Mr Speaker, right at the outset I want to associate myself with the good wishes of my party for the hon the State President’s speedy recovery.

†It is very good to be back here this session and to continue with what one hopefully considers to be an indicative process.

*Mr Speaker, this is the beginning of a new year, a year which we had hoped would provide us with a new beginning. Nevertheless that feeling lasted only until Thursday, 2 February, when we not only heard about Mr F W de Klerk’s election as leader of the NP but even worse when we saw how the votes had been cast. Mr Speaker, can you form any idea of how depressing it was to hear that the final choice had been between a very conservative person and someone just a little less conservative; between the securocrat and the party loyalist?

We said that it was unimportant who the NP leader was because, as long as its policy was carried out, there could be no hope for South Africa. We had hoped, however, that it would be somebody who would be prepared to listen to us as Blacks in this country, who would try to understand how we felt about the racist-orientated policy, and who would then have been prepared to act in the interests of the entire country—not only that of the NP.

Sometimes Mr De Klerk sounds enlightened but he is a captive of his group’s ideology. When he has finished sorting out what are own affairs and what general affairs, very little will remain of general affairs. [Interjections.] This is where the problem lies—the crux of the matter. [Interjections.] Hon members can make as much noise as they like. It is our destiny in life to try to educate them. [Interjections.]

Actually the bottom line is this clinging to a group which is based on race. It is also why I say that the NP is a racist party. Minister Du Plessis will probably come in for comment in this debate too.

Mr Speaker, permit me to say a few words about the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am really sorry that this hon Minister did not do better.

Order! Hon members are to be addressed as such in this House regardless of what their titles might be. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am really sorry that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not do better. I really believe that he could have made a difference, a difference for the benefit of our country. I do not always agree with this hon Minister—obviously not. He is an NP Minister and we therefore have differences of policy. Of all NP Ministers he in particular has the ability to negotiate with people who differ with him.

He appears to be a reasonable person who listens closely to others in order to solve a common problem. We need only look at the Nkomati Accord, the independence of Namibia, the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola and the hon the State President’s trips through Africa and Europe which the hon the Minister arranged under difficult circumstances.

I want to say to the hon the Minister through the Chair that he should not feel bad because he received only 16 votes; this reflects more on his colleagues than on him. I believe that it is specifically because he is too far ahead of them that this was the case. I think that he, as the most popular White leader in this country, should place the interests of South Africa above those of the NP now. Could he not render greater service to a new South Africa outside a party which is enmeshed in the past, which has no vision for the future? Does he still belong in the NP?

Mr Speaker, your party made me a product of apartheid and a Coloured but I thank God that I was raised in such a way that I am a person and not a Coloured today. The hon leader of the NP’s wife spoke about a negative group of people and I thank the Vrye Weekblad which carried the story and made a copy available to me. I quote what Mrs De Klerk said and hon members must realise that this is the definition the NP has attached to us:

She continued:

I sometimes wonder!

I can assure Mrs De Klerk and all the other MP wives and the men of the NP and the CP that their hearts need not bleed for us because we are all merely flowers in God’s garden. One does not plant only flowers of the same colour to beautify a garden.

We represent not only the consequences of their past but are also proof that integration is not only an ideal but that it can work too. Hon members need only look at my hon colleagues on this side of the House.

I am not caught up in any dilemma either. I am a South African loyal to my country and my God. I am not caught up in any dilemma. I am a person created in the image of God. It is the NP and the CP who are caught up in the dilemma because they are so intent on being White that they forget that they are human. [Interjections.] I am not the one seeking the retention of ungodly, immoral laws to protect my identity. I want to invite those hon members to join us as members of the human race and South Africans. [Interjections.]

Mrs De Klerk had the following to say about voters’ lists:

Disgraceful!

Yes, the hon member is right, it was a disgrace.

I want to make only two comments on this. It is not in our House that corruption is evident. Secondly, the NP will now perhaps have to consider placing us on a common voters’ roll again to save itself and the country from the CP. We can only hope that the NP, its leader and MPs will soon see the light and that they will be prepared to move out of the darkness of apartheid to a new South Africa.

†I find the fight between the NP and the CP very interesting. I fail to see what the essential differences in principle between them are. It is a question of shifts in emphasis. Do the NP en the CP not both believe in racially defined group exclusivity? Do they not both have as a point of departure the protection of group rights? Are their definitions of groups not the same?

Do they not believe in the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act? Do both parties not believe in apartheid as the world sees it or as we see it or in whatever way one wishes to define it?

They are talking of degrees of oppression while we are struggling for our freedom and our total emancipation from this yoke of apartheid and racism of the Government and the NP.

In Die Burger of this morning Freek Swart complains about the group areas issue being taken up once again. I can assure him and the NP for whom he is such a wonderful mouthpiece that they will continue to hear about the group areas. To others this may be boring and merely a point of debate to be taken up and then forgotten again. To us, however, it is an integral part of our lives and a constant reminder of dispossession and of the Government’s continued willingness to relegate us to a second class inferior citizenship of this country.

We will not rest until the last vestiges of this Act are completely removed from the Statute Book. May I also remind hon members that time and patience are wearing thin out there. The Government with its security apparatus and declaration of a state of emergency will not be able to continue to suppress that boiling cauldron of anger and frustration.

Allow me, Sir, to quote from our hon leader’s opening address at our congress in Bloemfontein. I quote from pages 10 and 11:

That is the Group Areas Act—

The Group Areas Act tells us that the Government is more concerned about the views of the CP, the AWB and those mentally deranged racists of Mayfair West who are prepared to torment, harass and threaten the well-being and lives of a family than those of us who are seeking a new South Africa.

This Act tells us that the Government condones the actions of the Kraaifontein town council when it cut the lights and water supply of a family who were seeking shelter. What was that family’s sin? It was the colour of their skin. It tells us that each and every hon member of the NP is prepared to live alongside those racists of Mayfair West and Kraaifontein—because they are allegedly White—rather than with us, their colleagues in Parliament.

If it was not so sad, we could die laughing at the Government’s hypocritical righteousness regarding the application of its laws in Boksburg. The CP has merely been more thorough than the NP in the application of the NP’s laws, but not everywhere. I merely have to ask the hon member for Uitenhage in the House of Assembly whether I may use the library in the town or the swimming-bath in Mosel to be told: “Sorry, it is reserved for Whites.”

At the end of this month the NP-controlled city council of Port Elizabeth will have to make a decision regarding the opening of swimming-pools in that city. What are the NP councillors going to do? Are they going to abstain or run away from responsibility once again as they did in the case of the Port Elizabeth beach referendum when only one NP member, the hon member for Newton Park, had the courage of his convictions to vote for open beaches while his colleagues and councillors advocated abstention? Will Port Elizabeth become known as “Boksburg by the sea”? Incidentally, I want to ask the hon member for Newton Park if he feels he can still remain in a racist and hypocritical party.

The hon member for Boksburg yesterday tried to condemn the CP council for its application of the NP laws. I listened to him intently, but I did not hear him condemn either the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act or the Group Areas Act. I heard him appeal for a more compassionate and understanding application of these laws, but just as there can be no understanding and compassionate rape, so there can be no understanding and compassionate approach to the application of the apartheid laws. Both constitute the total violation of your whole being, the very essence of yourself.

In conclusion, while I have very little faith left in the NP, I can only hope that those who do not belong in the NP anymore will, in the interests of this country, disassociate themselves from the NP and join that broad mass-movement towards a new South Africa where we shall be brothers and sisters in one country—one nation, indivisible under God.

Mr Speaker, I am not going to react to the speech of the hon member for Addo. I chiefly want to turn my attention to the hon the Minister of Finance and deal with a few other matters.

We found it somewhat strange to have discovered in the newspapers, very recently, that in his investigation into contraventions of exchange control measures, Mr Justice Harms had to declare that he was amazed at the lack of interest displayed by the senior officials of the Reserve Bank who really ought to have shown an interest in the investigation. They did not, however, show any interest. The excuse, as I have been able to deduce from press reports, was that the person or persons concerned were away on holiday. Apparently they did not think it necessary to designate representatives to attend Mr Justice Harms’s inquiry.

Having said that, let me add that we are glad about the statement, issued by Dr De Kock after discussions were held and with the approval of the hon the Minister of Finance, about stricter exchange control regulations and the strenghtening of the Reserve Bank staff with a view to instituting an effective and adequate investigation into contraventions of the regulations.

We are also glad to hear about the steps which are going to be taken to curb the abuse of cross-border activities involving the TBVC countries.

In the process, of course, where it has become essential to adopt measures to curb these abuses, we must guard against creating a new bureaucracy which no one likes. In the present circumstances, however, we are faced with the inevitable and do not have a choice. It is necessary, and we on this side of the Chamber will give our full support with a view to having the measures operate effectively.

In a certain sense, the South African economy is in a state of siege. We dare not allow conniving operators to sabotage South Africa economically and to rob the country. It is therefore my view that, if necessary, legislation should be reinforced so that penal measures can be employed to remove these saboteurs and rogues from society.

Sir, allow me to make one remark in passing, and that is that according to press reports Mr Vermaas was very judicious in his choice of his personal guests and friends. Unfortunately, however, I cannot say the same of the judgement of some of the guests who accepted Mr Vermaas’s hospitality. I merely say that in passing, however.

The CP also looks forward, with interest, to the draft Bill concerning the Advocate-General which was proposed by the hon the Acting State President. If I may make one observation at this stage, let me say that I think it is time for us to consider having the proceedings involving the Advocate-General take place in public so as to give potential witnesses, who probably have certain facts at their disposal, every opportunity to bring these facts to the attention of the Advocate-General.

I want to emphasise, however, that no matter how important the Advocate-General’s function may be, it can never take the place of the normal activities of the Auditor-General of South African and his staff. That is why we want to advocate that if necessary the position of the Auditor-General, as the independent watchdog of this Parliament, should be re-enforced.

In the final instance we find, time and again, that we have a judicial commission of enquiry, and the matter is then apparently referred to the Attorney-General. I want to ask what has happened to the commercial branch of our criminal investigation department. Is it not the primary task of the commercial branch of the criminal investigation department to expose and curb corruption and institute legal proceedings?

I want to react briefly to the speech made yesterday by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. He conceded that we had recently been confronted with corruption, and he expressed his regret at the fact. In reading his speech now, however, it appears to me as if he wishes to excuse the present Government because, as he more or less puts it, the present-day Government has committed itself to clean administration, has reconfirmed its intention to clean administration and has apparently taken immediate action against these operators. I am sorry to have to tell the hon member, however, that his argument is not good enough. Although we have had a Government which said that it was committed to clean administration, what are the facts?

Two members of the Government were specifically involved in the maladministration which took place recently. To come along now and say that one excuses the Government of the day … [Interjections.] The former Minister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs and the erstwhile Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates were, as far as I know, members of the Government of the day. I cannot excuse this Government because it has now rid itself of those two individuals. They were part of the Government of the day.

What I find most interesting, however, is that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North himself referred to that in his speech. I quote:

I do not have the facts available, and I accept the hon member’s references as being correct. What astonishes me, however, is that the hon member says that his Government acted “promptly”. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance wrote a letter to Mr De Pontes in which he took him to task for having supplied false information to the Department of Finance. The same Mr De Pontes, however, remained chairman of the joint committee and a member of the NP caucus. Are we dealing here with clean administration or the very opposite of clean administration?

As far as swift action is concerned, last year we had the case of Mr Braam Fourie. Let me refresh hon members’ memories. An article appeared in Finansies en Tegniek alleging certain irregularities. I give the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid the credit for having referred the matter to the Advocate-General. Then, however, a completely new story unfolded.

The Advocate-General published a report in which he made certain remarks about the conduct of the Director-General of the Department and his son. The responsible Minister said that he accepted the report. He accepted the report, and apparently that was to be the end of the story. Then the matter came to the attention of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, and that joint committee, consisting of representatives of virtually every party in this House today, decided unanimously that a joint committee of the Parliament of South African should be appointed to investigate the matter further, but what did the Minister then decide? He decided that he did not accept the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts.

When we debated this issue last year, an interesting observation, as far as I was concerned, was that not a single NP member who was a member of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts participated in that debate. They got others to participate in the debate. The Minister then told us he was referring the matter to the Commission for Administration for investigation.

Order! The hon member must refer to Ministers and other members as hon Ministers and hon members.

Sir, my apologies.

The hon the Minister then decided to refer the matter to the Commission for Administration for investigation, when the Commission for Administration itself was involved in the whole affair, and they rightly told the hon the Minister that they could not conduct such an investigation. Only then was Miss Justice Leonora van den Heever appointed to investigate the matter. She is still conducting that investigation today. Is that swift action?

“Promptly.”

“Promptly?” The debate to which I am referring took place seven months ago.

In conclusion, if I may conduct a brief debate with the new leader of the PFP. In one portion of his speech he intimated that one of the most important causes of the present state of corruption in South Africa was supposedly the Government’s homeland policy, and the possibilities this created for corruption.

Oh please, Mr Speaker, where in Africa have things been any different? [Interjections.] We are of Africa. If someone like Mr Sol Kerzner wants to use, as an excuse, the fact that he was commercially blackmailed by a prime minister of a homeland into paying R2 million as a bribe, it is simply not good enough. For me this is evidence of immorality, in the private sector of South Africa too, which we can no longer put up with in our fatherland. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, at the very outset I want to wish the hon the State President a very speedy recovery from his recent illness. Secondly, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for having been appointed Acting State President and I wish him well. I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister of National Education on his appointment as the Leader of the NP in South Africa. I wish to say in all sincerity that the destiny of this country rests on his shoulders while they are in power.

It is imperative when hearing the various speakers here and also understanding the existing climate in this country, that we reflect on the twentieth century.

During the twentieth century there have been three mighty revolutions which have changed the face of the earth. The three revolutions were the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Communist Revolution—both of them bloody—and the passive resistance struggle for Indian independence, led by Mahatma Gandhi, which ousted the mighty British Empire.

The twentieth century will also be remembered for the two great wars. If I may say so, the war between 1939 and 1945 claimed about 40 million Allied lives. Twenty million of them were Russians. The regional conflict in the Iran-Iraq war has claimed two million lives. There is enough fire to blow the earth and humankind to smithereens. Therefore in this part of the subcontinent of Africa the destiny of this country lies on everyone who sits around this forum today.

The twentieth century has also been a bloody century. Africa has also shed its share of blood. Today, at the tail-end of the twentieth century, extra-parliamentary forces believe that they remain resilient and also believe that they are the hope for the future. As a country in transition it is all the more our task as political functionaries to ensure that morally reprehensible apartheid becomes a thing of the past. The idea of a united and renovated South Africa marching on to a place among the nations of the world should be the order of the day.

The remaining discriminatory legislation must be removed and together we must prepare for a post-apartheid era with the mechanism of positive negotiation which was so ably stated by the hon Deputy Leader of the Labour Party yesterday. I also want to compliment the hon member for Kuruman who stated that the last vestiges of discrimination must be removed and that reform had gained momentum. Those are the courageous words of an honest South African.

Therefore, at this juncture I want to make a very special appeal to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that today we are faced with a challenge in South Africa—that irrespective of colour, caste or creed we are South Africans and therefore just as Mahatma Gandhi reached out to the conscience of the British Empire I want to reach out to the conscience of those people who are not participating and supporting reform in South Africa to give South Africa a helping hand towards reform.

Indeed it is true that apartheid cannot be reformed but it must be eradicated, yet the dismantling of a political system does not necessarily require the destruction of a society. It is an illusion that the alternative can only emerge from the ashes. If this were so, it would hardly be worth the price. At the same time real reform must be rescued from the present proponents. This is my appeal, Sir.

In numerous respects South Africa compares very favourably with the First World countries. Beneath this external facade we have a massive Third World situation with an alarming measure of prevalent economic inequality. Whatever differences may divide the South African society— I say this with respect—we all nevertheless have a common interest in the economic performance of the Republic and we should consequently join hands to promote the country’s economic wellbeing. The attainment of such an objective will enable us to reduce unemployment and poverty and to improve the quality of life of South Africans. It will also enable us to proceed more rapidly with the process of political and social reform in this country. This is why we as enlightened South Africans, if I may say so, cannot understand how the industrial countries, incited by spiteful Third World African countries, can be persuaded to impose punitive trade and financial sanctions against the Republic of South Africa. I have yet to discover anybody in South Africa who has benefited from these sanctions. We therefore make an earnest appeal to the governments of countries not to impose these measures proposed by misguided pressure groups, supported by some South African clergy against South Africa, aimed at damaging the economy. The consequences of such a policy will no doubt rebound more severely upon those people they profess to assist. It is time that poverty was seen as a profoundly political issue.

