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

Agreed to.

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

Agreed to.

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

Agreed to.

Order! Before I permit the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to move his draft resolution, I want to refer to draft resolution No 5 on today’s Order Paper, which could influence today’s discussion owing to the rule of anticipation which exists. I merely draw hon members’ attention to it.

Mr Chairman, would you permit me to address you on this aspect, please?

Order! The hon member may certainly address me.

Mr Chairman, the position is as follows. I have attempted to ascertain from the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament whether and when the draft resolution—the fifth item on today’s Order Paper—is to be debated. He was unable to give me any specific indication in this regard or to categorically furnish a set date. That is why I ask that if reference should, in fact, be made to corruption, you will take cognisance of this because you have a discretion in such a case to permit sidelong references to matters of this nature.

Order! The discretion of the presiding officer reads as follows:

The situation I find myself in is that the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is saying that as far as he is concerned, the matter will not be brought before this House within a reasonable time. I have no evidence to the contrary before me in this regard. Is there anything the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament would like to add?

Mr Chairman, if I may assist, yes. The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition discussed this matter at a Whip’s meeting. I could not give the hon member an assurance that this matter would not in all probability come under discussion on Friday, 17 February. I hope that completes the picture.

I might possibly add that there could conceivably be an opportunity for this on Friday, 17 February; that is to say, next Friday.

Mr Chairman, may I address you in this regard?

There are two points that I would like to make. The first is that traditionally a motion of no confidence is entitled to cover a whole field. It is therefore not possible to discuss a motion of no confidence without discussing all the aspects in respect of which there may be no confidence in the Cabinet. This is a long-standing tradition in the annals of Parliament. If an action is taken, either as a result of an error of judgement on the part of a member or as a result of a deliberate action, which would frustrate that traditional debate, then it should not be allowed.

As I see it, two things should be taken into consideration. Firstly, if the long-standing tradition of covering every subject in a motion of no confidence is broken, it will not be possible to discuss these matters. Secondly, if it is decided that that tradition should be broken, it can only be done if the Chief Whip of Parliament now gives an unequivocal undertaking that this will actually be debated within a reasonable period of time.

He has not given that undertaking and unless he does that—as he is now in control—then I say that even if you were to break that other tradition, which I think you, Mr Chairman, I submit with respect, will not break, then you would still have to allow the discussion in full on the matters which are covered in this motion.

Order! I feel that morally the argument of the hon member has strong points to it. The tradition really has been that the kind of motion covered by Notice of Motion No 5 was kept over for the second Friday for the specific purpose of not bedevilling the discussion of a motion of no confidence. So the breach of the tradition I would say, would lie there, if one should look for a breach of tradition. However, the Rules also provide the following as regards the hon member’s argument: General debate is by practice permitted on motions of no confidence and such general debate is subject to the rule of anticipation. It therefore means that even a motion of no confidence is subject to the rule of anticipation.

As I see it, with respect, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has not given me the assurance that it will not come before the House within a reasonable time.

Mr Chairman, may I be of further assistance? There is a committee of this House that traditionally decides on the order of priority of private members’ motions. They decide, therefore, which motions will come up for discussion. If this committee of the House of Assembly were to approve this motion as one of the priorities when considering private members’ motions, I would indeed make provision for that within a reasonable time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to give the assurance that we in the NP would like to take part in a debate on Notice of Motion No 5, and we shall give priority to the discussion of this motion, in one way or another, in the near future.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: As there has now been that undertaking which might, in terms of what you have just said, have an effect despite what I have indicated, I would like to know if it is possible for me to ask the hon member concerned to withdraw his motion so that there can be no problem about it. He can obviously reinstate his motion at some future date if he wishes, but if, with the leave of the House, he withdraws that motion we can have a free and open debate. If that were not to take place, a motion of no confidence becomes a farce in the present circumstances. So I would ask him to do that.

Well, I am in the hands of the House.

Mr Chairman, in view of the discussion taking place here at present, and also in view of the fact that an announcement was made yesterday by the hon the Acting State President to the effect that an investigation was to be conducted into the matter of pensions and gratuities for members of Parliament, I ask leave to withdraw this notice of motion.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The Rules are there for all of us, and we are all supposed to know the Rules. When this notice of motion was introduced on the same day and at the same time as the notice of motion of no confidence, hon members should have anticipated that it was their intention to have a separate debate on this matter. The assurance has now been given … [Interjections] … that there will be a separate debate.

Because we had read the Rules, in terms of the Rules we on this side of the House informed those speakers who would have prepared themselves for a discussion of this matter, not to do so because it would not be discussed today in terms of the Rules. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members will be given an opportunity to reply.

The Rules must be adhered to, because I know of no way in which a motion lower down on the Order Paper may be withdrawn before one has arrived at that point in the proceedings.

Order! The situation has now crystallised unclearly, but the situation is also the following. The Rules provide that a notice of motion or a question only becomes effective for the purposes of this Rule when it appears on the Order Paper. It has appeared, so it is effective. When a Rule ceases to apply the withdrawal of a notice of motion or question only becomes effective when it disappears from the Order Paper. It has not disappeared. In the circumstances I rule that the rule of anticipation will apply.

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

From the nature of the circumstances it is true that I have limited time for the motivation of this motion. I shall therefore concentrate on a few aspects and single out a few matters to illustrate what we mean by a motion of no-confidence in the Cabinet.

Before I come to that I just want to refer to a report which apparently appeared this morning in a Nasionale Pers publication, a report which mentioned that a CP mayor of Volksrust was to appear before court on a whole number of charges. My information from Volksrust is that the specific person involved is not a member of the CP. On the contrary, he was elected to the town council on the Aksie Volksrust Eerste platform and until recently he was still a fervent supporter of the NP. [Interjections.] It is therefore a flagrant attempt to explain away and conceal the shame of Lydenburg, Hillbrow and East London.

I listened to the debates in the joint meeting. I do not intend going into those debates in detail. My observation of and my reaction to those debates are divergent. On the one hand I want to say that to listen to the speakers of the House of Representatives sometimes aroused a feeling of compassion in one. I can honestly say that I have very great comprehension for some of the standpoints expressed there. I am prepared to listen to people’s complaints about discrimination, about how they are not being dealt with fairly and are not being accorded their rights in South Africa, but that is one thing. On the other hand I feel a deep resistance to and an open aversion to open insults. I feel an aversion to the style displayed there in certain cases and to the demands made there, and in particular to the disregard, not only for an own community, but also for the community and the people of whom I am a member. Some of those people create the impression that it has become an absurdity to refer to the White community, and an even greater absurdity to refer to the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.]

What also struck me were the feverish efforts on the part of the NP to accommodate, as it were, that objection, those grievances and that disparagement of the Whites and the Afrikaners through the denial of group consciousness, of Afrikaner identity and of the right of a specific people …

You are talking rubbish!

The hon the Minister must wait a moment; I am coming to him soon. He is so afraid of the concept of people that he is running away to minority groups, and now he does not even have an obsession with groups anymore!

We have no problem with people’s claims to rights and common humanity, but we definitely have objections to a disregard for our own people and derision for national festivals. There are some of those people who do not even know what a people is, to say nothing of a national festival. Those people and that situation which the NP caused to arise make me ask: What has the NP done to South Africa and to me and my people! [Interjections.] I am not complaining about there being an opportunity for those people to state their standpoint. To tell the truth they are not stating anything new. All we are getting now is a dramatic opportunity for people … [Interjections.]

Order! There are certain hon members who under certain circumstances should receive more protection than others. The hon the leader of the Official Opposition is one of them. I request hon members to make fewer unnecessary interjections. The hon the leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

There is no doubt that we were listening to open propaganda for the ANC in that Joint Meeting. In my humble opinion it was a contravention of the law within Parliament. In a manner of speaking it was open propaganda to get the ANC acceptable.

People who do not even know what a people is are people who are being included in the decision-making processes affecting my people and myself. The day I have to feel ashamed at being able to stand up here as an Afrikaner, with recognition of the rights of and with courtesy and respect to the Coloured community and the Indian community, and I have to feel ashamed of my rights and my privileges, then I think this opportunity here in Parliament has really diminished in value.

My conclusion is that instead of feeling ashamed of what I am, I am more firmly convinced after the debate of the past week that divided development, independent development—it may be called a separate development or even apartheid, for after all those hon members are all running away from that concept and are talking of a post-apartheid era—or separate development is the essential recipe for sound relations and for the right of peoples in South Africa to self-determination. [Interjections.]

I did not shout at Coloureds. I did not make a single derogatory remark about the Coloured community, but the remarks directed at my party and my people from that side were unacceptable. If I were to speak plainly I would say that I have really had more than enough of this. [Interjections.]

Secondly I should like to draw attention to the defence put up by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I know he is a very busy man but that is not going to prevent me from coming back to the defence he advanced at the Joint Meeting. He was replying to my reference to the withdrawal of the Cubans, to what had been decided in the Cabinet in 1978, and what had been decided in the NP caucus, but he was skating on really thin ice. To tell the truth there is no ground under his feet in regard to the Cubans and their withdrawal, and the evidence against him is the speech made by the hon the State President last year. There are quite a number of passages I could quote, but I shall not tire hon members for too long. The hon the State President said (Hansard, 24 August 1988, col 15507):

1 August should be set as the date for commencement of the implementation of Resolution 435, provided that prior agreement could be reached on the withdrawal of Cuban troops.

This seems to be the justification for what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said.

That is precisely what he said.

The hon member for Turffontein can wait a while. I do not think he will have anything to say after I have finished.

However, the hon the State President went on to say (col 15508):

2 August. In it was proposed that elections in terms of Resolution 435 should take place on 1 June 1989, by which time the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola must have been completed.

[Interjections.]

I want to quote further from this speech (col 15509):

I think I have made my point clear to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

He refers to the approval of Resolution 435 and he keeps on saying that the Cabinet approved it in 1978. We have told the hon the Minister repeatedly that in 1978 the hon member for Lichtenburg and I were not members of the Cabinet.

The first time we were invited into the Cabinet to participate and listen to certain submissions was during the discussions of the Information matter. We were then briefed as Deputy Ministers.

If the hon the Minister wants to talk about the Cabinet, I want to ask him whether he remembers the system which was then to have been applied in South West Africa, and the implementation of Resolution 435 went hand-in-hand with this. During the discussion of this matter in the Cabinet I said that I had a problem with it, because the system which the Cabinet wanted to apply there made me feel like a boxer who had to fight with one hand tied behind his back, because the system that was envisaged was a kind of federation, a unitary state, and in South Africa we rejected a federation.

After all, I know how the hon the State President applauded when the hon the leader of the NP once said that a federation was still a unitary state. He was delighted at that news from an expert. I gladly give the hon national leader credit for that.

I then said that if the Cabinet proposed such a system in South West Africa and South Africa I would have to oppose such a system and would not support it. What was the reaction of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs? He then said he “appreciated the problem colleague Andries had”.

The hon the Minister asked what we, the CP, had to do with South West Africa. As long as a NP Government exists in the Republic of South Africa and we are the Official Opposition of that Government, we will continue to be involved in every decision made by the Government. If the Government decides to throw South West Africa to the wolves, or thinks in an irresponsible and naive way that it is holding out a prospect of peace to South West Africa by withdrawing South Africa’s forces and establishing peace-keeping forces and introducing a kind of democratic system there which must result in a Swapo victory, Swapo domination and a Sam Nujoma who is preparing to hoist the Red Flag in Windhoek, I say to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs it is late in the day if he expects the CP to keep quiet, and I have to disappoint him.

If the hon the Minister were to decide to meet the ANC in Vienna, or if he perhaps approves of Dr Piet Koornhof liaising with the ANC in Lusaka, he must know that this side of the House as opposition to the Government will reserve for itself the right to comment and to be involved in it.

Next I want to talk about Boksburg and I should like to say here this morning that instead of the events in Boksburg being an embarrassment to the CP Boksburg will in future, in the annals of the political history of South Africa, be a monument to CP determination. [Interjections.]

I am pleased that I am temporarily able to bring a little pleasure to the PFP side of this House. [Interjections.]

What the CP town council of Boksburg decided was absolutely in line with NP policy over the years. It was absolutely in accordance with the NP’s propaganda for the municipal elections. The NP said the town council had the power to decide whether facilities were open or closed. That was the propaganda of the NP. The NP told John Citizen that own residential areas, own facilities was the policy of the NP, but if a CP town council applies the policy the NP is proclaiming, a furore breaks out. The matter is not at all that innocent. It is a monument to NP double standards and a renunciation of its own policy. [Interjections.]

Here are a few facts we want to place on record. In Pretoria—this is the city which the hon chief leader of the NP boasts of winning, which they only just managed to do—the recreational resorts at the Fountains, Wonderboom, Derdepoort and all branch libraries are closed. They are for Whites only!

As far as Vereeniging is concerned—this is the main seat of the hon chief leader of the NP—the city hall is for Whites only, the swimming bath is for Whites only, the parks are for Whites only, the caravan park is for Whites only, recreational resorts along the Vaal River are for Whites only, libraries are for Whites only, and the chairman of the management committee is a Nationalist. [Interjections.] Yes, he is a Nationalist!

Our quarrel with the NP is: Why are they running away from their own policy, while if we apply it, they join the liberals and leftists in berating us. What happened in Boksburg was that the liberals and leftists, together with the NP supporters, shot themselves in the foot. They caused a boycott campaign and when the boycott campaign began to affect them, they reproached us and they wanted us to remove the bullet from the foot. That is the image of the NP.

What is happening there? The hon member for Boksburg stood jubilantly at the side of the PFP candidate who won in the first election … [Interjection.] … as thick as thieves! We have the photograph!

He is not in the PFP!

In 1981 he was in the PFP and then the NP stood against him.

He was never PFP! [Interjections.]

Well, he is not NP, he is not CP either, so what is he then?

He is a leftist!

He is a leftist. One is known by the company one keeps, but I think the hon member for Boksburg might lose that friendship in future. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs referred here to my reference to style, and so on, but I think, with all due respect to the hon the Minister, that I have seen him give a better performance than that! I do not think he felt very much at home. He used an interview which I conducted with Leadership and that interview has my approval; I stand by every word of it. He pecked at it sporadically and then left it.

The hon the Minister also referred to one third of the SADF in South West, who are non-Whites. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Defence whether that is true, because my information is that the percentage of non-Whites in the SADF—I do not know whether I may say this— is 2% to 3%. Well, if that is how correct his factual information is then he knows what we must think of his judgement in other respects. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister then wanted to fasten onto a suggestion on my part that with the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the White town council over Boksburg—surely it is an accepted jurisdiction— the White town council of Boksburg reaches decisions about its facilities in the interests of the taxpayers of Boksburg. They can decide that they maintain their jurisdiction there over the town hall, swimming baths, tennis courts, etc. Now Reigerpark has a town hall which can hold 1 200 people, it also has tennis courts and it also has an international standard swimming bath, but if the town council of Boksburg, which consists of CP people, were to think they could possibly render assistance and that they should help to upgrade facilities in Reigerpark, then they can do so.

The hon the Minister is having a spot of bother with this. I have no problem with it. I have stated repeatedly in public that a CP Government of South Africa will render assistance to other people. No one lives only for himself. [Interjections.]

No, no wait a minute, it is not my fault if hon members live in isolation. It is not my fault if hon members do not know what the CP advocates! [Interjections.]

I want to ask those hon members whether this is objectivity. It is my standpoint that such a government will render assistance in a responsible way, but with preference to that community that elected it and whose taxes it is spending. [Interjections.]

With White money!

Now I just want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware of how the White money of Boksburg has been allocated over the years. May I inform him?

Will you render that assistance with White money?

I shall render assistance with White money, of course! [Interjections.] The chagrin is plain on those faces, because what happened? [Interjections.] What did they do under the NP regime, with which the hon member for Boksburg was closely associated? They allowed the overdraft, the deficit on the account of Reigerpark to increase between 1980 and 1988 from R1 196 000 to R12 550 000, and the interest on those arrear amounts totals approximately R2 million. This year’s estimated total expenditure is R4,5 million, the income R2,6 million, consequently there is a deficit of almost R2 million. Who is paying it? [Interjections.]

It was the NP, who then did them this great favour, but if the CP says we shall do so in a responsible way, it is suddenly wrong!

It seems to me my time has unfortunately expired, but Boksburg is a monument to CP determination. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the more I listen to the CP, the more I become convinced that they have nothing they can offer South Africa. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition speaks of Boksburg as a monument. Yes, I think Boksburg is a monument. It is a monument in the sense that hon members of the CP have also gained some insight.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is now prepared to acknowledge that White money can be employed to satisfy the essential needs of other communities. [Interjections.] By virtue of Boksburg, the CP has gained some insight, so much so that many other CP town councils are now very hesitant when it comes to implementing their own policy. [Interjections.]

There is a long record of CP town councils who are not prepared to implement their own policy now. I think it is a monument for South Africa to see what the short-sighted CP policy can mean to South Africa—the damage it can do us.

In these transitional stages in which South Africa finds itself, with the tremendous developments …

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

No, I am not prepared to take a question now; my time is unfortunately very limited.

Listening to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and also to other CP speakers, I was reminded of the many reports about South Africa that are blazoned abroad, conveying an incorrect and distorted image of South Africa. We rightly take umbrage, in this House, at that distorted image of South Africa. [Interjections.] We say that these are one-sided and distorted reports which bear no relationship to the realities of South Africa, and we consequently level our accusations at those media.

Not only is the false perception created outside South Africa, but it is also created inside South Africa. The Official Opposition cheerfully plays along. By way of its policies the CP conveys a distorted image of the realities of South Africa to the public. Through their artless and simplistic policy statements they are creating a false impression in the minds of the public. It is as much of a distortion of the realities of South Africa as we experience abroad amongst malicious journalists. It is an image which bears no relation to the realities of South Africa. Hon members of the CP are creating, amongst Whites, the expectation that they will be able to create a situation in South Africa in which White domination can continue to exist and in which we do not have to pay any heed to unemployment and the dire straits in which other population groups find themselves. This is a simplistic statement which may perhaps have emotional value, but it is as simplistic, within the context of the realities of South Africa as “every people to its own territory under its own government”.

Does that not create false expectations? [Interjections.] It fails to do justice to the realities of South Africa. It is done with an arrogance and brute force which is an even clearer indication that hon members in that party do not take the realities of South Africa into account. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg normally excels in that. Just listen to what the hon member said at Baltimore: “Gee ons net twee weke kans en daar is niks van die ANC en die UDF oor nie.” [Interjections.] I am afraid that if we gave hon members two weeks, there would be nothing left of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Is Boksburg not a monument to that? No, CP propaganda is as much a renunciation of the realities of South Africa and creates as distorted an image of this country as that created by distorted Press reports in the foreign media.

It is necessary for us to be realistic. Is it not an irrefutable truth that within the next 10 or 11 years South Africa is going to undergo dramatic and far-reaching changes? [Interjections.]

There are demographic, economic and social forces at work which are going to transform South Africa unrecognisably in its very essence and character. If this statement is true—I do not think anyone in this House can disagree with me on that—we owe it to our voters and to the country, as responsible leaders, to conduct a reasonable debate about how these changes can be dealt with. [Interjections.]

Let us disagree about the solutions, but let us start with the realities—those forces which are at work in South Africa and are changing this country before our very eyes. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal who is engaged in a conversation with the hon the Leader of the House, would do well to do that outside. The hon the Minister is making his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

It is these changes and the expectations about what they embody—the anticipation about what is happening in South Africa—which are giving impetus to the political processes, not vice versa. Political problems are therefore being made the focus of discussion owing to the growing realisation of the nature and extent of the changes we are subject to.

The cardinal question every political party must ask itself is whether its policy can effectively deal with the realities of South Africa. It is not a question of whether we like the realities or whether they meet with our approval; they still remain the realities that have to be dealt with.

I have read that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition charged us, as Nationalists, with always wanting to rake up unpleasant realities. In his speech at the Transvaal CP congress he put it in these terms:

Capitulation is not the result of one’s being prepared to face up squarely to realities … [Interjections] … but rather of one’s attempts at escaping from the realities by replacing them with dreams and illusions. [Interjections.]

What are these negative realities the hon member spoke about? Are they the realities that the CP does not like. A reality is a reality, a fact is a fact and one has to deal with them. [Interjections.]

Anyone who thinks about the future of South Africa—this includes hon members over there too, I think—realises that choices have to be made in these times in which we are living, choices we have to make in this day and age with a view to the year 2000 and beyond. Choices can only be made between those options which are possible and achievable. There are choices which are possible today, but which are not going to be possible in 10 to 15 years’ time. It is true that yesterday and the day before choices were possible which are no longer feasible today. Some of the choices that Dr Verwoerd had, for example, no longer exist today, because the realities have changed drastically from those that existed in Dr Verwoerd’s time to those we are experiencing now. Dr Verwoerd himself recognised the truth of this.

It is very interesting that when he spelled out the parallel-stream development policy of the NP in this House on 10 April 1961, he did so with these significant words (Hansard, 1961, col 4192):

He went on to state:

That is as far as I shall quote Dr Verwoerd. How has the world not changed since Dr Verwoerd uttered these words 21 years ago! How much more is the world and South Africa not going to change over the next 10 years and more!

Let us just, for a moment, turn our thoughts to the demographic realities of South Africa. At the beginning of this century, according to 1904 figures, the total estimated population of South Africa was a little more than 5 million. In 1980 the 5 million have grown to 29,3 million, and in the year 2000 the population of the RSA excluding the TBVC countries, will be 36,5 million. Of that 36,5 million, the White group will represent 6 million.

Make them despondent with figures!

No, those are the unpleasant realities, but they remain the realities we must deal with in terms of our politics. Seek some avenue of escape, simply create a distorted image of reality. That is, after all, the way in which they try, on an emotional basis, to win voters over to their cause, but that is not going to afford South Africa any solutions. The Black urban population alone, according to HSRC figures, will be 26 million in the year 2000. According to HSRC projections the ratio between Whites and Blacks will be 8:1. [Interjections.] We are specifically not surrendering; we specifically want to seek reasonable and responsible solutions that can address these issues. It would be possible for me to augment these figures with other statistics.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke here about figures, 32% of the Public Service being comprised of Whites, the rest of members of other population groups. With figures I could, in the educational sphere, give hon members a picture of the challenges we are faced with, and the same applies to the labour field, as far as manpower is concerned, problems involving unemployment and the vital socio-economic challenges facing us.

Let me briefly just quote a single passage from a book by Mr Ronny Bethlehem, Economics in a Revolutionary Society. Á very interesting remark is made on page 113:

Because if that does not happen, unemployment, which is already high, will get completely out of hand. Poverty will increase, misery will increase and we shall ultimately, in this country, be faced with revolution and violence which we cannot handle.

I am saying that hon members of the Official Opposition are creating a distorted picture of South Africa by their utterances. A distorted picture—just listen to a few examples. I would be able to quote very many more examples of what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said at the CP congress in Durban. He said, for example:

No, he is here already; it is not necessary to make room for him. In many cases he has been here for generations. The CP’s policy will meaningfully and responsibly have to deal with his presence. Then we have the hon member for Lichtenburg speaking at the same congress. The hon member always displays a little more fire, a little more of the strong-arm tactics. He spoke about Black people who should be sent back to their homelands. He said:

And do not have any work! I quote further:

Does this statement reflect the values and norms on which that party’s policy is based—that if someone does not have any work, does not have any bread to eat and his wretchedness and distress are at their worst, he should be taken from one’s sight and sent away? Do hon members know that unemployment is one of the major dangers in South Africa, and that the challenge of creating sufficient job opportunities for the people of South Africa can, more than any other policy, determine our future? The hon member for Lichtenburg nevertheless says: Send them away! [Interjections.] What heartlessness does this type of policy not attest to! What is more, it is part of the false perceptions that are being created. One cannot simply load people onto trains, en route to No-man’s Land where one no longer has them on one’s conscience and they are no longer part of the problems of Southern Africa. A distorted picture is being held up to the electorate and is being presented, on emotional grounds, as the CP’s answer for South Africa. No, it cannot be done.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition speaks of the relocation of people and then says, so significantly, and I quote from Beeld:

“We shall decide.” No, neither bulldozers nor tanks will enable the hon Leader to give substance to these pipe-dreams. [Interjections.] Let me quote what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said on 29 August 1988 at the CP’s Transvaal congress, as reported in Beeld. [Interjections.] Is the hon Leader now denying that he said that? Did the hon Leader not say that? It is quoted here verbatim. [Interjections.] Is it a question of his not liking this? [Interjections.] The big difference between the NP and the CP is …

Is credibility!

… that we accept the realities of South Africa. We accept the realities of South Africa and, as recently as Wednesday, the hon new chief leader of the NP spelled this out very clearly. We accept the diversity, and perhaps 100 or 200 years later, if those differences no longer exist, we can think of new political structures … [Interjections] … in which diversity no longer plays a role.

Mr Chairman …

Order!

The hon member for Overvaal knows that I do not have time for any questions now.

Mr Chairman …

Order! No, the hon member cannot ask a question now.

I do not want to answer any questions.

Sir, I have not yet told you what I want to do.

Order! Then the hon member may quickly do so.

May I ask the hon the Minister a question, please?

No.

The hon member for Overvaal is trying to take up my time because the CP feels the pinch when their own policy, and the distortions inherent in the substance of that policy, are held up to them. The difference with the NP is that it accepts the diversity, but also the common elements in South Africa. Our politics is not escapist politics …[Interjections] …but a vision of South Africa, its people and its future based on civilised values and norms and rooted in realism. [Interjections.] That is why we want to start with those common elements that bind us to one another in this country. [Interjections.]

The tragedy of the political debate in South Africa is that we focus so sharply on the things that divide us rather than noticing the tremendous number of common interests we have. There is a vast reserve of kindness and goodwill between the various population groups in South Africa. Let us begin there. There is also a significant majority in all groups who are seeking peace and do not want to see South Africa tom asunder by conflict and revolution.

We share the same values with millions of others in this country. Our endeavours are all based on the same norms and we are all, I think, trying to leave a better world as a legacy for our children. It is on the basis of linking up with these common elements that we must build a future in which every citizen of the country, regardless of colour, can take his rightful place as a complete and full-fledged member of South Africa society, a society in which we, through our common labours, loyalty and love, can contribute towards South Africa achieving that greatness which is embodied in the country and its people. It is not a task that can be achieved overnight. Reinholdt Nebo says it beautifully, and I conclude with his words:

Mr Chairman, we in these benches listened with a great measure of understanding to what the hon the Minister said a moment ago. We specifically want to link up with his statement that today there are social and economic forces at work in South Africa which are going to bring about far-reaching change in the years ahead. This applies equally to his concomitant statement, ie that South Africa will have to become a modern industrial country. That appears to be essential for our survival. We will, in fact, have to achieve that.

Our anxiety lies in the fact that we very strongly doubt whether there is, on the part of the Government, a sufficient sense of urgency to deal with this problem and with these forces that the hon the Minister mentioned. I therefore move as an amendment to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s draft resolution:

1. (1) it consistently fails to produce the economic growth rate which our country needs in order to provide the necessary jobs and a reasonable measure of prosperity;
2. (2) it has signally failed to fulfil its promise of effective and efficient administration;
3. (3) it has made no significant progress in negotiating a new constitution to provide full citizenship for all South Africans; and
4. (4) it has shown itself unable to govern except through the use of sweeping undemocratic powers under a continuing state of emergency.”

In these four points the indictment against the Government is summed up.

As far as the first point is concerned, let me repeat here a charge I made elsewhere the other day. On that occasion the hon the Minister of Finance, quite understandably, also found it necessary to counter my charge. In reply to the main charge which I levelled, and which is repeated in my amendment today, the hon the Minister defended the Government by focusing attention on the fact that since 1985 the Government had been without an international banker, that we have therefore been compelled to maintain a positive balance of payments and that it has been difficult, under such circumstances, to maintain a sound growth rate. That is not unreasonable, but nevertheless holds no water whatsoever as a defence against my charge, and there are, in fact, two reasons why it does not.

In the first place the growth rate evidenced a downward trend long before 1985. Let me quote the annual figures for the real growth in the GDP since 1975. Prior to that year, as everyone knows, for decades we maintained a growth rate of approximately 5%. In 1975 we had a growth rate of 2,2%; in 1976, 1,5%, in 1977, 0%; in 1978, 2,9%; in 1979,3,3% and then, in 1980 and 1981— the two magic years of the high gold price—a growth rate of 5,6% and 4,8% respectively. In 1982 the growth rate was—0,8%; in 1983,— 2,1%; in 1984—this was again a good year— 5,1% and in 1985—the year in which the bankers withdrew their support in September—a negative growth rate of 1,2%.

†Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister cannot get away with it. His Government—not, of course, he personally, because he was not in office then— was hurting the economy very badly long before the Rubicon speech delivered the coup de grace in 1985.

In the second place, to the extent to which it is true that our economic position has become worse since 1985, the question is whose fault it is. I say that the events of 1985 were a direct result of the public demonstration in that year of the incapacity of the Government to govern except through the continuation of sweeping emergency powers referred to in my amendment today. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, at bottom the economic problems of South Africa are problems of confidence. Let the hon Minister look at the figures for gross domestic fixed investment in this decade. He will remind himself that the figure for 1981 was R33 757 million and that by 1987 it had fallen in constant 1985 money to R23 303 million or by over 30%.

It is pretty depressing when one reflects that today’s investment is an important determinant of tomorrow’s economic growth. I repeat that the growth rate is in itself most disquieting, and as a measure of the Government’s performance it is damning.

There is a very wide consensus of opinion that a rate of about 5,5% is needed if we are to provide the jobs we need. That is why the hon Minister for Administration and Privatisation talks about a modern industrial state. Such a growth rate is certainly possible, given appropriate resource allocation. It is not possible given armies of bureaucrats who are administering apartheid.

What are bureaucrats?

I am coming to that in a moment.

This brings me to the old point about which the hon the Minister and I crossed swords the other day. I refer to the fact that Government expenditure, as a percentage of the GDP, had increased from 11% in 1967 to 19% in 1987. He said that this represented a very large transfer of resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive public sector.

The hon the Minister thought fit to take great exception to the fact that I supposedly accused his officials, as individuals, of being less productive than their counterparts in the private sector.

I never said anything of the kind! I do not even know whether that is the case or not! What I said—and I stand by that—is that the greater the State’s share in the economy is, the lower will be the overall productivity of the economy.

The hon the Minister caught me out on the point that I had not given credit for the fact that the number of “pen-pushers”, as we both called them, in the Public Service had begun to decrease.

I studied the information brochure published by the Commission for Administration in April 1985. In it I did, in fact, find that the category “others”, which includes most of the purely administrative workers, had only increased by 5% between 1986 and 1987, and had it not been for the addition of Railway police and development board officials, it would have decreased by approximately 2,5%.

That was, in fact, my mistake, and I apologise to the hon gentleman for not having mentioned the fact, but the investigation also led to my conducting a bit of related research. For example, I found a report in Beeld of 18 May 1988 which indicated that as far as the self-governing states were concerned, there had been an increase of 48% in the number of officials, with more than 50% in the case of parastatal organisations. These facts support my general claim that the Government is appointing large numbers of bureaucrats largely for the purpose of administering apartheid. So my charge against the Government still stands.

†Mr Chairman, that is enough to prove the first point in my amendment. This Government is depriving our country of the economic growth it needs. It is true, as it has been alleged elsewhere, that a vote for the Government is a vote for poverty.

The second leg of our amendment refers simply to the failure of the Government to make good its promise of effective administration. This charge has been fully justified by events and by the debate of the past few days in the Other Place. Indeed the proposed appointment of a committee to look into the benefits payable to members of Parliament who misbehave, while praiseworthy in itself, simply supports our point here.

I should like to spend a little while on the third leg of my amendment. It reads:

I forget how many years it is since the Government first undertook to get on with this job, but it is several years and nothing ever happens. We just go on chugging along, with the total exclusion of Black people from the highest level of government and the inclusion of Indian people and so-called Coloured people only on a gerrymandered basis which robs them of any real power, except in regard to certain constitutional amendments.

The members of the Government do not need me to tell them why this is so. They need only to go and read the public statements of Chief Minister Buthelezi of KwaZulu, who has been particularly careful to state clearly his reasons for declining to come to the conference table. The Chief Minister says, and I have every sympathy with him, that he is simply not going to sit down and talk to the NP in order to come away with empty hands and face the charge that he is just a collaborator and an Uncle Tom. He says that he, like others, would actually like to have universal suffrage in a unitary state but that he is prepared, for the sake of reaching a settlement, to agree to a federal arrangement with protective clauses in the constitution. In other words, the Chief Minister may well agree to the policy of the PFP but not to the policy of the NP.

To get Black leaders of any stature to the conference table the Government will have to conceive, in practice and in theory, the principle of equal dignity for all South Africans. Equal dignity means equal rights because the most certain way to insult a person’s dignity is to label him or her as inferior by saying to the world that the rights one offers him or her will in any respect be less than those offered to others.

Of course we recognise the point that if one is going to negotiate one cannot spell out the results of those negotiations in advance, but that does not preclude one from stating some guiding principles in advance.

During the past few days I seem to have heard from the lips of Government speakers something that sounds very much like “no domination” and “no discrimination”. Of course, those are phrases much used by this party about ten years ago. I am very pleased to hear it. The Government, however, has to spell out the implications more clearly. No discrimination means a vote of equal value for every South African and that is what is required.

Of course the hon members of the CP will scream “Black domination”. I do not believe that that is the necessary implication at all. I say that if the leaders of the NP are serious at all in declaring that they wish to negotiate a constitutional dispensation which can restore democracy in South Africa, that is the minimum they have to offer— a vote of equal value for every adult. Otherwise we shall grind our way through another dreary year of the state of emergency, detention without trial, censorship, secrecy, corruption, growing isolation and creeping poverty, only to return here wearily next year to move the same motion again.

I need not add more regarding the fourth leg of my amendment. Government in our country is being conducted by thoroughly undemocratic means because in the present circumstances democratic government is not possible. Democratic government implies government with the consent of the governed. As long as the majority of South Africans are denied normal civil rights, there will be no consent of the governed. The government will as now continue to be by force majeure. As long as this goes on there will be no peace, prosperity or real security, only strife, corruption and creeping poverty.

Mr Chairman, we are experiencing the strange phenomenon this morning that we have two opposition parties that want to make the House believe that this country has no confidence in the Cabinet, whereas the public at large has in fact been indicating the opposite. [Interjections.]

During the past few weeks we have seen the results of two separate opinion polls which have indicated the opposite of what these two opposition parties have been trying to suggest to us. This is the Cabinet of the hon the State President.

A month or so ago an independent opinion poll indicated that two out of every three White South Africans regard the hon the State President as someone who does his task well. This survey was done among men and women, young and old, Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people, in cities and in the rural areas and in every province of our country.

That is not all, however. During the same period Rapport’s regular opinion polls indicated that the NP as a whole has once again increased its level of acceptability to what it was before the last election, and that the NP has been accepted by almost 55% of the White population of South Africa as their party, whereas those two parties received only a small and insignificant percentage of support. [Interjections.]

†We have just had the hon leader of the PFP moving an amendment which, inter alia, blames the Government for an inability to maintain a satisfactory growth rate in this country. This is certainly one of the most cynical accusations ever to come from the ranks of that particular party. I would like to remind the House that some 12 years ago, when he was executive director of the Anglo American Corporation, a company with widespread international influence and one to which foreign investors would look for guidance and leadership, this hon member said the following in the Financial Mail, a publication which is also of some influence:

That is the same gentleman who now takes this Government to task for failing to maintain a satisfactory growth rate. [Interjections.]

However, that is not the only respect in which that party has failed to capture the imagination of the people of South Africa. For the past six months they, in company with other political groupings, have been trying to create a single political party. Surely that must be one of the most laborious and painful births of the past decade. One would have thought that they would be driven by an overpowering sense of urgency. After all, that same leader of the PFP himself forecast that unless they found common ground and unity, the PFP would lose half its members in the next election and the other two groups would simply be wiped out.

Yet to date they have taken six months to achieve one small breakthrough, and that is that they have agreed on a name for their new party. As matters stand today, they have yet to agree on a leader, and have settled in the meantime on a so-called “troika”. [Interjections.]

Oh, yes! There was one other point of agreement reached after six months, and that was that under no circumstances should the new party bear the name of the PFP or have the PFP leader as its leader. [Interjections.] Why do hon members think they all agree on that? It is because they know that the electorate has lost all confidence in the PFP and everything it stands for. In fact, the word “Prog” has become synonymous with everything decent South Africans loathe. [Interjections. ] These are the very people who now join in the chorus of no confidence in the Cabinet.

This new party has yet to formulate a policy. I want to suggest that if finding a name takes them six months and finding a leader takes them even longer, finding an acceptable policy is going to take them years. [Interjections.] However, most South Africa have already seen right through all these negotiations. They are nothing more nor less than a simple ploy to dolly up the PFP under a new name, possibly to bring in an old leader and to use the result to feed the electorate the mixture as before.

As a matter of fact, thinking of this political marriage reminds one of the customary saying about a marriage. They needed something old, which is apparently Van Zyl Slabbert; they needed something new, in the form of Worrall, Malan, Momberg and Sampie Terreblanche; they needed something borrowed, which is obviously the name, courtesy of Mr Theo Gerdener; and they needed something blue, which describes their prospects for the next election. [Interjections.]

The Sunday Tribune on the fifth of this month under the following banner headline exploded the myth of these negotiations, viz: “Slabbert comes back.” They said that not only had Dr Slabbert come back as an adviser to this new group, he had come back, and I quote: “A powerful contender to lead the new group.” Really! [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton must have felt that that was the unkindest cut of all! Just when she thought that she had rid herself of this troublesome politician, he has been dragged in at the back door by the hon member for Randburg. [Interjections.]

This report also makes it quite clear that Dr Van Zyl Slabbert has no doubts about what his purpose in this new party will be. He says quite clearly here that he is about to join the new party. Why? Because there is a demand for his services and because of his popularity? No, “because there has been a change in the way extra-parliamentary groups, including the ANC, now view the moderate spectrum of White opposition politics.” In other words, the ex-leader of the PFP sees himself as the mouthpiece of Idasa, the UDF, the Black Sash, the ECC and all those other little mushroom organisations on the left of the spectrum. This is what he wants to drag into this new party.

The leader of the fungi!

That is not even all. [Interjections.] It is very interesting that the following small report appears next to this big leading report, viz: “ANC’s roll vital say lawyers.”

It says that there was a conference in Harare between South African lawyers—we know all the names—and the ANC. That conference ended in a statement. The statement said that the conference “recognised as an undeniable fact the stature and vital role of the ANC in this process”. Who was the leader of the South African group? Dr Frederik Van Zyl Slabbert! This shows the second objective of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert. He hopes to bring the ANC into our political life through the back door and the vehicle for that he sees as the Democratic Party which he hopes to lead.

