Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, during yesterday’s debate there was considerable kite-flying by Opposition parties concerning courses which the NP had allegedly offered. I wish to refer to this briefly before I come to the essence of what I should like to deal with this afternoon.

These courses were arranged for the MPs and the MPCs of the NP in the Transvaal on the one hand, and for the party workers of the NP on the other. I can understand hon. members of the Opposition parties feeling nervous about this, since this is proof of the new spirit of purposefulness which has taken root in the Transvaal NP.

Purposeful despondency! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bryanston must shut his mouth; I do not like his tonsils.

The Opposition is feeling the brunt of new preparedness in the Transvaal, but those who wish to see something sinister in these courses, are searching in vain. I can understand the CP being suspicious. When people such as hon. members of that party are accustomed to hatching sinister plans in dark corners and at secret meetings, then of course one is alarmed when one hears about closed doors and a closed meeting. If one is accustomed to discussing and plotting political character assassination, hijackings and undermining of leaders in secret, then one prefers an unorganized and unprepared opponent. Then one becomes afraid if the opponents prepare themselves and increase their effectiveness through training.

The training seminars for MPs and MPCs were purely aimed at increasing effectiveness and the mastering of modern communication techniques.

Were they ineffective previously, then?

They were not political training seminars in respect of political policy and principles. The NP representatives in the Transvaal and all the other provinces know their politics and they certainly do not need a Koos Roelofse to give them insight into this country’s problems. [Interjections.] I shall refrain from discussing Koos Roelofse’s Press statement; I just wish to say that it was unprofessional and arrogant. There was no brainwashing at these courses; the erstwhile brainwashed members of the NP are now sitting in the CP benches.

As far as Dr. Willem de Klerk’s course is concerned, it was a course for party workers aimed at training those workers to open the eyes of voters who have been confused by distorted CP and HNP propaganda. It was aimed at enabling those workers to reassure confused voters who were uncertain because of having been misled by the CP, and at bringing home to them the futility and the dangers of the lack of realism of the CP and the HNP. It was aimed at enabling our party workers to guide voters by using irrefutable arguments, to see for themselves that the salvation of the Whites and, together with them, of all the other inhabitants of South Africa, lies in the balance of the NP and is being threatened by the strong-arm tactics of the CP. There were more than 1 500 workers at that course, and, cheering, they gave Dr. De Klerk a standing ovation lasting a number of minutes after his hour-long speech.

Brainwashing! [Interjections.]

The document which was so freely bandied about, is neither an NP pamphlet nor an NP manual. It is the framework of Dr. De Klerk’s speech in his own words and in his characteristic and stimulating style.

I wish to say to the PFP that they must not feel neglected, because the following course we are planning, will be aimed at training workers to show the Prog supporters how dangerous the party is to which they belong. We are still going to deal with them. [Interjections.] When Dr. Treurnicht was still the NP leader of the Transvaal, we held grievance conferences. The NP of 1982 and 1983 holds solution-orientated action conferences.

The NP does not apologize for taking the realities of South Africa as the point of departure in this course. The hon. member for Yeoville had great difficulty with the fact that at this course we said that there were dangers in South Africa.

No, not at all.

Sir, I have already listened to the hon. member. It is nothing new for the NP to warn people about the pressing circumstances that prevail in South Africa. Surely it is nothing new for us to warn people against the potential for conflict in South Africa. It is nothing new for the NP to say that confrontation would be unavoidable were the PFP or the CP/HNP ever to come to power. Nor is it anything new for us to expose the impracticability of the policies of the Opposition in view of the realities.

You are making people despondent.

… the naivety of the PFP and the CP is making everyone despondent. It is the essence of Dr. De Klerk’s message …

Despondency.

… that the threadbare theoretical solutions of the Opposition parties cannot work.

What did hon. members neglect to mention when they referred to that document? They neglected to mention the positive message in which the NP says to everyone in this country: “Take courage … [Interjections.]; there are, in fact, answers to the vexed questions of our country.”

On what page does it say that?

I attended the course. That hon. member did not. [Interjections.] The answers to these vexed questions lie in the realistic idealism of the NP. They are answers that take reality into account. That course projected a spirit of: “Take courage, for the policy of self-determination and cooperation of the NP, the NP’s policy of separate power bases on an ethnic and group basis and of machinery for co-operation …

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

No, Sir. I do not wish to reply to a question.

I should just like to know on what page … [Interjections.]

It is on a secret page.

The NP’s message of separate power bases on an ethnic and a group basis and of machinery for co-operation provides the key to lasting security, lasting freedom and lasting prosperity. Hon. members are making a great fuss about a so-called despondency. However, the result of this course will be more courageous Nationalists and fewer confused and misled CPs and Progs.

I now wish to come to the crux of yesterday’s debate. Both the Progs and the CP alleged that the NP was divided and that it was blowing hot and cold. Consequently the Opposition parties, the CP and the Progs, seemed to be joining forces to prejudice the NP’s credibility. I accept that challenge. Let us talk about the credibility of all the political parties; not only the NP’s credibility, but also the credibility of the CP and the PFP. I shall apply two tests in order to assess a party’s credibility. The first is the test of the political stability, honesty and reliability of its leaders. The second test is the honesty with which a party reflects the standpoints of others and of its opponents in debates and in propaganda. It seems to me as though hon. members accept that these are fair tests.

I wish to commence by testing the CP in the light of these two norms. Yesterday the hon. member for Lichtenburg proudly announced that he, the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Sunnyside and Dr. Treurnicht had advocated the idea of a Coloured homeland from as far back as 1970.

And the hon. member for Pretoria Central.

The hon. member for Rissik admitted that. In fact, he said that he had supported the idea of a homeland from as far back as 1958. He also admitted that to be an advocate of a homeland, meant that one differed fundamentally from the NP in principle. Whereas they proudly state that Dr. Treurnicht, had and their shadow leader, advocated a Coloured homeland from 1970, Dr. Treurnicht had put his signature to a programme of action in which it was stated that—

Nor did he merely put his signature to that document. After he had already founded the CP; he repeated it in this House, and I quote from col. 4098 of Hansard of Thursday, 1 April 1982. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs asked him—

Then he read the statement I have just quoted to hon. members. Then Dr. A. P. Treurnicht replied—

[Interjections.] Despite the fact that they say that they advocate a Coloured homeland, for five years after 1977 Dr. Treurnicht, the hon. member for Lichtenburg, the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Sunnyside have been defending co-responsibility among Coloureds, Indians and Whites as an alternative to a homeland policy.

