to confine myself to the practical implementation of what we are doing in the reform process. The Government has placed itself irrevocably on the way of reform in South Africa. I looked at the 1961 Constitution and it is true that section 83 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa was retained in the Constitution of 1983 in order to provide the opportunity for middle-tier Government to continue until new structures were brought into being for second-tier Government.

I see certain practical problems in this and I should like to put forward the thought today that a manifesto or a constitution will be created. I prefer the word “manifesto”. This will be a manifesto for middle-tier or second-tier Government as well as a manifesto for third-tier Government in South Africa.

I examined the ordinances recently passed in our various provinces and should like to refer to only one. In terms of the Constitution of 1961, the State President delegated certain powers to the Administrator and Executive Committee of a province. I wish to refer specifically to the Shop Hours Ordinance.

This ordinance was amended in the Transvaal as regards the sale of certain merchandise and that presents me with no difficulties. The Transvaal kept to the provision that only limited trade would be permitted within the province on Sundays.

I also examined the position in Natal. It is interesting to note that in the first ordinance inscribed in the Statute Book of the province of Natal—this was in the past century—it was clearly stated that there would be no trading on a Sunday. In terms of the ordinance which became operative recently on 1 May, section 34 of the Shop Hours Ordinance is deleted as a whole in Natal. Trading may be carried on in Natal for seven days a week and 24 hours a day.

It is our heavy responsibility as a Christian people to honour the day of rest in this country and also to protect it. I am giving reasons why a clear manifesto should be created for the provincial level of government. A congress of the Cape Province Municipal Association recently took place in George. The city of East London placed an item on the agenda requesting that limited trading be permitted on Sundays. There was a request for hardware shops to be open from 09h00 to 13h00 on Sunday mornings. More than 200 local authorities were present at that congress and I wish to express my appreciation to them that they rejected the East London request. It was unacceptable to them and I pay tribute to them for the decision they took.

I should like to speak on how urbanisation affects the local level. Urbanisation is a worldwide phenomenon taking place with increasing rapidity and intensity. The 20th century is already being described as the century of urbanisation. In 1950 28,95% of the total world population lived in cities and towns. Indications are that 51,29% of the total world population will be living in cities and towns by the year 2000.

If we view demographic tendencies in South Africa as well as the increasing process of urbanisation, we see that 95% of the total population of the RSA will be living in cities and towns in the year 2050. Consequently I find it so important that we address the aspect of third-tier Government in South Africa.

I wish to indicate certain stumbling blocks because we are to have municipal elections throughout the country in 1988 and we have to ensure that the political atmosphere is not muddied by political vultures who are going to enter the lists and disadvantage our communities in this way. I wish to illustrate a few of those stumbling blocks.

I want to refer to a report which appeared in the daily Press according to which a proposal had been made by the City Council of Krugersdorp indicating that there was division. I also wish to refer to an item on the agenda of the Pretoria City Council. When it was discussed, the rightist groups walked out. [Interjections.]

In this respect I shall refer to the HNP. The HNP leader in the Pretoria City Council, Dr Piet Barnard, objected shortly before leaving the council chamber to the so-called ignoring of a democratic right. The CPs also walked out and said their problem was that the White was being deprived of the right of self-determination. [Interjections.] According to a pamphlet issued by the HNP, this party will no longer fight with crosses but preferably with bullets. The leader of the HNP appealed to his people to prepare themselves by arming themselves.

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

I am not replying to any questions because my time is limited. The hon member for Sasolburg had better remain in his seat. [Interjections.]

According to a report in Die Burger of 27 February, the HNP man wanted to throw the Brown people out. They are hampering the Government’s task by this. The hon member for Sasolburg as the HNP mouthpiece in the Committee, with the CPs as his fellow travellers, is digging not only the political grave of the Afrikaner but of the White of South Africa. [Interjections.]

That is your opinion. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon member for Pietersburg the political corpse about the neck of the CP is the AWB and its party.

You cannot wait to show a white flag!

We always tell it straight!

I should like to refer to another matter. A report appeared this morning in Die Burger according to which the Durban City Council had taken a decision that it wanted to approach the hon the Minister to grant a local authority the right to be able to decide on mixed residential areas within its area of jurisdiction. [Interjections.] A manifesto is required. We should state these matters explicitly to our people at the local level as well.

That is just rather hasty.

I want to discuss another aspect briefly.

Order! I regret that the hon member will not be able to discuss that aspect as his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I want to say at once that I greatly appreciate the seriousness with which this debate is being conducted, and with which it should be conducted, because one thing remains true, namely that we cannot escape from the reality of South Africa. That is why in my opinion it is essential for us to examine that reality.

I also want to observe that all hon members in the Houses and many people not represented in the Houses, are also wrestling with the problem which is part of our reality. I really want to tell hon members in all earnestness that the fact that we disagree with one another is part of the political process, but the way in which we disagree is going to determine the country’s future.

I have great appreciation—I should like to express this publicly—for the restrained and balanced participation of the hon member Prof Olivier. He and I disagree on many matters fundamentally, but I think we all owe one another one thing, namely that we must accept one another’s bona fides, because if we do not succeed in accepting one another’s good faith and good intentions in this Committee, there is absolutely no possibility of our succeeding collectively in convincing other people to accept the bona fides of people in these systems.

If we do not succeed in this, no formula will help, because it remains a fact that we cannot simply talk about reform. When we talk about reform, we must also realise that we are in the process of creating a climate which is conducive to reform. I should like to talk to hon members about this.

We may score a few political points off one another, and we may even score a few political points for our own parties, but that is not going to be the test. When we have finished this debate, the test is going to be whether we scored points for an attitude in South Africa which will help to keep it on the road to peace, stability and development. We must all apply that test to ourselves.

The hon member Prof Olivier stated certain fundamental standpoints on behalf of his party, and I should now like to refer to a few of them. I shall discuss them more fully on another occasion. In the first place, in his discussion of the restrictions and the possibilities of negotiated solutions, the hon member made certain statements which I thought required critical analysis and which in my opinion could quite possibly gain support.

The hon member said that there were militant organisations which did not want to negotiate because they did not believe in the division and the sharing of power, but believed in a violent takeover. The hon member is indicating that he said that. There is only one inevitable inference which can be drawn from such a statement—I want to endorse this—namely that they cannot be partners in the discussion on future constitutional development. They cannot be part of that discussion. Whether they are members of one organisation or another, they are excluded from the negotiation process. I want to welcome the hon member’s unequivocal standpoint on that. In all fairness this gives us new insight into where that hon member’s party stands. I am not saying this reproachfully and I hope he accepts it in the spirit in which I said it.

There is a second important standpoint which the hon member stated and because he is his party’s main speaker on the topic today, I assume that he spoke with the authority and the support of his party. This is a critical aspect which we must discuss with one another, namely that all constitutional development which is acceptable to the party which the hon member represents in this debate, must come through this Parliament as the vehicle for the widening of the democracy.

It is true—once again no reproach must be read into what I am saying—that there were people who despaired of the ability of this Parliament to be the instrument for constitutional reform. That is why Parliament misses such members in their ranks. Consequently I am delighted that there is consensus among all parties in this Committee regarding the fact that one cannot negotiate with perpetrators of violence.

Mr Chairman, if I may proceed, I want to comment on a few more statements made by the hon member Prof Olivier. I think they should already receive attention at this early stage of the debate.

I welcome the hon member’s statement that he—as I and others also are—was sick and tired of people who were constantly making accusations implying that no reform of any real and material magnitude had taken place in the country. In my opinion this is clearly in line with what we should actually be doing in this Committee, namely that in spite of the fact that criticism is being expressed, recognition should be given for progress being made in this regard. The hon member discussed the negotiation process inter alia, and threw light on certain restrictive elements.

He began by saying that there was a lack of confidence in the Government. He said this placed a tremendous task on the shoulders of the Government. I have no intention of arguing about the Government’s responsibility in this regard. Of course it is the Government which controls the instruments in Parliament. Of course it is the Government which is consequently able to convert its initiatives into actions, including statutory action. But it is not the responsibility of the Government only to inspire confidence in the people outside regarding our intentions. It is not only the Government and Government speakers who over the years have disparaged the bona fides of the Government and specifically the Whites, among the Blacks, Coloureds and Asians.

Consequently although I agree with the hon member’s argument that the Government has a responsibility, I want to add that all of us in this Committee have a responsibility, in the first place, to help to inspire confidence in what we are doing here in the Black, Coloured, Asian and White communities.

I want to give the hon member an example. I do not intend this as a reproach, but when we fought the referendum outside, one of the arguments was the fact that we were excluding or wanted to exclude the Black communities from the political process.

Precisely!

I do not want us to quarrel about that, but because of this people other than the Government aroused a feeling in the Black communities that they were being rejected.

Let us look at the division in standpoints in this specific regard. The hon member for Sasolburg and the hon member for Kuruman are using an old trick which is very well-known in politics, but which I do not think we can afford any longer, namely to quote other people selectively. I just want these facts placed on record, and then I shall have dealt with the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon member for Kuruman.

What happened in the process proceeding the referendum? What happened during the debate on the Constitution Act of 1983? What really happened at the congresses? Let us look at the facts. I said the following at the Natal congress …

In 1982?

In this case it was the 1982 congress from which the hon member tried to quote selectively.

1982?

Yes, that is after all what the hon member quoted! I said:

I want to reiterate today that no group has the sole right to political power in this country. I went on to say:

After all, I did not argue at that congress, as those hon members sought to imply, that Black communities did not have the right to participate in political systems outside the national states and outside the self-governing states. [Interjections.]

I am continuing to quote—not selectively, but the real facts—as follows:

The following point is important—

But there is, after all, a difference between the argument that they must be included in a political system and the argument that they must be included in a specific system. [Interjections.] Give me a chance, I shall get to that.

But I went on to say that we would then not be making provision for the protection of minorities. Is that not precisely the same argument which the hon members of the CP advanced, namely that if one had a fourth chamber which was approximately proportional, one would then destroy minority rights? All I want to say is that when we conduct a debate, we must try as far as possible to stick to the facts. [Interjections.]

With regard to what I said in my introductory speech to the second reading debate on the Constitution Act of 1983, my precise words were that this was not a final blueprint to solve all our constitutional problems. I want to reiterate this today. Parliament as it is constituted at the moment, is not the final blueprint for the constitutional dispensation of South Africa for any of us in this Committee.

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

No, not now, please.

I went on to say, and I want to repeat that statement today:

I also said the following, just prior to the referendum:

This means a solution which does not make provision for protection of minorities—

That is why I am being quoted in an underhand way. All I am asking is that we must stop this because it gets us nowhere.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister now?

No, please, I am busy now. The hon member must ask me a question later. [Interjections.] I should like to proceed.

The hon member Prof Olivier said that the matter of group participation advocated by the Government was in his opinion a severe impediment. This has certain implications, for example, that the hon member is consequently not advocating a system of group participation. I am merely analysing what he said. He understands what I am doing.

The hon member went on to say that we had given a misrepresentation of what the PFP’s policy implied. He said that we had proclaimed a standpoint that it was the point of departure of the Official Opposition that there would be a Black majority government. He said that was not true. But the hon member must not charge me with that. The hon member for Houghton said that it was an inevitable result of the policy of the PFP that there would be such a majority government.

She did not say that.

Please! I really do not want to quarrel with the hon member. [Interjections.] Please! Let us not do that. I did not do that to the hon member.

The fact is, when the hon member says— and he has every right to do so—that the country’s problems must be solved on the basis of a non-group definition and a non-racial federal system, on the basis of the individual, this would after all mean that in every component of the federal system—no matter how one demarcated them—there would be a White minority.

I do not find myself in bad company if I want to use the group basis of society as an important building block in the future policy of the country. As a matter of fact I want to quote to the hon member what Chief Minister Buthelezi said in this connection:

He is referring to the Constitution under which we are functioning at the moment—

He goes on to say:

What he then says, is definitely relevant:

He quotes the specific clause—

He does not talk of group politics.

Whether we like it or not, the policy will have to reflect the composition of society. That is why it remains a fact that our political philosophy and standpoint in South Africa is dictated by our view of society.

I now want to get to a general introduction before I address hon members individually. I want to say at once that there is an important point of consensus among all hon members in the Committee, to which the hon member for Benoni referred very pertinently and emphatically. I should like to draw the attention of hon members to this, because it is of cardinal importance in our debate. It is also essential if our debate is to succeed in bringing about greater consensus between us. Greater consensus between White political parties and White communities is a prerequisite for progress on the road to democracy.

You will not get it!

The hon member says we will not get it. If his prophetic remark were true, this would mean that we should understand that the possibilities of achieving democratic solutions were becoming fewer and not greater in number. All of us …

I hope you are going to say that to the Whites.

