Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, I was referring to what I had said in this House on 5 June 1980—

and especially for the Afrikaner—

To whom are you referring now?

I quote further—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, a point of order is allowed to be heard in silence. It is old practice in this House that when we refer to members in the House of Assembly, we do so by the constituencies to which they have been elected, and I therefore think that the hon. the Minister, who has been in this House for some time, should know that.

Order! The hon. the Minister spoke of the Boraines, the Eglins and the Bamfords in the plural sense. [Interjections.] Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! Does the hon. member want to address me on the first point of order?

Yes.

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon. member to address me on that. I have already given my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Do I understand correctly that we are now allowed to refer to other members by their surnames? [Interjections.] Otherwise, Sir, could you please, with respect, explain the ruling to me because I regret that I cannot understand what it implies.

Order! It has been the custom for many years to make use of that when talking about members in general terms. It cannot, however, be done when referring to a specific member. The hon. the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.] Order!

The hon. the Prime Minister is also speaking. Sir. He should be called to order as well. [Interjections.] He does not obey rulings.

He does not even withdraw his remarks when … [Interjections.]

I was saying that South Africa did not need the hon. member. I was also giving the hon. members some specific advice. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order! I should not like to forbid hon. members to make any interjections, but if they carry on like this, I shall be forced to do so and I shall have to take further disciplinary measures.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Sandton has just implied that the hon. the Prime Minister does not obey your rulings. In my opinion, this is a direct reflection on the Chair, and I think he ought to withdraw it.

Did the hon. member for Sandton say that?

I cannot remember what I said. [Interjections.]

Order!

You know. Sir, the hon. member for Mossel Bay’s hearing is good, but his eyesight is bad. I said it.

You both said it.

I said it.

And the hon. member for Sandton did.

That was an echo. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if I may address you on that point, regrettably I cannot remember what I said. However, if you wish me to withdraw whatever it is I said, I do so despite the fact that I cannot remember what I said. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Groote Schuur say it?

Yes, I said it.

The hon. member must please withdraw it.

Sir, what I said was that the hon. the Prime Minister refused to withdraw a remark you had asked him to withdraw; and that is true.

That is definitely a reflection on the Chair.

But it is true. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, you put me in a very difficult position, because that is in fact what happened.

The hon. the Prime Minister raised a point of order and I conceded it to him.

Well, Sir, I shall withdraw it unconditionally, but … [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sly (“skelm”), not so? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Groote Schuur mean by the interjection “skelm”?

I meant that the reaction of the hon. gentlemen opposite was “skelm”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Which gentlemen?

The ones who are looking at me right now.

The hon. member must withdraw that. There are no “skelms” in this House. [Interjections.]

I withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that this is a transparent attempt to disrupt the proceedings of this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: A member is not allowed to allege that another member if guilty of a direct attempt to disrupt the proceedings of the House. That is a direct reflection on the Chair. [Interjections.] It is also to be found in your book of reference on rulings of previous Speakers.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister mean that the members were responsible for the …

No, I did not say that. I said it was an attempt to prevent me from proceeding with my speech.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I said it was in South Africa’s best interests that they should withdraw into their cocoon of self-interest, that they should spin themselves into their web of self-sufficiency and that they should withdraw into the cave of political isolation so that they could not frustrate other people who were seeking solutions. Some of them are sitting in this House today. They have withdrawn into their cocoon of self-interest. They have spun a web of self-sufficiency around themselves and they have withdrawn into their spiritual, intellectual and political cave of isolation.

The hon. member for Waterberg has given us his credo, and it is pointless to deny that there are fundamental differences between the Government and the hon. member and his party, and I think it has become imperative that we clarify those differences. The hon. member alleged, for example, that the sovereignty of the White Parliament is being eroded. Even in the 1977 proposals, which the hon. members endorsed and advocated with great enthusiasm—verbally and in writing—sovereignty passed from the White Parliament to the President and a Parliament which would not necessarily have been the White Parliament. [Interjections.] Of course the CP denies that now. What is really important is that we should now examine the implications of the 1977 proposals, and I now wish to deal with these.

The whole process of constitutional adjustment since the seventies has been motivated by a specific idea, i.e. that ways and means must be found of giving the Coloured people and the Indians a say in matters affecting their lives. Surely the mere fact that we endorsed this idea imposed a restriction on the White Parliament, because this Parliament had had the unqualified right to decide on matters affecting Coloured people and Indians. In other words, it did affect the powers of the White Parliament, unless one thinks in terms of the CP policy of Coloured and Asian homelands which, in the first place, has never been NP policy and, secondly, because of its impracticability, amounts to nothing but White domination.

The hon. member and his party—he is supported in this by the hon. member for Brakpan—are in favour of a sovereign White Parliament. This would only be possible if only Whites were to live within the area of jurisdiction of that Parliament. It would mean that the other groups would have to leave. If this is his policy—it seems to be his policy—I want to ask him what has become of his concept of separate development. I also want to ask him who has deviated from the policy of the NP. A homeland for Coloureds and Asians has never been the policy of the NP. Parliament remains the sovereign legislative authority. It is untrue that the sovereignty is passing from Parliament to the President’s Council. The President’s Council remains primarily an advisory body and is only activated in the event of clashes between the chambers, and even then it will only be done when the President convenes the council to take a decision. Therefore the council has no say in matters which are not in dispute. Furthermore, the council has no say in the exclusive affairs of the various groups. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, how can any right-thinking person argue that the sovereignty of Parliament will pass to the President’s Council?

What can in fact happen with regard to Parliament—and here we disagree with hon. members opposite—is that the Whites will no longer be able to decide about the affairs of the other groups, nor will they be able to decide alone when matters of common interest are at stake.

What are the Government’s premises in this connection, premises which used to be shared by the hon. members of the CP? These premises are: Firstly, domination by one group over another must be eliminated and every group must be given an effective say in matters which affect it; secondly, the self-determination of every group in matters pertaining to that group alone must be ensured and, thirdly, co-responsibility must be achieved in matters of common interest. All of us subscribe to these premises.

The intention with the tricameral Parliament, therefore, is to accommodate Coloured people and Indians without detracting from the self-determination of the Whites. Of course it is true that Parliament will no longer be purely White, but at the same time it is not true that the self-determination of the Whites will be reduced, nor is it true that the function of the White chamber will be small and insignificant. Sir, the hon. member for Waterberg has such a lot to say about the rights of Whites, about the rights of the Afrikaner, but just note the derogatory terms in which he speaks of the interests peculiar to the Whites. He describes the function of the White chamber when it comes to the discussion of White interests as insignificant and inferior. And then the hon. member poses as the great champion of the rights of the Whites in this country.

It is the Government’s standpoint that peaceful reform should take place in a spirit of goodwill and mutual respect. The best illustration of the differences in principle which exist between this side of the House and hon. members of the CP, specifically the hon. member for Waterberg, is the disparaging and opportunistic way in which the hon. member referred to the discussions between the hon. the Prime Minister and African leaders, in the interests of the hon. member’s own security as well, and to my negotiations with the leaders of other population groups that have to share the country with us, in the interests of the hon. member’s own welfare, too. It remains a fact that the Government is prepared to do things for those hon. members which they are not prepared to do for themselves. Instead of expressing gratitude for the fact that there are people who are prepared to do this, invective is hurled at such people from every platform in the country. In the Government’s opinion, on-going consultation and negotiation is the only way in which peaceful coexistence can be ensured, not only in South Africa, but in Southern Africa as well. But the hon. member for Waterberg ridicules this and wants to make cheap political capital out of it. Or is the hon. member being serious, perhaps, and is it bound up with his attitude of “We will not take it”? What is the implication of this threat? It is interesting that Coloured people have to accept it … [Interjections.] Coloured people have to accept it, Asians have to accept it, but these arrogant people do not accept it. [Interjections.] I shall come back to this later. [Interjections.]

Order!

Listen to the statement made by the hon. member for Waterberg, and I am sorry to have to waste my time on this. He says—

This is the CP—

Just listen to that! This statement testifies to a scandalous choice of priorities between the self-determination of man and Christian charity and justice. I believe the urge to survive is a normal human instinct.

Among the Black people as well!

Yes, I am coming to that. For this reason, neither the individual nor society needs to feel guilty or to be proclaimed guilty when it takes measures in a deliberate and purposeful manner to improve and secure its future prospects, its prospects in life.

However, it does make a difference how a community gives expression to its urge to survive and how it gives expression to its desire for self-determination. It makes a difference what kind of measures a community takes to secure its future or to improve its prospects in life. It makes a difference whether a society is solely concerned with the bare fact of its own physical survival and whether it is also concerned with the intrinsic quality and the spiritual content of its survival.

Fundamentally, this distinction boils down to the difference between civilization and barbarism, it boils down to the difference between humanity and inhumanity, between moral responsibility and being governed by animal instincts. I concede that I am wrestling with this myself. This difference does not depend on the natural instincts of life. It is determined by a conscious choice that is made in the light of religious, cultural and moral values.

One such value is that of justice, which hon. members of the CP are holding up to ridicule at the moment. When a society chooses to live and survive in justice, it subjects its aspirations to the discipline of normative principles, and these are among the most precious possessions we have acquired in the history of our civilization. It means no more than complying with the moral requirements of recognizing and honouring the legitimate claims of other people, and of using the powers and abilities that we have to enable other people, too, to improve their expectations in life and actively to exercise their legitimate claims.

Survival in justice is nothing new to the nation to which I belong. It is not something which the Afrikaner has only recently learnt from the apostles of human rights and from liberals. It is one of the principal themes of his history. It forms part of his struggle for survival and of his existence among all the population groups here at the southern tip of Africa. He struggles, and sometimes he fails, but because the Afrikaner admits this, he does not find himself in the final phase of his history, but he is standing on the threshold of a golden age in this country, together with other peoples and other groups. Their is just one remark I want to make. Why is the hon. member for Waterberg perpetuating a lie?

What is the lie?

I shall tell the hon. member in a moment. He referred to a speech which I was supposed to have made at Roodepoort… [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that the hon. member for Waterberg is perpetuating a lie?

Oh, do sit down, you died-in-the-wool old UP supporter!

Any man who says I am a UP supporter is lying in public. [Interjections.]

Order!

Anyone who says in this House that I am a UP supporter is telling a public lie. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that the hon. member for Waterberg was perpetuating a lie?

I did not say the hon. member was telling a lie. I said he was perpetuating a lie.

What is the difference? [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, he is perpetuating an untruth. I withdraw the word “lie”. He referred to a speech which I had allegedly made at Roodepoort and in which I had allegedly said that the Afrikaner had no privileges.

I did not refer to Roodepoort.

No, I am sorry. It was Vanderbijlpark. What are the facts? There was a report which was corrected immediately afterwards, and I say it was a malicious thing to do. However, I did not expect anything else.

I now want to come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to make this one general remark, and that is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done his best to change the political face of his party by means of cosmetic surgery. I want to give him some advice. The fault does not lie with his party’s face, but with his party’s heart, and I want to tell him why this is so. [Interjections.] Let us first examine the hon. leader’s record in respect of the constitutional proposals we are discussing.

You are being nicer to them than to us.

Let us examine the transformation which the hon. leader has undergone. Let us see where he began. [Interjections.]

Order!

There was total rejection by the PFP at that time. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Langlaagte makes another interjection, I shall be forced to take disciplinary action for the rest of this day’s debate.

I am sorry, Sir, but I did not quite hear that. Would you please repeat what you have just said?

I said that I would take disciplinary action against the hon. member if he made another interjection in the course of this day’s debate.

The hon, the Leader of the Opposition started off his Port Elizabeth congress with a total rejection of the proposals. I do not think I am stating the facts incorrectly when I draw this conclusion.

*What happened then? After the shock of the election results at Stellenbosch they changed their tune. A so-called phase approach was hurriedly concocted, implying that they were only rejecting it in the first phase, but would go along with it in the other phase.

Let us go on. After the Coloured Labour Party Congress, especially the congress at Eshowe, the hon. Leader of the Opposition made a very courageous admission. He was even reprimanded for doing so by some of his friends. He said that the PFP had misjudged the positive atmosphere in favour of the Government initiatives. Of course it misjudged the situation. Its judgments have never been correct.

I come now to the fourth point, and this is very interesting. They are now in the phase in which they have decided, as a result of their previous errors of judgment, to say nothing because there are not enough particulars to discuss.

I now want to come to the criticisms made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that the role of the Opposition was not clear. I want to point out to him that the constitutional proposals of the Government are not intended …

To be clear. [Interjections.]

… to increase or reduce the role of the Opposition. These proposals are intended to enable Coloured people and Indians to participate in the government functions of the country. What is curious, however, is that in studying the guidelines, he is not trying to discover how effective the participation of Whites, Asians and Coloureds in this constitutional model will be; he is trying to see what his role is going to be. He does not ask whether it can or does improve the position of the Coloureds and the Asians; no, he says: What is to become of the PFP? [Interjections.] This shows a lack of consideration for the Coloured people and the Asians.

Let me give an explicit reply in this connection. What is the position of the Opposition? The Opposition will be able to play its traditional part in the three chambers of Parliament, just as it is doing in the House of Assembly at the moment. That is not being changed. This is the first point. Secondly, the Opposition will not choose the head of government, which they cannot do at the moment either. The President will be the head of government. Thirdly the Opposition will not serve in the Cabinet, which they are not doing at the moment either. Fourthly, the Opposition will be able to play a part in Select Committees of Parliament, just as they do at the moment. Fifthly, the hon. Leader of the Opposition will be entitled, as Leader of the Opposition—just as he is at the moment—to designate his representatives on the President’s Council; if he can obtain the majority. Sixthly, the Opposition will be fully entitled, as it is at the moment, to take over the Government if it can; the only proviso is that it must be done constitutionally.

I want to give him another piece of advice. The role of the Opposition is not determined only by the parliamentary institutions; it is also determined by the quality of the Opposition. In particular, it is determined by the question of whether the Opposition has an alternative policy for the country. Therefore I say that its role is consequently being limited by its own ineptitude and the division in its ranks and not by the parliamentary institutions which we have created. [Interjections.]

