Order! Before calling upon the Secretary to read the first Order, I have to inform the House that I have given consideration to the question of references during debate to the Vice State President.

Standing Order No. 124 provides inter alia that no member may use the name of the Vice State President irreverently or for the purpose of influencing this House in its deliberations.

Furthermore, under the established practice of the House the conduct of the Vice State President may only be debated on a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House.

The above Standing Order and the practice of the House apply equally when the Vice State President serves as Acting State President.

*However, section 10A of the Constitution provides that the Vice State President shall be Chairman of the President’s Council, and when the Vice State President acts in that capacity and for example makes statements of a political nature, I feel it is only fair and equitable that hon. members of this House should have the right to discuss and if necessary criticize such statements.

Hon. members may accordingly refer during debate to the conduct of the Vice State President in his capacity as Chairman of the President’s Council, provided that he is referred to as such and that his honour or personal conduct are not impugned. In the case of references to the Vice State President as such, the provisions of Standing Order No. 124 and the practice of the House to which I have referred will however be strictly applied.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, before I continue with my speech, which I started just before the adjournment last night, I just want to make a few announcements.

As hon. members know, the Commission for Administration is by law directly attached to the Office of the Prime Minister, and it is only by way of delegated power that another Minister would deal with the activities of the Commission for Administration. For that reason I shall avail myself of this opportunity to express a few words of gratitude to Dr. Rautenbach, who is soon going to retire as chairman of the Commission for Administration. He was appointed as a member of the then Public Service Commission on 1 February 1976, and became chairman of that Commission in August 1976. The six years or so that he was chairman were characterized by exceptional progress in the various fields of activity in which the Commission is normally involved. Hon. members are well aware of the successes which have been achieved under the able leadership of Dr. Rautenbach in the rationalization of the central Public Service, as well as the foundations which have been laid in order to extend the innovations to other sectors of the Public Service. I want to thank him wholeheartedly for the enormous services which he rendered to the State, and I am gratified to be able to say that we requested him to accept, upon his retirement, the chairmanship of the Planning Advisory Council of the Office of the Prime Minister on a part-time basis. He graciously consented to do so. Consequently we shall not lose his services on his retirement, but retain him in a field where in the past he has proved that he could act with authority. I wish him everything of the best.

Hear, hear!

Furthermore, I have pleasure in announcing that the organizational rationalization of the central Public Service has been taken one step further by the abolition of the Department of Statistics and the incorporation thereof, as from 1 April 1982, into the office of the Prime Minister. This component will in future be known as the Central Statistical Service. The greatest single advantage of this change is undoubtedly that the vital co-operation between statistics and planning will in future be even closer than has been the case up to now. It inter alia will enable the Central Statistical Service to identify in good time the statistical needs of the public as well as the private sector according to planning guidelines so as to render general and improved services on the national level.

The head of the Central Statistical Service is Mr. A. J. Louw, former Secretary for Statistics, and I welcome him on the staff of the Office of the Prime Minister. Because I am of the opinion that the budgeting activities and the business of the House should not be unduly disrupted by this rationalization process, I requested the hon. the Minister of State Administration to deal as usual with the debate on Vote No. 14—Statistics—separately, at a later stage of session, as was previously agreed. But this will be the last year in which it will be done in that way.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned last night, I made an appeal to the effect that we as a Parliament, mindful of the seriousness of the times in which we are living, should try to make our contribution in such a way that we do not, through negativism, make the task of running this country even more difficult, but facilitate it instead. I stated that I did not ask for such positive attitudes because I was making a personal plea to be treated with forbearance. I have been in public life long enough to know that when one is active in public life, one has to be prepared to take what is hurled at one. At this point in time, however, every country requires an exceptional effort on the part of its national representatives, in view of the international position, to act earnestly and with a more positive attitude in respect of national and international issues. Therefore, I want to thank the hon. members for De Kuilen, Pretoria West, Parys, Umlazi, Verwoerdburg and Mr. Van Staden, as well as the hon. members for Virginia, Namaqualand, Standerton, Benoni, Mossel Bay, Pretoria Central, Swellendam, Innesdal, Witbank and Klip River for their contributions.

What about the hon. member for Bryanston?

Strange as it may seem, I do have a special word for him. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Bryanston will be a good boy, I shall take notice of him later. If he is going to be offensive, however, I shall take no notice of him at all. [Interjections.] So the hon. member can take his pick. Sir, I want to thank all the above mentioned members for their support in this debate and for emphasizing Government policy in respect of relations between peoples as well as the economic development policy.

The White Paper and the information on regional development have just been made public after many months of hard work, intensive study and continual consultation, and is the work of a team of officials who deserve very high praise for what they have produced. I regret, therefore, that the reaction in some of the media was of such a nature that one could arrive at only one conclusion, viz. that they appear to be incapable of understanding what it is all about. I do not want to call it wilfulness, but rather an inability to understand what, in co-operation with the private sector and with other Governments as well, was launched here on 1 April and which could be of great importance to South Africa as well as Southern Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the hon. members for Durban Point, Waterberg, Sandton, Brakpan, Bryanston, Umbilo, Berea, Waterkloof, Walmer, Lichtenburg, Constantia, King William’s Town and Barberton all raised matters which I shall try to reply to in the course of the debate.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of the Vice State President, however, on which the hon. Mr. Speaker has just given a ruling with which I associate myself, as I associate myself with the ruling which the hon. Mr. Speaker gave yesterday. However, I believe that for the sake of clarity and understanding I should deal with a few matters. First of all, I wish to refer to the telegram which the Vice State President sent me. It was a personal message which he sent to me, and it was not supposed to be published. At that stage I was in South West Africa. This telegram landed up among other messages of congratulation, and quite accidentally fell into the hands of the Press. It is not wrong on the part of the Vice State President to send a personal message to the Prime Minister if he feels like doing so, but I want to express my personal regret that we embarrassed him by causing this telegram to be published.

Secondly, this Parliament has, with the establishment of the President’s Council, conferred upon the Vice State President a dual task, as the hon. Mr. Speaker mentioned in his ruling. Not only does he act as substitute for the State President, but he is also chairman of the President’s Council, a council that has to decide on constitutional matters. This in itself makes his position very difficult and we realized that in advance. However, knowing the Vice State President as we do, his self-control, his dignity and his integrity, I doubt whether we could have found anyone else in South Africa who would have complied more satisfactorily with the requirements of this office. He made a speech to a non-political audience. According to my information, he was invited to this non-political meeting approximately a year ago, and the arrangements for the meeting therefore had nothing to do with recent political events. If one reads his speech—of which I have a verbatim copy with me—one comes to the conclusion that he was by no means intent on getting involved in party politics, but that he was in reality giving an interesting lecture. I am prepared to take his word for it; what is more, I am prepared to defend him. I can find no fault with the facts which he expounded in his speech, and if it were to become a question of his word against that of certain hon. members of this House, I prefer to accept his word.

Hear, hear!

He gave an account of his experiences as a Minister, and I know him to be an outspoken person who speaks frankly when he is stating the facts. I shall leave it at that. I am making no apology for him, for I believe that the Vice State President has enough sense of responsibility and in the past he has shown himself capable of judging for himself whether he was doing his position any harm. I hope that the matter will now be left at that. The Protest has been registered, but I do not think any damage has been done.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central raised a matter which is of great importance. He asked me to express my opinion on the latest interview which the leader of the AWB had with some newspaper or other on the position of the Jewish community in South Africa. I suppose one should not pay too much attention to these hotheads. They are very brave when they are attending meetings all over the place, but we do not find them in the frontline when South Africa’s borders have to be protected. They drill in leggings and ride around on motor-bikes causing more noise than anything else. I endorse what the hon. the Minister of Law and Order said when he warned the leader of the AWB against irresponsible actions. A week or two ago the hon. the Minister of Law and Order deemed it necessary to issue a friendly warning to the leader of the AWB and his gang of followers to come to their sense before they clash with the State. I want to assure the hon. the Minister of Law and Order that he has the support of the Government and, I believe, the support of the whole House as well, to ensure that irresponsible elements from that side do not try to take the law into their own hands. There is no room in South Africa for communists and there is no room for neo-Nazi’s either. If they have excess energy, there are many other outlets for it. If they do not want to fight on the borders, they could apply themselves to keeping those places that have been strewn with papers, bottles and plastic containers clean. So there are enough other places where their energy can be expended.

I suppose you could use them in the Seychelles.

No, I do not think that they would succeed there. As for the references they made to the Jewish community, I think they were extremely offensive. They are objectionable, and I believe every right-minded, decent South African will dissociate himself from them.

The hon. member for Pretoria West asked me a question on an equally important matter, viz. the issue of sport on Sundays, the observance of the Sabbath and the relationship between the State and the Church. I decided, for various reasons, to make a considered statement on this matter on behalf of the State. In various circles the relationship between the Church is being turned into a political issue and churches are even being misused in an attempt to prove that this is a Godless Government, a Government which is not to be trusted as a civilized Government. I want to say first of all that article 1 of the NP’s programme of principles is well known, but I think I should nevertheless place it on record here. It states that the party recognizes the supremacy and guidance of God in the destiny of countries and nations and seeks the development of our national way of life along Christian National lines with due consideration for the individual’s freedom of conscience and religion. This has been the viewpoint of this party for years, ever since its inception. That is the philosophy of this Government and it is also my personal standviewpoint, and we try to the best of our human ability to remain faithful to it.

I should now like to present the Government’s standpoint in a brief, but carefully considered way. I do so first of all because there are well-meaning church leaders and members of the public who are continually asking what the Government’s attitude in connection with this matter is. We receive letters and enquiries and so it is perhaps as well that we deal with this matter in public for once. Secondly there are people in South Africa who apparently have no feeling for the religious convictions of other people and for the traditional way of life of a large section of this nation. Thirdly there are unscrupulous mischief makers who live among us like white sepulchres, teeming on the inside with gossip and pettiness.

†Firstly, I see the State and the Church as two independent or autonomous bodies, both of which are appointed by God, each with its own commission, task and field. For this reason the State does not wish to meddle in the affairs of the Church and does not expect the Church to meddle in the affairs of the State. However, we are a Christian State and we are desirous of ruling according to Christian principles. For this reason the State is attentive to the voice of the Church since both are concerned about the welfare of the people entrusted to their care. This means that I, as head of a Christian Government, am always ready to recognize the right of the Church to present its point of view to the State on matters such as, for example, social affairs or even possible incompatibilities. A number of deputations from various Churches have already met with me, both White and Black Churches, and I have in my possession the points of view of these churches and those of well-known theologians belonging to different language groups. I do not believe it is right for the State to negotiate with the Church on political assignments or on other purely political matters for the following reasons: Firstly, it is not the calling and the function of the Church. Secondly, I consider it as right and also my duty to negotiate on such matters with the relevant political leaders in the country. This I have always done and will continue to do so. Thirdly, the question is in any case: With which Church must I negotiate especially when Churches differ among themselves? In their evidence to the State churches often differ quite radically with one another as shown in documents I have in possession in regard to various matters.

*One of the basic premises of the Government’s policy is the recognition of the heterogeneous structure of the Republic of South Africa’s population and the acceptance of the principle of separate communities with their own cultures and traditions. Consequently it is the declared and proven policy to grant all believers the basic freedom to practise their religion according to their own customs and traditions. This is the outstanding feature of this country in a world in which religious freedom is being threatened to a large extent. Sunday observance is therefore primarily a matter for the individual conscience which has to be promoted by the ministration of the church, and the Government associated itself with the endeavours of the Christian churches in this regard. It is a matter which basically depends upon the right personal attitude among church members. The State cannot be expected to enforce or to ensure Sunday observance in general. It is however, incumbent on the State to see to it that activities are not organized on Sundays which will disturb the faithful in their observance of Sunday as a Christian holy day, particularly in their religious worship. It is also unreasonable of bodies organizing sporting activities on a Sunday to expect the authorities to compel its employees to serve on a Sunday specially for that purpose, employees such as the police, traffic officials and transport officials for example. In discussions on Sunday sport which the hon. the Minister of National Education conducted with the official spokesman of the three Afrikaans sister churches last year, these church spokesmen indicated that although they requested the support of the State for Sunday observance, they could not and did not want to prescribe to the State how this should be done. They also showed an understanding of the practical problems which the State has with the enforcement of Sunday observance. It is a fact, Sir, that significant numbers of believing Christians as well as certain Christian churches do not object to the practise of organized sport on a Sunday. There is also some difference of opinion among theologians on how Sunday observance should be biblically interpreted. In this regard there is a very interesting document which I have in my hand here, published by Dr. J. H. van Wyk of the Instituut vir Reformatoriese Studie, which sheds quite an interesting light on this matter. In practice, certain sectors of the community have for many years now been practising private and public sport to a considerable extent on Sundays.

A particular problem is the considerable extent of established sport practised on Sundays among Black people and others for whom organized sport is a positive escape valve. It is unthinkable that the State could enforce Sunday observance on a racially differentiated basis. An interdenominational commission on Sunday sport requested action by means of legislation in 1974, though only against the practice of commercialized public sport on Sundays and not against all sport or entertainment as such on Sundays.

From 1963 to 1968, during the terms of office of Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. Vorster, unsuccessful attempts were made to have a Bill on Sunday sport, with practicable measures for what was and was not permissible, passed by Parliament.

The Government does not support, whether organizationally or financially, any sporting activities which take place on Sundays, and it regrets that certain sport administrators have recently extended sporting activities on Sundays by organizing interprovincial and international matches, matches which are of more than mere internal importance to the sport, and which therefore force large sections of the public to sacrifice their interest in sport as a result of their convictions on Sunday observance. Apparently this occurs, in certain cases, without taking existing legal restrictions into consideration. In this regard, I wish to point out once again that in all the provinces, except for Natal, legislation with regard to Sunday observance applies, which also contains provisions pertaining to the practice of public sport and for which sporting bodies should have proper regard. The Government therefore trusts that the sporting authorities concerned will in future show more consideration for the convictions of a large section of the population who are also sport enthusiasts.