I did not say only the Whites; I said the Whites too, because they control the organisations, after all. Does the hon member not understand Afrikaans? [Interjections.]

Let us please see if we cannot find common ground with regard to a few of these matters.

That is not going to be easy.

Sir, it is even going to be possible for the hon member for Sasolburg, because he also has his lighter moments! [Interjections.] All of us in this Committee are committed to change. This is an important point of departure for us in our search for a dispensation which can meet the requirements of our society and the requirements of our convictions. Admittedly each of the political parties represented here propagates a new dispensation from their own view of society and their own political convictions. None of us wants the status quo, once again for different reasons, once again for different motives and once again with different objectives. At least we have this in common.

Nevertheless, I want to accept that we have something else in common, and that is that we all share the view that all the citizens of a state are entitled to participate in the political processes. Once again we want to achieve this in different ways. Many of us have simple and oversimplified solutions for this, but the fact is that we want them all to participate in the political process.

Not in the same process.

I did not say in the same one. I am not talking about the method; I am talking about the principle.

By implication the hon member’s remark indicated that he also believed that all citizens had to have a share in it, only not in the same process. Consequently I include him in the ranks of those who want to allow all citizens to participate in the political process. [Interjections.] Consequently what we are and will be discussing this afternoon, and in the days ahead, does not, like the debates of yesterday and the day before yesterday, concern the necessity for or the desirability of a new constitutional dispensation. It concerns something else. It concerns the content of those changes. It concerns the purpose of the changes and it concerns the way in which we are going to give practical stature to a standpoint on which we have consensus, namely participation for everyone. This is extremely important progress on the road to creating a climate for a new policy for South Africa.

I also want to state the following point, and I am convinced that we will agree on this. Reform is a multiple process which addresses every sphere of life of all communities. That is why reform cannot only take place in the constitutional sphere, and consequently, because it is a multiple process, it must also address all spheres of life if it is to be effective and if it is to serve and not destroy the requirements for stability. For that reason hon members will also grant me the following point. If the hon member for Sasolburg listens attentively, he will also understand that we are dealing here with a multiple process which must be implemented in a properly planned, integrated and co-ordinated way in the interests of everyone.

I now get back to the statements on my own department, and in this connection I want to remark that the composition of my own department and ministry to a great extent reflects the fact that it is also responsible for this multiple or multidimensional reform process. Let us not try to score points off one another, because no Minister determines the size of his own department or ministry. This is determined for him by the head of State. [Interjections.]

Let us see what is happening now. The fact is that from now on this department is also to a great extent going to represent the transitional stage in the allocation of functions and responsibilities to all levels and institutions. Consequently the entire matter of the management of reform is an essential task and responsibility of this department. Today I also want to say publicly that the more we succeed in bringing about a devolution of power to communities in this country, the more we are going to succeed in bringing about stability in our country. [Interjections.]

The first responsibility of this department is consequently the general macro-constitutional development of our country. In the second place this department is responsible for the planning, the co-ordination and the implementing of the physical development of South Africa, on a regional basis too, and for the utilisation of the physical capabilities of the Republic to the benefit of all its people. In the third place this department, together with my other colleagues in their own departments, is responsible for the socio-economic development of the largest communities in the country, namely the Black communities.

Now I want to reiterate today that when it is argued that evils in Black communities and poverty and decay are the breeding ground for the enemy, I say that part of our strategy means that we will undertake socioeconomic upliftment work in order to remove that breeding ground. If South Africa is not prepared to pay for that in accordance with its financial capabilities, it pays for it in another form. Consequently our option lies in the form in which we pay, and not in whether or not we pay.

Because of the nature of the responsibilities of this department—viz its overall reform responsibility—it must show understanding for the multiplicity of the reform process. But at the same time it must also be reform-orientated as a department. In this department there is no place for officials who are not reform-orientated. I should like to say this publicly.

Is that a threat?

No, it is not a threat at all. I am not a CP or an AWB. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman apparently lacks understanding. I have included him among the people who want reform because he does also want reform. After all he is also reform-orientated. Consequently, I do not know why he is so sensitive.

We are not integration-orientated, that is all! [Interjections.]

When we judge the Government’s reform initiatives—and it is the responsibility of hon members to judge it, and to criticise it too when they do not agree with it—we must apply specific standards. As a matter of fact it seems to me axiomatic that in judging the Government’s reform initiatives we will accept that reform and stability should go hand in hand. The hon member for Helderkruin, the hon member for Randfontein, the hon member Dr Odendaal, the hon member for Johannesburg West and other hon members emphasised this truth. But if possible I should like to provide a new perspective on this.

Reform succeeds only to the extent to which we succeed in bringing about greater stability in society. In the immediate shortterm there is as a matter of fact the danger of instability in times of reform. Of course this is the case. History teaches us this.

On the one hand there are people who offer resistance—and the hon member for Lichtenburg, who is sitting there laughing so heartily, will, when he looks in the mirror, know what a man looks like who offers resistance—because they fear reform. They do exist. There are really people who are afraid of reform. There are people who are afraid of the future. [Interjections.]

On the other hand it is, after all, also true that the expectations of people who must share in a new system, are usually higher and greater in number than the country’s ability to satisfy them. For that reason it is also true that in the short term during a programme of reform, there will be times of instability.

You are starting to look for excuses, not so?

The question is: What are we doing about this? Obviously the purpose of reform is to reduce and eliminate the potential for conflict—if possible of course. The entire purpose of reform, if we want to consider its essence, is after all to order and regulate society. Reform will succeed—I want to emphasise this today—if the system within which people must function, if the system which must regulate conflict, is maintained so that people can feel safe within that system. I cannot emphasise this point too strongly: The stabilisation of the system and the safeguarding of people within that system is a cardinal and critical element of any kind of reform for South Africa.

Reform will not succeed if people no longer want to be under the power of the lawful authorities, or can no longer function under the lawful authorities. Reform cannot succeed if people no longer want to be under the power of the lawful authorities, but recognise another power as the authority over them. This brings an important new element into the process. Reform is not going to succeed if alternative systems come into existence in the place of the lawful authorities, even in specific geographic areas.

This brings me to a second important responsibility with regard to the reform process as I interpret and see it. This is that the security component of the State has a responsibility—I am choosing my words carefully—to enforce the State’s authority visibly so that the reform process can be continued normally, so that the system which has been established by the process, can function visibly. [Interjections.]

I want to emphasise that I do not believe that violence is the answer to violence. With all due respect, it simply leads to further violence. But I am not implying that the State cannot use violence. If communities which seek peace do not find that the system within which the State wants them to function, and within which they themselves are prepared to function, is indeed seen to be functioning, the security forces of the State must create a situation within which this is in fact possible. Consequently, under certain circumstances including circumstances such as we are experiencing in South Africa now—we must have no illusions about this—use must be made of the power of the State to carry out specific coercive actions for the sake of reform. Consequently security operations are in the first place aimed and should be aimed at allowing the participation of those persons who want to participate in the State processes to take place. If this is not the objective, we are not succeeding in any case.

In this connection I want to emphasise that it is the Government’s standpoint that it is not and cannot be the aim of the security forces to take over state activities but that it is the responsibility of the security forces to create conditions within which other state activities can function properly in the social and political spheres. That is why I want to discuss the following questions.

With regard to violence I want to ask: Who welcomes violence? The people who do not want to allow the peaceful process of reform to succeed welcome violence. They not only welcome it but they do what the hon member Dr Odendaal said. They use intimidation to impose their will on people who want to seek peaceful solutions. It is after all the perpetrators of violence on both sides of the political spectrum who adopt this standpoint.

It is after all not possible to condemn the revolutionary powers of Marxism without also condemning the right-wing AWB, who propagate violence as a method. There can be no suggestion of that. [Interjections.] If we do not do that, we are flying in the face of what we want to achieve, namely the peaceful regulation of our fatherland. It is after all only their ideals which are nurtured by a lack of reform in South Africa, and a lack of reform serves as fuel for their own violent motives.

This brings me to the next matter to which all the hon members referred, and we must discuss it today. I intend to give my view based on South Africa as I see it today. I do not think that my view is the only correct one. It is probably just as limited as other people’s. But the fact remains that if we are going to succeed in creating a different atmosphere here from the one which has frequently prevailed during the session, we can confirm and widen the path to reform.

We are experiencing a phase of division and a phase of polarisation between groups but also within the same groups. From both sides greater emphasis is being placed in politics on the powers which divide us, and less emphasis on what binds us and what we have in common. Depending on our political philosophy there is an overemphasis of the interests of the community on the one hand or an overemphasis of the common concern on the other. Neither of these absolutist views is useful to the process of reform in South Africa.

This afternoon I want to emphasise another dimension. It is tragic that both the malicious persons and those persons who mean well are involved in this process. Consequently we and the people outside hear only one message, and that is the message of division, whereas we need another message for success. The one thing I am asking is that we must help to eliminate the misconception that the people of our country can never live together in peace. We must send out the message from this Committee that there are formulae and ways in which a diversity of people, like South Africa has, can live together in peace. A message must go out from this Committee that there are common values and systems that bind people together and not only systems that divide them.

But if such a message does not come from us, not only one group is going to suffer but everyone is going to suffer. I am asking that we get rid of the spirit of fatalism and defeatism, which causes people to ask whether they and their children still have a future in South Africa. Whether we have a future is going to depend on ourselves. Whether we have a future is going to be determined by whether our future is linked to the future of the other people who inhabit the same country we do. If the reply to this is no, we are not sending out the message I referred to. Then we ourselves become part of the message of fatalism and defeatism.

I want to point out that all the communities and people in South Africa share a common destiny which is a factor we can use in a positive way in our plans for South Africa. We can do this by pointing out what is common to the citizens of our country; the things which bind us together. Geography is such a factor.

But race is a greater factor!

Let us take race into account too; let us take both factors into account and not only one, as that hon member wants to do. That is what I am advocating. The hon member is catching up! But it is taking a long time.

After all we know in this country that everyone in South Africa is going to share the same destiny. What is going to happen to one group is going to happen to the other groups too. That is not my reality; it is a God-given reality, because he created this country and the people who live here.

Our responsibility is to see whether we can live with God’s reality. Let me admit that this is difficult. It is very difficult for all of us. The debate and the spirit in which some of us conduct it, proves how difficult it is for us to accept that reality. If we do not want to accept it, of course this does not mean that we can escape from it. Whoever governs the country, is going to be faced by precisely the same realities.

Not one community in South Africa can isolate itself completely from the other communities in South Africa. Not one of the communities or peoples in South Africa can make or implement its plans for South Africa in absolute isolation and in complete independence. There are many people who want to flee from this reality. I want to say one thing only: If one disintegrates, all disintegrate.

As I interpret our common destinies, it does not in the first place mean that we are like drowning persons in the ocean, watching one another for the sake of our own survival. It does not mean that we are adrift on an ocean and want to get rid of one another. Nor does it mean that we want to eradicate what we are. It does not mean that we suddenly want to become a non-racial society.

It means nothing!

It does mean that we can elevate the diversity so that communality is able to flow from it. [Interjections.] I am therefore asking with great respect, in spite of the fact that the hon member for … Where does he come from?

Greytown! [Interjections.]

I really wish he would stop that senile cackling of his now and give us the benefit of his thinking. It will be an experience to hear him speak after he has thought! [Interjections.]

It means that we have to rely upon one another for our survival. It requires us to stop wasting our energy on in-fighting between our communities, and that we try to develop the energies which we are able to combine further. I think they are such energies, and I shall make further reference to this later.

Naturally the acceptance of the reality of our common destinies simultaneously requires the acceptance of the fact that there are good and valid reasons for differences in values, traditions, customs and the levels of development of the community. I am not advocating that we should deny this; I am not asking that we eradicate this with a single stroke of the pen, and I am not saying that we can eliminate this by means of the insistence—and I want to emphasise this—on the universal acceptance of only one community’s values. One of the cardinal problems we are struggling with is the fact that many people think we can accept the set of values of only one community in South Africa. If that should be true, there are no solutions.

As I see it, our task also lies in building common and cohesive values on this diversity, in respect of the South African value system as well, which can become everyone’s possession.

I am not so naive as to think that we can establish such a collective value system in our country overnight, but what I am pleading for is something else, that we should in future build up a greater measure of collectivity of values. This is a prerequisite for solutions to our country’s problems.

Let us consider what the collective values are, and let us not dismiss them with a flood of rhetoric.

Eighty per cent of the population of this country are members of some Christian church or other.

Is that true, Louis?

Surely it is true.

They are still going to make war on one another.

While the principle of religious freedom is endorsed—I think—by all of us, the shared religion of such a vast majority therefore leads to a common bond.

Our people’s need to communicate, to co-operate and even to come together, emerges more strongly in the religious sphere than in any other sphere.

No, it is not true.

I concede the point to that hon member. He is not part of what I am talking about.

