Mr Speaker, right at the outset I want to associate myself with the words of the hon the Acting State President, with his good wishes for the improvement and recovery of the hon the State President.

Furthermore I want to say that the speech made by the hon the Acting State President last Friday is relevant to this debate. I can also say that all the subjects which I would have wanted to raise in a motion of no-confidence on this occasion were touched upon in that speech—whether this was done in passing or even more directly.

We can agree entirely, or with somewhat of a closer qualification and reservation, with some of the statements of the hon the Acting State President—for example when he referred to peace, to the importance of peace for Southern Africa, the importance of peace for sound relations, for the cultural life of peoples and for the development of a country in general. We can agree with that.

Nevertheless I believe that all of us will also agree with this point: We realise that peace cannot be preserved as an absolute value. We realise that peace cannot be preserved at the expense of the truth or when the rights and freedoms of individuals and peoples are put at risk or when they are threatened or trampled underfoot. Serious fundamental differences in political policy and direction, which make the difference between the survival and freedom of a people and/or its ascendancy or decline, are differences which cannot or may not be glossed over by means of pious appeals to peace and unanimity.

We talk about reasonableness. We agree with the appeal of the hon the Acting State President for reasonableness, and with his warning against emotionalism. It is in fact our reasonable insight which tells us how important emotion is. Our brain cells tell us that if one’s blood cells are not working, one’s brain cells will soon not be working either. [Interjections.] Yes, and when a party is suffering from anaemia, it will not be long before it loses its brainpower as well. All of us know that. [Interjections.]

I come now to the new national leader of the NP. I should like to congratulate him on his election. Physically he is sitting to my right, but politically he is quite a long way to the left of me. [Interjections.] If he has the brain cells on his side, the question which may perhaps arise is: what is there among the 61 who voted against him three times? I am merely asking this in a lighter vein. We shall conduct a more serious debate with one another later. [Interjections.]

Now it is in fact very significant—I shall not interrupt any of the hon members—that the hon the Acting State President said that the urgency of the problems calling for solutions is being experienced more widely and more intensely. That is precisely what we want to say to the Government. Their handling of the constitutional question, of group areas and of the South West Africa issue, their contempt for democracy and their laissez-faire attitude to some of their own laws, for example the Group Areas Act, is a true cross for sound reasonableness and stimulates intense, justified opposing emotions.

Reference is made to senseless infighting. The hon the Acting State President is impatient with senseless infighting. It reminds me of the very well-known prophetic words: “They act as if my people’s wounds were only scratches. ‘All is well,’ they say, when all is not well.” The old translation read: “Peace, peace; when there is no peace.”

May I just remind hon members that the results of the municipal elections last year made one thing clear, and that was that we are not engaged in senseless infighting. In the Transvaal, to confine myself to that province, in the four major municipalities—Johannesburg, Pretoria, Germiston and Roodepoort—three voters voted for the CP for every four that voted for the NP. Of the 65 municipalities—yes, the brain cells will tell hon members this—the CP won 43—359 wards for the CP as opposed to 221 for the NP. Of the 28 village councils the CP won 19—119 CP wards as opposed to 53 for the NP. Of the 45 local area committees the CP won 33—138 wards as opposed to 56 for the NP.

The struggle against power-sharing is concerned with the right to self-determination, not only of the Whites, but of every other people, and I am also speaking on behalf of members on my lefthand side here. It is least of all …

We do not want it.

If they do not want it, we nevertheless do want it. [Interjections.] If they do not want self-determination, we do want it nevertheless. It is by no means senseless infighting. The issue for those hon members, just as it is for us, is who must govern us and our people. [Interjections.]

Order! There is a standing rule in this House that certain senior members are not to be interrupted with unnecessary interjections. The hon leader of an official opposition party in a House is accorded that respect by the Chair, and I am appealing to hon members to respect that ruling. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Thank you, Sir, I shall try not to be provocative.

Furthermore I maintain that what the hon the Acting State President said is very true, namely:

†I say that is very true. Dr Chester Crocker says South Africa can survive without the United States. So strong is the economy of South Africa. An African leader once said that South Africa had the medicine for the economic ailments of Africa. However, if we are really so self-sufficient I cannot understand why we should try to blackmail one another into political reform to buy off the threat of sanctions and disinvestment. Threats of revolution and a bloodbath in South Africa should the CP come to power—and we have heard these threats in this very Chamber— are as irresponsible as they are provocative.

What does the AWB say?

It would be better not to refer to the ANC. [Interjections.]

†My first question is: Who will start this? Who will have the guts to start a bloodbath and a revolution in South Africa? Which political party or leader will start such a revolution or bloodbath? Secondly, are there people who hide behind the ANC, the UDF, the PAC or the South African Communist Party to do their dirty work for them?

*We agree with the hon the Acting State President that the violence of terrorists must definitely not be mentioned in the same breath with the means of power utilised by the State to maintain law and order. I would be the first to say that the State may of course also abuse its power, but we agree that we do not negotiate on constitutional development with the perpetrators of violence. That is why we say that it is inconceivable that people who have been convicted of terrorism and high treason, who have been convicted of propagating violence, promoting communism or making propaganda for a socialist state in South Africa can simply be released and invited to become co-drafters of a constitution for me and my people.

We also want to know what the Government’s reaction is to the intention of a political party that wishes to enter into negotiations with the ANC, with a banned organisation which advocates and commits acts of violence and terror, the ANC which is riddled with communists, which is a partner of the South African Communist Party and which encourages the murder of Black municipal authorities in South Africa.

We have taken cognisance of the hon the Acting State President having said that the Government is striving for a democratic dispensation. A democratic dispensation, democracy! One can take any piece of propaganda from the left-wing radicals or the right-wing and it will be teeming, whether it is from the ANC or from the Communist Party and their fellow-travellers and pawns, with expressions such as “people and people’s power, liberation of people and people’s democracy”.

†The so-called non-racialism, non-racial federation, non-racial democracy, non-racial politics are not examples of democracy—not in South Africa, where the reality of the human race is one of racial, ethnic, cultural and national diversity, and conflicting political aspirations. For Whites—I do not pose to speak on behalf of any other group in this Chamber—as well as Coloureds and Indians such non-racialism will simply be Black majority politics, Black majority rule and Black domination.

Who are the great exponents of the so-called “non-racialism”? Perhaps it is the new Democratic Party.

*I am not quite sure whom I should congratulate as the leader. That is something of a problem.

†Who are the great exponents of non-racialism in South Africa? It is not Dr Buthelezi who claims, and I quote:

He then speaks in terms of “the right of Zulus to retain the Zuluness in their soul”.

*That is not the language of non-racialism; that is the language of a Zulu nationalist.

†When this same Black leader, Dr Buthelezi, refers to the Black anger which he will harness to sentence Whites to lifelong imprisonment in an open democracy, then I say that that so-called “open democracy” is no democracy. It may be the ANC’s recipe for democracy which is the prelude to Black domination. In all sincerity and all humility I want to say that my people will never accept that. [Interjections.]

*Let me, as a conservative Afrikaner say today that a truly acceptable democracy for the whole of South Africa will not come into existence under White domination, nor will it do so under White leadership. Then I also ask in all candidness: What makes people think that the Whites— the Afrikaner people and also the large numbers of English-speaking Whites—will ever accept a leader such as Mandela, Sam Nujoma, Oliver Tambo or even Dr Buthelezi. If we as Whites—I am simply referring to us as Boere—say in an ever louder voice to the hon the State President in the municipal elections and on occasions such as the gripping spectacle at Donkerhoek with between 60 000 and 70 000 people: “Sir, we are not with you and your reform politics”, then I ask today what hope any leader of any other people or group has of governing the Boer people and the majority of the Whites in a peaceful way and with their consent.

Today I want to tell the NP that in various respects they show contempt for democracy. Listen to what they say in their own propaganda in connection with the municipal elections held in 1988. I am quoting a passage dealing with the constitutional basis for municipal government:

It sounds almost like CP language.

The NP goes on to discuss own facilities:

Just over a year ago the hon the State President himself said, and I am quoting from Hansard, 1987, col 6675:

Please note, it must be rationally taken into account—

One could almost say that he said this in Boksburg —

These are statements from the arsenal of the NP. But what are we experiencing now? CP municipalities are applying the Act. Communities are invoking those laws, but they are being threatened by the hon the Minister and told that if they continue to do so, he will do certain things. I have the relevant cutting from the Eastern Province Herald, which reads:

Surely it is not a question of “petty apartheid”; it is a question of the complete integration of the entire social and political structure of South Africa. What is being done in the NP-controlled city councils of Germiston, Pretoria, Vereeniging, Bloemfontein and the Strand? In the Strand it is so bad that the signboards not only state that one may not go on to the beach, but they even extend the ban to include the ocean as well. One may not go into the ocean either.

We are talking about democracy and contempt for democracy, and I want to refer to the following:

He simply says that he will not permit it.

I also want to refer to the legislation appointing a Black Minister in our government. This is going to happen without such a Minister having to win a seat in this Parliament within 12 months. I do not know whether it is being envisaged that he will receive a seat. He is therefore not responsible to the electorate that voted us in here, and that can vote us out again. He will not be responsible to them. The question now is whether this is a step in the direction of a government of the elite or a non-responsible government.

After all, the multiracial Executive Committees are no longer being elected by the members of the Provincial Council; they are appointments. There is no way in which the voters can call them to account, except the one voter who appointed them, ie the Minister.

The President’s Council is involved in the legislation of the country and may in certain respects express a final opinion at the request of the State President. The President’s Council is not responsible to the voters, because the majority of the members are appointed by the Government.

I want to refer to the veto power of minorities, as laid down in the Constitution. We debated over and over again in the House of Assembly and elsewhere that according to that Constitution it is possible for 178 members, plus 85, plus 22 members of Parliament to vote for an amendment to the Constitution, but that 23 members in one House can veto the amendment by voting against it. This is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship of a small minority, and it is unacceptable, because what it amounts to is that democracy is being thwarted.

There is talk that the Government envisages a parliament and a cabinet for the entire RSA, half of which will consist of Black people. This information originated from an institution in Belgium which spoke to a high-ranking official of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. He said that it was the intention of the hon the State President that half of Parliament and the Cabinet would be Black. It may be incorrect.

My party, however, wants to say two things, namely that if one continues to maintain a Unitarian state for plus-minus 20 million Black people, 5 million Whites, 3 million Coloureds and 1 million Asiatics, one will not escape from the demand for groups or peoples to be granted representation according to their numbers. Then that kind of democracy demands Black majority rule. That is the democracy of the Democratic Party. It is not democracy, but is associated with another Greek word—not the “demos”, but the “oglos”, the masses. It is a “massocracy”; an “oglocracy”.

Then one has arrived precisely at the domination of one large race group of smaller groups and peoples. That is no democracy as far as the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and individual Black peoples are concerned, but group domination. It is the result of an open democracy.

The Government’s National Council, which cannot get off the ground, is not a democratic institution. Coloureds and Indians will be represented to a minimal extent in this council. I indicated here last year that the Whites would be in the minority. Blacks could possibly comprise more than two thirds of such a council. Does anyone wish to tell me that two thirds of that council will strive for White self-determination?

An appeal to the magic word “consensus” is an appeal to a democratic mirage. With consensus, as a condition for decisions, one can veto the aspirations of an entire nation; one can emasculate its political mandate, which it gave at the polls to its representatives, and the minority can hold sway by at least thwarting a specific decision.

I am not an authority on inflation; I only feel its consequences. In the opening address inflation is referred to very fleetingly as follows:

I emphasise the words “rise slightly”.

Even though he tried to mitigate it—he said “rise slightly”—I think that housewives, old-age pensioners, mortgage holders and people in the lower income groups listened to those words with concern. This year the average food package costs 13,2% more than last year. The average meat price shot up by as much as 18,4%. The average price of fish went up by 20%. Shoes cost 17,6% more, and if one wants to spare the shoe leather and buy a car, one comes up against an average increase of 23,5% in the price of cars. Then one has not even paid for fuel yet, which is not the price of the fuel, but the tax being levied on it. Then one has still not passed all the tollgates, which are proliferating on our roads!

It was extremely necessary for the hon the Acting State President to refer to clean administration. He did not refer in so many words to corruption. It has been a long time since this country last experienced such a series of shocks in this sphere. At his party congress the hon the Minister of Justice alluded to corruption. One assumes that he possibly had certain specific cases in mind. The question is whether cases as have occurred should first cause a public embarrassment before attention is given to them. The findings of Judges James and Harms, the circumstances surrounding the retirement of the representatives for Hillbrow, East London City and Lydenburg are shocking in specific respects and a source of deep concern in regard to our public life. [Interjections.]

Everyone is now calling for enquiries. The office of a member of Parliament is being tragically demeaned in the eyes of the public. Even the ordinary official, when he is found guilty of malpractices, loses his job, his salary and his pension. If members of Parliament are innocent, why are they resigning? If they are guilty of serious irregularities, how can they retire on a full pension plus a sumptuous gratuity? Clean administration? I am afraid we run the risk of this becoming a joking matter.

I just want to tell the hon member on my righthand side—politically he is to the left of me—that one does not need hypocrisy to discuss these things and to say to oneself “heaven forbid that I should ever be guilty of anything like this”.

Permit me to say something in connection with the reference made by the hon the Acting State President to South West Africa. I want to make a few critical observations about this matter. Everyone welcomes an honourable peace for the peoples of South West Africa. It would be irresponsible to sacrifice soldiers in fruitless battles. But why is it the South African Government that gives the impression that it is in the greatest hurry of all to see Resolution 435 implemented? Surely the Government was not completely in favour of Resolution 435. The hon the State President said that he was not in favour it; he was simply going along with it.

If it is the secret intention of the Government to cause Resolution 435 to miscarry, I assume that it cannot say so aloud in public. However if it wishes to cause Resolution 435 to miscarry because it does not want to throw the peoples of South West Africa to the wolves, but wishes to carry out its responsibility to those peoples, and because it does not wish to run the risk of placing Swapo in control of South West Africa and seeing the red flag flying in Windhoek tomorrow, the Government definitely does not have much time in which to turn around and to shake off Resolution 435. In addition it must not appear to be in a hurry to get rid of South West Africa.

We want to ask what became of the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola as a prerequisite for South Africa’s withdrawal from South West Africa? As matters stand at the moment the majority of the Cubans can continue to remain in Angola when Swapo takes control in South West Africa. Will Swapo monitor the withdrawal of the Cubans? I think that is really like looking for sausages in a dog pound. We want to know who in South Africa is monitoring the withdrawal of the Cubans. Who on our side is monitoring this? On whose faith or promises are we acting?

There was a time when it was absolutely certain that Swapo would easily obtain a majority in the legislative assembly of SWA. What reason is there for not believing this any more? If that is still true, how does the Government intend to protect the inhabitants of South West Africa against Swapo and against a Red take-over of SWA?