I hope that I have now eliminated considerable doubt concerning the Government’s standpoint on these matters.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted me yesterday with reference to what appeared in the annual report of the Office of the Prime Minister on development and reform, and what I had allegedly said on the occasion of the Good Hope Conference. I still stand by what I said. It is the Government’s conviction and it is my conviction. The hon. the leader said that as each Prime Minister had stood for particular ideas, he summed up what I stood for as being the greatest possible measure of preparedness and the reforms which should accompany it. It is quite correct that, in so far as it was within my ability, I devoted my energies to strengthening the degree of preparedness of the country; not only its military preparedness, but also in other areas.

It is also true that I realise the necessity for reform and renewal, because if one does not realise this, one might as well be embalmed. And there is nothing which reminds one more of death than being in an embalmed state. This Government has not been embalmed. A Government that wishes to play a role in South Africa’s future and that wishes to make a contribution, must be in favour of renewal, of tackling new problems, and must have the courage, when problems arise, to deal with those problems. Time waits for no man, nor do world events. Nothing remains static, not in any sphere. Life as a whole is a continual movement. Therefore a Government that does not want to move, cannot cope with problems. It is true that there are some people who preach to the Government and say that we should introduce reforms because there is external pressure, in other words, that we should do so as a result of external considerations. This Government rejects this view, because we have always adopted the standpoint that we are prepared to listen to our friends abroad, and to deliberate with them and to convey our considerations to them, but, as a State or a Government, we cannot subject ourselves to external pressure as far as reform or renewal is concerned. That is why we resist it, but if there has to be reform and renewal, they should flow from the essential fact that they are fitting and in the interests of South Africa, as well as because they contribute to the progress and peace and security of this State. These are the considerations. The question is whether or not this reform or renewal will promote the progress, stability and security of the State.

In spite of diversity, and a history full of conflict, it is also true that there are numerous common interests and goals in respect of which we as nations and population communities can reach consensus and work together both in the Republic of South Africa and in adjoining States, not only in the interests of the Republic of South Africa, but also in the interests of the sub-continent of Southern Africa, thereby playing a greater role in the Free World. Instead of trying to score Political points, or indulging in nitpicking, we should endeavour to see what can be done to strengthen the cause and position of the Republic of South Africa, with a view to making Southern Africa a stable subcontinent and to assuring us of a better position in the international community, without losing our self-respect.

I wish to mention a few of these matters in regard to which, I believe, we may achieve that co-operation with one another. I am not pleading for a coalition between myself and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now, as I think that would be an absurdity. [Interjections.] I do not think he is advocating it either. [Interjections.] I heard the word “conciliation”. I do not know who used it. It could only have been the sleeping member for Waterkloof. [Interjections.] I wish to deal with this aspect immediately, even if I have to digress a little. The hon. member for Waterberg—I am now speaking specifically of the hon. member for Waterberg—referred here the other day in the effective, characteristic way he has of sowing suspicion, to the conciliation policy of the late Gen. Botha. Then in a clear and adroit way, he glossed over it and finally came up with the point that we should not have a conciliation policy here again. Because my surname also happens to be “Botha”, of course this suits the gossip-mongering campaign he wants to conduct outside. [Interjections.] All I want to say to him is that he can teach me nothing about nationalism. Nor will I allow myself to be taught by him. Nor will I allow myself to be taught what loyalty is. I shall leave it at that.

The first point I wish to mention on which we could agree with one another, is that the concept of self-determination has a special meaning for most nations on the sub-continent. It is not only the self-determination which this Government and its predecessors created in South Africa’s history for itself and the nation which this Parliament represents, but also the self-determination which we allowed to take its course for other nations, since we did not begrudge them what we demanded for ourselves. By this I mean that we should accept the realities of the Republic of South Africa and of the subcontinent of Southern Africa. We should therefore rather accept that there is a situation of multinationalism here—not of “tribes” as is often written. There are tribes here, but there are also more than tribes in South Africa and in Southern Africa; there are cultural, self-respecting nations here, that have the right to self-determination as is recognized in the charter of the UNO and as the concept of self-determination has meaning for every self-respecting nation. We have made tremendous progress in this sphere. We have progressed from a position in this country where only the Whites had self-determination and the Black nations had no means or instruments, neither here nor elsewhere, of realizing their self-determination. Through the efforts of this Government and its predecessors, that right to self-determination has, in practice, also become of value to other nations. During the past three decades, self-governing nations that were not previously self-governing, have come into existence here. Independent States have also arisen out of these self-governing nations. I do not know why this should be disparaged, for it is a very important element in creating sound attitudes, not only throughout the Republic of South Africa, but also in the Southern African context.

I admit that “sovereignty” is a relative concept. I have said before in Parliament that even the powerful America cannot do what it likes, in an absolute sense, with its self-determination and sovereignty. There are restrictions in a world which is becoming ever smaller, there are restrictions in a world in which more and more matters of common interest are emerging. That is why one can never find an ideal solution and nations in their interdependence upon one another will always have to take into account that, while they exercise self-determination and sovereignty as far as possible, they should also recognize their interdependence.

The hon. member for Berea—I think it was he—put a question to me. He said that he could understand when we said that we would not stand in the way of nations who wished to become independent. However, he then asked: What about those who do not wish to become independent? Some of the smaller nations are most probably among these. In my opinion it is a tragedy that in the entire planning for Southern Africa, an agreement was not reached earlier in our history between Britain and the then Union of South Africa with regard to the arrangement of borders in Southern Africa. It is a pity that in the era of the late Dr. D. F. Malan, despite an effort in this Parliament, to come to an agreement, the standpoint was simply adopted in a one-sided manner on the part of the British that they would no longer hand over the protectorates as had been agreed at Union. The whole idea was dismissed, with the result that there are smaller nations today, smaller self-governing States which are culturally, historically, traditionally and otherwise linked to States which are situated close to them or which adjoin them. I believe that if we have a proper understanding of the economic welfare and the distribution of wealth which has to take place in Southern Africa, we should accept a second principle, viz. that we shall not stand in the way of nations who wish to unite with one another anew in cases where they have predominantly common pasts, cultural ties and a common future. This Government will not be slow to respond as far as encouragement is concerned when nations wish to think in this direction.

Of course this has nothing to do with driving people out of the Republic of South Africa. It has everything to do with the concept of self-determination and the proper structuring, in a peaceful way, of nations which belong together.

Of their own free will.

Of course of their own free will, and without interference.

And without intimidation.

Of their own free will and without interference and intimidation, particularly on the part of White politicians. [Interjections.]

We cannot take it any further than that. This is also my reply to the hon. member for Berea. I shall come to this at a later stage, when I will deal with it more fully, but when I take cognizance of which States in the world had all become independent until last year, and of what their means are, as well as what their populations are, I cannot think of one nation in Southern Africa which does not have that same ability to exercise self-determination.

The second aspect on which we can co-operate with one another is the assumption that all sensible and reasonable people will protect and stabilize the value of the retention of civilized standards. What are those civilized standards? Genl. Haig of the USA referred to them. I wish to state what we consider them to be. Freedom of religion is one of those standards. Another is an independent judiciary. Then there is also the endeavour, as far as possible, to guarantee a proper family life.

What about migrant labour?

I expected this, Mr. Chairman. The train of thought of the hon. member for Houghton has struck in a groove like a gramophone record.

That is because you do not change.

There we have it. She is not prepared to regard these matters objectively. Neither am I asking her to do this. I merely ask her to be quiet. [Interjections.]

You never change.

She cannot even be quiet, because the gramophone must continue to play. [Interjections.] Another one of these standards is private property ownership, as well as the maintenance of the freedom of conscience of the individual. At the moment these things form part of the dialogue we are conducting with Black Governments.

In their own area.

No, not only in their own area, but everywhere. These are the things which have to be guaranteed not only in this country, but also in South West Africa if there is to be development, investments in and progress for these areas.

And the rule of law?

The hon. member is not listening, but is thinking of a court case …

Do you believe that there is a rule of law in this country?

Yes, and I will tell you what …

Do you believe that?

We have just received a report of a judicial commission which sets out in detail the position in South Africa and which makes recommendations, which we have accepted. However, the hon. member did not read it.

Do you say that the rule of law applies in this country?

That hon. member is out of his depth, as he is most of the time.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister?

No, I am sorry, but I cannot reply to questions now.

What you know about habeas corpus is dangerous.

What I know of habeas corpus may be dangerous, but what that hon. member knows about decency is also dangerous.

Thirdly, we believe in the distribution of wealth, not in its apportionment. The apportionment of wealth is dangerous, because if that should happen, people would not be able to obtain that which could improve their living conditions through their own efforts. We are therefore striving for the distribution of wealth by means of regional development, decentralization and the deconcentration of industries. This also includes Black people of the various nations who find themselves outside the self-governing and independent States in the urban areas of the Republic of South Africa.

Does it give them property ownership?

Now just listen to that windmill. Will he not give me a chance to state my case? After that, he can wave his arms about as much as he likes, and then I will reply to his question as well.

You are not answering the questions that were put to you.

I am not here to reply to the hon. member’s questions, but to make my speech. I am now dealing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who at least knows more about these matters than the hon. member.

Van Zyl Slabbert also thinks so.

On 1 April we launched a scheme which I referred to earlier, a scheme which was only brought about through great effort. It was preceded by prolonged talks at service level and thereafter at ministerial level as well, and, as hon. members will observe in these documents which have been made available to every hon. member, the permission of the various Governments has been obtained for the basis on which this regional development, the decentralization, deconcentration and agricultural development, have been initiated. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that if we do not succeed in this attempt, the economy of this country is going to develop in a distorted way. Firstly, it has nothing to do with ideological considerations, and secondly, it has nothing to do with racial considerations either. In the first instance, it has to do with the balanced development of a State, and every South African, regardless of his political convictions, can work at this. That is what I am pleading for, Sir. We are not only seeking co-operation with the TBV countries, but also co-operation with the private sector. Our endeavour is to raise the standard of living of people.

I do not wish to tire this House with figures; time will not allow me to do this either, but the following statistics are rather interesting.

†If one compares the gross national income per capita of different countries, one finds that that of Bophuthatswana is R420; of Transkei, R290; of Chad R100; of Benin, R160; of Ethiopia, R90 and of Gambia R160.

*I could quote further examples to show how well our independent Black States compare with other African States in this field.

Let us compare some other figures as well. In Bophuthatswana, there is a hospital bed for every 224 people, a doctor for every 9 000 people and a nurse for every 410 people. The figures for Transkei are 326, 17 000 and 690 respectively. When one compares these figures with those for Nigeria—which has more oil than it knows what to do with—the position is the following: The population per bed is 11 168; the population per doctor is 15 800; and the population per nurse is 4 000.

I could also quote figures to show the number of pupils per teacher and the percentage of pupils in primary and secondary schools in relation to the total population. In this case, too, our Black States, born of the former Union of South Africa, compare very well with the best in Africa. If we make a concerted effort to get our balanced economy going and to persuade foreign investors to invest here with confidence—in fact, they are already doing so—we could benefit enormously. I want to tell the hon. the the Leader of the Opposition that from the reaction we are receiving from the private sector and from many other investors, it is already clear that the Government has hit upon something here which could be of great benefit to the other States as well as the Republic of South Africa if we would only unite in utilizing it.

In the fourth place, we are moving away from the heritage of colonialism and subservience to foreign powers. South Africa is escaping from the consequences of colonialism. We are still engaged in this process, and we must spell out to the world that we are moving away from colonial practices and legacies through a peaceful process without violence and bloodshed. That is why we advocate the concept of freedom with responsibility. There will be urban development around and inside the national and independent States, but we also know that large numbers of Black people are concentrated around our cities and towns. We are trying to improve their housing and services, through electrification, as in the case of Soweto, for example. We are trying to introduce a system of local government which will operate at a higher level than municipal government. What is more, we are also prepared to have talks with the national and independent States about further links between the urban communities in the Republic and the various States. Why not? Why should we refuse to link these people in a natural, historic way with those things that form part of their heritage?

In the fifth place, we believe in orderly government, as far as this is humanly possible. Only then can there be development, progress and prosperity. That is why we are fighting the spirit of revolution. But we are not fighting the spirit of revolution with negative and physical instruments only. Our entire budget and policy are designed to improve the quality of people’s lives. This is an enormous task. In the light of the background against which we have to work, in the light of the historic road we have travelled, and the fact that we find ourselves with this mixed economy, if I may call it that—a backward African economy on the one hand and an advanced economy on the other—the two aspects of which one has to reconcile with each other, this task is an almost superhuman one. However, if one does not maintain order and orderly government, one cannot accomplish this. Then one will meet with the same fate as some of our neighbouring countries and some African countries have met with. Where order and orderly government have disappeared, disorder has spread in the economic sphere as well. Capital has fled. A lack of confidence has arisen concerning investment possibilities. This we must prevent. This makes the task so much more complicated.

In the sixth place, we can unite in our will to fight communism. And communism presents a real threat because Russia also has an expansionist urge in Southern Africa which it wants to satisfy. It is doing so through the satellite countries and through the pawns which it uses. We can fight this, firstly by making a positive attempt to enter into nonaggression pacts with our neighbouring States. With some of the independent States we already have such pacts. We can also do this by trying to enter into defence agreements with them. We can do it by promising one another that we will not make our countries available as springboards for attacks against one another.

In the seventh place, we can co-operate for the sake of our common pride in our fatherland. There is so much that we can all be proud of, in the field of planning and labour, for example. Our extensive railway network is something to be proud of in South Africa. Then there are our extensive road networks; our power-lines for the supply of electricity; our modern harbours with their container facilities; our modern naval base, Simonstown, with its advance bases; our communications system, which can be of great service to world shipping; our purposeful Defence Force and Police and our telephone network, with more than 2 million telephones. With 3,7% of the surface area of Africa, we produce more than 20% of the gross product of the African continent. Therefore we have reason to be proud, and I mention these aspects because I am looking for those things which can inspire us as a country to show our national unity in spite of political differences. Like my predecessor, I have repeatedly emphasized the need for co-operation in Southern Africa.