In the second place, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the Blacks have been excluded. I should like to say something about this. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he and members of his party and the garrulous Press that supports him are creating a psychosis among Black people with regard to exclusion from the constitutional processes which has dangerous implications for the country. [Interjections.] Sir, half my time has been wasted because of the noise. Surely it is not true that Black people are excluded from the process of constitutional negotiations. [Interjections.] Nor is it true that the Black people are excluded from the constitutional decision-making processes. Surely the hon. leader knows that when a constitution is being planned, it must take account of the realities of the country, and the fact is that the complexity which is inherent in the composition of our population is one of the limiting factors in working out a constitutional model for the country. Surely he knows that. The fact that these proposals contain guidelines for Whites, Coloureds and Asians does not imply exclusion from the process of consultation, nor does it imply exclusion from the decision-making institutions.

Let us examine the situation today. The fact is that the four independent States are physically inhabitated today by 4,78 million people. The self-governing States have a population of 5,3 million people who are physically present within their areas of jurisdiction. Surely the hon. member knows, too, that the position of Black people outside national and independent States is regulated by legislation which he supported, and they are now on the threshold of development at the management levels concerned, and this is not an end in itself either. How can we say, then, that Black people are being excluded? However, it remains a fact that Coloured people and Asians do not have their own territories for exercising their own political rights. They do not have the structures available to Blacks. Therefore the arrangements made for them must be different from those made for these nations. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. leader is ignoring one important fact, and that is the existence of conflicting political cultures, something we dare not lose sight of. The hon. leader knows, after all—he is a scholar—that the African pattern has proved that African Blacks have their own values, and I am not saying that they are inferior ones. I may point out the tendency towards centralization of power, whereas we in this country are trying to achieve the opposite, namely decentralization of power. The hon. leader knows, after all, that the African pattern tends towards ethnic domination—I do not need to say this—while we are trying to get away from the domination of one group by another. The hon. leader knows that, unlike us, they want to deny group interests, while we are trying to accommodate group or segmental interests at every level. The hon. member knows this, after all, and if he knows it, why does he create the impressions he does? Why does he join the cry which could unleash destructive forces by saying that Blacks are being excluded from the processes?

This brings me to the hon. member for Durban Point. There are some people who quite simplistically advocate a fourth chamber, but a fourth chamber would deny one thing which we all accept, and that is the multi-nationalism, the multi-national composition, of the country’s population. They are making a second mistake, however. They are assuming that all the Black nations would be willing to sit in the same chamber.

Ask them.

What evidence do they have to indicate that this would be acceptable? [Interjections.] If we believe in the self-determination of nations, there cannot be a fourth chamber. Then there must be a chamber for every nation, and then there would be 13 chambers and not only a fourth one.

Let us take the hon. member’s next point. Please note his disregard for the facts. He discussed the procedure which was followed in dealing with the proposals of the President’s Council. And what did he say? He said it was a case of us deciding and then bringing people round or trying to bring them round to our point of view. Surely that is not true. Surely the hon. member knows what I said. I said that the difference between 1977 and the present time was precisely the fact that the process of consultation took place before the guidelines were announced. What grounds does the hon. member have, then, for making those allegations?

What are the facts? In the first place, the process of consultation between the population groups took place in the President’s Council itself.

From which he had excluded himself.

Yes, from which he had excluded himself. However, he is rapidly getting himself included again. The proposals of the President’s Council were tabled on 12 May. On 12 May the hon. the Prime Minister had talks with the leaders of all the Coloured and Asian political parties who wanted to see him. It happened on the same day. On 26 May I addressed the Transvaal caucus of the NP on the guidelines; on 2 June I addressed the Labour Party, the Freedom Party and the People’s Congress; on 3 June the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council; on 4 June the Prime Minister, leaders of the Provincial Councils, MEC’s charged with local authorities; on 5 June we called a meeting of the combined caucus of our own party; on 24 June the Administrators and the Association of Management Committees were addressed; on 24 July the national executive of the Labour Party, their entire general committee, and then, on 30 July, the announcement was made. What right does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have, then, to make such an untrue statement in public? Surely that statement was not true.

I want to conclude. What is the meaning of these proposals? Is it not a fact that there is a new hope among more people today that peaceful solutions may be found than was the case last year? Is it not a fact that more political parties than just the NP support these proposals?

Which parties?

Is it not a fact that the hon. member for Yeoville appealed to English-speaking people to participate? What English-speaking people did he have in mind, other than those in his own party?

What other parties support the proposals? [Interjections.]

A new style is developing in the country, a style of consultation and decision-making. I think it is to be welcomed.

However, who has introduced a new style of intimidation and blackmail into the politics of this country? Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition given his opinion about this? Has he spoken out against those people who blackmail others? Has he given his opinion about people who deny others the freedom of political decision-making? He is a person who makes a great fuss about the rights of the individual. I am waiting for him to talk about these things.

These reform initiatives of the Government are being disparaged as though they had no significance whatever for meaningful constitutional development. Let us just try to ascertain objectively what the effect of the Government’s initiatives has been so far. Let us measure them, in all fairness, not against the test of perfection, but against the position last year.

They have caused the Whites to split.

The Whites were already divided. They support three parties.

No, you caused them to split.

More people are aware of the realities of our situation. More people recognize the need for reform. More people realize what challenges this is going to present us with. That is why more people have an understanding of what is practicable instead of propagating utopian and academic solutions for our country. More inhabitants of the country are effectively involved in the constitutional reform. I am not talking now about more people than a year ago, but about more people than ever before in the history of the country under any Government. As a result of these initiatives, more people are accepting—in spite of attempts to prevent this—the Government’s commitment and bona fides with regard to reform. More people are convinced of the need for good relations between the various population groups as a condition for peaceful co-existence. More people believe in mutual respect and acceptance than in arrogance, prejudice, confrontation and rejection, in spite of the emergence of the CP.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was rather significant, in the sense that one could almost divide it into two phases. It is almost like the picture one sees in the performing arts of the man with two faces looking in two directions. What is remarkable is that his speech was completely different when he spoke to my hon. colleagues on my right as against when he spoke to us on these benches. It was almost a completely different speech. It was remarkable that when he was talking to the CP he was using phrases such as “justice”, “survival”, “basic human rights” and “reasonable expectations of other people to be satisfied”. Correct? Those were the words that he was using and I thought to myself that that could be a PFP MP speaking. It sounded just like one. When he suddenly turned towards us on these benches I thought to myself that it was actually a member of the CP talking. It was the most remarkable metamorphosis that the hon. the Minister underwent.

There are a couple of points arising out of the hon. the Minister’s address to the House which I should like to deal with right at the beginning of my speech. Firstly, I think the hon. the Minister has completely misunderstood what the hon. the leader of the Opposition has said in respect of the role of the Opposition. The issue in regard to these constitutional guidelines is not what is good for the Opposition; the issue is what is good for the country. However, one of the things which is essential is that when one has a constitutional set-up one must give scope for an Opposition to operate in a legitimate, constitutional and meaningful fashion because that is part of what the democratic set-up is supposed to be about. If one has a constitution in terms of which an Opposition cannot function adequately then that is one of the factors that has to be taken into account in dealing with that particular constitution. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with us.

I have not disputed it.

Does he believe an Opposition is not necessary and that we should have a one-party State? That is one of the fundamentals which is involved.

The present constitutional debate is not the first one we have had since 1910. Far from it. However, the present constitutional debate is significant in that it is for the very first time that a constitutional debate in South Africa has concerned itself not with the shunting aside of people who are not White from the centre of power but the debate now concerns itself with the bringing into the centre of power of people who are not White. That is why whatever else is going to happen in South Africa, whatever will be argued is right or wrong, the reality is that this is a turning point in the nature of the constitutional debate in South Africa. It is no longer a question of excluding people from the centre of power. It is a question of who is going to be brought in and how it is going to be done. The real issue which is being debated here, is the issue between the NP and the CP which says that nobody who is not White should be brought in and the issue between the NP and ourselves which deals with the method of bringing people in, the question of where they should be brought in and who should be brought in.

These are the two debates which are being waged in this House at the present moment. That is the real issue that we are facing, and that is perhaps why this is one of the most significant constitutional debates that there has been since 1910. What is important is that there is to my mind a tragedy here in that a constitution should not be amended as any ordinary law is. We have dozens and dozens of laws on the Order Paper in the form of Bills which are to be passed. Some will be passed unanimously, some by a majority; some will be debated and some will not. But any change to the constitution should be brought about on the basis of the greatest consensus possible between all the people who are involved. One of the tragedies that I think exists here is that instead of having a consensus in South Africa in respect of this particular matter, the very first thing that happened in regard to it was that there was a split in the NP. That demonstrates that instead of getting a greater degree of consensus there is a greater degree of fragmentation in regard to the proposed constitutional changes.

I go one further. I have no difficulty with the fact that people have differing opinions. We can debate across the floor of the House what our opinions are, but there is a new note that is creeping into the debates and into discussions both inside and outside of this House, a note which I find disturbing and which I seem to construe—I hope I shall be shown to be wrong—that people are getting to a degree of despair that their arguments will not convince other people and therefore there is now a different kind of debate taking place. May I start, with respect, with the hon. member for Waterberg.

*I should now like to quote his Hansard and I hope that I am quoting correctly. When he spoke about the Reverend Hendrickse, he said (Hansard, 31 January)—

He says “ons vat dit nie”; “we do not accept it”. Then he goes on to issue a warning. He talks about people who threaten violence, etc., of the leftist elements and then says—

The hon. member was then interrupted by way of interjection. The hon. member then said that he had used the word “if". He then went on to say—

In other words, he now quotes the argument that these people are dissatisfied and that we should satisfy them or else there will be a revolution in the country.

No.

Yes, that is what you said. [Interjections.] I will quote it again. The hon. member said “if” …

Do you know what that means?

Yes, I know what the word means. The hon. member goes on to say—

What disturbs me, and I call upon the hon. leader of the CP to explain this is that as I understand it, and as other people understand it, what he said means, firstly, that he is not prepared to endure that, that he does not want to accept it. Then he says that if certain people are not satisfied, there will be a revolution, and he then points out that there are Whites, too, who adopt that kind of opinion. Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. member for Waterberg in fact mean by that? I want to know from him whether, when there is a new dispensation, he will take his seat there and form part of that new dispensation. What is he going to do? After all, he says that he will not endure it; that he will not accept it. He must now tell us very clearly what he will not endure and not accept. It is very important that he does so. [Interjections.] Yes, unfortunately I must endure it, because I am in a minority. If there is a majority and I do not want to go along with the majority, I have to leave. If I do not want to remain here, I have to leave. So far I have been prepared to accept the decisions of the majority … [Interjection.]

Does this, then not hold good for a body such as the President’s Council as well?

The President’s Council is not a legislative body. It is merely an advisory body, and its advice was not even accepted by the hon. the Prime Minister. There is a big difference between a legislative body in which I have a vote and the President’s Council where I cannot cast a vote to make decisions legally binding. In this Parliament we can promulgate laws. [Interjections.]

But you can at least go and air your views there.

Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I should also like to say a few words to the hon. the Prime Minister. Towards the end of his speech he disappointed me greatly. Let me quote him (Hansard, 1 February)—

As far as this concerned, I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister. I have no problem with this. But then the hon. the Prime Minister continues and says—

†Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that as far as I am concerned I do not want confrontation or bloodshed in this country. I do not want it at all.

Neither do I.

The attitude of the PFP—and I would not have been a member if it wasn’t its attitude—is that it will work to the bitter end to ensure that there is no bloodshed and no confrontation and to try to solve our problems by consultation.

And if it is forced upon you?

I am not afraid to fight when I have to. But I know what war is about and I do not want bloodshed in this country at any price. I will fight to the last to avoid it.

But if people force you?

Sir, if people attack me, I will defend myself. [Interjections.] There is no question about it. The hon. the Prime Minister need not ask me such a question. It is fundamental to our philosophy that while there is a chance to talk we should talk and we negotiate to try to avoid bloodshed at any price.

Sir, the other thing which is significant to my mind is that this constitutional debate is taking place at a time when South Africa is in a deteriorating state of recession, at a time when there is no growth in the gross domestic product, at a time when the per capita growth is substantially negative and when inflation, despite the effects of the recessionary influences which bring it down, is still at a high level and when there are fears of increasing unemployment, unemployment in serious proportions. I say that at a time like this we ought to look not only at the political structures but also at the economic structures of South Africa. There should be plans not only to meet the short-term problems but plans also to deal with the tremendous social and economic issues that are going to confront us within the next few decades. The reality is that people cannot eat constitutions; one cannot eat constitutions, and whatever the demands for political participation, history has shown that political and economic progress must go hand in hand in order to maintain stability. And whatever any political party may want to believe, in the real South Africa people have aspirations and expectations, and the challenge is whether these expectations can be met in the face of political decisions and in the face of the economic stability of the country to meet those expectations. The tragedy is that those who are on the violent radical list do not want the economic aspirations to be met; they prefer confrontation and violence, while those on the reactionary right who see in this a danger to White standards do not realize, or do not want to realize, that if they oppose this they in fact seriously jeopardize the security of all the Whites in South Africa. If you are a true reformer—and, Sir the reformer on that side of the House is unfortunately not present at the moment—you must face not only political changes but you must be prepared to meet the economic challenge as well.

Some of the demands may seem like an avalanche, and so they will be if we do not plan to meet them. But as certain well-known economists in South Africa have pointed out, it is in fact within the capabilities of the country to meet them if we work and plan to do so. Sir, we in South Africa face many disadvantages, some artificial, some real. For instance, there is political exploitation; there is inherent prejudices and there is the almost traditional low output per worker compared with workers in highly industrialized countries. Furthermore there is a low level of average skill due to our failures in the field of education and training in the past. All of these are disadvantages. Against this we have the advantage of the inherent wealth and the manpower of South Africa to counter-balance those things.

