Mr. Speaker …

Are you going to resign, Ferdi?

That is a decision which the hon. member may safely leave to me.

This debate is generally being described as an historical debate because it will be the last no-confidence debate if the Government has its own way in carrying out its proposals concerning the White Parliament of South Africa. Not only will it be the last session of the White Parliament of South Africa; it will also be the last session of a White Parliament in Africa. However, it is not only for this reason that it is an historical debate and session, since it is also a no-confidence debate during a session in which, for the first time in the history of the world as far as I could ascertain, the Government of the nation is giving up its sovereignty without striking a blow—the first time! No nation in the world has ever given away its sovereignty, and this is a sovereignty which South Africa and the Whites did not steal; this sovereignty was achieved. This sovereignty was achieved through great, heroic events such as the Great Trek and the Wars of Independence which required sacrifices of this nation. That freedom and sovereignty are now being given up. They are being given up under the banner of reform and this is being presented as courage. It is said that this is being done in the name of love and justice and all those other things. However, it is of significance that if the Government were engaged in such a great historic step, one would expect the Government spokesmen to be bubbling over with enthusiasm to enlighten this House and South Africa about all those vague matters which still exist, matters whose practicability no one can as yet fathom. [Interjections.] However, the debate on the constitutional proposals has been conducted by the Opposition parties. What came from the speakers on the Government side was the absolute minimum. The hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but he spoke about other things and he made no mention of this vital task he is engaged in. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke for two hours in this debate, but he did not say a single word about these changes which are to take place. Speakers philosophized about reform and about barbarism and civilization, but with the exception of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who said the minimum, other speakers avoided this subject. The question is: Why? [Interjections.] My first reply to this is: This is not reform; it is capitulation. [Interjections.] That is why they did not wish to speak about it. [Interjections.] The second reason for their not wishing to speak about it, is that the NP finds itself in the same position as the United Party did in the old days when it blew hot and cold.

Did Daan tell you that?

They do not wish to talk about this matter, since they are blowing hot and cold. [Interjections.] The NP finds itself in this position because it wishes to reconcile irreconcilable things. [Interjections.] It wishes to reconcile power-sharing and self-determination. [Interjections.] The NP wishes to reconcile the retention of power and integration. However, these are irreconcilable, and that is why they have arrived at a race federation such as the one which the United Party always advocated. This is why they cannot speak about this subject. The NP changed its political philosophy when it fell for world propaganda that justice equals integration, but we know that that is not true. The Whites of South Africa who have had experience, also know that that is not true. [Interjections.] Integration does not equal justice. In South Africa today there is less tension between the Whites of South Africa and the Xhosas of the Transkei and the Ciskei and the Tswanas and Vendas who have become independent. There is less tension than there was ten years ago. [Interjections.] However, what is the position in Zimbabwe … [Interjections.]… where there is power-sharing and political integration? What is the position in Angola and Mozambique where there is bloodshed among the peoples? The reason for the NP not wishing to speak about the constitutional proposals, is that the message it has for the outside world and for the Coloureds and the Indians, is not the same message it has for the Whites of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, it is not the same message. [Interjections.]

Order!

The NP says that it is moving away from the Westminster system, from the concept of “winner takes all”. [Interjections.] However, with these proposals they are still adhering to the concept of “winner takes all”—in two extremely important areas. There they are not moving away from that concept. The first is the question of the election of the President, a man who is to have extraordinary powers … [Interjections.] … unprecedented powers … [Interjections.]

Order!

He will be a person who will not be answerable to the nation. Presidents with executive powers elsewhere in the world, as in America and France, are elected by the entire electorate of the nation. In South Africa the President will have more power than the President of America, but he will not be elected by the people. The NP aims to have the majority so that they will be able to appoint the President. In the case of the President it is “winner takes all.”

Nor are they moving away from the Westminster system in another respect, viz. in respect of the composition of the President’s Council. The weakest point of the Westminster system is that people are appointed to executive and decisive positions. In this case the President is being given the power to appoint more people to the President’s Council than any of the Chambers of Parliament may appoint, and they will be answerable to him alone.

These two points have been designed to slight the Coloured and Indian communities, to try to keep the power in the hands of the Whites. Their purpose is to try to ensure that no power falls into the hands of the Coloured and Indian communities. [Interjections.]

That is another matter.

No, Sir, I am coming to what I want to say. I maintain that this system has been designed to cheat the Coloureds and the Indians. The Government cannot talk to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites at the same time. For the sake of the Whites, the emphasis is being placed on three chambers. They are saying to the Whites: “Do not worry; there are three chambers. This is apartheid.” They are saying: “We ourselves are going to make decisions concerning our own affairs in those three chambers.” They are telling the Whites that they have self-determination. Furthermore, they are saying that the right of self-determination of the Whites is not going to be reduced, but will remain as it is at present. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said this the other day in Parliament. The right of self-determination of the Whites is not going to be reduced. I say that this is not true. The right of self-determination of the Whites is going to be drastically reduced. At present the Whites make decisions concerning all their own affairs.

Now you are blowing hot, cold and lukewarm.

No, Sir. [Interjections.] I am simply pointing out the weaknesses of these proposals. As I have said, they are saying that the right of self-determination of the Whites is not going to be reduced.

You are a hypocrite twice over, man.

I do not wish to tell that hon. Minister what he is. I do not wish to slight him in public. I shall tell him in private. It is not fitting to speak to one another like this. We are engaged in debates which are among the most important in South Africa’s history. We should discuss these matters with one another objectively and in a decent manner in order to arrive at the truth. It does not befit this highest Council Chamber in South Africa for us to insult and snap at one another and to use the most obscene language. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not a reflection on the Chair when the hon. member says that an hon. Minister is using the most obscene language in this House?

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

I did not mean unparliamentary language. I meant the worst language one could possibly use within the framework of parliamentary language.

Order! The hon. member should rather withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir. They are saying that the right of self-determination of the Whites is not being reduced. However, all we know about what are going to be our own matters and what are going to be matters of common interest, is what we gleaned from the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, from the Second Report of the President’s Council which has not yet been adopted, and from the little blue book which the hon. Minister in question is distributing on behalf of the NP at State expense. I have studied all those matters which have been grouped together as our own matters. I was extremely generous and I overestimated what would be termed our own matters. I then tried to quantify how many were our own matters and how many were matters of common interest. There is one way of doing so, viz. by using the budget as a basis. If this dispensation were already a reality, how much of the present budget would consist of our own matters and how much would consist of matters of common interest? I made the amazing discovery, after I had made a generous estimate, that only 12% would comprise our own matters and that 88% would comprise matters of common interest.

How would the CP solve that problem?

We shall solve the problem in the same way in which we created the four independent Black states. Today the Whites control eight eighths of their own affairs. In the future dispensation seven eighths would be matters of common interest, matters concerning which they will not decide alone, but concerning which Whites, Coloureds and Indians would decide together. One eighth remains, but this would have to be divided among three chambers. The Whites would therefore be left with one twenty-fourth of what they make decisions about at present. And then they still maintain that the right of self-determination of the Whites will not be affected!

The Whites of South Africa are being told that the President’s Council will simply act in an advisory capacity, but when they talk to Europe, they tell a different story.

Who says so?

I shall tell the hon. member. I have here with me a publication entitled Courrier Austral Parlementaire. According to this publication, it is a bulletin “of the various associations, friendship contacts and liaison groups between Southern Africa and the National and European Parliamentary Assemblies”. An interview with the hon. member for Benoni appeared in this publication, in which the hon. member had the following to say—

Look at the date of that publication.

That hon. member is telling Europe that the President’s Council is the Upper Chamber of South Africa, but they are telling South Africa that the President’s Council only has advisory powers. Who is being cheated? South Africa or Europe? I contend that South Africa and the Whites of South Africa are being cheated. In the little blue pamphlet of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information on the new constitutional dispensation, question 23 reads as follows—

The reply to this question is “yes”. Who in his right mind would say that a Parliament is sovereign when it no longer has the final say? Who is being cheated?

Your logic is astonishingly illogical.