Within a more limited context there is the concept of a confederation of States, something with which we are making progress. I have said from the start that a confederation cannot be brought about in a day. It has to grow in response to a need. In the economic field and in other fields one has to prepare for the day when one will establish one’s secretariates and when one will have regular meetings. And we are having more and more regular meetings between independent States. In a wider context there is co-operation between Southern African States as a constellation of States. I hardly need to quote any examples, but one sees it in our rand monetary area, in our customs agreements and in our toll union agreements. With these means we have already moved beyond promoting only that which immediately surrounds us. These are all signs that an understanding may develop in Southern Africa for the common problems of the continent and for the fact that these must be resolved through concerted action. Co-operation is taking place in several spheres with countries inside and outside this series of agreements.

Some time ago the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had talks with the Prime Minister of one of the former British protectorates. I believe that these were fruitful discussions which had positive results. I am referring in this connection to Lesotho. We have had talks with Swaziland at a very high level from time to time. I am glad to be able to announce today that the prospects are good for a meeting to be held soon between Dr. Kaunda and myself. I shall say more about this at the appropriate time. I do not think I should go any further today. We shall continue to act in this positive spirit in our relations with the sub-continent and we shall strive for peace. We shall seek co-operation, but is must always be accompanied by the things I have mentioned here, i.e. the preservation of our self-respect, of our own values and of civilized standards.

I do not want to be unkind at this stage and I do not mean it in that spirit either. However, the reproach which I make against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and against the hon. member for Waterberg as well, because he has the same tendency, is that they concentrate too much on negative politics and that they do not emphasize the positive aspects. In the second place, they refuse to accept responsibility with us. Both these parties are known for one thing, and that is that they evade responsibility. I hope there will be an improvement in this respect.

I now want to deal more specifically with the position of the Coloureds. I said last night that we were living in serious times, and democracy must not destroy itself through nit-picking and superficial verbal games. The crucial problem with which we are faced with regard to the Coloureds and the Asians in South Africa is that there are people who are excluded from decision-making processes where their interests and expectations are affected. I admit that. This applies in particular to the Coloureds and the Asians. Ways must be found of creating a different dispensation for them, and this will not be done by evading the issue. There are some people who simply want to drown the subject in a flood of words. One will not achieve one’s objective in this way. Nor will one achieve it through suspicion-mongering on both sides, for those people are watching us as well. Unnecessary suspicion-mongering also makes them unwilling to contribute their share to co-operation. We shall not achieve our objective through a semantic play on words either, for this is an illusion.

In the fourth place: In seeking reform, we must not allow this to take place at the expense of stability, for it is in their interest, too, that the stability which has been achieved in South Africa be preserved.

This has been a dilemma for every Government. It was a dilemma for the late Gen. Hertzog. This relationship between the Coloureds and the Whites was a problem even before that. At the time of Union, the late Gen. Botha refused, at the National Convention, to allow the non-White franchise which existed in the Cape Province and in Natal to be extended to the Transvaal. He said he would bring the process of Union to a halt rather than allow that. It was a dilemma even then. Subsequently, in Gen. Hertzog’s time, it was a dilemma. I have with me the statement issued by Gen. Hertzog as Prime Minister, in which he dealt with the political position of the Coloureds and at the same time with their social and economic problems. I have in my possession a speech made by the late Senator F. S. Malan in the Senate, in which he said that we could not go on treating the Coloureds in the way they had been treated in the past; special instruments must be created to improve their circumstances. These have been created. They have been created under the NP régime.

Such as? [Interjections.]

It was a dilemma in Dr. Malan’s time and Dr. Verwoerd’s time as well. I was close enough to both of them. The one was my political mentor and the other one was a Prime Minister in whose Cabinet I was in charge of the Coloured Affairs portfolio. From both of them I learned this: In spite of the negative things that have been said about the late Dr. Malan and Dr. Verwoerd, both of them believed that the Coloureds should first be uplifted and that the consequences of this should be accepted.

That policy has to a large extent succeeded. That policy of upliftment, of improving their standards of living, of their educational standards, of creating positions in the professional and labour spheres, has to a large extent succeeded. Just look at the figures.

I admit that the political solution was lacking. That was why Dr. Verwoerd wrote to Mr. Menzies in his time that one of the solutions would be direct representation for Coloureds in the House of Assembly. He said this, but he was not decried as a traitor for doing so.

I say that the Government’s dilemma is to find a solution to this, and this would be any Government’s dilemma, for whether or not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes into power—it will take him a long time to come into power—he will have to take into account the core of White people in this country who have no other fatherland and who want their rights preserved in this country. I am not saying this in order to stir up emotion, but these are hard realities which every Government must take into consideration and, as far as I am concerned, wishes to take into consideration.

Finally, under the leadership of my predecessor, the Erika Theron Commission was appointed, and this commission produced a report on a whole series of matters. I want to refer to only one. The commission said that the Westminster system could not work. These are my words, but this was what the commission’s finding amounted to, i.e. that the Westminster system could not work. However, no solution was suggested. This led to the attempt by the NP to establish a Committee of Ministers—of which I was chairman at the time—in an attempt to seek a solution. For a year we went out of our way to find a solution, but we found that there were as many solutions as there were political scientists.

With the 1977 proposals, however, certain principles were adopted, and I should like to mention them. Firstly, there was to have been an executive State President, elected jointly by an electoral college consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. This was a principle and it is recorded in black and white. There was to have been joint decision-making in the appointment of an executive State President. That principle was accepted by the NP congresses. It was also put to the voters and accepted in the 1977 election. Secondly, a Council of Cabinets was to have been established which was to have functioned like an ordinary Cabinet. This was recorded in the official documents of the party. When the hon. member for Sea Point questioned that aspect, he received the confirmation that this was in fact so. Thirdly, there was to have been one final Government authority able to take final decisions in the event of conflicting opinions, i.e. if a dispute arose among the proposed three Parliaments and if a Select Committee, which was to have been appointed jointly, could not resolve that conflict. In such a case, the State President was to have had the final say, and he would have been able to impose his will through one Parliament. In other words, the proposal was that there should be one Government authority.

White supremacy.

In the fourth place, provision was made for final authority in parliamentary decision-making in the event of a deadlock being reached. In such a case, the State President was to have constituted that authority. However, provision was also made for an elected mixed President’s Council, and I emphasize the words “elected mixed President’s Council”. Initially those schemes were very well received. I was involved in all those matters, because I attended all the negotiations, all the negotiations with the Coloured and Asian leaders. Initially those proposals were very well received. In fact, one of the Coloured leaders said it was more than they could have expected. That was the remark he made. Subsequently something happened, however, and I do not wish to discuss this now, because it is water which has already passed under the bridge. Langenhoven said that the mills could never be made to grind again by the waters that had passed. Those waters have passed beneath the bridge, and the Coloureds eventually rejected this scheme. Then we came to the impasse that a policy which had been accepted by the governing party was not accepted by the population groups concerned.

Then a new initiative emerged, as it always will in the NP. The Government said: Very well, then we shall appoint a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to see whether we cannot reach a solution through consultation on the joint committee. The joint committee consulted over a long period. There were differences about certain things, but on certain basic matters there was agreement. What were those basic matters? One of them was a change to the Westminster system. I am making this very clear now, because there was a misunderstanding between the hon. member for Sea Point and myself about this in the no-confidence debate. I think we were talking at cross-purposes. The rejection of the Westminster system included a possible common voters’ roll. The official Opposition agreed with us that the Westminster system did not offer any solution, not even with a common voters’ roll. Therefore I am entitled to say, as I have been saying since then—this is also my personal conviction—that I am not in favour of a common voters’ roll. I have very good reason for this belief.

The same as Smith.

The hon. member has got Smith on his brain.

But the USA does not have a Westminster system.

I am not talking about the USA at the moment. I am dealing with South Africa.

The USA has a common voters’ roll but it does not have a Westminster system.

The hon. member is a little confused. He does not understand what I am arguing about. I do not know what happened to him yesterday.

The second point on which we agreed was that we accepted the principle that the Senate should be abolished. The abolition of the Senate formed part of the 1979 proposals. It was already contained in those proposals.

To make room for a possible second house.

In the third place, this Select Committee led to the establishment, not of an elected President’s Council, but of a nominated one. This was actually inferior to the proposals which had been approved in 1977.

What was to be the task of the new President’s Council? I am now spoon-feeding this information to hon. members, for some of them need to be spoon-fed. In the first place, the new President’s Council had to consider the evidence which had been submitted to the joint Select Committee, because the Select Committee had not been able to work through all the evidence. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will know that there was a mountain of evidence. The new President’s Council had to read, study and digest that information. Secondly, it had to examine a Bill which had been submitted to it on behalf of the Government. In the third place, it had to call for further evidence. In the fourth place, it had to consider all these documents and to deliberate upon them, in committee and in public. Then it had to make recommendations to the State President and the Government.

What further steps will now be taken when this has been done? This is not a question of creating a new policy. The party’s policy remains unchanged in the interim. After all, we are now waiting for an evaluation of our policy and for a report. This being so, what further steps will be taken? When the recommendations have been considered by the Cabinet, which is the responsible body, and when the Government has taken a stand, the matter will naturally be referred to the party caucus. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would also refer anything of this nature to his caucus. Then we shall take it to our own party congresses, and if there are any drastic departures, we shall ask the congresses to decide whether or not they agree to these. Of course the Government will provide guidance. If any drastic departures or any drastic recommendations are accepted by the congresses, we shall go even further, as I have said. Then we want to do what the late Dr. Verwoerd did before we became a republic. He said that he was not content to have the decision about becoming a republic taken by his party congresses only, and that he was going to hold a referendum, because he wanted to establish the Republic on the basis of a plesbiscite. For that reason, I have said, I am going to hold a referendum. However, we have also said that we shall provide for the Coloureds and the Asians to be consulted as well. I believe this is the only proper way of doing it. Only then, when all those steps have been taken, shall we come back to Parliament—this is a very important point—just as we did after the referendum about the republic. After all, Parliament is the highest legislative body, the sovereign body in our national life.

Here we had a Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to serve. Yet he is not prepared to serve on the President’s Council. But he was prepared to serve on this White Committee. [Interjections.]

Can you not see the difference?

Only then will legislation follow. Then it will be this Parliament which will have to decide, as the sovereign body, what the nature of that legislation should be, what it should provide for and what it should not.

When questions were being asked about these steps, therefore, I was right when I said at the time, as leader in chief of the NP, that there could be many further discussions of this matter. I say it again this afternoon. Of course, it will only be discussed by responsible people. Irresponsible people cannot discuss it. I repeat that changes cannot be made overnight. Even these changes cannot be made overnight. People’s rights are at stake. There are also rights that have to be granted. Therefore a process will have to be initiated, and this will depend on our attitude in initiating that process. I believe that the attitude is important; this includes my attitude when I get on a platform outside this House and make speeches which have a popular appeal in certain circles, thereby bedevilling the relations between population groups, or, on the other hand, the attitude to which I referred a short while ago when I read the first article in the NP’s programme of principles. Therefore the question is: What is our attitude in going to the country?

What is also very important, however, is that in terms of the policy of the NP, no constitutional change can be brought about unless it has been approved by the House of Assembly as presently constituted. So any change has to be approved by the House of Assembly as presently constituted. The NP is not the only party that says so. The PFP also says so.

That is correct.

Yes, of course.

Yes, but we are simply recording that fact. The PFP also says so. They say that they will hold a national convention. I do not wish to discuss the national convention this afternoon. We can discuss that at a later stage. The PFP says that it will arrange a national convention. In reply to the question of what would happen if a deadlock were reached at that convention, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has himself said—

This is also my reply to the hon. member for Berea. When deadlocks arise, the Government will govern. What will happen after the national convention? Only when the institutions which they have established at a national convention … and that is going to take a very long time indeed, that is certain. [Interjections.] Allow me to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he has already tried it and it has not even got off the ground yet. All I can tell him is that once he has got his national convention together, it will really be a sorry affair. [Interjections.] Now he says—

In other words, sovereignty is vested in this House; here the decision will be taken as to what part of its sovereignty it will relinquish. This is at the same time my reply to the hon. sleeping member for Waterkloof.

Sir, I have almost finished …

Take your time!

Yes, I am taking my time. Thank you for the high-priestly permission. [Interjections.]

You should simply read more of our pamphlets. [Interjections.]

What is also important, however, is that under the NP regime and under the personal leadership of Dr. Verwoerd, the Asian population was accepted as a permanent part of the population of this country. Before that, there had been a repatriation policy, and when that failed, the Smuts Government attempted in all kinds of ways to make temporary arrangements. However, these also failed. Under the personal leadership of Dr. Verwoerd, a statement was issued to the effect that the Asians would henceforth be regarded as a permanent part of the population. In addition, they were given right of ownership in their delimitated group areas.

Not in the Free State.

There were no Indians in the Free State at that time. [Interjections.]

There still aren’t any!

There were no Indians in the Free State at that time, just as there are no Progs in the Free State today. [Interjections.] The Free Staters are rather careful about whom they allow there!

The second point I want to make is that when one looks at the number of Coloured people, one finds that almost 2 252 000 of them are Afrikaans-speaking. Many of them are still backward and poor. Many have just been removed from slums where they had been exploited. There are also 324 000 English-speaking Coloured people. As far as their religious affiliations are concerned, we find that 678 000 of them belong to the Dutch Reformed Church, 2 700 to the Gereformeerde Kerk, 48 000 to the Apostolic Faith Mission and 2 700 to the Hervormde Kerk. A total number of 730 000 Coloured people therefore belong to churches usually associated with the Afrikaner. It is quite interesting to note what Dr. Malan’s standpoint in this connection was and to note the spirit in which he approached the Coloured people in the religious sphere as well. He said that we should also create opportunities for these people in their own churches, otherwise they would remain on the back benches.