However, the status quo has been aggravated by the disinvestment campaigns, spearheaded by political lobbyists and so-called human rights activists. Tens of thousands of able-bodied and productive citizens have been made redundant and forced into a life of poverty, hunger and desperation. These are the victims whose right to earn an honest living has been snatched away, yet ironically it is those that the campaign has professed to help.

Robert Mugabe calls for more sanctions and his people are calling for more jobs. President Mugabe is said to be at the forefront of the campaign to tighten the economic screws on South Africa. Every turn of the screw against South Africa impoverishes his very people and the people who are more in need. Either through ignorance of or indifference to the devastating consequences, the advocates of disinvestment continue to intensify their efforts.

Meaningful reform was evident in the pre-sanctions era. However, since then, efforts and energies have turned in different directions. Pressurised corporations have not only paid premium wages and made vast contributions to education, training, health and housing services but have also paved the way considerably towards dismantling some of the structural barriers of apartheid.

The take-over by top executives resulted in major economic advantages for the latter who trimmed budgets in anticipation of the difficult times, with a consequential cut in the workers’ pay-roll. Vast numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled workers swelled the ranks of the unemployed. Sanctions have proved to be so negative and destructive, although their effects have so far been minimal and even counter-productive. What is more worrying about the sanctioneers is their basic approach which is so astonishingly wrong-headed.

The international community must take cognisance of South Africa’s role in the independence of South West Africa and the fact that it had to maintain law and order at an enormous cost. What would it not have cost the Western powers in labour and other resources to rebuild a viable economy in the Territory?

At this juncture I would be failing if I did not commend and congratulate the very able hon Minister of Foreign Affairs for the initiative that he has taken and for having worked around the clock to find peace and prosperity, and to establish communication throughout the world to the benefit of South Africa.

Let us also accept the fruitful visits by our government to Mozambique, Malawi, Zaire and the Ivory Coast. This indeed points to mutual respect and co-existence but the vacuum in South Africa must not be underestimated, even at local government level. There is continued frustration for the furtherance of delegation and the devolution of powers. Yesterday the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates spoke about direct representation. We understand how important it is to establish the local government structure wherein at that level lies the bread and butter issues of any country.

The fundamental challenge facing this nation as a whole lies in the creating of effective strategies to deal with poverty. It is Government policy to create jobs. However, improving education and housing is also essential to achieve greater economic power and, through that, greater political power. Statements are made frequently about the contrast between wealth and poverty in South Africa. Although other countries are not aware of the progress made in South Africa in contrast with other countries on the continent, very much more has to be done as poverty and illiteracy are inseparable twins. The starting point in the formidable task of their removal is to be found in the urgent need to make the economy more democratic. To ignore this urgent and immediate problem will lead to the swelling of the ranks of the destitute, kwashiorkor, and with the linked consequence of mental retardation, rampant crime and so forth. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it has been significant in the debates so far that some of the statements, some of the visions and some of the standpoints that have been reflected are so far removed from the situation in South Africa that one is truly amazed. Our country has too many people and groups that claim to have a sole right to South Africa. Unless we start scaling down our claims and start co-operating in building the future of South Africa, things will definitely not go well for us.

I should like to associate myself with the tranquillity of this debate and talk about the situation concerning South Africa and the challenges South Africa faces with regard to Southern Africa. Stability as a condition for prosperity and peace is an essential requirement in Southern Africa, and the normalisation of relations between South Africa as a regional super power and its neighbours on the subcontinent will make a significant contribution to this objective.

The need for the normalisation of relations, to which the RSA is committed irrevocably, reached an important stage in the second half of last year with the new initiatives by our hon State President, Mr P W Botha. On 2 September 1966 the late Dr Hendrik Verwoerd and the late Chief Minister Leabua Jonathan, Prime Minister of Lesotho, met in Pretoria. This can rightly be regarded as the beginning of the movement towards dialogue and the normalisation of relations between the RSA and its neighbours.

This meeting was followed by various other initiatives with regard to our neighbouring countries. In February 1967 relations were extended to the first country not adjacent to South Africa, viz Malawi. South Africa’s initiatives to the normalisation of relations were aimed mainly at Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, with whom we had strong historic and economic ties. This also applies to a lesser degree to Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi.

All six of these states with their British colonial connections shared the English language and cultural influence with us here. In the 1980s an extremely important breakthrough with a country outside this group, viz Mozambique, led to the Nkomati Accord on 16 March 1984 between the late President Samora Machel of Mozambique and the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha. This accord provided that none of the countries’ territories would be used for violence, terrorism or aggression against the other. In addition to this, provision was made for cooperation in the economic sphere, in respect of tourism, and the Cahora Bassa hydro-electric scheme.

Despite accusations that South Africa supported the Renamo bandits and had been responsible for the aircraft accident in which President Samora Machel died, there was a clear improvement in the relations between these two countries. The Nkomati Accord also introduced a new era in that it proved that states with totally opposite political ideologies and policies could co-operate to the benefit of all.

Further success was attained with the establishment of trade missions in Swaziland in 1985 and in Lesotho in 1987, as well as with the Lesotho Highlands water scheme in 1986.

†South Africa’s relations with Mozambique and Malawi were further strengthened in 1988 when the hon the State President met President Joaquim Chissano in Mozambique on 12 September, and President Banda in Malawi on 13 September. He said that on both days his discussions had been a “great success”. During these visits the hon the State President disclosed that he had already been visited in South Africa by representatives of six African states.

On 1 October the hon the State President had talks at Gbadolite with President Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire. The significance of this meeting is that Zaire is a politically powerful state by virtue of her size and geographical location as well as her mineral wealth. President Mobutu’s meeting with our hon the State President immediately gave rise to speculation that further meetings at head of state level would take place between South Africa and countries such as Zambia and Gabon. At this stage there were also reports that President Houphouët-Boigny was trying to bring South Africa to the conference table at summit level with several other African countries, including Angola and Morocco. However, these rumoured summit meetings did not materialise immediately. President Kaunda, chairman of the BAMTZZ grouping—that is Botswana, Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe—said on 16 November that they would not meet with the hon the State President until South West Africa was independent.

The hon the State President also met President Houphouët-Boigny in the Ivory Coast on 15 October on his way home from a visit to Europe. On 25 October he played host to King Moshoeshoe II of Lesotho in Pretoria. The two heads of state agreed to meet again and to keep communication channels open. Both President Chissano of Mozambique and President Mobutu are scheduled to visit South Africa in the near future.

Coupled with President Botha’s 1988 dialogue initiatives has been the forceful and indispensable role which South Africa has played in the protracted series of peace talks on South Western Africa, which have centred on peace in Angola and independence for South West Africa.

As 1988 drew to a close it was clear that South Africa had strengthened her position in Southern Africa during the last half of the year, advancing the ultimate prospects for greater political and eventually diplomatic normality in her relations with her neighbours in Africa south of the equator.

*Towards the end of 1988 our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs said the following at an international conference:

[Inaudible.]

Do not answer a fool in his folly!

*It is striking that when one talks about the serious things the Government is involved in, someone in the benches makes ridiculous statements. It is typical of that political party.

†With the application of the relevant technology which does exist the African continent could be spared the nightmare consequences of hazardous waste-disposal and possibly benefit from the useful recycling of waste under safe conditions.

*This is the progress we have made since that historic meeting between Dr Verwoerd and Chief Minister Leabua Jonathan in 1966.

Last year we commemorated the Great Trek, but as has happened so often in the past, unfortunately we once again arranged and organised separate treks. Africa and specifically Southern Africa are waiting for us. Poverty, hunger and thirst are common phenomena in those countries. [Interjections.] Is it not possible and desirable—I am referring even to the hon members in those benches—for us to unite in this country to start the new economic Great Trek in Africa? The time is ripe. Our future lies in Africa.

Apartheid has made us the polecat of the world. [Interjections.] Can we not rise above our prejudice, avarice and pettiness and make South Africa into the giant Africa is waiting for? Then we shall have fulfilled our task in this country.

Mr Speaker, let me state from the outset that by participating in this debate I would like to look at ways of finding possible solutions to the situation we are faced with. I leave it to the pessimistic prophets of doom to cry over the problems. It is not my job.

*It is so easy for any little wet-behind-the-ears person to kick up a great fuss about the revolution and then sit back with the idea that he has been clever and has said clever things.

To our bitter regret we had to listen to and watch this yesterday. I shall continue. Let me, in the short time at my disposal, restrict myself to the speech made by the hon the Acting State President in which he said inter alia:

The hon the Acting State President went on:

This is the real truth. Further on economic development is mentioned. I must comment on this. On page 6 of the Minutes of Proceedings it is mentioned that according to provisional estimates, a real growth rate of approximately 3% for the year has been attained.

†This is not enough. It is not nearly enough for two good reasons. Reason one: It is not good enough in comparison with the increase in our population, for which we have to make provision in the future. The second reason is that it is not enough in comparison with the expected rise in the rate of inflation. One has to keep pace with that as well.

That significant progress in tax reform has already been made is welcome and appreciated. Here I am thinking of the new SITE taxation system applicable especially to those earning less than R12 000 per annum. This is a giant leap forward as far as the taxation structure in the country is concerned.

A few observations on privatisation, deregulation and, time permitting, economic sanctions.

On privatisation: To provide a facility with a profit motive in mind calls for more efficiency and therefore closer co-operation between management and labour, employer and employee, boss and worker. One has to have that close co-operation. Those making use of this efficient facility therefore will definitely benefit thereby and appreciate it the more.

On deregulation: The proliferation of small businesses which are not all that highly capitally intensive—one does not need a lot of money to start a small business and to start off selling a crate of apples one needs considerably less than R20—can result in more people getting directly involved in economic activities, thus producing more riches for the country. That means more money in the pockets of more people and so more jobs are created whereby the tax base is also broadened and more people will therefore feel that they have a stake in the welfare of the country. They will therefore be more willing to defend this country by word and by deed.

In conclusion, on sanctions: Numerous surveys have revealed that the vast majority of workers in this country do not see sanctions as any sort of solution—political or otherwise. It is not seen as any sort of salvation, for that matter. This is perhaps the only thing that all political parties represented in this House have in common: they are all against sanctions. Not one party here today advocates sanctions as a solution to the problems of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the speech delivered here on Friday by the hon the Acting State President consisted to a large extent of broad generalisations—the sort of motherhood and apple-pie speech that is designed to calm the fears of the Government’s nervous supporters and to reassure the South African public as a whole that the Government has plans to counter any threat to our security. This is admittedly very necessary now that South Africa has lost her best friend and ally in South America, viz Gen Stroessner of Paraguay!

Apart from the optimism regarding the settlement in Namibia there was one other plus factor which was contained in the speech and that was the statement that the Group Areas Amendment Bill would be withdrawn. I believe it to be a great pity that the same step was not taken in regard to last year’s squatter legislation, presently in limbo as a result of a somewhat confused recommendation of the President’s Council; that is, for the hon the State President to pass the Bill and for Parliament immediately to amend it. What that is meant to mean I find difficult to understand.

Before we rejoice too much over the withdrawal of the Group Areas Amendment Bill, let us remember that we are still left with the principal Act which the hon the Acting State President told us would now be more effectively applied since the Free Settlement Areas Act has been passed. We are also left with those other foundation stones of apartheid: The Population Registration Act, the Land Acts which have so drastically affected the rights of Black people to own land in the rural areas outside the homelands, and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act which the CP is enforcing in the municipal areas which they captured in the local government elections last year.

I hear that a concrete wall is about to be constructed around the Boksburg Lake—a sort of East Rand version of the East Berlin Wall. Only its motivation is to keep people out instead of keeping people in. Like other members in this Chamber, I am hoping that the dismal experience of Boksburg, and the economic consequences of the CP’s action, will finally give the lie to the profound utterance of Dr Verwoerd many years ago that Afrikaners would rather be poor and White than rich and mixed.

More than ten years ago in the Budget Debate in the House of Assembly I warned that if the Government did not expedite the dismantling of apartheid, take proper steps to remove statutory race discrimination and desist from offensive actions like forced removals, the moderate pressures then being used to influence reform inside South Africa through contact and economic involvement would be replaced by punitive actions, by the isolation of South Africa, by sanctions and by disinvestment from South Africa.

Unfortunately that prediction has been shown to be only too accurate. The Dellums Bill with its provisions demanding total withdrawal of American investment from and involvement in South Africa is poised to be re-enacted by Congress, and there is no guarantee that a presidential veto will be exercised.

Only 138 of the 323 United States firms formerly operating in South Africa remain doing business here, and Dellums will put finis to that, if the hassle factor has not done so in the meantime. Already the State of Massachusetts has passed an executive order forbidding the State to place contracts with any firm doing business of any kind in or with South Africa. Other states will follow suit. UK firms, faced with boycott threats at home, are also on the move out of South Africa and into less politically threatening countries.

It so happens that I agree with the statement in the hon the Acting State President’s speech that “recent times have brought visible movement and progress in many areas”. Indeed, this is the point I always emphasise when addressing overseas audiences on the subject of sanctions and disinvestment. I tell them there have been changes, that some are more than cosmetic and that they have largely been induced by economic expansion within the country. I tell them that the right way to encourage further change is by the massive injection of investment capital for economic development and growth in this country, and of funds which will supply the education and training of Blacks which will benefit a postapartheid society. However, I can tell hon members that this argument does not convince, for three major reasons.

Firstly, people are impatient for much more fundamental change than has so far taken place, and the alternative suggestion is of course a long-term solution to the problem.

Secondly, the changes which have come about do not go nearly far enough to meet the legitimate demands of Blacks for equal opportunities and equal rights.

Thirdly, the insensitive actions of this Government, which so often accompany a significant move away from apartheid, constantly outrage all South Africa watchers. The prime example of this of course was the repeal of the pass laws in June 1986 thus removing, to my mind anyway, one of the most oppressive measures endured by Blacks in this country for many years. However, the effect thereof both at home and abroad was totally obliterated by the reimposition of a state of emergency in the very same week that the pass laws were repealed and by the detention without trial of hundreds of people.

Today it is not the absence of arrests under the pass laws which receives attention, but the fact that since June 1986 some 30 000 people have been detained without trial under the ongoing state of emergency. Furthermore, some of these unfortunate people, many in the Eastern Cape, have been detained for more than two years without charges having been laid against them. They are simply locked up indefinitely.

Presently many detainees are on a hunger strike, thereby hoping to draw attention to their plight. Some detainees released at long last, after more than two years of detention, like Zwelakhe Sisulu, Erik Molobi and Raymond Suttner have been placed under far-reaching restrictions and thus are denied the right to live any kind of normal life. To this chronicle must be added the fact that some 32 organisations have now been restricted under the emergency regulations.

There are other issues which capture the attention of South Africa watchers, such as some of the astonishing sentences handed down in our courts, and the incredible number of people hanged in this country each year, with the all-high record of 164 last year. That is more than the figure for the whole of the Western World put together, that is, for those few countries where the death penalty is still retained.

The least we should do is to carry out the suggestion made by the hon member for Sandton last year asking for the repeal of the provision that unless extenuating circumstances are found, the death sentence is mandatory. I am for the abolition entirely, it so happens, of capital punishment.

I was in Berlin last November when the reprieve of the Sharpeville Six was announced. There was much relief as a result, I can assure you, Sir, and I have no doubt, from what I heard there, that if the six had been executed, the imposition of severe sanctions against South Africa by the Bundestag would have been inevitable, and dis-investment by German firms in South Africa would certainly have followed.

The important thing to realise is that human rights have become the high-profile issue throughout the Western World, and instead of adopting the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested many years ago when he was still a newcomer to this Parliament and still starry-eyed about the future of South Africa, this country has gone in the opposite direction. We must remember this country is under a microscope. Nothing goes unnoticed, and the anti-apartheid lobby in the USA, in the UK and in Europe is alert and keen to utilise against South Africa any damaging actions committed by the Government and, I should add, by the CP and the AWB. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is an honour for me to follow on the hon member for Houghton. I firmly believe that she has given us a deeper insight here into our responsibility to this country, South Africa.

