Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official Opposition, it is an honour to support the motion moved by the hon. Prime Minister.

Question agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

One thing is certain, and that is that South Africa is a dynamic country—there is a continual process of change taking place, and sometimes it is very difficult for foreign experts to keep pace with all the internal changes that take place here. Many foreign experts on South Africa have had to swallow their words about what would happen in South Africa. To a large extent, of course, the same applies to those of us who live here in South Africa; we also have to keep getting used to the changes that are taking place here in South Africa.

Take sport, for example. When I went to watch cricket at Newlands the other day, I glanced at the seats occupied by the guests of the Western Province Cricket Union and of the Cricket Board of South Africa, and lo and behold, no fewer than three of four Cabinet Ministers were seated there. Watching them enjoying the cricket, I was involuntarily reminded of 17 September 1968. I was reminded of the statement which had been made at the Free State NP congress in Bloemfontein. The next day the headline in Die Burger read—

Further on in the report it said—

The reason at the time was that one of our own people from District Six here in Cape Town had been chosen as a member of the MCC team. He only wanted to come and play cricket here, he only wanted to come and show his people how successful he had been over there. At the time it was said that this man had been chosen for political reasons. That was nonsense, of course, for he subsequently became one of the most valued members and best players of the MCC. Now I just wonder whether the hon. member for Waterberg thinks it is a good thing that the West Indians are visiting this country at the moment. Does he not perhaps believe that it has done irreparable harm to our internal situation? [Interjections.] I even notice that the hon. the Minister who is responsible for sport and recreation has said that if they are short of funds, he will be prepared to help. [Interjections.]

†Rent-a-tour as a business may become a growth industry in South Africa—I do not know, but it looks like it. I think professionally there is no difference between Lisa Minelli belting her lungs out at Sun City and a Black West Indian cricketer hitting his heart out on our cricket pitches. They are both doing it for money; it is a question of what the price is. One thing, however, of which we must be certain is that the mess in sport in which we find ourselves, is directly attributable to the actions of the Government. [Interjections.]

This is possibly the last no-confidence debate of its kind. We are told that the old style of politics is going to change in South Africa, that we are now moving to a new style of politics and that it is going to take some painful adjustments for many of us who have become accustomed to the old style. Personally I am in favour of a negotiating, consensual kind of politics, but until this can genuinely take place in South Africa in a new constitution, I have to discharge my duty in a traditional no-confidence debate in what is left of the Westminster system in South Africa.

The first point I should like to make—this is common knowledge to hon. members of the House—is that there is a close interaction between external and internal factors as far as South Africa’s relationship to other countries is concerned and other countries’ relationship to South Africa. Whether one talks about sport or trade or cultural affairs or diplomatic relations, this happens to be the case. I am not saying it is good or bad; I am simply stating a fact.

Before I turn my attention to the domestic situation, I wish to raise a few issues concerning the South African Government’s attitude towards its neighbouring territories, and these are issues not simply related to foreign policy, but also to considerations of defence and internal national security. I believe that one of the most dangerous external situations in which South Africa could find itself is one of being surrounded by a group of chronically unstable and impoverished neighbouring territories, desperately casting their eyes to the super-powers for help. It makes obvious common sense that economic interdependence, flourishing trade and the regular exchange of goods, services and expertise must lead to greater stability in the region, to the long-term benefit of all the countries involved.

The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly declared himself and the South African Government as more than willing to fill this role and has said that this country has no aggressive intentions and is prepared to contribute to stability in this region. South Africa, however, is perceived, by her neighbouring territories as well as by her potential allies, as playing exactly the opposite role. South Africa is accused of deliberately pursuing a policy of destabilization towards neighbouring territories through the use of military, economic, transport and trade means. [Interjections.] If South Africa is perceived to be doing this, we must be sure of the fact that these perceptions are increasingly going to shape foreign policy as far as we are concerned. How is such a consistent discrepancy possible, on the one hand the South African Government declaring itself willing to assist in increasing stability, with an increasing awareness, on the other hand, on the part of our neighbouring territories and our potential allies, that we are, in fact, playing a destablilizing role? [Interjections.] By destabilization I do not mean combating terrorism, hot-pursuit or pre-emptive strikes. By destabilization, as they see it, I mean deliberate intervention in the internal affairs of another country in order to promote conditions of social, economic and political instability. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Defence is on record as having said, over the weekend and just before the weekend, that this perception of South Africa, this accusation, is largely due to communists and communist countries. I am afraid, however, that either the hon. the Minister is not aware of the extent to which this perception exists in the West, or he is misinformed.

Let us consider some of the relevant reports, the first from the United States State Department itself. Last week, on the 24th, the following statement appeared in The Argus—

The United States has not gone that far, but came unexpectedly close in a written statement by the US State Department to the American magazine Africa Report. It said—

The State Department was then approached and said that this was its considered opinion. It is interesting that this report appeared in Africa Report after an article written by a gentleman called Mr. Michael Clough. He is the Africa Area Co-ordinator and adjunct Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Post-graduate School in the United States. I am in no position to state whether what he says is true or not, but I am simply saying that this man is making an important input into foreign policy considerations in that country, and what does he say about this accusation? Let me quote—

Let us also look, for example, at the New York Times, which is a reputable newspaper. In that newspaper there is an article by a certain Flora Lewis which states, in regard to Angola—

That is Nujoma—

Another example, a conservative one and almost right-wing from Britain, comes from the Institute for Strategic Studies. It appeared in their regular journal called The Strategic Survey. I quote again—

So I can go on giving other quotes. The point I am trying to make is that this is becoming the kind of conventional wisdom of our allies. I believe it is very dangerous. I believe we cannot simply dismiss all this as newspaper speculation and distorted reporting.

When I was in Washington in September, I spoke to people in the State Department concerned with South Africa and also to other people who are knowledgeable about South Africa and who have regular contact with top officials in the South African Government and I was personally more than alarmed when they quite blandly told me that there was a policy of destabilization. I refuted that in no uncertain terms. I am quite willing to give the names and the instances to the hon. the Minister of Defence or the hon. the Prime Minister if he wants me to do so. I told those people it simply did not make sense for South Africa to engage in a policy of deliberate destabilization.

I mentioned the following reasons: Firstly, I said it threatened to undermine the U.S. policy of constructive engagement in South Africa. This was the first obvious threat one could think of if there was this attempt at destabilization. In fact, if one listened to the debates in Harare at the American-African Institute Conference, one already heard the argument there that the policy of constructive engagement was simply a façade behind which the South African Government could destabilize. I said this was not part of the policy in South Africa.

Secondly, I said it increased Soviet influence in Southern Africa—it did not decrease it, it increased it. In fact, the same gentleman, Mr Clough, argues in Africa Report that South Africa if it pursues a policy of destabilization, is in fact becoming the ally of Soviet Russia by forcing other countries to invite them to come into this area. I read again from his report—

This article appeared in Africa Report in the edition that appeared just before the State Department’s interview took place. I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see how one can divorce this kind of policy advice— the title of the paper is “American Policy Options”—from the subsequent statement by the State Department itself. Therefore, as I said, the second reason is that a policy of destabilization would increase the Soviet influence.

A third consequence of such a policy is that it destroys market and trade opportunities and the potential for economic development. In other words, it makes the period of reconstruction when one wants to get regional economic development off the ground so much more difficult. Fourthly, it nudges the whole Southern African region into a state of semi-permanent war and conflict, and that, too, is not in the interests of South Africa. However, a far more important and a dangerous consequence is one the hon. the Prime Minister himself has mentioned a number of times, viz. if there is such a thing as a policy of destabilization from South Africa’s point of view—I said this to the gentleman in America—it would mean that we would be defenceless in the face of accusations with reference to non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. This has always been a cornerstone of South Africa’s foreign policy. I cannot for one moment, I said, think that it was possible that South Africa would engage in a policy of deliberate destablization because then morally and otherwise we would be unable to insist that they have no right to intervene in our internal affairs. I regard these as compelling reasons. The more I put them to the people in Washington the more they smiled knowingly or the more they looked at me in blank amazement as if they did not believe it. I spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations on exactly this point, as well as to the Foreign Policy Association, and made the selfsame point which I have just made. I must say I came away distinctly uneasy because I remembered in 1975 when I was made a complete fool as a Member of Parliament when I had been deceived on the Angolan debacle. [Interjections.] I may be a fool but I am prepared to be so on my own responsibility rather than as the result of the deception of my Government. That was a deliberate deception. I remember very well that our present Minister of Foreign Affairs was our envoy at the United Nations at that time and he was engaged in public debate against a gentleman by the name of Danny Morton. They had an evening lecture at the American University in Washington and our Ambassador then got to his feet and said that there was not the slightest possibility that we were involved in any Angolan debacle or escapade and I supported him to the hilt. I said to the people around that that was absolutely true, only to come back two or three weeks later to find out that this was not the case. That is why I was comforted—I mean this—when I listened to the hon. the Minister of Defence as well as to the Chief of the Defence Force on television recently when they stated that it was not South Africa’s policy to destabilize. I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to reiterate that policy in the House and to give us the assurance that we are not interfering in the internal affairs or in internal movements of any other neighbouring territory and that we are not interested in the MNR, Unita or movements in Zimbabwe, but that we are only interested in protecting the safety and security of the South African State and that that is our only interest. [Interjections.]

When I make this appeal I must also warn the Government that sometimes it becomes increasingly difficult to understand, accept and believe these assurances. There was one incident which we could not discuss last year because of a sub judice ruling by the hon. the Speaker which I want to refer to again, viz. the so-called Seychelles incident. I still believe that as far as Parliament is concerned this matter has not conclusively been dealt with. What happened there is that a group of mercenaries left Johannesburg on 24 November 1981. They stayed overnight in Ermelo and on Wednesday, 25 November 1981 they passed into Swaziland and then took a plane to the Seychelles where the attempted coup took place on the night of 25 and 26 November 1981. The mercenaries subsequently hijacked the aircraft on 26 November and returned to South Africa the same day. After that a court case followed after some disastrous statements by some of the hon. Ministers of the Cabinet. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister is on record as saying that neither the Government nor the State Security Council nor the Cabinet were aware of, or approved, or knew or were involved in this coup and what went on there. I obviously accept his word on that score. However, having said this, this admission is nothing else but an admission of incompetence on the part of this Government because there are certain questions that have remained unanswered. South Africa is well known for its security network and its security system. In fact, if a student so much as bleeps too much they put him or her away to cool off, as one of the hon. Ministers called it, or if there is a movement among trade union people they arrest and question them, and so on. But here we have a coup planned on the level of brigadier in the Defence Force and where top people in the National Intelligence Service were aware of it. Neither the Government nor the State Security Council, nor the Security Police for that matter at that level, were aware of that going on right under our noses. If one then goes into the case itself and one starts asking oneself simple questions about Government officials that may or may not have been involved I think the Government owes an explanation to the House to tell us exactly what went on and what has been done about the whole incident. I want to ask a few questions in this respect, questions that could not have been answered by the court of law but which have to be answered by the Government. Take, for example, the case of Dolinchek. Was Dolinchek in the employ of the National Intelligence Service when the raid took place? If so, did nobody at the National Intelligence Service know where he was? If not, why did his wife reportedly continue to receive his salary cheques? Why did Mr. Rothman and Mr. De Wet reportedly travel to the Seychelles to try to “silence” him? Why did the police seize newspapermen’s notes on Dolinchek at the behest of the Chief of the National Intelligence Service? Did Dolinchek write the report on Col. Hoare’s plan and submit it to the National Intelligence Service and to the SADF? If so, to whom were those reports submitted? Did the reports get submitted to the State Security Council? Why was the information not acted upon?

Then, let us take the case of Maj. Georg Schroeder. Did he tell the authorities of the raid plans? If so, whom did he tell and why was the information not acted upon? What was the involvement of, for example, Brig. Hamman, Brig. Knoetze and W.O. Van der Merwe? In what section of the SADF are these officers employed? How was it possible for Col. Hoare to draw weapons of this nature, e.g. AK 47s, RPG 7s, AMDS, etc., from a SADF store without authorization? If there was no authorization is it possible for any member of the public to draw AK 47s from the SADF stores? If there was authorization, who gave authorization? If the weapons were delivered to Col. Hoare fraudulently and/or in contravention of SADF and Treasury regulations what disciplinary steps have been taken against SADF personnel responsible for such fraud and/or contravention? What was the involvement, for example, of Mr. Alex van Wyk and Mr. Claasens in the coup bid and in what capacities were these officers employed in the NIS? Did either Mr. Van Wyk or Mr. Claasens report the plan either to the State Security Council or to the Cabinet? If so, what actions were taken? All these questions arise out of the court case itself, and they have not been answered. We do not know what the answers are. We can table them in Parliament, but surely it would be the responsibility of the Government concerned about the security of the country to know exactly what went on and to investigate this as thoroughly as possible. The rule is that the Cabinet Minister responsible for the actions is responsible for the actions of each and every member of his department. If Brigs. Ham-man and Knoetze and W.O. Van der Merwe acted in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, the Minister must accept responsibility. The same argument applies in respect of senior officers of the National Intelligence Service. If, as has been averred, neither the Cabinet nor the State Security Council were aware of the move, notwithstanding the prior knowledge and the active co-operation of the SADF and the National Intelligence Service, and notwithstanding easily obtained evidence of a pending coup, then this points either to a distortion of the facts or to unbelievable incompetency and inefficiency on the part of the SADF, the NIS and even the National Security Council. These question have not been answered. I say this because of the implications it has for the image of South Africa abroad. If we are going to show that we are going to be a powerhouse in this region, let us do so properly.

It is well to remember also, Mr. Speaker, that the period of constructive engagement may very well be coming to a close. This is possible because the indications are that President Reagan is in some difficulty. If there is a new American Administration there may be new policies towards South Africa. If those policies are shaped by people who have this perception of South Africa we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult position. I believe it is in South Africa’s interest to see to it that the legacy of this era must not be seen to be increased destabilization in Southern Africa with South Africa being presented as the main culprit.

*I should like to make a few brief remarks about South West Africa and Namibia. At the moment the picture is one of increasing confusion. For South Africa, I believe, it remains a problem of diminishing options. The longer we remain involved there, the fewer will be the options available to us to come to an acceptable agreement with regard to the situation. With the collapse of the DTA government, an era has come to an end in which a particular strategy for achieving a peaceful internal transition has obviously failed. I believe that Mr. Mudge really did his best. However, I do not believe that the same can be said of the Government and its relationship with the DTA. If there had really been a desire to help Mr. Mudge, it could have been done. I believe that desire has been lacking, and it is important to find out why. All I still want to add—and I am not going to say any more about this; one of my hon. colleagues will deal with it in greater detail at a later stage—is that South Africa’s greater involvement in the administration of that territory should not give rise to a greater polarization, nor should it totally destroy the middle ground or harden people’s attitudes with regard to a peaceful international settlement.

†Turning now to the domestic scene, the following: Despite a sense of general wellbeing in certain sections of the White electorate and a qualified mood of optimism concerning the Government’s constitutional guidelines, the socio-economic prospects of South Africa in the short term are not very happy ones indeed. This is also borne out by what Dr. De Loor said recently. I quote him, as follows—

*This was said by Dr. J. H. de Loor, Director-General of Finance, at the Agricultural Prospects Conference on 19 January 1983. The same could be said with regard to unemployment, for example. It is being said, for example, that unemployment is going to increase as a result of the recession. In this connection a man such as Prof. Schlemmer says the following—

When we consider the housing situation, we see that there, too, we are faced with enormous problems, because of the backlog. I do not need to tell the hon. the Minister of Community Development about this.