Today the Coloured people serve loyally in the S.A. Police Force and voluntarily in the S.A. Defence Force. Thousands of them work in Armscor factories, and when there were strikes in many factories about a year ago, the Armscor employees continued to render faithful service.

I mentioned earlier in my speech that the Coloured question was a dilemma which we have had been faced with since the time of General Hertzog. General Hertzog’s standpoint was that the Coloured people should be segregated with regard to residential areas and social intercourse. Politically, however, they belonged with the Whites. Dr. Malan supported him in this, but at a certain point he changed his mind about the matter and advocated a different policy. He admitted this himself. However, Dr. Malan was reluctant to remove Coloured representatives from the House of Assembly. This is also a matter of the past, however. Under the present Westminster system one would be doing the Coloureds more harm than good if one tried to accomplish this.

Why?

But that is what we have been discussing all afternoon. The hon. member has probably been dozing all the time. What are my guidelines at the moment? I am awaiting the recommendations of the President’s Council. Why? Because the President’s Council was created by this Parliament. If I anticipate its recommendations, I shall be accused of dictating to the President’s Council. If I do not say what my guidelines are, I am accused of marking time and of treading water. What nonsense, what nit-picking! I am saying now what my guidelines are. The Coloured people have no form of representation which would enable them to express their opinion on matters which affect them and which affect us jointly.

Are they Brown Afrikaners?

They are Brown South Africans. I am saying this for your edification as well as for that of the hon. member for Waterberg, who also asked this foolish question on another occasion. The first guideline, therefore, is co-responsibility where necessary. The Coloured people are not Arabs.

Who are Arabs, then?

The Arabs are. [Interjections.] It is not a disgrace to be an Arab. After all, they are half-brothers Of the Jews. [Interjections.] My second guideline is decentralization of power as far as possible, because I believe in decentralization, not only of the Public Service, but also of other authorities in South Africa. Through decentralization, representation is brought closer to the people. We still stand for decentralization or division of power.

My third guideline is the creation of proper instruments for the Coloureds at the third level, and where there is a need for those instruments to consult with other existing White instruments, the means must be created for making this possible.

My fourth guideline is that the same principle should be applied at the second level of government as well. The fifth guideline is the proper development of first-level government, and we are presently awaiting proposals in this connection. If this cannot be done overnight, we are prepared to create those instruments over a period of years. Joint consultation must be possible at all levels and there must be co-responsibility. Co-responsibility means that joint decision-making must also be possible. I cannot put it any more clearly. I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that it has been made reasonably clear. It is in accordance with the twelve-point plan of the NP. What is more, I am not in favour of a homeland for the Coloureds because I believe it to be impractical, whether it takes the form of one consolidated area or of many separate ones. [Interjections.]

What has happened under this Government? In the course of a few decades, the Government has created 255 residential areas for the Coloureds in cities and towns, some of which are very highly developed. The State has spent millions of rands on providing housing for those people. Surely one cannot convert these into a homeland. On one occasion I used the word “cantons” and at the time people wanted to bite my head off. I say what has been created is a form of cantons. We have developed the rural areas. These are not homelands but there are rural areas which are several million hectares in extent. We have improved the agricultural industry in those areas and the State has rendered assistance to them as to bring about their involvement in farming as well. However, some of those areas are not in the original reserves. They have been created by this Government along the Orange River, to mention only one example. There is more, and this brings me to the story concerning power-sharing which was also raised here. One would swear that the earth was struck by a new thunderbolt when I referred to this matter. When the Cabinet considered the 1977 proposals there were several Ministers—and now I am saying this here with all the authority I have—who said that those proposals contained a form of power-sharing.

Where did they say that?

In the Cabinet. You were not there. However, you said so, too. What is more, the hon. member for Rissik said so, too. [Interjections.] Then it was decided, in order to avoid political confusion, that we wanted to use the concept of joint responsibility, “medeverantwoordelik-heid”, and our policy was made public under that concept. But in arguments that were advanced we were constantly pestered about this question of power-sharing. Was it power-sharing or was it not? When the confusion arose in the party I issued a statement to put the Government’s standpoint. My standpoint, as I put it on behalf of the Government, was the following—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees with this statement—

A federal State.

A federal unitary State. It remains a unitary State. It is not a Unitarian State, but a unitary State.

What is the difference?

Let us not have another quarrel with one another over words. The fact remains that the PFP wants to involve all people—Black, Brown, Yellow and White—in one State. [Interjections.] Why are hon. members quarrelling with me now? I am dealing with my statement. Just stop quarrelling. I went on to say in my statement—

I shall tell you what is healthy in this. What is healthy in this, is what I have just dealt with, and that is that if joint decisions have to be taken, such decisions must relate to common interests and people must be afforded the opportunity of dealing with the matters affecting them. This is what I mean by that. I do not mean by that, however, the constitutional future which the PFP sees in that. That is why I went on to say—

Those honest (!) people make no mention of this word—

This is what I said in my statement.

It is the same thing.

Allow me to draw my conclusion here on the analogy of another example. It is stated in the Charter of the UN that the UN stands for the right of peoples to self-determination. Are we, because those words appear in the Charter, to avoid using the words “right to self-determination”? In the constitution of Soviet Russia—a communist constitution—it is written that it is a democratic constitution. We also speak of the Democratic Republic of East Germany.

And on top of that they are conservative, too.

Yes, and on top of that they are conservative, too. Are we, because the words “democratic” and “conservative” are used there, to refrain from speaking of those concepts? Surely that is nonsense. Therefore I say that I will use those words. Those words are there to be used and I will use them, because I want to endeavour to pursue honest politics in this country.

You learned it from the Progs.

Surely that word is not a creation of the Progs.

We used it, but you did not like it.

Nothing is the creation of the Progs. Sir, I have just reviewed where I stand in respect of this matter, and I hope that it is clear.

I want to conclude by saying a few words to the Treurnicht group. I am not going to start a major quarrel with them and I shall tell hon. members why. I think one should start ignoring them. They are a group in search of principles to conceal their deed of disloyalty towards their party. The hon. member for Waterberg is a victim of some people indulging in revenge politics in this country.

Who, for example?

You.

People indulging in revenge politics, washed-up politicians indulging in revenge politics. The hon. member is their victim. However, I should like to say this in his favour: I do not think he wanted to leave. He was forced to leave. [Interjections.]

In the second place I want to say that the name of Adv. Strijdom has been used and has also been abused. I knew Adv. Strijdom very well, even better than hon. members will realize. I number him amongst the most intimate friends I have had in my life, and I have written proof of this. Strijdom was a man, as Mr. Douglas Mitchell once referred to him: “He was a man’s man.” Adv. Strijdom, too, came into conflict with Dr. Malan on matters of principle. However, he was defeated in the federal council of his party, as well as in its head committee. He then appealed to his congress and there, too, he was defeated. Subsequent to this he accepted the leadership of his congress and his chief leader. He could have crucified himself. But he was a patriot.

That means you must never leave a party.

No, one can leave a party. In fact, that hon. member has left several. But I am not dealing with his chequered career at the moment. This Treurnicht group was defeated in their caucus. They themselves raised the matter there; not I. I did not raise the matter in the caucus; the hon. member for Waterberg did. He raised it there; not I, and he was defeated. While I was on my way to South West Africa to deal with important matters, he pulled a surprise on us by calling a meeting of the head committee, and at the meeting of the head committee he was defeated as well. Instead of appealing to his congress, he fled. So he ousted himself from the leadership of the Transvaal. He must not say that I expelled him.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

No. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Groote Schuur also tried to take up the cudgels with me once, and he left George with a flea in the ear and he is still running!

I want to ask the hon. members for Waterberg, Lichtenburg, Brakpan and Waterkloof this: What did I do to them for them to have done this to me?

It is very easy to reply to that.

I knew that they did not like me, but in spite of that I allowed them, for the sake of NP unity, to occupy positions which I could have given to other people. I placed confidence in them, but they have trampled that confidence underfoot. I am sad about this; do not think I am saying this easily, because it is not pleasant for one to see one’s own people leaving one. It is no easy matter to be in this position and to see, while the enemies of South Africa are knocking at the door and the powers of revolution are threatening one’s country, one’s own people running away from one with their tails between their legs. This is not easy. If there are hon. members who know this, they are those two hon. gentlemen occupying the front bench over there, because they were members of the Cabinet. They were fully informed and had been taken into our confidence completely.

That is why I want to say this this afternoon: Subsequent to the caucus meeting I said we should give them a chance for eight days in an attempt to allow them to reflect; they did not want to. At the meeting of the Transvaal head committee I rose and asked that they be granted an extension of time to speak. They have had every opportunity to justify themselves. They were defeated because they were in the wrong. They were defeated because they did the most terrible thing: They left the NP in the lurch.

I am prepared to give the correspondence conducted between them and myself to the Press; I am going to give it to the Press now.

Well, do so.

Then it will be seen that they were not expelled, but that they themselves resigned.

Yes, do so.

So why does the hon. member for Waterberg tell the lie from a platform that he had been expelled? After all, the hon. member was a minister of religion; he should not lie. [Interjections.]

Order!

You said he must go. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say today we have people here who were disloyal to what people in this country had sacrificed everything for. Here we have a number of people—I am not even mentioning the hon. member for Kuruman, because he cannot be anything but disloyal—who are engaging in negative politics. They are in search of a policy to conceal their disloyalty, and they are shirking responsibility. We shall crush them; we shall expose them for what they are and we shall defeat them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech fell into various parts. In the very short time available to me I shall certainly not be touching at all on the latter part of his speech which was clearly part of his feud with members of the CP. For the rest, there were aspects of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech that were extremely interesting. It was good that, in the main, he followed the constructive approach of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the main problem of South Africa, i.e. the question of political rights and political orientation. The hon. the Prime Minister, however, spoilt what was otherwise a very interesting and worthwhile speech. I think it was most unfortunate that he had to get in a cheap gibe, with a racial or ethnic connotation, at the hon. member for Hillbrow. Given the present-day context …

What about the principles they set out?

… the context of present-day circumstances, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will think about it, will in fact acknowledge that it was unfortunate and will then let the hon. member know that he thinks it was unfortunate. I certainly believe he will do that. From the general tenor of his comments I believe that he will do that.

There are certain things about which we can agree. In the early stages of his speech he dealt with the Vice State President and with Sunday sport. He also dealt with the AWB. Let us make it quite clear that just as we on this side of the House reject racism and violence that may emanate from the left, so we also condemn neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism and racism if they emanate from the right. Let there consequently be no mistake about the attitude of this side of the House.

The hon. the Prime Minister spelt out certain guidelines in respect of his policy, the policy of the Government. Let me, however, just tell the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs that those seven points form a valuable reference point for future debating during this session. I believe it to have been an important statement that we can analyse, and let me just add—my Leader will be speaking later—that when we analyse it, we shall not be analysing it simply in a negative, “vlieë-afvang” fashion. We will be dealing with that aspect positively. When we are critical, however, the hon. the Minister must accept the fact that one can be positive even though one is being critical.

I shall deal with that.

The hon. the Prime Minister must accept that fact. We shall be getting to the whole question of “selfbeskikking”. That is the golden thread that runs through the present Prime Minister’s policy, but what the hon. the Prime Minister did not do today was to tell us what his interpretation of the word “selfbeskikking” is. [Interjections.]

He did tell us. Did you not understand it?

I do not say that he did not raise this question, but he did not deal with it. He said that it was not an absolute term. [Interjections.] Will the hon. the Prime Minister therefore spell out to us whether, in the “eenheidstaat” which he is creating for Coloureds, Indians and Whites, he also accepts as a principle—if he accepts the principle of “selfbeskikking” for Whites—“selfbeskikking” for Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] If he does, I believe that in due course the hon. the Prime Minister and that hon. Minister are going to have to tell us over which fields of government a particular community must have authority in order to exercise its “self-beskikkingsreg”. They must tell us which of those Cabinet Ministers must be under the direct control of each one of those groups in order to have “selfbeskikking”. Secondly, they must tell us how, in the mixed or common areas, one is going to have joint decision-making and the power-sharing concept married to that of “selfbeskikking”. That is the dilemma. As we see it, as one moves in the direction of sharing—the sharing of political power and joint decision-making—one is ineluctably moving away from the concept of self-determination. It is not a question of whether one likes it or not. As one moves in the direction of political integration, economic integration or social integration one moves away from the concept of “selfbeskikking”. So it is a very relative term. We want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister where he draws the line. How does he see “selfbeskikking”? If he can determine it for Whites, how is he going to apply that same principle to the Coloured and Asians in South Africa? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister also dealt with “beskaafde standaarde”. Hon. members on this side of the House will be examining that in detail. He also dealt with “’n onafhanklike regbank”. We all accept this concept, but is there not going to have to be greater division of authority between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature in South Africa? Can one pay lip-service to the concept of an independent judiciary and yet have laws that deprive citizens of the protection of the courts? How can one talk about an independent judiciary and then say to them they may not pronounce on the rights and liberties of citizens in the country? We can talk of family life—I believe it is good that the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with this—but let us then deal with it in the context of influx control in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister also spoke of “private eiendomsreg”. I want to put it to him: Is he going to stop the legalized robbery which takes place under the Group Areas Act?

That is a scandalous remark.

You are besmirching your own country.

Is he going to restore to the Coloured people their right to move back into District Six? How can we talk of the right to private property and at the same time have the compulsory removal of people and the compulsory alienation of land under a host of laws in South Africa?

