Order! I have to announce that I received a letter from the hon Acting State President with the request that I disclose the contents thereof to the Joint Meeting at the commencement of the proceedings. The contents read as follows:

Mr Speaker, I also wish to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the hon the Minister of National Education, who has now been elected national leader of the NP. Furthermore I want to wish the hon the State President a speedy and complete recovery from his illness. I hope he will soon be able to resume his official duties.

I express my gratitude to the hon the Minister of Law and Order for issuing his proclamation in terms of which he now puts an end to the blatant display of side-arms by the AWB movement. I congratulate the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence on the way in which they have been conducting the peace initiatives in South West Africa and Angola.

I want to congratulate the hon the State President on his mission of dialogue to countries in Africa and in Europe in order to promote peace and stability. The same goes for his peace initiatives relating to South Africa itself, for example, the meeting with the Black Sash … [Interjections.] Sorry, Sir, I knew that was going to happen. [Interjections.] I mean the SA Black Taxi Association, where he even went out of his way to share some Coke and “pap” with the hawkers in Johannesburg. [Interjections.] I trust that those initiatives will be continued throughout the Black and Brown communities.

It is most encouraging to read how John Mavuso, MEC for Transvaal, accompanied the hon the State President on his visit outside South Africa. This man, John Mavuso, who once served in the upper echelons of the ANC and subsequently on the executive committee of Inkatha, had also been accused No 39 in the Rivonia trial. What does that really mean? He demonstrated his willingness to participate and to contribute towards …

Order! I have said here previously that Mr John Mavuso was not an accused in the Rivonia trial. The hon member must get his facts straight in this respect. The hon member may continue.

Mr Speaker, the question faced by everyone of us sitting here in this Chamber is the following. What is my mission or purpose here in Parliament? We are caught here between the extreme poles of White fears and Black aspirations. Not that alone, but there are also the untiring efforts of groups seeking ways and means to domineer the greed for power, the display of “kragdadigheid”, the manipulations and manoeuvres in order to see who will be able to take over the reins of subjection.

*With all this scurrying about we find that very little is being contributed towards achieving peace and stability. The CP has become so bogged down in its search for power that it wants to lead the White people back to the fleshpots of the Verwoerd era. They are so determined to achieve this irrespective of the damage which they do to the declining image of South Africa. They are so obsessed with a “Boerestaat” ideology that not even a miracle would persuade them to abandon it.

What were the peace initiatives of the other Houses? The House of Delegates finds itself in an embarrassing position owing to the report of the Harms Commission. The NP is battling with a Group Areas Act which it does not know what to do with. The LP is saddled with a problematic teachers’ union and poor relations in education. [Interjections.]

Thus far the debate has been riddled with accusations and reproaches regarding maladministration, self-enrichment and self-advancement. The question is what the message of this Parliament is to the people of South Africa regarding peace and stability, progress and prosperity. Thousands of people are homeless and unemployed. Now I am calling for a meaningful debate on the problems of our fatherland, South Africa.

†I regret to have to say that with the advent of the tricameral Parliament good intentions were spelt out in debate after debate but what seems evident today is that those good intentions are all falling by the wayside.

What has happened to the good intentions of negotiation politics, which is supposed to be used to dismantle apartheid? It is not enough that apartheid boards are removed; an orderly process of preparation of reform must gain momentum. There must be sacrifices on the part of both sides. The Whites must accept that they must stand down from their privileged and protected positions. A clear message must go out to the masses in the townships, and please remember that the township resistance has not subsided yet.

We have seen what happened between 1976 and 1986 … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, at the outset I should like to express my sincere thanks to all hon members who, during this debate and also outside this Chamber, had some kind words to say to me. I sincerely appreciate this.

On behalf of the NP I also welcome back the hon member Dr Zach de Beer, leader of the PFP. He, Dr Denis Worrall and the hon member for Randburg, in the imagery used by the latter, are hard at work dismantling their parties bit by bit, and somewhere someone is, bit by bit, assuming the leadership of the party which is to be established, a party which is being established bit by bit. Nevertheless, until the PFP has duly been laid to rest, he will be playing a leading opposition role in this session. I know that he will do so with responsibility and integrity, and I look forward to crossing swords with him, but in particular I look forward to engaging in constructive debate.

It was nice to see that everyone, even his bitterest enemies, had a word of comfort for our hon State President. Even more impressive was the earnestness to which these gestures attested. The NP fully endorses every good wish extended to our esteemed State President and his family. Our prayers go with them.

For fifty years now the State President, Mr P W Botha, has played a key role in the NP and in the party politics of our country. He was a beloved leader of our party, a respected opponent of the opposition and a pre-eminent debater while he served as a member of the House of Assembly. Here in Parliament we should like to pay tribute to him on behalf of the NP and all our supporters out there. In due course we shall pay proper tribute to him and take leave of him as our chief leader.

The resignation of the hon the State President as chief leader of the NP has given rise to all manner of conjecture. Tremendous pressure has been brought to bear on me to try to give a detailed interpretation of the implications of his decision. I am not prepared to accede to this.

The first priority is that he will make good progress on the road to recovery. Parliament, the country and the media should understand this. With increasing interaction, as his health improves, we shall take the matter further in as far as it may prove necessary to do so. In the meantime there is security and stability in the country. The hon the Acting State President is fulfilling his role with dignity and distinction. We are working together amicably and the Cabinet is functioning normally. Everything is under control. Decency and the interests of the country, however, require that a difficult situation be handled with sensitivity. In this regard I think I can depend on everyone—both Parliament and the Press. I shall gladly, and without hesitation, react to the rest of the conjectures, those concerning me and my political views.

During the past few days the NP, my colleagues and I have been on the operating table. Labels have been freely dished out, analyses have been made and clubs which do not exist have been given names. There is a saying in Afrikaans which runs: “Gun elke diertjie sy plesiertjie.” We gladly do so, but when all is said and done, what remains is the truth, and the truth is that after my election the NP closed ranks. [Interjections.] Our party has chosen a fixed course, and irrespective of the change in leadership, we remain united in that course we have adopted.

†Our goal is a new South Africa, a totally changed South Africa, a South Africa which has rid itself of the antagonism of the past, a South Africa free of domination or oppression in whatever form, a South Africa within which the democratic forces—all reasonable people—align themselves behind mutually acceptable goals and against radicalism, irrespective of where it comes from.

How we reach that goal, is the challenge which all of us face.

In the debate thus far there has been too much defeatism, bickering and denigration. Shouting at each other, delving into the past and raking up old grievances will get us nowhere.

All reasonable people in this country—the silent majority—anxiously await a message of hope. It is our responsibility to provide that message with realism and courage. If we fail in that, the ensuing chaos, the demise of stability and progress will for ever be held against us and nobody else.

If, however, we all turn our faces towards the future—into the gale—and realistically start working towards the expansion of agreement and the narrowing of disagreement, then the future holds good.

That is exactly what the NP is striving for. My predecessor has started this process. I will continue on that road with all the dedication and energy that I can muster.

I believe that we must in this process distinguish between long-term goals and intermediate goals. While striving towards the more resounding and idealistic ultimate goals we must approach our immediate problems in a workman-like manner. That entails short, medium and long-term planning. While we may continue to differ on the route towards long-term goals we can in the meantime find common ground with regard to the pressing problems of today and tomorrow.

*In the short and medium term we are faced with great challenges. Poverty, unemployment, housing shortages, inadequate training, illiteracy and many other stumbling blocks lie in the way of growth and prosperity.

Intimidation, terrorism, unrest, illegal strikes and stay-away campaigns threaten stability and progress.

Prejudice, mistrust, rigourism, fear and obstinate refusal to co-operate bedevil the constitutional negotiating process and, concomitantly, the swift development of meaningful participation at all levels by our Black communities. Short-sighted sanctions and efforts at isolation from abroad are delaying development and progress in our less-developed communities.

The NP will continue to do everything in its power to eliminate these stumbling-blocks. We are working hard at social and economic development. We are taking a firm stand against radicalism, terrorism and crime. We are bending over backwards to allow constitutional negotiations to proceed, and we are doing our level best to normalise international relations.

Has the time not come for greater unanimity and co-operation in dealing with these urgent matters, instead of the major portion of Parliament’s time being devoted to sterile aggression and bitter recriminations? Only if we succeed in doing that, and to the extent to which we do succeed, can we create the positive climate that our country as a whole eagerly looks forward to.

As far as I am concerned, in the time ahead I shall lead my party towards opening doors even further to promote meaningful negotiation, to promote a spirit of co-operation inside and outside Parhament, to help allay mistrust and enhance mutual trust by speaking frankly and honestly. If we do not succeed in laying a foundation of trust for all the population groups in this country, we shall not be able to make the finding of solutions a reality.

I shall attempt to lead this party in such a way as to give substance to the true intention and spirit of the NP and to obliterate distorted perceptions of our party.

Please permit me to begin discussing a few relevant matters today. Firstly, in this debate it has been alleged that the NP is clinging to White supremacy. The hon nominated member, the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, was one of those who made that allegation.

†I want to state unequivocally that the NP is against domination of any group by others. White domination, insofar as it still exists, must go.

As far back as 1985 I stated publicly:

In the same breath the NP rejects domination in any other form. Domination by a majority is as unacceptable as domination by a minority. After all, the worst case in history of domination and oppression was committed by a majority. Is there anyone in this Chamber who favours Black domination? I doubt it. Therefore, the only route is a system which eliminates domination.

How we attain such a just and equitable constitutional model must be negotiated. At the same time more detailed proposals will have to be formulated to serve as a basis for discussion. As leader of my party I will do everything in my power to expedite this process. Time is of the essence. Final solutions will take time, but movement and visible evolutionary development are tremendously important.

*I want to give the White electorate the following assurance today. In its efforts at establishing a new dispensation offering full-fledged rights to everyone, the NP will jealously guard their security and interests and those of other minorities. What is more, like my predecessor, I also commit myself to the undertaking that any fundamental constitutional amendments will be preceded by an election or a referendum requesting a mandate for such changes.

Grant us the time to proceed, by way of negotiation, with the development of a workable dispensation offering hope to everyone in this country. Give us the opportunity to come forward, by way of a process of negotiation and by way of creative thinking, with models that will grant security to those who have a right to it and want it, yet granting opportunities to those who do not yet have all those opportunities.

†Secondly, the NP is not as ideologically obsessed with the group concept as has been suggested by many critics in this debate. [Interjections.] Our strong emphasis on group rights, alongside individual rights, is based on the reality of South Africa and not on an ideological obsession or racial prejudice. All the lip service being paid to a so-called non-racial society is pure nonsense. There is no such thing as a non-racial society in a multi-racial country. However closely we may co-operate, however near to each other we may move, South Africa will retain its diversity, and that diversity will remain a powerful and often beneficial force which must be reckoned with.

However, my party strives for a non-racialistic country, a country free of racism, of racial hatred …

Where do we start?

… free of negative discrimination on the basis of race. We accept as our goal a just and equitable dispensation in all fields for all South Africans, irrespective of race or colour.

Well then, do it.

But, as America has to recognise and accommodate its diversity through living with the existence of a Black caucus …

By voluntary decision.

… through special government arrangements—not voluntary—for Indian reservations and affirmative action programmes, so South Africa will have to continue to accommodate its diversity—cultural and racial—in its future planning.

As Belgium is forced to make special arrangements for group security as a basis for co-operation, so we will have to do likewise.

I could continue thus, but the point is made. Reality dictates recognition of group diversity. How we do it, so as to ensure that it will not be on a discriminatory basis, is the challenge we face, but face it we must. Small wonder that a large part of the debate has centred around criticism and rejection of the existing ways and means through which the consequences of diversity are accommodated and regulated.

Has the time not come for us to negotiate a new realistic model for the non-discriminatory maintenance of community rights in the social sphere? As we have set out to achieve this in the constitutional sphere, I believe we must also try to find one another with regard to sensitive issues such as residential areas and the like.