As regards the manpower situation, we face it as an advantage on the one hand but also as a problem on the other hand. We have a massive population growth. There will be 45 million people and more in South Africa within two decades from now. Whatever the Government may or may not say or do about urbanization, the reality is that there will be increased urbanization and that 30 million of those 45 million people are going to be within the areas of South Africa within a matter of two decades from now and that two-thirds of those are going to be Black. As a matter of fact, if there is no rural development within that period, even more than two-thirds of those people are going to be Black. And these people are going to need jobs. Our economically active population is increasing at the rate of about 2,5% per annum. This means that there will be in excess of 17 million more jobseekers than now and that these will be increasing by 450 000 per year. Furthermore this increased population is going to have to eat. They are going to eat about 2,5 times than the population is eating now. So we have to see to the food production to feed them. Then there is the question of housing. At the present moment there is a shortage of between 500 000 and 600 000 houses; so we have to build houses at the rate of at least 100 000 per year starting now and to double that to 200 000 a year by the end of the century.

The Government has committed itself to equal quality of education. If that is to be achieved within the next few decades, it means that by the end of the century we are going to have 6,5 million children of all races at primary school and more than 21 million at secondary school. It means that in today’s monetary terms we are going to have to spend more than R10 billion on education alone by the turn of the century. So the tale can continue with health and social welfare services, and everything else. However, if we want to prevent a deluge sweeping us away we have to deal with these matters. Instead of maintaining the standards—and that is what we hope for—the standard of living of everybody in South Africa should be raised instead of being allowed to deteriorate to Third World standards because we cannot cope. The Government should devise a plan in terms of which to deal with this situation, a plan for meaningful growth in South Africa at an average rate, over the next two decades, of more than 5% a year. We also need to plan for a new form of co-operation—not merely lip service-service— between the Government and the private sector.

We need to accept that freedom, of which the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke so eloquently, in order to be meaningful, cannot be enjoyed in degradation. The vote is meaningless if it goes hand in hand with poverty and disease, and I challenge hon. members of this House to look around the world in order to see where the problems of political rights have really been solved. They have only been solved in those countries where they have dealt with the polical and the economic problems simultaneously. One should uplift one’s people economically and also uplift them politically at the same time. One cannot do the one without the other. If one gives political rights one will get economic demands which will submerge one if they are not met.

Therefore I appeal that while we deal with constitutional rights we should remember that people cannot eat constitutions. People want to live in houses. They want to be educated. They want health services. There should also be a new deal for the economic and social needs of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has spoken about the true reformer who has to meet the economic challenge of the times.

Let me assure him immediately that we certainly agree with him on that point. He has made a very interesting speech here this afternoon; not so much in what he has said but in what he has neglected to say. He has not elaborated on the advice he gave to the English-speaking population of South Africa that they should participate in the constitutional debate. However, he has referred to the constitutional debate as a very significant debate, representing a turning point in the history of South Africa. I agree with him on that point too.

The hon. member also took to task the hon. the leader of the CP about the extreme language used by that hon. leader, and I should like to talk about reform, about the true reformer and about the atmosphere in which the true reformer should operate.

*The one remarkable feature of this debate, especially on the part of certain hon. members of the PFP and, I must say, also on the part of the CP, is the extreme language which is used in referring to the constitutional proposals of the Government. A special spirit of negativism is prevalent in this debate. In their attacks on the Government there is nothing in the nature of constructive criticism, or nothing in the nature of weighing up the merits of alternatives against the proposals of the Government. Everything proposed by the Government is simply wrong, foolish, wicked, and is to be disparaged at every price. To the hon. Leader of the CP the constitutional proposals of the Government means the total destruction of White political rights, the abdication of the Whites. [Interjections.]

To the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the constitutional proposals of the Government means the institutionalization of White supremacy. Every sensible person ought to know that the truth is to be found somewhere between these two extreme poles. What is more, there are sufficient sensible people in South Africa, and for that reason the constitutional initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister and the National Party have contributed to a spirit of optimism and confidence in South Africa as seldom before in our history. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition conceded this himself in his speech when he spoke of a “qualified mood of optimism”. In an interview with The Cape Times of 27 January this year he also spoke of “a mood for reform that is prevalent”. A climate for reform in South Africa has indeed been created thanks to the NP, which as a reform party, has in recent years exercised a renewing and broadening influence in various fields.

Let us differ from one another on the nature and the rate of reform. This afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville also said that this debate was being conducted around the basic issue of whom was to be included and whom not. Let us differ from one another, and even differ fundamentally, but there is one aspect on which the true reformers cannot differ from one another and that is that reform can take place only within a climate of confidence, within a framework of order and stability. Reform is not possible where distrust and chaos prevail. The remarkable thing is that this truth is grasped by people and Governments outside South Africa, people and Governments who largely differ from us but who feel a responsibility to assist in the promotion of the processes of reform in South Africa against the powers of revolution. It is for this reason that the present American administration is following a policy of constructive engagement with regard to South Africa.

†The American Government explained its policy of constructive engagement in a policy statement issued on 2 December 1982 in which Mr. Princeton Layman said—

It appears, Sir, that people outside South Africa are more aware of the delicate nature of reform and are more anxious to make a contribution towards a climate of confidence to contribute to reform than many people in this country. What have the PFP and the Press done to contribute to a climate of confidence in which people can be encouraged to make difficult changes?

*The fact has often been stated that changes, including political and constitutional changes, can take place only in an evolutionary or revolutionary way. They can take place in an evolutionary way when the restructuring takes place in an orderly and peaceful fashion in a way which does not threaten stability and break down confidence. Indeed, it is inherent in reform that its nature is evolutionary; i.e. the reformer is not a demolisher, is not a person who pulls down or breaks down but a person who wants to build up. In contradistinction to this, change can take place in a radical way and it takes place in a radical way in a climate in which confidence is continually broken down and conflict incited.

This brings me to the role which the PFP and its hangers-on in the Press are playing in respect of reform in South Africa. I regret having to say that on the part of many members of the PFP and on the part of many of their kindred spirits in the Press there is no constructive engagement in South African politics. There is no contribution from those quarters to a spirit of confidence which can render reform possible. The political negativism, the political cynicism displayed by the PFP and certain of its hangers-on in the Press is one of the largest single stumbling blocks on the road to reform today. That is why many former supporters of the party are distancing themselves from that party. This also holds for certain of their supporters in the ranks of the Press. How does one contribute to reform and confidence if one’s entire attitude is sceptical, negative and cynical? If one is not building up one is pulling down. Then one is not promoting the processes of reform but creating a climate in which the enemies of reform are able to make progress even though one comes out against those people. The negativism of the PFP which makes of it a stumbling block on the road to reform, manifests itself in different ways and I want to refer briefly to a few examples in this regard.

Firstly, the PFP takes its seat in this House and in the Parliament of South Africa. By doing so it accepts the democratic processes which we in this country inherited and in terms of which changes, including political constitutional changes, take place by means of a majority decision of this Parliament.

A reformer, the true reformer to whom the hon. member for Yeoville referred, addresses himself in terms of our democratic tradition to the electorate with a policy in terms of which he and his party can win a mandate for reform. This is not only the only democratic way which a White political party in South Africa can follow, but also the only moral way. All of us are part of this system, the Opposition as well, and one changes it only by parliamentary or revolutionary means.

But the PFP does not address itself to the electorate with a view to coming into power. The PFP does not offer itself as an alternative government. Instead of judging its policy in terms of its practicability within the South African context and its democratic acceptability to the electorate, the PFP comes along with the dodge of its task actually being to be an effective Opposition. By doing so the official Opposition is actually clothing itself, as it were, in the spirit of negativity. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in the same interview with The Cape Times to which I have referred—

What contribution does this negativism make and what role does it play in the climate of confidence which is necessary for reform? I gain the impression that this antipathy, this anti-spirit which is characteristic of that party, is instigated by Auntie Helen and the left wing of that party. It is this “anti” that has persuaded that party to become a boycott party. Nothing the Government can ever do will be good enough, commendable or acceptable in terms of that anti-spirit—it disparages and throw suspicion on everything with a cynical obstreperousness. We had a fine example of this yesterday from the hon. member of Pinelands who came to his feet immediately after the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement of the Cabinet Committee and in anticipation disparaged it as being inadequate, as not being good enough—discredited it before there has been any chance whatsoever of building thereon. No, this negativism, which has become so much part of the PFP’s entire approach to life, not only turns it into an antiparty, a boycott party, but also has the effect—this is much more dangerous—of contributing to inspiring people and groups outside Parliament to think that meaningful change in South Africa is possible only if one boycotts, if one rejects and if one strongly expresses one’s opposition. When a party and its hangers-on in the Press promote a spirit of negativism and cynicism, the enemies of reform can only rejoice.

A second example which illustrates the fact that the PFP is an obstruction to the processes of reform in South Africa rather than a constructive aid, is to be found in the party’s rejection of the Government’s constitutional proposals. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning dealt with the way in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party tried in various phases to manoeuvre themselves out of the corner in which they found themselves as a result of that rejection: First they had to obtain more particulars concerning detail and next the party would do everything in its power in the Select Committee to see whether they could improve the proposals before taking a decision on the position of that party.

The party that waxes so lyrical about its moral basis, claims for itself the privilege of operating within the parliamentary system, and rejects a dispensation which seeks to extend the same right to the Coloureds and the Indians. On what moral basis can the PFP and its Press continue to begrudge the Coloured Labour Party the right …

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

Let me just finish first. I shall reply if there is any time left. On what grounds can the PFP and its Press begrudge the Coloured Labour Party the right to operate within the parliamentary system while they themselves continue to do so.

Who said that?

It is remarkable that no less a person and the editor of the Sunday Times admonished the PFP about this negativism. It must have come as quite a disillusionment to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party to be admonished by such a firm supporter of the party about the role he ought to play in this process of reform. [Interjections.] In an editorial of 16 January, under the heading “Only players can win the game”, the Sunday Times wrote—

†Then obviously referring to the PFP, the newspaper went on to say—

*I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not, when this reprimand came from the Sunday Times, think involuntarily of a similar reprimand addressed by the same newspaper to another Leader of the Opposition years ago, which spelt the beginning of the end of that leader, and eventually of his party. History often has a strange way of repeating itself.

A third example of the negativism of that party and its leftist supporters in the Press is the hysterical reaction which came from that side to the historical decision of the Labour Party to give the processes of reform in South Africa a chance.

Quote somebody.

I am coming to that; I am able to do so. Nothing illustrates the inability of that party and its Press to make a contribution to creating a spirit of confidence in South Africa more than their violent reaction to the Labour Party.

But mention specific cases.

I am coming to that. I shall give the hon. member for Yeoville examples if he wants them. [Interjections.] The fact is that when the Labour Party used boycotts as a method, it was the political hero of the Prog Press. [Interjections.]

Give us a reference for that also.

I shall give a reference in a moment. [Interjections.] Just be a little patient! One gained the impression that theirs was a friendship which would stand the test of time, but if one is so filled with negativism that boycotts have become part of one’s approach to life, one’s friends drop one overnight. [Interjections.] What one found was an embittered apologizing from beginning to end; one found a process of “yes, but”. There is no clearer expression of this negativism than the laments published in particular by the morning paper here in the Cape which supports the party. [Interjections.] Now the hon. members would like to have examples. I could quote many others, but I just want to refer to a member of the Brains Trust of the Prog Establishment, namely Dr. Du Toit of Stellenbosch. He wrote a series of articles in The Cape Times in which he expressed the opposition of that party. [Interjections.] Unfortunately my time is running out … [Interjections] … but I can quote from this. Let me ask the hon. member for Yeoville. Where is there one example of a member of that party who applauded this decision of the Labour Party, who gave it due credit for the courage it had displayed? [Interjections.] May I ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he expressed himself in favour of the Labour Party’s decision?

You are in trouble, Dawie.

Since the hon. member has so much to say across the floor of this House, is he able to quote one example to us of any of the members of his party expressing unqualified support for the Labour Party’s decision?

Answer the question.

No, Sir, it is clear that reform in South Africa will come in spite of and notwithstanding the PFP and its hangers-on in the Press. Unfortunately time does not permit me to indicate as a further example of negativism the way in which members of that party and their Press go out of their way to influence visitors to South Africa so that they will not leave the country with the idea of saying something positive about South Africa or of doing something which can promote confidence in South Africa.

Give a name.

I can mention examples and colleagues of mine here in this House can mention examples.

Name them!

Order!

The hon. Prime Minister referred to a few examples yesterday. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to complete his speech.

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

Unfortunately my time has virtually expired. I want to conclude by telling the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he can rise to greatness in these times and can serve South Africa by freeing his party from the spirit of negativism. Let him rise to greatness and free his party of this spirit of negativism and in contrast promote the processes of reform in South Africa by joining all people of goodwill in an effort to create a climate of confidence.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Industries addressed most of his remarks to the official Opposition, and for this reason I do not really want to react to his speech. However, in the course of his speech he did say that members of both the official Opposition and the CP made use of fairly unbridled language in this debate. As the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said only this afternoon in this House that members of the CP are hurling invective from public platforms in the course of attacking the Government, I think in all fairness that his colleague who has just finished speaking should have addressed his words to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, because what he said is simply not true, it is totally untrue in any sense of the word.

I want to return briefly to what my hon. leader said right at the end of his speech just before his time expired. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to this, but he is not here at the moment. I want to state categorically that the CP is not and never will be in favour of using force to solve South Africa’s political problems. This is a democratic party and it will use all democratic methods at its disposal to put its case and, eventually, to be victorious.

I want to get back to the hon. member for Pretoria Central who is again constructively absent, as he himself had occasion to call it in the past. I told him I was going to refer to him in the debate. However, I do not hold it against him that he is not here. I want to refer briefly to the language he used when referring to the CP. He referred to us as people who go from platform to platform on the platteland telling the White man that the Black man is his enemy. He says it is in our political interests for the ordinary White man in South Africa to see the Black man as his enemy. He went even further and said: “Through their policy of denying human rights, through their policy of insulting Black people in South Africa”.

