as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Rent Control and Related Matters, as follows:

1. (1) the desirability, or otherwise, of statutory control over rents;
2. (2) measures to afford tenants continued protection against exploitation, victimization and arbitrary ejectment;
3. (3) measures to curb related malpractices with reference to the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980, and the Alienation of Land Act, 1981; and
4. (4) related matters.

P. CRONJÉ, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

8 June 1982

Report and proceedings to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Subsistence and Travelling Allowances of Judges and Judges’ Clerks, as follows:

1. 1. Your Committee has considered the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Subsistence and Travelling Allowances of Judges and Judges’ Clerks (hereinafter referred to as “the Report”) in the light of the statement of the hon. the Minister of Justice in Parliament on 26 May 1980, and other information gathered by your Committee.
2. 2. Your Committee has taken note of the facts mentioned in the Commission’s Report.
3. 3. Your Committee accepts the Commission’s findings as set out in the Report.
   1. 3.1 Your Committee accepts in particular the Commission’s finding that there was not a single Transvaal judge who deliberately submitted incorrect claims.
   2. 3.2 Your Committee further accepts in particular the Commission’s finding that the claims of the majority of the Transvaal judges were completely in order.
   3. 3.3 Your Committee further accepts in particular the Commission’s finding that during the period 1977 to 1979 a number of Transvaal judges were paid certain amounts to which they were not entitled, as a result of inaccurate claims which were compiled and submitted by their clerks.
   4. 3.4 Your Committee further accepts in particular the Commission’s finding that the Natal judges assumed and believed bona fide that their claims had been correctly compiled and submitted by their clerks and that they had in no way acted dishonestly or deceitfully.
4. 4. Your Committee noted with concern the incorrect and irregular manner in which some claims for subsistence and travelling expenses were submitted, which resulted in certain amounts being paid to some judges’ clerks to which they were not entitled.
5. 5.1 Your Communitee accepts, except in so far as there is hereinafter deviated therefrom, the Commission’s recommendations as set out in the Report, and recommends, that, where necessary by means of amendments to the regulations, effect be given thereto, in so far as this has not already been done.
6. 5.2 Your Committee trusts that, with the implementation of these recommendations of the Commission, not only will a repetition of the circumstances which led to the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry be prevented, but also a more realistic and satisfactory system for the payment of subsistence and travelling expenses of judges and judges’ clerks be brought about.
7. 6.1 Your Committee has noted with appreciation the fact that the Transvaal judges concerned have already voluntarily repaid the amounts which had been paid to them and to which they were not entitled, thereby rectifying the matter.
8. 6.2 Your Committee recommends that, as regards the Transvaal judges concerned, the matter be regarded as having been disposed of thereby.
9. 7. Your Committee recommends that the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry relating to the Natal judges be accepted, namely that, should any overpayment have taken place, a financial rectification is not necessary in their case.
10. 8. Your Committee recommends that—
    1. (a) in accordance with its recommendation in paragraph 7 above, as regards the Natal judges;
    2. (b) taking into consideration the old, established practice which pertained on the Natal Bench; and
    3. (c) considering that the amount, if any, which was paid to the Natal judges’ clerks and to which they were not entitled, has not been determined, and would in practice be difficult to determine and/or recover,

no amount (if any) which was paid to any Natal judge’s clerk and to which he was not entitled, be recovered.

1. 9. Your Committee recommends that—
   1. (a) in spite of the irregularities committed by some of the Transvaal judges’ clerks;
   2. (b) in accordance with its recommendation in paragraph 8 above, relating to the Natal judges’ clerks;
   3. (c) taking into consideration the insufficient and unsatisfactory guidance given to and supervision of Transvaal judges’ clerks in connection with the compilation and submission of claims for the payment of subsistence and travelling expenses; and
   4. (d) considering that the exact amounts which were paid as subsistence and travelling allowances to Transvaal judges’ clerks and to which they were not entitled, have not been determined and would in practice be difficult to determine and/or recover,

no amount paid to any Transvaal judge’s clerk and to which he was not entitled, be recovered.

1. 10. Your Committee recommends that the status quo in respect of the confidentiality of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Subsistence and Travelling Allowances of Judges and Judges’ Clerks be maintained.

H. M. J. VAN RENSBURG (Mossel Bay),
Chairman

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

7 June 1982

Report to be considered.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Toll Financing of Roads, as follows:

Your Committee, having considered its terms of reference, begs to report as follows:

1. 1. Your Committee has found that a system of toll financing is feasible at the present time in respect of certain road projects in South Africa and recommends that such a system be implemented as soon as possible for projects where this procedure is justified, in order to provide partial relief for the general shortage of funds for road construction in South Africa.
2. 2. Your Committee has further found that projects suitable for toll financing are generally very costly but form only a small portion of the total number of required road projects. Toll financing of these very costly projects offers the advantage of not disrupting orderly road construction programmes as a result of a peak capital demand.
3. 3. Your Committee is of the opinion that the primary objective of toll financing at this stage is to obtain additional funds to finance new road projects. Notice has been taken of both the advantages and disadvantages of toll collection, which inter alia encompass improved traffic operations, security, information collection and supply as well as high collection costs in comparison with existing revenue sources for road financing, such as levies on fuel sales.
4. 4. Your Committee has also found that toll financing conforms to the principle of user charging which is already in use and accepted for the financing of arterial roads in South Africa. The tolls levied should, however, constitute a portion only of the user’s saving and should be differentiated according to vehicle mass and type. In addition, an alternative route should be available for those persons not wishing to make use of the toll facility.
5. 5. Your Committee is also of the opinion that Government participation in toll financing is necessary for co-ordination of the investment in road projects and for overall priority determination in the allocation of the country’s resources, but that toll income should be directly allocated towards the defrayment of costs related to toll projects. Your Committee considers that a single toll authority should be constituted and placed under the control of the National Transport Commission, which must be given powers to negotiate loans for toll financing.
6. 6. Your Committee considers it appropriate that toll money be coupled with loan financing, but realizes that because of the inevitable short term financial deficit resulting from the existing structure of the capital market with regard to loan periods and interest rates, bridging provision will be necessary.
7. 7. Your Committee has studied reports concerning the feasibility of toll financing for various projects and has concluded that this procedure is more appropriate for roads with high traffic volumes. It appears that urban roads in general are more highly trafficked than rural roads and would therefore be more appropriate as toll projects. The projects investigated, however, comprise rural and suburban roads rather than urban roads and therefore no decision regarding the practicability of urban toll roads can be taken at this stage.
8. 8. Taking the forementioned considerations into account your Committee has the honour to make the following recommendations:
   1. (a) That toll financing of specific road projects in South Africa be implemented as a partial relief for the general shortage of funds for road construction in South Africa.
   2. (b) That the Department of Transport be instructed to implement toll financing on certain rural and suburban projects where this procedure is justified and, in addition, to further investigate toll financing for urban roads.
   3. (c) That a public information programme be instituted to inform the public of the details and reasons for the introduction of toll financing of road projects.
   4. (d) That since it appears from the evidence presented that a serious shortage of funds for road financing exists in South Africa—
      1. (i) an investigation be undertaken by the Department of Transport, the Department of Finance and the Economic Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister into the methods of providing these funds; and
      2. (ii) the National Road Fund receive a fixed percentage levy on fuel sales, rather than a fixed amount which is subject to negotiation from time to time, in order that the planning and provision of road facilities be stabilized.
   5. (e) That draft enabling legislation to implement toll financing be prepared and submitted to your Committee.
9. 9. Your Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the various bodies who submitted evidence.

G. C. DU PLESSIS, Chairman

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

9 June 1982

Report to be considered.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will not oppose the motion, because we realize that the situation on the farm concerned is impossible. However, there is one request we want to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister. As a result of the fact that the descendants of the original owner who occupy the land seem to include people who are classified as White as well as others who are classified as Brown, we request the hon. the Minister to consider appointing, as a member of the committee which he is now calling for under the Act, at least one person who is qualified and who also happens to be Brown.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer the hon. member to section 4(1)(a) of the Land Titles Adjustment Act, which reads as follows—

The Act lays down exactly how the committee is to be constituted, therefore, and for that reason I cannot give any assurance at this stage that one of the members of the committee will be a person of colour.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that two events dominated the political scene in South Africa during this Parliamentary session, namely, the rift in the NP, and the constitutional debate. The debate on the Third Reading of this Bill has thus far been dominated by these two aspects. To a great extent these two events have overshadowed other developments during this session, developments which I believe will have far-reaching implications for the domestic situation in the future. Here I have in mind, for example, the security legislation, which in some respects was an improvement, but which in cardinal respects undermines the principle of legal sovereignty and as such poses a built-in threat to security in the future. I also have in mind, for example, the defence legislation which is still before this House and which, if fully implemented, will have a drastic impact on the manpower situation in South Africa. In addition, it is virtually exclusively White mobilization, and this could give momentum to White-Black polarization. I also have in mind, for example, the legislation in connection with Black local authorities which we are still to discuss, but from which it is already clear that legal status is being given to the permanence of the Black man in the city, and this at a time when the Government is trying to limit the constitutional debate at the central level to Coloureds, Asians and Whites exclusively. I think this paradox is going to be haunting us.

In any event, as I have already mentioned, the political debate has been dominated by two matters, namely, the rift in the National Party and the constitutional debate. When we consider the rift in the NP, it is clear that the Government was faced by two choices: On the one hand, to cling desperately to the status quo, represented by the CP, or on the other, to introduce systematic change and reform with a view to a new dispensation which will have the support of the majority of groups and people in South Africa, an alternative which is very clearly supported by the official Opposition.

However, systematic reform does not only mean constitutional change. It also means economic and social reform. As a matter of fact, the Office of the Prime Minister is aware, as is evident from their report which was tabled this session, that reform must take place uniformally at all levels. It is interesting that to the extent that the Government involves other groups in the process of constitutional reform, the Government will increasingly be confronted with the untenability of the policy of separate development, of apartheid. This is inevitable. This is the built-in conflict in the process of reform in which the government finds itself. For example, it is crystal clear that to the extent that the Government involves the Coloureds and Asians, the Group Areas Act will become increasingly controversial. It is also clear that as the Government negotiates with the various Black population groups, the entire complex of laws relating to influx control will come increasingly to the fore. And we know that these measures are the cornerstones of the policy of separate development. Because the Government finds itself in this process it will obviously have to choose between two possibilities in politics. It cannot embrace both. It cannot try to appease the right wing and at the same time try to implement systematic reform. If it should try to do this, the Government will not only destroy itself; it will also destroy the possibility of peaceful reform.

If we look at the constitutional debate, the debate about a new constitution for South Africa, it is clear that we are now in a critical stage in this process of development. The Government has reacted to the proposals of the President’s Council, and it is clear that this is a process which is nowhere near complete. Although there are vast differences in principle between the Government and the official Opposition regarding the constitutional development, the standpoint of the official Opposition was and is, in the first place, that it is important for this debate to be kept alive, because the possibility of a peaceful revolutionary development and change will have to be launched through this Parliament; in the second place, that the official Opposition does not want to act in a negative way or by means of confrontation in this process by adopting over-hasty decisions or final standpoints; in the third place, that the Government must be given as much time as possible to negotiate with other groups so that they themselves can ascertain the level of acceptability of their own proposals; and, in the fourth place, that the official Opposition will try, in the various stages of the process, to advance constructive criticism and to play a constructively critical role.

However, now that the Government has reacted to the proposals of the President’s Council, one question must be asked in all fairness, and that is: Does the President’s Council have any relevance with regard to the process of constitutional development? I say this is a fair question, because a great deal of political and financial capital has been invested in this institution. And what have we had thus far? The President’s Council itself has come forward with a half-baked and incomplete report in connection with the central Government. In this regard I want to cross swords somewhat with the hon. member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP. This hon. member said that the President’s Council, and therefore the Government as well, had accepted the model of consociational democracy, and then went on to voice very strong criticism of this model of consociational democracy. I think this was a little one-sided, in the sense that he only pointed out the negative aspects and weaknesses of this model. Of course, there are several writers beside Lijphart who have worked in this field. Here I have in mind, for example, Daalders and people like Nordlinger, Hauf, Vierdag and Weiland. Every one of them placed a different emphasis on this model. I agree with the hon. member that it would be a mistake simply to impose a model summarily on South Africa. The different models must be studied to determine the possibilities each offers for implementation in practice. One point the hon. member did not emphasize is that where one has these rifts and division in a plural society, consociational democracy is an attempt to compromise, as against other, far less attractive, possibilities. Someone like Pierre van den Berg said, for example, that the three ways of regulating conflict one encounters in plural societies, excluding the consociational possibility, are assimilation, domination or genocide. These three possibilities have all occurred in the course of history. Consociational democracy is therefore an attempt to escape these three possibilities, and as such it deserves the serious attention of everyone in South Africa who is interested in the peaceful regulation of conflict.

Provided it is imposed.

Order!

It does not matter, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member meant that in an unfriendly way.

No, I meant it sincerely.

The point I actually want to make, and which I think the hon. member for Waterberg overlooks entirely, is that certain aspects of the report of the President’s Council are in essence a contradiction of the principles of consociational democracy. At the same time, I want to say that if one reads what Lijphart himself said in his reaction to the proposals of the President’s Council, it is clear that the proposals of the President’s Council cannot even be reconciled with the basic premises of a consociational model. However, the second point is that the Government itself does not accept the consociational model. For example, does the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications accept the principle of a veto, the principle of a “grand coalition” or of segmental autonomy? After all, if he did, he would immediately have said “yes”. I ask the hon. member for De Kuilen: Does the Government accept the principle of consociational democracy? There is no reply to the question, Sir. They therefore do not accept it. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the guidelines of the Government in its reaction to the report of the President’s Council—it leaked out in newspaper reports—it is quite obvious that the Government paid far more attention to the constitutional proposals of 1977 than to the proposals of the President’s Council, the guidelines were not, therefore, based on the proposals of the President’s Council but on the proposals of 1977.

That is mere speculation.

It may well be speculation, but the Government is at liberty to tell us that is not correct. [Interjections.] It is therefore not surprising either that there is now speculation that one of the guidelines of the Government would be to seek a new role for the President’s Council in the new dispensation. To me it is crystal clear that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs produced a more complete constitutional package in one afternoon than the President’s Council did in a year and a half, and that is why I put this question. However, I also put this question because, in spite of my party’s reservations with regard to the President’s Council, I honestly tried to find ways and means to broaden the constitutional debate through the initiative of the President’s Council. With this aim in mind I wrote to the chairman of the President’s Council and asked whether he could not arrange for consultation between the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council and the Buthelezi Commission. I did so because I knew it would not compromise the Government, and if the President’s Council has an autonomous function they can, after all, make their own decision on this matter. It is not binding on the Government or on the NP, but is merely a possibility which can be investigated in this extremely difficult situation in which we find ourselves. Nor did I do it for no good reason. In a symposium that the PFP and Inkatha held in Durban, at which almost 2 000 people were present, traditional moderate Zulus were also present.

I also want to make it quite clear to hon. members that the average reaction of those people—and they were not radicals from the cities—was that the President’s Council was seen by them as a symbol of their rejection. This is the experience I had there, and if that is the attitude of the moderate man, how much more will it not be the attitude of the radical? In spite of this I stood up at that symposium and appealed for understanding, and suggested that rather than confront the Government, we should ask the President’s Council to hold a discussion with the Buthelezi Commission. In spite of the standpoint they had adopted up to that point there was an immediate positive reaction to this. We therefore have an ambivalence. On the one hand the President’s Council is seen as a symbol of the rejection of the Zulus, but at the same time they see it as something which could lead to something better if they could also become involved. It was for this reason, then, that I made the suggestion to the chairman of the President’s Council. It was rejected, however, on a mere technicality. The merits of my request were never considered.

It would not have been legal.

That hon. member is being unnecessarily sanctimonious about legality. When this Government has wanted to change a law, it has never allowed anything to stand in its way, and the same applies here. In any case, the Government of KwaZulu is surely recognized by the President of South Africa. Why, then, can the Buthelezi Commission not be treated seriously? Therefore this is simply a ridiculous argument.

Whatever the final proposals of the Government are going to be—and we do not know what they are going to be; we only know that we are involved in a process of negotiation—we as the official Opposition will have to judge those proposals on the basis of certain guidelines. I want to make it quite clear so that there can be no confusion about this later, so that there can be clarity even now as to what is involved when we try to be constructive in this process.

In the first place, we shall ask the question: Do these proposals increase or decrease the process of polarization between Black and White? This is a cardinal question, and we ask it because we believe that such polarization is a threat to the future of all of us. That is why we must ask ourselves the question: Are these proposals, which will eventually be submitted to this Parliament by the Government, a factor contributing towards polarization, or do they diminish polarization between Whites and Blacks?

In the second place, do they make a real contribution to the elimination of discrimination? Can we see this? One of the paradoxes of the reports of the President’s Council is that, for example, a report on local or metropolitan authorities puts forward proposals in connection with the Coloureds, Asians, Blacks and Whites who must live together on a metropolitan basis, while another report clearly indicates that at this stage it is not at all necessary to change the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] This is a contradiction we see in this. This makes it untenable for the Coloureds to become meaningfully involved if the Government does not give an indication at this stage that there is also going to be removal of discrimination.

The third question we must ask ourselves is: Do these proposals promote full-fledged citizenship for all South Africans? There is one thing I am utterly convinced of, and that is that the matter of citizenship—in whatever constitutional dispensation it is eventually incorporated—for White, Black and Brown in South Africa is not negotiable. The moment one tries to establish a new dispensation at the expense of another man’s citizenship, one immediately builds conflict into ones constitutional dispensation, and we must realize that when that happens, we shall not find a solution to our problems. It is these guidelines which convince us that more effective and peaceful constitutional development can only take place if negotiation and discussions take place among all population groups—and I emphasize “all population groups”. That is why we believe that it is dangerous and short-sighted to exclude Blacks from the process of constitutional development. We do not say this because we are trapped in a spirit of liberalism or anything of the sort, as the hon. members of the CP are fond of saying. We say this because there are practical realities staring us in the face in South Africa. If we exclude the majority of people from the process of constitutional bargaining it is dangerous to our future. These guidelines also convince us that White domination—or domination of whatever nature—cannot be entrenched in a constitutional dispensation which pretends to advocate power-sharing. One cannot bluff people with the appearance of power-sharing. One must either do so properly and consistently, or not at all.

This brings me to the final point I want to make. Half-baked constitutional change will not neutralize the right wing in South African politics. On the contrary, it will merely cause it to grow. Why? If the Whites and the Blacks see that this process of constitutional change is not contributing to peace, is not contributing to a more effective political say, dissatisfaction will increase on both sides. The right wing reaction will continue to grow and the Black people will become increasingly polarized. If, on the other hand, effective constitutional change takes place, it becomes clearer to the various population groups that a process is in motion which involves the possibility of easing tension and meeting the aspirations of the various population groups. Consequently, if the Government in this process of constitutional reform keeps looking around at its right wing to see how those people can be appeased, and therefore comes up with half-baked formulas, it is a threat to all of us, but what is more, it will not succeed in achieving the goal it is apparently striving towards, which is to prevent the growth of the right wing. That right wing will exploit any half-baked process, as sure as we are sitting here. They too are in politics, just as we are, and they too can see where their advantages and opportunities lie. Therefore I want to make an appeal to the Government, and in particular to the hon. the Prime Minister. If we are to introduce a process of constitutional change in South Africa, let us take our hearts in our hands, let us scrape together all our courage and let us do so consistently and clearly, and do it in such a way that it is clear not only to the Whites but to all the population groups that we are involved in a process of constitutional change through which it may be possible to achieve peace for all population groups, and, what is more, which holds the possibility of gaining their loyalty, because only if we gain their loyalty and have their support and cooperation, do we have the eventual guarantee that a new constitutional dispensation can be established capable of being maintained. There is no guarantee for a peaceful constitutional dispensation unless the people themselves become involved in this process. This also depends on the extent to which they are able to give it their loyalty. If we do not manage to do this, we should realize from the outset that we in South Africa are following a path of half-baked constitutional reform which could pose a threat to the future of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the remarks of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at a later stage. First I want to make one or two announcements to the House.

There are widespread complaints in the country about the acquisition of property for housing purposes. Accusations are being made about red tape which allegedly exists and about obstacles facing ordinary citizens in their attempts to obtain proper housing. These accusations have persisted in spite of attempts made by the State and other authorities, and for this reason the Government felt that we should have this whole question thoroughly investigated. Consequently it has been decided that a commission consisting of members of Parliament and members of the provincial councils should be appointed at once to inquire into and report before 31 December 1982 on—

1. (1) Methods and proposals for the provision as soon as possible of more residential plots within the means of persons who wish to acquire new housing, by giving special attention to the continuous appeals for the simplification and expedition of the establishment of towns by means of, for example, the removal at all levels of government of restrictive statutory requirements, measures, procedures and practices, and by streamlining these;
2. (2) methods of transferring land to qualified institutions or any other measures in cases where the establishment of a town is not making the desired progress;
3. (3) methods of promoting the utilization of land, for example by freely allowing subdivision or the building of more than one dwelling unit on a plot or holding, where circumstances allow; and
4. (4) any other methods which may be conducive to the provision of sufficient residential sites and which may reduce the cost of such sites.

We have been in contact with the four Administrators and I am making this announcement with their knowledge and consent.

The Government has also decided to recommend to the State President—he has already approved it—that further assignments be given to the President’s Council, with regard to other matters as well. Firstly, an instruction is being issued in terms of which the President’s Council will be asked to investigate measures which inhibit the effective functioning of a free market orientated economic system, taking into account the plural population structure of the Republic and, more specifically, the following guidelines—

1. (1) Steps by means of which the functioning and advantages attached to the free market system can be more widely publicized for the benefit of the less sophisticated consumer in particular;
2. (2) steps by means of which consumer guidance and advice can be more effectively conveyed to the less well-informed and sophisticated consumers in particular;
3. (3) the provision of sufficient services and trade facilities of an acceptable standard to the various communities, as well as greater support for such facilities in order to bring about a better economic distribution; and
4. (4) steps by means of which potential entrepreneurs can be identified, motivated and equipped to make a greater contribution to the economic development of, in particular, those population groups that have a smaller share in the economy.

Secondly, the State President gave his consent for the President’s Council to be asked to investigate the principles according to which priorities can be laid down with regard to development as against conservation, with reference to—in the first place—the relative importance to the country as a whole of conservation on the one hand and physical development on the other, and, secondly, the question of whether conservation should be an end in itself or only a means to an end. In the third place, the President’s Council is being asked to investigate the situation with regard to nature conservation in the Republic of South Africa, including national parks and the preservation of the country’s heritage for posterity against the background of international norms, as well as those systems that should still be preserved, and the financing of the conservation effort. In addition to these, quite a number of other assignments have been given to the President’s Council. However, I want to mention only one of these. This is the way in which shortages of scientists and technical manpower should be dealt with in the Republic of South Africa, with reference to the channelling of a larger proportion of pupils into technical and vocational fields, and, taking into account the persuit of realistic standards, the present non-proportional contribution made by the various population groups to the manpower pool, and the reformed educational system, as proposed in the report of the HSRC inquiry into education.

I believe that by undertaking these investigations, the President’s Council can make a valuable contribution to additional matters which are important to us all.

Have they given up on constitutional matters? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban Point asked me a certain question last night which I should just like to clear up. He referred in this House to a report which had appeared in Die Burger yesterday morning and according to which I had said—

Very well said!

I told the hon. member for Durban Point that I had not used these words. I used other words.

The correction makes it even worse! [Interjections.]

I am coming to that. [Interjections.] I want the hon. member for Durban Point to remember that I was speaking at a political meeting. He should know by this time that I am not one of those people who bow down to my opposition.

That is quite right.

Therefore I do not blame the hon. member either when he wants to score a point. What I did say, however, I said in a joking reference to the NRP. After all, I believe that I gave them quite a reasonable testimonial. I said they were a tottering relic of the Natal Stand and of the defunct United Party. That is true, is it not? [Interjections.] I also said that their members—meaning the hon. members of the NRP sitting opposite—are too South African to become Progs and too prejudiced to co-operate with Afrikaners. Surely that is also true. [Interjections.]

Only one of the three allegations is true. [Interjections.]

That the members of the NRP are still too prejudiced to co-operate with Afrikaners is also true.

Absolutely untrue!

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the hon. member for Durban Point for disagreeing with me. I was only rectifying the matter so that he could reflect on it. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Why is the hon. member angry now? Is it because I said he was a good South African? [Interjections.] Is he angry because I said he was a good South African? [Interjections.] I listened to the hon. member for Durban Point last night and I told myself that that party did not have a hope for the future, and the sooner they realize this, the better. I do not think the hon. member for Durban Point should try to take that party into the future. He cannot do that, because it is a party of the past. It is an anachronism.

Even Rapport is talking about the new Republic.

Wait a minute. I listened attentively to the hon. member last night and he should please be patient now until I have finished talking to him. The hon. member can speak again in another debate.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked me: Is the Government not going to consult White parties too about its proposals arising from the reports of the President’s Council? The answer is, in the first place, that the President’s Council itself represented a first step for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians in consulting and deliberating with one another. The hon. member’s party participated in these consultations. Very well. Then they have made their inputs in connection with that first step. Now the Government, which has a responsibility towards the whole country, is consulting the leaders of the population groups that have not yet been consulted. When it has completed those consultations, it also has a duty towards its own party without which this Government cannot remain in power. It will then go to the executives of that party and to the congresses of that party, and the congresses of that party will to a large extent influence the Government’s course of action. Of course. There is not a single one of the leaders in this House who would adopt a different standpoint. We sit here as representatives of our parties, and therefore the most important factor is the consultations we are going to have with our own congresses. However, we are involved in a whole process of consultation, and all the Government has done since the reports of the President’s Council became known has been to say: Be careful. Do not spoil everything before the process of consultation has been concluded by taking a stand prematurely. After all, the hon. member for Durban Point knows that I have repeatedly said inside and outside this House that when all these consultations have been completed, there are, after all, only two bodies which can bring about change in South Africa. The one is this House of Assembly and the other is a provincial council in respect of provincial matters; in other words, any final proposals will have to come before this House. When those final proposals come before this House or before the provincial councils concerned, then those bodies, as constituted, will deal with them. What is submitted to this House of Assembly, therefore, will receive the attention of all parties in this House. It will be discussed and a decision will be taken. What is more, there is a constitutional committee of this House, and we gave the assurance long ago that any proposals for change on which the Government has taken a decision and which it has cleared up to its own satisfaction will not only come to this House, but will also go to that constitutional committee. I do not think a more reasonable standpoint could be adopted. I do not think there is a more reasonable standpoint that could be adopted. I hope that the country will remain calm and will try in this way to give the Government an opportunity to carry out its responsibility.