At the outset I should like to express the sympathy of the LP to the families in the Rooiberg area where two children died and four were injured in the bomb explosion. Our local MP has already visited the injured children in hospitals in the Peninsula, and we hope they will make a speedy recovery.

I should nevertheless like to request the hon the Minister of Defence to see to what extent the Defence Force can assist that poor community with the funeral arrangements, irrespective of whether the investigation has been completed or not. I believe the community needs it now.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, Rev Allan Hendrickse, on his 10 years as leader of the LP, and we trust that he will be there for another 100 years.

I should like to begin by also congratulating the hon the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence on the peace initiatives taken in Angola and South West Africa. Special congratulations and thanks go to the negotiating teams. They are men who gave their all in the pursuit of peace, men who did this by putting South Africa first. We are grateful and proud of them.

It has been proved that South Africa is pursuing peace through these efforts. We have protected our interests outside our borders. It has been proved that we do not have any expansionist tendencies. We have extended the hand of friendship to Africa.

We must continue to encourage stability in Southern Africa. What is important about these initiatives is that a war which lasted 11 years has come to an end. South West Africa’s independence is now in sight. People of that country are going to have the right of self-determination so that they can decide about their future for themselves. Funds voted to support South West Africa’s economy can now be utilised for important reform in South Africa.

South Africa has proved that it is sincere in its dealings with Africa, and members of the international community are allies in this negotiation process. They also play a role in determining the future of that country. Our negotiating team emerged victorious from the fray, but now the spotlight has shifted to South Africa’s internal political changes and social reform. Challenges are now being made to initiate dialogue in this country and to involve our society, in its totality, in the creation of the new South Africa. We have been given the time, but we must remember that on many occasions we lost the initiative because we did not use the time at our disposal.

In our negotiations with Africa we can neither predetermine nor set the agenda. Recent negotiations took place irrespective of whether they were with White, Black, Yellow or Pink, whether they were with communists or socialists and whether they took place in a White or a Black group area. It did not matter who used the beaches or swam in the rivers. South Africa’s interests were given priority. The race classification of those who participated in the negotiations was not emphasised or asked for. The cohesive factors were the search for peace and the renunciation of violence. These are the crucial points for a better future and for survival. However, if we want to extend peace in South Africa, we shall have to set our own house in order. We cannot seek peace with Africa and not be reconciled with those who are born in Africa. We cannot seek peace and stability in Africa and not be serious about reform on the home front.

Without becoming Black, White South Africa must don the cloak of identification with Africa.

We will have to accept all the people in South Africa as equals. We will have to be prepared to share the benefits and the opportunities which this country offers. We will have to grant political rights to the children of Africa—not in five or 50 years’ time, but now. We will have to negotiate with our own people to determine what our common fate will be.

We must not allow ourselves to be scared off by how many votes we will lose to the right. We must not be deterred by the number of guns which can be mustered at the Skilpadsaal. Neither guns nor right-wing elements can withstand the onslaught on South Africa. And they are not the only ones who will pay the price. The onslaught on our economy and our trade will have to be warded off by us and by reform. It is now the time for action aimed at bringing about equality in South African society as a whole.

I want to remind hon members that a conference headed by Canada is currently being held in Harare to plan the next onslaught on us. Are we going to sit still? Are we going to plod on without determining with a sense of vision, what we want in this country?

Time cannot be utilised by wasting it on more White domination, more “Whites Only” signs, more White areas, more White beaches and more White institutions. Let us look at what successful attacks have already been waged against our sport at the international level. Let us determine where we stand today in respect of international sport because the Government tried to placate the right-wing elements in this country.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of rugby and cricket in South Africa. Our participation in and contribution towards these sports are as much a part of our country as braaivleis, sunshine and potjiekos. [Interjections.] However, our participation in world sport has been sacrificed by the politicians and the Government who wanted to placate the right-wing elements.

†Today the sportspeople in this country are standing out as people at the forefront in preparing South Africa for justice, equality and peace. They are ignoring race, colour, creed and status. They are scoring without playing the game, for they are really scoring points for South Africa.

Mr Speaker, for my part I should like to begin by thanking all hon members who congratulated me, the Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the National Intelligence Service and the Defence Force on the accomplishment of the agreement on South West Africa’s independence as well as the withdrawal of the Cuban troops from Angola. We appreciate the fact that so many hon members took cognisance of this important occasion in the history of our country.

On behalf of the hon the State President, the hon the Acting State President, the Government and myself I also want to thank our officials, the heads of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the National Intelligence Service and also the Defence Force very sincerely for the long hours of struggle in various capitals and cities of the world. I extend my cordial thanks to them for the sacrifices they have made over a long period. We know what happened there. We know of the toil that was involved. We know about the heavy demands made on their courage, perseverance, patience and tolerance. I should like them to know that we in this House have the utmost appreciation for the contribution they made to this historic new era which, in my opinion, has begun for Southern Africa.

I cannot fail to take it amiss of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly for having again used this opportunity to sow suspicion in regard to the Government’s firm resolve to implement Resolution 435 of the Security Council of the UN and the settlement plan. I want to tell him that in doing so he finds himself in bad company. The enemies of South Africa are doing the same thing. I want to remind him that as far as I am concerned this debate is in fact behind us. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and all the members of his party know full well that some of them were members of the Cabinet when this entire process was agreed to in January 1982.

He knows it. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly knows it, unless he maintains that the hon the State President is a liar and all my colleagues who were there with him are liars. But surely even before 1982 the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly was a member of the caucus, and it is well known that I raised these matters in the caucus. [Interjections.] It is also well known that the caucus eventually agreed and that we accepted Resolution 435 in 1978 under the leadership of the late Mr Vorster. Has the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition ever complained about that? Has he ever displayed any opposition to it? No, when it began to suit the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition politically, he started ducking and weaving—as he usually does. [Interjections.]

I want to make it very clear here. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not quarrel with the Government, but with Gen Smuts and Gen Botha. He must quarrel with those who concluded the Peace Treaty of Versailles. SWA was never part of the Union of South Africa or of the Republic of South Africa. Surely the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition ought to know that. I am surprised that he is displaying his ignorance so blatantly in this Meeting.

Surely he ought to know that Gen Hertzog admitted in writing to the League of Nations in 1930 that South Africa had no sovereignty over SWA in the traditional sense of the word. He should also know that Gen Smuts, Dr Malan, Mr Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd, Mr Vorster and the hon the State President consistently adopted the standpoint that the people of SWA should decide their own future themselves. Where does this interference in the internal affairs of another constitutional entity come from? I want to demonstrate to hon members how grotesque his standpoint is. I have in my possession an election pamphlet of the National Party of SWA, which was printed a few weeks ago. The National Party of SWA says, and I quote:

This is the only party in South West Africa that states that it did not agree to Resolution 435, but they display a positive attitude. They are going to co-operate. They accept that South Africa is acting in the best interests of South West Africa. Apart from the NP of South West Africa, all the other parties accepted the settlement plan. What right does any party in the RSA then have to stick its nose into the political developments in South West Africa? Who gives them that right? [Interjections.] It is effrontery and it is arrogance, and I want to predict that the South West leaders themselves will deal with them in this connection.

It will no longer be necessary for me to do so. [Interjections.]

The hon the leader asked what had become of the undertaking that all the Cuban troops would be withdrawn on the date on which the settlement plan was implemented. Can hon members see how cleverly he worded it? The question he posed was based on a completely erroneous body of facts, and he ought to know that. [Interjections.] The standpoint of the Government has been recorded in Hansard after Hansard of the House of Assembly and in the Hansard of a Joint Sitting of this Parliament. On 4 March 1986, for example, the hon the State President said at a Joint Sitting (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 1445):

This is the problem of the independence of South West Africa—

Throughout this entire process, from the time when President Reagan took office and we made the implementation of Resolution 435 conditional upon a Cuban withdrawal, the hon the Minister of Defence, the hon the State President and I stressed that we would not implement that resolution unless a satisfactory agreement was reached beforehand regarding the timetable for withdrawal after the resolution began to be implemented.

No one has any doubts on this score. I do not think there is a child in South Africa who has any doubts about this. However, he stood up in this House and asked what had become of an undertaking that had never been given. [Interjections.] I really want to recommend to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that it is in South Africa’s interests for us not to deal with one another in this way when it comes to this serious matter. If he is unsure of certain facts, I promise him that my department and I are at his disposal to gladly give him the necessary information, if only this could meet with acceptance. [Interjections.]

The process of South West African independence is a very important event that lies ahead for us. For a period of a year, or perhaps more, we are going to have large number of UN personnel in South West Africa. We still do not know what the total number of troops will be. They are still arguing about this in the Security Council in New York. The five permanent members of the Security Council say that it should be 4 650, and others say that it should be 7 500. The reason is that the five permanent members of the Security Council, that have to pay most of the costs involved, say that 4 650 is enough. The others say that it must be 7 500, knowing that they need not pay for them. I hope that it will be possible for the final enabling resolution to be adopted during the course of this week, because this Government is ready and waiting and insists that Resolution 435 must be implemented on 1 April. South West Africa has lived in this uncertainty for long enough, and we are convinced that all the parties of South West Africa with whom we have held talks are also looking forward now to this process commencing and leading to the complete independence of South West Africa.

It is important to take cognisance of the aftereffects that are going to follow the implementation of this resolution. Instead of being afraid and hesitant about the implementation of this resolution, I want to make it clear that we must encourage the parties of SWA to determine their own future now, and that we must take this step now because we did not have any alternative that embraced fewer risks. If one does not have sovereignty over a certain territory, one has no say over its internal political development, and that was why it has been our standpoint throughout that the people of SWA must decide their own future. There is no way of escaping this implacable reality without doing our country incalculable harm. Thus it has been recorded over the years and no one can question that. It is not a subject for an internal political dispute in South Africa.

Go and read the mandate agreement.

The mandate agreement lapsed a long time ago, when the League of Nations disappeared … [Interjections.] It astonishes me that the hon member does not know this. My standpoint in regard to him today is that South Africa has a lot to gain through the independence of SWA.

†Instead of fearing, may I point out a few of the advantages and then we will get a clearer picture of the importance of this event.

In the first instance, you will all remember that in 1978 when we accepted Resolution 435, there was no provision for Cuban withdrawal. In other words, the South African Government accepted and approved Resolution 435 without insisting, at that stage, on Cuban withdrawal. At that stage it was simply not possible to obtain such a condition. I think everyone in this Parliament will agree with me that the price of obtaining Cuban withdrawal from Southern Africa is a very very big one. It is a worthy one. We succeeded in negotiating that over a period of almost eight years. It is a very important advantage with far-reaching implications for the further peaceful development of the whole of Southern Africa.

It has removed a source of possible war and conflict, which could have disastrous consequences for all the countries of Southern Africa.

In 1978 it was not part of the agreement that the future constitution of the Territory of South West Africa should be approved by two-thirds of the delegates who would draft that constitution. But in 1982 we succeeded in negotiating this provision with the Western Powers and Swapo eventually agreed that the eventual constitution of the Territory of South West Africa would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the delegates.

Let me make it clear that the election on 1 November will not be an election to elect a government. It will be an election to elect delegates who will go into a constituent assembly and draft a constitution that will have to be approved by a two-thirds majority. It goes without saying that if a single party does not obtain a two-thirds majority in the election on 1 November, that party will of necessity have to negotiate with other parties in order to get a constitution approved.

Furthermore, part of the negotiations of 1982 concerned constitutional principles. At the time this Government desired that certain principles should be subscribed to by all the parties, even before they started to draft a constitution. These are principles which all of us in this Parliament can approve of and subscribe to, namely the independence of the judicial system, free and fair elections, secrecy of the vote and guarantees that fundamental human rights will be properly protected and properly adjudicated upon by an independent judicial system in Namibia. We obtained that.

In other words, here one has an unique situation, differing from the case of other countries that became independent. The Namibian parties are not free to draft any constitution that they wish to draft. They will have to introduce and include these important cornerstones of democracy in the future constitution of Namibia.

In 1977 the general demand across the world was that the Council for Namibia of the United Nations should govern and administer Namibia in the transition period—that is the period from the time that South Africa was supposed to withdraw until independence.

As a result of this Government’s insistence and determination we succeeded in getting the world to agree that an Administrator-General appointed by this Government, would remain legislatively and administratively in charge of the Territory until independence. I think this is a remarkable achievement.

The South West Africa police force of 6 000 men will remain primarily responsible for law and order. This is an achievement because the demand was that they should all withdraw.

We insisted that there should be complete impartiality. What does it mean? A confidential package was concluded in 1982 and that package will now come into operation. In terms of this package the Secretary-General of the United Nations will direct a review of all programmes administered by the organs of the United Nations with respect to Namibia to ensure that they are administered on an impartial basis. For instance, propaganda in favour of Swapo by the Department of Public Information must cease. Consideration of the question of Namibia in the regular General Assembly should be suspended. The United Nations will not provide funds for Swapo or any other party during the transition period. This includes matters such as the funding of Swapo’s office in New York and the provision of travelling expenses for Swapo representatives. The United Nations’ Council for Namibia should refrain from engaging in all public activities once the Security Council meets to authorise implementation. The Commissioner for Namibia and his office should suspend all political activities during the transition period.

Swapo will voluntarily forgo the exercise of the special privilege granted to it—that is, I may add, being the sole and authentic representative of Namibia—by the General Assembly, including participation as an official observer in the General Assembly, and in other bodies and conferences within the UN system the so-called Institute for Namibia will only function in a strictly impartial manner. We have obtained all these advantages. Swapo’s role as the sole and authentic representative is gone. It will have to return peacefully. We have succeeded in getting the world to endorse this Government’s principle that only parties that abandon violence will be allowed to participate in the political process. If only we could obtain the endorsement of the same principle by the United Nations in respect of the situation in South Africa! We have obtained it for South West Africa and I consider it a major victory of historic importance. [Interjections.] Compare these advantages with the situation in 1977 when the world demanded the unconditional withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and the immediate handing-over of the Territory to the United Nations.

The status of Walvis Bay has remained unchanged. It is South African territory. Our enemies tried to make it a dispute, but we succeeded in short-circuiting them and a future Namibian government will have to negotiate with this Government as to the use of the port of Walvis Bay. I do not say this in any defiant way. If that government is friendly we will of course come to a suitable agreement. We look forward to cooperation with the future government of a good neighbour.

There will be less of a financial burden on the taxpayers of this country because, once independent, South West Africa will have access to international financial resources. We have broadened our vision, we have come into contact with African heads of State. South Africa has received favourable publicity all over the world. We have made a deal in the interests of this country, of the whole of Southern Africa, of the people of South West Africa. We have laid the foundation for a new era for Southern Africa as a whole. Our next task is to try to do the same in respect of Mozambique. We can move forward in many fields if only we can now, inside our own country, start to agree on those matters that I believe we can agree on and leave those we disagree on for negotiation. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is indeed interesting for me to enter this debate after the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There is no doubt in the minds of right-thinking South Africans that his department’s and his officials’ efforts and the efforts of the hon the Minister of Defence to pull out our troops from a foreign land where they were fighting a war far from our borders, are to the advantage of our country, and for that he must be congratulated.

Whilst the hon Minister was speaking, I was reminded of a remark he made a little while ago and that was that it is possible in terms of the present Constitution to have a Black State President. Although of course he was shot down in flames for not complying with party policy, I believe if he had been allowed to pursue that line of thinking in party circles, we might possibly be far advanced today in resolving the political problems of our country.

There is a chill wind of intolerance blowing throughout our beautiful country. This chill wind started in Boksburg, it has blown through Mayfair West and has now reached Kraaifontein in the Cape. The intolerance and bigotry which have been highlighted in these areas, are going to push our country into the abyss if not halted, and halted now. I do not believe it is the function of a local authority to police the Group Areas Act by depriving people of municipal services. Their function is to provide services, and, the policing of the Act must be the responsibility of the police.

This local authority policing of the Act is not only confined to the Kraaifonteins. I know of a local authority licensing officer in my constituency who in fact glories in policing the Act by depriving people of colour of their trading rights.

I appeal to the hon the Acting State President in his capacity as Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to direct local authorities to refrain from acting as group areas policemen.

In this regard I am also reminded of a town in my constituency, which is also the constituency of the hon member for Klip River, where, as in Boksburg, the library of the town is closed to people of colour. [Interjections.] I believe he must assist me in this regard and have this abomination seen to.

