Mr Speaker, during the past three days a very important scene has unfolded in this Chamber, and I think it is a good thing that this did, in fact, happen. Part of that scene relates to the anguish and remorse which certain hon members of Parliament and their communities experience in the light of their own experiences of specific laws.

I think it was a good thing for other hon members of Parliament also to have been able to listen to how these specific hon members have experienced the aims and the implementation of certain laws, because in doing so, I think, other hon members who have not had similar experiences must have gained some understanding of the approach adopted by those specific hon members.

For the most part it was nevertheless a scene— this is how I see it—that goes back further in time. On the other hand we have heard the voices of other people who wish to seek a new South Africa, who wish to seek other or better methods to regulate this society; and, often in spite of maliciousness and extreme emotionality, it is nevertheless a good thing for us to meet one another on these terms. If we regard it in that light, it seems to me as if this has thus far been a useful debate.

†Mr Speaker, I should like to refer to the role the Government has to play in the political development process of our country. We must understand clearly that the Government has a very important and perhaps a paramount role to play in this regard.

*Of course it is true that the Government’s first and primary responsibility towards the country and the people living in it lies in a process of governing the country—not only governing it, however, but governing it in such a way that its inhabitants can have the greatest possible measure of freedom, security and prosperity.

In the various stages of any country’s development there are consequently various degrees or levels of freedom, security and prosperity. I contend that it is only in such a set of circumstances that it is possible for us, or for any other country, to bring about meaningful democratic political change.

I want to tell the hon member Mr Lockey: Yes, pursuit of full-fledged civil rights for all people is bom of a reform policy, but is also bom of a system of factual circumstances. That set of factual circumstances is that all citizens do not yet fully possess those rights. Throughout the history of the world and of peoples we find evidence of the fact that development—including political development—can only actively take place, and take place with momentum, in an atmosphere of security, stability and order.

It is not even necessary to delve far back into the annals of history to discover this. We find the best proof of it in our own country. The best proof is to be found in the past three or four years, when unrest and terrorism welled up and the negotiating process—the political process—bogged down and frequently came to a halt.

Hordes roaming the streets committing arson and murder and setting off bombs in shopping centres and on isolated farm roads and in houses engender hate that drives people asunder.

There are welcome signs throughout the world, however, and on our own subcontinent too, of a new spirit geared to ensuring reconciliation and development and better living conditions for everyone. In conjunction with that there is also, in our own fatherland, a noticeable new sense of confidence inspiring people to reach out to one another. We must make positive use of this for the sake of our country. It is noticeable in our towns and in our cities. May this spirit be extended and may we allow it to develop and expand!

This must also take place here. It must specifically take place here because here are the leaders who not only must give impetus to the process, but who will also be responsible for its orderly progress.

The Government is drawn from the ranks of the NP, but the Government is not merely the NP. As NP it is elected by Whites to promote their interests, just as all other leaders present here are elected by their communities to represent them. The NP is also the Government, and therefore it has a greater responsibility than merely that of a political party, because as a Government it does not only, in conjunction with other institutions, govern Whites or govern for the benefit of Whites, but all the communities in our country, in fact all South African citizens. It should therefore negotiate for their rights. It does so within our country’s borders, and also for the rights and privileges of everyone on our borders, and beyond our borders.

Do hon members know what an opportunity there is to do this for the country and its people? As a result of negotiations taking place, opportunities are being created for discussion and further negotiation by, amongst other things, developing structures and processes within which this can take place.

This Parliament is a legislative body, but on the other hand it is also a body for discussion and negotiation. The President’s Council is such a structure for discussion and negotiation. There are numerous structures, at local, regional and provincial level, within which these processes are continually taking place.

At the national level—this Parliament supported that—we want to create an institution or forum for negotiation within which this discussion can be further extended. There is an opportunity for everyone who believes in negotiation and discussion to participate. There is no reason why each and every one who advocated negotiation in this debate should not come into his own in such a forum.

The only ones who will not participate are those who exclude themselves from the negotiating discussions because they do not believe in negotiation, believing rather in the handing-over of power, and demanding it under threat of terrorism and unrest.

The Government offers the entire state mechanism to support leaders in the political sphere and in the process of advancement in this field. Recently the Constitutional Development Service was specifically established. It advises the Government and also has executive functions.

Research is also done into other avenues or possibilities for development, however, and into the nature, endeavours and policies of existing political groupings within our country’s borders. The Government would like to place the benefits of these research results at the disposal of the country as a whole, so that everyone can benefit. All the research, however, all the advice from every corner of the world, and all the pressure and threats from whatever quarter, will not help one iota if the political leaders in South Africa do not meet their obligations, if they do not participate in the joint search for solutions.

I want to remind hon members of an old but valid truth. Constitutions are not first drafted and then bom. They are born of the people and then they are drafted. Africa, our continent, lies strewn with crumpled-up solutions drafted in Europe.

My endeavours, and those of the Government, are aimed at having South Africa’s future political course worked out within South Africa by its own people. I believe that all the leaders present here share this sentiment with us.

May all those who, by virtue of their adherence to terrorism and subjucating ties with foreign powers, keep themselves out of the process, find the courage to break those ties and participate in the process.

A third way in which the Government contributes to the political process of development is by identifying obstacles to reconciliation and, after having done so, eliminating them as far as possible.

Discrimination on the basis of colour or race is such an obstacle. Merely professing to oppose discrimination is not enough. What is required is actual experience.

The Government is committed to the elimination of discrimination because it cannot, in any shape or form, be justified or be deemed acceptable. Recent years have furnished examples of the elimination of obstacles, in this specific context, in the social, economic and political spheres. In saying this I am not alleging that there are no remaining aspects that still need to be removed or that we have covered the full distance on the road towards development—in human or institutional terms—but what I do contend is that no one can question the Government’s commitment to this goal.

The joint committee of the Government and the government of KwaZulu is a good example of both governments’ endeavours to give serious thought to the elimination of obstacles on the road to negotiation and their dedication to this. I should like to wish the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of Communications everything of the best in the leading role he will play there.

During this debate specific Acts have again been reviewed. These Acts are regarded as obstacles on the road to reconciliation because population groups find them to be humiliating, feel themselves to have been prejudiced by their present-day implementation and their implementation in the past, and therefore have very strong emotional objections to the continued existence of these Acts. Those who do not regard them as obstacles in the process of negotiation, do not understand the delicate process of negotiation.

On the other hand there are groups who not only demand that the Acts should be retained, but also that they should be more strictly implemented. I understand that their standpoint also has deep emotional roots because they feel that these Acts protect their community life and also the value of their properties.

Throughout our country’s history, as has been the case elsewhere in the world, people have naturally lived together and grown up in groups. In the case of people who came to South Africa from the four corners of the world at various times, those groups have, more often than not, been ethnically bom and bred. So they continued, living and governing themselves. Whenever they encroached upon one another’s living space, this regularly led to conflict or the subjugation of the one or other group.

In other parts of the world this process quite frequently led to the complete annihilation of the old inhabitants or the new arrivals. Hon members are free to look around at the countries which call themselves free.

Here amongst us, over the centuries, a more tolerant spirit has developed. Perhaps this has happened because the country is so vast, and because it is often a harsh country where people have needed each other and where various groups or communities, with their various talents, have jointly exploited the resources of the country and ensured its common welfare and prosperity.

I want to emphasize that when it is said that only one of the population groups in the country has had a hand in developing this country, it is a lie that is being propagated. The country has been developed by all its people. Therefore no one has a preferential claim to preferential treatment in this specific context.

Whatever the case may be, racial and ethnic groups have developed and grown naturally, and throughout the centuries they have been accommodated in successive political systems—within and outside the context of written laws. Many such systems first developed spontaneously and were later endorsed by laws.

Even today there are such complementary grouppolitical systems which also co-exist in our country. My contention is—I plead for understanding for this statement—that it is not, in itself, wrong or discriminatory to define members of existing groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. [Interjections.] The hon member must listen carefully to what I am saying. The employment of such a definition to promote or prejudice one or other group is racist and discriminatory and must be rejected. [Interjections.] Race and ethnicity, and also language, cultural and religious differences, are taken into account in various international constitutions, in various developmental stages of some states. At some or other stage, and in some or other form, race and ethnicity have been elements in the constitutions of countries such as Malaysia, Cyprus, Belgium and Switzerland. It is natural and inevitable, and it is accepted by the political parties in Parliament, that the results of natural group formation in our country should be the building blocks in the political development of the country. [Interjections.] Let us see whether I am correct.

Every party has a federal, confederal or consociational model in accordance with which minorities must be protected. Surely this logically means that there have to be common and mutually acceptable grounds—I would be glad if hon members would listen to this—for defining groups, after the natural process of group formation has been completed.

Voluntary association.

If the hon member will just wait a moment, I would appreciate it. I emphasise: “after” group formation has taken place, because I do not think the State should do so. Groups must do so on a voluntary basis. Subsequently it is the State’s responsibility to protect the groups that have been formed. [Interjections.] I shall also deal with that.

That being so, it is the State’s responsibility, on a statutory basis, to ensure the individual’s right to a choice of the group within which he wishes to exercise his political rights and to protect his participation.

What does this mean in practice? This means that individuals who elect—it is a choice they make— to establish their community life and find their political salvation within a specific group, are and must be entitled to do so. It also means, on the other hand, that those who elect to establish their community life and find their political salvation outside the group context should also be entitled to do so. On this basis the Government is prepared to take the initiative in finding an acceptable group definition between all the hon members of Parliament as well.

Voluntary association.

The Free Settlement Areas Act, with all the drawbacks hon members say are embodied in that Act, has already established this freedom of choice, and its practical implementation will enable us to determine the extent of the need for an associative choice. [Interjections.] The result must inevitably be that a community will be formed which does not fit into the existing group basis. A new group will then come into being voluntarily, and that group will have to be included in the constitutional equation. On this basis, I believe, we can find, for our country, a group definition which makes differentiation possible, but which eliminates discrimination, and which ensures group protection—something we all want—whilst individual rights are recognised.

I think that on this basis a group definition can be found which is based on the freedom of choice of the individual. Then group protection can take place in a manner which is reconcilable with the demands of the individual rights which we endorse and which are in accordance with international views on this matter. Then we could, I believe, find satisfactory solutions without our policy being internationally in conflict with the concept of human and individual rights.

Seen against this background, what is the trilogy of Acts which makes this a stumbling block in the negotiation process? I am referring now to the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act.

If one has listened over the years to those who have felt deeply emotionally aggrieved at those Acts, one comes to the conclusion that it is not so much the Acts that form the stumbling block, but on the one hand the way in which people experienced their purpose and implementation, and on the other the fact that in some cases they were not implemented. I want to express understanding for the great hurt caused by these Acts, particularly in Coloured and Black communities. This was not caused in cases in which the Acts were implemented to establish and to protect existing communities, but in cases in which they were utilised to break up existing communities, even though this happened with the best motives and with socially constructive results.

What about today? Of course it is true that great sorrow is still being caused today by people being dispossessed of existing rights, and not so much by existing arrangements which are being maintained. The way in which the implementation of the Acts is being experienced causes misgivings when communities are threatened, either with wilful encroachment or occupation on the one hand, or eviction or deprivation of existing rights on the other.