It is not true …

The ecumenical movement is receiving more and more attention in all our churches, and interdenominational meetings on a large as well as a modest scale are occurring ever more frequently. It seems to me that it is in these times in which we are now living—perhaps this is Divine Guidance—we are realising to an increasing extent that Christ is the principal binding factor which can make a decisive difference in our country.

This process is radiating outwards, and I believe today that the mobilisation of Christians can be a powerful factor for peace and reconciliation in our country. I have a growing belief that we in South Africa realise that this also has a horizontal dimension, from the one community to another.

Is it wrong to build on that communality or to seek our salvation in it? Do we think our human abilities alone are capable of solving the problems of our country?

Of course it is true that a process as fundamental as this also leads to the emphasis of other collective values, to the cultivation of new values. I can enumerate some of them.

I think I am right when I say that a South African consciousness is developing in this country. I think a South African patriotism is developing, and that more people are seeking it than there are those who wish to destroy it.

There are more people in our country who share the democratic ideal with others than there are people who wish to destroy it, and if we do not build on that, we are not going to succeed with our reforms.

Is it not a fact that we are trying to give new substance to our concepts of fairness, without reproaching one another in this regard? Are we not also giving new substance to the concept of human dignity and to the value of the individual and of the group?

When we say we wish to abolish discrimination we are not saying that we want to destroy the diversity, but we are saying that we want to give greater substance to the human dignity of all communities. We say that we want to give greater substance to a fair dispensation for them. As far as I am concerned, this is going to be my point of departure as long as I bear this responsibility. I am not making any apology to anyone for this. Is it not also true—let us leave aside the colour connotation for a moment—that there is much in the cultural sphere which the respective communities share with one another? Is there not much? No community in South Africa today can say that its language or its traditions or its customs are not influenced by the other communities in South Africa. Not one can say that. In this sphere too elements of communality are developing. Surely we can build our future on values such as those I have enumerated— and there are others—and surely we can look to that future with confidence.

With so many citizens who already share so many fundamental values with one another, surely there is no possibility of an inevitable, permanent divisiveness or lack of peace? Surely there is no possibility then of permanent unrest in our country. It is not true that South Africa, in spite of these binding factors, must inevitably disintegrate so that we destroy one another in a civil war; on the contrary, I think we have a major task to build on this foundation so that pessimism and a lack of confidence does not become part of our daily lives. Nor should it be part of the debates we conduct with one another. With this I am not saying that we should underestimate the horrors of violence and revolution, but I say let us use these factors as a counterinsurgency instrument, as my hon colleague said, against the forces of destruction.

We must build on these common values, and we must remember what the fiercest onslaught is directed at at the moment. Hon members could consider this. What is the main target of the forces of revolution? The target is our common values. One of the targets of the revolution is our common economic system. Other targets of the revolution are religious freedom, orderly political institutions and co-operation.

And discrimination.

That is why I want to remove it. We also like to refer to South Africa as a First and a Third World country. It is true, but is it not time we took a more penetrating look to see whether we cannot find common ground and synthesis between these two worlds? There is not going to be any political answer if we cannot succeed. If we cannot succeed in doing this, there is not going to be a democratic answer. In any event, we will not be able to build up a common system of values if we want the one’s system of values to be exclusively the other’s system of values as well. These are the premises on which I believe we can build in South Africa.

†In conclusion I want to say the following in this regard. I have faith in the people of this country. I have faith in their abilities, and I have faith in the potential greatness of South Africa. I have faith in the compassion of people, and I have faith in their faith. I have no doubt whatsoever that our people will be the determining factor in our eventual success. Therefore, I sincerely believe that the pessimism and the fatalism which we experience today as a result of our difficult problems, should make way for optimism and confidence.

*This is the basis on which my entire department is performing its task. Against this background and with these objectives in mind, practical expression is being given to those ideals and objectives. It is not final or complete. Later in my reply to questions, I shall refer to specific steps.

At this stage, however, I just want to refer by way of summary to the following points in this connection. There is a new local government system which is aimed at the participation of everyone and the development of all communities. Freedom of mobility has been granted to all South Africans with the decision to abolish influx control. There is a regional development system which is serving the remotest corners of this country, particularly in the economic sphere, and which is closely associated with a new strategy for planned urbanisation. There is a new approach to new economic co-operation, and co-operation in other spheres, between communities on an interregional and interstate basis which has already assumed a wide concrete form. There is a new dispensation on the central level, in which White, Coloured and Indian communities are participating in decision-making within our constitution. There is a new conception of citizenshipn which carries into effect the recognition of the fact of the South Africanship of Black communities. There is a new approach to the political accomodation of Black communities. We are working on the concretisation of structures to give shape to this. We are holding negotiations in this regard every day.

I want to conclude this part of my reply by reacting to a question put to me concerning the Eminent Persons Group. The hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Hillbrow asked me about this. First of all I just want to eliminate a few myths, if hon members will grant me the time. The first myth deals with the view that foreign pressure on South Africa is influencing internal constitutional reforms. I want to react to this view.

On the one hand there are those who turn to the outside world to exert pressure on the Government in order to effect policy adjustments in this country. I am not saying this reproachfully, but there are hon members in this House who do this. [Interjections.] Apparently these people have no confidence in the bona fides of this Government or in its commitment to reform or in the broadening of democracy. By means of disinvestment or sanctions, they hope to compel the Government to bring about certain specific changes and to comply with certain requirements. What such a standpoint amounts to is the perception that the Government is unwilling to carry through reforms and that the Government has to be compelled to do so by the outside world. The other extreme is that there are people who allege that the Government is caving in under foreign pressure. The hon member for Sasolburg is an exponent par excellence of this misrepresentation. It is in accordance with his historical political background, of which he admits we know a great deal. [Interjections.] According to him America calls the tune and South Africa jumps. Let me state this categorically now, by virtue of my responsibilities: The Government does not allow itself to be dictated to by the international community. The standpoints we subscribe to and the standpoints I am trying to make clear today, we subscribe to because the Government and I believe in them. If the voters wish to reject us on these grounds, they have every right to do so. By rejecting us, however, they will, believe me, not be doing away with the problems. They will only be trying to put more incompetent people in office, who will then have to deal with these matters. [Interjections.]

What we are doing, we are doing with conviction, and if it should elicit a positive reaction from the public at large, that is a bonus. However, that is not the motivation for the actions of the South African Government. In fact, I want to say at once that the opposite is true, because I do not believe that foreign pressure can help reform, but is frequently inhibitive of the rate of reform. I have also told this to foreigners.

You must tell it to Pik as well.

I told them what I said here. Big countries in the world must not underestimate the self respect of small countries. The day the world thinks it can destroy the self respect of small nations, it is not helping with reform, but is building up resistence.

When one considers the history of South Africa and Southern Africa it is an indisputable fact that foreign intervention was not conducive to resolving the situations in which those countries found themselves; on the contrary foreign intervention was the cause of the disorder prevailing in many African countries. However, we shall not accept political systems because of foreign intervention and pressure. We cannot accept what satisfies the outside world, for surely, with all due respect, there is not only one international opinion. Surely there is not one international objective for South Africa. What the Western World wants in terms of its definition, is surely not identical to what Moscow wants. If we were to listen to either of the two, however, we would end up in the same position in any case.

Marxism is unacceptable to us in South Africa, but the recipes put forward by the Western countries, are not applicable in our circumstances. The so-called Western solutions for South Africa are influenced by their perceptions and their own experiences. They find it easy to condemn South Africa in comparison with developing Western countries, and believe that the systems which are succeeding in those countries, may just as well be transferred to the body politic and the situation of South Africa. But South Africa contains elements of different worlds. A system which is going to succeed, will have to take this into account. We all concede this point to one another.

An essential feature of our society is the co-existence of the separate communities and groups. Any system which denies this and which does not take this into account, does not help South Africa. That is why the transplant of political systems based on that individualistic view of society alone, is not practicable in our country. I am not denying that South Africa is part of Africa. Nor am I denying that it is part of the world. After all, we are not an island, and to think that we can function in isolation from one another, is naïve and ill-considered. South Africa is part of the continent and cannot isolate itself from Africa. Equally we cannot ignore international thinking entirely, because it affects us. It affects us and we must therefore take it into account.

Countries are not only influenced by internal power struggles, but also by international power struggles, and frequently small countries, such as ours, are pawns in that power struggle. No one can deny that this is true of our country today. Interdependence and interinvolvement between states, is also a reality which we cannot deny. The role of the Commonwealth delegation to South Africa—the EPG—must be assessed in this light.

The stated objective of this group for its visit to South Africa was, as the State President said, firstly to acquaint itself of the facts and secondly, to establish whether it is able to promote dialogue. I spoke to the group on various occasions. Hon members will understand that I cannot of course, reveal what was said in confidence during those discussions. My standpoint was—it still applies today—that they are welcome to establish what the facts are, and that they are at liberty to influence people to participate in the dialogue process.

However, I want to make it clear—I have said this before that South Africans themselves will be the negotiators for solutions. It would be South African who decide about the agreements, and it will take place in South Africa. South Africa is not a candidate for a Lancaster House solution.

Hear, hear!

I come now to the hon member for Umbilo. He put certain pertinent questions to me about the second-tier system. The hon member will understand the spirit in which I say to him that I have listened very clearly to the moderation in his words. For the moment, I should like to say to the hon member that he will understand that the reconstruction of the second tier of government has necessitated a long and tedious process of negotiation. I am however, prepared to give the hon member full particulars of the proposed new system on Monday. I can also say at this stage that legislation will be introduced during this session to give effect to the Government’s policies in this regard.

Mr Chairman, we have listened at length and with interest to the hon the Minister. I should like to reply, in the very limited time I have, to certain of the points which he raised.

I start with the very last point he made. I do not think he will find anybody in this party who will disagree with him that the solution to South Africa’s problems will have to be found by South Africans for South Africans. We shall not be able to ignore the possibilities and suggestions advanced by others but the solution will have to be ours.

I also think that nobody on these benches will disagree with the hon the Minister with regard to the fact that the defeatism, pessimism and fatalism which one finds in South Africa from time to time should be countered. We do believe that there is a future for all of us, and for all our children too, in this country.

I should like now to turn to the hon the Minister’s remarks on diversity and commonality. Here again, I think he touched on a theme where we would echo certain of his words. We agree that there is both diversity and commonality in this country. We echo the words of the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins: “Glory be to God for dappled things”, for things that are different. We are not the same—we acknowledge that.

However—and this is where we differ—we believe that the NP has built that diversity or separatism into a system of government. The problem is that many of the 80% of Christians to whom the hon the Minister referred as a possible binding factor would echo the words of Lord Castlereagh in the 19th century when he spoke about the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. He described it as being the “negation of God erected into a system of government”. That is how many Christians see the NP, as the governing party of this country and, unfortunately, it is bound to be because of its insistence on racial group factors as being the be-all and end-all in the political system.

It is therefore no use just saying we must not overemphasise diversity or commonality. What the NP has to realise is that it is not speaking the same language as the people of South Africa outside of this Chamber.

I should like to turn now to the remarks of the hon the Minister before lunch on the whole question of negotiation, on the question of “magsdeling en magsoorname”. In this regard I repeat the words of the hon member Prof Olivier when he said, “Niemand van ons is daarin geїnteresseerd om oor magsoorname te onderhandel nie.” I echo those words, but that does not mean that we do not believe it is very important that all who can, be invited to come to discuss powersharing. That is where we stand. Even the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba invited the ANC, they invited the PAC. They invited them to come and discuss a regional future for that area. We cannot act like ostriches. Organisations will come to the table who choose to come. We are going to have organisations around the table we do not like, but we must be able to discuss the matter of power-sharing, not the transfer of power. That is the point the hon member Prof Olivier was also making.

I come fourthly to the point regarding the State security forces having to be seen to function. The key problem is the problem that we echo constantly—and it is echoed by the hon member for Houghton, among others—that the security forces are not being seen as helping the situation of reform in this country. They are not being seen as aiding people being brought to the table. They are seen to be bringing confrontation, and being publicly seen, and being seen on every newspaper and on every television screen as doing that. What we have to arrive at—and this is the hon the Minister’s responsibility through his Cabinet and his Cabinet colleagues—is the situation where the security forces are perceived by the people as supporting those who wish to come to powersharing, not power-sharing on the basis of racial separation.

My time is extremely limited and I would like now to turn very briefly to one or two matters that I trust the hon the Minister will discuss on Monday. He said he would discuss the provincial system. I would like just quickly to refer to the Budget. There is a drop of R1,7 billion in provincial subsidies, mostly education money. I can understand that, but what I do not understand is why the Transvaal drops 41% but Natal only drops 22%. We are happy to have been left the money, but I do not understand how that comes about. The hon the Minister must also refer to the question of property rights. We talked on and on last year about freehold. We still have not seen it publicly carried through.