The hon. member for Waterberg also made a contribution yesterday. I do not want to talk to the hon. member in a spirit of bitterness today. He was a member of my Cabinet. I appointed him to the Cabinet and I do not want to talk to him in a spirit of bitterness. What I do want to tell him is that he has once again disappointed me. He has had three opportunities in this House to take a stand and to say in what direction he wants to go. Since he left the Cabinet he has had three opportunities, but I do not believe that anyone in this House, except he himself, knows where he is heading.

Does he know?

The hon. member must not take it amiss of me when I say that I do not believe he really wanted to leave the Cabinet. I have never believed that. Nor do I believe that the hon. member for Lichtenburg really wanted to leave the Cabinet. I think he was manoeuvred out by people behind him. I think it is a pity that the hon. member for Waterberg, who was able to make a contribution, allowed himself to be drawn into a process aimed at damaging the party which he once helped to lead. I think this is regrettable, and that is why I am talking to him in this spirit.

I want to refer to a few aspects which the hon. member must take into consideration in future. Together with me and the other leaders of the party, he signed certain things. Last year we went to the country with an election manifesto in which we gave certain undertakings to the country. His and my signatures are on the same document.

Yesterday the hon. member began his speech by boasting about what he calls the 18 hon. members sitting behind him, but those 18 hon. members sitting behind him did not get there under their own banner. The 18 hon. members sitting there came to this House under the banner of the NP. They did not tell their voters that a few months after being elected, they would cross over to the opposition side of the House. Not one of them said that. They did not tell the country that even then they entertained certain doubts as far as the Government was concerned. They did whisper this and they did count heads. The hon. member knows that what I am saying here is true. There are hon. members sitting behind him who began to count heads shortly after we met here for the short session after the election last year. However, I do not want to go into this now; these are petty matters.

I must draw the attention of the hon. the Leader of the CP to the fact that there is the programme of principles of the NP which he and I both supported. Apart from the other principles, I want to refer specifically to clause 2(b)—

We have a party, therefore, which has based its policy on a firm foundation and which wishes to maintain impartially the rights of all population groups.

In the second place, we signed a programme of action which we distributed before the election, and I want to quote a few passages from it. It says, for example—

In the explanatory paragraph which follows this statement, we stated that this was in fact the assignment we had given the President’s Council, i.e. to advise us on this. After all, the hon. member shared full responsibility for the creation of the President’s Council. The hon. member was also fully responsible for every assignment given to the President’s Council. In fact, only a few weeks before he resigned from the Cabinet, the hon. member for Lichtenburg was responsible for one of the most recent appointments to the President’s Council, that of Dr. Van Aswegen from his constituency. It was at his suggestion that Dr. Van Aswegen was appointed.

In the programme of action which we both signed, reference is also made to—

Surely the hon. the leader of the CP also subscribed to these things. After all, his signature is on that document. Today, however, he drives around the country, accusing his former colleagues of deviations and posing as the upholder of Afrikaner and White rights. I do not want to devote too much of my time to the hon. member, but I do want to ask him whether he did not make a speech before the the Transvaal NP congress on 3 November last year in the same spirit in which I am speaking today. I have a copy of his speech with me. I want to quote what the hon. member said on that occasion about the political spectrum—

He went on to mention a Biblical text which he did not explain. That is a pity, because by doing so, he brought the public under the wrong impression. As a theologian he should rectify this. He went on to say—

The hon. member, who was the leader of the NP in the Transvaal at the time, went on to make an appeal for a united stand against the dangers facing us. A few months later, however, he did an about face and he began to engage in the same activities he had condemned at this congress. Therefore I leave it to the hon. member’s conscience. He must account for these things to the Afrikaner people. However, there is only one thing I want to say to the hon. member: Many have tried before him to destroy this party. All have failed. Many have tried before him to destroy the national idea and the NP by means of schism. All have failed. He, too, will fail.

Now the hon. member seizes upon one event, namely a statement which I issued to settle a dispute. Because I wanted to clarify certain concepts, he seizes upon this as his excuse for breaking away. Surely that is not true. The hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg did not break with the party and did not walk out because of my statement. After all, they started counting heads on the Monday, even before I had issued the statement. In fact, they had been counting heads weeks before. The hon. member knows that he wanted to break away even before my statement had been issued. Or rather, he did not want to break away; the people behind him wanted to break away. Just as some people need a pace-maker to stay alive, this hon. member also has a pace-maker which keeps him going. I say that it does not become him. It does not become him after the position he has occupied in South Africa. It does not become him after the trust reposed in him by tens of thousands of Nationalists. It does not become him after everything which the party did for him in the Transvaal. It does not become him to treat people’s trust as he has done.

What did I say in that statement? I was simply being honest. The fact is that in 1977, a certain policy was approved at the party’s congresses, and in the general election, and that policy was that a State President would be elected by a mixed electoral college. In the second place, there was to have been a council of Cabinets—I am reading from the official document issued by the party at the time—and the State President was to have acted as chairman of the council of Cabinets, and the council of Cabinets was to have functioned like an ordinary Cabinet and its decisions were to have been formulated by the chairman after discussion. And the hon. member for Waterberg subscribed to this. If he did not, that would mean that he was dishonest as a leader of the party. So the hon. member can make his choice. I do not believe that he wanted to be dishonest.

Now I come to my statement. I shall not read the entire statement again, because it is there for all of us to read. In it I said—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees. We do not have any quarrel with each other about this. We agree that our interpretations of power-sharing are completely different. One can implement power-sharing in various ways, and it is not the only concept of its kind which can be implemented in different ways. Russia, for example, alleges that it has a democratic system of Government. In spite of that, none of us is foolish enough to say that for this reason we do not believe in democracy. Russia says in its constitution that it advocates the self-determination of peoples. No one among us is foolish enough to say that for that reason, we must not support the same concept. Surely power-sharing can be interpreted in different ways. That is why I said in my statement—

That is not true.

The hon. member must not interrupt me now. I shall come to that later—

So the hon. member could not have broken away because of this. The hon. member for Waterberg broke away for other reasons. Moreover, he has so far failed to say in what direction he wants to take South Africa. He boasts of the 18 members behind him. Some of them he took with him from the Transvaal, and I take it that they decided to break away for personal reasons, for reasons of their own. However, I just want to refer to the two hon. members from the Cape Province who followed the hon. member. He also referred to them yesterday. These two gentlemen made a solemn pledge when they became NP candidates, and the final sentence of that pledge is: “God help my daar-toe om koers te hou.” This is a very serious pledge, Sir, and it has to be made by every candidate in the Cape Province. This brings us to the question of conscience. These two gentlemen had better go and tell their constituencies what they are going to do with this pledge, because the people in those two large constituencies sacrificed a great deal to send the two hon. members to this House. People incurred great personal expense, travelled long distances and spent a lot of time and energy on getting these two hon. members into this House. But the hon. members have now betrayed that trust; they have also broken their pledge. The hon. member says that he has to live with his conscience. On Saturday, when we began the joint caucus discussion, I did the correct thing by saying that those people who could not pledge themselves unconditionally to preserving the secrecy of the proceedings at the meeting—as is appropriate in a caucus, after all—should rather withdraw. Then I paused for a moment to afford anyone who wished to do so an opportunity to withdraw. However, the hon. member for De Aar remained seated. At the end, however, and without asking a single question, he rose and declared that he could not go along with the party. Now I say that the hon. member had taken a decision even before the meeting—having squared that with his conscience. [Interjections.] In fact, reporters from the English newspapers knew this, for when I came out and announced that the motion had been passed with one dissenting vote, they said: “And that one dissenting vote was that of Mr. Van Heerden.”

Good reporters!

Well, they are not omniscient; so they must have known about the hon. member’s decision before the meeting. [Interjections.] However, there is something else which the hon. member has on his conscience. A few weeks ago he told me in the presence of a witness that he was remaining in the party. I shall now leave him to his conscience. I think his conscience is situated in his back pocket. [Interjections.] Fortunately, the NP at Kuruman and De Aar is strong enough to survive this crisis. They will reject those hon. members and demonstrate how one deals with deserters. [Interjections.]

I come now to the Leader of the Opposition. He began his speech by giving the Government a testimonial, for which I thank him. In a few sentences, and in quite a competent way, he described, like a good lecturer, what this Government had achieved during this session. I thank him for doing so, for it absolves me of the need to do it myself. It just goes to show that this Government is an active Government, a Government which deals with the problems of the country. That is why he could so easily enumerate the things which the Government had given attention to. I thank him for that testimonial.

However, he went on to say that the Government would increasingly find that separate development was a failure. After I had become Prime Minister, I said that separate development could only succeed if one did justice to the positive part of that policy, and I still say so. The concept of multi-nationalism in South Africa, the concept that this country is inhabited by more than one community, all of which have rights, all of which need protection, all of which must be respected and whose ideals must me respected, can only succeed if there is a spirit of positive goodwill in South Africa. That is what we mean when we speak about separate development. We do not mean the kind of attitude towards this which is shown by certain so-called right-wing groups in South Africa. In order to come into power, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must convince the electorate of South Africa that he is right, and he will never convince the electorate of South Africa that he is right if he gives them the impression—which he is in fact doing—that the interests of the Whites do not really matter to him. [Interjections.]

That is nonsense.

The establishment of the President’s Council was a serious attempt on the part of the Government to clear up unresolved, unclear policy matters and to seek solutions. The President’s Council has achieved quite a number of things. During the short period of its existence, it has succeeded, in the first place, in helping to create a calm atmosphere in South Africa, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny that. The existence of the President’s Council was an important reason for the calm atmosphere between the population groups in this country. Secondly the President’s Council has brought out valuable reports, reports which can be studied in depth. However, the President’s Council has not yet completed its work. After all, it cannot complete everything within one year. The President’s Council was appointed for a period of five years, after all. Why should it complete everything in one year? We never said that we were going to give this country an amended constitution within the space of one year. We said that we were initiating a process, a process in which the interests of minority groups should be protected, a process in which the rights of people should be considered. In the third place, the President’s Council has given us an opportunity to demonstrate that people can in fact achieve something by means of consultation, with one another. However, what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? If I am doing him an injustice in drawing the inference that I have drawn, he must correct me. According to the inference I have drawn, he says that if we do not accept everything now, the President’s Council will have served no purpose. But I have said repeatedly that the Government is not committed to accepting everything recommended by the President’s Council. Nor is the President’s Council committed to writing only what the Government says it must. We have had that understanding from the start. In terms of his policy, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to call a national convention. I asked him across the floor of the House last year whether, if that national convention of his met and passed certain resolutions which were contrary to the policy of his party, he would accept these.

It would depend on what the resolutions were.

There you have it: It depends on the resolutions. In other words, he is not going to accept everything. However, he wants us to accept everything. What nonsense this is!

I asked what you had accepted.

But you will hear that presently.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he has written to the Vice State President. The Vice State President is not the Prime Minister of the country and it is the State President who gives instructions to the President’s Council. The President’s Council may investigate certain matters of its own volition, provided that it is not against the law to do so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also knows that a Black council can be established with which the President’s Council can negotiate if necessary. He knows, too, that attempts were made to establish a Black council and that the Black people themselves did not want this. I want to tell him in advance that he will not be able to get his national convention off the ground either, not today nor tomorrow. I challenge him to call his national convention. He cannot call it and he will not be able to call it either.

But only a Government can do that. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, surely he is the one who has influence among the Black leaders. Why does he not call them together? Surely he can do that.

Do you know of a Black leader who has rejected a national convention?

Wait a minute; I am talking to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, not to his lackeys. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly attempted to launch a national convention. [Interjections.] Of course he has!

That is not true.

Yes, he has, but his attempts have failed.

We say that there is in-depth consultation between us and the Black leaders at Government level today. The regional development plans, which include decentralization and which have introduced new incentives for attempts at decentralization, were drawn up after intensive and thorough negotiations with Black Governments in this country. They are the product of those negotiations. This is the basis on which we plan to move ahead with South Africa when the next upswing in the economy occurs. After all, talks are held every day at Government level with the existing Governments of Black nations in Southern Africa. One would really say that the Government was doing nothing to bring about consultation. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition disparage this?

That is not what is at issue. What is at issue is a new constitutional dispensation.

No, Sir, Constitutions have been created. Self-determination and freedom have been granted to those people as well. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that we envisage the creation of a confederal system under which we shall have regular meetings and that we are already moving in that direction. However, he also knows that this cannot be brought about overnight. Why does he create the impression, among the people he addresses, that these things can be done overnight? Surely he knows that they cannot be done overnight, for a variety of reasons which cannot even be mentioned here.

However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must help me this afternoon. He must help me to clear up a very important matter which I want to raise here. When the interim report of the Schlebusch Commission appeared, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party subscribed to paragraphs 7 and 8 of that report. I am coming back to this because I require absolute clarity from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on this point. Paragraph 8 of that report said the following, inter alia—

That the Westminster system of government, in unadapted form, does not provide a solution for the constitutional problems of the Republic and that under the present constitutional dispensation the so-called one man, one vote system will probably lead to minorities being dominated by majorities and to serious conflict among population groups in the Republic, with disastrous consequences for all the people in the Republic, and does not provide a framework in which peaceful coexistence in the Republic is possible.

Yes, that is quite correct.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party therefore subscribed to this. Very well. Now I find, however, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Chief Gatsha Buthelezi shared the same platform on 25 May this year. On that occasion, Mr. Buthelezi, the Chief Minister of KwaZulu, used the following words in his speech—

Then Chief Buthelezi went on to say—

This is a very serious statement which was made by Mr. Buthelezi. Of course, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also spoke that day. I have read his speech very carefully. He made the usual fleet-footed movements and skimmed over the problems of South Africa in his usual manner. This is something he is very good at, of course. He does this very well, very skilfully. He said, among other things, that there was in fact a need for a new constitution; one of the same fleet-footed manoeuvres he carried out this afternoon. However, he concluded his speech on that occasion in a very significant way. He said—

So says the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] Sir, did you hear the chorus over there? I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he has the opportunity today to say that he rejects Mr. Buthelezi’s standpoint of one man, one vote in a unitary State … [Interjections.] … and that he will fight it together with this Government.

I have said that.

No. [Interjections.] The hon. leader must tell us that he rejects one man, one vote. [Interjections.] I am simply asking for clarity and I do not want the chorus which already wants to start singing at the funeral. It can sing afterwards. I am talking now to their responsible leader. Is he also being led from behind? [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must decide for himself. If he accepts the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission, then he must say so to everyone in South Africa at every opportunity, so that this agitation for one man, one vote may be put a stop to once and for all. The Government is not prepared even to discuss it with Mr. Buthelezi or with any other man. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to go into a national convention with him on this point, and I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is playing a dangerous game. [Interjections.] Do you want to know, Sir, why that party is not making any substantial progress in South Africa? It is because the Whites in South Africa do not trust them with this most important corner-stone of the future State. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can rectify that.

I want to conclude by saying that there is one other matter on which I want to take a stand this afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to security legislation which had been introduced in this House. He knows that the Government acted in an open-minded, unprejudiced and fearless manner by subjecting all security legislation to an objective inquiry by a judicial commission. After a very long period, during which it investigated the matter thoroughly and called for evidence, that judicial commission published a report. No better procedure could have been followed by the Government than to subject its security legislation to the authority and inquiry of a judicial commission in difficult times. That report was published and we accepted it in its entirety. We did not deviate from it; we accepted it in its entirety. What did the Opposition do? The Opposition vented its accumulated spleen of all the years on the report of this judicial commission of inquiry, as if South Africa were once again introducing diabolical legislation, while they knew that we had subjected all security legislation to the scrutiny of a properly constituted commission. I think this is disgraceful. I think the conduct of the official Opposition is disgraceful. [Interjections.] Not only do I think it is disgraceful; I also think it is a disservice to South Africa at a time when this country is being subjected to an onslaught that is unprecedented in history. At the UN, one resolution after another is passed, demanding that this country be totally isolated. We know what the UN wants. The UN wants us to adopt a system of one man, one vote in this country, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he does not want this. Then he must help me to resist that onslaught by the UN. One of their newspapers made the absurd statement in an editorial—I am referring now to one of the local newspapers which one can hardly read these days because of its foolishness—that communism is not the greatest danger in South Africa. We read this a few days ago.

The NP is.

Just imagine that! Here an official Opposition is sitting which is the alternative Government and which swears allegiance to the Republic of South Africa, but from their back benches it is shouted that we are a greater danger than communism. What a disgrace! What a disgrace for people who want to take over the Government of the country! [Interjections.] They do this while they know that the S.A. Communist Party, which has its head-quarters abroad, says—

And that its onslaught is supported by its accomplice, the ANC, which is created and which says—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows this, but he does not call these boisterous people behind him to order. I hold that against him. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must join me in harnessing public opinion in South Africa against the forces of subversion, against the forces of revolution, against the forces that wish to attack South Africa from beyond its borders. I say that he should be in the forefront with me; then he will be a patriot.

Listen to what else the Communist Party says, and then these newspapers say that they are not the greatest danger—

We saw last night that the chief security officer of a neighbouring State, who had been on a visit to our country, had asked for asylum in South Africa. He told what was happening in his country and said that the Russians were taking over his country. However, the newspapers that support the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wish to play down the total onslaught. Then the hon. member for Waterberg comes along, and in his eagerness to score a point against the Government, he says it is being exaggerated.

I said that in the Cabinet.

Now he says that he said it in the Cabinet, but in the Cabinet he spent most of his time doodling. I wonder how many books the hon. member filled there.

In conclusion I want to say: The NP is the freedom party of this country. It is the freedom party in the constitutional field. It is the freedom party in the economic field. It is the freedom party against communism. It is the freedom party for the people that brought it into being.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to what the hon. the Prime Minister said, in the first instance I wish to state the standpoint of this party as regards the enquiries which the hon. the Prime Minister has announced. In the first instance, we do of course welcome the investigation into property and housing matters in South Africa. This is a very important issue which must be investigated, and this House will be aware that we have been calling for this type of inquiry for years.

Secondly, we also welcome those matters which the hon. the Prime Minister said are now to be submitted to the President’s Council. We congratulate the President’s Council on the various investigations they have already completed. In particular we wish to point out that we agree that the free market system in South Africa is in danger at present. There is certainly a possibility that there are restricting factors in the South African economy today which could put a spoke in the wheel of the entire system. We therefore welcome the attention which the President’s Council is devoting to that aspect. We welcome the investigation into the shortage of scientists in South Africa and the contribution of the various population groups.

I want to come back to statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister during his speech in Parow. In his speech a moment ago the hon. the Prime Minister confirmed the words he uttered during that meeting. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he really offended us through the statements he made at that public meeting, the more so because the hon. the Prime Minister occupies the highest office in this House. Therefore, whatever the hon. the Prime Minister says at a public meeting—even though it is done in a humorous way—it is widely publicized. Every newspaper reports it and it is broadcast from radio and television. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister without hesitation that those statements of his were totally invalid and unfair. [Interjections.] We can fight one another, as long as we do so in a reasonable and fair way. The hon. the Prime Minister is aware of the contribution that has been and is still being made by hon. members in this party; and not only this party—he also knows of the contribution our predecessor, the United Party, has made to South Africa’s cause.

The first statement by the hon. the Prime Minister, viz. that we are too South African to become Prog, is of course a misrepresentation of our South Africanism. It is the democratic right of any citizen of this country to give his support to any lawful party. It is his lawful and democratic right. It is not our South Africanism which causes us to oppose the policy of the PFP. We also oppose the policy of the CP, the HNP and the NP with regard to crucial matters, particularly at the level of constitutional development. However, that does not make us less South African than other members of this House or other citizens of South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister made the second statement that the members of this party were too prejudiced to co-operate with Afrikaners. Such a statement about the NRP comes from the hon. the Prime Minister, who occupies the highest platform and office in this House and in South Africa. On what does the hon. the Prime Minister base that statement and allegation against this party? What does he have in mind? What was his motivation? I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will be fair enough to tell us on what he bases that statement of his.

I now wish to put a few questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. From what angle does he make that statement? Does he see himself as primarily a South African or an Afrikaner?

Both.

Which one comes first? It cannot be both together.

The one is not in conflict with the other.

If that is the hon. the Prime Minister’s standpoint, why, then, does he not also believe that this party is just as representative of the Afrikaner citizen in South Africa as is his party.

You are part of the “Natal Stand”.

Or is the National Party reserved exclusively for Afrikaners? The office of Prime Minister has the great responsibility of eliminating friction among cultural groups, including language groups. We therefore do not expect this kind of statement from the Prime Minister, from a Cabinet Minister or from a responsible politician in South Africa.

I want to refer to the matter the hon. member for Standerton also broached here yesterday, and I also refer to the hon. member for Vryheid. I refer to our contribution to the organization of the commemoration of the battle of Majuba. The hon. member for Umbilo, too, contributed towards the arrangement of that festival. I myself was privileged to make a speech during that festival. The hon. the leader of the NRP was with me there. He was a patron. I urge the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members, if they want to take the trouble, to examine that contribution to find out where the NRP stands as regards the Afrikaans-speaking South African citizen. There is not a single constituency in this country in which we have fewer than 800 supporters. That represents tremendous support from the Afrikaans-speaking South African. To that I wish to add that we in this party are primarily South Africans and secondarily English or Afrikaans-speaking. I expect the hon. the Prime Minister to adopt the same position.

The hon. the Prime Minister also made a certain statement this afternoon in reply to the hon. the leader of the NRP, and I should like all hon. members to take very careful note of the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister and our reply to it. The hon. the Prime Minister said that there was no future for this party. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if there is no future for the policy of this party, there is no future for the minorities in South Africa, whether they be White, Coloured, Indian or Black minorities. The hon. the Prime Minister will also confirm—and I hope he does it in public—that the proposals of the President’s Council relating to third tier government rest squarely on the policy of the NRP as set out in 1978. On two occasions we addressed a petition to the Government and the Cabinet to ask that those third tier proposals be introduced in Natal, and it was refused. It was refused on two occasions by the Cabinet of which the hon. the Prime Minister is a member. We now say that we are grateful that the standardbearers of that policy had the power, steadfastness and courage, despite those factors that were against them in South Africa, to say: This is our policy; this is what we stand for and we shall devote our energies to making this the policy of South Africa. We are on record as regards our view of the proposals of the President’s Council, including those relating to the first and second tiers of Government. However, we totally reject the statement that we are prejudiced and unable to co-operate with Afrikaans-speaking South Africans.

Then I just want to address the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for a moment. Unfortunately he is not present at the moment. Therefore I just wish to refer again briefly to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to say to him that we have full confidence in the fact that the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is directed at reform in South Africa. However, I again wish to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to initiate negotiations concerning constitutional change, with the Black leaders of Southern Africa. Without the consent of the majority of all national groups in South Africa, no reform will be of long duration. If the majority of Blacks do not subscribe to or support such reform, that reform will fail, and then all our efforts will be of no avail. The view of the hon. the Prime Minister and his party is that one must not negotiate with the Blacks, because they do not endorse one’s own policy. I believe that that is a dangerous standpoint to adopt, and I urge the hon. the Prime Minister to devote his energies to negotiation with the Black leaders.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Prime Minister will realize what the standpoint of the Black leaders is with regard to the proposals of the President’s Council, particularly those of Gatsha Buthelezi, Chief Minister of KwaZulu, who is undoubtedly an influential leader.

A week never passes without our negotiating with them.

Why is it not possible to negotiate with the Blacks by way of the same infrastructure as that on the basis of which negotiations take place with the Coloureds and Indians? However, I hope that we have persuaded the hon. the Prime Minister to see the NRP in a new light once again, because we have a role to play in South Africa and as South Africans we are proud to be able to do so.

I should now like to address a few words to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition or to the ranks of his party, and I wish to say to them that in our opinion they are creating expectations among the Black leaders and their followers that cannot be fulfilled.

†In that lies a great danger for stability in South Africa. We are not concerned with whether the PFP have negotiations with Inkatha or whether they do not, but when they stand up publicly and make it a policy of their party by saying that they subscribe entirely to the Buthelezi Commission’s recommendations apropos other recommendations, then we contend that they are creating aspirations in those people that cannot be fulfilled and, in doing so, they are creating conflict.

Why can’t those aspirations be fulfilled?

I shall tell you now. The PFP are, in fact, contributing not so much to polarization but to conflict in South Africa, because the people they take with them are already in the one spectrum of the political society in South Africa—the people who stand for one man, one vote majority rule in South Africa. In our plural society it is an impossibility given the division of power in South Africa today, to bring about a one man, one vote Black majority rule situation and it is impossible to achieve this objective for a very simple reason, Sir. One will not get the leader of the people in Ciskei or Transkei or Bophuthatswana to submit to the rulership of Gatsha Buthelezi, and vice versa, and neither will one get the Whites to submit to rule by Gatsha Buthelezi. [Interjections.] It is a recipe for conflict to encourage Blacks to believe that they can achieve that objective. [Interjections.]

As far as negotiation is concerned, the difference between three parties in this House is as follows: As I mentioned to the hon. the Prime Minister, he fears negotiaton with Blacks because he knows that he cannot succeed in convincing them that apartheid is the solution for South Africa.

You are talking nonsense!

Of course that is so. Does the hon. member for Innesdal believe that it is possible to sell apartheid and “wit baasskap” to the Black leaders?

It was possible to sell separate development to them. They have already bought it and it is part and parcel of the concept.