I maintain that the method by means of which an objective is pursued can be changed without deviating from that objective. An Act is such a method or instrument. It can be repealed or changed if it no longer effectively serves the principle. Legislation which arranges community life or political participation on a group basis are social engineering measures, and no end in itself.

If such Acts have then become insurmountable stumbling blocks in the process of political reconciliation, it is worthwhile deliberating on them— I want to emphasise the following—to determine whether it is not possible to establish other measures to make an own community life and political salvation in a group context possible, while at the same time there is or will be a choice available for the individual to find his salvation outside the group context.

In the meantime the means to achieve the objective of the protection of law and an own community life must be applied as well as is possible, no matter how deficient the system may be. It has already been stated inside and outside Parliament that the Government will continue to deal with this matter as effectively and at the same time as humanely as possible. The place where the highest authority is vested for making Acts, or repealing Acts and for amending Acts, is Parliament. I believe that the responsibility for examining the Acts rests with Parliament. I also believe that the talent to do so is assembled here, and that Parliament has developed and can develop mechanisms which make it possible for it to carry out such a task without ending up in the spotlight of public debate with all its emotionalism. The Government would like to make its contribution to eliminating the stumbling blocks on this road of reconciliation to the satisfaction of everyone.

We are members of different parties and communities. We have different fundamental standpoints. If we eventually want to succeed in finding a negotiated solution it means that we shall have to argue our standpoints with one another around a conference table. All of us will then have to learn one thing, namely that negotiation is not only a matter of persuading others to accept one’s standpoint. It also means arriving at compromises among standpoints. The sooner we begin, the better.

†In my opening address I rejected the notion that the Government’s employment of the State forces towards the maintenance of law and order can be compared to the violence perpetrated by terrorists. During the debate several references were again made to the weighing off of revolutionary violence against State or so-called structural violence. I wish to reaffirm the Government’s dedication to a just system.

Our efforts are directed and aimed at a democratic system in which all the rights and freedoms of individuals and groups are fully guaranteed.

Secondly, I want to reaffirm this Government’s policy that in the maintenance of law and order and in the protection of the lives and the property of our citizens, our forces of law should always themselves act within the limits of the law.

Tangible proof of the application of this principle is to be found in the action taken against any member of the security forces against whom evidence exists that he has exceeded these limits. [Interjections.] This is exactly where the difference lies between the Government and those responsible for acts of terror. Their stated policy is to act criminally and to kill, maim and destroy indiscriminately and lawlessly.

Those who condone such actions or find excuses for them, and those who try to play off their actions against the State’s law enforcement actions, are espousing a policy of lawlessness and criminality.

The South African State punishes lawlessness and criminality wherever it may occur, also when it occurs inside the ranks of its own law enforcement agencies.

The difference between the Government on the one hand and terrorist organisations on the other therefore lies not only in the way we act but, most importantly, also in the basic justness, lawfulness and morality of our expressed policies towards the use of violence.

Let the ANC deliver to justice those whom they say have outside of their control killed men, women and children indiscriminately in the streets of our country. Let the ANC do what the South African Government does with offenders within its own security forces; then and only then, can we start thinking about comparing the morality and justice of our policies and actions with theirs.

Regarding this issue, several speakers have mentioned that the Government is willing to negotiate with the leaders of Mozambique and Angola, but not to talk with the ANC. I believe this issue should be clarified and I would like to clarify it today.

Firstly, it has always been the policy of the Government not to prescribe to any other state what its internal economic, social and constitutional system should be.

Secondly, regardless of the nature of the internal political systems of our neighbouring states, it has always been the policy of this Government that we have common interests in this sub-region which necessitates continuous contact to the benefit of all the countries and of all the peoples.

In this spirit, we maintain contact with our neighbours and achieve excellent results.

However, the internal constitutional future of South Africa, and particularly the manner in which change is to be brought about in South Africa, is obviously a completely different matter—this is a subject for negotiation that only affects South Africans. In this regard, I want to reiterate our policy: The Government is committed to a democratic system in South Africa and is willing to have talks with those who share that commitment. However, äs far as the process of change is concerned, we are not willing to have talks with people whose official strategies contain violence as a means of change.

*My request was that we should display greater unity. The unity I am pleading for is not that all of us should accept one another’s standpoints. That would be a utopia which we will not be able to achieve in this world. However, I pleaded for unity in respect of the processes of orderly development. I also pleaded for greater unity within the same groups. Today I want to repeat that plea. I am pleading for greater unity in the Afrikaans-speaking sector of our population. I am pleading for greater unity among the White sector of our population, as well as for greater unity among the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. When I do so I am not pleading for a formless oversimplification! I am pleading for these things for another reason.

†I think it is time that the groups stopped ganging up for themselves and started ganging up for their country. I believe that is not a call that should be dismissed because, unless we succeed in accepting this challenge, we do not require a prophet to tell us we will fail. We will not succeed on recriminations of past injustices perceived or experienced. We will succeed on a vision of a better South Africa for all South Africans.

Mr Speaker, it is interesting to listen to this debate. We hear fellow South Africans speaking about their country—reconsideration of the major issues facing us in the field of politics, parties are formed and reformed, political parties change their policies and restate them, they preach a basic philosophy. Everybody talks about the new South Africa. I want to talk about the implementation of the new South Africa.

All of us feel the strains of conflict in our society. Everybody writes a solution. One just has to open one’s Sunday newspaper to see a comment again about politics or about the new Constitution of South Africa. We all know that we have to change. We all know the choice is to change by violence or by peaceful means.

I want to spell out some realities. Afrikaners rule this country. They are the majority among the Whites. We are prepared to negotiate with them. Negotiation is an ongoing process.

Exclusive White power in Africa has come to an end. It is a fact that the Whites in this country are a minority group and that the Blacks are a majority group. One should have one’s head read if one lives in this daydream that White South Africa is forever going to retain the reins of power.

Whether it is going to take 100 or 200 years, Black South Africa is going to take its place in Parliament. This is what we want to talk about. From the Coloured people White South Africa has learnt that one cannot indefinitely enforce one’s will onto other population groups.

We are the reason for the formation of the CP.

*They walked out on the NP because of the Coloureds. That is a fact. The reason was not because of the Blacks, but because of the Coloureds. A minority group formed a White political party. They were opposed to joint government with people of colour. The Bushmen must be separate. They must not sit among the Whites and govern.[Interjections.]

Reform is part of us in South Africa. We all react to this process which is taking place among us. The NP, the Ministers and the Government as well as I are part of that process of reform. I am a South African, however. Hon members must remember, when Jan van Riebeeck arrived here, my grandmother was already here. They met her on the beach of Cape Town. [Interjections.]

†Hon members must remember this. I did not come to Africa by boat. [Interjections.] Remember that. [Interjections.]

*The time has come for us to accept the realities of South Africa. I am an African. [Interjections.] I am home-made. [Interjections.] However, we are faced with two realities: White fears and Black aspirations. A balance must be found between these two poles. What I want to speak about is the implementation of what we have discussed. Blacks must be included in our political systems. That is a fact. We cannot wish them away. The Black people of Africa are not prepared to relinquish their country. Their exclusion will result in catastrophe. This is why we Coloureds have come in. Now those hon members are with us, the people of colour. And South Africa has not collapsed.

Now there are some people who are searching for other solutions. Partition! I wish to ask the CP— I am pleased that the hon member is present— where is the Coloured homeland which you want to give me? [Interjections.] It is here, where I am now standing, in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] It is here because the majority of the Coloured people live here. [Interjections.] Not only Namaqualand, but from Namaqualand right down to here. Then we will be talking about a homeland for Coloured people.

Furthermore I wish to ask whether we are going to get our own State President for Coloureds? [Interjections.] The leader says yes. Now I want to ask the third question. Are we going to have our own Minister of Law and Order in our Coloured Parliament? [Interjections.] Yes. Fourthly, will we have our own Minister of Defence? [Interjections.]

And the Cape Corps? Will we make full and final decisions about where those soldiers are going to fight? [Interjections.] No wait, now we are speaking about a sovereign Parliament for Coloureds. The final decision is that our police and our defence force in this country South Africa are finally going to be under our control and that we shall decide where Coloured soldiers will fight. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister has to draw conclusions regarding Indian and Black Parliaments, I wonder where we will get the money? [Interjections.] That is the economic reality I want to discuss. We cannot have different Parliaments and different structures which tax the same source. We need one treasury, and not a diversity.

Look at the economic realities of Africa. Money spells it out. When the trouble started with Boksburg, the CP stopped all the other local governments and the Coloureds and the Blacks said that they had to start in Bloemfontein. [Interjections.] We must not be underestimated. [Interjections.]

Order! There are far too many hon members on my left-hand side who are trying to make a speech at the same time as the hon member.

The only place where the CP does not apply apartheid, is at the till. [Interjections.] The only place where I may integrate with Whites, is where they make money.

†When they talk about Parliament and the future the key question they have to decide upon in South Africa is how the sources of revenue are to be divided, because that is what makes Parliament function. That is what we are talking about.

*Now I wish to discuss the role which the Afrikaner is going to play. In Angola and Namibia the Afrikaner proved that he could be a star team. He proved that he could be a peacemaker, conciliator and reformer. Now he must prove the same in South Africa, because that is his vocation. He is a leader. Some Afrikaners, however, adopt a racist attitude. Racism has become the key to reform.

†That is the key to the change in South Africa that we talk about. One thing must be understood about us. We have come to the end of the road of apartheid.

*Many people say that we complain purely because we feel like it. They must, however, first become Coloured people and experience apartheid first-hand. A child who looks like a White child was taken out of a crêche in Kraaifontein because his uncle’s skin was brown. When the uncle arrived at the creche, it was terrible for them to see that he was Coloured. They took the child out.

This is what we feel. We are insulted because we have another skin colour. Our perception of White politics is that all these beautiful plans are being made because other skin colours are not acceptable.

An Englishman in London can buy a farm. A Portuguese and a Swiss can do it in their countries, but I cannot. I must obtain a permit, because my skin is brown. That is racism. That is what we are talking about, that is what we want to see disappear in South Africa

†I want to tell hon members something. I know that we all belong together. Since when am I a threat as a Coloured man to an Afrikaner?

*The CP must explain to me in which way I, as a Coloured, am a threat to them. They must spell it out. What did I, as a South African, do that I am rejected as a leper? What is my sin? At our conferences we sing: “The only sin is the colour of my skin.” When we decide that we belong together then this threat will cease. We belong together; we fought together in Angola. We may fight together, but we may not swim together. [Interjections.] We cannot play rugby together in Brakpan. This foolishness must cease because the image which the Afrikaner projects is that they are racists. Look at what the Afrikaner brought about in South Africa.

†They brought employment, better farming methods and they brought Christianity to South Africa, but this is the picture the outside world has of them, the label of racism that they have hung around their necks.

*Apartheid has become an English word; one of these days it will be in The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

†We have to enter the world stage. No wonder that as a South African I feel sorry for Zola Budd. She was hounded out of international athletics. Why? Because she is a South African. This we must change because we possess the people and we possess the knowhow. Racism is unworthy of an Afrikaner.