Therefore, against this background, it is clear to us that South Africa is charged with the potential for conflict. In this respect I have only to quote the words of the Transvaal leader of the NP, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who had the following to say at the Transvaal congress of the NP last year, and I quote from Die Burger of 14 September 1982—

†And these words, Mr. Speaker, were used in a slightly different manner by Prof. Schlemmer in his analysis of the South African situation. I quote Prof. Schlemmer—

Consequently, the question which the official Opposition has to ask of the Government, when looking at the domestic situation in South Africa, is the following. What has the Government done, particularly in the past year, to decrease the potential for conflict in South Africa? I do not want to allege that there are only negative aspects. There are positive aspects as well. The educational situation has improved, particularly in Soweto. There has been a slight closing of the wage gap, although the rise in unemployment has taken place much more quickly. There have been attempts at improving the local government facilities of urban Black communities. This one must obviously acknowledge. There has been a vast improvement in the bargaining machinery in industrial relations. This is a positive development as well. At the same time, however, on the negative side, we still have—as happened only a couple of weeks ago—squatter shacks being razed to the ground. We still have forced removals of people and communities. We still have the persecution of labour union leaders. In this respect it is quite interesting to note that not a single labour leader has actually been convicted following the swoop on them in November 1981. Therefore, if we compare the negative and the positive sides we see that the positive improvements all have to do with increasing life chances and creating expectations on the part of the Blacks. If, however, we look at the negative aspects, we note that they have to do with coercion and repression. That is a very dangerous situation indeed.

*Nothing better illustrated the arrogance and callousness of this Government during a growing conflict situation than its handling of the Ingwavuma/Kangwane incident. Behind the scenes, repeated pleas were made for this matter to be handled with great circumspection. We discussed it at length. Then the announcement was made quite baldly: The Government, the Cabinet, has decided. That is all. The Cabinet has decided. What did this decision mean? This decision taken by the Government in respect of Kangwane and Ingwavuma had three consequences. Firstly, it was a flagrant contradiction of the Government’s own declared policy in respect of homeland development. Mr. Mabuza asked for self-governing status and his request was turned down. That decision amounted to a motion of no confidence by the government itself in its own policy as far as Kangwane was concerned. Secondly, it was a confirmation of the Government’s standpoint that whatever their policy, Blacks would not become South African citizens. That was another consequence. Thirdly, it was an indication that the Government would seize upon any opportunity to get rid of as many Blacks as possible as quickly as possible. This reminds me of the following jingle—

That is more or less the attitude of the Government towards the Blacks in this Ingwavuma/Kangwane debacle. Fortunately, however, this decision could not be implemented, although I believe that irreparable harm has been done to intergroup relations as a result of the way in which this decision was handled. It is actions such as these which give rise to resentment and polarization in our country. This kind of behaviour cannot be separated from the increasing frustration and discontent which cause people to resort to violence and terror. Mabuza told me himself that if this decision was implemented, he would be faced with bloodshed in his own territory, and that we should do everything in our power to prevent it.

We are told about the increase in subversive activities. We are told that more and more young people are crossing the borders of our country to be trained as terrorists. In Die Burger of last week we read the following—

This is what we are told in Die Burger of 25 January 1983. One might ask oneself: Why? On the one hand it is as a result of exploitation and agitation. No one can deny that. Then there is a fertile breeding-ground for such exploitation and agitation. There is no doubt about the fact that the internal situation in respect of Black people is definitely deteriorating.

Against this background this Maseru raid contains a message for us politicians, for us in this House, which we dare not disregard. Apart from military considerations, this raid was an important escalation in the conflict situation in South Africa, and from now on we shall increasingly have to take account of the political and diplomatic consequences of such actions. The crucial question which we politicians must ask ourselves before sitting back complacently and watching the Defence Force and our young men having to do the dirty work, is this: What are we doing to prevent more and more young Blacks from falling a prey to agitators, out of sheer frustration, and from turning to violence as the only solution to the problems in South Africa? If we ignore or evade this question, we are betraying the future of our children. To put it differently: If a young urban trained Black man without a job examines the new constitutional proposals of the Government and asks himself: “Do they want me to be a part of the new South Africa, yes or no?”, what is his conclusion going to be, in all fairness? And if it is “No”, what is he to do? How can he negotiate peacefully to become a part of it? What hope do we White politicians who monopolize the political power in this Parliament hold out to him? I cannot put it any better than Ton Vosloo himself put it in Die Beeld. I quote from Die Beeld of 14 January 1983. He says—

He goes on to say—

And Leopoldt Stolz said in Die Burger of 28 January this year—

Therefore we must ask ourselves: What hope are we offering these people?

To continue: Nothing better demonstrated the failure of the Government’s policy in respect of the Black peoples than the meeting about a week ago between Pres. Matanzima and Chief Minister Buthelezi. Incidentally, it also illustrated the blinding hypocrisy of the argument that Blacks are not excluded from the constitutional process, for what did this meeting tell us? Firstly, that meeting was the direct result of the Government’s constitutional guidelines.

But you know that is not true.

But they said so themselves. It says so in The Cape Times. They said they were meeting because they refused to be excluded from a new constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.]

Order!

The second consequence of that meeting has been to unite Blacks on the basis of blackness against non-Black people; in other words, it is polarizing South Africa. However, if it demonstrates anything, it demonstrates the total bankruptcy of the Government’s policy of homeland development. It was not Buthelezi who went to Matanzima and said to him: Do tell me how this thing is working; it seems very pleasant among you people here in Transkei. How does one go about it; couldn’t I obtain a little independence, too? No, it was Matanzima who went to Buthelezi and told him: Look here, this thing is not working; let us try to find a new strategy …

Where did he say that?

They both said so together. [Interjections.] I shall show it to the hon. the Prime Minister. They said—

If they said this, they were saying by implication that when someone has taken independence, he has been excluded from a new constitution for South Africa. Surely that is what he was saying—quite unambiguously. He did not say to Buthelezi: Join this new system of independent homelands. He did not tell him to come in—surely that is what one would expect if it were such a resounding success.

How sure are you of that?

I am as sure of it as the newspaper reports in which it was reported, and I heard it from Buthelezi himself. [Interjections.] If it is not true, we shall just have to wait a little while—then, I suppose, Buthelezi will also take independence. In the final analysis, this meeting illustrates the fundamental flaw in the Government’s constitutional guidelines.

†Now we come to the constitutional proposals. What are they? We have the President’s Council’s recommendations. They have made two sets of recommendations on central Government level. The one thing that these recommendations make quite clear is that as far as constitutional debate and constitutional argument is concerned, the President’s Council is a second-rate think-tank for retreaded politicians. All the key aspects of those recommendations were ignored. I know that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must have been embarrassed by the intelligence and the logic of those recommendations. Why, if that was not the case, did the Government find it necessary to formulate its own guidelines? Whether one agrees with those guidelines or not, at least they make some more sense than those given by the President’s Council. I am of the opinion that the first report of the President’s Council on the central Government was incomprehensible; it was an academic embarrassment. The second one was simply an attempt to flesh out the guidelines which the Government itself had formulated. What we have at the present time are the Government’s guidelines, but we do not know what the final package is going to be, and this is very important to remember. What do we know? We know there will be an Executive President, but we do not know what the limitations of his powers will be. We know there will be standing committees, but not what there composition will be. Those Standing Committees we know, in terms of the logic of the proposals, are crucial. The Government has handed out pamphlets and leaflets trying to explain the guidelines, and I must say that I have seldom come across a pamphlet that can be so misleading as this one handed out by the Government. [Interjections.] Let me refer to the first question—

The answer: “Yes”. Who do we think we are going to bluff with an answer like that? [Interjections.] We do not even bluff ourselves. Now for the second question—

The answer—

[Interjections.] Then there is the following question—

Now this is the most incredible logic I have ever come across, because the answer states—

But the Coloureds and Indians are going to serve in the government of the majority on the sufferance of the dominant party in the White chamber. We all know that. It is part of the logic. So they might as well sit here, because if one is going to entrench a 4:2:1 ratio, one could entrench it for this Parliament and also see to it that there are four Whites for every two Coloureds and one Asian. Then one would always have a dominant position. So it is simply misleading. We also know that there will be Standing Committees, but nowhere in these pamphlets are we told anything about what the position of the Opposition is going to be, what role it could possibly play. They are not interested in that. [Interjections.] We know that there will be a budget, but not how that budget will be passed. We therefore cannot discuss the merits of the detail because we have no detail. [Interjections.] Nor can an opposition discuss its own role in the new constitution because it lacks adequate information to assess its own significance in the envisaged new set-up. [Interjections.]

*These guidelines did not emanate from the President’s Council. They came from the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and planning and were approved by the NP congresses. After all, I am not a member of the NP congresses. [Interjections.]

†We are therefore confined to discussing the Government’s own guidelines, the way in which they came about and their general implication for constitutional development.

How did these guidelines come about? I am not going to give an historical analysis. In substantial detail and principle the guidelines that we have before us are more or less a reflection of the constitutional principles that we had in the 1977 proposals of the Government. Otherwise the Government would not have been able to rush them through the congresses the way it did. Then—in 1977—and now, the major obstacle to smooth an untroubled constitutional development has been the process that the Government has used to initiate constitutional reform, and I submit that the process the Government has initiated has built in a crisis of legitimacy into the new constitutional guidelines right from the outset. Why? Firstly because the Government formulated its own set of proposals. Then it had them endorsed by its own party congresses. Subsequently it tried to sell them to other interested parties. What are the dangers of such an approach? Firstly, it excludes parties from the initial bargaining process right from the outset. Secondly, the Government is then bound by the congresses to sell a policy rather than to negotiate in terms of a mandate. Thirdly, right at the outset the Government compromises other parties in terms of its own policies and principles. What would have been better? We believe that it would have been better for the Government to have gone to its party with a declaration of intent—as it has done in the past on other issues—and to have asked the party congresses for support to bargain in terms of that declaration of intent, then to have sought interested parties, in terms of that declaration of intent, and to have started negotiating with them. Out of that negotiation one could then have formulated constitutional guidelines which, at the outset, would have had some kind of support from the other groups. Then the parties could have gone back to their respective constituencies and have asked for endorsement. If it had been done in this way, the problem of legitimacy could have been coped with at the very outset.

I mean it when I say that given the difficulties I have just outlined, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is to be congratulated on what he has achieved. It must have been extremely difficult, and I do not mean this in any way sarcastically. On the contrary. He has worked very hard to achieve what he has achieved so far, and he has been very successful in that respect, but the problem of legitimacy still remains, and legitimacy has nothing to do with legality. Legitimacy has to do with the extent of support and co-operation that one can see voluntarily coming from other communities that have to participate in the new constitution. That crisis is still there.

What are our fundamental objections to these proposals? I want to mention only four. The one has been stated repeatedly in the Press. It is the exclusion of Blacks from the new constitution. I know the counter-argument on the part of the Government has been that they have not been excluded from the constitutional process, that adequate provision has already been made for them, etc. That does not depend on whether I say so or whether the hon. the Minister says so, but it depends on the degree to which those people who have to operate in terms of those constitutional structures are satisfied with the conditions under which they find themselves. There is definite evidence that they are not satisfied. In fact, the latest such evidence we have from Chief Buthelezi himself when he spoke at the Summer School on Thursday last week. I quote from that speech—

Then, with reference to constitutional proposals, he says—

If it is so that Blacks are satisfied with their position, no Black leader would speak like that, but they would be quite happy to co-operate.

Do you agree with him?

Obviously, I have said Blacks have been excluded from the new constitutional set-up and this has been borne out by what this gentleman himself has said. Let me make the point that Buthelezi is a moderate. He is an extremely moderate man, given the range of political opinion. If the Government’s constitutional guidelines are going to alienate moderate people, heaven help us when we really have to negotiate a new constitution!

The second major objection we have is related to the first one. A “constitution” happens to be the rules of the political game in which parties participate. According to those rules they compete for political power and try to get into government. Out present constitution is relatively neutral as far as the policies of parties are concerned. I can state my party’s policy, the governing NP can state its policy, and the CP and the NRP theirs. We can do so in terms of the prevailing rules of the game. What we are, however, doing now is that we are not only changing the rules of the game, but we are also institutionalizing a party’s policy as the constitution of South Africa. That is what we are doing. We are actually using one party’s policy and saying that that is now going to become the constitution of this country. [Interjections.] When we do that, we invite conflict right from the outset, because we compromise other parties immediately, before they can even participate in that constitution.

A third major objection we have to the guidelines is that no indication is given, that there is no declaration of intent, of how we are going to move away from racial discrimination in South Africa. It is almost as if the Government intends to paste, like political band-aid, a new constitution onto the discriminatory status quo. There is nothing that indicates how the Government hopes to achieve a dismantling of apartheid or discriminatory practices. In fact, some of the major aspects of the new constitution accept the continued existence of fundamental aspects of apartheid policy as a condition in order for that constitution to function.

That brings me to the fourth major objection, namely that it entrenches race and ethnicity in order to maintain White domination. There is no way in which we can bluff ourselves about it. There is a simple test question: Are we going to go for genuine proportionality in the new constitution or are we going to use the logic of proportionality in order to entrench White domination? We cannot lie to ourselves and to others about this. We have to be perfectly clear. These are then our major objections to these constitutional guidelines as they stand. We are willing to debate them with anybody and have tried to do so in the past.

What is the next step going to be? Obviously, the Government has given notice that the next step is that they will introduce legislation in Parliament. Should such a Bill be tabled, we intend to participate in debating and improving it through whatever stages it goes.

That is strange.

There is absolutely nothing strange about it. What is strange is that the hon. member does not have the intelligence to understand it. We have done it many times in the past.

†Given some of the hints and guidelines we have had from the Government so far, we as the official Opposition will be looking at the following aspects of the Bill in particular: Firstly, the possibility of opening up the Black political debate. We are going to try to see whether it is possible to move the Government to open up the Black political debate on constitutional development. Let me draw attention to one of the dangers of the guidelines as they stand at the moment. The Government is actually embarrassed in the sense that it cannot answer the question whether the Department of Co-operation and Development is a common concern or a particular concern in terms of the new constitutional proposals.

It is a common one.

If it is a common one, then surely Blacks have some right to discuss what is going to happen to them as well. If it is a particular one, then surely it cannot just depend on Whites, Coloureds and Asians. I suspect, Sir, what is going to happen is that there is progressively going to be a dismantling of the whole Co-operation and Development structure into other bodies. Eventually we will end up here and when we want to raise issues concerning Blacks, such as influx control, we will be told that it is none of our business because this is a White Chamber. The Coloureds would be told that it is none of their business because it is a Coloured Chamber. It will be said that the executive will deal with homeland government, with local government authorities and with Administration Boards. Then we will have polarized this country between Black and non-Black. I say this is a possibility, a real danger.

What we will also be looking at very closely will be the powers that are invisaged for the executive President and how those powers can be limited. This is not an ordinary executive President, as I understand it. The executive President is elected by 50 members of the National Party, by the legislature. He is therefore a creature of the legislature. He is not only a creature of the legislature but also of the National Party. How can one then say that he will be an independent President, who can bargain and be a conciliatory figure between contending parties in a consensual structure? It is not on. If he does not follow the policy of the caucus the caucus can always tell him: “Dit is nou alles goed en wel, maar ons is nog die mense wat jou kies.”

The other thing we will be looking at is the entrenchment of race and racial domination. It is all right to say there will be proportional representation in the ratio of 4:2:1 on standing committees. That may reflect the existing proportions, but we know that demographically by the year 2020 there will be more Coloureds and Indians than Whites. Are we going to follow through proportional representation? Are we? Are we going to say that we follow the logic of proportionality or not? Are we going to entrench White racial domination? The Government has not answered these questions. It glibly comes and gives us nice sort of pamphlets and talks on television but it does not answer these questions.

Another thing we will be looking at, for example, will be the composition and the new constitutional role of the President’s Council. The President’s Council suddenly becomes pivotal in the new set-up. Up until now it has been an advisory body. The Government could listen to its advice or could ignore it. Anybody could ignore them and they could sit down again to try to advise again and be ignored again. However, in the new set-up the President’s Council will have a deadlock-breaking function and will be an intimate part of the legislative process. The proposed President’s Council can in conjunction with the new President make laws over which the other Chambers have no control. So we will be looking at that very carefully.

