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

This matter undoubtedly touches on one of the most sensitive nerves in the political dispensation of South Africa. It is a matter on which there is a sharp divergence of opinion and it is also a matter which gives rise to strong emotions. I think one can say that these sharp differences and the emotions surrounding them form part of the realities of South Africa.

When we speak of realities, we are concerned with more and other things than mere physical and economic realities. I want to urge today that we should get away from the one-sided view that economic factors are the only or even the most important realities of our human situation and of our politics in South Africa. Surely a matter such as faith is an indisputable reality. Without faith one is not a realist. Group identity is a fact. Surely it is a fact that the group identity of a people is almost as old as mankind. The will to survive as a group or as a people is a reality in South Africa. All life is differentiation, and surely this is another fact which must be borne in mind. It is also a fact that one’s ties with one’s own people, with an ethnic group, are not necessarily destroyed by civilization and modernization. This is a reality in the world and it is a reality in South Africa as well. Furthermore, it is a fact that peoples come to resist being governed by aliens, even though there may be economic interdependence between various groups. The population of Southern Africa is not homogeneous and is not one people. I also submit that it cannot and does not want to be beaten up into a multiracial mixture. The will not to be beaten up into such a mixture is one of the realities of South Africa.

Since the Second World War, certain people have been working overtime to cast suspicion on every form of ethnic or national consciousness, as though it were the ghost of Hitler stalking about in the world. Nationalism has been simply equated by some people with Nazism and all its atrocities. This has discouraged a serious approach to and study of ethnicity and nationhood, although not all researchers into these subjects have been deterred by this.

Some people want to speak at most of a State nationalism in which all inhabitants of a country or a state make up one nation, even though they belong to different ethnic groups or peoples. There are certain liberals, even left-wing academics, who only want to talk in terms of a State nationalism in South Africa and who want to ignore all ethnic consciousness and the nationalisms of the various peoples. Accordingly to that view, Whites, Coloureds and Indians are one nation in South Africa. That is their view. To be consistent, they should include all Black people outside the national States as well. According to that concept, Black people falling within the area of jurisdiction of this Parliament should also be regarded as belonging to that one nation. Even the citizens of non-independent self-governing States should then be included in one nation with the Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

On the basis of that common nationhood, people are then to be forced to share the same political and social organizations and structures. That is the logic of that kind of definition. Advocates of liberalism have made their contribution to this. According to one Milton Gordon’s liberal prognostications, ethnicity will be systematically phased out of the structures of the new world. In his view, the course of reform and renewal will lead to the phasing out of all national consciousness and ethnicity. His liberal renewal will cause all elements of separation to disappear, and merit will be the only criterion. There will be a uniform pattern of education, one educational system, and a single economic order will have to contribute to the unification of all. That is the purport of the argument from that point of view.

Discrimination has become a swear word, in spite of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken—and I agree with him on that—of “necessary discrimination”. I agree with him that there is discrimination which is necessary. But in the name of the removal of discrimination, the door is to be opened to social and political integration. From the nature of the case, any reference to race or colour is discriminatory, according to those people.

There has been a reaction to this kind of standpoint, of course. A reaction has already set in against this bankrupt ideology. That reaction can already be observed in America and in South Africa as well. I think that anyone who has read the book by James Burnham, Suicide of the West, must have been convinced that in wide circles in America at least these liberalist ideologies are being rejected.

For the present, there are men such as Glazer and Moynihan who study ethnicity and who try to project the implication of ethnicity into the political system as well, although they have not yet completed the process. If this is untenable, just as untenable, and perhaps even worse, is the radicalism which wants to wipe out all class differences by means of the revolution of the proletariat and to regard all the interests of a community as being of an economic nature.

I should furthermore like to point out certain premises which have been predominant in the politics of South Africa for decades. There are certain basic premises which are still supported by this side of the House.

To begin with, the population of Southern Africa, and even the Republic of South Africa, is not and has never been a homogeneous people or a nation. I think this is a fact which cannot be disputed. Secondly, the differentiation between groups and peoples is not based on the superiority of some and the inferiority of others. It goes without saying that the members of a particular people will take pride in the achievements of that people. People may think that they are a little better than others, but that is not the crux of the matter. The differentiation is based rather on the fact that people differ in respect of historic descent, group solidarity, loyalities, race culture, language and way of life, and anyone who ignores these things is closing his eyes to the realities of South Africa.

There is a third premise and that is that there is a lot of goodwill and many points of contact between the various peoples and groups in South Africa. I think all realize that the demand for justice is ineluctable. I want to state here this morning that this party commits itself to the implementation of the principle of justice, even though we know it is difficult in practice. It would be difficult for any party which came into power in South Africa, because it would be faced with vested rights, with certain patterns of life and certain rights which people have acquired and are not going to give up without protest. These are facts in South Africa. But we regard it as unwise and undesirable that all people should live in the same residential area, go to the same school, be placed on the same voters’ roll or sit in the same Parliament, provincial council or local authority. This has always been the standpoint.

To us, nationalism is more than love of one’s fatherland. Love of one’s fatherland is an element in one’s concept and experience of nationalism. Nationalism is basically love of one’s own people. It is to strive for its survival. It is to strive for its political freedom. It is to refuse to be governed by aliens. It is the demand to be governed by people who have been elected by one’s own people. This I think, is basic to nationalism.

Furthermore we realize that permanent White tutelage or domination of non-White peoples or groups by Whites is not only impossible, but also indefensible. Veiled domination, too, is objectionable and indefensible. The realization that one cannot have tutelage in South Africa indefinitely, that one cannot operate indefinitely on the basis of White supremacy over other peoples, is closely bound up with the refusal of the Whites to be governed by or to share their government with any other group or groups.

We tell one another quite frankly and unequivocally that our disagreement on this matter is not only deep but also very serious. If non-White people all over Africa have rejected White domination or so-called colonialism—we are not defending colonialism; that process of liberation was inevitable and irresistible—then the Whites of South Africa refuse in their turn to subject themselves to neo-colonialism of domination by Blacks or anyone else. Surely that is logical. What one grants others one demands for oneself as well.

The President’s Council found that partition was justified for Black peoples because the Black peoples preferred to be governed by their own people. I think that is a ray of light in the findings of the President’s Council. However, the Council did not consistently apply those findings in its practical recommendations to the Government. We submit that it is the right of Black people to be governed by their own people, but then it is also the right of the Whites to be governed by their own people.

We say this after mature consideration and with great seriousness. This thing must not be underestimated.

One Walter Connor once spoke of “the growing tendency of peoples to resent and resist being ruled by those deemed aliens.” The aversion and resistance to being governed by aliens is a fact and it is one of the realities of Africa. It is one of the realities of South Africa. I wish to state here that the Government will be making a fatal mistake if it subjects White people to a government which is alien to them racially, ethnically and, in certain respects, religiously as well. It will be making a very serious mistake. I want to warn in all courtesy: We are going to do everything in our power, within the confines of the law in South Africa, to oppose the plans for a multi-racial government to rule over Whites. [Interjections.] And if it is necessary to say it I want to add: This has nothing to do with any claim to violence or any tendency or intention to introduce violence into politics. [Interjections.]

Does the AWB agree?

The AWB people can speak for themselves, but I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that I have personally told the leader of the AWB: If you speak of violence as a political method, I repudiate you. [Interjections.] It seems to be necessary to repeat this to those hon. members.

The NP accuses the CP of heading for confrontation, but I just want to warn: If a refusal to be ruled by aliens is confrontation, there has been a great deal of confrontation in the history of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] After all, wars have been waged in our history over the question “Who is to rule a people, who is to rule the Whites?” People have taken up arms over this question. I just want to say that I am not advocating the use of arms in politics. However, I am referring to history. People have felt so strongly about this that they have taken up arms over this question. We are expected, however, to rejoice at the signing away of the political power of the Whites! This is what is now being expected of the Whites. [Interjections.] If the freedom and self-determination of one’s people are at stake, and one throws in the towel because one is afraid of confrontation, one is a coward. I submit that that confrontation is now being created not only within the ranks of the Whites but within the ranks of the Coloureds as well. It is being created in terms of these models that are being proposed. It is also being created between Indians and Black people. The course upon which the Government is now embarking— that of power-sharing—means a loss of power and a multi-racial government. It also means the rejection of responsible government. I say it is a dangerous course.

Speaking of confrontation, the Labour Party has promised us that confrontation. That party is being involved as a partner because they are Coloured people, but they are also a partner of the Black Alliance and they regard themselves as the real Opposition of the Government! The polarization of Black Power against this futile partnership has already begun. Our solution is not a White-Coloured-Asian partnership against Blacks, but self-determination for Whites and self-determination for Coloureds, for Indians and for Blacks.

Where?

Oh, that question is not so difficult. We shall come to it. [Interjections.] We shall come to it today. [Interjections.] It seems to me that there is some life on the other side. I am not allowed to refer to a certain part of this House as a part of a private house—it is not parliamentary—but I think you know, Mr. Speaker, what I am referring to.

If hon. members think I am overstating the case, let me draw hon. member’s attention to two statements made by persons who used to be important opinion-formers in South Africa. The first example is from a speech made at Potchefstroom about five years ago, and on that occasion the person concerned said the following—

And his concluding sentence is—

He did not even put the word “burgeroorlog” in inverted commas. [Interjections.] On another occasion he said the following—

Then I skip a few words and I quote further—

Then he says this—

Who said this? It was a friend of the NP, Prof. P. J. Cillié of Stellenbosch. He said this five years ago.

I said that there were two statements that I wished to quote. The second one is the following—

Then he added—

The man who said this was acclaimed throughout South Africa as one of the pioneering thinkers of this country, namely dr. H. F. Verwoerd. That statement of his was made in November 1960 and it was fully endorsed by the federal council.

This thinking determined the course of politics in South Africa. Now I want to make another statement. The Whites will only be able to maintain their identity and their own freedom if they exercise political control over that territory which is the heartland and the area of jurisdiction of the Whites. What was the NP’s reaction less than 10 years ago to the United Party’s recipe for power-sharing in a federation?

That was the United Party’s recipe, not ours.

Yes, but I am talking about the NP’s reaction to a certain principle, and that principle was powersharing.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member is a lawyer, but I think his logic is a little rusty.

It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Now listen. What did the NP reject? Or is it no longer the same party? That is the question. It is no longer the same party that is thinking about these matters.

It is the same party.

Very well. What did the NP say then? I quote from an NP information brochure. Under the heading “Politieke magsdeling: Verenigde Party se federale plan sal Blankes uitverkoop” it says—

There the NP was proceeding from the concept of “a White South Africa”. In other words, there is a heartland in South Africa, an area in South Africa, which is regarded as belonging to the Whites and within which they exercise their sovereignty. That was the standpoint.

Is Cape Town a part of that heartland?

The hon. member on my right has made a remark. Here is a quotation which concerns him.

I am asking: Is Cape Town a part of the heartland of the Whites?

Yes. Yes. Just wait a minute. I quote—

He has already left—

What does the NP say? It says—

That is the opinion of that party concerning political integration and power-sharing. One could go on in this vein.

I want to make a further statement. The territory of the Republic of South Africa does not, every inch or every region of it, belong to all ethnic groups collectively, nor to the Whites, Coloureds and Indians collectively. There are rural areas, there are group areas, which belong to Coloureds and Indians only and over which they should have sole jurisdiction. Who would want to reverse this? There is a White area which belongs to Whites only and over which the Whites should have sole jurisdiction. Now listen to what was said by a person who has always been venerated by the NP. They say their party is the party of D. F. Malan. He once said—

I think we have now come to that stage, the stage of our childrens’s children—

That was what he said. And Dr. Malan was not blind with regard to the Coloured people and the Indians. He struggled with the problem, but he was thinking in terms of an area of jurisdiction over which the Whites would have an exclusive say. Dr. Verwoerd once said (Hansard, 1959, col. 6227)—

That was the standpoint he adopted.

That is exactly what the situation is at present.

Now hon. members opposite say, however: There must be more and more and bigger and bigger Black residential areas in the White heartland. Is that what we want? That is the question that arises. Should the urbanization of Black people outside their national States continue unchecked? This is a question which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development must answer. That is what he is allowing in the PWV area, the big Black residential areas there, and the expansion of those areas. Can one allow constantly increasing numbers of Blacks to occupy the White heartland? Dr. Verwoerd’s argument was: That would amount to surrender because we would be yielding up our country to a bloodless conquest. That was how strongly Dr. Verwoerd felt about it. Hon. members on that side of the House undoubtedly applauded him. At a meeting of clergymen—I do not want to misquote the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—someone put this question to him: What about including the Black people in this political structure? And his reply was quite correct, in my opinion, i.e. that nowhere in the Bible is one ordered to commit suicide. I agree with him. However, it is an argument which suits my logic. It is unthinkable that the urbanization of Blacks—there is talk of 17 Sowetos by the end of the century—should or can take place entirely or predominantly in the White area if we are still to talk about White self-determination.

Yes, but it is unstoppable.

The projection for the year 2000 is that 17,5 million Blacks will be urbanized by then. Is this going to mean that consolidation is futile, that we shall have to give up even bigger parts of the White heartland for this purpose, that we shall be subjected to even greater pressure for political rights for those people? This party supports the Government in its intention to make Black peoples independent within their own national States in their own territory. We agree with the President’s Council that the Black peoples have the right to be governed by their own people according to their own tradition on the basis of partition. But then I add: The right of the Whites to self-determination and sovereignty requires that we alone should have final control over a White territory of our own. One cannot simply allege that Whites, Coloureds and Indians have one common fatherland, as if the Indians had just as much claim to the Free State as the Freestaters themselves, with permission from the Land Bank. Surely that is the implication of the standpoint of hon. members on that side of the House. We say: If Black peoples have the right to their own territory as a condition for the exercise of self-determination, then the same right applies without qualification to the Whites, to the Coloureds and to the Indians as well. We say: The Whites do not only have privileges; they have rights as well. If other have them, so do we.

I should like to make out a case for meaningful self-determination for the Coloured people in particular. We reject integration. We reject power-sharing between White and Coloured people.

But what do you stand for?

What we stand for is that the Coloured people should have their own local authorities, their own regional bodies and their own central Parliament.

Do you still stand for co-responsibility?

The hon. the Minister talks about co-responsibility. If there are a few things which I had not considered possible, this is one of them. Mr. Speaker, I had not considered it possible that people with any knowledge of a language and of its concepts would tell me that co-responsibility inevitably means an integrated government. I had not thought it possible.

Do you still stand for co-responsibility with regard to matters of common interest?

But I have already replied to the hon. the Minister. Does he not understand the language? [Interjections.] Just wait a minute. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is trying to lead me astray. After all, he was also present when we argued this matter in the Cabinet.

Come on, give us your answer!

Surely I told that hon. Minister at the time that co-responsibility among the countries that were members of Nato did not imply an integrated government over the participating countries. What nonsense people talk. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I advise some people to do their homework properly. [Interjections.] Now in a somewhat lighter vein: The domestic servant in the home of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, his housekeeper, is jointly responsible for keeping the house in order. However, she is not the master of the house. [Interjections.] We recognize the need for liaison at different levels. [Interjections.]

You have used a comparison you will never be forgiven.

But, Mr. Speaker, I said we were touching on a sensitive nerve. [Interjections.] We are certainly touching on a sensitive nerve. Does the hon. member for Yeoville take exception to my reference to a housekeeper who has co-responsibility?

I believe you made a big mistake by using that example.

I do not think so. It is part of the realities of South Africa which the hon. member does not want to face. [Interjections.] What is derogatory about referring to a housekeeper?

Never mind, it will dawn on you.

Does the hon. member not employ anybody in his home? Is there no one in his home to whom he gives orders? However, they are not the master of the house.

There is a big difference between the Coloured community and a housekeeper to whom one gives orders. [Interjections.]

No, the hon. member … [Interjections.]

You cannot use it as a comparison.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville seems to regard my comparison as insulting. Why? [Interjections.] Why does the hon. member not read the authority of the Coloured people into the other example I used, namely that one can participate in deliberations as an independent party, thereby assuming co-responsibility? Oh, come on. The hon. member for Yeoville is just being silly. [Interjections.]

Andries, you have made a very big mistake.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the need for liaison at separate levels, but at the same time we insist on our right and their right to self-determination. If someone told me that there were Coloured residential areas scattered all over the country, and that this created practical problems, I would say that this is true, of course. It is true. Then I would ask, however, whether it does not bother hon. members that there are Black residential areas scattered throughout the Whites areas, far from their national States? More than half the entire Coloured population of South Africa lives in only a few Coloured residential areas in the Western Cape, Kimberley and Port Elizabeth. This is a more favourable situation than in the case of some Black peoples. We are accused of wanting to turn the Cape Flats into an independent Coloured State. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister made this allegation at Nylstroom. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is not true. Who said so? [Interjections.] We did not say so. [Interjections.] However, I believe that the Cape Flats could be a component … [Interjections.] The Cape Flats, together with other areas, could be a component … [Interjections.]

Which other areas?

Does the hon. member for Mossel Bay not know that? Does he not know the Cape Province?

I know the Cape Province very well.

There are Coloured residential areas in the vicinity of his own constituency. I say that there are more Coloured people living in their own group areas near job opportunities—on the Cape Flats as well—than the 100 300 Ndebeles who have their own, self-governing national State. [Interjections.]

What has the NP been doing all along? When the NP says that the Coloured people and the Whites have one integrated economy, we say that this is true. We also say, however, that there are four times as many Black people in the White area in South Africa as there are Coloured people in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. Regarding those Black people we say that it would be political suicide to integrate them into one political structure together with the Whites. It is also said that there are Coloured people living far away from the areas with the big concentrations—in the Western Cape, the Northern Cape, the Southern Cape and the Eastern Cape, as well as at Kimberley. My answer to that is that there are far more Black people living outside their national States; living far from their national States. That is a problem. It is a problem for the NP. It would be a problem for any party which came into power and which wanted to bring about the political self-determination of the various peoples. I say that there are far more Blacks living outside the national States, but the NP is not prepared to accommodate them in a White structure. The NP says that they must exercise their political rights in the context of their own people in their own states, and in this the NP has the support of the CP. We say that this is the only solution if one does not want to commit political suicide. The question is posed: Is the ideal of separate political structures for the various peoples within their own scattered areas a realistic one? We say it is a difficult problem. Our reply is that Bophuthatswana has six—some people speak of seven, but let us keep to six—areas of concentration on which it took independence. Sixty per cent of the citizens of Bophuthatswana are not yet physically living within the territory of that State. However, the Government says that this is a State and it is an independent State. The Government recognizes its independence. [Interjections.] The present area of jurisdiction of Qwaqwa covers 48 000 hectares of land. According to the consolidation proposals in the 1936 Act, another 14 000 will be added to this. Together with the additional land it is now to receive, it will have an area of approximately 72 000 hectares. What is the position? Its de jure population is 1,8 million. To those people the Government says: You can have a State of your own. This they have; it is a self-governing State. The Government has made it a self-governing State, and I do not believe that the Government can or wants to turn around and take back the self-determination of those people. I do not think it can or wants to do that. Now I ask: Is the physical problem with regard to the Coloureds any greater?

In 1975, the Black areas still consisted of 264 areas of land. The Government worked on it and reduced that number. It consolidated. The present area of jurisdiction of Kangwane is 372 000 hectares in extent, and is de jure population is 622 000. In principle we are in favour of their unification with Swaziland, but the Government has given them self-government. The Government does not intend to give them representation in the same Parliament as the Whites, or does it? Why is the position of 2½ million Coloured people with 2,1 million morgen of rural land plus their group areas any more dificult than that of the Swazis, any more difficult than that of Kangwane, any more difficult than that of kwaNdebele of the kwaZulu? As far as kwaNdebele is concerned, its present area of jurisdiction is 51 000 hectares in extent. Its de jure population is 376 000. Its infrastructure and economic opportunities cannot be compared with those of the Coloured people of the Western Cape, but it is a self-governing national State.