That should suit the hon. member very well, since he is not capable of understanding a logical argument. The Whites of South Africa are being told that the Black people are not going to be brought into the new dispensation. Through Mr. David Thebehali, and under the auspices of the South African Embassy in London, the United Kingdom is being told that the Black people will be sitting in Parliament in 1986. This is what was said under the auspices of the South African Embassy while the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs was in Europe. Who told Europe that Mr. Thebehali was wrong? With the knowledge of the South African Embassy Europe was being told that Blacks would be sitting in Parliament by 1986. Who is being cheated (“vemeuk”) in this case?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is repeatedly using the word “vemeuk”. Is it not unparliamentary?

Order! I request the hon. member to moderate his language.

Who is being misled? The Whites of South Africa are being misled. The hon. member for Barberton explained the matter in an excellent manner and asked what moral grounds one had if one said that the only fair way of solving the problem of the Coloureds and the Indians was to bring them into Parliament, but when the Blacks were included it was no longer fair. It is not only the hon. member for Barberton who says this. The hon. the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Coloured Affairs, told this House the following—

He said that this cornerstone should not be removed. [Interjections.] He went on to say—

Then Mr. Japie Basson asked the hon. the Minister: Why? To which the Minister replied—

You are now trying to pose as a verligte.

I am not trying to pose as a verligte. I am not crazy. The Minister went on to say—

The NP says that it guarantees the people of South Africa that the Blacks will not be included and that there will be separate schools and residential areas. The hon. the Prime Minister stated here that one had no moral grounds to justify this once the Coloureds are here. A decision with regard to the Indians has already been taken. And this is indeed the case. And that is not all. They will not be able to do so, since they are entering the new dispensation as representatives of a minority.

You are a “bitterbek”.

I am not a “bitterbek”. This Parliament is elected by 4.5 million Whites. The PFP has the support of 22% i.e. one million out of 4,5 million. *The remainder—the NP, the NRP, the CP, the HNP and the AWB—together represent 3.5 million. Add 2,5 million Coloureds and 800 000 Indians to the total number of votes of the PFP. This amounts to a total of 4,3 million as against 3,5 million of the other parties. There are therefore 4,3 million who say that the Group Areas Act should be abolished, that schools should be open and that Blacks should be included. At the very onset, one has a legitimacy problem. Then one is representing the minority. The majority speaks a different language. [Interjections.] This is the weakness of the NP plans. However, we shall still have many opportunities of talking about these matters. I now come to the hon. the Minister of Defence and I repeat what the hon. member for Jeppe said, viz. that there need be no doubt whatsoever concerning our loyalty to and our support of the Defence Force. We also say that we dissociate ourselves from the party to our right, the PFP …

That is a compliment.

Yes, of course it is also a compliment to us. We also say: We support the Defence Force when it has to act in a clandestine way—this is necessary—as in Maseru and Maputo. They have our full support in this. We also know that the vast majority of patriotic people in South Africa have more than mere sympathy for the Defence Force. They wish to support it with everything they have. They have the highest regard for the Chief of the Defence Force, and so do we. Yesterday, however, the hon. the Minister of Defence did something which was not very nice and something which a brave soldier does not do, and that was to hide behind another and to say: You may not hit me, since you may be hitting the man who is respected in South Africa.

I said that you hit the man …

We are not hitting him; we wish to hit the Minister. Allow me to say, concerning the Seychelles’ affair, that the Cabinet in fact had no knowledge of it. This appears in the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement, and we accept it. By virtue of my own personal experience I know this to be true. The Cabinet was not aware of it. [Interjections.] However, this does not mean that if the Cabinet did not know, an individual Minister did not know either. [Interjection.] Now I wish to know from the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he really had no knowledge whatsoever of this matter. Did he know nothing at all?

But I said I did not.

Did the hon. the Minister say that he did not know?

Yes.

All I can say now, is that the hon. the Minister of Defence is a very strange man. He is a Cabinet Minister. He is Chief of the Defence Force. Dr. Connie Mulder and Mr. John Vorster…

They have left!

Yes, they have left. They are out because they did not know. [Interjections.] However, this hon. Minister is blissfully unaware … [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Defence is unaware … [Interjections.] This hon. Minister is completely unconscious. [Interjections.] His soldiers go and carry out coups and he knows nothing about it. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. member for Lichtenburg please resume his seat. The hon. member is implying that he does not accept the word of the hon. the Minister of Defence. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I accept what the hon. the Minister said. He said that he did not know, and I accept that. That is why I am saying that he is unconscious, since he was unaware of this entire matter. [Interjections.] He is completely unconscious. His soldiers carry out a coup and he knows nothing about it. In my opinion, all they did wrong in this case was that they overthrew the wrong government. They should have overthrown this Government. [Interjections.]

You are disgraceful, Ferdinand! [Interjections.]

Never mind, Louis, they should have overthrown you as well. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the judge also found that the National Intelligence Service …

You are just as much of a disgrace as the AWB. [Interjections.]

Order!

While the hon. member for Pretoria Central is talking about the AWB, I simply wish to say that I am not at all surprised that the hon. the Minister of Defence is hiding behind the Chief of the Defence Force. After all, this is the Government’s technique. When they cannot hide behind the sub judice ruling, they hide behind a commission of inquiry. When they have nothing else to hide behind, they hide behind the back of another person. [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. member for Lichtenburg wish to contend that the Government hides behind the sub judice ruling because it has been applied repeatedly in this House?

Naturally one has to obey the sub judice ruling.

If the hon. member is making an allegation of that nature, he slighting the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, if I have created the wrong impression, I withdraw my statement. I withdraw it. However, the Government hides behind commissions and behind other people. [Interjections.] However, I now wish to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. The judge found that the National Intelligence Service was also aware of this. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us whether he, too, knew nothing at all of this coup.

The judge found no such thing. You are talking nonsense.

The judge found that the National Intelligence Service was involved in this through Dolinchek, and that they therefore must have known about the entire operation.

If one of your party colleagues steals, does that mean that the entire party are a lot of thieves?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he knew, whether he was aware of the entire episode? [Interjections.] I receive no reply from the hon. the Prime Minister. He does not wish to reply. He does not wish to say yes or no. Therefore I can arrive at only one conclusion. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the Cabinet did not know, but he does not, however, wish to say that he himself did not know. The only conclusion I can make, is that he did, in fact, know.

Yes, of course. [Interjections.]

That is why he does not wish to say that he was not aware of it. That is why we shall not be satisfied with the investigations which are now in progress either. In the case of the Information scandal, a Select Committee investigated the matter. Rapport states that an investigation took place in the Department of Defence ten years ago. However, the facts we have at our disposal now prove that the result of that investigation was incorrect. That is why we are saying that we want a Select Committee, on which all the Opposition parties in this House will be represented, to investigate the matter with regard to the Seychelles. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings about the speech of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. On the one hand we agree with him, of course, that as regards the Government’s ability to rule, a motion of no-confidence is appropriate. However, on the other hand, we differ fundamentally with the CP as far as policies are concerned. It will therefore be very difficult for us to associate ourselves with the actual statements of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I think their policy is somewhat confused, as is their ability to understand the realities of present-day South Africa. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that the ultimate result of the process of power-sharing would be that if one shares power and associates with people in one respect, then eventually, in order to be moral, one would have to share all the different things in life with them. I want to put this question to the hon. member: What about the place of employment, the factory, the office? Must there be total separation there as well? Otherwise one accepts the principle of sharing with other people in certain situations too. I want to tell the hon. member and his party that one must face the realities of life. In the old politics, total power-sharing is not appropriate for the present situation in South Africa. The NRP also believes in power-sharing, but not, of course, in the same way as the NP does. We must, therefore, say to those hon. members that we differ fundamentally from the policy of their party. [Interjections.]

The man I really want to talk to at somewhat greater length this afternoon is the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Kimberley South allowed to say that the hon. member for Jeppe is a disgrace to Parliament?