But not power-sharing. [Interjections.]

Despite the fact that apparently they have always championed the side of a Coloured homeland, they remained in the NP even though they differed in principle from the NP concerning this cardinal question, a fundamental question. Moreover, to my knowledge neither Dr. Treurnicht nor any of the hon. members I have mentioned ever stated in the caucus, in the executive, at the party congress or in public that they were in favour of a homeland. One possible explanation is that they have always been advocates of a homeland, but that they have kept silent about it. I think that is the most probable, and I say this in the light of information given to me by a former chairman of the student council of Tukkies, a person by the name of Fismer. I think it was the hon. member for Rissik who took a number of students to Dr. Treurnicht because the students were concerned that the NP was moving too rapidly. They were afraid that the NP could perhaps go too far and become too liberal. One of these students asked Dr. Treurnicht what they should do because they were concerned about the NP. Dr. Treurnicht’s reply was, and I am saying this in the light of what Mr. Fismer told me—I say this here with his permission—that if a man wishes to stop a train, he does not go and stand on the railway lines in front of the train, since it would run him down. What one has to do, is to run next to the train, to jump onto the running board and to see if one cannot take over the locomotive. Sir, is that not what Dr. Treurnicht tried to do in the NP from 1969 to 1982? There was a time when I defended him against such allegations, but meanwhile I have become convinced that this is, in fact, what he was doing.

However, there is another possibility, and that is that at first, Dr. Treurnicht and his companions were advocates of a homeland but that for a number of years they believed that such a homeland could not work. They still believed that until six months after the founding of the CP. Then suddenly, without anything having happened, they had a revelation and all of a sudden decided that they had been correct in 1970 and that now, in 1983, a homeland had suddenly become feasible again. Hon. members can choose for themselves between these two possibilities as to where the supporters of a homeland stood at the time when they said that they did not advocate a homeland.

Daan, how does a tortoise get onto a train?

Sir, the question is whether the leaders of such a party, leaders who tread such a course, are the leaders of a credible party. If we examine the political stability of Dr. Treurnicht in the light of his association with the HNP we make another discovery. He and the hon. member for Rissik were so close to the HNP in 1969, that Mr. Jaap Marais has still not forgiven them for changing their minds at the last minute. At the last minute they flinched from breaking away and fighting with the HNP against the standpoints of the NP. What did Dr. Treurnicht do then? For 12 to 13 years he was an ardent fighter against the HNP, and less than a year after he walked out of the NP—take note, he was not kicked out; he walked out—not only did he adopt the policy of the HNP, but according to the Natal Mercury of 7 March, he said the following—

That is Dr. Andries Treurnicht—

In addition the Burger of 8 February, carries the following verbatim report—

Judged by the norms of political stability, political integrity and political reliability, Dr. Andries Treurnicht and his party stand stripped of all dignity.

We shall see. [Interjections.]

In contrast, as far as political stability, honour and reliability are concerned, the NP proudly places its supreme leader on the other end of the scale. [Interjections.] From 1948 until the present, he has always followed one straight course. [Interjections.] Such a party, led by leaders such as these, has credibility. We do not chop and change and turn our backs on what we have put our signatures to.

Let us now apply the second test. Let us ask how honest the CP and the PFP are in their presentation of the NP’s policy. Let us test whether they give an honest presentation of what the NP’s policy really is, or whether they put forward misrepresentations.

If you yourselves do not know what your policy is, how should we know? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had proof of how each of these two parties distorts the policy of the NP. I now wish to prove this. The PFP says that the NP is shying away from reform as a result of the forthcoming by-elections. That is their charge against us. The CP says that the NP is in the process of destroying White sovereignty and that it is going too far with reform. According to them, the NP is effecting significant reform, and therefore it is a threat to the Whites. Both these parties are telling an untruth. In fact, I shall prove it.

However, before I do so, I wish to ask the hon. member for Lichtenburg in his absence—one of the other hon. members of the CP can reply on his behalf if they wish—why that hon. member is telling a blatant untruth about the NP, in Soutpansberg for example. Mr. Speaker, I wish to give an example of this. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said—and I can prove it—that in the new dispensation the Progs, the Coloureds and the Indians will be able to join forces against a White majority party, like the NP, in order to elect a Black President. Mr. Speaker, that is a blatant untruth. [Interjections.] That is a blatant untruth, for two reasons. The first reason is that they will not be able to unite because the representatives of both the House of Assembly and the other two chambers—as well as that of the House of Assembly will be chosen by majority vote.

So there will be no Progs, and old Jan van Zyl will not be there either. [Interjections.]

Therefore there will be no Progs if the NP constitutes the majority in the electoral college. Therefore the hon. member for Lichtenburg is telling a blatant untruth. [Interjections.] The second reason is that in terms of the proposals of the NP a Black man cannot become President of the Republic of South Africa.

Could a Coloured become President of the Republic? [Interjections.]

Yes. The hon. member for Rissik was quite satisfied with that in the past. He was satisfied with that from 1977. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from hon. members of the CP why they are misleading their voters by pretending that the problem of the Coloureds and the Black people are alike. Yesterday the hon. member for Lichtenburg told us that if our policy could work for kwaZulu, he wanted to know why we could not apply the policy in respect of kwaZulu to the Coloureds. To demonstrate how misleading their actions are, I wish to point out what Dr. Treurnicht himself put his signature to, and I am advancing this as the first reason. I am doing so, since he did not only say that a homeland could not work. His endorsement of this included the reason why he thought a homeland could not work. [Interjections.] And what was that reason? That reason was: Because the Whites, Coloureds and Indians historically shared the same geographic area. He endorsed that. [Interjections.] I just wish to refresh the memory of those hon. members a little.

But that was not all he said.

Why did he break away from the NP? Because Dr. Grobler wrote that in Nat ’80s. [Interjections.] Oh yes! However, I also wish to mention a second reason why, for example, it is misleading to compare the position of the Zulus with that of the Coloureds. The legal position of the Coloureds differ dramatically from that of the Black people. The Coloureds have full freehold rights throughout the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] After all, influx control does not apply to the movements of Coloureds to urban areas. [Interjections.] Is it the standpoint of the CP that Blacks should also have full freehold rights in White areas?

Of course not.