*Racism does not belong to an Afrikaner; he has another vocation. I do not want to seem eccle siastical, but to all the clergymen who nave become political leaders, I want to ask: Is that the reason for the Lord sending you to Africa—to play that role? To despise people because they have a different skin colour? Or did the Lord bring you to create a new South Africa so that we could serve as an example for Africa?

†When racism is removed the road will be open to constitutional change. Hon members ask why we are so fussy about these laws, but take the Race Classification Act, for example, and see how I am defined in terms of the law. I am not a White and I am not a Black. I am always the nothing in relation to something else. The law does not describe me positively.

Let us talk about democracy. Of course we are a plural society and we are deeply divided. Of course the principle of democracy will not work in Africa. We all know this when we look at Africa. However, one thing is possible; democracy is possible in a deeply divided society. Racism should, however, first be removed.

*This is where we get to the laws—the foundation. We want to get rid of them. Why is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act still on the Statute Book? People are, however, afraid that the water will turn brown if I swim in that swimming-bath. However, I do not experience that pessimism in regard to South Africa. In all the years of South Africa’s existence, we found solutions, and I know that we can find this solution because we cannot afford violence.

All those years we fought wars in Africa. The Zimbabwe experience will resemble a picnic when violence gets the upper hand. This is what I mean when I say that we should start putting the matters discussed in this debate into a programme of action. I am tired of these stories as I listen to all the speakers. It reminds me of the story about the girl who wanted to get married, but the chap took too long. When he arrives at her home, she says: “O! hier kom Jannie alweer.” One night she said to him: “Jannie jy moet darem ’n plan maak.” He stroked her hair fondly and said: “Jou hare is so sag soos wol.” She looked him up and down and said: “Wil jy brei of wil jy vry?” [Interjections.]

†I would like to end on this note; I would like to see a clear plan of action, stating what we are going to do and how South Africa is going to look in five years’ time. We can do this because we work together daily in the mines, on the farms and in the factories. We are all South Africans. May the Lord bless our attaining that day.

Mr Speaker, the previous speaker made reference to recent achievements in Namibia and Angola, and indeed it would be churlish in a debate of this nature not to note with approval the steps which have been taken to bring an end to the futile conflict in Angola and the progress which has been made towards implementing Resolution 435 for a long overdue independent Namibia. I believe it is a positive development of great significance for South Africa and I would like to add the congratulations of the PFP to Mr Neil van Heerden and the team of professionals whose combined efforts have made this possible.

We realise that though great progress has been made, much has still to be done to bring implementation of the agreement arising out of the negotiations to a finality, and I trust that the politicians will make it easier and not more difficult for the professionals to achieve this.

When I talk of politicians I think both of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and also the hon the Minister of Defence—the one wants to see the process reversed and the other is far too prone to making sabre rattling speeches at the wrong time in situations of this kind. I think it behoves all politicians not to interfere because I believe that a peaceful resolution to this conflict is something which the vast majority of South Africans want to see.

The hon the Acting State President the other day spoke in glowing terms of the progress made in Namibia and referred specifically to the fact that

He was optimistic about the prospects of the new constitution which was to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the representatives to be elected by the people of Namibia—all the people of Namibia. He told us that all parties had agreed to certain fundamental democratic principles being entrenched in the constitution.

Now it is interesting that the hon the Acting State President of all people should have spoken in such terms of approval about the process of constitution-making in Namibia. Dare we hope that the hon the Minister and this Government have seen the light? Because here in Namibia he is applauding the process whereby:

• — Impartiality will prevail and all parties will be treated equally and participate in an election on an equal basis;
• — A constitution will have to be approved by a two-thirds majority of representatives elected by all the people;
• — All parties have agreed on certain fundamental democratic principles.

What a contrast to the constitutional process which we have had in the Republic of South Africa! Here we have had a constitution accepted which was the brainchild of the NP; a constitution approved at a referendum involving only the Whites of South Arica; a constitution providing not for the representatives of all the people, but a constitution deliberately excluding the largest population group on racial grounds.

So while we share the hope of success for constitution-making in Namibia, we cannot be optimistic about a negotiated settlement to our constitutional problems in this country unless there is evidence of a profound and fundamental change in the thinking of the ruling NP on this subject.

There is another factor which highlights a sharp contrast between the process of change in Namibia and that in South Africa, and that is the retreat over a number of years now from group consciousness both socially and politically in that Territory and our continued obsession with these matters in this country.

Having listened to the new hon Leader of the NP and his reference to group thinking yesterday, even in regard to his commitment when he said they were not ideologically obsessed with a group concept but that they regarded it as a reality, I am still not optimistic that the NP has come anywhere near to moving away from the obsession with the group concept in their thinking.

Unless the Government and the NP move away from that obsession, there will be no hope for a peaceful negotiated settlement in South Africa.

Most of South Africa’s problems today can be attributed directly to the Government’s stubborn adherence to the group concept as the cornerstone of social and political policy in South Africa through the years.

For example, as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, the Government knows it will have to go. It cannot be tolerated if we are to have peaceful evolution in this country. They are prisoners of their own past, however. It is a forty-year-old cornerstone of their policy. For forty years this legislation and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and similar Acts have been held out to Whites in South Africa as the Government’s means of protecting and preserving their White safety and identity.

So they must not be surprised if a White CP-controlled Boksburg City Council invokes these laws today in the mistaken believe that White interests can thereby be protected. This is merely a product of their commitment to group thinking through the years. They have been educated this way by the NP over four decades.

Equally, the insistence on rigid group protection and separation in constitution-making, as we see it in this tricameral Parliament, must be fatal to any hope for a negotiated constitutional settlement in the future.

I believe it is absolutely essential to protect individual rights in a constitutional settlement and that it can be done.

I believe one can control and put curbs on unbridled majority rule by guaranteeing participation of minority political groups by geographic devolution of power and by other constitutional devices. I believe these things can be done. I do not believe, however, that ethnicity and race grouping can or should be given special protection in any new constitution to be negotiated.

The NP persists with this demand and this is largely the reason why their attempts to negotiate peaceful settlement with other groups continue to fail. There cannot be built-in constitutional protections for precious tribal groupings—be they White or Black precious tribal groupings. To insist on that sort of protection before entering into negotiation is to negate the possibility of that negotiation succeeding from the start.

As I have said, individuals can be protected, and I believe groups can derive a high degree of protection through individual protection. It is, however, futile to suggest that racial groups can be protected in a constitution for a democratic, non-racial country on a group basis. It simply will not work, and any attempts to devise protections on a group basis will not only result in a complicated, non-workable constitution, but will also, I believe, in most instances have results that not even the groups for whom the protections are designed will find acceptable.

I know that there is frequent concern expressed for protection of cultural, linguistic and religious rights of groups of people, and one can sympathise with that concern. I do not believe, however, that the survival of those interests can be achieved by means of constitutional protections. I believe people who are concerned with those particular linguistic, religious or cultural considerations have a duty to ensure that they themselves provide the protection for those rights.

As an example to groups who may be concerned about these things I would point to those South Africans represented in this Parliament by the hon members of the House of Delegates. They have for many years been a voiceless minority without any political rights whatsoever, and yet the Indian community of South Africa have, despite those impediments, been able to preserve their language, their religious and their cultural rights in this country. Moreover, they did not need constitutional protection in order to do so.

I believe that, philosophically, we in South Africa have to recognise that we are a country of people, not of groups, that individuals need protection and that individual protection can provide the necessary framework for protection in all those spheres in which individuals are essentially concerned and interested. Until we get away from group concepts, however, I do not believe that we will find the peaceful solutions for which all South Africans should be striving.

Mr Chairman, it is very inspiring to follow the previous speaker, the hon member for Berea, my colleague from Natal. He quoted the principle in the Indian community of appreciating mankind and showing humanity to humanity. The Indian community is divided into different linguistic and religious groups, and is a perfect example of peaceful coexistence …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, this is a PPSA slot to speak.

Order! I have before me the name of the hon the Minister, and he may continue with his speech.

But is he a member of the PPSA, because this is a PPSA slot?

Order! I have the hon the Minister’s name before me and the hon the Minister may proceed. The hon member must resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, it is customary for the hon member for Actonville, who lost his deposit in a local election, to react in this manner.

That is a He!

Order!

Mr Chairman, I was discussing the principle of peaceful coexistence in the community despite the fact of different religious and linguistic identities. For South Africa this is a perfect example of how we can live in peace and harmony.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity for a rebuttal. The hon member for Reigerpark …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We clearly heard a member in this House call the hon the Minister who is speaking, a liar. He said: “It is a lie”. In the interests of Parliamentary procedure I believe that should be withdrawn.

Order! I heard it and I was going to request the hon member to withdraw it at the end of the hon the Minister’s speech because I did not want to interrupt the hon the Minister. However, I now call upon the hon member for Actonville to withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Reigerpark made allegations in connection with the use of a swimming-pool by Coloured pupils. The allegations are malicious and devoid of any truth. It appears to be the work of a person or persons intent on discrediting the Department of Education and Culture in the House of Delegates.

The facts simply put—and it will be to the advantage of the hon member for Reigerpark to observe closely the actual factual situation—are the following. The Zinniaville Secondary School in Rustenburg had arranged for their pupils to make use of the municipal pool. It is an Indian school which also has on its roll pupils from the Coloured community. In terms of the infamous Group Areas Act the school was forced to apply to the municipality to make use of that pool. In order to avoid any embarrassment and unjustified criticism—like that that we have heard from the hon member for Reigerpark—from ill-informed persons the principal very wisely communicated to the authorities that all pupils should be permitted the use of the swimming-pool. This simply meant the implementation of an extramural programme by the school.

Upon receipt of the authority of the municipality he commenced the programme. At no time did any person connected to that school or any other person prevent schoolchildren who are not Indian from using the pool.

The school has no control over the use of the pool at other times. During the times that it does, it uses the pool for every pupil enrolled at the school and therefore, there is no truth whatsoever in the statement that Indians prohibited the use of the swimming-pool for pupils of the Coloured population. I would implore the hon member for Reigerpark to get his facts straight. I speak in Parliament. I do not indulge in rhetoric or emotionalism. I speak of facts.

The hon member for Reigerpark also said that the Department of Housing in the House of Delegates was responsible for the eviction of Coloured people in Cato Manor. This is far from the truth and the allegations that were made. The factual situation here again is that Cato Manor has been a burning issue in Natal and in the periphery of Durban over the years.

The House of Delegates embarked upon the provision of homes for those who were living in the area in poor conditions. They programmed 151 homes which number was eventually increased to 184 homes for the purposes of housing those people who were living in uninhabitable circumstances. These people were then to move into the new homes that were built. This is what was done! Therefore, Mr Chairman, it is an untruth to say that the House of Delegates evicted members of the Coloured community from Cato Manor.

The area was planned over the years for township development. The development of the area to which people were moved—the 184 homes had already been planned. It had been given out on tender and the contractors had already moved in.

I want to give hon members the most recent and updated figures concerning the area. The legal Coloured and Black tenants of houses consist of nine Coloured families and one Black family. Prior to 1986 there were six Coloured families and no Black families. In 1988 there were two Coloured families and two Black families. Only yesterday the figures were 11 Coloured families and three Black families. Where is the discrimination and the eviction in Cato Manor of which the hon member for Reigerpark spoke?