No, Sir, the South African electorate has already unequivocally rejected the PFP and everything it stands for, and will continue to reject the PFP in any new guise whatsoever.

Mr Chairman, we have now heard the second hon member of the 61 Club. I wonder when the members of the 69 Club are going to talk in the course of the day. I hope that they are still going to talk. I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation and set him straight on a few points. All the towns and cities controlled by the CP are going to implement the CP’s policy. [Interjections. ] He can put that in his pipe and smoke it! In the second place, that is not an undertaking. It is being done. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have time for questions now.

You are afraid!

Order! Did the hon member for Springs say that the hon member for Brakpan was afraid?

I did say that.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan may proceed.

We want to go further and also do this in the regional services councils we control. The second point is that the hon the Minister spoke about distorted reports regarding South Africa which were being noised abroad. Do hon members know who noised the distorted reports about Boksburg abroad? The hon the Minister’s own Press did so!

The other day the hon member for Boksburg referred inter alia to German newspapers. It was the hon the Minister’s own Press which noised these reports abroad, although emergency regulations exist in South Africa which provide that boycotts may not be propagated or further publicity given to them. These are the NP’s newspapers. That is where boycotts were propagated and a distorted picture was noised abroad.

Did we hear a word? Except for the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid—it is to his credit that he half-heartedly said he was opposed to boycotts—not one of the leaders of the NP said that one could not continue in this manner with these boycotts because they opposed boycotts in respect of South Africa, and how could they therefore welcome boycotts in respect of Boksburg. [Interjections.] Surely that is what he and his newspapers did. [Interjections.]

Order! I did not call upon parties to speak simultaneously. I only called upon one hon member to speak.

He spoke about realities. There is one important, irresistible reality and that is that there is a Boerevolk that will not bow down to the integration and reform he is engaged in. We have a history which proves that we do not bow down, nor will we bow down to these so-called realities that he and big brother De Klerk have already bowed down to.

We listened to the hon the national leader of the NP last Wednesday. We listened to him on television. This reminded me of one thing, namely one of those circus performers juggling balls while balancing on a tightrope. Both the performer and all the balls are going to fall to the ground at any moment. [Interjections.]

I am referring, for example, to the allegation that the NP is not a middle-of-the-road party but an all-the-way party. Seeing that the NP alone has hold of the so-called truth, this is the most resourceful, most ingenious, modern elucidation of the old slogan of the former United Party: “You want it, we have it”. This is something I have not heard for a long time now.

Is it, for example, an “all-the-way” party which until recently even drafted legislation on own affairs and therefore sought to develop its watered-down idea of the right to self-determination, while the next moment they alleged that the NP was no longer obsessed with the group approach, or was it an egg-dance? Is it the view of an “all-the-way” party or is it an egg-dance to say that the protection of communities remains a cornerstone of NP policy, while at the same time it is making provision for free settlement areas?

Is it the fundamental standpoint of an “all-the-way” party or is it an egg-dance to strive to achieve both power-sharing and the protection of minority rights as well as the division of power in a unitary state simultaneously, although it cannot find a formula to eliminate domination? Is it an “all-the-way” or an also-ran party which neglects to implement the Group Areas Act, whereas it simultaneously takes it amiss of citizens when they allegedly take the law into their own hands? Is it not taking the law into one’s owns hands if Acts are not enforced? The hon the State President himself said, for example, that the disregarding of existing Acts could not be allowed. Why is the Government not implementing those Acts?

I could carry on in this vein, but I want to go further and concentrate on the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. On 5 October 1987—ie 15 months ago—the hon the State President said the following (Hansard, House of Assembly, col 6676) after having pointed out that the Act could not be summarily repealed: “In fact it will, particularly in the short term, create more problems than it will solve.”

Now the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has spoken about the Boksburg debacle. I want to ask him how matters stand at Loeriesfontein. I want to ask him how matters stand at Brandvlei where the deputy chairman of his NP branch is serving on the town council and it was unanimously decided that their business areas and facilities would remain closed? [Interjections.] Springbok, Onseepkans, Vanrhynsdorp—show me a town in his constituency in which all the facilities are open! Remember what a fuss he kicked up yesterday! Is that political morality? [Interjections.]

Now I challenge the governing party to abolish this legislation. They have brooded over it for two years now, since October 1987. If they are not prepared to abolish it, they have no moral right to try to exploit the situation in Boksburg for political gain.

Mr Harry Klotz was dismissed from the NP because he was opposed to the two beaches in Durban remaining White. Is that political morality? [Interjections.] After all, the hon the Minister is himself an attorney. If it is immoral to reserve facilities for communities, how much more is that not the case if one weeps and wails about reserved facilities, and neglects to do anything about it? Such a frank omission is essentially immoral, and I can quote him an Appeal Court decision to prove it. He has nevertheless tried to make political capital out of the Boksburg situation.

I now come to the hon member for Boksburg. [Interjections.] Here are the photographs of him toiling in the service of Mr Issy Kramer of the PFP. He rushed around in the pouring rain all day long to get his comrade Mr Issy Kramer of the PFP onto the town council. Do hon members know that the joint effort of the hon members for Boksburg, Brentwood and Primrose resulted in the PFP winning by a smaller majority than they won by last time, when they stood against the NP only? [Interjections.]

He must not try to tell us that Mr Kramer is not a Prog. He was conceived in sin and born into the Reform Party. He is a friend of the hon members for Yeoville and Sandton and Mr Widman. What was Mr Gibson doing in Mr Kramer’s tent? [Interjections.]

At the same time Boksburg’s swimming-pool may not be thrown open to the ERPM people. The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act must remain, “then the pool will be theirs, not ours”. The Act must continue to apply in Boksburg. It cannot be taken away from Boksburg, “but it is politically expedient to proclaim that the Boksburg lake may become theirs and not ours”. That is what he is fighting for.

Then he drags Mr Fred Fouché in. Mr Fouché used to work for that hon member in the days when Mr Fouché was still a Nationalist. Then it was not immoral for the hon member for Boksburg to telephone Mr Fouché and discuss NP politics with him during office hours. Nor was it immoral to telephone Mr Fouché recently, just prior to the 1987 elections, and ask him for string from the municipality so that he could put up his posters. [Interjections.]

The pamphlet he referred to was not even a CP pamphlet. It was a cultural pamphlet of the Volkswag which promoted the Groot Trek 150 festival. Mr Fouché took leave to handle those matters and arranged a very successful festival in Boksburg, which put Boksburg on the map again, but the town council officials of Boksburg had to attend the FAK festival during office hours. [Interjections.] Yes, hon members can have a quiet laugh about that embarrassment, because politically the NP is completely immoral.

Now we come to the boycotts. There was not a word of censure, except the words of Mr Chris Smit who the other day started condemning boycotts while emergency regulations were being contravened.

The chapter on Boksburg and Brakpan and other matters connected with it, will go down in the history of the NP, along with the Koornhof/ Rencken/Grobler forgery, as one of the most dishonourable episodes in the history of the demise of the NP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to dwell at any length on the Boksburg episode, but it is nevertheless very regrettable. It is said here that the newspapers distorted the whole picture, but it is not the newspapers that told a company such as Colgate, which employs 1 200 people and which has spent millions of rands in Boksburg, to move or to disinvest; they can be compelled to do so by the actions of our hon friends on that side. [Interjections.]

†I would like to turn to the hon the leader of the PFP. I would like to quote the financial results of De Beers Consolidated Mines. I know that the hon member was not chairman, but he was possibly a member of the board. Take the published profits—I am not using confidential income tax information—“31/12/83: 327 million”.

Rands or dollars?

Rands. I quote further:

I have nothing against De Beers, but I would like to point out that the gold price which was $40 in 1968, went up to $850 in 1980, down to $326 in 1985, up again to $486 in 1987 and down to $410 again in 1988 and is lower now.

This hon member was a businessman. He worked in one of our biggest companies in South Africa.

*The hon member indicated—he quotes us screeds of statistics—how low the economic growth rate was over a number of years, but he sat on those boards. He saw how the diamond prices dropped, how surpluses built up and what effect the gold price had on his mines. The hon member says it is the Government’s fault that economic growth is now low. Is it the Government that determines the international diamond price? [Interjections.] May I ask him whether the Government determines the gold price? [Interjections.] The hon member knows a great deal about the coal industry. If we were to examine prices in the coal industry and look at the total taxation revenue from mining in South Africa, hon members would again tell us it was the Government’s fault. [Interjections.]

No, I am being very honest in going back over the years and acknowledging an economic growth rate of 1% and 2%, but then the hon member completely forgets about the oil crisis. [Interjections.] I do not think we should now start to distort the statistics. I do not even want to talk about the maize price, because I think the hon member for Lichtenburg also spoke about the economic growth yesterday, but I can say the same about the maize price.

Why does the hon member Dr De Beer tell us that South Africa’s minerals are now subject to tremendous fluctuations. Even gold is now a commercial product, a mineral, whose price also fluctuates. This makes government administration tremendously difficult. I agree with the hon member that as a result of these external factors, these fluctuations, we must learn to cushion ourselves against them. We must come to grips with Government expenditure. I agree with the hon member, but then he must not tell us, and I quote him:

According to The Economist, Mrs Thatcher tried to bring down her Government expenditure as a percentage of gross taxation. She did not succeed, because it was 43,5% of the gross domestic product when she came to power. It later increased to more than 46% and is now approximately 43% again.

We must be careful not to give our people figures and say this is the situation, our Government expenditure is too high. In the light of those fluctuations in our foreign revenue, our exchange revenue, the World Bank—we were not the only ones in that situation—pointed out that all producers of mineral products have been under tremendous pressure during the past 10 years. What does the World Bank say? The World Bank says that governments in various countries were obliged to increase Government expenditure in order to maintain a certain degree of stability in their economies. It is stated plainly.

We are attacked because the Government, during this period of droughts and of fluctuating prices of its most important exports, tried to meet its socio-economic commitments. I agree, we shall have to change, because we are living in a period of, inter alia, unstable world markets.

I do not want to go any further with the hon the national leader of the PFP, because he stopped at 1987.

Is he the national leader?

That is a good question. I do not know; perhaps one should ask Wynand.

Let us look at what happened in 1987 and 1988. With all those problems we had, our gross national product during the past 25 months rose by more than 5%. One need only look and one would see that the gross national product increased by more than approximately 5%. Per capita the gross national product increased by 3%—one can look it up. [Interjections.] I agree that we must strive to bring our growth rate to a level above 3%.

I believe that the Government has a definite strategy which it is progressively implementing, namely that of differentiating our industries. I believe that our agriculture will not continue to experience the crisis it has been experiencing for the past five years. I am quite sure that by adapting, we will most certainly succeed in pushing up our economic growth rate.

The hon member for Yeoville is leaving now … [Interjections] … but he agrees with me that at the beginning of last year there was hardly a single economist in South Africa who made a correct prediction. With regard to 19891 want to say that I do not believe that there will be a single economist or consultant who will make a correct prediction. We believe that our economy is basically sound. I agree that there is unemployment. I agree that we—and I will come back to the hon the leader of the PFP … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, listening to the not very inspiring speech of the hon the Deputy Minister I should like to say just one or two things to him. Firstly, he must realise that the basic economy of South Africa is sound, but in spite of this Government and its policy. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister should thank God for mining companies such as De Beers, because it is this sort of private enterprise operation that has been the salvation of South Africa while the hon the Deputy Minister and his incompetent Government have been unable to do anything at all.

My leader, the hon member Dr Zach de Beer, stressed in his speech during the discussion on the hon the Acting State President’s opening address and this morning again that South Africans are steadily getting poorer as a result of Government policy. Never has a truer word been spoken and that hon Minister knows it. [Interjections.]

This Government has failed totally to bring about the conditions which could lead to some sort of economic recovery. From being a country where the rate of taxation of the individual was among the lowest in the world, South Africans have become one of the most heavily taxed peoples in the world. The burden of taxation has become more and more punishing, the State Budget continues to grow and there appears to be little, if any, hope of redress for the future.

What does this mean for the man in the street— the average consumer? Faced with ever rising prices his standard of living is dropping fast and the vast majority of South Africans are very much worse off than they were five or ten years ago. Living standards have dropped and they are continuing to drop.

In place of tax relief South Africans are subjected to taxes of various kinds—anything the hon the Minister of Finance can dream up to swell the public coffers and to get us out of the trouble they got us into. From what we have seen they are not easing the tax burden and what little we have seen of privatisation so far merely adds to this burden. I would like to take toll roads as an example of how this Government is taking the public for a much more expensive ride than it ever did before.

As hon members know, this party does not support the principle of toll roads. We believe it is the Government’s responsibility to provide an adequate network of roads enabling motorists to have reasonable access to every part of the country. Traditionally this network has been financed not only by ordinary taxation but also by a large levy on petrol and diesel fuel.

This bankrupt Government is faced with dreaming up new methods of raising money to keep it solvent and toll roads are one of these devices. They can only be described as highway robbery. Theoretically a case could be made for totally new roads financed by private enterprise to be toll roads. However, when existing roads financed out of fuel levies and therefore already the property of the people of South Africa and paid for by them are handed over to private enterprise and South Africans have to pay for using them, who can blame the public for being outraged, because it is outrageous. One of the worst aspects of the whole operation has been the secrecy and stealth which has accompanied the introduction of these toll roads. I wish the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs was here. I see his deputy here and I hope that he is taking notes. No proper consultation, if any at all, has been entered into with the people affected and the result has been total confusion.

Let us take the example of the projected toll gate south of Johannesburg. What a sorry story this is! The Department of Transport announces that it has approved plans for the toll road. The NP controlled Johannesburg City Council then claims that it has never been informed of the Government’s plans to levy tolls on the N13 so that it could finance the building of a new eastwest road through Johannesburg to be known as the M4. Then, Sir, the Johannesburg City Council brings an urgent application to have the National Transport Commission and the toll company interdicted from proceeding with the erection of the tollgate. The judge finds that the N13 has not been declared a toll road in terms of the National Roads Act and that the structure under construction is on a national road and not on a tollroad and is therefore unlawful. The hon the Deputy Minister will agree with me that this factually is the situation.

It was made clear by the judge that an unlawful building operation was being carried out in the Johannesburg municipal area. The judge added that the NTC took the decision to declare the N13 a toll road without informing the Johannesburg City Council. Now, Sir, what a debacle this has been! The NP controlled Johannesburg City Council takes on in a court of law the NP controlled Department of Transport and an NP Minister and Deputy Minister! The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs was made to look very foolish indeed. How ridiculous this is, Sir! [Interjections.]

It is quite apparent that this wall of secrecy has prevented even the left hand from knowing what the right hand was doing. Legal costs were also of course considerable. The legal costs of that application have to be borne by the longsuffering taxpayer because it was the NTC and the hon the Minister who lost the case. This is typical of course of NP hierarchy arrogance. They do not even tell their own people what they are doing.

Let us look at the impact of these tolls, Sir, when a holidaymaker wishes to go from Johannesburg to Durban. Most of the roads to Durban existed before toll gates were contemplated. Now this motorist finds that in particular a section of the road adjoining Mooi River has a toll gate. He has not only been paying taxes and levies in the past to have this road built in the first place; he now has to pay to travel along that road. [Interjections.] On top of that he has to pay a very substantial fuel levy added to the cost of his petrol, which is not directed towards the costs of building and maintaining this road because this levy is now channelled into the general tax pool. It is channelled there to help alleviate the Government’s bankruptcy because of its profligate spending. [Interjections.]

So, Sir, that poor motorist is paying a R30 toll for his trip to and from Durban, as well as an increased petrol price, and therefore the cost of his trip is substantially increased. I might add that the so-called alternative routes in terms of heavy traffic are hazardous in the extreme, and I think the hon the Deputy Minister should agree with that. If he does not agree with that—I saw a sort of half-shake of his head—I suggest he tries using those alternative routes himself. [Interjections.]

While we are on that subject … [Interjections] … we expect those roads to be safe, solid roads. The road through Mooi River has always been there, and has always been a safe, solid road. Why should motorists be chased off that road? Why should the authorities insist that motorists travel on a hazardous alternative road or pay the price?

Why do you not say what has been spent on building that road?

Well, Sir, that does not necessarily come into it. I want to know where all the money has gone that the Government has levied over the years. [Interjections.] It has been helping the bankrupt hon Minister of Finance out of difficult spot after difficult spot. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, I cannot allow the debate to develop into a dialogue between the hon member for Bryanston and the hon the Deputy Minister.

Let us change the subject slightly now, Sir, and look at the increase in the petrol price at a time when oil prices are extremely low’. They are very low indeed. What happened? The South African motorist is faced with an increase in excess of 10% while the rest of the world enjoys the advantages of relatively cheap fuel. It is because we are outcasts. It is because we are in a difficult situation since we will not carry through civilised policies in our country. It is because the rest of the world despises us as a result of the policies of this Government. We must suffer the consequences of allowing this incompetent NP to remain in power, and we are paying through the nose for that.

Through the hon the Deputy Minister I want the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to have a major rethink about toll roads, and particularly about tolls on existing roads. I would like the hon the Minister to be very aware of what he is doing in certain instances to some of the less privileged communities, for example those just south of Johannesburg and Soweto.

Because of the secretive, almost clandestine, modus operandi that the Government pursues, it is unclear what amount tolls on the Soweto road will involve for certain Soweto residents. I understand that it could amount to as much as R100 per month for somebody who is using it daily and possibly more than once daily. This is extremely unfair towards a section of the community which is not very affluent. All this while the richer sections of the community are unscathed so far.

Traffic from Soweto towards the north is notoriously locked in to poor and overcrowded roads and will now be offered access to the N1 from Commando Road through a toll plaza. The Soweto highway at present is given ramps onto the N1 but only for those who wish to move south, away from the city. There is none that enables one to go north.

Let us, on the other hand, consider facilities for residents of northern Johannesburg, Randburg and Sandton. Residents there can go north and south on the N1 or Ml. They can go east or west on the N1 or N3 without being charged anything at all, and I hope that they will never be charged anything! To tax Soweto residents for a similar facility is the height of cynicism and is discriminating against the poorer section of the population. [Interjections.]

The situation for residents of Ennerdale, Lenasia and the areas south of Johannesburg is also ridiculous and unfair. I understand that talks are in progress at present to try to bring relief to these people but the whole botched operation has been a disaster from the start.

Why the veil of secrecy? Why the clandestine methods of operation? The Government knows what it is doing is unpopular and unfair and it is trying to hush up an action which is a manifestation of its complete financial desperation. It has to get money from somewhere to pay for its mistakes and this is one of the devices it uses.

The hon Minister of Finance was quite plaintive when he talked about the difficulties of our unique financial position with no international bank. I am not in the least bit sorry for him. Our problems at the present time have come about because of the policies of his Government, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

I believe that it is our duty to look at what we are doing in terms of privatisation, toll roads among others, and deregulation, and our guiding principle must be the best interests of the consumer. I have to be convinced that much of what is being done, is not in accordance with that principle.

It is not a bit of good for example for the Government to sell off its assets to pay the price of its false and failed ideologies. One of the most important guidelines which must be borne in mind is that deregulation should allow free competition. All-embracing monopolies should not be allowed to exist. Competition must be the watchword when one talks about privatisation and deregulation. When a competitive situation exists, the consumer benefits and that is what the whole exercise is about. [Time expired].

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Bryanston will pardon me for not reacting directly to his representations. My hon colleagues who are responsible for those matters will furnish him with detailed replies in due course.

I do want to tell the hon member that the situation with which we have to deal in South Africa as the Government is very difficult and complex—as is the case with any other government. As I was listening to the hon member, my thoughts ran as follows on this: The hon member might harangue us here now and there are also other people who might abuse us or blame us in a nasty manner but at the end of day they thank our Heavenly Father that the NP is governing the country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central launched an emotional tirade in the Other Place on the detainees who were refusing to eat. He blamed my hon colleague of Justice and me very severely because this was happening.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will not however outbid my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, or me however in concern about the situation and the fate of people who are affected by it. We are really worried about what is happening here. That is why we are watching the entire situation closely and doing everything in our power to settle it and to handle it correctly.

Each case is examined in depth on a daily basis and everything possible is done to provide every detainee with the best medical treatment and care.

Their very detention!

I shall come back to the question of detention. This hunger strike has been orchestrated from the outside to coincide with the present session of Parliament and to endeavour to support the efforts of, inter alia, extra-parliamentary activities.

What proof do you have?

This hunger strike is not spontaneous. [Interjections.] We are in possession of numerous examples of organisations which sat down and carefully planned what they would do to use this hunger strike to their own advantage. Not to the advantage of the persons concerned but to their own advantage. At this stage it is being orchestrated worldwide. I can give the names of organisations if hon members compel me to do so.

†Most of the detainees who are supposed to participate in the strike do not share in the enthusiasm of those who are trying to organise the strike.

*We have evidence and information that intimidation is taking place on a large scale in these prisons where people are now being forced to take part in these hunger strikes. [Interjections.] tit is clear that those orchestrating the strike have no regard for the health and personal discomfort of those detainees whom they force to take part in the strike. [Interjections.] We are committed to dealing with this situation in a humane and civilised manner, as prescribed by international norms and standards.

*Then that hon member shouts at me and asks why we do not charge these people. If we charge them, he does not accept the verdict of the court. [Interjections.] Oh no, do not come to me with such stories! Let us be fair and review the entire situation objectively further. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central says that detention without trial is the cause of all these problems. According to him it is the basic problem. I therefore want to ask why it is necessary that we detain people. The detention of people in terms of the emergency regulations, any detention, is a very serious matter to the Government. Detention in terms of the emergency regulations, however, is a measure which was forced upon the Government by the actions of radicals. [Interjections.] It is obvious that the Government would prefer to manage without these measures. We would prefer to manage without them but the activities of radical organisations and radicals, activists endangered and threatened the safety of the public and maintenance of public order in such a way that the Government was forced to turn to these emergency measures.

Hon members know that since 1984 we have been struggling to restore peace and calm in South Africa. Hon members know what took place in the country. Surely they saw on television and in our media how the country was aflame, how people threw stones, how people were killed and how riots and unrest spread through the country.

Then charge them!

Then charge them! Just like that! Then the hon member will not accept the verdict of the court.

*At the end of the day the South African Government had no choice but to institute emergency measures because existing legislative measures were inadequate to deal with the situation.

How long are you going to keep them locked up without trial?

There is abundant proof that these organisations tried to destabilise South Africa and to sow unrest and violence. The detainees whom we now have under our control are members of those organisations—hundreds of them were formed—and these organisations have certain objectives which these detainees strive for and carry out. Let us examine a few of these objectives.

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

Mr Chairman, my time is really very limited, but I am prepared to answer a very short question.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister why, if it is true that most of the detainees are members of organisations which he has restricted, he does not let them go?

That is just the point. They are members of organisations whose objectives I shall now present to hon members:

That is one objective. [Interjections.] Which person in this House wants that? Which of those hon members wants that in South Africa? Let them tell me now. [Interjections.] If that hon member does not want this, he must expect us to curb these organisations. [Interjections.]

I want to read another objective of this organisation to you:

This points to violence. Who wants that? Who wants this violence? [Interjections.] We all agree that we can manage without it. [Interjections.] If hon members agree with this, we must also accept that we have to deal with these organisations and their members. [Interjections.]

†I would also like to refer to an organisation called the South African Youth Congress. It was formed as a revival of the ANC Youth League with the specific task of bridging the gap between the community-based organisations and the trade union movement and introducing an internal cell structure—this is important—for armed activities. [Interjections ]

*Why is this necessary? It is for violent action. That is why we restrict these people because they are supporters of these organisations. They strove for these objectives and tried to realise them.

But how long can you hold them without trial?

The evidence that these people were involved in this is abundant. It has already been submitted to the courts. I want to make the point that people are already serving sentences because of these things which they were striving for. Hon members of the PFP do not accept the verdicts of the courts, however. I am making this statement because I know that I am right. We have evidence in this regard. When it suits them—this is the tragedy—they shout “Charge them!” We take the people to court and, if they are found not guilty, those hon members say all is well. If a left-wing radical activist is found guilty in South Africa, then they say that the court acted on instructions of the Government. [Interjections.] That is exactly what they say. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot permit this dialogue in the House any further. From now on fewer interjections will be made. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Left-wing radical activists and their fellow travellers are regarded by PFP members as almost sacred. One dare not touch them. They cannot do any wrong. As regards the rightwing, those hon members however shout “Arrest them, charge them!” and then they are dead quiet.

That is not true.

Of course it is true. That hon member is well aware of what his party’s actions were when we took steps aimed at the left and the right. [Interjections.]

Nonsense!

It is not so easy to charge these people, however. It is not so easy to obtain a conviction. [Interjections.] Surely we have repeatedly furnished hon members with proof that people are not prepared to give evidence in court, that they fear for their lives.

We regard the detention of a person in terms of the emergency regulations in an extremely serious light. In terms of the law such detention must be authorised by the Minister personally after he has ascertained the necessity for it. [interjections.] In cases in which somebody is detained for more than 30 days, his case is considered regularly—I want to emphasise this—to establish whether he cannot be released without prejudice to public safety, the maintenance of public order or the termination of the state of emergency. Detainees in terms of the emergency regulation are released daily for this reason. This is a continuous process in which we are engaged. We see every day whether we cannot release people because we do not want to detain them any longer than necessary. In fact, I am not justified in detaining them any longer if I am of the opinion that the safety of the public and the maintenance of public order is no longer being endangered.

Judge, jury and executioner!

I want to emphasise that the cases of the detainees who are taking part in a hunger strike at present are, like those of all other detainees, being reviewed again this moment in the normal course of events. I should like to emphasise that all circumstances affecting the person, inter alia the area from which he comes and the general state of security are taken into account. This is a fact and hon members are well aware of it. Since we started detaining these people and removing them from the community, there has been greater peace and order in our country. That is certainly true. We no longer see the violence which we saw three years ago in our media and on television. Murders, violence and unrest have decreased. [Interjections.]

Permit me to tell hon members that there are certainly more bombs but this is because terrorists are reorganising themselves for general unrest and violence once again. The highest number of detainees that we have comes from Natal and all hon members and hon PFP members from Natal agree with me that the greatest unrest is in the Pietermaritzburg-Durban area. That is where we are detaining most people. Do those hon members want me to return them there? Those hon members are appealing for this. [Interjections.]

Unrest has subsided nationwide. Violence has largely decreased but those hon members request us to return them there. I should like to emphasise the point that before the Minister of the Police may detain anybody, we have to have information that the prisoner’s activities were aimed at endangering public safety and the maintenance of public order or that his activities were preventing the termination of the state of emergency.

Like the dead man you charged last month!

I have to submit those facts to the court if the person takes me to court. I am prepared to submit those facts to the court in every one of the cases now involved in the hunger strike. I am prepared to submit this information which I have at my disposal to the court and the court can test it. The court can test whether I have exercised my powers correctly and whether I have information.

Then do it!

It has been done in many cases. The court found that I had exercised my discretion correctly when they were detained. You see, this does not count at all with those hon members. Consequently before we may detain anybody, we have to be convinced of this and this can be tested in the courts.

In conclusion, although every case of these detentions is handled with the highest degree of care and humanity, the State cannot permit us to be blackmailed by means of this type of thing. Those on hunger strike must take note that the Government also has a duty and a responsibility toward the community. We are accountable to that community. We have achieved success by removing these people and there is peace and calm again. Children can go to school again and people lead their normal lives again. We cannot simply release radical activists as they come. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to interfere in the hon the Minister’s fight with the PFP and in all the wrong things which they are doing. I think that it would be fitting for a change for the hon the Minister to speak to his own people about what they are doing to the CP.

If we look at the present political scene, and especially at White politics and the parties active within this House and outside, it is a fact that the CP is the only party which has no problems. [Interjections.]

Firstly, if we look at the left, the PFP and the other two parties, they themselves suggested their ability to achieve their objectives by announcing their intention to dissolve. Now the hon members are making the small mistake of thinking that three small failures can produce one huge success when they are amalgamated. This will not happen.

It was announced further that this party which was to be born would be Siamese triplets, with three heads, which would still have to undergo a major operation to get rid of two of the heads. [Interjections.]

In contrast to this, the NP represents Siamese twins and does not want to undergo the operation because it cannot. It is more or less evenly divided at the head. It could chance something there but it dare not cut off anything from the body because the piece which it would have to cut off, which belongs with the CP, is so large that nothing would remain. That is way it cannot cut off anything. [Interjections.]

This hybrid and double-headed nature of the NP has caused it to be saddled with enormous problems. It has placed itself in that situation and in the case of Boksburg in particular it has placed itself squarely in the same camp as Bishop Tutu. It has joined the boy cotters now. The NP and its soldiers who fight for it, the newspapers, applauded this and in some cases initiated it. With this it stands exactly where the boycotters stand. It has a second albatross around its neck from which it cannot get away and that is that it is wooing the ANC. The NP has members who want the ANC to be part of the solution for South Africa. [Interjections.] It has people who want to speak to the ANC and it is powerless; it cannot express itself against this; it is burdened with it. We also know that its members are already negotiating clandestinely with the Russians and other people. The Government is soft on the ANC; it is soft on communism. It has gone soft in the head and in all respects. [Interjections.]

That pair of Siamese twins whose heads cannot be separated has caused the NP to relapse into political immorality, as my hon colleague said, and in massive misleading of the voters of South Africa.

This morning my hon leader referred to the report which appeared in Beeld this morning regarding Volksrust. The report reads:

Threats were issued to induce them to withdraw the charge. The charge which is being brought against this man is serious. Now the NP soldiers are piously blaming this on the CP because they themselves are guilty of this type of thing. [Interjections.] Now they want to blame it on us! The fact remains, however, that this mayor is not a member of the CP. He is a Nationalist! The CP won the election at Volksrust and went and reappointed the mayor who already held that office until such time as the reorganization would take place. [Interjections.] Now those hon members are saying that there must be co-operation at local government level. Here a CP town council did exactly that and they made a fatal mistake! [Interjections.] This taught the CP a lesson.

Order! Hon members must give the hon member a chance to proceed with his speech.

They permitted that man to complete his term and that was their mistake. A person can show those people no mercy because they are unreliable. This man is a Nationalist and I have heard that he has already been approached by Nationalists in the constituency to make himself available for the general election. [Interjections.] He is their man but his mistakes are blamed on the CP. This is not only a question of disinformation; these are blatant lies! They are trying to open up their way with lies!

The second case that I want to mention in the House I started on yesterday. This is the circular from the hon the Minister’s Department of Police which reads:

They say it clashes with prevailing Government policy. It is not their policy that there should be separate amenities. This is confirmation that it is Government policy that there should not be separate amenities. The fact is that they do not want to say this aloud because their tail end wants separate amenities. That huge, massive NP tail of 73% wants separate amenities.

Listen to what they have to say:

In other words, if the police see a law being contravened, it is stated that they are not permitted to show any initiative. [Interjections.] They are not permitted to act. [Interjections.] They continue that, if a CP city council perhaps arrests people itself and brings them to the police, they are to release those people. [Interjections.] They merely have to complete a few forms. [Interjections.] They are not to detain them.

In the circular they say that, if the CP city council starts driving the police into a corner about taking action at the station, they provide five names of generals who are to be telephoned so that they may devise a plan to get out of this situation. [Interjections.] This is the ambivalence which has made the NP the party which it is today. The NP no longer has any credibility at all.

Yesterday the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said that a mistake had been made in 1910 when Blacks were not involved in the political process. In 1910, when the Constitution was drawn up, it was provided—and this is a fact— that Blacks in the Cape Province and in Natal were to be on a common voters’ roll with a qualified vote. Consequently all that was wrong in 1910 was that there should not have been a qualified vote. That is all that could have been wrong but the hon the Minister said that it had been a mistake; they should have gone further in 1910. They had not gone far enough. They should have made a start there already at the time.

Now the hon the Minister says we are in reverse gear. He is in an overdrive in reverse gear going back to 1910. He wants to go back even further than 1910. [Interjections.]

Now members of the NP come and say they will maintain minority rights. According to both senior Ministers the three Acts, namely the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, have now been tabled for discussion in order to replace them with other measures and for them to be defined differently.

It is absolutely clear where this is heading. A group is now to be defined differently to a people. A group now has to be an open group. When one defines a group as a geographic group, one will have reached the Labour Party. One thing is absolutely certain. The concept of a people has gone out at the back door and the NP wants to sling it out there. [Interjections.]

They say that new groups now have to originate spontaneously without Government intervention but the Government wants a new open group to originate in Mayfair West and at Kraaifontein. It is absolutely clear that is wants this but those people do not want it. Their action demonstrates that they do not want this.

The Act is on the Statute Book. Those people want it. The Government does not apply it. How else are those people to act—they do not want to be an open group but an ethnic group—except to apply the Act themselves, which South African law also permits them to do under certain specific circumstances like these?

The Government now wants to remove these Acts from the Statute Book. How on earth will they be able to accomplish this where people do not want to form a new group but where others want to enforce it unilaterally without these Acts being on the Statute Book?

The CP stands unambiguously and dauntlessly by the ethnic concept in South Africa. Not only our own people but every people in South Africa is recognized by us and will be enabled by us to live its own life if that is what it desires. We are unambiguously in favour of every people having its own territory where it can govern itself. [Interjections.] We say further that every people already has enough land in South Africa to form a basis to give substance to this policy.

We say that this right which we claim for ourselves is the inalienable right of every people and this is universally upheld by peoples. We say further that even the UNO charter recognises that people have this right which the hon the Minister no longer wants to uphold but which we will uphold with all the power at our disposal. [Interjections.]

Boksburg proved a few things; in the first place that the CP stands for honest politics; it does what it says and carries out its mandate; it carries out nothing else. [Interjections.] Boksburg proved that the NP stands for dishonest politics. [Interjections.] It proved the credibility of the CP; if we say we will do something, we do that and nothing else. It proved that the NP lacks credibility.

It also proved a further matter. It proved that a boycott cannot succeed because the hon the Minister and his henchmen tried to mobilise the whole world to boycott one town in South Africa—all the people, not only CPs, but this was aimed primarily at CP city councillors. Every force was mobilised and what is happening today, after all the tumult and the shouting has died? All those CP city councillors are still there; not one has gone bankrupt. In other words they could not muster a world boycott to bring one town in South Africa to its knees. How can they bring South Africa to its knees with a boycott?

Boksburg also proved the following matter. A paper war is just that; it is worth nothing. The hon the Minister also had very clear proof of this in his ranks. The hon the Minister who has television at his disposal and who has the media on his side and who receives most exposure received 16 votes in the caucus and one of those was his own. [Interjections.]

Boksburg proved that the fact that the NP permits itself to be intimidated by a paper war, by threats and by such things is unnecessary. A people which has the legitimate right to survive can do so if it is honest, sincere and courteous to other peoples and if it does its duty and stands its ground and has not become as feeble as this Government has become.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg indicated to us dramatically that a person can believe the Official Opposition. If the Official Opposition makes an election promise, it keeps that promise.

I maintain that the radical right-wing party is a spineless party (papbroekparty). The radical right-wing party does not have the backbone to discipline the CP town councils that make a policy somersault. [Interjections.]

In accordance with its election promise the CP town council of Brakpan decided that it would implement the sport policy of the CP. It would not allow any mixed club rugby in the sports stadium. What has happened? It has made a backward somersault and now promotes mixed rugby on club level. [Interjections.] And the hon member for Lichtenburg says that we can trust his party!

In Potchefstroom the CP’s town council tried to apply the educational policy of the spineless radical right-wing party. [Interjections.] However, only a short period lapsed before they, too, did a backward somersault and opened the campus for intermingling. Is that a promise? Is that a party that a person can believe?

The party leadership of the spineless radical right-wing party lacks the courage to act against CP members of the town council who refuse to have anything to do with CP policy.

Directly after the municipal elections all the CP town council members gathered in Welkom. What happened? The CPs of the Free State decided unanimously that they would not erect apartheid signs in the Free State. As you know, that is CP policy. They would not touch the open central business districts which had been established. As everyone knows, it is CP policy to close those areas. They would not close any parks and theatres which had already been opened. This was a unanimous decision taken at Welkom.

What happened at Sasolburg where there are three CP members of the town council?

On 5 December 1988, at the second council meeting held by that council, the NP-controlled town council of Sasolburg decided that they would do everything possible to ensure that the regional services council in that area would work. Unanimously! One of the CP town council members, of all people, is the chairman of that party’s constituency council. Now I want to know, does the spineless radical right-wing party’s leadership have the courage to suspend that chairman? [Interjections.] I am not launching an attack on him, I am praising him because I think that he made a sensible decision. I really think that he was part of a sensible decision. But now I am asking that party, which is ostensibly credible: What is the party leadership going to do about him in this case?

I say that the spineless radical right-wing party is powerless to act against CP town councils that refuse to honour their election promises. Since we are talking about election promises; let us see what I have here. Vaal Triangle. This pamphlet was distributed in the Vaal Triangle. A person can see what is in it: “Koos daag die Regering”. [Interjections.] This was announced with great bravado.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon spineless fellow (papbroek) a question?

Order! No, the hon member will withdraw those words.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them. May I ask the hon member a question?

No! [Interjections.] The hon member is the chief propagandist of the spineless radical right-wing party. [Interjections.] He is challenging the Government. He announces it in this pamphlet called “Koos se Plan”. He sold the White voters in the Vaal Triangle an election manifesto which stated:

Now I ask what the CP town council of Vanderbijlpark has done about it. Nothing! The same Black people sit on the same pavements every day between one o’clock and two o’clock.

He is not speaking the truth and he knows it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member say that he is not speaking the truth and that he knows it?

Order! No, the hon member may not say that. The hon member for Overvaal has to withdraw a remark for the second time within two minutes.

I withdraw it a second time.

Koos, you are a disgrace!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon member say: Koos, you are a disgrace?

Yes! [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon member said that?

Mr Chairman, I said it.

Order! Was the hon member referring to the hon member for Overvaal?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There is another hon member who said the same thing. I request that that hon member also withdraw it.

Order! Who is that member? He must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I also said it. I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, the chief propagandist of the radical right-wing party said that he would close Vanderbijlpark’s central business district. Here it is in “Koos se plan”. It is a promise. I now ask the hon member, the chief propagandist of a spineless party, what he did in that town to close the central business district? All the Coloured and Indian businessmen who traded there in the past, are still there.

That party’s partition policy on municipal level is just as unfeasible as its partition policy on national level. A Boer republic is not possible. I am sorry the hon member for Overvaal is running away. [Interjections.] I would naturally do the same had I been the chief propagandist of the spineless radical right-wing party. [Interjections.]