Why not? Shall I tell those hon. members why not? Because they argue that that is related to citizenship and the franchise. However, the Coloureds have always had full freehold rights in the White areas.

But not full rights of citizenship.

They have never had their own homeland. [Interjections.]

I reiterate: But not full rights of citizenship.

At one stage they had full rights of citizenship.

In which province?

No, Sir. The implication of their proposal…

You do not know your history.

… is that the long established right of the Coloureds to full freehold rights in South Africa, should be taken away from them. [Interjections.] Then they are also so naïve as to argue that once they have done that, there will still be a significant percentage of Coloureds who will want to purchase their homeland in the desert. [Interjections.] One cannot even speak of credibility with such a party. One can only hang one’s head in shame that, in the name of Christianity and in the name of Afrikanership, the CP has launched a plan which I would describe as the greatest political confidence trick which has ever been seen in South Africa. [Interjections.] Does this sound like a credible party? Both the PFP and the CP are engaged in a political confidence trick concerning the question of what the NP is and what it really stands for.

What does the PFP say? They say that our proposals for a new dispensation—I am speaking about White, Brown and Asian—do not constitute real reform. Those hon. members are saying that all the meaningful rights and opportunities we are proposing and offering the Coloureds, are meaningless, that the right to a joint say in matters of common concern does not constitute meaningful reform.

What are those matters of common concern?

Phone McHenry about that. [Interjections.]

What does the CP say? Hon. members of the CP say that this same joint say with regard to matters of common concern that we wish to give the Coloureds, constitutes such major reform that it is endangering the safety, security and self-determination of the Whites. [Interjections.] They are therefore dismissing the PFP’s criticism as meaningless and they are saying that the PFP are not telling the truth about the NP, because they say that what we are doing is so drastic as to destroy the security of the Whites. That is how dangerous it is!

Therefore someone must be lying. [Interjections.]

The PFP says that this is worthless. In constrast, the CP says that the protection and the maintenance of the established White rights as incorporated in the NP’s proposals, are meaningless. They say that the right of this House of Assembly to have the sole legislative power in respect of important group-specific affairs, that all the group-specific structures …

What are group-specific affairs?

Wait until the constitution has been published. They say that all the group-specific structures which are created solely for White self-determination, are meaningless. Precisely what the PFP labels as excessive entrenchment of the rights of Whites, the CP dismisses as White suicide. Both the CP and the PFP are guilty of gross and deliberate misrepresentation. [Interjections.] The truth is that NP policy involves a reasonable synthesis of the preservation of the rights of the Whites on the one hand, and the creation of political rights for Coloureds and Asians on the other. When the NP emphasizes to voters who have been confused by the CP that the NP really is looking after the interests of the Whites, that is not a renouncement of reform, since it is our policy …

I regret that the hon. the Minister’s time has expired.

Actually I am sorry about that since I think I am entitled to a little injury time. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we in this House know the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs as an effective debater.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to address himself to the Chair and to ask whether provincial leaders are permitted more time?

Did the hon. member for Bryanston say that?

I asked the question whether provincial leaders …

What was the implication thereof?

I merely put the question.

The hon. member must apologize to the Chair.

I apologize, Sir, but I asked a question. An hon. member is entitled …

I do not want to know whether the hon. member put the question. He must apologize unconditionally to the Chair.

I apologize, but I…

The Chair, and not the hon. member, will decide when the time of an hon. member has expired, and this will be done fairly. No implications or insinuations are called for. The hon. member for Berea may proceed.

I was saying that hon. members in this House had come to recognize the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs as an effective debater on most occasions. He is a very good political batsman when he is on a good wicket, but he has never been as unconvincing in debate as he has been this afternoon, where he has obviously been batting on a very sticky wicket indeed. He has been totally unconvincing. He was unconvincing when he endeavoured to deal with the pamphlet of the so-called seminar which was held to school Nationalist canvassers and, we are told, also hon. members of Parliament and provincial councillors. He was very ineffective indeed when he tried to deal with the allegations which have come from this side of the House on the double standards being applied by the Government to its whole policy of reform. When he dealt with the pamphlet he said it was not an official pamphlet of the NP. If it was not an official pamphlet of the NP it was certainly heavily disguised as such. It has the NP insignia and slogan on the front. This is their pamphlet which most hon. members of this House have seen.

One wonders whether the hon. the Minister was in fact dealing with the same pamphlet about which part of this debate has been. He said that the pamphlet had nothing to do with the policy or principles of the NP.

I was dealing with the course.

I am dealing with the pamphlet.

I was there. I gave the true facts.

I am dealing with the pamphlet, which was part of the course. If this pamphlet does not deal with aspects of policy and principles, then I do not know what does. The hon. the Minister said that the pamphlet was actually designed to deal with the “moedeloosheid” of the Opposition parties. That of course is absolute nonsense, unless the hon. the Minister was trying to be funny or trying to score a very feeble debating point, because quite clearly the pamphlet was designed to try to make voters “moede loos” so that they could receive the dosage dished out by the NP.

In trying to deal with the allegations made from this side of the House in regard to the question of double standards, the comments which the hon. the Minister made during his speech and the comments made by his hon. colleagues during this debate have indicated time and time again that there are double standards being applied. Nowhere and at no time was this more evident than in fact here this very afternoon when the hon. the Minister answered a question as to whether Indians would be allowed to reside in the Orange Free State. At a time when the Government is dealing with a new dispensation, at a time when the hon. the Minister’s colleague, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, is negotiating with leaders of the Indian community to include them in a new dispensation in South Africa and make them part of a three chamber Parliament in South Africa, this hon. Minister stands up and says: Representations made by the Indian community that they be allowed to reside in the Orange Free State, part of the Republic of South Africa, have been turned down. If that is not an example of double standards, what is? How can one say that these people are good enough to participate in the Government of South Africa but that they are not good enough to reside in a particular part of South Africa? The hon. the Minister gave that reply and then, a few minutes later, he said that the NP was not guilty of applying double standards. It is totally mind-boggling!

The hon. the Minister also talked about credibility and consistency in leadership and tried to give advice to other parties. I want to remind him of the consistency of his own leader, even on the question of the referendum. The hon. the Prime Minister made a statement to the effect that a referendum would only be called if there was a drastic deviation from the 1977 proposals of the NP.

I did not say that a referendum would be called.

Then there was a statement that this was no longer necessary.

That is not true.