Order! The hon. member for Kimberley South must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Kimberley South allowed to say that the hon. member for Jeppe is worse than that? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. I said: “Something worse than that”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Kimberley South must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something about what the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare said on one occasion in this House. He said that the NRP had contributed very little to a political solution for South Africa’s problems. I just wish to tell the hon. the Minister that his ignorance is less than our contribution to this solution.

†I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister is aware that the NRP was the only White political party in this House that was prepared to submit written evidence to the Schlebusch Commission as well as to have its representatives cross-examined by the members of that commission.

That was before the decision.

Of course it was but it all builds up to it. We do not arrive at decisions in the wink of an eye. We do it very thoroughly. We take evidence, we weigh it up and then we consider all the alternatives. What is more, this party has also served on and still serves on the President’s Council, and many of its representatives were called back repeatedly to give evidence on a future constitution for South Africa.

I said that.

We did not hear you.

We did not hear the hon. the Minister very well and I should like him to repeat on another occasion that this party has made a magnificent contribution and is still making a contribution to constitutional reform.

I am the only one who did not ignore you and now you are cross with me!

It is what the hon. the Minister says that we are cross about. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in 1977 this party negotiated the blueprint for the metropolitan local authorities which was twice rejected by the NP Cabinet. When we petitioned the Cabinet to enable us to implement that scheme in Natal, the Cabinet rejected our appeal on two occasions. What has happened now? That blueprint has been recommended almost in toto by the President’s Council as the blueprint for future metropolitan local authorities. What happened in regard to the hon. the Prime Minister’s guidelines from 31 July is that the indications are that that Government is now going to accept that blueprint almost in toto. The tragedy, however, is that in the meantime since 1978 we have lost time and goodwill. Any party which makes that sort of contribution, a contribution as great as that of the NRP, deserves the accolades and not his venom.

I should like to address myself very briefly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is going to reply fairly shortly. We are totally perplexed as to what the official stand of that party is regarding participation in the process of reform and the institutions created for it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said when he introduced the motion of no confidence on Monday this week that his party was prepared to see what was happening, to listen to replies to find out what its role was and then to decide whether to participate in the process or not. Is that correct?

Yes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that is quite right. Here in my hand I have a circular of the PFP dated 14 January 1983 emanating from Natal—this is a letter on an official PFP letterhead to its members in that area—and it says…

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

Just now.

The circular reads—

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

No, later, if I still have time.

What does that letter, dated January 1983, say? It says—

All the congresses said that they should boycott it. [Interjections.] What does the circular say further? It says—

It then went on to say that they were unjustly called boycotters. I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether it is still his party’s decision to reject totally all aspects of the guidelines of the Government’s constitutional proposals. I hope that he will be able to give us clarity on that.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member take my question now?

No, at the end, if I still have time: I do not have time at the moment. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can reply to any question which the hon. member for Sandton has.

This party welcomes the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister about the Cabinet Committee to investigate the possibility of incorporating Blacks into the constitutional proposals for South African reform. This party is on record as having stood for years and years for the principle that all sections of the community of South Africa, including Blacks and in particular Blacks, must be included in the process of negotiation. We welcome the fact that urban homeland Blacks, leaders of independent States and self-governing States will be afforded the opportunity to consult with the Cabinet. We are confident, of course, that this Cabinet Committee will ultimately recommend that it should go to a full commission for further investigation.

I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister or to the chairman of the Cabinet Committee, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, to give an undertaking to the House that there will be regular and frequent report-backs as to progress in the consultations.

I hope in particular that Chief Minister Buthelezi of KwaZulu will take the opportunity also to go into negotiations with the Cabinet Committee. I must say that Chief Minister Buthelezi’s reported statement— and it was reported in The Argus as recently as 28 January—that the only political solution which would bring about peace in South Africa would be found in a one person, one vote unitary system has come as a considerable disappointment to the NRP and the people of Natal in particular. This is a great disappointment to us because that statement by the Chief Minister at a symposium held at Cape Town University’s Jamieson Hall on the evening of the 27th is a direct contradiction of the recommendations and statements contained in the Buthelezi Commission’s report. [Interjections.] Let me quote directly from The Argus—

This refers to Chief Buthelezi—

That, in fact, goes against the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission, and the Buthelezi Commission’s recommendations were accepted by Chief Minister Buthelezi on 3 December 1982 with great fanfare in Durban, Natal. What does that commission have to say about one man, one vote? On page 23 of the political report, volume 7, it says the following—

In the main report the Buthelezi Commission also refers to what it thinks about one man, one vote in a unitary system as a possible solution for South Africa. On page 114 of the main report, it is stated—

Therefore we believe that the Chief Minister’s reported abandonment of the Buthelezi Commission’s recommendations, and the abandonment of most of the base of the Buthelezi Commission, means that the basis for further negotiations between the NRP and Chief Minister Buthelezi and KwaZulu, at regional level, is now almost zero. Despite this abandonment, however, despite the fact that it will be impossible for the NRP to negotiate with Chief Minister Buthelezi on political matters, the Provincial Council of Natal is still willing to render administrative or technical assistance to KwaZulu if it is asked to do so.

I should like to make a particular appeal to Chief Minister Buthelezi to state whether he does, in fact, emphatically believe that one man, one vote is the only possible solution, or whether there is room for modification of that stance, because obviously the implications are very serious for relations between the NRP and Inkatha and Chief Minister Buthelezi, if that is his standpoint.

Then I should like to refer briefly to the Ingwavuma-Kangwane debacle. We listened very carefully to what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say the other day. My comment on the hon. the Prime Minister’s response is that the legal advisers of the Government did not get the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development into trouble over Ingwavuma, as was implied by the hon. the Prime Minister. On the contrary, it was impossible for the legal advisers to get the Government out the mess it got itself into. The NRP, however, welcomes the Rumpff Commission of Inquiry. We look forward to the report in due course. We are not, however, going to leave the matter there, because there is no scientific or moral basis for the proposed land deal, i.e. handing Ingwavuma and Kangwane to the Swazis. All the scientific reports indicate that not more than 10% of the citizens or people living in Ingwavuma are, in fact, Swazis. I would therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs what he based his claims on when he issued statements on television saying that what they intended to do was to put together people who belonged together. We cannot find any evidence, in all the research work we have studied, to vindicate the stand taken by the hon. the Minister. I should like to ask the hon. member Mr. Schutte where he got the information which he is reported to have given at a report-back meeting in Pietermaritzburg last year, viz. that the USA in fact was interested in building a harbour at Kosi Bay. I ask that hon. member to give us his source of information, because we certainly could not get verification from the US Foreign Department. Of particular concern to us in regard to the Ingwavuma affair is also the fact that hon. Ministers were making statements left, right and centre that all parties had been consulted before they made the decision. I say that that is a complete farce. There was no consultation in the true sense of the word between the MECs of the Natal Provincial Council and any Minister. What in fact happened is that our MECs were called in and told what the Cabinet decision was. That is what it amounted to.

That is what consultation is in their terms.

Yes, that was the “consultation”. We were told that this deal was going to go through. If that is what happened to us, it is very probable that the same happened to Chief Minister Buthelezi when he was so-called consulted.

We in Natal believe that the Government is still going to be faced with many demands for land or extra land by the independent homelands of South Africa. If that then is an example of the kind of consultation which takes place when these land claims are made, I say “Heaven help South Africa!” The Government had better put its negotiating house in order if it is to be charged with the responsibility of handling these land deals.

I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Prime Minister that even the OAU decided at one of its early congresses not to tamper with the old colonial boundaries. It is a total impossibility to justify the shift in boundaries on purely historical grounds. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that even Swaziland was taken by Sobhuza I from other tribes who lived there before. If we are going to try to apply some kind of historical guidelines, one is going to find that the kaleidoscope of Africa is going to have to be redesigned right from scratch.

There are two final aspects. The first concerns the Seychelles. We heard the questions that were asked in the House and look forward to hearing shortly the answers from the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence.