It took the CP town council of Boksburg only 30 days to turn Boksburg into a ghost town. I wonder how long it will take a CP government to turn South Africa into a banana republic.

On 8 March 1989 in Sasolburg we also have a by-election in a CP constituency. In the past municipal election the CP obtained 57,4% of the votes in that constituency. After 8 March we shall note with great interest what the voters of Sasolburg think of the spineless radical right-wing party then. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to follow my hon friend, colleague and fellow Free Stater, the hon member for Sasolburg, who dealt so effectively with the rightwing radical spineless party (jpapbroekparty). [Interjections.] The way in which the hon member dealt with that party, is also the way in which the Free State is going to deal with this rightwing radical spineless party in future.

I want to come back to some of the ideas voiced in the debate during the past few days, which are also appropriate as regards the purposes of this debate. In the first place I should very much like to refer to the contributions by the hon member for Randburg. That hon member has had to perform a political egg-dance on several occasions now regarding his support for people’s democracy. The time has come for that hon member to start dissociating himself from that concept and I am giving him this piece of good advice today. The hon member must realise that he cannot use the concept in isolation from its contents and meaning. If he wants to know what so-called people’s democracy looks like …

[Inaudible.]

I am not speaking to the black Van der Merwes now; I am speaking to the hon member for Randburg.

If he wants to know what so-called people’s democracy looks like he must take a look at the people’s democracies of Ethiopia and East Germany. Earlier in the week the hon the Minister of Defence dealt effectively with the hon member for Randburg in his speech. I really hope that the hon member—I understand he is going to speak after me—is going to react to those statements.

There is a further matter. I believe the hon member will understand my asking him the following, because it is on record and I accept it, that he very frequently mentions his Christian creed in public. I accept that. I also accept his bona fides in that regard, but in his discussions with the ANC and the politics of violence which they proclaim, as well as the order which they want to overthrow in South Africa—seeing that their own Chaplain General proclaims liberation theology so freely—how does the hon member, as a Christian, deal with those matters regarding the proclaiming of liberation theology? Does he do the necessary missionary work there? I should very much like to hear from the hon member in that regard.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has also made wild accusations about Air Force helicopter being used for hunting. I am sorry he is not present in the House. He has probably just left. I would advise the hon member to put his money where his mouth is and substantiate his dubious remarks in this respect. Then we can investigate. If he cannot substantiate his allegations he must not make such allegations.

What about fishing expeditions?

Let me put it once again on record—that hon member knows he is speaking nonsense—that the use of helicopters for hunting or for fishing is strictly forbidden. There are guidelines and a clear policy directive for the use of Air Force aircraft which must be adhered to.

*The hon member for Sandton also dropped a few bricks in the other Chamber. He also referred contemptuously to the SADF. I nevertheless want to point out to him that it is this Defence Force of ours sees to it that he too can make his speeches in Parliament in peace and security. The work which the SA Defence Force does with great dedication, deserves our praise as well as the prayers and thanks of everyone.

This brings me to the hon member for Green Point who got so nervous when I started to speak. [Interjections.] That hon member has shown on several occasions that he is definitely not a friend of the security forces. The other day he said that I had ostensibly dragged the SA Defence Force through the mud owing to the way in which I had replied to questions. I want to say that I do not know of a single person in South Africa who has dragged the name of the SA Defence Force through the mud more that the hon member for Green Point has. [Interjections.] After the parade which took place as part of the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the SA Defence Force, the hon member for Green Point referred to it as an orgy—for which he will of course never be forgiven.

He nevertheless again showed why he could also be considered the friend of the radicals. He acts inter alia as an apologist for the ECC, which is a banned organisation. What is more we know that that hon member is the cheer leader of the UDF at their political funerals. [Interjections.] The ECC is an organisation which is seeking to undermine the moral of national servicemen and the preparedness of the Defence Force. In this way that hon member is endangering the safety of everyone. We cannot allow the ECC to hamper the SA Defence Force in the carrying out of its duty, as entrusted to it by this Parliament.

Activities which endanger the personal safety of young soldiers and the safety of South Africans, cannot be tolerated. That is why steps were taken against the ECC. However, operations in the field of information and security cannot be blazened abroad every day. This is the organisation which that hon member is seeking to glorify and for which he wants to take up the cudgels. We are therefore not surprised that he condemns steps against those people.

He also insinuated that I had given Parliament false information.

You misled Parliament.

The question which the hon member asked on 16 June 1987 was answered correctly. All he need do is go back and look at it. On 30 August the hon member for Green Point again asked a question which we could not reply to because a judicial process was underway. Now he takes it amiss of me that I was not prepared to hold the court in contempt.

The voters of Green Point are going to deal with that hon member in the same way that the voters of Randburg are going to deal with the hon member for Randburg because of their behaviour and what they say about the SA Defence Force.

A motion of no confidence in the Cabinet was introduced here today by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. It is probably unclear to any right-minded person why he dared to do this today, particularly in view of the state of his own party, from which it is clear that he really cannot offer the electorate of South Africa an alternative government. I accept that he merely introduced the motion on the strength of the convention which has applied in this House for years now.

I want to ask the hon the leader to be reasonable. We have been fighting for peace in that part of the world for 23 years now, and we have made progress in that regard. We are honouring the agreements entered into in that regard, and we will honour them in word and deed provided the other parties honour their part of the agreements.

We did not fight in vain, and lives were not laid down in vain. We are on the path to victory. Today I want to ask that if we win and the red flag is not hoisted in Windhoek—after all everyone is predicting that it will be hoisted—the Government will be thanked and given the necessary credit for all the initiatives they took over the years. The South African Defence Force, which was in the first place the organisation which made this possible for us, must also be thanked for its sacrifices. [Interjections.] [Time expiree1.]

Mr Chairman, it is difficult for even the trusting to have confidence in the Government. During the week the hon the Minister of Defence made a speech in the Other Place in which, in regard to his reference to my standpoint and that of the NDM, the truth was twisted beyond all recognition.

The hon the Deputy Minister has again asked me very courteously—I appreciate it—to respond to certain accusations. [Interjections.] Let me first respond very quickly to his question as to what my views are on liberation theology, and whether we are going to have discussions on this matter. Yes, I shall discuss the matter. The opportunity to talk about this question occurs much more frequently here in South Africa than abroad, and I have only had a few opportunities to do so.

I cannot accept liberation theology as valid theology, but I can accept that liberation theology is a type of theology which is a product of its time. It also established itself in our own Afrikaner history during the 30s and 40s, and I can even go back to the turn of the century. People simply seek security by having recourse to the Bible.

I would recommend that the hon member read Ferdinand Deist’s Laat my volk trek, if he has not done so already. It contains a superb analysis of comparisons, and Ferdinand Deist says that there should be a common search for the truth rather than a search in isolation for the Bible’s message for our times, thus causing conflict. If I am not mistaken, the hon member was also involved in the pastoral discussion the other evening with the NG Church Moderator—I would really like members to accept that I am debating this issue with them in this spirit and would like members to debate with me in that same spirit.

With regard to the question about the people’s democracy, I want to say that the hon member has now touched on something dealt with in the hon the Minister’s speech. At no stage in my life have I said that I am a supporter of a people’s democracy. The hon the Minister alleged that this was the NDM’s policy and merely mentioned in passing that he had said this in the House of Assembly, but that his speech-writers or propagandists who had helped him with the speech, had not included it in the text which was distributed to the Press. This is a statement he has made on other occasions as well. I have already told him, both inside and outside the House, that I thought this was unfair and improper. He has never furnished any proof of this, but he repeats and perpetuates this approach. Really, I do not know how to ask him in a nicer way that we must stick to the truth.

The NDM very clearly stands for a multi-party democracy, having a record of having requested a free political organisation with elements ranging from the AWB to the ANC. The NDM cannot be accused of standing for a one-party dictatorship. I think we should close the matter on that note. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister asked whether we should hold discussions with the ANC about violence. We do hold discussions with them about violence. We do so again and again, and will continue to do so. We have reported on this in public, and I have spoken on the subject in many speeches. We even compiled an information document on the substance of the discussions in Frankfurt in May 1988. [Interjections.]

We have reported on this numerous times. All the information is at the disposal of the State and its Security and Information Services, and also at the disposal of our colleague for his information. We shall continue to do tilings in this way, because we do not want to hide anything. In fact, what we want is for people to be mutually informed. We are not going to do anything secretly.

We will continue to do things in public. [Interjections.]

We held discussions with them in Frankfurt and told them, in no uncertain terms, that we could not accept violence, and that it had to end. With reference to the hon the Minister’s question, we specifically discussed the Amanzimtotis, the Ellis Park bomb and the explosions in shopping centres and open parking areas where civilians are the target of the attack. I called this behaviour a “loathsome dimension”. We discussed this over and over again. [Interjections.] Let me just answer the hon the Minister and then hon members can ask me the other questions as well.

We have also had discussions about this within South Africa. We have held discussions with UDF formations, Cosatu office-bearers and all the others one could possibly imagine, about the rejection of violence as a method of bringing about any change. It is unacceptable to us, and we have obtained support for this within South Africa. The ANC’s answer abroad was consistently that violence was not a part of their policy. We told them it was not good enough merely to tell us this and that they should do something about it.

We discussed the “armed struggle” in its original guise, its degeneration into violence and the indiscriminate use of violence. With regard to the latter they said that it was not part of their policy.

And you believed them.

No, I did not believe it. I did not believe it and I told them so. I said these things would not happen if it were not part of their policy.

I again touched on the matter in November last year in Leverkusen when I met Joe Slovo and the Russians and had the opportunity to hold discussions with them. I discussed it again and brought to the attention of the ANC the fact that it was totally unacceptable, that it would not assist in promoting any process and would not bring about the democracy that they maintain they want.

In response to this, Thabo Mbeki said they accepted it. Since then they have had a delegation from Cosatu which made the same request, namely that this must please stop immediately because it was unacceptable. They have also received similar messages from UDF affiliates. He assured me there that this would stop. Surprised, I expressed my scepticism and said that I did not believe they had the discipline to put an end to violence within South Africa. He was disturbed at that and repeated it forcefully.

I remain sceptical about their actual ability to maintain this discipline, but the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Law and Order will have to concede—and their statistics will prove this—that since October last year this type of incident has decreased considerably. [Interjections.] I do not know whether this will last and I give no guarantees, but if it lasts, then at least the NDM will have made a contribution towards reducing this loss of life and the maiming of people, and we are grateful to be able to make that contribution. Yes, we hold discussions with them about violence and we will continue to do so, emphasising this point to them until, at some time in the future, we achieve a society which can function democratically.

The speeches of the new hon leader of the NP and the hon the Acting State President deserve comment. I just briefly want to mention a few points.

The first is that I perceive a flicker of hope in what has been said about the Group Areas Act, particularly the statement that free settlement areas are to be used to alleviate the housing crisis. It seems to me that the Free Settlement Areas Act is going to be used to get rid of the Group Areas Act in the course of time. Although this is being done in a Machiavellian way, it might work if applied with imagination. To this extent it will get our support.

A second matter involves the rhetoric of negative discrimination which has been reintroduced by the national leader of the NP. This is a retrogressive step. It is the rhetoric of seven years ago which the present hon State President has abandoned. There is no such thing as positive discrimination in the South African context.

Thirdly, the hon national leader’s distinction between race and racism is valid, but the development of objectives, built on this approach of his, has no basis in reality. One can in no way eliminate racism from a society. Racism exists throughout the entire world. It is universal, but it is not universal to want to structure constitutions, political organisations and rights on a racial basis. This is unattainable. The hon leader evaded this issue by talking about groups and not about race, but in the television interview that night he came back to it and said that that was the basis and the framework.

In an effort to give legitimacy to racial structuring, the group concept is used. This cannot work. There are groups in South African society and in all societies. Some of our people are born as members of groups. It is a fact. We are born as members of the Afrikaner or the Zulu people. We can do nothing about this. It is not a choice we can make. It is part of our very being. A people is such a universal example, but other groups also come into existence, namely changing interest-groups. There are several of these in the everyday social sphere, and in politics groups come about by the formation of political parties.

These groups must all be protected. The people must be protected in terms of those aspects inherent in their being, such as language, culture, traditions, religion, etc. Groups which come into being on the basis of interests must be protected by protecting their right to associate and to organise in this way and by protecting their legitimate activities. Groups which come into being owing to the formation of political parties must also be protected by guaranteeing their right to participate in the process and by conveying what they represent within the political order of the day. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 12h47 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon sitting

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Randburg. I do not want to cross swords with him about many things, except to mention one very serious point. In speaking to the ANC, despite his praiseworthy motives of getting the ANC to renounce violence, he confers on them and their violent methods a certain legitimacy which he really cannot intend. I cannot believe that he or any member of his movement can intend that. Although his intentions are very good, I think he is really making a mistake by speaking to such perpetrators of violence.

I also do not think that he was being reasonable about the speech of the hon the national leader of the NP in the Chamber of Parhament this week, because the hon the national leader said very clearly:

I feel that this is the crux of the hon the national leader’s speech, and also that he would guard the security and interests of other minorities just as jealously.

I should like to come back to last year’s municipal elections, which were exceptionally significant. In spite of the efforts of the radical people with whom the hon member for Randburg, amongst others, negotiated, radicals in the political sphere, and we can even say radicals in the spiritual sphere, should they exist—I do not know how one can combine spirituality and radicalism, but apparently there are such people—to have the municipal elections boycotted by Black people, the elections were remarkably successful in that the participation of Black people in the elections yielded approximately the same percentage poll as that achieved in Pretoria in the 1982-83 municipal elections, and a higher poll, namely 25%, than that achieved by Bloemfontein and Durban in the previous municipal elections. This in itself is a very clear indication that they were very successful.

Members of the Official Opposition as well as those recently formed left-wing groups which, for the sake of simplicity, I shall simply call the Progs, because their changes are merely cosmetic, were just as keen as the ANC and the radicals to make the municipal elections fail among the Blacks.

Democrats!

Fine, we can call them “democrats”, but the fact remains that they are members of the PFP.

As far as Bloemfontein is concerned, the awB made a clean sweep—but this is another AWB, “al weer Botha”—in spite of the CP’s announcements through the hon member for Overvaal—I think it was he—who said shortly afterwards at a congress that the NP had not won a single ward in Bloemfontein.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member how many candidates in Bloemfontein openly won wards under the NP’s banner?

I can give a brief reply to that. There were 18 in the 18 wards.

Under the NP banner?

Yes, under the NP banner. [Interjections.] I want to continue, because the hon member is wasting my time with small technicalities. [Interjections.]

If the municipal elections had failed, a significant section of the Black population would have had no effective representation. This would have increased the effectiveness of revolutionary elements, and that is the true significance of the municipal elections.

The fact that the NP has granted Black people the franchise on a municipal level is an important development in the broadening of democracy. This is in line with what Gen Hertzog foresaw 70 years ago. We have had debates about this in this House before. I should like to quote once again what Gen Hertzog said in 1921. I think the members of the Official Opposition will enjoy the word which I shall quote verbatim:

Gen Hertzog’s enlightened vision has been made a reality by the NP, among other things through the municipal elections which undoubtedly had a very good outcome.

If one examines the concept of democracy as interpreted by the Official Opposition, as well as by the hon members of the left-wing groups, their absolute short-sightedness becomes clear because they simply cannot see anything beyond a specific idea and they refuse to see the realities, namely that the NP’s standpoint in respect of democracy is based on and revolves around the concept of own affairs and general affairs. It is a fact that the NP has taken cognisance of the reality of the presence of a large number of Blacks. I should like to ask the hon members of the Official Opposition whether they acknowledge the permanence of Blacks in urban areas. Do the hon members acknowledge the permanence of Blacks in urban areas?

You say there are 18 Nats in Bloemfontein.

The hon member does not want to answer my question. I shall assume the answer is yes and no. Yes from one and no from the other. Is that the answer? It looks like it.

Now I want to quote the method envisaged by the CP for granting political rights to Blacks. They spelt it out through the words of the hon member for Ermelo who is not here. I quote (Hansard, 1988, col 679):

He was referring to a White South Africa. He went on to say:

Then the cat is out of the bag.

He would obtain political rights by way of trade unions.

It does not take much for an intelligent person— there are quite a few here and one must not underestimate the voters—to realise what the consequences will be when people are granted a say in the spheres of trade and politics.

I conclude with a vision by Gen Hertzog as interpreted by Adv Pirow in respect of the future of South Africa and the non-White policy.

South Africa belongs to all its inhabitants jointly irrespective of race or colour and every section must be given an adequate opportunity to develop to the fullest extent for which its inherent talents qualify it.

Mr Chairman, the speeches of many hon members, but particularly that of the hon the Minister of Defence, make me think of a quotation and I will be glad if the hon the Minister of Defence will take account of this. It reminds me of a quotation from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. There is a classic interchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice. They are discussing a knock-out argument and in the end Humpty Dumpty says in a very scornful voice:

To give an example, the hon the Minister of Defence argued in the Joint Meeting this week that the concept of non-racial democracy was actually equivalent to people’s democracy.

If ever I have heard a meat-axe form of argument it has to have been contained in that speech equating non-racial democracy with people’s democracy.

A high school student would laugh at the hon the Minister advancing such an argument in a high school class, let alone in the Parliament of South Africa. Perhaps the hon the Minister has become used to putting out propaganda pieces full of what former Senator Daniel Moynihan in the United States has called “weasel words”—his propaganda is always full of weasel words. [Interjections.]

If it was not so alarming that the man in charge of the armed forces of South Africa can stand up in Parliament and argue that those two concepts are equal, it would be laughable. The only consolation for us is that the hon the Minister did not even receive a nomination in the leadership election of the NP. That is small consolation, but at least it is some consolation.

The trouble with the hon the Minister is that he is very quick to question the patriotism of other hon members who oppose him.

Like you!

He has questioned the patriotism of a lot of people. Anyone who does not metaphorically stand up and salute him and agree with his arguments is somehow lacking in patriotism. I think the hon the Minister has a disgraceful line of argument and his little sir echo, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence, was a reflection of the same line of thinking this morning. [Interjections.]

A more serious line of argument was obviously the line of argument of the hon the new leader of the NP. He took up the line that the NP is not for non-racial democracy but it is for non racialistic democracy.

I have been in this House some eight years now and I have been impressed at the hon the Leader of the House’s ability to formulate fine words, to formulate his policy position in a way which is almost equal to the ability of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. However, his fine formulation and argumentation that the NP is offering non-racialistic democracy to South Africa now but that it is separate from non-racial democracy, raises a number of questions. It begs the question of how the franchise is going to be exercised by South Africans.

It has not moved him and the NP one inch away from the commitment to the race group concept through which one has to exercise the franchise. All the words including “non-racialistic democracy” and the hon the Minister’s utterances in this place have not shifted the NP away from the concept as it is on record at this stage that the political rights of South Africans will have to be exercised within the four walls of their race group, and until we hear some change from that commitment, then non-racialistic democracy means nothing more than a new form of apartheid.

We need action and not words from the hon the Acting State President. We need action and not further looking at group areas which has been looked at for years now and has been subject of commissions, reports and debates in this House.

There is also the question of separate amenities and the future of this tricameral Parliament as well as the question of including Blacks in the central parliamentary structure of the country. We have heard nothing new in that respect. All those policy positions stay on the record as the NP’s previous policy position.

The hon the new leader of the NP reminds me of another character if I have to take this week’s speech as evidence—and I grant him these are early days—but on the evidence of this week’s speech it reminds me of a character from the The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll where a character there says: “What I tell you three times is true.” It is a way of creating a reality with the use of words. [Interjections.]

That brings me to the speech this morning by the hon the member for Umlazi. He made some predictable remarks about the triumvirate leadership of the new Democratic Party which we are quite happy to defend in any forum as an interim arrangement to bring this new group together. [Interjections.]

The Democratic Party has no constitutional problem. We have a parliamentary leader. The governing party—before the NP has anything to say about the triumvirate … [Interjections.] Here sits our parliamentary leader. [Interjections.] Until the leadership issue of the party is resolved that is the situation. [Interjections.]

There are no constitutional problems on this side of the House. However, as far as the leadership issue on that side of the House is concerned, we have a convalescing leader, we have an acting leader, we have a new number one leader, we have a new number two leader, and we have a rejected leader. In that situation we find constitutional implications, big constitutional implications. In fact, as things stand, if there is a general election between now and the election for the next State President, we may even have a different result, if the power structure and the set-up in the NP caucus were to change in a general election. So that hon member for Umlazi must think before he throws remarks in this direction.

The point I really want to pick up with the hon member for Umlazi, is the question of policy. That hon member tried to advance the argument that the Democratic Party has had to wait 6 months before it could come up with arrangements with regard to leadership. I want to put him right: The first meeting took place in November, and even with Christmas in between, in a matter of less than 6 months—only 3 months—we have come to our conclusions.

This hon member then said that we must now wait for the policy of this new party to emerge. I have news for that hon member: the time that it takes to bring together parties has nothing to do with practical arrangements of congress and so on. Those fall into place very easily; the discussion, most of the time taken, and appropriately so, was taken on the formulation of policy. [Interjections.]

What I have here in my hand, is the product of the work of the past few months in formulating the policy foundation of the Democratic Party. What is interesting about this document, is that it has been drawn up, the essential principles that underlie it have been agreed upon in the discussions that have taken place, and the formulation I have in my hand has been formulated by none other than the brother of the hon new leader of the NP! [Interjections.] So, that hon member for Umlazi can rest assured that it is a policy which will be unveiled at the proper time, and it is a policy which has united people who are opposed to apartheid, from the left side of their party, right through the democratic spectrum.

Why are you so coy about it? Why don’t you tell us?

We will be delighted to unveil this at the proper time! That hon member need not be afraid that it will be very long.

Mr Chairman, let us draw up a balance-sheet on the key issues facing this country. On the key question of policy, the question of a franchise and the question of a constitutional structure within which the franchise must operate, White South Africans have two clear choices and a vague choice. They have the clear choice presented by the CP. I absolutely reject the option that they offer, but at least it is a clear option, and there can be no doubt as to the position of the franchise for people who are not White under a CP government.

Under a Democratic Party government there can be no doubt that the franchise will be operated without any restriction on race. There will be free association. There will be one parliament. There may be other federal elements, but there will be one central parliament in which all South Africans will take their place. [Interjections.] There is absolute clarity on that point.

From the NP we have all these words, words, words churning out, never coming down crisply as a choice between one or other position.

On the question of group areas the voters can clearly look at the CP and know where they stand. They can look at our party and know where they stand. They do not know where they stand with the NP. It is a case of “kleitrappery” all these years.

Then we have the question of separate amenities. There is no doubt at all where the CP stands and there is no doubt at all where we stand, but where does the NP stand?

One of the few occasions when I have had reason to feel some sympathy for the arguments of the hon member for Overvaal and some sympathy for the arguments of the hon member for Brakpan is when they attack the NP for their hypocrisy and their humbug when it comes to criticising Boksburg. The only way in which the CP municipality of Boksburg was able to reserve the amenities that they reserved was because the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act is still in the Statute Book and that is a matter for the NP’s conscience. [Interjections.]

We have had lots of examples of where the NP is still practising—in Pretoria and other places—all the restrictions which the CP have now introduced in Boksburg, but I want to lay one at the door of one of the so-called “verligtes” of the NP, the hon the Acting State President. In his constituency in Gordons Bay there are boards at this moment which reserve the beaches for White people. [Interjections.] One of the boards says “Blankes Alleen” and within a few metres there is a board which has a picture of a dog and a big cross over it. In other words, in the hon the Acting State President’s own constituency, on the beaches of Gordon’s Bay, dogs and people who are not White are not allowed.

That is what the NP offers us. What have we heard this week? Have we heard one word, one commitment to effect that the Government is going to do away with the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act? [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the hon member who has just sat down and I would like to make one comment: Maybe he should read less and work harder in his constituency.

I want—in the more intimate atmosphere of the House of Assembly—to welcome back to this Chamber the hon leader of the PFP.

*His return as leader of the PFP has placed him squarely in the limelight. As one of the troika of leaders of a new emergent party, he is also being weighed in the balance at the moment. It is, to a certain extent, in the public interest for us to speculate about who is going to become the leader of the new party which is to be established.

Without being ad hominem, let me say that we have now listened to him twice. He made good speeches, but we have come to the conclusion that he is not going to be the leader. He is a man of fine sensibilities who will make good speeches and be a good chief spokesman on finance, but if I were a gambling man, I would put my money on Dr Denis Worrall. [Interjections.]

I now come to the other one-third member of the new party which is to be established. He told us that “group” in politics equates with the formation of a party. They are engaged in forming a party. There are three co-leaders. They are all Whites. There are four chief advisors; they are all Whites. What does this tell us? [Interjections.] Could they not find an advisor from amongst the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians of this country? [Interjections.]

I challenge the hon the leader of the PFP to tell us what percentage of their party is open to all races. What percentage of their party’s members are not on the White voters’ roll?

I challenge Dr Denis Worrall to tell us how many members of the other population groups his party has, and I also challenge the hon member for Randburg. [Interjections.] Membership of the Labour Party is open to all races, but the Labour. Party is basically a party which is supported and is active in a specific community. Inkatha is basically also active in a specific community. It is not the case because the NP says so. [Interjections.]

The hon member tells us that party formation is the key to group formation, but their party gets off the ground with precisely the same composition as this House. All we are saying is that these are the realities of South Africa, and for that reason we must operate within the context of those realities. [Interjections.] It merely goes to prove one thing. It proves what a tremendous role ethnicity and culture play in politics. It is therefore simply common sense to give effect to these realities when one is doing future planning.

We are attentively following the birth and growth of this new party. From all the reading matter I have been able to get hold of, and even from interim policy statements, thus far I am compelled to say that our commentary is cryptically: Nothing new, little progress and the same old story; an anti-climax after the expectations that were created. The proclaimed policy framework of the new party which is to be established, a party which is still nameless and leaderless, is just as cliche-ridden, just as vague and unacceptable as present PFP policy. If words have any significance—I read through that policy framework statement five times—their policy is once more simply a model for one man, one vote in a unitary system with, as a sugar-coating, a small measure of protection as far as language and cultural rights are concerned. There is no question whatsoever of effective protection of minorities against domination. Nothing in their statement attests to the promised new vision and workable alternatives. It seems to us as if the PFP has already achieved a policy victory and, as far as policy is concerned, is systematically swallowing up the others, but in the process they are making capital of the temporary news value of Dr Denis Worrall and the hon member for Randburg, the one because he is a better marketing man than the other two and the other owing to his contacts with the ANC and left-wing radicals.

The majority of voters who supported the NP in 1987 and 1988 will not allow themselves to be caught by fine-sounding words, fine-sounding generalities and commercialised image-building, supported by millions, which they are engaged in in the establishment of that new party. Those voters are asking for well-ordered renewal in a spirit of realism, without the destruction of stability and security. It is only the NP that offers that well-ordered renewal. [Interjections.]

With their leader acting as spokesman, the CP made an interesting statement in answer to a question. This is when he said, in connection with the question of facilities, that they would direct their efforts towards having certain facilities established in the own residential areas of the other population groups and that the CP would support this. We asked the hon member whether, in their terms, that would be done with White money, because they say, do they not, that there is White money and other kinds of money. After the hon member had, on two occasions, tried to duck the question, he said yes. It will therefore be done with White money.

Come now!

Is the hon the leader now denying this? He said yes; it is in Hansard. Surely that is not the propaganda they have been conveying to the electorate for eight years now. There is one passage I want to quote from a CP information document:

In the same document they made propaganda about the fact that we spent too much White money on Black people and Coloured people. They quoted figures to indicate who paid what amounts of taxation and what we spent on housing. If we spend money on housing for less-privileged communities which are experiencing shortages, is this not a way of protecting the Whites’ own residential areas? Is that not precisely what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says they are going to do? If we take that money and build swimming-baths and parks, are we not doing precisely what the hon the leader of the Official Opposition today said he was going to do? No, today he made an admission which negates all the propaganda to the voters on this issue. [Interjections.]

The CP touched upon a number of themes, and the one theme that frequently came to the fore in connection with Boksburg involved the question of the separation or sharing of public facilities. The CP’s ambiguities have already effectively been exposed by the hon member for Sasolburg. As far as Vereeniging is concerned, the hon member must obtain a better source of information than that of the hon member for Overvaal, because in his statements he made quite a number of factual errors. Vereeniging’s parks and Little Theatre are open to all races, and so I could go on.

And the parks?

The parks are open to all races.

And the recreational area at the river?

Sir, on television …

And the recreational area at the river?

Order!

On television the hon member said—and got his leader to say in this House— that Vereeniging’s parks were closed to other races. That is an untruth. [Interjections.]

It is the NP who is closed.

That is a blatant untruth. The hon the leader should have double-checked before simply accepting facts. [Interjections.] I am not answering any questions.

Order!

Their ambiguities were effectively exposed by the hon member for Sasolburg. I want to approach the matter from another angle. [Interjections.] For decades now the NP has been dealing with this sensitive matter in a sensitive manner. For a long time now our point of departure has been that the questions of separate facilities is not an end in itself, that it is not a principle and that it is, in fact, justified for the purpose of preventing friction, conflict and overcrowding.

No less a person than the late Mr Vorster said that this was so when he declared that where facilities could be duplicated, all well and good, but that where this could not be done, they should be shared. It is therefore not a principle.

On the basis of that fact, quite some time ago the NP methodically began to open to all races facilities which were previously separate facilities. I want to mention some examples to hon members, examples which they did not dispute when they were also members of the NP. When they were still NP members, I never heard them protest about the opening up of the Nico Malan to all races. In 1976 the Cabinet took a decision to abolish separation in post offices, and since then this has been implemented. Did hon members protest against that? No.

When we were young MPs serving on a select committee, the hon member for Brakpan, I think the hon member for Soutpansberg—I am not sure—and I opened hotels to all races. [Interjections.] We began by saying that there should be a network which could, in fact, furnish services to everyone, and we did this, and when we saw that it worked, we were in a position to say that it was safe, and we then gave owners the right to decide for themselves. When last have hon members read of an incident in a hotel that was open to all races? It works. There is no friction. This has effectively been eliminated.

In the hon members’ time sports stadiums and theatres began to be opened up to all races, and those hon members did not offer any protest.

That is why I am telling him that the NP has adopted a certain course which, together with regulation on a central basis, and the State’s task in maintaining order, also involves evidencing goodwill and creating opportunities in regard to this matter, if this does not jeopardise security.

At the same time the NP has dynamically continued with the development of adequate facilities for everyone, something which is a fundamental problem. Facilities which have been utilised over a period of decades, and which were developed for say 1 000 people, cannot suddenly be employed for 10 000 people. Then one has friction. Then one has overcrowding. Then one has people being trampled underfoot. We have continued to develop those additional facilities, and that being so, as we make progress along those lines, the past necessity for them in every sphere will fall away. Our course is therefore one involving the creation of opportunities in this connection, and to do so judiciously and methodically.

Surely the present attitude of the CP is completely irreconcilable with what they supported when they were still members of the NP. [Interjections.] Totally irreconcilable! As in every other sphere, in this matter they have also taken over Mr Jaap Marais’s policy. [Interjections.] Within weeks of their having taken over in certain town councils—literally within weeks!—they discovered that that policy could not be implemented. Apart from Boksburg and one or two other places where they have burnt their fingers, they have backed off, already deciding that they would not implement that policy on the strength of which they have misled the voters.

That is untrue!

Speaking about ambiguity, let me say that it is true of Potchefstroom and of Vanderbijlpark and that it is true of Welkom and 80% of the town councils controlled by the CP.

And of Vereeniging! [Interjections.]

It is not true of one town in my constituency! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it seems to me as if the hon member for Potgietersrus is a party within a party. As long as things are going well in his constituency, he does not care what is happening in the rest of the CP’s constituencies. [Interjections.] No, Sir, on this matter they have no underlying principle. They are simply pragmatic about this issue, relying completely on equivocation. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a great fuss here about the Afrikaner people. He spoke about “my” people.

But they are, in fact, his people, are they not? [Interjections.]

Let me tell him that they are not his people; they are our people. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

I did not say only “my” people!

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in fact, did say so. He need only to consult his Hansard. He regularly says “my” people, Sir. He does so because he wants to project an image of himself as the leader of the Afrikaners. [Interjections.]

But that is, in fact, what he is! [Interjections.]

That is the only reason why he does so. [Interjections.] They are our people. [Interjections.] They are our people, regardless of whether we are members of the CP, the PFP, the NDM or the NP. We who are Afrikaners say they are our people.

And you people speak of a group!

No, they cannot outdo us … [Interjections.] They cannot outdo us …[Interjections.]

Order! No, there are a few hon members who, in my opinion, are now trying their level best to attract attention.

It is really not necessary to shout so loudly. It cannot be permitted either. The hon the Minister of National Education is as senior an hon member as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He must be given a hearing. The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, I am proud of my Afrikanerhood as, I think, all Afrikaners are proud of it. My Afrikanerhood, however, does not stand between me and my calling and responsibility with regard with what my fellow South Africans and I will have to accomplish in this country.

Hear, hear!

Our people—if we must speak about our people as Afrikaners—cannot survive in isolation, hatred and enmity. We shall have to seek our survival in interaction with all the other peoples and communities in this country.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says I am running away from the ethnic concept. Being a people is of cardinal importance, but surely that is not the only factor. Surely there are groups in this country which are not peoples. The Whites, after all, constitute such a group. [Interjections.] I now want to ask him whether his policy is one of an Afrikaner state, or is it one of a White state. If he says that he advocates a “Boerestaat”, he finds himself in the company of Eugene Terre’Blanche. If he says that he advocates a White state, he is deviating from the ethnic concept. [Interjections.] Yes, then he joins me in not adhering to the ethnic concept. Then he is saying that constitutionally he does not advocate an ethnic state, that constitutionally he stands for a group. He cannot get away from that, and in the course of this year’s debate he will have to answer this question. [Interjections.]

†It is important for the approximately 40% White voters in this country who are not Afrikaners to know the answer to this question. The very large percentage of our population who have strong cultural and other ties with Great Britain want to have a reply to this. They want to know whether they will retain their citizenship and the right to vote in South Africa if the CP is to take over. The more than 600 000 South Africans of Portuguese origin would like a reply to this. They want to know if they will lose their citizenship if they refuse to identify with the Afrikaner. This is the term that is always used by the CP. We need an answer.

*Of all the legal political parties in South Africa, the CP constitutes the biggest single danger to White security and survival. [Interjections.] If they come to power, there would definitely be total isolation, as the hon the Minister of Finance effectively indicated in the Other Place. There would be absolute polarisation on the basis of colour, because their policy offers no prospect to the millions of South Africans of colour who do not want to or will not move. Their policy only offers third-class residential rights to people who have been here for five or six generations now. Their policy is therefore one that will prove catastrophic for the Whites and for South Africa as a whole. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is an honour and a privilege to be permitted to address this House after our national leader, especially after he spelt out the NP policy so clearly to us so that all the other parties in this House could hear exactly what it is.

†Mr Chairman, I wish to welcome Dr Zach de Beer, a former senior colleague of mine, as leader of the PFP. He is not here at the moment. [Interjections.] I listened very carefully to his speech and I think one sentence of the speech of the new leader of the PFP needs examination. He stated that what was required for confidence and prosperity in South Africa was: “A vote of equal value for each adult in South Africa.”

What was more significant was the fact that he stopped right there. He never carried that argument any further. He failed to indicate to us whether the vote should be on the universal franchise basis on a common voters’ roll, or whether it should have certain guarantees. It is easy to make a general statement. It was a well-sounding general statement but once one starts analysing it, one runs into some serious problems. Should it be on a common voters’ roll then there is, with one or two exceptions, no constituency in South Africa that will have Whites, Coloureds of Asiatics as the majority voters.

Let us now examine a South Africa after such an election. I think that the hon member would agree with me that, out of probably 450 to 500 seats one will find approximately 425 to 430 seats being represented by Black South Africans in a unicameral system. Is that what the PFP wishes to achieve—total Black majority rule? The only conclusion I can draw from the statement:—“a vote of equal value for each adult in South Africa”—is that they are heading towards Black majority rule.

Is he perhaps contemplating—he certainly did not say so today—a Bill of Rights? That changes it slightly. I personally believe that a Bill of Rights is not worth the paper that it is written on in the context of Africa as we know it. Does he, like ourselves, wish to see some form of negotiated settlement which recognises group interests and the protection thereof? If so, then he is moving towards our side. I wish to state without fear of contradiction that should the new Democratic Party go to the polls with the slogan “A vote of equal value for each adult in South Africa: Black majority rule with a Bill of Rights”, they will come back to this Chamber with less than half the seats they have at the moment, no more.

*Now we come to the CP. Not a word has been said here on how they want to solve the problems of our country or how they will possibly govern our country. Boksburg has been their only topic. They have dealt with Boksburg, with what they are doing there and so on but they have had nothing to say about the country and its greater problems.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition devoted almost his entire speech to Boksburg and a few other minor matters. For a fleeting moment he managed to get a dig in. He referred to Club 61 and Club 69. By this means they now want to indicate—this has been said frequently this week—that there is supposed to be division in NP ranks. Now they are searching frantically for that division.

They first use the election of the new national leader as proof of that division. Did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, when he was still with the NP—before he deserted—not participate in elections of a chief leader? Did he have no part in an election of a national leader of the NP? When there was more than one candidate in those years, did he not say that there was division but that it was democratic? Then they could vote for more than one leader but now there is suddenly division because there was more than one candidate. What am I to understand by this? When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition still had political sense and acted as the Transvaal leader of the NP, he was always chosen unanimously and by acclamation.

Now I want to divulge another secret. People like Daan van der Merwe and others indicated very clearly to me and other younger MPs at that time that we were to vote for the hon the present Leader of the Official Opposition and for nobody else. That is how democracy was applied when he was the leader.

What a splendid attitude our present hon national leader exhibited, however. He was the one who questioned the unanimous election by acclamation and requested that all be given an opportunity to put forward proposals. We must be democratic. I take off my hat to him for that.

Does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition want to indicate that, if another candidate should appear at his next election, he would turn that candidate away from the table because it would mean division? The most important aspect is that the CP would like to see division but they cannot because they are seeing phantoms. This party works together as a unit and it was splendidly demonstrated in that everyone, after we had exercised our democratic right in the election of our national leader, fell in behind him to a man, without a single dissenting vote. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the so-called unified groupings on the right. Who are they? First there is the major one; the so-called cultural organisation, the AWB. This cultural organisation is so obsessed with culture that its chief leader wanted to persuade an English-speaking female journalist to his cultural views until late at night. He did this on the site of what should be sacred ground to the CP with their perpetual statements about “volkskap”—the Paardekraal monument.