Then there was a third statement a few weeks ago when the hon. the Prime Minister announced a referendum. Where is the consistency there? However, the double talk continues and this has been evidenced throughout the course of this debate. It is quite clear from all this that the Government is divided, that it is confused and that it is totally ambivalent in its attitude. It is also quite clear that in most cases it is hide-bound by its old political philosophies despite some attempts at peripheral changes. Government members have been totally arrogant in their response to inquiries and criticisms from the official Opposition as to the extent to which they are committed to real reform in South Africa. We had this yesterday from the hon. member for Mossel Bay who made it perfectly clear that the Government has no intention of changing its basic political philosophy; in other words, they are still totally committed to the old apartheid policy of the NP as we have known it. This means that reforms which may come about, even though they may be marginally reformist, will be determined by the Government’s adherence to all the old pillars of the apartheid philosophy which more and more threaten to destroy South Africa.

We have asked this question time and time again but there has been no indication that the Government will in any way depart from legislation which forms the pillars of its policy, such as the Group Areas Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act, the Population Registration Act, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and so many other Acts that are entrenching discrimination in South Africa. There is therefore no real change when it comes to the substance of legislation on the Statute Book enforcing race discrimination in South Africa. There is cosmetic change, yes, but there is no real change. How then does one measure reform against that sort of background? It seems absolutely evident that the Government is not only committed to the concept of “grand apartheid” but in many instances is also committed to aspects of petty apartheid in South Africa. There is talk of reform but it is double talk.

Some people have looked upon the hon. the Prime Minister as a reformer but I believe that, at best, he emerges more as someone who is a reluctant reactor to situations in South Africa. This is no reformer. This is someone who reacts to a given situation and often does so with the greatest reluctance. He talks of “adapt or die” but he only means that within the narrow confines of Nationalist ideology. [Interjections.] He comes with a plan of reform to involve Coloureds and Asians in some limited form of what is termed “healthy power-sharing”, but he then omits the Black people totally or he says that the Black people have been dealt with. They have their homelands, they have their independence or they will have Black urban councils but otherwise they are disposed of.

In the no-confidence debate there was the announcement that there had been a Cabinet Committee set up to deal with the whole future of urban Blacks in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who has just sat down, or his colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance who is in charge of this debate, what the story is of this Cabinet Committee. Has it been meeting? Has it had meetings? What progress is being made? When is it likely to give any indication as to their progress and when is it likely to report? This was announced way back in the early stages of the session during the no-confidence debate, but has this committee now also been swept under the carpet pending the holding of the by-elections on 11 May?

Why are you boycotting the President’s Council?

The hon. the Minister can take part in the debate himself.

Even if one looks at the programme of reforms for the Coloureds and Indians, I believe there are glaring instances of double standards being applied all the time. I have mentioned one this afternoon, the question of the rights of Indians to reside in one of the provinces of South Africa.

If you are waiting for us to adopt PFP policy, you will wait until your death.

I am hoping that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues will: find some sanity, if they listen hard enough to the speeches which come from Prog benches. They may not be adopting PFP policy, but if they do not do that, then disaster will overtake South Africa.

There are basic things, even in so far as the Coloured and Indian people are concerned, relating to the quality of life of these people in relation to that of other races which need to be dealt with. It is all very well for the Government to talk to the Coloured and Indian leaders about sharing power in separate racial chambers of Parliament, but the interests of the Coloured and Asian people demand that far more is required than simply having representatives sitting in separate chambers participating in some as yet undefined form of healthy power-sharing in the Parliament of South Africa.

In order really to test the sincerity of the Government on the question of double standards or not double standards, to test their sincerity on reform and sharing of power even with these two important groups of the South African population, one has to look at the Government’s basic attitudes towards the people who belong to races in South Africa other than White.

I want to give a particular example. I am sorry in this instance that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not in the House.

You could have notified him beforehand.

Yes, I have asked for his presence, but I understand he is busy somewhere else.

The hon. the Minister is of course the chief guru of the NP in regard to constitutional matters. He is the man who is negotiating with leaders of the Coloured and Indian communities on the new dispensation. He seeks their participation in a three chamber parliament. He presumably offered them Cabinet posts and other opportunities. This is presumably what he is doing though of course the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs seems to have doubts about whether they should actually have those posts.

What else does the hon. the Minister, presumably on the part of the Government, offer these communities? When it comes to simple issues such as where they may be allowed to live even when they are Cabinet Ministers, he allows his Cabinet colleague the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to say that they will have to live in separate areas in terms of the Group Areas Act.

I now come to another example. Here I want the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance because this deals with the whole question of public amenities and in particular I want to deal with the specific issue of the beachfront public amenities in the city of Durban. I want to know where the Government stands on this issue. What is the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the issue of Coloureds and Asians being allowed to share amenities of this kind? Equally important as the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Finance himself on this particular issue. After all, he is the leader of his party in Natal, while I am the leader of my party in Natal.

What kind of leader?

Well, at least I am an elected leader, something which that hon. Minister cannot claim.

But he is also an elected leader.

Elected by whom?

By the party’s congress.

Well, I am an elected member of this House. However, I do not want to be deviated by that.

I want the hon. the Minister as leader of the NP in Natal to tell this House and the Indian and Coloured communities of Natal what his attitude is towards the situation of beachfront amenities in the city of Durban. He knows that the Government, his Cabinet colleagues, are negotiating with an important sector of the population, namely the Indian community in Natal, in regard to their participation in healthy power sharing. However, what about their rights to simple basic public amenities? In Durban the situation is that the city council has declared that it is its desire to normalize the situation on the beachfront by opening certain beachfront amenities, including a childrens’ paddling pool and a swimming-bath, to all races.

The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has issued a statement on this matter, the statement dated 14 March. Dealing specifically with the situation involving the City Council of Durban, he set out the procedure that should be followed, and on the principle as such he said—

That is what the hon. the Minister said in his statement. Subsequently I asked the hon. the Minister a question in the House. I asked him what the attitude of the Government was to these specific proposals and I received a reply which was totally evasive and unsatisfactory and which said again—

I want to know what in fact Government policy is. As far as I am aware, the Government is still committed to the principles of the Separate Amenities Act. This therefore means that, if existing Government policy is to obtain, amenities should be separate.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he reconciles the fact that members of the Coloured and Indian communities can participate in the institutions of government with Whites with the fact that they cannot share basic amenities with them. The hon. the Minister must tell us that when he replies to the debate. How does he reconcile those facts? How does he say to the Indian people whom the Government is approaching to participate in the new dispensation: You are good enough to do that, but you are not good enough for your children to be allowed to paddle in the same paddling pool with White children? How does he reconcile those facts? Again it is indicative of an attitude of totally double standards in South Africa. For this reason we believe that the Government is not approaching its problems in a responsible way. We believe that the hon. the Minister, with his responsibilities as Minister of Finance, has to answer some of these questions when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea stated that the city council of Durban has decided to throw open certain amenities. I should just like to ask him whether he is in favour of the opening of all facilities in Durban and on the Durban beachfront.