The NP is not bound to any particular measures under any particular name, and is prepared to take the initiative in finding a mutually acceptable basis for the maintenance of group security. I will endeavour to stimulate movement towards greater accord in this sensitive field, however difficult it might be. In the meantime the existing measures will have to suffice. We cannot afford the uncertainty and friction which an unregulated vacuum would cause. [Interjections.]

*Thirdly, the perception that is being created is that the Government is dragging its feet on the question of reform. I want to assure hon members that for the NP there is as much of a sense of urgency as there is for anyone else. In difficult financial times my colleagues in the Cabinet are toiling away, each in his own field, to develop existing reform programmes and establish new ones.

In those fields involving negotiation, work is progressing with the greatest possible speed and, let me say, unobtrusive progress is being made. It was my privilege to be part of a day-long conference at which urban Black leaders held frank and honest discussions, and I was able to leave that conference knowing, in my heart of hearts, that there was hope. We can find common ground if only we speak to one another.

Of course there are obstacles on this road. One involves the game that is sometimes played in this Parliament, that of opposing important reform measures for reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of those measures. Another is the game played by some leaders, that of laying down unrealistic prerequisites as conditions for participation at the negotiating table. Whilst this foolish game persists, the people of South Africa are waiting eagerly for progress.

Together with my colleagues I want to—and I shall—strive to give impetus to the process of renewal, and I invite everyone to co-operate. Our country demands of those of us in Parliament a complete change in the present climate of tension and recalcitrance, as they experience it.

All the people of South Africa want to see the broad overall source of goodwill, which exists in the country at large, reflected in our actions and conduct. They demand of us that we give substance to a firm and workable relationship, instead of bickering and fighting with one another.

I wish I could be certain enough of that to say that I join everyone in accepting the challenge of meeting these reasonable demands made by the general public. My party and I accept that challenge. None of us will succeed, with fine words and fine-sounding speeches, in really entrenching this new spirit. Nor do I expect my speech today to suddenly allow peace to descend upon us from the heavens. No, Sir, much more will be needed from all sides—hard work, openhearted discussion and the will to find common ground along the path of give-and-take. Much more will be necessary—really imaginative thinking and fearlessness. To that I commit myself and the NP.

Mr Speaker, I hope the hon the Minister of National Education will pardon me if I do not react to his speech immediately, but I shall touch upon certain points which he raised here in the course of my speech.

I should like to touch upon two aspects which the hon the Acting President mentioned in his opening address. On page 4 of the Minutes of Proceedings of Joint Sitting we see under the heading “Security”:

On page 4 we see further:

The present Constitution was not planned to satisfy the just demands of all people in South Africa. South Africa is rapidly moving to a watershed in the constitutional crisis. Important options face us which will determine our survival or destruction as a nation. Our survival and security in this country will not be determined by plans which were designed to bring about White domination but by plans which will guarantee the equality and human dignity of all South Africans regardless of race, colour or creed. [Interjections.]

Our options are clear. We must produce a formula for freedom, harmony and progress for all in South Africa or face the alternative of civil discord, violent confrontation and the resultant economic slump and human suffering.

As regards the role and attitude of the East and the West toward South Africa, it will not benefit us to boast or clamour about the communist threat or the double standards of the West. We have to accept the fact that the attitude of the international community toward South Africa concerning the matter of discrimination and racism will continue.

The stark reality which faces us is that we must solve racist political problems now. If we evade our problems, this will lead to our downfall. The principle of give and take between White and Black must be the basic ingredient of any recipe for constitutional change in South Africa.

Internal and external security will be guaranteed by the acceptance of the basic principle that Black and White must have the right to participate in the joint determination of their cultural, economic and political future. After all, we share a common destiny in a common fatherland.

We as Blacks have resisted and survived the imposition of inhuman discriminatory laws. We have been subjected to every imaginable form of humiliation and human suffering. The extent of this has led to the bitterness and frustration on our side being regarded as justified.

For many years we have been subjected to political, economic and social exploitation but, although this is so, the LP’s message throughout has been one of reconciliation, negotiation and peaceful change. The LP is staunch in its determination to maintain democratic opposition in pursuance of peaceful change. We are undaunted in our choice of peaceful strategies, even in the face of internal military preparedness, unrest and violence within and on the borders of South Africa.

The LP’s role as intermediary in South African politics should not be underestimated. A clear indication of the important conciliatory role which the LP can play is the bridging of the gap between the fears of the Whites and the aspirations of the Blacks. The LP is the mouthpiece of a free South Africa and not of a small group of captive people. The LP’s vision for the future is one nation in South Africa. The NP’s idea of government appears to be one of divide and rule instead of unite and lead.

It is clear that the NP is using the Group Areas Act as a power base to remain in control of the country. That is why the CP is climbing on this bandwagon. As long as a distorted law like the Group Areas Act remains on the Statute Book, the Government has no real and honest intentions to get rid of apartheid.

The ideal of apartheid has not succeeded in creating social justice; on the contrary, it has led to injustice and the misery, poverty and frustration of people. Apartheid has not solved problems; it has merely aggravated them. The waves of misunderstanding, fear and hatred between White and Black have assumed alarming proportions. We must find an alternative system in a peaceful way and do everything in our power to eliminate the suffering which has been caused by the system of apartheid. We must not cherish the illusion that we have a great deal of time at our disposal. No, the LP is in favour of peaceful change and politics of negotiation.

Violence is not a solution. We do not believe in violence nor in strategies which will lead to violence. We are in Parliament to work for genuine change. The LP is serious about liberating people from ignorance, want, compulsion, intimidation and the general lack of purposeful leadership in political, social and economic spheres. We have a burning desire to fight oppression. Apartheid has caused poverty and poverty in turn causes crime.

Year after year it is the LP which draws the Government’s attention in deadly earnest to the fact that not only the Group Areas Act but also the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act harms South Africa. The LP has frequently called upon the Government in Parliament to delete these Acts from the Statute Book.

The only way for South Africa is the way of unity and this can only be achieved if we acknowledge one another as fellow citizens. Apartheid should not be permitted to develop further and determine the nature of our community. The longer we keep putting it off and people try to cling to the past, the more we are frittering away the opportunities at our disposal.

Apartheid builds fences, it separates people, it avoids the future and it clings protectively to what it has. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must lower their voices. They are even making it difficult for the Chair to hear the speaker, in spite of the loudspeaker system. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, the LP does not want to meet anybody on the battlefield but around the negotiating table so that a system of equality and human dignity can be produced for all South Africans.

Mr Speaker, a great deal of interest was shown in the expected announcement by the hon the new chief leader of the NP. We also listened to him with interest, but I think that once again, we simply heard the new song which goes like this: “En voordat wij weer verder gaan, beginnen wij van vooraf aan het nieuwe lied”. Perhaps we should just add “na links—het nieuwe lied na links”. I think that the media who sat in great expectation, could help one to summarise the speech as a whole: “Mons pariturus et nascitur ridiculus mus”—the mountain was in labour and brought forth a tiny mouse.

Mr Speaker, during the course of his speech the day before yesterday, my hon leader asked a question regarding the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola, and went on to make the following comment:

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs seized upon this question of my hon leader in order, on the one hand, to expound a whole number of irrelevant details about South West Africa and, on the other hand, to drag a whole host of late Prime Ministers, from Gen Botha to Mr Vorster into the argument. Furthermore, he was disparaging, insulting and derogatory towards my hon leader.

I now want to tell the hon the Minister that everything he said about my hon leader, is true about himself. What is more, I want to tell the hon the Minister that he is guilty of the greatest disinformation this place has ever known. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said that the factual basis of my hon leader’s question with regard to the withdrawal of the Cubans was erroneous. He then quoted the hon the State President who, on 4 March 1986, said in this place that the implementation of Resolution 435 was subject to the “condition that a firm and satisfactory agreement can be reached before that date on the withdrawal of the Cubans”. End of quotation of the hon the State President.

The hon the State President then went on to say:

He should simply have added that this was a brainwave of the Americans—

I want to stress the word “after”.

That is correct.

I am very pleased that the hon the Minister has told me that that is correct.

That is what my hon leader’s question was about; in actual fact it was about the original condition— as we term it—that the Cubans should have physically withdrawn around the time of the implementation of Resolution 435.

No, that was not the position.

The hon the Minister said no, and he is now saying no once again. He says there was never any question of that. All that South Africa demanded, was that there should be a firm and satisfactory agreement before its implementation.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister says I am correct, and I thank him for that. He also said that this was recorded in Hansard after Hansard. We say that the original condition was that the Cuban withdrawal should be completed by the time the election was to take place. At one stage the target date for that election was 1 June 1989.

He says no!

What does the hon the Deputy Chairman of …

That was never part of the agreement.

We are not concerned here with what the agreement was. We are concerned with what South Africa’s original demand was with regard to the Cuban withdrawal.

We are not concerned with demands today.

Furthermore, I want to tell the hon the Minister that the account he gave yesterday of the condition regarding the Cuban withdrawal, as if it had been an original condition, was not a true one. That is disinformation in the strongest sense of the word. It is an attempt to conceal one of the Government’s many capitulations with regard to the settlement of the South West African issue.

I say this on the authority of State President Botha. No, the hon the Minister must not look away now. State President Botha said the following (Hansard: Joint Meeting, 24 August 1988, col 15508):

[Interjections.] It should not still have to be put into effect; it must have been completed.

South Africa originally insisted on a completed withdrawal; that is to say, a total withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola, but South Africa had to eat humble pie. South Africa had to resign herself to a withdrawal timetable which will only be completed on 1 July 1991, when all the Cuban troops will have to be out of Angola—one year and nine months after the election for the legislative assembly has already taken place. That is the position.

We shall discuss this matter at great length in future, but for now I shall content myself with a remark regarding the hon the Acting State President’s reference to a “favourable package” in respect of the Cuban settlement, in which he included “a Cuban withdrawal from Angola”. That is what my hon leader had in mind, namely that the hon the State President had set such great store by this.

It is possible that Swapo could be the successful party on 1 November 1989. There are many people who fear this. I know that the hon the Minister of Defence and his people in South West Africa are telling a different story. This hon Minister is also telling a different story.

However, we have experience of the prophetic abilities of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We had experience of them when he was to tell us in caucus whom he expected to become President, Mr Carter or Mr Reagan. He told us that he was sorry to say so, but he thought it would be Mr Carter. We had experience of them when he gave us his prediction regarding the results of the election in Rhodesia. He told us that Bishop Muzorewa would win. That is why I say that we are afraid that if their predictions are once again in line with their prophetic abilities, as reflected in the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the past, and if South West Africa—or, as the hon the Minister calls it in the terminology of the UN, Namibia—is to be governed by Swapo during the period preceding 1 July 1991, who will insist upon the final Cuban withdrawal from Angola? I am talking about those Cubans who are still there then. Swapo may then ask the Cubans to come and help it to counter a military threat from South Africa on its southern borders. What will we do about those Cubans then? That is why we not only say that the settlement in relation to the Cuban withdrawal is unsatisfactory, but also that this is one of those instances in which the South African Government has bowed to pressure—it has deviated from its original condition with regard to Resolution 435.

The hon the Minister also said yesterday: “The mandate agreement lapsed a long time ago”. This statement is taken from the unrevised copy of his speech yesterday. His exact words are as follows:

I can tell the hon the Minister that it is quite incredible that he should have made such a statement.

What one finds disturbing, is the fact that he is sitting in a Cabinet and that he has to lead that Cabinet, and that there is apparently no one in that entire Cabinet who is able to contradict him. Furthermore, it is also disturbing that he is sitting in a caucus and that he has to provide a party with leadership regarding Foreign Affairs, and that there is no one in that caucus who is able, or who has the courage to contradict him. When did that mandate expire?