In conclusion let me say that as far as the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment, as printed, to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, we do not think that that amendment is anything but a clever political ploy, a very transparent attempt to get away from a vote of no-confidence. Therefore, this party will not be supporting the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment. What is intriguing—and I direct this to the hon. the Prime Minister—is why he was reluctant to put a full vote of confidence to his own members. Why this one-off thing of asking them to support him in his objectives, which most people would agree with? Why not a full vote of confidence? Is there something the hon. the Prime Minister is concerned about? We have no confidence in the Government’s ability and will be voting for our own amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Durban North will forgive me if I do not try to reply in detail in respect of the specialist subject he touched on in so far as he addressed this side of the House. In the debate later in the year there will certainly be time to have a comprehensive and in-depth discussion of the Ingwavuma affair. He only addressed this side of the House in respect of one other matter—he asked us to give greater recognition to the constructive role played by the NRP. I am prepared to concede that of all the opposition parties in this House, as far as constitutional development and the Defence Force are concerned, the NRP is the most constructive. However, that is not much of a compliment because it is really not difficult to be more constructive than the other opposition parties. [Interjections.]

In the first place I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I shall try to react to it fairly fully because it was a speech which deserves to be exposed to public contempt.

The first point he made, most dramatically and theatrically, was that the end of White self-determination in South Africa had dawned and that the abdication of the White man, the end of the last bastion of White self-determination, is built into the constitutional guidelines. However, in the next breath he argued that the rights and opportunities incorporated in the system for Coloureds and Asians are a swindle, because the Whites will retain all the power. Surely both these statements cannot be true. I want to tell the hon. member that both statements are untrue. The retention of the White man’s self-determination is incorporated in the system, and at the same time meaningful and equal opportunities have been incorporated for Coloureds and the Asians to participate fully in decision-making processes in respect of matters affecting their lives. The hon. member said that White self-determination had reached the end of the road. I want to ask the hon. member to indicate in what respect, as regards these basic points of departure, these guidelines differ from the 1977 guidelines he supported over the years.

They differ radically.

There is no difference. In the first place, the President’s Council and the President are to be elected in exactly the same way. Is the hon. member now implying that he was satisfied while the system was, in his opinion, a swindle, but now that we have streamlined the system and have had it extended to the Coloureds and Asians, he is recoiling from what he has supported over the years? The hon. member has thereby admitted that for five years, according to his own analysis of the system of electing the President and appointing the President’s Council, he was prepared to defend what he calls a swindle. Now, however, he suddenly says it is morally wrong.

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

No, Sir. I did not pester the hon. member when he made his speech. Self-determination is not something one practises while sitting alone in dark corners. It is untrue to say—the hon. member can make as many sums as he wishes; he should rather work on solutions to South Africa’s problems—that the functions of the White chamber will be, in the words of the hon. member for Waterberg, to decide on a few matters of petty importance. My colleagues and I on this side of the House, including the hon. the Prime Minister, have said from platform to platform that our advocacy of division of power, in terms of the basic point of departure that we shall operate to the maximum extent in terms of the devolution of power, will involve meaningful power over everything of essential importance to each of these groups. I want to report what I have said outside this House, namely that the two legs on which this system will be built, will not consist of one strong leg and one crippled leg, but that both will be sturdy pillars that together will be able to hold aloft the roof of good co-operation and good race relations.

The hon. member also referred in passing to the supposedly terrible, extraordinary powers that the State President will have. In the new dispensation the State President will not have more power than the present Prime Minister and State President together now have. On the contrary, let us just consider the introduction of legislation. At the moment the Prime Minister can only have a law passed with the support of the NP caucus. Where, then, is the difference? There is no real difference. What is true, is that the introduction of the President’s Council—which does not make it a Senate or an Upper House—as a mechanism to give a final answer in case of conflict, is an additional restriction imposed on the President, in comparison with those contained in the 1977 proposals. In 1977 there was no such mechanism and—I hope hon. members are fond enough of the truth to concede what I am going to say—the President could have placed a law on the Statute Book with the support of only one chamber. Now he no longer needs only the support of one chamber. Before a law can be placed on the Statute Book he must also have the support of the President’s Council. That is the first point in this regard. The second point is that with regard to the argument concerning whether or not the President’s Council is part of Parliament, we say it is not. We say it is not. The best proof of this is that when the President’s Council must give its decision in the case of conflicting views it cannot add a single word to or remove a single word from an Act or Bill. It can only say—“Yes, I support at least one chamber; it can become law”, or it can say, “No”. This is a safety mechanism which limits the power of the President more than he would have been limited in terms of the 1977 proposals.

I now come to the matter of self-determination and I say that self-determination can also be practised in respect of matters of common concern in interaction with the other population groups. After all, there would also have been interaction in respect of matters of common concern in terms of the 1977 proposals that those hon. members supported. All that legislation would, after all have been introduced in all three chambers, all three Parliaments. And would that have heralded the end of self-determination? At that stage those hon. members were satisfied. Now, however, they are dissatisfied with what is basically the very same set of facts.

The hon. member said I was present in London when Mr. Thebehali said that by 1986 they would be sitting in Parliament.

No, he did not say that.

Well, I was there. Do hon. members know that twice during his speech Mr. Thebehali said that he predicted—and this is what he foresaw would have to happen—that Soweto would become a city-state which would participate in the confederation? His reference to sitting together—so I interpreted it—concerned this involvement within the confederal context. [Interjections.] Yes, I was there. But after all, nowadays we all lie. Those who were not there know best.

I now want to come to the hon. member’s final point, namely the Seychelles. I do not want to have a detailed argument with him regarding the Seychelles incident. However, I do want to cross swords with him on two aspects, the first being his style. At one stage in his speech, when someone had made a light-hearted but telling interjection, he protested that in this most important and highest Chamber we must act with great dignity. Yesterday the hon. member for North Rand spoke very seriously about how we should debate matters here. I wish he had turned around and spoken to the people he really should have been addressing. What did the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who had served in this Cabinet, to which he was appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister, do at the end of his speech? His hate came to the surface. He addressed the Prime Minister in a manner I would not adopt towards one of my employees, and he did so across the floor of this House, the highest Council Chamber in the land. He gave tangible proof, to everyone who saw and heard him this afternoon …

Now you are playing the man.

… that he has no respect. His style detracted from the dignity of this House, for which he himself had pleaded earlier in his speech. I can understand that the Seychelles incident is a wonderful subject for sowing suspicion, and it must be a great temptation for any Opposition party to use it for this purpose. But let me now ask the hon. member—who at one stage served in the Cabinet—this question: Does he have any proof that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence knew about the Seychelles undertaking? If the hon. member is not in possession of any facts, why does he ask such questions? After all, the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence have already said that they had no knowledge of the affair. What we therefore have here is the sowing of suspicion, pure and simple. If the hon. member had been a man, he would have said that he was in possession of facts and that he was asking his questions on that basis. But, as I have said, if the hon. member is not in possession of any facts, the mere asking of such questions is proof of a political style which consists of the sowing of suspicion.

†Mr. Speaker, at the end of a long debate such as we have had, detail becomes less and less important while impressions take the upper hand. It is as if a picture emerges from the mountain of questions posed, the thousands cuts and thrusts thrown across the floor of the House and the numerous arguments advanced on a wide variety of subjects. At the close of the debate I would like to ask what this picture looks like. What conclusions can the people of the country draw from what have been said here and from the reams upon reams of newspaper reports which have emanated from here?

In general terms the three Opposition parties represented here in Parliament—two on a legitimate basis and one, the CP, on a usurped basis—succeeded to an extent in defining those matters to which they are opposed. At the same time however they failed to hide the basic deficiencies in their policies, deficiencies which would keep them tied to the Opposition benches in small numbers. We have seen the PFP struggling to overtake the boat of constitutional development which they missed, deliberately, through their boycott action. We have seen a party clinging desperately to a philosophy militating against one of the most important realities of South Africa, namely the multinationalism and the power of ethnicity. We have perceived a NRP fighting desperately for recognition as a party with a legitimate claim to an identity of its own, but failing to escape from its own old ailment of vacillation. “Yes, but…”, with too much emphasis on the “but”, aptly describes the NRP. Sir, I think their moment of truth is approaching rapidly. We have listened to and looked at—I want to emphasize “looked at”—the CP turning a blind eye to the real issues of our day and hiding behind a façade of bravado, over-simplification and rousing of suspicion, a party almost surpassing their old foes and present day allies—the HNP— in presenting stagnation as a virtue and development as a vice.