Of course.

The point I want to make is that the very minute those members experience difficulties as a result of the opening of all facilities in their own constituencies—and we will see what the hon. member says about Durban in time to come—they do what the hon. member for Pinelands did at the time: The hon. member for Pinelands stood up and said he did not want the Black people to walk through his own constituency.

That is not true.

Sir, it is one of the basic realities in South Africa. I want to plead with the hon. members of the Opposition that we as public representatives in South Africa should, with a view to our children, show the responsibility not to make statements like the hon. members of the Opposition do on issues like this, because they know that in regard to the issue of the sharing of amenities neither we in the NP, nor the official Opposition nor any other party in the House has the final solution to all problems. We will have to live with problems arising from the sharing of facilities for all time, and in the last instance it is the responsibility of the Government, the party in power, to make sure that we do not have trouble and that we have the least possible friction in this country of ours.

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

No, Sir. I do not have the time now.

The essence of this debate revolves around the NP’s strategy to change certain things in South Africa in the interests of our survival. I should like to exchange a few words with the hon. members of the CP today. As a White man and as a public representative, the present emotional political debate fills me with grave concern for the future, and I think this is shared by most White people in South Africa. Let us be blunt about this. It is not the political debates conducted in this House, it is not the political points of debate we are fabricating here, it is not petty politics that will determine the future of all our children. It is the actions of the Government that is in power and the need existing among White voters in South Africa to live with the realities and to adjust to them.

Today I want to tell the hon. member for Kuruman today that when we look at the budget introduced in this House by the hon. the Minister of Finance, we see that it reflects the reality in South Africa, namely that we have a Government with a specific revenue. We also have the reality that that revenue and the expenditure the Government has to incur imply a certain community of interests. I now want to tell the hon. member for Kuruman and the other hon. members of the CP that if we consider the revenue of the Government, for example the R1,4 billion the Government earned from the gold mines this year, then I want to ask the hon. members of the CP: Is that revenue the Government receives the result of White efforts only, or is it the result of co-operation between Whites and Blacks and Whites and Coloureds? If one considers the revenue from personal income tax, which totals R5,3 billion, then I want to ask the hon. members of the CP: Is that income tax—and tax is colour blind, after all—generated by White efforts only, or by a total effort of the entire economically-active population in the economy? If one considers the R4,1 billion received in company tax, I want to ask the hon. members of the CP: Does that tax imply a joint effort in South Africa or does it imply an effort by the Whites alone? If one considers the revenue from the GST, namely R3,95 billion, I could ask the hon. members of the CP the same question. If one considers the revenue from excise duty, namely R1,65 billion, I could ask the hon. member for Sunnyside, who was an auditor in his day: Where does that tax come from, the tax on the sale of cigarettes and liquor? The point I want to make is that the hon. members of the CP are going around in Waterberg again and bringing disgrace upon the White man by gulling voters into believing that this tax is all the White man’s tax. And, just like the HNP, they are telling the voters that the White man’s tax is being wasted on the Blacks. It is this kind of hysterical emotion which will cost us dearly in the future.

The hon. member for Sunnyside spoke about power-sharing. I want to tell him today that the essence of this budget and the essence of the reality of South Africa imply power-sharing in the wider sense. We share the power of money. We share the power of initiative in South Africa. The hon. member for Kuruman should tell us whether he is the only person on his farm who displays initiative so that his farm can become productive. We also share the power of labour in this country and we share the power of land. What I am trying to say is that when we look at the future, we and our children must be responsible enough not to play with money and other resources and not to play with everything that is dear to us as if the White man had an exclusive say over these matters. That is why we in the NP say that there is a community of interests in South Africa and that is why we say that we want the Coloured people or community, or whatever they consider themselves to be, to be participants on the road ahead, and that we also want to give the Indians the opportunity to participate in this way. We are prepared to recognize the interdependence of people in Southern Africa in so many spheres and to share these spheres. I want to tell the hon. member for Sunnyside that whipping up this kind of emotion in this country will get us nowhere. What we need in South Africa is a nation of generators and not a nation of devourers. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that if ever there was a budget which was aimed at making South Africa a country of generators and not a country of devourers, it is this budget. I want to ask the CP: Do we want the Coloureds, the Asians and the Blacks to be our allies in our future struggle? Do we want them to be allies of our children or enemies of our children? The NP is not afraid to say that we want the other communities to be our allies. We do not share the myth of the CP that the White man has the exclusive say. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member that the coloured communities in South Africa will be our allies in our struggle against the onslaught of communism in the future. The NP wants them to be our allies. We do not want the communists with their communist propaganda and ideologies to snatch these people away from us. We need the coloured people in South Africa if we are to maintain the values and the dispensation we want to create for our children for the future. I want to ask the hon. member for Sunnyside: If the majority of the Blacks, Coloureds and Asians were to endorse and support African socialism and communism in the economic sphere, how could we and our children ever survive? If we do not get the majority of the people of this country to support our Christian values, how can those values ever survive? We need these people, this diversity of nations, in every sphere, and in such a way that each of them will retain its own identity.

I find it ironic that members of the CP should constantly refer to the preservation of identity. Dr. A. P. Treurnicht constantly refers to the position overseas, how nations there remain separate in a natural way, each retaining its own identity. But when it comes to South Africa, they say this cannot work; there must be a great many laws to achieve this. But this is not true, Sir. If they believe what they profess to believe, namely that there is a natural tendency to preserve one’s own identity, then we should build on the NP’s foundation of peaceful co-existence.