The Bill is coming.

The old story! So is Christmas, I am afraid.

It will be introduced this session.

In January 1985, 18 months ago, that was referred to. However, I leave it at that.

As far as citizenship is concerned I understand legislation is also coming. What is the future of the development boards? I understand they are going to be phased out and their powers taken over by the provincial functionaries. Can the hon the Minister justify why he retains control of Black welfare services? Surely this is a matter for the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. I am quite happy to give it to him. At least he will carry out some executive functions then, but I do not believe that the right place to leave it is among the constitutional aspects.

Lastly, there is the whole matter of the White Paper on Urbanisation. I want to touch on this in the last few seconds available to me. The recommendations in the urbanisation White Paper rest on four key aspects—enough land being made available, not only by the hon the Minister but by local authorities; a positive provision of housing; employment being provided; and lastly and most importantly, a positive and successful apparatus for the implementation of urbanisation. Here again, are we not looking at the possibility of a separate section or even a separate department to look at urbanisation per se as a function of this Government?

Mr Chairman, I believe that all hon members are agreed that the great challenge, the great task, facing not only the Government, but each and every political party in the constitutional field in South Africa is that of broadening the democratic base in such a way that all South Africans can have a significant and effective share or say in the decision-making processes that will most closely affect their existence in this country.

This broadening of the democratic base must however, in order to be meaningful, take place in an evolutionary manner—not a revolutionary one—or else it will be altogether counterproductive, it must also take place in conjunction with the maintenance of orderly government and the maintenance of law and order.

Apart from these overall requirements however, the plural nature of the South African population setup also imposes further parameters within which the broadening of the democratic base must take place. In other words, it must take place in such a way that the right to self-determination of every population group, in relation to those matters of interest to that group alone—the own affairs of that group—is not encroached upon. It must also take place in such a way that it does not lead to one group or combination of groups dominating another group or combination of groups.

That the Government has already made significant strides towards achieving this goal cannot be denied. The hon member Prof Olivier, in all fairness, conceded as much to us this morning. As far as the Whites, Coloureds and Indians are concerned, this tricameral Parliament is already giving expression to the required joint say in matters of common concern, and also the required self-determination when it comes to own affairs. Further steps to give more substance to the right to self-determination and the joint say of the relevant three population groups are, amongst others, the policy of the devolution of authority, regional development and the establishment of regional services councils.

This dispensation and the existing structures do not, however, offer the solution to the question of the joint say and self-determination of the Black people—amongst other things because it did not and does not aim to do so.

Constitutional development, however, is not a one-off action or step that is taken, but a continuous process. Important steps have already been taken or proposed in order to give substance to the Government’s declared policy that Black people should also have a joint say in matters of common concern at the highest tier of government, for example multilateral co-operation between the Republic of South Africa and the Black States, the proposed statutory council, the acknowledgement of South African citizenship for Black people inside and outside the Black national States and even the TBVC States. There is also the lifting of influx control and the proposed regional services councils.

There is no doubt that the Government’s efforts to find an acceptable solution—that is to say a solution that is also acceptable to the White voters of this country—to the question of the constitutional accommodation of the Black people are being seriously hampered by, amongst other things, those radical demands from both Whites and Blacks which simply cannot be met. These unrealistic radical demands merely serve to create expectations and engender frustration in the hearts of people. The Government’s efforts are being further hampered by the unrealistic argument we have again heard today from the ranks of hon members of the Official Opposition, ie that the Government’s constitutional proposals or measures are meaningless because they are based on the recognition of groups. They are being hampered even further by the fact that the Government’s constitutional proposals in regard to Black people are dismissed as being cosmetic and unsubstantial. Such comments merely serve to cast suspicion on the Government’s honest intentions and best efforts amongst those affected by them.

The fact of the matter is that no acceptable or meaningful solution to the question of the constitutional accommodation of the Black people can be found if such a solution negates ethnicity. The history, not only of Europe, but also—and in particular—that of Africa, has clearly indicated, after all, that in the long run ethnicity simply cannot be ignored. Individuals may apparently and temporarily free themselves of their ethnic ties. Communities may group themselves on the basis of other considerations or interests. When the chips are down, however, ethnicity rises like a Phoenix from the ashes to stake its claim to the hearts and minds of people. Ethnicity has proven to be the strongest enduring cohesive factor, and no constitutional dispensation that does not bear this in mind can come into being or have any permanence in the RSA.

You are talking like a good CP, Helgard. [Interjections.]

Even those Black people who have allegedly cast off their ethnic ties must be accommodated constitutionally on a group basis—even if it is an own, non-ethnic group. [Interjections.] Such a group can, for example, geographically be established as a city state or interest group. To involve individual Black people as individuals, however, in the constitutional institutions of other ethnic groups would amount to a flagrant disregard of the right to self-determination of those groups. In the final analysis this must lead to confrontation and conflict when ethnicity enters the picture—as it unavoidably must.

The hon member Prof Olivier said, amongst other things, that his party’s policy was not based on Black majority government. Let me concede as much. The fact remains, however, that the implementation of PFP policy must inevitably lead to Black majority government; not because that is what they want—in fact I accept their bona fides— but merely because they would not be able to prevent it. [Interjections.] The moment one shares power with people in South Africa merely on an individual basis, without acknowledging their group context, this must inevitably lead to eventual Black majority government because of the numerical preponderance of Black people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege for me to speak after the hon member for Mossel Bay has spoken. He made a few very important points concerning the overall matter of politico-constitutional reform. He must please excuse me, however, if I do not react to that. I should like to speak about another matter which, I think, is as important within the overall reform movement. What I want to speak about is urbanisation and the White Paper tabled recently.

Firstly I want to pay tribute to my former colleagues in the President’s Council, and to Dr Dries Oosthuizen in the Constitutional Committee in particular. Their report has done credit to the proud tradition of the President’s Council. It is specifically the well-considered and balanced way in which they dealt with extremely sensitive matters that has given their report its outstanding quality.

Urbanisation is one of the most complex processes in the development of countries and peoples. In the South African context, with its racial and ethnic diversity, the highly developed and underdeveloped components of the population and the unique political and constitutional problems, urbanisation and the process of dealing with it is an even more sensitive matter than in most other parts of the world. Action, measures and strategies proposed or employed in South Africa to deal with the process of urbanisation are very easily given a racial and/or political connotation. It is also true, however, that ulterior political or constitutional motives or objectives can also very easily be concealed behind measures apparently designed to deal with the urbanisation process. If we want to be honest, we must acknowledge the fact that influx control measures are probably a classic example of this in the annals of South African history. I think that the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council has succeeded very well, under the guidance of Dr Oosthuizen, in making meaningful and even dramatic proposals, whilst the pitfalls of oversimplication on the one hand and political expediency on the other have been avoided. This can probably be ascribed to the incisive scientific approach adopted by the committee. It was also a privilege and an experience for me to have been a member of that committee during its investigation aimed at establishing an urbanisation strategy. It is my conviction that that committee of the President’s Council has helped to erect another key milestone on the road towards a new South Africa.

A product of that report and the Governments concomitant White Paper is the Abolition of Influx Control Bill that appeared on our desks today. This heralds a completely new phase in the development of South Africa. If we handle this matter correctly it can, in fact, be one of the most important developmental decisions of the past two or more decades in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that with the abolition of influx control the urbanisation processes of specifically the Black people in South Africa will be stripped of all negative political and/or constitutional connotations. In future it will be possible to harness the positive forces involved in the urbanisation process as important agents of development.

Let us have a look at a few of these positive forces. It is a fact that rural dwellers who have decided to come to the cities, the new urbanites, are the one’s with the most initiative. They are the modern pioneers.

Urbanisation also modernises the community. It brings about better educational opportunities and levelling off in population growth. We would also be living in a dreamworld, however, if we thought the abolition of influx control was a kind of magic formula that would solve all our problems. In fact, initially this is going to cause a goodly number of problems of its own. So one would have to learn to live with large informal settlements, or squatting, in and around our metropolitan areas. Whilst the deregulation and relaxation of some prescribed standards will have to be tackled so as to allow the informal or small business sector amongst the new urbanites to come into its own, it is also going to be difficult always to reconcile this with the needs and the interests of the formal sector. To attempt to block or delay the urbanisation process, however, would not work either, merely resulting in more serious distortions. In the more than 200 years during which influx control has been applied in South Africa it has not, in fact, succeeded. Nor has it succeeded elsewhere in the world—it is not unique to South Africa. It has not in any way really delayed the urbanisation process either.

So to attempt to proceed from the premise that one can delay the urbanisation process to any marked degree could even be dangerous. The stability of South Africa as a whole has the closest possible bearing on the way in which the flood of people to the cities will be controlled. To think that we can stop people, as has happened in the past, will result in a lack of proper planning for them in the cities, and that would lead to all kinds of shocking conditions.

I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the White Paper which has been tabled. It is very clearly an honest attempt to deal with present-day realities. What is even more important is the fact that we wish them everything of the best with the practical evolvement of the proposed strategies. The degree of success they are going to achieve will have a fundamental influence on the stability and prosperity of South Africa as a whole. Because the developments on the urbanisation front are going to have such a direct influence on the economic and social circumstances of most people in the country, as far as overall stability is concerned this is even more important than political or constitutional models. This does not mean that I am now saying that we can do the one whilst neglecting to do the other.

I also welcome the strong emphasis placed in this White Paper on the development of a substrategy for communication and co-ordination within the broader strategy. In the past certain measures were employed for purposes other than those of urbanisation, for which they were designed. Against this background I want to lodge an appeal for concerted attention to be given to a monitoring component within the context of the development of the urbanisation strategy. We must give serious consideration to allocating part of that monitoring element to the parliamentary structure so that one can consistently have a political input as far as the monitoring is concerned.

Mr Chairman, permit me to congratulate the hon member for Springs on a well-motivated speech. It is again characteristic of the NP’s thinking in this connection that we want to base the future, not on dreams, but on the facts relevant to our country. On 30 June this year we shall bid farewell to a system that has served us very well for 76 years, ie the system of provincial councils. It is a system that has made a major contribution to the development and the government of our country. It would possible be of interest to hon members to know that in these 76 years there have been 230 MPCs in the Orange Free State, 245 in Natal, 525 in the Cape Province, and in the Transvaal—it seems to me that the work there was dangerous work— 1 104 MPCs. Over a period of 76 years there has consequently been a total of 2 104 MPCs.

These people made a major contribution. The system produced some great men, but unfortunately time does not permit me to refer to them. I want to make use of the opportunity, however, to pay tribute to this core of provincial councillors who have served us so faithfully. I think the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will agree with me if I thank them and pay tribute to them for the way in which they have accepted the fact that they are disappearing from the political process in South Africa. It is characteristic of people who accept the seriousness of constitutional reform and who are prepared to make the relevant sacrifices.

I should also like to tell the provincial councillors that we as members of the House of Assembly really will miss them in our constituencies.

I hope we get their salaries!

At the national convention of 4 May 1908 there were two trends of thought that came to the fore, ie that of Union and that of a Federation. The proposal which served as a compromise, and which was adopted, was that of a Union with strong provincial autonomy.

I do not want to say much more about the history of the provincial councils, except to refer to a book by Gey van Pittius which was published in 1926 and in which MPCs expressed their dissatisfaction at their monthly salary of £10. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The future, however, lies ahead for us. With the disappearance of this system we shall have to put something in its place. The question is going to be the degree to which and the way in which we are going to succeed in accommodating Coloureds, Indians and Black people together with the Whites in second-tier government? Provincial councils cannot escape the reform process, and that was clearly apparent from the State President’s message at the congress on 30 June 1982. I do not want to elaborate on the guidelines furnished there, but I can sum it all up by saying that provincial boundaries would not be changed, that there would be devolution of power, that there would be a reallocation of functions and that there would consistently be consultation between first-tier and second-tier government.

Today I want to pay tribute and attest to the fact that the Government has kept its word in this regard and that there have been continuous negotiations with the executive authorities of the respective provinces.

Permit me to present a few ideas on a possible form of middle-tier government. Firstly I believe that second-tier government is indispensable. There has to be a form of middle-tier government because of the vast expanses in our country. I think that it should consist of an executive authority, which ought to be appointed by the central government.

Why not elected?

I suggest that the executive authority consist of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. [Interjections.]

State employees!

I also believe that there should be an administrator who should fulfil a political function. This political component should be backed up by a strong administration as a second leg. [Interjections.] It has also become clearly evident, from all the investigations that were carried out, and also in terms of the Government’s policy of own and general affairs, that this middle-tier government would only be able to deal with general affairs, but no administration is possible without political control.