The CP has not had a word to say about this desecration of the sacred “volksgronde”—I have not heard anything yet—not even about the fact that the AWB leader was in such a hurry to inform the lady of his cultural heritage that he kicked and drove at the gate.

Who else is there? There is the Blanke Broederbond, the Wit Wolwe, the Afrikaner-Volkswag, the purified AWB, the Oranjewerkers, Toekomsgesprek, the ladies of the Kappiekommando with drenched locks, in their perpetual death throes, the Blanke Volkstaatparty and now alas the Blanke Rugbybond.

These are the groupings which he is trying to string together and how he is trying! Is he succeeding? No, Sir. He cannot even control his city councils four months later and Potchefstroom, Welkom and others are splendid examples of this. Those city councils realise that they do not want to become monuments on graves like Boksburg.

Against this the NP Government is guiding the country steadfastly forward. An excellent example of this is that our stock exchange did not slump in the slightest on the illness of our hon State President, so firm is the confidence of our country in this Cabinet, a Cabinet which possesses all the qualities to take over from the hon the State President and hold the reins in the short and the longer term.

This House can do no other but express the fullest confidence in such a Cabinet and under no circumstances can I support the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s ridiculous motion.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to convey the following to the hon member for Sasolburg. We only need to take a careful look at the NP to convince ourselves that the NP is in fact nothing but the left-wing radical “natbroek” party. [Interjections.]

To the hon member for Bloemfontein North—he would do well to take his seat—I just wish to say that as a laywer he treats the truth with considerable disrespect. This hon member—he is inter alia a lawyer—wants to tell us in this House today that all 18 municipal candidates in Bloemfontein stood under the colours of their left-wing radical “natbroek” party. However, we know that that is not correct because not a single candidate stood in Bloemfontein under NP colours. They are all too ashamed to be seen under the banner of this left-wing radical “natbroek” party. [Interjections.] No, I am not prepared to answer questions.

Mr Chairman, with reference to your ruling that we may not today discuss the involvement of certain former members of the NP Government in fraud, corruption, perjury and links to the Mafia boss, I shall refrain from doing so today. Accordingly I shall also not discuss the damning testimonial given to the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates, the hon member for Arena Park. One thing is certain, however, namely that the year 1989 is undoubtedly going to be a crisis year for the already struggling NP. [Interjections.]

It is, then, in these circumstances, that I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the new national leader of the NP on his election. I therefore wish him luck, but I do want to add that I am not entirely sure whether I should in fact be congratulating him or sympathising with him. [Interjections.]

The party that the hon national leader inherited from his predecessor is certainly no longer the party that the new hon national leader’s predecessor received from his predecessor. It is far from being the party that boasted of standing for the preservation and retention of White civilisation in South Africa. The NP of 1989 is far removed from the party which adopted the following standpoint, in the words of the hon the State President:

Blanke in Suid-Afrika sal ons veg al moet ons dit met geweld handhaaf.

Eventually the right of the Whites of self-determination to which the hon the State President referred here was voluntarily abandoned, to such a degree that the House of Assembly was not even able to amend the Group Areas Act, because the other two Houses play cat and mouse with the NP Government. The NP has undergone a total change of course and prefers to venture on the slippery path to integration rather than to take the well-known and only proven road which, with the help of Providence, can guarantee the future of the Whites and all the other peoples in South Africa. Let us take a brief look at what the hon member for George said in regard to an incident in which four Coloured persons were apparently asked to leave a beach for Whites in his constituency. He says:

That is the standpoint of that hon member. I should like to know from the hon member whether he has tested this standpoint in his constituency. During the municipal election pamphlets were distributed by the NP in the constituency of the hon member for George in which the hon member sought to convince voters to vote for his party on the basis that in terms of that pamphlet the NP stands for separate facilities. Now I should like to hear from the hon national leader whether it is the standpoint of the NP that owing to political and constitutional changes the White voter must now accept that his so-called separate facilities no longer exist and that all facilities must be shared with all members of the public. Does the NP still stand for that retention of separate facilities? If not, the hon national leader and the hon member for George must get up here today and make an appeal for the repeal of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. The hon member went on to say:

That, according to the Press, is what the hon member said.

When the policy of the NP, namely separate facilities for Whites, is applied, the hon member for George comes along and says that it constitutes deplorable conduct on the part of an unbalanced person. He says he agrees with that. I now want to ask the hon member whether he stands by his words, namely that this is deplorable conduct on the part of an unbalanced individual.

Yes.

The hon member says that he stands by that. Let us consider briefly whom the hon member in fact referred to. Who, according to his definition of unbalanced individuals, is that individual? It is none other than inter alia the former national leader of the NP. After all, it was the former national leader of the NP who demanded of Rev Allan Hendrickse that he apologize for daring to swim where he may not swim.

You know that the issue there was that he had broken the law.

The hon member is probably also referring to his own Cape Provincial leader, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] On the beach in Gordon’s Bay only Whites are allowed. On this beach an Indian, one Mr Khan, was asked to leave the beach because the beach was reserved only for Whites. I wish to add that it was a Mr Khan, and not a Mr Doyal.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that the beaches at Gordon’s Bay would stay White. Surely it is no wonder that the hon the Chairman of the House of Representatives did not see his way clear to attending the State banquet, because how could he be welcome at the state banquet if he was not welcome to swim in the sea at Gordons Bay in the constituency of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning? Probably it was these instances of lack of balance that the hon member for George had in mind and that is probably why he did not see his way clear to voting for the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Let us hear whether the hon member for George would regard pronouncements by a certain Mrs De Klerk, as reported in Vrye Weekblad of 20 January, as deplorable and unbalanced. Yes, Sir, it is interesting that when I went to library to the inquire about getting a copy of this periodical, this little tabloid, this little newspaper, the Vrye Weekblad,

I was informed that it had regrettably disappeared without trace. [Interjections.] It makes one think, doesn’t it? According to the Vrye Weekblad reference was apparently made to Coloureds as non-people; they were the remainders; they were what was left. Reference is made to Indians; the Indians needed a little supervision and that was why White domination was built in. What does the hon member have to say about that?

The NP has lost its credibility. In 1980 the NP was still saying, in terms of its twelve-point plan, that an ideal system would be one in which each people could govern itself as it wished, preferably within its own geographical territory. The alternative, they said, was integration, conflict and the swamping of the Whites and the other minority groups.

Yes, the ideal system is that every people rules itself as it wishes, within its own geographical territory, and the alternative is integration, conflict and the swamping of the Whites. That also used to be the standpoint of the hon the leader of the NP.

On 8 February, however, the hon newly-elected leader said that our country demanded a change in the current climate of tension on the part of those in Parliament. Who caused this tense climate? None other than the governing NP. The NP has departed from the ideal solution for South Africa and all its peoples, and in the process it has necessarily chosen the alternative against which it once warned. The NP has chosen the alternative, namely integration, which gives rise to conflict, tension and the swamping of the Whites in South Africa. It is the NP that has made certain promises to the people of colour. It is the NP that created certain expectations which they knew they could not satisfy without bringing about the downfall of the Whites in South Africa.

This afternoon I wish to state clearly that the Government has set foot on the path to integration and they will have to travel that path to the end, to its logical consequences. However, I also wish to make a respectful appeal to the national leader of the NP this afternoon: Stop and turn back, back to your people, back to your people’s highest ideals, back to the heritage which was also entrusted to you to preserve.

Mr Chairman, I shall be coming back to the hon member for Ventersdorp shortly. I just wish to begin by referring briefly to an interjection by the hon member for Potgietersrus, Mr David Pienaar.

The hon member said that as far as his constituency was concerned, CP policy was being fully implemented in every town. Let us just take a look at Potgietersrus, the main town in his constituency. There is a free trade area in Potgieter Street which has already been proclaimed … [Interjections] … open to all races. There is an international motel which is open to all races and there are no apartheid signs or partitions of any nature. The hon member for Brakpan notified us, so to speak, earlier in this debate that every town and city under CP control would implement CP policy and was engaged in doing so. Now, there are a number of peculiar phenomena with regard to places such as Potchefstroom etc. However I take it that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will reply later today. Perhaps he just wants to tell us what they are going to do in cases where CP city councils do not implement CP policy. Would he not just tell us that? It is most interesting that the CP city council of Brakpan has difficulties with regard to a specific rugby ground, while the city council of Springs, which is right next to them and is also under CP control, has no difficulties. That is now being offered there. Somehow it is rather difficult to grasp.

You would not understand it! [Interjections.]

No one with a capacity for logic could understand it. [Interjections.] I would dearly like it explained to me. That is my appeal. [Interjections.] We are going to be discussing the blond spy and the bloodstain a great deal in the course of this session and I hope that when we do so the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis will be here.

After the election you will not be here any more.

I am not going to run away to another constituency party like some hon members here.

The hon member for Ventersdorp referred here to the Vrye Weekblad. I do not want to go into the details of the matter because I do not have the time. He made the disgraceful insinuation that that publication supposedly disappeared from the library and that there was some story attached to that.

He also referred to a debate that we were going to be conducting at some later stage, actually at the instance of the hon member for Losberg. [Interjections.] I do not wish to argue about that part of the debate but I do want to enter into debate with the CP about themselves, namely the handling of irregularities in their own ranks.

Make an appointment.

I am now going to speak to the hon member; he will not escape.

I wish to address a challenge to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Pietersburg and, if I have time, the hon member for Delmas as well. I challenge them to do the same as the NP did if substantial information is presented to them of irregularities in their own ranks by calling for official investigations and, pending the outcome of those investigations, suspending the membership of the people in question.

Whom are you referring to?

I am going to be discussing them in a moment; just be patient.

I should like to know whether they are going to accept that challenge. I should like to subject their sincerity to a test. [Interjections.] I wish to put a few cases to them.

The first case deals with the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis who is unfortunately not present.

He knew what was coming! [Interjections.]

Earlier this month the hon member distributed a letter dated 21 January 1989. It is a general circular on which the emblem of the Parliament of South Africa appears. As if that were not enough, he disfigured it further with a photograph of himself. It is a general circular addressed to “Dear occupant”. The signature on it is a photostat. It is my submission that in at least three respects this letter contravenes a decision of the Joint Committee on Internal Arrangements which was brought to the attention of hon members by Circular L13-88 on 15 June last year. That is not where the matter ends.

Is that for you to decide?

It is not for me to decide. This is not the end of the matter; listen to verse 2.

In this letter there appears a paragraph which reads:

They provide the address—

[Interjections.] What does the attached card look like? I investigated the matter.

It was an official document!

The card is an official document—the hon member is quite right—on which appears the address of the Regional Representative of Home Affairs in Roodepoort. This is crossed out with a black pen and the address of the CP in Krugersdorp has been stamped in its place.

I did some research on this matter. The fact is that the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis did not ask or obtain permission to deal with official mail on behalf of the regional office of Home Affairs at Roodepoort. [Interjections.] In those circumstances, therefore, this card is not an official document and it is subject to postage. It is against the law to use an apparently official postal article to avoid postage. That is a criminal offence. I shall be sending copies of these documents to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I challenge him to initiate the official enquiries into this matter himself and, pending the outcome, to suspend the CP membership of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. [Interjections.]

I also wish to bring a second matter to the attention of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Pietersburg. On 5 February an article appeared in Rapport in which it was alleged that a former CP councillor had used his official position to benefit himself. That sounds quite familiar. [Interjections.] The former councillor concerned is quoted in the article as having said “That is probably true” and goes on to contend that the present CP chairman of Pietersburg’s management committee, Mr Mars de Klerk, as well as another CP member— I think he is also a member of the management committee—a Mr Van Vuuren, supported him in this regard. The ratepayers of Pietersburg are entitled to a full investigation of this.

There are also serious allegations that CP councillors very recently bought specific properties in Pietersburg at absolute bargain prices and shortly afterwards they were earmarked for business rights by the city council in terms of the development plan. [Interjections.] It is quite clear that these were people who appear to have had confidential information for the time. I do not say that this is true. [Interjections.]

All I ask of the CP and the hon the leader of that party is to display the same courage as did this party. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon the leader of the CP to initiate official enquiries into these matters. Do not let us do it; initiate them yourself and do as the NP does, and, pending the outcome of the official enquiries, suspend the membership of the persons in question. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this afternoon at 13h20 an SBM limpet mine exploded on the corner of Ameshoff and Melle Streets, next to the SAD Medical Command in Braamfontein. Approximately eight people were slightly injured and there was minimal damage to the property. We on this side of the House hope that the injured will soon recover.

When one looks at the opposition parties in this House, one gains the impression that for various reasons the Official Opposition, at any rate, came back to this House as a very disappointed party. In the first place because they and many thousands of people outside have come to realise that the flights of fancy which this party has offered South Africa, cannot be implemented in practice.

There is a second reason, namely that during the past few years we have seen the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his people defend the AWB and its leader in this House as innocents who are involved with them in a struggle for the heart and soul of Afrikanerdom. Then something happened at Paardekraal during the holidays.

They had a barbecue! [Interjections.]

The situation then developed that this selfsame CP, which was constantly taking up the cudgels for the AWB and Mr Eugêne Terre’Blanche had nothing to say about this. They left their erstwhile friend, with whom they shared the platform at Donkerhoek to address the people, in the lurch, they left their erstwhile friend in the lurch. They did not rush to his aid. They did not come to his rescue. They left it to Mr Eugëne Terre’Blanche to fight his battles with his people, but the leader of the CP remained silent. [Interjections.]

Then we started to hear murmuring on the part of the hon member for Overvaal that the AWB had been an embarrassment to the CP for some time.

Now I should like to know from the hon the leader of the CP this afternoon whether the AWB is still an embarrassment to that party now that Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche has re-established himself as the leader of that organisation, or is he having a love affair with that organisation again? [Interjections.] It is important for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to react to this question, because he has people in his caucus who support the AWB. He should surely inform those people of his standpoint, but as always the hon member will not reply because he is afraid he will put his foot in it.

I should now like to discuss another interesting love affair, a love triangle which is developing in South African politics. It is extremely interesting that when one looks at the statements which have been made left, right and centre—unfortunately the hon member for Randburg is not here at the moment—one sees that the hon member for Randburg issued a statement in which he explained why these three parties were so cut out to form a new opposition party in South Africa. He says the elements which will make these three parties such a formidable opposition, are the PFP’s standpoints with regard to human rights, the NDM’s links with extraparliamentary organisations, and then he reduces the role of his former team mate and sparring partner—I almost want to say bitter enemy—Dr Worrall, in that party to that of a mere liaison officer with the voters.

Then the hon member for Randburg went further. The hon member visited Frankfurt, West Germany, along with Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, to hold discussions with the ANC.

Did Minister Stoffel van der Merwe accompany them that time?

Mr Chairman, that hon member is a real “yapper”. [Interjections.]

He is like a crow!

When they went to visit the ANC in Frankfurt, in West Germany, the first reports we received here …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The word “yapper” refers to a dog, and I think you must ask the hon member to withdraw the word “yapper” because it is unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Durbanville may proceed.

Mr Chairman, we read reports in the Press that the discussion with the ANC was not going very well because the ANC was not prepared to accept the left-wing standpoints and the submissions of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, who went along on that visit. The next thing we saw here in South Africa was a photograph in which the self-satisfied hon member for Randburg was sitting next to the leader of the South African Communist Party, Joe Slovo. This afternoon I want to say the following in all seriousness to these left-wing opposition parties. If the hon member really thinks that he can string the Afrikaner public along or put their backs up by means of discussions with the SACP, he is making a mistake. All he will do is build up greater resistance in South African society, because we do not intend to yield today or tomorrow to the demands and conditions of communism.

I want to refer to a third interesting aspect—the question regarding the leadership of the party which is ostensibly going to be established. If I consider this, I must tell him … [Interjections] … that it seems to me that the hon member Dr De Beer—I must congratulate him on his taking his seat in this House—is the calmest of the leaders vying for this position. There must be a reason for this. They say that their congress is going to decide on their leadership, and in the interim they do not have the confidence in one another to say: You lead us until the congress—as a temporary leader—and let us take over after the congress. They are leading it from three directions. The hon member and his party are clever, because the parliamentary caucus of this party will have to appoint a leader. If one considers the elements that will constitute that party, I am going to give hon members one guess who the leader of that party is going to be. [Interjections.] Another interesting phenomenon … [Interjections.]

Order!

… is that at the end of last year the hon member for Yeoville returned from America and then grants of the Press an interview on his membership of this party. I myself, along with many other hon members of this House, have seen the hon member for Yeoville adopt an inexorable attitude towards the Dakar-goers and the hon member for Claremont and his left-wing statements. I should like to hear this afternoon whether the hon member for Yeoville is prepared to accept the hon member for Randburg, with his outspoken policy to the left of the Progs and Dr Van Zyl Slabbert? Is he prepared to accept him as a partner in this new party. [Interjections.]

We have reached a stage where we must be honest with one another regarding what our actual standpoints are, what we really want to achieve in South Africa. [Interjections.] If one has to evaluate the political parties operating in this House and outside it, that want to use this Parliament as an instrument for reform and change, there is only one political party which is taking the realities of South Africa into account, and that is the NP. [Interjections.] To this I want to add that if one takes the realities of this country into account, one does not flee from its problems. That is why this week we saw the hon the Acting State President and the hon national leader of our party adopting a clear standpoint regarding those matters the NP is prepared soberly to consider to create a better and finer South Africa for all its people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to comment on the speech of the hon member for Durbanville, but I do want to support the hon member for Bryanston in regard to points that he made relative to that atrocious toll plaza at Mooi River. [Interjections.]

The time has come in order to allay the fears of the motoring public for that contract between the State and the consortium to be made public. [Interjections.] I want to point out that in agricultural terms, very relevant to Mooi River, the public there feel that they are being fleeced. I will say no more in this regard, because I shall be seeing the Minister myself on Monday.

Due to the limited time at my disposal I must confine my criticism during this debate to one subject and that is the Government’s continued inability to stem the tide of international isolation that is being levelled against this country.

As each year passes we find South Africa is becoming more and more isolated from its allies in the Western World with whom it has always had long and strong economic and cultural ties. These historical links are being surreptitiously eaten away and, as we well know, are being replaced by punitive economic sanctions aimed at destroying the very foundation upon which this country has been built. I am convinced that the time has come for a more aggressive approach in order to deal with this alarming trend which, if allowed to continue unchecked, will hold dire consequences for the living standards of all population groups in this country.

I am prepared to accept that the recent initiatives in South West Africa, Angola and Mozambique have helped to improve our international credibility but I must point out that these achievements have had a minimal effect in staving off attempts to isolate this country. As I see it there are two factors involved. Firstly, the Government must take greater cognisance of international reaction to its actions. Here I want to make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that we should bow meekly to outside pressures. To quote but a single case, the manner in which the Group Areas Amendment Bill was handled last year cost us dearly in the eyes of the international community.

The second aspect in respect of which the Government has been unable to make any progress is in its attempts to improve the country’s overall image abroad. It is quite obvious that the Department of Foreign Affairs must now take a closer look at the tactics it employs to convey South Africa’s message. I want to stress that it is vitally important that the Department of Foreign Affairs realise that its tactics, in order to be effective, must vary from country to country. Above all it is essential that these strategies are applied in a form which is in context with the attitudes of the population to which we in South Africa are endeavouring to direct a message, and not in terms of how we see the situation in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to follow on the hon member for Mooi River. He has made a plea in connection with toll roads, which, I think, is something which is of poignancy to his constituency. He has also spoken about our international isolation and about sanctions.

I am one of those who are in the export business and have very close contact with sanctions and boycotts. Instead of an aggressive approach to this matter I would suggest that we will reap greater fruits through subtle diplomacy.

I think all peace-loving South Africans welcome recent developments in South West Africa and Angola. It is the result of negotiations and hard work over many months on the part of the South African negotiating team. I believe those involved in these negotiations are to be congratulated by this side of the House. I think the fact that agreements could be reached is symptomatic of a new era in international relations.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has crossed the line. [Interjections.]

Order! I did not notice anyone crossing the line. Which hon Deputy Minister crossed the line?

Mr Chairman, I crossed the line quite a while ago. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Order! The hon member for Wynberg may continue.

Mr Chairman, I believe the possibility that peace could be accomplished is symptomatic of the relaxation and an international détente between the two great powers in the East and the West. I believe that when the history of our era is written, President Reagan will go down as one of the greatest American Presidents of his time. I believe this to be so because he successfully pricked the soft underbelly of the Russian Bear. He has exposed the myth that communism and socialism are viable economic systems. To a large extent he has been the indirect cause of the rise of Gorbachev and the implementation of perestroika and glasnost. We look at the pre-Reagan era and at Carter—a lame duck president. We saw a situation of him trying to cope with the problem of increased Russian military expenditure and adventurism with a Declaration of Human Rights. Reagan decided to take the Russians on in the field of military spending and the Russians could not compete rouble for dollar. Their economy could no way perform so that they could match the American system of, for instance, Star Wars. The Russians have accepted the reality of the situation and reassessed their position. For this reason we have a withdrawal in Afghanistan, a nearsettlement in Kampuchea and, hopefully, peace in Angola.

While the developments in SWA are continuing, we find that there are certain people who believe that the vultures can find political carrion in the situation.

*During the past week we heard statements such as: “SWA is being thrown to the wolves.”

“Wit Wolwe!”

Mr Chairman, what we did not hear about were the plans of the Official Opposition with regard to SWA. We did not have one suggestion from their side as to what they propose to do. I think we have to accept that they will also implement their policy of partition in SWA. I think we should ask ourselves what it will look like. There will probably be a White enclave in Windhoek, a German enclave in Swakopmund and an English enclave in a small town like Luderitz.

What will happen to the other nations in SWA? Where will the Ovambos, the Damaras, the Basters and all the other nations go? We have not seen any plan yet from the side of the Official Opposition. Perhaps there will be a passage between Windhoek and Swakopmund for those who want to go fishing over weekends.

I find the attitude of the Official Opposition with regard to SWA extremely irresponsible, and I feel that they try to sweep up the White voters of South Africa in an emotional tide for their own political gain and not for the benefit of South Africa.

The hon member for Lydenburg yesterday used the metaphor of a car in describing the NP.

The hon member for Lichtenburg.

Sorry, Lichtenburg. Let us think of a vehicle for the CP with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition at the wheel.

The ox-wagon!

The two whips will have to brake and one man will have to change gears. That will be Carel Boshoff. The only problem is that only one gear functions, and that is the reverse gear. On the back seat we find Eugene Terre’Blanche as navigator, busy giving an interview to the Sunday Times. He must show them that the road to the past lies in the direction of Paardekraal. [Interjections.]

†At the same time, all of us are interested in the other love affair in South African politics—the love affair between the three parties that became engaged and are now planning a wedding sometime later in the year. We have been told … [Interjections.] You are welcome to come to Wynberg.

Order!

What is interesting about this is that the press have said that this union will have all the best qualities of the constituent parts and not any of the bad qualities. It reminds me of when Isadora Duncan approached George Bernard Shaw and asked him:

George Bernard Shaw said:

We can only imagine the wonderful qualities of those who are coming together in this union. We can look at the soft-spokenness of the hon member for Randburg. We can possibly consider the populism of the hon leader of the IP and we can consider the cohesion that exists in the party of the hon member Dr De Beer with admiration—a party which he will take with him into this union.

The problem is that in South African politics it is all very well to powder and polish one’s image. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, just the other day the hon the Minister of National Education— I, too, want to congratulate him on his election— tried to show how “verlig” he is by referring to the fact that they admit all races to private schools. If he meant that sincerely can the hon the Minister tell us today whether his colleague entrusted with White education is currently considering reintroducing a race quota—the number of non-Whites that may be admitted to a private school? That is the rumour, namely that that race quota is to be reintroduced by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. Are these rumours true and if so, is he going to show how “verlig” he is by opposing that, because that is racism in the worst degree.

Before South Africans condemn him, we should like to know what his standpoint really is in this regard.

Are you going to join the new party?

Do not be jealous!

Secondly, I should like to refer the hon the Minister to the fact that preprimary schools are prohibited by the relevant provinces Ordinance 9 of 1956 from admitting more non-Whites than 15% of the total number of their pupils. They may not admit a single Black pupil, even within the 15%, if a White child wants to be admitted to that school. That Black child will be turned away simply because his colour is not White. That is in terms of this Government’s present legislation. Then we have to listen to the hon the Minister of National Education telling us that he is going to establish non-racism in South Africa. We hope he does, but he will have to prove it.

I believe it is a scandal to turn children away from a school purely on the basis of their skin colour. The Government’s allegations that it advocates a non-racist dispensation are ridiculous as long as it supports such a system which discriminates against people on grounds of colour.

†In conclusion I want to refer to what the hon the Minister of Law and Order said earlier today about the hunger strikes.

Order! Hon members must converse more quietly. I am finding it difficult to follow the hon member for Claremont. The hon member may proceed.

I wish to express my deepest concern about the growing number of detainees who are on hunger strike. I do not believe we can blame the detainees. They have little choice. Some of them have been incarcerated for seventeen months—nearly one and a half years— without being charged or told what offence they have committed. This Government lets them rot in jail. What other action can these people take to draw attention to their plight but to do something that is as drastic, as dramatic and as potentially dangerous as a hunger strike?

Yesterday I sent the hon the Minister of Law and Order a letter asking him to allow the families of those detainees who have been hospitalised to see them. I repeat that call. Purely on humanitarian grounds, I believe that that is the least that the hon the Minister can do for those people who, I believe, have been driven to take a step which is drastic and potentially dangerous to their own health.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Claremont raised a matter surrounding the detainees which I think is a source of concern to all of us, but we on this side of the House are quite satisfied that the Minister of Law and Order is dealing with a very difficult matter in a very responsible and a very sympathetic manner.

†I would like to add a few remarks about the new left.

Oh, you too? [Interjections.]

Yes, I would like to add something because I have had some very bad experiences in the past of parties which wanted to bring together people who did not belong together. I am strongly reminded of the late United Party’s attempts in the late 1970s, with their “Save South Africa” campaign. They also started talking to the PFP and in the end the only result was my friend, the hon member for Mooi River, who is the last remnant of that great attempt.

What the new left do not lack, or so they claim, is high political morality and political honesty. Those are two of the areas in which they think they are the greatest. [Interjections.] I would like to add something to that. I think the hon leader of the NP was on target this afternoon with the accusation in regard to this new non-racial movement with not a single person of colour anywhere near the organisational system.

Oh, yes! We have two MPs in the House of Delegates.

The hon leader of the NP pointed out this sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude which is nothing but a damp squib. It does not impress South Africa if people talk about non-racialism and then, when they have the opportunity to show what they really want to implement in South Africa, give members of the Black, Coloured and Indian communities the cold shoulder.

This leadership troika has a chip off the block of the old blue-blood Progs. They have one of the biggest political prostitutes in the form of Dr Denis Worrall. They have one of the most sanctimonious opportunist politicians in the hon member for Randburg. As well as that, they are all White.

In their board of advisers they have a confused Sampie Terreblanche, the great adviser Marinus Wiechers, and also a touch of the sinister Broederbond organisation in Mr Willem de Klerk. That is also something they claim to have added to their new leadership. Last but not least, the Van is back, the man who dropped them all like a hot potato. I will never in my life forget that day, in this Parliament, when Van Zyl Slabbert took his bags and walked out of this party and left a poor PFP again in the hands of the hon member for Sea Point, who had to pick up the threads and try to do something about that party. [Interjections.]

What was interesting today was that when the hon leader of the NP pointed out that there is not a single person of colour involved in this non-racial party that is due to be formed, we had a number of interjections. The first interjection came from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He said that the statement was not correct. The new party had three members of Parliament in the House of Delegates and he named them: Mr Rajab, Mr Iyman who I think belongs to Dr Worrall and not to the PFP, and Mr Poovalingam.

I would like to ask them why did they not also include one of those three gentlemen in their body of advisers even though they did not want to make them part of the leadership.

The hon member for Parktown made the remark that they had many more supporters at least than the NP. Of course, then we have none. Will the hon member for Parktown tell us how many members of colour are in the PFP?

More than in the NP.

Order! I am not going to allow the hon member for Parktown to respond. The hon member for Turffontein may continue.

One, two or three are also more and perhaps they would like to tell us what percentage of the total Black, Coloured and Indian communities are members of the PFP. [Interjections.]

The hon members for Port Elizabeth Central, Berea and the whole PFP in the debate in the joint meeting were so thrilled and excited by the attacks on the NP by the LP and others for its racism which is so-called bedded in the NP. I would like to say: So much for the great White liberal paternalists who sit in this House under the flag of the PFP!

I want to refer to the one member of the troika leadership who is not here and I am sorry to say I think the hon member for Randburg should also perhaps be as decent as the hon member Prof Olivier who left this House to make way for the other leader. He has two seats and he has been fighting elections with Dr Worrall. Why does he not ask one of his two members of Parliament to make room for Dr Worrall also to sit in this House?

Let me just read what Dr Worrall says. Dr Worrall is not here to speak for himself, so I will do so on his behalf. [Interjections.] He refers to this conglomeration of a new party:

What does Dr Worrall mean by that? It means that the PFP must take note. It only has the organisational ability and no ability to cut into the strength and base of the NP. It has no credibility with extra-parliamentary organisations, and there are the other two components that will help them survive. Since these groups have got themselves off the ground, they have nowhere opposed each other in any election in South Africa. Dr Worrall got a free ride from the PFP. The hon member for Randburg got a free ride from the PFP in Randburg.

I would like to say if the PFP had put up a candidate in Randburg the hon member for Randburg would not have been here. The point that I would like to make is the following, and this also comes from Dr Worrall. I quote:

They want a distinctive new image in politics away from the three existing parties. What audacity have they to come today and support a motion of no confidence in the NP Government while at the same time they have not the slightest confidence in their own image either in the PFP or in the other groups!

I saw the hon member for Yeoville around just now. He is sitting over there. I do not know if he will perhaps be looking for better ground when this new party is formed, because in the Other Place the other day, he listed a number of issues which he regards as the most important in the South African political scene and which he would like to debate with the Government. But not a word did he say about the prospect of negotiations with the ANC. That he does not mention, but I will tell the House, give an opportunity to the hon member for Randburg, give an opportunity to other members of the PFP—they are all talking about the need to negotiate a settlement for South Africa with the ANC. May I ask the hon member for Yeoville whether he will support that or not?

It is only a question of time. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Houghton says it is only a matter of time then the hon member for Yeoville will also fall in line. [Interjections.]

Aaah! No! No! [Interjections.]

I recall the vicious attack that the hon member for Yeoville made on the hon member for Durban Central and the hon member for Greytown when they were on the Dakar safari. [Time expired.]

Order! I regret the hon member for Turffontein will not be able to inform the House about that because his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein has repeated his customary form in a speech which was marginally offensive, moderately entertaining and utterly unconvincing. That is the standard. Quite frankly, if in fact this new party is not going to be so effective, why is he spending so much time on trying to denigrate it? Not only he. The hon member for Stilfontein also spent some time on it and he actually denigrated it because of its belief in a Bill of Rights. The hon member for Stilfontein must speak to the hon the Minister of Justice, since he has asked the South African Law Commission to draw up a Bill of Rights. Yet the hon member for Stilfontein says a Bill of Rights is of absolutely no value in the African context. And so also we had the hon member for Wynberg, whistling past the graveyard of the seat that he is going to lose at the next election when the new party is formed.

The most encouraging comment about the new party in my view came from the hon the Minister of National Education. He often reproaches me and he says I think he is verkramp. My response is always that he is wrong. He is not verkramp; I just do not know whether he is verlig or verkramp. What he did say this afternoon was that he had read the policy of this new party five times. I want to tell him he must keep reading, because perhaps it was because of that reading that there has been just that marginal shift from verkramp to slightly more verlig on the whole issue of the group.

Maybe he will remember that once before he had said that his policy was on the rocks. After 14 years in Parliament and nine years as a Cabinet Minister I think it was in the Gezina constituency where he said their policy was now on the rocks and they had to give people a vote where they live. So I want to suggest to the hon the Minister: keep reading, keep reading and perhaps he will become a verligte after all.

We have come to the end of what is essentially a five-day debate and the hon leader of my party has moved an amendment to the motion by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He has done it for a very very specific reason, because while I believe these two parties and indeed millions and millions of people around South Africa have lost confidence in this Government; we in the PFP have fundamentally different reasons for rejecting the NP from our colleagues on the right. I have listened once again to the hon members of the CP.

*Once again they proceeded, with reckless disregard for the consequences, both for South Africa and for the people of South Africa, to exploit racial prejudice and minority fears for the sake of petty political gain. It seems to me now that they are in fact trying to stop the movement of South Africans towards a shared and prosperous future. They want to put a stop to that. They want to reverse the process. I also want to tell hon CP members—just as the hon member for Houghton, the hon member Dr De Beer and I told the NP under Dr Verwoerd in the early sixties:

This is the direction in which South Africa is moving, and nothing that the CP does, inside or outside this House, can prevent it. The CP may make the process a little more difficult and painful, and it may cause the process to be more violent, but they will not be able to stop this irreversible process, this movement by the people of South Africa towards a shared future. They must accept that.

†They have been reckless once again. I want to mention just two of the issues on which I believe they have been so reckless. The first one is the issue of Boksburg. I would have thought that, when they spoke in this House about Boksburg, there would have been just a slight degree of humility and shame. Instead, they stand here “rondborstig” and claim that they are proud of what they did in Boksburg, irrespective of the consequences to South Africa—for a few miserable little “verkrampte” votes.

They are doing the same!

I am not talking about the NP, I am talking about the CP. The CP was proud about it. They are starting to feel ashamed although they have not yet changed their policy. [Interjections.]

The NP has also enjoyed the CP’s embarrassment over Boksburg. However, I do not believe they should be as pure as they suggest they are. They should not enjoy the embarrassment of the other party in this matter. Some of the reformers in the NP may be irritated by the fact that, just when the Government started to allow South Africans to lift their heads out of the slime of apartheid, the CP is starting to push their heads down again. This is what has happened.

In reality, the slime of apartheid is the creature of the NP and it will be there and people’s heads will be pushed into it until the NP rids South Africa of it. They will not get rid of it until such racist—not racial—Acts, such as the Race Classification Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Group Areas Act are scrapped altogether.

I want to refer briefly to the South West African situation. Once again we have the CP trying to score small petty debating points about this issue. One wonders if they want peace in Angola or not, whether they want the Cubans to go, whether they accept the principle of independence for South West Africa and whether they acknowledge the international implications of the whole South West African situation.

Yes!

Yes, then I know the circumstances. They should be pleased that at long last, after dragging its feet, the Government has started to move on the South West African-Angolan situation. They should acknowledge the advantages which the accord must bring to South Africa, as far as the saving of the lives of young South Africans, the money that can be spared for investment in South Africa and the implications for South Africa on the international front are concerned.

Instead of congratulating Mr Neil van Heerden and Gen Jannie Geldenhuys, all that they have done in this week was to decry what has taken place and score poor small party debating points out of this issue. They should be ashamed of themselves. This is why our amendment is an attempt to put some dramatic distance between us on this side of the House and the CP. [Interjections.]

The debates have taken place this week against the background of the events which followed upon the hon the State President’s letter to the NP caucus and his unfortunate illness. All members are joined and have been joined in wishing the hon the State President a speedy and complete recovery.

However, I must say something about that letter for it raises some important constitutional implications which go beyond any individual and which affect both the character and the role of the State Presidency and the structure and functioning of the executive Government in terms of our Constitution.

I appreciate that the hon the Minister of National Education, as the new leader of the NP, does not want to be rushed into giving what he calls definitive interpretations on this issue. The hon the Minister wants to discuss this matter with the hon the State President at an appropriate time. I appreciate this, yet I regard the consideration of the constitutional and governmental issues which flow from the events of last week and from the letter as so important that it cannot be delayed indefinitely or too long, neither can these matters be relayed in a quiet tête-á-tête between the hon the State President and the hon leader of the NP.

The letter says—I quote two of the key paragraphs:

Die Staatspresidentskap word dan in ’n besondere mate ’n samebindende krag in ons land.

The intention is to separate the two and the presidency can become a “samebindende mag in die land”. If that is the intention and if that is the basis on which the NP operated and if the State President is to be a new unifying figure standing above party politics, then a whole range of vitally important constitutional questions arise. If he is going to be the unifying factor it becomes necessary to look at the powers and the functions of the State President and consider separating some of the powers of the Head of State from some of the powers of the Head of the Executive.

If it is to be a unifying factor outside of party politics one puts the question whether the present method of election by an electoral college dominated by the majority party in the White House of Assembly is an appropriate manner for electing the State President.

If he is to be a unifying factor in that context— above party politics—and he is not going to be subject to the regulatory constraints of a party and its caucus, what is the basis of his mandate? What is the constitutional relationship between the State President on the one hand and the leader of the majority party in the Government on the other hand to be?

The State President is not to be the leader of one of these parties. How will the voters at a general election know who the State President is going to be after the general election? I could go on with a host of questions.

I want to put it to the hon the Minister that he will have to deal with this matter. I believe that this whole concept should be referred to the Joint Committee on the Constitution as soon as possible for thorough examination by all parties and not just by the leader of the NP.

This letter, this action, the election of the hon the Minister as the leader of the NP, and his speech in the other House the other day if I might say so— because he became his own man in that speech, whether I agree with the detailed content or not—are significant. That speech marks the end of a political era. The Government will point to achievements during that political era and I do not want to denigrate, but fundamentally, that political era that has just passed was one during which it became clear that apartheid could never ever be the basis of a viable policy for the future, unless in South Africa—to the gentleman on the right over here—one was prepared to endure the future in a divided, beleaguered, impoverished and isolated dictatorship. That is the alternative, unless we get rid of apartheid.

Yet in spite of this reality—I think the hon the Minister will agree significantly with what I say— apartheid in its mean, hurtful, divisive role lives on in our laws and our society today.

I understand what the hon the Minister said in his speech. There are some nice ringing phrases in it. He wants to move away from racialism to a non-racialistic society. Then the hon the Minister must say which racial laws he is going to repeal. I want to put the question to the hon the Minister: Is he going to repeal race classification? I say this particularly in the light of the speech by the hon the Acting State President, who went much further than the hon the Minister. He said that groups, for political and other purposes, should be based on voluntary association and only after that voluntary association has taken place should the groups be codified.

That is exactly the opposite of race classification. In race classification one takes the individual when he is in the cradle and one builds him into the group. Now the hon the Minister says one must allow the group to develop and only after that does one have to reckon with it. I want to ask the hon the Minister: Is he prepared to scrap race classification? I say this: If the hon the Minister is not prepared to scrap race classification his colleague is talking nonsense.

So is he!