Upon the dissolution of the League of Nations.

Is the hon the Minister saying that that was South Africa’s standpoint.

Throughout the court case in the World Court.

Was that South Africa’s standpoint throughout the court case? [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at this. The standpoint of Gen Smuts, Dr Malan, Adv Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd, Mr Vorster and Mr P W Botha was that the mandate had not expired. It had not expired. To tell the truth, their standpoint was that it had taken a decision to transfer some of its powers to the old UN nations upon the dissolution of the League of Nations, but it did not make a decision with regard to the mandate. Surely it is common knowledge that it omitted to do so.

In 1960 Ethiopia and Liberia took South Africa to court on the grounds of violation of the mandate, and they acknowledged this.

I was a member of the legal team.

That is precisely why I am telling the hon the Minister this. I am telling him this precisely because he was a member of that team.

The legal team said that the mandate had expired.

Then the UN came along in 1976 … That is precisely what I am telling him: He was a member of that legal team.

That was our plea. The mandate had expired. We pleaded that case for six years.

No, Sir, I shall come to that shortly. The hon the Minister must kindly not interrupt me.

Order!

I shall reply to the hon the Minister shortly.

The standpoint of Gen Smuts, which was pursued by successive Prime Ministers, was that he did not acknowledge the UN as the successor of the League of Nations.

But the mandate had expired.

I shall come to that shortly. I thank the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

I shall now refer to the hon the State President. I shall leave Ethiopia and Liberia alone. I shall now turn to the hon the State President because the standpoint of Ethiopia and Liberia was that the mandate had been violated, and South Africa went there on that basis.

Just stick to the argument concerning the mandate.

Yes, I shall come to that. The hon the State President made the following speech on South West Africa on Wednesday, 24 August 1988 (Hansard: Joint Meeting, col 15501):

That is the UN standpoint …

Precisely. They said at the time that they were terminating it. The hon the Minister said that we had won the case, but I want to know why we won the case—on which point of law. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I too wish the hon the State President a speedy recovery and associate myself with the sentiments and congratulations to the hon the Acting State President, the new leader of the NP and that of the PFP.

The findings of the James Commission substantially verify our calls for a commission of inquiry to arrest malpractice and maladministration.

I must place on record that this call was made from the first day we in the House of Delegates entered the debating chamber. Therefore, human frailty excepted, the findings of the James Commission are no indictment of the Indian people as a community. In fact, Indians in this country, like Indians elsewhere, have no need of morals or ethics from any other quarter whatsoever. I need not have to refer to the Harms Commission’s findings, but what I wish to underscore in regard to corruption, malpractices and the like, is the fact that there is no smoke without fire. Therefore, the Government must stop these senseless acts of misconduct on the part of public representatives by timeous action and bring the culprits to book, so that the communities we represent retain their faith in us and our clean administration.

In reacting to the speech of the hon the Acting State President, as a pragmatist I do not wish to dwell on the sins of the past. Let the past be buried. We have no control whatsoever over the past and it would be an exercise in futility. Rather, we should echo thoughts of hope and success for the future.

To speak the plain truth I have, in general, no very exalted opinion of the Government of the day. We have the right to criticise constructively and even condemn where necessary, but we must go further and offer positive and workable proposals to overcome the problems that plague this beautiful land. To be fair, it must be conceded that it is this Nationalist Government that ushered in reform initiatives in this race-ridden land.

Of course, with pressure, coercion as well as co-operation from us, there was also mounting pressure from other quarters outside. In the past five years especially we have come a long way, but I am the first one to admit that that is not enough. However, let us not destroy or write off this Government. Rather, like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, we should adopt a realistic attitude and pressurise this Government to get on with the job as the instrument for further reform.

On February 3 the hon the Acting State President is on record as having said that 1989 will be a challenging year. Even more significant is the following statement:

Those words are very significant and I hope that one day they will become prophetic words. In the light of this statement I take it that the Government commits itself to a new South Africa in which the errors of the past will be corrected, human roles are to be righted, and a South Africa in which human freedom will not mean mere rhetorical slogans, but operative realities.

We acknowledge the repeal of certain discriminatory legislation over the past few years. The hon the Acting State President’s statements concerning challenges in 1989 now stare us in the face. The Government certainly has the opportunity to demonstrate this challenge by action. It should go ahead and remove the remaining discriminatory Acts from the Statute Book in 1989. Let it be recorded that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act will be repealed. That will be progress and that will augur well for the future of this country.

The repeal of these unjust Acts is imminent, because it will pave the way for negotiation. Is there any problem in this regard? Not at all! If we put the interests of the country first, it must be emphatically stated that the interlude caused by the CP should not derail the Government in its far more important objectives to save this country. On the other hand, as long as these Acts are on the Statute Book, South Africa will remain barred from international forums and its place in the United Nations, and kept out of international sporting organisations and sporting events. That is not all. Trade sanctions and boycotts are applied against South Africa because of separate development and the apartheid Acts. The Group Areas Act recurs again and again as the underlying cause of much of the discrimination, especially in regard to housing, education, sport and facilities. The Group Areas Act is one Act that should never have gone on the Statute Book of this country. It has done untold harm to the future politics of this land of great promise. Without it we will still have grouping, but a grouping which is acceptable; not a grouping which is objectionable, but a grouping based on natural affinity and characteristics.

Associated with the Group Areas Act there is of course the Population Registration Act as the basis for determining to which population group individuals and families belong. Of late, the shameful incidents at Mayfair and Kraaifontein should never have been allowed to rear their ugly heads under any responsible government.

I feel reassured to some extent after having listened to the new leader of the NP and I am looking forward with an open mind to the fact that the kind of realistic changes in this regard will come speedily.

The existing legal machinery and political climate allows for the harassment of citizens on grounds of colour. I am sometimes loath to say that if dogs of all breeds and dogs of all colours are permitted into these areas, why not man. How can any civilized human being answer for this inhuman act of division among our own citizens?

The Government must promote reconciliation and prepare the populace for meaningful change in an apartheid-free society. The ultimate aim is to frame a new constitution that will ensure one nation, one country.

I agree with the hon the Leader of the NP that we will not support White domination or Black domination. I want to go further by saying that no solution is going to work unless it involves fair play, justice and minority rights for all.

There is still a strong fund of goodwill among South Africans of all races, though this is very strained at the moment. We therefore need fresh domestic initiatives. We must now look at constitutional models which ensure the interests of all the people in this land. There is a need for a broad South African nationalism and for fairly drastic reform which will get the people together.

There are greater challenges in the years ahead. I say the years ahead with particular reference to the post-apartheid era. The theme of our problems will change. The theme will shift from one of race discrimination to that of a Third World problem. South Africa has great potential indeed, and its largely untapped human resources hold the key to the future.

Japan, for instance, with few natural resources has illustrated this by the investment in human capital. Through their provision of a high standard of education, training and management skills, they are rated a world leader.

This is an economic lesson this country has yet to learn. In this regard I am pleased with the scale of progress in Black education, especially over the past five years.

In conclusion I want to to exhort this Government to assume a dynamic role in the task ahead. The challenge is to build, build, build, not break. Human bridges have to be built, bridges of mutual trust, goodwill and fellowship. Bridges have to be built for a healthy political establishment in which the economy flourishes and harmonious social ties prevail.

Mr Speaker, The hon member for Cavendish referred right at the outset to the James Commission and indicated, like a responsible politician, that the past belonged to the past; adequate lessons had been learnt from it and now we were moving forward. That is the approach of a well-balanced politician who does not wish to enrich and strengthen himself on the scrap-heaps, but in fact simply wants to learn a lesson, rectify mistakes, recover and move forward.

That brings me to the hon member for Soutpansberg. I want to put a very interesting question to the hon member. In the seventies the hon member for Soutpansberg was after all a member of the NP caucus. During that time there were discussions of Resolution 435 because it was something that was already being promoted under the guidance of the then Prime Minister, Mr B J Vorster. I cannot understand how the hon member could have omitted at that time to advance these interesting, definitely inexplicable and, beyond all doubt, apocryphal arguments.

The greatest weakness of his argument is that it can be repeated. In this debate repeated mention has been made of irregularities that have recently been disclosed by virtue of commission reports etc. Let me say at once that this Government does not accept that a single report or incident or even multiple incidents, determines the character of either this party or South Africa. We shall never concede that. It is totally unacceptable to us that the initiative of the Government, of the hon the State President, to eradicate abuses, is utilised as evidence of an abuse against us; on the contrary, it testifies to a determination not to allow such abuses to proliferate, to nip them in the bud. The commitment by the hon the State President 10 years ago to clean administration finds expression therein that on various occasions he and his Government have taken the initiative. He and his Government were in the forefront in dealing with these matters, not the opposition or any other author. This testifies to the fact that the hon the State President has adhered to his commitment of 10 years ago.

This party therefore says that we do not condone this. We do not want to live with it. So far and no further. We shall deal with it to the best of our ability, which is not inconsiderable. We shall deal with it thoroughly, as we have in fact done. We speak recklessly of corruption as though it were peculiar to the State, the Government or public servants. That is wrong. At most common law has dealt with bribery and corruption as the acquisition of an unfair advantage in exchange for another advantage—that is how one would define it in colloquial language.

Our own legislation of 1958 effected an adjustment when we made bribery a far wider crime. Inter alia we also made it a crime if bribery, or rather corruption, occurred among persons other than officials. We are therefore discussing a wide field and not only State or Government actions, or those of officials.

A great deal has been said about corrupt activities in their various forms. In addition an attempt was made to politicise the issue. That is absurd. We object to the politicisation thereof, or any attempt to ascribe it to a specific political party. We would nöt do that if there should appear to be such abuses in the ranks of the other political parties present here. [Interjections.] Of course it is wrong to do that.

The report which appeared yesterday brought certain practices on the part of two persons into prominence, and who would now wish to maintain that it has any significance that they were members of some political party or other? It is absurd. If we want to talk about corruption in its various forms, let us discuss the matter candidly with one another and ask the question why only specific corrupt activities are being mentioned. Why do we not get from the other parties, particularly from the PFP, a strong standpoint opposing a very serious abuse which borders us on corruption, namely intimidation? Mr Justice Kriegler said very recently that it was of course true that intimidation is protean in the sense that it can assume any of an innumerable number of shapes. It can vary from a trivial to an extremely serious case in which a multitude is opposed to a fear-stricken individual or small group, and coerce them into doing something, ie a certain course of conduct. What is blackmail if not a corrupt practice?

It can assume the nature of with or without violence. Intimidation occurs in the form of so-called “soft” intimidation. What we have in mind here for example, is commercial, rental or bus boycotts. Think of what is happening at the bus terminals. Why do hon members not voice their concern about that?

I find it strange that there are members who, in a sanctimonious and lyrical way, wish to describe corruption to a specific organisation, whether it be the Government or some other body, but who do not condemn the by-products of corruption.

If we are in earnest and if we are honest about this matter then we ought to express unanimous condemnation of any course of conduct which wishes to disrupt the economy or which is different to the ideal character we arrogate to ourselves—the character that makes us a reliable trading partner, that makes us a reliable partner in regard to our constitutional development and makes us acceptable in all respect according to international standards, but above all makes us acceptable according to the South African standards of decency, correctness and fairness.

We must exorcise it. It has been demonstrated in numerous court cases that it is a tremendous crime, one which is difficult to trace and even more difficult to eradicate. It can, if it is not followed up or if the correct punishment is not imposed by the courts, have an effect on trading standards and the fair carrying on of trade. Consequently we must exorcise it unanimously in every possible sphere in which it occurs, the private sector as well. This statement makes a certain phrase from the opening address of the Acting State President very relevant now.

We are not satisfied with the situation, and this applies to all sectors. The Government therefore declares itself prepared to exorcise and eradicate the abuses. We appeal to everyone to support us.