The Coloured, Black and Indian communities all have housing problems. Those people all have to be housed, irrespective of where they live. I want to ask the hon member for Reigerpark whether he did not accommodate Coloured families in an Indian area in Greytown and whether we were not prepared to allow that. Hon members should therefore not come here and make emotional speeches which divide us where we should be united in the common cause of democracy.

The hon member for Reigerpark should know that in Mooi River the Coloured group area is 6 km away from the centre of town. An hon member of the House of Representatives opposed the idea that homes for Coloureds should be built in an Indian area. However, we went out of our way to persuade the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing to agree to the building of 20 Coloured homes in an Indian area and by arrangement to share the costs. That is what we in the House of Delegates have offered.

In Verulam, my own constituency, where the first all-Indian local authority in the history of South Africa was declared we have allowed the continued residence of all people of colour. Very recently this has included Coloured people because of the expansion of their families.

I am forced to say today that not too many years ago we were informed of the violent part played by the hon member for Reigerpark against the Indian traders in Reigerpark.

Repeat that outside this House!

I will if the opportunity arises.

Therefore, when we talk of a united force for achieving peace and harmony in this country, that kind of talk is not wanted.

I now come to the hon the Minister of National Education, the new leader of the NP, the governing party of South Africa. Although his was an eloquent speech, advocating peaceful co-existence of everyone living in South Africa, I saw in it a trend of the past. He did not project a policy for South Africa which would be free from any form of racialism. The moment one speaks of groups, one inevitably speaks of people of different colours. In South Africa we need our own model of a constitution. The only way we will be able to succeed with that kind of constitution for South Africa to meet the requirements and aspirations of all people of all political persuasions, is by getting ourselves together, by reaching out to one another. That is how we should be doing it.

I dare say the policy of the CP will not be wanted; it is undesirable for the resolution of South Africa’s problems. Very recently, on BBC television, the CP did great damage to South Africa and to us who are participating in negotiation politics. We have had to hang our heads in shame simply because of Boksburg, Brakpan and Carletonville. Can they not see the economic damage and the world isolation towards which they are leading South Africa?

I do not go along with the CP policy that we can survive alone in this world which is shrinking so fast. The European Economic Community is soon going to break all barriers and that economy will be open to all for opportunities to export. If we should persist with the policy of the CP or perpetuate the NP policy further, we shall get nowhere economically. The world is going to be shut off to us. To us economic survival means far more than bickering and indulging in the unnecessary luxury of prejudice.

The only good thing I saw on BBC television was the leader of the AWB and Jani Allen—on television screens in the United Kingdom! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, permit me in the first place to associate myself with what has been expressed by numerous hon members, viz a sincere wish for the hon the State President’s speedy recovery. I should like to thank the hon the Acting State President for the excellent way in which he is performing his duties. In conclusion, my sincere congratulations to the hon the national leader of the NP. I also want to confirm what hon members on this side of the House have said, viz that ranks have closed and that we are facing the future as a unit, as the hon the Minister of Finance expressed it so well yesterday afternoon.

All of this is in glaring contrast with the opposition parties in the House of Assembly. I merely want to refer to them briefly, particularly to those on the left.

After months of scurrying around we now have a strange alliance on the political scene which hopes to establish a new party. The leadership of this alliance is in the hands of two apostate political migrants and a Prog who has been dredged up out of the past. That is a fact. Then of course there is a small group of supercharged academics, and a few others who say they represent the so-called Fourth Element. These are the main ingredients of the political potpourri that has been formed.

Their vision of the future is based on untried and ill-considered premises. They make the realities of the day, such as safe and peaceful coexistence, subordinate to their dream. This is the utopian dream in which the political system must be based on the individual, and community ties are not of significant importance. Never since Union has this kind of left-wing party ever been able to reach a position of influence; they have been rejected time after time by the South Africa electorate. I believe the electorate will reject them again.

By virtue of my position as Minister of Home Affairs, I have the pleasant and interesting task of being close to the Press, and I should like to say something about them.

†I wish to refer in particular to the conventional Press, namely—for the sake of hon members who do not know—those newspapers that belong to the Newspaper Press Union and who subscribe to their own Code of Conduct, as administered by the Media Council.

On the whole these newspapers are doing good work. They are intent upon protecting the right to freedom of speech and keeping the public informed. They try to do their duty as the watchdogs of the public interest. For this there is appreciation. It is a misconception to think that the attitude of the Government towards the Press is solely one of condemnation and unwillingness to cooperate. At the same time, I am confident it is a misconception that the attitude of the Press in general towards the Government is solely one of confrontation or even hostility. By and large, the Press is reasonable and responsible and I pay tribute to the valuable part it plays in public affairs and in so many other fields.

The Government does not resent scrutiny by the Press. The Press is fully entitled to be critical of issues such as political policies, of the way in which the country is managed and of conduct and practices in the public sector. What the Government does resent is the way sections—I repeat, sections—of the Press at times disregard journalistic principles as they appear in the Press Code of Conduct, for instance by not always reporting news truthfully, accurately and objectively; resorting to material omissions, exaggeration and misrepresentation; presenting comment as facts; using misleading headlines; and reporting in such a way that what is presented is not information but disinformation.

What I have described illustrates the inherent potential for conflict between the Press and its readers. We must all agree that journalists and the Press have a difficult task. While there is appreciation of the good work being done by the conventional Press, the question does arise whether the Press, powerful as it is, is making its optimum contribution towards creating a climate conducive to reform and development.

The Press will be judged by history as to whether it played a positive role, a negative role or no role at all in the creation of a better South Africa. The crucial question, when that judgement comes, will be whether the Press committed itself to the best interests of South Africa, and whether in fulfilling its function as the “watchdog” of the public interest, it placed South Africa first. A “watchdog” can only be judged in terms of how faithfully it protects its master. As the watchdog of the public interest, the Press can only be judged on how faithfully it serves South Africa.

*Mr Chairman, so far I have spoken about the conventional Press, but as hon members know there is also another Press, known as the alternative Press. The Press in general presents an image of indivisibility when the Government-Press relationship is at issue, but none other than the alternative Press themselves indicate that they differ fundamentally from the conventional Press, or the commercial Press as they call it. Saleem Badat, a Grassroots organiser, said the following about the conventional Press, and I quote:

In that case, what does the alternative Press do? Badat answers this question himself. He says among other things:

The watchword of the alternative Press, therefore, is confrontation. What does this lead to? Sophistic journalism, vitriolic journalism, journalism that pays no attention to any code. This is journalism that takes its refuge in unbridled, extravagant, insulting, presumptuous and even slanderous language. Hon members know what I am talking about. Sometimes it is so banal that I cannot repeat it here. Those journalists who practise this kind of journalism under the banner of the truth would do well to bear in mind the creed of one of their famous colleagues in the USA, Prof Walter Williams, a former dean of the School for Journalism at the University of Missouri. It reads:

†Then I want to refer to some criticism which has come my way in the duty that I have to fulfil in applying certain of the Media Emergency Regulations and in regard to which the critics insist that it should be left to the courts to decide whether any action should be taken against publications that contain subversive propaganda.

I would like to advance a few arguments this afternoon to give the facts and to indicate that this is not possible.

The impression is created that when action is taken against publications, they have no protection in courts of law. This is not true. No discretion, including my own, is unrestricted. Any publication objecting to my action against it, has the right to test the validity of my decision in court. This has, in fact, happened in the past.

The court has the power to set aside my decisions in accordance with established legal principles. I must exercise my discretion honestly and in accordance with the rules of reasonableness and fairness.

Always?

Yes, always. I want to emphasise that the Government holds our legal system in the highest esteem. We realise only too well that given ideal circumstances no person, including the State, ought to be prosecutor and judge of his own case. All these factors were thoroughly considered before the Media Emergency Regulations were introduced.

I would like hon members to consider certain facts. We live in abnormal times. Revolutionary forces use the power of propaganda to create a climate for the promotion of their own objectives and actions. This calls for abnormal measures to combat the propaganda campaign and, in particular, to prevent propaganda. No responsible government can allow itself to be curbed by observing the rules of a game, while the enemy wilfully disregards all rules and conventions.

The Government and its critics differ fundamentally on what constitutes propaganda against national interest. What the Government views as propaganda, is often seen by its critics as acceptable viewpoints and criticism. This is a pity.

What does the relevant emergency regulation provide? On the one hand it consists of measures that define certain actions as offences and, on the other hand, measures that prohibit subversive propaganda. The offences are tried by courts in the usual way and nobody can complain about that.

However, propaganda cannot be effectively dealt with by means of the normal criminal procedure.

Firstly, it is impossible to define propaganda fully. Propaganda is so subtle and appears in so many guises that efforts to define it are futile. It also does not help to punish propaganda. Propaganda must be prevented. There is no sense in shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Effective prevention of propaganda requires prompt action. No one can permit a publication that systematically publishes subversive propaganda to continue doing so while charges are dealt with by courts over a period of several months, or possibly even years.

People claiming that the courts should decide whether an article is propaganda or whether a publication is systematically publishing propaganda, should think again. The high esteem enjoyed by our courts as institutions functioning independently of the legislature and the executive would be seriously jeopardised. Whether a statement constitutes propaganda or not, whether the publication of material is contrary to public interest and security, is a matter of opinion.

If courts of law had to give a ruling on such opinions, the courts themselves would inevitably be drawn into the political arena. The courts would then be attacked on political grounds as being the mouthpiece of some or other political party. [Interjections.] I would like to remind hon members of the wide publicity given to recent treason and terrorism trials which have already unjustly been labelled “political trials”.

The courts must fulfil their rightful role independently and impartially, also in judging whether or not I lawfully exercised my discretion.

*I want to raise a final matter, viz that there are numerous political forces and views in the South African situation which are not accommodated fully in the present constitutional dispensation. How can we resolve this? The Government’s broad political objective is well known, but mutual agreement must still be reached about the specific way in which the various political forces are to be accommodated. The hon the Acting State President as well as the new national leader of the NP referred to this, and all indications are that we should not practise politics of confrontation. That will get us nowhere. We must all look past the traditional dividing lines and seek a solution in which we can appreciate one another’s endeavours and aspirations.

An exploration of the respective parties’ perceptions and expectations is a meaningful step on the course to positive negotiation.

The Government believes that meaningful negotiation should be endorsed by a willingness among negotiators to give and take. This does not mean that the negotiators should have preconceived solutions at the ready. It does mean, however, that the negotiators on both sides should be willing to negotiate a tenable and acceptable future dispensation in a reasonable way and with an open mind. In the course of such an exercise, one should gain clarity on the plus points, the points of contact and the degree of flexibility.

The hon the Acting State President referred to the fact that I have to lead the Government’s delegation in a joint committee of the Government and the government of KwaZulu. I welcome the opportunity for responsible dialogue that is being created in this way. I undertake to tackle this task with the utmost dedication. A great deal has happened in Natal, and this holds promise for the future. The goodwill and understanding that already exists at the levels of leadership must be developed positively. A foundation must be laid for the extremely important and constructive constitutional negotiations that still have to take place between the Government and all the relevant leaders in our country on the road ahead. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened with great pleasure to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives here this afternoon. Here was the original voice of the Labour Party. It is a pity that it is a lone voice. He was sharply critical of the remnants of racism and discrimination that still exist in our society. At the same time he recognized the deep divisions in our society, “the plural nature of it”—those were his words—and he also recognized the excellent qualities that the Afrikaner has displayed over the years in trying to bring about changes. He has prodded them and said that the pace is a bit too slow.