We will also be looking at the position, the significance and the constitutional role of opposition parties in relation to all the forums of executive decision-making. This I want to make very clear: So far the Government and the President’s Council have been totally disparaging as far as the Opposition is concerned. I am not only talking about the PFP, but about any Opposition, including an Opposition in the Coloured Chamber, the Indian Chamber and in the envisaged White Chamber. If there is any sense of democracy, if there is any sense of negotiating politics, if there is any sense of allowing the wider spectrum of political opinion-making to play a role in our constitutional structures, the Government must come clear as to what they see the role of Oppositions are going to be in the different Chambers. The Government has to spell it out very clearly.

These are the issues we will be looking at in the Select Committee that will be formed in order to debate a new constitution. However, once it is all over, what then? Once the new constitution has been accepted by Parliament, what then? I want to make it quite clear that it has never been, nor will it be, the philosophy of the PFP to abdicate from institutionalized political power if it can contribute to evolutionary and peaceful change. I want to repeat it! It has never been the philosophy of the PFP to abdicate from institutionalized political power if it can contribute to evolutionary and peaceful change. However, those who control such institutionalized power at the moment, viz. the NP, can abuse it to neutralize and render impotent the role of other parties in the process of constitutional transition. They can do it. There is one thing I want to say to the Government. When I look at the year 1990 and after that and I look at the problems that we are going to have to solve, when I look at the urban influx that we are going to experience, the problems of urbanization and the development of urban communities, and I ask myself the question: Will South Africa be governed with stability, with peace and with co-operation by a three-chamber Parliament excluding Blacks, the answer is “No, we shall not”. This, I believe, is already part of the past of South Africa; it is not part of our future. But it may be a necessary transitional step towards that future. Therefore it is not the PFP that is in the dock, but the Government. The country must not look towards us and ask us what we are going to do. The country must look to this Government and ask them one simple question: Do you believe that legitimate opposition has a role to play in peaceful evolutionary change, yes or no? If the Government says “yes”, then they must show it in the detail as well as in the spirit of their constitutional programme, and you will find, Mr. Speaker, the PFP more than willing to participate in bringing about such evolutionary change with anyone who is interested in doing so. But the responsibility is on the Government. The responsibility is not on the Opposition. The Government must tell us: This is the role that the Opposition can play within this new structure. They have not done so. Until they do so the Opposition will withhold its judgment so that they can see what they are letting themselves into.

I have singled out four issues to highlight and motivate a motion of no confidence. I referred to the Seychelles to illustrate incompetence and the dangers of destabilization. I referred to Ingwavuma and Kangwane to highlight the extreme arrogance of this Government towards others. I have referred to the meeting between Buthelezi and Matanzima to illustrate the collapse of its policies towards Blacks, and I have referred to the constitutional guidelines to highlight the inadequacy of constitutional reform, given the challenges of facing us. Incompetence, arrogance, policy failure and inadequate reform; each one is sufficient on its own for a motion of no confidence. Together they are a crushing indictment of the Government’s inability to come to grips with the challenges of the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition resorted to a whole lot of vague arguments today. [Interjections.] It was only at the end of his speech, when he referred to constitutional matters, that he tried to be a little more specific. The fact of the matter is, however, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition bowled himself and his party out completely on this point. Thanks to the policy of the NP, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people need no longer use the PFP as their mouthpiece, but communicate directly with the Government. On that score the credibility of the PFP has been destroyed, and it will not pay them to try to scramble back as far as that is concerned.

As I have already said, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to broach a whole series of circumstances here. In this way he tried to attack, he tried to make innuendos, to criticize, to disparage and to make very vague accusations. An Opposition probably has every right to do so, and therefore I have no fault to find with this. However, it is not possible, within the space of a half-hour, to reply fully to the question of whether or not the allegations were well-founded. But that question will definitely receive a comprehensive reply during the course of this week-long debate.

What I want to allege at this stage is that we heard no positive solutions from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In my home town in the North West the local authority had a very zealous foreman. He was very particular about submitting a report on his activities at every monthly meeting of the council. On one occasion he had been away on vacation, and it so happened that the council was having a meeting on the day he returned to work. Nevertheless the foreman still submitted a report as follows: “This month I wish to report that I have nothing to report.” When it came to solutions to South Africa’s problems, the Leader of the Opposition also had nothing to report.

Mr. Speaker, as a reflection of confidence in the Government there is no better proof than a report which appeared in the Business Times yesterday. That report read: “Get ready to get rich.” “Where?”, you may ask, Mr. Speaker: In South Africa, Sir. That article advanced a whole number of reasons as to why a bright future is awaiting entrepreneurs in South Africa and why inflation will reach a single figure within the next year to 18 months. The report is based on a sound economic investigation. What is important is that in the entire article, no negative accusation is levelled at the Government. Of course South Africa has its problems. In fact, no country experiences constant prosperity. All we ask is that we should, as far as possible, be measured against the rest of the world. As far as the First World is concerned, we are among the foremost countries, and as far as the Third World is concerned we are way out front. In the Cape Times of 24 January 1983, reference was made to a world-wide survey in which it was alleged that economically, South Africa was the most beneficial country to live in. The survey expresses this in the following terms: “One can live like a king on little money.” Why? In the first place because the Government ensures effective fiscal and monetary measures, measures which keep inflation in check …

Where do you get that from?

… in order to stabilize the international status of the Republic by way of a sound balance of payments. As far as the balance of payments is concerned, the position at present is virtually neutral, in reality it is changing into a surplus. I am saying this for the information of the hon. member for Yeoville. The Government has an imaginative plan in respect of decentralization and regional development which will carry prosperity and development to the farthest corners of the country. In addition the Government is seeing to the training of our manpower, inter alia by means of a resourceful in-service training scheme, in which 1 million workers are at present participating.

The Government is ensuring stability and is prepared to make adjustments and changes in the economic, the constitutional and other spheres to carry this stability into the future.

Mr. Speaker, such a Government does not deserve a motion of no confidence. To tell the truth, a motion of no confidence in such a case is completely inappropriate. But Opposition politics also entails responsibilities, and I am going to keep the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, in the times in which we are living the history of Africa is clear to everyone who is prepared to believe what their eyes see. And this is that political stability is only possible in an atmosphere of stability. The opposite is also true, namely that any political objective, however well-intentioned, which undermines the economic stability and confidence of a country, leads to chaos. The economic and political emancipation of the Third World sector of our country’s population is taking place with realistic regard to the lessons of Africa, and in this emancipatory process, to replace the White domination (baasskap) of the HNP/CP with the Black domination (baasskap) of the PFP is an exercise in political futility. What the NP is striving for is a situation of political equilibrium between peoples and population groups in South Africa, with two ultimate objectives.

You are a verkrampte Prog.

The first of those objectives is that we should not dominate one another politically and the other is that the delicate balance between the political emancipation of the Third World component of our population on the one hand and order and stability and prosperity on the other side of the scale, should not be disturbed. For if we allow that equilibrium to be disturbed, we will be no exception in Africa. Unilateral solutions do not work, and it is of no avail for a group of Whites to acclaim one another in the Skilpad Hall or elsewhere on a unilateral resolution adopted in respect of the Coloureds. A significant proportion of the Coloured population must themselves see their own salvation in a plan which is jointly negotiated. Only then can there be progress, and this is indeed the case today.

This is the 35th consecutive year in which the NP has been in power, and during this period South Africa has achieved unequalled success in every possible sphere. At present the political development of the Brown and Black people in this country are among the Government’s highest priorities. In this respect, progress and success have not been lacking. Four independent national Black States, which the Opposition are trying to ignore, were established. One of those four, Bophuthatswana, has even become an exporter of food; probably the only Black state in Africa to accomplish that achievement.

The hon. member for Yeoville himself attended the recent independence celebrations of Bophuthatswana. I believe that this also indicates progress on the part of the member of the PFP. [Interjactions.]

President Matanzima of Transkei boasts that negotiations in connection with the Black federal idea are taking place in his country, on free land. As an Afrikaner I understand his feelings and emotions when he talks about free land. Let there be deficiencies. The mere fact that Transkei is free and independent and that its President prides himself on that fact, is an undeniable demonstration of progress.

The world has confidence in this country. Foreign investments and enterprises testify to that, particularly the recent IMF loan of more than a milliard rand to the Republic of South Africa in spite of objections from the UNO, the Third World and others. What is most important of all, is that the voters of South Africa have confidence in this Government. The results of the recent by-elections testify to that. [Interjections] Stellenbosch in particular spoke harshly and clearly, where both the PFP ad the CP candidates lost their deposits. [Interjections.] In fact, the PFP have a candidate whom they can blame for thoughtlessness, but what does the CP have to say? [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the CP professes to be leading a national resistance to this Government, but in the Mecca of Afrikanerdom his party loses its deposit. [Interjections.] All these things are the fruits of the NP with its positive and realistic policy. [Interjections.]

Order!

Renewal through applied thought and renewal through deeds is what the NP Government accomplishes when South Africa’s interests require, and in particular the NP Government furnishes strong and purposeful leadership. [Interjections.] Of course we can be criticized. That is, after all, what this debate is concerned with. However, the rules of democracy require a responsible opposition party to offer an alternative. The question now is this: What does the PFP offer besides boycott and rejection? Every child who throws a temper tantrum on the carpet offers exactly the same alternative. [Interjections.] The CP offers an alternative to the present Coloured politics, an alternative which the hon. Leader of that party wrote off as impracticable only yesterday. [Interjections.] Now the hon. Leader of the CP is offering the naïve excuse that he has once again given serious thought to the matter. What an admission of thoughtlessness! [Interjections.] Who can have confidence in such a party? [Interjections.]

The present opposition politics in South Africa is not only a failure; it is a spectacular failure, primarily owing to a lack of leadership. [Interjections.] One cannot hide the truth behind glib talk and a play on words.

You ought to know! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, a grandmother told her granddaughter the story of Noah’s ark. The ravages of time were clearly discernible on the grandmother’s face. The granddaughter then asked: “Tell me, grannie, were you also in the ark?” The grandmother took exception to this of course and said: “No, my child, I was not in the ark”. To which the granddaughter replied: “Then why did you not drown?” [Interjections.]

You see, Mr. Speaker, one cannot disguise the facts, regardless of glib talk and a play on words. [Interjections.]

I shall refer briefly to the leadership of the two largest Opposition parties. The hon. Leader of the CP said he was ashamed of clergymen who used the pulpit to preach politics instead of the message of redemption. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the CP also said that forcing together the dissimilar groups amounted to blatant tyranny. The hon. the Leader also said that he rejected the allegation that conservatism was godless. Those are impressive words, and I agree 100% with them. However, having said this to one another and having applauded one another for doing so, we have still not solved one iota of our factual political problem. In other words, the hon. member shunts his jubilant supporters on to a side-track, while the real political problem and the opportunities for the solution of that problem pass him by. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does precisely the same thing, but in a different way. He shunts his people on to a side-track by saying: “reject”, “boycott”.

Rubbish!

What political frustration for a country struggling with an almost superhuman political problem! I note that in the mouthpiece of the HNP, Die Afrikaner of 27 October and 3 November, approving reference is made to the Leader of the CP in the following terms: The hon. member is described as a hesitator, a vacillator, an egg-dancer, a turncoat and as a person skilled in the art of playing with words. However, I have never seen or heard this ever being written or said about people such as Dr. D. F. Malan, Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, Mr. J. G. Strijdom, nor even by the most vehement political enemies of the present Prime Minister.

The irony of the matter is in fact that the hon. the Leader of the CP has to go with his tail between his legs to those people who disparage him personally in this way to seek political support. I ask: What kind of leadership is that?

In The Cape Times of 27 January 1983 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia—

Shortly after accepting the leadership of his party the hon. member expressed the following opinion, during an interview with Die Burger on 24 January 1980—

That was when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was still his own boss, and we on this side also liked those words.

†Now, Mr. Speaker, change is taking place in South Africa, change for the better. I call the hon. member for Sandton as a witness. In The Cape Times of 21 January 1983 he wrote—

The political dispensation for Coloureds, which has been accepted by an important section of that community, is a classical example of peaceful evolutionary change if there ever was one. The question is: Why does the hon. the Leader fail to give his support in terms of his undertaking and in terms of his stated political commitment? The fact that Blacks are excluded, is not a reasonable answer. No hon. member is precluded from stating the case of the Black people of South Africa in this House.

There are two possible reasons for the negative attitude of the hon. the leader of the Opposition. The first was advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville in an article in the Sunday Times of 16 January 1983. He wrote—

This is important—

Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with respect, encourage Coloureds and Indians to remain out of the system in which he is taking part? If so, he is being queried by the hon. member for Yeoville. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition declares that he will accept constitutional change for Coloureds and Indians only on his conditions, namely that Blacks are included, he is again queried by the hon. member for Yeoville.

The second reason was advanced by Mr. Gavin Relly, chairman of Anglo-American, in the Sunday Times of 11 October 1981. He wrote—

This view is supported by the London Daily Telegraph as reported in the Sunday Times of 23 January 1983—

I ask whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is forced by a power clique of radicals to resist reform, and, if so, for what reason.

*The hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes this House a clear reply, because there are people within the ranks of his party who allege that terrorists who openly practise violence and revolution, are freedom fighters. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also owes the hon. member for Yeoville a clear reply, because the political judgment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is being questioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trapped between the voice of reason, as expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville and in this case the hon. member for Sandton, on the one hand and the demands of the radical power clique within his party on the other. No wonder that in the same article in the Cape Times he refers to certain circumstances under which he says—

How is that for leadership?

I admit that under the NP regime South Africa will be placed under tremendous pressure. The question is: Can we resist that pressure. The answer is “yes, but only if there are four elements present”. The first is political sovereignty; the second a strong independent Defence Force; the third a strong, independent economy and the fourth and most important, if there is the desire among the people in the Government of the country to create and promote a dispensation which people want to defend. Under the National Party regime, all these four elements are present, in addition to strong leadership, and therefore we can go forward to meet the future with faith and confidence.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I should just like to eliminate a misunderstanding. The hon. the Prime Minister moved a motion of condolence here this afternoon relating to the death of a former State President. I was under the impression that the Conservative Party would also be granted the opportunity to associate itself with the motion, but—and this is no reflection on the Chair—apparently, due to a misunderstanding, he did not see me. On behalf of the CP I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister.

We listened to the speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. He touched on a number of matters. I shall not go into his speech in detail. I just wish to refer to a few minor matters. I think that we would have been grateful, on behalf of pensioners and many of our lower paid people, if something had been said and done about inflation, because the fact of the matter is that the people to whom I have just referred are experiencing poverty to an increasing extent and would welcome steps to curb the erosion of the value of our money, or would welcome any compensation for this.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made somewhat derisive reference to the CP. I understand hon. members on the opposite being a little embarrassed, because it is not every day that one can draw almost 10 000 people, people who, once they had heard the standpoints and policies of a new party, enthusiastically supported them. [Interjections.] What is more, I held a meeting in the major town of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s constituency. His people were there to ask cutting questions, but in the major town of his constituency the CP nevertheless obtained a resounding motion of confidence … [Interjections.] I do not wish to imply by that … [Interjections.] I shall go again, and I shall go to more important places than that too.

The hon. Deputy Minister referred to by-elections, but the by-elections in which the CP participated took place at a stage when the CP was still a very young party. [Interjections.] Oh, yes! The hon. members over there who are acquainted with the history of the NP should just go and re-read it to see how true are the words of the prophet: For who has despised the day of small things? [Interjections.]

I want to go further. The by-elections did not achieve for the CP the kind of success of which we could be very proud, but the results were nothing to be ashamed of, either. [Interjections.] By no means! Germiston District showed that the conservative vote was in a majority of 1 330 as against the NP. [Interjections.] If the hon. members have so much to say about the HNP, there is just one thing I want to say. I prefer to speak to members of the HNP, even though I differ with them. But with whom do those hon. members speak? Is there any fault to be found with the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister spoke to Kaunda, and who is he? [Interjections.]