Well, that may be. First of all his colleague is talking nonsense as far as freedom of association and constitutional structures based on freedom of association are concerned. The hon the Minister is also talking nonsense when he says that he is going to have a non-racialistic South Africa.

I dealt with that in my speech.

Well, I have read it very carefully indeed. [Interjections.] The fact is this: We end this era. My hon leader has itemised the things that have gone wrong, inter alia, that they have failed to promote basic democratic values in our society. One has heard about the broadening of the base of democracy and yet this Government in so many ways is subverting the substance of democracy.

Democracy is more than a vote at local government level, it is more than a vote at regional level and it is more than a vote in a segregated chamber which can be overridden by a Government-packed President’s Council. For democracy to function involves a style and an attitude of mind, and I am afraid that this Government has developed an undemocratic style, it has developed an authoritarian style and it has developed a hectoring, bullying style. What is needed for democracy to work is openness in government and not secretiveness in government, as has developed over the past while. It requires a truly free Press, not a government that pays lip service to press freedom. It requires freedom of speech in association and political action, not emergency regulations which prevent this from taking place. It requires a fair and even-handed television and radio service, not a television and radio service that are sychophants of the Government. It requires a respect for civil liberty in the rule of law. These are not just clichés, these are relevant to democracy in any society. It also requires respect for the law amongst the citizens. It requires respect amongst the citizens for the constitutional process. It requires respect amongst the citizens for the leaders who are identified with these things. Yet this Government, by its actions and particularly its actions over this past year, by its secretiveness and by the use of the horrendous powers which it has taken to itself under the emergency regulations has in fact undermined the basis of democracy for all South Africans.

I want to say this: This Government deserves to be censured, if for one reason only, which is that it has failed to give hope to the people of South Africa. If there is one person who has admitted this it was the hon the Minister in his speech in the other chamber when he said that moderate South Africans are waiting anxiously for a message of hope. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point—I hold him in very high esteem as a senior politician in this House—is a very courageous man in the sense that he has twice tried to help the PFP when they have had leadership problems. I listened to the hon member today. I listened in order to draw a comparison, because one likes to compare the leaders of the parties represented here to one another. I listened to the hon member and I compared him to the two leaders of the new party who spoke here. Having compared them in this way, I want to ask him whether he will be available once again, for the third time, because the hon member does not compare at all badly with the other two horses in the field. I want to tell the hon member that he really does not compare badly with them. [Interjections.]

I think leadership in the House of Assembly is very important, and we must weigh the leaders up against one another. We have had the privilege, both now during this debate and in the other House, of listening to the hon the national leader of the NP. We have listened to the hon the chief leader of the CP, the hon member Dr Zach de Beer and the hon member for Randburg. Leadership is so important for our future because it is no secret that for a long time to come, the Whites in this country will have to continue to take the initiative and to give direction in this country.

There are three parties and four leaders here to whom we have listened. It is in the interests of the country, and absolutely vital, that the leaders be weighed up against one another because, as I have said, it affects our future. When we listen to what they say is to become of our country, and what is expected of our leaders, we find that the hon member for Lichtenburg had the following to say at the congress in Bloemfontein:

That is what he said at the congress. [Interjections.] I wonder whether they are not a little over-optimistic in their statements.

What happened the last time they left Pretoria for Cape Town, was that a whole number of CP members travelled by train. They travelled on the Kimberley train—from Pretoria via Kimberley to Cape Town. They arranged for a number of CP supporters to be present on every station and whenever the train stopped, the chief leader of the CP got off the train and addressed them. He was applauded throughout the Tranvaal and the Western Transvaal. I have it on good authority that when they came to Warrenton, only the Coloured porter was there to listen to him. [Interjections.] What I am actually trying to say, is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also has his limitations; that he has certain areas in which he is accepted, and that he also has certain areas in which he runs into trouble, such as the entire Cape Province, the entire Free State and the whole of Natal. That is why I think his statements are reasonably far-fetched. [Interjections.]

When one asks what image—if we take them one by one—the public has of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, how they see him, he is not seen as a winner or a future State President. He is not known as a man who is uniting the citizens of South Africa. He is known as divider. History lies in shreds. In every field he has entered, he has torn things apart. He is a destroyer (breker).

Do you know what the word “breker” means?

He and his party—not so much him as his lieutenants—are known for their forcefulness. They say, just as the hon member for Ventersburg said today, that if necessary, they will use violence.

You are lying!

He and his party …

Order! The hon member may not say that. He must withdraw it.

I am prepared to withdraw it.

Order! That is unqualified. The hon member may proceed.

The hon the leader and his lieutenants are known for their heightening of tension in the country. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is known as a person who is anti-everything, the leader of a group of embittered people. [Interjections.] He is known as the leader of a band of dreamers who yearn for the past. He is known to be accommodating a few wild horses in his party—wild horses that are difficult to ride. [Interjections.] They are known for their policy which provides for the large-scale forced removal of people. He, as leader, says that he is going to divide the country among the various peoples without giving them any land. They are opposed to the free settlement areas, to regional services councils and to Blacks owning property. They are anti-everything. What about his lieutenants, who stand at his side? The other day the hon member for Lichtenburg said at the congress in Bloemfontein that they were opposed to the trade unions for Blacks. They are in favour of every state having its own public service, postal service, railways. The hon member for Soutpansberg said the CP would close the borders of South Africa under certain conditions. They would withdraw the railway trucks and repatriate the workers. [Interjections.] They would cause themselves to become wretched from hunger. [Interjections.] What I am trying to say, is this. I want to know who is the leader. Judging by what we have heard here, who is the leader of the future? Who is the leader whom we can trust to lead us safely into the future? [Interjections.] Is it the leader of the “Boerestaat” movement, Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche? Is it Prof Carel Boshoff, who wants to divide up the country simply by drawing geographical lines? [Interjections.] Who is it? When one compares them all, is it not the hon the national leader of the NP who stands head and shoulders above all these other so-called leaders? [Interjections.]

They are now trying to imply that there is a battle for leadership within the NP. Let us just take note of what our new national leader’s own brother has to say about him. We must remember that his brother is affiliated to the new left-wing party. [Interjections.] Mr Willem de Klerk says:

That is what the national leader of the NP’s brother has to say about him.

But he himself does not follow him! [Interjections.]

After all, Mr Chairman, we have observed the actions of the new national leader of the NP. [Interjections.] We have seen how he compares to the other so-called leaders. I want to say that we on this side of the House are very proud of our new national leader. The country is proud of the new national leader of the NP. I believe that this new, positive optimism that has developed regarding the advent of this new national leader, means a great deal to South Africa. It fills us with optimism. With him as national leader, I have very great hope for the future. May the Lord preserve us from the day when we have one of these other horses in the field as national leader of the governing party in South Africa or as State President of this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, at the end of a very interesting debate and a very interesting week I should now like to move as a further amendment:

Mr Chairman, this week’s debates have reflected a new enthusiasm and the building of a new South Africa. Everyone was able to sense that. One cannot but become excited at the possibilities this country has to offer all its people, despite all the problems, all the challenges for us all, and there are many of them.

Last year I visited many countries in Africa. I considered it a privilege to do so. It was nevertheless a simply wonderful privilege every time I landed once again at a South African airport, to be back in this country with its peace, its security, its potential and its opportunities. [Interjections.]

At the end of this week, in which some weighty debates have been conducted, I want to tell everyone here that we must build a new South Africa together. We must do so for all its people. Together we must build a new South Africa in which all its people may live in peace and in co-operation with one another; in which we must rid our society of discrimination, on the one hand, whilst putting paid to violence on the other.

Mr Chairman, a bomb exploded this afternoon in a café in Braamfontein. Six people were injured. Fortunately no one was killed. Those injured include both Whites and Blacks.

Mr Chairman, we simply cannot continue in this way with violence in our midst. South Africa is tired of this type of thing, and if I may, I should like to express my sympathy on behalf of all the hon members of this House to those who were injured. I also want to express the hope that they will make a speedy recovery.

South Africa is ready to exploit the full potential this country has to offer. After all, one cannot— we do not wish to—live in isolation in this country. I am afraid that there are certain people in that corner over there who think that we can live in isolation, but we cannot. We need the world’s knowledge in the form of cross-pollination. We need the world’s trade. Twenty five per cent of our gross domestic product consists of foreign trade. I could go on like this. We simply cannot live without the outside world. In a fast-growing country like South Africa, which is in the process of development, we need the world’s capital and we must go out of our way to normalise that situation.

One now asks oneself, after listening to the debate this week, how one is to do this. I want to say how I think we should do it. On the one hand, we must be able to show the world that we are able to live in peace with our neighbours. On the other hand, we must be able to show Africa and the world that we are able to live in peace with our own people. That is the issue.

Questions have repeatedly been asked about the agreement regarding the Cubans. I do not want to steal the hon the Minister’s thunder because he will furnish the CP with a thorough reply regarding this matter on Tuesday during Question Time. I do just want to make the point, however, that 10 years ago, and even one year ago, the only people in the world who saw a connection between a Cuban withdrawal and South West Africa’s independence, were South Africa and the USA. What is the position now? The whole world acknowledges it, including Russia. That is part of the agreement. Ultimately all the Cubans will be out, and by the time elections take place they will have been removed to such an extent that they can have no influence whatsoever upon that election.

I am sorry that the hon the Minister cannot be here personally today. The reason for this is that he was in Maputo today. I should like to quote this statement to hon members:

I just want to break off to say that Angola and South West Africa are important to South Africa, but that if we were to draw a comparison between Angola and Mozambique, there would be no comparison with regard to which one was the most important. Maputo, formerly Lourenco Marques, is of tremendously great importance to South Africa’s economy. It is situated 90 km from the South African border, and we have a Marxist government there. We are doing our best to normalise the situation with that country. As far as our department is concerned, it is one of this year’s highest priorities to attempt to normalise that situation. The statement continues as follows:

That is where it differs from the Angolan or the South West African situation—

That is in so far as Mozambique and Angola are concerned.

It was our privilege—that of the hon the Minister, certain officials in our department, and myself— during the past year …

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

I really do not have the time. It was our privilege to visit 28 African countries. Africa is in urgent need of South Africa’s assistance and co-operation. We do not need a new brand of colonialism in Africa. Africa was colonised for hundreds of years. With the awakening of African nationalism, neo-colonialism made its appearance, but Africa’s eyes are now being opened to this neo-colonialism. People in neighbouring countries, adjacent to us and further afield, realise today that they cannot live according to an ideology from the other side of the world. An ideology cannot be eaten. That is why these countries are becoming more prepared by the day to talk to South Africa, and to give South Africa an opportunity to help those countries to help themselves.

We do not have the money, weapons and food to distribute in Africa. If I were to tell hon members what portion of the Department of Foreign Affairs’ appropriation is used for development aid in Africa, it is negligible. I should like it to be far greater, because I think it is the best investment we could make.

I am amazed every time I enter an African country to see how the people welcome one with open arms because to a large extent, they see their salvation as lying in co-operation with South Africa. Those people who say that South Africa is destabilising Southern Africa, are talking the greatest lot of nonsense, and this is the greatest injustice against South Africa, but also against those countries that must be helped. That is the path through Africa. The most important point,’ however, is that we should proceed, at all costs and as quickly as possible, with total, balanced, all-inclusive change within South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at this stage I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon members who participated in this debate. In particular I want to convey my heartfelt thanks to my hon colleagues here on my side for the brilliant way in which they participated in the debate. [Interjections.]

By now we have come to know that kind of laugh. It is the embarrassed laugh of the Nats. Apart from his final sentence I do not have many problems with what was said by the hon the Deputy Minister who has just resumed his seat. I do have problems with the concluding sentence of the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, ie that full-scale reform should be proceeded with. This is the statement around which the entire debate has revolved, namely the substance of that reform and the objective of the reform and what is being envisaged to bring it into existence.

The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the bomb blast in Johannesburg. I think we all learned of it with regret, and I think there is unanimity in this House about conveying our sympathy to the victims and their families.

I must react to a few of the speakers’ observations. I come to the hon member for Springs. The hon member issued a challenge to me here and I took cognisance of the matters he raised. The one matter is under consideration by Mr Speaker and I assume that the hon member will understand if I say that as far as I am concerned part of that matter is sub judice.

Before the hon member becomes very enthusiastic about his proposal, he must just bear in mind that a very highly-esteemed member of the NP found himself in a similar situation some time ago, after having in my opinion acted entirely in good faith, and the NP did not suspend the hon member. Before the hon member becomes over-hasty with this matter, we shall look into it calmly, candidly and honestly.

The hon member for Vryheid also spoke here, and I just want to refer very quickly to what he said. His reference to me as a destroyer is by now quite, quite hackneyed. It was the NP that destroyed, not only because I walked out, but because the NP caucus threw us out. [Interjections.]

That is not correct. [Interjections.]

Come now, you people were there! Who said to me: “Go!” It was the former national leader of the NP in the caucus on 24 February 1982. [Interjections.] The hon member must be aware of his facts. [Interjections.]

The truth of the matter is that within the CP and on the basis of the standpoints of the CP an entirely new unity is developing in South Africa, and that unity is developing on the basis of a specific politic policy. It is not a new political policy. As regards basic principles, these are well-tried principles. They are well-tried principles for which the NP stood until it introduced an entirely new principle into the politics of South Africa, and that was the acceptance of powersharing. It was the acceptance of the political policy and philosophy of Sir De Villiers Graaff in the seventies. He accepted power-sharing; at the time the NP rejected it and we still reject it because we say the moment—I say this again— the moment one shares power with other population groups one no longer has the political power in one’s own hands; then one is no longer in control.

Now hon members can enquire of other countries with similar or comparable situations in regard to the structure of their population. Ask Israel in the Middle East how they share power with the Palestinians and the Arabs and they will tell you there is no question of that happening. If they had wanted to share power, then they would say that of course it means the loss of power. The hon member spoke about destroyers and builders, and I say we in the CP are the builders of a new unity on the basis of well-tried principles, but power-sharing is not a well-tried principle. It is not a well-tried political principle in countries with population structures comparable with those in South Africa. It is not. All the hon member can say now is that the NP is following a course of blind hope. They hope a formula will be found by means of which the country can be saved and by means of which the various peoples can then each exercise their right of self-determination, without the one dominating the other. [Interjections.]

The interjections are becoming too clamorous now. There is one voice in particular which is constantly audible. I want to request hon members to curtail their interjections. The hon the leader may proceed with his speech.

Thank you, Sir.

I must at least refer to the hon member for Sasolburg. He made two references in particular. His reference to the spineless party (papbroekparty) gave him a new nickname. We shall not refer to him by that nickname in this House, because I do not think it is parliamentary, but I think the hon member may perhaps be called spineless Odendaal from Sasolburg outside this House. [Interjections.] Perhaps we have acquired another name, but we are not yet very serious about it, because we do not really take that hon member very seriously.

When he makes allegations about what was ostensibly decided in Welkom and Vanderbijlpark, then the hon member is incorrect. I have here in my hand the unanimous resolution of the conference of CP councillors in Welkom, and what they decided unanimously there was that an own community life for the Whites was a priority to the councillors present there and that all forms of integration would be opposed. They are opposed to the existence of free trading areas, but not to people being prohibited from making purchases in a White area. This is a refutation of what the hon member said. I am sorry to have to say this but it was a misunderstanding and an erroneous impression which the hon the State President gave rise to in a television broadcast. Because we reserved certain facilities in Boksburg for Whites—the taxpayers—we would not for that reason forbid non-Whites from shopping there. With all due respect to the hon the State President, I say: “What nonsense!”.

In addition we said the CP would take measures to counteract crowding-out in our own community life. Regional services councils are an objectionable form of racially-mixed government, and will be participated in only to watch over the interests of the Whites and to ensure that justice is done to them. [Interjections.] Free settlement areas are rejected completely. The settlement of Indians in the Orange Free State will be opposed, according to the conference. [Interjections.] I shall not quote any further. The same applies to what he said about Vanderbijlpark. His information is not reliable. I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation spoke here, and the impression I got from his speech was that he had already accepted that it was only a question of time before the Afrikaner people, the White community would have no future of their own in a future dispensation in South Africa, but that we were in fact on the way to becoming one huge conglomerate. That is my impression.

That is a distortion. It is wrong.

Is it wrong? If I am wrong, I assume the hon the Minister will join me in trying to bring about what his party stands for, viz that there will be no domination of any group of people or other peoples over the Whites, the Afrikaner people and other Whites in South Africa. That is what his party stands for. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister will also agree with me that we have made the point time and again—in the case of that party, I think ad nauseaum—that they have not shown us a way or a formula in which they can achieve this in practice, structurally or in any other way. They hope that they will be a model by which dominance can be eliminated, but what they are heading for—this was in the speech of the national leader of the NP—is the involvement also of the Black communities in all decision-making in this country. Our question to the NP, the majority party, which takes the decisions and governs the country, is where they are leading South Africa and the Afrikaner people, the White community of South Africa, with that prospect of more than 20 million individuals who are not White, who are not members of this people, and who, according to their own language, not only think ethnically, but think in terms of Black consciousness for breaking White power and then establishing Black majority rule throughout the whole of South Africa? That is our question.

We received a mandate for Black participation on 6 May 1987.

For Black participation? Very well, he says for Black participation. Our question is this: The party has received that mandate for Black participation, but how, in terms of their own fundamental standpoint of no domination, are they going to prevent this participation from becoming Black domination over the Whites? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, with regard to the national leader of the NP, I assume we shall have considerable opportunity to debate matters with one another in future. Therefore I shall raise only a few points in this connection. [Interjections.] One of these is of practical importance, with reference to the facilities in Vereeniging. The hon the Minister told us that almost everything was open except, he wanted to say, the recreation facilities along the Vaal River.

No, I did not say that.

They are closed (toe), just like the MP!

No, I said the hon the Minister had not reacted.

I said the parks were open. The hon member said they were closed.

Very well, I shall come to that in a moment. I have something else to say about that. When we adopted our standpoint—I said this in Boksburg—we made it clear. I welcome the hon the Minister’s rectification in this regard. This was information that we received from the town clerk of Vereeniging and we made these statements on the basis of the information he gave us. The hon the Minister corrected me. Only this afternoon we spoke to Mr Coetzee, the town secretary of Vereeniging, and he said the parks of Vereeniging were not closed, but not open either. [Interjections.] The NP town council, he said, had a sophisticated approach with regard to this matter. [Interjections.] And no one, except the town clerk himself and the chairman of the management committee, may talk about it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I mention that only by way of illustration. It is a thorny issue. It is a difficult situation. You see, Sir, when one wants to retain one’s jurisdiction over the area and the residential area that has elected a specific local government, and at the same time one’s point of departure is that the jurisdiction over facilities in this town or city rests with the winning party, we have no problems. We have no problems with that. Incidentally, there are four wards …

Do you have any objection to town councils keeping out of politics?

There are four wards in Vereeniging in which the NP won with majorities of eight, 33,41 and 42. Consequently there are four wards in which the NP’s total majority is 124. That was close. [Interjections.] That was very close.

Nine out of twelve!

Yes, it is nine out of twelve. Wonderful! It is nine out of twelve! [Interjections.] Surely it then remains true that Boksburg’s town council is constituted in terms of a CP majority. [Interjections.] The CP majority there has a mandate, in the same way that the NP had a mandate in 1948 with a minority vote to govern on the strength of its majority of seats. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am not going to elaborate any further on this. The hon member for Bloemfontein North also said all binds of things here. They nevertheless tell us that the swimming-baths in Bloemfontein are still closed. Now I do not know whether they are not closed yet at the same time are not open either.

They are just as sophisticatedly open!

The same also applies to the buses. Maselspoort is not yet open either. One can carry on in this vein.

I know I do not have much time left—perhaps I have half a minute or so left. I should like to hold a discussion with the hon the Minister of National Education on the concept of “people”, and also on the Afrikaner people and the White community. I do not think he and I differ very much regarding what we understand by the concept Afrikaner people and the White community in general. We have always accepted that there was a general use of the word “people”, and this is still the case, in terms of which we do not only mean the Afrikaner people. After all, we frequently referred to the White community as a people; perhaps more in an ethnic sense, which strictly according to definition is not all that correct. We nevertheless say that we do not refer to the Afrikaner people as being merely a small minority group. Nor do we refer to the White community in general as being merely a small minority group.

We nevertheless refuse simply to allow the Afrikaner people to be incorporated in a South African community, a non-racialistic heaven alone knows what. Now I must just mention that this hon Minister is able to talk about a non-racialistic community, but on the other hand not a racialistic community either. He is able to do that. The question nevertheless arises what the position is when one does not accept race as a factor at all. We do not intend to conduct our politics on a racist basis either. We say that there are a diversity of peoples in South Africa who are members of the same race group. Our approach is nevertheless a national approach (volksbenadering).

Ours is a national approach, and its because it is a national approach, we demand a position of own in South Africa for the Afrikaner people, and with it for the White community in general— a right to its own self-determination.

The hon the Minister of National Education has tried to make a little political capital out of my use of the expression “my people”. All I meant by that was my identification with a specific people, and that I am intimately involved with that people, that I am proud of it, etc. I accept that. Surely the hon the Minister will not take it amiss of Thomas the apostle and say that he is excluding all of us from the faith because he said “my Lord and my God”. That was an intimate, intense association; an identification with the Person, and that was all. I hope the hon the Minister accepts that.

The hon the Minister spoke about a “totally changed South Africa”. A totally changed South Africa! We would like to ask what the buildingblocks for this complete new South Africa are going to be. The building-blocks for this complete new South Africa will still be the same people he and I are proud of, namely the Afrikaner people. They will still be the White community in general which will continue to exist. They will still be the Coloured and Indian communities, as well as the different Black peoples.

Now I want to ask what completely new South Africa one wishes to create if one’s point of departure is that these different communities may not dominate one another, and the different communities still demand the right to self-determination? Now I know we disagree on the contents of self-determination, but when the hon the Minister questioned my definition of self-determination a while ago and quoted his own definition, his own dictionary left him in the lurch! It then became apparent that the compilers of the dictionary also understood self-determination to mean “the right to choose your own form of government”. If we bear this in mind, I cannot see how the national leader of the NP and his party can establish a complete new South Africa on the graves and corpses of so many peoples whom we all say have the right to self-determination.

It would be far better for that party to consider their successes of past decades. There are seven independent Black states, three of which were granted independence by Britain. There are six self-governing states, and other territories have been consolidated. The CP says that that was a very good start. This is the foundation of a new South Africa. New patterns have to be still created and new independent states still have to come into existence on the foundations laid by the NP when we still supported it. [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.

Division demanded.

The House divided:

NOES—118: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J CG; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Vande Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D Pde K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

AYES—34: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; De Beer, Z J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Eglin, C W; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Treurnicht, A P; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question negatived, words omitted and amendment moved by Dr Z J de Beer dropped.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs put.

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES—118: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koomhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, EvdM; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—34: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; De Beer, Z J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Eglin, C W; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Treurnicht, A P; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Substitution of the words agreed to.

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That the House has full confidence in the Government and expresses its support for the steps taken by the Government to further the interests of all South Africans by means of constitutional, economic and social development and improved international relations in an atmosphere of security and order.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, I move:

Agreed to.

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

1. (1) it has now withdrawn entirely from the negotiation process in Parliament, thereby severely restricting the role of Parliament as the instrument of reform;
2. (2)
   1. (a) it has openly encouraged the Conservative Party in its aims at the reintroduction of apartheid where it has been removed, and the preservation and reinforcement of apartheid where it still lingers, and while doing so, it wilfully ignores the consequences of a Conservative Party victory in a general election, namely, the implementation of its policy of partition, which provides for a separate homeland for the Coloured people; and
   2. (b) it deliberately overlooks the Conservative Party’s declared aim to put an end to Parliament before it evolves into an institution representative of all South Africa’s peoples; and
3. (3) by persisting with its attempts to present Parliament as ineffectual, the democratic reform process is restricted, and therefore, in order to break the present deadlock which has resulted from the foregoing, and to provide Parliament with the necessary time to complete its programme, without any interruptions, of—
   1. (a) ensuring the smooth transition of South West Africa/Namibia to independence;
   2. (b) laying sound foundations for a new constitutional dispensation embracing all South Africa’s peoples;
   3. (c) ensuring that Blacks participate together with other South Africans in general elections; and
   4. (d) considering legislation that will provide for the postponement of the next Parliamentary general election to the year 1992,
   requests the State President to reconstitute the Ministers’ Council forthwith.

In introducing the debate on the Official Opposition’s motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council I want to restate a fundamental truth about South Africa’s political position at this moment in its history. The road forward can be one of escalating conflict ending in total civil war between White and Black which will turn South Africa into a hell of hatred, social and economic collapse and death and destruction—no different from what is taking place in countries like Ethiopia today. That disease-ridden country of walking skeletons and starving children destined to die before they will ever know a single pleasure in life—they know only pain—is the destiny that awaits South Africa as well if the road of confrontation and violence is embarked upon.

What I have described is bringing to life the oft repeated cliché “the alternative too ghastly to contemplate”. We had better start contemplating now before it is too late.

On the other hand the road forward can be one of peaceful progression to a democratic future which will be a safe haven for our children and their children’s children. That road, of course, will not be free of obstacles and frustrations, and even unrest. It will be a tough road, but it will be the only road to follow if we really mean what we say when we talk about freedom and liberation. None of us wants to be freed or liberated from one oppressive situation only to find, as the Bible says, that “our last estate is worse than our first”.

It is against these two alternatives that we must carefully measure all our actions. What we do today will most certainly have its effect on tomorrow.

I want to address myself directly to the LP members this morning. I want to ask them whether they fully realise the decisive position they are in today to influence the direction in which South Africa goes. [Interjections.] They are called upon to think, and think deeply, about how each of them is going to act today. God preserve us from doing that which will result in a terrible cry from future generations of South Africans: “If only the LP had, despite all the frustrations, chosen to halt its campaign of confrontation in 1989 and turned its face towards real negotiation, we would not have found ourselves in the purgatory that was once the promising land of South Africa.”

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is right when he claims that the LP is riding the crest of a wave. By that he means, of course, that he has a lever of power in his hands that could exert substantial pressure on the Government to act in a certain manner. I want to sound a word of warning: Do not get carried away by that measure of power. It can so easily be cancelled out should the other side exert a counter-pressure.

All of us know that the Government disposes of sources of power far in excess of anything the Labour Party can muster at this stage in its existence, if ever. The running mate of power of whatever degree is responsibility. If power is not utilised wisely in the interests of all people, it can rebound with deadly effect. History is peppered with the disastrous failures of individuals who refused to act responsibly once they attained a measure of power. Let us learn from those examples so that our actions may be blessed and may produce good and not evil.

It is because we of the Official Opposition believe that the Labour Party has chosen to embark on a road of confrontation and has turned its back on negotiation that we introduce this motion of no confidence in it today. We do so, because we want this House to call a halt to that process before it goes too far, with all the dire consequences that I have mentioned earlier on. Without having to go into details, things have deteriorated so far between the Labour Party leadership and the National Party that it was quite inevitable for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives in referring to the Group Areas Act to say at last year’s Labour Party Conference, and I quote from his speech:

[Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the LP says the present dispensation will be marked by confrontation and conflict. Is that statement not the height of political irresponsibility? [Interjections.] May I not conclude that sitting on the crest of a wave has gone to the head of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? [Interjections.] However, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act is still on the Statute Book, and so is the Population Registration Act. Why should only the Group Areas Act give rise to confrontation and conflict?

This power-dizzy, uncompromising attitude is further reflected in a report of the LP leader’s conference speech in The Argus of Friday, 30 December 1988. On the question of postponing elections until 1992 the hon the leader of the LP is reported to have said that it was now too late for the Government to make any concessions to get the party to change its mind. [Interjections.] I myself watched that TV news programme when those words were uttered. Any responsible viewer must have been aghast, because he pronounced the death-knell of negotiation politics as far as the LP’s leadership is concerned.

Perhaps it is important that that particular statement be read out, because it is on record. An article in The Argus of Friday, 30 December 1988, reports on the LP in this fashion:

A totally different tone now creeps into his speech. After having stated that nothing would change the party’s mind, he proceeds to state what terms would change the party’s mind. That statement worries me.

He does not exactly spell out the terms. I am also trying to find out what they are. However, let me quote him where he has the following to say on page 18 of his speech:

[Interjections.] After the Labour Party has put an end to further negotiations, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not say what those conditions are. He goes further and warns the NP of the dire consequences they will be facing if they refuse to heed his party’s demands. However, the strangest thing of all is that after these strong words, the leader of the LP suddenly goes completely soft, and in an attempt to really get the elections postponed, he says on page 19 of his speech:

Let us hear more.

I am quoting the speech of that hon member’s leader. It is not a misquotation and I have it in my possession for every hon member to see. I had better refer to the actual words contained in my notes. [Interjections.]

I quote:

What does this about-face mean? [Interjections.] Like the Chinese I would say we are dealing here with a paper tiger for a leader. [Interjections.] One moment a strong man appears on the scene and the next moment we find complete capitulation. Inconsistencies of this nature cause people to say of the LP leader that his “kragdadige” acts are always followed up with apologies.

The reprehensible way in which LP leaders—and I presume the nominated member, Mr Lockey, falls into this category, because, unlike most members of the party caucus, he freely makes public statements—encourage support of and give comfort to the CP by what they say, is—to put it mildly—unbelievable.

I want to read an article from Die Burger of 19 December 1988 … [Interjections.] … where the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is reported as follows:

Mr Chairman, do hon members know what those words mean? They mean that the CP should carry on introducing apartheid. The CP must do its best to introduce a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] There is no other way in which one can interpret these remarks. What does it mean?

I had occasion to deal with both the hon member Mr Lockey and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in a pamphlet issued by the Democratic Reform Party, and I would like to quote:

Who is the hon member for Losberg? [Interjections.] Of course not. He is a CP member. The hon member Mr Lockey goes further and says in that same speech:

[Interjections.] He went on to describe the CP members as great people. This is a quote from Hansard of Thursday 29 September 1988.

This is terrible.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council then backed up the hon member Mr Lockey with what amounted to a policy statement three days later. In an interview published in the Sunday Times on 2 October 1988, he said:

In less than a month, after their good wishes and support, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon member Mr Lockey’s hope for the future, the CP, did win control over the local authorities in many Transvaal towns in the election of 26 October 1988. The shocking and disgraceful re-introduction … [Interjections.] … by the CP in Boksburg of petty apartheid measures, followed in rapid succession by Pietersburg, Brakpan and Carletonville with more to come, must forever remain a terrible indictment of the low political level to which LP leaders have sunk with their support for the CP. [Interjections.]

Perhaps the most astounding display of ignorance about the intentions of the CP by the LP leader is the following statement in his speech:

I will tell you what I am saying. Does the LP leader not know that the Conservative Party’s goal is the ending of Parliament as it now exists? They are not, therefore, interested in the least in implementing the current dispensation with or without the LP. As recently as Tuesday past …

Order!

… the hon CP MP for Overvaal said in his contribution at the Joint Sitting:

That is their goal. It is no use the LP leader thinking that if the CP comes to power, the negotiating process will continue. It is a pipedream. So much for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon member Mr Lockey’s hope for the future, the CP.

All the aforegoing and the threats by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to make this present dispensation one of confrontation and conflict amount to an attempt to present Parliament …

Order! Let us lower our voices somewhat.

… as ineffectual, as being unable to perform the functions required of it to advance reform. The only forces to benefit from this approach are those on the extreme left and extreme right whose goal is the destruction of Parliament as an instrument of reform, because they are opposed to reform. We have thus arrived at a deadlock situation which is preventing Parliament from completing its agenda which includes some of the most vital developments internally and externally.

If we look at the motion that we are dealing with today, what are the tasks that have to be completed that appear on the agenda of Parliament?

In the first place, to ensure the smooth transition of South West Africa/Namibia to independence, South Africa needs a stable governmental base in order to oversee the smooth transition to independence of South West Africa/Namibia. It has a direct interest in South West Africa/Namibia. [Interjections.] In negotiating the package deal for independence an important condition is that the South African Government via the Administrator-General there will continue to be the legislative and executive instrument until independence. Therefore South Africa needs a stable Parliamentary base in order to guide this process.

Secondly, foundations must be laid for a new constitutional dispensation embracing all South Africa’s peoples. This House—and when I say this House I am obviously referring directly to the majority party—has supported and approved an important piece of legislation that will determine the future South Africa for a long time to come, namely The Promotion of Constitution Development Bill, Act 86 of 1988. It is on the Statute Books and what does it do? It makes provision for Blacks to be directly drawn into the Government of this country, firstly by participating in that National Council in order to draw up a new constitution, and they are given two years to do so. As a run-up to the proceedings of the Council the electoral college, drawn from the local government bodies that urban Blacks elected on 26 October, has to be established. That process is under way and it dare not be interrupted if we are really serious about drawing Blacks into the Government of this country. This is the LP’s proud boast. [Interjections.]

I would also like to draw hon members’ attention to what happened in Eshowe in 1983, when criticism of participation in the tricameral system was directed at us—and today at hon members— by Blacks who said that we were deserting them. What was our reply in general? We said: “We are going in there to open the doors for you.” However, what is happening today? We are told that Blacks will first have to be consulted before we will consider having them in the Cabinet. What kind of condition is that? Nobody determined conditions for the LP when they decided to participate in the tricameral system. I warn hon members that Blacks should not see this House as the major obstacle to participation in the Government of this country. [Interjections.] I will prove that in a minute. [Interjections.]

One important item on this agenda is to ensure that Blacks participate together with other South Africans in general elections. A tremendously symbolic event took place on 26 October last year. For the first time in the history of this country everybody—all groups—went to the polls on the same day. [Interjections.] That symbolism … [Interjections.] That is obviously from the sublime to the ridiculous. That symbolism must be maintained from now on because we cannot allow the situation to go back to a position where Blacks once again are excluded from elections.

I would like to quote what Blacks are saying via their newspapers. [Interjections.] I quote from the Cape Times of 27 January 1989 …

Leave the newspapers alone, man.

The hon member is obviously not interested in what Blacks say about him. [Interjections.] The Cape Times reports on an article of the City Press, which all hon members know is an authoritative organ among Blacks in the Transvaal. Listen to what the editor of City Press has to say. I quote:

This is what Khulu Sibiya, the editor of City Press, wrote in his weekly column.

All this talk of sending the Government to bat against the CP in an enforced early election amounts to—what? The leaders of the LP want to use elections as a punitive measure against their opponents—they want to reduce elections to that level—and that is why Blacks look at them and say: “Once again we must be on the touchlines.” [Interjections.]

The important thing is to get on with the job of creating the necessary structures so that Blacks may be drawn in at the earliest possible moment to participate in the government of the country.

The last point is that they fail to realise the importance of considering legislation that will provide for the postponement of the next parliamentary general election to the year 1992. The country and the Government need that time to carry out all those tasks to ensure a stable position in South Africa while the problems of South West Africa/Namibia are being settled and while Blacks are preparing themselves to join the national council. However, the LP insists that their beating of the NP must take precedence. Imagine what will happen in this country on 1 November—I am sure very few of those hon members know what is going to happen on 1 November— when the elections in South West Africa take place and those hon members want to force this country into an election at the same time. It will be the ideal recipe for unrest in this country on a scale we have not yet seen. [Interjections.] Therefore our motion reads finally that—

Order! I must call on the next hon member to speak, but hon members are carrying on too much at the moment.

Mr Chairman, I rise in order to place on record immediately my qualified standpoint in opposition to the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I must do so in this House today, because we have certainly forgotten what the electorate’s mandate to us was in 1984.1 must say that to take the course outlined by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, he must have fallen off the bus somewhere along the line. [Interjections.]

We must never forget or lose sight of our objective as the representatives of an oppressed people, viz to get rid of that evil in our community— apartheid. That is the cancer that is causing the destruction in our community. That is what the mandate the voters gave us in 1984 is all about, not sitting on the benches of this Parliament and forgetting about their problems.

We must know that the struggle must be fought. The struggle against apartheid is a tough one. All forces will have to be employed, even if they are conservative; all forces will have to be employed to make the Government realise that apartheid is bad. We cannot agree with it.

We are on the warpath. The LP of South Africa is on its way to changing South Africa. That is a foregone conclusion. We must get rid of that deadly virus.

We can talk about elections only if we are sure that we have made proper inputs to the changes in the country, and that is precisely what the LP has been doing. That is why we talk about elections, because we believe our conscience is clear. We can go to the community with a clear conscience, because we have done what we were sent here to do. We do not need extra injury time in order to complete our task. [Interjections.]

I find it strange that all of a sudden an extra little cheque has made its appearance, and has made those hon members move in reverse. The management committees’ extra cheque has made them move in reverse. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members should rather not get involved in dialogues now.

I now want to deal systematically with the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members cannot argue about this from their seats.

Mr Chairman, … [Interjections.]

Order! Then that hon member should draw my attention to that fact. The hon member may continue.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition moved a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council, but it is as clear as daylight that that is mere sour grapes. In plain English, it is sour grapes. That hon member was a member of the Ministers’ Council himself. Why then move a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council all of a sudden? He accuses us of seriously hampering the role of Parliament as the instrument of reform. Undoubtedly that is nowhere near the truth. That is the cheapest propaganda that has ever been raised in this House. That kind of story will not be accepted in the community. That kind of thing cannot be sold, because it is too cheap. On the contrary, a valuable mandate in terms of which all South Africans will be included in this system will be a better option for that party.

By implication the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that we were almost boycotters. That is not the case. No one can or will ever believe that, because it is simply a public political ploy. In addition he said that we openly encouraged the CP in its endeavour to reinstitute apartheid where it had been abolished. Surely the hon member is older than 12, and he knows that apartheid is still alive and well in our community. He should know that those apartheid signs that the CP wants to put up again all of a sudden are displayed prominently in Boksburg, Carletonville and all those other towns.

We are opposed to apartheid, however. We are opposed to it. For his information, the Group Areas Act is the cause of apartheid and the barb of apartheid. If that Act is abolished, the related Acts which also have an influence—such as the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act—will be abolished automatically. It is ridiculous to follow that kind of leader. [Interjections.]

It looks as though the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has suddenly confused his facts with regard to relevant politics, and as though he is blind to reality. The reality consists in the constructive changes we are involved in with regard to individual rights—the rights of the voters who drew their crosses for us, and also for him when he was still an LP member.

We are opposed to apartheid. South Africa’s political problems cost the country a great deal in manpower and working hours and therefore in patience and tolerance. Lightweights with a short-sighted view about the future of this country must not get into this boxing ring. No, he cannot be allowed to get into this boxing ring to speak against apartheid. He is too much of a lightweight.

We can never support the CP in promoting apartheid. On the contrary, we are making pawns—chess pawns—of them and the NP, and they will go to where we move them. The situation has been reversed. It is no longer a case of, “Jump to it, hotnot.” No, they will move to where we in this House move them.