Put another way, if Resolution 435 is applied and the South African Defence Force disappears from SWA, how are we going to protect the so-called minorities? When we are here south of the Orange River, how are we going to advance our forces to restore order in an independent state, or even in a state under UN supervision? Who is going to protect them? Can the Whites of SWA protect minorities while they themselves are a minority? I am asking whether this is not irresponsible. Is it not even naïve to hasten towards independence for SWA, towards a unitarian state under a Swapo regime while thousands of Cubans are still in Angola, those very people who had to promote Russian expansionism and help bring about the conquest of SWA and South Africa?

The fatal error—I want to say this with great emphasis—which South Africa and SWA is going to help repeat is that of the colonial powers of the 19th century, namely granting independence to a territory in which different peoples are resident, the herding of different peoples into a Unitarian state.

It is cruel. It is politically cruel. It is ill-considered. It is undemocratic. It is a denial of the self-determination of peoples. It is tyranny. It is not the beginning of a peaceful era, but the beginning of conflict and tension between the peoples. At this late hour we are telling this Government to reconsider and turn back!

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the previous speaker, who wished the hon the State President a speedy recovery. However, let me say at once that that is where my association ends.

†If non-racialism is unacceptable to a small minority, then certainly White domination is totally unacceptable to the majority of South Africans. As long as we are still enslaved by our group mentality, we are not going to find a solution to the problems of South Africa. The time has come for us to rid ourselves of thinking in terms of small minority groups, while the greater majority of South Africans are crying out for a greater solving of South Africa’s problems.

*If we cannot come to an understanding now, we shall die for a useless cause, a cause which I would not be able to explain.

†To me the greater South Africa is of much more importance than a “Boerestaat” or a “Kleurlingstaat” or an “Asiërstaat”. It is important that we rid ourselves of group thinking. I want to dissociate myself from that kind of thinking. I wish to call on the Nationalist Government to do the same in no uncertain terms. Now is the time to call on all South Africans to join hands and to find a solution to South Africa’s problems. I want to assure hon members that the greater majority of South Africans outside of Parliament are ready to find each other.

It is just we—the Government of the day—who are preventing people from coming together. I am not ashamed to say that I am a proponent and exponent of non-racialism and I am proud of propagating non-racialism. I am a product of non-racialism. I am not ashamed, unlike some people in this Chamber, of my past and ancestry. I am rather proud of my ancestors. As a product of non-racialism I can assure you that I have greater love for South Africa than those who are still enslaved by their group thinking.

I want to congratulate the hon the Acting State President on his election to this position. 1989 is a year of challenge. I want to believe that 1989 holds hope for South Africa and will also be the encouragement for greater reform in this country, the year in which we will find each other in this country. Let it be the beginning of a better future.

It disappoints me that 1989 started for me just like any other year. On 28 January 1989 three young men between the ages of 18 and 21, in the prime of their lives, were brutally killed in Davidsonville, Roodepoort.

It was my privilege to attend two massive funerals—funerals that were orderly and conducive to the spirit of funerals. There were no political utterances at these funerals. I therefore cannot understand why people were killed without any reason. It worries me that the killing of those three young men was as a result of racial hatred. [Interjections.] This is exactly what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is propagating. Let us go on killing each other mercilessly! [Interjections.] Let us destroy this country!

Order! The hon member is not entitled to say that. He must withdraw that sentence.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.] However, what is important to me is that three valuable lives were lost unnecessarily. To lose a husband, wife, child or member of one’s family at any given time under normal circumstances is difficult. To lose somebody in this fashion is something one cannot reconcile oneself with. This is what worries me. This is why I am pleading today that we find each other. It is absolutely essential that we find each other. However, when we talk of hope in 1989 we must also learn our lesson from the past 41 years of Nationalist rule in this country. Forty-one years of NP rule in this country has resulted in discrimination, apartheid through legislation and the fragmentation of the South African nation.

We have become our own worst enemies. Forty-one years of NP rule in this country has made us ashamed to admit that we are South Africans. Forty-one years of NP rule is unacceptable not only to South Africans, but also the entire world community.

While the nation was waiting for a message of hope on Friday, 3 February, they got absolutely nothing. This is what is of concern to us. There was absolutely no message of hope, yet we speak of 1989 as the year of challenge. What are we challenging? Are we challenging all to go on in the same old way, wishing that things will come right by evolution? Evolution is not going to change things in this country; we have to change ourselves first in order to effect the changes that are necessary in South Africa.

The Acting State President said the following on the first page of his speech:

Sir, while it is true—this phrase has been used over and over again—that every person in this country enjoys the franchise, every person in this country has the right to vote, can we say that that vote is of the same value? Not until all South Africans are represented in this Parliament, the Parliament of the country, can we ever claim that every South African enjoys the franchise in this country.

We cannot and we dare not separate the economy from the franchise. As long as there are haves and have-nots there is going to be dissatisfaction. Therefore it is important that there must be not only political reform but also economic reform in this country.

The hon the Acting State President talks about transition. For how long are we going to remain in this period of transition? Are we going to remain here indefinitely? Is there a meaning in this transition; is this a transition towards a future full of hope for all South Africans? This has to be spelled out to us. We have to know what this transition is all about and what transition means to all of us.

All of us in this Chamber are concerned about the fact that sanctions have been applied against South Africa because we know that sanctions affect the poor more than the rich. Sanctions affect those who do not have more than those who have. Sanctions certainly affect the broader South African community outside more than the smaller minority groups inside.

While we admit that sanctions are no good for South Africa, how do hon members expect me to go outside of this country and defend certain policies when we still have a Boksburg, we still have a Kraaifontein and we still have the Carletonvilles where Nationalist Party policy is being implemented to their own shame? Not until that evil legislation is removed from the Statute Book will I willingly and with meaning be able to defend the whole South African cause.

When I say that South Africa will never be the same I concede that there have been changes. However, those changes are not enough for those of us who are called upon from time to time to speak to foreign visitors.

We cannot at any given time defend this country’s policy any more because what we are in effect doing is defending not NP policy, but that policy that has been adopted by the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

I have spoken to hon members about something that is close to me because Davidsonville is in my constituency. However, let us learn the message out of the death of three people in Davidsonville. Let that be a message to all South Africans that it is totally unnecessary to move in the path of violence, be it from any side. Violence is not the answer to South Africa’s problems.

South Africa is a country of great potential. However, to attain that potential it is important that all people are engaged in delivering the potential that is available, that all people must be encouraged to be a part of that great potential. However, we find that apartheid is still alive and well in this country. This discourages the greater majority of people in South Africa from becoming a part of the machinery that will deliver that potential which is latent in this country. This is what we must encourage.

The greater majority of South Africans are nonviolent, have a love for each other and regard themselves as South Africans—unlike a few foreign minority groups within this situation. However, as I have said, to get the full value of the potential that is available, let us start by scrapping that which hurts the most—the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act which has become a millstone around the neck of the NP because their brothers in Parliament are exploiting it in the areas where they have gained control.

Let us remove that weapon from the opposition of this country. Let us do so in order that fellow South Africans may be able to enjoy to the full the potential of South Africa which is already available.

We cannot live with the Group Areas Act any more. [Interjections.] Do not expect us to go low key on the Group Areas Act. Until the Group Areas Act is removed from the Statute Book we will not rest in this Parliament. [Interjections.] Within the limits and bounds of Parliament we will do our utmost to have the Group Areas Act removed from the Statute Book. If hon members wish to create a new South Africa it is time to create the atmosphere for change. If we are serious about reform we should bear in mind that the factor which affects the greater majority of people is the Group Areas Act. We have to start by creating an atmosphere which will become acceptable to all South Africans.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly spent a tremendous amount of time trying to paint a picture showing that the ANC is the enemy of South Africans. I wish to say to him that the ANC is as South African as all of us. While we differ concerning strategy the objective of the ANC is the objective of the greater majority of South Africans. [Interjections.] There is no doubt in my mind that the ANC wants a South Africa where every South African will enjoy the right not only to become a South African, but also to reach his fullest potential. [Interjections.] While we have had White domination over the years, the one fear that Whites in this country have, and I refer in particular to my friends on the right, is that of Black domination.

There is no fear in my mind of domination of any sort. What I am looking for is a South Africa which is fully democratic, a South Africa which I would be proud of and a South Africa which will hold out a future for those who will follow me.

Like you, Mr Speaker, I also have children. Like you I also have grandchildren and I am not going to sit back and allow the future of my children to be destroyed by narrowness. It is important that we negotiate with the ANC. If the hon the State President found it necessary to speak to other Black leaders in Africa, what is wrong with speaking with South Africans?

Have you heard of violence?

The hon member may not be able to spell violence, but what he is advocating is violence. [Interjections.]

It is important that we speak to every South African. It is important because solutions for South Africa will not be found until all the political thinking in this country is represented around a table. It is important that everybody be there, because the time for prescription is long gone.

I would like to conclude by saying that I believe it is possible for us to find each other. I believe it is possible for us to find solutions to our problems, but I also believe that time is fast running out on us. I believe that South Africa with its tremendous potential can become one of the leaders within the world community. However, as long as group thinking is prevalent in our midst, as long as privileged groups are governing in this country and as long as the greater majority of people are not represented in Parliament, we are not going to find solutions to our problem.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the House of Representatives must please excuse me if I do not react to him directly.

Nor do I want to react to all the points of criticism raised by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. In the course of my prepared speech I shall attempt to reply to many of his misgivings, because I expected something of that kind. When a party plays its political theme tune on only one string, one eventually has no difficulty in predicting even the variations. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly boasted of the CP’s victories in the recent municipal elections, and I want to deal with that point. On reflection, the votes cast in favour of the CP candidates proved to be an exercise in futility, because after the CP’s experience in towns such as Boksburg and Brakpan, other CP-controlled city councils and municipalities dropped CP policy like a hot potato, and today no vestige of that policy is still being implemented. [Interjections.] For that reason I am saying that it was an exercise in futility.

Is the Kuruman library open to all races?

We do not realise the truth in the expression that South Africa is a world in microcosm, and that in one’s political forecasts and policy one has to take that into account.

The late Dr Verwoerd, who took note of this fact, defended separation in the field of labour. He said that if one integrated people in the economy, one could not ultimately, without revolutionary consequences, withhold their claims to political rights from them.

At the time you United Party supporters were opposed to that!

Of course we were opposed to it! That was the reason why skilled and other categories of labour were reserved for certain workers in the past. Today, after the growth that has taken place over the past few decades, we find that this has not taken place as a result of separation, but rather as a result of integration in the labour and economic spheres.

All population groups in South Africa have shared in that creation of economic prosperity we all enjoy today. Without the integration of these people, all people, in the economy of South Africa, it would not have been possible to call South Africa the industrial giant of Africa today.

Meanwhile South Africans of all races and colours have become so enmeshed and intertwined in the economic fate of this country that it is completely impossible, in practice, to unravel this. Economic integration is a fait accompli, and therefore withholding political rights from groups can only lead to dissatisfaction, insurrection and disaster.

South Africa cannot escape the political and social phenomena which have manifested themselves in other countries that have converted from an agricultural to an industrial economy. Here, too, those problems are being experienced.

Whatever the cultural and other differences between our people may be, when one makes provision for a satisfactory political accommodation, certain norms will always have to be met. Two of these norms are justness and fairness. Those will be the criteria against which any system will be measured. Situations of unrest are frequently the result of measures aimed at equal treatment not, in the opinion of certain people, being strictly implemented. The consequent instability that is caused makes the solution of our problems difficult, if not impossible.

That is why one identifies oneself with the hon the Acting State President’s appeal to political and community leaders to negotiate and enter into discussions for the sake of peace. If we in South Africa want to survive, we shall have to create bridges between racial groups rather than breaches, bridges across which we can find common ground to solve our mutual problems. Whether one wants to turn one’s back on reality or not, the fact remains that South Africa belongs to all its people and not only to certain favoured or privileged groups. There is no such thing—and there never will be in the future—as a Utopia in which majority occupation within the present borders of South Africa is the sole right of only a certain group.

However attractive this prospect may sound to certain people, at best it remains a pipe-dream philosophy, rooted in a need for escapism— escape from reality and its challenges on the part of those faint-hearted individuals who have no faith or hope in the kind of South Africa in which all people jointly have to shape the future— people who, in the words of the hon the Acting State President’s opening address, “overemphasize diversity to such an extent that communality is lost”.

South Africa must rid itself of its fear psychosis, born of that tendency in people always to regard people of another skin colour as posing a threat. What is tragic, however, is that these fears and prejudices amongst people are exploited, by both right-wing and left-wing elements in politics, for their selfish political ends, and this can lead to what the hon the Leader of the House of Representatives called “that dangerous polarisation of people that can lead to atrocities and even murder”. At times it also leads to certain deviant social behavioural patterns.

You are probably one of those 61.

The hon the Acting State President referred, in his opening address, to para-military action. [Interjections.]

†Pictures of a recent rally by the AWB faithfuls show not only a large number of gunslinging and pistol-packing papas, but also an almost equal number of pistol-packing mamas.

I guess, Mr Speaker, that this feminine branch of the AWB’s military wing probably has as its slogan “Annie get your gun!” or, if translated into Afrikaans, “Anna gryp jou Sanna!”.

Mr Speaker, South Africa can well do without displays and demonstrations of this nature. They only serve to whip up racial feelings of animosity. South Africa’s peaceful future will not be secured by armed battles between the extreme right wing and the extreme left wing of the political spectrum.

Armed conflicts solve nothing. The solution lies in sober assessment and discussion of political differences in an effort to resolve them in an atmosphere of calm and tranquillity. Real reform is only possible when measures, irksome and hurtful to certain groups, are removed.

The hon the Acting State President mentioned the Group Areas Act. He suggested that other ways and means be found to allay and arrest the fears of those people who fear the destruction of their own community life. These fears are real and cannot just be wished away. My plea is that we make this search for other ways and means a joint effort, a national effort.

Thus the way to total reform can be cleared of obstacles like the Group Areas Act which has been a bone of contention for so long both internally and externally.

Total reform can only be achieved when the last vestiges of discrimination disappear. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, as first speaker on the Government side I would be failing in my duty at this juncture if I did not record my appreciation, as well as that of my hon colleagues, to the national leader of the National Party who has recently retired. We want to express our appreciation for his contribution during a period of more than a decade, especially in regard to the creation of a new political dispensation which enabled other race groups to sit in this Parliament and discuss matters mutual to everybody’s interest.

It is difficult to overestimate the role played by the hon the State President in the field of practical and political reform since 1978. His contribution in shaping South Africa’s constitutional future was a formative and a constructive one, more often than not in the face of negative and destructive criticism. Today he can, with full justification, be called the father of reform. The new structures at first, second and third tier government, some of which are still being developed, prove his determination to allow full participation by all South Africa’s people at the different levels of government.

Whatever criticism may be levelled at the new structures, one fact remains. The vehicle of reform has not only been set in motion, but it is gathering momentum. Whatever the future may hold, whatever future leaders may do, the process which has been set in motion is unstoppable, irreversible and irrevocable.