I want to touch very briefly on the question of the Coloured population group. This is going to become an important debating point in South Africa. I must be quite frank. I am not so much concerned about getting some satisfaction out of the fact that the Government is changing its attitude towards the Coloureds. I could give as many quotations as the hon. the Prime Minister gave from Hertzog, Malan, F. S. Malan and all those people. They were used by Harry Lawrence, Koos Strauss and De Villiers Graaff in this House for 30 years. It is fun for us, but that is not what it is about. We will withhold our detailed analysis of the old plan until we see what the Government has in mind for the future. It is much more important for us to analyse what they have in mind for the future than to start analysing the wrongs they did in the past.

Why then did you not take part in the President’s Council? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the Westminster system. Here I should like the attention of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. He and I were party to the document which rejected the Westminster system in its unadapted form. The hon. the Prime Minister persists in equating the Westminster system with a common voters’ roll. I want to say that that is not the essential feature of the Westminster system.

It is one of the features.

There is a common voters’ roll in Zambia, in the German Republics and in the United States of America. The common voters’ roll is not the feature of the Westminster system.

Not at all?

It is a factor, but it is not peculiar to the Westminster system. In fact, in the Westminster system until a few years ago there was not even a common voters’ roll. There were university seats in the Westminster Parliament. People vote on a universal franchise under the Westminster system, but also under a host of other systems there is a universal franchise. The cardinal feature of the Westminster system is the dominance of a sovereign Parliament. It is in fact the sovereignty of Parliament as the greatest overall authority in the State which makes the Westminster system what it is.

The hon. the Prime Minister has discovered the wheel: He has discovered that the Westminster system will not work. Let him refer to the first speech made by Dr. Jan Steytler as the leader of the Progressive Party in 1960. Let him refer to the Molteno Commission’s report. If he does so, he will find that we said there that the existing system with a sovereign central Parliament was not a system within which one could give protection to minority groups in South Africa and that we had to move away from that.

We shall therefore watch with great interest the proposals that are going to come, but there are two things we must make quite clear. Firstly, if they are in fact just gerrymandering in order to maintain White “baasskap” with a semblance of Coloured and Indian representation, we say they will not work. Secondly, we must point out that whatever one may do to solve the Coloured/Indian problem, the predominant political problem in South Africa is not simply that of the Coloured, the Indian and the White but involves Black people as well. We say this not because we are ideologically hung-up on this but because we believe that it is a reality and a fact that, just as Coloureds and Indians must share power with Whites, so the Blacks who are integrated into the economic structure, who are integrated in the non-homeland areas of South Africa, just as the Coloureds and Whites are, are going to have to be accommodated in the political system. We shall approach this constructively because we share with many people in South Africa a deep concern both as regards the international situation surrounding us and the very delicate internal situation developing in South Africa. It is not for us at this stage to apportion blame, although we could do so. We want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that we are going to examine those proposals from the fundamental point of view as to whether they will result in a real sharing of power without discrimination and as to whether they will make it possible for Black people to be included in the power structure of the constitution of South Africa in the future.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the hon. member for Sea Point adopted a very interesting standpoint this afternoon. In the first place he sided with the new Opposition group in his concern regarding what the right to self-determination actually means in the terminology of the NP. I must say it seems to me as if he is becoming afraid of the possible consequences of his own policy, because his interpretation of self-determination is dangerous. However, a surprise awaits him because we are going to prove to him that it is in fact possible to reconcile the two. [Interjections.] I do not want to spend much more time on the hon. member for Sea Point now. I said in this House as much as a few years ago that I believed the PFP was not relevant in South African politics.

However, today is the first opportunity I have to exchange a few words with the new Opposition group sitting opposite us, the CP. Like the hon. the Prime Minister, I want to say at the outset that I do not like to see them there; after all, they are my own people. Genetically they are our brothers. There is no doubt about that.

And our sister.

Yes, and our sister too. However, it is an unpleasant but irrefutable fact that every family group has its black sheep. I have listened attentively to the standpoints of hon. members of the CP during the past few weeks. I have also taken careful note of what they have said elsewhere, as reported in the newspapers. Like all other hon. members on this side of the House I sought an indication of a guideline—I am not asking for a policy, because it is presumably much too early for that; it would be unfair—regarding the aspect which is supposed to have compelled them to move away from us. It is our future political relationship with the Coloureds and the Asians, as contained in the 1977 proposals, and as contained in the CP’s prophecies regarding what the President’s Council will recommend, and also regarding which of these recommendations we shall accept. All we have heard is prophecies of doom regarding the President’s Council. We have heard absolutely nothing else from them, except that the hon. the Leader of the CP has stated, every time he is cross-examined on the matter, that there is still plenty of time to discuss this matter. If he would be so kind as to listen to me, I should like to speak in all seriousness to the hon. the Leader of the CP.

Go ahead, I am listening.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the CP this afternoon in all seriousness whether he really thinks there is still plenty of time in South Africa to continue this discussion, a discussion which has been conducted for decades now. If he really thinks so, I submit that this reveals a deplorable lack of insight into the realities of South Africa as we know them, a deplorable lack of insight on the part of the leader of a political party in this Parliament. Apart from a great many fine-sounding words and hackneyed phrases on which I shall not elaborate, we have not had a single indication of a meaningful possible alternative for this question, which is certainly a burning issue. All we have heard is that the hon. the Leader of the CP has rejected the Council of Cabinets because it will be mixed and because it will have executive power, etc. However, he went further and quoted the previous Prime Minister. I want to put it to him that I believe he has done the previous Prime Minister a disservice. I do not believe the previous Prime Minister deserves this treatment, because what he said was not open to doubt. What he said in this Parliament in 1978, regarding the Council of Cabinets was quite unambiguous, namely that the Council of Cabinets would have executive authority.

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the CP alleged in this House that when the Council of Cabinets was discussed, and comparisons drawn, they were actually speaking of a Cabinet Council, which would consist of Ministers, homeland leaders, etc. Now I should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the CP who said that and where.

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Leader of the CP spoke with reference to the standpoint adopted by the previous Prime Minister regarding the Council of Cabinets. However, he did not make that clear.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Leader of the CP must just give me a chance now. He did not put it clearly. According to him the previous Prime Minister said it would be along the lines of the present Cabinet, or words to that effect. However, the hon. the Leader of the CP left it at that. He then raised his idea of a Cabinet Council which they were then supposed to have discussed.

If you were to read that document you would find it. It appears on page 15.

I am referring to things said in this House, and not things that were written down. I am referring to irrefutable things about which the hon. the Leader of the CP must agree with me. This is the basic truth at issue. [Interjections.]

These are things the Transvaal leader of the NP wrote down.

I should like to proceed. Yesterday the hon. the leader of the CP also said here that there can be more than one form of joint decision-making or co-responsibility. I want to tell the hon. member for Waterberg that the word which sometimes causes him embarrassment, namely co-responsibility, can according to him have more than one meaning. However, he denies that this is the case as far as the word power-sharing is concerned. Are certain words exceptions, or are they measured in terms of other norms? This sort of double standard must be spelt out.

The point I actually want to make is that the hon. member for Waterberg said that a Council of Cabinets with executive power was unacceptable to his party. He also said he did not believe in a homeland for Coloureds, because it was impractical. In an earlier debate he said—

To this statement this side of the House said “Amen” along with the hon. member, because after all this is something we cannot argue our way around. He went on to say that he did not accept healthy power-sharing or power-sharing in any form whatsoever, nor a homeland. Now I should like to ask the hon. member where he wants to give the Coloureds effective political power, and in what manner. Without intending to sound at all facetious one is tempted to ask whether the CP intends to give this to the Coloureds in the hereafter.

The hon. members of the CP still allege that they were driven out and that they did not break away of their own accord. Evidence has already been furnished here, and I, too, have irrefutable evidence that this step was planned for some time. Here is proof: Within three weeks after the breakaway caucus, a newspaper appeared on the streets, and I do not think anyone could be convinced that this could take place at such short notice if there had not been prior planning. I do not think the hon. members of the CP can convince themselves of this. [Interjections.]

I want to refer hon. members to page 6 of this newspaper, and I want to discuss this seriously. Here we read “Hoe verkoop jy Blanke selfbeskikking op paaiemente uit? and in brackets underneath that—(Bekruippolitiek)”. Then the question is asked: “Hoe doen jy dit? Hoe verkoop jy Blanke selfbeskikking stap vir stap uit? Die doeltreffendste en effektiefste metode is the NP se metode”, i.e. the party to which hon. members of the CP had still belonged a few days before. On the morning of 24 February the hon. member for Meyerton was in fact still prepared to wax lyrical about the NP and what it had achieved. However, suddenly the NP has become the most effective method of selling out the White man’s right to self-determination in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I can already hear the first distorted mouthings of the old pernicious cry of “Kafferboetie”, and I want to make a very sincere request of this new Opposition: For heaven’s sake, spare us this in the politics of the Afrikaner in the future, because it will lead to bitterness which can never be eradicated. Hon. members on that side are very dramatic. I know some of them have already said that the people at large are waiting to be led; all we have to do is lead them. This afternoon, however, I want to tell them they do not lead the people; the people lead them, because they were driven in the direction they are now following as a result of the prejudices and fears of the people outside. Hon. members on this side of the House know that after the last election some hon. members had the Hertzog jitters about the results of that election. [Interjections.] I repeat that those hon. members are not leading the people, but are fleeing the realities of South Africa; as a matter of fact they are leading the flight from the realities of South and Southern Africa!

The people of Sasolburg …

Leave the people of Sasolburg to me! They have at all times been kept informed of the realities of NP policy! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Sasolburg, and I think that in future we shall continue to have many enjoyable debates with each other. Next month I am going to speak in Sasolburg, and I should also very much like to talk to the hon. member’s voters there. I hope that like me, he will try to serve South Africa in the spirit he insists on, i.e. at a good and decent level of political debate.

I now come to the hon. the Prime Minister. He said, inter alia, that he could find no fault with the information contained in the speech of the chairman of the President’s Council, and that he accepted his word. Of course, the hon. the Prime Minister has every right to see the matter in this light. I also accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s explanation regarding the publication of the telegram. This sort of thing can happen easily in any office.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of an earlier ruling from the Chair, I should like to return to the speech made by the Chairman of the President’s Council. I should like to quote a few extracts from the speech and put them to the hon. the Prime Minister. I quote—

I quote further—

The hon. the Prime Minister said he agreed with the facts in the contention by the chairman of the President’s Council. However, I want to refer the hon. the Prime Minister to three previous occasions on which we discussed the proposal which led to the particular position in which I find myself today. As I remember, I think I stated my position regarding the interpretation of the 1977 proposals, and the problems which I was experiencing with them, quite clearly at that stage. I told the hon. the Prime Minister—he too has said this in this House—that I accepted that in the final instance the leader of a party interprets that party’s policy. This is quite correct, and I accept it. I have had occasion during caucus meetings in 1977, to mention the doubts I in fact had. The hon. the Prime Minister also referred to this earlier today in his speech. Earlier today the hon. the Prime Minister said that in 1977 I was worried because I foresaw the possibility of power-sharing in the proposal. At that stage I asked the then hon. Prime Minister for his interpretation of the proposals, and I accepted his interpretation. My standpoint was that powersharing would be the beginning of the end for the White man in Africa. This was also the standpoint of the NP over the years, as I came to know the party. I, too, subscribe to this principle.

The previous hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, then made a statement just after the speech of the chairman of the President’s Council appeared, and I want to read the statement as it appeared in the Citizen …

Do you not think you should rather not read it?

No, I feel it is important in this debate. In this debate, as well as in debates in the past, I have been called everything under the sun. However, I want to accept responsibility for my behaviour over the past 16 years in public life. I have a long public life ahead of me during which I want to work for my country and my people. Consequently it is important that I take this matter further. I quote from the Citizen—

I have just dealt with that, and now you are coming back to it.

I am coming back to it because I consider it important. It is of particular importance to me, especially in the position in which we now stand. For my part I wish to give the hon. the Prime Minister all the support I can. In passing I just want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that during the past days and years a great deal has been written and said about me, in particular, regarding disloyalty. I had occasion to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that loyalty does not mean that one must say “yes” to everything, even if one does not agree with it. I have served Prime Ministers for many years and I found it tragic that the man who had the power was applauded and kowtowed to merely because he had power. That is not my way. Loyalty is when one can stand up and say that one disagrees. I also want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that a great deal is being said about personal discussions and such matters. But the worst things he has heard from hon. members on this side of the House are probably overshadowed by the things that are said about him by the people still sitting in the caucus with him. I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that the day will come in his and my lifetime when he will no longer occupy the post of Prime Minister. When that time comes I shall still support him to the best of my ability regarding those things about which I agree with him and by which I lay great store.

The chairman of the President’s Council went on to say the following—

For the record I want to point out that I was chairman of the Internal Affairs group and also of the Indian Affairs study group. The chairman of the President’s Council went on to say—

Sir, what is stated here is not correct. Hon. members can say later in the course of the debate that they are going to ignore us; they can say that we have no future; as a matter of fact, they can say anything they like about us, but the moral grounds on which the NP wants to develop a standpoint adopted in 1977, which has now been confirmed by the previous State President and which has not been rejected by the hon. the Prime Minister … The hon. the Prime Minister was a member of the caucus in 1977 when I asked whether there were elements of power-sharing in the proposals. The hon. the Prime Minister was chairman of that Cabinet Committee and he did not stand up and say that I was mistaken. He did not stand up and say that Mr. Vorster was misleading the people either. This was never said. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik is also fleeing from the word “power-sharing”. He and the rest of his party are fleeing from the word “power-sharing” without realizing what its actual meaning is as set out by the hon. the Prime Minister. They have now caused a split in the party because of words and terminology. An illusion is being created, as if the hon. the Prime Minister has now accepted power-sharing as the principle of the party, as if we are now moving in the direction of the unacceptable Prog power sharing, that of “one man, one vote” in a unitary State. I say this is a political illusion which is being created because the hon. the Prime Minister made it quite clear. In his statement today, he again spelled it out and I also want to repeat it. The hon. the Prime Minister said—

They do not hear that. [Interjections.] On 20 March the hon. member for Waterberg established a new party on the basis of this illusion—I want to call it a political chimera. He established a party with basically the same principles as those of the NP and said these were its guidelines. The hon. member succeeded in embellishing these guidelines to great effect by means of sweet-sounding slogans and was rewarded by applause. I heard the AWB’s recording of the meeting. However, the hon. member neglected to spell out to his audience the realities of the application of those slogans. As a matter of fact, the hon. member himself admitted that this was not yet the final formulation and that a great deal of deliberation was still necessary because among other things, they did not yet have a policy for the Coloureds. The hon. member did not come up with anything new, and at the same time the impression was created that this new party will be the saviour of the White man. In the second place, doubt is all of a sudden cast on the well known concepts of co-responsibility and joint negotiation. As far as we are concerned, these have long since been more than mere concepts. In various spheres they are already accomplished facts. The hon. member for Waterberg wants everything to be qualified, and all these things have already been qualified.