The group areas legislation is where it is because we moved the Government to withdraw the group areas amending legislation. Our party is fighting … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I speak in support of the motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council as introduced by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House. The motion has been well motivated and should even have the support of members of the majority party. [Interjections.] I am talking about those who are prepared to stick out their necks and not play the game of follow-my-leader slavishly.

*Mr Chairman, I was surprised to hear during the joint debate on the opening speech of the hon the Acting State President that members of the LP who were privileged to speak, made mention of the process of negotiation. When they talk to the public and make promises to the electorate which they know they cannot keep, they tell the people that they will not negotiate before all discriminatory legislation has been removed from the Statute Book. That is your promise to the world at large! Then you come and talk here in Parliament about negotiation.

Order! The hon member must not refer to other hon members as “you”.

I mean hon members. The LP is pretending, however, that they are prepared to negotiate with the Government and to make concessions. That is what the hon nominated member Mr Lockey said in his speech yesterday, for example. I quote:

If I understand his argument correctly and if he is consistent, those of us who have fewer privileges must also be prepared to make concessions, but to a lesser degree.

On the other hand Mr Ross, the LP’s spokesman in the President’s Council, said on television that all discriminatory legislation would be rejected.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, Sir, my time is too limited.

*He said on television that all discriminatory legislation submitted to this House would be rejected. I want to know whether that is not equivocation. They say that concessions must be made, but at the same time they say that legislation will be rejected.

†I now wish to refer to the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. I reaffirm what has been said before and needs to be said again, namely that those laws are discriminatory and should be abolished. They are as abhorrent to our party as they are to the majority party. However, we do not see the repeal of those laws as a precondition to taking part in the negotiating process and the carrying out of the functions of government. Indeed the very fact that there are separate Ministers’ Councils and that the various Ministers administer separate budgets for all the portfolios assigned to the House of Representatives as own affairs is a clear indication that they accept the realities of the South African situation. As yet I have not heard any Minister in this House campaigning for the abolition of own affairs. [Interjections.] Where did they say that? [Interjections.] Instead we find the concept of own affairs spreading its tentacles into all facets, such as housing, education, health services and even the Electoral Act, in terms of which the LP campaigned very actively in the management committee elections.

*The LP said that the other man must be given a chance as well. That is why they requested that the men stand aside. That is the reason. They can admit to this or deny it. They were told to give the other man a chance. We found out, however, that it was a question of giving the other man’s wife a chance! [Interjections.] That is exactly what happened.

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

No, I am not prepared to reply to a question.

†I dare say that even though all these Acts may be on the Statute Book at the next general election, the LP will still participate as fully as it can. [Interjections.]

*The LP is opposed to the Free Settlement Areas Act. This legislation provides for the following in clause 2:

This also includes the Group Areas Act—

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I move against the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. To stop all the bickering here, I want to start off by asking him to call an election. They must fight their seats again. Let us go back to the electorate and see what the people want.

* We call on them to resign, because they stood on our ticket—the ticket of the Labour Party.

†Just to educate the Official Opposition a bit about our leader, I would like to say that the hon the Leader of the LP handles the House of Representatives, the LP and the Ministers’ Council with experienced jeweller’s care and concern for a diamond. He picks it up, turns it around, examines it and describes what he sees. He frequently disagrees with those who have handled it before. He refers back to the source, applies the dust of history, polishes it and frequently projects its radiant power across the future of South Africa. Our leader is a true and dedicated leader, not only for the House of Representatives, but also for the LP and the people of South Africa.

You are on your way out!

We in the LP are not interested only in reforming the system, as this will imply that we accept the major premises on which it is based. On the contrary, we in the LP are intent on transforming the system completely into one of popular sovereignty, equality before the law and secure civil rights and liberties. Our common goal is a common society where Black and White would co-operate on the basis of human brotherhood and patriotism rather than the colour of their skin.

There are some hon members here who are participating in this struggle for various reasons. Unfortunately not all of us are motivated by the same goals and conditions. Some hon members are here for “eie sake” and others for “eie sakke” and “eie gewin”. [Interjections.]

I should like to quote from Black resistance to apartheid, written by Mokgethi Motlhabi, and in his words I would like to say to the opposition:

I should now like to quote from the same book on page 120, where Steve Biko had the following to say:

Mr Chairman, it is an exceptional honour and privilege to take part in this debate. I speak in support of the motion. The muzzle has been removed, and with the implementation of the tricameral system a new era was introduced in South Africa’s political history by means of which our people were brought back into the mainstream of our country’s politics and by means of which they obtained a say and therefore co-responsibility in the highest statutory body, viz Parliament. This was later extended to a joint House in which all the population groups meet, debate and take decisions together in the interests of South Africa.

This was a gigantic leap in terms of political progress. Reservations and criticism were at a premium, and the fact that Blacks are mere spectators was cause for serious consideration and concern. The Eshowe decision to participate was taken with a view to investigating all channels with regard to uplifting our people, removing discriminatory legislation, establishing a climate for politics of negotiation and negotiating for the participation of Blacks.

The question, however, is how this political progress, or arrogation of power, can be used to the advantage or detriment of our community, and therefore South Africa. We shall always have to contend with advantages and disadvantages— causes and effects. The objective of the DRP is to bring about political and statutory change in the country in a peaceful way so as to counteract the radical and revolutionary elements which want to destroy the country by means of violence. Just think of the positive spirit that prevailed when constructive and meaningful negotiation took place. Suspicion, hatred and aggression have diminished. Even unrest has levelled off.

The fact is that the leaders of the LP have not been able to stand the test of co-responsibility, but have gone back to the popular obsolete politics of abuse which impairs attitudes and relationships and damages mutual trust, dialogue and negotiation, thus playing right into the hands of the revolutionaries.

Politics of negotiation ended up in the waters of King’s Beach, and since then we have been struggling without relief in the waterways of politics.

Excuses do not provide solutions. To aggravate problems is stupid. It is an irrefutable fact that the MPs of the governing party are being held prisoner in that they are living in uncertainty, doubt and under threat of suspension. They are living in fear that their heads will roll. On the one hand the people at large are being kept prisoner by their MPs. We must free our people from obsolete phrases, concepts, sentiments and ideas.

Time requires that if we want to make progress, there must be negotiation. Negotiation requires goodwill, frankness, honesty, self-confidence, freedom of speech and conviction if differences are to be resolved and compromises found to the advantage of the whole South African community. That alone is the criterion. That is the endeavour of sound leadership. It creates confidence, credibility, hope and a positive spirit, things which are necessary despite differences. Dictatorial action lends itself to suspicion, dishonesty, lies, coercion, disrespect and corruption, and knows no bounds. It leads to loyalty, comradeship, credibility, honesty, integrity and trust becoming alien words. One cannot and may not forget this, because that is when unscrupulousness emerges. It is only political bankruptcy that leads to dictatorship, unscrupulousness and ultimate destruction.

As in any organisation, the purpose of leadership is to give sound guidance which will reflect the pride, integrity and confidence of the people. It must handle the realities of the situation in which the people find themselves with the greatest circumspection, keeping the future consequences in mind. In other words, there must be a vision for the future. [Interjections.]

The constitution of any party is the element that keeps the whole together, and it must reflect faith, trust and determination. Tampering with a constitution to satisfy leadership leads to domination and ultimate dictatorship. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall not permit hon members to interrupt one another. The hon member may proceed.

When this stage has been reached, it is followed by violation of the Constitution and manipulation, and the people are fed lies. [Interjections.] Coercion and unscrupulous, irresponsible and reckless action then become the order of the day, as when one says the CPs are welcome to govern the country. [Interjections.]

What kind of vision for the future does this promise? Forty years ago my people suffered because of this. Revolution will be the result, and that attests to political ineptness and bankruptcy. It is not attainable in terms of the Constitution, according to which peaceful change should take place in an evolutionary way. This is contempt and violation of the Constitution of the people.

The DRP is striving for the democratisation and the reform of the South African community by means of negotiation on a parliamentary and constitutional basis. Consequently it is necessary for all spheres of dialogue to be explored. A spirit of trust, conciliation and peace is essential for the entry of Blacks to the National Council so that negotiations can be proceeded with and the new South Africa, that we are all looking forward to, can be built. The independence of South West Africa/Namibia is clear proof of what can be achieved by means of negotiation. Confrontation contains elements of stagnation, violence and revolution. It is important that we as leaders should provide guidance to the advantage of our community and of South Africa. If that cannot be done, we will have failed in our mission. The rejection of this motion means the rejection of Black participation on the one hand and a vote against hon members’ own future on the other.

Mr Chairman, firstly on behalf of our party we reject with contempt the motion of no-confidence as Tabled by the Official Opposition.

Secondly, allow me to reply to the hon member for Upington in telling him that during the byelection in his constituency the results of that election was that he received only 36 votes out of a total of 2 000 registered voters. [Interjections.] Opinion polls were undertaken by our party and questionnaires were sent throughout the Republic. I would like to read from a reply from one area, Karos, which is in Upington.

*On a question whether the MP of the constituency furnished regular reports, the reply was: “No, some of us only hear his name. At least we saw photographs or posters around here when he was being elected.”

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Bishop Lavis should keep quiet; I shall deal with him later. [Interjections.]

The next question was whether the MP was devoting the necessary attention to the needs of the community. The reply to that was: “No, he is not serving us at all; we are earning R18 or R26 per week on the farms along the Orange River, but he is not doing anything about it.”

Another question read as follows: “Are you satisfied with your MP’s performance and cooperation as a Parliamentary representative?” The reply was: “No, he is not taking care of those of us living along the Orange River; he thinks nothing of our people. It is because of him that we are suffering.” [Interjections.] I will not read any further.

†Hon members of this House are well aware of the fact that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not only loves the sound of his voice, but also writing lengthy and boring statements. [Interjections.] He now has continued this with a long, drawn-out motion of no confidence—such a contradictory motion that one wonders whether his fellow-members understand what it is all about—which we treat with contempt.

Let us first deal with his party, a party of exmanagement committee members. [Interjections.] It now appears to be the fashion that whenever a new political party is established the term “democratic” is used, and this applies to the Official Opposition as well. In this Chamber we have had the Democratic Workers’ Party, followed by the United Democratic Party, both of which were established to hoodwink the public and seek friendly smiles from the UDF. Those two “Democratic Parties” that were represented in this Chamber have gone and disappeared from the scene. Now, however, we are up against another democratic group known as the Democratic Reform Party. All those other parties since 1969 have come and gone. They have bitten the dust, yet we now have a group which were even recently defeated in a management committee election but still have the audacity to stand up against the LP of South Africa and table a nonsensical motion of no confidence in our party. Yet, in the past they had always been sincere members who abided by decisions of this party. Unfortunately, however, greed and a selfish attitude took their toll, and sincerity went onto the rocks.

I recently had a chat with a member of the Democratic Reform Party who was supposed to be the convenor of one of their inaugural conferences, and I questioned her on the aims and objects of their party. Her reply was: “Sir, this is our aim first and foremost: To reform the democratic process.” [Interjections.] I ask you, Mr Chairman, what does that mean?

We wish the Official Opposition every success in their failures, and all the luck with their tablebanging, iron-fisted leader. We remember what many members had said about him when he was the Minister of Education and Culture. They referred to him as the “pocket-book Napoleon”. [Interjections.]

The Official Opposition has the audacity to table a motion of no confidence in our Ministers’ Council, yet they are well aware that through our Ministers and their efforts they have achieved and gained much for our community, and through our efforts, of which they too were part, Blacks have benefited. If they had not had any confidence in our Ministers’ Council, why did the hon member for Heideveld accept the money for the upgrading within his constituency? [Interjections.]

There are numerous organisations and persons pointing accusing fingers at us because of our involvement in the tricameral system. The opposition is well aware of how they used to come to the back doors of our Ministers with the needs of their organisations and for donations; yet not once have our Ministers rejected their appeals. Do the hon members of the Official Opposition still see our Ministers failing in their responsibilities, when through them this party is responsible for bringing about equality in pensions for war veterans, for narrowing the gap in other pensions, provision and improvement of health centres, child care centres, homes for the aged and medical services? What about our housing programmes, through which thousands of houses have been built? The success of the self-help building schemes is equally well known. In the educational field much improvement has been brought about in spite of limited funds.

For any party in Parliament to request that legislation be introduced which will provide for the postponement of the next parliamentary election to the year 1992 is ridiculous. It indicates that such hon members are in Parliament only for personal gain, such as to remain in office to reach the pensionable stage. Many of them, as the result of their defeat in the management committee elections, have lost whatever pensions they were hoping to receive.

The other reason is that they realise that they have very little hope of winning the election next year. Proof of this is the replies we have received in our opinion poll. I have just read one of those to the hon members.

The Democratic Reform Party will still have to prove themselves and stop running to the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, as it is alleged, appealing to them not to have an election for the House of Representatives next year. [Interjections.] No, I saw him going there. [Interjections.]

As far as our party is concerned, the Democratic Reform Party is just a copycat party with no direction. Their aims and objectives do not differ from ours and yet they support the policies of both the NP and the CP. In conclusion let me remind the Official Opposition that this party achieved a further success. Because of our indication that we will not support any constitutional legislation if the Government continues with the amendments to the Group Areas Act, all group area amendments were shelved. I put this question to the Official Opposition: Were they not part of this achievement? However, they persist in supporting a motion of no confidence in that to which they were party.

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to speak after the hon member for Silvertown. Personally, I feel that the motion that was introduced by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should definitely not have been raised in this debate today. We are concerned with the representation of our people at the highest level, and at this stage, after five years of participation in the present system, we have come to the point at which we must decide whether we are going to continue to participate or not. After those five years some hon members of this House would like another two years.

The whole tricameral system is a temporary one, and for us as Coloureds in this country, it is just another phase in the struggle for freedom and a new dispensation. A member of Parliament comes here as a representative to put the case of his people. It is a world-wide tradition in every Parliamentary system that after five years the representatives once again ask their people for a mandate. The Labour Party received a mandate in Bloemfontein for a further five years’ participation. However, the big question is whether the hon members of Parliament obtained a mandate from their people as representatives of their constituencies. The cardinal point in every democracy is that a member of Parliament should return to his voters every five years to ask them whether he is still competent. How do the voters feel about what an MP has done and about the direction his party has taken? It is the moral duty of each representative to ask for that mandate again after five years. He must find out whether he is competent enough in their eyes and whether he is moving in the right direction. This must take place every five years and for that reason I cannot see why, in this system, we should ask for a postponement of two years after the first five years. It is immoral and unfair to the voters who elected us. [Interjections.]

Apparently the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not listening to what I am telling him. It is his duty. As a member of the old CRC and as an ex-Minister, he knows that each hon member must be accountable. There cannot be a further postponement of two years until 1992, just for the sake of the NP. No, not at all. What about Black participation? If one is talking about Black participation, I want to tell hon members that Black participation at the highest level can only come about with the consent of the majority of Blacks—the majority of the population of South Africa—and not of 5 million Whites of whom apparently 2 million are Afrikaners.

[Inaudible.]

The National Council represents the promise we made to the voters when we said that after five years we would come back to them with something. We promised the voters that we were coming here to demolish apartheid and to open the way for Black participation. With regard to Black participation, one cannot simply tell Black people or anyone else that the road is now open. Negotiation must take place in the form of a national convention or something similar so that all participants in this country can come together.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Western Free State must first address me. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can then enter into a discussion with the hon member. The two hon members cannot simply talk to each other.

Thank you for your ruling, Mr Chairman. I hope the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will understand it. He may react to these points during his reply.

With regard to the point of Black participation, Blacks in South Africa form a majority. Since 1977 the main issues have been those of White fears and Black aspirations. In 1977 the Whites reached a point at which they realised that there were other people as well. The referendum dealt with the protection of group interests—separate interests.

The time has come for a new election to be held in which the issues will be Black aspirations and Black participation. However, before one can look at Black participation, it is every hon member’s moral duty to ask the voters once again for a mandate for himself before he can talk on behalf of other people. Sooner or later the NP and the inhabitants of this country will have to realise that Blacks are also entitled to participate in South Africa.

Playing with words serves no purpose. The days of Goebbels and the Nazi empire are over. No matter how one looks at it, The NP are involved in a Goebbels-like charade in which they say things that they cannot carry out in practice.

However, group interests and Black participation are two things that belong together. The KwaZulu-Natal Indaba, however, has been in operation for two years now. Everything is built into that Indaba—the fears of all the population groups in this country. Yet the NP is not prepared to adopt the Indaba. Although they recognise the Indaba, they do not want to implement the proposals. It is of cardinal importance to this House that further indabas be considered, that more Black people and leaders be involved and that there be a process of give and take. I am referring to give and take in the sense that everyone will have to come together at some time or other to consider Black aspirations—everyone must come together and everyone’s group interests must be protected.

Group interests are important, but they are not important enough to allow Black aspirations to be pushed aside. The time has come to consider Black aspirations and how the Black man can participate in this system. There comes a time in one’s life when one has to realise that one is here to represent national interests. We are here to represent the interests of our voters and we are here to represent the interests of our people, and not to form a new party after one has been a Minister and has been dismissed.

During the 25 years that the hon member for Silvertown has been in politics, he has had his ups and downs. However, unlike other hon members, he did not form an opposition party. [Interjections.] The fleshpots of Egypt will run dry after the next election, and with all due respect to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am speaking against the motion. Firstly, I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the leadership of the Labour Party of South Africa and in particular to their leader for the confidence they have expressed in me by nominating me as indirectly elected member of Parliament. I also want to thank hon members of the House for the way in which they have received me. It is an honour for me to be a member of the most powerful party in this country, namely the LP, under a dynamic leader such as Rev Hendrickse. I believe that the LP is the only party in South Africa that can bring about change in this country. In the same way I believe that it is the only party that holds the future of South Africa in its hands because it knows what it is striving for and where it is going.

I see my participation in the system as a step in the right direction; not because I accept the system, but because I and other hon members in the House can use it to get rid of what has stood in our way all these years and denied us our human rights and, most of all, to demolish that great demon, apartheid. When I look at the considerable shortage of housing, I can say that it can be attributed largely to the hideous Group Areas Act. Just look at the vacant houses and flats in the White areas. It is a fact that the majority of people in this country, regardless of their skincolour, reject this law.

I do not find it at all unusual that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition has introduced a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council, because I have noticed that he has suddenly become very friendly with the NP. [Interjections.] I could see that quite clearly in his speech during the debate on the opening address of the Acting State President. I want to suggest that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition have his head read before it is too late. [Interjections.]

And you have only just arrived.

I think better than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who has been sitting here for five years. [Interjections ]

Order! Unfortunately, I cannot allow the expression “have his head read”. The hon member must withdraw it. I also want to appeal to hon members on this side not to egg the hon member on. This is her maiden speech and we must listen to her in silence. The hon member may proceed.

I withdraw it, Sir. I do not believe that the actions of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition satisfy the wishes of the voters who elected him. He must bear in mind that it was the people of the Labour Party who elected him. He must also bear in mind that he must do what they want him to do while he is representing them here.

I do not know whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition noticed during the past week that the NP was not in any way prepared to move away from apartheid completely. I gathered from the speeches of some hon NP members that although they do, in fact, have a desire to do so, they nevertheless want to retain apartheid to a degree. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak against the motion.

*Besides the Creator, who undoubtedly deserves the greatest praise, I want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon Leader of the Labour Party, not only for his role as leader of this powerful people’s party but also for his role as mentor. I want to express my sincere thanks to the leadership and the chief executive for my nomination as candidate for the by-election in Karee and for the great confidence that has been placed in me. I also want to express my sincere thanks to my hon colleagues for the motivation they have given me over the years and for their willingness to allow me to benefit from their experience and expertise which has now enabled me to implement what is being propagated by this powerful party, namely the creation and promotion of human dignity, rights, socio-economic and cultural welfare for all South Africans through responsible negotiation; the promotion of economic, social and cultural development for all South Africans; the stimulation and development of their particular abilities; the forceful, aggressive combating of communism in all its forms in the belief that the fundamental way in which to triumph over the communist influence lies in the maintenance of a free democracy and the total rejection of political totalitarianism as immoral in theory and in practice; the combating of all forms of racial discrimination which undermine the civil freedom and the social rights of the individual; the belief that the rights of the individual are supreme and that the State is there to serve the individual; support for the maintenance of the law and of justice; the combating of forced labour and the exploitation of cheap labour; the unremitting participation in a national economy, based on total production, full employment and equal opportunities for all people in the Republic of South Africa; the creation, maintenance and expansion of social security for everyone, with special provision for the elderly and the handicapped, regardless of their income; the propagation of a free, national education system designed for the creation of equal opportunities up to the highest specialized level of training.

The Karee constituency is an extensive area of about 39 000 square kilometres, with approximately 12 villages and about 22 000 voters. The people who live there are good people—the salt of the earth. I never cease to be amazed by the faith and hope of these people, despite the wounds and scars of apartheid that they still carry. That is Labour country, and my task was made easier by my reception there and by the encouragement of the people of Karee, in conjunction with their positive approach. This will eventually lead to success there because I have a powerful people’s party behind me.

I want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to my election agents and those who contributed to my uncontested election.

I have entered Parliament during a very interesting and exciting period and my great hope and expectation is that the following painful laws will be repealed unconditionally: the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the race classification legislation.

†Mr Chairman, I would be failing in my duty if I do not make mention of the sterling work that had been done by my predecessor, the late Mrs Cathy Sweetland.

-Despite the motion of no confidence that is being discussed in this House today, I should like to express my complete confidence in the Minister?’ Council, precisely because I greatly appreciate the considerable work they are doing with regard to upliftment. I represent developing communities, and I can assure hon members that these communities really appreciate what this Ministers’ Council has made possible.

Finally, I want to assure the leader of the LP of my loyalty and co-operation at all times. I also want to give him the assurance that my constituency and I will support him and the LP in their search for a new and peaceful South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I, too, wish to express my dissatisfaction at and dissociate myself with the motion of no confidence moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Permit me to thank everyone who assisted me by word and deed in the by-election in Alra Park. Words fail me to express my thanks adequately. Even if I had 101 million words with which to thank people I think the best way is merely to say “thank you”. I wish to thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who was always ready to hasten to my assistance. At the same time I want to congratulate him on the commemoration of his tenth year as Leader of the LP. May the Lord spare him for many more years. [Interjections.]

I also wish to convey my thanks to the hon the Minister of the Budget, and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, the hon member for Addo, Mr Jackson of the President’s Council and the hon members for Klipspruit West, Bosmont and Eldorado Park as well as hon members from other constituencies, for their unselfish sacrifices and support. I want to extend a special word of thanks to Mr J J A Smit, our ministerial representative for the Transvaal, and all the supporters of the LP and its workers in Eden Park, Geluksdal and Alra Park. Without their help I would not have succeeded.

I extend greetings and good wishes to this House today from the voters of Alra Park. [Interjections.] During the by-election in Alra Park I repeatedly said—and I do so again here today—… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape must repeat what he said.

Mr Chairman, I said: “Do you hear, Kaatjie?” [Interjections.] It is a nickname.

Order! The hon member may not give people nicknames that do not suit them. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I did not enter politics simply to oppose any person or a political party.

For me it goes far deeper than that. I have entered the political arena to help formulate new political policies. I am convinced that this country of ours is at present travelling on a dangerous road and for that reason I am compelled to enter the political arena. I am convinced that all of us in this country irrespective of colour, language, creed, wealth or age are desirous of building a better South Africa with the ultimate aim of creating a better, safer world. As far as I am concerned there is only one party that can realise this goal, namely the LP of South Africa, a party which has a man at the helm of the calibre of the hon Rev Allan Hendrickse.

†Mr Chairman, it is with a deep sense of duty and responsibility, together with a grateful heart that I accept the affirmation of the House of Representatives, to serve my constituency, namely Alra Park, as well as my country to the best of my ability. I have said repeatedly before, and I repeat it in this House today, that if anyone wants to be great in God’s kingdom, he must learn to be the servant of all. I am acutely aware that I have been entrusted with an obligation, the obligation to devote every effort of body, mind and spirit firstly to help uplift my people socially, politically and economically, and secondly, to help lead my party to further heights of greatness.

*Morever, I came in order to extend to everyone a hand of friendship, co-operation, reconciliation and negotiation. Our country is going through difficult and sombre times. More than ever I am conscious that the challenges facing us are manifold and that the expense involved is enormous. I wish to emphasise that I have not come merely to seek out mistakes, still less to curse the dark times we are currently experiencing. Rather I came to be a light in the darkness. We are all aware that the world around us is rapidly changing at present, although at the moment this is unlikely in South Africa. Those things that were applicable yesterday are no longer applicable today and it is undoubtedly true that those things that are applicable today may not apply tomorrow. For some it will seem easier to revert to the old solutions that never worked. As far as I am concerned the only solution is for us to go forward with confidence and do away with apartheid as one nation, one South Africa.

Although it may seem or feel very difficult, it is now more than ever before time for a new generation of leaders to come forward to tackle new problems and consider new possibilities. Accordingly I wish to make a humble and friendly appeal to everyone, even those outside the system, whether White or Black, to come forward and put their shoulders to the wheel to make South Africa a safer and a better place for all its inhabitants.

†Mr Chairman, the fact that the hon the State President reprieved 13 people on death row during the month of November 1988 was greeted with mixed feelings and reservations. To the 13 concerned, together with their families, being reprieved must have brought instant relief.

Whether we want to admit it or not, hanging like most issues in South Africa, has been politicised. I would like to quote an extract from the editorial of The Star of Friday, 25 November 1988:

It was interesting to note that an Appeal Court judge, Mr Justice Botha, referred scathingly to a death sentence passed by Mr Justice Braam Lategan as so shockingly inappropriate that it flabbergasted him. He also commented on a previous occasion when the same judge was criticised by the Appeal Court. Professor Dennis Davis, the national director of the Society for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, remarked that the Appelate Division’s rebuke of Mr Justice Lategan had been the strongest rebuke of a presiding officer he had heard of. If anyone else had said the same that person would have been charged with contempt of court.

From information gathered I believe there are some 200 people on death row, awaiting execution—people condemned to die. I do not have to tell hon members of this House that life is sacred; that the death sentence is inhuman, barbaric and nothing but abominable. There is nothing civilised about it. It has been abolished in almost all countries all over the world. I sincerely believe that now is the time for us as a liberation force to act swiftly and that no time should be spared. The issue should be tackled at once and all on death row should receive a stay of execution until a review of capital punishment is complete. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this reminds me of a Chinese story that I once read about. There was a man who was not very tall who had an axe and he visited a forest. When he got into the forest the trees said to one another: “Yes, there is a man who is coming to chop us down and kill us. This man, fortunately, has attached to him one of us.” The one attached to him—a handle which was made of a tree—was so heavy that it was impossible for him to chop the trees down. Hon members can imagine how happy the trees were.

We are faced with an Official Opposition that really should not have been an opposition party. One reason for this is that they will never be able to carry this big axe because they would not even know how to use it. [Interjections.] Hon members also know that they do not have the height to do it. [Interjections.] I have always said that we in South Africa have only three problems facing our community. If the Government does not remove those three problems—the Population Registration Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and above all the Group Areas Act—there is absolutely nothing we can do in this country. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows it, as he was the Minister of Education at some stage. He knows that—even with good intentions—as long as we have these laws it is impossible for anybody to be productive.

He knows it, but he has the audacity to come to this meeting and say he has no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. I want to say to him that the LP is engaged in a battle to liberate South Africa. He knows that, but when the LP was engaged in a terrific battle he came and scabbed against the LP.

In the trade union movement, when somebody was busy negotiating for higher wages for his workers and a group of people went out and joined the bosses, we used to say that they were scabbing. All we can see at this stage is that the fight is on and we want to produce the results. The LP is engrossed in the struggle to do something. Still those hon members come along and say we must give up the fight and capitulate to Government. [Interjections.] Oh, that is exactly what the Official Opposition is doing. They are saying that we should capitulate at this stage. Hon members should remember, however, that in any fight, if one capitulates at this stage, it means that one invites one’s own death. The LP are involved in this battle because they know that unless we are successful South Africa will be doomed. [Interjections.] We know it and all the hon members know it. Therefore it is a disgrace that someone says to us, the LP, that we should not press too hard, and that we should capitulate and go back, so that the people may be destroyed. [Interjections.]

The CP means absolutely nothing to us at this stage. What is important to us is that there are laws which make it difficult for the people to exist in this country. [Interjections.] Our battle is one against these laws. We have to see to it that we overcome in our struggle for the emancipation of our people. [Interjections.]

All I can say to the Official Opposition is that they should stop playing, because they are going to lose. I have always said that the LP is like a big stream. If one moves out of the stream, one is going to dry out. [Interjections.] I know it is going to happen.

We are definitely winning all the time, and we are winning for South Africa. [Interjections.] We are going to do it, and as it is we are doing it. The Official Opposition must refrain from what they are doing because it is not going to help them, and as an opposition party they are not effective. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak against the motion as presented by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I have just witnessed the poor performance of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with great dismay. If this is what we have to expect this year, the sooner we go back to the polls, the better it will be for this Chamber. [Interjections.] He said in his draft resolution that the LP encouraged the CP to reintroduce apartheid. Shame! Let me tell the hon members categorically, including the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, that the history of enforced apartheid goes far back, to the time of Dr D F Malan, when this Government came into power in 1948. If that is not true, how is it possible that the CP is reintroducing apartheid?

The LP has since its inception, almost 23 years ago, stood as a bastion against any form of apartheid. The LP is committed to fight apartheid on the left, the right and at the centre. [Interjections.] The LP regrets the partnership the Official Opposition has formed with the CP, cap in hand. Learn the truth from us before it is too late: The CP has no room for a party which is like a drowning man holding onto every passing straw. The LP has a declared policy to fight the rigid principles and bigotry of apartheid until all structures of apartheid are destroyed. The LP is moving in the right direction to ensure liberation for the majority of South Africans.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition unashamedly says that the LP is wilfully ignoring the consequences of the CP’s victory in the general election. Should the moon be worried if a dog barks? [Interjections.] The LP is not a guardian of the NP. The LP is fighting apartheid. Whether the CP wins the next general election or not, the LP will continue to fight apartheid.

I wish to reiterate that the LP will not rest until all structures of apartheid have been removed from the Statute Book. Take my word for it that the CP will never become the Government of the day. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is crippled with fear and trepidation when he hears the name CP. He does not realise that he has something in common with that party. He cannot distinguish between the policy of the LP and that of the Conservative Party. Invariably the LP will never support the CP. [Interjections.] That is a “motorbike ideology”. [Interjections.]

The LP is committed to fight separate homelands for the Coloureds. The LP is committed to fight the Group Areas Act to its last portion. The LP is committed to fight the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act as well as the Population Registration Act and any other form of discriminatory legislation. On the contrary, we believe in a united, unfragmented and undivided South Africa.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asserts that the LP has not assured a smooth transition of South West Africa/Namibia. He is not well informed and I shall help him. It is no wonder he became a fallen leader when the LP cracked the whip and dethroned him as Minister of Education and Culture. [Interjections.] It is crucial that we come to his rescue. The LP is not in possession of the provisions of Resolution 435. [Interjections.] That is a function of the United Nations. The LP is clear on this: Namibia is for the Namibians. It is not the responsibility of the LP. If they had been in charge of the arrangements, Swapo would have taken its place long ago without any bloodshed. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition claims that the LP interrupts Black participation with other South Africans in a general election. He does not know who was responsible in 1910 for the South African Constitution. It is true that one can lead a horse to the water, but one cannot make it drink. Likewise one may take the hon Leader of the Official Opposition to this Chamber, but one cannot make him relevant.

It is our regret he cannot hear the LP’s call, yet he is here on the LP ticket. The LP wants all discriminatory laws removed from the statute books, so that credible leaders like Chief Buthelezi, Governor Ramodike and other credible homeland leaders can participate meaningfully in the country of their birth.

This is serious indeed. The hon Leader of the Opposition is fighting for survival, hence he wants the general election postponed to 1992. Allow me to reiterate what I said earlier. He came to this Parliament on a LP ticket. He does not see the writing on the wall. Should the election be held tomorrow, he may not return. That is why he is feverishly holding on to the sublimated and evaporated hope that elections will be held in 1992.

The problems the Minister of Education and Culture is having with the teachers’ organisation is mainly the legacy he inherited from the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. Not only have the teachers suffered embarrassment, but the entire administration too. The House must thank the hon leader of the LP for having acted with promptitude thus leaving him in limbo until now.

The LP is committed to negotiate but the climate must be right and strategies must be clear. We must negotiate from a position of strength and not cap in the hand. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, allow me first of all to congratulate those hon members who made their maiden speeches today. Their speeches testify to political insight and we wish them everything of the best for the future.

The speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition testified to a terrible nightmare he is having. It is just another bogeyman story. I hope that some of the hon members will wake him up so that he can be rid of that nightmare.

I waited in vain on the Leader of the Official Opposition to spell out the policy of his party here. [Interjections.] Does that not testify to political bankruptcy? The speech was nothing but a personal attack on the Leader of the LP. I find it strange that a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council is suddenly being moved, while there is a letter in the possession of the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition pleads to be appointed as Minister of Education and Culture. [Interjections.]

On Monday, 6 February, during the joint meeting the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said inter alia that we were a badly divided community. History will remember the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as being one of those who sowed dissension among our people, and one will reap what one has sown.

At this stage I should like to move as amendment:

The LP is trying to unite our people and lead them on the right road. Now that we have to stand united, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is dividing our people so that it will be possible to govern over them. The LP is in Parliament to demolish apartheid and to work for real change. We are the true opposition to NP’s policy of apartheid. Why do the opposition oppose the LP? It means that they support the apartheid policy. [Interjections.] Surely that is true.

When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was a member of the Ministers’ Council, there was nothing wrong. He then had every confidence in the Ministers’ Council. He had so much confidence that he was not prepared to resign when he was requested by our leader to do so. I can still remember how the hon Leader of the Official Opposition thanked our leader for his appointment to the Ministers’ Council. Now suddenly he has no confidence. I say it is a matter of sour grapes, because it is a matter of lost status, a lost salary and lost pension benefits. [Interjections.]

The Democratic Reform Party is a party of malcontents. Such people remain discontented and in such discontent they will break up. I want to give the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition some sound advice. He must resign immediately and fight a by-election in order to get a new mandate from his voters. The mandate which he and his new party received from the voters under the banner of the LP, has lapsed.

However, I know that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and his party members are too afraid to go to the polls. They know they do not stand a chance of winning, and then they cannot qualify for a pension. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is only interested in remaining here long enough to qualify for a pension. He cannot argue about that.

We have buried many parties and defectors. During the past four years the LP has caused the break-up of the Democratic Workers Party and the United Democratic Party. The Democratic Reform Party is next.

I now want to come back to the first part of the motion. Here the LP is being accused of obstruction and boycott politics because we are questioning legislation. That alone is evidence of the frustration in Government circles because the days when Whites could take decisions on our behalf and make laws are past. All that such accusations prove is that the LP is in earnest about not allowing discriminatory legislation to be placed on the Statute Book. It is the NP which has become rooted to the spot. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not seek the fault in the LP. The LP has committed itself to peaceful change and to politics of negotiation. It is the LP that has taught the Government that a White minority cannot suppress people forever. Today the LP controls the balance of power and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs admitted this yesterday in his speech.

In the past the NP Government decided on our behalf what was good for us. Now, however, we have the Government in a position where it is being compelled to sit down with us around a conference table and negotiate with us.

As regards the second part of the motion, I want to say that it is wilful and devoid of all truth. It is in fact the Labour Party which demolished the apartheid system and compelled the Government to enter into dialogue with Black South Africans.

I should like to quote a passage under the heading “Die ware toedrag van sake ten opsigte van die uitsetting van sekere LP’s en die bedanking van ander uit die Arbeidersparty” from a document the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sent us. I quote:

These were members of Parliament who did not want to desist from making themselves eligible for management committee elections. I just want to say that if one wants to swallow everything, it must come out somewhere. [Interjections.]. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say:

He should merely have added “ook lid van ’n streeksdiensteraad”. There they also receive a cheque.

The hon the Leader of the Official Oposition was also a Minister and lived in just as much luxury. When he was dismissed as Minister, he did not even know what the salary of an ordinary MP was, so little did he care about his colleagues. I know, because he came to find out from me as Whip what the salary of an ordinary MP was.

In Die Burger of 8 October 1988 the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say:

These are the elections we now want. [Interjections.] Who made spectators of these people in the past? Was it not the NP? The hon Leader must not blame everything on the Labour Party. He went on to say in his document:

That hon Leader is scared stiff. I want to state unequivocally that in this way it is made possible for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his hon members to qualify for a pension. That is what it is all about. It is a matter of personal gain, and not in the interest of people and the interest of this country. [Interjections.] Let us stop behaving like little angels; let us come back to earth to help the future of our country. [Interjections.] Even if gold and diamonds were to rain down on the Official Opposition, the Labour Party will continue on its way undaunted.

Hear, hear!

In the last section of the motion is a request for the Ministers’ Council to be reconstituted. Looking at the opposite side of the House, I have no words to describe them. [Interjections.]

This shows me how afraid the Official Opposition is of an election, because in terms of the Constitution the hon the State President has another option, namely that of dissolving the House and calling an election. Why did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not move that this be done? We could then establish what the voters think of their resignations. [Interjections.]

The original motion of the Official Opposition contained sections which were unparliamentary, and were therefore not included. The LP was charged, tried and found guilty of high treason by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I challenge him to say outside of Parliament what was contained in the omitted section of the no-confidence motion.

The LP will continue to follow the road it has chosen so that our future vision of South Africa can become a reality.

Mr Chairman, first of all it is quite obvious that there is not a single ounce of politics in the attack made by the governing party in this House today. It has been a personal tirade against me from beginning to end.

The hon member for Swartland accused me of a personal attack on his leader. However, I quoted his own leader’s speeches word for word. It was not a personal attack, but a political attack. Perhaps that hon member does not understand the difference. [Interjections.] I reject the personal remarks about me with the contempt they deserve. The allegation that I am interested in a pension and luxurious living is a personal attack and it has no place in a House … [Interjections.]

Order! What is the hon member for Toekomsrus busy doing? [Interjections.] He must please stop. [Interjections.] What does the hon member for Toekomsrus have in his hand?

Mr Chairman, I bought my child a little Casspir. Perhaps he will be able to make better use of it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Toekomsrus must please hand it over to me.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Leader of the House be allowed to disrupt the debate?

Order! The matter has already been settled. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may continue.