In this connection we must praise the Government and the attorney-general of Genl Holomisa, chief of the military government of Transkei, for their opposition to the erosion of the status and character of that country.

Instead of suggesting that they move in the opposite direction they ought to be praised for wanting to cling to international and their own good standards of decency and reliability. My impression is that there is countrywide confidence and respect for General Holomisa’s action—in the Press as well.

We also find this attitude applies to other self-governing states. My colleagues and I are thoroughly aware that they do not hesitate to come forward and ask for assistance in dealing with irregularities, wherever they occur. It is a good government which takes steps to neutralise them. It is in fact when a country strives to uphold high values and standards that it wants to eradicate the little foxes that destroy the vineyard.

How can corruption and abuses of this nature be combated? I want to make the general statement that it cannot merely be placed in a compartment of being the responsibility solely of the state. In the first place the self-enrichment syndrome at all levels of society must be combated by promoting ethical, sound and acceptable business codes that have been accepted over the years as the guideline for a reliable economy and system which supports the state and the private sector.

In the past commercial organisations, for example the Handelsinstituut and Assocom, constantly committed their members to business and ethnical codes. I do not think it can do any harm to apply these anew.

Furthermore I want to express appreciation to the public servants of South Africa today for the fact that relatively little improper conduct is to be found among them. Stones are hurled at the slightest indication, but how often does something really happen? The absence thereof is the best evidence in support of my praise for our public servants.

That is why I say that they are dealing with this matter themselves. They do not exclude the law-courts; they guard jealously over their integrity, to which section 19 of the Public Service Act can testify. In addition they are dealing with such abuses themselves in an entirely satisfactory way.

Fourthly a dignified role must be allotted to the Press in the combating of corruption and related crimes. It is particularly when it comes to the so-called White-collar crimes, which have a semblance of legitimacy, that the Press has an extremely valuable watchdog role to play. On the one hand it places a great responsibility on them, in the words of Mr Bob Steyn, registrar of the Media Council, “to report news truthfully, accurately and objectively”. On the other hand they constantly run the risk of being accused of liable. In all fairness and level-headedness we must say to the Press that they are for the most part, playing their watchdog role with great circumspection and dignity. They do in fact have the means to deal with the adventurers among them. We can therefore ask them in all kindness, by maintaining their values and codes at a high standard, to continue to play that watchdog role, and we shall respect them for that and not inhibit them.

Fifthly it cannot be argued away that the State has the most important part to play in regard to the combating of corrupt practices. According to the latest available prisons statistics there are more than 8 000 people in prisons owing to crimes against the public order such as bribery, perjury and related crimes. That is almost 10% of our prison population. That speaks volumes for the fact that we have effective policing and that the attorneys-general and other prosecuting bodies are doing their duty.

†In 1979, however, an area was identified over which neither the police nor the courts could exercise proper control. A need was identified to establish a measure which would ensure that scandal-mongering could be dealt with expeditiously, but at the same time also ensure that the truthfulness of allegations could be speedily established. For this purpose the office of the Advocate-General was put on our Statute Book.

It now appears, however, that his powers of investigation are not wide enough. It has therefore been decided by the Government to tender legislation to Parliament that will extend the powers of the Advocate-General, especially to enable him to appoint a commissioner anywhere in the Republic to undertake an investigation on his behalf. It will also be suggested in this proposed Bill that his powers of investigation be widened to enable him to investigate complaints of prejudicial acts or omissions on the part of authorities.

Perhaps the most important development that we propose to bring about is to give the Advocate-General the ability to act swiftly, to deal with complaints effectively and, if necessary, proceed with his investigation in the manner that he determines appropriate and applicable.

Invaluable experience has been gained in this regard from the Harms Commission, which has indeed completed a very substantial part of its mammoth task.

The chairman of this commission and his team deserve our sincere gratitude and congratulations.

The purpose of a commission is to gather information on behalf of the State to enable it to decide on appropriate measures to be taken. It is not a commission’s task to prosecute or to convict any person. This implies that they have limited powers, but one thing we have gleaned from the Harms Commission, is that it is possible to evaluate rumours and to get to the crux of the matter without delay. We are of the opinion that if the Advocate-General is given similar powers, we will only have to appoint commissions when it is absolutely necessary.

*We envisage streamlining the situation even further by means of these measures, as has recently been demonstrated in various spheres. In that way we commit ourselves in this country once again to clean administration, with the same measure of efficiency as in the past.

Mr Speaker, my party wants to tell the leader of the NP, the hon the Minister of National Education, that we have taken cognisance of his creed in this meeting this afternoon. We shall keep an eye on him in future. My party wants to tell the hon the Minister that if he is serious about the new South Africa he spoke about, he must not come forward with unnecessary and inhibitory preconditions when negotiations with Blacks are to take place. He must not make it impossible for Black leaders to come to the conference table.

I should like to quote to the hon the Minister of National Education something that Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi said:

In the first place I want to refer to the CP. It was interesting to see once again this week how hard they were trying to reverse. They try so hard that they develop a speed wobble. One could see this on the faces of these hon members—the almost hysterical fear of everything that is Black, although this is concealed behind sanctimonious cries of wanting to protect the people. Mr Speaker, try as it might, White South Africa cannot wish away Black South Africa, but will have to deal with it.

Let us be frank with one another on this point. Even a flood of allegations, accusations and warnings will not be able to stem the tide. Ultimately Blacks will have to assume their rightful place in this Parliament. There can be no turning around. It is a lie to say, as the CP did so fervently this week, that the wheels of history can be reversed. We have seen this here again this afternoon. Once again we were taken back to a caucus or two where we were unsure as to whether or not someone had been sleeping. People who do that are playing games with the lives of this country’s children.

This spectre, viz that Blacks and Whites must always be separated and that they have nothing in common, except perhaps fresh air, disease and poverty is going to be exorcised. My party will hasten this process, so that this country of ours can move towards being a normal, acceptable member of world society. In the process there will have to be consultation with all South Africans, not only those represented in this Parliament, and not necessarily only those with whom we agree. I want to issue a warning that in this process we must circumvent the falsity of extremes, but we must do so without prejudice to the truth.

I want to say one thing to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, who emerged as a champion for the Afrikaner people in this House yesterday. We see nothing wrong in his view that he must represent the Afrikaner people. However, we in this country share many things with one another. We have a great deal in common. We are all part of the melting pot that is South Africa. We share the Western culture. We share English as an international language. We share the Christian ideology. We share economic activities. Whether we like it or not, we are on the point of sharing true political power. We share citizenship, and all South Africans must grow towards one another to share many joint loyalties and, I assure you, the majority of people in South Africa will not permit themselves to turn back to the old era of apartheid. In our opinion there is no reason for the Afrikaners to exist as a group distinct from other people in this country; on the contrary, the Afrikaners must learn to exist in this country with other people. Even if this is contrary to one’s wishes, the fact is that in the new South Africa a white skin alone will be no guarantee or privilege. In a new South Africa we shall be gauged according to our ability to achieve. In speaking to the NP, I want to emphasise that South Africa is one nation, even if we consist of different culture-historical groups. In building a new South Africa, however, we must guard against exalting the umbilical cords of descent, identification and group spirit to the point where they become non-assailable. In our attempts to retain a White group identity, we must not permit the opportunity to establish a peaceful new South Africa to elude us. Once again, in the words of Dr Buthelezi:

And then, let us remember the words of Jomo Kenyatta, and perhaps it is important for Whites and Blacks in South Africa to remember what he said:

South Africa cannot afford to have its future determined by the barrel of an R.l or an AK.47.

I must address the hon member for Soutpansberg, however. He argued this afternoon about whether or not a mandate exists. Let me tell the hon member something. South Africa is part of Africa and our future is intertwined with that of the subcontinent.

My party welcomes the implementation of Resolution 435. We appreciate the good work done by the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In contrast to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, we do not see this as peace at any price. If he thinks for one moment that only White soldiers served there, I want to remind him that no fewer than 33 000 Coloured soldiers did voluntary service in South West Africa at some time or another.

I want to add that the quest for freedom of the Namibian people cannot be checked. South Africa is part of Africa. Our salvation and future are here, and that is why we seek stability, progress and development—not only for South Africa, but for all its neighbours. We want the people’s quality of life to improve. An honest analysis of Africa shows that unless the present trend is checked, it will be a dying continent. That is such a pity, because Africa has the potential to make an important contribution to world history. I believe that this potential must be developed. South Africa and the rest of the world must make a contribution to that end.

Despite the outside world’s attempts to get at South Africa, we want to request the Commonwealth countries at this stage rather to try to draw up a joint plan of action to save Africa from its misery. I want to request that they abandon their plans to isolate South Africa from the international market. If their plans are carried out, our neighbouring countries will be the first to be affected. Let me remind them that even Namibia’s economic future is intertwined with that of South Africa, and that Namibia has no harbour of its own. Without South Africa the railway links will come to an end. I also want to remind them that South Africa buys more than 90% of Namibia’s products.

Once again we have a case in which the world, in its attempt to force South Africa into a different political dispensation, is implementing a measure which does more harm than good. Allow me to remind the foreign ministers at the United Nations that the planning of the so-called restricted sanctions will not have a limited effect on the ordinary citizens of this country and the countries in Southern Africa which will be directly affected by the sanctions.

The hon member damned the advocates of sanctions, but I must also address those who do not want to move towards a new South Africa. There is greater realism, however, in the interdependence of African countries as seen in the recent visits of the hon the State President to African countries.

†Let me say that we can expect Africa to accept South African help even if it is clandestinely done, but we must never interpret this as an acceptance of our policies.

Mr Chairman, good men should not be forgotten and, if you will pardon me, at the outset, I want to mention the name of Dawid Brink who was for many years the leader of the majority party in the Transvaal Provincial Council and he who died yesterday. There is no provincial council in which one can pay tribute to him. I would like to place on record, having fought against him as the leader of the governing party in the Transvaal Provincial Council as he then was, not only my condolences to his family, but I think I speak for everyone who served in the Transvaal Provincial Council when I say that he was a gentleman and a man who served his people well. I believe that his family can be proud of him.

There are a few things I would like to say at the outset. The first is that I am somewhat disappointed that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of Communications has not spoken and that he has not told us what has happened to the delimitation commission that he announced was being appointed so many months ago, and we still do not know who the members of that commission are. We also find ourselves living in the shadow of an election and every speech that is being made here is actually an election speech. I think that the Government owes it to us and the public of South Africa to give us an indication when in fact we are going to have an election— particularly bearing in mind the influence it has on the economy of the country, as well as on other factors. [Interjections.]

The third point that I would like to raise—I am glad that the hon the Minister of National Education is here for the moment—is to extend to him my congratulations on his election as leader of the NP. I regard him as a competent person and as a person of considerable intellect. The question is, of course, whether he will be able to rise to the challenges which confront him and whether he will have the vision in order to deal with the problems and the challenges that lie ahead. May I say that I think that parts of his speech today in fact gave me hope. They gave me so much hope that I actually thought it was the adviser to a newly formed political party that had written parts of that speech. [Interjections.] I would like to take up the challenge which the hon the Minister offered to have not only a constructive debate in this House but also a constructive debate during the election campaign which is upon us. I would like to put to him a variety of things which need to be debated objectively and constructively.

How do we deal with poverty in South Africa and the perceived income and wealth gaps? How do we create the jobs and the other gainful activity which are needed in order to fight poverty? Let us debate that in a constructive manner. Let us debate the issue of the infringement of dignity of other people in South Africa in respect of the remaining apartheid legislation and practices. Let us debate and discuss it. Let us see how we deal with it.

Let us debate and discuss how we allay the fears of the future which so many people have in South Africa—the very fear of change which people have. How do we allay those fears? How do we achieve by peaceful means an acceptable response to the demands and needs for participation by all in the government of the country? Let us debate it realistically and constructively.