Well, they must be very dissatisfied customers if they bought that concept because one has only to look at the speeches of the leaders of the Black national States as well as those of the leaders of the self-governing States to see how dissatisfied they are with the situation in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am afraid that one cannot sell that concept, no matter how one looks at it. As far as the NP is concerned, negotiation with radical leaders and people who disagree with them must be avoided at all costs. They cannot appreciate that in the process of negotiation one can get these Black leaders to accept a formula different to what they came to the negotiating table with. Hon. members of the NP do not recognize that fact and therefore they run away and, in the process of running away from negotiation with Black leaders, they are jeopardizing the security and welfare of all in South Africa.

On the other hand, the PFP negotiate with Blacks for a transfer of power. That is all they are doing. There is no alternative that they are putting to the Black leaders of South Africa. [Interjections.] Of course it is a transfer of power. The Buthelezi Commission’s recommendations are the transfer of power in Natal and KwaZulu. There is no alternative. As the hon. the Prime Minister read out today, the attitude of Chief Minister Buthelezi and Inkatha is that they want total domination of the political system. If hon. members would go to the trouble of reading the Buthelezi Commission’s political recommendations—which they so gladly signed, which they support in toto and defend on public platforms—they would see…

You have never understood it.

… that the formula is for one man, one vote in a unitary system. [Interjections.] … and the end result of that unitary system is that representation will be proportional to population group ratios. That means that 119 out of 150 seats would be occupied by Zulus. [Interjections.]

We do not talk in terms of race classification.

Of course they do not talk in terms of race classification! It is an advantage to the Black majority group not to talk in terms of race classification.

They have learnt nothing from Afrikaner Nationalist domination.

The gravamen of my complaint against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that although he pleads for negotiation, the opportunity to talk to different groups in order to find a solution, he refuses to become involved in a negotiating situation in the President’s Council which has three out of the four population groups in it, and that is a bigoted if not a biased approach to the formulation of a constitution in South Africa.

It is not a negotiating forum.

Well, can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether his negotiating platforms with other groups are more valid than the President’s Council.

That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about negotiation between various powers.

Of course we are, but the President’s Council is not involved in a interface power conflict.

That is exactly what I am saying.

It is a think-tank. It is a place where academic must face academic, put his case and have it tested.

Yes, it is a forum. That is all I said.

May I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether the Buthelezi Commission was a negotiating forum for their policy.

Far more so than the President’s Council.

But what makes the difference? [Interjections.]

Because it is real intergroup bargaining.

May I point out who was on the Buthelezi Commission? There were international academics, not only South Africans. They had no vested interest in South Africa.

They had no constituency responsibilities.

75% of the commissioners were people from outside Natal.

Were you there on behalf of your party?

Yes, I was.

Well, then!

75% of the commissioners came from outside Natal.

Order! I cannot permit a dialogue across the floor of the House. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s answers are already common knowledge, but we wish to highlight the deficiencies in the answers given by that party. Not only were 75% of the commissioners from outside Natal, but the Black representatives were in a complete minority. In fact, the academics—international, not local—took that commission in tow, because the audience they were speaking to was not KwaZulu’s, South Africa’s or Natal’s Whites, Coloureds and Indians. It was the international academic cartel … [Interjections.] … those people who excel at constructing artificial theories. I want to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to Prof. Lijphart who was a fellow commissioner and who sat with me on the constitutional subcommittee. He was the person who wrote a book, so thick it looks like a Butterworth volume, on a peaceful solution for Lebanon and the Middle East. Look at that area today, ten years after those theories were written down. It is all falling apart at the seams, and if it were not for Israeli intervention, it would probably never survive as a nation.

Lebanon is doing very nicely.

Yes, it is doing very well, and its model is based on the same theories of consociational democracy in a plural society. Let us also look at Cyprus, India, Pakistan and all the African countries like Nigeria that try to go for that kind of formula. What do we find? We find disaster. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his followers are, however, entitled to their opinion. That is their democratic right. It is also their democratic responsibility, however, to take every opportunity to participate in political discussions through the forums created by this Parliament. [Interjections.] Otherwise they are being highly selective in the areas of participation, which proves their bias and bigoted approach to constitutional design in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Lastly, I should like to give the hon. the Minister of Finance a little political advice, because I see the hon. the Prime Minister has left the Chamber. As leader of the NP in Natal, the hon. the Minister of Finance should never underestimate the commitment of our English-speaking, Afrikaans-speaking, Greek and Italian South Africans who support this party to provincial government by duly elected leaders. Nor must he ever underestimate our commitment to reform in South Africa which would produce a just society based on the policies of this party.

Mr. Speaker, if we look back over the past session, there is one thing which stands out very clearly, and that is the doleful failure of the three Opposition parties in this House to make an essential contribution to solving the problems of our country. We saw this here again this afternoon.

I wish to start with the smallest of the three Opposition Parties, viz. the NRP.

With the biggest heart.

I am pleased that their heart is big. All I could perhaps say to them, is that they trotted along and joined in the barking courageously this session. I must concede that they were sometimes quite positive.

Always.

The hon. member for Durban North and his leader feel very strongly about the question of cooperation with Afrikaans-speaking people.

We also have Afrikaans-speaking people in our ranks.

We are particularly grateful and pleased about that and we hope that they will continue along this road. We just cannot understand why they have lost the support of the Afrikaans speaking people to such an extent that they are a small party here today, after once being a powerful party, the old United Party of General Smuts. We regret that they are such a small party.

But in five years we will have attained the new Republic. [Interjections.]

The hon. members of the NRP should give serious consideration to supporting the NP in the important matters it is dealing with, perhaps also from this side of the House.

The hon. member for Durban North asked that a greater measure of dialogue should be conducted with the Black people in this country. I wish to tell him that this dialogue is continuing unabated. A very positive and fruitful dialogue is being conducted with these people. I can tell the hon. member that as a member of the Commission for Cooperation and Development, I have experienced and know about this. I can tell him that there is a constant dialogue in progress with these people. The NP will deal with the question of the Coloureds and Indians, but it will not omit to deal with the problem of the Blacks. Three extremely important pieces of legislation which will be before this House shortly, attest to the fact that the Government is in earnest about solving the problem of the Blacks in this country in conjunction with that of the Coloureds and the Indians.

I said that I should like to talk about the three Opposition Parties in this House. The CP has just appeared on the scene. With chests expanded, like Mickey Mouse, they rose here with much bravado and arrogance, but they were quickly brought down to earth and cut down to their real size by this House. There is an old saying in Parliament: “Parliament will come him down to size”.This is precisely what has happened here to the CP. Although the hon. members of the’ CP swagger around outside and boast about the successes they have achieved, Parliament has cut them down to their real size—and that size is not very large.

Rather talk about principles.

All this exhibitionism and this ostentatious display of red carnations will not let them look any bigger in this House. [Interjections.] I shall come back to the CP at a later stage. Because I am afraid that time may catch up with me, I firstly wish to address myself to the official Opposition in this House.

This afternoon we listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his party has worked itself out of the mainstream of current politics, to the extent that they have been nothing but spectators in this House for the greater part of this session. For days and weeks they sat here, like spectators at a match at Newlands they watched matters progressing here day after day, without really being part of the debates which were were conducted here. Nothing can be more frustrating and damning for an Opposition party than to be relegated to the side-fines and to be thrust aside by the hurly-burly of politics.

Only now that the proposals of the President’s Council are before us, is it really clear how foolish the official Opposition were when they decided to boycott the President’s Council. Without discussing the proposals of the President’s Council here—owing to a lack of time, I cannot do so now—I wish to point out that the President’s Council has already been brilliantly successful in one respect in particular. The President’s Council has succeeded in creating a climate of tolerance between Whites, Coloureds and Indians, a climate of co-operation and of understanding for one another’s problems, a desire for consensus and reconciliation. The President’s Council has, in fact, made a breakthrough in that it has found a modus vivendi according to which peaceful talks on the future of South Africa can take place in a way in which Coloureds, Indians and Whites have never been able to do before in this country. This is really sound progress. This gives us hope for the future.

The newspapers are also writing about the proposals of the President’s Council. Newspapers describe it as “the dawn of a new tomorrow, a watershed in politics, the moment of truth.” One newspaper in particular, The Citizen, however, had this to say about the PFP—

Of course, this is true. The PFP are really in trouble. One wonders whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realizes how irrelevant his party has really become. We are facing “the dawn of a new tomorrow”, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still sitting dumbstruck on the stadium at New-lands—a mere spectator. [Interjections.]

Of course, we are aware that sensible people in the PFP are exerting pressure on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to adopt a positive attitude with regard to the proposals of the President’s Council so that in a way, he may once more gain a foothold in the political mainstream in this country. On the other hand, however, the radical leftists in the PFP say that he should adopt an unyielding stance in his boycott of the President’s Council; that he should do this behind the smoke-screen of the demand for Black participation. For the umpteenth time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is being ground between the separate factions in his divided party, and the far left and the immediate left are remorselessly tightening the screws. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should realize that he now has the opportunity of showing his qualities of leadership and shaking off the hold of the far left. He had the opportunity this afternoon in this House to rid himself of his negative image and to take part in the debate on the future dispensation in a positive spirit. However, after completing his speech here, we still do not know where we stand with the official Opposition as far as the proposals of the President’s Council are concerned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do well to read his own newspapers, since they are giving him an opening. The influential Star of Johannesburg tells him—

The Sunday Times tells us that these proposals mean progress. The Sunday Times says that it has flaws, but that it contains amazing and even exciting potential for evolutionary constitutional reform in South Africa. The idea is gaining momentum, in PFP circles as well, that the reform efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister should be supported because they are a good start. There is already a great deal of support for the hon. the Prime Minister, outside the NP as well. Powerful financial institutions behind the PFP and its Press also wish to encourage the hon. the Prime Minister to continue with reform. These people dislike having a spoke put in the wheel of reform, as the official Opposition are trying to do. The official Opposition must not think that it is going to escape unscathed if it persists with this lackadaisical attitude. If the Opposition continues to be a nonentity in the future constitutional reform, it is going to lose them an ever increasing measure of support.

In the remaining few minutes, I should like to deal with the CP and with the hon. the leader of that party in particular, the hon. member for Waterberg. I am not going to be unkind to the hon. member for Waterberg, since it does not behave Afrikaners to vent their spleen on one another as the hon. member for Waterkloof did here. However, I think it is necessary to ask one another a few straightforward questions. Supporters of that hon. leader and his party throughout the country, are engaged in an unpleasant campaign of slander against the NP, the party which brought them to this House. In this campaign, they are accusing the Government, inter alia, of moving to the left and of having now embarked on a leftist-liberal course. [Interjections.] I also wish to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that he knows that this is not true. The hon. the Prime Minister make a brief reference here today to a speech made by the hon. the leader of the CP at a Transvaal congress. I should like to return to this speech in greater detail. The hon. the leader of the CP used certain words in that speech and I wish to repeat those words, since they are important. These words are very appropriate and they are very true. The hon. the leader had this to say, inter alia—

As jy geen beter beginsels en beleid as die Nasionale Party het nie, en jy het nie, moenie verskille fabriseer nie.

But now you have; now you know what they are.

We have not yet been told what they are; we do not know what they are.

It was your party that abandoned those principles.

Now we have suddenly abandoned them. The hon. member for Brakpan knows that we are following precisely the same course as always. How can he make such a statement? [Interjections.] Furthermore, the hon. the leader of the CP stated—

I wish to ask the hon. the leader whether he still stands by those words of his, since they are so fresh that they have scarcely left his lips. He uttered these sentiments quite recently. The hon. the leader of the CP would do well to dust off his winged words of the past a little and compare them with what he is saying now, and he will then find a serious credibility gap.

If the hon. member wants us to accept power-sharing, he is asking too much.

We can talk about that at a later stage. [Interjections.] Why does the hon. the leader allow his followers to do precisely what he warned against so earnestly? After all, he said that if one had no better principles and policy than that of the NP, then one should not fabricate differences. The harsh facts of the matter are simply that the CP cannot come up with anything better than what the NP is offering, except to retreat into the musty past and to build fantasies for the future there. Now they are looking for differences, now they are fabricating differences. If the hon. the leader still adheres to the lofty principles, the high morality which he preached at the Transvaal congress, he will have to call his followers to order in all earnest now. But he is doing precisely what he warned against. Differences are being fabricated, people are being chased into opposing camps, emotions and being aroused, Afrikaners are being divided, hard won unity is being broken up. This is precisely what the hon. the leader was warning against.

The hon. the leader also said that one is not conservative because one spreads poisonous rumours about the NP and its leaders, because then one simply has a gossipmonger. This is precisely what the hon. the leader and his new party are, a party of gossipmongers going around the country spreading poisonous rumours about the NP.

Is one gossiping if one is telling the truth?

Furthermore, the hon. the leader of the CP told that congress the following profound truth. He said that one is not conservative if one only promotes the interests of Afrikaners and Whites, for then one is selfish, shortsighted and a danger to inter-group relations. However, the hon. the leader and his followers have now embarked on the same shortsighted and dangerous course he spoke of. He himself has embarked on the course of selfishness and shortsightedness.

The proposals of the President’s Council which have sound ethnic relations as their objective, are being summarily dismissed by the CP and its followers. Who spelt out more clearly and forcefully that the NP was not on a leftist path, than the hon. the leader of the CP himself? Now, suddenly this is no longer true. How are we to understand the hon. the leader? We have never experienced such a political somersault. One finds such political opportunism truly shocking.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the hon. member’s reference to the President’s Council in the course of my speech, but as for the rest of his speech, I think I already replied to it last year.

As I am the first member in these benches to participate in the debate after the Prime Minister has spoken, I feel it my duty to react to some of the points that he has made. The first point with which I should like to deal is the reference of the hon. the Prime Minister to this party’s policy as if we stood for a unitary State. I would have thought that the 1981 constitution of the PFP, so clearly printed and published, is particularly clear on that aspect. I read in section IV, paragraph 21—

1. (1) The PFP rejects the present unitary constitutional structure.
2. (2) The PFP stands for a federation with decentralization and separation of power.
3. (3) The PFP rejects majority rule government.

I could not understand the hon. the Prime Minister—unless he is very confused, just as confused as was the hon. member for Durban North, who has now disappeared—when he referred to our party’s policy. We have stated repeatedly that we do not stand for “one man, one vote” in a unitary State because we do not stand for a unitary State. The confusion may arise when we talk about our federation. Once that federation has been established on certain precise grounds, the federal States will prescribe their particular method of franchise and of government. To confuse the issue is unfair and it reveals incorrect thinking. An incorrect allegation has therefore been made in so far as this party is concerned.

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

Sir, unfortunately my time is very limited.

He also said that we do not have the interests of the Whites at heart. That is not true, because in the whole system of consociational democracy which I shall refer to again just now, it is inherent together with the Bill of Rights, with proportional representation and with the right of veto that we are sharing power on a basis on which it can be shared in the type of society in which we are living today. That allegation is therefore not true.

Another remark the hon. the Prime Minister made was that the President’s Council had created a calm atmosphere. I wish to heaven that it had created a calm atmosphere. [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Prime Minister call the bomb explosion on the 6th floor of the building housing the President’s Council a calm atmosphere in South Africa? Does the hon. the Prime Minister call acts of sabotage in South Africa—including that at Paulpietersburg which occurred recently—a calm atmosphere in South Africa? Surely it is not.

That was not your attitude when we debated the security legislation.

The hon. the Prime Minister also said that we cannot succeed with consultation. We can succeed with it. The whole idea is to call a national convention. The President’s Council basically is a form of a national convention. We will be in power when the national convention is convened. The national convention will act on certain defined guidelines within the framework of the policy of our party embracing the consociational idea. In that respect we will listen and accede to the requests of the national convention on an ongoing basis by consensus and by negotiation. This is the basis of reform.

The hon. the Prime Minister also said they would establish a Black council “as dit nodig is”. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Does he not think the time has come now to establish that Black council? If not, when does he then wish to establish the council, if that is what he has in mind?

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to refer to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and the question of one man, one vote. He also challenged my hon. leader to reject the idea of one man, one vote. As I said earlier, we have never accepted the idea of one man, one vote. What my hon. leader has done is to enter into consultation. He is prepared to have consultation, as he has had with Chief Buthelezi. Surely then from that consultation will flow not the question of one imposing his will against another but alternatives and options. Consultation will bring about agreement between the parties and establish what they believe in.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member prepared to answer a question?

No, I have not got enough time. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated that we share the same dream. Does he not also share the same freedom and the same common love for South Africa or does he fall down on the question of inequality? I do not think that is the way it should be done. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to the question of commissions of inquiry. As far as the Rabie Commission report is concerned, we have had endless arguments in the House. However, there is one important factor in the Rabie Commission report that has not been mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister. The essential feature of how detainees are dealt with and should be dealt with has not been dealt with fully in the Rabie Commission report. The Association of Law Societies and every legal man in South Africa who is worth his salt and who is against the rape of the rule of law, will stand by the fact that detainees should be brought before a court and that they should not be locked up indefinitely at the whim of certain people until they can be made to give evidence in a certain direction. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister called his party a “vryheidsparty”. I want to know then whether the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to change the name of the NP to “Freedom Party”. If he changes the name to “Freedom Party” I want to know whether that party will prescribe freedom for all sections of the South African community.

The hon. member for Durban North referred to Lijphart’s consociational democracy. Why does he not quote the success of consociational democracy in the Netherlands and in Switzerland? Why does he refer to Lebanon and why does he refer to Cyprus? They did not fail because of the elements and the principles of consociational democracy. They failed because of international conflict, which they were drawn into, and which is a complete distinction from what has been said here.

Nevertheless, we on this side of the House welcome the fact that there is discussion in South Africa today on a new constitution. The logjam, the granite-like policies of the past are broken. We are happy that we are talking about new constitutions and we are happy that the President’s Council is talking about new constitutions and that people are writing about new constitutions, because we need to bring about that change and we need to bring about reform. However, the basis of the whole discussion was stated by the State President and I think I must quote it, because this clearly is the basis for discussion. I am quoting from page 1 of a report placed before the President’s Council—

It does not exclude any particular population group. It says “all the population groups”. I quote further—

Is this not what the hon. the Prime Minister subscribes to? Is this not what the NP and all the hon. members in this House should subscribe to? Surely this is the basis upon which we should approach changes to be brought about in South Africa, but let us then stick to what is prescribed for us. In the 1977 proposals of the National Party, the draft bill of 1979 made certain fundamental changes in the Historical constitution of this country. It set thinking along the road that majoritarian rule in a democratic State is not democratic. In other words, it rejected the “winner takes all” concept. [Interjections.] I do not know what is so funny. It rejects the “winner takes all” concept in a plural society which is defined on the basis of differences on social, religious, ideological, linguistic and cultural grounds particularly when these cleavages run as deep as they do in our Republic.

Therefore, the fundamental issue is how one can share power and retain peaceful coexistence, notwithstanding these cleavages that are the fact that we must recognize in South Africa. The need for reform is urgent, so urgent as to bring about reform in a peaceful way, before reform is made by force. I believe this concept is accepted by everyone in this country today and I want to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister for his speech, in which he gained his Springbok colours the other day.

Inherent in this aspect of sharing power, however, is to concede and give up some of the power that lies in the hands of those that have it. Therefore, there must be a willingness to share power and an acceptance that this is a diminution of the power held by that shareholder initially. The Whites of this country, in whose hands the power has lain, must therefore be prepared to make sacrifices, not only in the sharing of power politically, but ideologically as well, if they want to survive peacefully. This means that the basic powers must be shared. In other words, if you own 100% of the shares and you want to share it with others, you have to give up some of those shares. You must be prepared to make the sacrifice and you must be able to deal those shares out in a way that, like a cake that is going to be cut, the shares will be available to all. You should not produce a half baked cake, and I believe that the President’s Council has in fact baked a cake that may be a flop.

Even though the recommendations only concern Whites, Coloureds and Indians, I must point out that the fundamental difficulties in the ability of these recommendations to succeed, lies in the retention of the vertical walls of apartheid. Without scrapping the Group Areas Act, can the recommendations be practically implemented? In other words, can the sharing of power be genuine?

The President’s Council is clinging to the barriers of apartheid. To be meaningful, it must break through the colour bar as a jet breaks through the sound barrier. The Group Areas Act is repugnant and it is repressive. It hangs the racial tag of identification around the neck of every individual to ensure that everyone is correctly identified and classified as Coloured, Indian, White or Black. It is a malicious piece of legislation and I cannot understand how members of the President’s Council can say that they cannot find anything wrong with that Act if they have, in fact, read it themselves. I blame the CP for holding back the NP in their programme of reform and, although they may have subscribed to the 1977 constitutional proposals of the NP, there is a difference that has come to light at this stage. I believe that there is an intention on the part of the NP, be it as small as it is, to bring about a measure of reform but, as far as the CP is concerned, it is a status quo party with no intention of moving forward or dealing realistically with the problems that face South Africa. In order to come to grips with the problems that are facing South Africa we have to deal not with 30% of the population but with the whole population. We cannot have multiple partition for the Blacks who constitute 70% of the peoples of this country and a programme of consociational democracy for 30% of the people. Those are not the elements of consociational democracy. Consociational democracy involves the sharing of power, consultation, the getting together of the elite, the bringing in of proportional representation so that everyone is represented, the giving of the right of veto and the granting of segmental autonomy where people are segmented in their own areas to the extent that they have their own states. In other words, had the President’s Council gone along with the basic principles of the PFP, which is really what I am referring to, a far better meaning could be attached to the discussions which are taking place in South Africa.

I want now to ask the hon. the Prime Minister certain questions with regard to what is happening at the moment. There are some aspects on which the Government has remained silent. What about the recommendations concerning local government and local authorities, the development of urban Blacks and the establishments of urban Blacks? What are the recommendations with regard to the provincial councils? Are they going to be phased out and replaced by eight regional bodies and seven metropolitan bodies? Or are the provincial councils to be retained including Coloureds and Indians as members? How does the hon. the Prime Minister visualize the three Chambers of Parliament? What legislation will they deal with? Can he overcome the criticism of the President’s Council of the very concept of these three Chambers as far as the 1977-’79 recommendations are concerned? These recommendations are referred to on pages 70 to 73 of the first report of the constitutional committee of the President’s Council, where they have created a lacuna, according to Prof. Booysen.

Let me now make it quite clear what our policy is. In so far as the “standstill” position of the NP is concerned at the moment, they were called up to give a declaration of intent. Where is this declaration of intent? They have merely suggested certain guidelines. I do not know what these guidelines are but they merely talk about three Chambers. They first want to consult the Coloured and Indian populations. How do they intend consulting them? Are they going to consult them by means of a referendum? If a referendum is held, what precisely are they going to say in the referendum and what are they going to ask the Coloured and Indian people to vote for? The Government has said very little at the moment. Are they going to be asked whether they intend participating in the proceedings of the three Chambers? [Interjections.] I am asking now: What is the Government going to say in that referendum? What is more important, what if the majority of the Coloured and the Indian people or a majority of both of them vote against the referendum? Will that mean the end of the road? Will that mean that there will be no further constitutional change in South Africa? [Interjections.] The whole country is waiting to hear from the NP where we are going. The whole of the business world, commerce and industry and people with investments in this country want to know where we are going. We are about to pass the final stage of the Defence Amendment Bill which is going to chase thousands of South Africans out of this country. What will be offered to them in order to induce them to stay in South Africa? What is going to be done to bring about freedom, security and peace in South Africa so that we can all live in this country with our children in peace and happiness?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow devoted a considerable portion of his speech to consociational democracy. I shall not reply to him directly, although I wish to discuss the same subject. Firstly I wish to turn to the comment the hon. member for Waterberg made on the idea of consociational democracy yesterday and deal with it directly.

I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg, but I had problems with it. I consulted his Hansard afterwards, and even then I still had problems with it, in the sense that, looking at the part of his speech which he devoted to consociational democracy, I could not determine whether these were his original thoughts or whether he was simply reflecting the opinions of other writers. He quoted various writers, but it was not clear from his speech whether he was advancing these opinions as his own thoughts or simply as a scientific critique. I therefore wish to deal with that part of the hon. member’s speech.

The hon. member for Waterberg began by linking the President’s Council to the idea of consociational democracy. He then discusses consociational democracy, and he discussed it by quoting the opinions of other scientists. By doing so, he apparently wished to prove that the President’s Council was guilty of making a blunder in this process. Towards the end of his speech, the hon. member referred to a Mr. A. J. Venter, an academic at the University of the Orange Free State, and then he also gave a quotation. To the best of my knowledge this Mr. Venter who supposedly used those specific words, is not, however, connected with the University of the Orange Free State, but, in fact, with the University of South Africa. However, I am given to understand that there is another Professor Venter, who has a different political approach, connected with the University of the Orange Free State. I then consulted a book which appeared recently with the title Politieke Alternatiewe vir Suider-Afrika which was compiled by Van Vuuren and Kriek and in which this Mr. Venter from UNISA also wrote a chapter. The similarity between the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Waterberg and the ideas in this book, are quite remarkable. [Interjections.] I now quote from the unrevised copy of the hon. member’s Afrikaans Hansard, where he refers to consociation (Hansard, 8 June 1982)—

At that stage, the hon. member for Waterberg had not yet referred to Mr. Venter, but on page 183 of the abovementioned book, Mr. Venter has the following to say—

A little while later, the hon. member, after he had just referred to the hon. the Prime Minister, referred just before that to Lijphart and to “geleerdes wat hierdie saak bestudeer”—

However, it is clearly a quote from the same page of that book, where it is stated—

And so I could continue. The hon. member for Waterberg said—

In this book the following is stated—

Then the hon. member refers to what a certain L. E. Dutter is supposed to have said. L. E. Dutter is quoted on the same page by Venter. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member refers to what a certain Mr. Barry had to say. [Interjections.] Venter also continues directly in the following paragraph with precisely the same words of Barry. [Interjections.]

Real cribber. He peddles erudition!

And so he continues to rub shoulders with these erudite people. This is really interesting. Then he also referred to what Prof. Vosloo had to say about consociational democracy or rather, he referred to how Prof. Vosloo typified South Africa society. He made the point that Prof. Vosloo had said that there were three different models, but South African society meets the requirements for the conflict model. However, the hon. member for Waterberg left it at that. In an article which appeard in Politikon in 1974, Prof. Vosloo did, in fact, say this, that he also went further. After his original description of the reigning political system, he pleaded in 1974 that we should move from the conflict model to the consociational model. The hon. member for Waterberg did not quote that part, the part in which this conclusion was drawn, the conclusion of that article. [Interjections.]

