Mr. Speaker, just before the House adjourned last night, I was replying to a statement by the hon. member for Rissik. He alleged that the NP had severed its historic links with the past and had now accepted power-sharing as a policy for the first time. I asked the hon. member for Rissik why he did not want to accept the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister that co-responsibility is a form of power-sharing that is poles apart from the PFP’s concept of power-sharing. However, the hon. member has the right not to accept it if he does not want to.

The hon. member did say that power-sharing is not an entirely new policy of the NP. He said that a few years ago Prof. Piet Cillié and Prof. Nic Olivier—who at that stage was still a member of the NP attempted to introduce power-sharing with the Coloureds in this Parliament. However, I pointed out last night that long before these two gentlemen appeared on the scene, power-sharing was an integral part of the policy of the NP.

What went wrong?

I pointed out that Gen. Hertzog, the first leader of the NP, supported the retention of the Coloured vote throughout his public career. I also pointed out …

Was it also power-sharing when the Coloureds were kicked out of this House? [Interjections.]

I pointed out that Dr. D. F. Malan advocated powersharing in this House in 1928. Perhaps it would be better to say that he advocated the retention of Coloured representation in this House and that he also advocated that it be extended to Coloured women and to the northern provinces. If the hon. member is interested—I do not have the time to quote it now—he can go and read Dr. Malan’s speech of 2 March 1928 in Hansard. He will find it in Volume 10, column 1648.

It is also a fact that in the thirties Dr. Malan changed his standpoint and that he then advocated separate voters’ rolls and separate representation for the Coloureds in this House. Is that not also power-sharing?

Where do you stand today?

I want to know from the hon. member for Rissik whether this is power-sharing or not. How can he allege that it is only now that we want to introduce power-sharing? [Interjections.] It is also a fact that the late Mr. Strijdom applied this policy of Dr. Malan in this House, and that the Coloureds were represented here by White representatives. It is also a fact that Dr. Verwoerd continued with that policy. As the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare stated here last night, Dr. Verwoerd also indicated that he was thinking of eventually allowing Coloureds into this House to represent their own people. [Interjections.] Now I want to know from the hon. member for Meyerton whether or not that is power-sharing. Yet he has now broken away because of power-sharing.

And what about Mr. Vorster in 1968?

The hon. member for Sea Point wants to know what about Mr. Vorster. It is true—as a matter of fact it is already part of history—that Mr. Vorster was the one who abolished Coloured representation in this House. In its place he established the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Is that powersharing?

No, that was not power-sharing. [Interjections.] After all, the CPRC was not a success. Hon. members know that one of the most important reasons why the CPRC was not a success was in fact that the Coloureds always considered it to be something that had been imposed on them by the White Parliament and that they did not have a say in its establishment.

You remind me of the old United Party in so many respects! [Interjections.]

It is also true that the hon. member for Rissik—of all people!—as a member of a commission submitted a proposal signed by himself in which he requested that a body be established in which, the Coloureds could have a joint say in the establishment of a constitutional dispensation in which they would have co-responsibility. He signed it in his own hand writing: H.D.K. van der Merwe. Is that not true?

Yes.

Good. I am glad that the hon. member agrees with me about this.

Just wait, I shall refer to that myself.

You had your chance yesterday. Why did you not say anything about it then? [Interjections.]

All that the hon. the Prime Minister has said now is that this co-responsibility the hon. member for Rissik advocated is a form of power-sharing. Even a child in Std. 6 could confirm that this is to.

You should never have signed that proposal, Daan!

It is true that this form of power-sharing may be a watered-down form of power-sharing, a watered-down form of the old concept of power-sharing of General Hertzog, Dr. Malan, Mr. Strydom and Dr. Verword. Nevertheless it remains power-sharing. Now the hon. member for Rissik is running away from his own creation; now he is afraid of the product of what he created.

What happened on 24 February of this year was a tremendous shock to our people and gave new hope to those persons who seek the downfall of the NP. The hon. member should just take a look at the cartoon in today’s Argus. Our people have been thrown into confusion and there is a crisis of confidence. Many of them are sceptical and cynical, and in the process the image of the public representative has been dealt a heavy blow.

I accuse the hon. members of the CP of doing the interests of this country an incalculable disservice. I do not want to sound too sombre. I have visited quite a number of constituencies recently, and at the moment I am full of hope that tremendous good can come out of this evil, because there is new motivation among our people. Nevertheless, I contend that this split came at a most inopportune moment.

You said it was a cleansing process.

It is a cleansing process.

It took place under circumstances which are unacceptable to us and for a purpose we regard as reprehensible. [Interjections.]

That hon. member is a liar.

It came at an extremely inopportune time for us. Forces are building up against us.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs must please stop making interjections.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister inaudibly call me a liar?

Did the hon. the Minister say that?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I withdraw it audibly.

Before I was so rudely interrupted I was referring—and now it almost sounds like an anti-climax—to forces building up against the Republic.

Was Chris lying, then?

Order! What did the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs say?

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member for Rissik whether the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs was lying … [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon. members of the CP were with us not only in speaking about these forces building up against us, but also in speaking about it from public platforms. However, in times such as these they prefer not to be part of the solution, but rather to be part of the problem.

In Psalm 78, verse 9, we read that the children of Ephraim—hon. members need not sigh; I am not going to preach—being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle.

Read Ecclesiastes 10, verse 2. [Interjections.]

I can tell that hon. member what is written in Ecclesiastes 10, namely that one must be right and not left, or something of the sort. I do not know whether the hon. member’s exegesis … [Interjections.] However, I am prepared to set up exegesis of Ecclesiastes 10, verse 2, against that of the hon. member.

On the day of battle the children of Ephraim turned back, and now in the heat of battle those hon. Ephraimites opposite have turned back, and I hold this against them. They were with us in trying to identify the problems of our times. Together we sought solutions, but when it seemed as if the solution was in sight, they turned back, and I hold that against them. Together we sought maximum unity in the NP. Together we were concerned about that besetting sin of the Afrikaner, namely conflict and strife, quarrels and dissension in our ranks. Together we hoped that we would reach a stage in our evolution where we would be mature enough to outgrow these things. After all, they know how this conflict paralyzed and humiliated our nation in the past. They know that at a time such as this, when unity should be the watchword, they are now splitting up, and I hold this against them. They know that we all tried to promote centripetal forces in our nation, and now they have become part of the centrifugal forces. Those who used to build are now breaking down. Those who used to fight with us are now turning their weapons against us. I hold it against them that whereas formerly they supported us in wanting to allay the confusion in people’s minds they are now creating further confusion. I find the circumstances under which they walked out, completely unacceptable. There is only one circumstance in which it is justified for one group to split from another, and that is when there are deep-rooted differences. I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik whether there are deep-rooted differences in principle?

Yes, there are differences.

Do they involve power-sharing? I want to tell the hon. member that we have never said that we want unity at all costs. We have always believed that the truth transcends the need for unity. Over the years it has been our standpoint that we must bring together those people who belong together by inner conviction. However, what has happened? On the other side of the House there is a small group of hon. members who have rejected the NP and who made an abortive attempt to hijack the NP in the Transvaal. Those hon. members did not accept the invitation to return to the NP, but preferred to split and establish their own party. However, now that party is proclaiming the principles of the NP from its platforms. What sort of morality is that? I want to say immediately that we have no objection to anyone adopting our principles, because there is no copyright on our principles. In any case, we are marketing these principles in such a way that they will be acceptable to most people. But the CP could at least have acknowledged the authorship of the principles. We object to that. At least they need not have removed the NP label from the principles and offered them a tremendous fanfare as though they were newly found truths which had been hatched out in the Skilpad Hall.

I find the aim and the result of their action reprehensible. One can speak of sowing disunity, of causing strife and of creating confusion. However, I want to confine myself to the results affecting all of us in this House—and every other public representative—namely the harm that has been done to the image of the public representative. A crisis of confidence has arisen. Today there is an enormous question mark in the minds of our people regarding the credibility of their public representatives. People are becoming sceptical and cynical. They have endured so many shocks, they do not know whom to trust any longer. People are questioning the morality of the public representative.

The hon. member for Waterberg said the hon. member for Pretoria Central is not the man to teach him morality, and I am not that man either. It is true that the hon. member for Waterberg and I studied reformed ethics with the same master. We learned that what one should at least be consistent, that one’s yes must mean yes and one’s no, no, and that reservatio mentalis is absolutely reprehensible. Recently events have taken place that run counter to the most elementary principles of ethics. We are still staggering under the shock of the Information scandal, where things took place which cannot be defended before God or man. A leader of a province stood up in this House and told a deliberate, blatant and infamous lie …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw those words.

I am not referring to anyone in this House, but to someone who may possibly become a leader of a party later. This person has been repeating the same refrain outside this House ad nauseam: My conscience is clean. What sort of morality is that? What do people think of their public representatives? Do the norms that apply to ordinary people, not apply to us?

The hon. member for Waterberg defended himself when he was asked how the same person can eloquently refer to his Prime Minister as “’n arend wat bo die storms uit-sweef” and then, at Nystroom, say that even the angel Gabriel would not reconcile them. The hon. member asked: “Was I being false when I said that?” Elementary logic teaches one that one cannot make two contradictory statements both of which are true. Our people do not understand this sort of morality; I do not understand it and no one will understand it. Worst of all is when someone tries to excuse this sort of behaviour. There sits the hon. member for Meyerton. I want to tell that hon. member quite honestly: He has lost something of the lustre I once thought he had. Yesterday the hon. member tried to excuse his behaviour. He wanted to utter a panegyric about the NP; yesterday he himself said he wanted to become lyrical about the NP. The ink with which he had written that motion had not even dried before he was rejoicing about shackles that had been broken and saying that he would chase this self same Government from Dan to Bersheba, and he thought it was a huge joke. Our people do not understand this sort of morality, and I am glad they do not understand it. We do not want to understand it either. I am not saying this from a moral pedestal. When the hon. member was speaking yesterday I said to myself I must ensure I do not fall as well. I am not saying this from a moral pedestal. I am saying this to myself, I am saying this to hon. members on this side of the House and I am saying this to hon. members on that side of the House: We must watch ourselves because other people are watching us.

Mr. Speaker, one has listened with interest to yet another contribution, this time by the hon. the Deputy Minister, to this very strange, unreal and ironic debate in respect of power-sharing in South Africa. I find it interesting, ironic and strange that this debate should be taking place between members of the Government party and the new CP. However, one must look at the background of the history of the NP and the whole history of power-sharing. I remember sitting in this House in the 1950’s when there were great debates throughout the nation about removing the Coloured people from the common voters’ roll. I remember later Coloured representatives coming into this Parliament. I remember later those Coloured representatives being taken out of this Parliament as a result of the actions of this Government. One thinks back, too, of the so-called Native representatives who sat in this Parliament and who were removed because it was found that this was to be a White sovereign parliament and there was no part for other race groups in this House. Yet here we have a situation where we are talking about power-sharing, and it is ironic that the NP Government, which has gone out of its way over a period of 20 years and more to avoid power-sharing, should now be accused of doing too much in the sphere of power-sharing in South Africa. We have talked about whether the Coloureds should be dealt with or whether the Indians should be dealt with, and in all of this, as the hon. member for Houghton said yesterday, the major population group in South Africa, the Black people, are again left entirely out of this debate as if they do not exist in South Africa. It is totally unreal and extremely ironic that we should have this debate taking place during this week. However, I shall refer to aspects of that matter later.

There are two matters that I want to deal with specifically. The hon. the Minister of Finance may be surprised, but the first issue relates directly to his budget. I think it is about time that somebody talked about the budget. The second issue relates to a matter for which the hon. the Minister of Finance is also responsible, this time wearing his political hat, but I shall come to that later.

I now wish to deal with the first issue which does relate to the budget and to fiscal policy. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister, in reporting on and recording some of the problems with which he has had to contend in balancing his budget and meeting his commitments, made reference to the problems of the Public Debt Commissioners in providing the assistance which he sought. The matter was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville the other day, but I want to pursue it further because it does seem to be a problem area. I believe there is need for clarification in regard to the fuctions of the Public Debt Commissioners and in particular the relationship between the commission and its depositors or its investors. I understand that these number something like 700 and they include various para-statal institutions, local authorities and, of course, the S.A. Transport Services, as it is now known. I want to say that on the evidence available to us and from the references made to this matter in the hon. the Minister’s speech, there appears to be an alarming lack of co-ordination between some of the major investors with the fund and the commission itself. This is an aspect that seemed to become particularly acute in the first quarter of 1981 when the hon. the Minister was faced with severe problems of liquidity, and it is being freely talked about with growing concern in financial circles. Because of this, I believe there is a need for the hon. the Minister to give us some clarification on the operation of the fund and the relationship between the commission and its investors. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the commission is receiving the degree of co-operation from its investors which is necessary to enable it to perform its functions, particularly in terms of financial stringency. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that this co-operation is being received? In his speech, the hon. the Minister referred to “unexpected withdrawals and smaller net inflows of funds”. This was in regard to the commission. When dealing with the deficit, he had this to say—

He went on to say—

Later on, when dealing in his speech with the shortfall of R700 million in the expected investment in the fund, the hon. the Minister said—

He then went on to say—

Therefore, the hon. the Minister has named two unexpected areas of disappointment in regard to the availability of funds when they were required, namely, the Strategic Oil Fund and the South African Transport Services. The hon. the Minister said, to quote again from his speech, that as a result of this non-availability or unavailability of expected funds—

The effect of this was apparently that the Reserve Bank was, of course, utilized and, once withdrawals had been made from the Reserve Bank—I am talking particularly about the last quarter of last year—and had found their way into deposits with commercial banks, I understand that the formula for credit which is 8:1 in respect of deposits made came into operation as a result of which there was an escalation in the inflation spiral. That seems to have been the position in the last quarter of last year and I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with it when he replies to this budget debate. The hon. the Minister must tell us whether this is correct. If it is, then the no-option resort to which the hon. the Minister referred must be seen in a particular perspective. If it is not correct, then the hon. the Minister must tell us what the other effects of the need to resort to temporary bank credit were under those particular circumstances. Either way, however, there does seem, from the hon. the Minister’s own remarks, to be a need to look at the reliability of the Public Debt Commission Fund in assessing the availability of funds in times of stringency.