Finally—what was most important—he extended a hand and an offer to persist and to continue with the process of negotiation. That is the original voice of the LP!

Many people are watching with intense interest the labour pains of a new political party being born in White politics, namely the Democratic Party. The fact of it being a White party, in itself once again indelibly underscores the unavoidable reality of present-day South African conditions; that if one wants to conduct politics that are intended to be effective, one is forced, whether one likes it or not, to base oneself on one or other population group. Despite the non-racial cry, Joe Slovo and Oliver Tambo are not interchangeable as leaders of the ANC.

You are harping on the same theme again!

Neither are the hon the State President and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives interchangeable as leaders of the LP, despite the findings of most opinion polls on the subject that the hon the State President is the most popular leadership figure in the eyes of Coloured people.

Now that is the kind of thing you say when you are no longer a Minister! [Interjections.]

I wholeheartedly welcome the establishment of the Democratic Party and its proposed entry into the ranks of the parliamentary parties. As I have said elsewhere, the existence of many political parties guarantees the maintenance of the parliamentary system, a fundamental pillar of democracy. However, what is of concern to us outside of White politics—and that concern is certainly going to increase alarmingly—is the statement by Dr Denis Worrall in a TV interview that the Democratic Party will go for power. Under ordinary circumstances going for power is the right, and should be the goal, of any parliamentary party which means business.

However, in today’s circumstances in South Africa where the legislative bricks are already largely in place to bring Black South Africans into Government, why go back in history to the outdated time when White parties contended with one another to become the sole rulers of South Africa?

Are we seeing here the reincarnation of the deceased United Party of yore striving for one last fling at replacing the NP? This is an anachronistic policy. It is behind the times. Fortunately, there is little danger of the Democratic Party ushering in a period of their own brand of exclusive White Government.

The entry of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert into the ranks of the Democratic Party as a backroom boy has put paid to their electoral chances as far as the White voters are concerned. The Cape Times reported Dr Van Zyl Slabbert as follows:

Because of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert’s rather fickle political past, I predict a mass shying away of White voters from the Democratic Party rather than a broadening of support.

Another of his statements in the same press report reads as follows:

Having arrived fresh and flushed with success from intensive talks with the ANC leaders in Harare one can guess what that broader strategy is in which Parliament will be but a part. Is it how best Parliament can be used to achieve the goal of the ANC, namely a one-party state?

For the foreseeable future South Africans are going to cling jealously to the political parties that have grown out of their realities as groups. This is an unavoidable fact of present-day South Africa. We have no magic wand to wave that away. They view their parties as bargaining instruments to negotiate fair and equitable shares of the country’s resources for their groups until parity is reached. [Interjections.] The question of my joining the CP is raised a bit too late because the LP has already established close bonds with them in their public statements. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of National Education, the new leader of the NP, in his address yesterday made a qualitative breakthrough in our thinking about race in South Africa by calling for a joint effort by all of us to work together towards the creation of a non-racialist society, a society free from racist discrimination. [Interjections.] My party and I shall certainly respond positively to that call. [Interjections.] And so should all of us present in this House. Have we not all been at pains to proclaim how free we are of racial prejudice and race hatred—the CP especially so? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member who preceded me on this podium would, I am sure, but for the colour of his skin, be a member of the NP. [Interjections.] I find it very sad that this should be the case when one considers what the NP has done to his people. [Interjections.]

I had been of mind to speak of three different areas of corruption, but because of a document I received yesterday I now intend to speak of a fourth area of corruption. That is the corruption of the rule of law.

I do so to inform South Africans, for the international community already knows. I heard it on the BBC last night, but because of our secrecy laws, we in South Africa do not know.

The matter concerns detainees, specifically the detainees in the St Albans Prison near Port Elizabeth. I believe that it is a corruption of the rule of law that they are in prison at all. The statement reads as follows:

I presume it should read 1989.

Mr Speaker, these people, if they have carried out their threat, will now have not eaten or drunk anything since Monday. It is now Thursday. I hate to think what their condition will be like.

The first important thing that is stressed in this document is that a number of these people have been subjected to 32 months of continuous detention without trial and that in that time no charge has been laid against them. They are not prisoners awaiting trial. After 32 months the police of the hon the Minister have not been able to come up with charges to accuse them of any crime and yet they sit and rot in prison. Is that fair?

We know that the police make mistakes. Not long ago—in fact, during the course of last month— the police contacted a gentleman who, they said, had to desist from his treasonal or difficult actions because they had their eye on him. That same man had in fact been dead for some six months. That gives one some idea that the police do make mistakes. I do not say they always make mistakes, but sometimes they do and the hon Minister is relying on the information they give him to keep these people in detention.

Another point I wish to make, is that I believe that people were—and perhaps still are—being detained in St Albans Prison because they had helped to organise the boycott of White businesses in Port Elizabeth. Since that time White businesses in Boksburg have been boycotted. The people who organised that boycott are still at large. Now one must ask oneself why the boycotters in Port Elizabeth were detained, while the boycotters in Boksburg were not. Patently the answer is quite clear.

That answer is that the boycott in Port Elizabeth hurt the NP and the boycott in Boksburg did not hurt the NP, it hurt the CP, their official opponents. So, they say they welcome the boycott in Boksburg but the boycotters from Port Elizabeth they put into detention, without trial.

There is one very worrying aspect to this and that is their current state of health. I would appeal to the hon the Minister of Justice. This, I believe, if they are indeed on a strike where they take no liquids whatsoever, needs immediate action. A boycott of all liquids can lead to a very swift deterioration of a person’s condition. There is no shadow of a doubt that one single death of one of these detainees will cause South Africa tremendous harm. I believe that in the interests of our country we must do our utmost to sort out this strike at the earliest possible moment.

I want to ask if they have asked for private physicians to see to their condition and, if so, what has happened. If not, cannot the hon the Minister ensure that private doctors are called in to monitor their condition on a regular basis.

I also believe that the hon the Minister must immediately review their cases and I believe he should appoint a committee of three respected judges to do so. This could defuse the situation. It is perhaps possible that if such a commission were appointed they would stop their strike and start to eat and drink again, which would then defuse the situation to quite a large degree.

Finally, I want to ask if the hon the Minister of Justice will give access to these detainees to members of my party. I believe that there are more than 300 people involved around the country and that they are in Diepkloof and in St Albans. If ever there was an indication that detention without trial is evil and has no place in a Christian community, this is it. I appeal desperately to the hon Ministers concerned to act in this regard at the soonest possible moment.

Mr Speaker, for the record I first of all want to address myself to the hon the Acting State President’s Office. This concerns a report which appeared in The Daily News on 6 February 1989. This report is misleading and misconstrues the facts. I now want to place on record that the NPP met the hon the Acting State President last Friday for almost 50 minutes and we had a very healthy and fruitful discussion. We have waited until today for the hon the State President’s Office to correct this report, which as yet has not happened. We have written to him concerning this.

I would like to comment on the speech made by the new leader of the NP in which I personally believe he made a lot of positive points. However, the time has now come when we just cannot rely merely on the positiveness of speeches made in the Houses of Parliament. We need those positive ideologies to be implemented into pragmatic methods which people can see. Despite what has been said here over the past few days about reform and the state of the nation, my own opinion is that the NP Government has so far not moved a single inch forward in including the majority of the people of this country into the mainstream of decision-making. As attractive as the reform policy may appear to be on paper, the bottom line is that it does not pay the average man’s mortgage, put food on his table or provide a roof over his head. If the Government is sincere about its reform programme it is about time that it applied the principle of equality.

I also want to comment with regard to negotiations with the ANC and those people who have commented here that they are prepared to negotiate with the ANC. One must understand that society will judge such people by the company that they keep and they will be co-responsible for the terror campaigns that have been advocated by these organisations over the years. They must also bear responsibility for those people who have been injured, maimed or killed as a result of the terror advocated by the ANC.

It is all very well to say we can negotiate with the ANC but one has to be pragmatic and have the vision to see whom one is negotiating with. [Interjections.] If we want to negotiate with somebody who wants peaceful reform I would agree wholeheartedly, but when one wants to negotiate with an organisation that is hellbent upon and has publicly advocated violence and terrorism, then it is a big no, because our fellow South Africans, innocent people in shopping centres and in other recreational institutions, are paying the price over the years.

Mr Speaker, with regard to the CP—they must remove their clouded vision and look ahead, because there is no place in South Africa for any political party that professes an ideology to its voters or particular constituent of those voters, but cannot control the behaviour of those people. The behaviour I am talking about is what we have seen in the past few weeks in Mayfair West. People in an educated and sophisticated society do not live like that. As far as the members of the CP are concerned and who are so concerned about protecting of their “volk”—I am not sure, in Afrikaans it is “volk” and in English it is flock, I am not so sure which word to use … [Interjections.] … but one has to know that …

[Inaudible.]

I did not hear what was said. [Interjections.]

†The behaviour on the part of those residents who have been living in Mayfair West has been disgusting by publicly putting out a noose and threatening people with public lynching. That is not something which can be condoned in modern society. If one looks at the actions of the CP, they talk about protection of culture. If any community in the world is so concerned about protecting their culture, then I want to submit that that culture must indeed be very, very weak. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to react to what was said here by the hon member for Lenasia Central. He requested the implementation by us of certain announcements which were made here. 1 just wish to tell him that we as NP are ready to do it. All we are seeking is co-operation. This is more or less the theme of my speech this afternoon.

During the past few days I have tried to listen very attentively, especially to speakers of the House of Representatives regarding their grievances, their problems and their reservations. It is very clear to me that when a person looks at them very critically and analyses it, one must ask oneself: What happens subsequently; after everything that has been said here, which road will we take?

Gilbert Chesterton, an English writer, once said that people fight when they cannot argue. Have we now reached the stage at which we can no longer argue in a meaningful way—and this while there is a call outside for responsible behaviour at a very difficult period in our history?

On Monday the hon leader in the House of Representatives himself spoke the following words:

Afterwards the NP’s motives in this regard were repeatedly disparaged by speakers of the House of Representatives. They do this even though the NP and its leaders make it their daily task, I would even call it their task in life, to find solutions to this country’s problems.

†I want to state clearly here today that those of us who have contact with moderates of all our communities and with most of the MPs here will know they are asking for strong leadership from Parliament, not old slogans as we have heard here this week. They want movement towards effective solutions of South Africa’s problems and they ask or, rather, demand that the whole of Parliament takes creative steps and does not fiddle around with minor issues or dig out old cows which were buried the day this tricameral Parliament was established. So far this debate, as far as hon members of opposition parties and especially of the House of Representatives are concerned, has not met that demand.

*Therefore the question I wish to put to the LP and their leader, is whether there is time and reason for this kind of conflict between the NP and the LP.