Therefore, Sir, in taking leave of the hon the State President as national leader of the NP, one is not only filled with a feeling of sadness, but also with a deep sense of gratitude for the milestones erected by him during his period of office as Head of State.

Hear, hear!

Still as a caucus member, one remembers certain qualities of this man. One of those qualities is his sincere belief in the integrity of South Africa’s people—all South Africa’s people—in their soundness of judgement, their ability to adapt and their ability to accept the inevitable. His greatest quality though, which, to my mind, has carried him through many stormy and dark periods, is his unshakable faith in a divine Creator, whose countenance he can seek for light and guidance.

We in the NP honour him for the sound foundations he laid and on which his successors and the NP of the future can build a safe and peaceful future for South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I want to start off by congratulating the hon the Acting State President upon the high official position he holds. I pray he will preserve this position in the same way in which our hon State President has preserved it.

*Mr Speaker, I also want to express my party’s hope that the hon the State President will get well soon, as well as our wish for his speedy recovery.

We want to convey our best wishes to the new national leader of the National Party, the hon the Minister of National Education. We also wish him good health so that he can lead our country to peace and stability.

†I also want to convey to Dr Zach De Beer, the indirectly nominated member of the PFP, who has taken his seat in this Parliament, my best wishes for his success.

Yes, Mr Speaker, I agree that the year 1989 will be a challenging year. It will definitely require us to serve our community with renewed vigour and to negotiate lasting solutions. It is all very well to say so, but it will require a great effort and sacrifice, particularly by the ruling party of our country. We all must make our contributions for the future, but we must be clear about the path we choose.

The call of the hon the Acting State President that we all assume responsibilities in 1989 and that we be motivated by a common desire to live together in harmony in our shared fatherland, and his call for our support, are strongly supported by me.

The hon the Acting State President has outlined to us the Government’s promotion of the welfare of the entire population in the security, constitutional and social fields and in that of economic development. Let us analyse these one by one. Let us take economic development. Has the Government really given us clear directions? I ask myself the same question. Although we find that economists are saying we have reached the peak, and they even talk about interest rates remaining stable for the time being, I ask why “for the time being”? Cannot we find a solution in the form of a stable policy that will give us actual growth, not mere speculation from day to day?

Let us look at our Western partners and some developing countries as examples. Let us look at the growth of the economies of countries such as Taiwan and Korea which is up to 11% per annum. We will be lucky if our growth rate is more than between 2% and 3%. Why?

Let us link our future growth to constitutional and political development. In which direction is our future political development going to be? Must our faithful friends overseas, in the United Kingdom, West Germany and elsewhere, bear the brunt because we are selfish and cannot see our way clear to bring about political reforms which will include Blacks? To me the present proposal of a national council seems to be stillborn. If it is implemented, will it have any legitimacy? Who will serve on the proposed council? Have we negotiated with the right people or are we merely bringing about some cosmetic changes? Are we insulting the intelligence of the Blacks of our country—and even that of our friends abroad? What about local political leaders such as Buthelezi, to name but one? Let us improve our internal negotiations to satisfy the people locally and not to satisfy the people who wish to see the destruction of our economy.

*My party welcomes the Government’s decision to withdraw the referral of the contentious Group Areas Amendment Bill to the President’s Council. However, we are sorry that after intensive debates during the second special session of Parliament last year on this legislation, in which a majority of the members of Parliament expressed their opposition to it, the Government did not consider it advisable to withdraw the Bill at that stage. It had to go to the President’s Council first, and the Government has now decided to heed their advice. Although my party has great respect for the members of the President’s Council, we nevertheless feel that the Government has again missed a golden opportunity in not heeding the appeals of the elected representatives of the community in this House.

This kind of behaviour by the Government is interpreted by the general public as a measure of contempt for the standpoint of elected representatives. It requires cajoling words and explanations to the people outside when the Government heeds the advice of a nominated body, on which in the main members who support the Government are serving. The dignity of members of Parliament and the dignity of Parliament is assailed, and the Government should avoid this in future.

I do not think anyone in this House will take it amiss of me when I say that the Group Areas Act is one of the most contentious pieces of legislation on our Statute Book. [Interjections.] When the Second Reading debate on the Group Areas Bill was conducted in the House of Assembly in 1950 the responsible Minister, the late Dr Eben Dönges, said inter alia that the main purpose of the then envisaged legislation was to apply it in a fair and just way, but coercion would be applied if necessary.

If one considers the implementation of the Act, particularly in the early years, one sees that very little came of the principle of fairness. Virtually everything done in those days in terms of the Act, had a strong element of coercion present in it.

I do not want to deliver a diatribe here today on the adverse consequences of this behaviour. All right-minded persons are aware of this in any case, as well as of the most important proclamations of White group areas, namely District Six in Cape Town, Pageview in Johannesburg and Cato Ridge in Durban. Serviceable buildings were demolished with the aid of bulldozers. Thousands of people were uprooted.

†A particularly insensitive Cabinet Minister even referred to bulldozers as “front-end loaders.” South Africa was set on a course where it would never be able to outlive the consequences. It would be a millstone around the neck for generations to come. In spite of the failures of the Act the Government still sought to tighten its provisions.

We are pleased that the folly of this has been realized even if it is only temporarily. We believe that the Group Areas Act should be scrapped immediately. It has failed miserably in the past.

Let us look at the situation that has developed over the past few years. I want hon members to listen carefully. Bertrams in Johannesburg was a middle-class suburb which housed mainly English-speaking people. In the late 1960’s an exodus started when people moved to new suburbs. In the early 1970’s people of Portuguese descent from the neighbouring countries which were then under colonial rule started to move into the suburb. This process was accelerated in 1974 when colonial rule ended in Mozambique and Angola.

Subsequently there was a measure of urban renewal and in the early 1980’s the process was repeated. The Portuguese-speaking people are either moving to newer suburbs or leaving the country and people of colour are taking advantage of the vacuum that has been created.

In spite of the harsh provisions of the law, it has collapsed in the face of economic and social realities. All the suburbs surrounding Johannesburg and the city itself have become multi-racial in character. Can the Free Settlement Areas Act rectify this situation? What will happen is that the suburbs of Bertrams, Jeppestown, Belgravia, Doornfontein, Joubert Park, Hillbrow and Mayfair may well be the only areas in Johannesburg to cater for its entire multi-racial population. Because of population pressures such a state of affairs will have a negative effect on the entire population. It will satisfy nobody, irrespective of the position occupied in the political spectrum. It is the existence of laws such as these that catapulted an otherwise unknown Mayfair West and Kraaifontein into an internal foray. Up until now there have been no violent incidents, but by jove I shudder to think what would happen if we do have such incidents! We would then remain the polecat of the international community.

It may be argued by some speakers who follow me that each community is entitled to an own community life. Yes, I grant them that, but no law can guarantee it. In all the major cities there will be little enclaves. There are suburbs in Cape Town which are more Jewish or English or Afrikaans in character. People by their own motivation organise themselves into distinct, identifiable communities, not necessarily based on race.

They gravitate towards one another. Other distinct groups also live within such identifiable communities. The presence of a few Jewish families in some predominantly Afrikaans platteland towns has, however, in no way made inroads into the cultural life of the majority community. Why should race be a factor? The hon the Chairman of the House of Delegates grew up in a predominantly Afrikaans community. While this has contributed to his ability to express himself well in Afrikaans, it has in no way changed his cultural outlook or even his colour.

The problem is that the existence of the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act on the Statute Book will always be exploited to achieve ulterior ends. Since Boksburg has hit the international headlines, I believe it is essential that the Government tells this House what its intentions are with regard to this Act. We believe it has no place on our Statute Book and should be scrapped forthwith. It will always be used by bigots as long as it remains on the Statute Book. In many circles the feeling is that the CP-controlled town councils are merely putting into practice what the law prescribes, much to the detriment of those towns and the country. The Government can put a stop to future Boksburgs if it takes positive steps by repealing this and other related laws.

*We have also taken cognizance of the Government’s commitment to promoting the security of our country and all its citizens. It is no secret that at present there are many people who fear the future, as the hon member for Kuruman mentioned. This attitude has developed because people are uncertain about the future. When there is uncertainty, fear grows and situations such as those prevailing in Kraaifontein, Mayfair West and Boksburg develop. The security of the Republic’s citizens can therefore only be promoted if the Government can spell out a plan for the future and people can look to the future without fear. For that reason we strongly supported the legislation which made provision for a national council. The Government must therefore give us an indication of how this process is progressing.

†Political developments of the past year have left a deep conviction in our minds that repressive laws such as the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Group Areas Act militate against creating the climate for stability in our country. The efforts of certain parties to reintroduce old-style apartheid are objectionable and serve only to create feelings of hostility.

Repressive legislation must be repealed in its entirety. Apartheid can never be clothed in a garment of respectability and it can never be reformed. It must be eradicated so that all the peoples of South Africa can take their rightful place in this great country.

The Boksburg saga and the problems in Mayfair and Kraaifontein make us the polecats of the world. It is wrong to blame the CP because they merely exploited existing legislation. The incidents which occurred in Mayfair have the potential for conflict and communal strife. People who fan the flames of this monster are not acting in the interests of South Africa. They do not have South Africa’s interests at heart.

Developments over the past year gave rise to a feeling of calm and control among certain sections of the population. However, this feeling is false and misplaced. The problems which confronted us four years ago, still haunt us today in different forms. The banning of mass-based extra-parliamentary organisations, suppression of the free press, the continued imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, and the continued exclusion of the majority of the population from the central process of decision-making, are the national issues that have to be addressed and solutions have to be found in order to create the climate for a new South Africa.

We are nowhere near solving or beginning to address the problems. There has been no honest and realistic commitment to deal with the real problems of our country. The Government possesses huge apparatus which will in the short term deal adequately with part of the crisis faced by this country, but temporary solutions are no good because the long-term crisis will continue and deepen.

The political aspirations of all the peoples of South Africa must be addressed. Justice and popular demands cannot be wished away. The demands of the people for the removal of the Group Areas Act and the repeal of other discriminatory legislation are not imaginary or illegitimate demands.

To attempt to blackmail Indians and Coloureds by insisting that areas such as Mitchells Plain and Laudium be opened is to try to escape from the reality of the situation. Mitchells Plain, Laudium and other such areas are by nature open areas, and I invite any hon member of Parliament to disagree with me. Furthermore, these areas have become overcrowded and slum conditions are becoming prevalent. The legitimate demands of the people can never be suppressed by force.

These are the questions we should ask ourselves: Can this new session of Parliament adequately deal with the problems facing this country? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, we should like to take this, the first opportunity of the session, to express our deep regret at the illness of the hon the State President, and to express the sincere and heartfelt wish that his health will rapidly improve and that he will make a complete recovery.

We extend our congratulations to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council (House of Assembly) on his election as national leader of the NP and look forward to a speedy clarification of the uncertainties surrounding the constitutional implications of this.

If I may be permitted to do so, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the service which my friend Prof Nic Olivier has rendered to my party and to the country as a member of Parliament. I particularly want to thank him for the unselfish gesture which has made it possible for me to take my place in the parliamentary team sooner rather than later.

I now come to the speech made by the hon the Acting State President. I want to refer to two aspects in particular, namely clean administration—or rather, the lack thereof—and the economy. Both deserve far more attention than the hon gentleman paid them.

As far as clean administration is concerned, we, together with the whole of South Africa, have been deeply shocked at the torrent of information that has been made public in recent times regarding corruption of various kinds. It is easy enough to frown upon it, to censure it, to condemn it and to promise strong action against it, but that is not enough. Then one is fighting only the symptoms and not the disease. What is required in reality is to first conduct a thorough investigation and to diagnose where the causes lie.

Look, South Africans do not have a tradition of corruption. It is true that there have been instances of it in our history, as in those of practically every other country, but in general we can boast that our Government and our officials have acted honestly. What, then, can the reasons be that have given rise to the current spate of incidents?

I submit that one of them is the increasing measure of secrecy surrounding the Government’s actions. It has always been true in every quarter that the strongest bulwark against corruption is an open, public, visible administration, constantly subjected to the surveillance and scrutiny of a free press and the public. As someone put it, sunshine is the best policeman. With the passage of time the degree of openness here in our country has become progressively smaller and smaller. It may be said that the incidence of corruption has been more or less in inverse proportion, and that it has increased as the openness of the administration has diminished.

The hon members of the governing party will say that in principle they were not in favour of secrecy, but that it has been forced upon them by circumstances, and particularly by what they are so wont to describe as the total onslaught.

In so far as the total onslaught is not merely a product of the NP propaganda machine, it naturally consists of the reactions of persons and bodies both within and outside South Africa to the policy of racial discrimination which the Government is still implementing. I therefore submit that the foolish, morally unacceptable and, in the long run, unworkable policy of apartheid, or own affairs, if the hon members prefer, is helping to create the conditions in which corruption will occur to an increasing extent.

Permit me to examine one clear aspect of this lamentable history. It is very clear that a large number of the worst incidents of corruption are taking place in regard to the so-called independent homelands. Banks in the Ciskei acting irregularly, bribery of a Prime Minister in the Transkei, Mafia chiefs entering our country through the Ciskei with the help of NP members of Parliament. All this and, according to reports, much more.

How and why did the independent homelands come into being? The new vision Dr Verwoerd had in his day, is still fresh in our memories. He acknowledged that Blacks would inevitably have to be granted citizenship. He did not want this to take place in South Africa and therefore proposed the policy of separate development so that Blacks would be able to exercise their rights in countries which would ostensibly be independent. It was always clear that these territories would not be economically viable, but the Government nevertheless forged ahead with them because at that time they offered a glimmer of hope that in this way it would be possible to avoid, as it were, the necessity for citizenship rights for Black South Africans.

The non-viability of these territories was dealt with by paying large subsidies to them, but due to their alleged independence it was not really possible to exercise adequate control over the expenditure of money. Once again there was secrecy and large sums of money were spent without any control being exercised over them. This is a perfect recipe for corruption, which is now raising its head everywhere.

†In terms of its original purpose, the homeland policy has failed utterly. It is doing no one any good and it is bringing shame upon us all through this corruption. We urge the Government today to abandon the homeland policy and to recognise that these territories are inescapably part of our country and part of our problem, and that those people are part of our population. Furthermore, we urge the Government to clean up these sinks of corruption by instituting normal, open, democratic government over them.

Secrecy is a great cause of corruption. Another is the complacency and arrogance that do tend to develop among human beings who have had power and privilege for too long. These, in turn, lead to temptation and so to corrupt deeds. A third reason for some of the corruption is the air of crisis which surrounds any country which is governed under a permanent state of emergency which, in turn, tempts people to make hay while the sun shines and, in particular, to get money out of the country wherever possible. This, one believes, accounts for the proliferating foreign exchange swindles that we have been seeing.