This is not a criticism of the commission or of the fund itself but rather of the reaction of its investors to the needs of the time and the co-ordination between all those concerned. I want to ask once again: How reliable are the estimates of investments insofar as the Public Debt Commission is concerned? How reliable can they be? Can they enable the Government to manage the economy in an effective and businesslike manner as hoped for in one of the legs of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville? When one looks at this history and having listened to the remarks of the hon. the Minister in introducing his budget, the impression is created that when the need was there for liquidity of funds, during the fourth quarter of last year particularly, there was surprise at the lack of expected funds; in other words, the anticipated funds were simply not there. The statute in relation to the Public Debt Commission is very clear. The commission consists of the Minister of Finance as chairman, a Railway Commissioner and one other nominated by the State President. One wonders in these circumstances why there should have been a suggestion that there was surprise at the unexpected unavailibility of funds when the need was there.

The two sources quoted by the hon. the Minister where there were unexpected shortfalls were, firstly, the Strategic Oil Fund and secondly the S.A. Transport Services. In the first instance I am told that not only were the estimated investments with the Public Debt Commission not made, but that withdrawals by the Strategic Oil Fund exceeded investments. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us, when he replies, whether this is correct, and if so, could this not have been foreseen?

As far as the S.A. Transport Services are concerned one must look at its record of investments with the Fund. If one looks over a period of three years, the Transport Services Capital Account with the fund reflected at the end of March 1979 a balance of R897 million. On 31 March 1980 that balance was R1 238 million and on 31 March 1981 it had increased to R1 546 million. During the 1981 year, up and till March 1981, deposits of some R1 800 million were made, but withdrawals had increased to a figure of R1 498 million which was a very considerable increase over the withdrawals of the previous years which amounted to only R985 million.

The figures for the year ended 31 March 1982 are obviously not available to me, but it is clear from what the hon. the Minister has said in his budget speech that the contribution to the fund by the Transport Services which had risen dramatically in the previous two years, fell far short of expectations. I believe the short-fall must have been somewhere between R200 million and R300 million. I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s comments on that.

One comments on this bearing in mind that the S.A. Transport Services finance their own capital programme and they have their own depreciation fund. In these circumstances one wonders what reliance, in the light of the experience of the hon. the Minister last year, can be placed in future on the S.A. Transport Services by the Public Debt Commission in regard to future investments and how accurate estimates of any future investments from this source can be.

Again one sees an element of surprise and one wonders whether there should be surprise. One wonders also how it is possible to budget as to what is likely to be in the fund and what co-operation is being received from the various bodies which invest in it. This does seem to point once again to a lack of control or a lack of co-ordination or a lack of proper budgeting. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with this when he replies to the debate.

I now want to come to another matter which, as I have said, is not directly related to the budget but in which the hon. the Minister has a responsibility wearing his political hat. The matter I want to raise concerns the whole question of the Buthelezi Commission which is of particular concern to us in Natal. In addition it is of course of tremendous significance for all the people of South Africa.

My colleague the hon. member for Sea Point dealt very effectively with various aspects of this matter earlier during the debate, but I believe it merits much more attention by this House, not only because of the nature and the contents of the report, but also because of the timing and the historical background against which the commission was appointed and against which it conducted its deliberations.

Here was an exciting initiative taken at a very critical period in our history when race relations are strained as never before. The initiative was taken by the elected and acknowledged leader of the largest ethnic group in South Africa in an attempt to seek a basis for peaceful co-existence at least in one major region of South Africa. It was an exciting initiative, but from the outset the Government has treated that initiative with a degree of arrogance and disdain which I believe amounts to gross irresponsibility and which I also believe places at risk the possibility of continued peaceful coexistence for the people of the province of Natal. The Government has turned its back on the initiative from the start and has moved from one blunder to the next in its reaction to the commission.

The first blunder was when it refused the invitation to participate in the deliberations of the commission. That was the first blunder. The Government also did so in the most arrogant way possible, by telling Chief Minister Buthelezi that he should confine his investigations to KwaZulu and should not involve areas and people outside the jurisdiction of the KwaZulu Government. That was the basis upon which the Government said it would not serve on the commission.

Can you justify that?

Certainly I can justify it, and I am about to do so. Is the hon. the Minister then suggesting that it is correct to tell Chief Buthelezi to look after his own interests in KwaZulu because Natal is none of his concern? The whole object of this commission was to seek initiatives, to find peaceful coexistence in the two regions, Natal and KwaZulu, which are totally interdependent in every way and which will always be so. For that hon. Minister and his Government to tell Chief Buthelezi and his people not to concern themselves with the problems of Natal and its people is arrant nonsense. Chief Buthelezi is not a foreigner. He is not the head of a foreign State. He is a South African national and he and his people are as much part of Natal as I and my people are, and the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole should realize that, but no! At the time the Government knew better. They were the people who said Natal had nothing to do with him and they would therefore have nothing to do with the commission. That is the Government that is so ready to accuse others of indulging in boycott politics, yet they decided to boycott the commission, because that is what it amounted to. [Interjections.]

Look how the NRP is rushing to the defence of the Nats.

They boycotted the commission by saying the matter had nothing to do with Chief Buthelezi. If that was not boycott pohtics, what is? [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the same Government which, at the present time, is involved in a debate about “magsdeling” or “power-sharing”. Those hon. members were not even prepared to accept an invitation to participate in a commission dealing with the future interdependence of KwaZulu and the province of Natal. They could have participated in its deliberations. They could perhaps have tried to influence the commission. It was, after all, a fully representative commission, a commission representing all sections of opinion in Natal, all race groups, quite unlike other commissions or councils. It was a fully representative commission dealing with the interests of every single race group in the province of Natal. The Government could therefore have made use of that opportunity, perhaps to try to influence the commission and convince the commission that the policy of the NP was the right policy, or if they did not succeed, they could have submitted a minority report. They did not, however, do anything of the sort. They did none of those things, because they had decided that the Zulu people, whether they liked it or not, had to confine themselves to the geographic limits of KwaZulu.

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

No, my time is very limited. [Interjections.] I want to deal with a party that is relevant in South Africa and not with interjections from that sort of party. To his credit Chief Minister Buthelezi proceeded with his initiative, despite rebuffs from the Government, and appointed a high-level commission. To their credit, representatives of a very large cross-section of Natal, and of South African public opinion, took part in the commission’s deliberations. If the hon. the Minister knew anything about the people of Natal he would acknowledge that it was a widely representative commission and that there were people of all races represented on it. There were people representing the widest possible spectrum of public opinion, including businessmen, industrialists, educationists, agriculturalists and so on. It was no commission of lightweights or of political left-wingers. It was a commission of people of various shades of opinion who applied themselves objectively to providing a blueprint for interdependent KwaZulu and Natal. Yet, within days of the report being made public, the Government rejected its main recommendations via a terse statement by the hon. the Minister in his capacity as leader of the NP in Natal. It was an outright rejection and the reason he gave was that the recommendations did not conform to NP policy. They talk about their policy, but they ought to know that their own policy has been totally rejected by the overwhelming majority of the people of Natal and KwaZulu. That policy has been rejected for a number of reasons, one of them being that it is manifestly unworkable. If the Government rejects the facts flowing from the interdependence of Natal and KwaZulu…

How can that be when we got the biggest number of votes in the last election?

Because the vast majority of the people in Natal are not on the voters’ roll. That is why. It is a very simple answer. I am talking about people, the people of Natal, and they have rejected it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must tell us why it is that they will not even consider this commission’s report. If they continue to reject it …

What are the recommendations?

… I believe we will have reached the very desperate situation where we will be heading for confrontation, and in these circumstances …

Order! Hon. members must stop interjecting now.

In these circumstances I urge the Government to have a rethink and to have another look at the commission, because I believe it is essential that we should move away from the collision course which we are set upon before we reach a point of no return.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea raised two matters with the hon. the Minister of Finance, in his additional capacity as leader of the NP in Natal. The hon. member asked the hon. the Minister why the Government had rejected the Buthelezi Commission and had been unwilling to serve on it. Now I want to put a question to the hon. member for Berea. He is accusing the Government of having been unwilling to participate in a non-statutory commission or body, but that hon. member represents a party which rejects a statutory body such as the President’s Council and refuses to serve on it.

There is a vast difference.

No, there is not a vast difference. The President’s Council is a body created by this Parliament. It is a statutory body that has to inquire into political matters. However, the hon. member’s party refuses to serve on it.

Allow me to go further. Chief Buthelezi has accepted the post of Chief Minister of KwaZulu. He serves as Chief Minister of KwaZulu. He therefore accepted the post of chief minister of a specific area and he is responsible for that area.

As part of South Africa.

No, he did not accept a post as minister of South Africa. He did not accept a post as minister of Natal either. He accepted a post as chief minister of KwaZulu and he is therefore responsible for that area. Now the chief minister comes along and appoints a commission that deals with matters outside his area. That is why the Government refused to serve on that commission. However, I shall leave the matter in the able hands of the hon. the Minister of Finance as leader of the NP in Natal. I think he will reply to it.

Yesterday I listened with great attention to the hon. member for Meyerton. I do not begrudge him his enthusiasm for his new political home. Nor do I begrudge him his political viewpoint, he is entirely welcome to it. It is quite clear to me that he and his colleagues are now much happier people. I can understand why they are much happier now; it is because they are no longer a party within a party. It is always very difficult when one finds oneself in such a position. I can understand that they feel much happier now because they can put their case openly and there is no longer any need to hold secret meetings. In his speech yesterday the hon. member for Meyerton referred to two institutions in the community and said that those two institutions have pledged their support to the CP. He referred to teaching staff … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may not make constant interjections across the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is not always. This is the first time for some time. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Meyerton referred in his speech to two institutions in the community, which, according to him, had pledged their support to his party. He referred in the first place to teaching staff. The hon. member said this quite clearly. He also referred to ministers of a certain circuit. However, the hon. member omitted to say what circuit it was. I assume that it is a circuit of the NG Church, for in the Reformed Church they do not refer to a circuit, but to a classis. Today I want to make a very serious appeal to the hon. member for Meyerton to leave these two institutions out of party politics. The hon. member and I served together on a church council. I am sure that both of us have a great love for our church. That is why I believe it would be wrong for us to involve our church in this political struggle. I want to give the assurance that we in the NP shall not involve the church. However, I must say that if ministers are prepared to do this openly, we can expect problems and our church, for which we all presumably have great affection, might be harmed in the process, and will eventually be the party to suffer.

I want to put it to the hon. member for Meyerton and his hon. colleagues that there is absolutely nothing wrong with conservatism. A conservative approach or attitude to life is a splendid thing. There is nothing wrong with it. However, conservatism can also be extremely ugly. It can be particularly ugly when it is used to accommodate and shelter selfishness. Conservatism is at its ugliest when it claims everything for itself and grants other people nothing.

Now I am under the impression that there are people in the CP who want to grant people of colour very little if anything.

That is because they are afraid of people of colour.

Mr.Speaker, I do not think that I am wrong.

You are definitely wrong.

I think I have made a very honest deduction. I have come to know many of those hon. members over the years and I must say that they are afraid of people of colour. There is also a spirit and attitude of fear of people of colour among them.

It is not true that we do not want to give them anything.

Very well then, you also want to give them something. However you want to give them as little as possible.

How did you arrive at that?

Hon. members of the CP want everything for themselves. However, they want to give people of colour absolutely nothing or virtually nothing. We must all bear in mind that in South Africa race relations will always be the fundamental issue. The relations problem in politics will always be with us. We cannot eliminate it. It is there and we must learn to deal with it. The problem in regard to race relations in South Africa cannot be solved unless there is goodwill.

Now I have noticed that the CP is going to beat a drum that bodes ill for proper and sound race relations in this country. Already one hears then alleging that the NP has abandoned separate development. In other words, those hon. members are now appealing to our people, to the Whites, and specifically the Afrikaner, to accept that the NP and the Government is now giving everything away, is abandoning everything.

Of course that is true.

They are immediately unleashing a feeling of hatred among Whites for people of colour. They should think about this. The hon. member for Rissik says he is a man of principle. He must concentrate on points of principle and give very serious thought to these matters. After all, this is what is going to happen in South Africa, and it will not argue well for me or for any of them.

I contend that we have in fact brought about changes. We have brought about changes to the policy of separate development. We brought about those changes at the right time. We brought about changes in our sports policy. Nowadays we have international competition and people are prepared to participate in sport in this country. I make no apology for this and I am prepared to proclaim and to defend these changes from my public platform and in my constituency. Last year during the general election over 6 000 voters in the Oudtshoorn constituency approved these changes. I did not shy away from them but spoke about them openly.

Tell us about the Cango Caves.

Perhaps that hon. member should be imprisoned in those caves. [Interjections.]

We should also bear in mind that political stability is an indispensable requirement for the general welfare of any country. It is of the utmost importance to South Africa with its complex population structure. Political stability is of the utmost importance to this country. If we do not have political stability, the entire machinery of state will collapse and the forces seeking to wreak havoc will flourish. We must therefore realize that there are forces at work in the world, and in South Africa, that want to disrupt law and order in this country. The hon. member for Lichtenburg will agree with me on this point because as a member of the Cabinet he received a great deal of information. He knows about the forces at work. This afternoon I therefore want to tell the hon. members of the CP that their break-away from the NP was welcomed in the ranks of the forces seeking to destroy this country. [Interjections.] It was welcomed in their ranks, because the break away from the NP by those hon. members meant a weakening in the constitutional, political stability of this country. Whereas those hon. members and I should have stood together to strengthen this political stability, to consolidate it and to enlarge it for our own sake and for the sake of our children they took this opportunity to break away from the NP.

Let us put this question this afternoon: If our machinery of state were to collapse, and if the forces seeking to destroy this country, were to take over the country, what would remain? If this were to happen what interests would remain to be protected? Recently in a television programme the hon. the Leader of the CP said his party would protect the interests of the Whites. That is quite in order, and it is also our aim. As a matter of fact it has been our aim for many years. However, if political stability disappears and the machinery of state collapses, and the forces seeking to destroy and cause chaos, were to take over, what interests would remain to be protected? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg would not be there to protect me and I should not be there either. There would not be any interests to protect our children.