Why did we leave the NP? We did not leave because of the policy in respect of Black people. It has always been our standpoint that as far as the Black nations in South Africa are concerned, we shall support all attempts by the Government to consolidate the Black States properly. If we have any criticism in this regard it is that the process is taking too long.

Now the hon. member for Pretoria Central comes along and tells us that we hate the Blacks and that we are sowing seeds of hatred of the Blacks among the Whites in South Africa. What are the facts? If one says, in accordance with the NP recipe, that the Blacks cannot be included in the proposed dispensation, one does not hate the Black people. Then one is a good Nationalist and a good Afrikaner. However, if one’s standpoint is that the Coloureds and the Indians cannot be included either, then one is suddenly a racist. Then one hates not only the Coloureds and the Indians but the Blacks as well. The Government must now decide, because both these statements cannot be true. The PFP has always maintained that we are motivated by hatred, and that is the reason for developing separate national states for the Black people in South Africa. In the past we always rejected this allegation and we also reject it today. What moral right does the ruling party have to brand the Opposition as racists and as people who sow seeds of hatred in South Africa if the Opposition has adopted essentially the same standpoint in respect of Coloured and Indians as it has in respect of the Black nations of South Africa. In the benches of this House there sits a former classmate of mine at the University of Pretoria, the hon. the Minister of National Education. When, in the not so distant past, in his writings he was, in a manner of speaking, a fiery supporter of a homeland for the Coloureds, was he motivated by racism? Surely it is a fallacy to say that our standpoints are based on racism.

In this debate certain questions have been put by us and by the official Opposition to the Government regarding the proposed dispensation. Neither the hon. the Prime Minister nor that great apologist for the new dispensation, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, has replied to any of those questions. I want to bring up one particular question again. The most important matter—as a matter of fact, the matter that has dominated all debates in this House since I came here—is Black affairs, matters affecting the Black people of South Africa. This is not suddenly going to cease. Even if the Government introduces its new dispensation, those matters will still have to be discussed and decided on in the future tricameral parliament. Black affairs, education and training, must of necessity therefore be a so-called matter of material interest. It cannot be otherwise. That means that in terms of the new dispensation we shall tell the Indians of Natal that they are welcome to enter a new dispensation with us and to decide with us as Whites on the Zulus of Natal, but the Zulus of Natal are not welcome in the dispensation. We want answers to these questions. Let us debate this matter calmly and soberly. Any future political dispensation in South Africa affects all the nations in South Africa. If we want to create a political dispensation in White South Africa only between Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and if it is then our standpoint, as we learned last year, that Whites, Coloureds and Indians are, relatively speaking, one nation, one is justified in asking: What about the Blacks whom the Government now recognizes will reside permanently in South Africa? We know what their numbers are. If the motive is not race hatred—those hon. members accuse me of race hatred and I deny it—why are those Black people whom those hon. members maintain will reside permanently in South Africa, exclude from that relatively unitary nation?

You know why.

Of course I know. I am arguing with those hon. members now. I am setting one argument against another. Hon. members opposite cannot accuse me of race hatred if I say that as in the case of the respective Black nations, the Coloured nation and the Indian nation are not part of my nation either.

Allow me to elaborate further on this. When it comes to matters of general interest, the development, the further constitutional development of South Africa, with regard to the Black people as well, will surely become a matter of general interest which will have to be discussed by all three chambers of the new Parliament. We have already taken the initial steps—we did so when two matters—I am referring to the bills on the control of urbanization of Black people and on the development of Black communities—were referred at the beginning of this week, not to the Commission for Co-operation and Development, but to the hon. the Minister’s Committee on the Constitution. In the new dispensation Blacks will have no say in this. Sir, we are embarking upon a course which not only involves confrontation among Whites, Coloureds and Indians as an inherent possibility, but also confrontation between Whites and Blacks.

Sir, my time has almost expired. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is unfortunately not present at the moment, but I nevertheless want to refer briefly to the matter of Kangwane and Ingwavuma. It has always been our standpoint that Black nations should be consolidated geographically wherever practicable. For this reason it was my standpoint that the effort to consolidate the Swazi nation properly was also a good thing and should succeed. I was a fiery supporter of this. But, Mr. Speaker, I feel very sorry for the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. After all, I know that he was not father to the idea. He was merely the midwife of the confinement. That is the truth. The experience we have now gained through this Swazi affair may be one of the reasons why the hon. the Prime Minister is now sending a gynaecologist to South West Africa. It is to ensure that things do not go awry there too. In any case, the way in which a praiseworthy ideal has been converted into a virtual failure grieves us. And the solution to this dilemma, as has so frequently been the case in recent years, is yet another commission of inquiry. After all, we had the Commission for Co-operation and Development, that investigated the entire matter thoroughly, and also gave advice. However, I do not want to discuss that now. The practical handling of this delicate matter was, however, to say the least—and I do not agree with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who said it was a brilliant success—a dismal failure, as Beeld also put it. I am, by the way, inclined to agree with Beeld’s pronouncement in this regard.

Now a further commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Rumpff, has been appointed. This reminds me of the 1943 elections. As a young student I went to listen to Dr. Malan when he made a speech in the Pretoria City Hall. It was one of his major speeches during that election. On that occasion he also referred to the numerous commissions of inquiry appointed by the then Smuts Government. Dr. Malan said the moment they encountered any problems they were unable to make a decision, and they referred the matter to a commission of inquiry. In his own characteristic way Dr. Malan concluded by saying he thought the time had come to appoint a commission of inquiry to establish what had become of the Smuts Government. [Interjections.]

I wonder whether the time has not come for us to appoint a commission of inquiry to establish what has become of our present Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this debate has already reached an advanced stage. If anyone thought that the Opposition would cast any light on the vaguest possibility of a solution to South Africa’s problems, he ought to be extremely disappointed by now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the CP who are sitting directly opposite me here, have already adopted the methods of the HNP. They transport their cheering commandos with them to sit and applaud when one of their spokesmen speaks. Not one of the hon. members of the CP has stood up and spoken alone. Each time all the others have to sit and make a noise as well. Even you, Mr. Speaker, were obliged to permanently shut up one of the loudest mouths among them. [Interjections.] Go on, just say something!

You are fortunate that Mr. Speaker has forbidden me to make any further interjections! [Interjections.]

Order! In accordance with my earlier warning I order the hon. member for Langlaagte to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

(Whereupon the hon. member withdrew.)

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I request you to consider whether the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare did not deliberately set out to provoke the hon. member for Langlaagte into saying something. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I request a ruling as to the question whether the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare did not abuse your ruling in terms of which you forbade the hon. member for Langlaagte to make any further interjections.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, recently a number of by-elections were held and the outcome was extremely clear.

What about Bothaville? [Interjections.]

There were people who were boasting about certain meetings. I remember how the hon. member for Kuruman came and told us about the motion of full confidence which his hon. leader received at Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] Those are odd motions of confidence, when one holds meetings with chairmen who make their own arrangements without other people being given the opportunity of putting their case properly.

What happened at Excelsior?

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, there was only one official result after the votes had been counted. [Interjections.] Meanwhile, the hon. members of the CP are worse off by quite a large sum of money. [Interjections.] However, it is no use our trying to score political points off one another. It is no use hon. members quoting what a previous Prime Minister said.

You cannot look John Vorster in the eye.

I am prepared to look anyone in the eye, but I wish to say to the hon. member that his face irritates me! [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Brakpan wishes to quote the former Prime Minister here, he should quote him in respect of everything. [Interjections.] Yes, I, too, shall quote him. With regard to the stories which those hon. members had to tell about the proposals of 1977, I wish to quote the following. I quote from Hansard, col. 4554 of Wednesday, 12 April 1978. The hon. member for Sea Point put certain questions to the Prime Minister and he was replying to those questions. He had this to say, inter alia—

That was Mr. Vorster speaking. He said that these people sat down together and that they had a joint responsibility. [Interjections.] Do those hon. members not understand Afrikaans? They should go and read it. They should read Mr. Vorster’s entire speech.

You read like a sectarian.

They can read Mr. Vorster’s entire speech. That hon. member acts like a sectarian. He, too, is one of those sectarians who violate the truth. The hon. member should have left in 1969 but then he had no pension so he did not have the courage to leave. [Interjections.] One should read it further. The hon. member should also read the speech of his leader—or is it his leader?—which he himself made before the NP congress when he launched an attack on those people who lied about the NP in respect of things they had done, of which he is now accusing us.

Do not take it out of context.

Nothing has been taken out of context. That hon. member should tighten his own context (“verband”) or something may fall off! [Interjections.] I say that this kind of thing will not get us anywhere, certainly not the way in which these stories are being publicized. We face a problem which we in South Africa will have to solve, a problem which hon. members opposite are making no real contribution to try and solve.

Let us commence with that about which we all agreed. Not a single hon. member in this House objected when the Select Committee on the Constitution proposed that the Westminster system be done away with. Everyone agreed. Some hon. members signed that report. I wish to ask: How far have we progressed with it? The PFP also agreed that a new system should be introduced and that a President’s Council should investigate the matter. However, that is where they got stuck. They wanted to know nothing more about it and now they are just boycotting. When their own advisers told them that they should reconsider the matter, their leader saw his party’s actions in a different light. Then he said: “No, we are only entering the negotiation stage.” In the stage of its creation he was not interested in it, not interested in the least. What is this negotiation stage? He pretended to his congress that this was a new political process he had discovered. Do you know what it is, Sir? It is the Select Committee on Constitutional Development which is now going to consider these proposals in the days ahead. Why? Because his own people are saying to him: You must think again. It is because the hon. member for Yeoville is saying: Should one not look at some of these problems? Is a problem only solved in one way? Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition regrets his boycott action for what are the facts? The fact of the matter is that over the years those hon. members—most of them having stated this repeatedly—have prided themselves on speaking here on behalf of the large number of South Africans who have no right to vote.

No one has said that.

No, those hon. members have always said so. They forget what they have said. I can give numerous examples.

Give just one reference.

There are few of them who have never said so. [Interjections.]

Order!

They must not run away from that now.

You are running away from the truth.

No, I am not running away from the truth; those hon. members know that I am speaking the truth. Those hon. members said that they were speaking on behalf of those who are not represented here, since, they say, this Government is not really the Government of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. members pretended to speak on behalf of the Coloureds—that is why they have just had such a dreadful shock. The Coloureds said to them: We are prepared to speak on our own behalf; the Government is creating the opportunity for us to speak on our own behalf, and we are doing so.

In fact, they can do it much better than those hon. members.

Yes of course.

There are a number of Black leaders who speak on their own behalf. All that is happening now, is that those hon. members are sitting here as the agents of Buthelezi. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition regularly comes with this covert threat: “Then you must realize Chief Buthelezi is a moderate”. Those hon. members are therefore looking for trouble now, and if the Government does not accept what Buthelezi says, the others are going to make trouble, etc. No, we are watching those hon. members.

Politics is interesting. On the extreme right is a third Opposition group. They are clearly as happy as the cat who stole the cream. [Interjections.] They simply assume that the NP has adopted a large part of their past policy.

It shows your thought process is not so slow after all.

Oh no, the hon. member must give me the opportunity to proceed.

No one has ever understood what the NRP wishes to do, not since the time Bill Sutton sat there with all his “balls”. [Interjections.] Therefore the situation is this: We all took a joint decision to do away with the Westminster system. Together we undertook to do so. In other words, we are going to seek a solution together. What single jot or tittle has any one of those three parties tried to contribute since that time to finding a solution whereby to put that joint decision into effect? [Interjections.] The hon. the leader of the NRP himself did not understand those “balls” of Bill Sutton’s. [Interjections.] On Monday the hon. the leader of the CP shocked this House with his speech. [Interjections.] We knew him as someone who could be described as a very refined person. He has come a long way and he lived a sheltered life for many years. At first he was a clergyman. [Interjections.]

Hendrik Schoeman is dishonest.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Jeppe say that Hendrik Schoeman is dishonest?

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

Yes, I did say so, since the hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Waterberg was dishonest. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Minister to hold his tongue. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that as well and apologize to the Chair.

I apologize, Sir.

Thereafter the hon. member became Moderator of the D.R. Church in the Cape Province. Our people are aware that one does not accost a Moderator. After that he became editor of Die Kerkbode, and he is even less in a position to be accosted. Then he became editor of Hoofstad and we are all aware that no one has any chance at all of getting hold of an editor of a newspaper. [Interjections.] After that he landed up here in Parliament, and was elected chairman of a large association in South Africa, and in that post, no one gets hold of one. [Interjections.] The first time he was subjected to public pressure was when he was Deputy Minister of Education and Training, and that was when Soweto burned!

You are a shameful person! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Rissik entitled to say that the hon. the Minister is a shameful person?

Order! No. The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I would have been quite happy with that, Mr. Speaker, if only the hon. member had only told me why I was shameful. I was not telling an untruth. I merely said that Soweto burned. Where was the hon. member for Rissik when Soweto was burning?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The way in which the hon. the Minister puts it, viz. that when I became Deputy Minister Soweto burned …

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member may put a question, but he may not put a point of order in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question. I wish to know whether the hon. the Minister therefore holds me responsible for the burning of Soweto. [Interjections.]

Order!

If that is the hon. member’s interpretation, I withdraw it and apologize.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact remains; Soweto did bum. [Interjections.]

A judge of the Supreme Court was appointed to investigate the causes. Hon. members should go and read what a judge of the Supreme Court—not I—had to say then. Thereafter the hon. member was made a member of the Cabinet. From then on the hon. the Prime Minister protected him. He was protected all the years in the Cabinet.

How many other members of the Cabinet are at present like him. [Interjections.]

Another problem has arisen. Each time there was equivocation, the hon. member’s defence was: The Press is attacking me, and I have been incorrectly reported. He is aware that this is so. Then— and now I am going a little more quickly— he was chosen as leader of the CP and since then he has had to speak for himself and stand on his own two feet.