Finally he came to Mr. Venter’s statement on page 290 of this book. There A. J. Venter has this to say—

There are other examples which one could mention. However, my time is limited. I just wish to put forward another idea concerning the consociational model and its application in South Africa. In the political sciences and the social sciences it has become apparent that South Africa is the Lorelei of scientific theories in the sense that fine scientific theories developed in Europe and America and in respect of which it has been proved that they work in other places, collapse or run aground as soon as one tries to implement them in South Africa. This is what has happened to a large extent with Lijphart’s consociational model.

Now one should just examine this consociational model to see what it entails. The consociational idea is the general idea that people should not be brought together at the individual level, but that each group should choose its own leaders and that those leaders should then meet to talk about differences and about matters in respect of which they wish to co-operate with one another. Now Lijphart developed a complicated model around this idea, but that model is not really supposed to work in practice. What is more, the fact that Lijphart’s model, like so many other models, is not suitable for South Africa, does not mean that we cannot implement Lijphart’s idea or the basic consociational idea, taking the South African circumstances into consideration. This is what the NP is doing. The NP is introducing that idea, an idea which I would call a group democracy, which is basic to the consociational concept, as well as to international politics, and adapting them to the particular circumstances of South Africa in 1982. Therefore, to dismiss the consociational idea, is not to dismiss the NP’s constitutional reform, since it is not the Lijphart’s model which we are implementing here, but a recipe or process which we in South Africa have designed and in which all the best ideas at our disposal are included and which have been applied to the practical circumstances of the day. I wish to assert that this recipe of the NP is going to work in future. It is going to work despite the CP and the PFP. It is going to work despite the destortion of scientific works which have been placed before us.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Helderkruin and other hon. members on the Government side …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the light is still shining brightly. When one listens to these hon. members, one realizes that there is one party which gives hon. members of the governing party nightmares, a party they are wrestling with. It is the CP. [Interjections.] Yes, it is the CP. [Interjections.]

Order!

Of course it is the CP.

Which you find where? [Interjections.]

What did the hon. member for Helderkruin actually prove? He tried to prove that the hon. member for Waterberg committed a plagiarism. That is not true of course. The hon. member for Waterberg acknowledged every author to whom the hon. member for Helderkruin referred. He gave full recognition to all of them. However, I want to know what is wrong with a man like Mr. Venter displaying the same sound political judgment as that of the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] What is wrong with that? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the NP was rejecting the proposals of the President’s Council and moving back to the 1977 proposals. If that is true we are very grateful. However, I think it is only partially true.

The hon. member for Hillbrow said he took it amiss of the CP for restraining the NP, and that the CP was in that way preventing the Government from implementing the changes it would like to implement. When the hon. member for Hillbrow said that he was quite right.

Nowadays you agree all too frequently with the PFP!

Of course everything is taking place under a great shroud of secrecy. We do not know what the guidelines are. Apparently no one knows. The South African people do not know what is happening. Everything is absolutely secret. [Interjections.] However, when the decisions are published in connection with what the Government has accepted … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

You are all liars, Koos! [Interjections.]

What hon. members opposite cannot understand of course is that someone like the hon. member for De Aar could display the integrity …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Langlaagte entitled to exclaim that other hon. members are liars?

Of course yes. If it is the truth, of course I can say so. [Interjections]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must withdraw that allegation.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

I find it significant that the hon. member for Roodeplaat cannot understand that a man can show integrity as the hon. member for De Aar did who, after he had attended a meeting of the caucus, unequivocably stated that he was not prepared to say what had happened there. He considers it a matter of honour not to reveal what happened in the caucus. I think this is commendable of him.

In any case he signed an undertaking to resign his seat. Surely that is an undertaking he has to abide.

In any case the hon. member for De Aar did not tell anyone what happened in the caucus. [Interjections.]

Order!

The first statement I want to make is that when the Government’s decisions are made known, we shall see that there is a difference between what the President’s Council recommended and what the Government eventually accepts. I think that the difference between what the President’s Council recommended and what the Government is eventually going to accept will be attributable to the CP. [Interjections.] It will be attributable to the CP. [Interjections.] I am convinced that if the CP had not come into existence, the Government would have accepted all the resolutions of the President’s Council. [Interjections.] That is precisely what would have happened if the CP had not been there. [Interjections.] Without the CP the Government would have accepted all the resolutions of the President’s Council. I shall also tell you why.

You are talking utter rubbish!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs knows that in the Cabinet resolution which leaked out, it was stated that the Cabinet could negotiate with the Vice State President on this basis.

We negotiate every day. We negotiate with whomever we wish to. We can even negotiate with you!

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs ought to know about the letter the hon. the Prime Minister released to the Press. Mention is also made of these matters in that letter; inter alia, of a qualified franchise. Surely the hon. the Minister knows that there is not a single recommendation of the President’s Council which would not have been approved and accepted by the Government.

But surely you are talking nonsense now!

No, I am not talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

Well, why did you people walk out then?

I want to put it to the hon. Minister of Internal Affairs that this is the first great victory of the CP. If we had remained in the NP, we would not have achieved anything. After all, they walked all over us while we were still in the NP. [Interjections.] Of course that is so. [Interjections.] While we were still raising our differences, the Government had already announced the policy changes.

The hon. the Prime Minister alleged that we did not walk out because of a policy change in the NP.

No, of course not!

I want to point out that in the statement issued by the hon. the Prime Minister, there are four concepts which have never been used by the NP before. I challenge any hon. member of the NP to show me a single official document of the NP in which one of the following statements are made. The first one is that power-sharing is not rejected. [Interjections.] Every pamphlet published by the NP rejected power-sharing. I want to ask those hon. members to bring me one pamphlet which proves the contrary and which states that they accept power-sharing. I ask them to bring me one pamphlet prior to 22 February in which it was stated that self-determination was relative. That was the first time they made that statement—that self-determination was relative. [Interjections.] There is not a single pamphlet. I also want to ask those hon. members to bring me one pamphlet which states there must be joint decision-making at all levels. There is not a single one. There is not a single pamphlet which says there must be joint decision-making at all levels. They know that the day we walked out of the caucus Die Vaderland stated for the first time in the history of South Africa that the NP had spelled out power-sharing. [Interjections.] That is true. I cannot understand why they are afraid of it. On the one hand those hon. members want to be reformers, but on the other hand they also want to stay where they are. [Interjections.] They cannot do both. The fact is that the NP has accepted power-sharing or political integration as a philosophy and this is also reflected in the recommendations of the President’s Council. Power-sharing and political integration also form part of this recommendation.

May I ask a question?

No, I am not replying to any questions. [Interjections.] That hon. member must resume his seat. Hon. members opposite are making such a noise that I can hardly get a chance to speak; and then he still wants to waste my time. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I accept his noble aims. However, I also want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I left that party because I was absolutely convinced that we could not achieve those aims by way of political power-sharing and political integration. [Interjections.] I do not believe it. I want to tell you why: Power cannot be shared fairly. It is impossible to share political power fairly and the best proof we have of this is these recommendations of the President’s Council. Here is the proof that it cannot be shared fairly. If you have one seat more than the others, then you govern and do as you wish. For this reason in a power-sharing situation, in an integrated political situation, you must ensure that you retain the power. This is exactly what is being proposed in the report of the President’s Council—a qualified vote in an integrated provincial council and a qualified vote in an integrated local authority.

I want to prove to the NP that what they resolved upon is not fair. It does not meet the requirements of justice. It does not lead to stability. [Interjections.] I say power-sharing cannot be applied fairly and I want to give an example in this connection. In the report of the President’s Council it is stated that at the local government level, Whites, Coloureds and Indians must be given representation according to municipal valuations.

Genetics.

Yes, Sir. Genetics also teaches you that. As I said, they are referring here to municipal valuations. [Interjections.] I say this is the highest form of discrimination and I shall explain this. In Graaff-Reinet there are 19 000 people in the Coloured town, and 5 000 people in the White town. If they go according to numbers, even if it is on a separate voters’ roll—each person’s vote will carry equal weight—the Coloureds should have eight of the ten seats in the local government. However, on the basis of municipal valuation they only recieve one of the ten seats.

You believe in one man, one vote!

No, I do not believe in one man, one vote. But I believe even less in this sort of thing. [Interjections.] No, those hon. members cannot get past this argument. Now they expect a moderate Coloured leader to go to his people and tell them: Based on numbers we are entitled to eight of the ten seats. I am asking you to do this: Let us degrade ourselves so that we only get one of the seats. [Interjections.] I would appreciate it if those hon. members would keep quiet. Those hon. members are selling out the moderate Coloured and Indian leaders. [Interjections.] The hon. members opposite are creating a paradise for the radical and for the man who says this system is a “sell-out; rather vote for me because I will ensure that you can vote”.

What are you creating?

I shall tell you, but do you not want to listen to what I am telling you?

Order! The hon. member must refer to other hon. members as “hon. members”.

Sir, I shall tell the hon. members, but I would prefer to follow my own pattern. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is being recommended here is the worst form of discrimination. It does not meet the demands of justice and it will lead to a power struggle. Consequently there will be no stability. I am telling the hon. member for Innesdal that he knows this just as well as I do. [Interjections.]

Order!

Exactly the same applies to the recommendation made for the highest level. It does not meet the requirements of justice either and for the simple reason that what is recommended here, namely consociation democracy, segmental autonomy and coalition, will lead to a tricameral Parliament. What happens if consensus cannot be reached between the three chambers? Let us assume the White Parliament takes a decision and the other two vote against it. If the votes against the motion in the other two Parliaments and the minority vote in the White Parliament is more than the number of votes in favour of the motion in the White Parliament, then the minority is governing. [Interjections.]

Order!

The NP is laying down guidelines, but they are afraid to tell the nation what the guidelines are. They are being kept secret, for what is the NP actually doing? The NP is ascertaining how many of these things the nation will swallow. The NP wants to continue in government and for this reason the NP wants to feed them just enough …

How do you know that?

I am making the statement … [Interjections.]

Order!

Why is the NP working in secret? If the NP had not been doing this, it would surely have come out into the open with this. The NP must remember that it has been working on this for 70 years and still does not have a policy. We are only a few months old and we are also seeking guidelines. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are drawing up guidelines and we are going to our congress with those guidelines. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I ask you to protect the speaker so that he can proceed with his speech.

Order! That is not a point of order; I shall maintain order. The hon. member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Has the hon. member for Brakpan not just insulted the Chair? I think he should be instructed to withdraw his point of order.

I think the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs is quite right. In my opinion the hon. member for Brakpan, who is an expert on the procedure in this House, knew that it was not a point of order.

Sir, I withdraw it, but I respectfully request you to protect the speaker.

I shall protect the speaker. The hon. member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

But the speaker must not make so much noise either. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

Sir, we are also taking guidelines to our congress, and the first guideline I want to point out is that we reject all forms of power-sharing and political integration at all levels. There need be no doubt at all about this; we reject them. The second thing we are going to say is that the Coloureds and the Asians should be given the right to full political self-determination.

How?

I shall reply to that, because we say in the second place they should be given that political right to self-determination in their own area. [Interjections.] They should receive that right within their own areas. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the third place we say that those areas should be of such a nature that the maximum number of those people should be able to live within those areas. In the fourth place we say we realize that there cannot be consolidation, in the ordinary sense of the word, of those areas, but we shall encourage and promote a process of consolidation.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member wanted to hear what our guidelines were. We are not ashamed of our guidelines. We are not concealing them. I ask the hon. member to come forward with their guidelines. We are now laying our guidelines on the table; they must do the same with their guidelines, or are they still hiding away?

In the fifth place we say that in order to promote that consolidation process and the structuring to obtain space for those people, they should purchase the necessary land themselves.

The hon. member for Helderkruin said the NP accepts the consociational model.

I did not say that.

The hon. member said the NP accepts it, in an amended form or whatever. If one reads what erudite people say, one sees that they say if consociation does not work the only remaining alternative is partition. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Helderkruin is a political scientist and he will therefore know that one of the elements of consociation is that there must be consensus. [Interjections.] This is a fact, for otherwise there is no longer consociation. One need only read in Hansard what hon. members of the NP said to see that consensus and consociation cannot work. In the past the NP proved that it could not work. However, now they have suddenly accepted the concept. The NP has now accepted that concept. Consensus cannot be reached. The NP does not even have consensus within its own ranks. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brits welcomed the proposals of the State President as a starting point. As far as he is concerned it is only the start, whereas other hon. members in the NP are afraid and say that it is too much and that they cannot absorb so much. I want to tell hon. members of the NP that there is no consensus in their ranks. The achievement of consensus between Whites, Coloureds and Asians is a dream. Consensus can never be achieved. One need only look at the Whites in South Africa. Since 1910 to the present day all the great events which led to South Africa’s development occurred without consensus. There has never even been consensus among the Whites. The Republic was not established on the basis of consensus. It came as a result of an ordinary majority vote. The Afrikaans language was not placed on the Statute Book by means of consensus. The economic development of South Africa, which began with Iscor, did not come about through consensus. There is not even consensus among the Whites. If everything had depended on consensus, South Africa would still have been a decrepit little British colony. We would not have made any progress at all. However, now the NP is saying that they accept the concept of consensus. [Interjections.] The NP cannot apply political integration or power-sharing fairly, and for this reason the only remaining alternative is partition of political power and of geographical areas. This is the recipe which has worked up to now in South Africa and it is the only recipe which can work in future.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest truth the hon. member for Lichtenburg uttered was when he said at the outset of his speech that the CP was in fact a nightmare in a maze for any rational person.

I was referring to you. Look what you look like now.

I did not shout at the hon. member while he was speaking. He must not become excited now. In imitation of his leader and several hon. members on that side of the House the hon. member made so many contradictory statements here this afternoon that it was in fact extremely difficult to follow what he was saying. In the course of his speech he referred to secrecy. Imagine him talking about secrecy while he and his colleagues saw fit to break away from the NP with the idea of offering the nation an alternative although they have so far not offered the nation anything. Then the hon. member wants to accuse this side of the House of keeping certain matters a secret. That is a ridiculous argument and the hon. member for Lichtenburg knows it just as well as I do.

The hon. member also alleged that if the CP had not been there the NP would have accepted all the recommendations of the President’s Council. Coming from a person who was a member of the Cabinet and who sat on this side of the House, I find that incomprehensible and inexplicable. If these are the future leaders of a party which hopes to make a place for itself in the political dispensation in South Africa, this is a bad day. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that since 1948 this Government has governed according to specific principles and points of departure. If we had the time at our disposal, we could have spelt out those principles and points of departure here today. The hon. member will have to agree with me that they are still being upheld today and the recommendations of any Select Committee or commission and of the President’s Council will be judged on the basis of those principles.

The hon. member spoke of self-determination that was relative and that it had never before been the policy of this side. He said it was a new term that had cropped up recently. However, I want to refer the hon. member to what his leader, who is sitting next to him, said. The hon. member for Waterberg himself spoke along these lines and not all that long ago either. I am quoting from Hansard of 5 August 1981 (column 288)—

And this is important—

But now the hon. member for Lichtenburg wants to impute this to us whereas he does not want to impute it to his leader. After all is said and done this is a truth his leader proclaimed last year. It is the same thing we on this side of the House are saying. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said it was never the policy of this side that there should be joint decision-making at all levels. Who says that is the case now? The hon. member knows that it is a basic point of departure of this side of the House that we should distinguish between those things which determine the right to self-determination—the so-called own affairs—and matters of common interest. The hon. member knows this as well as I do, because he endorsed the 1977 plan. In the 1977 plan it was indicated quite clearly that there would be specific institutions—the so-called separate Parliaments—in which the right to self-determination would be guarded, but that in the Council of Cabinets there would be a body to take joint decisions on matters of common interest. The hon. member knows this. [Interjections.]

I want to come to the hon. member for Barberton, but before I do so, I also ask myself the question why the evil day has dawned—if it is in fact an evil day—that those hon. members are now sitting over there? Why did this happen? If I read the reports of the speeches made by those hon. members at various meetings, then 99% of what they proclaim there, to tumultuous applause, is what they learned in the NP. I have a list of references here, but to save time I shall not quote everything but refer only to two aspects. In the first place they are not racialists because they are fighting for freedom and justice. I shall return to the matter of freedom and justice later. As I said, these are matters they learned from the NP, but the 1% they do not say they have at present not said yet…

We learned nothing from them.

Yes, that is correct. At present they have not yet stated it, and that is the important point, viz. what is their alternative? What is their solution? However, I want to come to the hon. member for Barberton. He discussed the meaning of the word power-sharing. That hon. member said he challenged anyone to prove that he had changed his standpoint. However, I think that anyone who knows the 1977 proposals can in fact indicate that that hon. member never understood those proposals and still does not understand them or does not want to understand them. I cannot imagine that he is unable to understand them. I think he does not want to understand them. It is in fact those proposals which lay the foundation for this entire matter. The complexity of the problem in the Republic of South Africa lies in the fact that we also have a common area in respect of the various population groups. It is true that we want to maintain our separate identities and that we claim the right to self-determination for ourselves, but we also grant the same right to the other population groups. However, it is equally true that the future will have to be built on the co-operation and assistance of the various groups. The 1977 plan is based on this. Those hon. members know this very well. They also know that at that stage already we had the electoral college for the election of the President. Now I ask: If there is an electoral college consisting of representatives of the various population groups in a specific ratio, namely Whites, Coloureds and Asians, and they must jointly elect the President, is this not joint decision-making? Surely it is joint decision-making. We need not argue about this. When we come to the Council of Cabinets in terms of the 1977 plan, we again had a combination of the three groups. According to the plan those people can initiate legislation. In other words, we again have joint decision-making. In the nature of things, this is joint responsibility. If language has any meaning, can anyone of the hon. members of the CP tell me what else this is if not a form of power-sharing? What else is it but a form of power-sharing? If it is something else, those hon. members must tell me.

Just as long as it is the Prog version.

Of course not. The hon. the Prime Minister spelt it out that the concept of power-sharing as the Progs see it has never been NP policy. The hon. members also know this. Why do they not admit it? The hon. members of the CP must remember one thing. One day they will have to guarantee the instruments they have created to confirm the right to self-determination to the electorate of the Republic of South Africa. This is the first point. However, they cannot escape the fact that they will also have to create the instrument by means of which the common area has to be controlled, and that is the moment when we shall come to them and say that it is power-sharing, whatever they may call it. They cannot escape this except if they move towards a homeland idea. I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Waterberg, after he and his colleagues had walked out, reacted like a cat on a hot tin roof when the issue of a homeland was broached. That is when he thought of the term “ruimtelike ordening” (spatial ordering). Many people have asked me: What does “ruimtelike ordering” mean? My reply to them was that I very much doubted whether the coiner of that term knows what it means because he has never spelt it out. In addition the hon. member for Waterberg said on a subsequent occasion—and if my memory serves me well it was at Frankfort—that he was not wedded to the 1977 proposals. Is this perhaps because Jaap Marais is breathing down his neck or because he would like Jaap Marais and the HNP to join him? Or what are the circumstances? This evening by implication the hon. member for Lichtenburg placed his party on the basis of a homeland. In the twelve-point plan, which the hon. member for Waterberg signed as the leader of the Transvaal and which the other hon. members also endorsed, it is very clearly demonstrated to be impractical to have separate geographic areas. I therefore ask the question: Why did those hon. members go along with this if they were opposed to it in their hearts? Why have they gone along with it since 1977 until they saw fit to walk out in 1982 if they are now accepting those proposals. [Interjections.]

I hear that the hon. member for Waterberg allegedly said in Welkom that co-operation with the HNP in an election would be most desirable. However, it seems to me that Mr. Jaap Marais will not allow himself to be misled so easily, for what did he say? He said—

[Interjections.] Sir, that is in fact correct. The CP rests on a fiction based on the interpretation of the word power-sharing, for what else is involved? [Interjections.] Are the CP now going to crawl on their knees to the HNP?

Of course! [Interjections.]

They are in collusion with the AWB. [Interjections.]

Why then did the hon. member for Waterberg say at Welkom that he thought it would be a good thing to enter into an election pact with the HNP, if the hon. member now wants to reject that party? Why did he do that? [Interjections.]

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a newspaper. [Interjections.] Can I ask the hon. member for Waterberg across the floor of this House whether he denies that he stated at Welkom that it would be a good thing to co-operate with the HNP during elections? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

If language has any meaning, the hon. member for Waterberg must explain to the hon. member for Rissik, for what else is that but an election pact? [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. member for Waterberg could now tell me across the floor of this House if there is such a pact and whether there is a difference between a pact and co-operation. [Interjections.]

Moreover, the hon. member for Waterberg sees fit, when he is addressing a community where a large percentage of the voters work on the mines, to curry favour with them by telling them—and I agree with him, this side of the House also does so—that they will protect the interests of the miners. They “will” do so. However, the difference is that this side of the House has been doing so for years now and shall continue to do so in future. [Interjections.]

According to the Volksblad of 11 March 1982, Prof. Alkmaar Swart of the AET told the Organisasie van Denkende Studente at Bloemfontein that he was prepared to take drastic action to ensure a White homeland, and would even go as far as closing a goldmine in Welkom because then they would “immediately be rid of 86 000 Blacks”. Those members of the AET have now joined the CP, and I should like to know from the hon. member for Waterberg whether he agrees with Prof. Alkmaar Swart. [Interjections.]

If they accept our policy. [Interjections.]

What must they accept? What is your policy? [Interjections.]

It is the hon. member for Waterberg who prides himself on his party advocating and upholding justice. This is a wonderful ideal, Sir, and I feel everyone ought to aspire to this ideal, but then one’s words and deeds must reflect what one professes.

The hon. member for Waterberg addressed a meeting in Port Elizabeth. I was astounded to come across such absolute contradictions and inconsistencies in the same report, all from the mouth of the hon. member for Waterberg.

Just as in the case of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in Parow. [Interjections.]

No, just give me a chance! According to this report the hon. member for Waterberg saw fit to say—

That is how he sees it.

It therefore does not matter what is at issue, but the Whites are and remain the masters. They are sovereign.

Yes, over themselves!

Over themselves? Very well. [Interjections.] Wait a moment! Just give me a chance! I shall quote further from the report on the hon. member for Waterberg’s speech—

The present Government and that super cabinet will therefore still exercise baasskap, and will also want to decide the affairs of the Coloureds.

No! No!

But course! [Interjections.] Of course this is what it implies. [Interjections.] What else can it mean?

Is that not also the policy of the NP?

No, wait a moment! [Interjections.] In the same speech he made in Port Elizabeth the hon. member for Waterberg also saw fit to utter a further incredible contradiction by saying—

Well I never! Just imagine! Can you credit that? The hon. member for Waterberg wants to deprive them of participation at the highest level, but at the same time he alleges that this would be untenable. How is one to understand that?

As soon as one becomes liberal, of course one’s perspective also becomes obscured. [Interjections.]

I simply cannot understand these contradictions of the hon. member for Waterberg.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I had great respect for the way in which the hon. member for Lichtenburg could argue. However, as a result of the contradictions he uttered here this afternoon I think that if there is anyone who has become stupid he must be sought on that side of the House and not here.

The feeling is mutual.

Ferdi de la Rey! [Interjections.]

In conclusion I wish to express just one further thought with regard to the hon. members of the CP. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the hon. member for Waterberg had said that if a person does not have any better principles or a better policy than the NP—and no one has (he said this less than a year ago)—he should not break away. Besides, the CP does does not have a better policy or better principles than the NP.

As yet they do not have any policy at all!

I now want to know from the hon. member for Waterberg whether he honestly thinks that he is acting fairly and justly by dragging a group of people in this House along with him—I admit that this took place with the encouragement of two other hon. members who are sitting with him—and, more important, to drag the nation out there along with him, or to try to drag them with him, while he himself cannot offer them any better principles or a better policy. [Interjections.] Wait a moment! If the CP did in fact have better principles and a better policy, the hon. leader of that party should have made those principles and that policy clear when he left the NP, and he should not have waited two, three, four or five months, and in the process dragged people along with him with the aid of emotional slogans. Then he should not have appealed to people’s emotions, while he only came to light with a policy later. I think this is a matter which the hon. leader of the CP must work out for himself. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the debate here this afternoon I wondered whether I really understood the meaning of meaning, and as I listened to the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. member for Lichtenburg I failed to understand most of the things about which they were really talking to each other. That reminded me of one of the verses in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, which reads—

I am absolutely certain that had a professor of Semantics, studying the meaning of meanings, come into this House this afternoon, he would not have understood what everybody was really arguing about.

As this session is drawing to a close, and one views the situation as it exists, perhaps the most significant thing that has happened is that the governing party has crossed its political Rubicon. History shows that once the Rubicon has been crossed there is no turning back. However difficult the task may be, it has to be faced, with all the perils it may hold for those in the vanguard of the forces who have crossed the Rubicon. The President’s Council has come forward with recommendations for a change in the Constitution. It has enunciated various choices which the country could make. It enunciated to the Government various options that were open to it and it recommended particular options to the Government. In anticipation of the President’s Council’s recommendations, we had the traumatic split in the Government …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is reading his whole speech.

Order! I have already drawn hon. members’ attention to this. Hon. members of all parties in the House are guilty of this. I just want to draw their attention to the relevant provision again.

Sir, I am not reading my speech. I am simply referring to my notes.

We shall raise the same point of order when Government members speak, including Ministers. [Interjections.]

Sir, in anticipation of the President’s Council’s recommendations, we had the traumatic split in the Government ranks and the formation of the Conservative Party. It seemed as if the shattering of the Afrikaner edifice would destroy the boldness and the nerve of those who wished to reform, however slight that reform may be. The Government has accepted change in the constitution which to some degree recognizes other race groups in South Africa and recognizes that they are entitled to participation in the decision-making over and governing of all people in South Africa. Although no facts have been disclosed as yet and only guidelines have been provided to the Government MPs and MPCs, it is clear that a new Parliament in South Africa will come into being, with stage 1 consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians sitting in separate chambers which, somehow, in an as yet undisclosed way, will hold discussions which will lead to an enactment of laws governing South Africa. At last this opens up the way to discussion and development, but as yet there have been no final decisions on the part of the Government.