Ferdie, then the Kappie Commando would not be there either!

Under the NP this country has enjoyed political stability for 34 years. We can compare South Africa to innumerable other States where coups and economic collapse are the common occurrence. Here at the southernmost tip of Afrika there is a strong and powerful country, with political stability and a strong economy which can offer living space to all its people.

One can ask how we achieved this. The NP, the Nationalist Government, achieved this because there were purposeful attempts to find political solutions. There was no stagnation in the NP.

The hon. member for Meyerton said he had intended to introduce a motion. As a matter of fact it was on the Order Paper and we read it. In that motion he wanted to convey his thanks to the Government for everything it had done in the political sphere. In this way he wanted to acknowledge that this Government and the NP had never stood still, but were constantly seeking solutions. During this period of 34 years many parties have come and gone in this House. Many more never even reached this House. The question is: What was the reason for their downfall? The reason for this was that they lacked understanding of the Republic’s political problems and they did not have a political policy which offered security. That is why many of these parties disappeared. After the 1974 elections the United Party had 47 members in this House. But since then that party has totally disappeared because it did not have the answers to South Africa’s political problems. Other parties came into existence, some amalgamated, but they came and went because they could not offer security. The NP also lost people—as we in fact have just done—mainly for three reasons.

We lost those people who were totally one-sided in their approach to constitutional and political problems: those people who only wanted to safeguard the interests of one population group and ignored the others. We also lost those people who were afraid of the future. They were afraid they would go under. We also lost those people who had a tremendous prejudice against others. These people huddled together, hid in corners and then left the NP. I do not say that they are necessarily the hon. members of the CP. But these are the people the NP has lost over the years. The NP and the Government stood firm in an honest and sincere search for solutions to our problems. There is a golden thread running through the 34 years of NP Government: An honest and sincere search for political solutions. We followed basic guidelines and acted carefully, but without avoiding problems. We progressed step by step in the interests of South Africa and all its people. We have not yet cut the Gordian knot or solved all the problems. This afternoon we cannot say that we have a perfect political dispensation, because there are still many problems requiring our attention.

What has the NP and the Government done for the Black nations of this country? We have recognized their ethnicity, their language, their culture and their traditions. If one does this, one recognizes human decency and gives people an opportunity to survive. Over the years we have believed in one course for the Black nations—we have followed that course—namely the course of self-realization leads eventually to independence.

I have always greatly enjoyed the speeches of the hon. member for Barberton, and he has made some excellent speeches in this House. However, his heart was not in the speech he made yesterday. Occasionally the hon. member did not quite know how to finish the speech. The hon. member said we were not able to consolidate the Black homelands and that we were also going to be faced with political demands from Black people. Surely it is our policy that Black nations are bound to the specific areas where they have settled over the years. We have said in this House—and it is also our policy—that we want the Black nations to be independent so that they can exercise their political rights there.

The hon. member also said that for many years we have been creating a climate for drawing the Coloureds towards the Whites. We were not creating a climate, but were honestly seeking a solution for almost 3 million people who have no political representation. Must one merely let this situation continue? Would we have been satisfied if this had been the case with our own people?

The hon. member also asked: What about the Asians? Surely they are involved and represented in the President’s Council. We agreed together—the hon. member for Rissik and I served together on the Constitution Commission—that a single political dispensation should be worked out for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. As regards the Coloureds in this country I want to make it quite clear this afternoon that the NP and the Government have always rejected a homeland, a separate land for Coloureds. The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare quoted yesterday what the late Dr. Verwoerd once said when he referred to this matter, and I should like to quote it again. He said—

The previous Prime Minister also had something to say about this when he opened a session of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council in 1974. He said—

These were the words used by the previous Prime Minister, and they meant that Whites and Coloureds would have the same geographic area. They must find a political dispensation there together. This has been the policy of the NP over the years. That is why we reject a Coloured homeland in any form. I think it is an absolute waste of time to toy with this idea.

This afternoon I want to make an appeal in all earnest to the hon. the leader of the CP to spell out his party’s policy as regards the Coloureds as soon as possible, because they are causing tension in the relationship between Whites and Coloureds, a relationship we have been working on laboriously and I am grateful that over the past 1½ years I have had a share in this. It took time and effort. I am also able to say that there is tremendous goodwill among those Coloureds who are prepared to co-operate.

I want to conclude by putting the following question to the hon. members of the CP: In their so-called chequer board policy, are they going to follow the path of self-realization which leads to eventual independence? Are they, as in the case of the Black nations, and although there are between 200 and 300 group areas for Coloureds, and they have their own tracks of land—I know there are geographic links—when they speak of their chequer board policy, when they speak of separate group areas for Coloureds—that this is their area and territory—going to grant them independence? If they are not going to do so, then they are being unfair, unjust and dishonest to 3 million people.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very great privilege to speak after the hon. the Deputy Minister. One cannot but agree 100% with every word he said. The speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister provided much food for thought, not only for hon. members in the CP, but for hon. members of the other Opposition parties as well.

Pretoria, Sir, is a very interesting place with many interesting people.

It becomes more interesting by the day.

Last Saturday it was a Saturday in Pretoria when the Springboks played against the Jaguars. The previous Saturday had been a Saturday of tortoises and lions. Since our return from Pretoria to this place, we now have a lion from Waterberg, as well as a lion cub in Waterberg, a lion from the Northern Transvaal, a lion from the Western Transvaal, a lion from the Cape Province and a lion from the Eastern Transvaal. The lion from the Cape Province is, however, as the hon. Chief Whip has said, not really a lion at all. He has another name for the lion from that area. The previous week we had a kudu from Nylstroom.

Animal crackers!

Now we have here a few lions, a kudu, and the crow. [Interjections.]

It was very interesting and informative to have been able to listen to this debate over the past few days, a debate which dealt mainly with two concepts, the word “powersharing” about which I shall have a little more to say later, and the expression “AWB”. I would be grateful if someone could just tell me what this “AWB” means.

Andries’s woolly beliefs. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Rissik’s speech and I want to say that I have a high regard for that hon. member. The hon. member for Rissik is an honest and sincere person. He says what he is doing and he does what he says. The hon. member for Rissik told us that in 1977 he, together with a former member of this House, Mr. Cas Greyling, made out a case to Prime Minister Vorster that the 1977 proposals, the constitutional proposals of that year, contained elements of power-sharing. Mr. Cas Greyling, the then member for Ventersdorp, was adamant that he was not in favour of power-sharing as contained in those proposals and he resigned from the NP. The hon. member for Rissik said that Prime Minister Vorster gave him the assurance that those proposals did not contain elements of power-sharing. Although he knew that they did, he stayed on in the NP. The hon. member told us this yesterday.

A big question now arises for me. We are all waiting for the recommendations of the President’s Council. If those recommendations are presented in May and they are acceptable to the Government, the caucus and the congresses of the NP, but they are also acceptable to the hon. members of the CP, would those members then return to the NP? [Interjections.] No, Sir. The hon. members of the CP will not return even if the recommendations of the President’s Council are acceptable, because that party and its members have a history.

In 1969 we also had a split in the NP and it also resulted in a meeting in the Skilpad Hall in Pretoria. A week before the meeting in the Skilpad Hall there was a gathering in the city hall of Pretoria North on 8 October 1969. Former Minister Ben Schoeman wrote as follows about the people involved in what happened on 8 October 1969—

Then Oom Ben said—

The hon. member for Waterberg said that when the fly-half takes a gap, the centre will not leave him in the lurch. However, Jan Jooste forgot that the hon. member for Waterberg played scrum-half.

The comment of Mr. Gert Beetge a week after the event was that the NP should take care, and these were his words—

And then he did.

Last year we had a general election on 29 April. The nomination of candidates took place in March, but in February quite a number of candidates were known. At that stage it was also known who would stand in which constituency, for the HNP too. However, on 4 February it had still not been announced who the HNP’s candidates in Rissik, Sunnyside and Waterkloof would be. This caused the political correspondent of the Pretoria News to ask Mr. Jaap Marais who were going to be his party’s candidates in those constituencies. The comment read as follows—

It was reported as follows—

Were they “joiners”?

Even if the recommendations of the President’s Council are acceptable to all, including the members of the CP, they will not return, for they have not been part of the NP for a long time. In November 1980 the then member of the Provincial Council for the Waterkloof constituency in Pretoria, Dr. Piet Goosen, was the subject of discussion in an article in Hoofstad, and I quote—

Just when Tom had said that he was such a loyal bloke.

I quote further—

Listen to this—

It was said that plotting was going on to oust Ministers from their positions in management committees. Is it true that at the meeting on 6 October, 1981, the day of the by-election in Piketberg, plans were also being made to bedevil the hon. the Minister of National Education’s political future at that congress?

No, even if the recommendations of the President’s Council are acceptable to all of us—and also to them—we shall not see them in the NP again.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Hercules. When he referred to all the various animals represented here in this House, I thought that he was going to come to the conclusion that this was an example of healthy power-sharing, but he did not do so.

As the last speaker of the CP in this debate, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank my colleagues, who spoke before me, for the example they set and for the self-discipline they displayed in restraining themselves, at times under tremendous provocation, from launching personal attacks on hon. members on the other side of this House. [Interjections.] I also wish to thank them for the fact that they succeeded in stating the CP’s case. I should like to say that I have never before been as disparaged as I was yesterday and the day before. Strong language was used here. It was said that we were intriguers, that we were casting about in the dark, that we were un-Christian, that we lacked integrity, that we were backbiters, etc. Now one asks oneself: How does one reply to something like that?

Just give the facts.

Yes, I am coming to the facts. I wish to say that I am not going to make an effort to reply to that, as I can understand that the hon. members opposite are unhappy. Therefore, instead of replying, I shall rather turn the other cheek, and say to the hon. members that if it would help, they may slap the other cheek as well. [Interjections.] If this party is really as bad as the hon. members say, I do not believe it was necessary to point it out. In that case, they could have left it to the voters to deal with us.

We are still going to do so.

Then whole branches of the NP would not have come over to us.

Hon. members opposite said that we walked out only because of a word. I want to say that on the morning of 24 February I was on my way to the caucus, just as on any other day, suspecting nothing.

And the previous evening?

The previous evening I was at home. As I say, I was on my way to the caucus, suspecting nothing, and in that caucus—it cannot be denied—I made a serious effort on two occasions to try and ward off the crisis. However, when I left that caucus, I found that I had been expelled. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

Yes, Sir, I was suspended from the caucus and I had the choice of returning if I accepted certain things which I, and the party to which I belonged, had always rejected. That was the condition.

The issue was a motion of confidence.

I am glad that the hon. members on the opposite side are getting so excited.

Why are you twisting the truth so much?

I am now going to try and tell hon. members the truth. As regards what my hon. colleague over there is saying, I want to say …

He is no longer your colleague.

I wish to say to my former colleague that one should try to retain one’s perspective. On the evening that the hon. new leader of the NP in the Transvaal and the hon. the Minister of Law and Order were in Lichtenburg to skin me alive—he and I have often appeared on platforms together—and he had finished stating his case, I said to myself that he had only used half of the facts. Do you know what was so ironic then, Sir? I said to myself that I was going to use the other half of the facts when I spoke. That is why it is important that we …

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

… concentrate on the matter of issue and not on the man, that we state the facts and that the voters then have the opportunity …

[Inaudible.]

Oh shut up, Heunis! [Interjections.]

I am not saying that those hon. members must not state their case. Let them state their case, but let us do this in an adult and respectable fashion.

Order! What did the hon. member for Sandton say?

I told the Minister to shut up. He was making so much noise.

It is not the hon. member’s function to maintain order. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister was disturbing me, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

What has happened now, had happened before too. We must not allow this to humiliate South Africa. We should assume the standpoint that instead of gripping one another by the throat, attacking and besmirching one another’s characters, each one should rather state his own standpoint. We should do this man to man. Then let the voters decide. This is how it is done in an adult way.

No one besmirched your character. [Interjections.]

What I am therefore going to do now …

Why are you accusing me, then?

I wish to state very clearly that we did not break away from the NP because of a single word. We broke away because of the most fundamental principle in South African politics, a principle which has always assumed the most central role in politics. It is whether there should be one Government in South Africa in which everyone is represented, which governs everyone, or whether there should be separate Governments which govern the different groups, in an equal way, of course.

What do the proposals of 1977 say?

I will tell the hon. member what the proposals of 1977 say. The proposals of 1977 did not make provision for one Government.

Of course not.

They did not make provision for one Government; neither at the lowest, the middle or the highest level.

You are talking nonsense.

The proposals of 1977 made provision for a Council of Cabinets, which would have no executive power. [Interjections.]

Where do you get that from?

It would have no executive power. [Interjections.] It would be a Council of Cabinets which would not even be appointed by the State President as such … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am merely giving the facts. Of course, one could pull those facts apart. I want to know where in the proposals of 1977 it is stated that the Council of Cabinets would be appointed by the State President and would be vested with executive power. [Interjections.] When we read the proposals of 1977, we see the following—

In other words, it would be an ad hoc body, which, from time to time … [Interjections.]

That is not correct.

It is written there. [Interjections.] It is written that the Council of Cabinets will function on the principles of a Cabinet Council, a council which met from time to time. [Interjections.] Hon. members will recall this little pamphlet which I have before me. It is the NP pamphlet in which we informed the voters what they would be voting for in 1977. Under the heading “Bangmaakpraatjie no. 5” it says—

To transfer, yes. [Interjections.]

Yes, Very well, that is true. I quote further—

They are therefore members of the Cabinet of their own Parliament. [Interjections.] However, let me continue. The NP says that they did say this. At that time, I was with them in saying this. However, I still say this, but they no longer say this. I quote further—

If hon. members wish to face facts, they must reply to the question whether this is a Government or not. Is this not a Government with executive power? It has no executive power. It is not even appointed by the State President. It functions on an ad hoc principle. [Interjections.] There would therefore not be one Government.