Opposed hereto the NP has decided to tackle the challenges facing South Africa and all its people through innovation and negotiation within the framework of sound principles. It did not hesitate to account for its stewardship and to accept its responsibilities. [Interjections.] The hon. member constantly referring to Thabazimbi reminds me of the crowds which were organized to shout me down at Thabazimbi.

*The main theme of this debate, besides specific matters, for example the Seychelles incident, our relationship with neighbouring States, South West Africa—matters on which either adequate answers have been given or, in some cases, in which, in the opinion of the Opposition, further information is still required—has been constitutional development and the problems arising from the diversity of nations. This debate unequivocally brought to the fore the fundamental mutual differences among the respective parties, differences of which the White electorate as well as all other population groups must take cognizance, differences that are linked to the ability of each party to make a meaningful contribution to words solving the problems of Southern Africa.

If one asks oneself what requirements a policy of constitutional development must comply with one can draw up various tests, all of them valid and important. For example it must be possible to implement in practice, the country must be able to afford it, it must satisfy the cultural norms and outlook on life and the world of those persons participating in it, it must be fair to all participants, uncertainty must be kept to a minimum and effective decision-making must be possible. There should be little disagreement on these tests. These are also the tests to which the Government subjected itself in its constitutional planning.

The voice of Jacob, but the hands of Esau!

There is one simple and fundamental test to which reference has repeatedly been made in this debate, a test that even the hon. member for Langlaagte ought to understand. It is the test of acceptability. No policy can succeed in the long term if it does not receive significant support and/or acceptance from reasonable leaders and their followers in those population groups to whom the system will apply. An unacceptable system can be imposed on people for a while, but real success lies in significant acceptance. In the constitutional field there is a problem facing South Africa, in respect of the diversity of nations and cultures, the divergent hopes cherished and demands made by Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the respective Black nations, the fears and prejudices of groups including Black minority groups, and the distribution pattern of the inhabitants of South Africa within its territory. Under these circumstances, the development of a constitutional system that will be relatively widely accepted by the moderate elements in all the population groups and will meet all the requirements I have enumerated is an almost superhuman task. This is the challenge facing us, and this is the challenge that has been accepted in this House only by the NP and, to a certain extent, by the NRP too, although in a rather confused manner.

I want to explain why I said that only the NP has done this and I want to do so by testing the respective parties on the basis of a simple statement. This statement is that no constitutional dispensation will receive the kind of acceptance necessary for success if it does not ultimately meet the following two requirements: In the first place, the Whites must accept it as a system which offers adequate guarantees for the preservation of their established rights, freedom and self-determination. If they do not accept it, they will not be prepared, with the power at their disposal, to take the steps necessary to create a new dispensation.

In the second place, the other population groups must accept it as a system which meets their reasonable demands and aspirations regarding liberty and self-realization, because they, too, are not prepared to accept pseudo-independence or pseudo-freedom or disguised domination. Tested against these basic truths, about which there would seem to be a reasonable degree of unanimity, and which no one in South Africa can escape, the CP and the PFP have failed dismally. The PFP, with its view of South Africa as, after all, a unitary community, and its refusal to give more than cosmetic recognition to the power of ethnicity and of group interests, cannot—I am tempted to say, can never—receive adequate support from the White electorate. Therefore one hears this from among their own ranks too. They make Black acceptance their only test. Go and read the speech of the hon. member for Sandton. I also refer hon. members to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Black acceptance is their test. However, without White acceptance every plan fails; that is why their plan is also failing. [Interjections.] The CP is trying to gain White support by offering them a Utopia, a dream of a secure and peaceful White entrenchment, without risk, without sacrifice, without change. However, to the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks they offer only pseudo-freedom, pseudo-independence, pseudo-rights, and at best only limited freedom, limited independence and limited rights. [Interjections.] I believe that they, too, will never gain the support of the millions of people of colour, the support without which every policy will be a dismal failure. [Interjections.]

I want to put it even more simply. The policy of the PFP bodes no good for the Whites because it does not meet their demands regarding security. Because this is so, it bodes no good for Black, Coloured and Asian either, because without adequate White support it is powerless and useless and not worth the paper it is written on, since without White support it is not a legal offer. [Interjections.]

The policy of the CP holds no promise for Blacks, Coloureds and Asians because it affords them no true, full-fledged self-determination. At his own party congress the hon. the leader of the CP said—

[Interjections.] That is merely one example. [Interjections.] Merely one example. [Interjections.] Because it does not create adequate opportunities for people of colour, the policy of the CP bodes no good for the Whites either, because the CP lacks the ability to gain adequate support from people of colour so that there can be an understanding in this country. [Interjections.] In contrast, the NP is progressing, it is making breakthroughs in order to achieve an understanding. Four Black nations are already independent, and there are already indications from the Coloureds and the Asians. People are beginning to accept and perceive that the NP means well by them. These are not concealed rights. These are not scaled-down rights. They are being given full-fledged opportunities. Throughout the course of this debate the NP has tried to convey one constant message. [Interjections.] The answer does not lie in meeting the demands of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians at the expense of the established rights and valid demands of the Whites. This will lead to confrontation. Neither, however, does the answer lie in the meeting of White demands at the expense of fair, and therefore acceptable, dispensations for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. This, too, will lead to confrontation. The real answer … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, could I not now be given the opportunity to make myself heard. [Interjections.]

Order!

The real answer lies in an understanding which gives the reasonable demands of every nation and group their rightful place—those of the Whites, every Black nation, the Coloureds and the Asians. It lies in the reciprocal recognition of the right of each nation and group not to be dominated. The real answer lies in the recognition of the need for a self-determining power base of its own for every nation and group, and in the simultaneous recognition of the need for mutual cooperation and the development of systems within which cooperation in respect of matters of common concern can take place in an orderly fashion. That is the path of the NP. The hon. the Prime Minister announced that a Cabinet Committee has been directed to investigate the problems surrounding the constitutional development of Black communities and to consult them in this regard. We are already hearing from the PFP that this is too little, too late whereas the CP is already planning to cast suspicion on the announcement as a development which endangers White interests. Both are wrong if they do this. Today the NP is telling its people, the White electorate: In our acceptance of the challenge to establish a constitutional dispensation which meets the essential requirement of general acceptance, we shall look after the established rights of the White man and his acquired right of self-determination, and we shall do so with dedication and circumspection. However, to the other population groups we say: Avoid confrontation. The NP, which is representative of the majority of Whites, means well by you. Make use of the opportunities. Come and talk with us, negotiate with us, help us seek a mutually acceptable solution for your constitutional development. We are seeking a way to allow every group and every nation to come into its own. However, there is one thing that everyone must realize: We are not prepared to place at risk in the process everything that we as Whites have built up and have already achieved.

A great deal is being said about violence. We have heard it from Chief Buthelezi and there are undertones of threats of violence from White circles, even, albeit very indirectly, from the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] To everyone who talks in this way, the Government has said in this debate: Stop playing with fire. No one can gain from such childish talk. We are living in a land of promise. If we are all sensible then there is a place and opportunity and fulfilment for everyone. There is still time and there is still opportunity but—and in this regard I want to agree with the hon. the Prime Minister—we say to the unreasonable elements who do not want to see orderly development in this country, who do not want to see peaceful co-existence, who want to see fires bum, that we are ready for them. If we have to use the power of the State to prevent violence in this country then we shall do so with conviction and success.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is undoubtedly one of the most effective debaters in this House, but I have often wondered why the hon. the Minister reminds me a little of a verkrampte political Wimpie de Klerk. [Interjections.] Both of them are masters of the political tango—one step forwards, about two steps back and a few to the side, and so they go on until they have been separated from their political partners and they have all become quite dizzy! [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, it has been said that this will probably be the last no-confidence debate of its kind. We do not know. However, it has been said that this could be the case. I think that this debate will become known as one in which the Government evaded questions and the Opposition searched in vain for the hidden agenda of the NP. It has also been a debate of alarming and dangerous selective disclosures and half-truths.