Do we want to become slaves of our enemies? Or do we want to be masters of our own destiny? We on this side definitely want to be masters of our own destiny, and for that reason we are telling the Coloureds from Cape Town to Waterberg, for that reason we are telling the Indians from Cape Town to Durban, and for that reason we are telling the Black communities, the Black leaders—political, educational and religious leaders—that we are allies in the struggle against communism. We have certain values we want to maintain. We want to maintain the free market system in the economy and we want to maintain democracy in the Southern African sense of the word. We are not seeking African dictatorships. We are not seeking military dictatorships. We are seeking to develop the concept of freedom here in Southern Africa. I want to tell members of the CP that we as Whites in South Africa must be careful not to grasp so eagerly at political power, economic power and social privileges that eventually all power is wrested from us. We as Afrikaners are the greatest freedom fighters Africa has ever known. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that those of us sitting here, the White children of Black Africa, were the first and greatest freedom fighters on this continent and we cannot allow our own people, through confused emotions, to be instrumental in causing us to lose what we have fought for up to now. We want to retain what is ours. I want to retain my freedom and I am sure the same applies to all other hon. members in this House. That is why I am telling members of the CP that we should not behave foolishly in future. We must be careful not to cling to everything so avidly that we eventually lose everything, because the man who wants to keep everything is frequently the man who has to look on while the most important things are taken from him.

We in this country are facing the greatest challenge, humanly speaking, that any Government in any country can face. There are, for example, practical challenges in the economic sphere. We do not want the African wave of poverty, the potential wave of poverty of Southern Africa or of the world, to engulf us. For that reason we must use the freedom we enjoy in this country to work to become generators of the future. The NP wants to declare war on ignorance and we are doing so with this budget. That is why such large amounts have been appropriated for education. We want to declare war on poverty, and that is why yesterday in connection with Government action in the field of housing is of vital importance, because a house is not only the place where a person lives and produces as an economic entity. It is also the place where a person can make use of opportunities as an intellectual being to uplift himself and to participate in the total economic strategy in South Africa. We must not turn challenges into nightmares in South Africa. We must lay cornerstones for co-existence in this country. That is what the NP is doing. We must build the structure for survival brick by brick in this country.

It has been alleged that the NP is panicking, that it is afraid. I maintain that the CP is afraid of waking up, whereas the NP is afraid of being caught napping, and what man in his right senses wants to be caught napping in this country by the things rushing at us? Can we not see this? Consider our essential decentralization projects. As far as these are concerned, I want to thank the Government for the money appropriated for this purpose in this budget. Here I want to appeal to our big business leaders, and I specifically want to mention the name of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, a man who through Anglo-American controls 52% of the shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. I want to talk to a man like Mr. Raymond Ackerman, who is now going to embark upon certain activities in Australia. I can understand businessmen wanting to expand their activities abroad as well, but to all these people, the Harry Oppenheimers, the Raymond Ackermans, the Sol Kerzners and the Anton Ruperts, and all other big businessmen, I want to say that this Government will guarantee stability; this is a political party that is not afraid to change. I want to tell them: Here in South Africa we have challenges in the field of decentralization, in the field of the upliftment of people, in the field of the implementation of the technological revolution in Africa. Here we have challenges for people. We must not think that we shall win through by means of political debates, political stratagems and hysterical behaviour. When one is lying in a trench and one sees the enemy’s mortars and radar, one does not want a person who is afraid to be lying next to one. I want to tell the hon. member for Kuruman that there is no one more dangerous than the person lying next to one in a trench who leaps up terrified and panic-stricken. Let us remain calm. Has the hon. member ever stopped to think what the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians must be thinking about the hysterical emotions those hon. members are whipping up with regard to the rights of people?

In conclusion: The NP says that, given the realities, all people in South Africa have rights in all spheres. The NP is not afraid either, because we have confidence in the White man’s ability. We also believe that the White man has confidence in himself. That is why it astounds me that a person who has confidence in himself is able to capitulate as far as politics is concerned. I want to ask the hon. member for Kuruman how he can reconcile saying that he believes in the future of the White man with announcing that P. W. Botha has betrayed us and that we do not stand a chance. What kind of senseless self-betrayal is this? We say we reject it with contempt. We shall also tell the people of Waterberg—we shall tell them this as a party—that all the people of Waterberg have a responsibility to the future. We shall tell the people of Waterberg and the people of Soutpansberg, as well as the people of Carletonville and of Waterkloof, that we believe that what we are doing is right in the interests of our children. We believe so strongly that it is right that we are not afraid to call a referendum. We believe so strongly that we are right that we are not afraid to put our case to the voters and to ask them to decide with us on the future of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to me …

And an honour.

Yes, and an honour, to be able to speak after the hon. member for Innesdal. Accordingly, in the course of my speech I shall also link up with some of the arguments he advanced and I would like to emphasize them too.

I believe that all of us in this House agree that Southern Africa is a very important part of the world, and that South Africa is probably the most important country in this vital part of the world, naturally because of its mineral riches, its ability to produce food, its technological achievements such as Sasol and the process of uranium enrichment, the fact that it has the only reliable railway and harbour network in this subcontinent of Africa, its strategic position, and so forth. All these facts are known and are not disputed by anyone. I am, therefore, just mentioning them again to indicate why the whole world is interested in Southern Africa and why South Africa, in the Southern Africa context, is the most important subject of this interest: why South Africa is caught in the cross-fire between the two super-powers, why its neighbours in the Third World look at it with eyes full of longing.

On the one hand we have the Soviet Union, that will do everything in its power to destabilize Southern Africa so that it can deny the West its strategic assets. On the other hand we have the West which is interested in a stable Southern Africa because it is also in its interest, just as it is in ours, that the Soviet Union does not succeed in its aims. In this power play South Africa’s less powerful and more helpless neighbours are pawns in the hands of the two super-powers, both of which employ the same methods to get the Third World on their side, namely by exploiting Black racism and making South Africa’s internal dispensation the scapegoat for all their problems. This is an excuse which countries of the Third World accept readily and eagerly, because it naturally also diverts attention from their own inability to maintain internal stability in their own countries.

I believe that in this unpleasant situation South Africa has a particular role to play, namely to maintain and re-establish stability in this subcontinent of ours.