Is this true?

There would not be one Government.

Say that again! [Interjections.]

We said that this was not power-sharing, because powersharing, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it when he was still Minister of Defence cannot be promoted within the same bodies and organizations. He said that division of power could indeed be promoted. However, power-sharing could not be promoted within the same organization. Of course, I agree with these words of the hon. the Prime Minister.

May I ask you a question?

Mr. Prime Minister, no one has yet replied to a question in this debate. You will therefore excuse me if I, too, do not reply to a question. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House have little time at our disposal.

I am glad you realize that.

Separate representatives of different groups within the same organization or within the same government which governs everyone, constitutes political power-sharing. Moreover, it is political integration. This is precisely what it is.

Now tell us what your policy is.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp will get a very big fright when he hears what our policy is. [Interjections.] It is quite clear that those hon. members are mortally afraid as a result of what the CP has achieved until now, and we have not even been in existence for two weeks! That is why I am glad that I will not be in their position after we have had the opportunity of formulating our policy in detail. [Interjections.] All of us who were Nationalists, have rejected power-sharing in unequivocal terms, just as the hon. the Prime Minister rejected it in this pamphlet. He said—

That is unequivocal rejection. By the way, I wish to mention that the pamphlet which I quoted just now with regard to the Council of Cabinets—“Bangmaakpraatjie No. 5”—was drawn up by my friend. Although he has not been so friendly towards me recently, he is still my friend.

That cannot be!

One of the best speeches ever made in this Parliament since I have been serving here, was made by the hon. member for Benoni. Hon. members should just listen to what he said about power-sharing. He said—

“Advocate formulas for power-sharing”. But is this not what hon. members of the NP are doing now?

We have always defined power-sharing.

The hon. the Minister is right. His power-sharing is not their power-sharing, but it is still a formula for power-sharing.

We defined the formula we rejected. [Interjections.] It is their power-sharing we rejected …

That is quite correct. The NP’s power-sharing is not theirs, but the NP still has a formula for power-sharing. Listen to what the hon. member for Benoni says about formulas for power-sharing—

Not only their formula, that formula for power-sharing of the NP, but also other formulas have been tested all over the world, and have been found wanting. At that stage, an hon. member interrupted the hon. member for Benoni and asked “What about Switzerland”, to which he replied—

However healthy they may be!

… onuitvoer baar en verkramp”. I agree with that hon. member when he says that this is a verkrampte PFP because they advocate powersharing. However, the NP have also chosen that path now. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite now maintain that they are reformers, but I say they are not, because the hon. the Prime Minister said at a Cape congress that what South Africa needed was a unique solution to the problem with regard to the Coloured, the White and the Asian. At that time, I agreed with the hon. the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, it inspired me when he said that.

That is why you resigned from the Cabinet.

However, what the hon. the Prime Minister has done now, has not been to find a unique solution. He stole a piece of the PFP’s policy and added it to the NP’s policy. [Interjections.] And what do the NP have now? Now they have the right to self-determination and power-sharing. They now have two policies. To those who want self-determination, the NP says: “Here it is”, and to those who want power-sharing, they say again: “There it is”.

Tell us about coresponsibility.

I want to say to that hon. member—he can ask the hon. member for Benoni about this—that one cannot have total power-sharing as well as the full right to self-determination. These two concepts cannot exist side by side.

[Inaudible.]

Then we agree. The more power-sharing one has, the less right to self-determination one has. History has proved that where power-sharing and self-determination are applied together, power-sharing is victorious every time, while the right to self-determination falls away.

Self-determination concerning one’s own affairs.

In the long run, self-determination falls. Where do we have the best example of this? Five years ago, the people of South West Africa decided to apply the principle of joint decisionmaking. This is how they arrived at the Turnhalle Conference. They dealt with their own affairs as well as affairs of common concern. However, before they could apply the Turnhalle decisions, they decided to dispense with them, and to proceed with the handling of matters of common concern, and to decrease domestic matters. Today, after five years, they are on the point of a “one man, one vote” election. This is the rate at which things take place. I walked out of the NP—a party which I loved and for which I worked—not to harm South Africa, but because I firmly believe that the formula which is being applied at the moment, is going to plunge South Africa into chaos. I believe in the full right to self-determination for the Coloureds and the Indians. We are prepared to accept the necessary challenge to achieve this. That is reform, and a return to the basic principles of the NP.

Hon. members of the NP say that we tell the voters only what they want to hear. In the presence of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs I told my voters that the path we want to follow is not an easy path, but that it is in fact, a much more difficult path than that of the NP. Our path is going to require more sacrifices and inputs, but it is a path which holds a future for South Africa.

What path?

That party and its predecessors has been in existence for 70 years, and all they could think up in that time, was power-sharing. The CP has only been in existence for two weeks.

What have you thought in all the years you have been here?

Hon. members of the NP have the shakes, because, just like us, they realize that the constitutional future of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians is an unsolved problem. Everyone realizes that that problem requires a solution. The NP has not come forward with solutions, and therefore we all realize that in the course of South Africa’s constitutional development, we have now entered a new phase. Someone will have to take the bull by the horns and refuse to go the way of powersharing, a path which has already led to chaos and misery everywhere. Someone will have to apply and go through with the principles of the NP, which has led South Africa to great heights and to being a giant in Africa, which made the country stable and which caused justice to prevail in respect of the various races. When the NP says that we begrudge people everything, they are making a big mistake. We do not want anyone to have inferior rights; we do want them to have equal rights.

Let us, then, be bad. We are not going to blow our own trumpet, but, in our own humility, even if we are bad, and whatever we are, we pray for light and guidance to serve our country to the best of our ability.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to my former colleague, and it is with a feeling of sadness that one has to experience this day and this moment. It gives me no pleasure that a situation has developed where we have to oppose each other. However, politics is a game of realities and is concerned with the realities of our lives. We are faced here with a situation where the hon. members of the CP were unable to accept the leadership of our leader-in-chief, the hon. the Prime Minister.

That is not true.

We are faced here with a situation where the hon. members of the CP would not affirm their loyalty to the hon. the Prime Minister. These are the hard facts.

That is not true.

The only question that was put to those hon. members was whether they were loyal to the leader under whose banner they had been elected.

That is not true.

They will not get away from that. It is the truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

During the last election, those hon. members stood on platforms and affirmed their loyalty to the hon. the Prime Minister. They campaigned under his banner.

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. the Minister admit that I asked in the caucus whether we could not divide that motion into two parts so that we could express our confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister and discuss the other things when the time was ripe?

I shall tell you what happened. I want to help the hon. member. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs rose in the caucus and said that the matter at issue was confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister and in his leadership.

No.

And the hon. member for Lichtenburg supported it.

What?

The hon. member for Lichtenburg also said that if a dispute were to arise about the proposals of the President’s Council, that was not a matter which was before the caucus. What was before the caucus that day was the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister and the 1977 proposals. There was no deviation from those. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that to some extent he went along with that.

No, you are talking nonsense.

An opening was then created by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

But they did not want to take it.

Then the hon. member for Rissik jumped up and said that he could not express his confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister under any circumstances.

No.

Yes. [Interjections.]

That is a lie. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Kuruman say it was a lie?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I will not withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member must then withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

(Whereupon Mr. J. H. Hoon withdrew.)

I am going to repeat what I have just said. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs created an opening so that the hon. members of the CP could support the motion. He expressly stated that what was before the caucus that day was a question of confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister and in his leadership, and in addition, the caucus still stood by the 1977 proposals that day. That is the whole point.

No.

Oh, are you saying I do not know?

That is not the truth.

I can understand that, because I do not know about all the meetings that were held in secret. I was not informed of them. I do not hold secret meetings. That was what the court found after the accusation that had been made against me.

Who was your candidate for the Premiership?

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Inaudible.]

The difference between me and that hon. member is that I do it openly while he does things in secret, like the meetings which he held and like his lobbying here during the days before that caucus meeting. At that stage he was still an MP Whip. I say to his face that he tried to influence members to turn against their PrimeMinister and to vote against him. I shall call the witnesses.

Very well. I accept your challenge.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg says we differ abour principles.

Of course!

He says we have lost our nerve and the electorate will decide.

Yes, it will.

If that is the case, I just want to point out that those hon. members who are sitting there were elected under the banner of the NP under the leadership of Mr. P. W. Botha. That is the point. They were elected under the banner of the hon. the Prime Minister.

And his principles.

And his principles. That too. But now those hon. members are running away from the policy of the NP and from its leaders. They should now resign their seats and go back to their voters. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are no longer under the banner under which they were elected to this House of Assembly. That is the point. [Interjections.] On their ballots was written “National Party”. However, “National Party” no longer appears behind their names. If those hon. members over there wish to do the honourable thing, they should now resign their seats and go to the voters. I cannot understand why they should have any objection to this. I say this because the hon. member for Lichtenburg told us that he was not afraid, because the electorate would decide. I believe those hon. members should do the honourable thing. They should resign their seats and we should fight those by-elections. [Interjections.] I repeat that we are not afraid of the electorate. We should like to hear from the electorate.

Pietie, where are you going to get a seat?

Really, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston is so irrelevant in this debate. I think he should rather keep to his small group. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Lichtenburg told us that they had to leave the NP. He also said that the fact that we had said that there could be only one Government in the country constituted a deviation—if I may call it that—of which we were guilty. He also said that in terms of the 1977 proposals, the Council of Cabinets would not be an executive Cabinet. Am I correct in saying this?

It was the Transvaal leader who said so.

Wait a minute. The hon. member said that that Council of Cabinets would have no executive power. That is the point which the hon. member made.

But it says so in this pamphlet. [Interjections.]

Just give me a chance. I now want to quote the previous Prime Minister in this connection. On 12 April 1978, that Prime Minister, who was then the chief leader and interpreter of NP policy, spoke in this House. He adopted a clear standpoint in respect of this matter in this House and this side of the House accepted it as its policy. What did Mr. Vorster say? In this connection I want to refer hon. members to column 4548 of Hansard of 12 April 1979. The previous Prime Minister was reacting to interjections and questions by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When the previous Prime Minister was asked whether this Council of Cabinets would have a legislative function, he replied as follows—

He went on to say—hon. members must listen carefully to this—

I hope the hon. members are listening attentively to this. He went on to say—

That is not executive power.

Just wait a minute. The hon. member for Sea Point must just be patient for a while. The hon. member need not give so much support to those hon. members of the CP. Since they are new bedfellows, he should be on his best behaviour to begin with. The previous Prime Minister went on to say—

But it does not have executive power.

So that is what you say?

Yes, that is what I say.

Very well. The previous Prime Minister went on to say—

[Interjections.] He went on to say—

Surely this is quite clear.

No, it was not so clear.

Yes, it was quite clear. The hon. member should not take refuge in semantics now. We are now dealing with the facts. [Interjections.] That was what the previous Prime Minister said. To me this proves that those hon. members did not quite agree with the previous Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Oh yes. Even about the 1977 proposals there were differences between those hon. members and Mr. Vorster.

Let us ask him. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is he saying here? The advantage of this place is that what one says here is placed on record, which is not the case when one makes a speech at Marble Hall, or anywhere else, with the result that when such a speech is reported, one can extricate oneself from any embarrassment with fancy footwork and semantics. What Mr. Vorster said in this House at the time has been placed on record, so there is no need for us to ask him; we quote him in this House. And the way I know him, he will stand by what he said.

I want to go further with the hon. members. We are dealing here with some fundamental principles and premises. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg a question in all fairness. The hon. member and I get along very well personally.

Yes, I still owe you a meeting.

Yes. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg whether he agrees with the concept of “joint responsibility” as we use it in respect of the new constitutional dispensation.

It is not quite clear how you use it. [Interjections.]

I do not want to place the hon. member in a difficult position; I want to be fair. Does he accept the following statement—

Does the hon. member stand by that?

Yes. [Interjections.]

Perhaps I should ask the hon. member whether he still stands by that.

I stand by that. At the same time, it does not mean that one should stand still in history.

Wait a minute. The hon. member says he agrees that the concept of a separate state for each of them is not practicable. Now I go on—

At the beginning of this undertaking, it is said under point 4 of the programme of action—

I assume that the hon. member stands by this as well.

I stand by that, but the interpretation …

Order! The hon. member for Waterberg is not allowed to give an explanation at this stage.

Mr. Speaker has ruled that I cannot reply at this stage. I shall have to reply later.

It is easy enough; tell us right now.

We shall come to that.

I shall help the hon. member. I am not going to pin him down now on the interpretation …

No, you will not pin me down.

…of the question of joint responsibility. I do not want to pin him down; I want to conduct a meaningful debate with him about the matter.

You will just have to carry on with your speech. The Chair says that I am not allowed to answer.

Sir, the hon. member and I now have the chance to settle a dispute between us across the floor of the House in a fair and thorough manner.

But you are on your feet, and he is not allowed to speak.

If the hon. members are beginning to feel uncomfortable, they should be silent.

The hon. member signed this and his picture also appeared with it. The hon. member cannot deny that he signed it. I will read—

But there is no power-sharing.

I am coming to the power-sharing.

I have now obtained a document entitled “Die program van Beginsels van die Konser-watiewe Party van Suid-Afrika”. I understand that it has been distributed as a public document. Let us consider point 7. Point 7 of the programme of principles—and this is the cardinal point I am trying to indicate—says—

The words I am looking for here, however, are “joint responsibility”. [Interjections.] No, wait a minute, those hon. members signed a manifesto and accepted the concept of “joint responsibility” in respect of the Asians, the Whites and the Coloureds. [Interjections.] They also accepted that there were matters of common interest. They accepted that in this manifesto. Subsequently, however, they produced a new programme of principles, and in it they say that they only accept economic interdependence, cooperation, consultation and mutual aid.

That is correct, isn’t it?

No, wait a minute. There is a very big difference. [Interjections.] Are they running away now from the words “joint responsibility”? [Interjections.] That is the crucial question, [interjections.] That is what is at issue. Are those hon. members prepared to include in their new programme the words “joint responsibility”, as contained in the NP manifesto?