I want to conclude. I say: Recognize the full claim of the Coloured people to the group areas and the rural areas which are in their possession at the moment. We shall make a scientific study of the development potential of the Coloured areas, the mining potential, which is very important, the agricultural and irrigation potential of those areas, as well as the industrial potential. Perhaps some work has already been done in that connection. We shall investigate the possible co-ordination of the development of Coloured areas with axes of development in the White area and growth points in the White area, in accordance with the planning we did for the development near Bronkhorstspruit on the West/East development axis. We shall study the place that is occupied by these areas of concentration or areas of jurisdiction of the Coloured people in a broad military strategy for South and Southern Africa. I know that not all hon. members will agree with me, but I say that multiracial government destroys political self-determination. Multiracial government leads to a power struggle in which the outcome is decided by numbers. Whites do not accept a Government which has not been elected from their own ranks, but other peoples claim the same right. Whites demand a territory of their own, to be governed by themselves. We say: Make it possible for other peoples as well, for the Coloureds and the Indians, to realize their aspirations to the full in this way.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the hon. member for Waterberg and the other hon. members of the CP find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. And, as is so often the case, a drowning man will clutch at a straw. The hon. member for Waterberg saw fit to introduce a motion in this House which, in his opinion, was a cleverly phrased motion. The hon. member will know full well what I mean by the word “cleverly”.

The hon. member devoted the first 10 minutes of his speech in support of his motion to a number of platitudes concerning nationalism, liberalism and radicalism—platitudes with which everyone would probably agree, with which no one would probably find fault. He went on to set up a number of puppets which he then tried to shoot down. By doing that he intimated that he had scored points.

Throughout the speech of the hon. member, however, signs of confused thinking were noticeable with regard to the concepts of “nationalism” and the two aspects of “nationhood”, viz. the one relating to “a people” and the other relating to “a nation”. It was clear that the hon. member did not draw a clear distinction between the concepts of “nation” and “people”. For the information of the hon. member I want to point out that the aspect relating to a nation is a constitutional concept relating to citizenship of a particular State, whereas that relating to a people is a culture-historical concept concerning the cultural connections of people. Therefore, to link nationalism to the concept of people the one moment and the next moment to speak of nationalism in the context of citizens of a particular State, is definitely not conducive to meaningful debate.

The hon. member for Waterberg also did something unpardonable. In his attempt to get at this side of the House, he quoted out of context speeches or pronouncements of NP leaders. Every speech, just as the one the hon. member has just made, is, after all, made in a particular context. Speeches are not made without their having a bearing on something, nor are they made in a vacuum. The leaders quoted by the hon. member spoke likewise in a particular context. The hon. member referred to what was said by, inter alia, Dr. Malan. Does the hon. member want to suggest that the circumstances in which Dr. Malan uttered those words are in any way comparable to the circumstances prevailing in the Republic of South Africa today? Those circumstances were completely different. The circumstances were that up to 1948 there had been a Government in power that was following a road of integration. The circumstances were completely different.

The hon. member also referred to what the late Dr. Verwoerd had said. The fact of the matter is that that pronouncement by Dr. Verwoerd was related to the responsibilities of Black homelands. The hon. member quoted these pronouncements in a debate that was mainly concerned with the constitutional position of Coloureds and Asians. It is as completely out of context as can be.

Why do you not just admit that you have changed?

The NP has never denied that it has changed its policy. On the contrary, the NP is very proud of the fact that its policy is sufficiently adaptable to be able to accommodate changing circumstances. Nor is the NP as intolerant as the extreme liberals—of whom the hon. member for Pinelands is one—who think that their liberalistic views are the only valid ones.

I want to come back, however, to the dilemma of the hon. member for Waterberg and the other hon. members of the CP. These hon. members try to suggest that their break with the NP was caused by the fact that the NP had changed its policy, more specifically in respect of the 1977 proposals.

But you have just said that you have changed.

We have changed our policy. I shall explain it to the hon. member. He should just exercise a little patience. They say that they broke with us because, in the first place, we have changed our policy in respect of the 1977 proposals, in the second place, because we have accepted powersharing, and, in the third place, in view of the question of three chambers of one Parliament instead of three separate Parliaments. These are the reasons they advance for their break with us.

Let us examine who have changed their policy in this regard. I think the hon. member for Lichtenburg, whose party has published its programme of principles and policy, should be somewhat more careful if he wants to speak of “policy being changed”. If one compares this programme of principles and policy to the programme of principles of the NP, it becomes evident that there is such a world of difference between them that there is hardly a single point of similarity. Anyone who has just listened to the hon. member for Waterberg and who wants to suggest that what was said here by the hon. member this morning ever formed part of the NP’s policy, does not have the foggiest notion of what is at issue in South African politics.

Where have you been all the time?

Following the publication of this programme of principles and the elucidation of the motion of the hon. member for Waterberg this morning, no informed person can any longer have any doubt as to who renounced and who did not renounce the NP’s manifesto of 1981, its programme of principles, on the basis of which each one of those hon. members as they are sitting there was elected to this House.

Read to us where “power-sharing” appears in the manifesto.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg asks me where “power-sharing” appears in the manifesto. I say to him that power-sharing is implicit and inherent in the 1977 proposals which he, along with me and every other hon. member on this side of the House, supported. The hon. member for Meyerton let the cat out of the bag the other day when he referred to his good friend Oom Dawid.

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

I do not have the time to reply to questions. It was very clear that those hon. members had consistently misled their voters and had never spelt out to them the implications of the 1977 proposals. It was for that reason that Oom Dawid allegedly wanted to chop off his hand when the hon. member ultimately told him what those proposals in fact involved. If those hon. members had done their duty towards their voters and had explained that the 1977 proposals contained elements of power-sharing right from the start, they would not have come along here arguing that we had all of a sudden accepted power-sharing, and they would not have advanced that as justification for their betrayal of the principles of the NP as embodied in the manifesto of the NP. [Interjections.] Yes, the manifesto of the NP of which the hon. member for Waterberg, the then leader of the NP in the Transvaal, was a co-signatory and in which his photo appeared, what is more.

Something else I want to refer to is the attempt made by the CP to justify its actions with reference to the three chambers of one Parliament instead of three Parliaments. I want to ask those hon. members what difference there is per se between three Parliaments and three chambers of one Parliament.

Do you not know what the difference is?

What difference is there per se? Or do the hon. members not understand the word “per se”? There is no real difference between three chambers of one Parliament and three separate Parliaments. Indeed, the issue is not whether there should be three chambers of one Parliament or three separate Parliaments, but what the powers of those three chambers or three Parliaments will be and how they will function. And what difference is there in real power between the proposed three chambers of one Parliament and the three Parliaments as proposed in 1977? The position still is that there will be self-determination with regard to group-specific interests and co-responsibility with regard to matters of common concern. Is this not so? Consequently there is no real difference.

How, however, these hon. members come along with semantic exercises, something at which the hon. member for Waterberg is a pastmaster, with regard to concepts such as “power-sharing”. This is not the first time that the hon. member for Waterberg is giving his own interpretation of policy. When the hon. member was still a Minister on this side of the House, he frequently made pronouncements on the policy of this side of the House, pronouncements which created endless confusion and which had to be justified by the Prime Minister of the day time and again, inter alia on the question of co-responsibility. Mr. Vorster, too, had to repudiate him repeatedly. The hon. member is shaking his head in vain. I have the proof here. Time does not permit me to read it to this House otherwise I could have done so.

Those hon. members are in a dilemma. I never imagined that I would live to see the day the hon. member for Barberton, of all people, along with others, would go on bended knees to Mr. Jaap Marais to enter into an election pact with him. The HNP is exerting pressure on them to reject the 1977 proposals as well. The HNP is exerting pressure on them to go back to 1966. Simply by looking at the programme of principles the CP has at long last published, one can see how far they have already travelled on the road back to 1966. One of these days we shall probably see them actually reaching that point.

Now the hon. member for Waterberg comes along with his motion which, as it is phrased, seems quite acceptable. As it is phrased, we could have voted for it, but after the explanation, the elucidation, we have just been given by the hon. member for Waterberg, we could never go along with it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Mossel Bay, and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will forgive me if I give him some advice. If he wants his party to do well in Waterberg, the last person he should send to try to explain NP policy is the hon. member for Mossel Bay. [Interjections.]

I will not take any advice from you or from McHenry. [Interjections.]

That is the first thing. [Interjections.] Since I have also listened to the hon. member trying to explain how the present constitutional proposals were the same as those of 1977, let me give some advice to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning too. He should keep the hon. member for Mossel Bay away from any Coloured group to whom the hon. the Minister is trying to sell this policy. [Interjections.] What those two parties are doing is trying to prove which party has not departed from its original policy. I presume this Government has changed its policy since 1977.

The party sitting on my left there, the CP, has explained that its policy has not changed since the time of Dr. Verwoerd. So they go all the way back to the Verwoerdian era. There are some of us in this House who were here way back in the late ’fifties and the early ’sixties. If one closed one’s eyes and listened to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg, one felt oneself listening to the same tortuous logic as that of Dr. Verwoerd. It was the same circle upon circle of ideology. It was the same disregard for the harsh realities of South Africa. It was the same ability to build a superficially powerful argument on a basically false assumption. The hon. member correctly says there are differences of ethnicity in South Africa, as there are differences of culture and religion, but he takes these differences and builds them up into the argument that we are all necessarily different “volkere” and that different “volkskap” demands self-determination for each group, structures for each group and areas for each group. That is, however, completely out of touch with the reality of South Africa. It is not only outdated, but archaic. It appears that the philosophy of the CP and its appreciation of the situation in South Africa were frozen in time about three, four or five decades ago. In a situation of dynamic change, in an era demanding bold forward steps, we have these people whom my hon. colleague described as “yesterday’s men”. I want to describe them as political fossils of South African politics. They have become fossilized. Despite all the clever words and the softshoe shuffling of the hon. member for Waterberg, the fact is that he has elevated race, colour, racial structures and racial separation to elements of prime importance in our society, and by doing that, those hon. members have emerged, not only as fossils, but actually dangerous racist fossils in South African politics.

It is clear from this motion that if the CP had its way, it would like to set back the clock of South African history. They would actually like to stop and then reverse the whole process of reform that is taking place. It is clear that they have tried to do that. If Dr. Verwoerd had lived long enough to try to do what he was saying he would have liked to do, he would have destroyed the economy of South Africa and would have undermined the security—financial, personal and political—of every individual, including the White man, in South Africa. That is the effect of their policy if applied or practised in South Africa.

Apart from the racist philosophy that this motion represents, however, it is also based on an analysis of South Africa that bears no relationship to the South Africa of today. The hon. member talks of Strijdom’s day. He talks of Daniel Malan, but he is not part of the South Africa of today. South Africa has changed since that time. I know this is what has irritated hon. members on that side and led them to form a new party with its new philosophy. The fact is that, in spite of South Africa’s history, in spite of the diversity which we have to recognize, in spite of the apartheid laws and in spite of all the obstacles successive NP Governments have put in its way, South Africa as a whole is moving in a fundamental structural and organic way away from apartheid, away from separation and away from racial self-determination. Whether the hon. members like it or not, it is moving in the direction of a more shared South Africa. The hon. members know it. Perhaps that is why they are as angry as they are. There is nothing the hon. members of the CP, the hon. members of the NP or we on this side of the House can do to stop that inexorable process in South Africa.

There has been this change in direction. This has been the direction of the march of history at least for the last three decades. In spite of every attempt made by the Government, they are unable to change the direction of this forward march. In the last few years the NP, which once seemed so strong and ideologically secure, seems to have started bowing before these fundamental forces of change. That is certainly the impression one gets from outside. Apartheid in Mr. Strijdom’s day was a fundamental principle. Apartheid in Dr. Verwoerd’s day was a fundamental principle. Even in 1974 after the election Mr. Vorster said the White voters had finally decided that apartheid was the basis on which they would build the future in South Africa. It appears to us that apartheid, as a principle, as a fundamental ideology, has cracked wide open in the social, the economic and the political fields.

You are closing your eyes to …

I am not saying, as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development does, that apartheid is dead. Of course apartheid is not dead. It lingers on, not as a fundamental principle of policy, but as an ugly legacy from the past, as a shabby reflection of race prejudice or sometimes as a specious rationale for repression, denial and the exclusion of other South Africans from the privileges of the South African community.

The hon. member who has proposed this motion introduced four concepts in doing so. The first is the concept of “volke” or “Volkere”, of peoples. Correctly the hon. member for Mossel Bay said he links this with the concept of “nasieskap”. This concept of “volkere” appears to be fundamental to the political philosophy of the hon. member for Waterberg. To the extent that he has taken ethnicity or cultural or ethnic differences and elevated them to the concept of “volkere” and “volkskap” and made that the ultimate virtue as far as policy is concerned, he is taking a limited concept and building it up in order to give himself a semantic device with which to prop up the philosophy of apartheid. He is committed to apartheid and he is now looking for a semantic rationale for doing what he wants to do in any event. The protagonists of apartheid, when they want to exclude or segregate people, say “we have to do it because we belong to ‘verskillende Volkere’”. However, when they want to bring people together or are forced to bring people together, they say: “Ons behoort aan verskillende groepe”. We are playing a game of semantics. We in South Africa are playing a game of words. Let us accept that the word “Volk”, or “nasie”, in any case is a subjective term. It is a transient term. We have had the term “Afrikanervolk” used in many ways. We have had the term “boerenasie” used in many ways. We have had the Coloureds called a “volk” at times. We have heard them called “’n volk in wording”. At other times for constitutional purposes they are part of the same “nasie” together with Indians and Whites.

Then, of course, there is the question of Black people in South Africa. The hon. members of the CP are keen on Dr. Verwoerd and others. Let them read the report of the Tomlinson Commission. They will not say that Daan De Wet Nel was ’n “liberalis” or that Prof. Tomlinson was a “liberalis”. Let them read the whole of that report. Nowhere in that report, which is an analysis of the Blacks in South Africa, is there any reference to a “Swart nasie” or a “Swart volk”. There is reference to “groepe”, there is reference to “bevolkingsgroepe”, there is reference to “subgroepe”, to “stamme”, to “diversiteit” …

Ethnic groups too.

Yes, and to “etniese groepe”, but nowhere in this document is the description of a “volk” or “nasie” attributed to any or part of the Black people. The whole analysis concerns people with varied ethnic and cultural approaches. However, nowhere in the philosophy of the Tomlinson Commission is it said that the basis of “skeiding” must be “volk” or “nasieskap” in South Africa. So it has been a concept manufactured, promoted and developed by the NP in order to deprive Black people of a full say in the affairs of South Africa of which they are an integral part.

The next issue that the hon. member raised in that “volkskap” of necessity requires the maintenance of self-determination for people. We all know that there may be certain limited areas, fields of government within which certain small groups may exercise a degree of local or cultural autonomy. However, the future of South Africa does not depend on where we can find small areas, geographic or social, where we can have separation. The future of South Africa does not depend on how we can apply separate determination. The future of South Africa will depend on how we can find a means of joint determination and shared decisionmaking in this country. The future of this country does not depend on how we can exploit the lesser things that divide us. It depends on how we can promote the common loyalties that should unite us. We must stop playing around with words. Hon. members on the other side of the House must stop producing new philosophical concepts to fit them into their predetermined patterns of behaviour. We have a hetrogeneous population. We have differences right across the board, cross-cutting and cross-filing differences. One can call these groups whatever one wishes. There are in South Africa centrifugal forces—cultural, religious, political, economic and others—which tend to force people away, but equally in South Africa there are centripetal forces—of being a South African, of the media, of joint activities, of a common religion, of shared interests, of culture and of economy—which are bringing the people of South Africa together.

The fundamental difference between us and hon. members of the CP is that while we recognize the diversity of South Africa, we do not say that diversity means incompatibility. We, in fact, say that diversity means richness and opportunity and, properly handled, can mean co-operation and unity within a greater South Africa. In spite of the diversity of culture, ethnicity, religion and politics to the extent that Black, White and Brown people in South Africa inevitably share a common destiny, we are all members of one South African nation. This is the situation.

The hon. member went on to say that they must have their own political, social and other structures. Once again he is closing his eyes to the reality of the South African situation. The infrastructure of South Africa is not moving in a direction of separate structures. The infrastructure of South Africa is moving in the other direction. The hon. member can go and look at the field of sport, of communications, culture, religion, education, labour and the economy and he will see that it is moving in a different direction. We do not believe that there is any risk of South Africa becoming neutral, dull, grey, homogeneous society. We believe that South Africa will retain her diversity and that that diversity will give her her strength and richness and ultimately also her unity. So we believe that the basis for accommodating such diversity as there is in South Africa does not he in compulsory apartheid. It does not require enforcing people into a predetermined racial mould. It does not involve self-determination, separate determination or separate institutions. Rather, it involves forming common structures so that within those common structures diversity can be recognized and voluntary association can determine the pattern in which people five together in South Africa. Therefore we say that the key to accommodating diversity in South Africa is not apartheid. The key to accommodating diversity in South Africa is giving to each individual South African the right of freedom to associate in whatever individual or group nature he wishes.

Finally, the hon. member talks about living in their own areas. Of course we can segregate odd little pieces of South Africa and say that little groups can live either here or there, but not to the extent that he links it with “volkskap”. He is talking about “Volkere”. He is not talking about little “landelike gebiede”. He is talking about areas that can accommodate nations, “volkere”, in South Africa. This is cloud-cuckoo land. There is no part of South Africa in which any group can exercise self-determination. Even in what he would call white South Africa Whites cannot on their own any longer exercise self-determination.

Where is the area for the Asians for self-determination for a “volk”? Where is the area for the Coloureds, for the non-homeland Blacks? Even the independent Black States that we have created are economically totally dependent upon us. Nearly all their leaders have pronounced that they do not see their present independence as the end of the political road. If talking of own areas was once a dream, it died in this House on 14 May 1956 when the report of the Tomlinson Commission was debated. This Commission had said that the only way in which one could have separation was by developing the homeland areas, and that critical in that development was that White entrepreneurial skill and White capital had be allowed into the homelands. However Dr. Verwoerd, because of his ideological obsession with apartheid, said that he accepted the recommendations barring these two. He said White capital would not go towards the development of the homelands, and White entrepreneurial skill would not be used in the homelands. As a result of that the tribal Black people have moved faster and faster towards the cities of South Africa and not towards the homelands of Dr. Verwoerd’s or the hon. member for Waterberg’s.

That is a dream which has gone by. It might have been a dream in the old days of Strijdom and Verwoerd. It is no use living in the past while we have to deal with the realities of a new South Africa. In order to crystallize our concept, and in order that this House can express itself on our viewpoint, I move as an amendment—

This is the key. This recognizes the diversity. This recognizes the vital need to extend political rights. This also recognizes that one can only accommodate diversity through the concept of freedom of association.

It is clear that the Government is ambivalent about the direction in which it wants to go. The speech by the hon. member for Mossel Bay indicated just that. On the one hand the Government says the White man cannot go it alone any longer he cannot retain all sovereign political power for himself; he cannot maintain exclusive White decisionmaking. On the other hand the Government is locked into its own traditional policy of apartheid structures. On the one hand there has been an important shift in respect of political policy. On the other hand—if one looks at the constitutional guidelines of the Government—they are still basically rooted in apartheid and discrimination. This is the dilemma facing the Government. This dichotomy on the part of the Government—moving away from exclusive White decisionmaking but still committed to apartheid—is causing the Government to play a cruel and dangerous game with the Coloured and Indian citizens of this country. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he is doing a great disservice to the country by the way in which he is trying to force these constitutional proposals on minority groups.

But surely that is not true!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister tells them they can have these rights but if they do not take them there is going to be conflict. He says they can have these rights but if they do not take them this is the last opportunity for negotiation. He says these rights are available but if we do not get this proposed new constitution off the ground we will be moving into an area of confrontation. He is offering to the Coloured and Indian people, some degree of political say. However he says that they can have this provided they are prepared to operate through the apartheid structures, which, he knows, the Coloured people loathe. This is the situation. He says the price they have to pay for further political rights is the humiliation of having to participate in apartheid structures. This is the dilemma facing the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This is the agony facing the Coloured people of South Africa today. They have to accept these rights while at the same time acknowledging that Blacks will be excluded; they have to accept separate structures, separate voters’ rolls, separate chambers, separate areas, race classification. They have to accept their position as a permanent minority in the constitutional structure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say with all the power at my command that the Government is playing a dangerous and cynical game with the Coloured and Indian people of South Africa today. [Interjections.] They have seen the emotional antagonism. They have seen the tremendous emotional division which this is causing within the Coloured community.