It is very interesting at this stage to give a little attention to the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who is not in the House at the moment. I should very much have liked to have a discussion with the hon. member for Lichtenburg, because that hon. member, in the position in which I am at present, had a great deal to do with me regarding these matters. He dealt with the question of policy formulation and the question of negotiation. He also dealt with agreements and the decentralization of forces. This is a task we perform every day in the department and he and I worked on it together. There was a time when I had respect for the ideas of the hon. member for Lichtenburg and it is a pity that he has now strayed into error. In this formulation of policy with which the hon. member was involved, there were elements of power-sharing.

In 1977 the hon. member for Lichtenburg was appointed chairman of a commission of inquiry. It was a departmental commission and I just wish to quote the terms of reference of that commission briefly. Those terms of reference were, inter alia—

These were matters such as taxation and the like—

Those were, basically, the terms of reference.

In 1978 the hon. member recommended that the Black States be given powers or authority to make laws for their own citizens in the White area, for example in connection with education, taxation, etc. The hon. member went so far as to say that these Black States would establish their own organizations to enforce this legislation on their people in the White area; alternatively, he said, something should be done by way of an agreement. It goes without saying that such an agreement would lead to healthy negotiations taking place from time to time, out of which healthy co-responsibility could develop. It is a pity the hon. member is not present. I do not know where he is. [Interjections.] I feel we ought not to conjure up spectres in this regard. There is an element of power-sharing in such an agreement in the sense that taxation authority over the same Black people in the White area is being shared. I say this contains an element of power-sharing.

The implementation of such an agreement in practice means there must be negotiation on a regular basis. At this particular level there is an element of power-sharing between the two structures of authority. It is not only a question of the division of powers; it also leads to a situation in which powers are shared.

Do you support power-sharing? [Interjections.]

I quote from what the hon. member said—

Just listen to this—

This is therefore a form in which both authorities govern each other’s people in the common territory. I say this contains an element of power-sharing. Authority is therefore vested in an agreement between Whites and Blacks which leads to co-responsibility. The authority at this level affects not only Black people, but also White people under certain circumstances. It can, for example, affect wage structures of employers, etc. This is a form of power-sharing which the hon. member proposed. I should like to hear whether the hon. member for Rissik agrees with this.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg even went a great deal further as regards those powers. He also creates the possibility that land ownership could be granted to Black people. He grants land tenure after declaring areas like Soweto to the Trust area, such that they will not eventually be handed over to the national State, but instead the dominion will continue to be vested in the State President.

Are you now going to put this right?

One therefore has the position that Black land ownership still vested in partially White-controlled territory. I quote from page 17 of the hon. member’s recommendations—

Note: without problems—

I say this contains a form, an element of power-sharing. He grants land tenure after he has declared areas like Soweto to be Trust areas. He is therefore giving Black people a much stronger position of power within the White area. What is the result? With the granting of extra-territorial powers coupled to land tenure, what we have here is not only a form of power-sharing: the regional sovereignty of South Africa is also being tampered with. Powers are shared within the same territory. There is Black land tenure while the White Government retains dominion over the land.

I ask the hon. members over there: If the Government is honestly seeking a connecting mechanism of co-responsibility between Whites and Coloureds, in which, inter alia an element of power-sharing can be vested, why are they opposed to it? That is why I say they are conjuring up a political chimaera in order to gain support for themselves without having pointed out South Africa’s problems.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I want to deal with the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in as far as it affects the Coloured people, because there was much that one could accept in that speech, much with which I agree. I think he has clarified some points which were previously rather in the air. However, I want to deal firstly with his criticism of negativeness, and I want to do so in the light of his approach when he started speaking this afternoon. He listed many achievements that we are all proud of in South Africa but I think it does as great a disservice to South Africa to close one’s eyes to the things that are wrong as it does to be entirely negative. As the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of roads, rail networks and all the things we are proud of, all the things that make South Africa what it is, I got the feeling that he was looking only at one side and closing his eyes to the other side of the picture. What we need, however, is a balanced appreciation of the positive and the negative. I am saying this intentionally, because I want to come back to this point.

The hon. the Prime Minister acted quite correctly in saying that he was awaiting the President’s Council’s recommendations and I want to welcome a few phrases he used in setting out his guidelines. This was an advance on what I have heard before, especially the way he came out clearly and specifically on joint decision-making at all levels of government. This is a welcome step forward. He talked, less of joint decision-making and more of joint responsibility and “raadpleging” but I welcome the fact that we now have on record, clearly and unequivocally, the fact that he stands for joint decision-making at all levels of government. I wondered whether he had been reading NRP principles, because point 1.8 reads as follows—

I am going to offer this document to the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I think he will find it very useful for filling some of the gaps in his policy that still exist. [Interjections.]

I have far better things to do.

He could not do better than follow our guidelines. [Interjections.] Having said that, however, let me turn to another field, where there are no limitations placed on the hon. the Prime Minister because the President’s Council is not deliberating that aspect. There are consequently no recommendations being awaited. It is a field in respect of which he could have given much more than guidelines—I am referring to the field of relationships between the Black people and the White people of South Africa—he …

But I dealt with that.

He dealt with them in the old, vague and familiar terms. [Interjections.] But evaded every one of the questions that were specific and to the point, even those questions put to him during this debate. He talked of the confederation and said …

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

No, I have no time. That hon. member knows that this is a Committee debate. The hon. the Prime Minister talked of the confederation and said that progress was being made, but there were specific questions put to him. For example, I put specific questions to him about common citizenship of the confederation and the question of a body or instrument or place for deciding together. I quoted the hon. the Prime Minister’s own words to him, his own words, when he spoke at the opening of the Gazankulu Assembly, about matters which would be decided together, agreed matters that would be decided together. I do not need to quote the relevant passage again, but mention was made of a limitation of the sovereignty and governmental authority of the members. His words were—… except in so far as it expressly assigns Governmental powers to a central organ.

That is, a body where matters can be dealt with by agreement, the matters assigned to a central authority. He evaded that. He evaded the question of citizenship which I raised with the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt who challenged me to produce his Hansard. I have it here. What I said was exactly what stands in his Hansard. In my ten minutes I do not have time to deal with it, but I have looked at my Hansard and at his Hansard and where I spoke of laying the table, he said “ons is besig om die tafel voor te berei”.

Read what I said.

All right—

That is exactly what I said. I said they were laying the table …

For what?

All right, I shall read it—

You said I spoke of federal citizenship.

I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister on this. I want to know because this is crucial for a successful confederation. I should also like to hear more from the hon. the Prime Minister on the question of access to the common economy. We hear of the planning of the economy—a colleague of mine will deal with that further—but I raise the question of access of members of the confederation, citizens of the confederation, to the economy.

This leads us to the one subject which the hon. the Prime Minister avoided like the plague, viz. the question of the non-homeland Blacks. In the few moments left to me I do not have the time to go into details, but I want to quote to the hon. the Prime Minister a judgment on the Government’s policy on this matter. I quote from the leading article in Die Beeld of 6 April—

Again I want to offer the hon. the Prime Minister, free and for nothing, some advice on how to overcome the problem his own newspaper says has not been satisfactorily accounted for. That ties up with the other key to the question of the non-homeland Blacks, viz. their home life or what the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of as “’n on-verstoorde gesinslewe”. That requires freehold title to give it the stable base on which to deal with the whole problem of the new plurality in South Africa, the plurality that has developed between Blacks themselves, those who retain the homeland connection and those who do not. This is the blind spot in Government thinking. They must accept our advice to go into the matter in depth to establish and identify the different categories of non-homeland Blacks. One cannot apply one blanket solution to this. This vital field, on which the hon. the Prime Minister has been silent, is a crucial issue in the overall solution of our problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point has been provoking me for weeks now about what I am supposed to have said.

Explain yourself now.

No, I do not need to explain. The hon. member for Durban Point need only read my Hansard, as I asked him to on the first day.

Here it is.

Yes, but the hon. member need not read it this afternoon. I told the hon. member to read what I had said. I did say that the table had been laid, Mr. Chairman. I do not deny that. However, the hon. member for Durban Point gets no further than that. He does not mention why I said that the table had been laid.

For federal citizenship?

In my speech I dealt with the establishment of the confederation and with the possibility that such a confederation could come into being. Then I said that in the process, or when the federation eventually came into being, there were certain matters which we could discuss with one another at that stage. I said that we were laying the table for the discussion of those things.

Citizenship, for example.

Yes, citizenship for example. However, I did not refer to confederal citizenship. Nor did I speak about federal citizenship. I spoke about citizenship. [Interjections.] If there is no difference, Mr. Chairman, then I really do not know.

Citizenship of the Falkland Islands, perhaps?

Mr. Chairman, I left the matter wide open by only referring to citizenship. I did not qualify it as confederal or as federal citizenship, because we are already engaged in discussions with some of the Black States, just as we have had discussions with the Ciskei about citizenship. Moreover, about three weeks ago, we were again having discussions with Bophuthatswana about the same issue of citizenship. However, when the hon. member for Durban Point speaks about citizenship he thinks in terms of citizenship of nothing but the same concept which the official Opposition has in mind.

The problem with you is that you have both feet in the bucket.

No, we shall deal with those matters in our own time, when the table is laid and when the time is ultimately ripe to do so.

Then, of course, Vause will be too late again.

As far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, Mr. Chairman, you must please allow me my little bit of fun today. The trouble with the hon. member for Durban Point is that he detected this opportunity in my speech even at the stage when he came to sit here close to me, and no longer occupied his old seat where the hon. member for Waterberg is now sitting. He started getting worried when he had to come and sit there so close to me. Now the hon. member for Durban Point is trying to show every day how close the NP has moved to him. However, physically the hon. member for Durban Point has moved far closer to us than we have moved towards him. [Interjections.] It is he who has made the leap. [Interjections.] Of course it is he who has made the leap. All the hon. member for Durban Point still has to admit is what he would very much like to do. If I could perhaps help the hon. member for Durban Point, I wish to whisper softly in his ear that we could discuss citizenship if he would only cross the floor. [Interjections.]

Yet another invitation! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point and his party might as well admit today that in fact they have moved far closer to the policy of the NP.

I have a copy of our programme of principles here. I shall give it to you so that you can read it.

No, I do not take any notice of that thing. [Interjections.] The problem with the hon. member for Durban Point is that he is now becoming so concerned about the fact that he no longer sits over there, that he is now trying all kinds of strategems. [Interjections.] However, I shall leave it at that. I really do not think we have time to crack jokes. However, I did just have to get in that joke. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Sea Point are both correct when they say that the matter of Black people in the White area is a really serious matter. The NP does not deny that it is a serious matter. The NP certainly does not deny that. As far as Black people are concerned, the NP has followed a certain path, a path which it will continue to follow. As I stand here today I want to admit, together with other leaders of the NP, that we cannot be satisfied with the present situation of Black people in White areas. Now, hon. members must please not entertain all kind of suspicions in regard to this matter. In this regard we differ from the PFP and the NRP. However, I do not believe that we differ from the CP on this aspect. However, as far as I have been able to ascertain, we have just one minor difference with regard to policy. The other differences I do not understand at all. The fact is that the NP has always recognized that there are still deficiencies as far as the situation of the Black man in the White areas is concerned. We have never denied that. Indeed, the present Prime Minister enlarged the Commission for Co-operation and Development as part of his new initiative, specifically in order to attend to the problems stemming from the presence of Black people in the White area.

The fact is, too, that at this stage we do not demand this for ourselves alone. Even the previous Prime Minister said that he would grant Black people in White areas greater powers of local authority; indeed, he spoke about authority which could even extend beyond the authority of local government as we know it in the White areas. In fact, in the process the present hon. Prime Minister indicated very clearly that while the Black people were not represented on the President’s Council, and whereas we as the White Parliament and as the NP do not wish to arrogate to ourselves the sole right to discuss the presence of Black people in White areas, it is essential that the Government must in any event first be clear in its own mind and adopt a standpoint. After that we can speak to these people. We have the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, and we have no problem with that. There are people who have had other problems in connection with what is incorporated in the proposed legislation, but the principles of the Act are very clear. They envisaged local management or government at the third level for the Black people. Let us, then, have no illusions whatsoever on this score. This is a very important step which has already been taken.

By saying this I wish to intimate that the Government is not prepared to sit back and simply accept that the situation of the Black people in the White areas will remain unchanged. We know, and experience has taught us, that not even 10% of the Black people in the White areas have taken part in elections of the Black Governments in the Black States. Such a situation is unsatisfactory. Indeed, it is unsatisfactory in any language. Therefore, we must find some way to afford greater meaning to the franchise of the Black man in the White area with regard to the Black Governments in the Black States.

I should also like to set one thing right which has always been cast in our teeth, by the official Opposition in particular. They always contend that we want to give the impression that the Black man is always yearning to go back to the homelands, that the Black people are linked to the Black States and have ethnic links with them.

That is what you say.