Let us just speak about the question of speaking. [Interjections.] I can understand why the hon. members are nervous. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has worn out his knees crawling to speak to the leader of the Labour Party. [Interjections.]

That is a lie!

How often has he not spoken to him. Now he is sensitive about it. [Interjections.]

Order!

He pleads. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say “That is a lie”?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In all courtesy towards you I wish to point out that the hon. member said the hon. the Minister has worn out his knees crawling to meet the leader of the Labour Party. This happens outside this House. With all respect I wish to appeal to you on this point, i.e. that the hon. the Minister cannot be compelled to withdraw his statement. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister said “it is a lie”. The word “lie” is unparliamentary.

I accept your ruling, Sir. However, I shall deal with the hon. member in this House.

If it will help the hon. the Minister, I shall withdraw the word “crawl”, but then I think I have reason to expect that the word “hangdog” (“druipstert”) should also be withdrawn with regard to my actions vis-à-vis other people.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Is it parliamentary to intimate that the hon. the Minister has worn out his knees crawling to the leader of the Labour Party? [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I wish to address you on this point. The connotation attached to this expression is an unflattering one, and accordingly I believe that it is unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

Order! The word “has worn out his knees crawling” are not pleasant words, but they are certainly not unparliamentary. In any event I wish to call upon the hon. member for Waterberg to moderate his language.

I am most happy to comply with you request. The CP wishes to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

1. (1) the new constitutional policy announced by the Government—
   1. (a) departs from the policy of separate development;
   2. (b) destroys the full right of self-determination of the Whites;
   3. (c) breaks down the sovereignty of the White Parliament; and
   4. (d) does not carry a mandate from the electorate of the Republic of South Africa; and
2. (2) this House is in favour of the maintenance of separate development, the right to self-determination of peoples and the sovereignty of the White Parliament,”.

In recent times we have heard a great deal about reform and renewal. The year 1983 was given as the year of reform and renewal. I contend that 1983 will be a year of life-and-death political struggle for the Whites. The question is this: What has happened in our country to cause people who until recently— perhaps until one, two or three years ago— advocated separate development with the utmost firmness and conviction, rejected all power-sharing and rejected mixed government, to suddenly sing a different tune and advocate a different policy? Separate development is being thrown overboard. Some people are urging the Whites to forfeit their political power. It is being said that the Whites do not have rights, only privileges. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said so in the Vaal Triangle. He said that the Whites would have to prove themselves—as if they have not yet done anything. It is being said that the Whites are only a minority group like any other; we are, relatively speaking, one nation together with Coloureds and Indians; we are one nation together with people who say that they are Black, but now, all of a sudden, we must say that they are one nation together with us.

The question is: What kind of political philosophy or philosophy of life has taken over in certain circles in South Africa? Is it the philosophy of a man like Toynbee, who said that every civilization is faced with new challenges that have to be accepted? If the challenges are not accepted, one goes under, and if one does accept them, one is faced with new challenges. Or is it the philosophy of a Spengler, which amounts to the idea that every generation, and a civilization, is like an individual, with his years of youth, his riper years and after that, decline and inevitable downfall? Politically speaking it seems to me as if people are now assuming that the Whites have played their role and have achieved the highest point of their political say and sovereignty through their own Parliament. Apparently that period has now come to an end, and the Whites are on their way out. It seems to me as if people accept this as a necessary fact of history. If that is people’s standpoint, then to us that is a totally alien and unacceptable philosophy of life. There is profound alarm in the country concerning various matters. I am not going to follow the path of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, although he raised certain points with which the CP agrees. [Interjections.] There is a form of intimidation that is being practised in this country, and we are the party at the receiving end. I challenged the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications from a public platform to deny that my telephone conversations were being tapped. He can reply to that in due course. I want to know whether my telephone conversations are being tapped or not.

During the by-election pensioners were threatened and told to vote for the NP or else they would lose their pensions. [Interjections.] Those stories were told in Parys. In the constituency that I represent, people told me that the guardian member of Parliament—the hon. member for Potgietersrus— is spreading the story that he can have agricultural credit loans approved because he is a Nationalist and the CP member will no longer be able to manage this.

We should also like to know what the country’s involvement was and what the involvement of highly placed officials was in the Seychelles incident. We are also concerned about the presence of a reputed Russian spy in a position of authority in the Navy. I shall say nothing more about this. We have already intimated than when the Defence Force acts in the interests of South Africa, this party stands behind the Defence Force. However, this phenomenon is cause for concern, and we trust that there will be clarity in this regard. Cicero once said that a nation can survive its fools, even those who are ambitious, but not treason in the inner circles!

We should also like to have greater clarity concerning the matter of Ingwavuma. We voted in favour of the principle that members of a specific nation should not be divided into various States. We were in favour of the Swazi nation being brought together in one State. However the fact of the matter is that the population of Ingwavuma is not Swazi. Sometime ago the commandos were still being sent there to remove a few Swazis. After all, it is not Swazis who live there. On the basis of what principle is that territory, then, to be incorporated in Swaziland?

We also have misgivings about the utilization of public money for the distribution of NP propaganda. This brochure that was distributed concerning a new dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians is surely NP propaganda. The other pamphlet to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred is also NP propaganda. It is being distributed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. In the good old days of the NP, when the then chief leader, Dr. Verwoerd, made a fantastic speech in this House, the NP distributed that speech at its own expense. I refer to the pamphlet entitled “Die Keuse: Rasvermengde Vaderland of Blank Suid-Afrika”. At that time the NP distributed its own propaganda.

I should also like to have clarity concerning the inconsistency in the approach adopted to the matter of South West. On the one hand, as far as South Africa is concerned, we were opposed to the idea of a federation, the idea of a mixing of the races. However, within South West Africa this is now the policy, and people are being asked to approve of it and to work towards it.

The concern, however, goes further than that, and the primary cause is the constitutional reform that we are faced with at present. It is notable that on the basis of a survey which it carried out, the HSRC found that approximately 10% of the people it approached understood what was at issue. Efforts have definitely been made to gloss over certain facets of that scheme. Some people still think that they are being presented with a scheme in which there will be three Parliaments. They cannot believe that it will no longer be three Parliaments but that their Parliament, this sovereign Parliament, will be degraded into a small chamber whose authority will be no greater than that of the chamber for the Indians in the proposed tricameral Parliament. They think that their own chamber, the present White House of Assembly, will have the same authority as this Parliament. Voters have been assured by the NP on its word of honour that there will be no non-White Ministers. [Interjections.] I am now speaking about voters who listen to the propaganda of members of the NP in the Parys constituency.

Who are they? Name them.

Voters have been given the assurance, they have been told that if non-Whites enter the Cabinet, then it will only be in a minor and subordinate position. Or they were asked: What objection can you have if we appoint a Coloured as a Deputy Minister for Coloured education alone? What is meant thereby is that he will not be able to progress any further, or that there will be no other non-White members of the Cabinet.

The Government’s proposals will spell the end of democracy in South Africa. The first reason I wish to put forward for this statement is that the Government will create a President’s Council and that President’s Council will, according to the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister in Bloemfontein, have the final say in the event of a clash among the various chambers. Therefore there will no longer be a sovereign Parliament. The final say will be transferred to that multiracial, mixed President’s Council, and that council is not directly responsible to the people. It is a multiracial body that is not the supreme authority of any specific people. Nor is it the supreme authority of the Whites. However, it will have the final say over the Whites’ supreme authority.

This means that the White people will not have a supreme authority of its own. It will be dependent for the exercise of its power on the consent of the two other chambers that, for all practical purposes, will be able to exercise a veto over the White chamber. That body will become the storm centre of a power struggle among the various groups, because the struggle will be to obtain the majority in that body.

I say that this system will spell the end of democracy. Those three chambers, the idea of one Parliament comprising three chambers representative of various peoples is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous in the eyes of people in the ranks of British parliamentarians, who have asked: “Can you imagine! One Parliament, three Houses of Commons! It is ridiculous.”

What is more, it was shot down in 1977. It was rejected by the Government of Mr. Vorster, and hon. members who were in the Cabinet of Mr. Vorster are still sitting on that side. It was repudiated by the present hon. Prime Minister in reaction to the speech by Mr. Piet Marais in 1978. That is so.

We talk about democracy. Let me just quote what was said by Lijphart, an author who is often quoted in this House—

On the one hand one destroys one democracy for the whole country the moment one establishes different chambers for the different population groups. On the other hand, one destroys various democracies by forcing them together into a multiracial Parliament under a multiracial Cabinet and under the final control of a multiracial President’s Council. After all, that is not democracy!

The great reformer John Calvin—and these are the words which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance also quoted here—said that forcing together of the dissimilar is tyranny. In this instance, too, this is just what will happen. [Interjections.]

I want to go even further and contend that the constitutional proposals of the Government make a farce of the concept of self-determination. They make a farce of self-determination. I encountered the following definition of self-determination by Prof. Du Toit of the University of the Orange Free State; he says—

Prof. Du Toit goes on to say—

And this is important—

I believe it is clear that there will be no question of this self-determination in the Government’s plans. The sovereignty of the White Parliament will be finished. After all, there will no longer be a White Parliament with sovereign powers. And when the information documents of the NP state that the composition and character of the White House of Assembly should be preserved, I say that they cannot be preserved, that it is obvious that they cannot be preserved when it is degraded into a single chamber which, in the exercise of its power, is checkmated by two other chambers with equal authority. Surely, then, there is no question of the sovereignty of the White Parliament; nor of White self-determination. [Interjections.]

In 1977 the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs drew up an information document for the NP. In it was stated that the White Parliament retained all powers, except those which it chose to transfer. In that document it states that the White Cabinet will continue to handle portfolios as before, with the possibility that the Ministries for Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs may lapse in due course. We were given the assurance that this Parliament retained all its power, that the Cabinet would continue as had been the case up to that stage. [Interjections.] That is what was said. That was official NP propaganda. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the NP are no longer acquainted with their own propaganda. [Interjections.] That statement …

The only person you haven’t quoted yet is Mike Schutte! [Interjections.]

That statement meant that it would be a White Government by a sovereign White Parliament.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Of course it is true! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, what I am referring to now—and this is true—is information documents of the NP. I do have them before me. There is no point in hon. members trying to waste my time. [Interjections.]

The document went on to warn against the danger that the Council of Cabinets could become a growth point of steadily increasing powers at the expense of Parliament. What assurance were we given then? The assurance was that as long as the NP was in power, that would not happen. And now? Now the NP is still in power, and now these things are happening. Now the President’s Council is being given the highest authority. The White Parliament is being abolished and in its place there will be a little chamber, a very cramped, poky little chamber, and in it a few people, people with a very minor, insignificant function which would only relate to matters that concern the Whites alone. The White Government will disappear and White self-determination will be relativized and reduced to matters of religion, care of the elderly, education and a few matters of that nature; and that will be all. [Interjections.]

There will be no sovereign White Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister said that in the event of a clash between the chambers concerning a matter of common importance, the President’s Council will advise the State President, and his ruling will be final. I believe it is very clear where the power will lie in that case. [Interjections.]

On one occasion the hon. the Prime Minister made a very clear statement with which I should like to associate myself. It was a statement which he made in his New Year’s message 10 years ago. On that occasion he referred to Cape Nationalists who, together with fellow party members elsewhere in the country, had adopted a standpoint and made unambiguous statements. I quote what he said—

[Interjections.] I have no fault to find with this statement of the hon. the Minister. All I find fault with is that he has abandoned this standpoint and exchanged it for a dispensation in which there will no longer be a White sovereign Parliament but a little chamber which will be checkmated in the new dispensation by a chamber in which a small minority of South Africa’s people will be represented—fewer than 1 million Indians. [Interjections.] Fewer than 1 million Indians can checkmate the White chamber in the new dispensation. I say that there will no longer be a sovereign Parliament. I could elaborate on this, while I am referring to the Indians. This party, the CP, is not racist in the sense that it does not wish other people to have a place in this country. [Interjections.] This party can look the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, that eloquent and longwinded Minister, in the eye and tell him that this party wants more for those people and wants to make their politics more meaningful, than he does. This party advocates a political dispensation in which one does not deprive the Whites of their right to self-determination in the name of Christian love and justice.

The great Christian!

I say that the chamber of a small minority group, the Indians will be granted authority equal to that of the White chamber. They are the representatives of fewer than 1 million people. Nevertheless they can veto the decisions of the Whites, 4,6 million people. They can put forward proposals which could make the Whites totally powerless and compel the President to obtain the final say from the multiracial President’s Council. I say that this is ridiculous. Surely it is ridiculous to speak about White self-determination and political autonomy, the right to determine political status and full freedom without interference from others, and then to praise this dispensation as a dispensation for self-determination.

I wish to say a few words about the reaction of the Coloured Labour Party, and I want to refer specifically to the leader of that party. Surely the future President will have to appoint that person in his Cabinet. Nevertheless he differs fundamentally with the Government’s proposals and is far more radical in his politics than the Progressive Federal Party. He is far more radical. He says that he is Black; he does not want to say he is Brown. He says that he will not rest before the system of “one man, one vote” is introduced in South Africa. He says that the Blacks must enter our Parliament. He utterly rejects the Group Areas Act and the system of separate schools. He is going to become part of the system in order to destroy the system. That man’s co-operation is now being praised by the Government and he is being praised for a gesture of unity. That man is now to become a joint ruler of the country, and therefore a joint ruler of the Whites as well. I say that I, as a White person, do not accept that. [Interjections.] I say that increasing numbers of Whites in South Africa will not accept that. We do not accept a Government for Whites that is not chosen by the Whites. That is our standpoint.

I want to level a warning. The Conservative Party is being accused of advocating a policy that will lead to confrontation in South Africa. This policy of the Government is built-in confrontation. That confrontation has already begun in that confrontation has been created within the ranks of the Whites. To those who reproach and threaten us and say that we must consider the leftist elements in the Black and Brown ranks, we say that we shall consider them but that if we are told that we must respect those people’s wishes and accommodate their demands …

[Inaudible.]

No, I say “if’. [Interjections.] After all, the argument is put forward that there is supposedly unrest in the ranks of the Blacks and that if those people are not satisfied, there will be a revolution in the country. To that I wish to reply that there are people in the ranks of the Whites, too, who say that we must stop provoking them with a political policy and a political system that will deprive them of their self-determination and subject them to a mixed and multiracial Government in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in certain respects the hon. member for Water-berg made a disturbing speech here this afternoon. It was disturbing since at its conclusion there was a clear message that there are Whites in South Africa who, might resort to violence. I wish to say this to the hon. member for Waterberg: If he wishes to jeopardize the future of the White man, he must speak the way he did here this afternoon. We shall have something more to say about that this afternoon.

You are a “hensop-per”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Kuruman refer to the hon. member for Pretoria Central as a “hensopper”?

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman must withdraw that remark.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Waterberg spoke about and defined the right of self-determination. He said that the right of self-determination is the right of every population group to make political and cultural decisions with regard to its own territory. In view of the realities of South Africa, this is the most ridiculous argument or the most ridiculous definition I have ever heard. What is a population group? The Portuguese-speaking people of South Africa are a population group. Is the hon member now prepared to say, on the basis of his definition, the the Portuguese may have a territory in which they make their own decisions, politically and culturally? [Interjections.] One cannot overlook the ridiculousness and the outrageousness of this remark of the hon. member.

There is something else too. Every now and then the hon. member referred to self-determination and to the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination of a people can never be an absolute right. Nor can the right of self-determination of a country ever be an absolute right. It is limited and confined, inter alia by the right of self-determination of other nations and people. When we speak about the politics of South Africa and about self-determination, we must see the right of self-determination of the Whites in relation to the right of self-determination of the other peoples, and the hon. member for Waterberg has not done so. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterberg referred inter alia to Stellenbosch. Well, I am a Tukkie and I have never been very fond of the people of Stellenbosch, but on 4 November I was really extremely proud of the Maties— and that is a fact. [Interjections.]