Mr. Speaker, I believe they are creating tremendous tension.

[Inaudible.]

I must say to that hon. Minister that if he really wants his proposed constitution to be an instrument for peace, an instrument for healing the wounds, for bringing us all together, he must go back, withdraw his guidelines, and negotiate a constitution which is free of the apartheid structures which he is trying to force on the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, a very interesting situation has developed here today with the hon. member for Sea Point replying to the hon. member for Waterberg. If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black in political terms, this is it. What do these two parties stand for on the extremities of the political spectrum in South Africa?

The one is as radical as the other.

The one is as radical as the other as the hon. member for De Kuilen says. Why is that, Sir?

You are at the extremity of your political life, my friend.

In the words of its leader, the hon. member for Waterberg, the CP stand for the continued White domination of all spheres of political activity in South Africa.

For the Whites.

The PFP has a policy that will lead to Black domination of all political spheres of activity in South Africa. [Interjections.] What is interesting is that the hon. member for Waterberg said that there must not be implied domination in any successful solution to South Africa’s dilemma. [Interjections.] Implied or honest, one way or the other. Here we have these two philosophies which must apparently be accepted by the majority of South Africa as a panacea for conflict and a conflict-resolution mechanism in South Africa.

I want to deal first of all with the official Opposition because we have to test their philosophy against the same criteria. Will it produce conflict in South Africa? That is the first priority. Secondly, will it eliminate group domination? Thirdly, will it be accepted by the majority of all the inhabitants of South Africa? Fourthly, is its implementation practicable? Those are the four criteria against which we have to measure any philosophy, including the philosophy of the NRP.

As far as the first criterion is concerned, namely, will Black domination lead to the resolution of conflict in South Africa, the answer is clearly no. It cannot. Zimbabwe is a classic example of this. According to the PFP it is a miracle of reconciliation. [Interjections.] What is happening in Zimbabwe today is as a direct result of Black domination and partial Black domination—the sectarian domination of minorities. Let us not forget, Sir, that the settlement on Zimbabwe was a settlement based foursquare on the policy of the PFP. We have seen that sort of settlement from practical examples. We are not theorizing. We are talking about practical examples that have had the opportunity to be tested. On the other hand, will White domination lead to the resolution of conflict in South Africa? The answer here is also a very clear “no” because the very act of White domination has implicit in it the rejection of other race groups, their integrity and their value systems. Therefore White domination itself will lead increasingly to escalating conflict in South Africa, the end result of which, in the words of a former Prime Minister, will be too horrific to contemplate.

We do not want White domination.

Sir, the CP are living in a dream world if they believe that their policy does not mean White domination in all spheres.

Of ourselves.

It is a dream world, Sir. That is totally impracticable. [Interjections.]

Let us take the next criterion and let us see whether it will be accepted by the majority of other groups. The very rejection implicit in the policy of the CP will ensure that other race groups will not accept it. We have also to consider the practicalities because from these we can judge whether or not we can avoid group domination. The CP say that they do not stand for power-sharing—I presume that is still their policy— what they do stand for is the division of power.

Quite right.

In support of that I think the hon. member for Waterberg quoted Nato as an example of successful implementation of such a policy. What is Nato? It is power sharing in one of the purest forms one can find. What does Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, stand for? The defence of Europe. Who makes the decisions? They make them jointly; all the nations consult with one another, but what is more important than the decision making is that the implementation of the policies and decisions of Nato is done jointly by members of all groups. How impractical to suggest that one can have only the division of power in South Africa! The CP will agree that defence is a matter of common concern for South Africa, it is a matter of responsibility for the Coloureds, the Indians, the Blacks and the Whites. I believe that is their policy.

Yes, on an inter-state level.

The hon. member says it is.

Once the decision is made jointly to defend South Africa against a hostile enemy, how is that decision going to be implemented? Of course, it will have to be done jointly, and that is exactly what is happening in our Defence Force today. Shoulder to shoulder there are Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites fighting for South Africa and its survival. Exactly the same occurs with Nato—–joint decision-making and joint execution of the results.

Now we come to the final point, and that is whether the CP policy can be implemented. Is it a practical possibility? The answer again clearly must be “No”, because any party which abuses the concept of ethnicity in order to try to perpetuate White domination will be rejected by the majority of all race groups in South Africa. What is the key to survival in Africa and South Africa? It is not the colour of one’s skin, becaused that is a personal decision. If one wants to remain White and one’s children want to remain White, it is something of inner conviction. What must survive in South Africa is the democratic free-enterprise system. Who are our allies in that? Who are the people who believe in democracy, private free enterprise and Christianity in South Africa? They are the Coloureds predominantly, the Indians predominantly and some of the Black people living in the urban areas of South Africa. If we are going to reject them and tell these people who also believe in the same value system as we do “hulle moet in die agterbuurte van Suid-Afrika gaan woon” or that they must go and live in their own reserves, that act of rejection will ensure continued hostility unseen in the annals of history of South Africa.

What is really at stake? Look at the history of Africa after decolonization. The very first casualty in the process of decolonization was the democratic process and private free enterprise and capitalism. We know from Zimbabwe, Ghana, Tanzania and Nigeria. Let the hon members name the decolonized countries in Africa and they will see that it is “one man, one vote; one election; and a one-party State” and a socialist economy which create poverty and dire stress for those people, unparalleled in the history of Africa over the last 100 years.

What we must do in this country to ensure the survival of that process is to reduce conflict by making allies of the Coloureds, the Indians and those Blacks who believe in the same system as we do. The active rejection by the CP of those people will drive them into the arms of communism and conflict in exactly the same way as happened with Swapo in South West Africa. We cannot reject these people and expect them to be our allies.

In conclusion I want to say to the hon. member for Sea Point that he made it a pillar of his argument that there should be freedom of association in South Africa—a plural society. What he failed to say, as the hon. member for Waterberg failed to say, was that there should also be a freedom of disassociation. If we can find successful solutions to those two concepts—the freedom to associate and the freedom to disassociate—then we have found a lasting and peaceful solution for South Africa. Therefore this party will support neither the motion of the hon. member for Waterberg nor the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North will forgive me if I do not take up the cudgels with him today. One can conduct a lengthy discussion on the basis of what he has said, but I shall not do this today, because I hope that he will still be in this House in a few weeks’ time.

*Mr. Speaker, if one considers the motion of the hon. member for Waterberg, one sees that it is a fine one. They are fine words. They are the distillation of centuries of wisdom in the sphere in which they are applicable. Since the 15th or the 16th century this wisdom has become prominent in the European community. In fact, this is a fine summary of the principle on which the European Commonwealth of Nations is based. But in the context of the South African situation that proposal, as it is written, is idealistic, just as the liberal-democratic view in respect of South Africa is also idealistic. We on this side of the House do not deny the validity of that statement of the hon. member for Waterberg. In fact, in our 1981 election manifesto the following was stated—

This is precisely the same idea, but we relegate it to its rightful context, viz. “would be the ideal”, since the realities of South Africa negate the liberal-democratic ideal, as well as this nation-orientated ideal and it causes problems if one wishes to implement it as the only truth, for on the one hand, the liberals say that the nation consists of individuals and that they should all have political rights. In so far as the nation does only consist of individuals, and there are no other intervening variables, that recipe works well. On the other hand, the motion of the hon. member for Waterberg states that the entire overall population consists of peoples and that this should be taken into account. In so far as this is the case, this is all very well, and in so far as it applies to South Africa, this is what we are striving for and we fully recognize this. However, the problem in South Africa is that, apart from individuals and nations, there are other variables as well which one should take into account. On the other hand, there is the important matter of ethnicity to which the hon. member for Waterberg referred in detail, but this ethnicity does not mean that all people in South Africa are members of a specific nation, (volk), since a nation has particular characteristics and one of those characteristics is that those people should see themselves as members of a particular group, that they wish to be members of that group, that by far the majority of the people participate and that they see the achievement of their personal goals as being through that group. This is the basic characteristic of a nation (volk) and that is why I have problems with some of the members of the CP when they speak in a broad sense of “the White nation (volk)”. It is a specious argument to speak of a White nation and then to group the Portuguese, the Italians, the Greeks and others together and to speak of one White nation. The argument of the hon. member for Waterberg this morning falls completely flat in the sense that the Coloureds are not a nation (volk) and they have never wanted to be one. In the manifesto we all propagated in 1981, the Coloureds, and even the Whites, are referred to as “population groups”. That is a group which is perhaps identifiable within a specific general population, but that is far from being a nation (volk).

When it comes to the argument about how one can give expression to the political rights of the Coloureds, a homeland, a heartland, a geographical area or geographical ordering is spoken of. The hon. member for Barberton, as well as the hon. member for Lichtenburg and other hon. members have said that they would solve the Coloured problem as they would solve the Black problem, i.e. by way of geographical ordering, a heartland, a homeland, or whatever one would like to call it. Why is it possible to do this in case of Blacks, but not in the case of Coloureds? Those Black nations which have identified themselves as nations, chose a particular area and went to live there. They chose a particular territory, went to live there and established their culture there. This has been an historic process over many centuries. However, such a process has not taken place in respect of the Coloureds. It is true that historically the Coloureds have found themselves in a particular area for many years, but they have never seen it as being the country of the Coloured nation. If one wishes to study group awareness, the national awareness of the Coloured, it is to be found in the Griqua group. To a certain extent, we are dealing here with a Coloured nation which has a Homeland where it has settled historically. However, this is merely a small minority group within the general Coloured group.

The hon. member for Waterberg said this morning that the one thing that has to be taken into account, is the will of a nation to maintain itself. I agree with that. But now one also has to take into account that the Coloureds have no will to maintain themselves as a nation. This is simply not the case. At times a short passage from the report of the President’s Council is quoted out of context and exaggerated out of all proportion. This is simply not true. There is no such thing. That is why the same reasons as to why a homeland is still a workable concept in respect of the Black people, will never work in respect of the Coloureds. It simply would not work. We may justifiably ask that if that concept would suddenly work now, why the following appears in the manifesto of 1981 which those hon. members all endorsed—

We still stand by that. [Interjections.] We regard this as being one of the realities of South Africa.

Do you still stand by the division of power?

The CP reminds me of a man who has to go on a long journey and who has to find a vehicle in which to make that journey.

A tortoise.

No, in this case he does not choose a tortoise. He chooses the best looking and finest motorcar on the market he can afford, let us say a Mercedes Benz 380E or something along those lines. This is a fine motorcar which is comfortable and fast. It is also extremely reliable. The owners of these motorcars—I do not have one—can wax extremely lyrical about the virtues of this motorcar. This man wishes to undertake this long journey with this vehicle. However, we tell him that he cannot go on that road with this vehicle, for where we have to go, there are no proper roads. There are therefore places which would be inaccessible to that vehicle, since it is not designed for the conditions and for the places where we have to go. On the other hand, the NP buys itself a less elegant little vehicle, something like an amphibious “Unimog”—if something like that exists—or something of that nature. [Interjections.] If one places those two vehicles side by side, one sees that the CP’s policy—that beautiful Mercedes—is streamlined. It is beautiful, it is comfortable and the passengers may travel in the greatest luxury. The vehicle is fast. [Interjections.]

Our vehicle looks rather strange. One cannot judge the vehicle according to its aesthetic value. It is a little more complicated. It does travel a little slower, but very soon the CP is going to arrive at the end of the tarred road. Their policy will take them a little way in great luxury and comfort, as well as at great speed, but when they reach the end of the tarred road, they will get stuck. [Interjections.] Then we will catch up with them in our strange little vehicle … [Interjections.] … and we shall pass them. [Interjections.] Our little vehicle is capable of travelling along bad roads, through swamps, over hills with many loose stones …

Where to?

Into the future. [Interjections.] Into the future, towards a better South Africa. There is no tarred road to that destination, and the CP will get stuck, and very soon too, with that policy of theirs. [Interjections.] That is why I wish to appeal to the CP and those who have supported it until now, to consider these two vehicles carefully. Granted, the one is much nicer, much more streamlined, very charming, but the people who know that this concerns the future, are the people who are going to go along with us, and they are going to be by far the majority of the voters of South Africa. They are not intent on living confortably for a short while only, and this is what the CP’s policy would amount to. The White man will be the master for a short time in South Africa, but he will collapse completely after that. However, with our policy we can enter the future.

Mr. Speaker …

Where is Fanie?

… I shall come to the hon. member for Helderkruin presently—in a few minutes’ time. At this stage I just wish to say that next Monday I will have represented the Waterkloof constituency in this House for 38 days short of 17 years. This is quite possibly my last speech as MP for Waterkloof. [Interjections.] I should like to have it placed on record that I have always considered it to be an honour to represent my voters in this House and that both my wife and I will think back with pleasant memories to the period during which I was able to represent Waterkloof here.

Elections in this country are held on a party-political basis, but subsequently the representation takes place on a non-party-political basis in the sense that one does not ask a voter to what party he belongs when he approaches you for assistance of one kind or another. This has been and still is my point of departure.

For a large part of the 17 years I was a member of the NP.

Up to 1969.

During all but two of those 17 years I had the privilege, in a party context in Waterkloof, of winning, together with the nationalists of Waterkloof, the MEC trophy awarded to the Pretoria constituency which raised the most funds. I hear that Waterkloof ceded this position to Wonderboom last year. Where a special award for good organization in the Transvaal NP was instituted, Waterkloof won the second prize in this connection. Since 1966 Waterkloof has had an average polling percentage of approximately 80% in all the general elections. All these things testify to good organization and hard work, and for my wife and I it was gratifying to have played a part in them. I want to tell the new candidate in Waterkloof, who apparently referred with considerable scorn to his predecessor, that the people of Waterkloof will keep an eye on him … [Interjections.]

As far as the dissertation of the hon. member for Helderkruin is concerned, I wish to tell him that I think he made a good start. I do not wish to reply to him in that regard because I want to come back to one of my colleagues, but I just wish to put the following question to him: In the discussion of “people” (volk), in the idiom of “people”, where does his party put the Coloureds? How does his party see the Coloureds? He states that the Coloureds are not a people, and are not a people-in-making. He does admit that there are peoples or a people in South Africa, but how does he see the Coloureds vis-à-vis the Whites? I can tell him that there was a time when a leader of the NP did in fact see the Coloureds as a people-in-making, and this was officially ratified. Everyone then agreed with acclamation. [Interjections.]

I also wish to thank the hon. member for his compliment in regard to a Mercedes Benz 380SE. I do not know whether the hon. member has a complex about certain motorcars, but I think he can ask the frontbenchers in the Ministers’ benches how such a 380SE performs on a rough gravel road. [Interjections.] Yes, in Soutpansberg.

I listened to what the hon. member for Durban North had to say, but I would rather refer, very briefly, to the hon. member for Sea Point. I want to tell him that I think he is looking at the CP through an old pair of Prog spectacles. As far as his views on the CP were concerned I found it very interesting that many of the reproaches which he levelled were reproaches which were a familiar echo of the reproaches which he levelled a few years ago at the Government party. I wish to content myself by telling the hon. member that there are certain truths deriving from the time of Dr. Verwoerd, Adv. Strydom, Dr. Malan and Adv. Vorster which are still true today. We take cognizance of those truths, just as we also take cognizance of the realities of the eighties, but without relinquishing our claim to our own identity and right to self-dertermination for the sake of what will prove to be success in the short term but a catastrophe in the long term.

I now wish to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. In his reference to the changing times and with reference to my hon. leader’s reference to the late Dr. Malan, the hon. member said that times had changed. In all seriousness I wish to tell the hon. member that an historical cycle is indeed completing itself. Today my party stands where the NP stood just prior to 1948. His party is standing where the party of Gen. Smuts stood just prior to 1948. [Interjections.] I do not wish to elaborate on that any further.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the manifesto. I should like to discuss the manifesto with him, for what was stated in that manifesto? That manifesto began by presenting to the voters the mandate which it sought from the voters. Under the heading “Mandate” the manifesto read—

1. (3) to work for the maintenance of self-determination of each nation …

The hon. member can remember that as well. Subsequently, under the heading “Undertakings” the following statement was made—

Elsewhere in that document mention is made of coexistence, (naasbestaan) not “saambestaan”. The manifesto continues—

Finally, under the heading “Programme of Action”, which comprises the so-called twelve-point plan, mention is made of—

Point No. 3 of this manifesto refers to the Black peoples in an urban context and periurban context. I do not wish to waste my time on it. Read against the overall context of that manifesto …

Read the whole manifesto.

I do not have time to read the whole manifesto. Seen in its overall context, the manifesto contains a single message for the voter of South Africa, namely that a mandate has to be sought from the voters of South Africa, by way of the division of power, as the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who was then still Information Officer of the NP, stated so unequivocally in that pamphlet during the 1977 election …

And co-responsibility.

And co-responsibility, yes. [Interjections.] The course of a division of power is the greatest good for all the peoples of South Africa. That is the overall purport of that document, and that was also the purport of the document which my hon. leader signed as leader of the Transvaal NP … [Interjections.] I must point out that it makes a poor impression among people who are aware of it when, for the sake of petty political gain, misuse is made of the fact that the hon. Leader of the CP’s signature appears on that document. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked what the difference was …

The essential difference.

Very well, the essential difference … He spoke about the difference; I shall come in a moment to the essential difference.

You are trying to play little semantic games now. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked what the difference was between the 1977 proposals and the present proposals. Can the hon. member tell me why the same Coloured leaders who rejected the 1977 proposals in toto, accepted the present proposals with acclamation. I am referring particularly, too, to what Rev. Hendrickse said after the hon. the Prime Minister had received them in his office.

If you can change your opinion for worse, why cannot they change their opinion for better?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay ought to remember one thing. I now wish to test his memory. Does he remember that in approximately 1977, when we were discussing these proposals, he joined us in taking exception to this and said that the Council of Cabinets was now being elevated into a super cabinet? [Interjections.] It is probably because he took exception at the time … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Mossel Bay, a person with a doctor’s degree in Constitutional Law, or International Law, or something of that nature, asked hon. members of this House what the difference was between a Parliament with three chambers on the one hand, and three parliaments on the other. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I find it so disturbing; I meant to reply to the hon. member on that score. I must say, however, that I am astonished that an academic, a person who, besides, is a member of the Parliament of South Africa, a person who has been promoted to the position of Whip of the NP, can ask such a question. I find it quite astounding. [Interjections.]

According to the guidelines announced by the hon. the Prime Minister in Bloemfontein, the components of the future Parliament, the future legislative authority of South Africa, are the following: There will be a President, as well as a President’s Council, a White Chamber, a Coloured Chamber and an Indian Chamber. Consequently there are five components which will comprise the Parliament of South Africa, as the hon. the Prime Minister envisaged it. At present the components of the Parliament of South Africa are the State President and this House of Assembly. Consequently there are two components. According to the 1977 proposals, and also according to the draft constitution, which was published in the Gazette of 3 April 1979—I think it was Gazette no. 6386—there would have been the following components: A legislative authority for the Whites of South Africa, viz. the House of Assembly with its own Prime Minister and its own Cabinet.

Yes, that is a fact. They must not look so astonished now.

In addition there would also have been a legislative authority for the Coloureds of South Africa, being the House of Representatives with its own prime minister and its own cabinet. For the Indians of South Africa there would have been a Chamber of Deputies, consequently their own legislative authority with their own prime minister and their own cabinet. That is the difference between the 1977 proposals and the proposed new dispensation. However, the hon. member for Mossel Bay is now asking: What is the difference between these two bodies? An academic asks this question of me! I just wish to tell him that I think some of his friends who know him well and who have respect for him will laugh at him for having asked these questions. There is an essential difference.

I did not talk about a formal difference, but about an essential difference. [Interjections.]