The hon. members on that side of the House must understand what we mean when we talk about that. We have never denied that the Black people do not necessarily have strong political links with Black States, but the Black people’s bond to their own people in the Black States is ethnic, cultural and family-bound. Those are the three bases of that important bond, and the hon. members of the PFP will never recognize that bond because they do not recognize ethnicity. If, then, we recognize that bond because we recognize ethnicity, we do not say that the political bond that links the urbanized Black to his homeland is strong enough. However, to the official Opposition and, to a degree to the NRP as well, it is not an issue of ethnicity, cultural or family links, as far as the Black man in the White area is concerned—to them it is purely an issue of political rights. [Interjections.] Therefore the NP can live with a statement such as that of Chief Minister Buthelezi who said that to him a Zulu in Soweto was the same as a Zulu in KwaZulu. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt has introduced a very refreshing note into this debate, and I must say immediately that we are very grateful to him for two reasons. He is one of the very few speakers on NP side who has not returned once again to the “broe-dertwis”.

Please do not lower the standard.

No, I am very grateful to him and I hope that hon. member will follow his example and the example set by the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to raise a second point with the hon. member who has just sat down. He touched upon a subject which the hon. member for Sea Point quite rightly emphasized is an absolutely cardinal point which cannot be ignored. I am very glad he touched upon it and I am very sorry that he did not have more time available, because he was saying some very interesting things.

Give him an opportunity to finish his speech!

The hon. the Prime Minister has more time available than anyone else so he can given the hon. member the extra time. I shall return to the hon. member later.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question regarding the future status of the Vice State President. I do not want to dwell on this for very long, I want to comment on the hon. the Prime Minister’s own statement that the Vice State President has an almost impossible task of trying to do two things. It is therefore not necessary to take cognizance of that fact and to make the necessary legislative changes so that he will not be placed in that situation in future?

Wait until the President’s Council reports.

The hon. the Prime Minister and I have been strong enemies for quite a long time. I remember in my first year in Parliament, in 1974, the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was after my blood.

I was referring to your political blood. I would not like to suck your blood!

Even though the hon. the Prime Minister does not need my sympathy and possibly does not want my sympathy, I actually have very real sympathy with him when he speaks about the incredibly difficult task that a Prime Minister of South Africa faces today. We are aware of that. South Africa finds itself in a very difficult situation and, in particular, to be the leader in South Africa has incredible and enormous implications. We accept that.

The third remark I want to make in regard to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech is that I welcome his statement on the church and State, for obvious reasons. If I had the time I would love to respond in full. There is such a thing as a Christian Church, but there is no such thing as a Christian State. There is such a thing as Christians being involved in Government but there is no such thing as Christian Government. Whilst there is a different order for the State and a different order for the Church, the Church cannot be neutral regarding people. After all, the bottom line of politics is how to make it possible for people to live together. Therefore, if politics is essential about people and there is any infringement of the basic fundamental human rights of people, the Church dare not remain silent.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, unfortunately I have very little time at my disposal.

You are a Whip, give him more time!

Give me more time.

†I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to be even a little more patient with us than he has been today and to elaborate a little more upon how he understands self-determination. I know a lot of people are impatient about this and that the hon. the Prime Minister will probably say that I do not understand it or believe in it—which is of course nonsense but I do want more clarity. What are the marks of self-determination? The reason why I ask this is because the hon. the Prime Minister talks about “Black nations” or “peoples” in South Africa but of a White “nation”, despite the very real differences which exists between the Whites in South Africa.

I talked about “Black peoples”. here is only one White people in South Africa and all the minority groups together form the nation.

That is exactly how I understood the hon. the Prime Minister. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that this point of view contains a basic and fundamental contradiction. If one is talking about self-determination and one talks about language as a mark of that or a commitment to a particular faith or culture, then one is going to find a very wide difference of opinion between significant groups of Whites in South Africa, just as there is a difference of opinion between significant groups of Blacks. It is not enough for us simply to describe self-determination in one way and then to move away from it. I believe we have got to return to it in order to understand what it means.

The hon. the Prime Minister stated—and I quote his words—that Coloureds and Asians had been excluded from the decision-making processes in South Africa and he said that he believed that this was wrong. Here I return to the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. Blacks are excluded from decision-making processes as well, particularly the non-homeland Blacks. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that no matter what kind of arrangement he makes that is even higher than municipal status, he is not going to satisfy the basic aspirations of the Black people who are permanently in South Africa. Let us take the explanation that the hon. the Prime Minister gave about the Asians who are living here. He said that there came a time when the NP Government accepted the fact that one could not send the Asians back to India and that they were permanently in South Africa. Sooner or later the NP wil have to acknowledge, and I hope it is sooner, that there are millions of Black people in South Africa who cannot be sent away. One cannot exclude them even by drawing lines on a map.

We have accepted that.

That is right. Now that is a very real change in attitude and emphasis which we have, and we welcome it. Then, however, one has to take into account the consequences that flow from it, just as the hon. the Prime Minister has taken into account the consequences that flow from the fact that the Asians are accepted as being an integral part of South Africa. I do not want to get into the whole argument between the CP and the hon. the Prime Minister, but the hon. the Prime Minister says that the basic difference between himself and the official Opposition, in terms of power-sharing, is that we believe in a unitary State. Then he qualified it and he talked about a federal State or “eenheidstaat”. We do not run away from that, we accept that. If the hon. the Prime Minister’s logic is to be followed, however, he has now moved, and his party with him, to a situation where one has a State which is one and which contains no longer merely Whites, but Coloureds and Indians on the same basis.

But we have said so for years.

Yes. What I am trying to put to the hon. the Prime Minister is that if one takes the implications of that then one has power-sharing in a single State which includes Whites, Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister must be patient with me; I take a long time to learn these things. [Interjections.] Let me put it quite pertinently to the hon. the Prime Minister. Does he agree then when the hon. member for Florida says that the door is open to a Minister who happens to be Coloured or who has a Ministry in a common area which includes Whites, Asians and Coloureds? That can happen when one talks about genuine power-sharing. Then one is approximating it. If one does not, then I believe it is nothing less than a fraud. If one accepts that, I ask the hon. the Prime Minister seriously: If he is going to share power in one South Africa with Coloureds, Asians and Whites, can the NP or any group therein dare to say that Coloureds and Indians cannot share the same church, the same community and the same schools? One cannot do that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands put a lot of questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. He addressed himself specifically to the hon. the Prime Minister. He has already received the answers to some of the questions he asked, and therefore I shall not react to them. However, the hon. member made one remark, namely “that he has sympathy with the hon. the Prime Minister in the incredibly difficult task that he has”. Now, my question to him is whether he can state with a clear conscience today that he, and the party of which he is a member, have given any help at all to the hon. the Prime Minister in performing and completing that task. The hon. member is a skilful debater. In the previous speech he made, he spoke inter alia about Sunday sport and put various questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. However, he omitted to tell us what his attitude to Sunday sport was. Therefore, my question to him is this: Does he approve of organized Sunday sport or not? That is the problem I have with the hon. member. He always evades this question. I want to put it to him that the statement he made “that he has sympathy” is merely lip service and that he does not mean what he he says. The hon. member is a factor in that party and his party can make a contribution. The hon. the Prime Minister spelt this out to us today. They can make a contribution to secure the future of our country in these times. I leave him at that.

I want to make a very brief contribution by setting aside the background against which much of this debate has been conducted and by coming back to the realities for the moment in an attempt to determine what the postion will be in the future. In the first instance I want to read the statement made by Prof. Van Tonder when he said that resistance movements are usually symptomatic of phases of major political transition. We know that it is said that the impact of political reforms is seldom or never realistically understood. We realize that they are well and truly obfuscated by the lack of confidence of the rightist elements as we have experienced it in recent times due to the founding of the new CP. On the left there are the leftist elements of the PFP and, together with that, the obstruction one encounters on the part of the bureaucracy the closer one comes to these reforms and the more they become established facts. On the other hand, the governing party finds itself in the position that change and adjustment to changing circumstances are essential if we want to continue to survive as a country and a Government. Indeed, in this country of ours our Government is faced with the dilemma that these two parties stand on the sidelines, with the NRP in between which could fit in anywhere but which has no justification for its existence.

Looking at the founding of this new CP, I want to make the statement that we need not go far to see where that lack of confidence stems from. It is assumed that this breaking-away process took place over a period of five weeks with reference to a motion of confidence or no confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister, and hon. members of the CP are now daily undermining things which they have supported for the past five years and which they have agreed to for the past five years. However, this is part of the process which they now say they are unable to understand, and therefore it is now being repudiated. However, I wish to say that this situation, purely in the abstract sense, is to us the real reason why this has happened in this way. This coincides with the lack of a single obvious example which we could research as a part of and a country of Africa, and if we do do so, we are faced with the fait accompli that the NP, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, will have to follow its present path alone in order to find those adjustments and solutions. I want to put it like this. If we accept our situation with the heterogeneous composition of our population, which we cannot get away from because it is there, it exists, then one has to ask the question: How has Africa failed, and what is the situation in Africa? What alternatives to the efforts that have failed in Africa, can we attempt? Then I wish to say that when one considers the present situation in Africa, one can quote several statements: “Africa is in danger of death—its survival is in question”; “Yes, Africa is dying”, OAU Secretary-General, Adam Kuei, said; “The Africa that US Vice President Walter Mondale set off to visit on 16 July is a continent gripped by misery and disillusionment”. One could continue in this vein for seven pages.

One can look at the Chicago Tribune’s study carried out on their behalf by Ray Mosely, and in it one reads that Africa is dying. Of all the arms sold in the seventies, 75% were sold in Africa. 40% of the armed forces of the entire world are found in Africa. Virtually all the wars fought since 1945 have been fought in Africa. If one bears all these facts in mind and if one portrays graphically the growth of the population together with the reduction in productivity in Africa, one reaches the inevitable conclusion that before 1985 a change will have to be effected, or Africa is doomed.

It is corroborated by militarists of South Africa and from abroad that unless the Russians succeed before 1985 in conquering South Africa, which is the key to Africa, the key to the control of Africa, they will not succeed in their aim. They must do so before 1985, and that is where the danger lies for South Africa, because it means that compared with the total onslaught which will have to be aimed at this country from now until 1985, the onslaught which preceded it will look like child’s play.

However, there is an alternative, and the Western countries are involved in this regard. I wish to state this because I believe that there is evidence of a greater degree of recognition in this regard. The Western countries must realize that the key to revival in Africa is to be found specifically in South Africa. In this regard I refer to President Mitterand of France who said recently, on the occasion of receiving the credentials of South Africa’s new ambassador there, that he believed South Africa had a role to play. If this realization pentrates further, a new role could be given to South Africa. Moreover, the hon. the Prime Minister announced this afternoon that there was a possibility of discussions between him and President Kaunda. Mention is made in the report of the Office of the Prime Minister of industrial development which is something new in South Africa and Africa, and that contains the blueprint for solution, because for the first time the concept is being changed. Previously it was believed that political freedom should be accorded a higher priority than economic freedom, but now it is being realized that there must first be economic stability, economic development on a basis of equal adjudication among countries. I believe that the solution lies in this new approach.

The solution is now clear and therefore, because the PFP is saddled with the work of the hon. member for Yeoville which is rejected, and since there is therefore no alternative which the PFP can put forward, I invite them and the other Opposition parties today to co-operate in something which holds promise, which has vision, because then we may by the year 2000 enter the golden era which is predicted for this country.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to react directly to what the hon. member for Vasco said, except to follow up the last point which he raised, viz. the question of regional economic development in South Africa. In the first place I should like to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister which revolves around the Development Bank of Southern Africa.

†The hon. the Prime Minister will remember that some two years ago at the Carlton conference he launched his new initiative for the development of Southern Africa. That conference was followed up, almost to the day, two years later by the Good Hope conference here in Cape Town on 12 November 1981. I would say that those two conferences gripped the imagination of the business and community leaders of South Africa, and to a very large extent expectations were raised in other quarters of South Africa as well. The Good Hope conference was a gathering attended by community and business leaders, an attendance unequalled in the history of South Africa. The main thrust of both those conferences and the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister were, of course, centred on the economic development of South Africa, that of the independent States, the self-governing States and the rest of the Republic of South Africa. That main thrust, as the hon. member for Vasco has just pointed out, is aimed at creating viable areas of South Africa at the time of—not prior to—the investiture of changes in their political status.

We believe that the hon. the Prime Minister’s strategy, announced at those two conferences, contained three specific parts. In the first case there is the identification of development and deconcentration points. The little booklet we have, containing a summary of the proceedings at the Good Hope conference, indicates that there are, in fact, more than 50 of these growth and development points that have been identified. That was the first pillar of the strategy.

The second is the detailing of fiscal incentives to make decentralization attractive to industry and to persuade industry to move into those particular parts. This applies, of course, to those companies whose businesses are, in fact, able to decentralize.

The third aspect—probably one of the most important—is the proposed development of the Southern African Development Bank as well as the Small Business Development Corporation. As far as the first two strategies are concerned, the identification of the development areas, this has been done, and the detailing of fiscal incentives has also been carried out. The Small Business Development Corporation has also gone a long way towards becoming a reality, but my question to the hon. the Prime Minister is: What has happened to the concept of the Southern African Development Bank?

But I replied to your question here in the House this year.

That is what I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to expand on. Why has the Southern African Development Bank taken so long to become a vital instrument for decentralization? I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to go into detail. How has the question of representation on the board of that bank been settled? Who is going to serve, who has agreed to serve, on the board of that bank? What capital investment has been made by those sectors that are supposed to invest capital in that bank? In terms of the Prime Minister’s original concept it will be the independent States in South Africa, the South African Government and other Government institutions that are going to subscribe capital to that particular bank, so we believe that the hon. the Prime Minister owes, not only the political establishment in South Africa, but also the business establishment, an explanation of exactly what has happened to date and what the hon. the Prime Minister envisages, in the near future, for the Southern African Development Bank. I believe that it is such an important instrument for regional economic development in South Africa that the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to the business community to give a fuller explanation than has been given to date. May I just say that we sympathize with the problems he may be having in regard to representation on the board of that bank. It is well-known that the independent States in Southern Africa do not want self-governing States to have equal representation on that board. I therefore hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will take the opportunity afforded him to give a full and frank explanation of that particular process.