And more than 100 000 people have listened to him.

He has to speak for himself and stand on his own two feet, but since then he has lacked courage. Now I read in the newspaper that he has been invited to address the organization of which he was chairman, together with the hon. the Prime Minister. For this, too, he lacked courage.

Where do you get that from?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that an hon. member lacked courage?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to ask you whether a member of the Opposition in this Parliament has the right to put a case to you, yes or no.

That has nothing to do with the debate. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Rissik entitled to put such a question to the Chair? He is implying that there is discrimination against the members on the Opposition side.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

In the by-election in Parys the shadow leader of the party eventually had to take over. The shadow leader eventually challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to take part in a television debate. Why was that?

That was in Stellenbosch, man.

The hon. member himself could not risk it. He was afraid that the hon. the Prime Minister might agree, since that would have meant trouble. Since then, equivocations have been rife. They literally behaved like the little bird that ate too many chillis and then had to fly backwards in order to cool off. [Interjections]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Have you also been eating chillis? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Do you regard the remark of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare as parliamentary?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

This kind of quibbling is the sum total of the contribution made by those hon. members with regard to our decision that we should move away from the Westminster system. Apart from that there was nothing. The NP then got to work. With the aid of the President’s Council, and after proposals were repeatedly considered, proposals such as those about which the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke in detail a short while ago, a system was drawn up. If one is to get away from the Westminster system of “one man, one vote and the majority takes all”, one must design another system. The NP has now devised a system whereby national groups obtain representation and are accorded the opportunity of bargaining with one another.

You listened to us.

If groups are to bargain and negotiate with one another in order to reach consensus, one group must not be subordinate to another. This is what those people wish to intimate now …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister refer to members of the CP as “those people”?

Order! No. The hon. the Minister must refer to them as “hon. members of the Conservative Party”.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for calling them “people” … I am referring to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is this the way in which the hon. the Minister is going to withdraw his remark or not?

Order! I did not concede that the hon. member did, in fact, raise a point of order the first time. I merely pointed out to the hon. the Minister that he should use the correct form of address when he refers to hon. members. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The Government and the NP have therefore recognized the realities of the day. The Government has recognized that which exists, it has accepted the homelands and the independent States and it has helped those people. However, the Government is also proceeding with the search for new solutions to new problems. No one can solve anything by falling back on 1966. 1966 is past and the solutions must be found in the future. Those solutions can only be found by the people of today, for today’s problems and with today’s means. Therefore, the only realistic thing is to accept that which has already been achieved and to build on it further.

Therefore the NP has come forward with its model in terms of which a method has been found to create group representation so that the groups may bargain with one another. The NP makes no secret of the fact that in this bargaining which is to take place it is going to bargain from a position of strength. Surely it is not a sin to bargain from a position of strength? Must one then give up and say: Leave it alone, I want nothing to do with it? Surely it is every person’s aim in life to bargain from a position of strength. Is Pres. Reagan not always declaring that he is willing to bargain with Russia from a position of strength? That is why constitutional proposals have been put before the people of the country and they have accepted them. Since the previous general election the NP has done precisely what was promised, viz. that it would consult its congresses. The NP declared that if there were many anomalies, the matter would once again be put to the nation. If the members of the CP who were once members of the NP have deprived themselves of the right to participate further, they have only themselves to blame. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare seems to have missed his vocation. He should have been some sort of a humorist judging from the way he was throwing jokes around this afternoon. But I do not think he would have made a very good fiving from that. I believe that even humorists have to have a sort of logic in what they say. I have known the hon. the Minister for some years in various capacities and I have in the past found him to be a reasonably logical sort of person, particularly when he was handling Water Affairs, Forestry, etc. However, it would appear that this new post has in fact changed his character because his logic seems to have suffered a little. At one stage he said that the NRP were the most fortunate people here because we had the feeling that the NP had taken over our policy lock, stock and barrel, Bill Sutton’s balls and all. However, a few minutes later he made the statement that we have made no contribution.

You should be thankful; all the others ignored you.

Anyway, I do believe that logic is very important in this particular debate.

The tenor of this no-confidence debate has largely been on the subject of a future constitution and also to a lesser degree on the competence or incompetence of the Government in running the affairs of the State. Obviously it is normal that there should be discussion and criticism of the Government’s running of the State. It is an on-going thing and quite rightly so. It is normal and that is what in fact a no-confidence debate is all about. Many ministerial decisions are taken within the framework of laws or regulations and are taken because of political philosophy, prejudice or in fact sometimes merely opinions. It is quite natural, therefore, that they should be subject to criticism. However, I do not propose to spend the time at my disposal upon mistakes of the past but upon the infinitely more grave and urgent matters of the constitutional change. After all, oppositions have been critical of Government administration since the time of Union and, in spite of all that has been said about the matter and the criticism of these various governments, South Africa still does exist, albeit as a consequence of the homelands in a diminished form. Again, in spite of the criticism, our economy is still reasonably sound and the public, Black and White, are better off than in most countries in the world perhaps and certainly most countries on the continent of Africa. However, a new constitution is another matter altogether. We shall be moving away from systems which, how ever imperfect, have kept the ship of State afloat since Union. We are now moving into a new dimension to meet modern needs. With this new constitution I believe that we are attempting to provide a better and happier future for our populace. There is no doubt at all in my mind that this change is necessary, but at the same time any constitutional change involves risks and these risks can be great. I believe however that these risks can be reduced if one approaches changes with the right attitude. This I believe is important. Some of my colleagues have already stressed the importance of attitudes instead of merely the question of the written word. Attitudes are also important.

From the progress of the debate so far it is clear that the Government is, regrettably, likely to get very little co-operation, assistance or help from the PFP or from the CP. The PFP pays lip-service to participation. They must. I believe however that their policy of universal franchise on a common roll without any acceptance of group identity makes it impossible for them to go along with the Government’s constitutional proposals at all. I believe that were they to do so they would lose their credibility altogether. As far as the CP is concerned, the point was made by the hon. member for Barberton that the CP is a very democratic party. As far as I am concerned they are a democratic party with a difference: They are only democratic in so far as their own people are concerned. This presents problems because they exclude from their democratic processes persons of colour. So I do not think the CP can make any contribution because their policy seems to me to be based on—and if I am wrong I shall be pleased to be corrected— the old and ancient NP’s policy of “baas-skap” with non-Whites having limited and separate Government within their own areas with no power-sharing, not even in areas of common concern. This has been made very clear in speech after speech by hon. members of the CP. [Interjections.] “Baasskap” may be questioned but in so far as the rest is concerned, I believe that is the way in which the CP has expressed its policy.

As against this the NRP is not constrained in this way. It does believe in group representation as well as in power-sharing. It is therefore quite logical for us to support the principles inherent in these constitutional proposals while at the same time objecting to and attempting to change certain aspects of it, aspects which are very substantial indeed. I do not propose to repeat at this stage the differences between the NRP and the NP in this regard. The hon. member for Durban Point has already done so, and I fully support the standpoint he took in this regard.

Let me just make a few comments in regard to the guidelines of the NP when it comes to local government. As I understand these guidelines the two non-negotiables are (1) joint decision-making in respect of all matters of common concern and (2) self-determination for each race group. Well, all reasonable people can subscribe to the first point: Joint decision-making on matters of common concern. I subscribe to this although I can see considerable difficulties when it comes to definition of what constitutes “common concern” and what constitutes “local concern”. Nevertheless I believe that with a reasonable attitude and with goodwill it ought to be possible to resolve the main issues of common concern at least. In regard to the second point—self-determination for each group—I foresee somewhat more difficulties, not so much in regard to the principle—to which we can subscribe—as in regard to the practical application if taken to the ultimate. In larger cities or boroughs it is freely accepted that it is possible, and indeed practicable, to reduce them to a number of ethnic boroughs handling the purely domestic affairs of the area with a metro style of second-tier authority handling the major or common services. This, I believe, can be done with the minimum of disruption and with an only moderate and quite acceptable increase in bureaucracy and cost.

However, in smaller local authorities, and indeed in small pockets in the major local authorities, I believe, we are going to have great difficulties. In fact, as we found in Natal, when we concluded an agreement with the Coloured and Indian people on a future local government for that province—a future local government system for Natal—there was only one way in which to resolve that problem, and that was to add a little water to our wine of idealism. In so far as self-determination is concerned, we found that it was not practical to take it to the ultimate, and we consequently also accepted a principle. When we were working on it we also had our non-negotiable, namely that all should have the vote if they had to pay rates. We believed that flexibility was necessary, and without that flexibility in local government, or in fact on any other level of government, I do not believe that one is going to achieve ultimate success.

Bearing in mind that the Government also now subscribes to the oft stated NRP attitude of opposing domination and discrimination, I do not believe that it will be possible to achieve inter-racial agreements where self-determination for all is inflexible. We believe it to be a sound idea to which we can aspire but it must not be treated as the rock of ages.

In the ethnic boroughs there is no great problem about the franchise as local options, customs and traditions can apply. When we get to the second or metropolitan tier, however, then I firmly believe that we should get away from head counts and that all groups should either be equally represented or represented according to their financial contribution. These are just a couple of the examples of what, I believe, is necessary in order to have flexibility in our way of thinking, and further thinking in respect of constitutional issues. Much of what I have heard about the new proposals for local government level at this stage either will not work or will be so cumbersome and expensive to operate that they will ultimately collapse owing to lack of trained personnel and shortage of funds.

We in Natal had 20 years of practice in non-White local Government, starting with our Local Affairs Committees in 1963, and, I think, for about 12 to 14 years we have had fully-fledged Indian local authorities. I might tell the House that the training of the appropriate staff is both difficult and expensive, and not only that, but to implant our occidental ideas of government into non-White businessmen who serve on local authorities is not that easy because their attitude in the dog-eat-dog line of business is totally different to the attitude that one requires in looking after one’s constituents in local government or in any other form of government. I sound this note of caution, Mr. Speaker, because we do want the new constitution to work. We will help a new constitution to work. We appreciate the trauma being experienced by many Nationalists in moving towards this change. For about 35 years the NP has espoused apartheid and White domination as the corner-stones of their policy. We in these benches are happy that at last they are changing direction towards a truer South Africanism and a form of power-sharing.

Admittedly much has been done in the past for the various communities. Now hopefully much can be done with the various communities. These new constitutional proposals are just that. They are proposals; they are not yet the constitution. They have glaring faults which we should like to help change. The Government has shown great courage in admitting the errors of its past policies. It is a sign of maturity when one can admit the error of one’s ways. We hope and indeed believe that it will also have the maturity and courage to make the necessary changes to its proposals that will be acceptable to the majority of South Africans of all races. We of the NRP believe this matter to be so vital to the future of our great country that petty party advantage and self-aggrandisement should play no part in our deliberations. We love our country and we want to be proud of being South Africans but we also want all our citizens to have the same love for and pride in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo will forgive me if I do not deal directly with the content of his speech. In the course of my own speech I shall refer to some of the elements he mentioned. I may say, however, that his remarks in regard to local government do deserve the serious consideration of all hon. members in this House.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to say immediately that I must express my personal disappointment that the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare brought his debate on the constitution, which I consider to be the dominant debate in this session, down to a level that really surprised me. I am very sorry he dealt with the matter in that way. I shall not pursue this matter any further.

I also want to venture a few remarks about the speech by the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, in which he, among other things, accused the PFP of negativism. I want to say at the out set that this rather surprised me. I wonder where the hon. the Minister was during all those years when the PFP was advocating reform. We did so in the industrial field, with regard to the abolition of discrimination, group areas and the like. This party was at the forefront of pleas for reform, and at the time that hon. Minister was only too ready to agree wholeheartedly with everything the Government did. If he is now a convert, we want to welcome him in our midst! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister spoke about reform, he spoke about the spirit of reform but throughout his speech he did not once spell out for us what he understood by reform. All he could possibly have been referring to were the new constitutional proposals.

Of course.

Oh, in that case I want to ask the hon. the Minister: What about group areas, what about the Population Registration Act, what about separate amenities, what about the Immorality Act, what about the Mixed Marriages Act? Is there reform in this connection or is there not?

You are “yes, but” reformers.

I also want to put this question to the hon. the Minister. When he speaks of reform, I want him to spell out for us what he understands by reform. [Interjections.] He must spell it out for us.

In the third place the hon. the Minister would seem to be totally confused about the role of the Opposition. It is not our task merely to approve of everything the Government does without further ado. Our task is to make a constructive contribution, and I want to challenge that hon. Minister to tell us in what respect we have not made a constructive contribution in this debate.

I now want to return to the crux of our discussion. It concerns the constitutional proposals of the Government. In the first place I want to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that we have here a truly momentous matter that will determine the future of this country. We are now discussing the constitution, and not an ordinary Act. This is of the utmost importance. In my opinion any constitution must meet four minimum requirements. There are others, too, but these four are the minimum. In the first place, it must be legitimate; in other words, it must create conditions of loyalty. If it is not legitimate, then it is not a constitution worthy of the name. I shall come back to this in a moment. In the second place, the constitution must be a unifying factor, and particularly in a country such as ours, with its divergent population structure, if a constitution is not able to unite the people, then we must seek another constitution which is able to do so. In the third place, a constitution must provide the framework within which stability and order can be ensured, and as far as possible it must not be the cause of confrontation and conflict. In the fourth place, in our circumstances a constitution must prevent the domination of one group by another. These are the four essential principles, and I venture to say that every thinking and responsible South African will endorse all four these principles.

Let us now test the proposals of the Government against these four principles. The first principle is the matter of legitimacy. If a constitution is to be legitimate, if it is to inspire the loyalty of the people of the country, they must participate in its creation. I want to say at once that it is of no use to say, as the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has, that the constitution was drafted and after that there was consultation. There is a fundamental difference between helping to draft a constitution and submitting it afterwards for approval after consultation. There is a fundamental difference.

But it was accepted.

I say there is a fundamental difference because no-one except the NP participated in the creation of the constitutional proposals. [Interjections.]