It is indeed interesting to read of the long and difficult history of constitution-making in South Africa and to see that all problems appear to be resolved at every stage except the question of the franchise. When we look back to the problems pre-1910, it seems ludicrous that the customs problems of the previous century ever existed; that the Cape Colony, for instance, imposed a customs duty on Transvaal tobacco and that that occupied the old Cape Parliament in discussions for months and months, as it did in the Transvaal Volksraad—that was done in order to protect the Cape farmers; that the building of the railway line from Delagoa Bay and Durban was considered to be economically dangerous for the Cape; and that the question whether the railway line should be extended from Kimberley to Johannesburg was a vital factor in the discussions of the old Cape Parliament.

The NRP believes that it has a new constitutional ploy in the so-called “local option”. Where does the origin of this local option lie? A Liquor Bill was introduced into the Cape Parliament in 1891 laying down the policy of voluntary liquor prohibition if a municipality or divisional council wanted it. Local option, as it was called, was extended primarily to protect the new Black colonists against harmful liquor after each annexation. This naturally meant curtailing White drinking privileges which was circumvented by allowing people to have liquor with their meals.

There was an interesting letter written by one Bryce to Merriman in 1892. This is where we come to the relevant question. He asked to what extent the Colour question in the Cape was one of race aversion and how far it was possible for a Coloured man to obtain, by ability and education, anything approaching social equality. Merriman replied that the former existed and the latter was impossible. Has the attitude of the Government changed in this respect?

*At that time Coloured men had the vote, subject to certain qualifications. Even in those days the present CP had its supporters. In 1890 Cape Town had four members of Parliament as representatives and each voter had four votes, and he could concentrate all four votes on one candidate. In 1893 a prominent Cape Town Moslem, a certain Achmat Effendi, stood as a candidate for Parliament, and it became quite clear that he was going to become the first directly elected Coloured in the Cape Parliament. A Bill abolishing the practice of concentrating votes on a single candidate was hastily rushed through Parliament. In this way the Conservative Party of the day won and Effendi was not elected. If that had not happened we would long ago have had a member for Parliament of a different colour in this House.

However, a Coloured did serve in the provincial council. It was the legendary Dr. Abdurahman, the MPC for Cape Town Castle. One can easily visualize the resentment his descendants must have developed because they still are prevented from following in the footsteps of their greatest ancestor. It was the same Dr. Abdurahman who led a deputation to the British Parliament in 1919 to plead for the protection of the political rights of the Coloureds. They had three grievances, viz. the pass laws, the denial of the vote to Coloureds in the Free State and the Transvaal and the fact that Coloureds did not have the right to sit in Parliament. So at that time they already had that problem. Of course the British Government referred him back to the South African Government. If one reads how angry the Cape rebels were after the Boer War in 1902 because Lord Milner had deprived them of their vote, and the agitation that developed among the Afrikaners because of that—because they regarded this as the greatest injustice—one realizes how much sharper the disappointment and rage of the Coloureds must be today, people who have for so long been denied participation in the highest level of Government where a political say has real value. Would the course of events in this House not have been different if the Prime Minister, General Hertzog, had not called a joint sitting of the House of Assembly in 1929 to extend the Coloured vote to the Free State and the Transvaal, but merely passed it with a simple majority in the House of Assembly and the Senate? If that had happened one would already have had Coloureds in this House today. [Interjections.] In the 1950’s the Government removed the Coloureds from the voters’ roll, and the Torch Commando of those days supported the Coloureds to see to it that they were not removed from the voters’ roll. Have we had peace because those people were removed from the voters’ roll? How different would South Africa not have been if the Indians had not accepted the so-called quid pro quo instead of the pegging legislation in terms of which three White members of Parliament were directly elected by the Indians in terms of the 1947 Act? Because a boycott of the registration of voters was imminent the 1947 Act was never implemented.

Will the Coloureds and the Indians accept the present recommendations of the Government? The future will show that. Now, at last, there is a widespread conviction that a White aristocracy based, rightly or wrongly, on colour and a majority of skills, cannot or will not ensure peaceful co-existence in our beautiful country.

†Mr. Chairman, we see the beginning of the great debate on the new constitution. The Government, like a poker player, is holding its cards close to its chest and has not disclosed whether it has a royal flush, a pair of twos or even a broken straight. We can only hope that we shall soon have some idea of the so-called guidelines so that we can all participate in the debate that affects the future of all of us. Let us, however, remember the words of President Kruger when he said that we should look back on our history and not make the mistakes that history has shown us. In 1894, for instance, the “uitlander” problem assumed grave proportions in the Transvaal where a group of “uitland-ers” refused to go on commando duty because they did not have representation in the Volksraad. The immigrants or the “uitlanders” of that time consisted of two groups, English artisans and miner classes attracted by the higher wages paid in the Transvaal, together with the mining house staff who were really not going to be permanent residents, and particularly the settlers in the Cape who genuinely baulked at their exclusion from citizen rights in the country they had chosen as their home and were helping to develop. The period of residence before they could vote was 14 years at the time, and this was what caused the problem. Even at the conference in Bloemfontein just prior to the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War the question of franchise was a cardinal factor. Who rules—”wie regeer” appears always to be the basis of the franchise problem. This was the point raised by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. These factors led to a bitter war the effects of which are still being felt to this day. If the fact that the immigrants could not obtain a ready franchise was one of the main causes of that bloody war, how much more careful must we be in these days not to make the people who have been born in this country and who are citizens of this country into “uitlanders”? Are we not building up the potential for conflict? In order to prevent the Blacks participating in the South African decision-making process, this Government has systematically created autonomous States and dependencies which has caused the Black to lose his citizenship. What has in effect been created is a large number of “Swart uitlanders” living in our midst. Somehow or other this process will have to be reversed if we are to have no further conflict in this country. Unless Blacks are brought into this decision-making process at some stage of the great debate, there will be no peace in this country in the real sense of the word.

We on this side of the House have a cardinal principle and that is that there must be no domination by one group or another. If this principle is accepted, the great debate which we are now engaged upon can assume meaningful content and the final outcome will be in the interests of us all. The processes like the Executive State President with the necessary checks and balances, the necessary and important Bill of Rights that will have to accompany it, the independent judicial power which will have to be extended to all cases both in effecting what the law really is and in equity and the interrelationship between the various legislative bodies that may have to be formed will all form part of the great debate.

In conclusion, I should like to quote what Prince Machiavelli had to say in regard to constitutions. He said this—

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rose to speak he said that he proposed reviewing the session of Parliament which is now fast drawing to a close. He then proceeded to read a paper, and read it badly, on the political history of the Coloured people. In the process the hon. member said nothing at all on which I can comment. The hon. member will therefore excuse me if I do not pay further attention to his speech. In fact, hon. members on his own side fell asleep while he was reading the paper.

*Earlier today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition presented this side of the House, and the Government in particular, with a testimonial to which the hon. the Prime Minister has already reacted. I want to give a testimonial this evening to the behaviour of hon. members of the official Opposition during this session which is now drawing to a close.

†Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer firstly to the radicalism that has been shown during this session by hon. members of the official Opposition. On various occasions hon. members insisted on radical changes being implemented. They were not satisfied with any change other than radical change. When on one occasion I took the hon. member for Houghton to task about that radicalism, the hon. member for Pinelands rose in her defence and suggested that I did not know the meaning of the word “radical” or “radicalism”. He then proceeded to explain that “radicalism” actually meant “going to the root of a matter”. Let me say immediately that I fully agree with that definition of “radicalism”. The important question when one has gone to the root of a matter is, however, what does one do to the root of that matter? I maintain that the type of radicalism that hon. members of the official Opposition practise is a radicalism which destroys the matter to the roots of which they proceed to go.

*It is a destructive radicalism. They destroy the roots and the essence of the matter. This is in fact what we are accusing them of doing.

†The monuments of radicalism can be seen all over the world, especially in Africa.

*The PFP’s radical standpoints are steering South Africa irrevocably towards polarization, followed by confrontation and eventually conflict. It has been proved over and over that the White voters of South Africa are not prepared to accept or to endorse the approach of the official Opposition in connection with the challenges facing us in South Africa. What the hon. members of the Opposition do succeed in doing is to create expectations among the non-Whites in this country which cannot be met. [Interjections.] Therein is situated the elements and basic ingredients for confrontation and conflict in the country. I want to state this evening with utter conviction that what we can least afford under the prevailing circumstances is radicalism, whether it be left-wing or right-wing. In my opinion radicalism is the greatest danger in South Africa at this juncture. On this occasion I want to accuse hon. members of the official Opposition of having displayed a radicalism throughout this session which bodes ill for South Africa.

The second characteristic of the official Opposition which I want to identify is that of irresponsibility. It is the function of an Opposition to oppose, but in a Westminster-based parliamentary system such as we have in South Africa at present, the function of the Opposition is extremely important and essential for the effective functioning of that system. That function has to be carried out in a responsible way. The function of the Opposition to oppose does not give them the right to be irresponsible. I can well imagine that it must be enjoyable to simply question, criticize and denigrate without accepting responsibility for anything and at the same time to enjoy the peace, security and prosperity others have brought about by their responsibility.

Manifestations of the irresponsibility of the official Opposition occurred during this session, inter alia, during the discussion of the security legislation. The hon. members of the official Opposition intimated that they also wanted to take action against terrorism, sabotage and subversion. As a matter of fact, hon. members expect the Government to preserve internal security and law and order, particularly when they and their friends are threatened. However, at the same time they do not want to accept responsibility for the essential measures which enable the Government to do just that. Hon. members of the official Opposition piously hold themselves out to be the great upholders of democracy, of the rule of law, of the normal legal processes and of basic human rights. I say to hon. members of the official Opposition that we on this side of the House are becoming a little tired of having to bear the responsibility for maintaining civilized principles, norms and standards in this country on our own, while simultaneously being accused by hon. members of the official Opposition, who have shamefully neglected their duty in this regard, of being a threat to and of violating those principles, norms and standards. We do not mind bearing the responsibility for this on our own, but we do object to being accused by the same people who have not done their duty in this connection of being a threat to these things.

The third characteristic of the official Opposition which I want to identity, is the cynicism displayed by hon. members of the official Opposition during this session. After they had refused to serve on the President’s Council and to make a positive contribution to bring about a more satisfactory constitutional dispensation in this country, and after they had written off the President’s Council in advance and gave it no chance to be a success, those hon. members come here and have the audacity to express opinions in this House about the recommendations of the President’s Council. What sort of cynicism is this which allows people to neglect and to evade their duty in this way and then come here to this House and wish to condemn the result of this institution in which they did not want to co-operate?

But whose future is at stake?

The hon. member for Yeoville should keep quiet. That hon. member and the hon. member for Pinelands were pre-eminently the guilty parties in this connection.

What did I do?

They questioned the recommendations of the President’s Council here. Did the hon. member not do so?

I asked what your guidelines were.

He did this although he was one of the people who drove Mr. Japie Basson out of his party.

Do not talk nonsense. That is rubbish. You do not know your facts.

Then those hon. members have the audacity to suggest that we only want to make cosmetic changes. The hon. member for Yeoville suggested here that the Government wanted to maintain the status quo. Did he not say that?

I asked what your party wanted to do.

They are the people who did not want to co-operate, but now they are making demands. On the one hand the Government is accused of being unwilling to give Coloureds and Asians a political say, but on the other hand strenuous objections are made to the Government’s honest, sincere and realistic attempts to do just that.

A further example of their cynicism was given today by the hon. member for Hillbrow when he referred to the atmosphere prevailing in this country at present. He actually took it amiss of the hon. the Prime Minister for having referred to a “calm atmosphere”. He then told us about all the threats facing us within the country. However, a week or two ago when we were discussing the security legislation that was not their approach. As a matter of fact it was the exact opposite.

I shall mention one further characteristic, and that is the intolerance we have noted among people who are supposed to be liberals. They reserve their liberalism for those areas where it suits them. In other areas they show an intolerance which is expressed in the sharpest condemnation of anything which does not correspond with their attitudes.

I shall conclude by saying that the hon. members of the official Opposition showed characteristics in the course of this session which bodes ill for the future of South Africa and its people. I am convinced that for this reason the official Opposition will never be accepted by the White voters of this country as a realistic alternative for this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay made a very interesting speech much of which I cannot help but agree with, particularly in regard to his views on radicalism and especially also with regard to his views on the function of an Opposition. There is one other point he might have mentioned as being a function of an Opposition, and that is if they do not think the Government is going in the right direction, to nudge them into the right direction. We in the NRP like to think that we have been doing that, and later on I shall give a few instances of where we have done it.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout decided that he would give us an review of the activities of this session, and he then proceeded to give us a history lesson which, doubtless, was very interesting but I am afraid did not give us very much of an overview of what has been going on. However, as far as one can assess, I would say that this session has been dominated by such matters as “verandering” and “magsdeling”. [Interjections.] When the history of this period is written, I am afraid we are going to find that we got ourselves into the position of doing too little too late; that our procedures of change were a little too slow and cumbersome; and that we did it for people and not with them. That is an argument that I have used on another occasion, and unfortunately once again our intention to bring about change is for the wrong reason. I have said on a previous occasion in this House that we should be doing things because we believe they are right and that we should not do them because of fear. Regrettably, so much that is done in this House is done because we fear the consequences if we do not do these things, and not because we believe in the justice of what we are doing.

The question of a new dispensation is in the air. There has been a considerable build up of expectations in respect of the Coloured and Indian communities in particular. Regrettably at this stage—and I hope it is only at this stage—the build-up of expectations has not yet manifested itself as far as the Blacks outside the homelands are concerned. However, I am quite sure that this will come in due course.

The President’s Council’s report has been made public. It has been acclaimed by some, others have condemned and rejected it, and some people have accepted it with reservations. However, whether this report has been accepted with or without reservations, as far as the Coloured and the Indian communities in particular are concerned, these expectations have been built up and there has been the birth of a new thinking in so far as their future is concerned.

I will say here and now that as far as we are concerned, we are happy that there is an expectation but, if this expectation is not allowed to come to fruition, it is going to be more dangerous than if it had never come into being at all because once these expectations have been built up one has to take them to maturity.

I mention the doubts that we have in this regard because of, among other things, the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister at Parow the other day. From his speech it would seem as if there has been a considerable watering down of the recommendations of the President’s Council. Obviously, the President’s Council does not dictate NP policy. We are wise enough in the ways of politics to know that that is so. However, expectations were at the same time build up and if, after the speech at Parow, the question of power-sharing and change is only an illusion, it will, as I said before, turn out to be a very, very dangerous illusion. I am sorry to have to say that if this change is not brought about, the hon. the Prime Minister, who has brought this feeling of change into being, is going to go down in history as a failure, and worse than a failure, because in the process of building up these expectations, he has effectively destroyed the Afrikaner “eenheid” in politics and caused the party to be split to some degree. If change in so far as these expectations are concerned does not materialize, then that split will have been to no particular purpose.

Another point that has to be borne in mind is that if this is a political chimera, this again is going to be a bad thing. I for one, as I am sure hon. members of my party are too, am so anxious about the future of our country that we would not like it to be a question of big talk and small acts.

I made the preceding comments because of statements made in a speech at Parow. They are very confusing. I have the relevant newspaper cuttings with me. One statement, for example, was to the effect that Parliament would always remain the same as it was while the NP was in power. Further on, however, one finds that the Coloureds—it does not say Indians, but I presume Indians as well—will be in a different Parliament that will retain its present character. I find that confusing because how can the Parliament be the same, they being in a different parliament which is going to retain its present character. They are not even here, so how can that be done? I find that a little confusing. The hon. the Prime Minister also said he thought the President’s Council recomendations, had brought great political calm to South Africa. That is fine, but if it has brought so much political calm, it is because people have certain expectations and are waiting. Yet from the statements made in speeches, and indeed those emanating from last Saturday’s combined NP caucus meeting—which seem to have got around quite a bit—I am not quite sure whether the calm referred to is not the calm before the storm, or whether it is the calm which our country wants to enjoy. Quite obviously, as far as we are concerned, there is one massive difference between calm preceding peace and prosperity and calm before the holocaust. We are not exactly enthusiastic about the latter. So we hope that the impressions gained from the various reports are wrong. Believe me, we in this party have only the interests, welfare and future of our country in mind in the work we do in Parliament. I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that if he is working towards a peaceful future in which all the dark clouds will disappear, he will have nothing but support from the NRP which, incidentally, is not, as has been said, a party composed of good South Africans who are anti-Afrikaans. I think that is something that should be shot stone dead. I think it is an absolutely wicked calumny to say that. I can assure hon. members that that has hurt hon. members of this party more than somewhat.

The hon. member for Pinelands had his usual little dig—I might say an ineffectual dig—at the NRP, this time about our support for the President’s Council. I think it must be made clear that we do support the local government concept of the President’s Council, and why not? It is in all respects identical to what we put forward in the Natal Provincial Council some years ago. [Interjections.] I have here a copy of the document signed at that time by, amongst others, members of the Coloured Representative Council, the Indian Council and, strange as it may seem, two members of the PFP, although the party was not called that at that stage. They all signed this document indicating that they were in agreement with what it contained. I should just like to make that point clear.

As far as the second and upper levels are concerned, we are prepared to see how things materialize. We are not prepared to damn it with bell, book and candle until we see what is happening. We believe in progress, something which, strangely enough, it would appear to me that the PFP does not, because the only thing that is progressive about them, as far as I can see, is their name. They do not want progressive change, they want revolutionary change. [Interjections.] As I say, I have the document that was signed and I also have here a copy of the draft ordinance that went through the provincial council and was turned down by the State President. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, we are happy to go along with this President’s Council, certainly in respect of local government. We shall see what happens in respect of the other tiers.

The hon. member for Hillbrow decided he was going to make a speech on consociational democracy and indicated that the Schreiner report, which is often called the Buthelezi report, represents consociational democracy.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I heard the hon. member say that we stand for revolutionary change. Is that parliamentary?

Order! Did the hon. member for Umbilo say “revolutionary change” or “evolutionary change”?

I said revolutionary change, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

With due respect, Sir, I cannot quite see that that is a reflection …

Sir, is the hon. member going to withdraw it or not?

What did the hon. member for Umbilo actually mean? Did he mean dynamic change?

Yes, that is what I meant. I meant dynamic change, rather than calling for guns and revolution in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member say that we stand for revolutionary change.

Order! I do not think the hon. member actually meant a revolution in the sense of fighting.

In the sense of turning.

I think it is more a matter of dynamic change as the hon. member has explained. The hon. member for Umbilo may proceed.

All right, Alf, you have done your act for the gallery. Now you can sit down.

A wheel moves in revolutions as well. It does not just mean guns, cannons and so on. Possibly the hon. member is not too aware of that. Anyway, if I may come back to the Schreiner report, which, as I say, is often called the Buthelezi report, I must make the point clear that the function was to investigate the position in Natal and not in South Africa. The consociational aspects of it therefore did not apply to Natal. That was one unit in the so-called South African consociation. So far as we are concerned, it means that the region of Natal would be taken on a “one man, one vote” basis which would have resulted in a parliament of 119 Blacks, 15 Indians, 14 Whites and 2 Coloureds. That would then be part of the consociation. If anybody thinks a Natalian is going to accept that in a hurry, he must have his head read.

[Inaudible.]

It is in the report. Read it.

Yes, the hon. member must read the report.

Another point I should like to make in the very little time available to me relates to the loaded composition of this particular commission. Of the 38 signatories, 13 were members of the Black Alliance, 11 were known Progressives from Natal, 2 were non-South Africans, 7 were non-Natalians and 1 was a KwaZulu employee. Two were from the Natal University—I do not know what their status was. The point I am trying to make is that, when it came to the government of Natal, there was one representative of the NRP in that commission. They would not have any more, because they wanted, and got, a loaded opinion on this issue.

So far as we are concerned, we believe that change must come in Natal and we are prepared to accept change in Natal. We are not, however, prepared to accept Black domination anymore than they want to accept White domination. We are prepared to come to a reasonable compromise, but that is not a reasonable compromise. That is an academic dream which to everybody else is a nightmare.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening we had the spectacle of the hon. member for Lichtenburg trying to tell us why he and hon. members of the CP broke away from the NP. Because hon. members of the official Opposition will not understand this, I hope that they will just be a little patient. However, for us in the Transvaal, with constituencies in which there are more or less the same kind of voters as in those of the CP, it is important to talk about this, although it may in fact sound very boring to hon. members of the official Opposition. However, I believe that the debate between the NP and the CP is a very topical debate. Indeed, it is a very important debate.

You have a point there.

Not only, of course, does it concern the survival of everybody in South Africa; it also, and in particular, concerns the political thinking of, in my opinion, the most important people in South Africa at the moment, namely the politically aware and involved Afrikaners. I therefore want to put it to hon. members of the CP that we are very disappointed about the political developments surrounding their breaking away from the NP. However, we are not only disappointed, because there are of course also positive elements to this whole affair. What we find disturbing, however, are the emotions being aroused among White voters in South Africa, with regard to precisely those questions about which we are trying to reach consensus today and on the road ahead.

I once saw a particularly striking inscription on a wall at a university in the USA. It read—

I now find myself in the position in relation to the CP of believing that they think they have the answer, whereas they have already forgotten what the question was. Their answer is that it may not be power-sharing. The real problems in South Africa, namely, how we are to deal with the dilemma of peoples and communities—White, Brown. Asian and Black—in the constitutional and every other field …

How do you deal with the problem of Blacks in our urban areas? [Interjections.]

… they forget. The CP tell the public at large that there is no threat to South Africa. In my view, this question …

That is not true.

Let us then say that they suggest that the threat is not so serious as the NP say it is.

No, but you must state it correctly now!

Very well. Let us put it absolutely correctly. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brakpan is one of the people who says that the NP is using the argument of the threat to frighten people and to soften up the voters. [Interjections.] I want to put it to hon. members of the CP tonight that this is the biggest foolishness which they have ever expounded, namely, that the threat to South Africa, is not a major one. It may be that here and there we have even caused people to lose their sense of perspective by using the term “total onslaught”. However, it is in fact a total onslaught, and we are dealing with many enemies, enemies who are well organized internationally. On the domestic front, too, we are faced with fellow-travellers of our international enemies. We are also faced with Russia, which is itself trying to get its claws into South Africa. It concerns our country and its riches. It concerns the Cape sea route. An important aspect which many of us do not realize, is that politics in Africa also concerns the confrontation between Black and White. That is why our enemies also want to bring about a confrontation between Black and White in South Africa, and that is why Africa tells us that a White Government may not govern in South Africa. If we have the full perspective with regard to the onslaught against us, I believe that we can get a long way.

Therefore we do have a potential racial conflict, and this already places a tremendous responsibility on every politician and on every political party in South Africa. Internally our enemies talk about a “total liberation struggle” and the radical Blacks are being incited with the slogan of total liberation, of political liberation from this White Government, political liberation with a view to economic liberation and the attainment of what they are entitled to. This is how they are incited. They are told that they have to overthrow the Government and do all these things to be able to become socially liberated and to be able to go anywhere they wish. These are the slogans our enemies use against us.

This evening I should also like to associate myself with the idea put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister, namely that we should not approach the conflict in South Africa in a simplistic manner. If we approach the conflict in South Africa in all its complexity, we as Whites, as a White Government, must convey the message to the non-White peoples and communities in this country that we are engaged in a process of liberation. This is in fact the policy of the NP. We were born out of freedom. The NP is the biggest catalyst in the emancipation of people in South Africa. In the NP the Indians, the Coloured people and the Blacks have an ally in their endeavour to become free in all fields. The NP started the wheels of freedom rolling in Africa. The first shots fired with a view to freedom on the continent of Africa were fired by people here at the southern tip of Africa. We are orientated to freedom and that is why we do not like the HNP and the CP putting a spoke in the wheel of freedom which the White Government in South Africa wants to keep rolling.

We on this side of the House—I say this especially for the information of the hon. member for Rissik—are tired of the caricature being made of the White man in the world, in Africa and among radical people in South Africa. This is something which the CP must take heed of. I contend that they are willy-nilly finding themselves on the same road as the HNP, and they are going to become part of the world-wide problem of the White man being depicted as a caricature.

The White children of Black Africa must stand up to be heard. The White children of Black Africa, the Afrikaner and the South African, we who are at the southern tip of Africa, must make known our endeavour and aim to try to liberate nations and communities and groups and people in the political, economic and social spheres. If that message of ours cannot be heard, we in this country are heading inevitably towards the revolution which our enemies would like to incite here. We stand for freedom, but we have an image of oppression. Every White person in South Africa must ask himself this question. We as politicians have a responsibility towards each other and towards ourselves and towards stability when we ask ourselves this question: Why is this the case; is it true?

While the White children of Black Africa have made their mark, the White children of Black Africa are fighting one another in this Chamber and outside, and the White children of Black Africa are casting suspicion on one another’s intentions. In this way we are destroying one another. I want to appeal to the hon. members of the CP in particular: Let us work together on the future of our country. If we want to make absolutely sure that our children have no future, then I suggest that we continue on the road on which we are presently embarked.

Our children will never become slaves.

Do we want the intellectual White sons of our nation to leave our country? Do we want the Black sons and daughters of South Africa to go away and to come back with an AK 47 and explosives in a bag? I do not believe that we want that. If we do not want that, we have a task, and that task is not to tackle, to besmirch and to fight one another. Do we want a future of war for our children in this country?

Myburgh, you must cross the floor to us now; do not wait until it is too late.

No, I am not coming at all. The hon. member for Innesdal is correct.

I say that we want a peaceful future. We do not want an escalating war situation. We do not want an escalating situation internally, and that is why we have a task. I want to tell the CP and their twin brother, the HNP—I am sorry to say this—that they have a tremendous responsibility towards this country.

Do you hate your fellow-Afrikaner in the HNP?

The hon. member for Brakpan must now listen carefully. The CP is engaged in the same blinker politics as the HNP. They only see the Whites in front of them. They are blinkered and do not see the whole problem.

We only see the White man; you are correct.

Another thing. The hon. member for Langlaagte is perhaps a good example of this. They are suffering from an insight crisis. They lack insight into the total problem of South Africa, and that is why they only talk about the problems of the Whites.