The hon the Acting State President said the following in respect of the Free Settlement Areas Bill:

The Free Settlement Areas Bill will not stop this chill wind, of which I am talking, from blowing us into a cul-de-sac if not into an abyss. The creation of free settlement areas is not quite enough. We need to identify the root cause of the problems and not to find solutions to the symptoms. The Government must set a timetable for the orderly phasing out of the Group Areas Act.

On one hand we have a serious housing shortage in the Black sector and here I mean also people of the Coloured and Indian communities. On the other hand we have an oversupply in the White sector, and therein lies the problem. It is not a question of people wanting to go into White areas because they want to go into White areas; it is simply a question of fulfilling a need. Which man, which woman and which child will deny themselves a house if it is available across the road but not available to them on this side of the road? Therein lies the problem.

Unnecessary delays are presently being experienced in the identification of much needed land for housing. This problem has not been resolved as yet. Since housing is an own affair in terms of the Constitution I would like to know how housing and services will be funded when the free settlement areas are demarcated and established.

Then, if our experience of delays in land proclamations through the Group Areas Act is to be the pattern in identifying free settlement areas, I believe that we are in for more frustrations and unnecessary raising of hopes in people who are yearning to live a free and orderly life in the place of their choice.

I quote again from the speech of the hon Acting State President:

This decision is welcome, but a lot of acrimonious debate could have been avoided had this withdrawal been effected last year, and if the Government had showed an understanding of our viewpoints then, but this was not so. Our viewpoints were run into the ground.

Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Assembly) asked who would start the bloodbath. Please allow me to remind the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Assembly) of the behaviour of the CP supporters in Mayfair West which is reported in this newspaper cutting headlined: “White mob threatens Indian family”.

The Doyle family was threatened by a man who claimed to be a CP supporter. He wore an AWB cap. The report reads as follows:

Here is a picture of the CP and AWB supporters holding a hangman’s noose. The mentality of this lynch mob of CP supporters may be equated with that of the Ku Klux Klan of America. The CP leaders must accept responsibility for this retrogressive step. They cannot run away from it. It is pushing our country into the Dark Ages. [Interjections.] One cannot be faulted for saying that the intimidation of people by necklacing is bad enough for our country without the introduction now of intimidation by hangman’s nooses.

The beleaguered motorists of South Africa have protested against the principle of tolling existing roads. Protests have been made against the Mooi River and Grasmere toll roads. I have registered my personal protest by using only the alternate route past Mooi River. I am convinced that motorists are getting a raw deal as a result of this decision to charge a toll fee for the use of a road which was already paid for by way of fuel levies. The cost of repairs to the road amounting to R33 million is to my mind excessive. I have been told that tenders were not invited from contractors who are not members of this consortium. I should like to be convinced that the cost was fair and reasonable. As yet I have not been convinced.

I believe that the motorist should have the right to choose. Immediate steps need to be taken to mark the offramps to the alternate routes clearly, showing the respective distances and stating that the use of the alternate route is free. The Automobile Association of South Africa has not done enough to protect the interests of long-standing members of the association and other motorists. The AA should at least provide route maps, clearly indicating distances and alternate routes. Perhaps it is time to consider an alternate association to this Automobile Association, of which I am a member, which will perhaps be a real watchdog association for members.

I understand that the Santam insurance company has endorsed their policies forcing motorists to use the toll roads, stating that the bypass route is unsafe. This is absurd, because Santam is a subsidiary of the Sanlam empire, which in turn has a substantial share in Tolcon, the company controlling toll roads. I have always used the bypass as a matter of principle, and all that is needed is a little patience and some extra time. Statistics show that there were fewer accidents on this alternate route than on the toll road during the past holiday season. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, may I say at the outset that I would like to follow up on what the previous speaker has just indicated about the toll Plaza at Mooi River, but I regret that the shortage of time makes it necessary for me to refer to that on a future occasion.

I too wish to associate myself with the expressions of regret extended by previous speakers to the hon the State President on his indisposition. We wish him well for a speedy and complete recovery. To the new leaders of the NP and the PFP I extend my congratulations.

I consider it appropriate on this occasion to comment on the dramatic effect which the hon the State President’s indisposition has had on the workings of this establishment. There are undoubtedly lessons to be learnt from the disruption which has been caused by the hon the State President’s illness and the uncertainty which has followed. This points to the fact that it is undesirable and not in the best interests of this Parliament or the country for the reins of power to be so heavily concentrated at the Head of State. I would remind this House that this eventuality was perceived and expressed on several occasions in previous parliamentary debates by my erstwhile colleagues and by myself.

The decision by Cabinet to withdraw the Group Areas Amendment Bill is warmly welcomed in all circles. On the other hand this decision leaves the Government with more than a smattering of egg on its face.

The trauma and dissension, to say nothing of the costs involved in convening Parliament for two short sessions last year, did little to improve the relationship between the three Houses of Parliament. In fact, this exercise did more to promote the cause of confrontation politics in this Parliament than any other factor.

It is in this context that I would warn that confrontation politics linked to setting conditions for the support or otherwise of legislation is weakening the whole structure of the parliamentary system. All participants here must realise that in Parliament they have a moral obligation to work within the framework of the Constitution and not to undermine its structures for personal or party-political gain.

This fact has always been recognized by those of us who supported the yes-vote in the referendum and who regarded the present system as the most significant step in the process of reform. We have always accepted that the tricameral system is far from perfect, but it has at least had the effect of broadening the base of representation. That it must be extended to include Blacks is a logical consequence. Therefore it is my plea that we must be careful that our actions in Parliament improve the system and not destroy it, for if we destroy it we must ask ourselves with what system it would be replaced.

The process of reform cannot be stopped, but it is vital that the course of that reform must be guided responsibly and effectively so that the essential structures that have already been created in building this country to what it is, are not destroyed in the process.

Mr Chairman, permit me to associate myself with the messages of goodwill and wishes for a speedy recovery that have been addressed to the hon the State President. We pray for him and his family and we hope that he will soon be able to take his place at the head of the Parliament of South Africa. Permit me also to associate myself with the good wishes and congratulations extended to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on his appointment as Acting State President. I should also like to congratulate the hon the Minister of National Education on his election as chief leader of the NP. In the same breath I also want to extend my wishes for a speedy recovery to our own Minister of the Budget in the House of Representatives. We hope that he will make a speedy recovery and that he, too, will come and take his place in order to resume the duties which he has to perform here.

The hon the Acting State President said the following in his opening address, and I quote:

We on this side of the House would like to sincerely welcome this statement. Political changes in South Africa are the order of the day. According to some organisations and parties, as we were once again able to deduce yesterday from the rhetoric of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, it is wrong that political changes should take place in South Africa. We were given to understand yesterday that when democracy is extended to the masses, to the people of colour, that is a horse of a different colour that must be fought against tooth and nail, and that democracy is only democracy when it applies to the people, the Afrikaner people in particular. Then there are those people—I particularly want to include those of us on this side of the House in their number—for whom the changes that have been implemented to date still leave much to be desired, because as long as the Blacks remain excluded, we shall regard the present dispensation as cosmetic, insignificant and frustrating.

Until such time as democracy is broadened in this manner and full civil rights are granted to all South African citizens, South Africa will be known in international circles as the polecat of the world and we shall remain suspended from all international competition and acceptance.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of Whites are, to an increasing extent, coming to the realisation that in view of the right of self-determination which they have assumed for themselves, they now appreciate the reality and the seriousness of the situation and feel that the broadening of democracy and the realisation of full civil rights for all people in South Africa is a matter which must enjoy high priority.

It is an established fact that the unrest situation and the consequent emergency measures currently being experienced in the townships are a direct consequence of the frustrations arising, firstly, out of resentment at the fact that Blacks are not being granted any effective involvement in the country of their birth. Secondly, they feel resentful because they have no direct say in the decisions of the central government. They feel resentful because they are being treated as strangers, migrant labourers and third-class citizens in the country of their birth. They feel frustrated when they observe that the Afro-Asian states north of the Limpopo are being, or have been released from colonial domination. They feel forsaken when they hear that Namibia’s independence and the implementation of Resolution 435, as well as the consequent advantages which this will entail for South Africa, are to become a reality within the next few weeks.

I want to convey the realities of the South African situation as they are perceived at present by the people in our townships. I want to attempt to explain to what the deteriorating relationship between the State and the Black communities in the townships may be attributed. I want to attempt to explain why the LP in particular regards the present dispensation as a point of departure and not as a point of arrival. I shall attempt to explain why the masses in the townships are beginning to view the violent option as a possible solution to the problems of obtaining full civil rights in the country of their birth.

It is a fact that our country and its people are severely polarised. Particularly among the Afrikaner ranks there are certain people who feel uneasy about the winds of change that are blowing through the country. They feel unsettled because things are not remaining as they were in the past. They feel uncertain about themselves, their faith and their future. They are beginning to berate the protagonists of change for selling out and betraying their people.

The LP cannot be, and never has been a supporter of the present status quo. That is why we are not satisfied, and shall not be satisfied with empty promises and mock reform. The LP believes that South Africa’s future lies in responsible collectivity and shared prosperity for the country and all its people. We believe that we must play a conciliatory role in bridging White fears on the one hand and Black aspirations on the other. Whether hon members want to accept it or not, South Africa is a part of Africa as a whole. The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of this subcontinent are Black. The extension of democracy to these people who, up to now, have been victimised, is a must.

I want to tell the Whites once again today that, if they were to lose their fear of the Black man, they would find it so much easier to uphold and protect the civilised values that have been built up in this country at the cost of so much sacrifice, so much bloodshed, so much vituperation and so many grey hairs in all quarters.

We in the LP believe that all the questions regarding the broadening of democracy, as well as the questions regarding the acquisition of full civil rights and those questions pertaining to power-sharing, are too complex to be answered in isolation. That is why we in the LP believe that joint decision-making represents the only way in which peace and harmony may be found and in which problems may be resolved in this beautiful country of ours.

I want to conclude by saying that one must show trust in order to win trust. Someone once said that trust entails a risk, but that mistrust entails a greater risk. I believe that trust is a source of power in good human relations. Without mutual trust there can be neither mutual goodwill, nor development, nor progress, nor lasting peace.

Let us then accept the Government’s pursuit of full civil rights for all the people of South Africa in good faith, because I believe that the implementation of these new year’s resolutions of the Government will only lead to prosperity, stability and lasting peace in our beautiful country, South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to assure the hon member for Southern Free State that it is definitely also the standpoint of the NP to give full civil rights to all South African citizens.

I want to talk about the Group Areas Act because it was mentioned time and again during the debate. However, before I do that, I have a bone to pick with the hon member for Toekomsrus.

Yesterday afternoon, the hon member for Toekomsrus said here that the majority of South Africans agreed with the broad political objectives of the ANC. I am not entirely sure whether the hon member for Toekomsrus knows what the broad political objectives of the ANC are. Surely, the ANC is not a body that exists in isolation. Surely, it is general knowledge that the ANC is being manipulated by the SACP. May I read to hon members what the objectives of the ANC are?

These are set out very clearly in this book, Apartheid’s Rebels: Inside South Africa’s Hidden War, by Steven M Davis, and he is not a friend of the Government or of the NP. He says the following:

These are the broad political objectives of the ANC. I think the time has come for the LP to clarify their position with regard to this matter.

The cat is truly among the pigeons with regard to the Group Areas Act. Members in the ranks of the LP are threatening to boycott all constitutional legislation if the Groups Areas Act remains on the Statute Book.

From the right-wing ranks, the Government is being accused of not wanting to or being able to enforce the Group Areas Act, and as a result people have decided to take the law into their own hands, as happened in Mayfair.

I want to say at once that in a civilised country no one dares take the law into his own hands. There are more than 200 cowboy books on my shelves, and not one of those books has a good word to say about a vigilante committee. If it was an evil in the days of the Wild West, then it is even more of an evil in South Africa, given our situation.

In the preamble to our Constitution we are committed to civilised values. I should like to ask the CP whether the actions of a CP town council member who specifically asked that a hangman’s noose be prominently displayed when a newspaper photograph was taken, is in keeping with civilised values. I want to repeat, in a civilised country no one dare take the law into his own hands. Surely, if a contravention in terms of the Group Areas Act is suspected, there are existing channels which can be followed.

But you are not enforcing the Act!

Sir, in response to that remark, I want to draw your attention to what the chairman of the Constitutional Committee in the President’s Council said when this matter was debated there recently.

That is not necessary. Look at Hillbrow.

He adopted the standpoint that the finding in the Govender case need not necessarily be an obstacle when it came to the enforcement of the Group Areas Act. I want to quote it word for word:

Surely it is true that not all contraventions of the Group Areas Act occur as a result of a housing shortage.

On the other hand I want to emphasise that deliberate contraventions of existing laws cannot be tolerated either. No one may adopt the standpoint that because he thinks a law is unethical or immoral, he can contravene it. If that were the point of departure, we would be heading towards a state of anarchy in South Africa.

I want to state the NP’s standpoint in this regard very clearly. The NP places a high premium on a separate community life within a separate living area.

But that is apartheid!

If it is apartheid, then it must be apartheid. [Interjections.] However, the fact is that until now, the NP has regarded the Group Areas Act as an instrument which embodied this principle. However, the NP is not bound to the method or the instrument. If there are other methods and other instruments to ensure a separate community life within a separate living area, the NP will consider them.

In the opening address of the Acting State President an indication was also given that alternative means of giving expression to this principle were receiving urgent attention. If it appears that the answer lies in the eradication of the backlog that exists in regard to housing, then this must be looked at urgently. If the answer lies in the launching of the free settlement areas, then that must also be seriously considered. I welcome the announcement that the chairman of the Free Settlement Board has already been appointed. At the same time I regret the fact that the LP does not want to sit on the Free Settlement Board. I want to make it clear to hon members that if we in South Africa continue to express our opinions for or against apartheid in an emotional way, we are not going to solve the problems of the country. For that reason we must come together and talk about these matters.

If the solution lies in administrative arrangements, the scaling down of penalties, the decriminalisation of the whole question of a contravention of the Group Areas Act, then that must be looked into as well. I want to repeat that the NP is not rigid in this regard, but that it places a high premium on a separate community life within a separate living area and will do everything in its power to bring this about for all population groups.

Mr Chairman, at the commencement of this session and in these times when dark storm-clouds are gathering over our political arena, I expected a breath of fresh air in this Chamber. However, after having listened to the previous speaker, the hon member Dr B L Geldenhuys, who told us incessantly that they stood for an own community life and living areas, I simply cannot understand his argument. I said this last time as well. Why is a Group Areas Act not necessary to settle the Portuguese in La Rochelle? What about Turffontein? What about the Jews in Houghton, Parktown and so on? What about the Germans elsewhere? Why is it only necessary when it concerns us, because we were born on the wrong side of the colour barrier?

The breath of fresh air is missing in this Chamber. It is missing because the Group Areas Act is still in existence. It is not only the CP that is going to exceed the bounds in this regard—reference has frequently been made to Mayfair and Kraaifontein. Others are also starting to do it under the protection of this Act against which so much is being said. Last week 30 Coloured families in Cato Manor in Durban were served with eviction orders. This was done by the House of Delegates, not the CP.[Interjections.] They demolished the roofs which those people had over their heads. Now the Indian community, and in particular the hon member Mr Kassie Ramduth, must tell us exactly where they stand regarding the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

Order! I think Mr Speaker ruled that hon members were not to be mentioned by name. The hon member referred to the hon member for Clare Estate as the hon member Mr Kassie Ramduth. The hon member for Reigerpark may continue.

Sir, I apologise.

The other evil which is still very much alive is racial classification and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. Also in this respect it is not only the CP that acts selfishly, the Indians do the same. In Rustenburg, Transvaal, Coloured children may attend the Indian school, but under no circumstances may they use the swimming-baths in the Indian area.

We know what the CP’s position is, but the House of Delegates must tell us what their position is regarding the offensive pieces of legislation and conduct.

Under the cloak of these controversial pieces of legislation, the CP allowed headlines such as “Gerrie Coetzee’s Boksburg opts for apartheid”, “St Dominique, Boksburg’s international champion drummies, in apartheid furore” to appear over the whole world. The CP controlled town council decided to reserve public amenities for Whites only, while the previous town council was at least accommodating in this respect. This resulted in anger and aggrievedness among the Coloured community. This immediately resulted in T-shirts with slogans such as “Save Boksburg for our future” and “Towards justice, peace and equality”, as well as car stickers with the words “I buy only where I am wanted”.