The major part of our population—no matter how we explain it away—the Blacks, were not even involved in the consultations on these constitutional proposals. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There has been a great of interjecting by the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism; can he not keep quiet just for a while?

Order! The hon. members must afford the hon. member Prof. Olivier the opportunity to make his speech.

In order to be legitimate a constitution must not exclude from anyone the process of political decision-making who is permanently resident in the country. That is exactly what we have done thus far, as far as the Blacks are concerned. I shall return later to the other proposals that were made yesterday.

The principles put forward by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning when he wanted to deal with the CP’s objections regarding Coloureds and Indians, namely that people living permanently in the country cannot be excluded …

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member answer a question?

No, not now; I am sorry. If I have time at the end of my speech I shall do so gladly. [Interjections.]

The principles put forward here by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as to why the Coloureds and Indians must be involved in the constitutional dispensation, apply a fortiori to those Blacks who are permanently resident in South Africa and are accepted by both the hon. the Prime Minister himself and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development yesterday as being a permanent part of the Black population outside the national and independent States.

What do we do now? We cannot create a fourth chamber. The hon. the Minister made that quite clear this afternoon, whatever his reasons for this may be. There cannot be a fourth chamber for Blacks. There is therefore no way in which our Blacks are going to be involved in this constitution. I am now referring to this constitution with its tricameral system. They cannot be involved in it and the hon. the Minister has said so.

What are we telling the Blacks? We are telling them that they will never be able to share in this constitution.

Which Blacks?

I am referring to the Blacks who are permanently resident here.

What else are we telling the Blacks? We are telling them that this constitution must first disappear, must be destroyed, before they can participate in the political decision-making process within the constitution of this country in which they are permanently resident. I cannot sufficiently emphasize gravity of my words, because this is the crux of the matter. I have stated repeatedly in this House that the crux of our problem in South Africa lies in the search for accommodation between White and Black in South Africa. [Interjections.] That lies at the heart of the problem. In all honesty, we can do what we like with regard to other population groups, but if we do not find accommodation or an answer or a solution to that cardinal question, we have achieved nothing, and the sands of time are running out, and those hon. members know it. [Interjections.]

I now want to consider the second element, and that is that a constitution must be a unifying factor. We have already seen that the proposed constitution, in point of fact, has a divisive effect. I need not spell this out, because we have seen what is happening in the Coloured community, and that is not even to mention the Whites and others.

What these proposals are doing is to entrench race and colour in our constitution. It is not merely the policy of parties. We are drafting a constitution and we are structuring that constitution on the basis of race and colour. For the first time in South Africa we shall therefore have a constitution which is structured on race and colour. [Interjections.] In other words, what we are doing is to accentuate and entrench race and colour differences in South Africa. [Interjections.] We have never had a constitution which has been structured in this way. A party’s policy can be changed by the party, and that applies to any party. But here we have a constitution, which is something completely different.

It is being said that this constitution will be based on ethnicity. Please! Ethnicity is not a factor in the drafting of this constitution, in the first place because the Coloureds do not constitute a separate ethnic group. In the second place, if we are honest about the concept of ethnicity, we must also create separate chambers for the Hindus and the Mohammedans. If it is a question of ethnicity, the Portuguese group, the English group and so forth must be represented in separate chambers of Parliament. Let us not bluff ourselves by saying that what we are concerned with here is ethnicity. [Interjections.] What we are dealing with here is race and colour, pure and simple, and let us have no illusions about it.

In the third place, a constitution must not heighten the potential for conflict or confrontation, but what are we doing with this constitution? Not only are we entrenching race and colour, we are also entrenching the policy of apartheid, because the entire constitution is based on the principle of apartheid. [Interjections.] Because what is the entire concept of segmental autonomy based on? The hon. the Prime Minister spelt it out here only yesterday. In his 12-point plan the non-negotiable elements are matters such as the maintenance of the Group Areas Act, separate schools, etc. [Interjections.] If it were not for the Government’s determination to retain apartheid, there would have been absolutely no reason to introduce a tricameral system in the constitution. [Interjections.] It is as simple as that. I have a problem. The Labour Party—I do not blame it— has told the Government in clear terms that it does not accept the Government’s policy, but is participating in order to change that policy. [Interjections.] It is therefore totally incomprehensible to me how our hon. friends opposite can say that the proposed constitution is not a recipe for conflict or confrontation, particularly in the light of the fact that the Government has made it quite clear that it considers these matters non-negotiable. How can the Government, with much ado, satisfaction and delight then say people can co-operate with it to destroy its own foundations? Could the Government please explain this, because I cannot understand it. [Interjections.] I also want to ask a specific question. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not present, so perhaps the hon. the Minister of Industries, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Law and Order or someone else could tell me whether it is the Government’s intention to depart from the standpoint that the Group Areas Act is non-negotiable. Can one of these hon. Ministers tell me whether this is the intention, or are they going to stick to their guns? Does the Government have no intention of abolishing this Act? [Interjections.] I want to ask a further question. The hon. the Minister of Industries referred to reform. I want to ask him whether he intends to retain the legislation for the creation of separate amenities on the Statute Book? Is that a non-negotiable measure? [Interjections.] Is the Government going to retain section 16 of the Immorality Act as non-negotiable? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice and his colleagues whether they consider the prohibition on mixed marriages as non-negotiable. They do not reply.

Are you still going to talk as much nonsense in five years’ time?

Can the hon. member for Mossel Bay tell me whether these matters are non-negotiable or not? We must know, the Coloureds must know and other people must know. [Interjections.] If we consider the foundation on which the Government bases its proposals, namely the segmental as against the communal, and if we consider the few areas of the segmental spelt out in the Government’s own publications and in those of the President’s Council, then it is undoubtedly sheer lunacy to base a constitution on that sort of dispensation.

I want to go a step further. I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Justice. It concerns the division of powers into segmental powers and common powers. Will the Coloured chamber have the authority to abolish apartheid on the beaches? Will the Coloured chamber in terms of its segmental autonomy have the authority to admit anyone it likes to its schools? Will the Coloured chamber, in terms of its segmental autonomy, have the right to allow anyone into its group areas? Can it allow Whites and others into its group areas if it wishes?

Do your grandchildren want to go there? … [Interjections.]

Sir, I am asking questions. [Interjections.] Let hon. members opposite reply to them. [Interjections.] I merely want to know whether the Coloured chamber will have the right—this is a relevant point—to allow whomever it likes to purchase and occupy in its group areas and to make use of the community amenities there? Will it have that sole right?

Ask another question.

Sir, I should like to have answers. [Interjections.]

I now come to my final point. My time has almost expired. My last point is very simple. The Government maintains that we are now moving away from domination, even within the context of Coloureds, Whites and Asians. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out here yesterday, however, when it comes to the composition of the electoral college for the election of a president, then we have the ratio 4:2:1. If I understand this correctly, this will probably even be entrenched. How, then can we honestly say that the proposals do not make provisions for permanent White domination? The same also applies to the composition of the President’s Council and the standing committees, if I understand the proposals of the President’s Council correctly, I also want to ask whether the composition of the Cabinet will be in the ration 4:2:1? [Interjections.] I want to tell the Government that the proposals in this form will not only not work, they will also heighten the potential for conflict in South Africa.

The appointment of the Cabinet Committee to investigate the position of Blacks is adequate proof that it cannot work in this form. In all fairness I want to request the Government not to incorporate these constitutional proposals in the Act. The Government must go back to the drawing board until such time as the Cabinet Committee has reported on the future of the Blacks.

Sir, I want to ask the hon. member a question. The hon. member said that it is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of a constitution that everyone must be included in that constitution. Does the hon. member accept or reject the legitimacy of the present constitution?

The answer is very simple. This Parliament, this Government, has the authority to include everyone in the constitution, just as the Government had the authority to deprive the Coloureds of their franchise in the Cape Province. It was the policy of the Government. It therefore had nothing to do with the constitution. The constitution was neutral as regards this matter. In regard to these matters the new constitution is not neutral.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech the hon. nominated member Prof. Olivier said that he wanted to put a question. That made me think back to quite a number of years ago when the hon. member was still a new member and delivered his speech with the aid of many gestures—as he did again today—when the then hon. Chief Whip rose on a point of order and asked whether it was permissible for the hon. member to act as a conductor while speaking. On that occasion the hon. member was virtually unable to continue his speech, because when he had to keep his hands still, he could not open his mouth.

Listening to the points raised by the hon. member, one cannot help asking: If they criticize these constitutional proposals, how do they compare with the alternative views of the PFP? The PFP is in favour of a federal Parliament. They have abandoned the idea of a racial federation and are in favour of a geographical federation. However, they have given no indication so far of where and how big the areas, States or provinces, or geographic units, constituting each individual state of the federation would be. According to their premise, i.e. that they stand for “one man, one vote” for Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites within the federal system, surely the conclusion must be drawn that a parliamentary system would be formed which would be elected on a majority vote for each federal State. It is a given fact that there is not a single magisterial district in the whole of South Africa where the Whites are in the majority or at least equal in number. On the basis of this one has to accept that the PFP is in favour of Black majority rule or a majority Black Government, whatever they call it.

However, let me come back to the analysis of the specific aspects contained in the guidelines of the Cabinet. The hon. member Prof. Olivier suggested that some aspects of these implied an entrenchment of racial differences. I do not deny that. I do not deny that in these guidelines provision is being made for a White chamber to be elected by voters on the White voter’s roll as it exists at the moment. There will also be a Coloured voter’s roll for the election of a Coloured chamber and an Indian voter’s roll for the election of an Indian chamber. Given the situation in which we find ourselves in South Africa, with its heterogeneous population and a situation which has been in existence since 1910, it is important that a system should be designed which would lead to peaceful co-existence. In this system which has now been designed, provision is being made for responsible participation or a joint say in matters of common interest. I want to concede at once that the matters of common interest cover a fairly wide field. However, provision is being made for co-responsibility, but not on a basis of domination and not on a basis of majority power politics. This is specifically excluded from the system. The White chamber, the representatives of the Whites, will not be able to practise the politics of absolute domination or power politics with regard to the Coloureds or Indians. However, provision is being made in the system—in which committees will also be used—for responsible consultation in an attempt to bring about co-operation in a proper and responsible manner. Likewise, the Coloureds and Indians will be involved to have a joint say and joint responsibility, in a responsible manner, in matters affecting them directly and collectively. In other words, provision is being made in a difficult situation for responsible participation. The one aspect which could possibly cause conflict, viz. power politics, domination politics, which is inherent in the PFP’s system, is being excluded here. It is not being built in and it is not possible under the system that is being proposed here. That is the fundamental difference. Let us accept that South Africa is composed of different communities which historically have different rights and values. In order to bring about co-operation in this country, there will have to be more consultation and co-operation on a basis which excludes conflict. Let us analyse a similar but not parallel situation. I am speaking of Western Europe, where they have the European Common Market, where they have the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, where they had the Ministers’ Council and where they now have a European Parliament, a Parliament to which members are elected directly by ten countries. However, the European Parliament does not replace the sovereignty of the respective participating countries. Each of the participating countries retains absolute sovereignty. They guard it very jealously. However, provision is made for responsible consultation and for joint discussions in an effort to reach agreement on matters of common concern.

Although an attempt is being made in Europe to bring about greater political unity in that part of the world because of the international political power struggle between the super-powers, the political unification of that region is still a long way off. Before it can become a reality in Europe, mutual trust will have to be created. Here in South Africa it took decades before the conflict inherent in the political past of this country, the conflict between Afrikaans-and English-speaking people, was eliminated to such an extent that today we have achieved a situation where we trust one another, where the two language groups no longer face each other as political opponents and enemies. Here in South Africa we now envisage a system under which we shall not be in conflict with one another, a system which need not lead to a unitary system or a unification of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. However, we are working towards greater co-operation, so that we may not always regard one another as enemies. That is, in fact, what is inherent in this proposed new system. We are trying to accept a political system which will lead to peaceful development in the political sphere and in the economic field, while preserving each group’s own values, rights, territory, education, residential areas, economic values, political values, and so on. There will be no impairment of the economic values, agricultural values, social values, residential rights, political rights, or anything else, under this system which is now being accepted. However, we are removing the conflict situation which is inherent in the present Westminster system, which is inherent in the PFP’s policy, and which is also inherent in the NRP’s system of what they call a confederation, but which is actually a federation, a federation in which power is wielded by a unitary government. This system of ours …

[Inaudible.]

This system of ours envisages a confederation. I should like to inquire of the NRP—since the hon. leader of that party has just made an interjection— what they mean when they talk about confederal citizenship. If they mean that in terms of this, certain basic rights are guaranteed to all the inhabitants of Southern Africa—in terms of an agreement, that is—then I accept it. Then there must not be a single government structure in which Blacks as well as Whites, Coloureds and Asians will wield power on a majority basis within a single governing body. The confederal system, as set out by the NRP, is not a confederation; it is a federation. [Interjections.] That is where they misrepresent their policy to the electorate of South Africa, and where they actually bluff themselves.

You do not understand it at all!

I understand it very well. I have made a study of it. [Interjections.] I understand the NRP very well because I have been dealing with them all my life in Natal. [Interjections.]

Furthermore I should like to react to one of the points made by the hon. member prof. Olivier. He alleged that no provision was being made for Blacks in this new proposed system. According to him this implies that since no provision is being made for the Blacks, the Blacks will proceed from the point of view that this system will first have to be destroyed before they can be involved. Blacks have never had equal political rights in South Africa with the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. They have never had equal political rights, but the NP Government has given the Blacks in South Africa far more rights, far more development, far more positive progress, not only economically, not only socially, and not only educationally, but politically as well.

When we think of the history of Europe and the so-called Holy Roman Empire, in which an artificial unity was brought about and maintained by means of power politics, then the situation in Southern Africa is that Black and White have been brought together by colonial power politics. This was artificial, however, but they have grown much closer together economically because of circumstances. Politically, however, there are other factors, and politically we have to find other solutions than a unitary state or a unitary form of government.