When the hon. member for Waterberg tried to deny the fact that he is negotiating with the HNP, he referred to talks which the hon. the Prime Minister had with Pres. Kaunda. I ask him across the floor of this House whether he is opposed to the Prime Minister of South Africa holding talks with Pres. Kaunda? [Interjections.] Is it the standpoint of the CP that the South African Prime Minister should not hold talks with Pres. Kaunda? [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Waterberg does not reply to this question, there is no sense in his argument.

The constitutional plan of the Government has become a focal point for attacks in this House, a focal point for the PFP and a focal point for the CP. A characteristic of the attack launched against the Government, is that there is little difference between the viciousness and the aggressiveness of the attacks which have come from these two sides. In general, too, concerning what happens in South Africa, there is no difference in the viciousness and aggressiveness of the attacks by the radical right and the radical left in this regard. Both the radical left and the radical right wish to use their opposition to the Government’s constitutional plan to bring the Government to its knees. However, I just wish to say this: We are aware that there are differences between the radical left and the radical right—we do not wish to suggest today that they think about things in the same way, since this would be incorrect—but a limited partnership has developed in this regard among a number of interesting people, people who agree and work together to get at the Government on the basis of its constitutional plan and try to bring it to its knees. Who are these people? On the left one has the ANC, and on the right, the AWB. [Interjections.] On the left one has the political clergyman with the razor-sharp tongue, Dr. Allan Boesak, and on the right, the political clergyman with the silver tongue, the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] I see in a report in Die Vaderland that a young doctoral student of the University of Stellenbosch, Dr. Johan Cilliers, has written a doctoral thesis in which he analyses the sermons of Dr. Allan Boesak and those of the hon. member for Waterberg. This study has been accepted as a doctoral thesis at the University of Stellenbosch. According to the report there is one important similarity between the left and the right in this regard, and that is that they both misuse the Bible in their sermons and, in fact, set politics above the Bible. [Interjections.] Let us take a closer look at who these people are who are united in opposition to the Government. They are the Middletons and the Mulders, they are the United Democratic Front, which was formed the other day by a group of radical leftists, and they are the developing alliance between the HNP and the CP on the right. [Interjections.] On the left we have the Suzmans and on the right we have the Spoegmans. [Interjections.] Under the pretence of an opposition to the Government’s constitutional plan… [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterkloof is interrupting me. I should have said that one has the Hulleys on the left, and the Langleys on the right. They are also in cahoots in this regard. [Interjections.]

And you are Progs.

Under the pretence of an effort to stop the Government with its constitutional plans, the CP has begun to move closer and closer to the HNP. The CP is knocking at the door of the HNP, and I understand that the only practical problem as regards the unification of these two parties is that they cannot decide who should stand in Waterberg. However, spiritually and emotionally they are one. The CP’s see themselves as HNP’s and the HNP’s see themselves as CP’s and there they sit. They are a lot of HNP’s. [Interjections.]

And you are a Prog.

The hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Waterkloof are dyed-in-the-wool HNPs. [Interjections.] The question is now: Who are the HNPs?

Are you still a security risk?

If I had to consider now who the HNPs are, and pass judgment on them, I could do no better than turn to the words of the hon. member for Waterberg …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Jeppe ask whether the hon. member who is speaking is still a security risk?

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked that because the hon. member for Innesdal implied it. I therefore simply want to know whether or not he is a security risk.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Waterberg said of the HNP that they were bedevilling race relations in South Africa. Just before the general election in 1981—less than two years ago—he stated in Wonder-boom that the letters HNP stood for the “Haat-en-Nyd” Party. That was his opinion of the HNP. At that time I agreed with him, and I still do. The hon. member for Waterberg came to this House under the banner of the NP after having conducted an election, not against the Progs, but against the HNP. In Waterberg he said: Vote for me, since the HNP is bedevilling race relations. HNP stands for the “Haat-en-Nyd” Party. [Interjections.] The question which arises today, is what has happened between 1981 and 1983? [Interjections.] Has the HNP changed, and has Jaap Marais changed? Has his policy changed? Have his principles changed? Surely we know that Jaap Marais does not change. He is incapable of developing ideas. He is incapable of spiritual self-enrichment. He is a political fossil. He does not change. However, the hon. member for Waterberg has changed. How, then, has he changed? He has changed in the sense that he has progressed from the NP’s political environment of accommodation and negotiation to the hatred and malice approach in South Africa. He has progressed from the NP to being part of the hatred and malice approach in South Africa.

This has far-reaching implications. What does it signify when a man makes that emotional and spiritual jump in less than two years? It signifies that he suffers from an inner uncertainty. It signifies opportunism on his part. It signifies poor leadership. It signifies an emotional recklessness. It signifies political immaturity. It signifies a lack of insight.

The Afrikaner nation, whose interests are at stake, will reject the hon. member for Waterberg, and they will continue to do so. We have heard across the floor of this House—it has been stated very frequently during the past year or so—that the CP was established on the basis of what is in the interests of the White man; the CP was established because they say that they can serve the interests of the Whites in South Africa better. They came into being with the slogan “The NP is selling out the Whites”. Let us examine that question. Apart from the question of what is in the interests of the Black people, the Asians, the Coloureds and the Whites, there is the question—it is a vital question, in respect of which we must look one another squarely in the eye—of what is in the interests of the Whites, what is in the interests of the Afrikaner nation.

You cannot look the White man in the eye.

I wish to take this argument a little further today. The HNP-CP alliance, in its policy and its emphasis—this is what I wish to contend—does not act in the interests of the White man, the Afrikaner. In this regard let us look at a premise with which I think we can all agree. There are powerful forces at work that wish to bring us as Whites in this country to our knees. There are powerful forces at work that wish to deprive us of our right of self-determination, our property and our freedom.

Yes, Chris Heunis.

We have powerful enemies, and the question today is: Who is the enemy of us as Whites?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: when the hon. member for Pretoria Central put the question as to who wishes to destroy the freedom and order in this country, may the hon. member for Rissik say that it is the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning? Does this not cast a serious reflection on him?

Order! What did the hon. member for Rissik mean by that?

I am implying thereby that the policy which the hon. Minister has for South Africa, is a policy of the downfall of the White man. [Interjections.] Yes, of the freedom of the White man.

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central may proceed.

I wish to ask who the most powerful and the most important enemies of us as Whites in this country are. Let us name them. They are the communists who advocate the policy of expansionism and who see South Africa as an important part of their world strategy. They are the Anti-Apartheid Committee, who slander us from capital to capital. They are the pressure groups in the U.S.A. and in Europe who are intent on destroying us economically. They are certain elements in the top echelons of the UN. They are elements in the World Council of Churches and in certain European governments, institutions, etc. They are the Joe Slovo’s who manipulate and programme the ANC. These people are among our most important and most powerful enemies. We also have other enemies, but those I have mentioned, and who are our most powerful enemies, have one thing in common; they are White. I contend that the colour of the most important and the most powerful enemies of South Africa and of the Whites in South Africa is not Black, but White. We have Black enemies. We are all aware of that. However, the question which each one should ask himself, is whether he agrees with the argument that the most powerful enemies of us as Whites are, in fact, also Whites and not Black people. The charge against the CP and the HNP is that they continually conduct their politics as though the most powerful enemies of us as Whites are Black and not White. They are in the process of diverting the Afrikaner’s valuable attention and concentration from the true enemy and placing him on the wrong track by announcing from platform to platform in the rural areas that the Black man is his enemy. They are undermining the preparedness of the Afrikaner.

Your are talking rubbish.

When the Government put forward as its standpoint that there was a total onslaught on South Africa, Jaap Marais’s reaction was that there was no total onslaught. Certain hon. members on that side of the House muttered about the question of a total onslaught. If one acknowledges a total onslaught on South Africa, one is obliged to accept and to acknowledge that one has powerful enemies outside the South African environment and the Black people around us and these people, the radical right, have a political interest in the ordinary White man in South Africa, regarding the Black man as his enemy, since this is the only basis on which they can obtain support In South Africa. In my opinion, this incorrect view leads to an incorrect strategy for the continued existence of the Whites with the retention of their right of self-determination and their standard of living.

Let us take the argument a little further. The Communists, operating through their surrogates and all manner of other organisations, also have a strategy to bring us in South Africa to our knees. One has to ask oneself what that strategy is. If one reads the documents of the ANC and the SA Communist Party—many of them have been published in law reports—it is clear that they are continually preaching revolution. They preach revolution between White people on the one hand and Black people on the other. A prerequisite for that revolution is polarization and there are many things—and we are aware of this—inherent in the history of South Africa which may give rise to and contribute towards an attitude of polarization in South Africa. It is the NP and the NP Government which is moving away from that situation daily. However, that polarization is a polarization on the basis of colour. The prerequisite of that polarization is that there must be a Black unity across Black ethnic lines. That unity is only possible under a banner of hatred. It is only possible if Blacks are encouraged to hate the White people. We now come to the core of the problem of polarization, viz. that poor human relations and mistrust exist. The words “hatred” and “malice” are the essence of polarization in South Africa.

The hon. member for Waterberg must please listen to me: The communist and the enemy of South Africa have absolutely no interest in sound relations between Black and Coloured in South Africa, but they are interested in hatred and malice and in tension between White and Black. The question is: Are the CP and the HNP, through their actions, contributing to the continued existence, security and self-determination of the Whites in South Africa or not? Through their policy of disregard for human rights, through the policy of insulting Black people in South Africa, through the denial of the realities of South Africa, through their politics of hatred and malice …

You are telling a lot of lies.

… through the intelectual milieu they create, they create a sphere …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Jeppe entitled to say that the hon. member is telling a lot of lies?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words and I say that the hon. member is telling a lot of untruths. [Interjections.]

Order! Under these circumstances the hon. member may not say that the hon. member is telling untruths. The hon. member must please withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

We are aware that the hon. members on that side of the House are not Communists. We are aware that they do not share the Communist viewpoint and I do not wish to imply this. The things they do help to prepare a climate for the enemies of South Africa. The language used—the language used by the hon. member for Waterberg here today—is not in the best interests of the White man in South Africa. That is why we want to say to him today that the Afrikaner nation and the Whites of South Africa will judge him, censure him and reject him.

Were you not with the Progs …

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must not make so many interjections.

The problem with that hon. member is that no one wishes to listen to him when the CP assembles on its own. Now he wishes to make a noise here in order to be heard. Sir, the resemblance between left and right is remarkable. Polarization is being assisted from the left as well. When the Government’s intentions are allied into question, when there is contempt for the Government’s policy, when the Government is accused of mala fides and when the Government is accused of dishonesty as far as its policy of human relations is concerned, one is contributing to the creation of mistrust in South Africa between White and Black and then one is part of the polarization programme as such. The problem is that the left and the right in South Africa are similar in many respects. I need quote none other than the hon. member for Waterberg in this regard, specifically with reference to a report in Beeld of 24 April 1981 in which he refers to the fact that Gatsha Buthelezi, the Chief Minister of KwaZulu, did not want independence and that the Herstigtes also did not wish to give the Black people independence. He stated then—

The unitary situation between left and right in South Africa derives from the fact that they also see the Black people as a unitary group. The Black people are seen as people who are regarded by the right as an inferior group. [Interjections.] In this regard I merely wish to say to the hon. member for Lichtenburg that I know very well what I am talking about. I know very well what is said here in this House, but I also know about the things which the hon. members say when they move from platform to platform and when they advocate “baasskap”.

Name one example.

There are many examples. The hon. member for Sunnyside is notorious for beating the racial drum. At the conclusion of his speech here this afternoon the hon. member for Waterberg spoke in a way which demonstrates an attitude which is entirely wrong and which sounded like a kind of declaration of war on the part of the Whites. [Interjections.]

The left, the radicals by their actions and pronouncements, make it impossible for our friends everywhere in the world to demonstrate their friendship. The left and the radicals in their extremes, complement one another. The left need the right to prove their case, and the right need the left to prove theirs. When this situation develops in South Africa, it must be very clear to us that the hon. members on that side of the House are on the wrong path. That is why we can accuse them today of becoming part of the hatred and malice approach in South Africa. We charge them with suiting perfectly the strategy of the enemies of South Africa in this way. We accuse them of having become a danger to the continued existence of the White man in South Africa and of not furthering the objective interests of the White man in South Africa. We accuse them of trying to exploit the prejudices of the Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we wish to say to those hon. members that they have harmed Afrikaner unity, that they have given the Afrikaner an image of racism, of weakness, of backwardness, of rashness and indecisiveness. We charge them with prejudicing the relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in South Africa. They speak to the HNP, but do they agree with the policy of the HNP that there should be only one official language in this country? We charge the CP with having bedevilled relations between the Whites, the Blacks and the Indians in this country. We charge them with not seizing on and promoting the principle of co-responsibility, but of hiding behind the concept of “baasskap”.

Mr. Speaker, South Africa’s population groups must co-operate with one another, and if there is one population group which is not well-disposed towards another, then bedevils everything in South Africa. The NP advocates sound relations. It proffers the hand of friendship to the other population groups in South Africa and it strives to build up the strength of each population group. It is the party of liberation in South Africa, the party that wishes to free people in South Africa from their prejudices as well as from their underdeveloped state. It is also the party that wishes to free the population groups in South Africa from any interracial tension and that wishes to remove uncertainties in South Africa. It is the party in which the security of every population group is vested and which offers the best guarantee to the Whites in South Africa through its stability and the recognition of the realities of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to associate the NRP with the motion of condolence introduced by the Prime Minister this afternoon in respect of the passing away of former President C. R. Swart. We in the NRP, too, wish to record and convey our sympathy to the next-of-kin of a former colleague of ours. He was a person with whom I had the privilege of working together for a long time.

I do not intend to reply to the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I almost feel like someone caught in cross-fire! I am sitting in the cross-fire here. Fortunately, however, I am not part of the struggle and for that reason I do not want to be hit by any of the flak.

*Mr. Speaker, this is the traditional parliamentary occasion for a critical evaluation of the stewardship of the Government and its administration as it affects the political, social and economic lives of the people of the country. This year there is a particularly long cataglogue of instances of maladministration which one could attack. On some of these I will touch during the course of my speech while other members will touch upon others. But in order to specify the field with which I would like to deal this afternoon I want now to move as a further amendment—

1. (1) its constitutional proposals include serious defects;
2. (2) its general philosophy and policies fail to meet the demands of the present time; and
3. (3) its economic management and administration of the country’s affairs are inefficient and harmful to the interests of the people of South Africa,”.

It is in these three fields that we wish to talk, and I refer, in the first instance, to the constitutional issue because this session of Parliament is the culmination of a long gestation of the new deal for which South Africa has been waiting with fluctuating hopes and disappointment. This new deal was conceived amongst hon. members of this House in the Schlebusch Commission. It was spawned by the President’s Council, and then was reshaped within the inner circles of the NP Government. I believe that this is the issue which is dominating the expectations of South Africans at this time. I believe too that never was the mood for reform amongst our people more favourable for a Government with the will and with the determination to move firmly forward into a new era of peaceful progress.