[Interjections.] I wish to state it according to four guidelines. I accept that the hon leader of the LP will speak after me and he can reply to this; hon members need not reply to it now.

†Firstly, I want to state that the spirit of conflict present in Parliament today does not exist among our peoples. Secondly, we both bear the responsibility to make this tricameral system work, and work effectively. Thirdly, we as representatives of the people of South Africa must lead—I want to stress this—our followers to the ultimate solutions. We will have to learn that all the parties concerned must give and take in that situation. There will be no solution if we are not prepared to reach out toward each other and find common ground.

*Firstly therefore I am making the assertion that the spirit in which the accusations were made, and the eagerness to score political points, were not a reflection of the spirit and expectations of both these communities, nor of the whole of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The LP has the support of its people. The NP has the support of two-thirds of the White community.

What did you say?

Our conduct must therefore be guided by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the RSA are seeking negotiated agreements and not an ANC solution. They seek calculated strategies and responsible behaviour with which to accommodate the divergent opinions in an orderly future dispensation. They seek leaders—I repeat “leaders”—who will be honoured throughout history and future generations, not frontrunners who are in favour of untested policies purely for political gain, who say irresponsible things about the Government and who choose strange bedfellows.

Both parties have the responsibility to make this tricameral Parliament succeed. Earlier in this debate the hon member for Sunnyside read statements and expressed intentions of the leader of the LP made during their congress at Eshowe. I do not wish to repeat them. The fact is that the LP is committed to co-operation and constructive action, not actions and behaviour of such a nature that no co-operation is possible. Other parties in this Parliament can boycott and block the system, but not the NP and the LP.

Yes, master!

We appreciate that the hon members cannot agree with everything.

“Ry jy of vry jy?” [Interjections.]

I am certainly not courting the hon member.

We also appreciate that their opposition is in reality the UDF. However, they will not break the UDF in this manner. They will only destroy the UDF by positive action and strong leadership. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the third guideline, namely that leaders must lead their voters to a solution. Here we can find no better example than that of the hon the State President with the initiatives he has taken during the past 10 years. He did not try to be a popular leader by adopting the easiest solutions with regard to White politics. He brought about effective changes in policy in order to act in the interests of South Africa and all its people.

I want to ask the hon members this afternoon whether they have ever made an analysis of what the hon the State President and the Government have achieved during the past 10 years. I wish to make only two observations in this regard. Strictly speaking they did what they could in this sphere taking into consideration the important fact that there are also restrictions on the pace of reform. [Interjections.] In the first place you must consider the realities of the country and people on either side of the spectrum must be allowed time to digest the implications of reform. People at whom reform is directed must also be afforded the opportunity to master the changing circumstances.

In many respects reform was delayed when it should have taken place in co-operation or with the agreement of leaders of other population groups. However, reform has now entered another phase.

To conclude I wish to give my personal opinion on the relationship between the NP and the LP and negotiation politics in general. Nobody can be filled with complacency after the past events and the spirit which prevailed in this debate. Everyone, also the population in general, should be deeply concerned. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives ought to agree with this.

You are not Coloured. You did not feel our pain.

Furthermore it is very clear that at present unbridgeable chasms exist. The difference in standpoint regarding current affairs varies considerably, but it is up to the leaders of these two parties—probably in ours as well—to find a workable solution. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, with regard to the opening speech by the hon the Acting State President in Parliament one would underscore the fact that it is normal procedure and convention that the address on such an occasion should be saying where we are and where we are going to. I am afraid that my reaction on behalf of the Labour Party must again be that which I have already stated namely that nothing can be said about nothing said.

As in the past the opening speech in Parliament attested to no vision for the future of this country. It is rather a case of governing the country on a daily basis while the Government still does not know where it is leading South Africa. It is still true that where there is no vision the people perish. One cannot lead unless one knows where one is going.

We want to say that we have been criticised because of our stand with regard to negotiation, criticised particularly heavily by the NP Press and in particular Die Burger for confrontational politics. One thing is true, however, and we wish to remind hon members of the NP of it, that the methods employed by the oppressed are never comprehensible to the oppressor.

They cannot think like we think and they cannot feel like we feel. What we do can therefore certainly never be understood.

We have had continuous assurances from this platform that all is well within the NP. We have had assurances that there are no divisions, no splits and no differences and that they all stand behind the national leader. However, I find it psychologically difficult to comprehend why one should comment about nothing when there is nothing. There must be some difference somewhere and therefore they must assure themselves continuously that there are no differences.

I also believe that what was said by the hon the Acting State President this afternoon, in spite of its being words, words and more words, does not reflect the total feeling and opinion within the NP. When one looks at the election of their national leader at their caucus then the voting reflects the fact that the hon the Acting State President does not have the confidence of the majority of persons within the NP with regard to the direction in which he wants to go.

On this occasion I would further like to question the credibility of the SABC as a reliable source of information for the inhabitants of this country. As in the past it is very clear, and the country is witness to the fact, that the SABC wears blinkers and only has the interests of the NP at heart. I do not want to quote examples here such as the telephone call that came to someone somewhere from somebody.

In this joint meeting I want to say to Parliament that we complain against the casting of suspicion by the SABC on the sincere and honest intentions of myself and my party. The Labour Party takes note with distress that during the illness of the hon the State President the SABC kept silent— and I think it was intentionally—about the condolences and best wishes that were expressed by myself as leader and by my party.

They mentioned the fact that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi had sent a telegram. They mentioned Margaret Thatcher, Dr Worrall, etc. However, they failed to mention the fact that this was exactly what we did, too. Therefore, this flagrant disregard of the largest opposition party in the present Parliament does not pass unnoticed.

We wish to remind the Government that it is a requirement of good government to govern in the interests of the largest number of people. So the Government must continuously take stock of where it is and where it wants to be, and whether its actions are in the interests of the largest number of people.

There were some good speeches which increased the whole element of hope. We have just listened to the grandson of the late President Steyn of the Orange Free State, who once said: “Alles sal regkom as elkeen sy plig doen.” It must therefore be a mutual approach.

It was President Brand.

President Brand. My apologies for that historical mistake.

I am trying to say that if we want to go forward together in the spirit of togetherness, then a greater understanding must come from both sides. It must not be expected of us to do everything that the NP requires us to do and to agree thereto.

I think it is also said that the Chinese regard this year as the Year of the Snake. Therefore, we must be on our guard if it is the Year of the Snake. [Interjections.]

We must remember the case of the Du Plessis’s. In spite of what has happened to ex-Minister Pietie du Plessis—I want to remind hon members that this is Sense speaking here and they had better learn—and in spite of his absence, I would like to express, on behalf of the LP, our appreciation to him for the spirit in which we could meet with regard to labour relations and his contributions to labour relations. He was approachable at all times, he was willing to listen and although we have heard all the negative criticism, I would like to pay this tribute to him.

Twelve years ago the LP pointed out to the Government that the South African interference in Namibia had to cease and at our annual congress in Upington in January 1976 I, as the then National Chairman, said the following:

We regret that it took so long to listen to what we said then. [Interjections.]

*No, it is not rubbish that millions of litres of innocent blood were shed there and that young Afrikaner and Coloured men died there. That can never be rubbish.

†These were the lives that were sacrificed in this particular instance. While I am talking about that, I want to remind the hon the Minister of Defence that non-racial democracy has been the aim and objective of all movements of the oppressed people and it is certainly not a communistic cliché which we have adopted.

In dealing with a changing South Africa we also have to accept that we shall have to compromise. I accept that, but compromise—as was mentioned by the hon leader of the NP—involves give and take. Therefore, we in the LP are prepared to accept that intent but we are now looking for the signs. We do not want to doubt their serious intentions but, because of our past experience, in order to convince us they will have to give us a sign of goodwill, a sign of change, a sign of seriousness and a sign of their willingness.

We have not seen this as yet. I listened to the plea made by the hon member who spoke before me. The plea, however, was at all times directed at the LP. I want to say to the governing party in this House that they too must stand still because in our experience we have problems.

In January, before this session of Parliament started, a group of fishermen, together with the hon member for Mamre, had a meeting with the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and of Water Affairs. This meeting lasted five to six minutes because there was an unwillingness to accommodate those very people who are involved in the fishing industry. Our interpretation is that that hon Minister accommodates interested White people in his own constituency. [Interjections.] If it is half a truth, it is still half a truth. Therefore, to a certain degree, it is partly true.

I should also like to remind the NP that when we were dissatisfied with the Budget allocation in our House last year, the Ministers’ Council—and we talk a lot about the value of the system— requested an appointment with the hon the Minister of Finance in order to discuss our problems and needs. However, the hon the Minister of the Budget was not willing to allow us any time or grant us an appointment to enable us to discuss these problems.

Then we talk about the realities of consultation and meeting each other!

We want to remind the NP that after the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives had approved the Budget, had gone to the Treasury, and the Treasury had approved the amount, when it became obvious because of an announcement by the Cape Times on a Monday morning last year that Coloured pensioners would be receiving an increase which White pensioners would not, the hon the Minister, without consultation, went on television that night to say to South Africans, primarily White South Africans, that he had given instruction to the Treasury to withhold, I think, R36,6 million. [Interjections.] The truth that I want to emphasise is that that instruction was given.

We also want to remind this House that in terms of the present Budget, which we were thinking about—and particularly our emphasis on the budgetary shortfall for education—our wanting to speak to the hon the Minister became a necessity. A meeting was arranged by telephone with the secretary of the hon the Minister of National Education, at his insistence. I did not go to that meeting, because that meeting was arranged on a Friday afternoon at 15h00 between my office in Cape Town and the office of the hon the Minister in Pretoria and I was emphatically told that I would be allowed three minutes to state my case. We are worried about problems of finance, but we have to fly from Cape Town to Johannesburg and then drive by car from Johannesburg to Pretoria, and I am told that I will only have three minutes to put my case! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister’s secretary, yes. This was conveyed and I have that on record.

One must also remind the NP of the fact that we understand and appreciate the problem of the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of the Budget, but that while dealing with it at length—and we do not all understand that high finance—the one point missed completely by most members of the NP is the whole question of cause and effect. We cannot get loans. We are being economically boycotted. There are sanctions. Let us ask: Why?

It is not because the world is against South Africa, but it is because of South Africa’s policies that the world has turned against us. This saying of Victor Hugo is still true and I like repeating it:

So let us not look past the whole question of a cause.

*Things can come right in this country and things will come right in this country. We need one another to set them right, but we cannot set things right without looking one another in the eyes as equals. As long as there are laws on the Statute Book which deny me and the majority of South Africans the right to be human beings, things will obviously not come right. Let us set this thing right, then the other things will follow. †The LP accepts that the South African society cannot change in its entirety overnight. It is true and a fact that a future South Africa will depend critically on the foundations that are laid here and now and therefore we say we must start building a future for South Africa but that future depends upon our togetherness.

On an occasion last year, and I say this because I must look at the past, we cannot forget the past entirely, the new Leader of the NP the hon the Minister of National Education said the following about the own affairs concept and I quote him:

I accept the fact that he said this last year but one also has to look at this circumspectly when one has regard to what he is saying now. We listened attentively, but as I have said before, we are still looking for that sign of movement and that sign of goodwill.