Secondly, I want to come to the hon. member for Umlazi who is unfortunately not here at the moment, and in particular also to the hon. member for Klip River, who is here. I should like to refer to their remarks about the Buthelezi Commission. The NP, the Government of South Africa today, stated that for three reasons it would not serve on the Buthelezi Commission. One of the reasons was that representatives had been invited from the ANC and, secondly, that the Buthelezi Commission, in its deliberations, went beyond the limits of its terms of reference in as much as it had a look at the position in Natal as well as that in KwaZulu.

What did Owen Horwood have to say about it?

He had quite a lot to say about it and I think that some of it was relevant and that some of it requires further exploration. Let me say that, as far as the ANC was concerned, they never attended. Like the PFP and other radical parties, it was part of their strategy not to attend full and frank discussions.

I cannot believe, however, that the NP sincerely believes that they could not serve on the Buthelezi Commission purely because that commission also looked at what was happening in Natal. How can one discuss differences between two intimately integrated geographic areas if those concerned do not get together around the same table? What sort of policy is it that is being followed today by the Government that, unless consensus is achieved before one gets to an investigation, that investigation must be boycotted? What absolute nonsense!

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members on that side whether they were in favour of the Erika Theron Commission. Did they give evidence before the Erika Theron Commission? Of course they did. They did not accept all the recommendations—that is evident today. That is why we have so many problems with the Coloured community. However, they did not boycott the Erika Theron Commission and that commission also looked at the political inter-relationship between the Coloureds and the other population groups. Therefore, to say that they stayed away from the Buthelezi Commission purely because it also had to look at Natal is an entirely invalid argument.

You are more naïve than I thought you were.

What is now apparently the policy of the NP is that, if one does not agree before one goes to negotiations, one stays away from those negotiations. The NRP believes that, if the NP was not prepared to send a public representative to the Buthelezi Commission, the least they could have done was to take a well-informed man, whether he was a party member or not …

Where do you find that?

Well, it could be someone well-informed about their own policy.

Which policy?

They could at least have seen to it that someone well-informed about the policy of the NP gave evidence before the Buthelezi Commission.

They could have asked Andries to do that.

Otherwise one has the difficulty that one can only come to the conclusion that the NP are not prepared to discuss their policy and their solutions with people who oppose them.

Rubbish!

The hon. member for Klip River says “Rubbish”. So their policy may be.

I took part in discussions with Inkatha two years ago.

Then I cannot understand the inconsistency in the attitude of the hon. member for Klip River. What has made him change his mind?

It was on a different basis.

If it was on a different basis, it was obviously on the basis that the hon. member for Klip River was talking and the others had to listen. However, when the tables were turned, he was not prepared to take part in the discussions.

Who is talking!

It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The hon. member for Durban North is talking. Thirdly, I should like to refer briefly to another matter. I refer these remarks specifically to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The PFP’s boycotting of the President’s Council should not lead them to believe that people with different opinions cannot find common solutions and consensus. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North discussed the Development Bank. This is a little outside my field, and I shall therefore not comment on it. The other matter he discussed was the Buthelezi Commission. This is also a dispute which arose before I came here and I shall not pursue that either. All I want to suggest to him is that the NP was perhaps wise not to participate, because otherwise it would have been in the same predicament as the NRP and the hon. member for Durban North, who did participate. [Interjections.]

Then there is a further point which was touched on in the debate to which I should also like to refer again. This was a point raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. I regret to note that the hon. member is not in the House at the moment. The hon. member for Pinelands warned that one had to be consistent and that when one wanted to involve the Coloureds and the Asians in the political process on another basis … [Interjections.] Oh, the hon. member for Pinelands has just resumed his seat. I am glad to see him here. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if I am correct, the hon. member for Pinelands said there was an inconsistency in the NP’s policy, in the sense that Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people were grouped together in one system. The hon. member wanted to know why we include White Afrikaans speakers and English speakers in one system, while differentiating between Whites and Coloureds. That was more or less the argument the hon. member tried to advance.

The statement I now want to make to the hon. member is my own. It is not the NP’s statement. Unfortunately, since 1910, democracy in Africa has not worked quite as well as it has elsewhere in the world. This was because even among the Whites, the question of ethnicity continued to play a role in politics. I therefore want to say that the political process in South Africa would have progressed better if in 1910 our constitutional fathers had adopted a constitution incorporating the 1977 principles. If this had happened, there would have been far fewer frustrations, for example among English-speaking university students in South Africa, and among other groups. However, we are saddled with the product of an historical process of development, over more than 70 years, which we certainly cannot negate. I believe it would therefore not make sense to try to unravel this part of the development process now. However, I just want to point out where the cause lies.

There is going to be a further evolution.

I believe that the possible political growing together of the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking Whites and Coloureds in the future is something we cannot pass judgment on at this stage. It is something we cannot commit our children to at this stage.

And what about the Blacks?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to continue conducting dialogue with the hon. member for Pinelands. However, I want to react briefly to what he has just asked. I believe that if it is not yet clear to him at this stage, it is doubtful whether he will understand it. [Interjections.] It is surely true that there is a much greater cultural gap between the Blacks and the Coloureds, and that this is the factor which forms the basis of the principle that a greater variety of political systems must exist.

I suppose you mean a colour gap.

I am speaking about a cultural gap.

If there were only one million of them, you would probably be able to overcome your cultural gap much more easily. [Interjections.]

Now I should like to turn briefly to the CP.

[Inaudible.]

No, only very briefly. In the academic world we have an interesting phenomenon. When one looks at the subjects registered for every year for further study by post-graduate students, there are certain subjects which lead one to wonder why anyone would want to study them in depth. This entire question of power-sharing reminds me of this to a certain extent, in the sense that we could see this as an academic setting up a straw doll and fighting it to the death. That is exactly what has happened here too. The concept of power-sharing has become a straw doll, which we and the CP have set up between us, and against which we must now fight to the death. [Interjections.] The statement I actually want to make is that when a student has set up his own straw doll, I always tell him that his first priority is to define his problem. That is also what I want to tell the hon. members of the CP. We are fighting each other here across the floor of the House while there is in fact as yet no satisfactory definition of the actual problem.

[Inaudible.]

Just listen for a moment!

Listen carefully.

The hon. the Leader of the CP told us yesterday that to elect a president in an electoral college composed according to the 1977-proposals is not power-sharing.

The Prime Minister said it was nomination.

Very well, he said it was not power-sharing. The the hon. the Leader of the CP turned the statement around and said that if the ratio is reversed, in other words, if there is a majority of non-Whites, it is still not power-sharing. This means, therefore, that hon. members of the CP agree with me that in point of fact the PFP’s form of power-sharing is not true power-sharing. However, the hon. the Leader of the CP has now told us this is not power-sharing, and that is not power-sharing either. This is a good start. At this stage we at least know what is not power-sharing.

Do you agree with that?

However, the hon. members of the CP left the NP before the concept of power-sharing was at issue. Now they must tell us exactly what is bothering them.

We refuse to vote for the NP’s power-sharing. [Interjections.]

If that is the only reply I am to receive, I have not yet received a reply. [Interjections.] What is at issue, then, is not a principle, but merely a word. I want the CP to spell out what the principle of power-sharing is regarding which they broke away from the NP. [Interjections.]

I have now quarrelled with the hon. members of the CP for so long that I do not have sufficient time to make the speech I intended to make. [Interjections.]

The point I wanted to make I can summarize briefly as follows, and in this regard I should like to turn to the hon. the Prime Minister. South Africa is a country in the process of changing, and these changes are creating uncertainties. It is these uncertainties which lead people to revert to a previous dispensation in an effort to regain the feeling of security they at one stage felt. And now, because we cannot prevent change, because it is built into the situation and is in fact part of our policy of separate development—because as part of separate development it means change—I want to compliment the hon. the Prime Minister on his prophetic insight, which led him to establish a planning division, more specifically, his political and constitutional planning division. I should have liked to elaborate on this, but one appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister will suffice, and that is to make use of these divisions to an increasing extent in the future.

Mr. Chairman, in reaction to what the hon. member for Pinelands had said, the hon. member for Helderkruin tried to explain that the cultural gap between the Black man and the White man is of such magnitude that it calls for a separate political dispensation. I always find it strange that the Nationalists—for example, the hon. member for Helderkruin—can wax eloquent about cultural gaps and then use this as a rationalization. Is it not strange that the cultural gap between Taiwan and South Africa does not prevent co-operation taking place between them without any difficulty! I therefore want to suggest to the hon. member for Helderkruin that he consider the difference between the size of the cultural gap between a Taiwanese and an Afrikaner, and that between an urban Black man and an Afrikaner, and then I shall ask him which difference is greater. However, I want to return to the contribution made by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. The hon. the Prime Minister began by thanking Dr. Rautenbach, and I should like to endorse this and wish him every success in his part-time post as chairman of the Planning Advisory Council.

The hon. the Prime Minister also said that there was a good possibility of a meeting between him and Dr. Kaunda, and I welcome this. Anything which can establish better understanding and co-operation among the leaders in Southern Africa should be encouraged, and I certainly welcome this.

The hon. the Prime Minister touched on various aspects about which he felt there ought to be better co-operation in South Africa, for example the question of self-determination, civilized standards, the distribution of wealth, moving away from colonialism, orderly government, a united standpoint against communism, a common pride and so forth. I agree in respect of the matters touched on by the hon. the Prime Minister. However, there are problem areas. What, for example, is one to understand under the concept of self-determination? The hon. member for Sea Point also touched on this point. Self-determination of one group cannot be at the expense of the self-determination of another group, and there is definitely a need for debate between the PFP and the NP in this connection so as to clarify the matter in detail before we can act in unison.

The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the preservation of civilized standards, and no one in his right mind would object to this. I would welcome an explanation by the hon. the Prime Minister as to what “civilized standards” mean. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about freedom of speech and religion, an independent judiciary, healthy family life, and the right of private ownership. How, then, is it possible that a West German businessman, an Italian businessman—who made a great deal of money from oil—a French businessman or a British businessman are able to pruchase the most expensive houses of their choice anywhere in South Africa, whereas Maponya, Tshabalala and Dr. Sam Motsuenyane may not own land in Soweto, except under leasehold? If we are going to strive to maintain civilized standards in South Africa, how can we explain to the outside world and to our fellow South Africans, particularly the Blacks, this flagrant difference which exists within our own community? How do we explain to them the reasons for this?

But they do own land on the 99 year leasehold basis.

If one were to accept that all the homelands will eventually become independent, will it be possible—I am addressing this question specifically to the hon. the Prime Minister—for a foreign Black man to purchase land on the same basis as a White foreigner? If not, why not? It is this sort of thing that lands us in trouble. It is this sort of argument which can quite simply be reduced to skin colour.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question?

No, unfortunately I do not have enough time. Unfortunately we have no reasonable explanation for this sort of argument. I do not derive pleasure from this dilemma, but I want to point out that until we have a satisfactory explanation for this, we shall continue to experience difficulties.

The second matter touched on by the hon. the Prime Minister was the question of reform. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we in South Africa must reform, not because the outside world expects it of us, but because it is right, because it is in the interests of South Africa and because it will lead to progress, renewal and stability. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Prime Minister then discussed the position of the Coloureds and gave a long explanation. What his explanation amounted to was, briefly that we must really wait for the proposals of the President’s Council before we can reach a final decision. However, we know one thing from what the hon. the Prime Minister said, and that is that there will be a new dispensation among Whites, Coloureds and Asians, in which joint decision-taking will take place and co-responsibility will apply. If this is going to happen in the political sphere, it is not so that of necessity, changes will also take place in the social and economic spheres? Is it not so that important changes must also take place in the social sphere? Allow me to single out one aspect in the social sphere, namely the aspect of so-called race discrimination. Is it not perhaps better for the Government to take the initiative now as regards laws such as the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Seperate Amenities Act and the Group Areas Act? All these laws are in any case going to fall under the spotlight. Is it not essential that attention be given to this now and that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government take the lead in this connection? Why must a situation be created in which these people are first involved before attention is eventually and at length given to discriminatory measures? The hon. the Prime Minister himself said that the Immorality Act was something that could not really be defended. He said he was awaiting advice. We, too, are awaiting advice. We have been waiting for a long time now. Why can the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government not give a clear lead in this connection? The obstacle in their path has to a great extent been removed. They are now in the Opposition. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister not go ahead and provide a clear plan as to how we can move away from discriminatory measures? Yesterday we said that there were certain forms of reform which cost a great deal of money, for example socio-economic upliftment, better housing, etc. However, the abolition of the Immorality Act costs nothing. All it takes is to pick up a pen and sign. That is all it takes. It has symbolic value, and the symbolic value of the abolition of the Immorality Act or the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, for example, will be of incalculable benefit to us in terms of the goodwill of the people who are suffering because of this legislation. It will not lead to social chaos. It did not happen in South West Africa. All we want to know is why the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government cannot say to us, in anticipation of the new dispensation which is to come in any case: Here are the discriminatory measures and these are the steps we are going to take to abolish them systematically. This is the type of leadership I believe will have a beneficial effect not only on Whites and Brown in South Africa, but also on White and Black, and not only on internal relations in South Africa, but also on our relations abroad. Why? In the first place, because the symbolic value lies in the fact that the Government is showing clearly that they are moving away from discrimination of their own free will and not because they are being forced to do so, and, in the second place, because it shows that their bona fides are genuine when they speak of a new dispensation for all the inhabitants of South Africa. This is a question which only the hon. the Prime Minister can reply to. He can tell us why, long after he had given notice that it was essential that the Immorality Act be amended, we have not yet heard anything about it. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Prime Minister would reply to us in this connection.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.