We want to see a South Africa that is truly stable, where administration takes place in the light of day, where government is elected by all the people and therefore can govern with the consent of all the people, where ordinary people believe in their future and where they have an incentive to save their money and invest it in honest activities aimed at creating wealth and not at grabbing whatever they can get and getting rich quickly. That is the sort of society in which corruption will be brought under control. However, as long as we have the secrecy, the censorship and the uncertainties inherent in a society dominated by racism, corruption will always be with us.

A word about the economy. It came as no surprise to us that this was the briefest and sketchiest part of the hon Acting State President’s speech. The truth is that the performance of the economy during the 1980’s has been abysmal for reasons closely connected with the Government’s policy and management. The hon gentleman appeared rather pleased that the growth rate in 1988 was about 3%. He did not mention that the population grows by some 2,5% so that the real per capita improvement was only about 0,5%. He certainly did not refer to the fact that during this decade as a whole the average growth rate has been less than 2%. In per capita terms we actually have been getting steadily poorer. In constant 1985 money the per capita income of the average South African decreased by 11% from R4 002 in 1980 to R3 530 in 1987. That is as measured by the gross national product.

I stress, of course, that that decline is in real money. The current money figures have risen considerably, because that is what our high inflation rate keeps doing to us. The hon the Acting State President took comfort from the fact that inflation in 1988 was a little lower than expected and lower than in the previous few years, but that is not the comparison we should be making. The comparison that counts, is between our inflation rate on the one hand and those of our main trading partners on the other. Our rate remains some three times as high as theirs.

This, of course, means that our rand keeps losing value and this is another reason why people like to get money out of the country if they can. The hon the Acting State President said that the Government remains committed to an anti-inflationary policy along the lines proposed by the Economic Advisory Council. That sounds all right, but what is it that the EAC keeps begging the Government to do? It keeps asking that Government expenditure should be tightly controlled and reduced as a percentage of gross domestic product and what happens? In 1967 Government consumption expenditure was about 11% of GDP. In 1987—20 years later—it was 19%. This represents a huge transfer of resources from the productive private sector to the unproductive public one, as Government appoints new armies of pen-pushers, a great many of whom are needed precisely to administer the apartheid structure.

The hon the Acting State President referred with satisfaction to the fact that our foreign debt ratios are sound and improved further last year. Yes, Sir, they did. They could hardly do otherwise, given that the foreign banks will not roll over our loans and we have to make repayments in terms of the debt standstill agreements. However, what about our total debt?

*In this regard, Mr Speaker, I refer to last year’s August issue of the periodical Insig, published by Nasionale Pers. It contains an article on Government expenditure and debt. The deficit before borrowing increased from R816 million in 1975 to R6 903 million in 1987, which implies an increase of 17,9% per annum. Even this Government’s inflation rate is not that high. The deficit before borrowing, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, rose from 3% to 4,2% in the corresponding period. This increase is disturbing if one takes as one’s yardstick the norm of a maximum of 3% recommended by the International Monetary Fund for developing countries such as South Africa. Total public debt increased from R10,1 billion in 1975 to R55,5 billion in 1987. As a result of this the burden of interest on the debt of a moderate R359 million in 1975 grew to R6 038 million in 1987, an increase of 23,3% per annum.

Moreover, the ratio of current expenditure to total expenditure has remained reasonably constant and has even begun to increase over the past decade. More than 50% of this current expenditure consists of wages and salaries to officials. One would expect that a considerable saving on this component could be effected by way of rationalisation programmes. It has, however, been the fixed investment component of expenditure that has begun to decrease proportionally since the late seventies. Particularly investment in the construction industry, which may be regarded as the creation of infrastructure, has undergone a drastic decrease in proportion to current expenditure.

There hon members have it. Our Government is spending more and more money in the form of current expenditure rather than on the building of infrastructure and is borrowing more and more money to finance it. This is stunting the growth rate, giving rise to inflation, and causing our taxpayers to bear an unprecedentedly high burden, inter alia by bearing the Government’s interest burden for it.

On 2 September last year, the Financial Mail published an edition in which they placed a picture of the hon the State President on the front cover accompanied by the caption: “A vote for me is a vote for poverty.” It caused a sensation, but it really was not unjustified in view of the facts. If the Government proceeds on its present course, then it is indeed poverty that lies ahead for South Africa.

It is abundantly clear why the hon the Acting State President glossed so hastily over the subject of the economy. The performance is, as I have said, bitterly disappointing, and I want to say here once again, as I have also said about corruption, that it is no good treating symptoms.

We have competent people at the helm of financial institutions, and very capable managers in the private sector; why, despite this, are we unable to make the grade? Because we persist in attempting to maintain an artificial, unnatural state structure and because this leads to enormous, fruitless, lavish expenditure.

†Successful modern industrial countries have small governments, not huge ones. They are democracies, not semi-feudal oligarchies. They are deregulated; their people have equal rights and freedoms. They have free markets and free societies, not Group Areas Acts. This is the sort of society that South Africa needs and is not getting. It is racism that corrupts; it is racism that impoverishes. We want the normal democratic society to which I have referred. This party and the shortly to be born Democratic Party are committed to that sort of society. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the DRP, the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives, I also want to identify myself with the good wishes that have been extended to the hon the State President wishing him a full and speedy recovery from his illness.

In terms of the DRP’s policies and principles of evolving a democracy in our country by means of reform, we find the policy package offered by the Government as contained in the Acting State President’s speech a reasonable and a balanced attempt to deal with the basic problems of the South Africa of today. [Interjections.]

That reaction endorses my next point, namely that we are a deeply divided society. This is a legacy of our colonial past and of the internal racially discriminatory policies of our recent history resulting in the denial and deprivation of thousands upon thousands of South Africans. The ideal of a fully democratised South Africa is therefore still very much a goal in the distant future, the foundations of which we are called upon to lay now.

This must be so if we accept that democracy is not only a new constitution to replace the old one, a removal of legislation from the Statute Book, a Bill of Rights, a multiparty political system and all the other well-known institutions that mark a democratic society. These mean nothing if they are not rooted in a democratic culture—are not products indeed of a democratic culture. They remain ideals after which we must still strive.

Democracy is a way of life, a mature way of living together in society where the majority of people accept, without question, a set of values, standards and norms which men, after generations and centuries of evolutionary growth, universally acknowledge as being characteristic of a democratic society.

In short, democracy is only possible in a society of democrats. Since we are far from being a society of democrats, but one that is ridden with fears and frustrations that threaten to tear us apart, a formula must be devised to allay those fears and eliminate those frustrations so that we can embark on a process that will finally bring us together in a common democracy.

In this regard, the Government comes forward with a commitment which I believe will—if implemented with the necessary enthusiasm, dedication and despatch—lay the necessary foundations for the growth of a democracy in our country.

*How does the Government see its responsibility in this regard? I quote from the speech by the hon Acting State President:

†Mr Speaker, if there is any non-Nationalist in this House who sincerely claims to be striving to find solutions yet refuses to respond positively to the hon the acting State President’s call for support for the Government’s commitment as set out in the foregoing quotation, then he has other political fish to fry. [Interjections.] I believe that would be totally impractical or totally counterproductive as far as achieving democracy is concerned.

I have only a few minutes at my disposal, and therefore cannot touch on all the issues raised in the hon the Acting State President’s speech. [Interjections.] “Thank goodness” is a commentary on that hon member’s acceptance of the democratic right of free speech. [Interjections.]

However, with regard to the creation of free settlement areas I wish to direct a strong appeal to all parties: Do not let the ideal become the enemy of the good, the desirable and what is possible.

Mr Speaker, a hard and indisputable fact about group relations in South Africa today is that if the Whites in this country feel threatened, we can kiss reform good-bye. Of course the same is true if Black frustrations are not eased and finally removed. We have seen how White fears of being swamped in residential areas they claim as their own, have been whipped up to white heat by those who wish to exploit racial feelings for their own ends, and how this has found expression in violent reactions. I am talking about the Mayfair West and Kraaifontein incidents as examples.

No number of accusations of being racist flung at them and no number of demands for the immediate removal of the Group Areas Act are going to change their minds. These things will only make matters worse.

Among those people who will of course benefit from this emotion-charged situation are the White right-wing groupings whose arms are spread wide to collect the thousands of votes that will come their way if reason and calm were to fail. Reason and calm will certainly win the day if all of us will support the Government’s approach to solving this sensitive problem. I quote from the hon the Acting State President’s speech:

It is of the utmost importance that these two approaches to meeting the housing need be tackled with determination, with special emphasis on the creation of entirely new free settlement areas for which tens of thousands of South Africans are eagerly waiting in order to exercise their right of freedom of choice. These approaches will serve as a model for all of us to see how South Africans can live together in peace and harmony.

In time, the success of the free settlement area concept must spell the end of the Group Areas Act. The Government’s commitment to deal efficiently with corruption within its structures must, I am sure, be welcomed by all three Houses of Parliament, particularly the House of Representatives which, I am sure, has nothing to hide.

There is one issue which, with respect, I believe is not dealt with adequately in the hon the Acting State President’s speech and that is the open display of firearms and other weapons by rightwing groups. They are merely called upon to stop such displays. That is not enough.

All concerned South Africans expect the Government to intervene decisively in such situations. The full force of the law and, if necessary, new law, must be brought to bear on such defiance of the authority of the State. No legitimate organisation needs firearms for protection. The police can adequately perform that function. I have attended LP conferences where the police seemed to outnumber the delegates. [Interjections.] The Skilpadsaal was a case in point and I was not the chairman of the conference.

Such displays of arms are deliberately designed to intimidate other population groups and can only lead to further polarisation and fatal assaults on individuals, as has already happened.

Privatisation and deregulation are going to play a crucial role in laying the economic basis for democracy. These policies are to be welcomed, particularly deregulation, as it will directly address the problems of unemployment and the chronically low incomes of vast numbers of South Africa’s peoples.

Apart from the benefits that will accrue to the individual, deregulation will contribute positively to the creation of a vast new class of entrepreneurs which will play an important role in combating communism.

The hon the Acting State President’s call for the development of unity based on our common love for South Africa cannot be ignored if we wish to create a democratic culture in South Africa.

The proof that we are still lacking in a common patriotism is the fact that some individuals, especially certain clerics, feel no qualms of conscience when they travel the world in order to solicit the help of foreign powers to impose sanctions, with all their horrific implications for their own country. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I should very much like to associate myself with hon members who extended good wishes to the hon the State President. I should also like to wish the hon the Acting State President, who has to carry out this task, everything of the best.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Representatives) said that we should strive for the ideal that all people could share in a democracy. I should like to endorse that.

Allow me also to congratulate the hon member Dr De Beer on his nomination as a member of Parliament. I hope that the time spent here by the hon member will be pleasant. May I respond to one aspect to which the hon member referred, which was that economic affairs had been paid disappointingly little attention in this opening address. Unfortunately the hon member was not in Parliament for a short while and therefore I want to remind him that the hon the State President’s address last year dealt comprehensively with economic affairs. It was so comprehensive that it elicited criticism that too much had been said about economic affairs and too little about constitutional matters. It seems to me that whatever one does one cannot satisfy people.

In his opening address the hon the Acting State President once more committed the Government to the reform process. I am referring to the paragraph on page 1 in which he says: “The Government once more commits itself to the reform policy and also asks for support for it.” I think it is also abundantly clear to hon members who over the past months have followed events in South Africa and listened to leaders’ statements that reform and the quest for peace in South Africa and in Southern Africa receive very high priority. Time permits me to mention only a few examples such as the hon the State President’s visits to African states as well as negotiations which took place to bring about peace in South West Africa and Angola. Instead of casting suspicion in advance on events which are now to take place there, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly did, I think that South Africa owes a great debt of gratitude to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence as well as to all officials and members of the Security Forces who were tirelessly active for years in South West Africa and Angola and continued with this so that the stage has now been reached that peace has been negotiated. We know that we as well as they will continue our quest for peace in South Africa and Southern Africa because no war is better than even a bad peace. Even if it were a good war, it could never be as good as peace, even if it is not perfect peace. We thank those gentlemen. [Interjections.]

Referring to the municipal elections, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Assembly) mentioned figures to show in how many of these city councils and municipalities they had ultimately taken over control. I want to tell him and his party that they do not have much cause to be proud of the way in which they are now trying to govern these places because for the first time we have the opportunity of seeing how right-wing and CP policy will be carried out in practice. In not a single place where they are now carrying out their policy does it take into account or pass the test of the realities of South Africa. Neither is it strange that they are beginning to show inconsistency in the application of what they spelt out would happen before the municipal elections.

Are swimming baths open or closed?

I want to ask that hon member whether his head is open or closed! [Interjections.]

This afternoon I want to state that an all-or-nothing attitude coming from any group in South Africa is an approach which will not be able to stand the test of time in South Africa. Neither right-wing groups nor those of the radical left which have an all-or-nothing approach will pass the test in South Africa. The only feasible solution must therefore be worked out by people in this country who are prepared in response to the appeal of the hon the State President and other NP leaders to meet, to sit together and together to seek solutions which will ultimately solve the problems of this country.

The question at the start of this 1989 session is therefore whether we who are gathered here are prepared and whether we have the will to seek these solutions together; whether we are prepared to create a climate for co-operation for those who are also viewing events here from outside.

If I may again be permitted to quote from the opening address of the hon the Acting State President where he says:

there is clear proof that the NP has committed itself to the search for peaceful negotiated solutions.

I should like to quote a statement made at the Eshowe conference by the hon leader of the LP, the hon the Chairman of that Ministers’ Council, and afterwards just ask him whether he still stands by this statement; we can then discuss it. He said:

Further on he said:

If that is true and he confirms that it is so, I really want to tell him that a perception is sometimes gained outside which proves the opposite of these specific statements which he made.

The National Press is endorsing that perception.

I should like to request him once more today that we who are all leaders gather and take a fresh look at designing a new South Africa for the benefit of all.

Mr Chairman, at the very outset I wish to make an appeal to all and sundry not to see the hon LP members as those who have been co-opted and become part of the tricameral system in order to acquire status and enrich themselves. No, the sole purpose of our continued participation is to fight for the rights of our people!

In the first place we decided to participate in order to rid this country of ours of the disease of discrimination and to work out a new constitutional dispensation acceptable to the majority of South Africans by means of negotiation.

Secondly we decided to participate in order to improve the quality of life of the disadvantaged and deprived people of South Africa. We have declared war against poverty!

Thanks to these noble ideals there is no place in the ranks of the LP for the kind of devious wheeling and dealing which has reared its ugly head in recent times.

*Mr Chairman, now that a general election is in sight, there is a great deal of speculation about the chances both the NP and the CP have of winning. As far as the LP is concerned, there are clear similarities between the NP and the CP.

Firstly, party membership is limited exclusively to the White population group.

Secondly, both parties still believe—the contrary has not been proved—in White domination and in White people being accorded a favoured and privileged position. Thirdly, the basis of both parties’ policies remains that of one of their founders, namely Dr H F Verwoerd. Fourthly, the Government, just like the CP, still clings desperately to offensive, discriminatory laws which humiliate fellow South Africans, affect their human dignity and deprive them of their rights.