I believe in the maximum devolution of authority and the maximum decentralisation of administration. This is a large country and there are even some of the provinces that are very large provinces. [Interjections.] That is why I want to lodge a plea today asking the hon the Minister, once this new system is in operation, to give very serious consideration to dividing the Cape into three regions as far as middle-tier Government is concerned, i.e. The Western Cape, the Northern Cape and the Eastern Cape. Our province is too large for the Cape to be the sole source of proper administration. I believe this applies equally to the Transvaal, but the Transvalers must decide about that for themselves.

Give the Northern Transvaal to Bothuthatswana! [Interjections.]

Natal we get back.

I want to lodge another plea, which I regard as being important, with the hon the Minister. Since we shall be dealing with general affairs by way of middle-tier Government, I want to advocate that in our future constitutional development—including the question of own affairs—we move towards middle-tier Government and that in this move towards middle-tier Government we also decentralise.

Why do you not want to hold elections for them.

If we are serious about bringing Government closer to the people, middle-tier government is the best way of doing so. [Interjections.] I see the function of a central government as being a policymaking and legislative one. It does not help telling a gentlemen in Koekenaap who is angry that he should go to Pretoria to see the Minister about subdivision or a problem in education. That is why I want to say that these executive committees, which are eventually to be appointed, will also be eminently suitable to deal with own affairs as political functionaries of the Minister of the central department. We cannot allow decentralisation from a central level without political control over that decentralised point. Such a decentralised point could then become a mere post office box since all decisions are taken either in Pretoria or in Cape Town. This delays sound administration. I want to ask that we give serious consideration to this with a view to bringing Government closer to the people.

The time has come to take leave of the provincial council system. Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in that system, do so with nostalgia, but I think that its time has run out and that the future holds greater challenges for us, including those in regard to middle-tier government.

Mr Chairman, the hon charming member for Parow bade provincial councils a stirring farewell here this afternoon. As he said, provincial councils worked very well for 76 years but as we stand here this afternoon we honestly do not know yet what is to take their place or how that middle-tier government will operate. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is regarded on all sides as the chief architect and driving force behind the plan for constitutional integration which is assuming form in our country—a country in which the greatest national aspirations of an Afrikaner people, its freedom in its own fatherland, are being undermined by that Government which is in the sixth year of its rule. Surely its moral right to rule lapsed on 29 April. [Interjections.] The people represented in this House of Assembly by the representatives sitting here no longer wish to listen to what the hon Government members have to tell them. They say the five years during which the Government could have spoken to the people are past. They say the voice of the people should first be allowed an opportunity of speaking out. [Interjections.]

The Government should hold an election; then it can speak to the people again as their representatives. They say the Government no longer has the moral right to speak. [Interjections.] I now hear the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs wants to address the people of the Northern Transvaal on 22 May but—hon members had better listen closely—the advertisement in the newspapers runs like this inter alia: “Right of admission reserved”. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister if he is to hold an “oeloe-oeloe” meeting or whether it is truly to be a public meeting. Does the public require a blue ticket or a multicoloured one to get in at the door? The only deduction one may make is that the Government no longer has the courage of a mouse to look the people in the eye and tell them openly: “In this way I shall force power-sharing with Black people on you and so reduce you to a mere minority group because my Government and I have the power to do so”—as the State President said in the advertisement. I should far rather have had the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning appear on the platform in Pietersburg and tell the people of Pietersburg to their faces …

I am coming.

I am pleased to hear that. I am very pleased. The hon the Minister should then rise and tell the people of Pietersburg: “You asked for the Black bank on the site it occupies today. You have it.” The hon the Minister should tell those people that they asked for a free trade area and that he has the proof of it in his hand. The people will get it. The hon the Minister should rise there and tell them they asked to have the only cinema in the town thrown open to all races and that this will be granted.

Does the hon the Minister not want to change places with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 22 May? It will be an exceptional experience for him to see the Whites of the Northern Transvaal applauding him for the free trade areas and the regional services councils. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister took strong exception to the fact that I supposedly alleged that the majority of the inhabitants and their local authority were not in favour of free trade areas. On 11 March he said the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 1857):

Incidentally, 24 May of this year is still to come! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister seems to me to be so busy in that huge department of his that he does not even have the time to correct his unrevised versions of Hansard.

During the same speech the hon member for Kuruman said by way of an interjection: “You are thrusting integration down our throats.” Surely that is precisely what is taking place; that is exactly what is happening today. The hon member for Kuruman is quite right. Even if the hon the Minister has a formal application from a CP city council in his hands—as he claims—I now say to the hon the Minister categorically that the city council did not have control of the principle of free trade areas nor was I present at that city council meeting—as the hon the Minister alleges. I was in Cape Town but I received the minutes of that city council meeting. According to the minutes of that meeting Councillor De Klerk said “dat hy net verwarring wat daar mag wees uit die weg wil ruim, naamlik dat die stadsraad net uitvoering gee aan die beleid wat van die Regering se kant af kom”. He said it was not a principle he supported but he had no choice and that applied to the majority of the city councillors of Pietersburg. [Interjections.]

Who is the liar now?

If this is not the position, the hon the Minister should tell me so that I may tell the city council that it does have the power to decide on this. Nevertheless I wish to state here emphatically this afternoon that, when the CP comes to power, these so-called free trade areas will be abolished. It is necessary to say this because people letting themselves in for this should know what they will have to do when the CP comes to power. One should judge the entire matter against the backdrop of a Press release the hon the Minister issued on 8 February last year. [Interjections.]

Order! There is far too much talking now.

On 8 February last year the hon the Minister issued a Press release. On 9 February the hon the Minister said the following in Beeid:

According to the statement the hon the Minister said the following:

Whether the local authority likes it or not, the hon member for Kuruman is right in saying it is being thrust down their throats.

Do hon members think this sounds as if a local authority or a local community has the choice of protecting its own living space? It is absolutely ridiculous! Now I wish to ask the hon the Minister to go and tell the people this story there himself and see whether they believe him. I am pleased to hear he is going to do so. The same situation applies regarding regional services councils. He should tell us now whether it will be possible for a local authority to express itself against regional services councils in principle and then to remain outside the jurisdiction of such councils. According to Press reports there are many local authorities which have already dissociated themselves from the principle of regional services councils. Local authorities, like Middelburg in the Transvaal …

That is not true! [Interjections.]

… Ventersdorp, Zeerust, Bloemfontein and so on, have already done so and, if Press reports are accurate, even the congress of the Cape Province Municipal Association did not reach unanimity on these matters. According to Die Burger of 14 April even someone like Dr Schlebusch—a former president of the association—expressed his reservations on regional services councils.

If I am interpreting section 5 of the Act correctly, no local authority has a choice. If the Demarcation Board has placed a local authority in the jurisdiction area of a regional services council, no local authority has a choice. That is my interpretation of section 5 and, if it is not so, the hon the Minister should inform us accordingly. Integration government is therefore being thrust down the throats of our people as the hon member for Kuruman aptly remarked. If it is not so, we and many local authorities should like to hear this from the hon the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that the NP is not afraid of holding meetings. [Interjections.] He can come to the meeting to be held by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Pietersburg; the hon Minister will deal with him there. [Interjections.]

We want to warn the CP, the HNP and the AWB not to break up meetings; we will hit back and we will hit back hard.

I want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg and the CP here today: Stop your misrepresentations; stop being a drag.

What misrepresentations have we made today? [Interjections.]

Stop breaking down and stop being frightened. Come and help us to bring about the necessary reforms in the interests of the future of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I have a different subject which is of more importance than splitting hairs with them. During one of the numerous discussions held by the Commission for Co-operation and Development with Black leaders, one of the Lebowa leaders rose and very seriously told us we should speak to one another because, if we did not talk, we would fight. Those are very wise words, especially in the times of tension and unrest we are currently experiencing. I want to go as far as saying that discussion across the colour bar is one of the most important instruments for defusing conflict and decreasing tension in the country today.

When I was appointed to the Senate in 1970, it was my pleasant duty to see to the interests of the Coloureds in the Free State. I travelled from town to town and held discussions with Coloured leaders, parents and children to see what their problems, complaints and grievances were. They poured their hearts out to me. They complained about closed doors, that Whites would not listen to their complaints and did not want to talk to them. They were unhappy and felt aggrieved about many matters. Other people and I helped to open doors to them and to get discussions going with city councils and other institutions as well as with individuals. Today there is very hearty dialogue between Whites and Coloureds in the Free State and a totally different climate prevails.

One of our greatest problems is that we live together in one country as separate communities but that we talk to one another so little that we practically live in isolation from one another. Because there is so little actual communication between the various population groups, there is also a serious lack of mutual understanding, respect and confidence. Lack of communication is undoubtedly one of the primary causes of the conflict and tension in our society. Because we communicate so little, we know each other badly, form incorrect impressions of one another and distrust reigns among us.

It is disturbing to find that there are Black and Brown children who hate the White. I grew up on a farm where my playmates were Black children—as probably also applied in the case of many of my contemporaries. We shared everything. When I received an orange, my Black friend received half. When we were naughty and a hiding followed, I was punished together with those Black children. Sometimes the Black foreman on the farm thrashed us all. Fine, permanent relations were built up between us in this way.

I am not asking for integration and intermingling which the CP and the HP fear so much. Nevertheless we shall have to break down the watertight compartments between Whites and Blacks so that we may reach each other and we as Whites convince other people of our good intentions.

Underlying the reform process is the realisation that South Africa is a country of various communities which have to work out a common future here together. [Interjections.] This means that there will have to be continuous dialogue between us in future; we can make no progress without this and cannot get the reform process into its stride.

Relations committees are doing very good work in stimulating dialogue between the various groups, in promoting co-operation and in creating a more relaxed climate. The approximately 200 relations committees which are already functioning have created discussion forums throughout the country and are playing a strong, positive role in improving relations and attitudes. Here and there good results have been achieved and fine attitudes built, which is something for which we are very grateful. Nevertheless a hard, almost impenetrable crust of distrust, prejudice, false images and ignorance remains among those of colour, especially the Blacks. This crust will have to be shattered.

I wish to make an earnest appeal to influential leaders in all spheres and to ordinary people—White and non-White—to join these relations committees in order to expand them and to assist in establishing more such committees. I wish to appeal to them to keep dialogue alive between White and Black in the interests of South Africa. Societies, organisations, discussion groups and individuals should come forward and assist in bringing about better liaison between White and non-White.

Each of us can play our part. When we drive up to a filling station, how many of us make a point of starting a conversation with the Black man working there? I heard about a man who spoke six Black languages. When he travelled, it was at filling stations in particular that he conducted the most delightful conversations with those people. They revered him, especially because he could speak their language. He really broke through to those people.

We shall have to make a determined effort to extend the relations movement. The walls of prejudice will have to be broken down rapidly if we wish to work out a future for all of us here. The hon leader of the CP is not present but I wish to congratulate him on his courageous step in visiting the King of the Zulus. Although one deduces from Press reports that the king taught them a lesson or two and perhaps reprimanded them, it was a very good move to go there from a relations point of view. [Interjections.]

Black leaders have a high opinion of the Afrikaner in general; they said as much to us as members of the commission on many occasions. Up to the present the political role of the CP has not promoted this good image of the Afrikaner among Black people. The opposition of people of colour is increasing against CP politics and its members will have to pay far more visits to Black leaders if they want to become credible. [Interjections.]

One is grateful that the new youth organisation, Jeugkrag, has been established in Pretoria. It is an organisation with very fine, realistic objectives; one of these is to bring about liaison with Black youth and, if there is one group in this country with which incisive dialogue should be conducted, it is Black youth—and we all know this. We cannot permit militants to take them in tow. We shall have to get through to these people very rapidly by means of communication. We want to request the CP not only to visit the King of the Zulus but also to conduct dialogue with these people.

We shall visit you too.

Just keep your radical politics away from them otherwise you will drive them away. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting the hon member for Bloemfontein North in his drubbing of the CP and associate myself with it.

Today we are debating here in the shadow of Table Mountain on the eve of a great battle. Tomorrow the endangered species Antidorcas Marsupialus takes the field and has to defend the honour of South Africa. We shall leave it in the hands of Naas and the Springboks to show what can be done tomorrow. [Interjections.] While we are discussing this, it is such a pity and I sympathise with hon members of the CP and the HNP that they will be unable to attend that show tomorrow in consequence of the short-sightedness of their party leadership. Those parties expressed themselves against mixed sport and it so happens that some Maoris from New Zealand are in the team and therefore the racially pure Afrikaners in these parties will not be able to attend tomorrow. Nevertheless hon members may rest assured that they will be able to hear the results tomorrow evening over the radio.

But preferably not see them.

Yes, the whited sepulchres.

I should like to express my appreciation to the hon member Prof Olivier for his balanced speech this morning. As a concerned South African who believes in the future of this country, I wish to tell him that that type of speech calls directly to the hearts of those people who are truly anxious about the future of South Africa. I should like to congratulate him on it. I shall similarly attempt not to enter the sphere of petty politics.