In this, South Africa, as the most important country in our part of the world, must take the lead. If South Africa and the other countries of the subcontinent can find a way to co-operate, can find a way to establish some constellation of States which will cooperate in the common interest of everybody in this part of the world and act against common enemies, I venture to say that collectively Southern Africa could form one of the most formidable power blocks in the world—economically, technologically, agriculturally, strategically, and so forth. If we cannot succeed in doing this, South Africa’s neighbours will always remain insignificant, underdeveloped and unstable States and South Africa itself will remain a threatened area. The latter scenario is in nobody’s interest. It is not in South and Southern Africa’s interest, nor is it in the interest of the West. It must consequently be changed by removing the political obstructions which prevent White, Brown and Black anti-communists in South Africa itself and in Southern Africa from uniting against White, Brown and Black communists, and in my view this requires two things. Firstly, the West—and more particular our neighbours—must look more realistically at South Africa and must to a greater degree rid themselves of their prejudices in respect of South Africa and must accord recognition to the undeniable fact that positive changes are taking place in South Africa. In addition, they must also recognize the right of self-determination and security of the Whites, because the right of self-determination and security of all the other nations and population groups living in South and Southern Africa are closely interlinked with that of the Whites.

Secondly, it requires that the status quo in South Africa must be changed. As long as South Africa has people such as the Coloureds and the Asians who have no right of self-determination and who, at this stage, have no decision-making powers and no franchise, these countries will not be able to overcome their prejudices in respect of South Africa, nor can we expect them to do so. For this reason all of us in the House agree that the status quo must be changed. All the White parties agree on that, except possibly the HNP, which is in any event not represented in this House and which will probably never acquire representation here because it is an anachronism which belongs to a period in the distant past. Basically this leaves us with three main options, that of the NP to change the status quo by constitutional means, that of the official Opposition, the PFP, and that of the CP. These are the three most important options we have. This, then, brings me to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Berea.

†The hon. member for Berea contended here again that the Blacks were left out of the constitutional dispensation, or at least out of the proposed new constitutional dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. [Interjections.] It is, of course, true that they are left out of that particular constitutional development, but it is a falsification—or shall we say a wrong perception—to suggest that the Blacks are being left out of the constitutional process. The fact of the matter is that the NP is busy with two parallel, simultaneous constitutional developments, one for the Blacks because they have historical, identifiable areas in which they have traditionally settled themselves and in which they have developed their own systems of government which they had before the colonial era and which they have maintained subsequent to the advent of the colonial era. Because they have these areas, a different constitutional dispensation for them is possible. The fact of the matter is that several of those nations are now independent. All of them are self-governing and have the vote on other levels of government. The Coloureds and Asians, by contrast, have no such privileges or rights as yet. The Coloureds do not have any chamber of any kind, nor do they have any vote of any kind. So I would contend that it is not a question of leaving the Blacks out. The Blacks have already advanced a long way along their road to constitutional development. It is a question of bringing the Coloureds and Asians in, and that the hon. member for Berea has admitted. He then went on to say, however, that the limited power-sharing that the NP offers them, is insufficient. I admit that it is a limited form of power-sharing compared to PFP power-sharing which we reject entirely. He said that the question of bringing them in on the basis that they should each have a complete say over their own affairs, and that for the three groups, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians, there should be joint decision-making on matters of common interest, is insufficient.

Which are those?

That the hon. member says is not sufficient. He says for the Coloureds and Asians that is not nearly enough. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that constitutions are not made in a day but that they are an on-going process. That party says the same thing about its national convention and the way it will operate. They say it will be an on-going process. I would suggest to the hon. member that once the Coloureds and Asians are brought into their respective chambers of the Parliament of South Africa they will be able to speak for themselves in the highest council of the land as to what is sufficient for them and what is not. In the meantime the Government has been negotiating with them and the majority of their leaders have agreed to take part in the new dispensation.

I think there are also other tests. A test of a policy is that the policy must also be accepted by various elements. I want to suggest to the hon. member that the NP policy is very largely accepted by the White electorate. After all, this party holds 126 out of the 177 seats in this House. That is more than a two-thirds majority. Secondly, the Blacks have to a large extent accepted the NP policy. Four States have accepted independence and a fifth one, KwaNdebele, has also indicated that it will accept independence.

It is not because they accept the policy; they are against apartheid.

They accept the constitutional framework. They have their own policies within that framework. I grant the hon. member that.

A number of Coloured leaders, such as the Rev. Alan Hendrickse and others, have also agreed to co-operate in the constitutional framework of the Government. The Indian Council has also said that they would give it a fair chance. Not only that, but leading spokesmen of overseas Western Governments, such as Mr. Chester Crocker, have recognized that this is not a cosmetic change but a very real one. In other words, there is also increasing acceptance abroad for the kind of change that the NP is bringing about.

Are we going to have a referendum in America too?

The hon. member should keep quiet; after all, he knows nothing. He is just cackling away.

†It might interest the official Opposition to know that large numbers of politicians with whom we meet echo Mr. Chester Crocker’s opinion that it is a significant change. They echo similar opinions made by Mr. Franz-Josef Strauss, a senior member of the present German Government in power, and others. They find it astonishing, since they recognize that whatever change is brought about in South Africa has to be brought about by this Parliament, that the PFP does not show a more positive attitude to that kind of change which is achievable, that they boycott achievable change and that they would rather have everything or nothing at all. Let me say at the outset that their kind of change will not come about in a hundred years because it cannot find any acceptance amongst the White electorate, and consequently they cannot come to power and therefore they cannot bring about any change at all. The simple reason for that is that no matter how they try to disguise the fact, their policy which is based on universal suffrage in a federal dispensation, means Black majority rule. No matter how they divide South Africa in to their proposed eight regions, the Blacks will outnumber the Whites. This means that in their federal Parliament it will be very unlikely that the Whites will have any representations at all. Apart from that they insist on pursuing their antiquated and completely fanciful idea of a national convention.