It is not formal because in the 1977 document is contained the right of each one of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians to self-determination. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said in that pamphlet of his that after the maximum number of powers had been conferred to the three groups, a number of matters remained which would be settled in the way in which he is now harping on so constantly. Out of those three self-determinative separate legislative authorities a Council of Cabinets would then emerge under the chairmanship of the State President which would deliberate in respect of these few matters—which at the time were minimized by all of us in the NP to be the minimum number of matters—on a basis of co-responsibility. In that setup one had three equal legislative authorities, side by side and equal, each its own Prime Minister, who, together with the State President, would form the legislative authority for each population group. In the present dispensation this House of Assembly is reduced to one of five components, viz., a little chamber in a dispensation of five. And not only that, but as Huntington said, it is in fact a sham democracy, because the power is vested in the President and the President’s Council which he appoints. If only one minor slip occurs in respect of the President then, looking at those hon. members, I see at least seven of them who might not vote for the NP’s candidate in such a presidential election. [Interjections.] If a slip occurs in regard to the President, then he appoints the controlling components of the President’s Council in this sense that the appointed members of the President’s Council, if they vote with the Whites, form a majority or, if they vote with the Coloureds and the Indians, also form a majority. Consequently all the power is vested in those members.

In conclusion I just wish to say this. Prof. Samuel Huntington addressed a conference here in South Africa in 1981 which I think the hon. Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning opened. Huntington’s subject dealt with “Reform and stability in a modernizing multi-ethnic society”. I do not think prof. Huntington will take it amiss of me when I say that he was apparently invited here to come and tell the “reformers” in South Africa how they should set about their task. I should like to quote from Politikon, vol 8, no. 2 of December 1981, what Prof. Huntington said in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I had said that prof. Huntington came to South Africa to advise the Reformer as to how to set about its “reform”. I am referring to his lecture, and because I have already given my references, I shall not refer to them again. He said on page 15 of that lecture—

Apparently it makes no difference whether one drives a Mercedes Benz or a Unimog, as long as one drives—

On page 17 he continues his theme and states—

In addition he says—

Unfortunately I cannot quote everything, but he also states—

We are now going to the “berg” by-elections. The object of the exercises we have witnessed during the past few years are precisely in accordance with the dictums of Huntington. I now wish to challenge the NP. To the hon. the Minister of Manpower, through whose instrumentality we are going to the “berg” by-elections, I issue this challenge: When you go to Southpansberg and Waterberg with your hordes, tell the people of those two constituencies where you are taking them; do not, as Huntington told you to do, mesmerise them with fine-sounding phrases, but tell them precisely where you are going. This is the challenge I am issuing.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by moving the following further amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Waterberg—

1. (1) recognizing and accepting the existence of multinationalism and of minorities in South Africa;
2. (2) accepting vertical differentiation with the built-in principle of self-determination on as many levels as possible;
3. (3) creating constitutional structures which provide for the full independence of the various Black nations in the Republic of South Africa, meaningful consolidation of Black states and territories and the acceptance of a socio-economic programme directed at the development of such Black states and territories;
4. (4) dividing power amongst South African Whites, South African Coloureds and South African Indians, with a system of consultation and joint responsibility where common interests are involved; and
5. (5) being prepared to co-operate with and consult one another as equals on matters of common concern, while maintaining a balance between the rights of the individual and those of the community and eliminating hurtful, unnecessary discriminatory measures.”.

Sir, you will observe that the wording of the amendment which I am moving was taken from an election manifesto which bears the signatures of the then leaders of the NP in the various provinces. Consequently I am convinced that the hon. members of the CP should not have any problems voting for the amendment.

Now you are being a yesterday’s man.

Let me begin by saying that I have had occasion to listen to maiden speeches, and today I had occasion to listen to farewell messages as well. In contrast to the fact that one normally congratulates people on their maiden speeches, I find little in the farewell messages which compel me to congratulate the hon. members who issued them.

All his life the hon. member for Waterberg has possessed an uncanny ability to use words to conceal his thoughts. More than any other person, I realize how important the impending by-elections can be. What is most important of all, however, is on what basis the elections are going to be fought. I wish to make only one observation in this connection. I only hope that when the respective parties state their standpoints, they will not only bear in mind the interests of the parties they are serving, but also the interests of the country. I want to emphasize this.

There are South Africans in this country— we experienced this again this morning— who make out that the reform measures which the Government whishes to introduce in various spheres to promote the concepts of justice and fairness in all walks of life will lead, if not intentionally then in any event, to the interests of the Whites being destroyed and will amount to the sell-out of the Whites. The premise of this standpoint is that the Government’s policy of reform stems from a basic position of weakness and not one of strength. No one realizes more than we on this side of the House do that if a political party is not able to effect the reforms to institutions which comply with the demands of fairness, the system itself is destroyed as a result of the mere fact that one is not able to do so, and that resistance to reform is conducive to instability which could destroy the rights of all people, even of those who wish to keep political power in their own hands at all costs.

No one is claiming that anyone of us has the final answers to the problems of this country. No one is making that claim, least of all us. The Government’s policy of adopting a course of reform is surely historical, because the history of the Government and the NP has surely been one of constitutional reform. The fact of the matter is that all constitutional reform of any real value in this country since 1910 came about through the exertions and efforts of this Government. This testifies to a willingness to face up to the realities of South Africa and to eliminate the injustice which may exist. There is no society which can in all respects be described as perfect and just. To do justice to the reasonable expectations of the peoples and population groups of this country, to give effect to the principle that, on the one hand no group may dominate another and, on the other, that no group may deny another the right to participate in the decision-making processes which affects the lives of its members, a positive effort has to be made. Of course it is not easy. The object of all this is not the downfall of the Whites. On the contrary, the object is the survival and the welfare of the Whites as well as the other peoples and population groups in our father-land.

I should now like to address myself to those people who speak in the idiom of the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Waterkloof. Today I say to them that our chance of survival; of continued existence, and of continuing welfare and prosperity in this country will be determined by our ability and willingness to carry out successfully, together with other peoples and population groups, the search of peaceful solutions. If there is hope for this country—and I believe there is—it is situated nowhere else but in the course which the Government has adopted for it, i.e. the course of negotiation, deliberation and consultation. It is situated nowhere else but in the attainment of the principle of justice within the circumstances of this country. It is situated nowhere else but in courtesy towards one neighbour, and one’s neighbour has been Scripturally designated and is not arbitrarily designatable by people. The actual course that will lead to the self-destruction of this country, to the self-destruction of the Whites, is situated in a spirit of self-complacency, in a spirit of relentless exclusivity, of clutching to obsolete concepts and to impractical, unattainable follies, constitutional and otherwise, of blindness and of a disregard for the politically relevant realities of our society. [Interjections.] I shall come to the hon. member for Sea Point in a moment. To the hon. member for Waterberg I just want to say: We shall do what he is not prepared to do himself. We shall do for our people—and I am using this term deliberately—what he is not prepared to do. All I ask is that he should not obstruct us when we want to do this work for him. [Interjections.] The Government’s policy is not one of fear, panic or hesitation. It is not one of weakness or abdication. It is not meant to placate or bribe anyone and it was not born out of doubt, uncertainty and a lack of faith. We shall do everything in our power to bring the people of this country together, and this does not imply integration. We shall do everything in our power to give meaning and shape to the principle of equality, the principle of equal value in this country of ours. We shall try to give to South African politics a visible and unmistakable face and heart of legitimacy. We have no illusions as to how difficult this is.

Besides the prelude to the by-elections in the “bergs” to which the hon. member for Waterkloof referred, we had an opportunity to observe the acute contrasts between political parties and political personalities in respect of their premises, their political policies, their attitudes, their political style and integrity; between the idyllic flight from reality on the one hand and the search for practical, attainable solutions to the problems of the country, taking into consideration the limitations, economic, emotional and otherwise, on the other. Not only did I take the trouble to listen to the hon. members, but also read through the speeches which they made during the course of this session on relations problems and their solutions to such problems. I wish to say that they depict an alarming image of political naivety on the one hand and of double-talk, of political expediency and dividedness, blatant racism as we experienced today, and half-truths and untruths on the other.

I now wish to turn to the mover of the motion we are considering. When the hon. member for Waterberg was still a formal member of the NP, the NP adopted certain standpoints in respect of how it saw the solutions to the relations problems of the country constitutionally. I accept that when he was there, he endorsed the standpoint of policy which the party proclaimed, because if he did not do so, you will understand, Sir, that the conclusion inevitably arrived at would be that of disloyalty. If I consider his conflicting standpoints of then and now, there are certain conclusions which are unavoidable, or the hon. member has changed his standpoint. If he has changed his standpoint—and he has every right to do so—he must not accuse this side of the House. If he has not changed his standpoint—and my instinct tells me that he never changed his standpoint—then I want to tell him that according to any criterion of political integrity he stands condemned and condemnable.

I should like to put this to the test. I want to come to the hon. member for Meyerton. That hon. member has the ability to become emotional over things in which he believes. Last year the hon. member gave notice that on 26 February he would move that the House expressed its appreciation for the successful way in which the NP had governed the country constitutionally and economically over a period of 34 years.

Up to 22 February.

Very well, up to 22 February. I accept that. Part of that success story and an element in the good government over the period of 34 years must surely also be the 1977 proposals. Now I wish to ask the hon. member whether he still stands by the 1977 proposals. What is important is that not only did we have a prelude today …

The hon. member for Waterkloof replied to you. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must give me a chance. Sir, surely they formed part of the constitutional success story for which the hon. member wished to praise us. However, what was an integral part of the 1977 proposals which prompted the hon. member to utter expressions of praise for the Government and this party? The first was that it was an integral part of those proposals that we accepted that Whites, Coloureds and Asians were occupying the same fatherland, although they were living in their own residential areas. Secondly, they entailed, because we live in the same fatherland and because all hon. members accept that people have the right to a say over who governs them, that in that country there can be only one Government, but that there can be different government institutions.

No. Three Cabinets.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg is seeking genetic explanations for legal-constitutional problems. He should rather confine himself to those things he knows something about. Thirdly, we accepted—and the hon. member for Meyerton was also satisfied with this—that people should have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes where these affected their lives. On this basis we accepted the fourth principle, which was that there are spheres which affect people as groups only and that there should be self-determination of the groups over that which affects their lives. In addition he accepted that there are spheres which are not divisible and which represent matters of common interest to all the groups and that institutions should be established in which it was possible to give statutory recognition to the concept of co-responsibility. I ask him now: Does he still accept that today? [Interjections.] Furthermore, the hon. member accepted in 1977 that one Parliament would have a right of decision over the resolutions of the other Parliaments and that in case of a conflict the President, with the consent of one of the Parliaments, could promulgate a law. That Parliament could have been the White one, it could have been the Coloured Parliament, and it could have been the Asiatic Parliament, and that hon. member accepted this. Not only did he accept it; he even wished to express praise for the fact that this would be the case.

It seems to me I have hurt you.

There is something else I wish to accuse the hon. member of today. Before I do so, however, I want to refer to the hon. member for Sea Point. The group which he represents lives in a naïve fool’s paradise. Do hon. members know what the facts are? That hon. member and his party want us to make a simplistic cost analysis of the constitution of the country without in this connection processing emotions and the constitutional demands. That hon. member still does not want to realize that culture can also be encountered in differing existential forms and that it is precious to peoples. He looks at the problems of South Africa through ethnocentric spectacles, which causes him to think that all people are simply Westerners. The hon. member believes—and this is his basic premise, with which I differ—that sophistication and Westernization are synonymous. I think that they are equal and that sophisticated people, too, cannot aspire to cultures of a different kind.

[Inaudible.]

If that hon. member would only keep quiet, he would not get hurt. After all, the hon. member was the leader of a work group that had to bring out a report on their party’s policy. What did he say in that report? The PFP was not in favour of “Black majority rule”. They were only in favour of “majority Black rule”. That is what he said. They will simply have to tell us how one can become so entangled in one’s own policy that one says that one is not in favour of Black majority rule, but is in favour of majority Black rule. Only he will understand it.

Hon. members of the CP accuse us on this side of impairing the sovereignty of the White Parliament and level the charge at us that this supposedly represents a departure from their standpoint and policy. They allege that with our policy we are impairing the sovereignty of the White Parliament. Implicit in this allegation is that the 1977 proposals did not do that.

Explain that please.

I shall. [Interjections.] Sir, I did not interrupt the hon. members when they were speaking. The fact of the matter is that the sovereignty of the White Parliament was impaired by the 1977 proposals in at least three respects. In the first place the White Parliament had sovereignty, and it still has it today, over the destinies of the Coloured and the Asian people. In terms of the 1977 proposals the White Parliament was to have lost that power over them. In other words, the sovereignty of the White Parliament has already been impaired by these proposals. [Interjections.] In the second place the 1977 proposals implied that over matters of common interest, non-divisible interests, three Parliaments would have a say. But what is even more, one of the Parliaments would be able to oppose a decision of one of the other Parliaments. A third impairment of the sovereignty of the White Parliament in terms of the 1977 proposals lies therein that if there should be a conflict and one of the Parliaments should make use of its veto, other methods had to be sought to reach a decision, and that would be the President together with only one Parliament. On their authority, legislation could be promulgated. This implies that it could also ignore the standpoint of the White Parliament. The hon. member for Waterkloof is supposed to be a jurist. Why does he argue in the way he did?

Today the hon. member for Waterberg came here and pleaded for a White homeland, for a Coloured homeland and for an Indian homeland. On 3 November 1981, however, he said—when he was still leader of the NP in the Transvaal—that a separate homeland for Whites, for Coloureds and Asians was not possible. On 3 August 1982—nine months afterwards, and strangely enough nine months is a completely natural period!—he gave birth, figuratively speaking, to another view. He then said that separate homelands had in the meantime become possible. He must still tell us what happened during the nine months to make this possible.

But let us go further. Look at what the hon. member for Meyerton is doing. Look at the political style he is practising. In the first place he quoted from a publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Information, but omitted to tell the truth. He referred to the question: How do people get into the President’s Council? The answer to that is that they are sent there by their respective chambers. He said no numbers were mentioned. But the numbers appear in the middle of the publication. Why is the hon. member omitting to mention this? Just look at all his blatant racism, in all its nakedness. He quoted the decision of the Labour Party, but omitted to mention a critical portion of it.

Read it.

I am going to do so. The hon. member said that they had rejected the proposals.

Yes.

That is what the hon. member said. His benchmate the hon. member for Waterkloof, said, however, that the Labour Party had in fact accepted them. The hon. member for Waterkloof asked why, if there had been no deviation from the 1977 proposals, the Coloured leaders, who had rejected them at the time, now accepted them, and what was more, accepted them with acclamation. Those hon. members must decide what they want now. The hon. member for Meyerton said that the Labour Party had rejected them because, in the first place, the vast majority of the population was excluded. In the second place, according to him, they no longer complied with the requirements of our time, and in the third place, ethnicity was entrenched in them. However, I shall quote what the Labour Party itself had to say about this, as follows—

Now we come, however, to the portion which the hon. member did not quote. What he omitted, and what they in fact say as well, I shall now quote—

Why did the hon. member omit to mention this? What kind of debate are we conducting in this House? What kind of debate are hon. members of the CP conducting in this House? But see how racist the hon. member subsequently became. What is more he attacked me. He said: “Look at who the Government is now negotiating with— people who advocate one man, one vote.” Mr. Speaker, do hon. members of the official Opposition not advocate the system of one man, one vote? Is the hon. member for Meyerton not sitting with them in the same House? What it amounts to, therefore, is that the hon. member for Meyerton is only prepared to negotiate with White people who advocate the system of one man, one vote, but not with Coloureds. Surely this is nothing but flagrant racism, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Surely the hon. member supported us in other things as well. Surely he praised us for other things too. He praised us for allowing a President to be elected who could be White, Coloured or Asian. That is not my definition, but his own. [Interjections.] This is not my exposition, but that of the leader of the NP at the time. What are we doing today? What are we doing when we conduct a debate in this House? What?

But the hon. member for Meyerton went further and said that he was now going to tell his friends in Waterberg what we were doing. Is he going to tell them that he expressed praise for a Council of Cabinets, which will consist of seven Whites, four Coloureds and three Asians, a Council of Cabinets of which the powers, functions and the responsibilities were set out by his former hon. leader—and at the time it was not P. W. Botha? Or was he deceiving that leader of his as well?

They were to be advisory. [Interjections.]

Or did he also withhold the truth from his leader at the time? [Interjections.] Now he says that they were to have been advisory. Therefore he is making our previous Prime Minister out to be a liar, and I will not allow him to make the previous Prime Minister out to be a liar. [Interjections.] I am not going to allow it, least of all will I allow a person, who has the dubious record of debating which I have now exposed here, to do so.

Mr. John Vorster said that the Council of Cabinets, as far as matters of common interest were concerned, would have the same functions of responsibility and powers as this Cabinet. [Interjections.] In conclusion I just wish to say this. Let them rise and say that they do not agree with these things, but they must cease to deceive the country in a mendacious way. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Right at the outset I should like to address the hon. member for Waterberg, who made several remarks here this morning relating to the politics of the future. I wish to exchange a few ideas with him in that regard. I should like to put it to the hon. member for Waterberg that having listened to his speech we are justified in drawing certain inferences from it.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that there is only one speaker who is addressing the House at the pioment. Hon. members must please converse more quietly. If they are unable to do so they should rather go and hold their discussions outside the Chamber. I believe that we owe it to every hon. member who is addressing the House at least to afford him the opportunity to put his case.

The hon. member for Innesdal may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterberg and hon. members of his party are causing us on this side of the House increasing disquiet due to the way in which they say things. They seem to think that one can entrench feelings and approaches by way of a clever play on words. I considered carefully what he said here about a “racially alien Government” that is non-White and that will now form a Government, and that they (the CP) refuse to be governed by aliens. [Interjections.] I am referring here to the play on words and race politics, because this motion deals with race politics, of aliens and other people, people who at present are in no way partners in the total South Africa. That spirit and that attitude is one of the greatest political dilemmas we have to struggle with. I want to ask hon. members of the CP, in the interests of South Africa, when we refer to the other population groups, when we refer to other people, that we should phrase our statements in such a way that those people can see and hear clearly that in our view of their economic, political and other rights we recognize human dignity, and that we do not speak about “alien people” and “those people” and “other people”, and references of that nature which I could quote ad nauseam. I gained the impression from the speeches of hon. members of the CP that as we have always suspected, there are a great many of them who counted the NP’s twelve point plan on their ten fingers. [Interjections.] Since they have been gone, they have been discussing the other two points with which they did not agree and I have reason to believe that people who told us that they believed in what we believed in and professed these things together with us, said this to the voters when in fact it was not true.

On reading this motion, one notes that in the South African politics of today we have the hares and the tortoises. On the one hand we have the leftist radicals, the hares who want to run away with everything, and who lack all perspective or balance, and on the other side of the South African political spectrum we have the tortoises, the people who totally fail to perceive the realities of South Africa and who have ground to a halt. Today I should like to say a few words about the hares and the tortoises.

When we talk about the problems surrounding the urban Blacks then we are discussing the most important issue that bears on the future of all of us in South Africa. The White political party that thinks that the most important political decisions and the most important decisions for the future of South Africa do not lie in the sphere that surrounds this problem, is living in an absolute dream world. It is in that spirit that the NP states, as the hon. the Prime Minister stated, that we are appointing a Cabinet Committee, and that we are considering the realities and how to deal with those realities in the interests of the Whites. This is also a point I want to make with reference to the hon. member for Brakpan and the other hon. members of the CP. In whatever we as the NP do in respect of constitutional matters, we take full account of the rights of the Whites. It goes without saying that we regard the future political rights of the Whites as of cardinal importance, and this is the basis on which we speak to other population groups. Do those hon. members think that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning or the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development or the hon. the Prime Minister, or any other person who ever negotiated with Non-white leaders for those people, would say: We are now coming to negotiate about your rights on the understanding that we have no rights? Surely that is simply untrue, and if the opposition is projecting that image of us then they are doing South Africa a major disservice. The future potential of all of us in this House may be destroyed in the chaos of the realities in the urban areas if we do not deal effectively with the problems. The struggle between poverty and wealth is at its most strenuous in the urban areas. It is here that the “haves” and the “have-nots” face one another in an emotionally loaded atmosphere. All political concepts such as integration, segregation and discrimination are intensified here, as is the concept of citizenship with regard to Black politics. It is here that the media have the greatest impact on political thinking and the political debate. It is here that the ideals of many political parties fall flat in the face of the realities. Let us admit it frankly, some of the NP’s political ideals, too, in an absolute form, as we foresaw they would apply in the future, have fallen flat, in a certain sense, in the face of realities in South Africa, which we may not flinch from. We who are sitting here today are not the issue at stake. The issue is the future of our country and the future of our children. It is irrelevant what labels are hung about our necks or in what despicable way our opposition seeks to brand us with those leftist labels. I refer to myself personally. The hon. member for Rissik says that he is a conservative man. They tout the word "conservatism”. One can go a long way with that word. He has in the past branded Chief Minister Buthelezi as a radical leftist. Certain other hon. members have done so too.