*It was to have become a debate which would have given South Africa a sense of direction, an epoch-making debate, I think, was what Die Burger said. New guidelines were to have been revealed to us and we were to have been told exactly what they were. What did become clear was that the NP Government of South Africa had lost its ideological certainty. One cannot get any clear replies from them, and I want to come back to the questions we have asked and the matters we have raised, and the first one is the problem of destabilization.

Before I proceed to deal with this point, let me make something very clear. I think hon. members will accept that it is not my style and that it is not in my nature to be personal in my remarks concerning any hon. member of this House or any hon. Cabinet Minister. I am not interested in that; I am interested in argument and I am interested in the implications of that argument for the future of South Africa. Having listened to the replies and explanations of that side of the House concerning the problem of destabilization, however, there is only one question that occurs to me and that is: What is the Government doing with South Africa? What is going on here? Let me put it like this: I asked the hon. the Prime Minister in a calm and reasoned manner what our standpoint was on these allegations that were being made by others. In fact, I repeated many of the arguments which the Government itself has repeatedly advanced in the past with regard to destabilization. I said these were the dangers. I was grateful when the hon. the Prime Minister rose and told us the following—

That was one point which he made. The second point he made was that there were peace agreements with neighbouring states and that he wished to enter into such agreements. The third point he made was that the Government did not want to destabilize. I quote the hon. the Prime Minister—

That was the reaction of the hon. the Prime Minister, and I was heartened by that reaction. Then the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that he had offered those people defence agreements and other peace agreements. Then he said—

The Prime Minister went on to say—

Those are strong words. They make it quite clear to our friends and to our enemies outside South Africa what our standpoint on destabilization is. I took that to be the last word on the matter.

But no; the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information then rose to speak. I must say at once that I sympathize with the problems of that hon. Minister. It is indeed no easy task to be a Minister of Foreign Affairs in South Africa. The hon. the Minister read us some passages from Africa Report. One extract which he read from Africa Report concerned the MNR. I read from the hon. the Minister’s speech in which it was clearly stated—

The hon. the Minister’s next words were—

Then I sat up for the first time. Then I began to wonder: What is going on here? After all, that standpoint adopted in Africa Report was supported by the American State Department; not the supporters of Moscow, but the American State Department had said, as they put it: “Their considered opinion is that the bulk of support comes from South Africa in this particular case.”

Then the hon. the Minister of Defence rose. He began with a play on words with regard to terrorists and amused himself for a while by talking about the Stellenbosch by-election and so forth. I am coming to the point, but one of the points he made was that I was supposed to be having problems with the word “terrorist”. Let me make this quite clear. I have no sympathy with terrorists. I have no sympathy with people who use violence, and I have no sympathy with people who kill other people indiscriminately or who destroy their property, and I shall have no sympathy with such behaviour, whether inside or outside South Africa. [Interjections.] I want no part of it. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister said that I had debated the matter with the hon. the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Defence, in 1974, and that I had had difficulties with the words “terrorists” and “murderers”. That was not the point. The hon. the Minister should have looked up that debate, for then he would have seen what I said in col. 2471 on Monday, 9 September 1974, when I indicated that it was not the words “terrorists” or “murderers” that were at issue, but the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point and I had been the guests of Dr. Kaunda and that the hon. the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Defence, had said the following—

He was referring to the hon. member for Sea Point and myself—

That was what was at issue. [Interjections.] Let me now ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he would say exactly the same thing to Dr. Kaunda today.

Not a word out of them!

Why, then, does he repeat that type of argument?

What are you getting at?

What I am getting is that I have never had any problems with the words “terrorists” or “murderers”, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to say that I have. I said that the hon. the Minister of Defence had raised this matter at the time and had blamed us for having talked to Kaunda. However, he has talked to him himself.

My dear friend, I said this to Dr. Kaunda myself on the border.

That does not matter. [Interjections.] Why does he do it? Why does he go and talk to people and then accuse me of having talked to people who harbour terrorists and murderers? [Interjections.] That is the real issue. In the debate yesterday I asked the hon. the Minister: But what about Nkomo? He replied—

[Interjections.] On 10 October 1982, however, the hon. the Minister was interviewed on TV by Cliff Saunders and the following question was put to him—

The reference is to the other Governments—

The hon. the Minister’s reply was—

Please note, the “freedom fighters”—

Nkomo is the head of Zapu, of course, and in the struggle against Smith, Zapu shot down a civilian aircraft with 123 passengers on board, and it is alleged that after that aircraft had crashed, the surviving passengers were shot dead by Zapu terrorists. But according to the hon. the Minister of Defence, they are freedom fighters. Is the hon. the Minister calling Nkomo a freedom fighter, yes or no?

You are talking about Rhodesia, I am talking about Zimbabwe. [Interjections]

The principle remains the same. [Interjections.] Now this same hon. Minister says— and this is headlined in Die Burger of this morning—that if he considers it necessary, they will go into Mozambique and support the MNR, and if it is necessary, they will go into Zimbabwe and support Nkomo, and the same applies to the Basuto Congress Party. [Interjections.] That is what it says here! The report is very clear—

What is the MNR, according to Africa Report? Africa Report was quoted by the hon. the Minister Of Foreign Affairs and he accepts the statement. That statement is also accepted by the American State Department. In an article in the same edition of Africa Report, it says under the heading “South Africa’s hidden war”—

The report goes on to say—

This is what is being said about these people. I do not know whether it is true …

The Communists will be grateful to you for the speech you are making.

… but what I do know is that this kind of report is informing foreign policy towards South Africa in the American, British and Western capitals.

I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister of Defence that it is very dangerous for South Africa to say that the charge of destabilization comes from Moscow only. It does not come from Moscow only. It comes from the US. and if there is a change of government in the US, we shall really be in trouble. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am prepared to give him the name of the official who co-operates very closely with Chester Crocker and who told me personally in Washington that a general of the S.A. Defence Force had told him that it was the policy of the S.A. Defence Force to destabilize and to segment. I told him he was lying! Now the hon. the Minister of Defence comes along and says, “Well, I do not know; if it is necessary, I shall do it.” The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs says, “Well, I think that to a great extent it is true.” However, the hon. the Prime Minister says: “But it is not true under any circumstances. We are not going to destabilize.” What is going on here?

But you are talking nonsense.

What is the standpoint of the Government? The Government cannot simply take decisions and do as they please as far as South Africa is concerned. We cannot be trifled with in Parliament. Surely we must know what is going on in the country, I go abroad and I speak on behalf of my country. What am I to tell the people there? I have spoken out in favour of South Africa over there, and against destabilization. Having done that, I have to listen to these things being said in the Parliament of South Africa!

I have consulted Hansard again to see what the standpoint of the previous hon. Prime Minister on this specific problem was in 1974, when the take-over took place in Mozambique, and we all thought that the Portuguese regime was withdrawing and that we were getting a whole new dispensation there.

†That hon. Prime Minister got up in the House and said (Hansard, 30 August 1974, column 1858)—

But if one wants a sound and stable Government established, one cannot be accused of participating in trying to destabilize such a Government. The then hon. Prime Minister went on to say (column 1860)—

*That was what was said at that time. That was the cornerstone of our foreign policy.

I want to say that if the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Defence became the standpoint of the Government, namely that one can disregard that cornerstone, it would be practically impossible to have a Department of Foreign Affairs in South Africa. I cannot see how the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs could then do his job. It would become a practical impossibility. This matter must be clarified. What is more, if it became the official policy of the Government of the Republic, we would no longer be able to tell the world not to interfere in our internal affairs, for if a cornerstone of our policy changed, we would be seen as people who say that if we consider it to be in our interest we shall disregard the sovereignty of other countries and will help to change their Governments. When I talk about destabilization, I am not talking about the combating of terrorism, about pre-emptive strikes or about hot pursuit operations. I am talking about deliberate interference in the internal affairs of another community to destabilize it politically, socially and economically. That would be disastrous for South Africa. [Interjections.] The MNR has nothing to do with it. The MNR is fighting against Machel, as the hon. the Prime Minister himself said. If this is going to be the policy of the Government, they must take cognizance of the fact that the view held in the US, Britain and West Germany is that if it is true that we are going to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, then we are becoming the partners of Moscow and we shall be held responsible for any escalation in the Soviet presence in Southern Africa. They say so themselves. If hon. members do not want to believe me, I shall quote it again—

That is the danger. That is why I am saying with all due respect to the hon. the Minister of Defence that I have the greatest respect for him as a military man, but for a politician this is a dangerous standpoint to adopt, and I want to advise the hon. the Minister rather to go back to the Defence Force. We cannot afford to have a Minister of Defence who makes such irresponsible statements. I therefore ask him to reconsider his position.