Mr Chairman, that was a rather childish attempt to reduce the time left to me to reply to all the allegations that were made here today. However, apart from the realities that prove my case, I have used the words uttered by Labour Party spokesmen to support my case, particularly those words of the leader of the LP. I did so in order to counter anticipated allegations—they were there—that my case was based on fabrications.

Today LP speakers presented a glowing picture of how credible the party is in the community. The praise-singers were at pains to hold up the party leadership as a band of angels, democratic to the core, wallowing in the adulation and the loyalty of their underlings. However, this picture is not altogether correct. There is a strong body of very resentful members in the LP who look upon their leaders in terms of what the hon member for Upington so graphically describes. I would like to confirm what he said by quoting a very authoritative source in the LP, no less a personage than the former national secretary, the hon member for Silvertown.

The hon member for Silvertown delivered a report at the LP conference last year which in anybody’s language is a devastating indictment of his leaders. Let us hear what he has to say, and remember, every word of his report was approved by the LP conference and therefore can with justice be interpreted as being a vote of no confidence in their leaders by the LP itself.

In two places in his report …

On a point of order! Mr Chairman, for correction, the report was not accepted.

Order! Thank you. He has made his point of order.

I will accept that, but the very fact that the hon member for Silvertown took the trouble— and in my experience he takes a lot of trouble in preparing his reports—and that he does not make allegations lightly validates my point that there is a strong body inside the party which does not look upon their leader with great favour. In two places in his report, which has not yet been finalised, the hon member for Silvertown uses the word “rape”—“verkrag” in Afrikaans—to criticise party members. That is a strong word to use, but let him speak for himself. I quote page three of the report. He states … [Interjections.] The Bible is also history; yes, I have heard that remark made.

*The Bible is also history. The hon member has no right to appropriate the Bible.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon the Minister must restrain themselves. I will not allow that. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may continue.

In two places in his report the national secretary uses the word “rape”; a strong word of criticism. Listen to what he says:

There is a record of departing from the provisions of the constitution of the party which is one of the main reasons why many people have broken away from that party. On page five, Mr Peters says:

Just a slight correction, the hon member for Silvertown. Hare-brained is not spelt h-a-i-r, but h-a-r-e which refers to the elder brother of the rabbit.

If that is not a devastating vote of no confidence in the leadership, I do not know what is. He says further:

[Interjections.] I want to inform the hon the Leader of the House that his remark that my wife will not even come here to listen to my address is uncalled for. My wife is ill. She is not able to move. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

What did the former national secretary of the party say on page 6? He said:

and may I say stupid ideas—

[Time expired.]

Debate concluded.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Ebrahim, C H; Isaacs, N M; Johannes, A F; Johnson, J D; Muller, P J; Poole, A E; Rabie, J A; Sass, V; Swartz, J J and Swartz, M H) appeared on one side,

Question declared negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr J C Oosthuizen agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That the House expresses its full confidence in the leadership, policy directions and principles of the Labour Party of South Africa and further urgently calls upon the Cabinet to accelerate the reform process in order that all citizens of South Africa will be included in the decision-making process at all levels and to clearly define these reforms and to bring them about by way of legislation.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity. In the light of the announcement made yesterday on behalf of the hon the Acting State President in respect of the appointment of an ad hoc committee to look at the whole question of pensions and gratuities payable to those members who might have brought themselves into a situation which is regrettable and embarrassing to Parliament, I wish, with the leave of this House, to withdraw my Draft Resolution No 4 from the Order Paper. In so doing I should also like to acknowledge that the action taken is a positive and very swift one, and the fact that we did not have to debate this issue is indeed significant and is an indication of the seriousness with which the Cabinet views this particular matter.

I would also like to say that I find it gratifying that such swift action has been taken. In my opinion this would hopefully act as a deterrent to those who seek public office to embarrass others who are in the same position. It would probably also be a deterrent to future members of Parliament not to engage in this kind of abuse.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, as follows:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I rise to move Notice of Motion No 2 as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

In so rising, and also in having given the notice of that motion, I did not nor do I now seek to usurp the functions of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. It is only because I became aware that the Official Opposition and its leader were not going to do the traditional thing, but were going to abandon their obligations and fail to discharge their duty to propose this motion, for which this day was specifically set aside in terms of the arrangements made by the hon the Chief Whip, that I felt it necessary. I considered it necessary in order to continue the traditions of Parliament and, more important, in order to give the hon members of the Ministers’ Council an opportunity to account for their deeds, their misdeeds and their acts of commission and omission.

I fully realise that if this motion is carried, which I trust it will be—I am serious about that—it will inevitably lead to the dissolution of this House. That is a consequence which is devoutly to be wished. The goings-on and the conduct of not only one hon member but a number of hon members on that side of the House—I gather there are 15 hon members sitting in the benches opposite me—and the conduct of hon members of certain opposition parties, who are only in this place to gain personal advancement for themselves in public interest, seeking positions of power and seeking extra money, have brought the reputation of this House to almost minus proportions. The sooner the public is given an opportunity of expressing its view upon the conduct of these hon members, in the only way in which the public can probably express its view, by deciding who shall and who shall not be elected to this House, the better.

We welcome the decision of the Cabinet to appoint an ad hoc committee to give consideration to taking steps so that those in positions of power and authority who steal from the public are not further rewarded at the expense of the public. That is a very good move and I trust that it will be dealt with affirmatively by the ad hoc committee and by Parliament in due course.

Any cabinet is bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility. A Ministers’ Council is a miniCabinet of a House. It is the government in respect of what is called “own affairs” and such a government of own affairs is answerable to the assembly to which it belongs. No Minister can be heard to say: “It was not me—it was him.” We all know who the “him” is. We have one member of the Ministers’ Council—the hon member for Northern Natal—who still clings desperately to that “him” in spite of that “him” having been proved conclusively to have indulged in very serious malfeasance. It is such malfeasance as to damage the dignity of this House.

I want to say that any person who condones, supports or connives with the person who has brought disgrace upon the Indian community and upon this House shares the ignominy. He is equally guilty with the offender. The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture is equally guilty with the hon member for Arena Park for so long as he continues to support that hon member. He may not be heard to say that he was only appointed to this Ministership recently. What did he do after he was appointed as a Minister? What is he doing now as a Minister of this House? Is he doing anything to try to cleanse this House of the ill-reputation brought upon it by his own leader whom he maintains in position as his own leader? The skin crawls. The skin actually crawls at the consideration of the utterly disgraceful goings on.

According to the English system, if a person knows that wrong is being conducted and he permits it to be conducted, that person is an accessory before and also an accessory after the fact. In our system that person is really a socius criminus. He is just as criminally responsible for the conduct which he allows to happen as the person who commits such conduct.

The hon members of the Ministers’ Council cannot escape their responsibility. They knew what was happening and they did nothing. I am not only referring to the present hon members of the Ministers’ Council. There are also two hon members who used to be in the Ministers’ Council. The hon member for Red Hill knew what was happening and for a long time he countenanced it until his own position became so difficult that he felt obliged to blow the gaff and to expose the wrongdoings. He signed documents knowing that it was wrong to sign those documents.

What about the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition? He was Minister of the Budget until March last year. What did he do?

It was not March last year. You must wake up!

Well, he was Minister of the Budget. While remaining the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition he disgracefully became a Minister. He knew what was happening before this tricameral Parliament was established. He was the first one who gave me information about the misdoings of a certain gentleman while that person was in charge of the Indian Council. Yet, because he wanted a position he ran and joined that person. [Interjections.] Every single Minister is equally responsible.

I now come to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. There is the sad situation concerning his son. I know that he called for a file of his son and a senior public servant collected that file and delivered it to the hon the Minister. I knew about it two days after it had happened.

What did you do about it?

The information was hearsay. [Interjections.] I could not have done anything about it because that would have pinpointed a junior clerk and would have resulted in that junior official of the Department of Education being harassed by a certain individual.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

Mr Chairman, I do not have the time, for one reason only, namely that this debate should have been scheduled for the whole day, but in order that precedence should be given to this debate, we had to compromise and only allow for 90 minutes. If we had not reached this compromise, this debate would not have been heard today. Therefore we were forced into a position where the time is limited.

I also want to deal with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. Did he know that crookery was being perpetrated in respect of the allocation of orders for books? It is proved now that there was naked, blatant crookery. Did he know that? If he did not know, he was not conducting his department properly and he was not suitable to be a Minister. If he knew, and he tolerated it, he is also not suitable to be a Minister.

Did he not know that there was terrible, disgraceful, direct interference by the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the appointment, transfer and promotion of teachers? He cannot say that he does not know. He was present when the hon member Mr Thaver gave evidence under oath in that respect before the James Commission. What did he do about it? What has he done about it? He as Minister sat back and allowed several hundreds of members of the teaching profession to be victimised and to be robbed of their birthright. That man should not remain as a Minister, as should no other member of the Ministers’ Council.

What about the hon the Minister of the Budget? He is the person who, in 1983, told me about the misconduct of the man who was the executive chairman of the South African Indian Council and who later became the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He caused me, right at the outset, to expose the misconduct of that individual, but he, because he wanted to become a Minister and get the additional salary, went and joined the person whom he knew was guilty of misconduct.

I am sorry that I also have to point out a serious neglect of duty on the part of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. He signed a document in respect of the Bence Medical Centre, which was referred to fairly fully in the second Thaver Report. He did not know what he was signing. That was the sum total of his evidence. He was asked to sign the document, and he signed it. However, evidence has established that that letter was wrong, irregular and improper, because in order to obtain political support for the hon member for Lenasia South …

Order! Lenasia Central.

Thank you, Sir. Lenasia Central. A certain member of the public was bribed by the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council by being given a licence to which officials had decided he was not entitled. That was done within a matter of 48 hours after the two parties met in Johannesburg. There was no proper appeal. There was no proper consideration. The duty of the hon the Minister was, if an appeal was lodged … An appeal was not lodged; there was a verbal request by Mr K Thumbi to the hon member for Arena Park that a favour should be done to him. However, if there was an appeal, the duty of the hon the Minister was to send that appeal back to the officials who dealt with the matter firstly to obtain their comments, before he came to a decision. However, he made no decision; he merely conveyed the decision in writing at the request of somebody else.

If the hon the Minister is able to say that a pistol was held to his head and his life and limb was threatened, or that some person who was in his protection was being threatened physically, there might be some excuse. However, the only thing they were threatened with—and two hon Ministers actually gave evidence under oath before the Thaver Committee to this effect—was that if they did not comply, they would lose their jobs. That is a very poor reason for doing something wrong or for knowingly allowing something wrong to be done.

The situation is that the entire Ministers’ Council and not only the man who was the erstwhile Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is equally guilty of allowing serious misconduct to occur. What have they been doing? They were so busy looking after their own positions that they did not do their own work effectively. We still have racial discrimination in welfare grounds. We still have a situation in which there is a tremendous housing backlog. We have the sad situation that in Cato Manor we have matchbox houses at inordinately high rents. This is because the Ministers have not been paying adequate attention to their work.

I would like the hon the Minister for Local Government and Agriculture to tell this House whether he or any members of his family or any company or close corporation controlled by him or any members of his family were awarded contracts for the conveyance of pupils in Natal, whether any company, concern or firm in which he, directly or indirectly through members of his family, has an interest received subsidies from the Department of Transport and whether the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was not the person instrumental in arranging both of those things.

In ordinary business there is nothing wrong with entering into contract with the State, but where a man is a Minister, it is imperative that neither he nor his companies nor his family enter into any kind of remunerative contract with the State.

I hope the hon member will repeat it outside the House.

I asked the hon Minister a question.

Why did the hon member not give evidence?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, somebody else asked me to repeat something outside the House and we all know what happened to him. When I get my copy of Hansard I will repeat the very words which I uttered this morning in writing so that the hon the Minister can put that in his pipe and smoke it. [Interjections.]

Why is he so excited when one asks a question? I repeat that it is intolerable and very wrong. Unfortunately it is so that when people do not understand simple ethics, they behave in this manner. Perhaps it is a wrong audience to give a lecture on ethics to, because they know nothing about it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it correct for an hon member to say “this is the wrong audience”, referring to hon members of Parliament indirectly?

Order! I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills may wittingly or unwittingly have cast a slur on the integrity of Parliament and I think he should withdraw it.

I bow to the wisdom of the Chair and withdraw that last statement.

Land was allocated in Johannesburg by someone who was not an official. According to evidence before the Thaver Committee the person who presided over the allocation was the hon member for North Western Transvaal. How on earth the then Ministers’ Council permitted such a travesty to occur has never been explained and it certainly eludes me completely how an ordinary member of Parliament could be allowed in a Government Department and be permitted to interfere in the normal, ordinary functioning of the officials of that Department.

What happened was that 30 erven were allocated to the son of an hon member of this House and it has been established on evidence without contradiction that that son, without having expended a single cent of his own money, has made R90 000 at the expense of the taxpayer. That is an utterly disgraceful situation. Shortly after the gift was given to his son—and the Thaver Committee pointed this out—the father, whose influence obviously was brought to bear, ran away from Solidarity to the NPP. The connection is abundantly clear. The then hon Minister of Housing ought never to have permitted that kind of behaviour.

Then, of course, the hon Minister of Housing at the time permitted the allocation of 30 sites to another hon member of Parliament. He is not here now, so therefore I shall not mention his name. That, too, was wrong. That hon Minister ought to have been made answerable then and there for that by the Ministers’ Council, because the Ministers Council as a whole was and is responsible for every single conduct.

The position of the Odeon Cinema is so tremendously odious. There, too, the hon Ministers who are here now—the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture—both knew that wrongdoing was taking place, and they did nothing! They could at least have addressed a memorandum confidentially to the hon the State President of the country, who is the executive head of the country. They could have informed him of the facts so that he could have taken immediate action then and there. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think the answer to the questions raised by the hon mem ber for Reservoir Hills is very simple. At this point in time Solidarity has a majority in this House. It is therefore not my responsibility to move a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. It is as simple as that.

I hope the hon member for Reservoir Hills will recall that in the recent past the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council at that time virtually stayed over into the morning discussing how to reconcile problems. Obviously the kind of advice he gave him did not help the man to come right. He also tried in a way. For a week they discussed matters beyond midnight. I do not claim to have had five minutes of discussions with the then Chairman of the Ministers’ Council at any time!

The hon member for Reservoir Hills uses this opportunity to denigrate men. Even though they made mistakes, they had the courage to cross over and set in motion the machinery for an inquiry. Solidarity claims the privilege of having done the work to bring about this inquiry. Solidarity, through the hon member for Red Hill and Mr Dave Pillay, spent the money to make it possible for that commission of inquiry to come about. The hon member for Red Hill submitted a voluminous document plus that which was prepared by Mr Dave Pillay and this resulted in the Advocate-General saying to the hon the State President that the documents that he had been asked to look at, required a commission of inquiry. It was shortly after that that a commission of inquiry was appointed.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition prepared to take a question?

No sir, I am not prepared to answer questions.

A commission of inquiry was appointed and all those hon members had an opportunity to come forward and give evidence or make representations. What I want to say is this: The members of the Ministers’ Council who are present here took part in the inquiry. The judge then had a report published. If we are reasonable people, we cannot hang hon members unless we are prepared to go further into that matter. I as leader of my party will at the first opportunity set the machinery in motion for a further departmental inquiry into education, housing and everything else.

Some of the hon members that the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to will have their fat in the fire. Talk is cheap. We need action. For four years we have heard a lot of cheap talk. It was only last year that we came to address the problem in all seriousness and got the commission of inquiry going.

I am proud of the role we have played there.

You did not give evidence before the James Commission.

There is no need for giving evidence and I want to remind some of the hon members here who carried fairy tales to the chairman—about me personally—that Mr Rajbansi was told by the commission that hon members had fabricated stories. Mr Rajbansi said: “I have based it on rumours”. Those are the kinds of stories which have been told and he was fired a few days later.

I want to agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills that this House must go to the polls at the earliest opportunity. I hold his hand. Everything else I dismiss. [Interjections.]

Dissolve the House!

We need to get a mandate and secondly, all the hon members who have supported the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council despite the findings of the James Commission, despite him being relieved of his responsibilities by the hon State President, are also included. Where do the hon members stand with the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? What is their loyalty to him after he has been found guilty? The public is saying that their hands are tainted. They must prove to the public that their hands are clean. [Interjections.]

One cannot blame them. [Interjections.] I am not saying so, the editorials are saying it. Why are they still leaning over backwards to honour this man? [Interjections.] After all that has been said in the newspapers, those hon members are adding to the shame of the Indian community. They are adding to the shame which has been heaped on the Indian community—all of those who have got a blind loyalty to this man.

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment to the draft resolution:

Mr Chairman, … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is now addressing the House and interjections must be kept to the bare minimum. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am glad that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition has made the feelings of the Ministers’ Council on the future elections absolutely clear. The Ministers’ Council will take decisions and the feeling is that we should now go back to our people and then come back to this House with a fresh image. If that is the general opinion I will not hesitate to take that decision in the Ministers’ Council within a week.

Whom are you going to sack?

It may be you or anybody else. [Interjections.] At the outset I also want to tell my colleague, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, that it is very easy to light a fire and get far away from it—as far away as India to go and parade there and look at the picture, then come back with fiery remarks about hon members in the House.

I want to tell the hon member that if he had been present at the James Commission he would have had first-hand knowledge of how the whole commission was conducted and he himself would have seen the picture in its right perspective. There were so many matters discussed that it was very enlightening. Therefore whatever he has said, as far as I am concerned, must be taken with the contempt which it deserves.

I want to go on by saying that we were under great pressure as the hon members are all aware. I do not need to say that.

However it took great courage, as mentioned by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, to walk out of the ruling party and cross to the other side. For what purpose? To set this corruption straight! That was the purpose. [Interjections.] It was not easy. We knew we could lose our positions, but we did not worry about that aspect of it. Members of this House must take cognisance of that, namely that we had to put the wrongs right. That is why we took that step. I am happy that he has mentioned this. Those who linger on remind me of suckers hanging onto a string … [Interjections.] That is what it calls to mind.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I wish to inquire respectfully whether it is appropriate to use an analogy of suckers when referring to members of Parliament.

Order! Did the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council make the kind of analogy referred to by the hon member?

It is a word picture, Mr Chairman.

Order! I think that for the sake of good conduct in the House I must ask the hon the Acting Chairman to withdraw those words.

I do so, Sir. If it hurts, I withdraw.

Mr Chairman, without dwelling on this further, I do not think I will have the opportunity to mention the circumstances in which I was picked upon as far as my son is concerned. That story is carrying on and on, and that is because of the person who is now being removed from Parliament. He said: “If I go down, I will take the whole House down.” That was his policy. Believe me, however, Mr Chairman, there is no longer that overriding influence over any person. There is no more of that, and we are happy to have rid ourselves of that. As I said earlier on, great courage was required on our part to do that.

As far as the Ministers’ Council is concerned, there is no shouting down of anyone on the pretext of having discipline at our meetings. It is no longer a matter of one man’s voice, but rather of a number of voices heard in their turn. They are able to make meaningful contributions on matters of importance to our community. There is a feeling of complete accord, and after discussions, consensus is easily attained. Even though one hon Minister is of a different party, there is no real problem in working together; I want to say that. I must confess that there is complete confidence among the members of the Council and myself as Acting Chairman.

Honour among thieves.

Each one is afforded the opportunity …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: A very disparaging remark has been made by the nominated member Mr Nowbath. He said in response to the observation by the Acting Chairman that there is honour amongst thieves. We are not thieves in this House.

Order! Did the hon member Mr Nowbath say that?

I did, Mr Chairman. I withdraw it.

I was about to say that each one of the hon Ministers is afforded the opportunity to present his opinion on matters not only pertaining to his own portfolio, but on portfolios of other hon Ministers as well. There is complete accord, if I may say so. I want to say quite categorically that for the very short time that I have taken over, I have asked for reports from each hon Minister, and I am very happy to say that the programmes that they have presented to me are enlightening and augur very well for the future of our community. May I just mention one report submitted by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. There were several programmes for all over the country, and the same obtains for other Ministries.

We have that accord in the Ministers’ Council. I am not really hoping that this Ministers’ Council has any extension of life, but if the hon members of this House feel that we should go back to our people, we should do so by all means. However, I want to assure the hon members that if this Ministers’ Council is given the chance of a lengthened life, we will be able to show results.

I briefly want to dwell on the allegation made about my son. I agree that there is some fact in it. I do not deny the facts.

Why explain it then?

I want to say that that young man has two degrees. He is in the teaching profession and he is doing his master’s degree in education. He would have been promoted a year before he was promoted, had I not been the Minister.

At the end of 1984, when promotions were being conceded, he was there in the front line. However, I was not aware of the fact that his name had been pulled out because I had become a Minister.

Victimisation!

Victimisation, yes, that is true! Mr Swigelaar, the then Director of Education, said to me that Caesar’s children must suffer—if one is a ruler, one’s children have to suffer. He asked me to take it as being in my own best interest.

At the end of the following year, from January 1986, my son was promoted. However, what I queried was his posting. I had put forward a policy—although it was an oral policy which had to be tried for a while. Nevertheless he was posted, together with another teacher, but he was not given his first choice, although he merited it. He had three merit awards on top of all his qualifications. All I queried, was whether he should not have been granted his first choice. Of course, our Commissioner has dwelt on that and has talked about it as …

“A minor irregularity”. [Interjections.]

Yes, “a minor irregularity”. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to all intents and purposes, to my mind the call for an election seems a sham. If one is really sincere that this House must go for an election, I think the logical thing to do would have been to support the motion. [Interjections.] I think it is the prerogative of the hon the State President; we need not really tell him that we want an election. In his wisdom, the hon the State President will resort to one of the two exercises open to him in terms of the Constitution.

The amendment is a contradiction in terms of the hon members’ intentions. They are anticipating that, by retaining the status quo, the election may be warded off. I cannot see how anyone who can discriminate, would condone the many setbacks on the part of the current Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] The reasons why the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been removed by the hon the State President, are obvious. This is a fact …

Do you want to bring him back?

The hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been saddled with three portfolios. All those portfolios are extremely demanding.

That is the situation at the present time. I refer to education and culture, housing and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I want to hon members to realise the extraordinary responsibility placed on the shoulders of the hon the acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I quote from the report of the James Commission:

Now here is a clear indictment. How can we allow the situation to continue? We have had many such promises in the past and if these promises had been fulfilled we would not have been in the position today where the community has serious reservations about this House.

In this regard I can refer to many setbacks. Before we came to this Parliament a great number of MP’s spoke about the issue of the second access road. This issue has not yet been solved. It is a serious indictment of this House because, had we pursued our goals, had we really wanted to make the kind of changes that we promised to the people and had we stood steadfast, the issue of the second access road would have been resolved. I think we really lost the substance in pursuit of the shadow in this case.

Unfortunately hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Council compromised with the authorities. There was no immediate need for a second access road provided that the highway was widened.

Who said that, and when?

It is on the record. I want to say that there are numerous complaints at the moment that dozens of disability grants are being cut off. I receive complaints every day and I am sure that other hon members are also receiving these complaints. These people have been receiving disability grants for as long as 13 or 15 years. Some of them are immobile and confined to their chairs. Some of them suffer from very high blood pressure and others from a stroke. There have been such inconsistencies with regard to the medical reports that many people have lost their grants. Their families are now in very difficult circumstances. How does one account for this?

These people say that they have never had such experiences with State grants in the past. The indictment is again on this House and on the Ministers’ Council.

I now come to the area of housing. What is our position with regard to housing? We do have the land, yet often it is said that there is no land. Let me take my own constituency as an example. There are six areas extremely suitable for housing but despite all my pleas in this House which are recorded in Hansard I have not yet received a single house. [Interjections.]

I cannot really defend a Ministers’ Council which had not developed its housing programme. [Interjections.] It is all too easy for hon members to talk. They have really lost track of their function by associating themselves with a portion of the Ministers’ Council. They still regard themselves as the Official Opposition. It is a strange situation indeed. I do not think there is any instance recorded in history where Ministers of the ruling party run and take refuge in the camp of the official opposition party.

I want to ask my friends: For what? [Interjections.] If they were sincere, they would have got the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council out of this House long ago. [Interjections.] They protected him for years … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at this stage I shall immediately state my purpose. Thereafter I shall amplify, possibly consolidate, what the hon member for Reservoir Hills has already said, adding thereto a few more facts and details.

I move as a further amendment:

Are you looking for a job?

No, I have not had a job and I do not want one. I do not want any harbour carrier licences either. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the first place, the hon member for Reservoir Hills made great play of the Thaver Committee. I am somewhat ignorant, but I have here before me a report published in the Natal Mercury of 1 February 1989, which reports that Mr Justice James said that “as Mr Thaver was personally aware of the fact that a cheque had been handed to officials of the NPP in the presence of Mr Rajbansi, he had acted improperly by not recusing himself from the committee’s proceedings”. I want to know if that is the person on whom the hon member for Reservoir Hills is relying for integrity, honesty and credibility?

Yes, because …

I do not want the hon member’s answer. [Interjections.] Is the hon member for Reservoir Hills relying on this hon member? I quote from this article:

In the civil world, but for the laws of gambling, the hon member Mr Thaver would have been convicted for passing dud cheques and for having fraudulently obtained favours. He would have been sequestrated. He would have had to face two things: Imprisonment or a fine. Is that the man whom this House is asked to rely upon? A man must come with clean hands, and not dirty, filthy hands. [Interjections.]

I agree with a number of things that the hon member for Reservoir Hills has said, but I should like to draw his attention to the fact that about eight months ago, in this very House, I moved a motion to the effect that this House has no confidence in the Ministers’ Council and it should be dissolved. I then called for a division of the House and the hon member for Reservoir Hills and his tubular colleague-in-tandem scampered across from that side to this side and sat next to a man who they now say has been disgraceful.

We did not want to support your leader.

You sat next to my leader and you voted for him against me! It has taken the hon member eight months suddenly to realise that he now has no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. Eight months ago he had that confidence. Is that the level of the thinking of an hon member of this House? What I thought eight months ago, he now thinks. [Interjections.] For the information of that hon member I should like to give him some education. The juridical nature—I do not know if he understands the meaning of the word “juridical” …

No.

I know that hon member does. He understands anything. The juridical status of a commission was specifically spelt out in 1949 by Mr Justice Van den Heever. I do not know if any hon members can recall that. It was the riots commission which clearly said—it still holds good today—that the function of what is incorrectly called a judicial commission is not to prove anyone guilty. There is no accused or accuser before a commission. All a commission has to do, is to establish facts.

It is an established fact that …

No, it is only to establish facts and not to find anyone guilty. If the hon member does not know that, he must read that report. If he does not have that report I shall supply him with a copy of it, because I have the original report. I was around then.

It is now for the Attorney-General to institute proceedings and actions against those people who may have been identified. When hon members look at the report of Mr James, they will find that he was not a judge when he was chairing that commission. He was a very ordinary member of a community. He had no status as a judge as was recently shown by statements made in the House of Assembly by the hon member for Sandton, a member of the politically flattened party in that House.

Is it so vitally necessary for Solidarity and the two-man party in this House to bypass the Attorney-General’s attention to the findings of the James Commission? The simple reason is that the Attorney-General will not be able to prosecute. Therefore they are looking for a loophole to remain in power. [Interjections.]

If hon members will close their mouths and listen they will be educated. [Interjections.]

I should like also to refer to another fact which my learned friend, the hon member for Reservoir Hills omitted. A report is circulating about the re-marking of the examination script at the Senior Certificate level of the daughter of the Executive Director of Education in the administration of this House. [Interjections.] That investigation has been completed and I do not want any …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That matter was investigated and completed and is not to be brought up in this House again.

Order! I want to ask hon members not to refer to civil servants who are not here to defend themselves.

Mr Chairman, civil servants played a leading part in the James Commission from behind the scenes.

Order! I asked the hon member not to mention the names of civil servants in this House, because they are not here to defend themselves.

There is no law which prevents me from doing so; it is only a convention. This House is not bound by any convention.

Order! Will the hon member please resume his seat? I want the hon member to abide by my ruling. He must understand that I have given a ruling.

Mr Chairman, I want to know why the Minister of Education and Culture is keeping that report under wraps if it has been completed.

There was no substance in the matter …

I am not prepared to accept the word of a man against whom nepotism has been established as a fact.

Order! Will the hon member please resume his seat? To whom is the hon member referring? Who is the man to whom the hon member is referring?

Mr Chairman, Mr Justice James said he considered the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s intervention an irregularity of a minor kind.

Order! Did the hon member in his address refer to the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council then?

Yés, I did.

Order! Will the hon member please withdraw that?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that. I trust you will be impartial.

Let the hon member have a drink. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if I heard the hon member correctly, he used the word nepotism.

Wake up, man! Do not sleep! Please wake up in time.

I am wide awake.

Order! To whom did the hon member refer when he used the word nepotism?

I am just quoting the report of the James Commission.

Order! No, the hon member later referred to the newspaper, but in his address he linked the word nepotism to a man. Can the hon member explain that?

That was my interpretation. If he has intervened to get his son promoted, he has committed an act of nepotism.

Order! To whom are you referring? The hon member must explain that!

Sir, hon members are taking up my time. I do not need …

Order! Will the hon member Mr Nowbath answer my question? To whom did the hon member refer when he used the word nepotism?

Sir, I referred to the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council…

Order! Will the hon member please withdraw that?

… in his capacity as the hon the Minister of Education and Culture.

Order! I am asking the hon member to withdraw that.

I do withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper for an hon member of this House to make the remark, “I trust that you will be impartial”?

Yes, it is a reflection on the Chair.

Order! Will the hon member Mr Nowbath withdraw that?

I withdraw that, Sir.

And apologise to the Chair!

I apologise to the Chair. Is there anything else? As I have said, the hon member for Reservoir Hills obviously has done this.

I now come to the reason why I move this amendment. The hon member for Reservoir Hills is a lawyer who will recall the human outcry that arose after the conviction of the Sharpeville Six on the grounds that they had a common purpose, although they did not actually participate in the killing. One therefore cannot hang a man against whom no wrongdoing has been established, merely because he had the misfortune to fall in with a whole lot of people who had committed misdemeanours.

For the information of this House, Christ was crucified by His own people.

For truth!

Yes, but two …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon member of this House to commit blasphemy by mentioning the name of Christ in connection with another individual?

Order! Will the hon member please repeat what he is supposed to have said?

I was developing a point in defence of the allegations and accusations made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I said nothing was or has been found against him. I then proceeded to establish a point, and that point was that Christ was crucified by His own people, but in order to dishonour Him further, they crucified Him with two robbers and criminals on either side of Him. They did this merely to disgrace Him further. One of them I recall, was Barabbas. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath may proceed.

It is on those grounds that I have moved this amendment that the Ministers’ Council be reconstituted so that the political debris in the Council can be cleared up. The one hon member whose honour remains intact in spite of all the offers, all the treats, refused to submit. He was offered everything to go across to the other side. He has not done it. The other hon members have been jumping up and down.

I want the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs to look the hon member for Red Hill in the face and say to him what he promised him. The hon member for Red Hill, immediately after that disaster and fiasco in May 1987, told me, “I want to send a photograph of myself so that the hon member for Natal Midlands can see it morning, noon and afternoon and test his conscience, test his own honour, test his own integrity.” I do not know whether the hon member for Red Hill has sent him that photograph.

The hon member wants to claim honour and dignity—an hon member who has done such a thing. He took the hon member for Red Hill to the other side, dumped him, came back and took his position. That is the honour.

That is a lie!

The hon member can call it a lie, but it remains a fact. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs called out: “That is a lie!”

Did the hon the Deputy Minister say so?

Yes, I did.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister must please withdraw it.

I withdraw it. May I replace the word with another word, Sir?

Order! No, the hon the Deputy Minister must withdraw it unconditionally. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I heard that the hon the Deputy Minister said it was a lie. I have no objections because he cannot convert a fact into a lie merely by saying it is a lie. He as a Deputy Minister should have some knowledge at least of the meaning of words, of factual situations. The mere fact that he says I am a rogue, does not worry me because I do not respect his knowledge in the matter of integrity, honesty and credibility.

As I said, the only person who can insult me is a person whom I respect. Therefore I do not object to any kind of personal assassinations directed at me. It does not worry me. I think it was the man of Stratford-Upon-Avon who said: “To thine own self be true.” That is above all, and that is what I am.

The hon member for Isipingo has interjected very, very forcibly. I would like him to tell the House why, having stood on a ticket of the NPP in January-February 1985, he crossed over. He crossed over to Solidarity and he got himself appointed as a Whip. After a year he left Solidarity, he picked up R8 000 as a gratuity and he is enjoying a pension for the rest of his life for R108 which was the initial pension. I believe he got a 15% increase last month.

The hon member interjects about credibility and about integrity. He is prepared to desert a party for reasons best known to him and suspected by a whole lot of other people. [Interjections.]

What is the importance of the James Commission?

There was no James Commission then. It falls outside the terms of reference of the James Commission. I do not want to waste the hon members’ time, but they must please go and look at it.

I must admit that the hon member for Stanger has been consistent. He has sat on one side and he has taken it. That is an established fact. However the hon member for Isipingo has not been consistent and I would like to know why.

I left because you joined! [Interjections.]

As long as the hon Ministers are sitting on that side I cannot, in the language of the hon member for Reservoir Hills, be associated with them, because I will then be hanged by the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

You would rather be associated with your national leader.

Yes, certainly. I will wait until the Attorney-General makes his findings.

Oh, come on!

I might not be sitting in judgment here, but I was never invited to a party where there were 240 crayfish strung up in two Christmas trees, and there was a massive celebration after the James Commission. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I crave a ruling from the Chair as to whether the hon nominated member is in fact speaking to the motion itself, or whether he is being irrelevant. I request you to consider Rule 112 of our Standing Orders and to ask the hon member to take his seat.

Order! I wish to inform the hon member for Havenside that in a debate of this nature one can range widely. I regret that the time of the hon member Mr Nowbath has expired.

Mr Chairman, I will not take any questions during the delivery of my speech.

I am somewhat taken aback at the contributions of the hon nominated member Mr Nowbath and the hon member for Cavendish. These two hon members, only a few days ago, gave an unqualified, irrevocable vote of confidence in their national leader, knowing full well that the James Commission report belittles, degrades and disgraces their national leader. Throughout the report of the James Commission there is nothing but corruption. Nobody can get away from that fact. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I am not a member of the NPP; I am an independent. I could not have given such an assurance.

Order! The point has been made. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, my information is that the hon member for Cavendish was sitting in the caucus when the vote was taken. [Interjections.]

That is completely hearsay.

Mr Chairman, I want to say that every hon member, including the hon member for Reservoir Hills, has had the opportunity to appear before the James Commission and lay before it any complaint or knowledge of irregularity on the part of the Ministers’ Council as such. The commission would have been the best judge of such complaints.

Do you deny being aware of the blacklist?

I do not deny that in respect of the blacklist. I gave the evidence to the James Commission, and I repeatedly submitted to it other statements that I was aware of. [Interjections.] In addition, there was a blatant attempt on the part of the national leader of the NPP to denigrate me before the Commission, and the judge has given me a clean slate in relation to what happened in regard to my services as a Minister of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.]

It is an unfortunate action on the part of, particularly, the hon nominated member Mr Nowbath, who claims to have judicial experience, to level accusations at my civil servants as regards their responsibility and the discharge of their duties as directors-general and senior officials.

One does not attack civil servants under the privilege of Parliament. [Interjections.] If it had not been for those hon members, their national leader would not have been exposed to the extent to which he was exposed. This is not the way for honest human beings with integrity to act. [Interjections.] The national leader of the NPP has brought disgrace to the parliamentary system of South Africa. Those hon members must concede to that.

When one speaks of the terms of references of a commission, it is presided over by a judge and the findings are facts. For the information of the hon member Mr Nowbath, who claims to have professional legal experience, those facts are findings. They cannot be anything else. Therefore it is absolutely astonishing that we, who are supposed to be men of honour and men of integrity, should indulge in such luxuries as pettiness and defending the indefensible. The hon member for Cavendish said two days ago in the joint meeting that he had been asking for an inquiry from day one. Yet only last week he was party to a vote of full confidence in the NPP’s leader.

That is not true!

It is true, because that hon member was in that caucus and never denied it. [Interjections.]

It is all very well to indulge in histrionics, sensationalism and emotionalism, but those hon members have failed entirely to present facts in relation to the failings of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] On the contrary, the four hon members that resigned from the NPP were men who had the courage of their conviction. We realise that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who took over the portfolio of the Minister of Housing, had, under the guise of the Ministers’ Council, been doing things that were highly irregular. We were the initiators of that commission of inquiry.

It was 1984!

I believe it is highly irregular to come here and defend a leader whose actions are indefensible. It was to him that the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred. We are not protecting ourselves by putting forward the false defense that it was he and not us.

I do want to say, with great respect, that things were done behind the backs of the hon members of the Ministers’ Council. The hon the State President gave responsibilities to each Minister and it was not my line of function to interfere in housing, local government, education, health services or welfare.

What about personnel control?

Personnel control is part of my portfolio. [Interjections.] Before we were even appointed to the Ministers’ Council the allocation to booksellers was taken away from my predecessor and given to my colleague, but with the malicious intention that he would not control it because the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would give him a list of which booksellers were to be given orders. That is a glaring example of division and disunity in the NPP. They purport to support the hon member for Reservoir Hills in the motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. However, the hon member Mr Nowbath amends that motion to say that the Ministers’ Council must be reconstituted.[Interjections.] The intention is to be seen and discovered. We do not tax the integrity of this House. That hon member is now trying to bait people for a reconstitution of the Ministers’ Council.

I want to warn …

Who, me?

… everybody in the NPP and their supporters that they will fall into their own trap. [Interjections.] When the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon Minister to address another hon member directly?

Mr Chairman, I spoke to the hon member Mr Nowbath.

Order! I think the hon the Minister was within his rights. He may proceed.

I want that to be recorded in my favour. We have on the Ministers’ Council an hon member of the NPP. In our initial discussions to clear this House of its bad name we asked the hon the acting State President for an election. What was the response of that hon Minister? He said that he does not want an election. The NPP does not want an election—they only want a reconstitution. I want to warn them that they will fall into a trap. As long as this House exists there will never be a reconstitution of the Ministers’ Council.

What they will get is an election. [Interjections.] The Ministers’ Council has already taken a decision to place on the agenda and to convey to the hon the acting State President the request for an election. All of us will be forced into not one election but two or three elections if necessary. That is what will happen. A constituency is the best place for hon members to be tested and to find out in which way they are viewed by the community. [Interjections.] Hon members will get their answer as sure as the sun rises in the morning. The hon members of the NPP will have to face the onslaught of the Indian people whose political history they have dented by giving support to a man who has disgraced this House.

We will show you at the ballot box!