That is untrue.

Very well then, let us accept that it is untrue …

Why do you say it then, if it is untrue?

In the political context of South Africa, Chief Minister Buthelezi is just as conservative a man as the hon. member for Rissik, because he seeks to conserve what belongs to his people. In that sense—I wish I could get this into the hon. members’ heads—we on this side of the House are people who want to conserve what is ours. They must get away from the practice of touting the concepts “conservatism” and “integration”.

Earlier today the hon. member for Waterberg spoke about a servant. He wanted to know whether one’s servant should have coresponsibility and a joint say in one’s house. Let us consider the realities. Surely everyone’s servants our households have a say over specific things? If we want to obfuscate politics with that kind of argumentation we shall get nowhere.

As far as the Black people are concerned, there are in South Africa realities which the hon. members of the CP must face. I must repeat this for the edification of the hon. member for Rissik: Go and look at the prediction of the Tomlinson Report. The Commission said that in the year 2000—that was the maximum prediction—there would be 22 million Black people in South Africa. Go and look at the realities of 1983, and we shall see, if we look carefully—the census people themselves said that they had difficulties with the figures—that we shall already be faced with those realities in 1983. Go and look at the predictions of prof. Sadie, who said that in the year 2000, there will be 37 million Black people in South Africa. This means that in the year 2000 there will be 15 million more Black people than the highest estimate furnished by the Tomlinson Commission. If we do not take that into account then we are on the wrong track.

Let us look at other components of the population. Let us ask ourselves what the political implication is if we have an increasing proportion of the White population that have their eyes on the old age homes. We must bear in mind that towards the end of this century—viz. within 17 years—there will be 16% fewer White children under the age of 5 years than at present. We must bear in mind that at present, 48% of all Black people in South Africa are under the age of 15 years. If these facts do not have political significance which the NP must take into account, then I say that this is a reckless and irresponsible Government. I say this to the hon. members of the opposition: Rather than fighting the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government, stand up and say that you have respect for people who are prepared to face the realities and people who are prepared to tell the public at large that we must take this into account.

The CP must try to achieve something of a Columbia vision in politics. They must rise a little higher so that they can have a bird’s eye view of the total realities in South Africa, of all the people, of all the human problems, so that they can ask themselves what the common link is among all these realities. Only then will they gain any perspective concerning the constitutional ordering in South Africa.

What are you trying to prove?

I want to tell the hon. members of the Opposition that they must face the facts, because if one does not have the facts one cannot form a perspective. One of the facts which I mentioned to the hon. member for Barberton was the population increase in South Africa …

But who does not know that?

Judging by what they say he does not realize it, although it has major implications for South Africa.

The hon. member for Waterberg spoke here today as if there were no Black people in our urban areas. He said that the next Sowetos that had to develop must definitely not be established in the PWV region.

Do you want them there?

He said that, despite the fact that all the scientists tell us that an urban reality is developing in the PWV region and that this will necessarily involve certain things. What I want is that we on this side of the House, together with the hon. the Prime Minister, should give top level attention to that. That is the second point I want to make. The first is that we must form a perspective in regard to the matter, and the second is that we must plan together in a balanced way for the future of Southern Africa. This balanced planning means that we must have a considerable degree of regional planning in South Africa. This balanced planning of our future also implies that we must create opportunities for people in the economic field. We as the governing party also take into account the Black people in urban areas in our planning for the future. Everyone must have something to lose. Everyone must be free to work. We say that each person must be free to participate in political decision-making processes affecting him. That is why we are starting with a local structure for Black people in the urban areas. I can say today, with the implications this may have—I want to say it to the hon. member for Rissik in particular—that I can remember that when I was working as an official in that department, Dr. Verwoerd gave instructions as far back as 1959 that full-fledged local authorities should be established for Black people. Those hon. members of the CP who are students of political history will know about the turmoil and undercurrents behind the scenes at that time and they will know that eventually, in 1961, we came up with the watered-down Urban Bantu Councils Act. Therefore in that Act we eventually, due to democracy, our party and the system, came up with something a little different to what Dr. Verwoerd himself had foreseen even then. I therefore say to hon. members of the CP who tout Dr. Verwoerd’s name that with regard to these matters, too, he had a vision which extended much further than they are perhaps able to see today. Thus we want to make the Black people partners in a political structure and therefore we are in earnest in seeking to deal with the problems in the field of local management.

We realize that the problems surrounding the urban Black people are of vast extent and intensity. There is a shortage of between 300 000 and 500 000 houses. I do not think we should adopt a negative point of view in this regard. On the contrary, in a country like South Africa we can approach it from a positive angle. It is not merely a question of needing 300 000 or 500 000 houses. Each of those houses needs a few doors, a few windows, a roof and bricks. I contend that in that field alone we have the potential for a tremendous generation of economic activities in South Africa. The one thing that struck me in West Germany, France and England, where we were last year and the year before, was that pessimism prevailed among economic planners in those countries. They were faced with the problem that whatever they did there was no hope for economic growth, because the population was no longer growing. We in South Africa must say to ourselves that we are a country with enormous potential, with tremendous challenges and with a tremendous potential for conflict as well. We do not doubt that. Every wise political party or politician must tell its or his voters that there is an awakening potential for revolution in the urban complexes. He must tell his voters that problems are developing around the issue of unemployment. He must also tell his voters that when the technological revolution hits South Africa— it is a pity that time does not allow me to say a few words about that—South Africa is going to be shaken and shocked to see what an impact the technological revolution, which is already spreading across Europe, has on the employment of people. We shall see then that many of the steps we are taking now to have people employed will simply disappear in the face of totally new professions which will come into being. Some people will no longer be necessary. When we consider the unemployment that has developed in the industrialized countries due to technology, it is clear that large-scale planning and action is required the Government.

To conclude, I want to make an appeal to hon. members of the CP and hon. members of the PFP. We are not going to resolve South Africa’s problems by way of leftist radical or rightist radical standpoints. We must speak to one another. We need communication in this country. I listen to people who in the name of the Church—e.g. Bishop Tutu of the S.A. Council of Churches—and Christianity are doing one thing and one thing only, and that is, if one analyses it, to further increase the potential for tension and emotion in South Africa. What purpose does that serve in South Africa? It is a meaningless operation. [Interjections.] I listen to the rightist radical political people and I ask: What purpose do you serve? What are you achieving? I ask this because in the final analysis, before we can in any way tackle and deal with the practical problems surrounding the urban areas, and before we can see in perspective things such as the population increase, the incredible urbanization process in South Africa, we must first display goodwill towards one another. Accordingly there is something I should like to say to the hon. member for Rissik. We must accept one another as people. I can show the hon. member the thick pack of statements by Black leaders in South Africa that I have collected since 1970. I find it interesting that there is one expression that runs through the speeches of every Black leader in South Africa like a refrain, and that is an expression which is also incorporated in the constitution of the OAU, the expression which also finds an echo in the UN. I refer to the words “human dignity” or “menswaardig-heid”. I therefore say on behalf of the NP: In our economic—planning for the Black people in the urban areas, in our constitutional planning for them, in our social efforts with regard to these people and in respect of the concept “the abolition of discrimination”, in our negotiations with these people, it is, as far as we are concerned, a central idea that a human being is a human being. When we say “A human being is a human being”, we are only saying what the Scripture tells us, and that is to do to every human being—and this applies to what one says as well—exactly as one would want to be done by. When we do this, then people like the hon. member for Barberton run around saying that we are “leftist”. If the things that I have said in regard to the human dignity we must maintain in our relations with the urban Black people, and in our planning and efforts for those people, are regarded as leftist, then surely people like the hon. member for Barberton stand foursquare behind the racist Mr. Jaap Marais of the HNP. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, then, I call upon the hon. members of the CP to bear in mind this perspective on the realities of South Africa in the arguments they put to the public of South Africa, because without this perspective there can be no balance in our judgment, and without balance in our judgment we are heading for emotional and physical chaos.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Innesdal. He is a young man—well, a comparatively young man—with imagination, and he is also articulate. I also believe he is quite sincere in what he says, but unfortunately his imagination goes well beyond the realities of the situation. Today he gave us many visions of what he would like to see in this country, but I am afraid he did not speak with much relevance to his motion. I therefore want to move as an amendment—

1. (1) implementing policies which have led to frustration and insecurity among urban Blacks;
2. (2) creating a crisis situation by failing to provide adequate housing and other services for Blacks in urban areas; and
3. (3) persisting with constitutional proposals which exclude Blacks from political participation as citizens of South Africa.”.

I would have thought that if the hon. member for Innesdal had any understanding of what was happening around him he would have withdrawn his motion in view of the events at Guguletu and Orlando East during the past few weeks. To leave a motion commending the Government for its positive planning and actions in the sphere of the development of urban Blacks outside the Black States in South Africa is, I believe, utterly cynical at this moment in time. Camping out on the sandy wastes of the Cape Flats and living in shacks attached to houses in Soweto is not, of course, something that is done by choice. It is, I believe, the direct result of the total neglect of the Government over the last few decades, in ignoring what is an obvious development to any first-year student of economics, viz. the inevitable process of urbanization. The Government could have studied the reports of commissions of inquiry set up in the forties, the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission and the Fagan Commission in which special attention was given to the laws affecting the Blacks.

You have not mentioned the Tomlinson Commission.

Yes, and the Tomlinson Commission, which it has ignored entirely. There has been no development in the homelands on the scale which Tomlinson said was a prerequisite for holding back the flow of people to the urban areas.

How can you say we ignored the Tomlinson Commission?

We would then not have been faced with the running sore we are faced with today of squatter camps and overcrowding in the Black urban townships throughout the Republic, for what is happening in the Western Cape and in Orlando East is symptomatic of what is happening in every single Black urban township in the country.

I want to say to the hon. members that photographs of shacks being demolished and of people sitting disconsolately on their pitiful belongings out on the Flats, television cameras roving around and films being shown all over the world are grist to the mill of organizers of boycotts against South Africa.

And you and Andrew are bedevilling the situation.

What never ceases to amaze me after years of dealing with successive Ministers of Native Affairs, or Bantu Affairs, or Plural Relations or Co-operation and Development, is the fact that there is a total lack of understanding of the sensitive nature of the issues they are dealing with. The trouble is of course that they never have a face-to-face confrontation with the people who are affected by their decisions. They give the instructions to the officials and it is left to the unfortunate officials of the Administration Boards and to the police to carry out their very, unpleasant work, the inhuman actions and ruthless exercise of authority, and therefore the hostility of the Blacks is directed against them.

You are a rabble-rouser.

There is significance in the fact …

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

No, Sir, I have no time. There is significance in the fact that Administration Board buildings are attacked. They are the symbols of the authority that is exercised against Black people in carrying out laws of which Black people disapprove.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister—I am glad he is here—that demolishing shacks in Orlando and demolishing the shelters of the KTC people will not solve his problem. The shacks may vanish and the shelters may vanish, but the people do not vanish. The people are still here. They are either in the Western Cape back in the overcrowded houses they lived in before, or they have gone into the bushes, or in Soweto where they are also back again in the overcrowded houses there. Most of these people, I might add, are “legais”—I use the word according to Government terminology, for as far as we are concerned all citizens are legal and all citizens should have the right of mobility. I want to point out that these people are not going to put up with these conditions indefinitely. Sooner or later up will go the shacks in the Western Cape again. Sooner or later the tin shacks will appear again in Orlando East and we shall have the same disgusting repetition of the Hippos, the police, the dogs and the destruction.

The Government must get on with the job of providing site-and-service, core housing and alternative accommodation for these people. I was interested to see two solutions that came from two Administration Boards. The one, contained in a broadcast yesterday morning, was from the Chief Commissioner in the Western Cape. He stated—

The interviewer asked—

Mr. Bezuidenhout replied—

I would say we are in a complete mental lapse as well—

The interviewer asked later—

The reply was—

One would think that this is new. One would think that we had not had the whole business of Nyanga last year and Crossroads a few years before that. He hopes, just as the hon. member for Innesdal hopes, that there is going to be a solution. And what is happening in Orlando East? We are forgetting about that because it is out of sight. The demolition of 4 000 shacks attached to houses in Orlando East is apparently being contemplated by the Soweto Council’s Director of Townships.

Who is the Soweto Council?

The Soweto Council takes its instructions.

Are they Black or are they White?

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the hon. the Minister did not want those shacks to be demolished, he …

You could not have exposed yourself better than you have just done. The Blacks decide to put their house in order and then you as a White come here with your nonsense.

Ask the inmates of the shacks if they think it is nonsense. [Interjection.] Why does the hon. the Minister not wait until he replies to the debate instead of interrupting me so rudely? One woman states that she has been on the housing-waiting list for seven years, but the authorities seem to be doing nothing about it. Mr. Oosthuizen says: I appeal to residents to come forward for the available loans for extensions. Now who is to build the extensions? Is it to be the legal tenant of the house or the illegal sub-tenant of the shack? And where does the money come from for people living in houses, most of which are occupied by low-income families? The whole thing is ridiculous. The Government is trying to shelve entirely its responsibility for providing housing for low-income groups. More and more it is pushing it on to the private sector. I am all for the private sector coming in to assist. However, the Government is trying to shed its responsibility entirely … [Interjections.]

Surely there are many more positive things? Everything is not negative.

Yes, I am coming to the positive things.

Let him talk to those people whose shacks have been knocked down.

It is the dismissal of the inevitability of urbanization way back in 1948 which has led to this tragic situation.

What about the thousands of people with houses?

It is the underlying ideology of apartheid that Blacks are here as temporary sojourners and that they will go back when their services are no longer required.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Innesdal, who is commending the Government for its forward planning, that as recently as 1972 to 1976 only R34,6 million was made available for housing in the urban areas for Blacks, as against R25 million for housing in the homelands. We are today living with that policy, with its enormous shortage of housing everyhere. The unrest and instability in the urban areas is directly the result of this policy that has been followed. In the same way, I could go through all the other services such as transport services, schools where classrooms have 40 pupils in them and Baragwanath Hospital which is a first-class teaching hospital and which has patients under the beds. Bara has now been instructed to reduce some of the services that it gives. The hon. member for Innesdal will say, as he has just said: That is all in the past. After all, the Government is now taking on a whole new look. The new deal is coming in.

Be positive for a change.

Yes, but then do not then commend the Government for its forward planning when it has done no planning over the last thirty years. The hon. member will tell us about the plans for housing 99-year leases, etc., and I would grant that if perhaps his motion were to be introduced in the White Chamber—if it will be dealing with Black affairs; who knows who will be dealing with Black affairs—in five years’ time maybe we would be able to say that there are signs that some efforts are made made to redress the mistakes of the past 30 years. But there is no way that this could happen unless vast sums of money are made available in order to catch up with the backlog, let alone the natural increase and the inevitable drift of people from the rural areas to the towns. Demographers estimate that by the year 2000 there will be 20 million Blacks in the urban areas of this country. I think it is all too bad that it took years and years before the idea of even 99-year leasehold was accepted by the Government, and even that is not off the ground yet. It is five years ago that 99-year leasehold was accepted as a scheme, and the other day the hon. the Minister told me that something like 3 000 …

In Soweto alone.

No, I do not think it is in Soweto alone. By the end of 1983 3 300 99-year leaseholds had actually been registered. Is that such a lot? Even taking Soweto alone, where there are about 105 000 houses? Of those, only 3 000 have been registered in terms of the 99-year leasehold scheme, says the hon. the Minister, though I believe the figure is 2 000, but let us give him the benefit of the doubt, because he may have later figures than I do.

Is that the fault of the Government alone?

Yes, it is; because first of all the 99-year lease was withheld and then there was the survey which is not finished yet, not even now. Then all possible bureaucratic obstacles were placed in the way of these people before they could go ahead and get 99-year leasehold. And even today, all women are excluded. They are excluded because they are in a situation of insecurity, because the building societies do not feel that they …

Why then do you not fight with the building societies? Why fight with us?

Because you have got to change the law that makes it impossible for women in their own right to take on the responsibility of 99-year leasehold. It is the law that prevents them, not the building societies. There is no security of tenure.

Does the hon. member for Innesdal know that in 1980-’81—note that I am not talking of 1948—the numbers of houses built in the four main urban centres were as follows: West Rand, 498; East Rand, 1 072; Port Elizabeth, 1 081 and Cape Town, 640—a total of 3 291. We need something like 5 000 houses per annum, however, just to catch up with the backlog in a particular area, e.g. in Soweto alone. So we have not even made a dent in the problem yet.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister, when he replies, can tell us when they are going to sell the Soweto houses at cost-related prices to the occupants so that they themselves can extend the existing space available, something which would at least be a help in providing the necessary accommodation.

I do not say that no changes at all have taken place. There has been the recognition of the permanency of the urban population and there has been the introduction of 99-year leasehold, albeit after considerable delays. Furthermore there has been the removal of some of the obstacles confronting Black traders and people working in the informal sector. Then there has also been permission for private enterprise to participate in the provision of housing in the Black townships. Under the old system this participation was denied for all those years and therefore houses were not provided. And, finally, at long last I hear faintly in the distance that site-and-service schemes are going to be accepted, in other words schemes for laying out the infrastructure and helping Blacks to start building their own homes. But there is one great problem about all this, and that is the total lack of urgency. Look at what the Commissioner in the Western Cape has had to say. He does not know when they are going to make a start; there is a shortage of funds, etc.

Within two to three weeks these shack-dwellers are going to be back, maybe not on the KTC-site, but somewhere else. But most of these people are still here. Most of them are legally here and the shacks in Orlando East that have been demolished will be put up again somewhere else.

I now turn to the forward planning embodied in the proposals for the participation of urban Blacks in the political processes, something about which the hon. member for Innesdal had a lot to say. The first and obvious comment I want to make in this regard is that it is patently impossible, for constitution-making purposes, to distinguish urban Blacks from any other kind of Black. One cannot make this distinction. One may distinguish the urban Black for demographic purposes or for geographic purposes, but one cannot distinguish him as such for constitution-making purposes. It is a dangerous fallacy to create the impression that there is a constitutional solution for urban Blacks that is possible independently and separately from Blacks in other areas. That is not so. Take the pass laws. If ever there was a device to try to separate rural Blacks from urban Blacks, homeland Blacks from urban Blacks, it was pass laws, designed stop them from coming in? They failed. They failed dismally because the rural Blacks need to come into the urban areas just as the urban Blacks wish to stay in the urban areas. It is the push factor of poverty in the rural areas and the pull factor—as the Fagan Commission pointed out in 1946 or 1947—of employment opportunities in the towns that is responsible for this. Therefore, the pass laws have failed and thousands of people are imprisoned for the simple reason that one cannot distinguish between urban and rural Blacks. In practice the distinction breaks down completely, and it will go on breaking down despite all the plans in connection with deconcentration. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Walmer that it is not a plan that can work, any more than the border areas plan could work. It cannot work any more than all the incentives offered to industrialists to start their factories way out in the bundu, have worked. That is the case because of the simple economic factors that determine the location of industry.

This whole trend of urbanization is going to go on. The metropolitan areas will go on increasing in size and in population. Nothing the Government can do can hold back those forces. Economic forces are stronger than political forces, and the sooner the Government realizes that and accepts the inevitable and plan accordingly, the better.