Because much of the input of this party— the philosophy which this party contributed towards the President’s Council—was reflected in its first report, either as recommendations or as first alternatives to the President’s Council recommendations, we looked at the baby with critical but sympathetic eyes when it was delivered. However, we viewed the infant which finally emerged from the tamperings of the Government— after being reshaped by the Government— more in sorrow than in anger. We had to decide on a difficult issue. That was whether this first move, this first step on the road to reform, was a starting point for a journey away from static pluralism to dynamic pluralism. And I believe it is. The static pluralism of apartheid, inflexible, rigid, unyielding, is giving way to a dynamic pluralism which recognizes the fact of different groups in this country, but seeks to accommodate them in a new deal. If that is so we then had to decide whether the direction in which those reforms move is one which can be reconciled with the principles of this party by way of suitable amendments or changes. So, we identified the main defects, and we also identified the points of agreement. Our Federal Council, with the unanimous approval of all formations of the party throughout South Africa, took a firm decision in terms of which we in this House will approach the whole question. I want to put that position on record. I quote—

This is the spirit in which we will approach this session, which, for better or for worse, will shape the second Republic of South Africa. We believe that the need for a new deal is so great and so urgent that it would be tantamount to treason to opt for the constitutional status quo in South Africa. This is what total rejection would mean. Total rejection, going back to the drawing board, would be to opt for the status quo, and we believe the need and the urgency for change and reform are too great for South Africa to gamble with that.

The correctness of our response after Bloemfontein has been reinforced by responsible Coloured and Indian leaders who have opted for qualified participation. I want to put on record my admiration for the courage of those leaders in resisting tremendous pressures, even blatant intimidation in the form of efforts to force them to boycott any new deal. I want to say that I admire their courage in resisting this sort of thing, facing up to it and deciding, as so many of them have done, to engage in critical participation. I had experience of this at a meeting which I addressed together with hon. members of this House from the NP and PFP— the CP were not represented—at Wentworth in Durban. The intimidation there was vicious. There were threats of violence. I understand that the hon. member for Durban Central was telephoned and warned that there would be violence at the meeting. The implication was not to speak there. Youth groups were so intimidated that they pulled out of the parade that they were going to have. The ex-servicemen’s organization was intimidated to the extent that they also did not take part in the parade that had been arranged. These pressures are on the Coloured people from radicals—this affects the Indians as well—and I admire the courage of those who are able to stand up and say: We will decide what is right for our own people. However, the Government seems to be floating into this reform inititiative upon its own euphoric cloud of self-satisfaction. They do not appear fully to understand the crucial question of whether the package they offer is one which those leaders who have shown this courage and who are prepared to participate will be able to sell to their own electorates. This is crucial. It is not enough that leaders participate; they must also be able to sell the package to their own people.

I want to say that the CP, honestly and openly, are fully committed to total rejection. I can understand this although I cannot agree with them. They are speaking on a completely different wavelength. I do not believe that they are living in the present age in South Africa. I have no point of contact with them politically. As far as the PFP are concerned, we listened for an hour to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and frankly, I am no wiser. [Interjections.] We had an eggdance in respect of there own dilemma but we still do not know what they are going to do. We do not know what their attitude is. They are going to “watch” certain points. They are going to “look at” certain points. This whole thing has been going on for months and they do not know what it is all about. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says: “We do not know what it is all about. We have to wait for the Bill.”

We do not have the details. Do you have the details?

He says: We do not know what it is going to be like. We are going to look at it and these are the things we are going to look at. Perhaps one of these days we will have an answer.

What are you going to do?

I have said what we are going to do and I have quoted it.

You have not told us yet.

Mr. Speaker, there are some people whose skulls one can never penetrate! There are deep-rooted, emotional issues involved. We have heard them mentioned in this debate. On the one hand there is the ingrained fear of moving away from exclusive White “baasskap” and, on the other hand, a historic distrust of the NP and its record.

I am faced with the unenviable task of trying to bring about some sort of balance in this emotion-laden conflict of attitudes. However, we come from a long line of succession from the old SA party and the United Party with a proud history of reconciliation. Perhaps we are the only ones who can do it. The move on the part of the Government is itself a move towards reconciliation. Unfortunately, after 35 years of entrenching White power by the segmentation of politics, while it and the PFP are arguing about details and the minutiae of White control by numbers, neither seems to understand that, in the process it has begun, joint responsibility can only work if there is genuine consensus between groups. If the White majority is used to deny Coloured and Indian aspirations, it will lead to political frustrations, politically more explosive than anything we have ever experienced up to now. If the reform process is to succeed many old ideas, rooted in the habits and traditions of apartheid, will have to give way to change. White decree will have to give way to real negotiation and true consensus in the new style of politics of the future.

*I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister is unable to be present at the moment so he indicated—because I want to give him full credit for his courage, the courage with which he has accepted the inevitability and the urgency of a new dispensation, a new deal in South Africa, even at the expense of the unity of his party. I believe all honest people will appreciate that it was not easy to do this, to take that step which led to the split in his party. Unfortunately I cannot give the same credit to the detail of the proposals emanating from that realization, the detail of the proposals on the basis of which joint decision-making is to be achieved. I shall deal with the question of the Black South Africans separately, because that is an important matter. Apart from that matter, the detail, the method proposed, has serious shortcomings.

†It is true that the Government has adopted much of the vocabulary of the NRP. It has even adopted some of the fundamental elements of the philosophy we pioneered, and which the Government, of course, ridiculed at the time. I believe, however, that there is too much evidence that ingrained habits die hard and that remnants of the thinking of separate development and of the unitary system have been carried over into the new dispensation to endanger it. I therefore want to dispel very clearly this afternoon any illusion that the Government has simply taken over NRP policy and therefore this party is no longer necessary and has no role to play. Just the opposite! The Government has taken over elements of a policy which it does not know how to implement, and therefore we as a party are necessary and essential to fill those gaps in the thinking of the Government. [Interjections.]

I said that we had evaluated the merits of the Government guidelines and their potential for amendment to make them work smoothly. We identified certain clear defects and shortcomings to which we are opposed. We therefore propose six positive changes for which we are committed to strive and which I shall today simply place on record since I do not have time to debate them.

The first is urgent and open-ended negotiation with Black South Africans to achieve an agreed accommodation in the constitutional structure and an in-depth investigation to determine their aspirations. I repeat and I emphasize what I have said. I have asked for an investigation and for negotiation because I do not believe that it is for the NP, the Government, the PFP—the CP do believe in this—or ourselves to dictate to the Black people, or assume what their aspirations are, or what the solution should be. We can say what we think it should be, but what I have called for is negotiation and an in-depth investigation.

The second requirement is the entrenchment of the fundamental democratic principle that opposition parties should participate proportionately in all procedures at central government level, and that includes the standing committees, the joint select committees and the functioning of Parliament as a whole.

The third requirement is the retention of the elective system of provincial government, adapted as it may have to be for inter racial co-operation. I hope we can regard this as a long-term issue. The Government has not made any final pronouncement on it, but what I appeal for today is an assurance that this will not be an immediate issue, that no decision will be taken for a reasonably long period, because I believe that they will be required for a longer period than the Government thinks.

The fourth requirement is that after the Joint Select Committee procedures, the final decision-making at national level should take place together and not in separate chambers.

Fifthly we want clearer safeguards against misuse of presidential power or manipulation of Cabinet power to achieve authoritarian ends.

In the sixth place we shall fight for a negotiated agreement on a clear division of powers, entrenched in the constitution, regarding communal and group affairs, instead of leaving this to the decision of the State President, so that South Africa will know what are group affairs and what are affairs of common interest. This should be entrenched in the constitution.

I believe that by opting for one feature of its proposals, the Government has created its own dilemma and has blocked a solution to the first problem I raised, that of the position of Blacks. If they would add an Upper House to the structure—as NRP policy proposes—A House in which there would be equal representation and decision by consensus, this would leave the door open for a fourth chamber in which Black South Africans outside the homelands can be accommodated. One cannot, however, do this whilst one counts heads, counts numbers or goes by proportionality. One has to have a Federal Council—an Upper House—where consensus is achieved without counting heads. I believe that this must be the ultimate solution. There is no other real end solution except a structure of that sort, with an upper house in which consensus provides the balance.

It is not, however, only the cold print of a constitution which determines whether it will work or not which determines whether it will achieve stability, harmony and peace. It is the policies and actions of the Government operating in terms of that constitution, and the spirit in which the Government uses power, which make a constitution work or fail.

This is where the NRP has other important differences with the NP, philosophic differences over the sort of South Africa we want to see. We see South Africa as one confederal nationhood—I use the word “nationhood” because there is a “fear element” in the use of the word “citizenship”. We see one entity, with one loyalty and one destiny, with a single economy to which all can contribute and from which all can benefit, but formally structured to co-ordinate common interests and services, whilst self-determination and security from domination are guaranteed for all member states, with no member state or group of them being able to dominate or dictate to other member states. We see it as a structured entity and not simply a loose economic talking-shop. We do not see it simply as an economic union. We see it as one South African confederation—one entity with one destiny. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development said in debate last year—he has since wriggled away from it: “Die tafel word gedek vir konfederale burgerskap.” We want to see that laid table completed—with the food on it which will lead towards that sort of South Africa we believe is the answer.

Then we believe in a relaxed and flexible life-style with full opportunity for communities and individuals to live the way they choose within the law. We believe that only laws should control the rights and actions of people and not a mass of ministerial regulations adminstered by bureaucrats. We believe that only war, subversion, violence and real danger to the State justify any limitation of human freedom under the rule of law, and then only with adequate judicial safeguards against abuse. We believe in freedom of religion, of conscience, of speech and action and we reject Government imposition of the attitudes of any section, group, creed or faction over the rest of the people of South Africa. It all boils down to a relaxed and flexible life-style in this country.

From these differences flow differences in political policy. I do not have the time to deal with them all, but we should like to see the repeal of things that have become symbols of hate like the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, which are not needed and which are seen as symbols of White arrogance. They should go. That would help to create the atmosphere South Africa needs. We believe in local option in determining the character of a neighbourhood, so that there will be no forced integration and no forced segregation and there will be open areas where they may be required. We believe in undisturbed family life with freehold title and residential security and in minimal essential interference in the free-enterprise system.

Then there is a third field in which this Opposition differs from the Government and that is in respect of the incredible maladministration for which they are responsible. I am not going to deal with that today. Funnily enough, I had all the things listed which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised: The Seychelles affair and SADF arms, Ingwavuma and Kangwane, and economic mismanagement and hardship. I can tell the hon. the Minister of Finance, or rather the hon. the Prime Minister, that if he really wants to be popular, he will announce that the salary of the price controller has been cancelled and that the members of the Competitions Board have also been stripped of their positions and their salaries. The whole country says these are a farce. There is no control against monopolies and it is a question of the big boys manipulating at the cost of the man in the street.

I am surprised that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not raise the question of deaths in detention and the Aggett affair.

Helen still has to speak.

I see; Helen has to deal with that. Then there is the question of South West Africa. In the few moments I have I want to deal with that. I am sorry, but I believe that the Government have bungled the DTA’s situation by undermining their status and authority in the eyes of the people of South West Africa, by causing them to be seen as instruments of the NP Government instead of as an independent territorial Government with the power to act—and by allowing the second tier of Government, the South West African National Party, to block moves for change in South West Africa.

I do not intend taking it further today. I think these and other differences make it clear why the NRP must retain its identity and its independence in order to work to change those things with which we disagree—the things which are wrong—and why I have not led this party rushing into the bosom of the NP. [Interjections.] It may even penetrate the thick skulls of some of the PFP sycophants who constantly try to write us into the hon. the Prime Minister’s bed or into his arms. They seem enthusiastically determined to push us there. It happens every time the PFP is in trouble. Whenever the PFP is in trouble they and some of their newspapers start saying that we are going to join the Nats. But it should by now have penetrate their thick skulls and the thick skulls of some journalists that this is a bit of political propaganda which people are no longer falling for. I want to emphasize that we are committed to a positive and constructive political role and that we will fight to change what we do not like we are not a boycott party, nor are we blinded by hate and suspicion, the “malice in blunder-land” which we have seen exhibited here this afternoon. We will continue to support specific actions which are in the interests of South Africa and we are prepared to co-operate on the positive aspects of reform because we have an important role to play ahead.

Finally, let me say this party is not going to disappear. It represents a vital sector of our people and if we were not here South Africa would be condemned to a Nationalist Government and two radical Oppositions only. I do not think the Government would like it and it would certainly not be good for South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in a large part of his speech the hon. member for Durban Point said many positive things with which one cannot disagree. This side of the House undoubtedly appreciates the attitude adopted by the hon. member and his party since the establishment of the President’s Council. We also appreciate his attitude as regards the constitutional guidelines. He disagrees on the guidelines. He pointed out that there are certain deficiencies, but at least he wants to work within the system. One is prepared to accept this and one appreciates his standpoint. However, there are certain aspects of the hon. member’s political philosophy which one finds very difficult to follow. The hon. member wants a confederation in South Africa, but the hon. member sitting behind him, Mr. Miller, has already had occasion to say that the confederation they advocate is a confederation of non-independent countries.

We are going to include them as well.

In that case there is progress. [Interjections.] If those States that are already independent are included in the confederation then there is progress. In that case the hon. member for Durban Point has already made quite a good deal of progress. While I am dealing with the hon. member for Durban Point, I must say I think he made a sensible speech. At least he realizes what the role of a political party ought to be under the present circumstances in South Africa. He is not flippant. I do not think the hon. member for Durban Point is stealing a political march on us either. We appreciate this. But I want to know from the hon. member is this: How does he see the eventual future of his party in these circumstances? He says his party “must retain its identity and independence”.

†But to what extent have they retained their independence and their identity? They fought in the election for Johannesburg North on a platform against the PFP on the grounds that the PFP was not prepared to accept the guidelines of the NP. In Stellenbosch, however, they fought against the NP; in other words, opposing the guidelines of the NP.

Nonsense!

Surely that is not logical. The strategy which the hon. member employed in Johannesburg North was to tell the PFP that they were boycotters, that they were staying away, that they did not want to co-operate, whereas the NP’s guidelines had a great deal to recommend them. In Stellenbosch, however, he said that he was opposing those guidelines. What will the eventual outcome of this attitude be? I want to tell the hon. member that there can only be one outcome. No matter how good his intentions and those of the hon. members behind him may be, with that attitude the vast majority of his supporters will vote either for the Nationalists or the PFP. This becomes quite clear when one has dealings with these people and converses with them outside this House. Those are the cold, hard facts. No matter how good the hon. member for Durban Point’s intentions may be—and I repeat we appreciate them— that will be the eventual outcome. What has the hon. member therefore achieved? According to The Argus of 21 January of this year the hon. member said the following— and he said more or less the same thing here today—

If these are therefore the facts as the hon. member sees them, namely that elements of his policy are being accepted, what is preventing that hon. member and his group from supporting the NP outright and in this way achieving even greater consensus in South Africa? This is a simple question.

May I ask the hon. member whether the Government is not providing people with housing. The provision of housing is a basic principle of communism. Does this therefore make the Government communistic?

The cardinal question in South Africa is the matter of relations and it is on this level that I am arguing with the hon. member. He will not find a single intelligent voter who will judge politics differently, who will judge it on any other basis than what one’s solution to the relations problem is. This is a fact the hon. member for Durban Point must face up to.

It is ironic that here today that in what is almost the greatest hour of the triumph of this side of the House, we have to listen to a simple motion of no confidence.

I maintain that the official Opposition does not seem to realize the extent of its own desperation. Whereas the official Opposition ought to be magnanimous and to appreciate the Government’s achievements during the past six months and more the motion of no confidence by the official Opposition is nothing more than an obdurate continuation of its policy of obstruction. In a courageous yet very honest way the NP through its leader gave more content to its policy of reform last year. The 1981 manifesto is being further implemented step by step. Even Dr. Chester Crocker, the American Under-Secretary of State for African Affairs said in July 1982 that the President’s Council is not a bluff. This is reflected by what is happening in South Africa. It is not one of our own opposition but the American Under-Secretary of State who tells us we are not bluffing. Since the federal congress, followed by its provincial congresses, there is not a single body of the NP that has not endorsed the guidelines. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the legitimacy of the constitutional proposals. The NP has proved itself a master builder of a master plan to bring about the emancipation, the liberation of all peoples and all groups.

Except the Whites. [Interjections.]