We do not understand power-sharing … [Interjections.]

No, wait a minute. [Interjections.] They must not run away now. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are going to answer me now.

Order!

We are here and we must debate this point with one another.

Yes.

They signed a document in which the words “joint responsibility” were used in respect of the Asians, Coloureds and Whites.

Is that power-sharing?

I am talking about joint responsibility. We can talk about powersharing presently. [Interjections.] Do not evade the issue. [Interjections.] They have drawn up new principles here.

No, they are not as new as you may think.

I ask why they have omitted the words “joint responsibility” from their new principles.

Because you interpret it to mean power-sharing. [Interjections.]

Now we are coming to the point. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why are those hon. members running away from the concept of “joint responsibility”, which they accepted as their principle for years?

We do not interpret it to mean power-sharing.

That is not the point. I am asking why they are running away.

That was what you did.

Order!

That is typical of the political philosophy and standpoints of the members of that group.

They are all running away.

As soon as they are confronted with realities, as soon as they can no longer speak in vague terms, as soon as they can no longer use eloquent slogans which are well-founded ideologically but which are actually meaningless …

Then you capitulate.

.… then those hon. members run away. I want to ask that hon. member why he is capitulating. Why is he running away from the concept of “joint responsibility” [Interjections.] Now we come to the cardinal point. Those hon. members say they left this party over a matter of principle.

Of course.

However, the crucial principle in the 1977-proposals was the question of joint responsibility, but now they are running away …

Power-sharing.

… from this established and traditional policy of the NP, and here is the proof. [Interjections.] We still stand by the election manifesto …

No, you stand for power-sharing.

… and they are running away from it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those hon. members are deviating from the election manifesto of the NP, and here I have the proof. They are afraid to write that word into their new programme of principles. [Interjections.] However, I want to go further. What is actually the policy of those hon. members for the Asians and the Coloureds? If they do not accept joint responsibility, what are the alternatives?

White supremacy.

What is the alternative?

[Inaudible.]

Oh no, wait a minute. It is a difficult problem we are faced with.

We can see that it is difficult for you.

The hon. member for Waterberg said he does not advocate a homeland and he still adheres to that. He put his signature to this document, saying that he was opposed to a homeland. [Interjections.] Or is he now in favour of a homeland?

No, he has said that he is opposed to a homeland.

You see, Sir, we must get the facts straight.

He talks about spatial ordering.

Is he against a homeland?

There are such things as geographic ties.

I want to know from the hon. member for Waterberg whether he still adheres to the principle which he subscribed to, namely that we historically share the same geographic area and that the concept of a separate State for each of them is not practicable.

[Inaudible.]

Very well, he still adheres to that. His dilemma is that there are two alternatives. The one alternative is to give the Coloured and the Asian groups a homeland each so as to give them full self-determination, but the hon. member himself admits that this is not practicable. Therefore the only alternative is joint responsibility.

What does that mean?

There is joint responsibility or there is White supremacy. Now I am asking the hon. members opposite whether they are prepared to incorporate the concept of joint responsibility into their programme of principles.

No, not as you understand it.

Wait a minute. How does the hon. member understand it? That is the point, Sir. The hon. member is therefore running away from the concept of joint responsibility.

Oh, no.

Oh, yes. The hon. members opposite are running away from the concept of joint responsibility. I want to state categorically that the hon. members opposite ran away from the NP because they took fright at the consequences of the policy which they had been supporting for more than 5 years. [Interjections.] They do not have the political courage …

To you, the consequence is integration.

Really, Sir, the hon. member cannot tell me anything about integration.

Yes, you know all about it.

The hon. member for Waterberg does not have the political courage to sell to the electorate the consequences of a policy which he advocated to me as my leader in the Transvaal.

I shall sell it again the way I sold it to you. [Interjections.]

Order!

I also want to ask the hon. member whether he still adheres to the standpoint that we are not trying to find reasons for estrangement or dissension and whether he adheres to the standpoint that those who stir up discord obviously do not have the interests of the NP at heart. That was what he told us at our congress. He said there were enough hostile people inside and outside South Africa who wanted to break and to split the NP and to prevent it from governing the country in terms of the principles and policy approved by the majority of the voters. At the congress in November last year he said: “Let us not play into their hands.”

You are pretending that nothing has happened.

Wait a minute. A great deal has happened. The hon. member has since left the NP. He also said: “Take, for example, the persistent attempts to make trouble between the Transvaal NP and the leader-in-chief, Mr. P. W. Botha.”

That is true.

And all the time he was undermining me.

Yes, all the time he was helping to undermine the hon. the Prime Minister’s position. That is the point.

He undermined everyone. That is the way it has always been.

Unfortunately, my time has almost expired.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

I challenge the hon. member for Waterberg and his colleagues—and if they are men of honour, they will take up the challenge—to resign their seats at once and to go to the electorate.

You should resign.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs must contain himself.

That is the way he is, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult for me to speak just after the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. However, I should like to take up the argument with which he concluded his speech.

Before doing so, however, I just want to address a few words to the hon. official Opposition. I think they are feeling a little neglected these days. However, they did so much, they worked so hard, to bring about a rift in the NP, that they must be feeling very pleased about it now. They have been working at it for a very long time, and now it has finally happened. However, they predicted a split, but what we finally got was only a breakaway, as the hon. the Prime Minister also said. The PFP must not be too gleeful about it, though, because the few votes which they gained in the last election they will lose in the next one.

Then I also wish to address the hon. members of the CP. It seems to me that we have a few problems here that are being caused by confusion about a concept, in the sense that those hon. members are inclined to see matters in black and white only. To them a matter is either right or wrong. For that reason they want to accept or reject a particular concept in its entirety. That is where their problem arose. As soon as the word “power-sharing” is used, their hair stands on end and they refuse to listen to another word. I want to talk to them seriously this afternoon. I have no wish to denigrate them personally. Nor do I want to make a critical attack on them. However, I should like to take hon. members with me on a little flight of the imagination in an attempt to illustrate my argument.

Suppose I received an invitation which was worded as follows—

Suppose that invitation was signed by Idi Amin. If I received such an invitation signed by Idi Amin, surely I would put an extra lock on my door, and convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order for the extra police guard at Acacia Park. However, if I received a similar letter which was signed, for the sake of argument, by Sophia Loren, surely it would put a completely different complexion upon the matter. [Interjections.]

Then you would tell the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to remove the police guard! [Interjections.]

It would be a different fragrance, not a different complexion! [Interjections.]

Idi Amin and Sophia Loren are both people. For certain purposes, however, the one is of considerably more use to me than the other. [Interjections.] In fact, the one is totally unacceptable to me, for a specific purpose. However, the other one is not unacceptable to me. [Interjections.] Of course it is a purely personal preference on my part which causes me to find one of those two people unacceptable. It is quite possible that someone else, who has a different approach to matters, may feel quite differently about it. Nevertheless, I am simply trying to illustrate my argument by saying that one and the same concept, which is actually an umbrella concept, may have different manifestations. One may feel, as the hon. the leader of the CP said, that one of these would be the death of one. I grant him that.

But when, in rejecting one form of a concept, one also rejects its other forms out of hand, one is closing the door to unimaginable pleasures, pleasures which one could have enjoyed if one had not closed that door.

That is exactly what is happening in this case. Various words are being used here, words such as “power-sharing”, “co-responsibility” and “self-determination”. All these words have more than one interpretation. The hon. leader of the CP himself conceded that there were two interpretations of the word “self-determination”. The one is the word “self-determination” in the sense which they accept and the-other one is the sense in which the PFP uses it. But he does not reject the word “self-determination” in its entirety just because the PFP also uses it. The same applies to the word “co-responsibility”. We have just seen what is happening. The CP shies away from the word “coresponsibility”, and in doing so, they are going to paint themselves into a corner, just as the NP painted itself into a corner concerning the concept of “power-sharing”, because we rejected the whole concept and, in doing so, threw out the baby with the bath water, until we were big enough to accept that there were different forms of powersharing, that there was a Sophia Loren and an Idi Amin. When we did that, we opened a door for ourselves again.

I should like to refer to one point raised by the hon. member for Barberton, and I want to talk to him seriously about it. I am not going to score petty political points off him in this connection. The hon. member for Barberton said there could not be self-determination as well as power-sharing. That is the big problem which he experiences. I concede that it is a problem in the sense that if one wants to make self-determination absolute or complete, and there are various groups in one country, one cannot have full self-determination as well as full power-sharing in that sense of the word. It is a problem, and the matter will have to be very carefully structured so as to do justice to the self-determination component as well as the powersharing component. I concede that in this respect, it will be a problem for the NP to handle the power-sharing element, co-responsibility, in such a way that it does not interfere with the essence of self-determination. This creates a problem for us, but the CP is faced with exactly the same problem. When the leader of the CP was asked to give a summary of his policy in a few words, he said “self-determination for the Whites and justice for all other population groups”. However, the CP is going to have the same problem, for the more weight they give to the component of self-determination, the more empty the justice is going to become. They will have to consider this matter very carefully. I do not expect them to reply to me now, but I ask them to consider this in the future when they are going to wrestle with their policy.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Pietersburg is not here at the moment, but I should like to mention a point which he raised, something which I consider to be a characteristic exposition of the CP’s basic view of the Afrikaner people. I quote from the Hansard of the hon. member for Pietersburg, where he said (Hansard, 29 March 1982, col. 3800)—

This is the Afrikaner nation, or rather, the “White nation”—

He goes on to define this conservative standpoint as being—

That is the basic idea. When the Afrikaners are cornered, they fall back on conservatism. In the meantime, they have become adventurous and carried out all sorts of explorations, but as soon as danger arises, they rush back and fall back on conservatism. I think it is a basic mistake to interpret the history of the Afrikaner through the centuries in this way, and this is going to be proved over the next few years. It is true that the Afrikaners, as well as the other White groups, have been cornered and that our future is at stake. What have we done in the past when this has happened? We have brought about renewal; we have not fallen back on an old policy. We have not fallen back on old forms. President Paul Kruger put it beautifully: “Neem uit die verlede wat goed en reg is en bou daarop jou toekoms.” However, this does not mean blind acceptance of things which used to work in the past. The fact that the Second World War was basically won with the 25-pounder does not mean that we must go on using such a cannon right into the 21st century. We must build Stalin organs and G5 cannons.

I want to read a few passages from Piet Retief’s manifesto. The manifesto was written on the eve of the Trekkers’ departure from the Cape Colony. Piet Retief says—

I think this is still the spirit in which we all wish to see the matter. Peace and friendship rule out domination, and therefore we must be very careful that what we do does not eventually amount to de facto domination. Piet Retief also said—

Although in Piet Retief’s case, this was meant fairly literally, it is still the best description I know of the situation in which the Afrikaners and the White people find themselves in our country today. Until recently, we were living in a country and under circumstances which were comfortable, but circumstances have made it impossible for us to stay there any longer. However, the solution of the Voortrekkers was not to build a Berlin wall around them, nor to return to Holland, France or Germany. Their reaction was to move forward with intrepidity and to create something entirely new. This was the reaction of the Afrikaner when he was cornered. Piet Retief also said—

I do not think we have any fault to find with that either.

In our calculations, we must not commit the basic error of wanting to go back, in troubled times, to a situation which used to be good in the past, because history shows that this is seldom possible. Once again today we find ourselves in a position where we have to move forward with intrepidity to meet a wild and dangerous world, and we shall do so with imagination, thereby building a new South Africa, one which will be more beautiful than the one in which we are living at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Helderkruin directed his speech more specifically at the hon. members of the CP. In principle he raised a very important factor here of course, viz. the question of the interpretation, not only of words, but also of the various nuances of principles and their flexibility. I shall not reply directly to that because, as I have said, his speech was mainly directed to the hon. members of the CP.

†The issue that I should like to raise does, nevertheless, follow in the same vein as that of the speech of the hon. member for Helderkruin, with this difference that the battlefield on which he fought his battle is slightly different from that on which I am going to fight mine.

I think it will be recognized by all hon. members of this House that the process of political reform in South Africa is the paramount issue both internally and externally today. Evidence for the essence and the criticalness of political reform in South Africa is reflected not in the least by the fact that there has been a split within the governing body. Externally the policies of South Africa are coming under the limelight and the magnifying-glass more and more, not the least in the case of South West Africa/Namibia. Therefore I think it will be agreed that this process of reform, which every party in South Africa recognizes as being necessary, demands a very clear stand indeed in respect of which party supports conflict politics and which party supports consensus. In that very definition of the support for conflict or consensus politics, every party must indicate which option it stands for. That refers to White, Coloured, Black and Indian political parties. Whether they admit or not in public, their policies are a clear reflection of which option they have settled for. That option can very specifically be divided into two groups, namely the conflict and the consensus group. In order to determine that one has only to look at whether in the process of reform a party is a pragmatic party, a realist party, prepared to adapt to changing circumstances in South Africa without sacrificing certain basic rights, or whether a party is a fundamentalist party, a party which stands on principle irrespective of the cost of the maintenance of that principle. Here in South Africa, in White politics, the area on which we are most qualified to talk about, we have a division of parties into these two clear groups. There are the pragmatists, the people who see reality as it is, and the fundamentalists. The pragmatists are, I believe, those people who support reform in the vein of consensus Government in South Africa. The fundamentalists are those who stand for conflict, because they are not prepared to bend and move away from the fundamental concept. The pragmatists say reform in keeping with the price that has to be paid.

Let us examine the fundamentalists in South Africa, because this is really what is going on in South Africa in White politics. We find there are two groups in the spectrum. The PFP represents fundamentalists and the CP represents fundamentalists. In that sense they have something in common. Both parties, although the one is on the right of the spectrum and the other on the left of the spectrum in South Africa, support a fundamental principle. The PFP says “reform at any price in South Africa” and the CP says “no reform at any price in South Africa”.

That is quite untrue.

Of course it is so. This is a fundamental issue in their difference with the NP. I am not attacking the hon. member. It is his right to be a fundamentalist. However, what we must examine are the consequences which flow from that. I should like to say that the PFP must itself admit that it is a fundamentalist party, that it stands by certain principles and that it will not deviate from them irrespective of the price of maintaining those principles. I think hon. members probably agree with that. I believe that they say: Reform at any price.