In the last resort this House should be made aware of the fact that Blacks have emphasized over and over again what they really want. They want full citizenship and all that that implies. In the urban areas particularly they want freehold and all that that implies. They are not satisfied with 99-year leases. They say that if the 99-year lease is the same as freehold why do the Whites want freehold. They also want financial viability. Finally, in the last analysis, it is really not for the Government to commend itself for its positive planning and for its actions in the sphere of the development of the urban Blacks outside the Black States of South Africa. It is not even for the Opposition to condemn these actions. In the last analysis it is the Black themselves who must pass judgment. I wish the Government would always remember that.

Mr. Speaker, we have become accustomed to the type of speech the hon. member for Houghton delivered in this House. We have just had the doubtful privilege to listen to yet another one of those speeches. I really do not know what the hon. member for Houghton is driving at. [Interjections.] She can tell us nothing we do not yet know. What she is doing, however, is causing tremendous harm to the very cause that she is trying to propagate. What did she do the other day? She brought up the whole matter of Guguletu.

What about Orlando East?

I shall come to Orlando East in a moment. [Interjections.] Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with everything she said in her speech. She visited Guguletu, and caused a lot of publicity to be given to what was going on there. Unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member all the relevant particulars, but I can tell her that very, very delicate negotiations that were conducted at the time were put in jeopardy by her, negotiations in the interests of the very people she purports to have assisted.

You were demolishing their shelters!

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

All I can tell you is that you were tearing down their shelters!

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Houghton allowed to deliver a speech while sitting down? [Interjections.]

Come on, get on with your speech! [Interjections.]

Why do you not shut up? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

All right, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to tell another hon. member to shut up?

I have already withdrawn it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister has already withdrawn the words “shut up”. He may proceed.

As far as the question of Orlando East is concerned, why did the hon. member not tell us that when she enquired from me in regard to what the position was, I told her that the decision was the decision of the Community Council of Soweto and the Community Council of Soweto alone. Nobody instructed them to demolish those shacks.

They take the initiative.

One is really appaled and the mind boggles at the way in which this hon. member can distort the facts that are put at her disposal. However, I do not wish to waste any further time on her because I have more important things to say than to reply to her ridiculous arguments. An announcement will be made at a later stage in regard to certain of the matters that she raised.

*After all, it is essential at a time like this, and particularly in this debate, that when the Government is congratulated on its positive planning and its efforts in the field of the development of the urban Black people outside the Black States of South Africa, the spotlight should also fall on the philosophy and the realities that gave rise to the decisions and the political policies that are being implemented with the specific aim of achieving those successes to which reference is being made. I venture to contend that there are probably few subjects under the sun about which more nonsense and generalizations have been uttered than the position of the Black people in White South Africa. We heard this again this afternoon from the hon. member for Houghton. She made a lot of remarks which were absolutely irrelevant to this motion and which took no account whatever—and this is something she accuses us of—of realities. The realities have passed her by, as they have also passed by all the old classic liberals of whom she is still one of the old remnants.

And proud of it!

After all, we still regard it as an open question whether many of us have in fact succeeded in determining the whole truth regarding these people’s attachments, their longings, their strivings and their cultural associations, and even their psychological makeup. So many of us, and the Opposition in particular, would like to create the impression that they know everything of these people, that they know how to communicate with these people, that they know what motivates them and how we as Whites are able to establish a meaningful and friendly bond with them. Ethnologists and others who have studied this matter and know something about it, know how these people function and how they think, but the problem is that the majority of ordinary people know very little or nothing about these longings, this make-up that motivates these people. This unfortunate state of affairs creates serious difficulties for us in communication and understanding. After all, it is not only the ethnologists who work with these people. It is the ordinary man in the street and their reaction to one another that determines whether their living and being alongside one another will be friendly and meaningful or whether we shall be on hostile terms. One is amazed, in these times and in these days, to find that there are still people, and in particular leaders of our political parties, specifically the PFP, who simply do not wish to understand, or cannot grasp, that the Blacks in the White area are not a heterogeneous mass. This afternoon we had another example of this from the hon. member for Houghton. She does not perceive that difference. To her they are simply “the Blacks of South Africa”. This basic fact, which is as plain as a pikestaff and which, after all, forms the cornerstone of the policy of separate development and its corollary, the right to self-determination, can also be applied to the Black people outside the national States and the independent States who, at this very time, are the subject of an in-depth investigation by a commission appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister. He who thinks that separate development and self-determination of the Blacks can only be given effect to in a fourth chamber in this Parliament is either totally ignorant or simply wilful, because there is no probability of that. The otherness of the Black man in comparison with his White counterpart is a reality which must always be taken into account. We are concerned with people of the Third World. I do not say this in a derogatory way; these are merely the facts that I have to state. The lack of understanding of and knowledge concerning this otherness gives rise to major relations problems which seriously hamper and even hamstring the Government in the implementation and development of its policy. It contributes nothing to the solution of the problems of a plural society.

Another fact which the Government faces squarely is the fact that we must simply live with the realization that we shall always have Black people in White South Africa as permanent inhabitants with specific rights, privileges and aspirations. I say this to the hon. members of the CP.

The hon. members of the CP are at present otherwise engaged.

They are busy doing a little crawling at the moment.

Some people are guilty of violation of semantics in order to find a descriptive concept to describe the presence of the Black people here in White South Africa. The grossest example of this that I have ever heard is the description that the Black man in White South Africa is only here temporarily and on a casual basis, for as long as the White man tolerates his presence here. In the times and in the century we are living in, there is no longer place for this kind of unscientific semantic day-dream. Not only does it cast our integrity and credibility in a poor light, it also leads to great confusion concerning, and hampering of, our policy and political objectives with respect to the Blacks. We cannot use semantically unscientific and dubious statements as instruments for working with these people.

There are realities that we must face, and we must take those realities into account. If the hon. member for Pinelands, who is looking at me now like a hare in the moonlight, would sometimes sit still and listen for a moment, he might learn a little more than he gives evidence of at the moment.

Rather go on reading.

Taking into account what I have just said as a given and as a point of departure, this Government must plan, and has indeed planned, for these Black people with realism and idealism. To seek to resolve the problems of the Black man in White South Africa on the basis of unrealistic points of departure and so-called realities is to make cosmetic changes, and will bring us no closer to a solution.

Nic, you also said that once. [Interjections.]

The Government’s watchword is at all times: Determine what the realities are and then plan with idealistic realism and courage.

We must beware that we do not do what Mark Twain once said—

That would be to the detriment of this situation, but it is a tendency which we encounter a great deal among our opponents.

Another reality is that thanks to Government policy, the Black component of our population has not remained purely a working class. Black traders, entrepreneurs and so on are increasingly coming into their own every day. The core of well-to-do middle class has already, therefore, been established. The ending of job reservation and the establishment of an increasing number of Black business enterprises will mean that that middle class will become considerably stronger. All limitations on the kind of commerce that Blacks may practise in their residential areas have already been lifted. Commerce in Black areas is nowadays only subject to the normal measures that are absolutely necessary for the due regulation of such commerce in accordance with the general legislation that applies to all business enterprises in the country, White or Black. Financial aid to Black entrepreneurs is also available through the Small Business Development Corporation.

It needs to be stressed that the basic philosophy and point of departure of the Department of Co-operation and Development and of the Government is to establish the best possible economic opportunities for the Black people, within, of course, the framework of Government policy. Creative action is taken and these people are encouraged to the highest degree. The Government realizes full well that it will only be by way of the creation of the necessary structures that the development of prosperous communities may be assured and this can serve as a basis for political, social and economic stability. In the light of this approach the Government has seen the major disparity in prosperity between Black communities and non-Black communities as one of the most serious problems we are faced with and which we shall have to give considerable attention to.

Another reality which we must take into account is the Black man’s pride in his identity. He is proud of his language, culture, customs, traditions and nationhood. Show me one Black man in this country who will not proudly tell you his origins if asked. He is proud to tell you that he is a Zulu, a Xhosa, a Tswana, a Sotho or whatever. I do not want to go too deeply into the whole issue of ethnicity. However, an hon. member referred this morning to the standpoint of Moynihan and Glazer that ethnicity or group identity is a phenomenon as old as man himself and that it has survived the death sentence pronounced upon it by humanist liberalism and radicalism. So much, then, for those who seek to pass off ethnicity as something discovered by the NP in order to keep the Black man in a permanently subordinate position. Due to the Black man’s cultural links to his particular national independent State, the objective is one of maximum ties and bonds with these States, while at the same time satisfying his requirements with regard to his residential area outside these States. The realistic ideas and points of departure of the NP lie at the heart of the present initiatives of the Government with regard to these people. The cardinal question that we in this country must answer is whether we should see the Black man as a potential enemy or as a potential partner in our struggle for survival. If we see him as a potential enemy, then surely it is important that we should create a dispensation for him which will make it possible for him to be on our side against the threat from outside.

Only by taking into account the guidelines and realities I have just tried to sketch can the Government’s new initiatives in respect of the political aspirations of the Black man outside the national and independent States be properly evaluated. If order and stability are to be maintained in this country, there are no alternatives for the initiatives of the Government, and their overall implementation must be effected within the parameters that have already been created.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister in which he gave us a few indications of the actions and planning of his department, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Innesdal on his appointment to the Commission for Co-operation and Development. I trust that he will spend a long and fruitful time there. But he really must not propagate in that Commission the standpoints that he has already propagated in this House, namely that the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act must disappear or that urban Blacks must acquire freehold in the White area.

I said that my people did not need those laws.

When one listens to the speeches of the hon. member for Innesdal—both this speech and the one he made during the no-confidence debate—one always hears the same story, the same tune and, in this case, even the same words. They sound exactly the same because every time they are about the conflict situation that is going to arise as a result of the numerical superiority of Black people in a survival situation for the Whites. If there is one matter that has always been and still is on the agenda of political debate in South Africa, then it is the relations situation between the White and non-White nations of Southern Africa, and in particular the place that the so-called urban Black people outside the Black States must occupy in our constitutional setup. That is why I consider this motion of the hon. member so important, particularly against the background of the constitutional reform which the government is now engaged in. If there is one thing that runs through our history like a golden thread—in particular the history of the constitutional development of the Afrikaner—it is our desire for autonomy, for independence, for our own freedom and a democratic system of government. Precisely because this most profound aspiration of a nation is so frequently threatened, and because the Afrikaner nation, with fixed determination and unfailing perseverance, has had to protect its freedom and right to self-determination like a precious gem, we are frequently accused of having a laager mentality when we are faced by danger. When that happens this nation, to which you and I belong, prefers the tried and trusted, the successful ideology. It chooses the attitude towards life and the world with which it grew up, which it knows. If there is one thing the people who sat here before us were well aware of it was the old truism uttered by the philosopher Confucius more than 2 000 years ago—

Today, 2 000 years later, this statement is just as valid. The different nations with their different cultures and traditions simply cannot be involved in a single constitutional dispensation, and neither can the Black people living and working in our large urban complexes.

But who is suggesting that, Willie?

I shall tell the hon. the Deputy Minister who is suggesting this. I am getting to that. [Interjections.] I just want to remind hon. members of what a great leader of the NP, Dr. Verwoerd, said in 1950 when he made a speech before the Natives Representative Council, and we must remember that that Council has also been done away with. However, Dr. Verwoerd did not allow himself to be put off his stroke. He went ahead and consistently implemented the policy of separate development, and we now have the independent Black States! [Interjections.] Dr. Verwoerd said—

In 1959, when there was still no suggestion of Black homelands or independent Black States, this became NP policy overnight. It was at that time that Dr. Verwoerd uttered the following words in this House, and I am still quoting from the same book (Verwoerd aan die Woord, p. 261)—

This is from a speech made in the House of Assembly on 20 May 1959. Surely this is the policy we believed to be the only workable, the only defensible, the only just policy in Africa, the policy of differentiation, of vertical separation. Surely this is neither discrimination, domination not oppression. That is how we argued and that is how all the hon. members opposite argued with us. What did we say? We said: In Africa one must choose, and what one must choose between is a policy of segregation or one of integration. There is no middle way. Every step one takes in the direction of integration, every guarantee or entrenchment one tries to incorporate in a constitution will eventually lead to majority government and integration. Do hon. members opposite think that such a middle way succeeded in Mozambique or Rhodesia or is now succeeding in South West Africa? On the other hand, the slogan of liberalism, “liberty, equality and fraternity”, with its exaggerated sense of guilt and breaking down of boundaries between nations, has also started to gain adherents here in South Africa. Liberalism has found its way into our churches, into our cultural life, into our Press and into our politics, and it has infiltrated the benches of the ruling party opposite.

That is not true.

Discrimination has been equated with separate development. Change, reform and adjustment have become fashionable in the NP and eventually, in 1983, at the end of the no-confidence debate, the NP voted against the following amendment, printed on page 20 of the Minutes of this House—

The hon. members opposite voted against that amendment.

What was the amendment we voted for?

Over the years that was the most fundamental principle of the NP.

All those things that you are saying and that you think you can get away with are anything but the truth.

Now we can ask ourselves: What happened? Somewhere along the line there has been a change in the basic philosophy of that party. Oggendblad of 24 September last year put it like this—

Now we ask ourselves: What is the basic philosophy of that party now? I want to extract the basic philosophy of that party from the speech made by the hon. member for Innesdal during the no-confidence debate. In Hansard, Tuesday, 1 February 1983, column 177, he said—

What must the Whites lose? Their sovereignty? Their right to self-determination? The hon. member went on to say, in column 178—

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister comes along and says the NP does not intend to involve the Black people. The two statements are incompatible. The hon. member for Innesdal went on to say (col. 179)—

There is no longer diversity. There are no longer different nations. All that has remained are “people” and “human dignity”.

Why did the NP change its policy, its basic principle? The hon. member for Innesdal said the NP had changed drastically. Today the hon. member for Mossel Bay conceded that he had changed.

You are going to find yourself in a lot of trouble …

Quote me correctly.

I came across the most interesting reason for this almost overnight change in attitude in the Rand Daily Mail of 17 September last year. It said the following—

Remember what your leader said about quoting from English language newspapers.

It went on to say—

The report went on—

The professor went on to say—

I now hear there are to be further seminars. Next week there is to be another seminar at the Goudini Spa. One shudders to think what those hon. members may still be induced to accept. I think the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development drew the first guidelines as far back as the no-confidence debate when he said (Hansard, 1 February 1983, col. 161)—

In col. 162 he went on to say—

Surely it is only logical that if people are permanently in South Africa and if they are also involved in the decision-making process in South Africa they must also become part of the constitutional development, or am I wrong?

This afternoon I must say to the credit of the editor of Die Vaderland that when the Government announced its policy change in February of last year, he immediately reacted by saying: Once the principle of power-sharing in one government has been accepted, it follows logically that the urban Black man must also be involved in that. It seems to me as if the strategy is as follows:

A Cabinet committee must first formulate the new guidelines. The overworked and receptive MPs are then fed the new poison little by little and then Prof. Koos Roelofse does the rest and, lo and behold, we have a completely integrated constitutional dispensation for South Africa. In his motion the hon. member for Innesdal asked that this House thank the Government for its positive planning and actions in the sphere of the development of the urban Blacks. How on earth can the hon. member expect this House to accept such a motion of thanks if we do not even know what their plans and actions for the urban Blacks outside the Black States are? A Cabinet committee has only just been appointed to investigate this matter. I therefore think this is a most inopportune time to introduce such a motion, but the hon. member has nevertheless done so.

We have just been informed by our new Speaker that he will also have the honour to be the Speaker of the three Chambers that are envisaged. If I remember correctly that was a recommendation in the second report of the constitutional committee of the President’s Council. I am not yet aware of any announcement by the NP or the Government accepting that report. What is more, it seems to me as if the President’s Council is already giving final decisions. Neither in the said second report of the President’s Council nor in the official documents of the Government is any reference made to the Department of Co-operation and Development, either under group-specific affairs or under matters of common interest. Some people are now saying the urban Blacks must be linked to their own self-governing independent States. Others, trying to interpret the policy of the NP, say they ought to be involved in the new constitutional dispensation. In London Mr. Thebehali said that by 1986 Blacks will be sitting in Parliament. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and leader of the NP in the Transvaal said he was present on that occasion. However, he said he interpreted Mr. Thebehali’s words as meaning the involvement of the Black people in a confederal context, in the form of a city state or something of the sort. I do not think we have much confidence left in the interpretations by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs of standpoints and words. He weaves various interpretations around the concept of power-sharing. What about aspects such as the super-cabinet, co-responsibility and the concept of a sovereign Parliament? The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, when he was still information officer of the NP, gave a totally different interpretation of all these things to that which the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has now given. They differ completely. We can no longer take much notice of those interpretations.

Then Dr. Wimpie de Klerk, that self-appointed policy prophet of the NP, comes along and says the following in his column, on 6 February of this year—

What utter confusion have we here? [Interjections.] From our hon. leader, Mr. Speaker, you today heard our standpoint regarding all peoples in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] In conclusion I just want to make the following remark. The NP is supposed to be the national political front of the Afrikaner, the White nation, of South Africa. [Interjections.] The NP was born out of the struggle of a nation to protect, preserve and foster its heritage—its own culture, its own language and its own traditions, its own attitude towards life and the world, and everything that is characteristic of and unique to a nation—its sentiments and its national consciousness; the image of its national leaders and heroes; and maintenance of its own government, elected from among its own ranks to govern itself in a fatherland of its own which it has claimed for itself on the grounds of a centuries-long struggle and sacrifices. These were always the basic points of departure of the NP when we still sat together on that side of the House. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the NP have been warned. They cannot and may not continue with these integrationist plans of theirs. [Interjections.]

They must make no mistake. The people to which most of us belong, and the other Whites in this country too, have never been prepared to share their right to self-determination and their freedom with other nations.

They are not prepared to do so now. That liberation struggle is still burning in the heart of the Afrikaner nation, and no one will deprive it of that; least of all the hon. members of the NP. The voters of Waterberg and Soutpansberg will confirm this in the near future. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I just want to say the hon. member for Innesdal is a most welcome addition to the Commission. We feel he is an hon. member who can make a positive contribution and we want to thank him for this in advance.

Hear, hear!

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Pietersburg say, à la Confucius: “Those who travel along different roads cannot confer together”. However, hon. members of the CP are now going to “confer” with the HNP. [Interjections.] After all, they are going to “confer” with them. [Interjections.] That therefore means that they are travelling the same road as the HNP. [Interjections.]

I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in 1975 the hon. member for Pietersburg made a contribution to the “Strydfonds” of the HNP. Receipts and newspaper reports subsequently confirmed this. The hon. member knows that I am speaking the truth now. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Pietersburg has now found his spiritual home. I am glad for his sake. He has always spoken like an HNP man. I believe that this attitude he is now displaying openly has been lying dormant in his heart since 1975. I now want to ask him whether he still has shares in Die Afrikaner? Actually he should have sold them long ago if he was a real patriot so that he could support Die Patriot. I do not want to waste much time on those hon. members. However, I just want to say that if a man jumps around like that and is uncertain of himself, then he must ask advice. I am prepared to talk to the hon. member, but the hon. member is so uncertain that he does not know where he is. [Interjections.] Morally I am still safe in Pretoria West, but I am not so sure that the hon. member is morally safe in Pietersburg. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pietersburg, too, did not say a word about the development of the Black people, which was the subject of this motion. [Interjections.] Now I have hurt their feelings and I am glad because that was my intention. That hon. member did not say a word about the development of the Blacks and I must therefore conclude that they are not interested in the development of the Blacks. They are not interested in it. However, to us on this side of the House it is of cardinal importance to be interested in the development of the Blacks because it is also in the interests of the Whites, and I should now like to say a few words about this. [Interjections.] To us it is a matter of the positive development of the Blacks in the urban areas. It is a very important matter. The fact of the matter is that there are 5,3 million Blacks in the urban areas. [Interjections.] It may be a joke to the hon. member for Rissik, but it is a serious matter to us. We are serious about offering a solution in respect of these people to the nation.