How do we deal for instance with the consequences of the actions which adversely affect stability, the economy and the prospects of peaceful solutions? How do we deal with the exploitation of situations in South Africa by politicians and groups inside and outside of South Africa for the fulfilment of their own ambitions and their own secret agendas? How do we deal with that?

How we deal with and achieve efficiency in the executive? How do we deal with the status of the legislature and the general standards of behaviour in the public and private sectors which are appropriate and acceptable for this country of ours?

How do we in fact ensure that the rule of law is maintained in South Africa at the same time that law and order is maintained? We cannot sacrifice the rule of law, neither can we sacrifice law and order.

Lastly, what I would like to debate, is how we can actually avoid the erosion of the centre of South African politics and bring a halt to the process of polarisation which is taking place.

Now, these are eight issues which I believe we should be able to discuss objectively. Obviously I cannot deal with them in the few minutes that are available to me. However, they are in fact interlinked, because if one deals with for example, politics and fear, one will help to maintain stability. If one deals with the question of infringements of dignity, one will in fact help to solve other problems which are directly connected to it.

The erosion of the political centre in South Africa is a matter of concern to those of us who reject the radicalism both of the left and of the right.

Any period of change brings with it the fringe groups of the left and the right—the impatient on the one hand and the reluctant on the other. This is to be expected. However, when the move is to extremism and large numbers are attracted to both poles, then is the time to show concern and to act. Reform, negotiation and change must not be hijacked by those who want a society after apartheid which does not conform to Western European style democratic, constitutional and economic systems, and wish to impose one-party radical ultra-leftist systems. Caution or conservatism must not become ultra-rightwing reactions which will precipitate conflict and produce a regime which is not receptive to reform and which will, in fact, precipitate violence.

While not agreeing with them, one can understand the feelings of people who fear the consequences of repealing laws which they feel should remain. However, one cannot understand or tolerate the behaviour of people who attach a hangman’s noose to another person’s home and write on the walls of his home words which are offensive to any decent human being. What is more, they accompany all this with threats! [Interjections.] What is even more remarkable is that the people who perpetrate these acts are surprised that others find these deeds offensive. They have no concern for the feelings and emotions of the victims of their actions.

In the world’s dictionary Boksburg has become a word for unacceptable conduct and a symbol of reaction to a process of peaceful change. Certainly what is happening in Boksburg and other towns is no different to what is happening in a hundred or more other local authorities. Certainly the White voters of Boksburg, Brakpan and other places gave the CP a mandate. We should not have been surprised at their actions. However, have those who have put the slow process of discrimination removal into reverse, thought of the impact of their actions on those who have rejected violence as a means of change and who have been prepared at some risk to their persons and property to participate in the so-called system?

The representatives of the victims of these retrogressive actions sit in this Chamber and participate in this debate; and the future of our country is to be determined at a negotiating table at which they are asked by the Government to take their seat.

I ask if this is the atmosphere in which negotiation can best be conducted. Does this help to maintain the strength of the centre in the political scene in South Africa?

There are many things that must be said about the centre and the reality of what is happening in South Africa. I, for example, have no objection to discussions to persuade others to give up violence, and thereafter, when violence is no longer a factor, to sit down at a table for true negotiation.

To bring about peace, whether it is merely a truce or a permanent cessation of hostilities, talks are necessary, but perhaps those talks should be without the glare of publicity.

Whatever the excitement or the intellectual stimulus is of talking about new laws and constitutions, it is peace that is paramount and which needs to be achieved first and violence that needs to be rejected. Why do we not discuss both laws and constitutions and economic systems with those who are prepared to participate in the system? That is more important. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to endorse all the congratulations and good wishes expressed here. I also want to thank the hon the Minister of Law and Order, in particular for the prompt action and the investigation undertaken on Monday after the shooting at Firgrove.

In his opening address the Acting State President said, inter alia:

I am glad to hear this statement, because indirectly it gives us an indication that this is an admission that we do not have a democratic system at present.

By implication it tells us that the system we are adopting now, is unacceptable to most people in South Africa. However, It is such a pity, however, that one must still be saddled with schools of thought such as that dispoused by the hon member for Overvaal yesterday when he said that each group must have its own Parliament. How is it possible for us to have a Greek, a Jewish, a Xhosa and a Zulu Parliament? There is not enough space for all the parliaments they envisage. It is an unthinkable situation which they are proposing.

This then must lead in South Africa to realise that the CP definitely does not have the solution to this country’s problems, and that we shall simply have to ignore them in the future. [Interjections.]

It has been repeatedly stated throughout this entire week that we must achieve unanimity, and that we must do so without being prescriptive. However, I have a problem with this. How is it possible for us to achieve unanimity without being prescriptive if, at the outset, the one party tells the other one that a certain item is non-negotiable. Then we are, of course, already being prescriptive. I want to refer hon members to incidents such as the one which took place last Monday in the Strand. A so-called Coloured school, which was erected in 1957, remained in existence until June 1987. As a result of the fact that the senior secondary school in the Strand was full to overflowing, 284 Std 6 pupils who were in Std 5 last year, had to be transferred to the school they had been using until very recently. What happened then? White youths with pellet-guns shot the windows to smithereens. They shattered the windows with stones. They overturned the cupboards. And then one of them had the audacity to go inside and tell the teacher in charge: “Get these things of yours out of here”, referring to the Coloured children who were sitting there. When the night-watchman drove them off, one of them had the further audacity to fetch his father who made the following promise: “We are going to beat you all up.” [Interjections.]

I want to make something very clear to hon members. I am so very sorry that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is not here, but I am inviting him, together with Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche, to come with me on Tuesday night at eight o’clock to Somerset West and to see what the parents of 284 unsatisfied children look like.

He can go there and explain things to the people. It is easy to preach to the converted, but the time has come for the hon the Minister to explain his so-called story to the people who are really affected by all this. He must stop going backwards into the future with a Lee-Metford over his shoulder.

This challenge stands, and I should like to hear in good time what the reaction to it is, so that I can make the necessary arrangements. Fortunately the hon the Minister of Law and Order has now prohibited them from bringing their weapons with them, but they are quite safe. They have nothing to be worried about.

The hon the Minister of National Education delivered an impressive speech in which he stated, among other things, that he advocated greater realism and reasonableness. I think that if we want to understand the realism and reasonableness of the South African situation, then the time has come for somebody here in South Africa to tell us where we are heading. The time has come for us to stop talking in circles and to say what we envisage for the future. We musLAot continually talk about the future which holds out hope for us and we must not talk about moving fearlessly into the future, because I am afraid that at this pace we shall reach a stage at which we shall no longer even know where the future is.

Somebody must tell us where we are heading. If the hon the Minister intends scrapping the Population Registration Act—the parts that are discriminatory—let him make a start and say so. Say it loud and clear so that those who are afraid of it can begin to accept it. Hon members must remember that a great fuss was made about the pass laws which were scrapped, and today everyone is used to the situation and they are all satisfied. Nobody died, the sea is still blue and here we are today seated in this Parliament.

Somebody must tell us where we are heading. The most important aspect is that when this person—or persons—tells us where we are heading, he must also tell us when we are going to be leaving. Talking here is not going to help us. They say a cock crows with its eyes closed because it knows the tune by heart. I am afraid that in the future hon members will stand here and, without preparing any speech, say what they have said over the years. It will be time-worn rhetoric, which will no longer make any impression on anyone.

We are gathered here. We must get together at a round table conference, draw up an agenda and begin with a specific law. We must give ourselves a certain period in which to do this, so that we know what we are doing.

There is no more time to fumble around in the dark. I find it very symbolic that a certain group’s festivities were held at Donkerhoek. This is, in my opinion, what the future holds. It is dark, because there is no agenda on the table, and nobody is telling us when we are going to make a start.

I want to tell hon members in the ultra-right camp that it is a generalisation to think that one’s own standpoint is always the only correct one. They must be careful. If they are the only people who are ever right, I have a major problem. One day they are going to be very lonely up there in heaven.

Mr Chairman, the NP, and in particular its caucus, has a history of efficient democracy. The NP caucus has done what it had to do, and I had the singular privilege of being a part of it. The NP caucus gave its decision and, as always, thereafter the NP once again uniformly closed ranks and tackled its future task. That is also my attitude. My chief leader will find me where he wants me to be. [Interjections.]

From an economic and financial point of view this is a very interesting debate, because the hon the Acting State President thought fit to include very little about the economy in his speech. We had a great deal to give him, but as the hon member for Vasco says, a well-oiled machine does not make any noise.

The hon the Acting State President, as I said, included very little. Throughout this entire meeting, which is now in its third day of debate, it has also been thought fit to give very little attention to the economy. On behalf of my colleagues who are also active in this field, and also on behalf of all our advisors, I say thank you very much for the compliment.

What about next week?

Yes, we shall have enough time in the financial debates that lie ahead. That is, in fact, true. I think that this is such an important debate that if it were really a noisy machine, someone would have complained a great deal more than they have up to now.

We did, of course, have a few references to the economy—not in this debate, it is true. I want to remind the hon chief spokesman on finance for the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly of what he said in Finance Week, because we are going to discuss this at great length in the financial debates. There he said that he accused the Government of socialism. We have heard that old story before, but because it is now politically convenient to accuse the Government of socialism, because then one also links up all kinds of things to socialism, the definition of socialism has had to be changed to fit in with the view those hon members have of the economy. In the article in Finance Week of 25 January the hon member said that he defined socialism as “excessive redistribution of income”. Please note, “excessive redistribution of income”. Not simply “redistribution of income”, but “excessive”, while the Oxford Dictionary, which is certainly authoritative, defines it as follows:

That is the correct definition, but in its wisdom the CP wants to link us to the socialism bogy and has now redefined socialism. But they say “excessive redistribution of income”, because they know that in its system of taxation any civilised country has a so-called progressive system of taxation, so that one asks the more prosperous individuals for a larger contribution for the financing of general services than one asks from the poor.

Any civilised country does that, and in a certain sense that is also so-called “redistribution of income”. When the hon member, however, said “excessive redistribution of income”, I was reminded of the chap who was really enjoying himself at a reception where he was dancing with a girl. After a while the girl asked him: “Tell me, aren’t you married?” He replied: “Yes, a little bit.” [Interjections.] The definition “redistribution of income” is a bogy with which the CP, in its propaganda, repeatedly tries to link up the NP. They have to define it as “excessive”, however, because they know they will never get away with a tax system which cannot, to some extent, be defined in those terms. In other words, it is not a principle. Once more it is simply a glib view; if someone tells one this is too much, one replies that it is too little or enough. Likewise, if someone says it is too little, one says the opposite.

This brings me to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. The hon member also has that attitude and standpoint. He has thought fit to give us a licking, or to try to give us a licking, on the strength of inflation figures. I do not, however, know which of his advisers gave him the inflation figures. If he had wanted to give us a licking, he could have referred to last year’s average figures which are consistently higher than the figures he used. He could have done that, because normally one uses the average annual figures. If one wanted to move a little closer to present trends, however, one would use the month-to-month figures, or rather the December figures. In that case the figures would have been considerably less than the figures the hon member used.

In other words, the only conclusion I can draw is that the hon member wants to give us a licking, but he cannot even choose the right whip with which to do so. He chooses one somewhere in the middle. I could not find these figures. I do not know where they come from. If he had to govern the country, how would he ever choose the correct policy? What figures would he believe?