I should like to turn specifically to the hon. member for Sea Point in order to illustrate this. The PFP gave us a clearly defined document to illustrate their policy in practice. They signed that document unreservedly. There were no qualifications to it and therefore we must accept it as a definitive document of what the PFP stands for. In this regard I want to mention specifically the Buthelezi Commission and I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he had any reservations whatsoever about the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission.

Make your speech.

No, he did not. He had no reservations. [Interjections.] He did not indicate this in the report either. I should also like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he has any reservations in regard to the method which Chief Buthelezi advocates for the implementation of those recommendations. Has he any reservations? I ask this question because to date we have not heard a single word from the hon. member or his party criticizing or saying that it disagrees with what has been said by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi of KwaZulu. Therefore, in the absence of any such statements, we must accept that he does accept the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission unreservedly and also that he accepts the methodology for the implementation of its recommendations. That Buthelezi Commission recommends the transfer of power from the minority White group to a Black majority in one area of South Africa. The statement is always made that the PFP does not stand for one man, one vote in a unitary system. Is that correct? I put this question to the hon. member for Bryanston.

Quite correct.

They are not in favour of it. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Sea Point: What is KwaZulu, Natal as recommended by the Buthelezi Commission if it is not a unitary State? What is it? How many States is it?

You know, this is the first time I have seen Horace speechless.

What is it if it is not a unitary State? Where are the boundary lines? It is a unitary State, one man, one vote, and the chairman of that commission states specifically that ethnic groups will not be allowed. It must be done by means of what he calls “a voluntary association”. I ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether or not he disagrees with that. It is a unitary State. All the arguments advanced by the PFP re-emphasize the fact that KwaZulu, Natal cannot be administered except as a single area. It is a single area and it has one legislative assembly with 150 members elected by means of universal adult franchise, then that is one man, one vote in a unitary State. No amount of semantics can get rid of that particular argument. I want to say that the PFP stands condemned in White politics today. I say this not only because of their actions on the Buthelezi Commission but because of the disaster on the Johannesburg City Council.

Your party did marvellously well!

I want to ask the hon. members of the PFP why they only pay lip service to these principles.

You did wonderfully well, didn’t you?

I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that year after year in election after election his party states that they stand for consensus, that they stand for proportional representation and that they will negotiate a deal with other people in order to find a workable basis on which to manage South African policits.

That is what they say.

That is what they say, Sir.

Under a new constitution.

They say that they stand for proprotional representation and for government by consensus and that they are going to find consensus between conflicting groups. I want to ask the hon. members for Sea Point, Berea and Bryanston: What was the Johannesburg City Council management election all about if it was not proportional representation?

Under a new non-discriminatory constitution for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston invents new principles for his party every day when he cannot fulfil the old ones.

No.

Yes, of course. I should like the hon. member for Bryanston to tell us very simply: Do they stand for proportional representation and consensus government?

Under a new constitution for South Africa, yes. [Interjections.]

How is the hon. member going to obtain that constitution? What a disgrace, Sir, what an absolute disgrace that that party runs away from its own fundamental principle …

You ran away from your undertaking and that is a disgrace.

.… when all it had to do was to find consensus among White groups. That is all it had to do. It could not achieve it and so it ran away from it.

You ran away from your undertaking.

Let us put it on record that of the 47 seats of the Johannesburg City Council that party won 23. [Interjections.] The remaining 24 seats were won by the NP and independents. The division of seats was as close as one can get to 50:50, and yet when it was recommended that the management committee, which is not a political body, because it is there for administrative purposes …

Of course it is a political body; do not talk rubbish. You do not know what you are talking about.

I want to see the policy when it comes to putting up tariffs and rates on water, lighting and street cleaning. If that is politics, about which the hon. member is worried, then heaven help him when he gets to constitutional designs—he could not even get over that first hurdle. It was an absolute disgraceful performance by the PFP.

It shows how petty you are.

I must tell that hon. member what the hon. member for Sea Point said during the course of this debate. The hon. member for Sea Point got a big head of steam up because the NRP and the Government would not hand over the Whites of Natal to KwaZulu. This is what the hon. member said—

I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow what attempt he made to find consensus in the Johannesburg City Council. None!

Should I have joined the NP? [Interjections.]

The PFP had a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. There was no consensus, no attempt to negotiate. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Hillbrow is getting very excited because he knows that they can no longer substantiate their claims to represent proportional representation and consensus government.

Do you know what happened?

Of course we know what happened. The actions speak louder than words. What has the PFP done about the management committee?

You should read the speech I made last night. [Interjections.]

I should like to have a long discussion with the hon. member for Hillbrow because it is obvious that he himself can no longer support the policy of the PFP.

The hon. member for Hillbrow could not even speak his speech; how does he think one can read it? [Interjections.]

I should like to get back to the fact that the PFP and CP belong to the same camp, because when it came to the most important forum for constitutional consideration in South Africa, as was pointed out earlier on, a forum created by this very Parliament, they once again wanted to boycott it and they did boycott the President’s Council because again they wanted it on their terms—the Johannesburg City Council and the President’s Council. How much faith can we have in that party?

Where is your honesty? Why do you not stick to your words? You gave an undertaking and now you do not want to carry it out.

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow should contain himself.

Then the PFP gets up and hands over its mandate to negotiate for Whites to Chief Buthelezi. I want to wind up on a very serious note by asking the hon. member for Berea…

You are all wound up already.

… and the hon. member for Sea Point whether they stand for what Chief Buthelezi advocated on the radio and in the Press when he said that unless we agree to his recommendation he had the power to unleash chaos and bloodshed.

Blackmail!

He never said that.

Do those hon. members agree with that?

Of course not.

The hon. member for Pinelands says “Of course not”. [Interjections.] May I ask them, however, where they issued a statement disagreeing with Gatsha Buthelezi, because that was a very serious and dangerous remark for Gatsha Buthelezi to have made. Where did they publicly state that they disagreed with him? [Interjections.]

You did not know? Oh, incredible! [Interjections.] Your trouble is you do not read the newspapers.

Chief Buthelezi says that unless we accept his recommendations…

What did he say about the jackals?

I want to make it very clear that we have consistently offered the hand of negotiation to Chief Minister Buthelezi. It was he who turned down the meeting on 18 March. [Interjections.] Let me tell hon. members why. Chief Buthelezi had been influenced, to a large extent, by the PFP and its conflict-orientated politics. [Interjections.] It is a question of following their example with the President’s Council and the Johannesburg City Council. What did the Chief Minister say in The Star of 22 March? He said that unless the Whites agreed with him on the implementation of the Buthelezi Commission recommendations, which would mean a straight transfer of power from Whites to Blacks and therefore Black majority rule—

What did he say about the scavengers?

Let me ask the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Sea Point, who unreservedly supports Chief Buthelezi and his report, whether they accept that attitude.

You misquoted him.

I did not misquote him. [Interjections.] I have it here. I shall give him the report and he can read it for himself.

Are you the laughing hyaena?

We expect that party, as the official Opposition, to make its standpoint clear. Do those hon. members support Chief Buthelezi’s threat of violence and force to be exerted on the Whites?

You have no credibility left.

I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point, or even the next member in the PFP who is going to speak, to tell us whether the Buthelezi Commission’s political recommendations are the only recommendations that can be accepted in South Africa.

Of course not. Who said that?

Then why do they not come and negotiate in the other forums of South Africa …

If the other forums represented all South Africans we would negotiate in them. We have told you that a thousand times. You are a nitwit, man!

We shall expect the PFP to make a clear stand on whether they support Chief Buthelezi’s statements or not.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are taking turns to enjoy ourselves in this House. First this side was enjoying itself, then that side was enjoying itself, and now this side is enjoying itself again. [Interjections.] The hon. member who has just resumed his seat dealt comprehensively with the PFP and the falseness of its policy. [Interjections.]

You and the NRP are really courting each other.

As the hon. member pointed out, we are all concerned about the fact that as soon as the PFP cannot have its way, it resorts to a boycott action. They speak about consensus, but I am afraid that if they cannot reach consensus with Mandela, they will resort to a boycott action, just as they did in the case of the Johannesburg City Council, and will walk out and hand over South Africa to a Black majority Government. We now have two boycott parties in this Parliament, and it seems to me that the NRP will have to move closer to the NP and help us to spell out and work out the future of this country.

Last year I told the hon. the Minister of Finance that he had submitted the best budget I had ever seen in my life and probably ever would see. He very nearly proved me a liar because this year, under extremely difficult circumstances and taking into account realities abroad and in South Africa, he submitted such an excellent budget, gave so much and under the circumstances took so little that it was almost, although at another level and in another sense, comparable with the excellent budget he submitted last year. If it had not been for the fact that he and I have also had a few differences of opinion in the past, I would have said one could almost call him a financial wizard.

I should like to deal briefly with three aspects of the budget. The first aspect concerns pensions. I am grateful for the wonderful increases that have been granted. Every year the aged constitute a higher percentage of our population and every year they are in a worse position. It is no more than right, therefore, that the State should take such good care of the aged. However, it is very wrong of us as children and grandchildren to be so anxious to leave the care of the aged to the State. It is a disgrace that we South Africans have so little time for our elderly people and deny them care and love when they need it most. We South Africans must realize that it is the duty of every member of a family to care for his parents and grandparents, and that the State can only play a supplementary role in this connection.

The second matter I want to refer to concerns our public servants. The quality of our Public Service has always been the strength and the pride of South Africa. Inflation has begun to make inroads into this unimpeachable structure of our country and it is a good thing that the hon. the Minister has been able to find the means, under difficult conditions, to halt the further collapse of our Public Service by means of increased salaries.

The third point I want to touch on regards the development of the Border area and Ciskei. The hon. the Prime Minister has kept his word as regards decentralization. No matter how strenuously the hon. member for Yeoville and other Progs oppose and fight the development of the Border area and the Ciskei, it remains a wise decision and principle to distribute development, production and population as widely as possible throughout the country. It has been asked why we in the Border area vote for the Nationalists and what the NP Government has done for East London and its environs. The answer is to be found in the White Paper issued yesterday by the Office of the Prime Minister. It places the Border and the Ciskei at the top of the list in South Africa. More incentives were given there than anywhere else in South Africa. This is a plan and a framework which shows great vision and courage and which can bring about a new and greater South Africa, economic prosperity for everyone and better relations between Whites and Blacks. I am referring specifically to that area. It will lead to a new dispensation under a great Prime Minister who thinks big and acts big in a way we have never experienced in this country under any other Prime Minister. On behalf of the people of South Africa, and specifically the people of the Border area, I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and the NP Government. The money appropriated by the hon. the Minister of Finance for concessions will enable the Border area not only to compete on an equal footing with the Witwatersrand and other areas, but also, I hope, to overtake those areas. We are particularly grateful for the concessions regarding electricity. Electricity has been held up to us as the greatest single stumbling block in the way of development in that area.

†The resources are all there. All we need is the will to succeed, and also the understanding that East London cannot prosper in isolation. It should be understood that the development of Ciskei is a prerequisite for our own growth in the East London area. The understanding of this concept is very important. Higher priorities must of necessity be given to Ciskei. The Progs on the East London city council must understand and accept this, or otherwise they should get out and allow other, more competent people to do the job. They must in any case stop wasting the ratepayers’ money by flying to Cape Town every other week in order to come and take orders from their bosses in the PFP here in this House.

The two MPs of East London are perfectly capable of looking after the interests of East London from an administrative point of view. The Government has again proven that it cares very much indeed for the Border area, and specifically for East London.

I submit this is an excellent budget, and the frustrated and hysterical arguments to the contrary by the hon. member for Yeoville last Wednesday were ample proof of the excellence of this budget. We all know the fat cat mentality.

You should know.

Give a fat cat a bowl of cream with a cherry on top, and he will complain in a strident and loud voice: “Where is my second cherry?” [Interjections.]

*We all know that mentality, Mr. Speaker. However, we do not only have fat cats in this House. We now also have wildcats in this House. Do we not also have wildcats in this House? We all know what wildcats are. They are not really angry, but they can cause a great deal of harm. [Interjections.]

Just ask Willie van der Merwe!

In the White Paper we received yesterday, the Government has again proved that it is continuing to seek solutions, to build a future for Whites and Blacks in this country. The Government is doing this day by day, with care and through consultation with the Black people. Can you imagine any Black leader refusing to co-operate or to consult or to negotiate when it comes to the prosperity, upliftment and welfare of his own people, merely because no Coloureds are involved in that discussion? Can you imagine that? I cannot. We have long been co-operating with the Black people to work out a joint future here in South Africa.

However, we have got nowhere with the Coloureds so far. In this regard we have reached an impasse. Now that the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to break the shackles that bind the Coloureds, and to create a new future for them, the Progs come along—just as they have always done with regard to the Black people—and boycott the President’s Council. They withdraw from the body which must eventually work out a better and a just future for the Coloureds. Worst of all, however, is the fact that the Rev. Hendrickse, the leader of the Labour Party, has actually refused, under the influence of the Progs, to negotiate on behalf of his own people. The reason he has given for this is that the Blacks are not represented on the President’s Council. What next! A leader who sacrifices the interests of his own people because he is more concerned about the Black people than about the fate of his own people!

The Coloureds are South Africans. They are citizens of South Africa, fellow South Africans without whom South Africa cannot continue to exist or survive. The Coloureds are people, just like those hon. members and I, who also have a claim to rights and privileges.

And the Blacks?

I have already referred to the Blacks. That hon. member should open his ears.

Now we have a new party, the CP, and I do not know whether they are also under the influence of the Progs, because they are also boycotting. They are refusing to co-operate and to wait for solutions. They are refusing to listen to the solutions that are going to be proposed; they have broken away and are boycotting in advance.

What do the students at Stellenbosch say?

They do not want Van Zyl Slabbert!

They do not want to join your circus either!