Another very important similarity is the fear, on the part of the Whites, of those of us who are not classified as White. This dominates and clouds both parties’ political thinking. Give me the opportunity to refer to the great architect of the apartheid ideology, namely Dr H F Verwoerd. The following quotation forms, even today, the basic principle of both NP and CP policy. During his speech in the Senate on 3 September 1948, as given in Prof Pelser’s work Verwoerd aan die Woord, Dr Verwoerd said (p 6):

He also says, and I quote:

How could Dr Verwoerd and his followers classify South Africa as a White man’s country today? At this moment only 4,8 million out of a total of 27,8 million people are classified as White.

But observe how, for example, the NP, of which the CP was a part, have grossly misused this despicable Group Areas Act in order to realise that ideal of the White man. The NP, the White man’s party, piloted this Act through the White Parliament without consulting us. Then they themselves unfairly divided up the country and demonstrated their selfishness, their greed and their avarice by choosing the largest and best part for themselves. [Interjections.] Now we, who have been wronged, are cheerfully expected to accept their immoral and unjust actions.

They did this out of fear. They did this in order to maintain White supremacy. Dr Verwoerd was quite right on 9 March 1960 when he asked in the House of Assembly, and I quote:

Let me tell you how the Whites succeed in maintaining their White supremacy in South Africa. They do so by favouring White people and granting them privileges to the detriment of other South Africans.

However, the Whites are also really just a hotchpotch.

Yes, just like us.

And if we take it further, we can say that not even all of them are not even born South Africans. [Interjections.] How many Whites are not immigrants who are only temporarily in our country? And then I am not even talking about those who are reclassified year after year. We on this side call them the “artificial Whites”. During the period 1974 to 1988, 3 919 Coloured people became White.

You would be surprised at who was included in their number! We want to be treated as equals and as people in our country of birth, irrespective of our skin colour. [Interjections.] White people are no better than us. They are people just like us, and we are all citizens of South Africa.

What differences are there, for example, between me and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly? What fundamental cultural differences are there between him and me? We are both Afrikaansspeaking, members of the Reformed Church and individuals who maintain the same political and economic culture. Why must I then be discriminated against? [Interjections.]

As Coloured people we will no longer allow ourselves to suffer such degrading humiliation. The Government announces, far and wide, the changes which have taken place in the country during the past few years, and I acknowledge this, but what the White messengers of the Government forget, however, is to make it known abroad that the Black man of South Africa is standing up for his rights as never before. [Interjections.] The days of our being humiliated in our fatherland, being regarded as not yet civilised, being reviled as barbarians and having to act as lackeys of the White man are over.

Just the other day the wife of the national leader of the NP told us, as Coloured people, that we were a negative group. We were described as “left-overs”. “The Coloured people of South Africa are left-overs.” How can we tolerate this any longer? [Interjections.]

We, the Black people of this country, are now telling the White man that enough is enough. The days when you looked down on me condescendingly, belong to the past. You can either tag along with me, or you can continue to exist in your fear of what the future holds in store for you. We are no longer prepared to put up with the Verwoerd ideology and the humiliation that goes with it.

There are many Whites in this country who want to move away from apartheid and recognise other inhabitants of this country as fellow South Africans. There are Whites who, together with the Labour Party, are convinced that South Africa must be a country of one nation. This is what we must all strive towards in this country.

The NP and the CP must realise that the days of Whites being accorded a favoured and privileged position in order to maintain their domination over fellow South Africans belong to the annals of history. It must also be stated that the White man can no longer suppress the Black man’s endeavour to achieve freedom and smother it by structural or other forms of violence. Violence begets violence, and the quicker the Whites realise this, the quicker all of us in this country can begin to work together to achieve our goal of one South Africa, free of discrimination.

If South Africa fails to put an end to discrimination, our children will exchange the road of peaceful co-existence for the road of violence. Our young people, White and non-White, are already turning their backs on peace and negotiation and viewing violence as the only solution to our country’s problems.

I am thinking today of Ashley Forbes and Nicklo Pedro, the once deeply religious young man from Mossel Bay, who together with other young men were recently convicted and given a long prison sentence. They had the sympathy of the judge, but they were punished because they resorted to violence.

When we look around us and see South Africans who are found guilty of violence in our supreme courts, then I ask what better sign is there for this country that the hourglass is running out. We can no longer go back to the past or have apartheid undergo a metamorphosis, which is the course the NP and the CP are adopting.

I repeat that the Black man’s days of humiliation are a thing of the past.

I am proud of the fact that I can state here today in all sincerity that the Labour Party under the leadership of Rev Hendrickse is the party in the current political dispensation which is really geared towards the future. Our leader and our party know the only road for South Africa is a road on which the rights of the individual have to be protected and on which freedom of speech and individual freedom must come before anything else.

The NP speaks about one nation, one South Africa, and—as the hon the acting State President told us yesterday—of full civil rights, but do they really mean it? Do they really mean it if they cling to the despicable Group Areas Act? Do they really mean it if they cling to the degrading Population Registration Act? Do they really mean it if they cling to the unjust Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, to separate schools, separate hostels, separate hospitals and even separate cemeteries? Why does the Government not scrap these Acts? I am not yet convinced or persuaded that the NP has abandoned the late Dr Verwoerd’s principle of White domination. The Government and the CP are so caught up in all of this that while South Africa moves from one crisis to the next, things are always evaluated on the basis of the interests of the White man. For the NP and CP the White man always comes first, instead of South Africa and all its people coming first.

†My time is running out. South Africa is a vast and beautiful country with the promise of an equally vast and beautiful future, if only we would take the trouble to strive for it sincerely in the interests of every South African. South Africa is a land which has the potential for great wealth—and I am not thinking in terms of gold, diamonds and platinum. I am thinking of the untapped wealth of our nation and our people in all our diversity.

The past played havoc with our diversity. Too much was made of that which makes us different from one another—our different colours, our different languages, our different races, our different beliefs and our different cultures—but nothing was made of that which binds us together. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is pathetic to see how the once mighty NP, which is humanly speaking unassailable, must scurry around in the so-called era of clean administration, must hear the damning evidence of one commission of enquiry after the other and must face the prospect of there being more damage and disgrace on the way. Then it almost sounds like gallows humour when the hon the Acting State President says in his opening address:

It is pitiable, but understandable for the hon the Acting State President to express such a wish.

How on earth the hon the Leader of the NP can make the people outside believe that the NP won the municipal elections in the Transvaal, is not only ridiculous, but also seriously jeopardises the credibility of that hon leader. This also applies to his Bangmaakstories no 5 and his predictions for the future, his way of thinking and the philosophy of the NP which he explained to the students of the University of Pretoria. Just consider what he said at the Transvaal congress of the NP, according to a report in Beeld of 16 November. I am quoting:

Hear, hear!

I hear hon members shouting “hear, hear!”. However, if that is true, how on earth is it possible that 670 CP councillors were elected in the Transvaal as against 490 non-aligned NP, PFP and independent councillors? How on earth is it possible that the CP at present controls more than 60 local authorities in the Transvaal as against the 35 or so of the other parties and the independents combined? How is it possible that 359 wards are represented by the CP as against only 221 by the NP? No, Mr Speaker, the CP won in the Transvaal because it spelt out honestly and frankly to the voters precisely what its policy was, as embodied in section 53, under the caption “woongebiede, dienste en geriewe”. I am quoting from this as follows:

1. (a) afsonderlike woongebiede vir verskillende volksgroepe sal in die Blanke gebiede afgedwing word; en
2. (b) elke volk geniet voorkeur wat die gebruik van dienste en geriewe in sy gebied betref;
3. (c) maatreëls teen verdringing sal behou en, waar nodig, ingestel of uitgebrei word.

That is CP policy. We are not concealing it; we are not ashamed of it and we will submit it to the voters for their decision again in the forthcoming general election. I hope that the national leader of the NP will then accept the result without trying to evade the issue. I have no doubt about the result of that election.

What is the choice facing the White voter in South Africa today? If he votes for the CP, he is voting for the fundamental standpoints I quoted from the programme of principles. However, if he votes for the NP, he is voting for a party some of whose leaders and members of the House of Assembly still want to stand by the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, whereas other leaders want to get rid of these Acts as quickly as possible.

The hon member for Langlaagte put the matter as follows last week, for example, according to Die Burger of 1 February. He made a serious appeal. Coming from a member of the “sixty-one club” of the NP, I want to tell the Government to put an end to the double talking on this matter. What was the Government’s response to this, through the hon the Acting State President on Friday? The referral of the Group Areas Act to the President’s Council has been withdrawn. The hon the Acting State President says that other ways and means will be investigated to achieve the objectives of a guaranteed own community life. In other words, the Group Areas Act is remaining on the Statute Book for the sake of the “sixty-nine club” of the NP. But what about the other side? On the other hand the possibilities created by the Free Settlement Areas Act are going to be utilised for the sake of the “sixty-one club” of the NP.

In point of fact the situation is therefore as follows. When the Boksburg city council takes certain decisions to restore the own community life of its residents in their own residential area, in which a lake is situated, after a decision taken by the NP as recently as 1986, the NP-controlled press, radio and television is used uninterruptedly every day for 14 days, to make a noise, kick up a fuss and even promote and encourage boycotts and intimidation against the businessmen of Boksburg. However, when precisely the same principle lies at the root of a decision by the town council of Durbanville to allow only residents of Durbanville to catch fish at the Sonstraal Dam, this is ostentatiously and approvingly justified by a report in Die Burger of 10 December. I am quoting from the report:

This is what the town clerk said. However, they go even further than Boksburg. A person must furnish proof in writing that he is a resident of Durbanville. Then a resident who lives near that dam is quoted as saying that she appreciates the municipality’s actions in this regard.

Now I am asking what the difference is between the decisions of the two municipalities. None! Absolutely none! The only difference is that the one decision was taken by a CP city council and the other by an NP town council. This illustrates the extreme double standards applied by the governing party and its media.

The NP and its press are deceiving the electorate of South Africa, with an inherent lack of political honesty, and the residents of Mayfair West and Kraaifontein have realised this. The Act still exists, it is on the Statute Book, but the Government is too weak-kneed to implement it. The Government even gives its police written orders not to make any arrests in terms of the Act. The Government also says that it is its policy to devolve decision-making powers down to the lower tiers of government, but when the municipality of Carletonville, for example, decides to repeal a previous decision by the NP city council with regard to the proclamation of free settlement areas, the Government says that it is enforcing the matter from above. It will decide what happens in Carletonville and not the democratically elected councillors of Carletonville. Fortunately the voters of Carletonville have decided who should represent them here and for that reason I have no doubt what his majority in the forthcoming election is going to be.

These events at local government level illustrate the deep and unbridgeable rift which has developed between the CP on the right and the leftwing parties in South African politics. The idea of a citizen’s state (burgerstaatgedagte), which represents the school of thought of liberalism in South Africa, is today being enthusiastically propagated by the NP and was repeatedly put into words by the hon the Acting State President in his speech from the throne when he said, and I am quoting him: “… in particular, it is our aim to realise full civil rights for all South Africans.”

This idea of the unity of all citizens south of the Limpopo was also the central theme of the hon the State President’s speech at the Voortrekker Monument on 16 December. The NP has therefore now finally disengaged itself as the political national front of Afrikanerdom. The attendance figures and warm enthusiasm of the crowd at Donkerhoek on 16 December finally confirmed this fact. The Afrikaner people have turned their backs on the NP because their freedom and rights are being disregarded by that party.

In contrast the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has irrevocably come to the fore as the champion of his people because of his Calvinistic approach to life, which he unequivocally spelled out to that huge crowd on 16 December. Along with him we demand the recognition of the Afrikaner people as a separate people in their own right, in the same way that we do not begrudge all other peoples their right to self-determination in their own area of jurisdiction.

The national movement, with its cultural and political aims, which started and gained momentum at Donkerhoek, will not be halted—either now or tomorrow when the election is held. We are saying this frankly to all hon members and we are also saying it to the outside world. Afrikaners with Afrikaner hearts have an inalienable right to be here and to continue to fight for their own freedom in their own fatherland. This was the clarion call of Great Trek 150, which is going to meet with a response throughout the length and breadth of our fatherland. The burning desire of a people to achieve total self-realisation will not be quenched by the NP and its allies.

Mr Chairman, last year when the Group Areas Amendment Bill was debated in this House, the hon member for Innesdal gave us hope because he showed understanding for the pain and suffering that had been meted out to the Coloured and Indian communities in terms of this legislation.

Today, I want to compliment the hon member for Kuruman for his bold statement to scrap the Group Areas Act. I believe it needs a lot of courage to say that in this House, but it is the truth and I hope that message will find a response in the hearts and minds of all legislators who have power to scrap this piece of legislation.

Each and every day the Group Areas Act gives examples of how it goes about controlling the lives of our communities and I want to refer again to the East Rand. After two and a half years no finality has been reached as to when land for the Indian community, just to mention one community, is to be proclaimed. In one instance when land was proclaimed they found two years later that the land was undermined. In all that time, those who have been eagerly waiting for accommodation continue to suffer and the price of housing goes up to the detriment of those people who need land and look to the State for assistance.

I want to say that the Group Areas Act has led to the creation of management committees and local affairs committees in Natal. In Natal only a week ago, a conference of local affairs committees unanimously accepted a resolution that it was time that the Government scrapped management and local affairs committees and gave people of colour direct representation in the municipalities in which they live.

I want to say here today in the presence of all those present that I am prepared to defend participation in a city council by people of colour even if we do not have the number of representatives in accordance with our number—just to guarantee to those who have fears that their fears are unfounded.

We are prepared to start—even with a minimal number of representatives—serving directly on the municipal council. The system of management committees and local affairs committees has cost us money. Unfortunately they are merely messengers and with the best will in the world they cannot take decisions directly. They are subject to the whims and fancies of a city council and after 20 years I believe the balance sheets show that we have made no progress and therefore a new order has to be created. The answer lies in direct representation for the ratepayer in a municipality, not in a management committee.

The challenge facing South Africa is one of finding a constitutional framework which will be acceptable to all South Africans, not acceptable to a particular group, but acceptable to all South Africans. Such a constitutional framework can only be arrived at when South Africans of all political persuasions, of all creeds and colours, can sit around the table and talk freely as South Africans who understand the fears and doubts that may be in the minds of one group or the other. I believe an accommodation on that basis can certainly be found by well-meaning people, provided they are given the opportunity of sitting around the table.

The time has come when Black people within South Africa, and even those spokesmen of organisations located outside this country, must be given the opportunity to participate in any discussion, even to talk about talks. There are noble examples in this world of shuttle diplomacy and of Kissinger diplomacy. I believe the time has come for some noble individual who has his heart tuned in correctly and who wants to help to find a solution to our problems to come forward from within the ranks of South Africans. His services could be used to bring together people from different comers, to narrow the gap and iron out the differences, and by so doing at least to make it possible for them to sit around the discussion table so that talks about talks can begin. I want to commend this suggestion to the Government.