The CP-controlled town council knows what is going on in Boksburg. Accompanying this decision there are CP spokesmen who make hurtful remarks about the Coloured community. I wish to mention a few briefly: “Kleurlinge ry op die belastingbetaler van Boksburg se rug”—surely this is the biggest load of rubbish under the sun— “Coloured people are leeches” and “Ons wil nie verdring word nie”. [Interjections.]

What about the R100 million which they stole from the development funds of Reigerpark which they obtained from the old trust funds?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly yesterday referred to “ons Boere”. This made me reflect on my childhood years. When hurtful things were said to us by Boers, we chanted the following rhyme to them:

[Interjections.]

Of course the last stanza has been changed slightly to make it appropriate for Parliament.

Such conduct from the CP causes these things to flare up in the community once again. The CP is acting rashly in Boksburg and when the Coloureds join forces spontaneously and naturally in the Save Boksburg Committee and launch their own campaign, then the CP starts whining. Then the hon member for Overvaal for example says over Radio 702: “Stop your nonsense and cooperate with us!” My question to this hon member is on which basis and in which way we must co-operate with them if they have already decided to humiliate us.

The course of action adopted by the residents of Reigerpark affected innocent people. We realise this, but it must be blamed solely on the CP. The CP has such a lot to say about democracy and how they should be allowed to practice it. I quote from what the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis said about the cancellation of the NBS agency agreement with Mr Beyers de Klerk, the mayor of Boksburg. He said:

Yesterday the hon member for Pietersburg said that each community should decide its own affairs in a democratic manner on local level. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly said: “Leave Boksburg in peace and allow the elected representatives to act in the interest of the taxpayers.” The CP’s actions do not coincide with what they say they believe.

Once again the CP took the lead in Boksburg in undermining democracy. How did they do it? I am in possession of a letter which the CP-controlled town council wrote to the chairman of the Reigerpark management committee, and I wish to quote their decisions briefly from this letter. It reads:

After all, it is a violation of democracy to deprive Reigerpark of the right to act in its own interests. In the next decision they reduce the management committee of Reigerpark to something which has hardly anything to say about the community which elected them. They remove all powers and the management committee may only take decisions in connection with the leasing of premises.

They go further. The third decision reads as follows:

Hon members must listen to the reasons for the suspension—

[Interjections.] in other words they have no right to decide on behalf of their own people; they must do it to the satisfaction of the CP-controlled town council of Boksburg. Such harsh baasskap and coercion does not constitute a platform for good relations but bedevils them even further.

How do they undermine democracy further? The pro-NP and independent members convened a special meeting for December so that this matter could be discussed in public, because they were continually complaining that misrepresentation of the truth of the situation was taking place in the media.

However, when they were afforded an opportunity to say exactly how they felt in public and be proud of it, they said that the town council had to go into committee and that they would discuss it behind closed doors. They repealed a decision … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think the time has come for the hon member who has just spoken, as well as other hon members, to take cognisance of the fact that the CP won the election in Boksburg, that we are carrying out our mandate and that we will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by anyone, but will continue on the course we have adopted. [Interjections.]

President Lincoln said you can not fool all the people all of the time. That profound truth has eventually caught up with the NP. In recent years the NP has done everything in its power to fool the people of South Africa with the concept of reform whereas it did not, in fact, want to reform. The NP created great expectation among Coloureds, Indians, and Blacks regarding the introduction of full civil rights for all South Africans in one undivided South Africa. In future we would be one state in which apartheid had been destroyed. It was said and written that South Africa was done with apartheid, that the wonderful day of power-sharing and human rights had dawned, that in future we were going to live together like brothers in one country, in which one person would not dominate another. In this way the NP introduced its so-called reform and by doing so created tremendous expectations among people of colour.

Now matters have come to a head. Yesterday we witnessed the rage of the disillusioned Coloureds, who have discovered that the government fooled them with so-called reform, which actually was not reform, but blatant “domination” and covert apartheid. Evidence of the government’s covert apartheid are coming to light everywhere. In addition the NP’s mask of credibility is being ripped from its face and today it stands exposed to the voters of South Africa in its political sanctimoniousness. Not only are apartheid notice boards rife in NP constituencies in South Africa, but covert apartheid is being enthusiastically implemented everywhere by NP representatives who have the audacity to criticize the CP in respect of what we are openly doing in Boksburg. People of colour have discovered to their shock that they have been fooled by the NP, that true power-sharing does not, in fact, exist, that the Whites control the President’s Council and in this way enforce most of its political decisions and that there has not been a move away from apartheid.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives is not even allowed to swim where he wants to. Coloured children are dragged out of the sea and chased to Coloured beaches. Coloureds are not allowed to live where they want to and their children may not attend schools where they want to. They are not allowed to set foot in dozens of NP controlled swimming-pools, on recreational grounds, tennis courts, in parks, town halls and other facilities. The NP does this quite sanctimoniously and covertly in the fine name of reform and human rights.

Yesterday we had a foretaste of the rage of those persons who have been fooled. Yesterday the Coloureds spurted their venom against the Government. We even had to sit here and listen in astonishment to the overt wooing of the ANC in this House. We heard overt threats of violence. We sensed the unmistakable undertones of serious conflict. Even NP members looked on fearfully at the rage directed against them. We have started experiencing the signs of a system which is on the point of disintegrating, inter alia because deceived people have started with a process of polarisation. Many people understand the logic of yesterday’s Coloured rage. After all, the NP proclaimed South African to be one undivided country with full civil rights and the elimination of discrimination. After all, this was done. Surely, it stands to reason that the majority of 25 million people will rule over the minority of 5 million people and that all discrimination will have to disappear. However, instead of true civil rights the Coloureds received second class civil rights in a system in which apartheid is alive and well.

There are even hon members in the NP’s own ranks who have openly indicated that they have had enough of this farce. The hon member for Langlaagte openly asked the Government either to implement the Group Areas Act or abolish it. Other hon members, like the hon member for Kuruman, the hon member for Turffontein and the hon member for Innesdal, have indicated that segregating measures must be abolished. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is never in the House, said openly three years ago already that it was unavoidable that South Africa would have a Black President.

This ambivalence of the NP has now come strikingly to the force. There is undoubtedly a group in the NP who are striving for true reform, who accept it as inevitable that all segregating measures will have to disappear in an undivided South Africa and that a Black majority government is fair and unavoidable. There is also another group in the NP which basically has the same ideals as the CP. The difference between them and us is that we state our policy honestly and frankly, whereas they are trying to deceive people of colour and want to practice their apartheid covertly. [Interjections.]

Today the NP stands before the people as an exposed party. Its dishonesty regarding its so-called reform has been exposed. Its sanctimonious practicing of covert apartheid, particularly in Vereeniging, has been exposed. Nobody trusts this Government any longer—neither the Coloureds, nor the Indians, nor, least of all, the Blacks or the outside world, nor, alas, the Whites of South Africa. This is one of the main reasons why a mere 7 000 people went to listen to the hon the State President on the Day of the Covenant, and 60 000 went to listen to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] The NP’s end is unavoidably in sight. History will eventually describe it as suicide.

Yesterday I listened to this debate with a heavy heart and asked myself what the future holds in store for the people of South Africa when parties demolish each other so thoroughly, even with threats of violence. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has asked me when I am going to start my speech. My party has enough confidence in me to allow me to speak. They will not even ask him to stand in Klerksdorp next time.

One thing is plain. The Government has caused this estate to become bankrupt and it is impossible for the Government to administer this bankrupt estate itself. The Government simply cannot act as principal any longer in seeking solutions for South Africa, because the Government no longer has any credibility left to do so. Another alternative will have to be sought.

Another question which I asked myself yesterday was whether reconciliation could still be reached between the Whites and the Coloureds. Even if one could ignore yesterday’s venomous emotional outburst, one must still take into account that the NP considers the so-called group idea to be non-negotiable. For their part the Coloured are demanding the unconditional rejection of the group idea. It is consequently clear that the fundamental differences between the Government and the Coloureds are unbridgeable. There is no hope of reconciliation on this critical point. The CP pointed out this unbridgeable problem to the Government years ago. Today the Government must tell us how it wants to solve this problem.

Next I want to deal with the question as to what role the CP must play in this drama which is unfolding. The CP openly admits the right of the Whites to self-determination in their own father-land. We do not lie to or deceive anyone in this regard. People know exactly where they stand with us. We fight openly for the interests of the Whites and do not begrudge that right to all peoples in this country.

However, our view differs greatly from the NP’s group ideas. We reject the NP’s new philosophy that the Whites are merely a minority group which must share its fatherland with other peoples. We give overall substance to the group idea in the form of full-fledged nationhood and we reject the watered-down concept of a pathetic minority group. Our recipe to defuse the threatening conflict in South Africa, is to divide the land, so that those peoples who wish to, may govern themselves in their own fatherland and under their own government. [Interjections.]

Then there will be no question of domination and the disregarding of human rights. Then the power struggle will be effectively defused. [Interjections.]

I consider it a great honour to be able to stand proudly in the South African Parliament and put the case of my people. I have not come to plead for my people; I have not come to apologise for a guilty conscience and I do not fear the future either. [Interjections.] I have come, in the words of Van Wyk Louw, to put the case of a people “wat klein naas al die volke staan, dat hulle naam nie sal verklink en tot die stiltes gans vergaan; maar dat hul sterk voor God durf kom en deur hul reg ’n nageslag in verre eeue nog kan leef”. [Interjections.]

I am an Afrikaner. My people are the Afrikaner people and those other Whites who identify with my people’s struggle to be free. [Interjections.] I consider it a great privilege to cherish my cultural heritage … [Interjections.]

Order! Interjections are constantly being made on my left and on my right. We cannot go on like this. The hon member must be afforded an opportunity, without having to raise his voice … [interjections.] Order! The talking of hon members is resulting in the hon member sometimes having to raise his voice. He should not have to do so. Hon members must afford him an opportunity to make his speech properly. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am glad that you have reprimanded the hon members for a change. [Interjections.]

I consider it a great privilege to cherish the cultural heritage of the Afrikaner. The wateringdown of my people’s right to self-determination and the demotion of my people to a mere minority group is totally unacceptable. I refuse to allow my people to be governed by others, because then they will become a nation of slaves. I refuse to share my fatherland with other peoples because then I become a share-cropper in my own fatherland.

The nationalistic ideals which I cherish, are universally accepted standards. The Afrikaner does not begrudge that right to other peoples in this country.

We are prepared to negotiate, but we will not sit down at the negotiating table without an agenda. What we place on the agenda is non-negotiable, namely an own fatherland and an own government.

The differences between the different peoples of South Africa are simply too great to force everyone into a single state. Those differences have again become prominent in this debate. It is a liberalistic chimera to want to create a single state for everyone. It cannot work.

The Tricameral Parliament is in its death-throes. It must now be realised as a matter of urgency that we must consider alternatives. What is clear to everyone today is that the Government has caused this estate to become bankrupt and simply cannot act as the principal for change any longer. This Government, along with its new national leader, has become hopelessly too untrustworthy for that.

There is only one system which can work. Give those peoples that want to govern themselves their own fatherland and their own government. That is the CP’s policy. The time has come for this Parliament to be dissolved and replaced by separate parliaments for those peoples who want them. Then those peoples will govern themselves in their fatherland. There is no other way to settle the threatening conflict in this country.

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity of expressing to the hon State President the sincere hope and desire that Almighty God will strengthen him during this time and grant unto him his grace and his mercy.

At the same time, to the hon Minister who has been elected as the leader-in-chief, I congratulate him and I trust that he will continue further to bring forth quickly the constructive reforms that are needed in this country.

To the hon the elected leader of the PFP, we congratulate him and we trust that his expertise will be used in this Parliament to help our hon Minister of Finance. They should not just bite at one another, but rather help one another. Last but not least, we want to congratulate the hon the Acting State President on his appointment to that position during the interim period.

I wish to refer to page 4 of the hon the Acting State President’s address to Parliament on constitutional development where he outlines certain principles of the Government and he points out that—

We have no problem on the principle that it is the responsibility of the Government to implement negotiated settlement. The hon the Acting State President then goes further to say that it will be meaningful negotiation. By that we understand that there will be no more paternalistic or prescriptive policies. In the third place, he goes on to say that they are striving for a democratic system. We have no problems with that, but he then goes further to say that no community is dominated by another and that the language, cultural and religious diversities will be retained.

Now I would like to put the following questions to the hon the Acting State President as well as to his hon colleagues. Whilst we have no problems in regard to our respecting the different languages, cultures and religions of the different ethnic groups, or whatever one might call it, how are they going to retain that? Are they going to retain it by means of the present Group Areas Act, or are they going to say that it is flexible?

This is the problem in our country.

We entered into this forum of negotiation so that we might be able at least to use it to dismantle all legislation that had discriminatory effects based on race or colour. Now we have reached a situation which has brought in a kind of conflict situation. The Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Race Classification Act—I am not talking about the registration of citizens; I am talking about the classification of the citizens of this country on a racial basis.

My identity number reads 05. An 05 to any police officer means I am an Indian. That is why we take exception. It seems that somewhere along the road the Group Areas Act is the master Act behind every piece of legislation that is based on race. It determines where I must live, where my children have to go school, where I can swim and everything to the extent that the CP is going backward in time now to bring back those horrible signs which read “Whites Only”.

I want to ask a question. I am not asking this question because I believe in this kind of separate development. If the CP or the NP or whoever they were, were logistic in their beliefs, why did they have a sign for Whites only and then lumped Indians, Coloureds and Blacks under one sign? Who gave them the God-given right to make themselves a superior race? Why did they make themselves Whites? They had one name and then they took the Indians and Blacks. Only now do they say that there are Xhosa Blacks, Zulu Blacks, Venda Blacks, Ciskei Blacks or whatever it may be—nine different nations of them—but when it comes to facilities they put all of us into one coach of a train with one toilet.

Overseas people have told me that the White people of South Africa are very lavatory conscious. Even in the toilets there are signs saying, “Whites Only”, and then all the Blacks are lumped in one toilet. Why have the Government not been consistent in having separate toilets for every race group? I am not trying to turn around saying that I believe in that philosophy, but if the Government believe in the separation of the races, they should have been consistent, logical and honest so that they would have been able to defend it world-wide.

Our hon the State President, in his wisdom, clearly stated that apartheid is dead, but he also talked about the “colonial system”. I do not know what he meant by the “colonial system”. He is not here to defend himself, but what I am trying to say is that I wish to know whether they have tried to introduce another system called the “own affairs system” by which they have constitutionalised apartheid and called it “own affairs”. In this connection I think the hon the Acting State President and the new leader-in-chief should spell it out clearly. We are now floating somewhere in the mist. We are floating in the fog. That is why certain White people and many Coloured, Indian and Black people do not understand what we mean by “reform”. It is all vague. Are we reintroducing segregation? I quote again the Boksburg and Carletonville examples. When we still see signs in 1989 in the Strand saying, “Whites Only”, and we remember Melkbosstrand where I was kicked out a year ago, how do people expect us to defend this system when meeting visitors from overseas or when we are in foreign countries at seminars and people ask questions about that type of thing?

We are members of Parliament. We carry cards that say, “Member of Parliament”. There are Cabinet Ministers and Ministers who are members of Ministers’ Councils. It is really humiliating.

We should effect reconciliation in this country. Let us stop this practice of racism. I believe that we have different cultures. We have to respect different cultures. We have to respect different religions. We have to respect different identities. However, we do not need a law on the Statute Book to say that I am an Indian, he is a Coloured, he is an Afrikaner and this is the Afrikaner’s fatherland.

This is the fatherland of all South Africans. Who gave us the right to say that only a certain group has the God-given right? A couple of years ago there was that extreme Calvinistic ideology which put forward that point of view. That ideology is rejected with the contempt it deserves. It is rather what I call colonial theology. That theology no longer stands the test of Scripture. The hon members all know that. Let us be honest with one another and meet around the table. We do not want to kick any Black man into the sea; we do not want to kick any Coloured man into the sea; we do not want to kick any White man into the sea and we do not want to kick any Indian man into the sea. We need to all say together that we will build a united South Africa, one which our children will be proud of.