This new party, the CP, is therefore refusing in advance to co-operate and to ensure a Christian and humane existence for the Coloureds as fellow South Africans in this country. On top of that, the hon. member for Meyerton had the absolute gall to stand up here and say that all the ministers and teachers support his party. This is a terrible insult to our ministers and teachers! [Interjections.] It is a downright insult to allege in this House that our ministers are so inhuman and so unChristian. I believe the hon. member for Meyerton owes our ministers and teachers an apology.

The Progs, the Labour Party and the CP have all forfeited their right to join us in discussing the future of the Coloureds, and to negotiate with us about a just solution to the problems of this country.

The NP wants to find sincere and just solutions, and the climate has never been better or the time more ripe than it is now. Whom are we to talk to, however? Whom are we to negotiate with? Whom are we to deliberate with if the CP, the Progs and the Labour Party boycott everything?

I want to come back to the NRP and the other South Africans, the moderate Coloureds, in other words, the majority group in South Africa. The NP will conduct calm and meaningful negotiations with this group. South Africa needs us all, and if the NP must find the solutions and do the work alone, we shall do so fearlessly in the interests of everyone, even in the interests of those who are boycotting, walking out, breaking away and running away.

There is a new party in this House, the CP. Their leader has already spoken in this debate, but has not yet made known his policy. He is still as silent as the grave about that, or as silent as he always was in the Cabinet. The hon. member, the “Dop” of Langlaagte, did however indicate at what level he wants to carry on politics inside and outside this House.

Order! What has the hon. member just said?

Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member, the “Dop” of Langlaagte; the member who advocated the “dop” system.

Order! In this House a member has only one designation, and that is “hon. member”. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Sir, I withdraw them. I see in the newspapers that the hon. the leader of the CP has stated on several public platforms that he was driven out of the NP. A great deal has already been said in this debate about this matter, but I want to take the matter further. It is not true that he was driven out. His two Van der Merwe colleagues forced him out of the NP by taking over the leadership from him. They jumped in at the deep end and their leader had no choice but to follow them. If he had not done so, he would have betrayed them, and then he would have created an even worse impression. Although he did not feel like jumping in—he jumped in very much against his will—he had to follow his two followers. After the hon. leader of the CP had already told the entire country that he had been driven out, other members of the CP said that this was not the case. One member said the NP had split over a difference in principle, whereas another said that the hon. the leader of the CP decided to walk out himself. I do not know whom to believe. Must I believe the leader of the CP, or his followers?

†The hon. leader of the CP has got his followers confused. This is very evident because some think he is ambitious, while I think he is merely ambiguous.

*If we are to believe the hon. leader’s followers, we must ask them, if they walked out over a matter of principle, what matter of principle that was. No new principle has been added. The policy is still exactly the same as it was in 1977 and prior to that. It is the same policy which they always supported in the past and on which they have fought elections. What conclusions must we now come to? There are only two possibilities. Either they believed that the policy was wrong and therefore misled and deceived their voters by asking them to vote for a policy which was wrong, or they never understood what they were supporting over the years. Both conclusions are equally damning.

Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago it was a relief to be able to witness a set-to between the NRP and PFP, after we had almost beaten one another to a pulp over the rift, or whatever it may have been, in the NP.

I should like to refer to an interjection which was made during this altercation between the NRP and the PFP. I do not wish to affront the hon. member for Bryanston unnecessarily, but I think it was one of his interjections.

I never make interjections! [Interjections.]

The hon. member stated very clearly and audibly that the PFP would participate in any institution in South Africa on condition that all national groups were represented on it. The party representing the largest number of Whites in South Africa was not represented on the Buthelezi Commission, but in spite of that the hon. member served on that commission. [Interjections.] I am a little out of touch when it comes to quarrelling with hon. members of the PFP, because these days they are sitting a long way away from me and in any event they were relatively silent in this debate. I do not wish to undo the merits of certain aspects which emerged from the Buthelezi Commission, because this side of the House has already affirmed that. However, I do not think that the hon. member, who is now sitting there, getting ready to react to what I am saying, stated his argument clearly, by way of the interjection he made. It was a pleasure to see that it was not only hon. members on the NP side and CP side who are able to get hot under the collar with one another. We enjoyed this little set-to as well, and the last word on the Buthelezi report has most certainly not been spoken.

The hon. member for East London North raised matters pertaining to his region and his constituency and I shall not react to what he had to say in that regard. However, I do not think it would be taken amiss of me if I, as the last speaker in this debate on the NP side, were to exchange a few final words with our former colleagues who are now on the CP side. I also think it is fair that I should try, at this late stage of the debate, to formulate a few impressions out of what we have observed in the debate during the past few days. What struck one immediately was that in a period in which South Africa is experiencing an exceptionally serious economic climate, including a low gold price, a high inflation rate and other pressing economic problems, the financial debate had already fallen flat by Monday, owing to an eagerness to scrutinize this new dimension in South African politics. The desire to conduct this debate was so urgent that hon. members of the PFP and the NRP were relegated to the role of mere spectators.

I am not entirely certain that that will not also be the future pattern in this country. If the hon. members of the PFP and the NRP cannot succeed, with their policy programmes, in entering the debate which ought to be conducted around the actions of the governing party, they will to an increasing extent remain mere spectators. I am warning the hon. member for Durban North that he should not lapse into that weakness.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Bryanston and I can discuss this matter with one another on a subsequent occasion. At this stage I prefer him to play the part of spectator. I know it is difficult, but I ask him please to leave it at that. Why did this eagerness to come to blows and settle the issue with one another arise? The contributory factors have already been discussed in detail, but I really cannot omit to single out three statements.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg said at the founding of his party that as from Monday the Government would be fighting conservatism. The hon. member for Meyerton said that they were going to chase the Government from Dan to Beersheba. The hon. member for Waterberg, the hon. leader of that party, tapped out a catchy rhythm on the microphone, danced a little Waterberg jig, and said that we were rattled. That was a slight mistake. All these things aroused expectations vis-à-vis the debate which was to take place in this House this week. However, it became clear to me that the closer hon. members got to Parliament as an institution, the fainter the roaring of the lion became. I do not wish to offend hon. members now, but I think that the Hansard of this week will serve to prove the statements I have just made here.

After the hon. the leader of that party had commenced his speech and made some progress with it, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs rose and requested him to spell out his policy. Twice the hon. leader reacted to that by saying that the time for such a debate would in fact present itself. After these tremendous expectations had been roused, the hon. the leader twice intimated that we would have to wait; he would get round to it.

The hon. member for Rissik is now looking at me in a friendly way, and I shall now try to deal with him in a friendly way as well. By way of various interjections the hon. member for Rissik aroused in us the expectation that we would hear specific statements from him. When the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries was speaking, the hon. member for Rissik said by way of interjection “I shall react to that in my speech”. He also said: “We shall still discuss that” by way of an interjection to the hon. member Prof. Olivier, and also told him: “I shall explain carefully.” There were various interjections which served to arouse that expectation in us. Twice, too, the hon. member for Lichtenburg said: “Just be patient. We shall give you a clear reply on that.”

The question to which a clear reply had to be furnished was concerned with aspects of policy of that party. I think I can summarize the debate by saying …

If we are given 16 half hours, we shall be able to tell you.

The hon. member for Sunnyside is now telling me that if the hon. members of that party are given 16 half hours they will furnish us with the replies which we have been unable to get out of them after a week’s debate. I want to be reasonable. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member for Sunnyside, but he leaves me no choice. After all the speeches which the hon. members of the CP made here in this House, they stand naked before the people of South Africa because they have not succeeded, neither jointly nor severally, in making certain statements pertaining to their party. I think I can summarize and classify these thematically into three categories. In this debate the hon. members of the CP have lost three fights. They lost the wrestling match. They are out on their feet. They did not attempt to reply to the statement made by hon. members in regard to foul play on the part of hon. members of the CP. They did not reply to those accusations, and a reasonable inference would be that they were unable to furnish replies to all those accusations.

We do not descend to that level.

They also lost a second fight.

Do not provoke us.

Sir, the hon. member for Barberton is now threatening me. He said I should not provoke him. May I kindly request him to refrain from provoking me, because I do not think we would be furthering the debate if we hurl reciprocal challenges at one another. I think I could also succeed in causing the hon. member for Barberton quite a good deal of embarassment, and then the reply of the hon. member to that would be that he was not going to reply to me because he does not descend to that level. May I at least make this one point. Would they please allow me to make this one point. I do not think hon. members should interpret any attitude of reasonableness as being an attitude of weakness. On my part I have tried, and shall continue to try to be reasonable. If hon. members try to threaten me then I have to interpret that as meaning that they consider my response to be a weakness, and then I shall have to counter their arguments in the same spirit as that in which they made those interjections.

The second fight which they lost was a fight concerning principles. They lost this fight because in their speeches they played with emotions in a specific way, and in that process they did not take into consideration the dynamics of the principles, the fundamental principles on which we stand.

In the third place the hon. members lost the constructive, constitutional fight. They made blood-and-thunder speeches here, party rally speeches about a spreading conflagration and so on, but they furnished no replies to three cardinal questions. The hon. members did not succeed in indicating in this House how we were to escape from one group indefinitely dominating another group in this country. That was the first aspect to which no reply was given. In the second place the hon. members did not succeed in indicating to us that they did not advocate a Coloured homeland. I think the hon. member for Rissik said by way of an interjection that they would still have to debate this matter; they were keeping the option of a Coloured homeland open. Consequently the debate on this matter has been reopened as a result of the presence of those hon. members in the CP and their search for a policy.

It is a possibility.

The hon. member says that a Coloured homeland is a possibility.

By doing so he is clutching at the impossible.

In the third place the hon. members lost an argument revolving around a cardinal question—this also emerged from a little altercation—in that the hon. the leader of the CP said that members of the AWB could join the party as individuals, and now the question remains open whether such members may retain membership of the CP without renouncing their membership of the AWB. This is a question which remains open. [Interjections.]

But surely you are also a member of another organization.

The hon. member says that I am a member of another organization. I am not denying it, but the long and the short of the matter is that the organization to which I belong endorses the process which is being conducted in this Parliament, as well as the process of peaceful change. In addition that organization endorses the processes and policies of this party. It was clearly spelt out by hon. members that those matters were being subverted by the AWB. Is it reasonable if I now conclude that those hon. members were implying that the programme of principles of the AWB was reconcilable with the programme of principles of the CP?

Of course they are not reconcilable.

The hon. member for Barberton says they are not, and I accept it.

Do they reject the AWB?

Why, then does the hon. member want to trap me when I point out that it is untenable?

When they join us they have to endorse our standpoints.

If we point out the shortcomings on the basis of Hansard, I am not so certain about the continued enthusiasm of the 8 000 who were present in the Skilpad Hall.

10 000.

Very well, make it 10 000; it does not detract in any way from the essence of my argument, because the essence of my argument is that although the problems of South Africa put to those hon. members, those hon. members did not reply to them during the course of a week-long debate, and those 10 000 people will reconsider their support for the CP.

Let us deal with the debates on matters of principle, but in the first place I want to say in connection with the wrestling match that we will not reach an agreement. They maintain that we drove them out; we maintain there is malicious intent on their part. Consequently it is very clear that we cannot reach an agreement. Let us now try to conduct the debate, which we were unable to conduct when we were together in one Party in the open House here. I am going to accuse them again, and they are going to accuse me, but since they accused us of certain things they will probably not hold it against me if I now accuse them of having indulged in a certain measure of power politics in that debate and that it was consequently never really possible for justice to be done to that debate. I notice that the hon. member for Barberton is staring at me. Oom Cas, you are aware of all these things that I am also aware of. Justice was not done to that debate; let us now try …

Do you have any doubts about my standpoint?

Never about your standpoint, but the precise movements were not always clear to me.

Order! In the first place the hon. member must address the Chair, and in the second place hon. members must not sit with their backs to the Chair and pass remarks.

I shall gladly abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Let us try to elevate this Parliament by clearing up those issues, which we were not able to clear up among ourselves, in this forum. Let us elevate the importance of this Parliament as a chamber for discussion and a forum for debate. Those hon. members frustrated us in this debate because they did not offer an alternative policy. One of these days, after the Easter Recess, we shall resume this debate in the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s vote. I trust that we will then be able to take this debate further than has been done so far. [Interjections.] In my opinion those hon. members lost sight of the fundamental issues. In a speech the hon. leader tried to make out a case for freedom with justice. The problem I have with them, however, is that they only begin to adopt a standpoint at the end of a speech. I think it would be more useful if they were to begin their speeches with that theme. Begin with concepts such as freedom and justice and let us then expand those ideas. Let us then test our statements of policy against our points of departure. Then we will be able to see whose standpoints of policy can be reconciled with their points of departure. Those hon. members must not take it amiss of me, but I am of the opinion that it will not be possible to reconcile the course they have adopted with their specific points of departure. We are striving for a dispensation which is built on justice, a dispensation which is aimed at love for one’s neighbour and at fairness, a different dispensation to the present one, with all its snags. The object is to comply with these ideals and to escape from the constitutional cul-de-sacs in which we find ourselves at present. Those are the ideals we are striving to attain. In this process principles are tools. These are the things one has to work with. Freedom and justice must be tasted by everyone. It is not a trade mark which one affixes to one’s speech out of force of habit. When the hon. member for Langlaagte said that the brave members were sitting on that side of the House, he was not correct in his view, because I am of the opinion that when it comes to the full impact or consequences or the demands of the principles which I have stated, they will get cold feet.

That is not true.

That is my opinion. Those hon. members are also wrong if they think that when the Afrikaner, the White people in South Africa, are cornered, they seize upon the past in a spirit of exclusiveness and isolation. That is not correct. In those circumstances we have always, in our history, displayed a spirit of adventure enabling us to manoeuvre out of such situations, to shoot our way out or negotiate our way out in a spirit of justice. In the climate in which we are living, we are engaged fn a double-barreled operation. On the one hand we are engaged in an operation of maintaining the stability and order of this State in a spirit of justice, and on the other hand we are engaged in negotiating in a process of freedom and justice to escape from these cul-de-sacs. That is the procedure we should adopt. If the hon. the Prime Minister says that, after 32 years it is time we come to an arrangement, particularly with the Coloured and Asian population, we on this side of the House say “Hear, Hear!”. We also maintain that the policy mechanisms which we use as instruments to comply with his principles are the correct ones.