If you want to play the game of our enemies, I shall not allow you to do so.

The game of our enemies is being played by those who abuse South Africa’s position to invite Russia to come to this continent.

Moscow will be grateful to you for making this speech.

That will be the day! Moscow is grateful every time we can be accused of helping the MNR, Unita or other countries. That is what Moscow is grateful for. What is the result of this conduct of ours? It serves to internationalize the conflict in Southern Africa. That is one of the strategies of Russia.

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

No, Sir. I regret that I do not have enough time available. What is the strategy of Russia? They have spelt it out very clearly.

†The first strategy is: Assist the ANC to become a Government in exile. They use the United Nations for that. The second is: Internationalize the conflict in Southern Africa. How does one do that? Pull South Africa out of her domestic problems into the Southern African region and once you have done that, once you have internationalized it, you make it possible for the big powers to come into that region to assist those Governments.

*Allow me to point out to the hon. the Minister of Defence that they want to get rid of the Cubans in Angola, but if things go on like this, the Cubans will simply re-establish themselves in Maputo. We shall not get rid of them if this is the policy which the hon. the Minister is going to follow.

I come now to the Seychelles.

†All I want to say about the Seychelles is that the reply we got was hopelessly inadequate. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister—I mean this—that I appreciate and respect the fact that he made me this offer, but we are not going to solve the problems of South Africa if I become part of privileged information. We have to clear our name in public. We have to clear our name in Parliament. We have to demonstrate quite clearly that we were not involved. We have to show that no funds were involved and how it could have happened that Defence Force weapons were issued. We must show the world that we shall not tolerate such instances. At the moment we simply do not know. Therefore I say that we will continue to ask questions on this matter, whether the Government wants to answer them or not. I believe it is the responsibility of a responsible Opposition to probe this for the sake of the good name of South Africa, and we will continue doing so.

I now come to the Ingwavuma case. All I can say about the reply to the Ingwavuma case is that it was simply fantastic, unbelievable. No-one can believe it. The hon. the Prime Minister said (Hansard, February 1983, Col. 145)—

*This was how the hon. the Prime Minister wanted to create a climate. It was never implied that the territories would be finally incorporated. What does the Cabinet statement say, however? In a “Statement by the Hon. P. J. Koornhof, MP, Minister of Co-operation and Development”, on 17 June 1982, it was stated—

[Interjections.] In the same statement they said on page 3—

That hon. Minister also said—

Well, would they finally become Swazi citizens?—

But then they became frightened—this statement was issued on 17 June—and on 23 June the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development issued another proclamation. I felt sorry for him because I knew it was not his fault. He was being pressurized by others, and I know who the people are who were pressurizing him. Then, all of a sudden, the Minister said—

That was on 23 June, but on 28 June there is a proclamation in the Government Gazette, and what does it say? It states—

Then there was general confusion. [Interjections.]

Was this conveyed to Swaziland?

Can Swazis read?

Yes.

Well, if they can read, surely they were able to read this. [Interjections.] The matter grew so confused that the Government decided that they were not going to take the matter any further, so they decided—as people say—to appoint a commission of inquiry to find out what was going on.

†So much for the questions and issues that we have raised, but there were also important announcements made in this session, and the hon. the Prime Minister, I believe, did make an important announcement when he referred to the creation of a Cabinet Committee for urban Blacks.

*One could attach a pessimistic interpretation to this. One pessimistic interpretation is to say: Oh well, this is just another committee which is being used as a depository for thorny problems. The hon. the Prime Minister said, inter alia, that this Cabinet was to give consideration to overlapping interests of people outside national states and their relationship to urban areas, regional institutions in rural communities, the exercise of final control, measures of financial viability, etc. But then one reads on and it become even more interesting. Then the hon. the Prime Minister says that he accepts the permanence of these people outside the urban areas. Then he goes on, and for the first time, as far as I can remember—I may be mistaken—the Government says: And now there must be talks with leaders outside the national states. These are the leaders of the Black urban communities. Immediately I wondered: But who are these leaders? Therefore I say that it would be an over-simplification simply to dismiss this Cabinet Committee. It would be an over-simplification to dismiss it straight away and to say that it is of no significance, for when one reads the speeches made by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, interesting things emerge. Take, for example, the speech of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Firstly he says: “I just want to tell you that my Department is not going to disappear; my Department is going to remain, and I am glad, because it is important.” If that Department were to disappear, I do not know who would be able to deal with this whole matter. After all, no provision is made for this in the tricameral Parliament at the moment. Surely someone has to deal with it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

The second thing which the hon. Minister says is that this Cabinet Committee is aware of the fact that the urban Blacks and other Black people should be involved in the process of constitutional reform. However, he goes further and says that he must point out that they are dealing here with a dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and that the Black people are not being involved in this. On the next page he goes somewhat further and says—

At that I began to sit up and take notice again. However, the hon. the Minister went on to say—

Then the hon. Minister spoke about the permanence of these people, and also stated that they had to talk to the leaders outside the national states, something which I also welcome. Then he said very clearly that those people also had constitutional expectations extending far beyond the local authority level. I agree with that too. However, the hon. the Minister went even further and said that this Cabinet Committee would also have to give attention to improved nationality and citizenship arrangements. This, I think, is another new and interesting idea which has been raised. Then he added that there could not be a fourth chamber. That was his next idea. There could not be a fourth chamber. He said that it would not be logical. However, this does not mean that there cannot perhaps be 10, 12 or 14 chambers. Then the hon. the Minister said that we should give some attention to the canton system of Switzerland. That is so. He said, and I quote him—

I agree with that, too—

The hon. the Minister twice repeated what he had said about the canton system. Then he went further, however, and he said, that we had to engage in consultation.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying for one moment that this is Government policy, because I have made the mistake in the past of believing that the hon. the Minister was expounding Government policy. [Interjections.] However, he is putting his point of view. Since he is the responsible Minister I believe one can see that some thought is now being given to this matter. I would say that in the think tank which is now being created in the form of the Cabinet Committee, he is going to try to make things swing his way. That is what he is going to do, and I am delighted about that. [Interjections.]

Another interesting development is that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has made a similar speech. He spoke in the same vein about the permanence of these people, the new constitutional dispensation, and the need to talk to the leaders outside the national States. That is why I say that on the one hand, one could say that this Cabinet Committee is simply a new device for evading difficult questions, or for streamlining the old system. On the other hand, of course, one could say that the debate is perhaps being opened up by means of this. The debate about the urban Blacks is perhaps being opened by means of this. I do not want to go any further than that. However, it seens to me that this contains the possibility of a new debate. One of the interesting things in this connection is that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is not the chairman of that Cabinet Committee. The chairman is the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This, too, I regard as an interesting development. I do not know what its implications are, but all the same it is an interesting development which has taken place here. The members of that committee are also the members of the Select Committee on the Constitution. The only real objections I have at the moment with regard to this matter is that I find it a pity that it should be a Cabinet Committee. Why could it not have been a Standing Committee of Parliament? Then we could have invited people to contribute their ideas, to join in our deliberations. The way it is in fact being done, however, it simply becomes yet another matter which the members of the Cabinet are discussing among themselves. After all, they are free to discuss this matter among themselves in any event if they want to. A Joint Standing Committee of Parliament could have started by ascertaining the differences that exist, whereupon we could have invited these people for consultation. I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that it is at least a new possibility which is being created here, a possibility for a new debate.