What we have today is a lot of politicians who are making statements in order to win an election. What South Africa clearly needs is statesmen who will plan for South Africa for the next 100 years. South Africa lacks statesmen, for there are too many politicians who are merely making political statements to win an election. When the election is over we are back to square one. What we see even in the debates we are having today is merely rhetoric politics, and that is why the extreme left-wing and the right-wing are laughing. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to thank the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives for coming to this Chamber. I asked him to drop in here because I would like to react to a few of the remarks he made yesterday.

I do not want to cross swords with the hon the Minister now. It is not necessary, but he did make certain statements to which we must react. One of the statements the hon the Minister made yesterday was that there was no difference between the NP and the CP.

I did not say that.

In any event the hon the Minister made certain comparisons.

Yes, that is what I did.

I should like to deal with just a few of those comparisons, because I do not have the time to give attention to all of them. The hon the Minister said inter alia that NP and CP membership was confined to Whites. That is true, but I should like to know from the hon the Minister how many members of other population groups are enrolled members of the LP. [Interjections.]

I should like to take it further. If membership of the NP, for example, was open to other population groups, would the hon the Minister have joined?

Never!

Then why is the hon the Minister concerned if he himself makes that statement? [Interjections.]

It is because of the policy!

Surely the implication is clearly that if the membership of the NP was open to all population groups, and a member of the Coloured community for example joined that party, that hon Minister would have said that the Coloured member of this party was selling out the Coloured community. [Interjections.]

Order! There are a few hon members who are now trying to make speeches unnecessarily when they had an opportunity to do so yesterday. I should not like to mention the hon members by name, but I shall do so if they continue to interrupt the hon the Deputy Minister so persistently. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I should like to refer to a second similarity which the hon the Minister mentioned. He referred to a statement Dr Verwoerd made in 1948 in his capacity as Minister of Native Affairs. [Interjections.]

It is a quotation the hon the Minister used ostensibly to indicate that this party, the NP, the governing party, adheres to a standpoint that South Africa is solely a White country. They were words to that effect. That is the argument the hon the Minister used to say that that was where the NP stood. But surely the hon the Minister knows better. Surely it is completely untrue to say that that is the stated viewpoint of the NP of 1989. The hon the Minister knows that as well as I do. [Interjections.] I can quote one statement after another by the hon the State President, the hon Acting State President and hon Ministers to prove that the NP has stated repeatedly during the past few years, specifically since 1985, that South Africa is a country which consists of all communities living here. [Interjections.] The fact that we are making progress along that road and are also confirming it in practice constitutionally is inter alia proved by the fact that the hon member was able to make this statement in this Chamber and participate in this debate.

I should like to address a few words to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

Order! I appealed to hon members not to make a constant stream of interjections. I am doing so for the second time now and I am referring in particular to senior hon members on both sides of this Chamber. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I should like to refer to remarks made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, the hon member for Overvaal and the hon member for Pietersburg. These hon members had a great deal to say about Donkerhoek. In his introductory speech yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition saw fit to mention Donkerhoek and the vast crowd that was present there. A bell began ringing in my head and I went to look up what the newspapers had reported about Donkerhoek after the event. I then found that several speakers had participated at Donkerhoek. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition was a speaker there. I accept that the leader of the Volkswag was also a speaker there, because it was actually a Volkswag occasion. The leader of the AWB, Mr Terre* Blanche, was also there. The question one cannot help asking is who spoke, and who came to listen to whom on this occasion. Were all present there supporters of the CP or were there also supporters of the AWB?

I do not have time to go into it now, but I would be very pleased if the hon members would look into this, because in many of the newspaper reports specific reference was made to the fact that it was actually a rather dull affair until Mr Terre’Blanche appeared on the scene. According to the newspaper reports the proceedings suddenly came to life. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly something, although he is not present here at the moment. I would be pleased if someone would convey this to him. It is that I observed in one of the newspaper reports that Mr Terre’Blanche said inter alia the following on this occasion:

This is not very relevant in regard to the debate, but I just want to say that I trust and accept that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly does not agree with this kind of statement. As a theologian he surely does not agree with it. I also trust that on a suitable occasion he will also dissociate himself from statements of this kind. However, I just want to mention that when I was listening to the hon member for Overvaal a moment ago he sounded just like Mr Terre’Blanche. [Interjections.] At least as far as appearance, conduct and idiom were concerned. [Interjections.]

A subject that was touched on in the speech made by the hon the Acting State President, one which has been raised quite frequently in the debate so far, is the Group Areas Act and related matters. I should like to make a few observations in this connection. I want to associate myself immediately with statements made in previous debates last year in this Chamber concerning this matter. It was said that it probably remained one of the most controversial matters in present-day South Africa politics. Whichever way one looks at it, it remains contentious. In fact, in a certain sense, there is no way of getting away from the contentiousness, no matter what one does about the situation.

Get rid of the thing!

I should like to argue the issue with the hon member. Let us look, for example at the implications that apply to the Group Areas Act and related matters.

Firstly there are for example the constitutional implications, of which I shall touch upon only a few in the limited time. It is a fact that significant leaders of all communities in South Africa— some of them stronger, others less strong—adopt the standpoint that this measure must be removed from the Statute Book before we can get down to serious negotiations. There are numerous leaders who state that as a precondition to the negotiating process. It is a measure which extends far beyond the context of its implementation. For example it also has a bearing on the constitutional implications.

That measure has implications in the social sphere. If we try to define a few of these one arrives at the problem of urbanisation, which is in fact the crucial problem that must be addressed in respect of what we are discussing here. The problem of urbanisation in the sense of what is happening is that people are streaming to the urban concentration points in their thousands. Arising from that is the issue of housing which is directly related to the way the problems concerning group areas are to be dealt with.

One further aspect is the social implications which have become very prominent recently in incidents already mentioned in this Chamber and which I need not repeat—social implications which one cannot avoid, no matter how one looks at the matter. It is becoming a crucial issue that we must look into.

If one considers the implementation of the Act in its present form, the fact of the matter is that at the present stage it cannot be implemented successfully because—this is the crux of the problem—a large sector of the community also affected by it, finds it unacceptable. This is a fact. We cannot get away from it. It is an inhibitive factor in regard to the effective implementation of the measure.

In the same way the non-implementation of the measure is at present leading to reactions which cause people to go so far as to take the law into their own hands, as in the examples we have seen. In other words, once again we have opposite poles in respect of the approach to this measure.

There is no doubt that many people are now asking whether we cannot simply scrap the measure. Can we not simply get rid of the legislation?

This argument is being put forward time and again, in this Chamber as well. It is true. It would be the ideal as far as our community life in South Africa is concerned—that which the Government feels strongly about and which the hon member Dr B L Geldenhuys dealt with earlier. That which the Government feels strongly about in regard to an own community life would be the ideal if we could establish it in a natural way in South Africa. People argue that, as is happening elsewhere in the world, one does not need to force or compel legislation on people. Conditions in South Africa present a different appearance in regard to this issue. That is true. I should not like to dwell on this for long, but I could mention case studies and examples to this Chamber which are applicable today and in regard to which we cannot get away from considering the problem and asking what solution there is for it.

I want to mention the Hillbrow example as a case study. It is a fact that mixed conditions in Hillbrow are leading to overcrowding and other social implications that go with it. [Interjections.] Now hon members will argue, and I concede this point completely, that certain elements of that situation can be controlled by means of other legislation and local by-laws. That is true, but the unfortunate fact is that the present perception of Hillbrow—this applies in particular to the White community—is that if that is what a mixed situation looks like, it is unacceptable. I am mentioning this as a case study. The situation leads to emotional reactions against it.

The conclusion is, if we have examined this matter from both sides, that it is impracticable to scrap this legislation, but that it is equally impracticable to apply it in an inflexible way, because South Africa’s circumstances do not allow either to be done summarily. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Dysselsdorp is continuously making interjections. I should like to ask him to curtail his interjections. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

In other words, the answer is therefore to establish in what way the ideal we would like to achieve, namely an orderly community life in South Africa, can be accomplished.

Typical Transvaal racist!

It can be done by taking the reality of the circumstances into consideration.

The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives can say that these are typically racist remarks, but the fact is, whether I say it or not, whether there is legislation or not, the realities of South Africa will still exist tomorrow. They will still exist tomorrow!

I should like to mention that during the past few months, and I shall give hon members the particulars in confidence, I experienced many examples of tension between other communities— Whites excluded. [Interjections.] I can do that, but is not relevant. The reality of the situation is that we must dispose of what is on the agenda and that we must try to deal with the realities.

Let us consider a new approach in regard to how this problem can be tackled and solved. An obvious way of doing it is by providing all communities with suitable housing, because what is relevant? Those who advocate the scrapping of the Act and those who advocate the retention of the Act and its rigid implementation all have one objective and that is suitable housing for all of us.

That is why the Government is prepared to take a responsibility upon itself. We shall furnish the particulars later as we make progress to ensure that this problem is solved and everyone in this country is provided with appropriate housing, thus satisfying these needs by way of free settlement and other methods.

Give us back what we had!

I want to mention a practical example because the Doyle case in Mayfair West was raised here time and again. How would hon members react if we could succeed, by means of appropriate measures, in solving cases such as the Doyle example in the following way? Whereas one has, at the present stage, a predominantly White residential area such as Mayfair West, it is possible, as we have already intimated, to consider the directly adjoining area of Mayfair as a free settlement area because of its present character.

That means that we can solve that example by offering Mr Doyle an alternative housing possibility in Mayfair, which offers no difference in respect of comparable circumstances, but by means of which we are at least able, under the circumstances, to keep both parties happy. I think this is a fair and reasonable approach, and I should like to address a plea to all those who are advocates of the retention or abolition of this Act: let us adopt a course which will be in the best interests of all communities in South Africa. I think that is possible, and I should like to ask the hon members whether they would agree to one thing, namely that we want to give everyone an appropriate and suitable roof over their heads? After all that is what …

No!

If hon members say that that is not their objective, then they have a purely political objective, and then what they are saying is not in the best interests of our people in South Africa. [Interjections.] Then what they are saying is not in the best interests of the communities in South Africa. [Interjections.] I should also like to say something to the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, who are also participants in this debate. The hon member for Overvaal discussed this matter in detail. The hon Official Opposition in the House of Assembly soon realised—it is in this connection, too, that I am addressing my plea to them—that they had to associate themselves with the idea that we must see whether we cannot in this way find a solution to this specific problem in South Africa. Some of their own people reversed their standpoints in respect of statements that had been made, as recently as in Boksburg. I read that the mayor of Potchefstroom, a certain Prof Van der Berg, who is a member of the CP said: “I consider Potchefstroom to be a reasonably international community, particularly owing to the educational institutions, with a diversity of visitors of all races.”

The Leader of that party himself, however, made a rather radical about-face, and in this article in the December edition of Leadership he made this concession. Many questions were put to him. He said:

In regard to the reaction that took place he said:

The next question was:

To which the reply was:

The hon member for Overvaal did not exactly respect that “change of tone” this afternoon, but I accept that all communities in South Africa, with a fair consideration of all the circumstances involved, will say that it is admittedly a contentious measure but in order to achieve our ultimate goal, namely to meet the housing needs of people, individually and in a community context, we shall have to approach this matter in this way.

The Government is firmly resolved to give practical shape to this intention and to ensure that we produce a solution to this difficult and contentious problem in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I must say that the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech was mentally bewildering and if those are his perceptions about the future of this country then I can only think that he belongs to Club 69.

May I concur with all hon members who wished the hon State President a speedy recovery? May I also add that he and his family were remembered in prayer by our leader at our caucus meeting last Thursday?

I believe the hon the State President must take full credit for initiating the reform process which resulted in neo-Fascist White extremists breaking away from the NP and forming the Conservative Party which is said to have an alliance with the militant Afrikaner-Weerstandsbeweging. Much, however, is the pity that the hon the State President put a brake on reform after the outcome of the 1987 general election and much more is the pity that the brakes are still on.

May I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon the Minister of National Education on becoming the leader of the NP?

It is speculated that he will become the next State President when President P W Botha retires. That will entail taking on a tremendous responsibility as leader—not only of the NP but also as leader of all South Africans. It should be his ultimate goal in life to unite all groups in our country into one South African nation irrespective of race, colour or religion.

I want to quote Ken Owen from the Cape Times of 6 February 1989. He writes:

Ken Owen goes further and says:

The Oxford Dictionary describes a leader thus:

We wish the hon Minister F W de Klerk every success as leader of the NP. May he lead with wisdom and understanding. I also take this opportunity to wish the hon Acting State President Mr Heunis everything of the best upon his appointment. The same applies to the hon member Dr Zach de Beer of the PFP.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, Rev H J Hendrickse, when asked for his comments on the hon Minister F W de Klerk’s becoming the NP leader replied that it did not matter who led the NP for its policies propagating racial discrimination still existed.

One ray of hope did appear yesterday when the hon member for Kuruman declared that total reform could only be achieved when the last vestiges of discrimination disappeared. He also admitted that South Africa would not be in the economic forefront of Africa if it had not been for the efforts of all its people. He added that South Africa belonged to all its people.

If that is the message, South Africans can look forward to form Club 61 and then I would seriously recommend that the hon Minister F W de Klerk should also apply for membership there.

I believe that if a ballot vote was taken now among the 300 odd hon members sitting in this Chamber whether the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act should be scrapped, the majority in favour of the scrapping would be at least 100 votes.

The hon the leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly boasted here how the CP won in the last municipal elections in Transvaal. However, if there were a universal franchise in our country the likes of that hon leader and the hon members of the CP would not even be in Parliament. We will be very interested to hear that hon the leader’s answer to the question of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives on what the real difference between the two of them is.

*I quote from the hon the Acting State President’s speech on 3 February 1989, where he said:

I could go on and on, naming places like Lansdowne, South End, Page view and Harfield, where I was bom and from where my family was moved. I ask this Government if it has truly moved away from emotionalism and whether it believes it acted reasonably in the cases I have just mentioned.

The hon the Acting State President also said the following:

Why is pressure put on us and not on other countries in our region?

I shall tell hon members why. It is because of the racial injustices that have been practised by this Government over the past 40 years. I shudder to think what would happen if the CP came to power with their emotional laager mentality. It seems foolish that the majority of South Africans are at war against and oppose sanctions from the international community and yet the CP-controlled town councils enforce the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, thereby encouraging consumer boycotts internally.

The majority of the hon members in this Chamber were astounded yesterday when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly attacked the NP for its reform programme, what little that there is of it, and its handling of the Group Areas Act. The hon leader condemned independence for Namibia, saying that non-racialism would lead to Black majority rule. He uttered his contempt for democracy in the South African context and called Dr Buthelezi a Zulu nationalist. Those utterances were pure misguided emotionalism and without logic. He is no different from Archbishop Tutu and the other clergy who call for further punitive sanctions because his utterances and his party’s policy of partition will only invite further sanctions.

The LP, in the very first chapter in the preamble to our constitution, starts off by saying that it wants to promote and advance the dignity, rights, socio-economic and cultural well-being of all South Africans through responsible negotiation—the emphasis is on negotiation—with the government of the day. We believe further that the right of the individual is paramount and that the State exists to serve the individual.

The LP rejects the tricameral system, but at its national conference in Eshowe in 1983 it took the decision to participate, reasoning that it would use the tricameral Parliament as a point of departure. The LP did not consider the proposals of the Government to be the answer to our constitutional demands of the time. Among other things, the largest part of the community had been excluded, and they still are. The proposals were based on entrenched ethnicity.

Today, six years later, the hon the Acting State President says:

It seems to me that we are moving at an oxwagon’s pace to get reform going. Negotiation is almost non-existent because the only negotiation that takes place, is mostly on the National Party’s terms to suit their policies.

Much has been said about consensus politics and the joint committee system. However, if other parties do not agree, convention is thrown overboard as the NP then uses the built-in majority in the President’s Council to bulldoze through legislation that they deem expedient for South Africa.

In conclusion, the LP is convinced that genuine negotiation cannot get off the ground under the present circumstances. As long as the NP concept of group exclusivity, a concept which is based on race, is imposed—as is the case now—without scope for freedom of association, freedom of the Press, freedom of speech, the unbanning of political prisoners, and lifting restrictions on organisations left of the Government, I am afraid there is nothing much to negotiate.

After listening to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, perhaps the time has come for the governing party to send forward their negotiators— like the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs— instead of their dictators.