That hon member will be the first one to lose! [Interjections.] The Indian community will not be that gullible. They will size those hon members up for what they are because as I see it all of them have skeletons in their cupboards.

I can say that I myself have no skeletons in my cupboard and therefore I was the envy of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I supported him to an extent but I will never support an injustice. My religion and your religion and your conscience will not allow it. I therefore appeal to hon members not to take leave of their sense of values and reason which should dictate to them what is right and what is wrong. [Interjections.]

To make the excuse that the hon members of the Ministers’ Council are the bad fellows while other hon members are the good fellows is absolutely wrong. Hon members should not do this.

I want to say to the hon members in this House that the findings of the report of the James Commission will not be the end of this. Further procedures will follow. Others will be implicated and involved. Hon members will have to appear in the courts of law to explain why they acted in a certain manner. They will have to answer allegations and accusations—I refer to my friend the hon member for Laudium in particular—as to why it cost the House of Delegates R300 000 because of a certain irregularity.

Which irregularity?

It was an irregularity in the allocation of sites in Laudium.

It was favouritism!

No, it was not favouritism—it was an irregularity.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There was no irregularity as far as the allocation of sites in Laudium was concerned. We can prove that the settlement was made by the House of Delegates to avoid it. I want this to be rectified.

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, I accept the explanation. There was a compromise and a settlement to save the House of Delegates that expenditure, because if we had gone to court, it would have been proved that this constituted an irregularity. [Interjections.] I am speaking from the information that has been given to me. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, after that highly emotional speech by the hon the Minister of the Budget, you will forgive me, not only for complimenting him on his speech and on the fighting talk that was contained therein, but also on again drawing the attention of this House to a matter which is very dear to my heart.

This matter which was touched upon by the hon the Minister of the Budget, concerns the status, the dignity and the integrity of this House. It is not for me to remind my colleagues in this House that the status of this House in the community to which this House is responsible is low, and even that would be a euphemism. I am ashamed to say that the antics of this Chamber in this particular debate has done absolutely nothing, in my opinion, to raise the status of this Chamber in the eyes of the community to which we are responsible. I can understand the emotionalism which has been exhibited. I can understand the feelings of various speakers, but nevertheless, I do believe that each hon member in this House must remember that they have to discharge their duties in a dignified way.

In the very few minutes that are available to us, may I just remind this House that the motion that has been moved by my benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, rests on what we call “collective responsibility”. This is an old concept, not only in law, but in the traditions of Parliament as well. Basically it means that if one is a member of a cabinet or a member of a committee and that committee is in any way demeaned or found to have acted irregularly, each and every member of that committee or council must take responsibility for it.

It will be argued that the Constitution under which we operate at the present time is a strange one. It can be argued that perhaps the Constitution does not provide for such collective responsibility. I want to remind this House of the words of the hon the State President when he indicated to us that in so far as the action of any hon Minister is concerned, he is not bound by the decision of the Cabinet. What he was in fact saying, is that if any member of the Cabinet disagreed with a decision of the Cabinet, he was free to make the decision known to the community at large. He was free publicly to announce that he disagreed with that decision. But what do we find? We find, on the basis of what has been led before the James Commission, that each and every member of the Ministers’ Council, as it exists at the present time, and more than that, every member of the Ministers’ Council from the time this House was constituted, was in some or other way also responsible for what happened in the Administration of this House.

Nobody can deny that, because not a single member who has served in the Administration of this House as a member of the Ministers’ Council has ever, whilst he was such a member, publicly said that this, that or the other was going wrong. While each and every hon member had the opportunity to stand up to Mr Rajbansi, the hon member for Arena Park, and not a single one did so. I would just like to remind hon members of that responsibility.

That which took place during the investigations of the James Commission and what was said in the ensuing report of Mr Justice James, vindicates completely the stand that has been taken by my bench-mate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, and some other hon members of this House in regard to why we opposed any kind of political alliance with the hon member for Arena Park.

Whilst I am saying this, might I take this opportunity of again reminding hon members of this House that we asked for commissions of inquiry, not only into the workings of this House but also into the workings of the Departments of Education and of Housing, on numerous occasions. We asked for it in 1985,1986 and 1987. When the hon the State President was in this House, we asked him why he did not appoint such a commission of inquiry when the request of the community was such that he should have conceded to it.

The question that arises, is why the individual members of the Ministers’ Council, if they felt that things were going wrong, did not support the call we made to the hon the State President, both publicly and inside the Ministers’ Council, to appoint such a commission. It is my submission that if the James Commission had been appointed earlier we would not have seen the consequences of the irregularity in the manner that we are seeing it now.

Firstly, we would not have had the alienation of several petrol station sites. That would have been stopped. We would not have seen the kind of irregularity that was carrying on in the allocation of sites and the allocation of tenders for the supply of books. The rot could well have been stopped several years ago. It did not stop, because in not asking for the appointment of such a committee, the Ministers’ Council and each and every member that served therein, failed in their responsibility to this House and to the public that he purports to serve.

Allow me to deal with the amendments that have been proposed. The first one has been moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He has asked that in order for there to be stability in this House, section 39(3)(a)(iv) of the Constitution be invoked so that fresh elections can be held.

Obviously the hon gentleman has understood neither our notice of motion nor the Constitution, because in terms of section 39(3)(b)(i) there will be fresh elections if the motion that has been moved by the hon member for Reservoir Hills is accepted by this House. Therefore my comment on the amendment is that it has no bearing on the motion that is before the House and that it, in fact, has very much the same effect. Therefore I would request the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to consider asking for the amendment to be recalled.

In his proposed amendment the hon member Mr Nowbath asks for the hon the State President to reconstitute the Ministers’ Council.

As I have just indicated, it is our belief that not only one or two, but all hon members of this House who served in the Ministers’ Council, were responsible in a larger or smaller measure for what has happened to the Administration of this House. If they wish to have the Ministers’ Council reconstituted, it can only be done by way of fresh elections. That is the ultimate conclusion that can be drawn from the motion that has been moved by my benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Let us not forget … [Time expired.]

Debate concluded.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Dr J N Reddy put.

The House divided:

AYES—22: Bhana, R; Chetty, K; Dasoo, I C; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Pachai, S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Ramduth, K; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Bandulalla, M; Jumuna, N.

NOES—20: Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Cader, D; Collakoppen, S; Devan, P I; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Lambat, A E; Manikkam, E J; Naicker, S V;Naranjee, M; Nowbath, R S; Padayachy, M S; Pillay, C; Rampersadh, H; Shah, M S.

Tellers: Baig, M Y; Nadasen, P C.

Amendment agreed to and amendment moved by Mr R S Nowbath dropped.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That in the light of the firm stand taken by the majority of the members of the Ministers’ Council during the investigations of the James Commission, the House has confidence in the Ministers’ Council; however, having regard to the pressing need for stability in the House, the House hereby requests the Ministers’ Council to consider invoking section 39(3)(a)(iv) of the Constitution so that the necessary machinery may be set in motion for the holding of fresh elections for the House of Delegates.

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

My motion is a very reasonable one and I hope that hon members will view it with an objective mind.

As members of Parliament we hold a very high office and the community will judge us by our standards and our actions. As elected representatives of the people we embody the hopes and aspirations and the cherished ideals of honesty, integrity, fair play, justice and, above all, trust. I think that all of us in this House cherish those qualities, therefore my humble plea to all hon members is to set aside sentiments and compassion and to support my motion.

You will agree, Mr Chairman, that it is a sad day in the life of the Indian community that a very colourful, and indeed able, politician has destroyed his career in public life by his very own wicked actions. It is also sad that it had to happen at the peak of his career and at a time when the entire Indian community was eagerly waiting to see and assess the achievements and the role of the House of Delegates.

The hon member for Arena Park must blame himself. He has not only destroyed himself, he has also destroyed the …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member referred to an hon member’s wicked actions. I submit that that is unparliamentary.

Order! If I heard the hon member for Havenside correctly, he was giving his own viewpoint and not quoting from a document. That is unparliamentary and the hon member must please withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, in view of the time constraint, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Arena Park has himself to blame. He has destroyed himself, that is very evident because he is not in this Chamber and he is no longer holding a very high portfolio as he held a little while ago. However, he has not only destroyed himself, he has also destroyed and tarnished the image of this House. He has impugned on the dignity and integrity of parliament by his actions. He has brought utter disgrace to all hon members of Parliament and, I am sorry to say, to the entire Indian community.

We cannot and, indeed, will never condone such arrogant, devious and thoroughly degrading actions as ably evidenced in the highly respected report of the James Commission. In the past four years, the hon member for Arena Park had the opportunity to work honestly and sincerely in the interest of the Indian community. However, he had used every opportunity, as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and also as Minister of Housing, to promote his own selfish needs and desires, as well as those of his close friends and relatives. May I ask of hon members whether this is not nepotism of the worst kind.

The reports of the two House Committees speak for themselves. Not only members of Parliament and politicians gave evidence to the James Commission members of the public had also given evidence against the hon member for Arena Park for mishandling his portfolios.

The findings, of the James Commission is downright disgraceful and it reflects on all of us in this House. I want hon members to stand up here and be counted, if this is not the truth. It brings a great measure of shame on us, because we are questioned in the street by our electorate on what is happening in the House of Delegates. Through the actions of one person the entire House is put to shame.

The commission’s findings clearly indicate that the hon member for Arena Park was using devious and corrupt means to feather his own nest financially and otherwise.

Mr Chairman, I would like to know whether the hon member is quoting from the report of the James Commission.

Order! Can the hon member for Havenside give his source of information?

Mr Chairman, it is embodied in the findings of the James Commission.

Order! Does the hon member have a document which he can place before the House?

Mr Chairman, I am referring to the commission’s findings. I do not have any documents before me at this stage, but if …

Order! In that case I take it that the hon member is basing his allegations on certain assumptions and I think that is wrong. The hon member must either quote a source or else refrain from speaking in that particular way. The hon member must please withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it, but it is rather a pity that I do not have the necessary documents before me to present to this House. However, I am certain that the hon member Mr Nowbath must have read the report over and over. If he was not in a position to absorb its contents, I do not blame him.

He is not a very clever and efficient attorney and it is because of that that he sits in this Chamber. [Interjections.]

We must honour our positions and as public representatives we must have our community at heart and work towards uplifting their quality of life. That should be our first priority. I would like to know if all of us are doing that. Those who are not should search their souls because they have the answers within themselves.

As an hon member of this House it is not my intention to further humiliate and strangle the hon member for Arena Park. However, I think every hon member in this House owes the electorate an explanation of our reactions and attitudes with regard to this sad state of affairs.

The calls from every corner of the country on this hon member to resign have fallen on deaf ears. I refer in particular to several editorials which gauged the public opinion and which called upon the hon member to resign.

I have also been surprised by certain hon members of the NPP. I would like to know their actions in this regard. Were they able to pass their opinions on to their leader or not? His stubbornness not to resign only brings further disgrace to him as a public figure. My own observation is that the hon member is deaf to the call made by the public sector.

We regard Parliament as the highest institution in this country and we can ill afford to allow hon members of Parliament to destroy its dignity by any acts of cowardice or by evil actions.

It is in this light that I move the draft resolution and I have no doubt that with the recent events it will be supported. There are hon members on the other side whom I respect. I therefore hope that they will respect the views and gauge the feelings of the public and that they will give this draft resolution the support it deserves.

Mr Chairman, I will be fairly brief in spite of the time allocation because this is a matter which will simply be decided by numbers. It becomes a game of numbers. Having said that I should like to refer to the hon member for Havenside with regard to his reference to editorials. Those editorials were written by White people and White people do not like cheeky coolies. [Interjections.] They like the fawning ones who say “Yes, Sir” all the time.

Order! I think in other parts of the world the word “coolie” may be acceptable but I think in the South African context it has a very racist connotation. I want to appeal to the hon member to withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I will withdraw it but my withdrawal does not change the facts.

Had the hon member for Arena Park been willing to kowtow to Whites and to genuflect to them, the editorials would have been very favourable.

Since reference has been made to editorials may I enquire from the hon member for Havenside whether he is aware of an assessment which has been made of his own leader in The Weekly Maili I do not know whether he knows that there is such a newspaper.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am not answering questions. I shall use my allocated time myself.

Mr Chairman …

The hon member may proceed.

The hon member posed a question to me, Sir.

Order! Did the hon member Mr Nowbath pose a question to the hon member for Havenside?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I asked him whether he is aware of an assessment made in The Weekly Mail about his leader.

Mr Chairman …

Order! The hon member may not answer the question now. The hon member Mr Nowbath may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the question put to me by the hon member Mr Nowbath is utter rubbish, because earlier on he questioned me as to whether I had any documentary proof of my submission. I would like to know whether he has that document with him …

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am glad that the hon member for Havenside admitted to a shortfall in his reading. I will tell this House that the assessment that was made by The Weekly Mail was that now that the hon member for Arena Park has been turfed out of office—and I quote—“Dr J N Reddy was Mr Right for the State President”, because he is totally pliable and willing to agree. [Interjections.] That was the assessment made. There was a motion that the hon member for Arena Park made all kinds of accusations, pre-empting or trying to pre-empt a decision by the Attorney-General.

I would also like to tell this House, while a great deal has been said about the language used by Mr Justice James …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, Mr Chairman.

Referring to the language used by Mr James in his report, a very respected political analyst in this country, who is absolutely no friend of the House of Delegates, less so of the hon member for Arena Park, Prof Willem Kleynhans, formerly of Unisa, had this to say, namely that Mr James went overboard in his use of language to describe the actions. [Interjections.] This is what Prof Willem Kleynhans said.

He has the right to a point of view! Who is he? Who is he to this House?

“Who is he to this House?” As long as someone’s opinion is favourable to members of Solidarity and against the hon member for Arena Park, he is totally acceptable.

Order! I would like the hon member to speak to the motion.

Mr Chairman, the motion calls for the expulsion of the hon member for Arena Park, and I am trying to justify why it is totally irregular, improper, unreasonable and vindictive to present such a motion now. I say that we should wait for the decision of the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General prosecutes and the hon member is found guilty, he will be tried. As I said earlier, the commission is not a court of law. There are no litigants before it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if these people stop chattering…

Order! I would be pleased if the hon member would be given an opportunity to address the House.

I know they will not give it to me, because it hurts. It hurts them in the very vulnerable parts of their anatomy.

That is why they are howling and squealing and shouting. I said earlier on that I was not going to spend much time on this, except to draw attention to a few things, because the final test is simply a game of numbers and not of intelligence and education.

Order! Is the hon member trying to insult hon members by referring to their intelligence?

Yes.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. As I said, it will be totally based on numbers.

Mr Chairman, in support of the motion put by the hon member for Havenside I would have thought that the most honourable thing for the hon member for Arena Park to have done, would have been to follow the example of the NP members, Mr Leon de Beer of Hillbrow, Mr Peet de Pontes of East London and Minister Piet du Plessis. Of course we also learnt yesterday that Mr Sol Kerzner of Sun International resigned honourably. We, however, have now been placed in the kind of situation we find ourselves in.

Never in the history of the Indian community of South Africa has a politician been lambasted in such dispassionately inglorious language befitting and normally reserved for individuals who are incarcerated from society to protect society from their menace. Yet I have to rise today to consider that very judgement passed on no other than a man who occupied the number one position in the Indian community over the past four years.

I rise with feelings of both relief and tragedy within me. This is the darkest hour of our political existence, darkened by a man who does not show the slightest modicum of remorse for his actions and for the judgment thereon—so dark that every hon member of Parliament feels that his own dignity has been impugned.

Must everyone resign?

Why did the hon member vote for the motion then?

There must be few people in the world who cannot understand a message, especially if it has been expressed as clearly as done by Mr Justice James. There must be few individuals who would fly in the face of such scathing criticism, yet they happen to be concentrated here today.

When MPs endorse the evil that Mr Justice James described by continuing to express twice their confidence in their disgraced leader, the question arises whether individuals in this House subscribe to any values and norms of decency and morality. By endorsing the fraudulent, dishonourable and disgraceful conduct of their leader, are they not proclaiming that regardless of what the commission found wrong, they go along with whatever he has done? In other words, they are now attempting to give the green light to graft and corruption and to his shameful, immoral and untruthful conduct.

Mr Justice James has made two simple but damning recommendations:

Any decent, thinking person would have died of shame if he were indicted in the way Mr Justice James indicted the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Instead we find the hon member for Arena Park claiming innocence and calling with breathtaking temerity for a commission to investigate the James Commission. He is besmirching the integrity of one of South Africa’s most prominent judges.

Now that the Honourable Mr Justice James has made his recommendations known, is it not time to allow the people to pass judgment on certain unscrupulous individuals who rob our people of their dignity and self-esteem in the eyes of the rest of the country?

As members of the Ministers’ Council we have a duty to the people to restore the credibility of the House and cannot allow the see-saw to go on indefinitely. The time has come to put a stop to the era of corrupt dictatorship. The price is a high one, made higher by the fact that we might face two elections in one year. However, if there is no alternative, the Ministers’ Council will meet urgently with a view to resolving the impasse once and for all by calling on the hon the Acting State President to dissolve the House.

Since this Ministers’ Council does not intend to operate on a basis of false statements and false promises, and since it is our intention to move away from the corrupt influences of the past, let hon members take note that we are not here to make idle threats purely to gain temporary majorities.

The solution points more and more to allowing the people to decide for themselves, once and for all.

South Africa looks at us today, wondering whether we have lost our sense of values and whether there are hon members in this House who think they can operate regardless of the value system that society recognises. They are wondering whether hon members are so insulated that they can carry on in Parliament as if it is a private gambling school.

In conclusion, the day of reckoning is nearer than many might care to think. This motion calls on hon members to stand on the side of truth or evil. Let us support the motion for the sake of truth and honesty.

Order! I want to remind hon members of this House that the hon member for Arena Park is still a member of this House. I want to ask hon members not to make any unparliamentary remarks about that hon member.

Mr Chairman, having listened to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, my immediate reaction— and I must confess that it is an irrational one—is to support the motion that is before the House. In so doing, I am reminded of what Oliver Cromwell told the Long Parliament some 300 years ago. I believe that this is applicable to the man that we are discussing at the present time, and to this House. This is what Lord Cromwell said, and I quote:

On the other hand, because I have always in this House, as well as outside it, upheld the legal doctrine of the audi alteram partem rule, I believe that this House should not immediately punish the hon member for Arena Park merely because it has the support of the majority.

Because I have just five minutes allocated to me in this particular debate, I move the following further amendment:

1. “(1) having regard to the fact that the honourable member for Arena Park, Mr A Rajbansi, has neither shown any penitence nor apologised to the House for having deliberately told untruths to the House with the intention of misleading it, but has uttered words that are in contempt of the House and its findings; and
2. (2) noting the findings and the observations of Mr Justice Neville James that the said member for Arena Park is unfit to hold any office that requires integrity,

the House is of the opinion that the said member’s continued membership of Parliament is incompatible with the dignity of a the House and of Parliament and—

1. (a) resolves that a Committee of the House be appointed to consider all relevant factors and especially whether there is any reason why the said member for Arena Park should not be denied further membership of Parliament, the Committee to report its recommendations to the House as soon as possible and to have power to take evidenbe and to call for papers; and
2. (b) further resolves that, pending receipt of such report and recommendations and the decision of the House thereon, the member for Arena Park be hereby suspended from the service of the House without any remuneration or compensation and that during such suspension the said member should not be permitted within the precincts of Parliament.”

Who is going to be the chairman?

The hon member Mr Nowbath wants to know who the chairman of such a committee will be.

I feel that despite what has transpired in this House, I still believe that the hon members of this House who may, if my proposed amendment is carried, be called upon to serve on that committee, will be people of integrity and that they will then decide on the facts and not by any party affiliation.

Despite what the hon member Mr Nowbath may say, I still believe that the hon members in this House have some conscience. I still believe that they are men of integrity and I believe that their work on that committee will speak for itself. If in fact they are not such people, then that report will show that they are not men of integrity.

Order!

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask that Mr Justice James be subpoenaed by the committee.

It is not for me to prescribe to the committee which may be appointed. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is common knowledge throughout the country that the James Commission which has investigated the irregularities in this House, has denounced the hon Member of Parliament for Arena Park as a liar and an unscrupulous, mean-minded bully who is unworthy of holding any post calling for integrity. The commission’s findings only endorse the viewpoint we have had of the hon member for Arena Park over the past 4½ years.

One could argue today that the hon member for Arena Park could be given a hearing. I denounce that. I object. It is a fundamental principle of our law that the other side must be heard under the commonly used audi alteram partem rule. My contention is that the House Committee which is known as the Thaver Committee, and the James Commission gave the hon member for Arena Park ample opportunity.

He appeared before both committees and he was heard extensively. He was allowed all privileges which an alleged criminal demands in a court of law, before the judicial commission of inquiry under the hon Justice James. However, when the hon member for Arena Park found that he could not afford to be present at the commission, the commission’s hearings were adjourned. If that does not amply satisfy the audi alteram partem rule, what else is required?

What is disturbing in this House, and the hon Mr Justice Neville James said it in no uncertain terms, is that the hon member for Arena Park is not worthy of holding any official or sub-official post which calls for integrity. I take it that those hon members sitting opposite who have passed a motion of confidence in the hon member for Arena Park consider that members of Parliament do not need integrity. Any unscrupulous scoundrel can come and sit here; that is the logical inference one gathers. Nobody could argue that point. I wonder whether any person in his right mind would overlook the findings of a judicial commission and its recommendation that a particular person is not worthy to hold any official post which calls for integrity. By supporting a person of that diminished and disgraced name, we are descending to that level. Only people of that calibre will support and pass a motion of confidence in a person of that calibre.

Coming back to the hon nominated member Mr R S Nowbath, he seems to be merely playing with words in this House, thereby wasting time. I say that that hon member served on the Thaver committee, and he failed in his duty to prove his point and show that he is innocent. He sat for a mere three or four days, and then disappeared from the committee.

I asked the chairman to recuse himself …

That hon member was fully satisfied that there was nothing to defend. He could not prove that any witnesses before the House Committee were wrong. Therefore he conspicuously absented himself for over thirty days of the committee’s sittings. Where was he sleeping? Why did he not sit on the committee throughout and defend his leader, if his leader was honest?

And earn money for nothing!

What is more surprising is that this hon member likes to play with words, because he thinks he is an expert attorney, but I think he is an inexperienced attorney. That is why he is not practising.

However, I must allow this unfortunate member one thing, and that is that he was employed by the hon member for Arena Park. He brought him into Parliament, and I think he owes him some allegiance, even by way of a show of face here, and pretending in public that he is defending his erstwhile leader. However when the test came, this hon member deserted his leader, his employer. [Interjections.] I can prove that this hon member had nothing to defend. He knew that it was indefensible. [Interjections.]

As regards this matter of moral law, why did he not appear before the James Commission? He did appear for one or two days. What prevented him from proving at that inquiry, by cross-examining witnesses, that they were liars? He was satisfied and convinced that every witness that appeared before that House Committee and before Mr Justice James spoke the truth. However, what did he do here today? He stood up and defended that which cannot be defended. He stood up and defended corruption. He stood up and defended irregularities. He stood up and defended a stench. I disagree with the hon member Mr Nowbath. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the expulsion of any person from any body is a serious step. The expulsion of an hon member of Parliament from Parliament is a very serious step. As far as I am aware, that has not occurred before in South Africa, although there is some reason to believe that recent resignations by two people from the House of Assembly was probably prompted by fears that they might well have been expelled from Parliament.

Of course, any honourable man, when his actions had been investigated and he had been found lacking in integrity, would have resigned forthwith. However, we know the calibre of the man we are dealing with and, regrettably, the calibre of those who are standing steadfastly by a man who has brought dishonour upon this House and who thereby associate themselves with that dishonour.

I understand that in parliamentary democracies it is only in the Westminster parliament, in the House of Commons and once in Australia, that members have been drummed out of Parliament in dishonour. [Interjections.] However, one thing that the British have bequeathed to the world—whatever else one might say about the British—is a jurisprudence which is fundamental.

The hon member for Springfield, being a lawyer as I am myself, must understand that the cats can wail but the message goes on. We understand the fundamental requirements of the maxim of audi alteram partem. We believe that the man in question has no integrity and we accept the findings of Mr Justice James. However, he proclaims his innocence in the media. We believe that he should be given an opportunity to establish his innocence, if he can establish it, before the guillotine drops.

Incidentally, there is a delightful cartoon in a local newspaper accompanying an editorial column which reads “Low standards in public life”. The low standards are exhibited, not only by the hon member for Arena Park, but regrettably by a number of his henchmen—a number of the coterie who still cling to him. Why do they cling to him? Do they really believe that the man is innocent? I venture to submit that, simply because these gentlemen have had dealings with him, he probably has evidence of those dealings in which he has participated. [Interjections.] He has threatened to blow the whistle on anyone who goes against him. [Interjections.] Certain people are obviously afraid that he may hand over the evidence which he has to the police. That is the obvious hold he has on these people.

We know that the electoral irregularities in Tongaat are being investigated by the police. We also know whose head will roll when those investigations are completed. In spite of that, we believe that a man should be given a hearing. Moreover, my information is that both the House of Commons and the Legislature in Australia did, in fact, have select committees to go into the conduct of the persons concerned, before they took the final action. Since we want to follow parliamentary tradition, it is necessary that we follow that tradition meticulously.

Regarding the amendment proposed by the hon member for Springfield, we do not rely purely on the findings of the James Commission. As the amendment clearly stipulates, we rely upon the fact that on two occasions the hon member for Arena Park wilfully, deliberately and intentionally misled this House by telling untruths. On the one occasion it might have been construed that it was a minor misdemeanour. He denied having received a certain cheque which, it was later proved, he had in fact received.

The greater offence was when he deliberately lied to this House in reply to a question put on the Order Paper by the hon member for Springfield. The question merely asked for information as to the allocation of petrol service station sites. The evidence emerged—not before the James Commission alone but before the Thaver Committee of which I had the honour to be a member—and it was in the form of the handwriting of the hon member for Arena Park. Officials had in the ordinary course prepared answers which gave the truthful position, namely that allocations had been made to IP Hoover and Jivan Seebran. The hon member for Arena Park himself deliberately scratched out those facts and he told this House a tissue of untruths. The tissue of untruths was that no allocations had been made.

The matter does not rest there. What did he do? He saw to it that the blame was alienated to the mother of IP Hoover, Mrs MLS Hoover. All this was done furtively. The man who was alienated was alienated at possibly one fifth of the true value. The Housing Development Board therefore lost at least R300 000 with that one transaction which was pushed through by the hon member for Arena Park who lied to this House in respect of that same transaction.

The other lie which he told this House was to suppress the fact that he had seen to it that another allocation was made for a certain Jivan Seebran. He, notwithstanding a request from the House Committee that the alienation be held up, in his own handwriting instructed the officials to ignore the recommendations of the House Committee and to proceed. If it had not been for a Supreme Court interdict brought by someone against Seebran that transaction too would have gone through.

That property was priced by the hon member for Arena Park at R400 000 whereas the real market value exceeds R1 million. What did he therefore want to do? He wanted to benefit his crony to the tune of at least R600 000 at the expense of the Housing Development Board and the taxpayer. That is the kind of offence which is absolutely and utterly disgraceful. That is the kind of offence which the hon members on the other side want to be seen to be defending and are seen to do so.

[Inaudible.]

I refer to the hon members of the NPP who adhere to that man.

What are the further offences which this man has committed? He suborned witnesses. Any member of the legal profession would be horrified if anyone suborned a witness. For the information of the hon member Mr Nowbath—he obviously does not know the meaning of the word—“suborn” means to induce, encourage, entice or persuade someone to tell an untruth under oath. Such a person is then suborned.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member Mr Nowbath knows that his friend persuaded people to tell lies under oath. Two of those were junior officials under the control of that hon member while he was a Minister and was kept in that position by the hon the State President. I do not blame the junior officials for being terrified of losing their jobs although they themselves are now liable to criminal prosecution for having lied under oath.

What else did he do? He tried to and succeeded in suborning a witness who had submitted an affidavit to the Advocate General and who later gave evidence before the James Commission. The office of the Advocate General is a highly respected office. Any person who lies to the Advocate General is not fit to be a member of Parliament. Any person who induces someone else to lie to the Advocate General is even less fit to be a member of this House. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I speak here in support of the national leader of the NPP. Despite what has already been said, we must understand that that hon member is not present here to defend himself, because of the suspension imposed upon him, and we as members of Parliament have no right to act against somebody who has been elected by his constituency and to move for his expulsion or suspension. I will come back to this a little later.

Much was said earlier about The Weekly Mail by the hon member Mr Nowbath. I want to read that to which the hon member referred. I quote from The Weekly Mail, 3 December 1988 to 12 January 1989. The caption reads:

This is the article to which the hon member Mr Nowbath referred.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member what the relevance of that article is to this debate.

I am merely quoting that article because it was raised earlier in the debate by the hon member Mr Nowbath and the hon member for Havenside.

The art of politics is to gain control. Irrespective of whether we talk about integrity or honour or loyalty, it is to gain control. When it suited certain members of this House to cross the floor and move to the other side in an attempt to gain control and selfishly guard their positions, they did so. Everything has now been said about the hon member for Arena Park. Hon members of the opposition parties know that whenever the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council used to stand and speak, the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council used to nod. Sometimes the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did not even speak, and the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would nod. Nobody can convince me that the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council forced the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council physically to nod his head in this Chamber. Hon members of the opposition parties can tell me if that is not true.

Not true.

That is an untruth.

You are not a man.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Newholme said that I am not a man. Does he infer that I am a woman?

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central may proceed. May I just tell the hon member for Camperdown that judging by the smile on his face, I take it that he takes it in good spirit.

Mr Chairman, I have said previously, and I am going to repeat that we in the NPP, as a political party, are a force to be reckoned with. Irrespective of who leaves the party, the NPP will not diminish. Several attempts have been made in the past to cause dissension in the party and to let it disintegrate, but that will not happen as long as there are determined people. Every publication which has come out since the James Commission has indicated that the only party with grassroots support outside in the community is the NPP.

It is here and I shall read it out for the benefit of the hon member for Red Hill. I quote from the Weekly Mail of 23 December 1988 to 12 January 1989:

I repeat the words “is clearly”. Hon members cannot take a decision here and talk in the absence of a man. They must include him in this debate and allow him to be present and to defend himself.

Earlier on the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in his own words that “Solidarity has spent money to bring about the commission”. There is a question mark behind that.

I can make use of Parliamentary privilege now. When I said this publicly … [Interjections.] Mr Justice James did what he wanted to at that time. Now I can say what I want to say, and I still say that there were forces that bankrolled the James Commission. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said in his own words that “Solidarity has spent money”.

Mr Chairman, that is a very serious allegation. I did not say that. All I said was that we incurred legal expenses. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition denies having said that and I would like the hon member for Lenasia Central to withdraw those comments which he made applicable to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, in view of your ruling: May we also call for the Hansard later on for an explanation in this House?

Order! We are all hon members of this House. Hon members must accept the word of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when he denies having said that.

Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling. I, too, consider myself an hon member and I wrote down verbatim what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware of the fact that some time in the 1940s Pandit Nero was sentenced to jail by a White judge and thereafter became Prime Minister of India?

Yes, I am aware of that incident.

He was charged with extortion.

The report of a commission is not conclusive. We are all aware of that. That is the bottom line here.

We are aware of the conclusions made which are conclusive.

That is the hon member’s interpretation and he is entitled to it. This is a political conspiracy and a political struggle between two parties. There has been bad blood between the hon members for Reservoir Hills and Arena Park for a number of years. We are aware of that.

There is good blood between the two of you, all right!

Excellent blood! In fact, we have the same blood group, and I have no regret in saying that.

Who is sucking the blood of the public? That hon member!

Nowhere in the report of the James Commission is it stated that it has been proved that the hon member for Arena Park has enriched himself or accepted money in any transaction whatsoever. [Interjections.]

We are talking about the hon member for Arena Park. We are not talking about other people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am going to rely very heavily on the report of the James Commission and its findings. I am not going to refer to any editorials or newspaper articles, because they complement, rather than detract from the findings of the James Commission.

Let us look then at what the report of the James Commission says on page 4 in reference to the hon member for Arena Park. It says, and I quote:

Quote examples of where he lied.

I will quote them for you.

On page 9 Mr Justice James said, and I quote:

It was manufactured by Solidarity!

Mr Pillay was bought by Solidarity!

Furthermore, Mr Justice James in his finding said, and I quote:

On page 21 he says, and I quote:

Is that not a person who enriches himself?

Read the terms of reference!

I am going to read them to you.

Order! I want to appeal to hon members not to indulge in sideshows. The hon the Minister of the Budget is on his feet. If there are any questions or points of order, kindly raise them, but please refrain from sideshows.

On page 53 the report says, and I quote:

Let him be charged for it.

Mr Chairman, do you want to hear more about what he did?

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

Sir, I have very limited time. What was the recommendation of the James Commission? On page 87 Mr Justice James recommends, and I quote:

That is his opinion!

On the strength of that alone the hon the State President took the action to dismiss him as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and member of the Ministers’ Council, and here we are making out a case in defence of an hon member who has misled this House in many instances! In fact, he has brought discredit to this House by his actions, and here we are speaking in defence of him! I doubt whether one can show oneself to have any integrity in this matter.

Happily for us, Westminster traditions have been retained in the present constitution. The Westminster tradition states very pertinently, and I quote under the heading “Punishments Inflicted on Members”:

What does the hon member Mr Nowbath speak of? He speaks of the high ideals of the Westminster system, of British democracy.

British democracy says this is the action needed by a House which shows responsibility, and we are bound by a tradition of our own convictions. We need to do what is right.

Very briefly, I want to say to the hon member for Lenasia Central that when the hon member for Reservoir Hills called him a juvenile, I came to the hon member’s defence, knowing that he was a newcomer to this House. Today I regret having defended the hon member for Lenasia Central. He has repeatedly shown his juvenility and infantilism in this House. The hon member does not act like a Member of Parliament.

The hon member has committed a serious crime by saying outside this House that the James Commission was bankrolled for R2,8 million. He repeated in this House what he had said and the inference was there that the Commission had been bankrolled.

I want to say to the hon member for Lenasia Central that he must grow up. He will pay the penalty for his utterances. One does not attack a commission; a commission whose chairman was the hon Justice Neville James. [Interjections.] He has had thirty or forty years of experience on the Bench, and he says in this report that it was the unhappiest experience in his lifetime as a judge sitting on the Bench having those witnesses produced before him by the hon member for Arena Park—the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council at the time. He had the saddest experience of people telling lies to the Bench. It was absolutely embarrassing that this was so.

It is indeed a sad day for me that I should be contributing in the manner that I am. Let me apply balm to the wounds inflicted by myself in the earlier debate, and as I do now. I agree that we need to have another look at the notice of motion put forward by my colleague the hon member for Havenside.

We are human beings, Mr Chairman. We will, in these last moments, still give the hon member for Arena Park an opportunity to realise his folly. Did the hon members realise the implications of the statement of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in the Chamber of Parliament yesterday? It is aimed at those hon members who abuse their public offices.

Perhaps that committee will, before it comes out with its report, make the punishment retrospective to the day when some members had been discharged. Whatever little in the way of gratuities and so on is due, the hon members should take advantage thereof otherwise they will lose out. Therefore I think the warning is there that we should give the hon member for Arena Park an opportunity.

Let him consider his folly. Let him consider the serious position in which he places himself. It is incredible; it is horrendous that a man who has been tainted as he has, can continue to be a member of this Parliament.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I do not wish to interrupt the hon the Minister of the Budget, but the hon member for Lenasia Central said in an interjection that Mr Justice James had been bribed. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Lenasia Central make a statement to that effect?

No, sir.

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central denies it, and the House will have to accept his word.

Debate concluded.

Order! I just wish to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that I have had some conflicting requests here over the past few minutes, and in order to be able to resolve finally what the different parties intend doing, I shall suspend proceedings for five minutes.

Business suspended at 11h57 and resumed at 12h13.

Order! Before we proceed with the question, I just wish to point out that with respect to the amendment moved by the hon member for Springfield, the following words contained in the amendment are out of order and will be deleted. The words are: “without any remuneration or compensation”. In terms of the Payment of Members of Parliament Act, 1974, the salaries and allowances of office-bearers and Members of Parliament are determined by the State President.

Amendment put.

The House divided:

AYES—21: Bandulalla, M; Bhana, R; Chetty, K; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Pachai, S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Ramduth, K; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Jumuna, N; Moolla, Y.

NOES—21: Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Cader, D; Collakoppen, S; Dasoo, I C; Devan, P I; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Lambat, A E; Manikkam, E J; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Nowbath, R S; Padayachy, M S; Pillay, C; Rampersadh, H; Shah, M S.

Tellers: Baig, M Y; Nadasen, P C.

During division:

Order! I wish to inform hon members that this is the first time in the present circumstances that the Chair is being called upon to bring out a casting vote. I think we have a tradition here that the Chair takes no side whatsoever. Unfortunately the guidelines do not place the Chair in a position where the Chair does not have to take a decision. The guidelines stipulate that the Chair must take a decision. We cannot leave the question before the House hanging in the air.

This being so, I merely want to point out the following to hon members: As far as casting votes are concerned, section 62 of the Constitution provides that:

There are certain principles which have guided the Chair in exercising a casting vote. One of those principles is to keep the question open for subsequent decision of the House. I am unfortunately placed in this invidious position, but I believe that the greatest degree of fairness should be exercised from the Chair. In order to do that, the Chair will have to try and keep the question open for subsequent decision of the House, without prejudice to anybody. I will therefore have to cast my vote against the amendment.

There being an equality of votes, the Chairman exercised his casting vote, voting with the “Noes”.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put.

The House divided:

AYES—21: Bandulalla, M; Bhana, R; Chetty, K; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Pachai, S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Ramduth, K; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Jumuna, N; Moolla, Y.

NOES—21: Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Cader, D; Collakoppen, S; Dasoo, I C; Devan, P I; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Lambat, A E; Manikkam, E J; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Nowbath, R S; Padayachy, M S; Pillay, C; Rampersadh, H; Shah, M S.

Tellers: Baig, MY; Nadasen, P C.

During division:

Order! The result of the division is an equality of votes. The main question is therefore not yet negatived and I would once again just briefly like to inform hon members that I am again guided by the principles and the guidelines laid down.

I may add that I have consulted the officials before coming to any decision. The attitude is naturally to keep the question open for subsequent decision of the House, and therefore I shall have to exercise the casting vote against the main question. I want to thank hon members for their co-operation today in the most trying and difficult circumstances, which I truly appreciate.

There being an equality of votes, the Chairman exercised his casting vote, voting with the “Noes”.

Main Question negatived.