I believe that such a move is necessary. I am not saying that South Africa must be handed over to a particular group, but I am saying that South Africans must be given the opportunity of coming together in search of and to find an accommodation which will at least be the beginning of a new road and a new walk. Nobody who makes policies can hope that those policies will remain in force for decades. We cannot rule from the grave. However, I think we have a duty as South Africans to lay the basis so that succeeding generations of South Africans can have security in this country where all the race groups can live in harmony and peace. It is a challenge and I believe that challenge has to be answered. There are no short cuts. It is a complex task but a task well worth attempting and to find answers. That is the challenge before the South African people.

I want to refer to the discussions over South West Africa for which the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs, his staff and everybody else who participated, must be complimented. What do we experience after that discussion? That even people like Sam Nujoma and Herman Toivo Ja Toivo are talking about the need to talk to South Africa; that economic ties with South Africa will have to go on. There is now a new realism and a new understanding that they cannot live apart from South Africa. I think that realism is also manifest in the minds of all leaders in Southern Africa, but I believe that until and unless we can find a political accommodation in South Africa, we will not be able to do business over the counter. I know that African leaders are coming to South Africa; we are doing business with Africa; our trade with Africa is increasing, but I will love the day when this can be aboveboard, when we can do it openly. That day will come when we are able to work out a constitutional programme and a constitutional framework which we can defend and which will be acceptable to South Africans— all South Africans.

I believe that not only must we have political reform, but in order to ensure that political reform in South Africa will survive we also have to address the other imbalance, that is the wide disparity between the haves and the have nots in South Africa. Reasonable men can work out any kind of political order but I am certain that if the economic imbalance is not addressed and resolved as speedily as possible any political order will be questionable. After all, if the economic order does not give the majority of the population a stake they will change the political order in order to get a stake in the country’s economy. We dread that happening and it is not impossible that it will happen.

More recently, over the past few weeks, we have seen reports of talks about greater co-operation within the Southern African region. There has been talk about power being purchased from Zaire. However, that is not the only thing. Many realistic dreamers in South Africa have talked about a Southern African economic union where the water and the power resources of the entire region can be shared to the mutual benefit and well-being of all the people in that region. All this will not come to pass until and unless we can create an acceptable political order—I emphasise the words ‘acceptable political order’. I see in the Southern African region a wonderful opportunity for the sale of the finished products of South Africa. It is an expanding market from which we can go further. However, until and unless we can create the climate and the conditions which will allow for people to trade openly and freely with us without fear we are operating under constraints.

I further believe that the business ambassadors of South Africa to Southern Africa and to the rest of Africa should be men of colour. Black people, trained and equipped as participants in the economy, will be far better received and able to better articulate the aspirations of the people of colour in this country than any White ambassador could do.

Let me also say that I would like to see a change of heart on the part of big business. I am not interested in big business’s annual statements and a paragraph about corporate social responsibility. I commend those few companies in this country who have put their money where their mouth is. However, many people hide and do nothing. I want to see a demonstration of the recognition of Black and Coloured businessmen in this country by means of support. We do not want hand-outs.

The only way one can create a business elite within the ranks of the Coloured, Black and Asian businessman is to recognise their presence and support them. Hand-outs do not help. They have not created any businessman at all. Africa is a classic example of this.

However, I believe that if it is left to just small a group of people to do what is right and acceptable progress will be minimal. What we need to do, is to spread this responsibility over the whole spectrum of South African society. One must also see that business opportunities are created for the developing sectors of our community.

At the moment we have informal sector business expanding and progressing, but we also want to see people of colour come into the formal sector in a bigger way and, ultimately, become an integral part of the business society in South Africa so that they also can articulate their contribution to a stable South Africa as businessmen.

In the past week we were introduced to a new leader of the NP. I want to wish him well and hopefully, with firmer limbs and stronger arms, I believe that he should be able to shoulder the greater responsibilities and challenges that face this nation. We want to see some real progress being made in the constitutional framework of our country and I believe that there are more reasonable people in this country than many would like to believe.

I believe that there is a greater South Africanism which permeates society, be it Black, Coloured, Indian or White. There are many things that unite us and it is these attributes that must be addressed and harnessed to find a solution to South Africa’s problems. I believe that piecemeal efforts and answers which do not satisfy the expectations of people are no answers at all.

What we need to do is to come forward with programmes of action, both economic and political, which go beyond the immediate expectations of people so that there is something to look forward to when these pronouncements are made.

Mr Chairman, I should like to join previous speakers in wishing the hon the State President a speedy and complete recovery, and I also pray that the hon the Acting State President may be granted strength and wisdom. I should also like to congratulate the hon Leader of the House (Assembly) on his election as leader of the NP.

One can only be amazed at the opposition’s reactions to and comments on this event. They allege that there was dissension within the NP because there were four candidates, but it was the NP’s privilege to choose a leader from among its top men. Having made the choice, we support our leader completely. [Interjections.]

Hon members must understand the real implications of what happened last Thursday. Nobody was prepared for such drastic events. The NP was suddenly confronted with the task of choosing a new national leader. The task of deciding between the four candidates was carried out during that very caucus meeting. The party emerged unscathed, even after being in power for 40 years. This is an achievement for all the world to see.

Compare this to the left-wing party which is now coming into existence. For weeks now they have been unable to agree on who the leader should be. They still have no leader. Nor are they prepared to accept one of the existing leaders; three of them hold the same position. [Interjections.]

What about the Official Opposition? I think it has become very clear during the recess that there is no dynamic leadership in that party. [Interjections.] If they have to choose a successor, as the NP had to do, I should like to see what emerges— perhaps even the leader of the AWB.

I am proud to have such a leader as the one chosen by hon members. I should also like to associate myself with the State President’s opening address last year, in which he committed himself to peace, friendship and co-operation in Southern Africa. No-one will ever be able to reproach this Government for not always seeking peace. The politics of resistance and conflict have never achieved anything for anyone. I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives adopted this kind of attitude when he spoke today.

In the interests of South Africa, I should like to appeal to the other two Houses for closer cooperation. We are, after all, the Government of the day. We invite them to join us for that purpose. Negotiation has always been the alternative to violence and and deep down I doubt whether the CP wants peace. Regardless of how they do so, they are constantly seeking power, because if they have power they can try to impose their will on our people, and they have already demonstrated the results of that in the places where they took over the third tier of government. When I say that their central aim is power, I can point out that they are affiliated to the AWB, because some of their members sitting in this House have admitted it. In the same breath I should like to refer to the opening address of the hon the Acting State President’s, in which he said:

At approximately 14h00 today the hon the Minister of Law and Order made a statement. [Interjections.] In terms of the provisions of regulation 9 of the emergency regulations he issued an order in terms of which people attending or participating in an AWB meeting were forbidden to carry or have on their person a visible firearm or a replica of a firearm. [Interjections.] I support that.

No group’s language or culture can be a threat to my or any person’s identity. Every group determines its own identity, but if peace is our priority, our relationships can only be strengthened and improved. Only a weakling is fearful about maintaining his own identity. In many cases it also centres on smaller groups and even individuals. I repeat that this includes the 23 CP MPs, as well as Eugène Terre’Blanche as an individual. [Interjections.]

Hon members should try to imagine the two groups I have just mentioned negotiating peace with other groups. If some people cannot even carry the seeds of peace in their own hearts, how can they ever wish to maintain peace with other people?

Let this be a year of peace for us. The hon the Acting State President stressed this point in his opening address by referring to the increased contact recently made between South Africa and other African countries. What is more, we are on the brink of achieving peace in SWA. This is the fruit of many years of work, discussions and negotiations. Let us all work together to make this a reality as well.

The Defence Force’s successes in Angola prepared the way and made the negotiations possible. The part which South Africa played in bringing peace to SWA, has met with a world-wide response. However, we must not deceive ourselves. If peace has come to SWA, it does not mean overall peace in the RSA. We shall have to work still harder and negotiate more assiduously with our compatriots in this country. As a leader in Africa it will become more essential for us to have a strong and well-prepared defence force. Peace in SWA will mean that more attention will be paid to the RSA. Our security forces must be prepared at all times to resist any danger.

The hon the Acting State President said in his opening address:

The hon the Acting State President also said:

There can be no question of economising on our defence budget—nor is criticism justified.

There can be no question or claim that our period of national service should be shortened as a result of possible peace in SWA. As I said earlier, we must use the available manpower. We want peace. I believe in negotiation, but not at any price, because we know what the basic standpoint of this Government is. It will not negotiate with organisations which support violence. This still includes the ANC.

After SWA’s independence the attacks on the RSA will inevitably intensify the hon the Acting State President made it very clear in his opening address that this Government was not prepared to legitimise people who used violence by negotiating with them.

Let us give the security forces credit for the order and stability which they help to maintain, precisely in order to make effective government possible. Let all the population groups in this country reach out to each other for peace. Then there will be stability and order, in a country that belongs to all of us.

Mr Chairman, in his opening address the hon acting State President stated and I quote: “Doors that have long been closed are now ajar.” I will confine myself to this one sentence only.

The inference here, it seems, is that we have now rid ourselves of certain discriminatory practices, such practices, which, in the past, effectively closed the portals of too many institutions to people of colour. Of course it is a known fact that discrimination is not confined to South Africa alone. It is practised in one form or the other in every country throughout the world. However, neither is such discrimination statutory, nor is it based on the colour of one’s skin. Those are the reasons which give rise to this country being branded as a pariah as well as being quite out of step with the international community. This description in turn gives rise to our being selected for and being subjected to isolation. This isolation will continue for as long as there is a reason for its continuation. It will continue for as long as we cling to certain out-dated Verwoerdian concepts, as we are doing at present.

Is it not about time that we very seriously consider removing the reason for our isolation in the various fields so that we can make demands to be re-embraced by the international fold? Some may pooh-pooh this idea, but let us at least make a start. Let us take the first steps on the road back to international acceptance.

Let us give ourselves and our allies abroad something worthwhile to fight with. Let us begin by agreeing in principle to the removing of all, not only some, remaining discriminatory legislation from the Statute Book as soon as is reasonably possible. For this is where and when the problem arose, that is, when we began with the legislation of discrimination when we legalised apartheid. Let us at least listen to the opinions and suggestions of others. Let us consider the options of all those who may show such initiatives. Then will we be proving and not merely be paying lip-service to our love and fidelity for South Africa. Only then will we be doing something concrete to smooth the road ahead for our struggling masses. Then will we be giving tangible assistance to our beleaguered sportspersons and industrialists. Let us be honest with ourselves and readily admit that the onerous task as well as the problems that these persons are experiencing is being complicated by not their own but our brand of politics.

Let us ask ourselves who started with the political tampering in sport. Who is continuing with the meddling in sport? None other than certain White South African politicians. Dr Verwoerd— God rest his soul—was so often mentioned here today that he must be turning in his grave. He was not only wrong in his economic thinking, but in a lot of other matters as well—as was stated here. I am sure that you will not mind me adding another, Sir.

One can only wonder what the sport situation would have been like if he and others had left sport to run itself. What would the situation have been today?

We, the people who are not White, who suffered most the indignities caused by closed doors and doors slightly ajar, are certainly appreciative of the doors which are now ajar. We who have personally experienced the indescribable suffering which racism can inflict, we who believe that all persons should live where they choose, that children should be educated and be allowed to fraternise and to play together, that all South Africans should have an equal say in government, are committed to make an earnest, nay, an impassioned plea for the still closed doors to be opened too. Then we would be putting South Africa first, for we would be making an effort to eradicate the racism which is tearing apart the very fabric of South African society.

We as politicians could so easily make the year that lies ahead one of the most momentous years in the history of this country. Our attitudes will determine whether South Africa will stride ahead to a challenging future or stagnate in the laager, baying defiance at the rest of the world.

The course of this year will depend almost entirely on the approach which the politicians adopt to the many problems facing South Africa and its people.

Maybe then, just maybe then, world opinion might take a less jaundiced view of South Africa. Foreign perceptions of regarding the government of this country as being obdurate and insensitive to world opinion, could change. Who knows, it might lead to an easing of the sanctions threat and maybe to a loosening of the garrotte which is choking off the flow of foreign capital. Maybe thereafter, Sir, just maybe, peace and tranquillity will again return to this, our land, South Africa.

Mr Speaker, in politics excessive secrecy, an obsession with power and corruption frequently go hand in hand. It is clear that these three evils are found in abundance in the government of the day.

I mention corruption not merely in the narrower technical sense of personal financial favouring, but especially in the wider sense of the distortion and undermining of important institutions and important principles in our society in order to accomplish political favouring. The exercise of power and secrecy are being handled in such a way that not only is the integrity of the Government being jeoparised, but even the status of an institution such as Parliament. Parliament should be a place where hon members can debate with one another and exchange information with a degree of honesty.

I want to refer to an incident that demonstrates these alarming tendencies in our public life in an interesting way. This was the occasion when a helicopter was used by certain people in the Defence Force to distribute falsified pamphlets with a false name and a false address printed on them in a certain place in Cape Town. These pamphlets were evidently intended to discredit the End Conscription Campaign, which is now a banned organisation. Initially there were indications and a strong suspicion that certain agents of the Minister of Defence were responsible for it.

It is informative to see how this matter was handled by the Government in Parliament and elsewhere, as it concerns the matter of political integrity and honesty.

On 16 June 1987 my colleague, the hon member for Johannesburg North, asked the hon the Minister of Law and Order about this incident. The reply was that an investigation into the matter was still under way but not yet completed, although at that stage it had already been established that the address on the pamphlets concerned was false.

On the same day another member asked the hon the Minister of Defence whether a Defence Force helicopter had been used for distributing the pamphlets, and the reply furnished by the hon the Deputy Minister was a definite no. Now it is interesting that the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence should give such an answer, but on the same day sit in Parliament and listen to the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order struggling with the same question on the same incident, and admit that he knows nothing about it. Now I ask whether it can be accepted that not one of these gentlemen knew at that stage what the truth was, because if it has to be assumed that neither of them knew, then they were being lied to somewhere along the line.

On 28 July 1987 the hon member again asked about this incident, and once again the reply came that the matter was still being investigated. On 6 October 1987 the reply was once again that the investigation had not yet been completed, and the hon the Minister said that there was an indication that the relevant helicopter which had been seen that day, had at that stage been undergoing repairs and servicing at a specific maintenance company in the Cape.

On 16 February of the following year—last year—the hon the Minister again suggested that the helicopter was being serviced on a specific day—this is now the hon the Minister of Law and Order, who had to report on the investigation that had been carried out on behalf of the Police. He repeated the information that at that stage the helicopter was undergoing maintenance and service. Once again the hon the Minister of Defence was present in the House on that same day. He furnished replies himself that day, while his colleague said that the helicopter was undergoing maintenance and service. Again I ask: Can we be expected to believe that, nine months after the incident, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence still did not know the truth concerning this situation?