The hon. members of the CP and the members of the HNP have something in common. They both say they consider Dr. Verwoerd to be their spiritual mentor. [Interjections.] Or do they not see him in that light? What is strange about this is that Dr. Verwoerd was totally opposed to a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] I shall prove this later. The fact of the matter is that the HNP says they stand behind Dr. Verwoerd. The CP also stands behind him, except that they do not follow his policy. Because my time is very limited, I just want to quote a few of the things Dr. Verwoerd said. He said, inter alia, that the crux of the policy of the NP was that there had to be political separation. Inter alia he said the following—

He went on to say—

He went on to say—

The point I am trying to make is this: The NP is still faithfully adhering to the policy of Dr. Verwoerd. We are at present giving the Blacks privileges and rights so that they can live decently in their residential areas. [Interjections.] I want to put it like this: It is quite clear that neither the CP nor the HNP can quote Dr. Verwoerd as their spiritual mentor. They are now going to be busy joining forces, because they will have to do so in the end. I should like to see a cross between a mole and a tortoise. The HNP are a lot of moles; their eyes are closed and they do not know where they are going. The CP are a lot of tortoises and it is going to be interesting to see a cross between them and the moles.

When one discusses this matter, it is a good thing to consider the realities. When one considers the demographic distribution of Black people in South Africa, one finds they can actually be divided into four categories. In the first place a quarter of the Black people live in the TBVC countries. In the second place a quarter of them live in the self-governing national States. In the third place a quarter of the Black people live in the rural areas of the Republic of South Africa. In the fourth place a quarter of the Black people live in the urban areas of South Africa.

We believe in the development of the Black people in the urban areas as well. I should like to discuss this for a moment to indicate how the Black people in the cities have developed under the present Government. In the first place I should like to refer to the buying power of these people. Between 1975 and 1980 the buying power of these people increased 2,2 times. To put it another way: We ensured that their standard of living rose. Their buying power increased from R3,4 milliard in 1975 to R7,6 milliard in 1980. All the stories we hear about the suppression of the Black people are therefore untrue. It would be a good thing for the Black people to take note of this and also to realize that their prosperity is a target for the ANC and communism.

We should not only take into account what they are earning today, because the NP has also made an investment in the future of the Black urban population by providing education for their children. In this regard I want to mention a few figures. In 1977 there were 6 000 classrooms for Black children; in 1981 there were almost 29 000. This means that there are 4,5 times as many classrooms for the education of Black children. There is a story doing the rounds that the Blacks are suppressed by the Government. That story is doing the rounds abroad and it is also being told by the hon. member for Houghton, but according to the statistics this is obviously not true.

The hon. member for Houghton said there is insecurity among Black people. That is not true either. They know that under this Government they have more security than they have ever had before in the course of their history. One need only refer to the 99-year leasehold scheme in this regard.

We want to give every sector of the population, collectively and individually and including the Black people, the right to work out their own future and welfare and, if necessary, to create parallel institutions so that liaison with the homelands may also take place. In this entire set-up the legislation tabled last year in Parliament is playing a very important role. I am referring in particular to the Black Local Authorities Act. When the legislation was being discussed everyone without exception agreed that Black local authorities could have freehold.

No, that is not true. We voted against it. You can look it up in Hansard.

That may well be, but it is a fact that they either did not serve on the Select Committee or had nothing to say there. If they voted against it, then they have reversed the position they held when they were still part of the NP. [Interjections.]

I want to go further and say that we discussed the fact that there was a possibility for the urban Blacks to confer with their urban representatives. This has been written into the Act. It is an acknowledgement of ethnicity. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has a very sensitive department, and I do not think we thank him sufficiently for the work the department and its officials do. The fact of the matter is that the enemies of the country concentrate on the sensitive departments like the Department of Co-operation and Development, the Department of Defence, the Department of Law and Order. Certain hon. members, like them, who do that, play into the hands of our enemies.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria West must forgive me if I do not react directly to his speech, although obviously some of the facts he has mentioned will be reflected in what I have to say. I would just like to add our congratulations on the appointment of the hon. member for Innesdal to the Commission for Co-operation and Development. It is nice to know that open-minded people with a realistic approach are being put up into the first team to get involved with the real nitty-gritty of South Africa’s problems.

Yesterday in the House the hon. member for Kroonstad made an interesting remark when he tendered an apology on behalf of hon. members of the House for a remark made in respect of the Coloured people. I think that is a notable sort of approach or attitude which does that side of the House great credit. In respect of the motion by the hon. member for Innesdal the same sort of feeling really is due. Whilst he did not really debate the points involved in this motion he addressed himself largely to the hon. members of the CP—there was a certain amount of audacity, shall we say, or tongue-in-the-cheek, and one can almost think that he is leading the Government along in the right direction. How can one really agree with this motion when Government Ministers, in addressing meetings, refer to the fact that South Africa stands on the threshold of revolution unless certain changes are brought about? Where will the revolution take place, where is the greatest threat, but in the urban areas? This is the area where the friction points are and where the haves and the have-nots mentioned by the hon. member are to be found. The urban areas are the real boiler-rooms and fire-houses of politics where the real revolutionary possibility exists. That in itself speaks volumes for the real situation. Whilst the hon. member for Houghton has mentioned a great many changes that have come about, I must say that the most pertinent point she made was that of a lack of sense of urgency, almost a feeling that the Government, having convinced itself of urbanization and the great problem that it faces, and whilst looking at the mechanics, is a little paralyzed when it comes to putting them into action. The Government is not really quite certain that it is not going to go forward into an area which it is not going to be able to control.

Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville talked about “yesterday’s men”. Obviously the hon. member for Innesdal is “tomorrow’s man”. It is interesting to note, in respect of the political parties in the House, that when the Gregorian calendar was introduced to the world around 1582, Italy and Spain were the first to adopt it. Many years later, in 1752 or 1782, Great Britain introduced it and found that they had to catch up on 11 days. It was on 3 September of that year that they introduced the Gregorian calendar, and the people found that suddenly they had to leap into the 14th day. They walked around wondering whether the Government had swindled them by shortening their lives by 11 days. Interestingly enough, Turkey and Greece only introduced the Gregorian calendar in 1924—and I think that is similar to the CP’s problem. [Interjections.] Each of the 11 days, however, must be multiplied by three in order to give the number of years the NP has to catch up on, because there are 33 years to be made up. I say this because there is a great deal of discontent, frustration and in some quarters even hate that has been brought about by NP policy, something they have to make good, over and above the change in policy. It will need a sense of urgency and concerted action on their part to bring this about.

There is no question about the fact that South Africa’s most pressing challenge in the future will be the problem of urbanization. It is no longer the subject of debate. There have been so many research institutions going into it, and it is now a question of coming to grips with the problem. We welcome the appointment of the Cabinet Committee, but we feel that a commission involving the non-homeland Blacks themselves, so as to find out how they feel and think, is an absolute must. This is what must emerge from the appointment of the Cabinet Committee. Blacks themselves must serve on such a commission.

In the process of constitutional reform, the NRP is committed to consultation and negotiation between all those involved. One cannot bring about the necessary changes in regard to urban Blacks unless the Blacks themselves serve on that commission.

The motion of the hon. member is, in actual fact, a classic admission of the collapse of the grand apartheid ideology. Until now the NP’s thinking has been restricted to mechanisms for keeping Blacks out of the system. We argue that thinking should, however, intensify on the question of how to get Blacks into the system, not to dominate it, but to participate in a new democracy based on pluralism. Until now there has been no Goverment planning on the issue, indeed the reality, of Black permanence in so-called White South Africa, and there is irrefutable evidence to back that up, e.g. the lack of housing, the things that are happening in Guguletu, in KTC. What is happening in KTC is part of the urbanization process. It is on the go, and yet the mechanisms which are needed, which the Government is thinking about, are not being applied there. There is, I realize, the question of a shortage of funds, but at the same time we see the Land Bank being able to spend R500 000 on two flats. That simply does not make any sense. There seems to be no sense of urgency about the most pressing situation in the country, and no clear direction of approach. Whatever mechanisms the Government has already given substance to, they are not being applied adequately or urgently enough.

In its planning the NP is saying that it concedes that Blacks are here, but not as part of our system. We consequently get all sorts of funny ideas about city states, cantons and all sorts of other impractical things. There is indeed merit in the idea of a separate council for South African Blacks, and there is provision for this in legislation. It is a starting point, at least some point from which to negotiate and consult. We have no doubt that there must be real, effective powersharing with the non-homeland Blacks. I wonder if the hon. member would agree with that? As far as we are concerned, there must be real, effective power-sharing. The hon. member has already said that all groups must be represented in all institutions of government making laws affecting them. I think the hon. member said that. Who can deny, however, that everyone in South Africa is affected by laws passed in this Parliament, and this will continue to be the case under the Government’s proposed tricameral system. We therefore say that the only just system would be one with a fourth chamber or legislature for non-homeland Blacks. The Government, however, has a mental block on the question of political rights for non-homeland Blacks, something that permeates and paralyses its entire administration. It clings desperately to the concept that we can be politically cocooned away from Black politics, and this is an extremely dangerous conception. Black politics is a reality in South Africa, and to ignore this is to contribute to increased pressure for extra-parliamentary political activity, activism, increased polarization, the radicalization of trade unions and increased momentum for the ANC, because all the facts that are before us about Swapo and the ANC point to the fact that they have become radicalized as a result of the intransigence of the Government.

If the Government has a genuine desire to preserve the Western value systems of free enterprise and democracy in South Africa rather than to maintain White privilege and power, then our salvation lies in not excluding Blacks from the system but persuading as many Blacks as possible to support the system. Of course there are major differences in value systems, but this can be adequately catered for within the homeland context coupled with dynamic confederalism. That is not our real problem. The real problem is the challenge of economic realities of the future, increasing urbanization and increasing participation in a free enterprise economy in a modern industrialized work situation which will increasingly blur the tribal background. How can any sane person conceive of millions of people living within a system which they are not encouraged to support and in which they cannot participate in decisionmaking? Surely the converse makes sense. Surely they should be welcomed into a system of joint decision-making. We believe that the only really effective way in which this can be done is through a fourth chamber or an own legislature for Blacks outside of the homelands with full participation in decision-making concerning common affairs.

The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is credited with a very high IQ. He certainly does it no justice with his transparent argument that 10 chambers would be needed to accommodate non-homeland Blacks. During the no-confidence debate it was 13. It has come down to 10 and we look forward to the figure coming down even further, because really the whole structure of government in terms of the constitutional proposals of the Government from community-council level right up to regional or metropolitan level involves all those people in a single chamber. Yet, when one gets up to central government level, the Government has to fly off into space and start talking about 13 or 10 groups. It really does not make sense. We suggest that the one really important thing that the country is facing, around which the points I have made are so important, is the overriding need for a South African citizenship for all the people in this country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town must forgive me for not reacting to his arguments immediately. However, I intend referring to them later in my speech.

I do, in fact, want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton. She delivered a tremendous tirade concerning our housing situation. An integral part of her amendment also referred to housing. She submitted her amendment and then left the Chamber. She is not present at the moment, and in her absence I wish to say to her that in the formulation of her standpoints she did not consider for a moment the bitter fruits, in the form of unemployment and a housing crisis, which have resulted from the worldwide trends of urbanization, inflation and recession. This does not apply to South Africa alone, but to the whole world. I think that if she had considered this, she would have acted in a more responsible manner and she would not have used expressions such as “a crisis situation” and “a mental lapse” on the part of the Government.

She said that the planning had been absurd and that the Government was shirking its responsibility. Take the latter statement. Surely this is not true. Let us consider what the trend of urbanization has meant to the world, as well as to South Africa. When I refer to conditions world-wide, I do not do so out of malice. On the contrary, one is concerned about the fact that in Paris, Amsterdam and Hamburg squatter conditions have developed which the authorities simply cannot control. Conditions in Africa afford even more cause for concern. One thinks of Accra, Addis Ababa and other large cities where more than 50% of the urban population consists of squatters. This is followed by the other dire consequences of this urbanization process, i.e. the collapse of public services such as water supply, etc.

What does one find if one considers the Republic of South Africa itself? One finds that in point of fact we have a unique problem in respect of urbanization. Apart from the fact that the socio-economic position of our urban Blacks is much better than anywhere else in Africa, there is also enormous mining and industrial development. It is therefore obvious that the city lights, the opportunities of employment, would have a greater attraction for the Black man in South Africa than anywhere else in the world. I do not say this disparagingly. But recall, for example, what happened in England during the industrial revolution when almost the entire nation had to move to the cities overnight, as it were, and what a painful adjustment the urbanization process was for the British nation. One thinks of our own nation which, after the discovery of diamonds and gold and during the depression of the ’thirties, changed from a rural to an urban people. One thinks of what a painful adjustment this was. In the midst of all this the Government had to take the necessary steps not only to make the urbanization of the Black man as painless as possible, but also to overcome the bitter fruits of this process. And what is the Government doing? I should have liked the hon. member for Houghton to be present here, since the object of this speech is to inject a little more realism and responsibility into the contributions of the official Opposition in respect of the urbanization of the Black man.

What is the Government doing in respect of the essential measures needed with regard to the problems which have arisen for the urban Black man because of a too rapid and over-hasty urbanization process? Of course, this is not a process which is confined to the Black man in South Africa or man in Europe; it is a world-wide trend. Firstly, the Government had to clear up the bitter legacy which arose during, before, and shortly after the Second World War, viz. the teeming slum areas. Secondly, the Government had to see to it that in terms of its policy, the Black people in their national States, too, were the beneficiaries of urban development. Thirdly, the Government had to see to it that urban development also took place in the Black residential areas in South Africa. Fourthly, the Government had to see to it that an evolutionary process continued in respect of the ownership rights of the Black man in the cities. The hon. member for Houghton says that the Black man wants freehold; he does not want leasehold. I am pleased that the hon. member for Houghton has returned to the Chamber. This is a total denial of the true history of Africa. After 30 years in this Parliament that hon. member still does not know that in Africa there is really no such thing as freehold. There is a customary law which forms the basis of Black culture in Africa. Now she is rejecting the arrangement which arose as a result of an evolutionary process, viz. the leasehold system. She rejects it on behalf of the Black man, but she has no contact with the Black man. She therefore does not know what she is talking about. I shall tell hon. members with whom the hon. member does have contact. It is with the few radical Blacks in South Africa, but she has no contact with the true leaders, the chairmen of the community councils, those people who are trying to ensure that there is water in the taps and that there is electricity. That is why she has come forward with this foolish statement that the Black man does not want leasehold. She claims that they want freehold. This is completely contrary to the custom which has developed among the Black people over the centuries. The Government had to allow this evolutionary process to continue. Firstly, letting, then right of possession in respect of the dwelling itself, and then leasehold. It is extremely important to know that before one can house the urban Black man such that he is peaceful and content—this applies to any population group—one has to see to it that local affairs are properly ordered. That is why the Administration Boards, together with the department, have seen to the establishment of Community Councils. Eventually the Government came forward with this powerful and realistic policy of a total strategy with regard to housing for the Black man.

If we consider the consequences of these measures with regard to the Black man in our city, we find that firstly, the dreadful slum areas which arose before and shortly after the Second World War have been effectively cleared up. In essence, this is an achievement which almost achieved world renown—the clearing up of slum areas which arose during the war years. Secondly, we find that 86 towns have been established in the national States, and thousands of houses have been built at the enormous cost of R782 million. This was essential, and if we had not done so, what then? Assuming we had not done so if we had not created the opportunities for the Black man in the national States, what would have been the position in our White cities today? I believe that this step alone deserves the praise and gratitude of the entire community in South Africa. Thirdly, I wish to point out another important result, viz. the clearing up and development of the residential areas of the Black man in South Africa itself. According to the hon. member for Houghton, the Government has simply accepted that we are dealing here with an insoluble problem, that we had better adopt the laissez-faire policy of the official Opposition, that we should allow matters to take their own course and do nothing whatsoever. However, this is not how this Government acts. The result is that it has continued with the development of the Black man, in our urban complexes as well. What do we find now? We find that the most essential infrastructures have been provided in 312 residential areas and that 144 000 houses have been built in those residential areas.

If we consider these matters in the light of what I tried to indicate earlier, viz. the dire consequences of world-wide trends of urbanization, inflation and recession, viz. unemployment, a housing crisis, and a great deal more, these measures and their results become even more important, and we ought to show a great deal more appreciation for this.

However, the Government has gone further. In 1981 the S.A. Transport Services budgeted for an amount of R176 million to provide accommodation for its Black employees over the next five years. Nor was this all. At the same time, they tried to interest industry, the employer and the individual in South Africa in providing for and assisting in the provision of housing for the Black man in our cities. We have achieved tremendous results in this respect as well. Let us look at what has been done in mining with regard to the housing of Black people. During the last eight years before 1981, an amount of R350 million was spent. Since then, R36 million has been spent on the building of 1 000 family houses. Finally the Administration Boards, in co-operation with the department, came forward with self-build schemes. The hon. member for Houghton referred to these briefly. Of course, I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton really has any knowledge of the tremendous changes which have been brought about by the self-build schemes in South Africa. This system has already been instituted country-wide. It is already almost an export product since the results of our own self-build schemes indicate that the housing crisis in the rest of Africa can also be solved on the basis of such schemes.

In conclusion, I wish to summarize the entire matter by saying that all these measures are the result of a vigorous and special campaign with regard to our housing strategy, a campaign which is aimed at permanently solving the housing problems of the urban Black man over a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park suggested that the hon. member for Houghton was not correct when she suggested that urban Blacks would prefer freehold to leasehold, primarily because of their historic traditions. I would suggest that this is something that can be very easily tested and that is by offering them the alternative. Those who have those traditions will then choose leasehold and those who, as we believe, would prefer freehold, will in fact choose that.

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

No, there is no time.

Would you advocate that for kwaZulu?

Mr. Speaker, I plan to speak today about the Western Cape and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the motion placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Innesdal. I believe that nothing can illustrate the gulf between illusion and reality better than two contrasting events in Cape Town this week. We have a motion in Parliament today thanking the Government for positive planning and action in regard to urban Blacks. That is the illusion. We have had the shelters of more than 1 000 people at KTC squatter camp demolished this week, people who desperately need accommodation and who are trying to help themselves. That is a symptom of the reality. The reality here is that Government planning and action for Blacks in the Western Cape have been hopelessly inadequate and dangerously misguided.

Let us look at some of the main developments of this policy. In 1962 the Coloured and White labour preference area policy came into being and, despite the ruthless implementation of this policy, between 1970 and 1980 the population of Blacks in the Western Cape increased by 63%. From 1972 for a period of about eight years no Black family housing was provided at all. Not only was it not provided, but there was no freehold, there was no 99-year leasehold and there was no practical opportunity for the private sector to become involved.

One does not have to be a genius to realize what happened. An acute and massive shortage of housing developed. Only a fool blinded by racial prejudice or wearing ideological blinkers would not have foreseen the consequences. In 1983 the Chief Director of the administration board has estimated that there is a shortage of 6 000 houses. By the mid-seventies there were numerous Black squatter camps in the Cape Peninsula and the Government finally took note of the housing problem that had developed and decided to take action. They sent the bulldozers in.

A few years later, the present hon. Minister, Dr. Koornhof, was appointed and in 1979 he introduced a welcome note of sanity and humanity into the situation when, on 5 April, he announced the new deal for the people of Crossroads, something which justifiably earned him and his Government a great deal of goodwill.

It is now nearly four years since that new deal was announced and I feel it is appropriate that we review what is taking place. I say this because there is unfortunately a widespread belief among the Black community of Crossroads that there has been a serious breach of faith on the part of the Government in respect of that agreement.

I should like to take a look at that new deal. In this regard I want to quote from The Cape Times of 6 April which gives a verbatim account of this new deal. They refer first to the objectives and they quote from the statement of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in this connection. They say—

These are honourable sentiments, Mr. Speaker. The response of the Crossroads community was as follows—

In this regard the hon. the Minister said—

Crossroads then moved into the era of surveys to establish who had been there at the end of 1978. In his statement the hon. the Minister said—

There was a series of surveys and in the first of them in which the department was involved there were to be found about 23 500 people there, while subsequent surveys found another 5 000 or so.