Unfortunately I do not have enough time at my disposal to go into this in detail, but I urge the hon. member for Brakpan to look at the summary of the Tomlinson report which I have before me. Every Nationalist really should take another look at it. If we look at the projections in this report as the NP saw them in its idealism the early 1950s … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must contain himself. The hon. member for Innesdal may proceed.

Then a reality emerges which we have to take into account. It does not affect the NP’s success with separate development; it affects the whole reality of South Africa. According to the projections of the Tomlinson Commission the total Black population will total 21 million at the turn of the century. What are the facts today? We are now only in 1982, and there are already more than 20 million Black people in South Africa. And there are eighteen years to go before the year 2000. This figure implies a practical reality which we have to keep in mind. No political party can ignore constitutional, economic and social implications surrounding the Black problem in South Africa if one wants to look at these realities. That is why we have a task of liberating people in this country. We liberate people by offering them opportunities in an ethnic and community context, to enable them to become partners in a greater Southern Africa and also to have authority over themselves. We should all be party to a constitutional structure in which everyone feels that he has an interest.

I want to tell hon. members of the CP that there is no point in us as White political parties saying that the Black people do not exist. There is even less point in our talking—as the CP and its kindred spirits do—of the tax Whites have to pay for Blacks. One only has to refer to taxation as an example to see how complex matters are in South Africa. Who generates tax in South Africa? Is it the White people or the Black people, or is it the White people, Black people and Brown people jointly? If we say that everybody generates tax, surely we are eventually confronted with a constitutional problem and reality, namely, how to deal with those things in future so as to make everyone partner to the riches of Southern Africa. This is a reality. If we follow the method of the CP and say that it is the White taxpayers’ money, we are blinkered and are seeing only one part of the problem, to the detriment of future generations. The CP has a stick-in-the-mud philosophy. At this point I want to remark that however sorry I am that the hon. members of the CP are no longer with us, I believe that we who are inside the NP now have more freedom of discussion. [Interjections.] We do not play the man; we try to play the ball. Playing the man has nothing to do with the future. Distorted ideas have developed in regard to a few things in South Africa, which the NP has to get out of its system to be able to proceed.

The CP and the HNP have something else in common too, namely the grandstand politics they indulge in. I just wish to tell them that it is very easy to execute fancy political footwork in front of the grandstand in order to make the crowds cheer. On the road ahead the 10 000 people who attended the meeting in the Skilpad hall will not be the issue. The issue on the road ahead will be the meaningful and practical solutions which we as a responsible Government can offer our children.

Unfortunately my time has almost expired; accordingly there is one last point to which I want to refer. There is something else that the CP and the HNP have in common. They experience the same despair. They suffer from the same psychosis of despair. I tend to agree that the man who is unsure of himself as regards his identity, is the man who seizes upon the anchor of the law. As far as identity is concerned, I should like to turn to the hon. member for Rissik. The CP are always talking about identity and integration, and they are afraid of integration. They talk about the left-wingers and the right-wingers, and they are afraid of the left-wingers. They talk about conservatism and conservatives as if we who sit on this side of the House are not conservative. Is this not ridiculous? Is it not ridiculous to tell the world and everybody else that I am a better Afrikaner than the next man, that I am a better Nationalist than the next man, that I am a better White man than the next man, and that I am holier than thou? We are not going to swallow these things. This I promise hon. members of the CP.

With regard to integration, I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that he must go to my constituency, Innesdal, and tell the people of Rietfontein, Villieria, Rietondale and Riviera that I, Albert Nothnagel, said in the Parliament of South Africa that the people of my constituency do not need the Immorality Act or the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Tell them that I believe, as they do, that identity is something that is within one. I believe that we have reached the point in the politics of South Africa that the peoples and communities can exist alongside one another and preserve their identities, without mortal fear and without a psychosis of despair.

One last thing which the CP and the HNP have in common, is a conflict psychosis.

I should like to make this final minor point and appeal to the hon. member for Rissik and the people of the CP: Let us bury this conflict psychosis. Let us forget the psychosis that conflict and war in South Africa are inevitable. Let us be positive and tell our people: There is great potential for peace; there is tremendous opportunity to build up, with freedom as the key word; freedom for everybody in South Africa; there is more potential for peace in South Africa than there is for conflict. But if they want to conduct the other type of politics, they are the blood brother of the HNP and they are going to walk the same road as the HNP, step by step, nearer and nearer. They must reflect on what they are going to achieve for the country and their children in the process.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the experiences I have had during the past few months, a paragraph I read long ago has again gained renewed meaning for me. This paragraph is from the work of Dr. Tobie Muller, Inspirasie van Jong Suid-Afrika. On page 126 he has the following to say about “Die Geloofs-belydenis van ’n jong Nasionalis”—

This paragraph links up with certain things the hon. member for Innesdal said, and I want to tell this former colleague of mine that I should very much like to discuss politics with him and others in the spirit and attitude he displayed this evening, and I assume that is the way in which he would like to discuss politics with us too.

At the hostels on the Tuks campus. You may consider it a challenge.

Yes, certainly. As far as I am concerned two important events occurred during this session. The one was the establishment of the Conservative Party. Whether one agrees with it or not, the fact remains that it was established, and it is of importance to me personally because I had a share in it. A second aspect which is of importance and which occurred in passing was the constitutional proposals of the President’s Council.

As far as the establishment of the CP is concerned, I just want to start off by stating that after all the debates we have had, and after everything I have read and heard, I am still utterly convinced that the NP no longer stands by the principles which I believe it has stood by over the years. We may differ on this, but nothing which has happened during the past few months has led me to arrive at any other conclusion. I want to repeat that in my years as a public figure in the National Party and also prior to that, it was my steadfast standpoint and belief in the party that the NP supported neither power-sharing nor mixed Government, but sought solutions elsewhere. In my speeches thus far I have produced information documents which support my standpoint. Earlier I quoted the former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, to show what his standpoints were. Then there is my own personal experience, what I have heard and what I have spoken of. There are also my standpoints I adopted with regard to the proposals of the President’s Council. I want to say—and I cannot say this of all my hon. colleagues opposite because we do not all have the same attitude—that along with the hon. member for Innesdal and other hon. members I shall seek to debate on the basis of a specific policy. We shall state our standpoints; we shall consider the NP’s standpoint; we shall consider the NRP’s standpoint and I shall contribute my share to create a South Africa where my children will be able to live and all our children will be able to live and the children of all the population groups will be able to live. This is my endeavor and ideal too. However, I have found that when one differs from the NP, whether one is in the party or not, one is always accused of undermining. This has frequently been said of me. [Interjections.] When the hon. member for Simon’s Town, the hon. member for De Kuilen, the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member Mr. Aronson were still members of the old United Party, they differed with regard to certain matters.

You were also a United Party supporter.

That is not true. [Interjections.] Those hon. members were later accepted as members of the NP. Did they undermine the United Party? Were they underminers? [Interjections.] They are people who differed on a specific matter of principle. They differed from their leaders and therefore sought another political home. When Gen. Hertzog differed from Gen. Louis Botha was he an underminer? Or was he a person who said as a matter of principle and policy: I differ from Gen. Louis Botha? In the thirties when Dr. Malan, Adv. Strijdom and Adv. Swart differed from Gen. Hertzog. Did that make them underminers? They differed and they said that they would step aside because they could not follow a specific path with Gen. Hertzog. When a member of the Cabinet refers to our Coloureds as a nation-in-the-making, a people on the way to becoming a nation, is he an underminer? He is still in the Cabinet. Was the relevant Minister an underminer of the NP when he said that the Coloureds were on the way to becoming a nation? There is a Minister who on one occasion said: The ASB congress as an organization of university students will be acting unscientifically if they reject the homeland idea with regard to the Coloureds merely because the Government rejects it without themselves giving attention to the underlying problems. The Minister who said that is still on that side of the House.

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

Sir, unfortunately I do not have the time. The same hon. Minister also said that it is sometimes difficult to rid oneself of the suspicion that the reaction is directed against more than merely the homeland idea as such as a dangerous form of escapism. While fully acknowledging the practical objections to a homeland it is still strange that even the possibility that something could come of this idea was suppressed. The hon. Minister who said that—about 10 years ago—was surely not engaged in undermining? After all, he was not undermining Adv. Vorster, Dr. Verwoerd or anyone else when he said those things. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member for Innesdal that if we really want to talk on the basis of principles in South Africa, we really must not consider everyone who differs from us as an underminer, a swindler or whatever. [Interjections.] I have never attacked the PFP except on matters of principle on which I differ from them. I think that the principles on which they found their policy would cause chaos in South Africa. The same applies to the NRP. However, in my approach I accept that they are people who live in South Africa, just as I do.

I cannot accuse these people of acting in an undermining way. If we want to conduct a meaningful debate we must at least accept that each one of us has certain principles and that we argue about specific matters on the basis of those principles, whether those principles are right or wrong. For example, the hon. member for Virginia spoke earlier this evening, and I do not think less of him because he differs from me or because he did not do what I did. I do not think less of a man because he differs from me. However, I want to make my contribution too because I believe I am entitled to do so. I therefore suggest that we weigh up principle against principle and policy against policy and then discuss them. [Interjections.] In my ordinary day-to-day dealings I frequently talk to members of the PFP and also to members of the NRP. As a matter of fact, I have in the past been attacked in this House for allegedly being too friendly towards hon. members of the old UP. It was also alleged that I was too friendly towards members of the PFP.

Bosom buddies.

Very well, bosom buddies. I do not mind.

However, I want to make another point. I have never said to anyone who is a member of the HNP that I do not want to talk to him because he is bad and has no right to exist. [Interjections.] Are people of the HNP lepers? May one not talk to them? Can the NP say that they never want anyone in their ranks who has been a member of the HNP? That is not my approach.

I now come to the AET. Earlier on a song and dance was raised about the fact that the hon. member for Waterberg was supposed to have talked to members of the AET and to have adopted certain standpoints regarding them. I myself have also talked to these people on many occasions. Many of them live in Pretoria, and some of them are good academics.

How many of them have you converted? [Interjections.]

That is immaterial now. All I am saying is that when a member of the NP talks to a Coloured man, he is not labelled a liberal, but when a member of the PFP talks to the same man, he is a liberal. [Interjections.] I admit that I have frequently spoken to Coloureds and Blacks, because after all, I must explain my standpoint to them. [Interjections.] I therefore want to ask hon. members on that side of the House, when they attack the CP not to detract from the wonderful ideals I cherish for my nation in the process, and I shall try to do the same as far as their ideals are concerned.

In February a report appeared in Beeld entitled “Toe het dr. Treurnicht nog ‘ja’ gese”. This report was quite clearly offered to readers as being part of the Cabinet minutes. There was an exchange of correspondence about this, and I then laid my hands on a statement by Dr. Koornhof relating to what led up to an article in Nat 80s. However, parts of it had been erased. As a result I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister, because this is an important matter. I have known the hon. member for Waterberg for many years now. At present he is being attacked personally, in respect of his theological background, in respect of his academic achievements, as a matter of fact, in respect of everything. There are certain rules which apply when one is a member of the NP and when one supports the specific power structure within that party. Then one is protected. But when one is not a member of that party one becomes fair game; then they attack one in every possible way. [Interjections.] I am speaking from experience and therefore I know how the hon. member for Waterberg feels. [Interjections.] I asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether information on Cabinet proceedings was made public in the Press in February 1982 and if so, in what publication the information appeared. What resulted from this hon. members have all read. The hon. the Prime Minister said he had no knowledge of information on Cabinet proceedings being made public in the Press during February 1982 or at any other time. I then put the question to him again, and when I put the question to him I drew the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to this specific leak, but he said there was nothing. He said he was not aware of anything. Today I again asked—

Today the hon. the Prime Minister said he was in fact aware of this. Because we received that reply the hon. member for Waterberg said he suspected it was the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. The hon. the Minister denied this. Very well, I accept the hon. the Minister’s word, but what I cannot understand is that an official document—which was considered an official secret—appeared in Beeld of the Nasionale Pers which has very close links with the office of the Prime Minister. I should very much like to know who leaked the information.

A. P.

That hon. member says it was Dr. Andries Treurnicht. I should very much …

Order!

… if Parliament agrees …

Order! I have called for order, and when I call for order the hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Kimberley South said “A. P.” What did he mean by that?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have completed my speech.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, is probably one of the most pious members we have ever had in this House! [Interjections.] I do not want to play the man either now. It is not my way of doing things. However, there are certain serious matters we have to examine. The hon. member has just stated here that the NP no longer stands by the same principles. In a previous debate the hon. gentlemen of the CP stated here that they broke away from the NP on the basis of a principle. In that case I want to put a very simple question to them. Here is the NP’s most recent election manifesto, signed by the present leader of the CP, the hon. member for Waterberg. In this manifesto something is printed so clearly that it is impossible that those hon. members could not have seen it. It is stated here in bold print—

Includes power-sharing.

Oh please, man, you just keep your mouth shut! [Interjections.]

Order!

I am dealing with a serious matter. [Interjections.] I am putting a serious question to those hon. members, and then they want to make a joke of it. [Interjections.] All those hon. members ought to know this, if they were good Nationalists, and I quote—

rests, and can be altered or amended only by the congresses.

When these words were included in the manifesto—and I am chairman of the party’s information service—the hon. the Prime Minister drew my attention to the fact that neither the Prime Minister nor any Minister or a Cabinet was able to alter the principles of the NP by one iota for it was only the congresses that could do so. This was one of the principles inserted by our forefathers when the NP was established in 1912. That is why 15 or 16 parties have come and gone here, while only one has remained, and that is the NP. [Interjections.] This happened because our forefathers did not put their trust in princes. When they recovered after the war, our forefathers concentrated on picking our nation up out of sackcloth and ashes. When they wrote the programme of principles, they did a wonderful thing. Therefore my reply to that hon. member in the first place is that the NP has not deviated from its principles.

The Prime Minister has.

The fact of the matter is that in 1912 our forefathers inserted clause 1 in this programme of principles, which reads—

Today we still stand unwaveringly by that principle—”Christian National”—just as we stood for it in 1912.

In addition, our forefathers said: “We do not place our hope on princes”. In the first place they said that they placed their hope on clause 1, which I have just quoted, and in the second place that only the ordinary Nationalist, the man in the street who had united with others in a branch and in a congress, would be able in that capacity to alter a word of this programme of principles.

Now I want to ask a question. It was extremely painful to me to have to experience what I experienced with the hon. the leader of the CP, who is not here this evening. I understand he is holding a meeting. That is a pity, because I wanted to have an earnest discussion with him. I am going to do so in any case. While all these things are stated in the programme of principles, which that hon. leader signed only a few months ago, while the hon. members of the CP are telling all and sundry here that they differ with us in principle although it is not true, and while we are not in a position to alter the principles in any way because only the congress is able to do so, I want to ask them why they did not then go to the congress as Nationalists and state their case there, if what is at issue here is a principle. Consequently they do not have a case at all.

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

No, my time is limited. I cannot reply to any questions now. I am making a serious point now. We are dealing with serious matters here. What I said therefore indicates that those hon. members had no idea whatsoever of the roots of the Nationalist Party, of what is at issue. They still do not have any idea. But, what is more—and I shall never forget this as long as I live—when the hon. the leader of the CP rose that day in the caucus when these matters came up for discussion, picked up his belongings, walked down the length of the caucus room past where I was sitting at the back of the caucus and walked out, he closed the door in the face of his chief leader, the Prime Minister, and of the NP, and I cannot forgive him for that. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please contain themselves and please give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

I do not wish to cover that ground again tonight to demonstrate that those hon. members were not driven from the caucus. In fact, one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed was when the hon. member for Waterberg, in the Cabinet meeting on the Tuesday prior to the caucus meeting, when the hon. the Prime Minister gathered up his documents, after he asked his colleagues to help him to get through the agenda quickly …

Another Cabinet secret!

Sir, you must please ask that hon. member not to … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

As I have said, the hon. the Prime Minister asked his colleagues in the Cabinet to enable him to get through the agenda quickly so that he could afford his two colleagues, who the previous day had felt oppressed by the statement of 22 February, an opportunity to state their case so that it could be discussed again. The Cabinet then finished its business by approximately quarter past eleven and the hon. the Prime Minister—I was sitting next to him—then gathered up his documents and threw that matter open for discussion again. We then looked at the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg, for the hon. the Prime Minister had made an opportunity available for the matter to be thrashed out. When a deathly silence followed, when not one of the two said a word, I honestly thought that the hon. the Prime Minister would have a heart attack on the spot. I felt intensely sorry for him. At that moment he had been cut to the quick. At that moment the hon. member for Waterberg, in my presence, threw the gauntlet down before his Prime Minister and chief leader.

So what?

So what! And then they alleged that they were driven out!

Of course we were driven out! [Interjections.]

Order!

Then they say they were driven out! [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon.the Minister please resume his seat for a moment. I regard this matter in a very serious light, and if hon. members do not obey the rulings of the Chair, I shall be obliged to take disciplinary steps against them. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have been dealing briefly with the issue of the allegation by hon. members of the CP that they were driven out of the NP caucus. They were no more driven out than the man in the moon was. I felt so bad about what happened in the Cabinet meeting that morning because I did not have the vaguest notion that we were that day 24 hours away from a rift in the NP. I felt so bad that I telephoned the hon. the Prime Minister that same afternoon—because I had experienced mental anguish over what had happened in the Cabinet—and told him that I could see that he was terribly oppressed. I told him that I knew he had been terribly hurt, but that I was merely pleading with him not to allow it to get him down. I encouraged him to overcome the disappointment and rise above it. Like a true and great Leader, he did so.

Consequently I want to warn the hon. member of the CP tonight that they should not discuss these things so glibly. They hurt the Prime Minister more than I have ever seen—and in my political career I have served under three Prime Ministers—a politician hurt his Prime Minister in my whole life. This is something on which we wish to take issue with hon. members of the CP most strongly. Actually, I have only told half the story. Although all these things happened, however, and in spite of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister bears tremendous responsibilities on his shoulders, hon. members of the CP did these things to him. That is why I wish to take issue with them tonight. That is what they did, while my sons have to fight on the border and while there are other hon. members seated in this House, and many people outside, whose sons also have to fight on the border. In a time when South Africa is experiencing difficult circumstances, this is the nature of the dialogue which is being conducted here, and which hon. members of the CP are at this time conducting throughout the country. I am heartsore tonight when I see how we as Whites are sitting here in this House of Assembly, and how we have been divided into various factions. I warn hon. members that they must be careful. We must be careful that this does not lead to our downfall.

When I consider these things, I say in the first place that the NP Government cannot be accused of having driven out the hon. members of the CP. In the second place, the Government cannot be accused of having deviated from its principles. Those alterations to the principle can only be made by the NP congress. Then, however, those hon. members will be conspicuous by their absence. After all, they have demonstrated by their actions—they and their hon. Leader—what they thought in their heart of hearts of the NP, the party that has carried this country from 1912 to the present day. Just as I have seen 15 or 16 political parties disappear from this House over the years …

So you, too, will disappear!

I shall also see the people settle the score with the CP. The CP is a party which we cannot afford in this country.

That brings me to my next point. The hon. member for Rissik—and I shall refrain from being personal now, for I should not like to become personal—and his hon. leader accused me yesterday, by way of interjections here, of having been responsible for a certain report which appeared on Friday in Die Vaderland, and the next morning in Beeld. I state categorically now, and with the greatest emphasis that I can muster, that I did not give that report to those newspapers. I was not responsible for it; on the contrary, if it had depended on me, it would never have happened. I am now stating this categorically here. However, do hon. members know what I feel very bad about? After it happened, and after I had intimated how angry I was about it, I had to hear that I was being suspected of being the culprit. As chairman of the information committee it was essential that I approve of such a report. However, hon. members may establish from those who wrote the report whether they received any such approval from me. They have the right to do so. But they should now cease from making false accusations against me. That is something I do not like having to endure. I shall give hon. members another reason why I feel very unhappy about this. When I heard subsequently that hon. members of the CP suspected that I had been the culprit, I made certain inquiries myself. I also want to point out that there is honestly not a single hon. Minister sitting in this House who has, for a longer period than I have, been the victim of accusations by some hon. members of the CP, accusations which went on for years, accusations to the effect that I was supposedly “verlig”, that I was supposedly a liberal, and so on. [Interjections.] This was the case in connection with the sport policy, and in connection with hundred and one other things. [Interjections.] Consequently I have a great deal of experience of this. I also have respect for people differing with one another. However, when I heard that the hon. members of the CP thought that it was I who had done this, I met the hon. member for Waterberg here in the Reading Room. Only he and I were there. I sought an opportunity to speak to him. I then said to him: “A. P., I understand you people think it is I who leaked that report, but I just want to assure you categorically that it is not I who did so. You know me. If it was I who had done so, I would have said so.” I do not run away from my deeds. I have never been afraid in politics, and I am not afraid now. After that I ran into the hon. member for Lichtenburg in the Lobby. The hon. the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal was present. I then said to the hon. member for Lichtenburg: “Ferdie, you know me. I am telling you now—the leader of the NP in the Transvaal is aware of this—that it was not I; you people are making false accusations against me.” In spite of that they came here and did what they did to me yesterday evening. I then had to withdraw a word which I had addressed to the hon. member for Waterberg.

But your name is on it.

Can one now imagine a finer example of how a person’s integrity has even been dragged across the floor of this House in the name of all that is holy and pious? Unfortunately this is the problem which one has: There is too much of this kind of thing, of which this is an example, happening in this country at present.

I am responsible for dealing with the Black people of this country. To me it is a privilege and a pleasure, because I believe that by creating goodwill, by proceeding with care, by constructing something, I am doing something for my children and for their existence in this country when I am no longer there. By doing this and looking up to the Almighty Father in supplication, I believe that I shall also be able to make a small contribution to the same benefit of all those opposite whose children’s lives are also at stake. If hon. members over there underestimate the onslaught on South Africa, I myself know enough not to do so.

While all these things are happening under difficult circumstances, what are we in reality dealing with here? There is the hon. the Prime Minister who is with daring and faith and under the most deplorable circumstances imaginable, trying to reach an accord with the Coloureds and the Asians. I in my turn must do everything in my power, day and night, 24 hours out of the 24, to try to create relations with the Black people, so that we will all find life bearable in this country of ours, so that there will be a place in the sun for all of us in this beautiful country of ours. While we are trying to achieve these things, these CP people are trying to accomplish precisely the opposite.

The hon. member spoke about intriguing, and quoted something which was written years ago. I do not know to whom he was referring. However, that is not the point. Surely it is one thing to adopt a standpoint within the ranks of the party—this is after all normal—but do those hon. members wish to testify that it is normal if a Minister, a provincial leader of the NP, is sitting in the VIP room at the Jan Smuts Airport in the middle of an election with the members of the executive committee of the AET? The hon. members for Geduld and Krugersdorp and I happened to enter that same VIP room quite by chance that day and found the hon. member for Waterberg there. After all, I can testify to how uncomfortable the hon. member for Waterberg was in those circumstances. The two hon. members who accompanied me can also testify to this.

Now you are spoiling your whole speech.

But it is the truth.

Are they lepers?

I am not saying that they are lepers.

Then why may they not be there?

Order! If the hon. member for Jeppe makes one further interjection during the speech of the hon. the Minister, I shall be obliged to take disciplinary steps against him.

Surely one cannot equate this kind of thing with ordinary interviews which Ministers normally conduct in their daily task. We did not take up this issue with the hon. the leader of the CP at the time, or take it amiss of him. Nothing of that nature was done. Now, when this is seen in retrospect, surely it is clear what happened there. Surely there can no longer be any further doubt about it.

I want to raise two further aspects which I think are of cardinal importance. [Interjections.] I want to request hon. members of the CP very earnestly to be careful about the way they wish to conduct their politics in this country. I am saying this as the Minister who is responsible for working with Black people. I hear what Black people say, and I hear what they are saying about the CP. I do not want to go into this now because I do not think it would be in anyone’s best interests to do so. However, if hon. members of the CP wish to come and see me about it, I shall enlighten them in this respect. Then they will probably sleep as badly because of it as I do.

May I come and see you about it?

Yes, of course the hon. member may come. He is most welcome. However, let us now see what the hon. member for Waterberg is doing. Incidentally, I first wish to ask the hon. member for Rissik a very simple question: Does he still stand by the 1977 proposals? [Interjections.]

But surely I am no longer a member of the NP. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member still stand by the 1977 proposals?

If I have to think back to those days, then I did stand by them, not so? Surely it is NP policy. [Interjections.]

Do you stand by the 1977 proposals today? [Interjections.] You see, Sir, the CP is trying to wriggle out of this. If one looks at the speech made by the hon. member for Lichtenburg this afternoon and put the simple question to him whether he stands by the 1977 proposals, and he replies to that question in the affirmative, then the bottom falls out of his argument completely. How is it possible to have an electoral college which is constituted on the basis of 50, 25 and 13 members, that has to elect a State President, and then have the hon. member tell the kind of story he told in this House this afternoon? After all, we accept that his integrity is above suspicion. How is it possible that he then accepted a Council of Cabinets, consisting of seven Whites, four Coloureds and three Asians, which was to have operated like a Cabinet, and was to have taken joint decisions, like a Cabinet? That is the simple question. Do those hon. members still stand by the 1977 proposals? If they reply honestly to that question, I can tell them at this stage already what is going to happen to them during the next few months, and in the years to come.

The hon. the leader of the CP does not have a very good reputation when it comes to relations with other population groups in this country. He must take this very carefully into consideration and the other hon. members of the CP must do the same. I maintain that the CP is unleashing forces in this country which are dangerous to our ethnic relations. [Interjections.] Those hon. members must stop doing this kind of thing. I want to quote to hon. members what Mr. Justice Cillié, the Chairman of the Cillié Commission, said when the hon. member for Waterberg was Deputy Minister of Education and Training, and then hon. members must go back and consider what record the hon. member for Waterberg left in this country. Our great leaders, such as Dr. Verwoerd, Advocate Strijdom, Dr. Malan and Mr. Vorster all built great monuments in this country, and the present hon. the Prime Minister is doing the same. I have never displayed greater loyalty to any person than I did to Dr. Treurnicht when he was leader of the NP in the Transvaal. Surely he knows that. I did so, while I myself had to pay a price for it, and I did so readily. However, the moment of truth has arrived now, in which one has to say certain things. If one examines the things which Dr. Treurnicht did, one sees that he was in my opinion probably one of the greatest schismatists in the history of the people since the Anglo-Boer War. [Interjections.] I know of no greater schismatist than the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] We need only consider what happened when the hon. member was with Die Kerkbode. One can also consider how controversial that hon. member was at Cottesloe. One may also consider what happened at Hoofstad, when he made common cause with S. E. D. Brown, Barry Botha and Beaumont Schoeman. Consequently the hon. member does not have a constructive reputation. What does one see when one considers the hon. member’s political record? I am quoting now from the Cillié Commission Report, page 556. It was the judge who had this to say—

Please take note now …

It is your responsibility.