Mr Chairman, I would like to support with all the strength that I can bring to bear, the calls made yesterday on the Government by my leader, Dr De Beer, and by the hon member for Randburg, to act swiftly to root out the incidents of corruption which have recently polluted our public life. When one considers the recent history of this Nationalist Government, one realises the problems facing the NP’s newly elected leader.

Deputy Minister Hennie van der Walt is presently serving a prison sentence for stealing large sums of money. Minister Fanie Botha left Parliament under a cloud amid unconfirmed accusations of bribery and theft. A full investigation never took place. Mr Leon de Beer, who was an MP until last week, has been convicted of the rather unique crime of actually stealing a parliamentary seat for the Government from the PFP.

He will almost certainly go to jail quite soon.

Who taught him his tricks! [Interjections.]

That is a good interjection, but it has no bearing on the truth.

Mr Peet de Pontes has just resigned as a member of Parliament after a commission of inquiry revealed his dishonest behaviour in assisting an international gangster to enter our country.

Mr Pie tie du Plessis resigned hurriedly from both the Cabinet and Parliament while he was being questioned by the Advocate-General on matters relating to his family business activities. The end of this drama is not yet in sight.

To cap it all, the man the James Commission described as “an unscrupulous, dishonest, mean-minded bully”, one who “should never be allowed to occupy any office requiring integrity”, was, despite his obvious moral defects over many, many months, kept in the Cabinet until only a few weeks ago. What is worse, he remains a member of Parliament and on the payroll of the South African taxpayer—an embarrassment to all of us who sit here.

However, Mr Chairman, not all corruption relates directly to money. Low political standards lead to abuses and injustices. These, too, demand urgent attention from the new leader of the NP. To mention but one example: The destruction of the free press by the emergency regulations creates fertile ground for the abuse of power. To quote Business Day:

Of course this quote relates to the matter raised yesterday by the hon member for Green Point.

Last year the hon the State President did not hesitate to forbid the courts to try people charged with murder. Nobody in Government, not even the hon the Minister of Justice, has tried to explain to this House why some murders in South Africa are permitted and why other murders are not. However, let us face it: Whatever the explanation, the decision of the hon the State President last year on that case makes a mockery of the law.

When one talks of low political standards one thinks of those who say one thing while at the same time doing the opposite. Yesterday I was interested to hear the hon member for Boksburg attacking the CP for closing the Boksburg Lake to Blacks and for bringing international shame to his town. I share the incredulity of the hon member for Addo at the statement made by the hon member for Boksburg. What he failed to say, though, was that it was the National Party’s Reservation of Separate Amenities Act which made that action possible.

Anyway, as much as I hate racial discrimination, I really fail to see why Boksburg has aroused such a fuss. After all, in Johannesburg, which is controlled not by the CP but by Mr Blanche’s NP, Blacks are not allowed on Whites-only buses. The swimming-pools are closed to people of colour in Johannesburg. The recreation centres, with one exception, are open only to Whites.

In Pretoria, which is NP-controlled, the buses, trimparks and libraries are all subject to Whites-only apartheid. A family of colour is not even allowed to hold a picnic in the Fountains Valley in Pretoria, which is reserved for Whites only. Yet no Nationalists in this debate, yesterday or today, speaks of this. No one explains the difference. Not one single Johannesburg member of Parliament has tried to explain the difference between Boksburg and Johannesburg. And what about between Pretoria and Boksburg? Where are the differences? It is one thing to blame the CP for the ugly events which have occurred in Kraaifontein and Mayfair West. I too condemn those actions. I condemn them totally. The truth is, however, that it is the National Party’s Group Areas Act which makes this despicable behaviour possible. That is what it is all about.

Another example of low political standards relates to the story of a politician pretending to be a moderate reformist, a tolerant person, while in truth harbouring racial hatred of the most insulting kind, a person who through the good offices of the NP pretends to promote racial harmony, while in fact despising Black people in general, and the Zulu nation in particular.

Last year during November the mayor of Johannesburg held a formal banquet in honour of King Goodwill Zwelithini. Many dignitaries, politicians and political personages attended this function. At one of the tables there was a rather interesting combination of guests. One particular person, probably not knowing who his table companions were, had difficulty in disguising his animosity towards the guest of honour. When the King’s praise-singers started up during the King’s entry, this person said to his table companions, “Have you noticed how peasants always make the most noise?”

Later in the evening, when the King rose to speak and the praise-singers started up again, this person said, “I suppose our ancestors were also like that 2 000 years ago.” Finally, in direct reference to the King and the Queen, who had accompanied King Goodwill, he said, “I wonder what a coon sees in a woman like that.” Now, the person who made these remarks is not a member of the AWB or even of the CP. He is none other than the mild-mannered, apparently tolerant hon member for Bezuidenhout! [Interjections.]

We now realise what a massive task of correction and reconstruction awaits the new Leader of the NP. He is faced with corruption, cynicism, racism, double talk and low political standards such as we have not seen in years. These seem to have become the norm for the NP of today.

At the very end of the movie, A fish called Wanda, it is disclosed that the villain of the movie, the crook, emigrated to South Africa where he eventually became the Minister of Justice. That particular disclosure raised the biggest laugh of the evening in that comedy show. Perhaps it did so because that statement was eminently believable.

The hon the Minister of National Education, recently elected as leader of the NP, has a critical task which lies ahead of him. He should clamp down hard on corruption wherever he finds it. He should move rapidly to jettison those last vestiges of apartheid which still plague our society. He should do everything in his power to raise those low political standards to which I have referred this afternoon. To the extent to which he does this, he will enjoy the overwhelming support of the majority of South Africans.

Mr Chairman, today I listened with great interest to two pleasant tirades—one by the hon member for Overvaal and the other by the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

The similarities between the NP and the CP are so great that it is difficult to find differences between them. The only difference I could find between the two parties was that the NP could be viewed as a group of optimists, and the CP as a group of pessimists. I think an optimist is someone who believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. This is the picture which the Deputy Minister tried to sketch for us. I also think a pessimist is someone who is afraid that that is the truth; that is why he wishes to destroy it.

The unexpected resignation of the hon the State President as chief leader of the NP sent shockwaves through South Africa. For millions of South Africans it was extremely difficult to accept that a patriarch of the calibre of the hon the State President would eventually depart from the political scene. I, however, welcomed the hon the State President’s decision, since I once spelt out unequivocally in the House of Representatives that I found it unacceptable that my head of state was also the chief leader of the NP.

The head of state should play a unifying role, but as the leader of the NP the hon the State President often had to tread carefully when dealing with sensitive matters. I found it painful to hear the hon the State President refer to the Afrikaners as “my people” in the House of Representatives, while that statement was made to the detriment of the majority of South Africans. [Interjections.] I do not expect my head of state to make moving requests for Afrikaner unity, while the vast majority of South Africans want to be part of that unity. Nobody knows better than the hon the Acting State President himself that various organisations expressed views against the advisability of the hon the State President being the chairman of the proposed Rational council, and the only reason that was advanced was that as the chief leader of the NP, the hon the State President would never act in an unbiased way.

For this reason I welcome the hon the State President’s decision and courtesy requires me to congratulate the new hon chief leader of the NP, and to wish him well. The task which awaits him is without a doubt unenviable, but I should like to share with him a few words of wisdom which I heard from my late father, namely “follow the example of good people, but search for flaws in yourself for those who are not”. Enough said.

In his opening address, the hon the Acting State President referred, amongst other things, to democracy, violence and the economy, and I should like to take a close look at these subjects in my speech. For example, the hon the Acting State President said:

I can assure hon members that we fully support this opinion. We do, however, believe that the right political climate has to be created before this can be carried out. South African society is extremely polarised, and polarisation is the best recipe for the systematic growth of hatred, together with violence.

Now more than ever before attempts at reconciliation should be made, because the longer the present confrontation continues, the longer it will take to find suitable constitutional solutions. Reconciliation must take place now to ensure that our rich mineral and human resources are not destroyed.

Our solution is based on negotiation and a compromise in which the various warring parties must be prepared to make sacrifices. As far as I am concerned, however, a precondition for negotiation is the immediate dismantling, the immediate end of apartheid. Apartheid legislation has caused discrimination against the majority of South Africans for too long. Only when all hurtful legislation has been removed from the Statute Book will the leaders in this country be prepared to negotiate. Black leaders believe that if true democracy is not stipulated, there is no reason to hold any discussions.

Indeed the hon the Acting State President said in his address that the Government was striving for a democratic system, and for that reason it is essential that every South African, regardless of race, colour, belief and origin, should be enfranchised. The Government has already indicated that Black people will receive their civil rights; that Black people have become a permanent part of “White South Africa” and that they may own land. But what do civil rights mean without the franchise? I am speaking of the right to vote, not for an ethnic institution, but for the central government of the country of one’s birth.

If constitutional development is not going to meet the need for true representation for all South Africans, half-baked attempts will only lead to one thing, namely giving credibility to the philosophy of using violence to effect fundamental changes. With this as a background the Labour Party of South Africa can no longer support inadequate constitutional proposals, simply because they do not offer a true contribution in moving away from polarisation and violence. Conflict and violence would then remain the order of the day. In his opening address the hon the Acting State President spoke out strongly against violence, and I should like to quote him as follows:

The hon the Acting State President went on to say:

I should like the hon the Acting State President to tell us whom he sees as perpetrators of violence. The LP rejects all forms of violence, but I am not ashamed to say that I do not blame those who have resorted to violence.

Justified demands have fallen on deaf ears for too long, and as a last resort violence has been chosen to shock the NP Government’s conscience. The history of the Afrikaner was started with violence and it still continues. Even the Afrikaner resorted to violence in 1914, when his demands were not heard.

What we often fail to see, however, is institutionalised violence. Apartheid is violence, and therefore all apartheid legislation is nothing other than legislation of violence which can only be enforced by means of violence. Is it not violence when an aged Black couple are arrested on a Sunday afternoon, simply because they are relaxing in a “Whites Only” park in Germiston!

Disgraceful!

Is it not violence when an Indian family is prevented, in terms of the Group Areas Act, from moving into a house bought with their hard-earned money. Is it not violence when essential services are withdrawn from a household in Kraaifontein. I could continue with this list. [Interjections.]

Surely those who shot and killed the three young men in the prime of their Eves, in Davidsonville, Roodepoort, a week ago were violent men. Various people were wounded by the SA Police in this unpleasant business.

This unfortunate incident turned the otherwise peaceful suburb into a seething cauldron. As the hon member for Toekomsrus has already mentioned, not a single political statement was made during the two mass funerals on Saturday and Sunday, because my people regard death as something sacred.

However, it was quite unacceptable, or rather provocative, that the Police took up positions at the two entrances to Davidsonville and on the adjacent mine-dumps while there was no reason for them to do so.

I want to admit frankly that political violence is present in our country as anti-structural violence. However, it is the bitter fruits of a system of political and social inequality which has been forced upon people for a long time now, and in which the vast majority of the population are denied effective bargaining power on the grounds of their skin colour.

The apartheid government of the past 40 years has definitely been bolstered up with the help of institutionalised violence by stifling or removing all voices that spoke out against the Government as soon as it was feasible.

The other evening I was struck by a quotation from a speech made by Jomo Kenyatta, the late President of Kenya. Kenya is a country that experienced unprecedented racial hatred, but developed into a progressive African state after independence.

At his first public appearance, this wise man said the following before a White audience:

The time has come for our hon head of State to display magnanimity and grant all the citizens their rights, because we shall then be able to work and build the future together.

The hon State President must take the first step to ensure that South Africans will join hands and win for South Africa. [Interjections.] My leader cannot bend over backwards any further than he has done already; unfortunately the NP wants to share power but is not prepared to relinquish it. [Interjections.]

Finally, I want to say a few words about the economy. Like the hon the Acting State President we are very concerned about the growth rate. A growth rate of 3% is far too low when the birth rate is higher that 3%. Apartheid legislation sacrificed considerations of fairness and denied people of colour the possibility of equal opportunities. This led to an inequality of income, the disparate provision of collective services and unequal opportunities, which would inevitably have an effect on the standard of living and the quality of life of people of colour. Equal opportunities would have contributed to a large degree towards increasing our growth rate, and the withdrawal of foreign investments would never have taken place. The apartheid system of 1948 was not merely designed to overcome the historically engendered inequalities with regard to the poor white question, but also to perpetuate them until today.

Furthermore, the hon the Acting State President said the following in his address:

I agree whole-heartedly, and we want to congratulate the hon Minister of Finance and his team of advisers on the fact that the inflation rate has not exceeded 12,5%. However, I agree with those who maintain that the inflation rate is going to rise considerably this year, and I base my statement on the following facts.

Firstly, there is the drastic increase in our petrol prices which has inevitably brought about price increases; secondly, the drastic drop in the foreign value of our rand; thirdly, the increased finance charges and higher mortgage rates; and fourthly, the sharp increase in the money supply over the past few years.

I have read the opinions of various economists in this regard and they all agree that our inflation rate is going to rise to about 15,5% this year, which will definitely have a detrimental effect on personal savings. Furthermore this may force our interest rates to increase even further, have a detrimental effect on our international trade and, to a large extent, decrease the value of our rand even further. The man in the street will not only have to tighten his belt this year but he will also face considerable price increases. We want to appeal to the hon Minister of Finance to make every effort to curtail government expenditure as far as possible.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react directly to the hon member Mr Douw now, but I do want to say that he made a very good contribution. He touched on a variety of subjects here; not that I necessarily agree with all of them, but I nevertheless think that it was a particularly good contribution.

I have listened attentively to the contributions made by all hon members in this House. I want to deal with one or two matters within my province, namely the security of our country and all its people.

Certain champions of dialogue with terrorists— terrorists of the ANC/SACP alliance—came forward here today. The foremost champion of this sort of dialogue is the hon member for Randburg, who is now a one-third leader of an unborn party, a party which has thus far produced absolutely nothing—sweet Fanny Adams.

According to this hon member, who very recently sat smiling broadly next to Joe Slovo in West Germany, it is the terrorists who must help to lead this country of ours to a new utopia. To listen to the hon member, the NP is the only obstacle to these tyrants. As if from nowhere, the terrorists have now suddenly appeared as the saviours of South Africa. Dialogue with the ANC is ostensibly the key to freedom, progress and stability. According to reports, all the safaris to the ANC dealt chiefly with how the terrorists would be prepared to accommodate our people in their constitutional model and order.

Those South Africans who know—I am speaking about those people who have lost loved ones through bombs and land-mines—have a right to ask these champions whether they really confronted the ANC with the corpses and mutilated bodies of Ellis Park, Krugersdorp, Durban and the Northern Transvaal, or with the common humanity of Krugersdorp, when Blacks and Whites helped one another to staunch their wounds. Were these things discussed? The hon member must tell us whether they did so or whether they played footsie with them and buttered them up.

These champions of the ANC toy with the buzz words “non-racial democracy”. The new hon leader of the PFP also juggled with this expression.

Those hon members, with their model solution which would ostensibly steer South Africa in the direction of a true democracy, are playing with fire. What is more, they have not done their homework and therefore they are politically naïve. They are the ones who are selling out democratic freedom and values. Our security forces defend democratic freedom and even lay down their lives for it so that all those pedlars of “non-racial democracy” may be here, too, and so that they may even continue to make their politically naïve pronouncements.

These hon members have not done their homework. Of course, they may also be turning a blind eye to reality. I want to qualify that.

Firstly, the concept of a non-racial democracy has its origins in the documents of the ANC and the SACP. It is a concept which is linked to that of a people’s democracy. The NDM say that they are striving for a people’s democracy. They have said so in the House of Assembly [Interjections.] That is the basis of a one-party state, of which Angola and Mozambique are examples. Have these hon members ever gone to look at the misery, the deterioration and the destruction of freedom—freedom of religion and economic freedom—in those countries? I want to tell those hon members that this is not the fault of so-called apartheid. In a nutshell, a non-racial democracy does not move closer to a democracy, but rather further away from it, because the power vests in the hands of an elite group. They make the decisions and coerce the people at will. [Interjections.] In this way the hon member for Randburg is already attempting to secure his place in this select group.

Secondly, by the ANC’s own declaration, it is committed, by virtue of its alliance with the SACP, to ultimately establishing a one-party Marxist state in South Africa.