As far as the inflation rate is concerned, there is also a very interesting thing the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly did. He conveniently omitted one of the factors weighing most heavily in the inflation formula. He gave a great deal of attention to food and subdivisions of this category, but the food package’s weight in the inflation formula is 23,2%. Housing is almost at that level. It is 22,5%, but he does not say anything about housing. In the first 11 months of 1988 housing costs increased by an average of only 6,4%. I want to ask the hon member: Is a suppressed truth not the same as a deliberate untruth? [Interjections.] The perspective he created was therefore a fundamentally untrue and distorted perspective. That is the way that man conducts himself in South Africa, a man whom many of his fellow party members look up to for South Africa’s salvation. He is the one who must give us a vision for the future, one who now attempts to adopt an authoritative standpoint here, as a leader of an official opposition, and yet does not have recourse to the whole truth. That is how we have come to know him, because I want to quote more of what he said. In his speech—I have the unedited version of Hansard here—he said the following on the strength of the hon the Acting State President’s statement about “past pressures on our country have strengthened us not weakened us. They have increased our sense of purpose and resolve, not diminished it.” A wonderful quotation.

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly said:

He then quoted Dr Chester Crocker, as follows:

Now this is his point:

I do not know whether Dr Chester Crocker said that, but if he did, what it meant was that when the USA introduced sanctions against South Africa, and we lost a market valued at more than R1 billion—which is an off-the-record figure—we replaced it with other markets elsewhere within a period of a few weeks.

That is what that meant. That is why, when the Americans realised that, they tried to adopt their anti-apartheid legislation to force other countries to adopt the sanctions policy. What I am saying is that we replaced those markets within a few days, and my colleague and bench-mate, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, and I are equally frustrated about that, because we are asking why we did not have those markets in the first place. That is what Dr Chester Crocker said, but the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly did not say that. He said:

He then quoted a second source. He said:

What did this person mean? He was not speaking of hand-outs. He was not speaking of economic resources which we had at our disposal and could share with Africa on a hand-out basis. Africa has had enough of hand-outs. He was referring to the fact that we had the expertise and the free-enterprise system in our market, that we had a sophisticated infrastructure, that we had a sophisticated financial marketing system, etc. That is what he was referring to. Here comes the point now, merely by way of background information:

It was the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who said that:

In other words, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly actually has a thing about reform. He adopts a standpoint reflecting his opposition to reform. He tries to make the voters out there believe that this country does not need the kind of reform this Government has adopted for the country. [Interjections.]

During this long argument of his, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said: “…if we are really so self-sufficient …”. First he said “So strong is the economy …”and then he used the word “self-sufficient”.

†In other words, he equates a strong economy with a self-sufficient economy.

*If that is what the hon member’s concept is of what a strong economy and a self-sufficient economy are, there are difficulties ahead for the country. The point of the argument is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is trying to make South Africans believe that it is unnecessary to reform because this country can stand alone.

How many times have I not found this point in CP propaganda, and how many times have I not heard, from political platforms, that this country can stand alone? If it is his personal view that economically this country can stand alone in the world, and if this is what his advisers are telling him, he is grossly misleading this country.

In the past I have made the point, and it is true, and we on this side—the Government side—of the House must concede that in his personal capacity and in his political capacity that hon member has a degree of credibility in this country. He does. He and his party marshalled several thousand votes. In other words, there are people who believe him. As chief leader of his party there must be people who are his followers, and those who are not his followers, who believe him when he suggests that this country can stand alone.

I make the categorical statement that economically this country cannot stand alone, and such a statement is a deception! If he cannot oppose reform—and that is his view of things, as this Government is implementing it—on the basis of a workable alternative, he is not going to mislead the South African public by telling them that economically they can remain just the way they are because they are unassailable. I want to tell hon members this: I think that in placing that standpoint on record he has done South Africa an extreme disservice.

†First of all, I should like make some reference to what the hon the leader of the PFP said. What I find quite remarkable from a seasoned politician and from a person with a very considerable and respected business background, and I daresay also—I presume—very substantial back-up and support when it comes to financial and economic debating, is that in so many instances in his speech—his first speech in Parliament—he availed himself of a number of popular slogans which, through the influence of several members of the media, have in many respects become cliches. He also availed himself of certain statements which bear no relation to the reality of South Africa’s economy.

I do not mean this on a personal basis, but I had really thought that from this hon leader of the PFP we would now be able to receive in this Parliament a very substantial and constructive contribution. Nevertheless it would appear—if I am not correct, I should appreciate it if in the many financial debates that we are going to have, the hon member would correct me—that the hon member does not understand that this country cannot be compared to modern industrialised countries. When he made reference to inflation figures he inferred that we should be compared to our trading partners. We cannot possibly be compared to our trading partners in this respect. This is so because we must be compared against the economic performance of those countries with whom we compete.

Our trading partners are highly developed industrialised countries with mature populations. It is terribly difficult to obtain a position there as a student for one of the professions whereas in this country we have a desperate need in so many professions. In those countries the population can be relied upon to act according to certain unwritten rules and regulations. If one makes a certain regulation or follows a certain policy line one can expect one’s people to act accordingly.

*I want to mention a very good example. When this country began to appear on the international arms embargo list 20 years ago, we could make a law and, by way of legislation, create structures allowing people to take action to counter that threat. When the oil boycott was imposed on us, we made laws to generate and administer the funds for us, and we stockpiled massive supplies of oil. When the physical threat against this country became very acute, our colleagues entrusted with defence came to this Parliament requesting a period of national service of two years and national service up to a higher age limit. By means of a law we could tell someone: You will now take this gun and do what is necessary to ward off this onslaught. And how successfully did we not do so. By means of various Acts and various measures we could succeed in “programming” or arranging people’s conduct in such a way that we could ward off that particular onslaught.

Since 1 September 1985, however, this country has been functioning without an international banker. I do not want to argue about the underlying reasons for that now. Let me concede at once that there were also an enormous number of political implications which helped to give rise to that situation. Where it was then necessary from a financial point of view, we have now passed that stage, but we still find ourselves without a foreign banker. How many ordinary people in South Africa would ever be able to buy a house or a car without negotiating a loan? How many businesses could exist without an overdraft facility? They would not be able to exist.

What country can, economically speaking, function optimally without an international banker? That is how we have to administer our own affairs. We cannot make a law to solve that problem. We cannot manufacture a printing press to print dollars! We cannot pass a law preventing John Citizen from buying imported articles. We can make them so expensive that he complains about it, but he is still free to buy them.

Economics is a science of conduct. People cannot be programmed. So without the help of palpable laws, and without help stemming from our ability to mobilise people in advance for a specific task, since 1 September 1985 we have had to try to administer the country’s economy in such a way that we could ward off this international onslaught against us. It is a sophisticated onslaught which is still being waged against us.

How do we do this? What do we do? The truth is that we must administer the country in such a way that we continually generate a surplus on the current account of the balance of payments. The economy must therefore continually underperform! We therefore cannot get the economic growth rate in the country beyond a certain ceiling which is being forced upon us unless we make the structural changes we are making at present. It is impossible. I put it to the hon member that this economy, seen in its totality, firstly functions as a Third World economy when one views its needs. This economy also functions as a beleaguered economy, as the hon member for Barberton rightly said. We are in a state of siege. We do not have any international bankers. We run enormous risks. Every month we clutch our hands to our hearts when the time comes to settle our foreign obligations. And yet we have managed to do so. Since that date we have paid out, from this country, no less than R25 billion.

The hon the leader of the CP says that we can stand alone. [Interjections.] He says we can stand alone. That is, after all, the implication. [Interjections.] Now he comes along again and says he did not say so. [Interjections.] It is no use arguing with him. The simple truth of the matter is that in this international debt situation we have only one recourse, and that is to meet our obligations. Secondly, we have only one recourse as far as the future is concerned, and that is to administer our economy in such a way as to enable us to meet further obligations. On this basis we must renegotiate next year.

It is surely obvious that this must have an influence on the growth potential of the country. I have frequently said so, and I want to repeat it. I want to ask the hon member whether he will not admit that I am right when I say that this country’s economy is like an eight-cylinder car which is only permitted to run on two cylinders. We really have managed to do so.

Just as national servicemen make sacrifices to ward off the onslaught against the country, just as their parents make sacrifices to ward off the onslaught by giving the country the services of those national servicemen, and just as we, as taxpayers, make sacrifices by watching billions of rands of our paid wealth being converted into oil, we must likewise expect to make sacrifices to ward off this sophisticated onslaught against South Africa as well.

What is the primary sacrifice we must make? It lies in our acceptance of the fact that we can no longer grow at the same rate we have grown in the past. The next question, however, is: But to what extent can we grow? I am prepared to reiterate today—and everyone can make his own calculations—that between 2% and 3% is the maximum possible sound level of our growth. That is too little by far, and we have not accepted it. I am saying this specifically for the benefit of certain commentators who, from platform to platform, go around saying that we have accepted this as a given fact and are now sitting crying somewhere in a corner because we can only achieve a growth rate of 2,5%. That is a ridiculous statement. We have not accepted that and are doing something about it. I have already said something about that, and we can discuss it again.

Surely that is something which has a stranglehold on the economy. A few years ago we nevertheless had a real growth rate of 1%. Thereafter it was 2%, and last year it was 3%. This year we again look forward to a positive growth rate. If their are commentators in this country or in this House who do not notice this achievement, let me say that there are experts abroad, to whom one can listen and who have the benefit of viewing this matter at a distance, who have perceived this enormous achievement on our part.

We too infrequently tell one another that this is an enormous achievement. We must also thank all the people who have, in the process, paid a price. If this economy does not grow as it ought to grow, it means that our revenue is not what it ought to be. This then means that we are taxing our people more heavily than we would like to do. It then means, too, that we cannot meet certain needs of the developing communities— and here there are representatives of communities which really have dire needs. In these circumstances everyone in South Africa must make a sacrifice.

The sacrifices required as a result of this onslaught are no less painful than those required by virtue of the physical onslaught against South Africa. It is, to a certain extent, tragic and sad when, in trying to conduct a meaningful debate about what can take place in the economic sphere, within the framework of these limitations, we do not take note of those fundamental non-variables.

There is a further point I want to make. Look at what has happened to the gold price. The gold price is not the alpha and omega of our economy, but it weighs very heavily indeed when it comes to our exports. Look at the present level of the gold price. Is there anyone in the House, or amongst our many advisers or critics out there, who can tell us exactly what the gold price is going to do? In a few weeks’ time my advisers and I, with the support and the approval of the Government, must present the country with a budget in which that variable—and is it not a variable!—plays a cardinal role. In this process one must take note of that additional obstacle.

Another obstacle we cannot get away from is that of the enormous population growth. Where are we going to get the wherewithal to give the growing number of children at school the necessary education? Where are we going to get all the houses or all the hospital services? These are tremendous demands being made on our economy, a typically developing economy which, in this respect, is indeed a Third World economy. Can the commentators, people in positions in which they ought to know, not take note of this too?

We are functioning in a sanctions milieu. We must devise all kinds of plans for the sale of our products, and this makes them more expensive. I do not want to elaborate on that any further.

We have spent much more than a billion rands on the droughts. Surely that is a tangible fact. One must deduct that amount from what one would have had available. How much did we not spend on the floods? Those are all aspects which seriously restrict our ability to create growth. Those are the facts.

Apart from the fact that we are, in fact, achieving maximum growth, we have also diminished the inflation rate over the past few years. Even though we are walking on a knife-edge as far as inflation is concerned, we are going into the red at international level and must make every possible effort to support our exchange rate. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly referred to that. We have reduced our inflation rate. Two years ago it was 18%. It has now been reduced by one third.

Not only have we had the temerity to grow in these difficult circumstances in which we were supposed to perish, but we have also reduced our inflation rate. Our interest-rate pattern is not disproportionately high. Look at the real interest rate; deduct inflation and examine it. What was it not supposed to have been, and what is it not in other countries! I have the figures here for other countries. We can only say that we are grateful for the way in which the South African public have co-operated, i e in such a way as to help us overcome these problems.

Then the hon the leader of the PFP comes along and says that the public sector is unproductive and that the Government is appointing armies of “pen-pushers”. Let me tell him—with the utmost respect for him as a person—that both those statements are untrue. They are untrue.