Although this period of transition will be filled with painful allegations and recriminations against the NP, examples of which we have already had here today, no revolution will break out in South Africa, there will not even be confrontation because the guidelines are not destabilizing, nor are they aimed at irreconciliation. Conflicting nationalisms, if they do exist in South Africa, will in due course make way for a spirit of more general Southern Africanism or South Africanism.

Back to the Smuts policy, not so? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister’s confidence in the sensibleness and reasonableness of so many South Africans is being confirmed. Election results, opinion polls, and one’s own observations show that whereas six months ago there was soul-searching and stubbornness, now there is calmness and confidence.

Now you have gone back to Louis Botha! [Interjections.]

When the Government’s constitutional guidelines are incorporated in legislation, and the plan of co-responsibility with the retention of self-determination comes into operation, there could be even greater calm.

Myburgh, did you become a Nat, or did the entire NP become Sap? [Interjections.]

Then people will realize in the first place that the country is not being thrown into confusion and in the second place that the confidence of the Coloureds and the Asians in the sincerity of the Whites will not be shaken.

Shakespeare once wrote—

†Another wise man said—

Mr. Speaker, for many the task of getting Coloured leaders and their followers to accept the Government’s constitutional guidelines seemed to be an impossible task because people thought that the feelings were too hard and that the bitterness in South Africa was too deep, and also that the interests of the Whites and the Coloureds were thought to be irreconcilable. Obviously, we on this side of the House have tremendous appreciation for their willingness to work within the proposed system because they do not fear to attempt neither do they want absolute clarity before they decide. In the by-elections that have taken place since last we were here together, the White electorate have sensed the tremendous responsibility placed on them. They gave us the go-ahead sign and they did not go into political side-streams.

Within a short space of time, the official Opposition has been told that they must go back to the drawing-board. There was a time when they were told that they could hold the balance of power and that they could win 36 new seats. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition even gave an interview to the Press in which he told them that they would win 36 new seats. In August 1982 the Progs had high hopes of winning the 36 seats. However, in November, a short three months later, they were told: “Back to the drawing-board”. Now, Mr. Speaker, the members of the PFP and the Leader of the official Opposition have placed a question mark over their own future and also his future as Leader of the Opposition. At least eight newspapers which support the PFP have told them that there is support for the Government’s guidelines, and to have moved a motion of no confidence under those circumstances, speaks more of misplaced courage than of real wisdom.

*Why is the shoe on the other foot now? It is because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet done anything to shake off his boycott image. When there is constitutional change, supported by an extra parliamentary body like the President’s Council, and the official Opposition wants nothing to do with it, it is in the first place neglecting its duty and in the second place it is exempting itself from dialogue and expressing damning evidence against itself. His bona fides and those of his party are being questioned and no one in South Africa is going to take them seriously. Even at his recent Durban congress a red light started flashing when Prof. Wiechers, a constitutional expert, recommended that the Government’s guidelines be supported. His advice was ignored in spite of the fact that he also expressed doubts about many of the guidelines. However, he did say that the PFP would be doing the wrong thing if it did not support the Government’s guidelines. In the Stellenbosch by-election the PFP nominated a candidate whom the Sunday Times described as being “not an ideal choice”. However, at the PFP congress in Port Elizabeth she was given an ovation and a hero’s welcome after losing her deposit.

†Mr. Speaker, this ovation could not have been due to her performance in Stellenbosch, but obviously the ovation was for her philosophy and her strategy: “Swapo are freedom fighters”. When the hon. member for Wynberg has something good to say about our attacks on the ANC in Lesotho, others take our Defence Force to task for killing innocent people and have no word of criticism for those who wish to commit violence, sabotage and murder here in South Africa from outside our borders. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should accept the advice: Go back to the drawing board! This is why I think that this motion of no confidence is so out of step with developments and the spirit of hope which we find prevalent in the country.

*The PFP no longer makes a secret of the fact that its policy is majority Black rule. Previously they spoke of Black majority rule; now they say it is majority Black rule. The hon. members on that side simply do not want to give up the unitary state idea. No recognition is given to group interests. Today we heard the same thing from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—ethnicity must not be recognized, lip-service is paid to pluralism and the diversity of groups and peoples in South Africa. That is why the hon. members on that side were advised to go back to the drawing board. Nowhere does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accord any recognition to free Black States; he still speaks of 70% of the population being excluded from decision-making processes, while everything we are trying to do is in fact aimed at ensuring equality among peoples.

The NP is not an oppressor. We recognize and channel the rightful aspirations of all groups and people. However, this side of the House simply cannot be expected to make the interests of the Whites subordinate or to fail to protect the interests of all minority groups in South Africa. How many more times must we say that the security of the Whites is essential for prosperity ans stability? We cannot bring about greater unity in South Africa by losing the confidence of the Whites.

The PFP is losing prestige and its role is being questioned because everything the Whites do is made to look suspicious. Because Blacks are excluded these new constitutional guide-lines are called “a constitutional swindle”. These words were used only last weekend by a journalist who pledges his supports to them. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is himself guilty of the same behaviour. What did he say? At one stage, because the Blacks had been excluded, he called it lunacy. It is politically unethical to refer to the exclusion of the Blacks without giving credit for self-governing States or independent States or a confederation or even the idea of a constellation of States. Why are the hon. members opposite doing this? Surely it is in order to make the Black people in South Africa antagonistic towards the Whites.

All understanding Whites know that the Black States have a problem with poverty, and efforts are being made to overcome it. We want to change this, and progress is being made with deconcentration and decentralization to make areas more viable, but we are constantly being told that White South Africa is immensely rich while these people live in dire poverty. It is never admitted that the efforts made by the Whites and the Government to improve the standard of living of these people is placing them in such a position that they are better off than people in most of the Black States to the north of us.

I also want to ask: Why continue to label all forms of division and decentralization of power as apartheid and merely another form of baasskap? It is nothing but wilfulness and causes a deterioration in human relations in South Africa. It is not this Government that is causing poor relations. It is the people who doubt its bona fides and whose propaganda is that what we are doing is merely another form of apartheid or baasskap. Only recently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote in Leadership in South Africa that the good faith of the NP’s intentions should not be doubted, but that the practical results of those intentions should be awaited. That is the advice he himself gave, but surely that is good advice which he himself can take and which his own people can also apply. We on this side believe that the NP is creating a better basis for a peaceful future with greater prosperity. The chances of this are becoming ever more favourable in this country. Never before has the promotion of a more general South Africanism received such a powerful boost. The NP’s message has also become the hope of an increasingly significant number of non-Whites. In spite of threats, the leaders did what one would expect of good South Africans. I am referring here to the Labour Party. I believe the members of the Labour Party struck a blow for sound human relations, did not leave anyone in the lurch and did not become part of a process of oppression. There simply is no such thing in South Africa. Is it asking too much to expect other non-White leaders who are still not committed to change their minds as well? We in South Africa want to deliberate on matters together rather than share in one another’s downfall.

For this reason the proposal of the hon. the Leader of the Oppositon cannot be accepted in this House, because he does not have an answer to the problem of the security of South Africa and continued sound race relations. I support the NP completely.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member who has just sat down will listen for a while, he will perhaps get a few answers to some of the questions he put in respect of the Black man in South Africa. At this stage I should just like to say something about the reaction that the speeches of the CP elicited from the NP. Without trying to condone the unpleasantness, I must say that there is hardly anything which the CP are now saying which I have not at one stage or another heard from that side of the House in the past few years. [Interjections.] They are exactly the same unpleasant, racist, conservative views which I have heard from people on that side of the House [Interjections.] The fact that they now regard them as unacceptable, is due to the fact that this side of the house has been working on the NP over the past three decades. [Interjections.] They are making progress and we are grateful for it.

†I should like to take this opportunity, since the hon. the Prime Minister is in the House—and he may only stay for a little while, now that I am on my feet—of telling him that a very large responsibility rests on him to answer certain fundamental questions, in this debate, relating to the political accommodation of the Black community in South Africa, in particular the urban Black community in South Africa, in the constitutional set-up envisaged for the future of our country. It is important that not later than this debate the Government should take the opportunity of telling the Black people of South Africa precisely where they stand and what the Government are planning for them. I say this because the Government’s announcement of their constitutional plans has brought about a rapid and dangerous polarization between the Blacks and the Whites. The Blacks feel that they have been betrayed and they are becoming convinced that the Whites are attempting to build a front of Whites, Coloureds and Indians against the Black community in South Africa.

That is what Jan Grobler says.

They feel they are being deprived of any meaningful means of negotiating as far as their political future is concerned. This is an extremely dangerous situation as it could result—and I say this with all the seriousness at my disposal—in urban Blacks becoming desperate and deciding that violence is the only means that may be left open to them to achieve an equitable participation in their country’s politics. I believe that, if the hon. the Prime Minister has the courage to do so and were to stand up in the House and spell out what his attitude is towards the Black community in South Africa, he could stop this dangerous process, but if he continues to be vague, if he continues to be evasive, if he continues to refuse to answer the questions or if he stands by what NP speakers have said in the past, he will contribute to the further polarization between Black and White and he will contribute to an increase in the tension and resentment that is building up in the Black community.

The political development in South Africa over the past three decades has been marked by a number of significant milestones and each milestone indicates a point at which the Government was forced to admit that one or other of the holy cows of their apartheid policy was an illusion and that in fact they had been basing their thinking on illusions and false premises. They are then forced to accept the wisdom of the alternative the PFP have been promoting over many years. I shall mention just a few. There is the futile policy of border industries. The Government wasted a great deal of money and time on that, but the results were negligible. There is the short-sighted and costly policy of applying apartheid in sport. It took many years for us to convince the Government that they were on the wrong track. There is the extremely discriminatory policy of job reservation. So one can go on.

Now we have arrived at what I believe to be one of the most significant milestones in the development of the political history of this country, viz. that the Government recognize—the academics and Press supporting the NP are showing the way—the fact that the urban Black is here to stay and that he is a very important and even a vital factor in the social, economic and constitutional fabric of our country. A young man named Johan Koornhof—the Sunday Times spoke of a chip off the old blockhead; sorry, off the old block—has with commendable honesty produced research results which in a way are heralding this new milestone. His results and those of many scientists working in this field prove very clearly that the Government have once again been totally wrong as far as their premises were concerned regarding the urban Black people and that the PFP have once again been proved totally right. Let us quote just three extracts from this work. He finds that the majority of Sowetans, or 84%, see themselves as permanent residents of so-called White South Africa with no other home. Only 6,2% claim that their real homes are in the homelands. That is one for the book and something for the hon. the Minister to consider. Johan Koornhof also finds that Sowetans have two overwhelming priorities, viz. house ownership or property ownership and human dignity. Is that not a message which we have spent something like 30 years trying to put across to the Government and which they have ignored and denied? He also finds that urban Africans form the key to any settlement or constitutional arrangement in South Africa. Now people like Ton Vosloo and Wimpie de Klerk are in fact taking that lead and are starting to put pressure on the Government to give consideration to the position of the urban Blacks.

I should like to discuss just a few of the realities relating to urban Blacks and in respect of these realities I should like to put certain questions across the floor to the Government with the request that the Government displays the courage necessary to provide clear and unambiguous answers to these questions. Mr. Speaker, I have said previously why it is necessary. Please believe me, if one is going to make progress in South Africa it will not be enough to meet the aspirations, if one should do so, of the Indian and Coloured communities. One will have, as soon as possible, also to meet the aspirations of the Black community in South Africa for a number of very obvious reasons.

The first question relates to the so-called permanence of the urban Blacks. Does the Government now accept this reality and is it prepared to dissociate itself publicly from all the statements made in the past to the effect that the urban Black was here purely as a temporary sojourner to provide labour for White industries and that in time to come in one way or another he would move back to the homelands where he would work and live happily ever after? This is a statement that has to be made by the Government— that it accepts unequivocally the permanence of the urban Black community of South Africa, that they are here to stay. If we look at some of the false premises and the mind-boggling self-deception on which the whole grand design of the fraudulent policy of apartheid was based in the past then it becomes clear why the confidence and the trust of the Black community can only be restored by specific and clear statements from the Government.

It will be remembered that Minister Blaar Coetzee said the flow to the cities of Blacks would be reversed in 1978. That did not happen. In the early 1960s Dr. Verwoerd said that his whole policy was based on the fact that by the year 2000 there would be 7 million Whites in South Africa and fewer Blacks. It was only a few years ago that the Minister of Co-operation and Development, or whatever the department was called at the time, said that the Government’s policy was aimed at a situation, if taken to its logical conclusion, when there would not be a single Black citizen in this country. These statements might sound ludicrous, even to the Nationalists at this particular stage. However, mindful of the immeasurable harm that has been caused and the tremendous and tragic waste of time during which constructive changes could have been made, it requires now that the Government should once and for all in the clearest language, repudiate all those statements, all those philosophies, all those standpoints and spell out a new programme of standpoints on which it will base its approach as far as the urban Black is concerned.

When one looks at the demographic facts relating to the urban Black it is clear that in just 17 years from now, in the year 2000—17 years in the political history of a country is an extremely short period—there is going to be a tremendous growth in the urban Black population and a relatively small growth in the White population. In fact, since the Whites have virtually reached zero population growth—in the whole of South Africa our population is only going to increase from 4,5 million to 5 million—one would have thought that the Government with its penchant for creating control boards, would create a control board which in one way or another would encourage the Whites to have more children. However, it has not done so. In the same period the Black population will probably grow to approximately 30 million. In other words, the ratio of Blacks to Whites in White South Africa now of 2:1 will over only 17 years be changed to a ratio of 6:1. I think that is a very important factor to take into consideration. As far the urban areas are concerned, as far as the cities are concerned, the Black population will grow by no less than 15 million. There are many factors responsible for this. Just one factor is the total failure of the Government’s border industry policy. In South Africa today there are 240 000 new Black job-seekers per annum and, in the 25 years up to 1979, the border industries provided only 21 657 new jobs. If one cannot provide jobs in or on the borders of the homelands for the new workers emerging there they will move to the cities whatever you attempt to do to stop them. Therefore it looks as though that by the turn of the century we shall probably have approximately 20 million or more Black people in the urban areas of South Africa alone, i.e. in the major metropolitan complexes in the larger towns and cities of South Africa. The question to the Government is the following: Are you prepared to accept that the approximately 20 million permanently resident Black people who will live in South Africa at the turn of the century will have to be given meaningful and effective political rights in White South Africa? In this connection it is important to point out that political rights are only desirable and worthwhile in so far as they enable the people who exercise them to participate in and influence the political structures which take the decisions that relate to their daily lives. In other words, people want to vote in the areas in which they live and work. They want to vote for the bodies which control their activities in those areas, where their children go to school and where they exercise all the normal activities and rights that citizens of an area have. Political rights exercised in far-off homelands with which they retain no meaningful link and which can do very little for them are meaningless and humiliating, whether such political rights be directly in the homelands concerned or whether they be via the strategem of the envisaged so-called confederal structure. We believe, and we are absolutely convinced about this, that the permanently urbanized Black people of South Africa must be recognized as full and equal citizens of our country, with all the rights relating to full and equal citizenship. What is the policy of the Government in regard to these people? Has the Government the courage to spell out an attitude and a policy to them at this stage?

It is not just numbers that make it essential to accommodate the urban Blacks in a White South African political structure. It is a combination of the numbers and the level of sophistication that that society has reached. The more sophisticated people become, the more they become aware of the disadvantages under which they live and the more competently and articulately are they able to petition and press for additional rights.