Thirdly, the ANC cannot speak for itself, because as a party to the so-called liberation alliance it must also pursue and promote the objectives of the SACP. In terms of this liberation alliance dialogue with the ANC is also dialogue with the SACP. Not one of these organisations’ objectives can be reconciled with democracy. The question therefore remains: Why dialogue?

The underlying nature of the terrorist alliance is repugnant. The ANC, as the chief instrument of terror, uses violence as a means to power, is entangled in its alliance with the SACP, is basically striving towards a one-party dictatorship, is pursuing Marxist objectives, will not tolerate free enterprise, will nationalise industries, will destroy freedom of religion, and will not tolerate human rights. It is not I who am saying this; it is the ANC/SACP documents that say so. Hon members heard the quotation which the hon member Dr Geldenhuys made this afternoon with regard to the ANC. As far as we are concerned, those people and organisations that use terror against citizens, remain terrorists. They kill for political gain. My party has no common ground with such people.

I now want to make a few remarks about South-Western Africa. Various hon members, particularly the hon members for Sunnyside and Mamre, have referred to this.

Since Parliament last met, the SADF has, after the successful completion of its task, withdrawn from Angola. This has led to agreements in regard to South-Western Africa, and the implementation of Resolution 435 has become a fact. In all these matters the Government of the Republic of South Africa, and specifically the SADF as one of the State’s instruments, has done what was expected of it. When, in 1987-88, the SADF was charged with the task of supporting Dr Savimbi and halting expansionism, it did so. In the process it inflicted losses of over 7 000 men among the joint Cuban and Angolan government forces. The enemy lost, inter alia, 94 tanks as well as equipment to an estimated value of approximately R2,5 billion. On the South African side 31 heroes fell in battle and we lost three tanks.

I am not creating perceptions, and moreover, it is not propaganda such as this to which the hon member for Randburg referred. These are facts, however, and it was against this background of success that the Angolan government was forced to the conference table. That is why they asked for negotiations. That is why South Africa was able to negotiate in its diplomatic efforts from a position of power and strength.

†This brings me to Unita. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I have both said that the only lasting solution for Angola is reconciliation and a government of national unity in which Dr Savimbi must play his rightful role. Despite Soviet and Cuban support, efforts to crush Unita have failed. They failed because Dr Savimbi enjoys wide popular support. They also failed because he has stabilised the areas under his control and has established schools and clinics and provides food for his people. In short, Unita is a political and military force all over Angola.

Whereas the civil war proved Dr Savimbi’s strength, it has revealed the inherent weaknesses of the MPLA. The MPLA and their advisers therefore fear Dr Savimbi.

It is against this background that his opponents are engaged in a transparent attempt to claim that peace in Angola is only possible without Dr Savimbi. They have been beating this drum for a long time. Be assured that they are determined and adamant in eliminating Dr Savimbi.

As part of this attempt, Dr Savimbi’s opponents are trying to drive a wedge between members of Unita and Dr Savimbi by offering them amnesty. The so-called amnesty offered by Luanda ignores the realities of Angola and the causes of the civil war. It is a futile effort in self-delusion because Unita and Dr Savimbi are one and cannot be separated.

I agree with columnist Simon Barber writing in Business Day, December, 1988. I quote:

South Africa’s position towards Unita is determined by a number of factors. Firstly, as in the past, we will honour our side of the agreements reached. Secondly, we have not abandoned Unita. We have said so in the past. Dr Savimbi knows—as does the rest of the world—that South Africa will not abandon a good friend with such democratic goals which correspond to ours. Because of their similar objectives, namely the desire for stability, the end to outside interference and the containment of Marxist ideology, South Africa must see to it that Unita’s interests are taken into account.

The withdrawal of Cuban troops in itself is not a guarantee that Unita’s interests will be protected. The opponents of Unita who are trying to cast suspicion on Unita’s ability and role in Angola, must realise that South Africa has an interest in a stable Angola and a lasting peace. We also believe that Dr Savimbi is essential for such a development.

South Africa has taken note that ANC terrorists are to leave Angola. We are watching this positive development. We are, however, also aware that Angola has confirmed its continued support of this terrorist organisation and its objectives.

*Various hon members referred to so-called corruption and so-called favouring of people and organisations in the private sector. I can only speak for myself. During the past two weeks in particular, I have been inundated with cross-examination questions regarding my alleged involvement with Mr Albert Vermaas. Insinuations are being made that I am reckless with state security and matters of secrecy. These questions have come from one source, although after this afternoon, I should rather say from two sources. One of these sources is Mr Kitt Katzin of the Sunday Star, and the second source is the PFP. Some of these questions cast a reflection on me in my personal capacity and on my integrity, for example whether I inform the hon the State President when I am absent from my office for a number of days.

I have so far been very patient with this journalist and I have given answers that are germane to the issue, but there comes a point at which the line must be drawn. I have now done so.

These matters were also raised yesterday. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North placed the matter in its proper perspective.

The hon member for Randburg had a great deal to say about Mr Vermaas and Armscor. First of all, this hon member must get his facts straight. Mr Vermaas was appointed, subject to security clearance, to the board of Eloptro, a subsidiary of Armscor. It was not, as the hon member said, the board of Armscor. There is a very large difference between Armscor and Eloptro and, by the way, Eloptro is by no means involved with such highly classified products as it is professed to be.

Secondly, the question of security clearance is now being highlighted as if it were the alpha and the omega of a man’s existence. Aside from the fact that security clearance is a time-consuming process, there are other factors binding a person. Without elaborating on these, I want to mention the Official Secrets Act. The Vermaas case was dealt with in this manner and, furthermore, it was dealt with like many other cases in the South African Defence Force and Armscor. Hon members must also bear in mind that at the time of his appointment, Mr Vermaas was a respected businessman.

I want to state my policy standpoint here. I subscribe to the principle that integrity and trust form an integral part of healthy public administration. The hon the Acting State President also referred to this last Friday and underscored this principle.

Errors may occur within the state machinery and these must be dealt with. For this purpose mechanisms exist such as departmental investigations, the courts and special institutions such as the office of the Advocate General and commissions.

To put it briefly, official mechanisms such as judicial commissions must be permitted to do their work in an impartial manner. Questions, loose allegations and insinuations regarding matters which are the province of such commissions, lead to distorted perceptions and findings which do not take the whole situation into account. That may also hold true for members of Parliament. Unfortunately, I have the impression that certain bodies wish to take over the official investigations. Their technique involves, as it were, guilt by association. They want to begin to diagnose by themselves, as it were; to take the knife and start cutting on their own. In the Vermaas case they regard themselves as a sort of extension of the Harms Commission. Surely that cannot be permitted. Therefore, whilst the investigation is under way, as it is now, it remains vital to distinguish between the physician making the incisions and the vultures in search of a carcass. As far as I am concerned, I am not going to make myself available as a carcass.

My conscience is clear. That is why I am more than willing to co-operate with the existing mechanisms; to reply to these official mechanisms’ findings, facts and recommendations; but not to the rumours, perceptions and speculation that are developing around this official investigation, particularly during the investigation phase.

To move on to a fresh point, it seems to me that the hon member for Randburg is now also becoming the champion of Sam Nujoma and his terrorists. He resents my pointing out certain trends in the propaganda onslaught against us. This hon member must guard against speaking recklessly about security. I want to issue a warning to him. I believe that he is, in any event, well on the way to talking himself out of Randburg— to the good fortune of Randburg. But enough about his political egg-dancing and his flirtation with terrorists.

I want to tell him, in any event, that our Security Forces are keeping a close watch on Swapo’s movements. That applies particularly to Swapo’s activities south of the 16th parallel, to which it has been restricted in terms of the Geneva Protocol. My colleague the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has also expressed his concern about this.

What is important during this delicate period, is that no party to the agreements—Angola in particular—should do or omit to do anything that would jeopardise the work relating to monitoring. I say this because it would appear that Angola cannot, or possibly does not wish to control Swapo. The international community must take cognisance of the fact that Swapo and the potential impotence of Angola could jeopardise the international agreements if Swapo does not abide by the Geneva Protocol. All I want to say at this stage is that Swapo should know its place and that Angola must honour its commitments in this regard in letter and spirit.

Meanwhile, I wish the people of South West Africa every success on the road to their independence. They are faced with a choice. In this regard Swapo is not a factor, militarily speaking. South West Africans must now ensure that they also give it a bloody nose, politically speaking. I believe they will, because they will most certainly opt for the winning recipe of democracy and progress.

Mr Chairman, the address of the hon the Acting State President was disappointing in that he made no mention of any intent to end the system of apartheid which has built into it racism and discrimination. I do not expect the Government to end apartheid with the stroke of a pen, but we do expect the Government, which has told the world that it is against racism, to set its sights on the definite ending of apartheid.

Before I go any further I should like to quote a paragraph from the address which reads as follows:

In this respect the Government’s attitude to its stated commitment is ambivalent, because on the one hand it professes to end racism, but on the other hand it is reluctant to act against retrogressive actions on the part of the CP which violate the fundamental rights of people who are not White in this the country of their birth.

The CP’s implementation of the provisions of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act defiles the very spirit of peaceful co-existence. The NP has attacked the CP for reintroducing petty apartheid in Boksburg and elsewhere. However, the Government has failed to hamper these retrogressive measures of the CP and I view this reluctance as a compromise.

Allow me to quote Reginald Wright Kauffman who states that a compromise is never anything but an ignoble truce between the duty of a man and the terror of a coward. This is what it is all about. If the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act was abolished immediately and if all town councils were prohibited from discriminating against any section of the population, then, and then only, the Government would have fulfilled its duty towards the citizens of the country.

According to a newspaper report in yesterday’s Natal Witness, foreign ministers from eight Commonwealth nations gathered on the previous day for a conference to propose tougher sanctions against South Africa. To ward off increased attempts to bring economic chaos to this country, it is essential to show the world that this Parliament will take all the necessary steps this year to move forward to a non-racial democracy.

South Africa claims to be a democratic society, a democracy that flows from the Roman Dutch law on which our legal system is based and which has been with us since 1652 when Jan van Riebeeck arrived in the Cape. If we allow our Roman Dutch law practices to prevail, we shall be able to prevent the CP from carrying out its discriminatory practices in town councils controlled by it. Therefore we expect that the Government will abolish the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in this session.

It is not enough to consider the policies of the CP in Boksburg and elsewhere and to blame the CP. The blame lies four-square at the feet of the present Government by its keeping such pernicious, obnoxious and outdated Acts like the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act on the Statute Book. The CP is only utilising the machinery that has been set up by the NP Government. If these Acts did not exist, the CP would not have had any machinery to use. I do not entirely blame them for their wrong judgement and their self-centred interest. However, the Government of the day has failed to fulfil its duties. It has also failed to repeal these Acts as a matter of compromise, trying to save votes, trying not to make enemies and trying to remain in power. That is what has happened.

I believe that positive steps have been taken to prove that we are moving in the right direction. I therefore call on the Government through the hon the Acting State President to amend his speech by dealing with the issues mentioned by hon members yesterday and today; by that I mean the hon members of the parties opposed to the Government.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not record that we are glad that the Government has decided to drop the Group Areas Amendment Bill. It should go one step further and completely abolish the Group Areas Act. I would not like to go into the hardships that prevail as a result of the existence and the implementation of the Group Areas Act. That was repeated over and over again.

Let me talk about clean administration. The James Commission has proved what has been reiterated over the last four years in the House of Delegates, namely doubts and suspicion about maladministration and corruption. Corruption need not only be the receiving of bribes. Bartering political powers, utilising political powers and then remaining in power is also corruption. That is what has been happening in the House of Delegates, but the James Commission has proved that that is true. What is sickening is that the James Commission has mentioned that the hon member for Arena Park … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Camperdown when he referred to and highlighted the Government’s ambivalence in respect of racism, and its pointing of fingers at the CP when the NP laws are in fact being applied.

Prior to the speech of the hon member for Camperdown, we had an astonishing speech from the hon the Minister of Defence. There are people who were a bit surprised when he was not even nominated for the leadership position of the NP, but after listening to him today, I am not surprised at all. If his colleague, Mr Leon de Beer, had still been in the caucus, he might have got quite a few votes, but clearly that was not to be.

The hon the Minister’s speech was characterised by a bankruptcy of ideas in terms of positive contributions to the resolution of our problems or those of Southern Africa. Instead of doing that, he concentrated enormously on making insulting remarks about the hon member for Randburg. He attacked the whole concept of anybody talking to the ANC. His Government talks to many movements that are involved in violence in many parts of the world but they choose not to talk with the ANC. Their policy of banning the ANC 28 years ago has of course been a complete failure clearly because the hon the Minister of Defence is more nervous of the ANC today than the NP ever was before.

His simplistic analysis of both South Africa and Angola is something that we should be concerned about. Finally, his remarks in regard to Mr Vermaas and related matters may or may not be accurate as I do not have first-hand information. However, I would have liked an explanation from him at the time as to what happened when Cabinet Ministers and others were using SADF helicopters to go hunting and whether that was not another form of corruption as well.

This brings me to the subject that I wish to address today. The part of the hon the Acting State President’s address which drew the greatest reaction in an otherwise rather lacklustre reception was when he said that the Government had a commitment to clean administration. The reaction of course was one of laughter. I am sorry to say that since 1981, when I came to this House, I have seen Ministers, Deputy Ministers and NP members of Parliament leave here under a cloud. One is already in jail and others may follow.

It is a sad commentary, but in a sense it is an inevitable result of apartheid policies which are based on fear, greed and protection of privilege, policies which are unjust and impractical and which do not enjoy the support of the people of this country as a whole. The results of this have included the repression of opposition and increasing secrecy and corruption, not only financial, but in many aspects of public life. One hopes that guilty individuals will be caught and punished, but it goes far beyond that. This Government, I believe, has debased key institutions and conventions upon which democracy and civilised values are founded. This is far more serious for the future of South Africa than Nationalist MPs who are caught with their grubby little hands in the till. It has undermined the fabric of our society.

Let me give some examples of what I am referring to. Large sections of our population are losing, or have already lost, respect for the law and the courts, for Parliament, for Government and for constitutional solutions to our problems.

Concerning the loss of respect for law I want to say that for decades, until a few years ago, we had pass laws which each year made criminals out of a quarter of a million or more people, which made their attitude to laws, courts and going to jail completely different to other people’s attitudes. Fortunately that is now behind us, but it has affected the lives of people and large proportions of families who are still living in our country today. We have seen ministerial powers extended year after year in such a way that they circumvent the judiciary and the courts so that the people of this country, and particularly the people who do not have votes in this country, no longer have the respect for the judiciary and the courts which they should have.

Most recently last year, and it was referred to by one of my colleagues, the indemnity granted to certain military officers in a South West African murder trial again makes people wonder whether our courts are independent, whether they are applying impartial laws or whether they are simply tools of this NP Government.

A second aspect is the loss of respect for Parliament. First of all, Parliament is clearly not representative of the people of our country. That is self-evident. I was also astonished when I first arrived here. In the 1980 delimitation, proposals were put forward to include Walvis Bay in the Green Point constituency in an attempt to try to make it a NP seat. When in fact that failed— within I think, less than two years—the NP came with an amendment to the law to make Walvis Bay a separate seat so that the NP had a seat for Walvis Bay. They did not worry about the law or the electoral processes. In 1983 we saw the guillotine imposed on the debate on the Constitution of South Africa where people were cut short and we did not even get through half the clauses at the Committee Stage. We have seen, in respect of Parliament, the shambles surrounding the implementation of the new Constitution because it is an unworkable constitution and so we have continual ad hoc arrangements in Parliament which very often make us the laughing stock of the population out there. We have again seen executive powers bypassing Parliament time and time again and many people therefore see Parliament simply as a rubber stamp.

Respect for government has also been lost. People do not look upon government in this country any longer as something that is there to serve the people but it is looked upon as a gravy train on which politicians and their friends jump at the earliest opportunity and as a way of trying to cling to power at every turn. We know that this Government is out of touch. We see how they use and abuse the SABC and SATV which I believe is just as much a form of corruption as taking money out of a till. [Interjections.] They believe, and this was proved time and again, that the ends justify the means. They give us and feed us secrecy and misinformation.

Respect for constitutional change has also been harmed. This Government, by its rigged Constitution, its positive rhetoric and negative action gives vent to this. In all spheres the Government has corrupted fundamental values to cling to power and to implement hated apartheid policies. There is not—and never will be—clean administration of apartheid policies.

Debate interrupted.