I refuse to accept without qualification that the public sector is unproductive. That is simply not true. I am prepared to measure up any person close to me against any person in the private sector. There is one major difference we would immediately be able to pinpoint. Those in the private sector get at least four times as much as my advisers get. That is the biggest difference between them. That is the truth. I personally object to everyone in the public sector simply being dismissed as being unproductive. It is not true, and I am not prepared to accept it. I think the hon member owes the public sector more than is reflected in such a statement. He also said that we appointed armies of “pen-pushers”. That is not true either. What shocks me is that this data is available and can therefore be checked. The number of so-called “pen-pushers” has decreased. I shall ask my colleague to ask the commission, of its own volition, to make that data available to the hon member. Those are the facts.

The hon member made one valid point. We must, however, also disagree about the grounds for his submission. The hon member said that the deficit before borrowing, in other words the difference between our revenue and the budget, must decrease to 3% as quickly as possible. That is our endeavour, and we have also made it our goal. I want to clarify our goal so that there is no misunderstanding in the future. That 3% which we use is not primarily because the IMF has furnished it as a guideline; we have identified it as a goal because it coincides, more or less, with the level of capital expenditure in our budget. That is why we are striving to achieve that goal, and the hon member will perhaps be surprised to know how quickly we are making progress along those lines. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I too wish to take the opportunity of wishing the hon the State President a speedy and complete recovery. There are many matters in respect of which we are critical of his failure to get to grips properly with the reform in South Africa, and to lead our country away from the darkness of apartheid into the promise of peaceful prosperity. The fact remains, however, that of all the leaders of the White oligarchy in South Africa— this includes General Smuts—the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, did most to lead to South Africa away from naked racism.

Dissatisfied we are, but unappreciative we are not, and so my best wishes to him mingle with yours.

His successor has an arduous task. The further reforms which the hon the State President, together with his then lieutenant, the present hon Acting State President, implicitly promised to the nation cannot now be further delayed, let alone be denied.

While it is true that by overwhelming force and by the abrogation of vital aspects of the rule of law the seemingly pervasive protagonists of violent revolution have been held at bay, they have changed their tactics. The ANC realised that “necklaces” and “boxes of matches” and indiscriminate killing alienate the several Western governments and many international idealists who give them moral and financial support. In the same way that many Afrikaner Nationalists now employ “British diplomacy” to befuddle their auditors, the ANC now tries to present a visage of democracy and reasonableness.

By dint of an imaginative international propaganda campaign, helped by SACP connections worldwide, and by reason of the very apartheid policies of the Nationalist Government, the ANC has not only elbowed out the PAC and the BPC, it directly challenges Inkatha in Natal. It does present itself as the alternative government in South Africa.

The bumbling, fumbling handling of the continued immoral detention of Mandela and others like him has had one dramatic result. The name Mandela is now almost a worldwide household name. If the present Government of South Africa goes on alienating the majority of South Africans, it will drive even the reluctant Black moderates into the willing arms of the ANC. As it stands, so bankrupt of democratic ideals is this Government that it has made an avowed adversary of the previously co-operative moderates in the Labour Party.

Either the Government takes swift steps to win over the majority of all our peoples, which necessarily includes our Black fellow-South Africans, or the ANC in the fullness of time will supervene. That is a stark reality.

The CP gains and AWB excesses are but temporary aberrations in the body politic. They may loom large now but in reality they represent the final stages of racial supererogation. They represent White supremacy in extremis. They cannot and they will not endure.

And thus there are really three choices before South Africa. A continuance of apartheid, concluding in a cataclysm with a communist phoenix arising from the ashes; or a Lancaster-type or a 435 solution leading by negotiation to elections in which the ANC, the PAC and the BPC are also electoral participants; or an urgent programme of reconciliation with all groups of all races within South Africa leading to a non-racial democracy which effectively outflanks and by-passes the forces of violent revolution.

Even if those who support the NP and their elder brothers the CP want to commit hara-kiri, the rest of us South Africans have an abiding interest in the future of our country.

The re-emphasis by the NP of the grotesque monstrosity known as “own affairs” which perpetuates racial divisions, is ominous. It contradicts the rather nice sounding, almost excellent speech which the hon the Minister of National Education made here this afternoon. Own affairs is a contradiction of a society free of racism. Not only is that route destructive, but it is dishonest. For if the truth be told, they who are mis-called Coloureds spring from all three races of the world. And so logically, they should dominate all the own affairs administrations if there is any honesty in that concept.

Coming to immediate concerns, and as the hon member Dr Zach de Beer, my national leader, has correctly pointed out, it is the very system of racistic apartheid that has spawned corruption.

It is the attitude of smug supererogation; the swaggering arrogance born of being too long in power; the secrecy bred by the abrogation of the rule of law; the arrogation of authority to rule by decree and by diktat; and the neglect of ordinary decencies this promoted. It is these factors that have led to the spate of corrupt practices by those in Government that have been exposed. Is there more? We must hope not. I doubt whether there are any more Rajbansis in the Cabinet.

Nearly four years ago I dared to request that appropriate action be taken against politicians engaged in questionable conduct. When challenged by the hon member for Arena Park himself to name the miscreant, I obliged. For this I was reviled and ridiculed. However, Mr Justice James in his report has amply vindicated those of us who consistently demanded a full-scale inquiry.

Corruption has many guises. It is the corruption of the soul wrought by apartheid that is the most worrying. Corrupt practice by anyone is reprehensible. When engaged in by a person in authority, it is disgustingly disgracefully so. When a government engages in a policy rejected by the vast majority of the populace, and yet proclaims adherence to democracy, the very word democracy is corrupted.

There is this insidiously debilitating disease called apartheid which corrupts the very soul. We pray every day for divine support for the just government of men and yet, under the baleful and malevolent influence of apartheid, gross injustice is perpetuated. Maybe it is to the credit of NP supporters that they no longer flaunt, but actually appear apologetic over the perpetuation of apartheid.

Nevertheless, the disease of racism remains rampant under the guise of apartheid or of separate development and “own affairs”. The degrading system of racial discrimination based on race— which the hon member for Kuruman, with respect, correctly decries and for which I salute him—this system upon which the policy of apartheid was built and which sustains it, is inescapably evil and destructively dysfunctional.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly quite accurately states that his party seeks merely to apply the racistic legislation enacted against civilised opposition at the behest of the NP.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly thus puts the Government to shame, which it can only fail to feel were it endowed with the elephanto-rhinoceros-crocodile hide of its erstwhile Cabinet Minister.

Yet what is the plaintive plea of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition (Assembly)? He expresses the fears of cultural and ethnic minorities, especially the Afrikanervolk, of domination and possible decimation at the hands of any ethnic political majority.

They have fears and I accept that such fears are honestly held even though I do not believe that they are justified. I cannot and do not however deny that what has happened and is happening in many parts of the world, in Africa and Asia and in Australia and parts of southern and eastern Europe and in parts of North America, are not reassuring to cultural and ethnic minorities elsewhere.

This is reality which no sensible person ignores. But fear is a wrong basis for policy-making. Fear corrodes. It corrodes the heart and the soul. It inhibits proper judgement. Fear is often irrational and always makes for instability. It creates more social inwardness and in-group mentality and instils greater ethnocentrism and social and cultural chauvenism. Fear is destructive of those who harbour it.

As the poet T S Eliot declares:

Dust unto dust. But Eliot also evoked the onomatopoeic Sanskrit words Datta and damyata with their sounds of thunder and a promise of rain, and thus of redemption.

If only this NP Government which in 1985 showed so much promise, but in 1988 displayed bankruptcy of ideas, can take courage and move the country towards the rain-soaked land pregnant with promise for the future, there can be hope for us all.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has fears of the domination by a majority of a minority. This is interesting. Did he and his CP colleagues not realise that the evil and pernicious system of apartheid which they support amounts to evil domination of the majority by or at the instance of a minority?

Why did he not pause and reflect when he tried, from a position of political power, to impose his minority language upon people of the majority in Soweto? Can anyone honestly justify the imposition as official languages of the White minority of their own languages upon the majority linguistic group, namely the Zulus? Why is Zulu not an official language of the country if the unctuous incantations of the so-called representatives of minorities are not merely inane excuses for the perpetuation of racism?

Nevertheless, hatred corrodes. Yet, the ANC, the UDF and segments of the AWB and the CP appear to trade in hatred. As the racists of Boksburg have already found, that is a sharp double-edged weapon that can cause greater hurt to the wielder thereof.

Unless the racistic policies inherent in apartheid are abandoned, Christian principles will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of racistic expediency. What price then the much vaunted White-Westem-Christian civilisation? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, with regard to the emotional attack made by the hon the Minister of Defence on the concept of a non-racial democracy in South Africa, I merely want to say that, contrary to what he alleged, this is not the vision of communism, but in fact the vision of the overwhelming majority of South Africans, and even the vision of the majority of hon members in this House. Because this vision is threatening the Government’s monopoly of power, it is employing wide-spread repression, while the Security Forces are using unprecedented violence to destroy those people who want to realise this vision. In this regard, I should like to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Minister of Justice today how many of the longterm political detainees in the Diepkloof prison were admitted to the Johannesburg hospital today and yesterday. There is great cause for concern as they entered the sixteenth day, and therefore a critical stage, of their hunger strike today.

The Government’s extremely far-reaching repression has denied the majority of South Africans the opportunity of acquiring their rights in a peaceful and constitutional way. Government action is forcing more and more people to resort to the use of counter violence against the violence of the State. The lamentable escalation of this violence is effectively illustrated by the large number of high treason and/or terrorist cases that we have in South Africa today.

While both the SA Defence Force and Umkhonto we Sizwe admit that we are at war, I want to emphasize today that it is not a war against a foreign aggressor, but a civil war in which South Africans are killing other South Africans. The soldiers of Umkhonto we Sizwe do not come from Moscow. They come from Soweto, Langa, Guguletu …. The fact is that this civil war can only be terminated if the political disputes which underlie the conflict are resolved. In the same way that the civil war in Namibia came to an end because Swapo is now being given an opportunity to participate in the political process on a free and equal basis, the civil war in South Africa can only be stopped if the ANC and others are free to participate in the political dispensation of the country.

The Government’s refusal to find a political solution to this escalating conflict is a heinous, irresponsible act whereby the lives of our young men are being toyed with. I am including my own son, who has just begun his military service. How many young more people must die in this country, on both sides, White and Black, before this Government will come forward with a political dispensation that will truly involve all South Africans in the government of this country, and that will not force those people who advocate a peaceful solution to do what no-one wants to do, namely to turn to violence and to say that if you deny me a peaceful, democratic alternative, you give me no choice but to resort to violence? The solution is political. It rests in the hands of the Government. War and shooting are definitely not the solution.

The hon member for Claremont will pardon me if I do not react in detail to his speech, but I shall refer to it here and there.

This debate has emphasized yet again the crux of the reform problem in South Africa. It is very clear to me that the Government and the NP are at the centre of this problematical situation. After 41 years in power the Government has become the worst victim of policy decisions taken over these past 41 years. I believe the NP’s dilemma is that it would like to break away from apartheid, but it wants to do this in a painfully careful way because it does not want to become entirely estranged from the White voters to whom it has given such unqualified privileges during the past 41 years. We therefore find that, instead of the NP being a committed proactive agent of reform, it has become paralysed by right-wing White voters and reduced to being a helpless reactive apologist for reform.

I believe we have a government which secretly realizes the urgency, the necessity and the inevitability of reform in this country, but instead of playing a leading role in this process of reform, the NP has chosen the way of crisis management and adaptation in this situation.

The practical consequences of this dilemma are best illustrated by the Boksburg situation. We find that Government speakers in this debate sanctimoniously criticise hon members of the CP for the way in which they are applying the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, while they remain evasively silent about repealing this Act.