I was then in a completely different department. The hon. member is not even aware of that. The commission refers to “… the policy on the medium of instruction in Black secondary schools …”. Who is responsible for policy? Surely it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Waterberg was then the responsible Minister. [Interjections.]

The report refers to the impression which was created that the Government was unapproachable and inexorable. (Page 566). Then the judge found inter alia—and I quote—

Now I say that I will honestly not follow a leader with this type of schismatic record which the hon. member for Waterberg has in this country. I want to get this off my conscience. When that hon. leader was leader of the NP in the Transvaal, I displayed the greatest loyalty imaginable to him, because I thought there were possibilities. To my mind what was at issue was the future of our children and peace and welfare in this country. When these things began to happen, I went to the hon. member for Waterberg myself and said to him: “I professed every loyalty to you as leader of the NP in the Transvaal, but now that you are acting in the way you are doing, I regret that I cannot profess my loyalty to you any more”.

I want to issue a final word of warning to hon. members of the CP, because this weighs heavily on my conscience. In my humble opinion there is nothing in this country which is more sacred than the churches of our fathers. Since the CP was born it has happened, particularly in recent times … and I shall not take it a word further than that. I want to get it off my conscience.

Get everything off your conscience.

Yes, I shall do so. [Interjections.] Since this new party arose, something new has been happening in this country, and I want to warn against it. We shall pay an incalculable price for this. I would have liked to have addressed this word of warning in the presence of the hon. member for Waterberg, but I am now addressing it to the hon. members of the CP in his absence, because I understand that he cannot be here this evening. This charge which is again being levelled at us this evening is that we have suddenly deviated from the principles of the NP and that we are pursuing a policy of integration, which is not true, is now being equated with permissiveness, and this Government and the Chief Leader and Prime Minister are now being attacked, in season and out, from all quarters, and rumours are being spread that this Government cannot be trusted with the morals of our people, that it cannot be trusted with Sunday observance and norms which are laid down in regard to censorship. In this way things are being set in motion in our churches which are dangerous. I want to issue this word of warning to the hon. the leader of the CP and every hon. member of the CP this evening, that they should not, as in the case of Die Patriot, toy with what is sacred to this nation, because some of them are egophiles. There is no better word to describe them.

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

No, my time is limited. [Interjections.] After all, we have been sitting in this House for years. Those hon. members have a responsibility. The hon. the leader of the CP, the hon. member for Waterberg, bears a responsibility on his shoulders. If he does not discharge it carefully, he will not only be the greatest schismatist of this nation; he will also bear the mark of being the man who is taking this nation to its downfall, and for the sake of my children I shall fight against that with every means at my disposal. That is why I support the hon. the Prime Minister who is trying to build relations in this country and who says that we should go forward to meet the demands of our times with daring and faith. Only then can we conquer and only then will we be blessed. Consequently I ask the hon. members of the CP to desist from doing certain things. They will pay a price, and they will drag us down with them into an abyss, something which we cannot afford in this country.,

Mr. Speaker, it is unlikely that such a heated altercation as we heard here this evening has ever before been experienced in this House. To us in the official Opposition it was interesting to see what an hon. Minister looks like when he stands speaking here with blood flowing down his back, because there are hon. Members in this House who really hurt one another this evening. The sooner this fratricidal strife can be eliminated, and preferably outside this House, the sooner we will be able to return to the work of this House.

This evening I want to confine myself to the arrangements in connection with and the administration of one of our most important industries, viz. the fishing industry. I want to assert that a Government which cannot even save our fishing resources can forget about trying to save the people.

In 1979 a commission was appointed with the terms of reference to inquire into the conservation and utilization of the living marine resources of South Africa. That commission completed and submitted its report more than two years ago. When the commission began its activities it was decided that it would concentrate its attention on ascertaining the present state of the marine resources and that it would make recommendations on the exploitation of those resources in such a way that it would be possible to repair damaged resources and then utilize them to the maximum without any further damage.

The commission was particularly concerned about the collapse of the marine resources along the coasts of the USA, Japan, Norway and England. The fact that these resources had been destroyed to such an extent over the last six or seven decades that only 15% of the earlier catches were being made there today, made an ineradicable impression on the commission. The fact that the Government allowed the resources of South West Africa to be completely destroyed during the years 1969 to 1979, so that catches of 1,547 million tons dwindled to 0,349 tons, strengthened my conviction that if dramatic action is not taken our resources, too, will be wiped out during the next few years.

I just want to quote a few figures to indicate to what extent the pelagic fish species in our waters are endangered, and as an example I want to compare the year 1961 with the year 1981. In 1961 approximately 490 000 tons of fish were caught. The average catch per boat was 132,5 tons per day. In 1981 approximately 380 000 tons of fish were caught, and the average catch per boat had by that time dwindled to 35 tons per day. In real terms it means that it is approximately four times more difficult to catch a ton of fish than it was in 1961. Of course it is also far more than four times as expensive.

If one asks what the reason for this is, the reply is that the fish simply are not there any more. Under the regime and the administration of this Government, the fish have been depleted.

However, there are other factors as well which indicate that the resources have already been badly damaged. In 1961 the pilchard component was 81,9% of the total catch of pelagic fish species, but as the years went by the pilchard were depleted to such an extent that they today represent only 12% of the total catch. For all practical purposes, therefore, the pilchards in our territorial waters have been totally wiped out and the resource has been destroyed. The same applies to the fish resources of South West Africa. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister is shaking his head, but I should like to hear his reply to this.

Surely you have heard it already.

I can furnish the hon. the Deputy Minister with the reason for this state of affairs. In point of fact it is obvious. In 1961 98% of all pilchards caught were three years old or older; only 2% were two years old or younger. Consequently the pilchards which were being caught at that stage were adult fish which were already fully developed and sexually mature and therefore able to reproduce. Over the years the catches increased so phenomenally, through the instrumentality of this Government, that almost all adult pilchards were removed from the ocean. I cannot even say that they were caught; they were removed. In comparison with that only 23% of the fish which were caught in 1981 were three years old or older, while 77% were two years old or younger.

Even with the scientific information which the Government had at its disposal in 1981, it nevertheless allowed fish to be caught on a massive scale long before they were sexually mature. And what is worse, over the years the Government allowed the mesh size of nets to be reduced, specifically with the purposes of enabling the fishermen to catch younger fish.

Up to now I have been using the pilchard as an example to indicate that a total collapse of our fishing resources is almost unavoidable. Apparently South Africa has learnt nothing from the experience of South West Africa.

†What happened to the pilchard is now also rapidly happening to the anchovy. Since 1977 the anchovy has contributed an average of 72% of the total catch of approximately 380 000 tons per year. In 1981, anchovy amounted to a whopping 77% of the total catch. But what is significant about this is that 90% of the fish that were caught were one year old and younger. In other words, as in the case of pilchards, we are now catching a massive percentage—over 90% of the catch—before the fish have reached the reproduction age.

If we continue at this rate, the purse-seine industry will be finally and utterly destroyed within the next two years, never ever to recover.

One could understand the Government’s reluctance to take action if they had no information on which to base their quotas, but they have had scientific information; they have it at their disposal at present and have been getting scientific information for many years. I should like to quote from the report of the International Commission for the South East Atlantic Fisheries in regard to methods by which fish populations can be established.

They say here that the model to which they refer in the document has indicated a long-term yield, under average recruitment conditions, of 325 000 tons for the combined pelagic species resource in South African waters and shows that maintaining the quotas at the current level of 380 000 tons would result in a decline in the anchovy catch. So here there is a clear warning about what is happening. The document also states that if the catch were reduced by a further 20 000 tons per year over a ten-year period, the pilchard yield would increase very substantially. The article goes further and states that the proportion of pilchards caught would, in fact, increase in age and that the whole fishing resource would improve substantially and progressively.

What is important about this document is the fact—I am addressing this, in particular.to the hon. the Minister—that lantern fish are not excluded from the pelagic fish for which the recommended quota was 325 000 tons.

Yet this Government, in the face of all the evidence—the scientific information available—and in spite of having appointed a commission to advise it on matters regarding the fishing industry, has not recommended a quota of 325 000 tons but has continued with a quota of 380 000 tons. Once again the Government has simply ignored the recommendations made by our scientists, and the reason why this is done is, I believe—as in South West Africa before the collapse—because of vested interests that predominate on the Fisheries Advisory Council.

When the commission to which I referred earlier …

That is a very ugly remark you are making there.

It is absolutely true.

It is unworthy of you.

The proof is in this document. This commission, on which I served reported that the Fisheries Advisory Council was ineffective …

You know that is not true.

… was not objective in its dealings and that members on that council…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to suggest that the hon. member knows that what he is saying is not true?

Order! Did the hon. the Deputy Minister say that the hon. member was aware of the fact that what he was saying was not true?

Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member made an unworthy remark, and he knew it was not true.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must please withdraw that.

I shall withdraw it, but I say … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I ask for your attention. I shall withdraw it. But the hon. member is aware of the facts.

The hon. member for Wynberg may proceed.

The document from which I quoted is available to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He should read it and then question my conclusion. The point is that the hon. the Deputy Minister has been hurt, because he knows what is happening in the fishing industry today should be investigated. What happened in South West Africa … [Interjections.] … will also happen in South Africa. The fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister is leaving this Chamber is a very good indication to me of the Government’s attitude to the fishing resources of South Africa. [Interjections.] If this Government is in earnest about the fishing resources of South Africa, and if the Government had been in earnest about ways of protecting the fishing resources of South Africa, the Government would have acted in a different way. For example, if one looks at the Estimates, one sees that there has been a decrease in the amount of money appropriated for the control of the fishing industry. I want to recommend to the Government that it look after this matter far more seriously. As in South West Africa, the resources in South Africa will also be totally destroyed if action is not taken. [Interjections.]

†As the last suggestion I want to say that, unless a judicial commission is appointed to investigate the entire industry in South Africa and to take evidence, in camera if necessary, the Government will not be able to save this industry from total destruction. I want to say further that, unless this is done, to me it is proof that the Government really is not serious about doing anything.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know much about fish, but I believe that the hon. the Minister will deal with the hon. member for Wynberg. I should like to confine myself to the coming into existence of the CP, and with the policy of the CP. I shall not indulge in any gossipmongering. You can judge for yourself whether I am gossiping, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that the reason advanced for the inception of the CP is illusory. The CP never broke away over the principle of power-sharing. What was stated in the letter which appeared in Rapport and in which the hon. member for Waterberg replied to the hon. member for Brits? In it was stated: “Soos die saak hier staan, sal ons dit nie verkoop kry nie”. There is nothing there about a principle. What was written there was that as the matter then stood, we would not be able to sell it. What did the hon. member for Meyerton say on the day this matter was before the caucus. He said that if power-sharing had become part of the vocabulary of the NP, he could not go along with the NP. What did the hon. member for Rissik say? He said: “Let us substitute the terms ‘joint deliberation’ and ‘joint responsibility’ for the words ‘healthy power-sharing’”. The hon. member for Waterberg was sitting right in front of me, and when the hon. the Prime Minister said that by ‘healthy power-sharing’ he meant joint deliberation and joint responsibility, the hon. member said: “I agree with that; I have no fault to find with that”. Now I ask you: Did they leave on account of a principle or on account of a word?

Why was the motion moved then? Who moved the motion?

I am coming to that. I shall reply to that in a moment. The point is that they seized upon a word to cause a rift.

I come now to that motion which the hon. member for Brakpan was discussing with such gusto. I want to tell hon. members about it. Who rose to his feet in that caucus and said: “I do not trust the leadership of the Prime Minister and the caucus will decide about us today”? Who said that? Was it one of us who made that statement? And who associated themselves with it?

These are caucus secrets.

If the hon. member reads the book written by Ries and Dommisse he may also learn a few caucus secrets.

These are caucus secrets.

If that hon. member was not too busy shouting and chewing to hear what was happening, he would have known what I was talking about now. These men did it to make sure that the hon. member for Waterberg did not have a chance to get out of it. Of course it is an old habit of these hon. members, people who need the stature of a person like the hon. member for Waterberg, to try to push him forward all the time. During the Craven Week incident, in 1980, one of the hon. members who is now in the CP said that they went to Dr. Treurnicht and said to him: “Doctor, you cannot allow yourself to be pushed around like this”. Who took the initiative?

You have no honour whatsoever! [Interjections.]

Who took the initiative … [Interjections] Was it the hon. member for Waterberg who took the initiative, or those who manoeuvred him?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member for Jeppe to say that the hon. member for Heilbron has no honour?

Order! Did the hon. member for Jeppe say that?

I did say it, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, despite anything the hon. member for Jeppe says or does, he will never escape from the truth. What I say in this House, I shall also say outside.

In Heilbron too?

Yes, I shall say it in Heilbron, too. In fact I have already said it in Heilbron.

In front of your entire audience of three! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must please contain himself. He cannot keep on making interjections.

I want to continue. The day the hon. member for Lichtenburg snorted through his moustache and shouted out to us “Piebald policy! Piebald policy!,” I got the fright of my life. I thought for a moment that this was the secret weapon at last. [Interjections.] I am being honest when I say this. I honestly thought that here we now had the solution, the reply to the question which an ordinary Nationalist is just not able to provide. However, I then went to Parow to listen to the Piebald policy. There I realized that the CP had entangled itself inextricably in its alliance with the AET and in its powerlessness in the face of the inextricably linked interests of the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds in this country. There I had to hear about sovereignty for every Coloured residential area. This was the CP’s idea of geographic ordering. It sounded like plain sailing to me, and I remember very well how the hon. member for Waterberg gestured with his hand, while elaborating on such areas as Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis. However, when I returned to my own constituency, I came up against the 700 Coloureds of Heilbron.

But that was not the end of the story. This was followed by the hon. member for Water-berg’s meeting at Stellenbosch where he said that the Coloured Parliament need not be sovereign, because the White Parliament was not sovereign when it was established, but evolved into sovereignty. What do these two arguments mean to us? What do they imply? In the first place it implies that hon. members of the CP think that they can sell the idea of a subordinate Parliament to the Coloureds. They have taken no cognizance whatsoever of the fact that the Coloureds stated as long ago as 1977 that this principle was completely unacceptable to them. In the second place it also implies that that Coloured Parliament could develop into a sovereign Parliament. What does one do with two sovereign parliaments in one country? How is one going to deal with that situation?

At a subsequent stage in his speech the hon. member for Waterberg said the CP was prepared to do more for the Coloureds than Mr. Chris Heunis and the men around him were prepared to do for the Brown man. What more do they want to do for the Brown man? After all, the CP do not wish to grant the Brown man sovereignty! This makes me think that the people who are going around in Heilbron telling everyone that it is the policy of the CP that a Coloured homeland will be created from the area which one enters as soon as one descends the Hex River Pass from the interior, while another homeland will be created in the North Western Cape, are not far wrong. All I want is for the CP to state that policy here as well, and not only out there in my constituency.

The CP must remember that what they are saying here today is quite true. If we do not succeed in what we are trying to do, there is only one alternative left, and that is partition. However, partition does not mean that I divide and choose—it is not as easy as that. Partition means that I divide and you choose, or that you divide and I choose. That is how partition works. The CP must tell me what they are going to do in my part of the world. It must be borne in mind that there is no money for buying up land in this large-scale partition—it is simply going to be expropriated. If the CP announces there that that is their policy, it will be interesting to see what the story sounds like then.

The CP’s sanctimonious statements about itself, and what they say and what they do, do not tally. One of those hon. members said at the beginning of the session that he had not concurred with the caucus to the passing of the amending legislation on group areas, i.e. to Act 55 of 1982. Last year, however, that hon. member participated in the discussions of the passing of the legislation dealing with the Liquor Act and which was placed on the Statute Book as Act 117 of 1981. That Act provides that Whites, Coloureds and Blacks may drink together. What was that hon. member talking about on that day? Was he discussing that fact? No, but what was he discussing? He was discussing the cardboard casks of wine standing around in refrigerators, from which children drank when parents were not home and there was no cooldrink in the refrigerator.

If the Whip gives me the necessary permission, I could carry on and tell hon. members more. Unfortunately he has indicated to me that he does not give his permission. Surely I can still tell the following thought: Some of those hon. members had a great deal to say about the so-called tot system which the hon. the Minister introduced on our aircraft, and asked for it to be abolished. They made such a fuss about it that it formed the basis of a prominent article in their first newspaper, but on flight 315 in the afternoon that hon. member drinks two whiskys because he can hold them. One might just as well say: Ban Scope; I shall read the Playboy, because I can handle it. Is that the superior morality of the CP?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that I can make my speech tonight in a more restful atmosphere than could my hon. friend, the hon. member for Wynberg. We on this side of the House have waited in vain throughout this debate for some indication of where this Government is taking us. [Interjections.] Throughout this whole debate, hon. members opposite have not debated this issue at all. All we have heard have been arguments which I believe were deliberate red herrings drawn across the path in order to evade the issue. We have heard so much about “broedertwis” that, quite frankly, all of us on this side are heartily sick and tired of it. We really do wish that those hon. members would go to their own caucus room, sort out this whole matter and then come back to this Chamber and behave like politicians should. We are heartily sick and tired of hearing about who said what and who did what, who is not standing by the 1977 proposals, who is, and so forth. In actual fact, I sincerely hope that those hon. members have departed from the 1977 constitutional proposals otherwise we are going to have serious problems in this country.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North remarked earlier today that we in the PFP are in a serious position because of the proposals of the President’s Council. However, that is obviously not true. We have a very, very clear policy in terms of which we shall assess the final proposals and recommendations of the Government when they are made.

One man, one vote.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North seems to have some problem understanding our policy. However, he needs somebody with a great deal of patience to try to get these things through to him. [Interjections.]

The reason for the open-ended policy at the present stage as far as the proposals of the President’s Council are concerned is not so that the Government can have further negotiations with the Coloureds and the Indians but because they are looking over their shoulders at the CP because they are very worried about what they are going to do. That is the reason why they want to leave this matter open ended and not be too clear in regard to these proposals.

We all listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister today, because if anybody was going to give us some indication of where he intended taking us, we thought it would be him. Unfortunately, we were disappointed by him as well. He also chose to talk in generalities. We heard lots of generalities today, for example, from the hon. member for Innesdal. He appreciates the problem only too well but he did not tell us what he was going to do about it.

The hon. the Prime Minister also tried his red herrings and he quoted at some length from a speech by my hon. leader at a symposium in Durban recently. I should like to quote from that speech again and to ask the hon. member for Innesdal whether he agrees with it or not. I quote—

Does the hon. member for Innesdal agree with that? What is wrong with that?

Who is disagreeing with that? It is a generalization.

I quote further from my hon. leader’s speech—

What is wrong with that? I am sure everyone agrees with it. Why did the hon. the Prime Minister quote this? My hon. leader went on to say—

What is wrong with that? Everyone agrees with that. Why did the hon. the Prime Minister quote that and then try to twist it in such a way as to make out that we stand for one man, one vote in a unitary State? It does not make sense. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance can explain because I cannot understand it.

Before I leave this subject, I want to make one point. We were challenged earlier on today to set up a national convention. The question was asked why we did not set up a national convention. Sure, we can set up a national convention, but we must be honest and realistic. A national convention must involve the people who wield the power, and that obviously is the Government of the day. We are realists. Unless the people who wield the power are involved, a national convention will not get anywhere. The ball is in the Government’s court and I believe that while it has the opportunity it should take the ball and do something with it. There is one thing I know—and I am sure everybody on that side of the House also knows it in his heart of hearts—that unless we include Blacks in the consultation process, we will get nowhere. The sooner one accepts that, the better. Let us do something about it.

I want to turn now to another topic which has been sadly neglected in this debate—it was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens—namely the question of the cost of living and the plight of the pensioners in this country. It was also raised by the hon. member for Yeoville when he spoke about the question of inflation. This unfortunately seems to be a problem which apparently does not concern hon. members on the other side of the House very much any more. I do not know why that should be so. Perhaps the Government has accepted that inflation may suit them in some ways. The hon. the Minister himself did touch on this subject. He identified a few of the problems which gave rise to inflation and I should like to come back to a few aspects mentioned in his speech.

Just to set the background, I want to say that I believe that inflation is still one of our most serious problems. When one looks at the consumer price index over the past 20 years one sees that it rose from 48,6 in 1960 to 100 in 1975 and to 220 in February 1982. From 1980 to 1982 it showed a dramatic increase from 176 to 220. Food prices have gone up faster than the consumer price index. In fact, they have led the way and they form a large component of this index. For example, from a base of 100 in 1975, food prices have gone up to 240 and the consumer price index has gone up to 220. Then—and I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is here—the prices of foodstuffs which fall under the control schemes, particularly those under a one-channel fixed price scheme, have gone up faster than the prices of any other foodstuffs. Let us just take as an example in this regard the price index of summer grains and winter grains. In the ten year period from 1969-’7O to 1979-’8O, they rose from an index of 102 to 300. Fresh fruit and vegetables, which do not fall under a fixed price scheme and which rely on the open market for their price determination, rose from 100 to 246, which is considerably less.

Another point which I think is important, is that the farmer’s share of the consumer’s rand is in fact decreasing, particularly in respect of the products which fall under a one-channel fixed price schemes. Let us look at the farmer’s share of the consumer’s rand for grain. For every rand that the consumer spent on grain products in 1974, the farmer got 42 cents. In 1979, the farmer got 35c. Let us look at the figures for meat. In 1974 the farmer got 62c. In 1979 he only got 53c. These are once again two controlled products.

Let us look at vegetables and fruit again which are at the other end of the spectrum where prices are not controlled. On vegetables, the farmer got 34c of the consumer’s rand in 1974. In 1979 he got 34c, which is exactly the same figures. As far as fruit is concerned, the farmer’s share has actually increased from 31c in 1974 to 36c at present.

The point that I am trying to make is that if this Government is serious about fighting inflation I believe the time is now ripe to have a look at the question of fixed price schemes and how these prices are in fact determined.

Is meat included in the fixed price scheme?

No, meat is not included. [Interjections.] I am happy with the position regarding meat; I am particularly worried about the summer grains and also the winter grains. First of all, we all know that the fixed prices are determined in secret behind closed doors. Nobody knows how they are determined. We are told that costs of production come into the actual reckoning somewhere. As the hon. the Minister of Finance knows, that is the problem with all administered prices. Once one starts looking at costs of production then, of course, one is in an inflationary spiral straight away. We are told that the relationship between the prices of different products is considered. That is entirely arbitrary. We are also told that the supply and demand characteristics are considered as well. This is also entirely arbitrary. There is no real method, except a highly subjective one, of actually determining the prices.

I want to come to another matter which relates to the price schemes I am discussing. The Government states that one of the objectives of the Control Schemes are to promote stability in agriculture, but in fact they promote exactly the opposite, because while promoting reasonable price stability there is a high degree of income instability. I think the hon. the Minister will also agree with me there. The problem with the maize farmer, for example, is that when he plants in October, he does not have a clue what his price is going to be when he harvests in June the following year. He only hears in April. That makes it extremely difficult for him. What he wants to know, is the price at the time of planting and there are ways in which this can be done. The present schemes make it even more difficult for the live-stock farmer because he cannot enter into forward contracts for his products. Maize, for example, absorbs 50% of the gross income from poultry and pork. It absorbs 30% of the gross income from dairying. Therefore, it makes it extremely difficult for that type of farmer to enter into any type of contract.

Another problem which farmers have, is the escalating price of inputs. I want to give a few examples: In 1969 fertilizer had a price index of 100. In 1980, it had a price index of 363. Feeds, fuel and machinery all display a similar pattern. For example, the cost of producing one hectar of maize in 1980-’81 went up in the course of one season from R281 to R366.

I should like the hon. the Minister of Finance to think about this problem. Many of the inputs in agriculture also have administered prices. There is a cartel in the case of machinery. If there is no cartel, why do all prices increase together? We are told that ADE pushes up the cost of machinery by 20% but I do not believe that. There is a cartel in the case of fertilizer and there is also a cartel in the case of feeds. Again I say that if the Government is serious in combating inflation there are a number of questions that I think should be answered.

Let us take the example of fertilizer. Why, for example, was the Maize Board not permitted to distribute the fertilizer which it imported direct to the farmers through the coops? Why did this distribution have to take place through the fertilizer companies? Was this because someone felt sorry for the fertilizer companies? Perhaps it was because the last price increase that was allowed them was too low and they had to be given a bit more.Why was that done? The Maize Board—and the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—imported urea at R203 per ton and it could have distributed that to the farmers through its co-ops at approximately R220 per ton, but instead it first had to go to the fertilizer companies and was redistributed by them. I believe that the farmers will end up by having to pay something like R340 per ton for their urea. That could make a difference of almost RIO per ton on the price of maize at the final consumer level.

Another example is insecticides. 2.4D can be imported at 92 cents a litre, but the local price is 247 cents a litre. I think that if the Government is serious about fighting inflation it must start looking at things like this. Why, for example, cannot the fertilizer industry in this country operate as efficiently as the fertilizer industries overseas? I believe that often the policy of self-sufficiency which we have is the shield behind which a lot of companies in this country mask their own inefficiencies. The Government should have a serious look at those companies. Self-sufficiency should not be a holy cow. In fact, what is necessary is the ability to become self-sufficient in a fairly short period if necessary. We all know that sanctions are overrated. They do not work and we do not have to fear them as much as some people would like us to believe, especially when they are looking for protection. I also believe that this policy is placing our farmers in a very, very weak competitive position internationally. We find ourselves in the position where the consumer is paying high prices and where the farmer has a problem in that his input prices are going up, so, both sides are losing. The farmer is losing and the consumer is losing. I predict that the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to have a very serious problem next year when it comes to determining the maize price again. There is already a deficit in the Stabilization Fund of over R100 million. There is plenty of grain on world markets at the moment so the export prospects are not good. A number of countries who might want to import are broke. Hon. members know the financial position of the lesser developed countries around the world. Therefore the export prospects are not good. It is going to be difficult to push up the local price in order to subsidize export losses because we are entering a recessionary period in our economy and the people in the lower income groups will not be able to pay these higher prices. It is also most unlikely that the hon. the Minister is going to be able to increase the subsidy on maize next year. We are entering tight financial times and we have already seen that he is aiming at decreasing subsidies.