I fully understand the standpoint and remarks of Chief Buthelezi, who has to keep looking over his shoulder at the ANC. His biggest problem is the ANC and his biggest problem is that he has to try to prevent his young people—who are idealistic, like all young people—from defecting to the ANC. That is why he says many of the things that he does. I understand that, especially when he is encouraged by PFP supporters, by newspapers in South Africa, by overseas interest groups and by economic interest groups in South Africa to see himself in the role of a possible political leader of the whole of South Africa. I understand why he speaks as he does. I accept, too, that he is not inherently hostile towards the Whites, but that he is trying to get what he can as long as the possiblity still exists, and that at the moment, especially after Eshowe, he is feeling a little hurt because we are suddenly faced with a whole new political situation. I understand that. However, I think he should also understand the fact that the vast majority of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are not prepared to put up with the possibility of having him as their political leader. I also want to emphasize that the majority of the Blacks belonging to the other population groups in Southern Africa would not be disposed to accept Chief Buthelezi as their political leader or their head of government. I want to emphasize, therefore, that we do not have a feeling of hostility towards him. We do not necessarily regard him as being hostile to the present situation. In the process of the political development in Southern Africa under the system where we have economic co-operation, under the system where we shall co-operate with other Southern African States as well—the way we see a confederation, with independent States, or, if they do not want independence, then a continuation of the present dispensation—we can, however, develop a political system which will enable people to obtain greater rights for their own people. This is not oppression. We do not regard it as hostility. We are not trying to increase conflict between Black and White. We are trying to resolve conflict by means of responsible action, but then we must also appeal to Chief Buthelezi to put a stop to many of his references to bloodshed and similar references he has made on many occasions. He never says directly that he will be involved in bloodshed; he only says that he foresees it, and the impression which this creates among many Black people is that he regards it as a possible alternative. He does not say so directly, but his repeated remarks about bloodshed are creating problems in South Africa. I want to appeal to him to show greater moderation in stating his standpoints. His future does not lie in the creation of a unitary political structure in South Africa. That would cause conflict and lead to subversion.

May I ask a question? Could the hon. member tell us whether it would be possible, under the proposed confederation of the Government, for a self-governing national State such as KwaZulu to join such a confederation?

Confederation means co-operation between sovereign independent states. This is inherent in a confederation. They must be independent countries. From the nature of the case, non-independent countries could not be full members—I emphasize the word “full”—in a confederation. There could be affiliated membership but not full membership.

Mr. Speaker, in one respect it was a refreshing interlude to listen to the hon. member for Klip River, because he played the ball and not the man. If I recall for a moment the speech we had to endure from the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, I wonder whether there are people in the NP, for example the hon. the Minister of National Education, like the rest of us is ashamed that Mr. van der Merwe should stoop to such a level. [Interjections.]

Having listened to various speeches from the Government’s side over the past few days, I am today more than ever convinced that the Government has left the Whites of South Africa in the lurch. Nothing that hon. members on the Government’s side have said detracts in any way from the fact that a racially mixed Parliament with three chambers is being envisaged for the Whites. There is now a new dispensation which is in conflict with the guarantees given to the Whites of South Africa in the past.

Mention three quickly.

I could mention far more to the hon. member. If he comes and consults me in my office, I shall mention ten or twelve to him. [Interjections.] Since he wants me to mention them to him, let me point out that the hon. Prime Minister has said on occasion that a tricameral parliament is not Government policy. Does the hon. member want more examples?

Through this battlefield of broken promises to the Whites of South Africa, the hon. Prime Minister has lost his credibility with the Whites of South Africa and the hon. Prime Minister is no longer the champion of the Whites of South Africa. [Interjections.]

On this occasion I should like to make a few general remarks about the Seychelles episode. To begin with I should like to thank the hon. Minister of Defence for being present in this House. I want to make the remarks against the background of the Conservative Party’s now well-known policy and standpoint concerning the security of the country and the security forces. Our standpoint is that the security forces are wholeheartedly supported by the Conservative Party and, indeed, that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the security forces, and that the Conservative Party is not out to make cheap politics out of the troubles afflicting the fatherland. There is evidence for this.

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

Does the hon. member for Jeppe wish to reply to a question?

Yes, Sir, as long as he, as Whip, grants me two minutes of additional time.

Order! Does the hon. member wish to reply to a question?

No, Sir, because I do not have the necessary time at my disposal.

There is sufficient evidence that the Conservative Party gives its wholehearted support to the SA Defence Force and security forces. One need only consult the heads of the Defence Force in that regard.

Koos, are you a member of the AWB?

I am not a member of the AWB, nor do I subscribe to violence. Nor am I a joker in Parliament like the hon. member for Roodeplaat. [Interjections.]

The Conservative Party also understands the need for clandestine military operations on occasion. Accordingly, this background is the reply of the Conservative Party to certain parts of the amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Having sketched this background, I want to say that if the incompetent handling of the affairs of the SA Defence Force has caused a stir throughout the world, if this has done South Africa’s name incalculable harm—nationally and internationally—and if the strong-man image of the SA Defence Force has sustained a blow, then one is struck absolutely speechless by the statement made yesterday by the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard, in that the hon. the Prime Minister provided a few unconvincing explanations and then, without further ado, simply told us: It is in South Africa’s interest not to discuss the matter any further. The matter must therefore be regarded as disposed of and we may not ask further questions in that regard. What is even worse is that the hon. the Minister invited the official Opposition to obtain further information from him. They are welcome to obtain it from him, but we may not. We are not invited. [Interjections.] Thus the Conservative Party has not been issued with an invitation to acquire further information. We must simply hold our tongues. [Interjections.] This is arrogance that is typical of the NP and its leader, and the Conservative Party, as a component of this Parliament, refuses point blank to be ignored in this way. [Interjections.] The Conservative Party will continue to question the handling of national security by politicians when incompetent action is taken. [Interjections.]

The focal point as far as the Seychelles affair is concerned, is the hon. Minister of Defence, and the crucial question is whether that hon. Minister knew or did not know of the Hoare episode. That is the crux of the whole debate. There are factors that indicate that hon. Minister was aware of it, or alternatively could reasonably have been expected to be aware of it. [Interjections.]

The most important factor of all is the statement by the SA Supreme Court. The hon. Prime Minister quoted only one relevant reference to this statement, a reference which, in the nature of the matter, suited his book, namely that Col. Hoare did not contact him or the Government directly. [Interjections.] However, the hon. Prime Minister omits to mention other extremely important aspects of that Supreme Court finding, namely that certain members of the SA Defence Force furnished aid and support as regards the Hoare episode and that the National Intelligence Service was aware of it. [Interjections.] I have before me the judgment of Mr. Justice James, and the section in question can be found on pages 13 and 14. [Interjections.] In the light of these controversial findings of the Supreme Court, the findings of this mysterious departmental committee of the Defence Force—or whatever—which investigated the matter, are astonishing and inexplicable. The committee found—

In that regard I ask, amazed: If the Supreme Court found that two brigadiers were involved, how on earth is this to be reconciled with the finding that no responsible official granted approval in this regard? Does this perhaps mean that these two brigadiers are irresponsible officials who acted without approval? That is the only inference. However, both of those brigadiers are still in the S.A. Defence Force today. They are still brigadiers, and last week, at the Castle, one of them was granted the Southern Cross decoration for outstanding service. I want to place on record that I openly congratulated Brig. Knoetze in that regard, because I know Brig. Knoetze personally, and I do not believe that Brig. Knoetze would help to invade a foreign power if he had not been covered by other people.

The second finding of the committee is totally inexplicable to me, because it is said that no State funds were used. This finding must be seriously doubted from the outset. How on earth can one say that State funds have not been utilized if an arsenal of South African Defence Force weapons were used?

AK 47’s.

Very well, what does the hon. member know about an AK 47?

What do you know about them?

Order!

I know, because I was on the border and that hon. member has not been there. [Interjections.]

Without permission.

No, not without permission. That is a reprehensible allegation.

I say you were there without permission.

I say that the hon. Minister is telling an untruth. Sir, the Minister of Justice is guilty of an untruth.

I say you were there without permission.

And I say you are talking rubbish.

Order!

The mysterious committee found that no State funds had been utilized, but that firearms had been utilized, but that firearms had been used and several thousand cartridges had been fired off in Durban and elsewhere. A Defence Force truck travelled around, but what did it have in its tank: Water, or petrol for which payment must be made? Defence Force officials were involved and they have to be paid. It goes without saying that that episode cost the South African taxpayer money, a great deal of money.

The fact that these inexplicable findings were reached, together with a lack of further information concerning the matter provided to the Conservative Party, compels me to contend that the hon. the Prime Minister has not only been arrogant about this matter but that in this instance he has held South Africa, and all of us in general, in contempt. The fact that the Supreme Court found that two brigadiers of the Defence Force were involved and that the National Intelligence Service was also involved, creates the extremely strong suspicion that the hon. the Minister of Defence had been informed.

However, there is another factor, too, which creates a strong suspicion that the hon. the Minister was indeed aware or could reasonably have been expected to be aware of this, and that is the typical modus operandi of officers of the S.A. Defence Force. No one can tell me that in this extremely grave situation, in which they had to take decisions to provide arms and other assistance—this is according to the finding of the court—to invade a foreign power, Brig. Knoetze and Brig. Hamman would have done so without having had permission and clearance to do so.

If the hon. the Minister was not aware of this Hoare episode, his dilemma is so much the greater. This means that the hon. the Minister is blissfully unaware that brigadiers in the S.A. Defence Force provide assistance and support for a military onslaught on a foreign power of which the hon. the Minister is not even aware. The implications of this are frightening. This means that the hon. the Minister has no control over the S.A. Defence Force. Then serious questions which cannot be avoided also begin to crop up concerning the alleged Russian spy picked up in the bosom of the S.A. Navy. There could be no more convincing evidence of the incompetence of the hon. the Minister, and he is becoming not only an embarrassment, but perhaps even a risk to South Africa.

Where does this take us? It takes us to the steps of the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if he recalls that I told him last year that he was the Edwards of the CP? [Interjections.]

I do not recall it. What the hon. Minister did say was that I had acted like the Hulley of the PFP. He apologized to me for that in his office the day before yesterday. Now I do not know what he is implying. Did he not apologize to me?

The tenor of what you say is still the same.

The hon. the Minister apologized to me. That is the point.

Order! The hon. member must continue with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this brings us to the steps of the Senate on 28 September 1978, when the hon. the Prime Minister stood on the Senate steps and made South Africa one promise, viz. a clean national administration. He gave his word, and today South Africa is appraising him on the basis of his word of honour. Today South Africa demands that a clean national administration be proved, and that the hon. the Minister of Defence be replaced. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think this House must know whether, by his reference to the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Government, the hon. member for Jeppe is implying that we have a dishonest national administration.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I am implying nothing. I am saying expressly that this is an example of the poorest administration I know of. There is no question of clean administration here.

To conclude, I wish to make a few remarks concerning the arrest of an alleged Russian spy in the S.A. Navy. We in the Conservative Party believe that it will not be sufficient to allow this case to be disposed of by the courts. We believe that Parliament is entitled to know what action the Government is taking to limit to the minimum penetration by spies. There have been gravely disturbing reports …

Order! The issue of the arrest of an officer of the Navy in connection with alleged espionage is sub judice.

I accept your ruling. I request your permission in the circumstances, to ask on behalf of the Conservative Party, for the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to carry out an in-depth investigation of this matter.

Order! The hon. member is out of order in his request for the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee. I shall furnish the reasons as to why I regard this matter as sub judice. I have to refer hon. members to the sub judice rule in terms of which reference may not be made to matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court exercising criminal jurisdiction and in courts-martial from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made or by arrests which will result in the charges being made in the near future to the time when verdict and sentence have been announced.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member for Jeppe tried to address the House.

The hon. member for Waterberg says that 1983 will be the year of life-and-death political struggle for the Whites. I contend that that statement is true, but that it is equally true that 1983 will also be the year of life-and-death political struggle for the Coloureds and the Indians and, to a certain extent, the Black man outside the national and independent states as well.

The crucial problem of the CP is that all their arguments and standpoints are based purely on the point of view of the Whites. Anyone is fully entitled to argue from the point of view of the Whites, but then it is equally important that in the course of the discussion one should also take into account the circumstances and the demands of the times. The CP and the HNP adopted a one-sided approach to everything. The fact is that in view of our multinational structure we have to contend with the fact of several peoples in the same country, something which is not due to the will of man, and all of them have the will to survive. That survival will only be possible if we mutually recognize the endeavours and human dignity of the others, and if we recognize the right to self-determination of each of the various peoples. We must also recognize the fact that we need one another. Not only must we recognize and accept that fact: we must also give effect to it in practice. On the other hand we shall be making a mistake—indeed, this is the mistake that the PFP often makes—if we underestimate the will of a people to remain itself, the will of a people to govern itself and maintain its identity. If we do so, we shall inevitably have confrontation.

The hon. member for Bryanston spoke of realities. I should like to put three realities before this House. The first reality is that life does not stand still. Nations have developed. Accordingly, the thinking of political parties may not become rigid either. That is the problem we encounter with the HNP and the CP. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said inter alia at Theunissen that the CP policy was the policy with which the NP came into power in 1948. That is why that party can present no alternative; why that party is a danger not only the to the Coloured, the Indian and the Black man but also to the Whites. The times bring new demands and compel a political party to adapt its policy, too, viz. its methods and its modus operandi, so that it can continue to govern in terms of its principles and achieve its objectives. The principles of a nation, the principles of a party, are non-negotiable. However, as regards the method whereby those principles are put into effect, as regards the policy, it is indeed appropriate for a party to adapt itself to the demands of the times. It is for that very reason that the NP has achieved success. It is for that very reason that the NP has been governing for the past 35 years. It is because the NP is not ashamed to change its policy if it becomes necessary to do so. That is why its supreme leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, could state in this House—

The hon. member for Waterberg states that the NP has deviated from separate development. Surely that is untrue. The point is: What do we understand under the term separate development?