I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, their departments, Ministry and personnel for excellent service rendered under very difficult circumstances. Since I was elected to Parliament, hundreds of cases have landed on my desk of which a very large number are related to the department of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I have been able to do good work owing to the speedy replies and assistance I have received. I appreciate that and should like to convey my gratitude to the hon Minister mentioned, the hon the Deputy Minister and their staff.

No one who is sincere about the Republic of South Africa can deny today that our country is going through a very difficult time. To want to lay this at the door of reform will simply not wash. Sharpeville, under Dr Verwoerd, and the 1976 riots, under the late Advocate Vorster, refute this type of allegation. To lay it all at the door of apartheid is similarly unfounded. The communists and their front organisations are proof of that. It is true, however, that our country is experiencing grave times and that recriminations will consequently be of no assistance. The brilliant Welsh writer Dylan Thomas said, “When one burns bridges behind one, what a beautiful fire this causes!” This dare not happen in South Africa and, if it has happened and is still happening at this time, we as responsible people should guard against it. This Government and this hon Minister are committed to promoting human dignity and to seeing justice and equity done to every inhabitant and population group of our country. I think the great lessons of Sharpeville and the 1976 riots are based on the fact that one cannot sit back complacently when security forces have brought matters under control and then close one’s eyes to the causes of the problems for convenience’ sake. To stare blindly at the small minority of lawless troublemakers and their misdeeds in Black residential areas and to forget the aspirations to peace and safety of the majority would be an unforgivable mistake. To want to ignore just problems and grievances of Black people would be similarly inexcusable.

South Africa needs the maintenance of law and order to go hand in hand with reform. In fact, the hon the Minister has already referred to that. To think that a political dispensation can be maintained through violence is wrong; to believe that meaningful reform can be accomplished without law and order is also wrong. A good balance and sound sense are required. I am working toward creating better relations and channels of communication in Port Elizabeth; this is progressing but it is a difficult task, without a doubt. What creates further cause for concern, however, is the question whether all public servants understand the fundamental change in the Government view as regards Black people and the role of politicians.

I know the solution to our problem is in the political sphere and that the use of our security forces is only an aid to attaining our ideal and objective which is peace and prosperity for all in the Republic of South Africa. Consequently it is essential that responsible politicians and businessmen of all population groups assist the Government in our search for solutions. I pledge myself to that as the representative of Newton Park.

I now wish to return to the areas of Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage and Despatch in another sphere, however, which is that of the economy. I do not want to cry “Wolf! Wolf!” perpetually on the seriousness of our economic problems; we are aware that the Government has indicated its understanding of our situation as expressed by various hon Ministers. Regarding this I should like to associate myself with all my colleagues in that area and in particular with the hon member for Uitenhage in saying, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard of Thursday, 1 May 1986 (page SS.5):

Mr Chairman, I associate myself heartily with the words of the hon member for Uitenhage and hope the Government really appreciates the serious crisis in which we find ourselves.

Mr Theo Swart, managing director of the McCarthy group, says that, if the Government does not come to the aid of the South African motor industry by means of appreciable concessions in the tax on fringe benefits and general sales tax, this industry is heading for disaster. This is a cri de coeur that should be addressed urgently by the Government and I should like to request the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to take a personal interest in this matter.

The development and upgrading of Black residential areas in our vicinity is also of decisive importance. I am aware that the Government is eager to start on this; money is available for the electrification of the residential areas of Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. There is also money for the installation of sewerage in those areas and the construction of residential units. Housing is an urgent problem which demands immediate attention. While the hon member for Sasolburg is listening so attentively, I say to him we shall consider constructing a beach cottage for him in our area. [Interjections.]

In consequence of this I wish to make an urgent appeal today to interested parties and inhabitants of all Black residential areas to assist in ensuring unobstructed access to those areas to work teams and contractors. If the money cannot be used in our areas, it will be applied elsewhere—which would be a pity. No worker will enter a residential area if murder, killing and lawlessness are the order of the day so Black inhabitants should assist the department in their own interests.

I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to eliminate the usual red tape which attends such projects.

Sakkie, you are reading too fast.

I want to finish; my time is running out. [Interjections.]

The force of urbanisation should be put to use because it will be an enormous financial stimulus over the next number of years. As regards the recommendations of the RDAC, I wish to request the hon the Minister to give us the 5% preference on tenders and also to increase the transport subsidy from 40% to 60%. I also wish to ask the hon the Minister to assist us as regards the steel price. I leave it in his competent hands.

In conclusion, I should like to request the hon the Minister not to remove or even to reduce the subsidy of R25 million on electricity of which Port Elizabeth gets R16 million. Will the hon the Minister please put it at our disposal again for application in other spheres. It will not assist us if the Government proffers help with one hand only to take it away with the other.

I am grateful for having had this opportunity and I hope the hon leaders of the CP and the HNP will give their members time off tomorrow to join the rest of South Africa in seeing what happens at Newlands.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Newton Park. I realised too late that I had not been wise in preparing my speech as I did not compile a list of the needs of the people in my constituency. These requests seem to be made very effectively in the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote.

Your constituency is getting a new MP. [Interjections.]

I can assure the hon member for Jeppe that Jeppe will get a new MP because he is serving his notice. [Interjections.]

It is actually a pity that three hon members on the Government side spoke in succession because the Official Opposition and the CP did not put their time to effective use. Perhaps I may ascribe this to the fact that the hon the Minister entered the debate. Perhaps he would have done better to wait until late Monday or even Tuesday before entering the debate so that we could have pursued it even further.

I wish to state that leftist organisations and movements in South Africa act like this deliberately and with premeditation in order to establish Russian authority in Southern Africa as well. Rightist political parties and organisations—the AWB in particular—are unconsciously acting precisely as the communist wants them to do. In that way they are assisting the communists in establishing the authority of Russia in this part of the world too. Consequently I have no doubt that the AWB has already been infiltrated by the ANC and the Communist Party and that they are manipulating Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche and encouraging him to say what he is actually saying out there.

It is for this reason that the AWB and its supporters are also starting to regard the NP as their enemy. The AWB is appealing for the eradication of the enemy and then refers to the Nationalists in particular. In consequence it is not strange that last Tuesday—6 May—it happened in Carletonville that the AWB said the enemy had to be removed and the Nationalists shot. I should like to put a few questions to hon members of the CP. The hon member for Jeppe is listening attentively; perhaps he can ask his hon colleagues who still have to enter the debate to reply to this.

I wish to ask hon members of the CP whether they support this intention of the AWB.

The shooting?

Yes, the shooting.

No.

Is the hon member in favour of AWB members hurling petrol bombs at the homes of NP representatives or wanting to shoot NP representatives in this Committee and so eliminate them?

No.

Are hon members of the CP in favour of the professed intention of the AWB to act violently against any NP member?

No. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe is coming round now. I think he was an NP member for long enough to realise it would cause great problems if NP members were to return the fire or the blows. [Interjections.] Is the hon member for Jeppe a member of the AWB?

No. [Interjections.]

He is too far to the right for them.

Order! I wish to request the hon member for Losberg to debate in such a way that it is not necessary for the hon member for Jeppe to reply. [Interjections.]

There will be a continuous onslaught to weaken the Whites to such an extent that the communist can establish his authority in Southern Africa. It is typical of the communist method currently being applied in South Africa that confrontation is created between White and White. This is something we should avoid at all costs. As soon as Whites are sufficiently en feebled, the communist simply takes over and extends his authority. For that very reason we want the hon member for Jeppe on our side because where would we find a man better able to act aggressively than he!

No! No!

It is known that the great Russian people which comprises approximately 55% of the total population of the USSR controls about 200 ethnic minority groups. These ethnic groups are within the borders of the great state and they actually differ radically from one another. This gigantic state which covers more than one sixth of the entire surface of the earth and has more than 250 million inhabitants obviously experiences problems in being able to accommodate its people from time to time.

Most of the states bordering on the USSR were free after the Second World War but, in consequence of political and economic chaos—this is also caused in South Africa by the action of leftist and rightist groups—one after the other these countries fell into the hands of the Russians and were taken over by them. It is clear that these countries all form a buffer zone between Russia and the Western powers. If these countries were all incorporated with the USSR to form one territory, Russian communism would get a bad name among European communists and the Russians know that they have to avoid this at all costs.

More living space is required from time to time and that is why Russia places settlers in thinly populated areas to assist in reducing pressure in other areas in this way. Because the revolution is never really over according to communist doctrines, we see it continuing in Angola as well. After they became independent, there were three parties and, the moment the communists obtained control of one party, the Cubans and also Russians poured into Angola. It was clear that new land was available to them to reduce the population pressure and pave the way for a new satellite state.

We shall not escape the onslaught at constitutional level either. The ANC is under Russian control already; the rightist groups and in particular the AWB are being manipulated indirectly by the Russians as well …

The AWB?

… if they are not already under communist control. The worst of it is that those poor people and the hon member for Sasolburg are not aware that they are unconsciously co-operating with the communists. Perhaps Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche had better explain a little more about the AK-47s which caused him to appear in court.

As early as 10 October 1920 Stalin was quoted in Pravda, the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, as saying that central Russia, that cradle of world revolution, could not hold out long against the hostile West without the assistance of bordering regions with their abundance of raw materials, fuel and food supplies. That is why the time is more than ripe in the eyes of the Russians for new satellite states to be acquired and exploited. Surely it is common knowledge that they desire the minerals of Southern Africa and the oil of the East.

One now asks oneself why people who regard themselves as such great and pure Afrikaners play squarely into the hands of the communists by their action.

On numerous occasions in the past and again today the hon the Minister appealed to our colleagues of the Opposition parties to assist in finding solutions for South Africa. Let there be no doubt about the fact that the hon the Minister is serious and that he is doing this because he is truly a Christian and is sincere in asking for it. Now I ask myself why the hon members do not attempt to contribute positively in trying to identify and solve the problems of our country.

We do not believe in your policy!

Nothing can be achieved by inciting a group of stupid people out there. One need only look at the supporters of the HNP and the AWB to find that people supporting these two parties were not bright at school. [Interjections.] There are a few exceptions regarding the CP, however. [Time expired.]

What are the State President’s qualifications?

Order! Will the hon member for Jeppe control himself.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to draw on the points the hon member for Losberg made beyond accepting his argument relating to communism, the communist threat and the manner in which Russia is seeking to expand its philosophies.

I want to point out to the hon member, however, that one of the most important hedges against the spread of communism anywhere in the world is the ability to provide people with a stake in the land. To let them feel part of a country and to have access to it’s land is the best means of containing the spread of communism.

I have very little time and I want to deal briefly with comments made by the hon member for Bloemfontein North who I thought made a good speech and who stressed the need for negotiation. It is very easy on the one hand to talk about negotiation but what we do not seem to realise is that there are extreme pressures outside this House on Black leaders not to be seen negotiating with the Government.

The whole basis of negotiation needs to be scrutinised. It is not words that are going to win the battle, but deeds. We must also not lose sight of the underlying factors that are responsible for our present problems.

The hon the Minister has made it very clear that the creation of a correct climate for negotiation is an absolute necessity. One of the problems that we have at the present time is that we are having to contend with a backlog of mistrust which has been built up over many years. Assurances have not been given effect to and it is all very well for us to talk glibly about reform and change as though nothing had changed outside this Chamber. The problem is that many Black leaders are reluctant now to be seen talking to the Government as the promises of the past have not been fulfilled.

I wish to raise a matter which I consider extremely urgent. It is one that I referred to it in my speech during the debate on the State President’s Vote and, in his reply, the State President suggested that I raise the matter again in debate on this Vote.

I want to deal with the process and principle of consolidation, because recent Government statements have given the impression that the consolidation of land into the national states is now virtually complete. I might mention that this exercise has cost some R1,3 billion.

Before the curtain finally falls further on consolidation, I think the time has come to examine closely certain aspects of the process and in doing so I would like to refer specifically to Transkei and kwaZulu. The Government must give certain assurances before these consolidation proposals are finally decided upon. We are all aware that proposals are in the pipeline for both kwaZulu and Transkei, and I do not intend to deal with them in any detail.

The debate on the Budget Vote of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid showed very clearly the thin line that exists between the functions of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Department of Development Aid. It would appear that the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning takes the decisions constitutionally, and the Department of Development Aid has the responsibility of giving effect to them. It is all very well to adopt this procedure, but past experience has shown how impractical it has been to implement many of the requirements of these proposals.

The topography of the countryside has not always been taken into consideration when decisions have been taken on land acquisition. Whether land is suitable for agricultural or settlement purposes has not always been borne in mind. This is an aspect which has been largely neglected in the past. There are large tracts of land which have been acquired over the years, but which are unsuitable either for agriculture or for the settlement of people. Admittedly, the CSADTC is working on many of these areas at the present time.