In conclusion, I should just like to add that it is important that we should have a look at another system of determining prices. We could look, for example, at a floor price and we could look at a futures market where farmers could contract in advance for their prices. Maize consumers could contract in advance for what they need and we could thus solve the big problem of uncertainty regarding price. I believe that we should also make sure that our local industries supplying the inputs to agriculture are also exposed to a certain amount of competition from outside if they cannot get that competition locally in order to shed a bit of fat. I think it is high time that the consumer in this country decides that enough is enough, because we are going to have exactly the same thing happening in regard to wheat. We know what is going to happen in October. The consumer is punch-drunk; he just sits back and takes whatever is coming. Right now we are expecting a price increase of dairy products, although it has not yet been announced. I say enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, left the detailed discussion of various financial matters until the Third Reading debate, although I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to all his questions nevertheless. Looking back—as we should in this particular debate—at the hon. the Minister’s handling of the budget this year and seeing that experts in South Africa agree that he is doing a commendable job of work under extremely difficult circumstances, it says something for him.

*In the short time at my disposal there are a few matters I want to raise here and now with regard to the CP. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brakpan has a fixation about people. Because he tends to focus all his hate and resentment on a few individuals, and to allow his political life to be dominated by that, he expects us to act in the same way. That, too, is why every time we refer to the AET or the HNP, he cries out: “Do you hate your fellow-Afrikaners?” The question is not whether we hate individuals or whether we feel anything in particular about them. I can tell him categorically that we are not opposed to individuals as such. We feel neutral towards them, but we abhor their policy. We abhor the policy of the AET which is based on illusions, just as we abhor the confrontation politics of the HNP, and the CP is now on the same road as those people. I therefore want to ask the hon. member rather to forget about the old story of individuals. Let us rather proceed to debate people’s standpoints. Yesterday the hon. member for Waterberg was being very sensitive about the fact that as a former clergyman he was being accused of lying. He warned us to be careful about what we said. However, I wish to put it to that hon. member that a series of untruths surround the ranks of the CP. Although I have very little time at my disposal, there is one other point I should like to make before dealing with the untruths. It is true that the hon. member for Waterberg worked hard during the election last year. But what did he do at the very first meeting? At the very first meeting at Randfontein he bedevilled the entire campaign. How? He took off his hat to that lost little group of East Rand headmasters who, in conflict with the decision of the Committee of Heads of Education, prohibited their children from participating in the Craven Week. He, a Minister, a provincial leader of a party, took off his hat to those headmasters as a polital gesture, and that is where he started his nonsense. I could mention other examples, too.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member should rather be quiet, because he is in the CP “because they made him an offer he couldn’t understand.” At a stage when everyone in the Cabinet was talking about confederation, I wrote about it in an information document, but the hon. member for Waterberg crossed out what I wrote. I can quote many things to show that this split has been coming for a long time. [Interjections.]

However, I wish to deal with the untruths, and challenge the members of the CP to begin to do something now, if they value their integrity, about the untruths emanating from their ranks.

In the first instance, right at the beginning of the year I brought an untruth to the attention of the hon. the leader of the CP when one of his members said—and one of the members of the CP repeated it here this evening—that “the Prime Minister called the hon. Dr. Treurnicht a jellyfish and ordered him out of the caucus”. That is a banal untruth. [Interjections.]

Every time one of the members of the CP says that, he tells an untruth. However, what did the hon. leader of the CP do about that he which members of his party publicized? [Interjections.] I now come to a second matter, that of the trick photograph. [Interjections.] Again typically, he dissociated himself from that because he said, it was not his responsibility. [Interjections.] There is one thing he must learn about political leadership and that is that he can no longer say that he dissociates himself from things. He must now accept responsibility. Throughout his life he has had someone to hide behind, but not any [Interjections.] He must now begin to accept responsibility for his actions. [Interjections.] He owes us an explanation about that trick photograph. What has he done about it? However, I now wish to deal with a different matter. I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Rissik. [Interjections.] I read the following in Die Patriot

Gewese Transvaalse leiers, dr. C. P. Mulder en dr. A. P. Treurnicht, is uit die NP omdat mnr. P. W. Botha se vertolking van beleid onaanvaarbaar is.

[Interjections.] I want to ask him whether this statement is entirely true. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietersburg says that the statement is entirely true. However, what does the hon. member for Rissik say? Does he, too, say that Dr. Mulder and Dr. Treurnicht are no longer in the party because Mr. P. W. Botha’s interpretation of policy is unacceptable. [Interjection.] Is the whole report true?

Read the whole report.

I have read the whole report. What is stated in Die Patriot is a banal untruth. [Interjections.] Two of their theologians are sitting here this evening, and other people whose integrity I am still prepared to accept are also sitting here. [Interjections.] What are they doing about this lie? Are they going to have it published in Die Patriot that Dr. Mulder is out because he told a lie in this Parliament and because he was kicked out of the NP for making a mess of his department? Instead of doing his work, he spent his time intriguing. [Interjections.] That statement in this newspaper is an untruth. [Interjections.] Typically, the hon. member for Jeppe has a part in that, and I challenge him to place a rectification in this regard in the newspaper. Otherwise they are proving to us that they are committing wickedness under the name of Die Patriot and that in its first edition the newspaper has told a banal lie. The hon. member for Sunnyside is always shouting that they were kicked out. However, if one complains about the fact that one has been kicked out, then surely one creates the impression that in fact one would still like to be there. [Interjections.] Is that not true? [Interjections.] However, those men were not kicked out, and this has been proved several times. It was only the sixteenth speaker who moved the motion in the caucus, and speakers two and three, the two Van der Merwes, stood up in an effort to corner the leader of that party before he could back out again, as he had backed out in the Cabinet meeting the previous day. [Interjections.] The brilliant speech of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs at the end of that caucus opened doors, but in spite of that they pinned him down, because they wanted to precipitate something. [Interjections.] I reject as an untruth the allegation that those hon. members were kicked out of the party. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I ask you please to protect me, because I find it difficult to hear myself with one ear, this one hon. member is shouting so loudly.

They say that we deviated from our policy. They say that that is why they are no longer in the party. Surely one cannot say that one has been kicked out—thereby indicating that in fact one would have liked still to be there—but that one had to leave in any event because the party had deviated from its policy. Surely that is a contradictio in terminis. Where is the logic in such a statement? If, then, if it is true that we have deviated from our policy, those hon. members—if they have any political integrity—must today still stand by the proposals of 1977. After all, they say that we deviated from them. If they had any political integrity, and they realized that they had deviated from the 1977 proposals, then they were morally obliged—all of them—to resign their seats, because they no longer had a mandate from their voters. [Interjections.]

I shall never resign.

One thing is certain, and that is that they deviated from the 1977 proposals. They deviated from them, as sure as I am standing here. [Interjections.] This was very clear from the long extract quoted here today by the hon. member for Virginia. The hon. the leader of that party said yesterday that he was not married to the 1977 plan. However, he lived in sin with that plan for a pretty long time. [Interjections.] Yes, pretty long! Did he not say at the beginning of this year that that plan was not yet the policy of the party? However, now that he has had the opportunity of specifying his own policy, he has not done so. Yesterday we heard him in his usual form. I do not know how many books he has cribbed in the past, as the hon. member for Helderkruin spelt out so clearly today, but I should be obliged if he were to come and make the speech he made yesterday in my constituency, because then I should have no trouble with the CP. The year before last it cost us R4 per head to get 200 people to his meeting. We teamed up four constituencies, but under the chairmanship of the hon. member for North Rand we were unable to get 200 people to the city hall of Roodepoort. It cost R4 per head in advertising. The hon. member for Waterberg can come and make the speech he made yesterday. I want to say that I stand here today a proud man when I compare him with the Minister. What a lot of straw dolls he set up yesterday. He defines “consociation” as it suits him and then lets fly, in the style we have come to expect of him, and knocks down those straw dolls. However, this is based on his narrow interpretation of “consociation”. Secondly, he came up with a lot of theories yesterday. I gained the impression that he still wanted part of the action. All he was able to do, however, was to stand here making noises about his narrow definition of “consociation”, or rather, his broadest definition applicable to all peoples and levels of government. He set up that straw doll and then knocked it down.

My time is limited and therefore I now wish to give the academics in that party something to consider. [Interjections.] It seems to me that it is all the books that removed those men from reality. I found a quotation which in my opinion is very appropriate. As far as those hon. members are concerned, we can take a leaf out of the life of a great man in the political history of the ancient world, viz. Marcus Tullius Cicero. [Interjections.] His Greek teacher Archias, looking at the Roman empire, said to the young Cicero—

[Interjections.]

Order! I cannot permit the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to conduct a conversation while another hon. member is making a speech. The hon. member for Florida may proceed.

When Archias saw how things were going, he said to young Cicero—

Remember yesterday’s story—

I want to tell you, Sir, what madness prevails in that party, among others. There are men sitting there who have a shooting syndrome. There are men there who say that if the British can fight over the Falkland Islands, the time has come for the White Afrikaner to fight for his future again. One can get Coloureds, Indians, Black people and White people in one’s sights, but one cannot get a problem in one’s sights. The hon. member who said that to a foreigner is sitting there. I heard it from the foreigner. That hon. member said that it was 80 years ago that we last had a war and that with the momentum of history we have reached the stage where one had to fight for one’s future. Do they want to kill off all the Coloureds? Do they want to kill off all the Indians? No, Sir, that is not why God put this nation in this country. That is not the meaning of Jan van Riebeeck’s prayer or the prayer of the Day of the Covenant. [Interjections.] I am not bitter. I am realistic. I want to say that those hon. members must acquaint themselves with the realities.

Before I resume my seat I want them to consider what Archias said to Cicero. He said—

We are awaiting the wisdom of their policy. They will come up against the unavoidable communality of certain White, Coloured and Indian interests and it will destroy them. We are waiting to see how they can give a content of moral justice to the nonsensical policy they have been proclaiming to us thus far.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Florida referred in his speech to the Falkland Islands war. News about war is very widespread in recent times. Every day we read in the newspapers about the war in the Middle East. Then there is the war in Chad. I must say, however, that bombshells also explode in this Chamber. Initially we only had small arms fire, but with the entry of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development into the debate we really heard the fire of heavy artillery in this Chamber. All along we on this side of the House have been witnessing with amazement the civil war being conducted around us in this Chamber. It is amazing to have to listen every day to who said what, where it was said and when. We are sick and tired of it. [Interjections.] We are absolutely fed up with listening to who signed what, on what day and at what place. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members of this party have been trying their best to have this debate take a different course and to elevate it to a higher level by dealing with the constitutional changes in South Africa. We have also done this in an effort to contribute our share to this important discussion and to try to convince people who still do not realize it, that constitutional changes are indeed essential. On these grounds we on this side of the House have to express our disappointment in both the Government and the CP, because they are responsible for what has happened in this debate. It reminded one involuntarily of the old story of Nero, who fiddled while Rome was burning. While we in this House are arguing about so-called power-sharing, I am afraid South Africa, too, is burning.

Quite a number of hon. members have in the course of this debate discussed what they regard as the highlights of the past session. I, too, want to refer to what I believe was a highlight of the session. Actually it relates to a word which cropped up regularly in debates. That word is “healthy”. We repeatedly heard the word “healthy” being used here; actually, it started during the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, when we had to learn of “healthy power-sharing”. I virtually felt as though I was back doing my rounds in hospital wards examining patients. Of course, on such occasions the word “healthy” is often heard. However, we on this side of the House have not heard a single word of explanation as yet from the Government as to what they actually mean when they speak of healthy power-sharing. [Interjections.] What we actually find alarming to a large degree is that the so-called healthy power-sharing has evidently degenerated into a disease. The flaking off of the CP is stale news by this time. Each time the CP held a political meeting and hon. members of the NP read in the newspapers the following day that 1 000 or 2 000 people had attended that meeting, they trembled with fear. This is evidence of the serious turn their disease has taken. [Interjections.] We have been waiting for answers from the Government for a long time. We on this side of the House have been trying to conduct a debate with hon. members on the Government side. But what have we heard? In the first instance, we have been told that we cannot discuss the future constitutional changes at this stage, as we have to wait for the President’s Council to report. By the time the President’s Council eventually reported, however, the condition of the NP was weak and shaky—further proof of how sick the NP is. [Interjections.]

Now we have to wait again, this time for the outcome of events at their congress!

Yes, now we again have to wait until such time as the NP has reported to its congresses. In the meantime, however, we also have to listen to what happened in the NP caucus last Saturday. Meanwhile we wait; we go on waiting.

Today we listened with high expectations to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. We thought that we would learn from him where we were heading. [Interjections.] But what did we hear again today? From the hon. the Prime Minister we had an attack on the NRP, on the CP, and also a weak attack on the official Opposition. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Prime Minister gave this House or South Africa no guidelines. Today we heard from the hon. the Prime Minister that we had to wait some more; South Africa must remain calm. I would have preferred the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development to have remained calm, because this evening he did not show the slightest sign of being calm. Now we have to wait for the NP’s provincial congresses. So South Africa is adopting a waiting attitude. What is unfortunate, however, is that talk of healthy power-sharing has caused a disease in the NP. I want to name that disease. What the NP has contracted is creeping paralysis. They are paralysed, and that is why they cannot come to grips with South Africa’s problems. They are unable to move forward in South Africa.

The word “power-sharing” is not being used in the correct and proper way. Some members of the NP got together and performed a few calculations. They did multiplication and division, and what they describe as “power-sharing” is nothing but “power division”. What the NP envisages is not power-sharing at all; it is the division of power, because it is only on the basis of the division of power that the NP will be able to continue governing the country, but that would create a future for the country which South Africans do not want.

We in these benches, and especially our hon. leader, have been trying our best this session to enter into a debate with the NP, but what do we find? We receive no answers and no problems are being solved. Now South Africa is awaiting the next session so that the NP may come forward with answers.

†Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill and also during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister I did my very best to discuss health matters generally. I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare is in the House tonight. He and I have discussed health problems in this country and there is no doubt that South Africa has a very efficient health administration. We have very good medical men in South Africa. However, the problem is that one can have the best health service in the world but if it is not readily available to all the people in the country, then that service is of no value at all.

*The doctor may be an excellent doctor, but if the patient is unable to visit him, the position is hopeless. This evening I want to repeat a few questions which have already been put in this regard. I think it is rather important that I should do so. I should like to prove that the health services of which all of us are so proud, are not available to all the people in our country. Consequently I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister and I hope that he will be able to reply to them.

†Mr. Speaker, I asked a question a few weeks ago about cholera. I raised the question of the cholera epidemic during the no-confidence debate and I just want to tell hon. members that the hon. the Minister’s reply to the question I put to him was that from 1 August 1981 to 21 May 1982, a period of 10 months, there were 64 637 cases of cholera in South Africa.

Suspected cases.

Quite correct. This was the number of suspected cases of cholera and there were 188 deaths. It is very interesting to note that 30 000 of these suspected cases of cholera occurred in KwaZulu, 12 000 in Lebowa and 17 000 in Natal. Of the 188 deaths, 121 occurred among the people of KwaZulu. When I asked the hon. the Minister to give me statistics in respect of the various racial groups, he said that these figures were not available. However, I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that 99%, if not more, of the people who died were Black.

Yes.

That is correct.

I also asked the hon. the Minister of Law and Order whether patients with psychiatric conditions were held in police cells, and, if so, how many were so held in 1981. His answer was as follows—

Here again I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that of these 5 679 mentally ill people held in police cells, the majority were Black.

During the session I visited the Eastern Province and investigated the position of mental health services in Port Elizabeth. With a population of 195 000 Blacks, 110 000 Coloureds and 6 000 Asians there were no facilities for Black acute psychiatric patients. I also found that no facilities existed in the Eastern Province for Black children under the age of 14 requiring mental health services. The only facility for Coloured children is situated in Cape Town. No detoxification centres for Black or Coloured patients exist in Port Elizabeth nor are there any halfway houses. I think this is enough evidence to point out that although there are good medical services, to the underprivileged, those who need these health services most in South Africa, this service is not yet available. I should like the hon. the Minister to comment on this.

That is not true and you know it.

*You know it is not true.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that the hon. member knows that what he says is untrue?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member for Groote Schuur wants to dictate to me what I may say. What I did say was that the hon. member for Parktown knew that what he said was not true. He said medical services were not available to the poor people—those were more or less his words—to which I replied that he knew that it was not true. That is all I said.

Did the hon. the Minister say it was not true and that the hon. member for Parktown knew it was not true?

The hon. member used words to the effect that poor people did not receive medical services. To that I said: “You know it is not true.” [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Seeing that the hon. the Minister is so sensitive, I want to remind him of a statement which he made during the discussion of his Vote, namely that the medical facilities at Onverwacht are equal to or nearly as good as those at Houghton. Is that true?

I did not say that either. You know what is in my Hansard. You ran to the Press with that story.

The hon. the Minister implied that the medical services at Onverwacht were comparable with those at Houghton.

I was referring to the Black people in Houghton.

No, the hon. the Minister never said that. He talked about “your supporters”. The hon. the Minister must be very careful what he says because he makes mistakes. Has the hon. the Minister ever been to Onverwacht?

Of course I have been to Onverwacht.

Has the hon. the Minister ever been to Houghton?

Of course I have been to Houghton.

I will not describe to the House the position in Houghton. Hon. members on the Government side usually refer to us Progs, as the “mink and manure people”, people who live in affluence. That is Houghton. Health facilties in Houghton are adequate and better than one may imagine.

I asked the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development when Onverwacht was first settled and what its annual population growth was from the date of its establishment to the latest available date. The answer I received was that in December 1980 there was a population of 54 171 in Onverwacht and that the latest estimated population was 120 000. Let us compare this with the position in Houghton. These 120 000 people are cared for by two doctors on a part-time basis. These two doctors—according to an answer given by the hon. the Minister of Defence—are two medical officers seconded from the S.A. Army.

They are full-time doctors.

There are also three district surgeons. That means there are five doctors for 120 000 people.

I also asked how many dentists there were in Onverwacht. The answer was that there was only one dentist who has also been seconded from the S.A. Defence Force. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this dentist at Onverwacht only does extractions or whether he renders any curative services in respect of the population of 120 000.

But you were there yourself.

I cannot speak for this dentist myself, but I have it on good authority that he has been destroyed and broken by the conditions he has to work under and that not once has he been able to render any curative services. He can only do extractions. I would now like to ask the hon. the Minister how that compares with Houghton? For these 120 000 people, the nursing staff consists of two senior sisters, 11 sisters, 7 staff nurses and 2 SANTA information officers. For these 120 000 people there are four posts for social workers but only one is filled. One social worker for 120 000 people! I think this “Onverwacht” statement by the Minister was very “ondeurdag”.

I also asked about old age pensions and how many disability grants were paid. In 1981, 120 000 people received R332 862. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what other income the people of Onverwacht have.

Do you know how many thousands are working in Bloemfontein? You know nothing about Onverwacht. You know little about anything!

Because Onverwacht is inhabited by Black people, does the hon. the Minister compare the standard of their medical services with that of Whites because they are equal or does he expect Black people to have inferior health services?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown is a person who once said in this House that apartheid was the cause of cholera.

And I still stand by that.

The hon. the Minister reprimanded him so severely that day that he was ashamed of himself. Therefore the hon. member should be careful and should check his facts first, because he is going to be reprimanded again. I am actually sorry for the hon. member and for the PFP, because they are not participating in the political debate in South Africa today. When the President’s Council was established, they decided that they would not serve on it. And now that the President’s Council has submitted proposals, and these are the actual politics of the day, they are out in the cold. Perhaps we should say to them what Abraham Lincoln once said: “He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help.” We can say to the hon. Opposition that we are all going back to our constituencies, and I want to make it quite clear that this side of the House is looking forward with great enthusiasm to conveying the message of the National Party and the philosophy of the hon. the Prime Minister to the electorate of South Africa. For the first time in the history of South Africa since Union, a fair and equitable political dispensation is now developing for the Whites together, the Coloureds and the Asians. What is of the utmost importance is the fact that this dispensation meets two basic requirements. In the first place, it meets the basic requirement of the Whites in South Africa, by guaranteeing its security with regard to its level of civilization, its achievements, its standards, its Christian norms and its survival at the southern tip of Africa. In the second place, it meets the requirement of people of colour in South Africa because it accommodates their legitimate aspirations in the political and socio-economic fields. As this new dispensation develops, there will not be any room in South Africa for extremism, and therefore one wants to sound a warning at the end of a session of our Parliament, especially to the members of the CP, and that is that there is one syndrome which South Africa cannot afford, a syndrome which I want to call the “Tutu-Treurnicht syndrome”. The Tutu approach, with all its radical leftist elements, and the Treurnicht approach, with all its radical right-wing elements, will only lead us to confrontation instead of to responsible reform. Bishop Tutu is shrill in his condemnation of the non-participation of the Black nations in the President’s Council, as is the PFP. I have here a cutting from The Arguswhich appeared on 20 May, in which Bishop Tutu is quoted as follows—

This is the one syndrome. This is the one element we have to deal with in South Africa. On the other hand, we have the Treurnicht people, the CP, together with the HNP, the AWB, the Kappiekommando and the AET, who are fanning the flames of suspicion within the White community of South Africa. They have made it clear that they have rejected the proposals of the President’s Council in their entirety right from the start. In the second place, we have been hearing lately that Dr. Treurnicht and his party are dissociating themselves from the 1977 proposals of the NP. Yesterday afternoon in this House we had to watch the hon. member for Waterberg setting up targets and then shooting them down himself. He referred to Prof. Degenaar, to Prof. Ben Vosloo, to Lijphart’s theories, but one thing he omitted to do, and that was to tell us what Dr. A. P. Treurnicht says and where he wants to lead South Africa with his party. Having listened to the hon. member yesterday afternoon, I was reminded of a saying used by the farmers when referring to someone who realizes after an event that he should rather have kept quiet. However, I cannot repeat that saying. All I can say is that I think the hon. member for Waterberg made a colossal fool of himself. The CP can only leave one with this idea, and it is one they can take to their constituencies: “Change is the law of life and those who look only in the past or look only in the present are certain to miss the future.” They really should think about that.

That is why I am grateful that we on this side of the House are able to say, together with the hon. the Prime Minister, that by means of the new political dispensation of this country, we are making a date with destiny. It is the leader of the NP in Natal who expressed this so beautifully: “We have a date with destiny.” It is an honour and a privilege for me to participate on this side of the House in constructive plans for the future of South Africa.

In addition, concerted attempts are being made to cast suspicion on the hon. the Prime Minister among the White people in South Africa.

In the two minutes I have left I want to make just one quotation. A few weeks ago I paid a visit to the constituency of the hon. member for Pietersburg. There I read a letter from a Pietersburg voter in the local newspaper. He wrote that he was still a Pietersburg Nationalist. He then quoted from a book of speeches by the previous Prime Minister of South Africa. One of the speeches was made at the time of the Waterberg by-election in 1971, when the hon. member for Waterberg was elected. There he said the following—

To this Mr. Vorster added—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Turffontein referred to a quotation “change is the rule of life”, but the only change that that hon. member really knows is how to change parties, because he is now on his third party. He certainly does not know about the kind of change that we on this side of the House are talking about.

I have been listening to this debate for the past two days now during which all sides of the House have talked about change. Three things have struck me. Firstly, in regard to hon. members of the CP, they tried to pin consociation and power-sharing on the NP. The NP seems very relaxed about this allegation, and with good reason. They know that they are not on the road of power-sharing with the proposals that have now been put forward. They know that very well. The lie is given to power-sharing in the President’s Council report in which they talk about consociation. For the NP consociation seems to be fine if it is between Whites, Coloureds and Indians where the Whites will outnumber the others. However, suddenly consociation cannot work if it is applied to include Blacks because in that model Blacks will outnumber the other groups, and that fact gives the he to the NP’s talk of consociation. [Interjections.] That is why they are relaxed when the CP accuses them of propo-gating power-sharing.

A second thing that strikes me about this debate is that it reminds me of two small boys, the NP and the CP, sitting on a railway track and squabbling over a bag of marbles…

What about Harry and Hulley?

… while out of the tunnel rushes the express train of Black nationalism.

Ask the helping hand to help you.

We in the PFP are trying to point out to them that the train is coming and that it should be taken account of, but they are not listening. Our problem is that while they are squabbling we are actually locked in with them on the same track. [Interjections.]

The third thing that strikes me about the debate, and, in fact, about the session as I reflect on it, is that a fundamental process is unfolding. The crucial problem that faces us in South Africa as White people, is how we are going to live in this part of Africa together with the other people who share this part of Africa with us, and 70% of those people are Blacks. That is the central question. There are only two answers to that central question, and they are either that we will have to choose to live together and share the country or we will have to choose to uphold the status quo and try to enforce White minority domination.

Brother, you have a dream!

Those are the only two basic choices. [Interjections.] The concept of a middle ground between these two is a myth. The protagonists of the middle ground concept sit there in that truncated little party called the NRP. For years the old United Party tried to steer the middle road between having discrimination and not having discrimination, and they found out that there was no middle ground. The NP is going to find that out as well.

They are beginning to look like the old UP.

There are only two choices: One is either in favour of White minority domination or one has to share. [Interjections.] They are the living evidence that there is no middle ground. The NP does not know it yet, but they are on the same road as the old UP. The UP did not know in 1974 that they were finished, but the Progressives made a breakthrough, and the UP found out afterwards that they were finished. In 1977 the UP did not exist any more. Out of that once mighty party there are only eight members left, and they have nowhere to go. [Interjections.] In due course the two forces that are going to confront each other in White politics, and the only two forces that count, are the CP and the forces around them, and this party the PFP. [Interjections.]