†In the few minutes still at my disposal I should like to refer briefly to the new constitutional proposals. There is not much I have to say because there was very little said about it by hon. members on the Government side. I would assure the hon. the Minister that it was not a planned thing that he had that problem with his speech from this side of the House. It happened in the normal course of parliamentary proceedings. In fact, I myself was very concerned that he did not have enough time to spell out more clearly what the position was.

I did not interrupt you when you were making your speech but your party did not pay me the same courtesy.

No, the hon. the Minister is right, but I wish he would talk to the other people around him as well.

I did that as well.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister must talk to them now. They gave me a rough time a few minutes ago. [Interjections.]

*The hon. the Prime Minister likes to tell us frequently: “Yes, your national convention! If they did something there which you did not agree with, you would never change it.” I say, as the hon. the Prime Minister does: There are principles and there is policy. There are certain principles which are non-negotiable, and one can spell them out and deal with them on that basis. Policy, however, is adaptable. Now I want to ask: Is the Group Areas Act adaptable? Is it a principle or a policy?

That is a matter which is being investigated. [Interjections.]

That is interesting. [Interjections.] It is very encouraging and I would advise the Government to initiate many inquiries of this nature so that we can get some idea of what the policy is going to be.

There is one thing I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and that is that there is a big difference between consultation and negotiation.

†Consultation and negotiation are not the same thing. With consultation, one goes to people and asks them for advice. One sometimes even pays them for it. However, one is free to accept or reject it. However, with negotiation one is trying to reach a compromise. One involves them in the process from the outset. I put it to the hon. the Minister again: There was not genuine negotiation involved in the creation of the Government’s guidelines. That is the first point. [Interjections.] Secondly, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he will be deluding the country if he says that in the new set-up the President’s Council is going to be primarily an advisory body. It is not. The crucial significance of this in the constitutional sense is that it is going to become a deadlock-breaking mechanism. It is going to become an intimate part of the legislative process. [Interjections.]

I say that is not true.

Well, if I am wrong, the hon. the Minister must disabuse me when he introduces the relevant legislation.

I shall do so.

However, as I understand the position at the moment, it forms a crucial part of it.

Then, the hon. the Minister said that Blacks are not excluded. Let me make one thing quite clear. It is not going to depend on myself or the hon. the Minister as to whether Blacks are excluded or not in the new constitutional structure and are happy about it. It will depend on them. If they tell you that they cannot get a bite at the cherry, if they tell you that they cannot influence the decisions that vitally affect their lives in that new constitutional structure, they are telling you that they are excluded. Not only will they tell you so, they have already told you so.

The point is: What do you tell them? [Interjections.]

Well, I have to agree with them, because the hon. the Minister cannot explain to me how they are involved. However, as I say, let us hold on to a faint hope. There is now a Cabinet Committee.

*As they say, there is the canton system; there are quite a number of things that may happen; so let us wait and see what happens. However, we must not try to bluff one another; the Blacks are not a part of this process. This is where the tension arises. We and the CP are poles apart, but their argument is the same, and that argument is correct. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs says we say one thing and they say another, and they cannot both be true; they are both untrue. However, I want to say to him: he cannot tell us what the situation is. Is there going to be power-sharing under that dispensation? [Interjections.] He has only to tell us yes or no, then we shall know whether they are right or whether we are right. [Interjections.] He does not want to tell us. Is there going to be power-sharing under this new dispensation, yes or no? [Interjections.] If only we can get a clear reply, we shall finally know who is right or wrong. We want to know what the hon. the Minister’s reply is.

The answer is yes. [Interjections.]

Is it full power-sharing? [Interjections.]

Order!

Another point the hon. the Minister made was that there must be no domination in this new structure. Again, Sir, do not let us bluff ourselves. I do not mind if the hon. the Minister says: Look, during a transitional phase we are going to need White domination to assist us in working out the new dispensation, and it is inevitable. However, do not say that there is no domination. Domination, as spelled out in the guidelines, is entrenched in that new constitution. Let us say this clearly. Let us say it is a historical fact and we are trying to do something about it, that we are trying to move away from domination, and so forth. However, do not say that the new guidelines do not make provision for domination and for heaven’s sake do not let us entrench domination. If there has to be domination as some kind of transitional mechanism, do not entrench it in the new constitution, because then one entrenches conflict.

The second last point I want to make on this issue is that the hon. the Minister rather disparagingly referred to my question about the role the Opposition would have to play. The first point in this regard is that I have never changed my attitude with regard to the Government’s guidelines, not from the very outset. I draw a very clear distinction in the Opposition’s role to assess those guidelines, to say whether they meet its policies and principles and state its objections, and I did so from the outset. I say that I find them objectionable. I think that they are going to be unworkable. In the same way I want to say to the hon. member for Durban North that he asked the easiest of questions. The hon. member referred to the whole question of “in or out” and so on. It is a very simple question to answer. I find the present constitution in which we are working inadequate. I find it objectionable. Everybody in the House does, and they believe it has to be changed, but we are participating; we are trying to do something about it. As far as the Opposition is concerned, what we have to find out is the role the Opposition can play under the new constitution. Is there a role for it—not as necessarily as PFP or CP, but a constitutional position for an Opposition? Because the position a Government accords an Opposition reflects its concern for democracy. If a Government denies an Opposition its role, then an Opposition can fulfil no role whatsoever, and it does not matter whether it is the PFP or anybody else.

The second point the hon. the Minister made was that all of us had agreed that we should move away from the Westminster system. Of course. Then, however, he went on to ask: What would be the role of the Opposition in the new system? The traditional role, he says. [Interjections.] Now, how can one move away from the Westminster system and still have the traditional role of an Opposition? It affects the way Opposition politics is worked out. [Interjections.] We all know that the Opposition in the Bundestag in West Germany has a different kind of function and constitutional role than the Opposition in the Westminster system of Great Britain, and even the most elementary constitutional expert knows this.

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

No, unfortunately I have no time. Later on there will be lots of time—we are going to have a Second Reading, Committee Stage and Third Reading and then lots of questions may be asked.

The hon. the Minister cannot blame us for asking questions about the Opposition if he does not provide us with the answers. We will go on probing and asking for those answers.

The hon. the Minister said that we should look at the situation in terms of certain basic values in South Africa, values which he believed to be important if we are to find a common agreement. I want to tell him I share those values that he has mentioned, the values of justice, the values of doing justice to other population groups. I commit this party to searching with the Government, if he is serious, for a solution in terms of those values.

You know I am serious.

Yes. Well, then we will look at him. He can judge us and we will judge him in terms of those values, because we have a basis for discussion.

*Therefore I say to the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism that it is nonsense to say that there is a negative spirit on the part of the PFP. He did not do his homework, so he simply read the editorial in Die Burger and repeated it in this House. It is the same old tune that they always sing. I think Mouton is a very good cartoonist, but since I became Leader of the Opposition he has never had an original idea. That does not matter now. The same applies to the people who write the editorials. Rather enter into a proper debate in this situation, because I realize—with this I want to conclude my remarks on this subject—the urgency of the need for reform in South Africa. I realize, too, how difficult it is going to be. It is no easy task. See how we struggle to reach agreement in this House; how much more difficult it is going to be when dealing with people outside!

I can promise you that this party firmly intends to participate in the process and to ensure that the best possible constitution is produced.

†With a final word, however, I want to end where I began. All our attempts at domestic reform, all our attempts at finding internal accommodation in South Africa will come to naught if we push the Southern African region into a situation of war. I want to give that warning. If we are caught up in process of destabilization in Southern Africa, we can forget about reform domestically.

Amendment moved by Dr. A. P. Treurnicht put,

Upon which the House divided:

Order! I now put the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. I put the question—

Those in favour of the wording will say “Aye” and those against “No”. I think the “Ayes” have it…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: As I understand it, the motion of no confidence, the way you have now put it, has now been carried …

No. I put the motion again. Will hon. members please take their seats. Order! I now put the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. I put the question—

Those in favour of retaining the words will say “Aye”; those against “No”. I think the “Noes” have it.

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.