Here it is not merely a question of a clever evasive reply being given, because the effect of the information being transmitted by the executive authority to Parliament is to create a misleading impression.

It is of no avail the hon member telling us that this point is technically correct and that we are evading his reply to that. The result is misleading.

On 8 March last year the hon the Minister refused to reply any further and simply referred to his previous reply. On 30 August last year I questioned the hon the Minister of Defence on the matter and he used the sub judice rule to evade the question, because at that stage a lawsuit on the matter was pending.

This cover-up attempt continued, because when legal proceedings were instituted against the hon the Minister of Defence, the first thing they did was to ensure that this case would be heard in camera. This was not because it threatened the political order nor that it was truly a matter of national security. It was a cover-up attempt.

Once again the court ruled after a certain period that the grounds for the application were invalid and therefore in reality false. The rest is history. The court here in the Cape found on 14 October 1988 that the Defence Force was indeed responsible for this bizarre incident.

What are the consequences? The name of the SA Defence Force has been dragged through the mud due to a ridiculous and, in my opinion, underhand attempt to slander the name of an organisation. I ask whether it is necessary for the Defence Force or members of the Defence Force to act in such a manner. The second consequence is that the police’s time was wasted by an investigation into the improper action by members of an organisation which ought to support the police and not obstruct them. The third consequence is that the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence made a fool of the hon the Minister of Law and Order, who has to sit here and reply to questions while he, as his colleague, knew or should have known what the truth was. Fourthly, Parliament was being ridiculed in that we repeatedly had to sit and listen to the furnishing of falsified information.

It is difficult to ascertain precisely who knew about the operation and who lied, and as it is at present with the style that this Government follows, we will probably never know.

Let me just say this: If we continue to deliberately mislead the public and Parliament in this manner, we must not be surprised if people are not able to distinguish between personal corruption and political corruption. Then we cannot expect any integrity in the system within which we have to function.

Mr Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the Acting State President, in his opening address, laid such great emphasis on the importance of negotiation if we are to be successful in solving the constitutional and other problems of this country.

*I fully agree with the hon the Acting State President that if peace truly is our goal, meaningful negotiation and discussion will be practicable. All communities are growing tired of leaders who delay the negotiation process for petty political reasons. I also believe that the hon the Acting State President was honest and sincere when he said: “The Government therefore commits itself anew to constitutional reform through negotiation. I am confident that we will achieve success through the process of negotiation.”

†I associate myself with these sentiments, Mr Speaker, because as an extrade unionist with a number of years of practical experience of negotiation, I know—I do not only think so, I know— that if parties are willing to negotiate in good faith, solutions can be found.

Having said that, Mr Speaker, it is ironic that I stand here as an independent MP because I was not able to negotiate an agreement with the Labour Party. [Interjections.] I did not contravene the party’s resolution with regard to participation in management committees. I submitted and motivated a compromise proposal to the party’s head committee. This was summarily rejected by the party’s leader which proved to me a complete unwillingness to negotiate. [Interjections.] I therefore want to appeal to the Labour Party caucus to support their colleagues who are against the “all or nothing” policy so that in the interest of all the people represented by the House of Representatives the Labour Party is brought back to the negotiating table.

In the short period left at my disposal I want to convey to the Conservative Party a message which has apparently not been put across by the hon member for Ermelo who accompanied us on a recent Parliamentary Association tour of Europe and the Ivory Coast. What emerged very clearly was that South Africa has a number of friends overseas but that those friendships will be withdrawn if the Conservative Party continues with its present policies. The Minister of the Exterior of the Ivory Coast gave a personal message to the hon member for Ermelo when he said: “Tell your leader that it does not matter that he is White and that I am Black. We are all brothers of Africa. However, if he continues to treat my Black brothers as he does, we cannot be brothers.”

The way to recognition by the international community is clearly through Africa and unless the Conservative Party heeds this message South Africa will be plunged into complete isolation and worse.

Mr Speaker, I want to refer to the hon the State President’s remark about clean administration, and in this connection I directly want to enter into a discussion with the hon member for Pietersburg. The hon member for Pietersburg cannot speak about clean administration, because his party is not even in power yet and they are already misusing the funds of the Boksburg electorate. I want to quote to him, from the Patriot of 2 December, the telephone numbers of various CP members who can be contacted at their offices during the day. The telephone number of a certain Mr Fred Fouché, 8921040, extension 180, is the number of the Boksburg town council. My question to the CP is whether, during the day, this Mr Fred Fouché is in his own employ or in that of the Boksburg town council, and when he is contacted at that telephone number, is he dealing with the affairs of the Boksburg town council or those of the CP? [Interjections.] As yet I have not even tried to check on the other telephone numbers listed here. If that is what the CP is already doing in Boksburg, they have no grounds for standing up to speak about clean administration. If they want to speak about honesty, let me tell them that we must see how honest they were during the municipal elections on 26 October 1988.

In this connection I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly whether he can mention one single school in South Africa which has been privatised by the Government. He may merely nod his head if he knows of a single instance. He need only nod or shake his head, but he is not going to do so, because they say the following in the documents they have distributed amongst the voters of Boksburg:

Where, in this country, has the Government privatised a single school? Where has it used the State’s money to purchase a school and then given it to the private sector?

This is the way in which they misled the voters in Boksburg and came to power. They are not in power because they have the support of the majority of the voters, but because there was dissension about a third candidate. In three of those wards they would not have made it if there had not been an independent candidate who split the vote, because they have less than 45% of the support of the Boksburg electorate. That is the issue one should address. Do they have a mandate for what they did in Boksburg or not? I do not think they have. I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would say that they have a mandate for what they did in Boksburg.

Let me tell hon members about that wonderful Boksburg community. Forty years ago—it was a very emotional period for them—Boksburg was an agriculturally orientated community. There were approximately 40 farms on which people made a reasonable, though precarious living. Today there are only a few of those farms left. Today there are approximately 60 000 Whites, approximately 100 000 Blacks, approximately 40 000 Coloureds and approximately 20 000 Indians living in Actonville. Over a long period that community has therefore learnt not to be dependent upon the quality of the agricultural land or the region’s rainfall or climate.

There we established South Africa’s largest industrial area because we had the expertise and the ability to co-operate with one another. That is why we have established one of the most prosperous communities there and why we have been successful in converting an agriculturally orientated area into one of South Africa’s most prosperous industrial areas.

We have a mine which has been in operation for 100 years, with the prospect of extending its lifespan by a further 40 years. I think that at the end of that mine’s lifespan we shall be able to say it was the richest gold-mine in South Africa. It has been and is still being manned and worked by Whites, Blacks and others who, in that area and elsewhere, are contributing towards keeping that mine and the mining industry going. We can therefore not say that Boksburg can be partitioned. We cannot say that it was fair for the CP, which did not have a mandate from the voters, to build a Berlin wall round Boksburg lake.

What about the swimming-bath?

Not only has the CP besmirched and humiliated that town in the eyes of the people of this country; it has also done so in the eyes of the world. [Interjections.] I have received newspaper articles from as far afield as Southern China. I am now asking the CP members whether any of them has ever obtained a newspaper article from Southern China. I have obtained newspaper articles from Miami, Houston, Texas and from the Zúricher Zeitung. I think the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be able to tell us …

Whose Act is now having such painful ramifications?

I shall be coming to that as well. Let me tell that hon member that I was also once mayor of Boksburg. When we opened up the swimming-baths in Reigerpark, it was the inhabitants of Reigerpark who asked us to ensure that people paid, because they could not allow access to people who did not belong there. [Interjections.] I want to tell that hon member that we in this Chamber must start talking to one another and examining these aspects so that we can know where we are heading. [Interjections.] This afternoon reference was made to the leader of Solidarity. It was said that the Government was dragging its feet in connection with the granting of land for Indians on the East Rand.

I now want to ask that hon member: Is it not specifically the hon member for Boksburg who worked his fingers to the bone in an effort to make such land available there? Why did we not get it? I think it was because there was a dispute in the House of Delegates. That is why, on the road ahead, we shall have to tackle the problems of this country and mention the CP by name. I am tired of having this very fastidious, very prosperous community of Boksburg humiliated to such an extent that even countries far across the ocean hear about them. I shall interpose myself between that community and any of these parties, because I think it is exactly like any other community.

There are hon members sitting here on this side of the House who can concede that when I was a member of that town council we bent over backwards to help the Coloured community. We succeeded in implementing these laws, which we had at our disposal, in such a way in Boksburg that we granted everyone a place in the sun. It hurts one that the girls of the St Dominic School, which is one of the finest schools in South Africa, can no longer visit the areas around the lake because they happen to have a young Coloured friend amongst them.

I blame the CP for that. If they had used the law, which they had at their disposal, as the NP used it in Boksburg, that would not have been necessary, because those children are part of that town. The swimming-bath was rented out to them, and it is the NP town council which ensured that the St Dominic School could hire the baths once a week. It was that NP town council which ensured, years ago, that Boksburg North’s swimming-baths were open to all races for the competitions that had to be held there. It was also that NP town council which ensured that swimming-baths were built in every residential area which asked for one—in Reigerpark and in all the other White residential areas—so that every community could have one.

Sir, I want to tell you that I cannot open up those swimming-baths to the 30 000 inhabitants of the hostels there. Nor do I believe that the hon member for Reigerpark would open up his to the inhabitants of those hostels. We must therefore all be very careful about how quick we are to speak. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I firstly want to say how happy I am that we have a report from the hon the Acting State President which covers a wide spectrum of matters. I therefore want to say that if brevity is the soul of wit, I will not keep you very long.

Firstly, I want to congratulate the hon the Acting State President for the manner in which this report has been presented to us, as I said earlier, on a wide variety of matters, and we are the better for it. I also wish to congratulate the new national leader of the NP and wish him well in effective leadership in the future as well as the hon member for the PFP, Dr Zach De Beer whom I want to wish many hours of pleasant debating.

Secondly, there is a need for a consolidated South Africa arising out of discussions with all concerned. While that is so, what still remains to be clarified is the relationship, and this is a matter… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I said that there is a need to clarify the relationship in a political sense that will have to be established between the Head of State who is now no more the leader of the NP and the leader of the majority party. The political implications have to be pondered over.

I must also record my appreciation for the initiatives of the South African Government, represented by our well-known globe-trotter, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his colleagues, for the good work that has been done and which led to the withdrawal of the troops from Angola and which, of course, brought about peace initiatives in SWA/Namibia. This augurs well for future of our country.

As Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I want to forcefully draw attention to the need of the South African Government to address pressing domestic issues. Firstly, there are the hardships flowing from the application of the Group Areas Act.

And the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act!

Since the hon member said that, yes, also the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. I need not stress the point much further, because much has been said about it. However, I still wish to draw hon members’ attention to this. Secondly, I urge the Government to look at ways and means of curbing inflation, and thirdly, I would like them to look at internal security.

I wish to stress here what the hon the Acting State President said in his speech, namely that national security forms a crucial element of the Government’s general responsibility to improve the welfare of the population. In this respect there is an area of concern and that is the unrest and violence in certain township areas which are resulting in deaths almost daily.

I now wish to dwell briefly on the shortage of land and housing provisions for a large section of the South African population. I have no doubt that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Delegates) has to some extent dwelt on this, but I nevertheless want to say that in this respect the Group Areas Act is a limiting factor. Not only is land not available, but where it is available, especially for Indian housing, it is available at a very high price, and that does not make for lower income group housing.

It is very difficult to scale it down. I want to say that the approach to free settlement areas must also be looked at honestly and pragmatically and unfounded fears must not be used to put off decisions.

In so far as the economy is concerned, the Government will have to give serious attention to the stimulation of the economy. In turn this will lead to job creation. Unemployment is posing serious threats to the stability of the country. I said earlier that if enough housing is not provided there is no security and, of course, unrest could be the result. Unless suitably qualified and educated youngsters are employed, they will join the ranks of the revolutionaries and the radical elements and thereby provide a more reactionary kind of leadership which we will detest and we will want to avoid at all costs.

It is a well-known fact that more and more Blacks are unemployed and the crime rate, especially housebreaking and theft, is increasing almost daily. Something drastic will have to be done to curb this trend. As far as constitutional development is concerned, it is hoped that greater momentum will be given to the process of negotiation. It must be accepted that legitimate Black leaders are reluctant to negotiate because they have lost confidence in the reform initiatives. Renewed efforts are absolutely necessary to bring them back to the negotiating table.

In my final remarks I want to underscore the point raised by the hon the Acting State President in regard to a search for points of agreement. This is of vital importance. In my view this search covers a wide spectrum and we have to find each other. At this juncture I do not direct my plea to the people in Boksburg or other areas but to the CP to have a good, hard look at their policies and find out whether they are busy helping people to drift apart rather than bringing them together. It is one thing to promote group interests and it is another to act in such a way as to damage the image of South Africa and of South Africans at large.

No South African who has the interests of South Africa at heart, can afford to turn back the clock and reintroduce hurtful measures. There must be a determined effort to eliminate all discriminatory measures.

Mr Speaker, with reference to the opening address of the hon Acting State President I should immediately like to convey the good wishes of my party to the hon the State President, in the desire and hope that he will make a speedy recovery. The opening address of the hon the Acting State President was delivered in a positive spirit. It was a short opening address, but the underlying message was important. I think hon members who have known him for a long time will agree with me that there was something of his own to be discerned in that opening address. One would also hope that in due course it will be possible to add substance to that framework. Possibly something positive may evolve out of it, and all of us are hoping that that will happen.

Furthermore, as I already mentioned, I want to convey my congratulations, as well as that of the NDM, to the new hon Leader of the NP. The new hon Leader of the NP and I differ fundamentally on the approach to the acquisition of a democratic order in South Africa, and we are both aware of this. Over a long period, however, I have known him to be a person who engages in politics with integrity, and I want to give him the assurance that we, too, will in future associate with him in this spirit.

Under the circumstances of the retirement of the hon the State President as the national leader of the NP his agenda still remains obscure. I do not know whether hon members in the NP have looked at the matter in this light, but last Thursday my son David, when I contacted my home, had just been listening to the news and he commented that to him it appeared as though there was a parallel between the hon the State President and Mr Mandela. The hon the State President was retiring in stages, while Mr Mandela was being released in stages. [Interjections.]

We really do not know where this situation is going, but I think it is imperative that the question of what is really going to happen here in future should be cleared up. What is the relationship going to be? If the hon the State President remains on in his present office, tension will undoubtedly arise. Without a constitutional demarcation of the responsibilities of the hon leader of the majority party in the House of Assembly and those of the hon the State President himself, not only are problems going to emerge but the position of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in his capacity as leader of the NP, will probably become untenable. The relationships require urgent attention and I also think that the comment of the hon the new national leader of the NP after his election, ie that he would like at the earliest opportunity to pay a goodwill visit to the hon the State President, which he has so far not had an opportunity to do, speaks volumes. [Interjections.]