Tell us

If the hon. member and the hon. member for Rissik, who has been intimating clearly all afternoon that his presence here is detrimental to himself, want to give us an opportunity, I want to put a question to them. Was everything that happened up to February last year, in full accordance with the policy of separate development? [Interjection.] Very well. The hon. member says “yes”. Therefore that hon. member contends that by way of the guidelines that are now being laid down, we have departed from the principle of separate development. [Interjection.] After all, that is what the hon. members are objecting to. The point is that we in this country will have to recognize that the concept of separate character is inherent in the concept of separate development, and I shall point out in a moment how this is given effect to within the ambit of the guidelines. In the South African context, development also means equal opportunities, communality and co-operation. After all, none of the national groups, neither the Whites nor any of the other groups, could have developed to the degree that they have without the necessary co-operation. That is why the NP is still on the same road, and the policy of separate development is still given effect to within the new guidelines. Within the new guidelines and in the tricameral Parliament that is to be established, a very clear distinction is drawn between group-specific affairs, with separate character as a basis, and communality, matters concerning which there may be joint debate in the Cabinet, within the President’s Council and also within the various committees.

I want to refer to a second reality, and that is that one should not underestimate the nationalism of any nation. Of course it is true that we in South Africa must also deal with a strong Black nationalism. No one can deny that. It goes without saying that it is the right of the Black man, too, to cherish his nationalism as long as that nationalism also springs from the desire to preserve and maintain what is his. That is what the White people demand for themselves, in their various cultural organizations as we encounter them in the other national groups as well. But now the hon. member for Bryanston must take account of the fact that the Afrikaner has his nationalism as well, and the various nationalisms must be guided into channels in which they can be given concrete form without trying to achieve dominance at the expense of the others. The result of that would necessarily be revolution. I want to point out a further reality. It is that the White, the Coloured and the Asian, and many Black people outside the national States and the independent States, are with us here and are here to stay. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has already pointed that out, and we endorse that. However, these groups are all being threatened, and moreover they are eager to survive together. The existence of separateness and communality is an incontrovertible truth. Whoever denies it can offer no viable solution to the dilemma in which we find ourselves. That is nothing strange.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Barberton has just made some remarks or other. Hon. members of the CP are so inclined to quote the words of Dr. Verwoerd. However, I myself wish to refer to Dr. Verwoerd in this regard, because he expressed the same principle, the same truth. On 12 December 1961 he, the creator of the Black homelands, said, inter alia, the following with regard to the Coloureds, and I quote him—

Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

Therefore Dr. Verwoerd adopted this same standpoint.

Far more recent, however, are the words of the hon. member for Waterberg. Only recently the hon. member for Waterberg favoured the same standpoint. Only recently he agreed with these words of Dr. Verwoerd, he and his followers who are now sitting with him in this House. Under the signature of the hon. member for Waterberg, while he was still leader of the Transvaal NP, we find—together with the signatures of the hon. supreme Leader of the NP and the other provincial leaders—a statement to this effect in the election manifesto of 1981, a manifesto which also includes the 12-point plan. In the fourth point of that 12-point plan the following is stated, and I quote—

If these people endorsed a fact of history, and did so less than two years ago, how, then, is it possible that these same people are now denying and moving away from that same fact of history.

The Black people, too, are living here permanently in certain parts of the country which have already been indicated. They, too, have a definite interest in the political development and decision-making of this country. A commission has now been appointed concerning the way in which this is to be done, a commission which is to carry out an in-depth investigation into this matter and the problems surrounding it.

I believe that the challenge in the Republic of South Africa, in this multinational country, still centres around the question of how to live and work with one another in the same country, how to allow people to retain their own right of self-determination, but at the same time to perceive the reality of communality, and to deliberate and take decisions jointly in a peaceful way in that common sphere. In a nutshell: How do we give practical effect to the reality of separateness and communality? How do we succeed in this? From this side of the House it is clear that we are trying to give effect to that; in the first place, by eliminating unnecessary discrimination. After all, we have made tremendous progress along this road. We are also trying to give effect to this by acting consistently, by recognizing the exclusive right of every group to decide on its own affairs, by co-operation, consultation and a joint say in fields of common interest. This matter is also the basis of the guidelines drawn up by this Government, which will be given statutory form at a later stage.

In contrast, the CP refuses to accept the reality of this, nor do they see their way clear to dealing with the practical implications of communality. That also explains this phantom of White Baasskap which comes to the fore time and again whenever one of those hon. members addresses this House. At the Transvaal congress last year the hon. member for Waterberg said the following— and he and his people would do well to consider this—

While listening to some of the speakers here today, I thought that the hon. member for Waterberg should state that very clearly to those followers of his.

My time is running out. To conclude I should like to put the following to this House because I think that it applies today to all the rightist groups. [Interjections.] The hon. members must give me a chance. “Ons belewe vandag weer lets daarvan waar ons nou bewegings het wat beweer dat hulle meer regs is as die NP.” [Interjections.]

Order!

“Hulle is suiwerder as die NP, meer nasionaal as die NP en hulle sal hierdie volk red: In hierdie beweging sien ek die bewegings van mnr. Jaap Marais en van dr. Connie Mulder—nie bewegings wat volksbewegings is nie, maar ek sien dit as verdeeldheidsbewegings wat skadelik is vir die nasionale saak en vir Suid-Afrika.” The speaker is the hon. member for Waterberg, and that was said at the beginning of 1982. If those hon. members would only follow what their own leader has told them and recover their senses—then perhaps we could reach a better understanding. I want to quote the following, and with this I shall conclude—

The person who wrote that is one Mr. G. L. Leeuw who is a Coloured person in Wepener.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try not to get involved in the fight between the far right and lunatic right. I should, however, like to agree with the hon. member for Jeppe where he said that the questions on the Seychelles had not been satisfactorily answered. It seems that the answers which are required, if they are not forthcoming from the hon. the Minister of Defence in this debate will have to be obtained by means of questions on the Order Paper.

I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of National Education is with us this evening. I should like to say that with him we are all delighted at the response which the cricket tour of South Africa by the West Indians has elicited. We congratulate them on their victory yesterday. Through little fault of their own the Springboks have been cut out of international competition for several years, and it is a tribute to them that they can still play cricket of an international standard, taking into account all the handicaps they have had to face. It was a pleasure to see that in the first test match, South Africa’s twelfth man was a Coloured man, one Omar Henry. I say, how far have we not travelled over these past years! However, what has transpired over these past few weeks nonetheless leaves several important and unanswered questions in regard to issues which the cricketers themselves cannot influence. Some of these cricketers have asked me to ask these questions, and so I will. Virtually all these questions are directed to the hon. the Minister of National Education who is in charge of sport.

The Australian Prime Minister recently decreed that members of the touring party would not be allowed to return to Australia or to visit Australia again. For one member of the touring team that is in South Africa at the present time this was a shattering decision because David Murray, the wicketkeeper, has a White Australian wife and a new-born baby living in that country. Fortunately, public opinion in Australia has forced Mr. Fraser to retract his decision. The question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is this: If Mr. Murray had been denied re-entry into Australia, would he have been welcome here in South Africa with his White wife and Coloured child? [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Mixed Marriages Act would have applied. What about section 16 of the Immorality Act? Considering the terms of the Group Areas Act, where would this couple have been allowed to live? [Interjections.]

Allow me to put the next question to the hon. the Leader of the House who was here a moment ago. I would like to ask the hon. the Leader of the House and hon. members of the Cabinet on the other side the following: Would Omar Henry, the South African cricket team and the West Indian cricket team be welcome in the Parliamentary Dining-room to eat lunch with us? I ask sincerely: Is there not something very sick in witnessing Cabinet Ministers soliciting and accepting hospitality from cricketers at Newlands and other places, both Black and White, knowing full well that those same cricketers would not be allowed to eat in their own dining-room because of the very attitudes of those same Cabinet Ministers? I say, Sir, that if that is not being cynical then I do not know what the word cynical means.

There are two more questions I should like to ask that arise out of this issue. I should like to put this further question to the hon. the Minister of National Education: If in one of their rare free moments the West Indians had felt like a swim, could they have been taken to Clifton or to Muizenberg? Could a few of them have gone to see a movie at the local Ster Kinekor cinema? Or would the provisions of the Separate Amenities Act have applied? Would the provisions of the Separate Amenities Act have been specially waives for our visitors. Or would they have applied as they do to all our South Africans who are not White?

There is one final question still to be posed and this question only the hon. the Prime Minister who is now in the House can answer. When it all happens, when South Africa has a new constitutional structure, a new dispensation, a new deal for everyone, will the old rules still apply? The Groups Areas Act, the Separate Amenities Act, section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act. Will these laws continue after we have a new constitution to prevent South Africans of colour from being ordinary people? That is a very serious question because once the new constitution is in force, if the only visible change relates to a few Coloureds and Indians driving big cars and coming to Parliament from time to time while the old laws which institutionalize race discrimination still apply, then the new dispensation will fail and conflict will not be avoided. What is equally disastrous is that whatever credibility the constitution may yet gain, will be lost for ever.

Let us now get back to basics. Constitution-making in any country is not an easy matter and it is more particularly difficult in Africa. Africa is littered with constitutional documents that have failed. Violence has too often dictated the course of events, and the many bodies of dead participants bear testimony to the intolerance of those who seek to hold power and the intolerance of those who seek to seize it. This being so, we should never lose sight of those three basics to constitution-making. The first basic, we all know, is that it must be a national framework born of genuine consultation and negotiation with the recognized leaders of the community. Secondly, it must upon completion enjoy the acceptance and confidence of the majority of the people to be governed by it, for a constitution is a social contract, creating the ground-rules of a society and accepted as such with the consent of the participating parties. People or communities not included or consulted cannot morally be held to be bound by that document because they were not party to the social contract. [Interjections.] Thirdly, no lasting constitution can be successfully settled or implemented in a climate of conflict, oppression or hatred, or of fear or discontent. It is the duty of the Government, and truly of others as well, to try to create a climate of goodwill in which change for the good can take place.

Having said that, let me examine critically the role and the actions of this Government in terms of those three basic prerequisites. Has there been true negotiation, or even consultation? True enough, the NP caucus has met, the congresses have been consulted and the guidelines have been laid down. I ask, however, whether that is enough? I think not. It is clear that no major principles will be up for negotiation, for these are fixed and rigid, being largely non-negotiable. Even the official Opposition, which is vitally affected in this matter, will only be allowed into any real bargaining situation after the matter has passed the Second Reading. Black leadership is completely and, seemingly, permanently excluded, and only the leadership of a fraction of Coloured and Indian leaders have been approached, and then again only on the basis of guidelines not to be amended in any substantial manner.

We talk about the acceptability level. So let us look at the performance of the Government on that particular aspect. Basically the question is: Have we the makings of a broadly accepted social contract, one which would attract the loyalty of the overwhelming majority of South Africans? Surely the answer must be “no”. The Indian and Coloured communities are deeply divided, but that 70% of our population we keep forgetting about, the Blacks, are certainly unanimous—right across their own political spectrum—in rejecting these proposals and in rejecting their own exclusion. [Interjections.] I wonder if I could just have the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention for a moment. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Sabotage and violence are creeping into our society with ever-greater frequency, becoming an almost accepted way of life. We have had a bomb in the President’s Council, an explosion at Iscor, disruption at Koeberg, attacks on police stations, and very recently on a court house and administration board offices, all of these being symbols of established authority. I therefore ask: Is that the hallmark of a united society, and are we doing enough to unite that society? It is true that external aggression is playing a role in these events, but they are being perpetrated, not by foreigners, but by South Africans, and the general lack of success of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order in tracking down these people speaks volumes for the willing succour that they are granted by ordinary Black people living in this country.

No, this new constitution may satisfy the Government, but it will not stop the escalation of violence in our land. It will not unite our people and it will not bring peace to South Africa. Let me therefore ask the key question once again—the hon. the Prime Minister has as yet not answered it, neither have his several Ministers. This is the question: Is this dispensation the end of the constitutional road for Blacks in Greater South Africa, or is it really no more than the first practical step, with the door being left open? What is the answer to that question? That is the question the official Opposition has been putting every day of this week and will continue to put until a clear answer is given.

I want to come to the third essential element, that of climate-building. In this sphere the Government has performed worst of all. Far from trying to defuse potential conflict, its actions are escalating this possibility. Mass removals and home destruction continue. The major portions of District 6 and of Pageview remain stolen from the Coloureds and the Indians. Prosecutions and evictions still command priority from the authorities. Arrests under the pass laws remain a prime cause of overcrowding in the prisons. The housing required for an expanding population remains a major Government failure. In my own constituency, that of Sandton, two and a half years after the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development announced a turn-about in policy less than 100 homes have been built for 75 000 people living in Alexandra. The township, despite all the excuses given, remains stagnant, a depository of little hope. There are 6 000 Coloured people living there. They live a life of uncertainty and lack educational and the other usual facilities and do not know when they will be ejected or to where they might yet be sent. Let the Government take note: Alexandra is a powder-keg—a small powder-keg, but a powder-keg—and it is not fruitful at this moment to go and talk to them about constitutional developments.

What are the tactics of the Government in promoting a climate congenial to constitutional change? The denial of passports to the outspoken is one tactic. The banning and restriction of opponents is another. The detention of dissidents is a third. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information seeks to control the SABC and the media and the hon. the Prime Minister himself bullies editors and political correspondents in his office—he did so as recently as this week—and then kicks them out of his office, but not before voicing further threats against the freedom of the Press. He has done so in Parliament as well. I want to say directly to the hon. the Prime Minister that I do not think that it befits a Prime Minister to malign and slander a prominent Cape Town editor, using the privilege of the House to do it in. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister will have the courage of his convictions to repeat his allegations outside this House.

Therefore, measured against all the criteria I have mentioned, failure is the order of the day. Is it too late to change direction? I do not think so, but every day that is lost costs our country dear.