Surely this is not where the future of this country lies. If the Government continues to entrench own affairs in the South African society, one can only foretell that it will have enormous repercussions for the whole society. It is my party’s belief that the future of South Africa will be determined by the degree to which the Government extends the general affairs concept to enable all so-called groups to have a say in the matter. In this respect the LP is prepared to contribute in a constructive manner towards promoting the interests of all South Africans, the cardinal idea being that the sooner the duplication and multiplication within our borders is scrapped, the sooner South Africa will be able to apply its abundance of human resources and mineral wealth to the benefit of all in this country. I do not have to remind hon members of the NP what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly said about the price they have to pay for that in which they believe, namely the whole process of apartheid.

What will happen on the reform front? There will be change, but the choice we have before us is whether there is going to be controlled change or whether it is going to involve radical transformation. An acceptable solution for South Africa cannot be found in the concretisation of apartheid, but in a movement towards the realisation of the aspirations of all South Africans. Until such time as cognisance is taken of and accommodation made for Black aspirations in particular, we cannot move away from the situation of violence and the escalation thereof which we are presently experiencing.

It is solely the Government that is responsible for the fact that people are turning to violence. In the opinion of my party the solution rests in the hands of the Government to create a South Africa in which people will not move in that direction. We in the LP have tried to say to our people time and again: Just wait a little longer.

Things will change and there are indications of hope. However, it is we who are now undergoing frustrations close to despair. Yet we do not want to die in despair. We want to continue to live in hope. We do not want to swim through rivers of blood in order to achieve our right to live as persons.

The hon members on the other side must take note that our credibility as leaders opting for peaceful change through negotiation is diminishing. I am not a prophet of doom; I am a realist. This is particularly true of the youth who have become impatient. The attitude of our younger people as a result of disillusionment, a sense of hopelessness, frustration and despair is: We would rather die with dignity than to continue to live in humiliation.

It was the poet Adam Small who rightly wrote, and I quote:

I hope for God’s sake and for their and my sake that they begin to act humanely and compassionately.

*We want to say that all of us, no matter which side we are on, are engaged in some kind of liberation struggle. Perhaps we are concentrating on different aspects of that struggle, but the fact remains that the fear that is perceived particularly among Whites, as well as the growing fear among Blacks, must be dispelled. For this reason I want to repeat that in this struggle to free ourselves from that which binds us to the past, in this struggle to enable all to take their rightful place as free and peace-loving South Africans, it is necessary for us to realize that we are at present the victims of a policy.

†Every weak nation exploited by a strong nation is a victim; every man and woman denied the chance to read and write is a victim; and every man and woman deprived of the chance to acquire skills in our technological age is a victim. Every family that is undernourished is a victim. Not only the unemployed, but every man and woman who are underpaid are victims, and every child born of the unions of such men and women is doubly victimised, for they do not only have to suffer from malnutrition, diseases, overcrowded housing conditions or actual homelessness and desertion by parents or orphanhood, they also suffer the crippling effects of insecurity and the deprivation of love.

Every man who has ever spent a lifetime at work and never once been asked to help plan next year’s production is a victim of the situation. Every human being who has been imprisoned— as I have been—without the option of a genuinely fair trial is a victim of the situation. Therefore we must continue to work towards the total liberation of all South Africans.

*We must stop being victims of apartheid. We want to make it clear that we do not support those people who want to create chaos in this country. I remember a poem by Boerneef that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs once sent me when we were travelling on the same flight. I should like to quote it here:

One could have elaborated further on the whole issue of identity, but I want to use the last minute at my disposal to say that we must stop clinging to the past, particularly to this group and Afrikaner concept.

Just before concluding I should like to ask hon members whether they know who said the following, and I quote from Hansard:

I regret that my time has expired. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, since the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council spoke on behalf of the Government’s largest opposition party, I shall speak on behalf of the Government’s true opposition. [Interjections.]

This debate is nearing its end, as is the first term of this tricameral Parliament. The question now is what this term and this debate have yielded. It is undeniably true that what is happening in South Africa today is the result of the implementation of the NP policy. It is also undeniably and inexorably true that it is failing. After five years not only is there no party in this Parliament that thinks this situation is a success; not a single member of this party thinks it is a success.

It is the NP’s policy that is being implemented— the NP’s policy of joint decision-making in a democratic way with the protection of minorities. We have often said that those two things cannot co-exist. One political system cannot accommodate both. If joint decision-making on a democratic basis must be the order of the day, minorities cannot be protected if the majority does not want to do so. Joint decision-making on a democratic basis excludes the protection of minorities and the protection of minorities requires the exclusion of joint decision-making. The NP simultaneously wants to do two things that exclude one another, and that is why the system is failing.

According to the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Assembly, and the new national leader of the NP, that is still his party’s policy. I should like to congratulate him on his election as national leader. He has made his speech now, however, and despite the fact that the system has been in operation for almost five years, he could not give the faintest indication of how this NP ideal of joint decision-making and the protection of minorities is to be achieved. He could not give the faintest indication! His whole speech amounted to imaginative thoughts and daring. It was not even very imaginative. After five years of thinking, five years of talking and five years of governing together, he could not even make one suggestion as to how that policy and those two things should be accomplished. The only thing the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Assembly could say was that one should think harder now, because the thoughts of the past have not yielded anything. The hon the Leader of the House in the House of Assembly did indicate that he was prepared once again to pull up his tent pegs and move them to the left. I think he is finding this easier than in the past, because he is the man who has made the biggest shift in South African politics. [Interjections.]

The fact remains, however, that the NP will have to choose between joint decision-making and the protection of minorities. The NP will have to choose between these two things, and is doing so already. The NP chooses both, but the members in the party cannot choose both. They choose only one thing. After the events of the past two weeks, we now have a comprehensive picture of the division in the NP. We now know that 69 of the hon members in the caucus choose the protection of minorities. We know that 61 hon members choose joint decision-making. [Interjections.] We know that now!

We also have a picture of the division in the rest of the party, because the surveys the Government and the NP had all kinds of institutions do, indicated that 73% of the people in the NP give CP answers when they are questioned. When NP members have to control a town council, 73% of them govern as the CP does. When they have to man other places, they do so in the same way as the CP would. [Interjections.]

What about the result in Delmas?

The CP did not even have a candidate in Delmas. [Interjections.]

This division in the NP was confirmed by the hon the State President, and none other than the hon the State President, by the way in which he had the new hon national leader elected. He did not even give them half an hour, because he knew half an hour was enough to drive them apart. [Interjections.]

As a result of that action we have the fantastic situation in South Africa that the hon the State President is sitting with the steering wheel and the hon the national leader of the NP with the fuel tank, and they do not know where to find the mechanism that links the two. They still have to look for that.

The fact remains that after five years of this NP policy, South Africa has undeniably gone downhill. In the economic sphere—we listened to the hon the Minister of Finance who came to boast; he was proud, and so pleased about this—we showed a growth rate of 1%, 2% and 3% during the past three years, whereas there had been a negative growth rate before.

This is the fifth decade, and it is the decade in which the average growth rate is going to be the lowest in five decades. This decade shows the highest tax burden on the taxpayer. I want to tell that hon Minister that I suspect that if one studied textbooks about the kinds of taxation that exist in the world, one would find that there is not a single kind of existing taxation that he has not implemented. Should one find one that he does not apply, one had better not say anything, because if he should hear about it, he would implement it in South Africa immediately. [Interjections.]

There are taxes that do not exist that he has implemented as taxation in South Africa. Our growth rate is the lowest in five decades and our tax burden is the highest in five decades, yet the hon the Minister says he does not know how to meet all the demands of education and housing and all the other things.

This is in glaring contrast with the promises made by the NP before the referendum when they told us that if we voted for this Constitution, there would be economic growth in South Africa hitherto unknown in this country. Where is it, Sir?

The second fact is that South Africa has changed politically. We said power-sharing in the same political dispensation did not promote moderacy; that it led to radicalisation. Now we see this happening. After all, it is true that hon members of Parliament rose here this week and advocated ANC objectives; they acted as the advocates of what that organisation stands for.

The new national leader of the NP said:

He spoke about “recalcitrance”. It is this Constitution of theirs that causes the recalcitrance.

The hon the Minister of Defence took the hon member for Randburg to task because of his carryings-on with the ANC. He did not talk to the hon the leader of the LP or the LP as such, however, because they want to take the initiative from the hands of the NP and the Government to go and negotiate with the ANC. He did not talk about that. He did not mention it, because he knew that if he did, this Constitution of his would be in danger of collapsing.

In addition he knows that there are too many people in his own party who want to do this too, and who are probably doing it already.

We read in Vrye Weekblad that in an interview the hon member for Addo answered as follows to the question as to whether they have any contact with the ANC at present:

With two chaps from the Prime Minister’s office! Officials were dismissed in 1988 because they may have been too friendly with the ANC, yet there are allegations that two chaps from the Prime Minister’s office and two NP MPs spoke to the ANC in Athens as early as 1981. They spoke in Athens! [Interjections.]

That is not all. [Interjections.] Politieke Insig of February 1989—this month of this year—says that in the meantime the influential American newspaper, the Washington Post, has published a list of other meetings between South African and Soviet officials. Can the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs shed more light on this matter of the talks?

The talks were in our interests.

I told the hon the Minister that this was in glaring contrast with what he promised us before the referendum when he said that this Constitution would finish off the ANC and the communists. They would be finished off. Now we read that talks have been in progress for some time.

International pressure on South Africa has not diminished during these five years. The hon the Minister says sanctions are on the increase every day. The more Dr Danie Craven talks to the ANC about sport, the fewer tours we have coming to South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs boasted with what he had negotiated in respect of South Africa, but in reality that hon Minister backed down on every point and on every condition that he himself had made.

No.

The hon the Minister backed down with regard to the condition he made that the Cubans should withdraw before the election took place. He conceded that there had to be a period of visible peace before Resolution 435 was implemented. He conceded that the UNO should first withdraw its decision that Swapo was the only and true representative. He conceded with regard to the demand he himself made—I myself heard him say this on television—that South Africa should be represented in the body that would monitor the withdrawal of the Cubans. The hon the Minister backed down in respect of these points, and yet he says he attained success.

Listen to what the ANC says about the agreements they concluded, however. On 8 January this year, at the 77th commemoration of its establishment, the ANC said the following:

They go on to say:

On 8 January this year, therefore, they said they should proceed with violence so that the Government could give in even further, as it is doing already.

The implementation of Resolution 435 can have only one of two possible consequences. Only one of two things can happen in that election. The first is that Swapo will win the election with a two-thirds or ordinary majority, and will then be the major factor in drawing up the Constitution. The second possibility is that an ordinary Black majority government will be established in South West Africa. There is no other option.

I now want the hon the Minister to tell me whether Swapo promised that if they did not win the election, they would leave this other government in peace and abandon their acts of terror. Have Russia and the UNO made this promise? Has the UNO promised that it will not recognise Swapo as the only true representative of the people in South West Africa should this happen, and that it will not assist them again?

We know the history. Swapo will not take things lying down, and even if there is no Swapo government now, there will be one later. There will be a Swapo government, and that hon Minister cannot get away from that. He has sold SWA down the river. [Interjections.]