I should like to make a few observations on corruption. For years I have been very concerned about the extent of corruption in South Africa in general. Burgeoning corruption and bribery is rife in all areas of our society. It is not limited to the public sector or to the public service. It occurs widely throughout our entire community.

A number of years ago, when Mr Gavin Relly made a speech on this subject with the actual purpose of issuing a warning, he was attacked in public, among others by the Advocate General, Mr Piet van der Walt. Recently the hon the Minister of Justice made observations which corresponded with what Mr Gavin Relly said a few years ago. Corruption is one of the most abhorrent of crimes. It destroys one’s spirit, and also destroys the spirit of the entire nation. It attacks personal integrity without the people involved even being aware of it. It is frequently in visible. It does not leave a corpse or a blood-stained axe behind on the scene of the crime. In addition the damage is frequently difficult to determine. But one can always smell corruption, because it has a bad smell.

I want to mention the specific case of the storekeeper of a quite large trading company. He is a perfectly normal person with his feet planted firmly on the ground. After a re-organization in the company he is appointed as a buyer in the company. It is a wonderful job for him. He receives presents from some suppliers—a set of cutlery, and so one. An invitation for his wife and himself to spend a weekend in a luxury hotel on the coast is issued to him and paid for. He really thinks it is a wonderful job. But when one mentions corruption to him, or other possible favouring of specific suppliers, he is shocked. He did not even realise what was happening.

I put it to hon members of this House, and specifically to hon members of the Cabinet, that frequent invitations are issued to them in which certain benefits crop up. I could mention the example of invitations to go on a hunting trip. The hon members would be well to look at the extent of business which is done between the individuals and institutions from whom they receive such invitations and the State or State-related organizations. They would do well to consider on what councils, boards and in what offices these people who issue such invitations to them are to be found, and in most cases what those people accomplished after the invitations had been issued. I repeat that it seems as though this invisible evil has almost become an everyday occurrence. Whether it is a Kerzner paying out R2 million or a Vermaas being appointed to the board of Armscor, it remains the same, it has a bad smell. Surely it is no use offering the excuse that the appointment could not become permanent owing to a lack of security clearance when one has been serving for almost a year on this sensitive board of directors. No one accepts it and no one is convinced by it.

The fact that this corruption has almost become commonplace in our society does not extenuate the responsibility of the Government and the authorities. The authorities must be without blemish. These cases are occurring widely. I want to make an appeal for a clean-up, for the Government do everything in its power to throw everything open for the sake of a restoration of the basic integrity among people with which all of us grew up in our young days.

We welcome the successful peace negotiations in Angola and South West Africa. There are still doubts from many quarters as to whether the Government is truly committed in a dedicated way to the correct implementation of this New York agreement. The NDM and I do not share in these doubts. We are convinced that the Government has committed itself to going through with it.

I also believe that they will carry out the agreement to the full, but against the background of what we believe to be true the continued propaganda, or rather the counter-propaganda, against Swapo of the hon the Minister of Defence in particular during this election is truly inappropriate. It is contrary to the spirit of the New York agreement and it really creates problems for the future.

The success of negotiations has already caused a new spirit to develop in our region and the international dimension also has local consequences. The two dimensions have become so entwined that it is no longer possible to deal with them separately. An accord has been agreed to owing to what I would call—I think it is important that we take cognisance of this—a confluence of varying own interests.

America wants the Cubans out of Angola, so as South Africa, and in any event the war has become expensive and the risks are high. Moscow, with perestroika, has an interest in the settlement of regional conflicts. Angola seeks the removal of the Cubans at almost any price. Havana is under pressure from Moscow and it suits Luanda for the Cubans to leave now. Because it suits all the actors, the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place and we have an accord, not only for Angola, but also one which affects Namibia. The two superpowers have been appointed as watchdogs to ensure the implementation of this agreement.

A further development has occurred. America is becoming increasingly hostile towards the internal relations of the RSA, and the USSR increasingly realistic. It would be fatal not to realize that here, too, a confluence of own interests could emerge, one which is going to exert pressure, not only on the Government of the RSA, but also on the ANC, and particularly on the strategy of violence of the ANC, and also on its strategy of isolation.

The ANC is aware of this. I can testify to this owing to the ongoing contact which the NDM has with that organization in order to discover how they think. The ANC has not yet found other strategies, and they will have to seek them. But I also want to point out that the Government will have to investigate ways and means of making a dialogue with the ANC possible. During the past four years the Government has concentrated its entire programme on the ANC. As far as the state of emergency is concerned, the greatest portion of the Government’s energies and most of its activities have gone towards the ANC. The hon the Minister of Law and Order will be able to confirm this. That is primarily his activity. The hon the Minister of Defence talks about virtually nothing else. [Interjections.] I am referring only to the internal activities.

We shall have to take cognisance of the fact that something is developing here. When I say that the NDM holds talks with the ANC—we shall in future have to continue these talks with them to see whether we cannot persuade them to adopt another approach in order to find solutions to the problems in South Africa—then I am saying that the Government also has a responsibility of seeking ways of achieving this.

The propaganda that the Government does not talk to terrorists and the perpetrators of violence is simply untenable. In any event they hold talks with Swapo for a decade and enter into an accord with Swapo which creates the possibility of Swapo becoming the Government in Namibia in the near future. Talks must be held with the ANC, Mr Mandela must be released and, to use the words of the hon Acting State President, I am making an appeal to the Government to come and help us to act in such a way that we can keep our appointment with the future.

Mr Speaker, our presence here today is to say openly that we have resolved to continue the fight against apartheid and injustice in this country of our birth. Not so long ago we thought that we could speak of the postapartheid time, but we have realised that we are back to saying that apartheid is alive and well in South Africa.

Something is definitely happening in our country. There is a growing resistance by the masses developing against the present system of government. The people outside are rising everywhere. Graffiti on the walls say that we want liberation in our country. We want freedom. We have been forced to a point in this country where we will have to tackle our apartheid problem once and for all. We can say that the policy of apartheid of this Government has been to the detriment of the entire South Africa and its people.

In order for Whites to survive in South Africa and in order for South Africa to survive in Africa, the demands are forcing us to tackle the problem of apartheid and segregation. The escalation of rebellion against the Government is increasing in leaps and bounds on the right and on the left. Even Whites are beginning to say that apartheid is destroying their own interests and therefore more and more are joining forces to destroy this immoral and unjust system of government.

The time is now rapidly approaching when the underprivileged masses in this country are going to fight this unjust system with everything at their disposal. We are fed up with apartheid and we want to say with all the goodwill we have in our hearts that they must not force us into hating them for what they did to us in the past.

There is a heartfelt appeal from all South Africans that the Government must come to its senses. The Government needs to take a gigantic leap of faith to eradicate apartheid from our system now. They can no longer keep down and silence the masses. Our will to vigorously oppose and fight apartheid is firmly entrenched and stamped in our hearts and minds. We no longer want the system.

At the moment groups of young people are developing in our townships and they are beginning to scare us to some extent. These young people are becoming very intolerant and violent. They are becoming ready to fight on the spur of the moment for our total freedom against discrimination based on the colour of our skin. I can never understand why someone must fight against me because I am Black. Fight God, He made me Black. I did not ask to be Black.

The energy and enthusiasm of our young people are presently being directed in efforts to destroy the one and only source of our misery and oppression in this country, namely apartheid. This war against apartheid is taking root in our townships. When one sits in the train people start to talk about how we need to dismantle the system. When one sits in our buses, schools and churches one hears people planning ways and means of getting their freedom in this country.

The people in the townships out there are beginning to nourish this whole atmosphere, for their freedom. I see a new and effective political weapon developing in our townships. This weapon is pouring out of the hearts of the people, against apartheid. The Government is raising explosive expectations in our community and they are, in my opinion, preparing the way for an outburst from the masses that one will not be able to control. One will have no say in the matter, whether one likes it or not. Whether one wants to live in the 1940s or in the 1980s apartheid is going to be toppled, come what may. One can do what one will. If the Government wants to be part of the force that will topple apartheid they will have to build a foundation of public confidence within this country. One can travel through Africa as much as one wants to, but if one cannot travel at home one’s travels are to no avail.

We can no longer close our eyes and ears to the fact that riots are going to be a way of life in this country. Riots are going to continue. I know what I am talking about. I am speaking from an experience of the townships. Demonstrations will continue. Classrooms will continue to be used as platforms. Pulpits in our churches will be used until the very foundation of apartheid is eradicated from our society.

We cannot allow bombings to become the order of the day in our country. Stop telling me that there are bombings all over the world. I am not interested in the rest of the world. I am a born and bred South African and it is here that bombings should stop, not in the rest of the world. [Interjections.]

*Somebody over there tells me that I am looking for trouble. It is because I am looking for trouble that I am here today. [Interjections.] However, if the hon member is looking for trouble, he will get it.

†We will have to stop acts of sabotage before this becomes a full-scale guerrilla warfare against apartheid. This is what I fear. One only has to open a newspaper. I opened one just now and I think it is no wonder that people of all races are wondering how long it will take before they will also have to pay the price with their own lives.

By continuing the policy of separation through the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the immoral Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act as well as persisting in keeping Blacks out of Parliament, the opposition to apartheid is being broadened and reinforced. By this action more and more people are being encouraged to harbour and to seek enlistment in radical organisations. [Interjections.]

We do not know to what lengths the masses will go to achieve their political goals in this country. Kirkpatrick Sale in his book The Experts Speak stated that revolution is obviously coming to this country and that it will obviously be successful. The NP will have little hope of suppressing a civil war by preserving a White minority government in South Africa.

Order! I think the hon member should be very careful when he elaborates on the subject he is now dealing with. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I ask the NP Government to come to their senses so that the rising tide of violence can be halted. Many of the township dwellers have lost fear of death itself in order to gain a rightful place in their society. They are more confident than ever. One only has to look at the graffiti. They are more confident than ever that victory is certain and that power belongs to the people. They are starting to say that the Government’s power no longer is invincible. [Interjections.] There will be a more militant reaction by the masses … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, as the first speaker on this side of the House after the hon member for Randburg, I should like to congratulate him on his appointment and election as part of that party’s interparliamentary leadership. [Interjections.] I am just afraid that he might need more than congratulations. It seems to me that that party, even though it is not yet established, already has more leaders and advisors than followers. With reference to his story about Mandela being released little by little I want to say to him that his party has a little too much leadership.

†Mr Speaker, the hon the State President’s commitment of some ten years ago to clean administration and the hon the Acting State President’s reaffirmation of this commitment have been challenged by a number of speakers in this debate and outside. This is the case despite the fact that recent happenings and actions by this Government are the clearest indication of the Government’s and the hon the State President’s sincere commitment to clean administration. The first thing that must be said is that the fact that misconduct occurred does not necessarily indict the Government or the State President. It is sad but true but to err is human. No person is without sin. Politicians especially are subject to great temptations. It is a pity, but a fact of life, that no society, government, leader or party can guarantee total absence of misconduct. Any leader, society or party who either claims or demands that, is hypocritical. A leader can only claim total absence of misconduct if he suppresses knowledge of it.

What can be expected of him though, is to expose that misconduct and to take effective action against it. Therefore I would submit that the real question before us, and the real test in these circumstances, is first of all whether the Government has established effective machinery to expose misconduct; secondly, whether the Government initiated prompt action to expose that misconduct; and thirdly, whether appropriate steps have been taken to rectify certain shortcomings which might have been shown to exist.

I submit with respect that when these tests are applied any reasonable person will have to concede that the hon the State President and the Government have been, and are, sincere in their commitment to clean administration and that these particular matters under consideration have been dealt with extremely effectively and promptly.

In the first place the very existence, and the establishment, of the office of the Advocate General is proof of the Government’s sincere wish to deal effectively with misconduct in government. This instrument has been proved to be effective. Since its establishment the Advocate General’s office has dealt very effectively and independently with many complaints in no less than twelve reports. In not one of these cases was the Advocate General criticised for not acting strictly in accordance with the best traditions of a watchdog of clean administration.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, the two commission reports before us, the James and the Harms reports, are further proof of the Government’s and the hon the State President’s clear and sincere intention to deal effectively and promptly with misconduct, and, I may add, of open investigation and government—quite contrary to what the hon the Leader of the PFP said.

The Harms Commission was appointed on 3 August last year and its first report was signed some three months later on 29 November 1988. This commission was appointed on the Government’s own initiative, not after public outcries or debates calling for it. It was done after the Alexander Committee Report indicated certain irregularities. It is also clear from the reports that the Government acted with great swiftness against certain persons who were guilty of misconduct. In this regard mention can be made of Mr Scheffer and ambassador Steyn, both of whose services were terminated almost summarily.

The James Commission was appointed on 24 June after a report of a committee of the House of Delegates indicated the need for this. An interim report was produced in December 1988 and a final report on 25 January 1989. On receipt of the interim report Mr Rajbansi’s services as a Cabinet Minister were immediately terminated. In both cases the hon the State President acted on own initiative and asked the commissions to attend to the investigations with despatch. That was done and the findings were acted upon very swiftly.

Is that the action of a State President or a government who are shirking their responsibilities as far as clean administration is concerned? Clearly not. It is much rather an example of how a government should effectively and promptly deal with misconduct.

In the third instance the James Commission Report also came forward with certain suggestions to amend the Development and Housing Act to restrict the powers of the relevant Minister. The Harms Commission also indicated that there were certain flaws in the legislation pertaining to bribery and corruption. I am certain that these suggestions will be acted upon.

In his speech the hon the acting State President has also indicated that the Government intends to extend the power of the Advocate General. Mr Speaker, is that the action of a government which is not committed to clean administration? Clearly not!

I also believe that the findings of the reports vindicate the Government’s actions. From the Harms Report it is clear that the actions of both the Department of Finance and the Department of Home Affairs are beyond reproach. On page 33 reference is made to a letter which the then hon Deputy Minister, Mr Durr, wrote to Mr De Pontes, in which he reprimanded him for giving false information to the Department of Finance regarding the importation of motor vehicles. It is also clear from the report that except for Mr Scheffer, the young clerk who obviously stole and falsified certain documents, no blame whatsoever can be levelled at either the hon the Minister of Home Affairs or his department. It is also clear from the James Commission report that all the senior public servants, and especially the Director-General, Mr Wronsley, acted with great integrity and cannot be faulted at all.

*Mr Speaker, no country can be proud of what has happened here and is described in these two reports. There is no doubt about that. Particularly as far as the James Report is concerned, it is very clear that gross abuse of power took place and that it is in the public interest that the Attorney General investigate the matter as soon as possible. However, what is abundantly clear, is that no blame whatsoever attaches to the conduct of the hon the State President. He acted with the necessary promptness and efficiency when allegations of misconduct were made. Not only must he be thanked for this; it must also be stated in the absence of the hon the State President that his unimpeachable conduct over many years in politics is an example of integrity in public life for the whole country. For that, too, we must express our sincere gratitude to him.

Debate interrupted.