There are many factors that will contribute to the advancement of the sophistication of the urban Blacks, but in particular there are four that need discussion. The first relates to the level of education that will be achieved by the urban Black over the course of the next two decades. There are some remarkable facts, remarkable facts that I think one must think about and consider in terms of their implications for the development of our country and its politics. In 1981 there were more Black school beginners in South Africa, more Black children started school in 1981 in South Africa than the toal White school population in this country. One does not say these things to frighten people; one says these things because they are so meaningful and they are so important in determining the future of this country. At the moment the expenditure on the education of Black schoolchildren is 50% of that expended on White schoolchildren. But by the year 2000 we shall have to spend eight times more money on Black school education than we are expending on White school education. At that stage four out of five matriculants in our country will be Black. As far was White primary schools are concerned we have already reached the turning point of their growth. It is no longer necessary to build White primary schools in this country. We have reached the turning point as far as the growth of White primary schools is concerned. By the year 1985 we shall have reached the turning point as far as White high schools are concerned and by the year 1990 we shall have reached the turning point as far as White universities are concerned. But as far as the Black community is concerned there will be a continuing tremendous increase in the number of children at Black schools. A larger number of well-educated Black children will result in a larger number of trained Black workers. In order to achieve the minimum objective of growth and prosperity in South Africa we have to ensure an economic growth rate of 4,5% to 5% per annum. This requires a growth in our skilled manpower of 3,2% per annum, and one can compare that the the White birth rate which is less than 1,5% per annum. This shows that we shall simply have to recruit, train and include large numbers of Blacks in employment. In fact some people believe that by the year 2000 four out of five of all skilled workers will be Black. What does all this mean? It simply means—and this is another one of the significant facts that we have to take into consideration— that the entire South African economy will be dependent on Black skills and, because of the tremendous economic power which Black workers will wield via their trade union movement, the ultimate result will be that they will constitute a powerful force, not only in the economic field but also in the political field by way of the economic mechanism which they have at their disposal. This is what will result if the Government fails to provide them with effective political rights which will enable them to petition for and to achieve their aspirations.

The rapid growth in the economic participation of Black people in the skilled and managerial fields will also have other important consequences. At the moment Blacks already contribute 35% of the consumer spending in South Africa. In certain fields, such as clothing, it is already 60%. By the year 2000 this figure will have more than doubled. In addition, the earning power of Blacks will far exceed that of Whites at the turn of the century, and their contribution by way of taxes to the Central Revenue Fund on the basis of tax on individual income will be considerably greater than the contribution by White people.

Let me now ask the Government this very straight, honest and sincere question. Do they believe it would be possible to deny equal political rights to a permanently established Black community outnumbering the White urban community by at least 4:1? Where the result of their level of sophistication will be that they will be making a larger economic contribution to White South Africa than the Whites themselves will be making. Has the time not arrived for the Government to display the courage needed and to state in clear language that they understand and accept the realities, and the challenges that they present, as far as the urban Blacks are concerned, that they accept the permanence of the urban Blacks and the fact that they are South African citizens? Will the Government not decide to begin to create the necessary machinery by way of which they can enter into negotiations with the Black people in order to establish a mutually acceptable basis upon which Black people can be accommodated in the constitutional future of our country? [Interjections.] If the hon. the Prime Minister has the courage to do this he may very well go down in history as the man who had the intellect and the courage to take the single most important decision that was essential in order to save his country from violence and destruction.

Mr. Speaker, I always find it a pleasure to listen to a speech by the hon. member for Bryanston. I infer that the hon. the Prime Minister also enjoyed it, because he did not leave the House as the hon. member for Bryanston was afraid he would. I find it very difficult to describe the hon. member for Bryanston, but when he is speaking, one’s feelings seem to progress from an initial painful sensation to— when the hon. member eventually resumes his seat—such a feeling of relaxation and relief and such a sense of well-being that one would like to listen to the hon. member again in the future, and to experience the same painful sensation again, just to feel the same pleasant relief at the end. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bryanston also asked many questions concerning the Government’s attitude towards Black people. I am not a member of the Government, a fact for which South Africa should perhaps be grateful. However, I am a member of the party which supports the Government, and which supports it with great gratitude. Therefore I should like to give my own account of the standpoint of this party, of this side of the House, with regard to the point of view from which Black people should be regarded. In this respect, I should like to associate myself with the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister at the federal congress of the NP in Bloemfontein last year. In that speech of his—towards the end—the hon. the Prime Minister said the following words, and I quote him—

I should like to emphasize the concept of the justice done by the proposals. On two occasions elsewhere in his speech the hon. the Prime Minister also proceeded from the concept of justice. In fact, it was a logical continuation of the statements he had already made at Upington, Springbok and elsewhere. Therefore I should just like to suggest in this House that when we think of the concept of justice in this country today, we associate it with the person of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Hear, hear!

We do not associate it with the churches. Nor do we associate it with any political party. We do not associate it with the NP as a party either. However, we do associate it with the person of the hon. the Prime Minister: and through him we also associate it with the Government of this country. In speaking of the Government, I am not referring to the status quo, but to the vision he has spelt out for himself, and which he is putting before us; and I should like to say—in fact, I believe it to be so—in a spirit of seeking a solution; not as though he could lay claim to all wisdom, but fully recognizing that he himself is struggling with the problems of this country, problems which are too great for any of us, or in fact for all of us together, to solve in this country today.

Having said this, I wish to refer briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Waterberg. To my dismay he delivered himself of a few statements here today. I cannot discover whether that hon. member regards himself as an Afrikaner and takes his stand on that, or whether he regards himself as a White man and takes his stand on that, or, in fact, what those concepts mean to him, for the way he uses them, the concepts of “Afrikaner people” and “White people” are interchangeable. He also says that as a White man, there are certain things he will not take, without giving any sign of any feeling for other people.

I should like, in all humility, to come back to those hon. members. When I speak of justice, I am not pretending that only this side of the House knows what it means or how to achieve it. In fact, it is something which we must all strive to attain. I do not even wish to suggest that there is only one way in which justice can be achieved. Can we not try to speak in a positive spirit to other people whom we regard as our political “enemies” and who have to find one another in this country if we are to make any progress?

This hon. member said that Lijphart had said: “The outlook for democracy in South Africa is poor.” Of course he said that, but who among us would disagree with him about that? I think that all of us in this House agree with that and I think that everyone outside agrees, too. However, what the hon. member omits to say is that when he says that the possibility of democracy seems remote to him, he is actually saying: Therefore I believe in autocracy. That is the message which is conveyed. Please let us make it clear to one another where we stand and let us not play games, because the games that are played force hon. members such as the hon. member for Bryanston to say that he has heard these people speak on this side of the House in recent years or that he has heard the same kind of talk on this side of the House. It is true that he has heard it, because those people have sat here in recent years, after all, but luckily they have left now and I believe that in the future that language will not be used and that philosophy will not be expounded on this side of the House.

I just want to voice a few interesting thoughts concerning the guidelines. Something which we must put across is a standpoint which has repeatedly been adopted, not only by the hon. the Prime Minister, but by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development as well, by all other members of the Cabinet and I believe by all hon. members on this side of the House, without exception—that the Government and the NP want to get away from the politics of domination. South Africa will have to accept that. We want to get away from it and we are going to get away from it and the Government has been given a mandate to look for ways of getting away from the politics of domination. It has made good progress along this road. I do not wish to discuss the proposals, but I do think we should examine the proposals and evaluate them on the basis of the criticism that is being levelled at these proposals. Ironically enough, the PFP complains that this is simply a continuation of White supremacy. From the CP side comes the allegation that the Government has now lapsed into servitude. These criticisms concerning White supremacy and servitude have been levelled at the same proposals in the same House. I do not think both can be true.

Which one do you choose?

I think we should decide for ourselves which one it is. The hon. member for Bryanston asks which one I prefer. I thought he understood that; in fact, I was trying to compliment him when I said that I quite enjoyed listening to him from time to time. I told him that we wanted to get away from the politics of supremacy, but that does not mean being reduced to servitude. Perhaps one can use “supremacy” in the sense of not being reduced to servitude. I refuse to be reduced to servitude. Perhaps one can also use it in the sense of wanting to put oneself and one’s party at the service of the general interest, including the interests of the other groups in this country. In that sense one can speak of supremacy and servitude, but unfortunately it is not in that sense that this charge is being brought against us.

The second major criticism is the one about the dictator, this president who is going to be all-powerful, or virtually all-powerful, according to the hon. members of the various Opposition parties. What do we have at the moment? We have a Westminster system which is also known as prime minister government. The Westminster system is described as prime minister government because the Prime Minister occupies a virtually unassailable position under that system. As leader of the party that wins the election he automatically becomes Prime Minister. He forms his Cabinet, and in this connection he has a free hand. He appoints people to the Cabinet as he sees fit, having regard only to what his party is going to allow him to do. To some extent he has to accommodate certain interests, but in actual fact he is the one who forms the Cabinet. No legislation that has any bearing on the policy of the Government comes before the House without having been initiated by the Cabinet and therefore by the Prime Minister as well. It is the simplest thing, if he leads his party well, to ensure that that legislation is passed, precisely by virtue of the fact that he is also the leader of the caucus which constitutes the majority party in the House. In actual fact, therefore, if one examines the system properly, he occupies an unassailable position.

What becomes of the President under the new dispensation? He is elected for a limited term. He can be relieved of his office. He has to put together a Cabinet by means of which he wants to pilot through legislation in a Parliament in which his opposition is also represented. Even in forming his Cabinet, therefore, he must take into consideration the interests of the other groups. In any event, if he does not have the support of the majority parties and of the Indian and Coloured Chambers for that legislation, he will not be able to pilot it through the system.

It is alleged that we will then make use of the President’s Council. On the President’s Council there is a majority of Whites and the legislation can be steamrollered through. What would one be doing then? Surely one would then be destroying the system one wan ted to implement; one would then be governing through a nominated body. One would be making nonsense of Parliament, because one would be bypassing Parliament. So that can never be the intention. In any event, if it had been the intention to enable the Whites or the Afrikaners to dominate, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition implied here, surely it would not have been necessary to split—then the hon. members of the CP would have been the best members we could have wanted on this side and then we should have used them to carry out such an intention on our part.

There are other criticisms as well. There is the criticism—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to it as being one of the things he had to consider before taking a stand—regarding the question of proportionality. What part is there for an Opposition to play? When we look at the guidelines, I want to say at once that there is not the same role for an Opposition within the chambers as there is for the majority parties within the chambers. However, I want to qualify this at once by saying that there is not a lesser role for an Opposition within the chambers than there is for an Opposition in this House at the moment. There is nothing which the Opposition is unable to do under the new dispensation which it is not unable to do at the moment. [Interjections.] The same applies to the Coloured Opposition and the Asian Opposition.

I want to say at once to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I can understand why he is arguing like this. I can understand why he is thinking along these lines. After all, he is trying to see everything against the background of his own plan which he has outlined. The one man, one vote system which he now espouses is not one man, one vote in terms of Westminster, but one man, one vote on the basis of proportionality on a party basis, and everyone then participates in the Government, including the legislature. That is the classic consociational model, the way they spelt it out. However, then the hon. member must not tell us, as he told us today—this is one of his four main objections—that we are entrenching and institutionalizing party politics in this system, for then it is simply not true. He says it is going to create conflict if the leaders of the NP have to take decisions and to plan or implement matters together with the leaders of majority parties in the other chambers. But surely this is not a conflict-creating process. Surely it is a conflict-resolving process. In terms of his own proposal, with the parties meeting on a Prog basis and forming a grand coalition, the same will apply. There, too, there will be minority parties which will have to participate in the Government. After all, it is not a majority party which will become the Government in terms of his system. What justification does the hon. member have, therefore, for saying that we are institutionalizing party politics in the new dispensation?

Sharp criticism has also been levelled at the composition of the President’s Council because the guide-lines do not provide for the Opposition parties to appoint people. However, is this something which is being taken away from them? Is this something which the Opposition has under the present system and will now lose? [Interjections.] No-one pretends that we are walking into a dispensation which contains all the answers to all the questions for all time. We are walking into a dispensation which does at least offer a new foundation, where consensus becomes the key-word, where we are really going to try to find one another, to find what might not be the very best if I were to react emotionally, but which, as second-best, is best for all. If we choose that course, there will also be the prospect of the development even of a constitutional dispensation. If we see that matters are not working out, they will be changed by consensus.

Then we shall be back to square one.

No, one does not go back to square one. [Interjections.] The present hon. member for Waterkloof says we shall then be back to square one. He seems to be thinking of what his future leader, Dr. Connie Mulder said: We are using this thing, because we can use it to destroy the system, to get back to where we started from, then we shall start all over again from scratch and re-establish White supremacy, and we shall go back to the old system by loading the President’s Council. [Interjections.] That is true, he did say that. What does he do, however? He is not establishing any new system. There is no going back. One can never go back, for if one went back, one would be going back to confrontation.

I am talking about the principle which Hendrickse spoke about in discussing your plan.

The hon. member is referring to the Rev. Alan Hendrickse’s remark. At this point I think one should also call the hon. member for Waterberg to order.

The hon. member for Waterkloof.

No, the hon. member for Waterberg. One should call him to order. It is true that the Rev. Hendrickse said that he rejected apartheid and group areas and that he hated a whole number of things and wanted to change those things, but he never said—and that hon. member should quote him if he did say it—that he was going to participate in order to destroy the system. We speak about Christian principles and we say that Christian principles should be upheld, but then we quote people completely out of context, and with a total disregard for the truth.

You cannot traffic with Christianity.

No, I am not trafficking with it. My aim is to prevent such an abuse. The hon. members would do well to consider the remarks made by people recently who said that we should not use the Bible as a paper pope.

Yes, do bear in mind what Dr. Malan said. [Interjections.]

I am afraid I could not hear what the hon. member said, and in any event, my time has expired. The question which remains is this: Is it all going to work? Here I want to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Durban Point. It will depend on our attitudes whether we are going to succeed on the road that lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I should like to move as a further amendment—

1. (1) maintaining economic stability in the Republic of South Africa in collaboration with the private sector and making development possible;
2. (2) promoting positive relations among the various population groups and peaceful co-existence in Southern Africa;
3. (3) maintaining a prepared Police and Defence Force;
4. (4) maintaining civilized Christian standards and norms in so far as this can be done by political means; and
5. (5) combating by every means Communist and terrorist onslaughts and subversion against the Republic of South Africa”.

I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. On the one hand he disappointed me but in another respect he did not disappoint me. I think I told him some years ago in this House that a quality of his I did not like was that he, with his intellectual capacity and his academic ability, moved so glibly across South Africa’s problems as though these were something minor which one simply sucked from one’s thumb and with which one could deal without having any regard whatsoever to what was happening in Africa or the outside world. Why does the hon. Leader of the Opposition do himself such an injustice? Surely this is not in keeping with his training or his brackground. So what is preventing him from viewing South Africa’s problems in a different manner? Is there something bothering him?

His benchmate, the hon. member for Houghton.

Let me give only one small example at this late stage. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that if this Government’s proposals in the constitutional field were to be accepted, there would be a President elected by a caucus which would be the NP caucus, and that consequently it would be a political party which would take the decisions. But suppose the misfortune struck this country and he were to come in power, he would be the Prime Minister of the country, not so? In that case he would call a national convention, but for what period does he think that national convention is going to sit, that convention with the conglomeration of participants he wants to summon? He even wants to take people from prison to participate in that convention. Suppose that convention were to sit for four or five years. While that convention is searching for what would be idealistic solutions to him, who would be governing the country?

The government of the day.

In other words, a party with a Prime Minister designated by the caucus of that party!

Yes.

So what?

So what! You see, Sir, there his little house of cards collapses completely. For as long as he is unable to reach agreement at a national convention, he is consequently prepared to remain in power with a White Parliament and a governing Prog party.

That is exactly what you are doing now.

So what is he arguing about? I asked him in a previous session: If that national convention were to decide on something which was not in agreement with his standpoints or with those of his party, would he accept it? His reply was “No”. [Interjections.] Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition use such childish arguments about such important matters? He is indeed capable of something better, but he has forced himself out of the process of making progress in South Africa. He has withdrawn himself from participation in a fruitful search for future solutions in this country. He has dismissed himself. In other words, he has bowled himself out. He speaks of cricket. Well, he has bowled himself out, and as yet he has not yet recovered.