I wish to deal specifically with some of the proposals that have been made recently concerning Transkei and would query whether it is the intention of the department and the hon the Minister to provide independent states with additional land to that specified in terms of the original independence agreement? This fact is the cause of considerable uncertainty and is leading to a lot of instability in certain rural areas that are adjacent to some of these national states, and I think it is imperative that the Government should make it quite clear as to what its future attitude will be towards the allocation of additional land. Are we to be faced with a situation in which White owned land is going to be gradually whittled and chipped away, and assigned to these national states?

My time has nearly expired, but I would like to make one final point. It would appear, when I look at the recommendations regarding Transkei, that the Weza forest area is being used as a means of satisfying certain political requirements, and I would question the Government intends designating State forestry areas as a matter of policy, to meet these requirements.

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

I am sorry, I cannot, Sir, because my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to deal specifically with the last issue raised by the hon member for Mooi River, because I think the hon the Minister or the chairman of our commission will be able to deal with that effectively. However, I must say that I think that the point raised by the hon member has more significance than it would appear to have. That is all I want to say, and I think the hon the Minister or the chairman of our commission will deal with that particular point.

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg may not stand talking in the aisle.

The hon member for Mooi River made the point that a background climate is necessary for negotiation. I want to agree with the hon member that one needs a solid background in order to negotiate. I think the first important point that one should realise is that one must accept the reality of the South African situation. The hon member made the point that certain promises were made in the past, but that they were not kept. I must tell him that when I look at the promises made in regard to influx control, to the permanence of Black people in our urban areas and to the question of getting the various groups and parties in South Africa around the negotiating table, I do not think that any of those promises has not been kept. They are being fulfilled today and it will depend on whether the various groups—I want to deal with this today—are prepared to accept this hand of friendship and negotiation which could spell so much good for all of us in this country.

But there were other promises.

Of course there were promises made at certain stages. I can look back at promises made by the old SAP Government in 1912. I can look back at promises made between 1910 and 1924 and at promises made later between 1924 and 1948. Many of those promises were not kept, but what I think is important is that we should all realise that South Africa has at least reached a stage where we are prepared to accept the facts of the situation. Whether it has taken us 20, or 30 or 40 years to accept those facts, we have at last accepted them. [Interjections.]

I want to say—this is also very important in so far as the hon members of the CP are concerned—in 1946-48 the late Mr Justice Fagan and his commission on the Native Laws in South Africa made certain recommendations on pages 48 and 49 of his report.

*There they said we had to accept the Blacks as a permanent section of our population, and that the urbanisation of the Natives was simply an economic phenomenon. It could be ruled and regulated, but it was impossible to prevent it or to turn it in the opposite direction. We must accept, therefore, that there is a permanent urban Native population.

It is true that it has taken us a long time to accept this. That is so. The following was said, however, on page 50:

He is talking about his commission—

I think that is something the hon members of the CP can learn.

The PFP can accept this too.

That is a truth which was laid before us 40 years ago. Is it possible for us still to speak today about obsolete policy standpoints of assimilation or of complete territorial separation in South Africa, or must we accept that the facts facing us illustrate that, regardless of the political party we belong to, we must all realise that if we want to save our civilisation in this country, there is only one way to do so, viz by conference around the negotiation table. Nothing else will save it.

I want to congratulate the Government, and this hon Minister in particular, on their steps in this direction. I think the hon the Minister is breaking his back in his efforts to get everyone around the table. Not only does he have the most difficult task, viz to break down that policy, the policy of dominance which the people detest, but he also has to put something in its place so that the vacuum is not filled by another monstrosity. That is why it is a difficult task. He will be able to accomplish it only if he can get the people together around the conference table.

I am a little surprised that an eminent Black leader such as Chief Minister Buthelezi, who has been invited repeatedly to come to the conference table, and who has expressed his approval of the creation of the national statutory council from time to time, said the following recently:

It surprised me somewhat that this gentleman could say something like that. Whether we want to know it or not, Chief Minister Buthelezi is a very important factor in these consultations and in these negotiations. He is the leader of the greatest Black ethnic group in this country, and a man I regard as an exceptional South African. He is a man who defends South Africa wherever he goes, who wants to combat disinvestment, who believes in economic development and in negotiation. What did this gentleman say last year, however? According to The Argus he said the following about the UDF:

This was in his country—

†Listen to what he says about the UDF:

This is what the gentleman had to say about the UDF. I can quote similar and even worse statements made by members and leaders of the ANC. At the same time, however, he is asking for the release of Mr Mandela and the unbanning of his organisation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Kuilen, who is an experienced and respected frontbencher, again made his customary substantial contribution on which I congratulate him.

The publication of the White Paper on Urbanisation has been one of the most important political events in a long time. When future generations look back on the historic process, reference will be made to those periods predating and postdating the White Paper. This document is intended as the culmination of an era of negative and even damaging State interference in the natural and inevitable process of urbanisation. How we are now going to deal with this process will determine whether this is also going to be the start of a new era of hope and better future prospects for millions of South Africans.

In this regard I want to raise one less serious point of criticism and express one reservation about the White Paper.

Firstly, as far as the criticism is concerned, the document has been written in a style which would be difficult for the uninitiated to comprehend. That is why the chapter about communication and the role of the Bureau for Information is of the utmost importance in this context. Even more important, however, is the role that communication between the representatives of the Government and the relevant communities is going to play during the process of implementation. The rate at which the implementation itself is going to take place will also largely determine the credibility accorded to the Government’s published intentions, but I shall come back to that at a later stage.

In regard to the present-day terminology that is used I just want to remark, in passing, that since we have begun to address our problems, or to anticipate them instead of simply tackling them directly, we have not really improved much on our previous efforts.

I now come to the one reservation I have. In the White Paper several Government departments are given numerous terms of reference. Further research on urbanisation is being proposed. The Department of Constitutional Development and Planning will be responsible for comprehensive orientational evaluating and co-ordinating functions. This creates the impression of a clumsy, expensive, difficult and slow State machine that has to be put into operation, and my argument is that time should not be wasted. The process of urbanisation is not going to mark time so as to give the State machine a chance to warm up. Unless the positive administrative system of urbanisation comes into operation with dynamic and immediate effect, chaos is going to result and the situation could get out of control.

The White Paper emphasises the necessity for community involvement and the participation of the private sector generally in the comprehensive system of administration that is envisaged. These factors are, in my opinion, of such prime importance that they have to form the point of departure for the new approach, because the process of urbanisation has its own momentum. The communities that emerge informally from the process have their own built-in dynamism merely waiting to be unleashed.

The UN publication Improvement of Slums and Uncontrolled Settlements has the following to say about this:

For years now I have been making a study of this matter, and I have had the opportunity, on several occasions, of investigating such situations in many parts of the world. I know that the UN’s approach to this is absolutely dead on target.

And nowhere is there a better illustration of this than here in the peninsula itself, here where the inadequacy of the policy of influx control has perhaps been at its most tangible. [Interjections.] Notwithstanding the most controversial efforts made to implement the policy, there are more than 350 000 Black people today who are unconventionally housed. That is merely a nice way of saying that those people are living in wretched conditions.

We in the Western Cape are not proud of the situation prevailing here. We are—and we continue to be—very disturbed about the deep-lying explosive potential of the situation. I want to state categorically that we cannot wait much longer to salvage the prevailing situation. We do not, so to speak, have even until tomorrow to improve the situation; it should already have been done yesterday.

The unsavoury situation prevailing here does, however, also present us with a wonderful opportunity to do something, by way of a joint campaign, which could grip the imagination of the entire country. Crossroads, KTC and the adjacent areas have become a symbol of everything that is reprehensible and deserving of condemnation in our South African society. We can make it a showpiece indicating what can be done when the forces inherent in a community such as this are allowed to convert into action.

There has never been a better chance than there is now, even if it is already late in the day. Firstly the White Paper now makes it possible to upgrade these areas and to uplift the communities without the process having to be politicised. Secondly I know of bodies in the private sector which are ready and willing to grant positive assistance to the relevant communities in unleashing their own potential and upgrading their own areas. Research has already been carried out in this connection, programmes have been written, plans have been drawn up, the costing has been done and the finance can be generated.

It is vital for an immediate start to be made on the process of upgrading the squatter areas in the Cape. With all due respect, let me say that I doubt whether the machine of State is the most suitable instrument for tackling this task and finalising it with the necessary urgency. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must invite the people of the Western Cape to come forward and tackle this task themselves. The Government could contribute to this by immediately removing all obstacles that could possibly crop up. The communities on the giving and on the receiving end must be allowed to identify their own leaders. When necessary, they must be able to liaise directly with the Minister and must be allowed enough room for innovative and imaginative planning and implementation.

I do not have the time today to elaborate on this, but I know that an invitation by the hon the Minister in this regard will not go unheeded. The people of the Western Cape are all set to convert this stigma into a monument of self-help and empathic commitment. The Government must not stand in their way; it must, as it were, just give them the nod to get started and to finish the job.

A captain sailing his ship across the ocean cannot do anything about the conditions at sea. He must accept those conditions as given. He must adapt his course accordingly. In fact, he could even use the prevailing conditions to his benefit. And in regard to this new approach to urbanisation we must not devote too much effort to superintending the given factors. The dynamics inherent in our situation are the given factors that we must not try too hard to change, and cannot change either. We must adapt them to the achievement of our goal, because we owe it to ourselves and to the people of our country.

Mr Chairman, it is truly a privilege to speak after the hon member for Stellenbosch. Today, as always, he made a serious, contemplative and well-considered contribution, which has raised the already high level of this debate even further. I am sure the hon the Minister and his department will take thorough cognisance of what the hon member said.

I believe it is valid to say that the times we are experiencing are characterised by a feeling of uncertainty in the political and social spheres. In addition, the magnitude of the problem causes a feeling of powerlessness in the man on the street and time and again he finds himself playing the part of a frustrated spectator. This frustration often manifests itself in divergent behaviour, on the one hand, for example, the ostentatious bravado and the misplaced militarism of bodies such as the AWB and its hangers-on, or on the other, a complete passivity and withdrawal and a clinging to the hope that perhaps the problem will go away if one ignores it. Still, I want to make the statement today that there is something each inhabitant of South Africa can do to have a positive effect on the future. This is to strive for sound interpersonal relations with each fellow South African who crosses his path. This is what the great practical philosopher, as I should like to describe him, Prof Piet Cillié, called the H-factor—the human factor which can tip the balance in great problem situations. I should like to quote what he wrote with reference to the unrest in Soweto as early as 1976. He said the following:

†Mr Chairman, in my view this H-factor, this human factor, is the factor which in the final analysis will determine whether or not South Africa can survive.

*There is no doubt that this need has never been greater on the ordinary, interpersonal level. Proof of this can be found all over, across the length and breadth of our country, and is there for everyone to see. But the content of the personal interaction must attest to mutual understanding and the granting of a decent and equal right of existence in South Africa to each other South African.

†A dramatic illustration of what I am trying to say can be found in the Report of the Investigation into Education for Blacks in the Vaal Triangle, prepared by Prof Tjaart van der Walt, in which he refers to the enormous amount of physical damage done during those riots, estimating the cost at between R30 million and R50 million. He nevertheless said, and I quote:

A little further he goes on to make the point, and I quote again:

My view is that if we are to be successful in finding one another, the building of bridges between individuals and groups will have to take place as never before in this country, because in the long run it will be the cumulative effect of countless positive interpersonal relationships across the length and the breadth of our land, which will ensure mutual respect and coexistence in this country; in other words, a multiplicity of micro-deeds which will take us to a macro-situation of hope for all. I would like to quote in this regard the closing chapter of the Van der Walt Report, where Prof van der Walt says the following:

We cannot allow this plea to fall on deaf ears, and we as Whites must meet the challenge which this presents.

*Mr Chairman, I should also like to refer to the campaign for the promotion of intergroup relations which the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning has been conducting for some time and which was dealt with thoroughly by the hon member for Bloemfontein North. These more than 200 relations committees in our country, with their approximately 3 500 members from the smallest village to the largest centres, can provide a valuable discussion opportunity for all South Africans. I therefore want to appeal to all community leaders to employ this opportunity on an ever-increasing scale. As the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is specifically responsible for these committees, put it recently:

We must therefore wage a constant battle against the danger of alienation among the population groups, and do so by means of interpersonal relations.

†I should like to conclude, Mr Chairman, by specifically making use of this opportunity to appeal to the private sector too to become involved in this exciting venture by actively participating in and supporting—also financially—the relations action project and its committees, so that these committees can be strengthened as instruments for the dialogue which we so sorely need in this country.