I should now like to come to a quote from the hon the Acting State President’s opening address which is a total paradox in relation to what has happened in this debate. On page one of his speech he said:

Here “full civil rights” are stressed, but what full civil rights do 80% of the people in this country enjoy while apartheid legislation which discriminates in respect of skin colour still exists? What full rights does a person have when he cannot even live in a house which he can afford and could purchase for R80 000? This is happening while Portuguese, Greek and Chinese immigrants can live in the best parts of the country.

This makes a mockery of civil rights, not to mention full civil rights. If we want to make contact in this House, the NP will have to give us an honest answer to this question. What do they see as full civil rights for people of colour?

If South Africa can negotiate at the highest level in various cities of the world with the communists of Cuba, Angola and Russia, and make this sacrifice for the sake of peace and stability in South Africa, why can we not negotiate with fellow South Africans within the ANC for the sake of peace and solutions for South Africa?

If South Africa can avoid giving military assistance to a Marxist state like Mozambique, and if our head of state can pay a visit to that country’s head of state, why then this selective morality about speaking with communists?

In essence there is no difference between Unita’s struggle in Angola against the Angolan Government, and the ANC’s struggle against the South African Government. Yet we find that the hon the Minister of Defence views Unita’s struggle as legitimate, while the ANC is dismissed out of hand as a bunch of terrorists. This is selective morality. This is all that can be said about it. If we want to make contact and reach compromises in this House, we must strive to extend the prospects of peace in this country, which are very limited at the moment.

All well-meaning members in this House therefore have a great responsibility to search with more dedication, sincerity and consistency for solutions to this country’s problems. We shall have to act as a bridge between the past, the present and the future of this country. We shall have to act as a bridge between continuity and change, and between traditions and modernization. One of the most fundamental characteristics of life is change, renewal and adaptation. People naturally rebel against change, however, because they feel safer with the known. All change implies necessary experimentation with the unknown and the unpredictable.

There are basically three options for change in South Africa. The first option is that of revolution. The second option is that of a military dictatorship, and the third option is that of sincere, evolutionary, economic and constitutional reform. My party recommitted itself to that option at our annual congress in Bloemfontein last year, and through this process we are aiming for full civil rights for each individual South African citizen.

Reform is, however, going to require all of us to make concessions, even concessions to the ANC. Reform will require all of us to make sacrifices. Some people will have to sacrifice more than others because they enjoy more privileges and advantages than others.

I want to conclude here by expressing the hope that there is still hope in this country, and that we will strive to be more accommodating in speaking with all South Africans in our search for solutions to this country’s problems.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sandton again stooped to the lowest level of debate possible in his speech yesterday.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member who made that comment will withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

He did so by making a vicious and unbased personal attack on me. It is another example of his known record for besmirching hon members of this House.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order that an hon member of this House should be accused of “besmirching” an hon member?

Order! I think the hon member should use another word.

It is with great sadness that I have to refer to the intemperate and scurrilous attack on my integrity as a member of Parliament by this hon member. I would like to take the opportunity of setting the record straight. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon member in this House to accuse another hon member of having made a scurrilous attack? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “scurrilous” and he may then proceed with his speech.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw that word.

I regard the Zulus—especially their King—very highly and have sent this telegram to His Majesty, King Goodwill Zwelethini Kabhekuzulu, on this day:

Has the hon member not perhaps misled Parliament with so-called facts fed to him by unnamed sources, since he has admitted in today’s press report that he was not even present at this function?

That the hon member as an attorney should rely on such malicious allegations is most perturbing, but I would like to hazard the thought that the hon member’s anger be directed at the members of his party who failed so dismally to hold the Bezuidenhout constituency which has traditionally been in the hands of the opposition since 1915. It is quite obvious that in their intensive survey of voters in my constituency the PFP were taken aback at the extent to which support for me and my party has grown dramatically, so much so that the last PFP municipal bastion in my constituency fell to my son, also a member of the NP, in the October municipal elections.

Therefore the word has gone out in PFP ranks— we are now speaking about a pending election— that my integrity must be destroyed at any cost and by any method. That the PFP chose the hon member for Sandton to do so tells us something, and the fact that this House—the dignity of which should be paramount—was misused by the hon member and his party for this vile attack is utterly repugnant and reprehensible.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order for the hon member to say that an hon member misused the situation in this House?

The hon member for Bezuidenhout may proceed. That is no point of order. [Interjections.]

The hon member’s snide and improper comments are known in this House. It is strange if he had any real and true ammunition that he should have waited for almost four months after the function to make these allegations. If he were so sure of his facts, why did he not run off yapping with excitement to his big buddies in the opposition media? I shall tell hon members the reason: No responsible newspaper would publish such scandalous and untrue allegations.

That is why I submit that the hon member for Sandton has abused the privilege that this House affords him. Lately he has not been hitting the headlines in the way that he as a media politician would like. Therefore it is quite clear that he has to rely on a mess of distorted untruths to get him some cheap political exposure at the expense of honest people.

Not only has he seen fit to drag my good name through the mud, but at the same time he must have knowingly and deliberately sought to bedevil the good relations that exist between us and the Zulu nation. Can it be in this case that the chickens of the hon member that I have referred to have finally come home to roost and that his voters realise that their representative is nothing but a bitter, frustrated person who will not hesitate to take shelter behind the privilege of this House to utter what Churchill described as “terminological inexactitudes”? Furthermore the hon member will soon no longer have a party and therefore his frustration is probably better understood.

Let me give the true facts. During November last year I was privileged to have been invited by the Johannesburg City Council to a mayoral function held in honour of His Majesty King Goodwill Zwelethini Kabhekuzulu and his entourage. I have with me the list of guests and it is interesting to note that the name of the hon member for Sandton, who knows so much about what went on at the function, does not even appear on the guest list. It is also interesting to know that five NP members of Parliament’s names do appear here and that not a single PFP member of Parliament’s name appears, which shows the PFP’s lack of regard for His Majesty King Goodwill Zwelethini Kabhekuzulu, obviously.

I was seated next to the PFP deputy mayor of a Reef town, his wife to the left of him, my wife at my right in addition to a leading church minister and his wife. There was also a Black guest seated opposite me. In accordance with a long and proud tradition of monarchy in Southern Africa, of paramount chieftancy, His Majesty had with him his crier of praises who duly uttered these. In contra-distinction to the abhorrent allegations made by the hon member for Sandton it was the PFP deputy mayor who was guilty of making disparaging, smearing and racially belittling remarks about the crier of praises. [Interjections.] The PFP deputy mayor expressed his disgust over the noise. Whereupon, in sympathy and explanation because we could not hear each other in conversation, I replied something to the effect that early kings of Europe probably also had something equivalent to a crier of praise. I made this remark to avoid further conversation and racist remarks by the deputy mayor that would certainly have upset everyone within earshot.

In no way did I reflect on the dignity of His Majesty or utter any racially motivated remarks, and I deny the other fabrications by the hon member. Some of the words quoted by the hon member do not form part of my vocabulary. I call upon the hon member for Sandton to apologise unreservedly for his attack on my integrity which, I believe, constitutes an attack on the integrity of parliamentarians and on this House. If the hon member fails to do so I challenge him to repeat his remarks outside this House, where appropriate steps will be taken. This low-level attack is typical of a party that has become desperate and one that has run out of political clout and ammunition.

Order! Will the hon member please assist me and repeat in what sense he used the word “besmirched”. In what sense was that word used at the beginning of the hon member’s speech?

Mr Speaker, it was intended to undermine and belittle or “besmirch” my integrity.

I have decided to allow the word “besmirched” as parliamentary. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, …

Order! I wish to point out to the hon member for Wentworth that the hon the Acting State President’s name on my list must receive priority and I therefore call upon him to speak. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I have in front of me the official list of speakers for the Joint Meeting from 6 to 9 February. At the bottom of the second page it clearly states: “Waarnemende Staatspresident in enige slot waar NP aangedui is.” I submit that the NP is not in slot number 56, which is the slot of the LP and I therefore submit that it would be out of order to call the hon the Acting State President at this stage.

Order! I have only one list on the Table and I am acting according to that list. I therefore call upon the hon the Acting State President to proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I do not intend to …

Order! What remark did the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central pass?

Mr Speaker, I said that I believe he wants to make tomorrow’s Press.

Order! The hon the Acting State President may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I can understand that the hon member’s inability to say something which makes news could irritate him highly. [Interjections.]

Then I am an Acting State President!

Sir, I consider it important that we refer in the debate to a specific spirit which I attempted to propagate and see to what degree we have succeeded in our debating so far, and even as members of Parliament, in being instruments or in being seen, as far as it concerns the attitude of people who really look up to us, to be devoting our time to seeking points of similarity instead of emphasising historical divisions. This generation can do nothing about the past except to learn lessons from it about what should be avoided or what should be built upon.

†It has been said and I would like to repeat this: A man that only walks where he sees the tracks of other men has never discovered anything.

*In this country all of us, regardless of our standpoints and instruments of policy of yesterday, will have to look at today according to the environment in which we live today—social, economic and constitutional, as part of the subcontinent, according to the state of our international relations. The problems of 1989 differ from those of yesterday and the day before. Because these change, it will be Parliament’s task to see whether there should be a democracy here as a solution for the country. All parties represented in this House are struggling with exactly the same problem. Obviously they have different views of the realities. That division as regards the view of the realities exists within the same party, within the same ethnic communities.

The difference in viewpoint forms part of the reality which we have to deal with. All of us are searching for solutions to the political problems of the country—in the light of the existence of diversity too. Because we are all seeking them in the light of the existence of diversity, we are all disposed to protect the rights of communities and groups. Some want to do this according to a confederational model; others want to do this according to a federal model; others want to this by partition; others want to do this in a unitary state.

The fact remains that the dialogue which we have to conduct with one another is how we define those groups. How do we define those groups which we say have to be building blocks in a future constitutional dispensation of the country? I want to emphasise that, when the Government of the day passed the Free Settlement Areas Act, when it accepted that within those areas people would live according to their choice of free association, it also accepted that a specific political system would have to develop within those areas. This means that the definition of group and community also acquired a different connotation as regards their political participation. Instead of, and I say this with the greatest respect, people who reject one form of the definition of a group entering into debate with their colleagues on an alternative, we are merely trying to humiliate and attack one another as regards our respective standpoints.

Who holds the position of power?

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives has put a fair question. He asks who holds the position of power. We all hold a position of power. We all hold a position of power. [Interjections.] Not only …

Order!

[Inaudible.]

I promise the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives that I shall not run away. We are all in a position of power. Do hon members know why? We are all in a position of power because in the first place we all have enormous power to exert influence by our presence here. We have a mighty power base which is evidenced not only in terms of the numerical power we want to exercise but which we want to exercise by the exertion of mutual influence. That is why power is not necessarily vested in written laws … [Interjections.] … and certainly power is not vested solely in the institutions of authority.

The most important question is whether our contributions have caused those people who according to us have the power to be more disposed to apply that power in broadening democracy to include other people.

Debate interrupted.

Order! I have to announce that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Assembly of the electoral division of Hillbrow owing to the resignation of Mr L de Beer with effect from 4 February 1989.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Leader of the House I move:

Agreed to.

Order! I wish to give the following ruling upon the point of order raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills on Friday.

The hon member for Lenasia Central gave notice of a motion seeking to suspend the hon member for Clare Estate from serving in the House. The hon member for Reservoir Hills, on a point of order, asked whether the Notice of Motion was in order.

My ruling on the matter is that it is parliamentary practice for such a motion to be entertained only if the grounds for seeking to suspend the member relate to actions on his part that specifically constitute contempt committed against the House as such. As the Notice of Motion does not meet that requirement, and in that respect offends against the practice of Parliament, I am unable to accept it.

Mr Chairman, with leave of the House I wish to alter Notice of Motion No 1 as it appears in my name on the Order Paper, and I move it as follows:

Agreed to.