The first problem arose here because temporary permits to stay in the Western Cape, pending the investigation of their cases, were not issued to all those people. The appeal committee as such was not set up, and the proposed appeal committee announced by the hon. the Minister at the end of last year in fact constitutes a breach of this agreement because there is no mention of an independent legal person on that committee.

The results of this are insecurity among large numbers of people in Crossroads, and disputes of course persist about who should and who should not be on lists. Frustration and dissatisfaction mount because we are talking about something which has now been going on for four years. Harassment outside of Crossroads continues because if people who do not have these permits go away on holiday or go to visit a friend, they are often accosted and arrested. It is difficult to obtain or retain employment for those without these permits because employers are not prepared to go to the trouble to phone in order to find out whether a particular individual is allowed or not allowed to be there if his pass does not say so.

The next quote which I should like to mention is the one in which the hon. the Minister said, in April 1979—

A period of four years has passed, but I regret to say that the situation is getting worse; not better. Let us look at housing. The hon. the Minister said—

In September 1979 the hon. the Minister was reported as saying—

The facts are that about 1 700 houses were completed by mid-1982, and phase 2 has been shelved.

What has happened a a result of this? We have lodgers who are homeless. The population has grown over these years. At a rate of 2,7% it would have grown naturally by 3 500 extra people. Lodgers have been thrown out for various reasons from both New Crossroads and the shacks they were sharing: Sometimes because the family has grown and there were too many people, sometimes because of personal disputes and sometimes because owners, who thought it was a temporary arrangement, have become weary of it and said that the lodgers could not stay any longer. In the case of New Crossroads, some people claim that as regards lodgers their houses are too small to accommodate them as well as their own family.

In December last year 32 lodgers’ shacks were demolished. The Chief Commissioner said there was an agreement with the hon. the Minister that no new shacks were to be erected in Crossroads. This is an agreement which goes back four years. The Chief Director said that extensions could be built to existing huts, but the hon. the Minister himself said in March 1980—

People do not want extensions—the space available is inadequate—and if they do extend, they increase fire and health hazards.

But in the meantime we have taken lots of people away to New Crossroads, have we not?

The 1979 vision was to have no Old Crossroads squatter camp, to have cleared that squatter camp, to have a contented community in New Crossroads, to have a humane solution that would earn deserved goodwill. It was an honourable vision, but unfortunately the 1983 reality is that the problem is as big as ever, and in many respects bigger. In many respects the vision has changed into a nightmare, and it is about time the Government face up to it and stop running away from it.

If one looks at an adjacent community, the Nyanga dune squatters, one will recall that we had all the problems in 1981 of a noname camp, people being bussed out and incidents of all sorts. Early last year we had the cathedral fasters. They saw the Minister and on 1 April he said in relation to them that the matter would be dealt with on merit within the following three weeks. A month later, on 4 May, an official said that the decision would be within the next day or two.

What year was that?

1982. On 10 May last year the same official said that it would probably be decided that week. Then there was a June deadline, then there was the big 20 September deadline and now there is no deadline whatsoever.

The 900 or so people living in the Nyanga dunes are living in appalling conditions.

They are living in tents and plastic domeshaped shelters. There is sand everywhere, including in many children’s eyes. If one goes to look for oneself, one sees the state of some of the small children’s eyes. Some 300 of those people have had no toilets for eight months or more, and this is something which was going to be sorted out in three weeks.

I wish particularly to refer to the whole group of people who are legally here in terms of the Government’s current dispensation but are without permits. There are about 6 000 of these people who are desperate. They have had bland assurances that they will not be arrested and that they can get jobs, but no documents are given to them. Arrests, fines, harassment, unemployment, ill health, malnutrition, insecurity and a bitter distrust of the Government are some of the results.

What has become of the hon. the Minister’s promises? In 10 months, as far as the Nyanga dune squatters are concerned, there is not one case among the 900 dune squatters of a squatter having been given a permit on merit. I find it difficult to believe that in 10 months the authorities have not been able to find one case where they could give permission to a squatter to stay on merit. I regret to say that all the evidence points to broken promises on a grand scale and a deliberate war of attrition waged by the Government on these defenceless people.

Some years back some other Minister once made a comment to the effect that we should not make Black urban townships too pleasant for Blacks because they would then all want to come and five there and not go back to their homelands. I regret to say I think this is exactly what is being done with regard to these people in the Western Cape. The Government hopes that harassment, insecurity, unemployment and plain human misery will wear these people down and drive them away. I say it is inhumane, unjust and dangerous and I call upon the hon. the Minister to take action immediately to improve the situation.

We need certain things and they can be done fast. We need temporary residence permits to be given to all those whose cases are still under consideration so that they can live with a vestige of security, even if it is only for a limited period. Secondly, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, we need siteand-service camps to be established immediately to relieve the plight of those who are homeless, living in tents or in grossly overcrowded accommodation. Thirdly, we need a re-negotiation of the April 1979 Crossroads agreement with the community themselves in the light of the changed circumstances, and in particular the setting up of an acceptable appeal committee. We also need an abandoning of the Coloured and White labour preference area policy which has been discredited and is supported by fewer and fewer people. Finally, we need more land to be set aside for low-income emergency housing and the encouragement of the informal sector here in the Western Cape and elsehwere.

Squatting in itself is not the problem. Squatting is an emergency solution to a housing problem, a problem in the Western Cape caused primarily by Government policy and inaction over the last 20 years. I do not pretend that squatting is glamorous, nor do the squatters. Few people would choose the life of hardship and inconvenience associated with squatting. However, one must salute those who make valiant attempts to provide for themselves under desperately difficult circumstances. They are not asking for hand-outs. They ask only for a chance to fend for themselves. I appeal to the hon. the Minister, in the name of human decency and for the peace of our land, to please give them that chance.

Mr. Speaker, I have crossed swords with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens before, and I want to tell him right at the outset that he is the last man in this House who should make an appeal to me. At the same time, I want to tell the Black people outside that those of them who use him as a spokesman, who send him to me, have lost their case even before they start, for wherever that hon. member goes, he bedevils good relationships. [Interjections.] That is the first thing I want to tell him, and I shall leave that aspect at that.

The second thing I want to tell that hon. member straight away is that I take the strongest exception to certain allegations which he has made in this House this afternoon, but his speech is only for foreign consumption and is in no way intended to solve a problem which is a real, difficult, and extremely thorny one. I deny most emphatically that there has been any breach of faith— as he called it—in respect of this whole matter, on my part or on the part of the Government. He can raise this during the discussion of my Vote, and if I have time, I should like to debate the matter with him. I shall bring him the proof. However, I do not want to put the other side of the matter in this debate. We shall have the time and the opportunity to do so in due course.

There is something else I should like to tell that hon. member, and I hope he can find room for this somewhere in his mind. The hallmark of good government throughout the ages has been the maintenance of proper order. Accordingly, this Government does not intend to abandon that, either in the Cape Peninsula or anywhere else in the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] This is something which that hon. member must clearly understand. He gets up in this House time and again and acts as a spokesman to condone disorder and to help create it.

Nonsense.

He must stop that, and it is not nonsense. It is the truth. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton also knows what evils they have been responsible for during the past two days. She knows.

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense, and I can prove that. [Interjections.] I want to say, too, that this Government does not intend—nor do I—to allow another uncontrolled squatter town such as Crossroads to come into being in the Cape Peninsula. [Interjections.] We have done everything in our power to find solutions to that, but as a result of a multiplicity of difficulties and problems, it is very difficult. However, we will certainly ensure that such a state of affairs does not arise.

It has already been decided to provide rudimentary services in order to make 2 500 sites available at the KTC area, as well as an adjoining area, and this will be implemented as soon as possible. When the sites have been provided with the necessary services, a self-help building scheme will be introduced, under supervision. [Interjections.]

When is that?

I said as soon as possible, and by that I mean as soon as possible. A decision has been taken in this connection, and it well be implemented as soon as possible. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member did something here this afternoon to which I take the strongest exception. She said the Administration Boards were attacked because they were symbols, but symbols to whom? The ANC. She is acting as a spokesman for the ANC in this House this afternoon … [Interjections.] No one in this House knows that better than I, because it so happens that the first office I worked in on my return from Oxford in 1951 was a Community Council building—which simply had a different name in those days—at Botchabella in Bloemfontein.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I may be wrong but I rather got the impression that the hon. the Minister said, in so many words, that the hon. member for Houghton was the spokesman for the ANC.

I said that she acted as a spokesman for the ANC on this occasion.

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

Then I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that these Community Council offices—and I started working there as a young man 34 years ago, it just so happens in the very same place where this bomb exploded—are not symbols to the ANC.

*Those places are places of upliftment where a service is provided to the Black public by Blacks and Whites. That is what they are. The hon. member comes along and depicts them as symbols of oppression to the Black people. I want to say this afternoon that I hope the country will take cognizance of the baseness which is being evinced here, on the part of the Opposition, in the first place, but, in the second place, on the part of the ANC, which today attacks and causes loss of life among innocent Black people, members of the Black public—I am proud to say that they are my friends in the place where I grew up and where I started out in my job. Eighteen were seriously injured and at this moment, while I am standing in this House, three are fighting for their lives in the hospital there, I find this deeply upsetting. The ANC is responsible for that kind of attack on the innocent Black public here in the Republic of South Africa at places where services are provided for the Blacks and where they are uplifted.

Why?

I want to make an urgent appeal to the Black communities to come forward and to render all possible assistance to the security services so that we may eradicate the abominable evil which has been let loose upon innocent Black people in South Africa. I want to convey my sincerest condolences to the Black people who are fighting for their lives, their next-of-kin and also all who were involved in this extremely unfortunate incident.

I hope this will be a turning point. If the official Opposition wants to go on with that game of theirs, they are perfectly entitled to do so, but the rest of this House—and I hope I can include the CP when I say this— does not intend to play this game. I hope this will be a turning-point to unite White and Black as friends in this country, to fight and to conquer a common enemy.

Then remove the causes that make this happen.

I hope this will be the end of the attitude which the hon. member is adopting in this connection.

We are dealing with a serious subject. It has been stated that the man who rows the boat generally does not have the time to rock it. I am surprised that there are people who believe that they have time to rock the boat so violently with regard to extremely important matters in this country. We who have to do the rowing, on the other hand, only see an enormous task before us, which can be solved, but not by the means employed by some hon. members of the Opposition this afternoon.

Whie I am on the subject of the Opposition—I have already dealt with the official Opposition—I want to come to the CP as well. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that I have always regarded him as a man of political integrity. I really used to like that hon. member. He knows that we hunted together and sat around the campfire together, etc.

That was a big mistake.

It is always said of me that when I open my mouth, I make a promise. We have heard that again this afternoon from an hon. member opposite. However, the hon. member for Pietersburg made a promise to his voters in his constituency and that promise was that if the Minister of Manpower resigned, so would he.

No, that is wrong.

Of course! He can square it with his own conscience. [Interjections.] Now he says it is five months later. That is the only answer I have heard the hon. member give. [Interjections.] I have said that the hon. member should square it with his own conscience. If it is a fact that he said he would vacate his seat if the Minister of Manpower resigned, and his reply now is to ignore me when I ask him about this in a friendly spirit, as I did this afternoon, and since he now confronts me with the fact that five months have elapsed since then, I want to tell him—and I say this with great respect—that there will be a cloud hanging over his political integrity in this House as long as he remains here. [Interjections.]

Stop making personal attacks.

The fact is … [Interjections.] When one hits a cat on a sore spot, it screams, and that is why the hon. members opposite are screaming now. They can go on screaming if they like. [Interjections.]

Have you ever heard of a polecat?

I called that hon. member “goor Daan” the other day, and I meant it.

You resign, then he will too. [Interjections.]

But I have not changed parties. I did not cause a split. I did not start it. I made no promise in this connection. [Interjections.] I should like to go on talking politics, but I have to make a speech which is important. The question which is under consideration here is a serious one, and I want to address my remarks to the CP in particular. What are the inescapable facts surrounding Black urbanization in South Africa? I want to state five facts. Firstly, the urbanization of the Black population is the most important socio-economic, and possibly also political, phenomenon in South Africa. Secondly, urban Blacks constitute almost 50%—48,9% in 1980—of the total urban population of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

I am glad that the hon. member is willing to face up to the facts sometimes. The hon. member is the first Prog I have come across who is prepared to do that. [Interjections.] The third fact we have to take into consideration—here I am addressing my remarks specifically to the CP—is that the percentage of the total urban population of the Republic of South Africa represented by urban Blacks increased from 29% in 1904 to 48,8% in 1980. Hon. members can work out how many governments there were during that time. It is an inescapable fact. Fourthly, during the same period, the proportion of the Whites declined from 49% to 30%. That is another inescapable fact.

The fifth inescapable fact is that the Rome Declaration on Population and the Urban Future, 1980, found that during the next two decades, the world is going to experience the most radical changes ever in social life, as a result of the process of urbanization, together with the population explosion and other factors.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, Helen, dammit! Cut it out! [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that in advance. [Interjections.] But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that a contentious woman is like water dripping on a roof. That was what Solomon said, [interjections.] Really and truly, if the hon. member for Houghton had been my wife, I would have taken poison. [Interjections.]

And if you had been her husband, she would have taken the poison. [Interjections.]

But, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

South Africa, too, must therefore prepare to deal with this problem over the next 15 to 20 years in particular. Hence the motion of the hon. member for Innesdal, containing three operative words, i.e. planning, action and development. Those words are well chosen. We are dealing here with a colossal problem, a worldwide problem. The Government realizes that, and it is with a sense of pride that I am able to indicate to hon. members the initiatives which the Government is taking in this respect because we realize how important it is. The question is, however, whether our people realize it, whether the nation outside realizes it. In particular, the question is whether our young people realize it. This is a problem which is unavoidable, and our future will be determined by the way it is handled. The first requirement is that young people should become knowledgeable about this, and that the matter should be much better researched. I have consulted some reference books for information about the subjects, in social and cultural anthropology which have been the subjects of research at our South African universities. In recent years, urban studies have accounted for only 21% of the research in this sphere at our South African universities. There have been relatively few in-depth studies on the urban Blacks lately. Here I am thinking, for example, of studies such as that of Hellmann and Rooiyard, a study which I studied 30 or 35 years ago. Another study which occurs to me is the one by Mayer, which appeared in 1961, and which I also read. Then there is Pauw’s study, which appeared in 1963, as well as studies by Reader, 1961, and Wilson and Mafeje, both in 1963. In subsequent years—and this worries me—few studies on urban Blacks have been published.

Most of the studies are macro studies, and based on census data, which are not always reliable, or which are based on a few random samples. As far as I am concerned, it is disquieting that so few in-depth empirical studies have been undertaken up to now, and that our understanding of, for example, the tempo of urbanization, the aspirations, perceptions, preferences and so on of the urban Blacks, is sometimes so very inadequate. A well-informed people survives. An badly informed people is lost. The mere magnitude of the process of urbanization requires large-scale planning to be done every day. The hon. member for Innesdal, who moved this motion, is a person who studies these matters. That is why he has moved a very well-considered motion here today, a motion with three strong operative words— planning, action and development.

A lack of Black town and regional planners, for example, as well as the fact that the real Black leaders are not easily identified, or refuse to participate in the planning processes, and the fact that the Black population is often used as a political football, make meaningful planning even more difficult. I want to make an urgent request to hon. members opposite to refrain fom doing this. Although information about the physical aspects of the process of urbanization is fairly readily available, we have little information concerning behaviour or social aspects, such as we had in the days of Friedman and others. With a view to meaningful planning, the course and the tempo of urbanization, and its changing patterns of behaviour, must continue to receive priority.

Without expert research and knowledge, positive planning, action and development are bound to be iandequate. Therefore I urge that more research be done.

Now I want to say something in a personal vein, and I say it with gratitude and also with a measure of pride. I hope that hon. members will allow me to do so, and will forgive me if they do not like it. I myself have so long been aware of the seriousness of this accelerating process of urbanization that my only two sons are both doing advanced research into the subject. That is because I impressed upon them that if they wanted to make a positive contribution in this respect, they should try to do so with regard to the greatest problem they would be faced with during their lifetimes. I say this with gratitude, and I also state it as a fact, because it worries me that our young people and our nation do not fully realize the magnitude of this problem which we are grappling with; the problem which the Government is grappling with, as I shall try to indicate now by stating a few facts.

The total number of urban Blacks in the White urban areas in 1980 was 5 324 300, of whom 2 932 020 were men and 2 392 280 were women. So there were only 539 740 fewer women than men in the urban areas. Even in the South Western Cape, in spite of the Government’s preference policy with regard to Whites and Coloureds and in spite of the best influx control measures, the number has increased so rapidly that here in the Western Cape there were only 37% fewer women than men in 1980.

I am talking now about unavoidable things. Hon. members opposite can talk and do whatever they like; we are dealing here with a colossal problem and we must handle it with responsibility. I make this appeal with all my heart this afternoon, for the sake of their children and mine. In South Africa, the men/women ratio in urban areas has increased from 4,4:1 in 1911 to 2:1 in 1936, to 1,4:1 in 1970 and 1,3:1 in 1980. I mention these figures because they should indicate to hon. members opposite that there is no point in accusing a Government, any Government. We have had many Governments in this country since 1911. Therefore it will serve no purpose for them to accuse me and to denounce me as this or that kind of Minister. I am utterly determined to make my contribution to the best of my ability, no matter how modest and inadequate it may be, and no one needs to tell me how modest and inadequate it is. However, we are dealing with a problem, and I can assure hon. members that I am motivated and inspired by what is precious and noble in my people. This no one can deprive me of.

Estimates show that within the next 15 years, towards the end of the century, we shall have to deal with about 15 million additional Black people in the urban areas, whatever we do. I wish to state most emphatically this afternoon that we must understand quite clearly that we shall not be able to manage without strict influx control in this country—I have the proof of this here, and if I had had the time, I would have demonstrated it to hon. members—because we have had an under-urbanization of Blacks, due to stringent influx control measures. As I have already tried to indicate, however, even with the strictest measures we are still going to be faced with increasing Black urbanization.

What has the Government done about this? The Government has taken initiatives which I want to spell out to hon. members briefly. In the first place, it has required an urbanization strategy to be designed so that guidelines could be laid down for dealing with this problem effectively. All interested parties have been involved. Secondly, the Government has enlarged the Commission for Co-operation and Development by the addition of six members of Parliament to scrutinize the matter. Thirdly, after I had appointed the Viljoen Committee, a new housing strategy was announced, and I wish I had time to elaborate on this. Fourthly, after the appointment of the Riekert Commission, the Government decided to bring about a new dispensation for the Blacks outside the national States by means of a trilogy of laws, the first of which is already on the Statute Book. So that leg is firmly established. The other two pieces of legislation are now before a Select Committee, and they will definitely be passed.

I also wanted to say a little more about the question of local authorities, but I do want to tell hon. members that it is very definitely not far-fetched to say that we shall be able to satisfy the aspirations of the Blacks at the local government level for quite some time if we approach the matter correctly. If we bring new initiatives to bear on this problem, therefore, as we are in fact doing, we can convert this problem into a triumph in the interests of all our people in the Republic of South Africa. I have figures here which I could mention to hon. members to indicate the splendid actions that have been launched by this National Government. Another important initiative was the launching of the programme of decentralization and deconcentration, in terms of which 396 applications for concession aid were approved within only six months. The initiative in the field of education and training is very important. When we had a gold bonanza, where did most of it go? It was used to deal with this problem, i.e. Black education. 38% was spent on this, and what a good investment it was.

The most important initiative which the National Government has taken with regard to this problem in my lifetime, was the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister two weeks ago in this Parliament—an announcement which I called epoch-making— when he initiated a process by appointing a Cabinet Committee to address this problem.

In conclusion, I wish to convey my heartfelt thanks to a young, energetic hon. member who reflects on these matters and who makes an intensive study of them, the hon. member for Innesdal. I want to thank him for this motion and I congratulate him very sincerely on his well-deserved nomination as a member of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. I also want to express the hope that this debate may have encouraged our people to address this problem and to resolve it, as we have very successfully resolved other problems in this country under the National Government in my lifetime.

Business interrupted in terms of Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.