Finally, I should like to offer some food for thought. These words are not my own, but are nevertheless very valid and relevant, and I should like to share them with hon members of this House. I quote, as follows:

In other words, Mr Chairman, we in this country need a lot more shaking of hands between Black and White, and a lot less shaking and clenching of fists, both literally and figuratively. May this indeed be so in our beloved country.

Mr Chairman, for the past hour or thereabouts only one single member of the opposition has participated in the debate. It seems to me they are in a state of collapse. [Interjections.] I do hope that is not a sign of what is going to happen to the All Blacks at Newlands tomorrow. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, at a later stage in my speech I shall be coming back to the hon member Mr Schoeman, and then I shall indeed be replying to his speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, hon members want to know whether I shall be rooting for Naas Botha. [Interjections.] I shall simply begin clapping when number 10 trots onto the field. [Interjections.]

In what I would call his pennypinching or hit-or-miss speech the hon member for Kuruman also grabbed the Group Areas Act by the hair and dragged it into the debate.

And then it hit you!

He referred, in particular, to a meeting of women members of the National Party which took place at Worcester where the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was the guest speaker. It really is a pity that the hon member for Kuruman only had recourse to the report in Die Burger of 26 April 1986.

Is that not the right thing to do either?

On the strength of that report he put a series of questions, in his speech, to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. It is also a pity, Mr Chairman, that the hon member for Kuruman had not read the 29 April 1986 issue of Die Burger too. In a report in that day’s issue of Die Burger the hon the Minister made it very clear that the Government—and therefore the National Party—was continually re-evaluating laws and that the Group Areas Act was one of those measures that was continually being subjected to scrutiny.

What are the Indians telling you to do?

That is also why the State President said that when we speak about the Group Areas Act, we are not dealing with a sacred cow, but in fact with a piece of legislation that has, in fact, repeatedly been amended over the years. So in the light of this series of questions put to the hon the Minister by the hon member for Kuruman, let me ask the hon member for Kuruman please to read the article in Die Burger of 29 April.

I am not conducting a debate with Die Burger; I am conducting a debate with you! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I do request the hon member for Kuruman to go along and read that article. In that article he will see a very clear exposition, by the hon the Minister, of this legislation.

We are not conducting a debate with Die Burger.

I want to go further and remind the hon member for Kuruman of the fact that the Group Areas Act has been changed on several occasions over the years, even when they were still members of the NP. It even happened when the hon member for Sasolburg was still a member of the NP. There are various community facilities … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman says that he is not conducting a debate with Die Burger, but that he is conducting a debate in this Committee. Here he must debate in accordance with the rules of the Committee, however, and the rules of the Committee do not allow for these continual interjections. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Kuruman does not need to conduct a debate with Die Burger. I have just asked him to read the further reports and not merely get bogged down in one spot. He really ought to make some progress. [Interjections.]

I want to go on by telling the hon member that various community facilities such as city halls and sport and recreation facilities have, in many cases, already been made available to all groups. That is particularly the case where there is a lack of such facilities in those groups’ own areas. In this connection we are reminded of the very memorable statement of the late Mr Vorster who said that we should share facilities where we cannot duplicate them. That was said at a time when the hon member was still a member of the NP. Everyone, for example, is free to attend a bona fide sports meeting or to participate, and there is no restriction on the membership of bona fide sports clubs. [Interjections.] International hotels are open to all population groups, and this was the case even when the hon member for Kuruman was still a member of the NP. [Interjections.]

The owners of restaurants and cinemas within the free-trading areas can decide for themselves whom they wish to admit. Provided no major objections are received, concessions are readily granted to cinemas outside the free-trading areas to admit members of all population groups. We consult many people, and where there are no major objections, those cinemas are thrown open.

The Group Areas Act was amended several years ago to make provision for the fact that a member of any group, without the authorisation of a permit, may own and occupy industrial premises not situated in a group area. Last year the new section 19 of the Act was passed, now making it possible for members of all groups to trade within delimited central business districts.

Now the hon member for Kuruman is terribly concerned about grey areas. If by a “grey area” he means a mixed area, let me tell him that throughout the years—even when he was still a member of the NP—so-called grey areas existed in South Africa. There is a grey area not far from this Parliamentary building. Throughout the years the Group Areas Act has provided not only for group areas, but also for controlled areas. In a controlled area the owner of the land determines its group character and a member of another group can obtain it or occupy it merely by way of a permit, provided exemption has been granted by proclamation. In the Free State, for example, there is only one proclaimed group area for Whites and that is Kroonstad. There is only one group area for Whites, a few for Coloureds, with the rest all being controlled areas.

What does that mean?

A part of Woodstock is also a controlled area.

What is the point you want to make?

The point I want to make is that there were grey areas even when that hon member was elected to the House of Assembly by other hon members. [Interjections.] I want to reassure hon members about the fact that grey areas are not an item on the Government’s agenda.

Hendrickse says so.

When hon members of the CP were still members of the Government, we referred the Group Areas Act to a technical committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Strydom. That report was submitted to the Government, referred to the President’s Council and we are now awaiting the report of the President’s Council on the Group Areas Act. That is what is on the Government’s agenda. I therefore really do want to ask hon members to be patient. That report will be appearing and the Government will be making an announcement.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

I am sorry, Sir, but I do not have the time now.

I should like to refer to the speech the hon member for Jeppe made this morning. Let me quote from the unrevised copy of his Hansard:

That is true!

That sounds like the ANC!

The hon member goes on to say:

And that is a White residential area.

The hon member for Jeppe went on to say:

In other words, there the hon member no longer has any people to vote for him. I quote further:

In the short time since the hon member made this speech, I have tried to ascertain whether he had brought this data to the department’s attention, and thus far I have seen no sign of that.

But you are the boss of the whole shebang! I am now bringing it to your attention!

Order!

I could not ascertain whether he had submitted a complaint to anyone …

Did he write to the department?

… or had written a letter to the hon the Minister, to me or to the department.

I do not know how many times I have spoken to the Police! [Interjections.]

Order! I have given only the hon the Deputy Minister the floor and I expect hon members to give him a chance to make his speech. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Jeppe continued his speech by saying: “The police say they have been instructed not to prosecute.” Now the hon member must tell me who gave those instructions to the Police.

But I asked Kobie Coetzee and he has not told me! [Interjections.]

He must give the precise name.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I want no further reaction from the hon member for Jeppe. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I would be very glad if the hon member would give me the name of that policeman. [Interjections.] We shall not make any trouble, but we just want to check the facts. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Group Areas Act is on our Statute Book, and a contravention of that Act is a criminal offence.

So was the Immorality Act! [Interjections.]

In question time recently I said that the contravention of the Group Areas Act was as much a criminal offence as the contravention of any other Act. [Interjections.]

Order! That was not an invitation to the hon member for Green Point or any other hon member to start reacting now.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he disputes the fact that contrary to the Group Areas Act there are thousands of people of colour living in central Johannesburg and that his department knows of the fact?

No, I am not disputing that. We are now in the process of conducting our investigations. I have given the necessary instructions and the department is dealing with the matter. We shall determine what action is to be taken against those offenders. [Interjections.]

What I want to emphasise is the fact that the hon member has mentioned a lot of figures here, but has not taken the trouble to bring this information to our attention.

[Inaudible.]

We ourselves have conducted an investigation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a further question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, Sir, I do not want to answer any further questions.

If the hon member has the interests of his constituency at heart, why did he not write to us or approach us in any other fashion? [Interjections.] Why has he waited until today? Now he gets up in a discussion of a Vote and raises the matter. [Interjections.]

Order! I have made an appeal to the hon member for Jeppe not to make any interjections. In all fairness I must ask hon members not to provoke him.

Yes, Sir, he is lying to me. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir. He is “untruthing” me.

I am a great lover of the truth. I keep to the truth, I keep close to the truth, I am in truth. [Interjections.]

You are very frugal where that is concerned.

In the final ten minutes of this week’s proceedings I think we should move into calmer waters. I particularly want to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North and the hon member Mr Schoeman very sincerely for the speeches which they made here and in which they gave particular emphasis to the sound relations existing in South Africa. No one can dispute the existence of sound relations or their importance. Likewise we are all fully aware of the fact that the establishment of sound relations is definitely no easy task, particularly in a country like South Africa with its particular population structure.

The relations campaign in South Africa is a campaign to which approximately 4 000 people voluntarily devote their time and services in an effort to cultivate sound human relations in our country with its rich diversity of cultures and groups. It is also a campaign which, in the 11 years of its existence, has achieved a very large measure of success over a very wide field. And it is a campaign which, in many spheres, has really contributed towards narrowing the gap that exists between people of various cultures. It is also a campaign which has made a positive contribution towards eliminating suspicion, prejudice, paternalism and negativism, and it is irrefutably a campaign which has contributed towards creating, in our country, a climate which has enabled our State President to proceed, undaunted, with his reform initiatives.

We have come to the fore with new guidelines in regard to our relations campaign, guidelines for the action to be taken by the committees.

Mr Chairman, may I now please put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

Order! Is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to answer a question now?

Yes, Sir.

Is it not true that I handed a petition containing more than 5 000 signatures to Mr Pen Kotzé, a petition in which people in my constituency and in Hillbrow insisted on the Group Areas Act being implemented?

Sir, I was speaking about the Jeppe constituency. [Interjections.] Let me put it this way: I said at the very beginning that I had checked the facts with our department. Mr Pen Kotzé was never a Minister in the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. I checked the facts with our department, and I am just asking the hon member to have the courtesy to inform me about this. He has, however, now been sitting there thinking about the matter, and eventually his mind started functioning too, and now he has woken up and discovered something. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, I should now like to complete my speech.

The guidelines in accordance with which relations committees have to function have recently also been revised and made available, and I believe that if the relations committees function in accordance with these guidelines there ought not to be any overlapping. The complaint that is heard is that the functions of city councils, management committees and school committees frequently overlap. There ought not to be any overlapping in the community, nor any infringing on the domain of other organisations.

A very important aspect, which we should not lose sight of, is that the relationships campaign is not a political initiative. The relationships campaign must be one emanating from a heartfelt conviction. This afternoon I also want to confirm the fact that apart from the guidelines we have published, in my view relations committees should also set their own objectives.

This afternoon I want to mention a few objectives here. The first objective I want to mention, which does not only relate to relations committees, but also to every South African, is that we should develop the tremendous potential for goodwill, embodied in all the communities and population groups in South Africa, in the interests of a fine future for this country. If we do not succeed in doing so, and we go on merely serving the interests of our own small political party, if we continue merely to give precedence to our own interests and simply continue to live selfishly, we shall also have to pick the bitter fruits. There is a tremendous potential for goodwill in South Africa, in all communities, which we should develop.

A second objective I want to set for relations committees and for everyone in South Africa is that of the elimination of the socioeconomic problems in various communities. My work takes me to many of these communities, particularly the Black communities. Today I want to refer to my own town, Oudtshoorn, where we have a lovely White town, where a beautiful Coloured town has developed over the years, but where conditions in the Black town really do cry out for assistance, something which is actually an indictment as far as we are concerned. That town is not an isolated case either; we also find this in numerous other Black areas that I move around in. Those socioeconomic problems, those socioeconomic needs that exist, will have to receive the attention of all South Africans.

I want to mention a third objective, and that is that in all circumstances we will have to protect and respect the human dignity of people, regardless of race or colour. In this country we cannot continue to encroach upon the human dignity of people and then still expect sound relations to exist in South Africa.

A fourth objective that I want to set relates to the fact that we shall also have to support and assist in the evolutionary process of reform. Without that process and the development of that process, there cannot be any future development for this country either.

I also want to set a fifth objective, and that relates to the fact that I believe that we, all the moderates in this country, should form a coalition to combat the escalation of violence in the country. If we do not make that our aim, if we continue with our infighting, and find enjoyment in doing so, if we continue to disparage one another, if we continue with public displays at political meetings, as is the order of the day at present—no one would bemoan the fact if interjections were made and so on—and if we continue to focus on violence, to extol the virtues of violence, let me tell hon members this afternoon that violence will escalate in this country and we shall not be able to combat it.

That is the result of power-sharing.

The various population groups and communities in South Africa—yes, the youth of South Africa and all other South Africans—should, I believe, communicate with one another by way of contact so as to promote their love of their fatherland and therefore the future of this wonderful country of ours. We shall have to utilise social functions, sports functions, church functions and other functions for this purpose. Contact and dialogue between South Africans from all population groups and communities must be brought about and, let me say this afternoon, with all those of a radical or even militant disposition—I am not saying those who advocate violence—because we as South Africans must get to the very core of this country’s problems and find the solution for ourselves.

I want to conclude by saying that the relationship campaign is a campaign originating with the people of South Africa, for the people of South Africa and in the interests of South Africa.

I conclude with the hope that South Africa will also win at Newlands tomorrow.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.