That is why I want to go further and say that if it is true, as the Government tells us, that communism and the ANC are to be fought by means of this National Council that they want to establish in South Africa, that constitution which must be negotiated to establish a government of all the people who will participate in it, if that is true, why do they not use the existing government in SWA—after all, it is representative of all people who are not violent—to fight Swapo? Why should they use a government which has been established by this National Council to fight the ANC? They will not use such a government, because then they would have done so in SWA. The Government has sold the true Nationalists, the Whites, the Diergaarts of SWA down the river. They are doing exactly the same thing in South Africa.

I say the NP must choose, because it has chosen two things already, but it will not be able to sit on the fence ad infinitum as the hon the national leader did yesterday. They will have to choose. Either they must take the course of joint decision-making or the course of the protection of minorities. Despite the fact that they are still choosing, and that they are going to continue to choose in SWA, where they are already at the point of implementing Resolution 435, they still tell the people they are going to protect them. The hon the Minister of Defence still says the Red flag will not be unfurled in Windhoek if Swapo wins the election. No one knows how the hon the Minister will manage that. He does not know. He merely says it will not happen. They give them more assurances, but they are already on their way to implementing a majority government and joint decision-making there. Nevertheless they still give assurances.

As a result of their having decided to both things, the NP has succumbed to a disease in their practice of misleading voters in South Africa. They are misleading them by pretending that they are doing one thing, whereas in practice they are doing something else. They tell the White voters that they will take care of group interests and ensure that the residential areas and facilities are protected. To satisfy the LP, they say the police must not implement those Acts. [Interjections.] And they think they can get away with that! They tell those who are in favour of the protection of groups that the Act is on the Statute Book and that it will be implemented, but they tell the joint decision-makers: “Don’t worry, we shall not implement the Act.” I am not inventing this. I have with me a copy of a circular sent by Compol. That is probably the hon the Minister of Law and Order’s head office … [Interjections.]

No, the hon the Minister can sit a little while longer, because he has not had enough of a hiding yet. [Interjections.]

I quote:

This is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act—

I repeat “… dat dit met die heersende Regeringsbeleid bots”. Sir, did they tell the voters in the municipal election … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I have been requested by the hon the Acting State President to make the following announcement on behalf of the Government.

The Cabinet has decided that Parliament is to be requested to appoint an ad hoc joint committee to inquire into and make recommendations regarding the question as to whether provision ought to be made for the cancellation of pensions and gratuities payable under the Members of Parliament and Political Office-bearers Pension Scheme Act, and if so, under what circumstances. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, we have just listened to the hon the deputy leader of the CP, and I must say, he was not nearly as full of fire as I normally know him to be. First of all, he spoke about the so-called failure of the tricameral Parliament. Here we are in that Parliament, and the LP, the largest party in the House of Representatives, recently decided that they considered the success of this Parliament to be great enough to continue with it. [Interjections.] The hon member said that the hon the State President had hold of the steering-wheel and that the hon the national leader of the NP was the fuel tank.

His party also has a function. They are the reverse gear! [Interjections.] After the Brakpan sports fiasco, I am convinced that that party will now want to make the tug-of-war our national game, because it is the only game in which one can achieve something by heaving backwards. [Interjections.]

I really had expected that hon member to avail himself of the opportunity here today to address two important statements he had made. On one occasion he said the following with regard to a Coloured homeland:

The hon member made a further statement. He said that more Coloureds supported the homeland concept than the tricameral Parliament. [Interjections.] I had expected that hon member to avail himself of the opportunity here today to elaborate on the statements he had made in the presence of those people to whom they relate. In the entire process which has developed since the Boksburg débacle, I have not yet heard a single Coloured person support that party’s viewpoint. I shall return to the CP presently.

The dominant political argument in this debate took place between the NP and the LP. Mutual understanding between these two parties could play a decisive role in South Africa’s future, and in the quest for a workable political formula for this country. [Interjections.]

More than three centuries before Christ, the Greek philosopher Plato said that the object of a country’s constitution was the greatest measure of happiness for everyone in that country, and not for a certain class. The hon the leader also referred to this.

I agree with this statement. The hon the Acting State President, too, attested to this when he said in his speech that the Government believed the promotion of the welfare of the entire population in the security, constitutional and social and economic development fields to be its primary responsibility. He went on to refer to the realisation of full civil rights for all South African citizens.

The hon the national leader of the NP committed himself to this yesterday when he said: “White domination … must go.” The fact that Plato made this statement 2300 years ago, is proof of the fact that what we are discussing here today is practically as old as history itself.

South Africa has come a long way in a short time. This joint debate in which we are involved here today and which is to be concluded today, is proof of this. Only five short years ago this would not have been possible! How have we achieved this? We have achieved it through co-operation, and not by ignoring one another, not by shouting at one another, and not by engaging in boycotts against one another and against politics.

Sitting in this Chamber today is a political party, or should I say the remnants of a political party— I do not know what that party which was formerly the PFP, calls itself now—which bears conspicuous witness to boycott politics. Even as they were dreaming about assuming the reins of government, they lost their status as Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. They cannot find a leader. They even have to do away with their name because, due to their deeds and their actions, that name has not brought them any benevolence or goodwill. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that that party had some research conducted a while ago and that they found that almost 50% of those people who agreed with them, voted against them because they did not trust them. That is the result of boycott politics.

Whatever happens in the rest of Africa and in Southern Africa in particular, has a very great impact on South Africa in terms of interest value, because we are so intensely a part of Africa. When we look back at the economic and political emancipation of Africa, two aspects emerge very clearly. The first is that in every instance, the White authorities waited too long before granting Blacks a say in the government of the country.

South Africa made the same mistake in 1910, when we removed the issue of Black political rights from the table and decided to shelve it.

What were the consequences of this in Africa? Instead of a sensible process developing, political emancipation became an emotional process with many concomitant disadvantages. That is the first deduction we can make in looking back on the African experience. However, there is a second one. Today there is general consensus in the world that with a few exceptions, African states manage their economies poorly. This fact places a question mark over Black majority rule which everyone in this country, regardless of colour, must take thoroughly into account. Impatience, fired by emotion, has been thedownfall of Africa. They wanted to run before they could walk.

In this debate, too, we have heard arguments fired by emotion and impatience. They may be justified. I concede that. The question is, however, where will they get us? How far did they get Africa? There are strong emotions on both sides with regard to the Group Areas Act, for example. [Interjections.]

Order! I am no longer prepared, under any circumstances, to permit the hon members to my left to keep up a running commentary by way of a cross-examination and interrogation of the hon the Minister. That will cease immediately!

I say that to ignore either of these two poles, would be fatal for South Africa. It is not only the Government that says so. I have here a pronouncement by a political enemy of the NP. I am referring to the editor of Business Day. In the 1 February 1989 issue of the paper he said:

That is the factual position and that is why the point of departure must be that if sufficient room is created for own and general aspects, the problem of group areas may ultimately be overcome. Free settlement areas or open areas cannot then be regarded merely as an escape route. They must be an integral part of the solution.

Boksburg has also featured in this debate. The Boksburg fiasco has given rise, inter alia, to two important consequences. Firstly it has made people think, and we saw the first signs of this during the by-election in Boksburg itself. The CP brushed this aside, however, and said that it was only because there were a number of Progs living in that ward that the candidate who was well disposed towards the NP had won by such a large margin.

Then we had Delmas. Both a CP candidate and an NP candidate stood in what was formerly a CP ward. [Interjections.] No, do not brand him a turncoat. The CP members are all turncoats! [Interjections.] What happened there? What happened, proved that people were prepared to think. That is the first point.

Secondly, Boksburg has shown that the CP policy falls apart entirely when it is exposed to reality. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly boasted here about 62 city and town councils that had been won by the CP. However, that is an indictment against his own party because only three of the 62 have been prepared to put the party’s policy into effect, with trepidation and with catastrophic results. [Interjections.] At first he praised them and said it was a fine thing that they were implementing CP policy. Shortly afterwards, when he saw what the consequences were, he admonished them in an article. I have the article here; I shall refresh the hon the leader’s memory presently. He then told them that they could have taken different action. [Interjections.]

They say that the comparison between the PFP and the CP is this: The PFP has one opinion, but three leaders. The CP has one leader, but three opinions. [Interjections.] Now, with the sport movement in Brakpan, the CP leader has, in fact, a third opinion on sport. [Interjections.]

Whenever the reality of Boksburg descends upon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, he changes his philosophy, his style. I have here in front of me an interview that was conducted with that hon leader, and published in Leadership. I am sure he regrets having granted that interview. He was asked whether the things that were taking place in Boksburg now, were not racism; there where they are banning people—this does not appear in the interview, but I am adding it—from Boksburg lake. That hon leader was a member of our party when we said that whatever cannot be divided up must be shared. Surely he subscribed to that viewpoint at the time. However, just listen to his reply—his old NP blood still surged within him to a small extent:

That is a reprimand for Boksburg. That hon leader went on to say:

I should like the hon the leader to tell us next time he speaks what he had in mind when he said that we must remove negative discrimination. I shall give the hon the leader another example. Perhaps he will fare better with this one. When they asked him about different facilities, he said:

Aha! I should now like to know from the hon the leader what sort of money. Will he use White money for this purpose? Will he use White money? He must tell the people. After all, the CP are telling the people that no White money will be used for people of colour; first for the Whites. Now that they have the hon the leader on the run, he is suddenly saying that money must be used. If the hon the leader is a man, he must tell us now whether it should be White money. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly said in his speech here that he was appealing to the Government to make an about-face in so far as Resolution 435— this relates to South West Africa/Namibia—was concerned. The hon the leader and his party wish to continue the war in South West Africa. There is no alternative. Either one does what the NP is doing or one states emphatically that one is continuing the war. [Interjections.]

The irony of the situation is this. The hon the leader also says that the first thing he would do if he came to power would be to remove all people of colour from the Defence Force. Imagine that! A man wants to wage war, but he dismisses one third of his soldiers. [Interjections.] Does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly realise what he is saying? I do not think so. Does he realise what he is going to unleash if he is going to let well trained soldiers— our men are well trained—loose in the country frustrated and unemployed? [Interjections.] We must discuss this matter.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly whom he is going to put in the place of those soldiers. Has he told the young White men that he is going to expect them to do double duty, and that twice as many of them are going to be shot dead? Are they also applauding the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition?

When the CP has to deal with the realities in practice, or even in an interview, their style, their philosophy changes. [Interjections.]

†Mr Speaker, during the course of this debate efforts have been made to tie the Government to incidents of corruption and similar irregularities. Those efforts met with very limited success, because the Government took the initiative to deal with these cases effectively by means of judicial commissions, the Advocate General and the courts.

Likewise, there was hardly any debate on the economic and financial policy of the Government. The reason is obvious. South Africa achieved a 3% real growth rate for the past year. This can be increased by about 1% to allow for the unrecorded or informal sector. For a developing country to achieve a 4% growth rate without any real credit facilities overseas is remarkable, although we admit it is not enough.

In 1989 our country demands from us that we come to terms with ourselves, that we come to terms with Africa and that we come to terms with the world.

*Sir, that is the spirit of the speech of the hon the Acting State President and that is the spirit of the speech of the hon the national leader of the NP. Debate concluded.