Let us take a further look at the various processes which are in progress in South Africa. We are frequently reproached by hon. members who say that we have taken up a position somewhere between the PFP and the CP. The reason why we have taken up a position between these two parties is that we are convinced that both parties overemphasize the one aspect of the constitutional problem and under-emphasize the other aspect. We are of the opinion that the only way in which we can live heroically in this country, without merely having a desire to die heroically is to develop both self-determination and co-responsibility to the fullest extent.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of the very long budget debate. The hon. the Minister of Finance must be quite a relieved man because he cannot have very much on which to answer.

I am glad you call it a budget debate.

Yes, it really has not been that. I shall try to return to that theme in a moment.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp, who has just resumed his seat, dealt in the main with the new CP and, I am not going to intervene in that at all for the moment. He did set himself up as a referee, deciding who won which fight and which round. I must say that, as a referee with some bias and some vested interest, he should perhaps leave that to Mr. Speaker or someone else rather than try to make those decisions himself.

I do not normally make any reference at all to the NRP because I believe they are becoming as relevant as a deep-freeze at the North Pole. However, I owe a response to the hon. member for Durban North, because he quoted certain statements allegedly made by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and wanted to know what our standpoint on that was. Let me say immediately that the PFP has stated publicly and in its written documents that it is opposed to violence in any form. We stand by that. We will have nothing at all to do with anyone who suggests another course. I did not hear the radio report. I should very much like to hear what Gatsha Buthelezi himself has to say about this. I do not want to be bound by a very small statement in a newspaper. What I do want to say is that I regret very much that the hon. member for Durban North found it necessary to suggest in so many words that Gatsha Buthelezi has learnt his conflict policy from the PFP. I do not think that Gatsha Buthelezi has to learn from anyone or any party at all. I think he has his own standpoint. He has 5 million constituents, which is a little more than the hon. member has, or I have. I think he has his own way, and we certainly want to negotiate, listen and talk, but not for a moment would we suggest that we are teaching him anything at all. We believe that there is a give and take in these matters. [Interjections.]

What interests me, however, is the response of the Government, the NP, and of the NRP to the Buthelezi Commission’s report. Here we have a man who, under extremely difficult circumstances, is desperately trying to play a peaceful and constitutional role in South Africa, but the attitude of the Government and the NRP amounts to the summary rejection of that, despite the nice little “p.s. I love you” at the end in the minority report.

We rejected the political proposals.

That is right, that is what I am talking about. [Interjections.] That kind of comment, and that kind of response can drive a man to a state of near desperation and the responsibility for that lies four-square on the governing party in Natal, namely the NRP, and on the NP.

Would you accept the political recommendations of the President’s Council?

Order!

What I find interesting is a comment made by Gatsha Buthelezi concerning the NRP, a comment the hon. member did not tell us about, although he told us about a lot of other things. That comment was that the NRP can be likened to “jackals who scavenge once the lions have fed”. I think that that is a very good remark.

Do you agree with that statement?

Do you agree with it?

Do not get so excited! Let us rather continue. I say that the NRP are political courtesans, who sell their meagre favours to the highest bidder. [Interjections.] I shall give two examples of that. The hon. member for Durban North also referred to the Johannesburg municipal elections. Let me remind this House that the NRP, in that election, secured one seat out of 47. A tremendous record! [Interjections.] Let us also place on record, Mr. Speaker, that the PFP, which won the majority of the seats in that election, offered that independent NRP a seat on the management committee as part of an opposition …

Yes, just listen to that!

… and that was disregarded, for once again … [Interjections.]

Order!

Once again the NRP has decided to throw in its lot with the NP. [Interjections.]

Order!

The second piece of evidence I bring to this House … [Interjections.] if I can manage to make myself audible above this cacophonous noise … [Interjections.] That NP-NRP pack will realign white politics. [Interjections.]

Order!

Over and over again, the courtesans who sell themselves to the highest bidder!

Absolutely! [Interjections.]

We want nothing to do with that at all. [Interjections.] We want to have nothing to do with that.

During this debate the PFP has tried to demonstrate the hon. the Minister’s mismanagement of an economy which has led to the parlous economic state in which South Africa finds itself today. Obviously, the hon. the Minister must be quite relieved that, at least on the first day of the debate, there was some attempt by hon. members in these benches to speak directly to the budget and the budget proposals. We have also attempted to highlight the ever-increasing burden placed on the consumer by this Government. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in particular pointed out that in the last two years we had seen staggering increases in taxation, that the average taxpayer was now paying 89,4% more than two years ago towards individual income tax and general sales tax.

It is remarkable how this hon. Minister is able to slide out of a situation which has virtually bound him hand and foot. I can only suggest that we change the hon. the Minister’s name from Horwood to Houdini, because his sleight of hand, his watching the one hand while doing things with the other, resulting in a staggering series of increases over a long period, is something which is simply remarkable.

Are you talking about South Africa now?

I am talking about South Africa, yes. [Interjections.] I know the hon. the Minister of Finance is hardly ever here, Mr. Speaker. He should spend more time here, and perhaps the burden would be a little less on the shoulders of the taxpayer. [Interjections.]

The general philosophy of the hon. the Minister of Finance is: “Tighten your belts and belt up. Take it or leave it.” He should know, however, that after the performance is over, when the lights go on, the audience, although bedazzled by his performance, have to go home to lowering standards and to increased hardship.

We have also emphasized that the downturn in the economy comes at a time when urgent political change is required, and therefore at a time when South Africa can least afford it. If ever this country needed large scale investment or change in the social, economic and political spheres it is now, while we still have the time. We have tried to do this and to debate these very issues against the background of a full-scale war of words between the old style and the new style Nationalist. That is what the CP really is today. What hon. members of the CP are saying today is no different from what the NP said yesterday. It is the difference now between the old style Nationalists and the new style Nationalists, and it is a tragedy that as a result of this split, which one would have hoped would be the beginning of a new movement, a quickening of the momentum of reform, race relations could indeed be damaged very severely. We have had to put up with accusation and counter-accusation, and with much washing of dirty linen, which, I suppose, is inevitable when such a split comes along. One thing is, however, clear to me. As I have sat here since quarter past two this afternoon listening to speaker after speaker, it has become clear that it must be accepted that the split is no sudden event. I certainly cannot believe that it centres only on the interpretation of one set of words or one particular concept. The bitterness depicts a struggle which must have been going on for a very long time in that party, and hon. members who have remained in the NP as well as those who have left, are probably glad that it has come out into the open, because the struggle within the party must have been going on very much under a cloak for a very long time.

What I find even more ironic and tragic is that the recurring theme in the debat has been on power-sharing, what it is, what it is not and who is doing it with whom. The CP is both right and wrong. The Government has removed the wraps from the 1977 model, and has fully acknowledged that some form of power-sharing is inevitable. The CP is wrong, however, when it imagines that the Government has committed itself to genuine power-sharing. For that assurance we still have a long way to go. I hope that the struggle and the debate, the accusations and counter-accusations are not going to further hamper or handicap the Government from taking the necessary steps and making the necessary changes that have to take place. That, I think, would be a tragedy because there have been so many other reasons and excuses for marking time. Now, when there is yet another golden opportunity to bring about change, the NP has found it necessary to first flush out these conservatives, to put their house in order and to organize a very nice communication programme. Perhaps they will now first go around and talk to all their members and hold them back from joining Dr. Andries Treurnicht and his new party. All these energies will be expended on these exercises instead of getting on with the job of reform in South Africa. I do hope, however, that this will not happen.

All the discussion has revolved around the 1977 proposals. We all know, however, that those proposals are as dead as a dodo.

They are before the President’s Council.

We are now in 1982. Those 1977 proposals were rejected out of hand by the Coloured community in South Africa.

Those proposals are still before the President’s Council.

They are still before the President’s Council, but we all know that they are not going to come out in that form. We all know that they are going to be very different if they are going to have any currency whatsoever in today’s market. We are now in 1982, and I have a sneaking feeling that both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. leader of the CP have some inkling of what the President’s Council is going to recommend, therefore both are trying to gain the high ground before the recommendations become public knowledge. In the midst of this, the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs has challenged the CP, and said: “Huile moet dit uitspel, nou, hierdie week”. To be fair, however, we must admit that we actually know where the CP stands in what they reject. We do not quite know yet what they are for, but we know what they are against. That, I think, is true. At least we know what they do not accept, but we have yet to be told what is acceptable in their policy. The Government, on the other hand, has an obligation to spell out their new dispensation. What exaclty do they now mean, now that they have at last had the courage to embrace the concept of power-sharing? The hon. the Minister of Finance is very fond of quotations, and some of those that he used are very good, but I should like to give him yet another one from Antonio Gramsky, who said this—

We have had a lot of morbid symptoms today and yesterday, and it is that the old is dying, that the old NP’s policy of apartheid is dying. That has become clear from what has been said here today and yesterday. We are waiting to see what is being born, what is new. We need to be told unequivocally what is negotiable and what is non-negotiable for the NP in 1982. Is the NP, for example, prepared to accept in its new commitment to power-sharing that Coloureds and Asians should be on a common voters’ roll with Whites?

No, that is your policy.

That is fair enough, now we know where we stand. Is it acceptable to the NP that Coloured and Asian MP’s should be elected to this House of Assembly, but on a separate voters’ roll?

Wait for the President’s Council’s report. [Interjections.]

Surely, the NP have a view of their own. In the new concept of power-sharing embraced by the NP, is it possible that Coloured and Asian MP’s can be elected to this House on a separate voters’ roll?

If we answer that, why do we have a President’s Council? [Interjections.]

The hon. Chief Whip of the NP has just conceded that they do not have any clothes to wear and that they are waiting to be told by the President’s Council. That is not true. When the President’s Council made its recommendations about District Six and Pageview, the NP had their own ideas. They must surely have their own ideas now.

Would hon. members on that side of the House agree with me that there is at least a possibility in the whole concept of powersharing that the NP will agree that Coloured and Asian MP’s can sit in this House of Assembly, but on a separate voters’ roll? Is that a possibility? [Interjections.]

You are just looking for company.

Is it a possibility to have a totally separate House for Coloured and Asian MP’s?

Spell it out.

Yes, spell it out. The hon. the Minister himself asked us to spell out our policy, and now I am asking the NP to do the same.

†What are we waiting for? We have already waited 34 years. If Coloured and Asian MP’s are going to sit in a completely separate House, but with some joint Cabinet responsibilities, then surely the Government can answer this: Can some or any of them attain the status of Deputy Minister or Minister? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Florida says they can. Do hon. members agree with that? [Interjections.] Can their status be likened to that of the hon. the Minister of Finance when he was a Senator and had the right to sit in this House as Minister of Finance? Is that possible? [Interjections.] Hon. members must answer my questions. [Interjections.] My questions have been too difficult. Let me put a very simple question: When the NP move into the concept of power-sharing …

Like the Johannesburg City Council?

I see the hon. member is still on their side. Well done, Ron, you are very consistent. I want to ask hon. members of the NP a simple question: What will happen to the Group Areas Act when power-sharing is applied? What will happen to the Separate Amenities Act if there is to be a separate House for Coloureds and separate Coloured Ministers who serve in the Cabinet and who may come forward with proposals? What is going to happen? [Interjections.] Let me put it in the most simple way: Which dining-room are they going to use? Please tell me. [Interjections.]

I want to be much more serious for a moment during the closing moments of this debate. Clearly there are no answers to the hon. members of the NP with regard to the central question facing the future of the Coloureds and the Asians in South Africa. But what about the Blacks in South Africa? If they have no answers with regard to the Coloureds and the Asians, where on earth does on start when it comes to the Blacks? What does one do about Blacks who are living outside the homelands, who are living in villages, towns and in cities, i.e. the urban Blacks? What on earth does one do about them? What rights do they have? Will there be a separate House for them? Or are they going to come into this House? Is there going to be a sharing of power? Or does one share power only with one group, but not with another group? Does one draw the line firmly there as well? The determination on the part of this Government to ensure that there are no Black South African citizens is not only an unattainable objective; it is also fraught with danger for all.

Mr. Speaker, once again we have come to the end of a wide-ranging debate. I believe hon. members will agree with me that we did not only discuss finance and the economy! We talked a little politics here and there! At times the debate became rowdy, and as someone behind me said, at one stage the “boere” were piling into one another. However, when we have as good a case as we on this side of the House have, then we have to fight. We shall be prepared to state our case wherever necessary, and I believe we shall be able to do so very successfully, as has in fact been proven in this debate.

I have very little time but I should just like to make one thing very clear, because I believe there is misunderstanding in this regard, viz. the conclusion drawn from the budget—and it was a fair conclusion—that the amount which will be available for the purchase of land for consolidation purposes, will be R64 million. In point of fact, due to a revision of their own priorities carried out by the Department of Co-operation and Development in consultation with the Treasury, the Department will be able to make more funds available for consolidation purposes. As a matter of fact, I believe the amount could be increased significantly. That will be clear from what is to be said about this.

†If I had the time this afternoon, I would have liked to have shown up some of the inconsistencies and material omissions in the arguments put forward by the Opposition, particularly the official Opposition. However, I shall not have the time to do that. When we recommence this debate, I should like to say something about the order of the concessions made in this budget under difficult conditions. I think they are far more meaningful than one would imagine listening to Opposition speakers. I should also like to show that I think it is fair to say that the Opposition, particularly the official Opposition, has completely missed the real design of this budget. And I should like to try to substantiate that assertion, because it is important. Certain things have been said about the budget by the official Opposition which are certainly not applicable to this budget. If the hon. member for Yeoville, who made certain quotations—many of which were anonymous—which were apparently critical of the budget, had gone further with some of those quotations, he would found a very different story. I, too, have a whole string of quotations, but I do not propose to read them all out. I think they are well known. I can only express my appreciation …

Read them.

Well, I can do so next time. I shall read them out next time if there is any doubt about the matter. I have them here. I shall read them to hon. members, seeing that they have challenged me. [Interjections.] I do not have the time now, but I shall do so when the debate recommences.