There have been various kinds of national conventions. The national convention of 1910, which they cite as a precedent, was quite different from the national convention which they are now proposing. In 1910 there were basically two parties to that national convention. It was a bilaterial negotiation between the representatives of the Governments of the two former British colonies on the one hand and the Governments of the two defeated Boer Republics on the other hand. Therefore their national convention is quite a different kettle of fish. In 1910 there were no Blacks, Asians or Coloureds represented, but under this monstrosity that they are now proposing, they suggest that all the major political groupings can claim representation. All ethnic groups in South Africa should have representation there. This means that there will be people there as disparate as Jaap Marais on the one hand and Ntatho Motlana on the other hand; that you will have Eugene Terre ’Blanche on the one hand and Nelson Mandela whom the hon. member for Pinelands wishes to have released, on the other. There will then be everybody else in between from the hon. the Prime Minister for the NP, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Andries Treurnicht and everybody else. This must obviously create a Tower of Babel. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not particularly deterred by this fact. Three years ago when he was asked by the hon. the Prime Minister during the no-confidence debate how long he thought it would take for this Tower of Babel to reach concensus, he said that it might even take a hundred years but that that was not important as long as people were talking. For someone who in his more lucid moments—I regret he is not here—keeps telling us that time is running out, that is an absolutely astonishing statement to make. What is more, there have already been national conventions of the kind the PFP propose. The Lancaster House talks which led to a new constitution for Zimbabwe was nothing but a national convention. The British Government was represented by Lord Carrington, Mr. Ian Smith was there on behalf of his party and so were Joshua Nkomo, Robert Mugabe, Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole, Canaan Banana and all the rest, each representing his own faction. What did it produce? It produced a kind of constitution that has led to chaos and tyranny in Zimbabwe. It is absolutely no good the official Opposition’s coming along and saying that they will see to it that that does not happen here because they will have a Bill of Rights. Well, Sir, Lancaster House also produced a Bill of Rights and it did not take Mr. Mugabe very long to tear it up. He has taken away the passport of Mr. Joshua Nkomo who has had to flee the country. Mr. Smith cannot obtain a passport either to receive medical treatment. This is a completely unrealistic suggestion and that is why this Parliament would never pass such legislation and therefore it is totally irrelevant.

*In the few minutes still at my disposal I want to say that the third option is the option of the CP. The CP’s option is acceptable to no one. It is not acceptable to the majority of the Whites nor is it acceptable to the Coloureds and the Asians. As a result it cannot be implemented. It is also unacceptable to the West or to any of our neighbouring States. They will not even consider it, because they can have no trust in a party which is going around everywhere saying that the NP does everything for the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians, but nothing for the Whites, when this is so patently untrue.

However, there is another aspect of the matter. The CP wants to establish a Coloured homeland consisting of 623 group areas in rural and urban areas. Only 26% of the Coloureds are living in the rural areas, a mere 26% of them. Where are these rural areas? They are situated in the North Western Cape. [Interjections.]

You are a liberal.

Yes, in comparison with that hon. member I am, of course, a liberal, and proud of it. However, 80% of the Coloured population is living here in the Cape Peninsula and 74% of them are living in urban areas. Therefore, if there is a logical place for a Coloured homeland, if this 80% is not to be moved to a barren part of the country, then the obvious place for it is the Cape Peninsula, including Cape Town and the surrounding urban and rural areas. This will mean that if it is to be implemented, hundreds of thousands of Whites will have to be resettled. I think the White electorate must understand the implications of the policy of the CP. Where will the money come from to do this? [Interjections.] If this is not correct, I challenge hon. members of the CP to publish a map now showing the borders of the homeland. We must see such a map before 10 May so that the voters of South Africa can know what they are letting themselves in for with regard to the CP’s policy. We want to see a map of it, and if it is in the North Western Cape, there is something I really have to say. [Interjections.] Well, we have published the guidelines, but the hon. members of the CP do not even have a map. The hon. members cannot get away from that. The point is that we are going to publish a map in which every Coloured group area will be shown so that people can see what a homeland looks like which consists of 620 spots. This is something which hon. members of the CP will have to justify. We want to see a map; if not, the CP’s policy is not feasible and there is only one policy left: The policy of the NP, which is completely feasible and which can be tested by means of the tests. I have indicated.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the real debate of the day, there is something I must say. Earlier on this afternoon I saw the hon. member for Klip River in the House, and I feel obliged to address a word of gratitude to him. Yesterday he was in Waterberg and I hope that he is on his way back, because my information is that the hon. member spent a very long time visiting a voter in Waterberg yesterday morning—most of the morning, I understand—and the result of his visit is encouraging: This morning the CP received a contribution of R100 from that voter. Consequently I hope the hon. member for Klip River is on his way back to Waterberg.

You need that R100 badly. [Interjections.]

I want to refer very briefly to the hon. member for Benoni. He issued a challenge to the CP to publish a map of the Coloured homeland prior to 10 May. The NP has been in power for 35 years. Can the hon. member for Benoni show us any map indicating the final borders of Qwaqwa? Can he show us any map which indicates the border of kwaZulu at this stage? Of course he cannot, nor can it be published. So surely the argument advanced by the hon. member is an absolutely ridiculous one.

Everyone knows where kwaZulu is.

When the NP commenced the consolidation process of the Black homelands, there were scores, hundreds of Black areas scattered all over South Africa. It was a long-term process. The position is that after proper study and practical investigation the implementation of a homeland policy for Blacks is gradually taking shape only now. Therefore is it fair—I am asking this in all seriousness …

And with tears in your eyes.

… to expect us to publish a map prior to 10 May? The hon. member for Ermelo says I am saying this with tears in my eyes. After the experience which the hon. member for Ermelo had in my constituency at Carolina the week before the commencement of the Easter recess, I think he ought to have tears in his eyes. It was at one of the secret meetings they held there. [Interjections.]

I find this interesting. The Press was looking forward to this week’s debate. The Press supporting the NP had great expectations of the debate; it would be the major initial debate on the new constitutional dispensation. What have we had up to now on the part of the NP apart from the majority of the hon. members being conspicuous by their absence from this House? I assume that a lot of them are active in the Bergs. We have not had a single speech from the NP—with the possible exception of the paltry attempt by the hon. member for Benoni—to try to justify the proposed new dispensation of theirs. Nevertheless, what is important—and I am grateful for that—is that while we of the CP are being accused of gossip-mongering in the Bergs, of telling untruths of distorting the NP’s policy, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information said “yes” in reply to a question today whether the booklet which is at issue here represents the policy of the NP. Our experience in Soutpansberg and in Waterberg has been that the canvassers of the NP claim that it is CP gossip. They say “Where in this booklet does it state that it is the NP’s policy? It is merely a guideline”. Surely this is what is happening in the Bergs.

Where do you see or hear that?

I followed in the tracks of the NP canvassers in Soutpansberg and in Waterberg. People are being told it is CP gossip. [Interjections.] I hope that the NP canvassers will now take cognizance of the fact that this booklet does represent the official policy of the NP.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information in advance that he need not make any attempts to have this booklet distributed further afield, because as many as he prints the CP will distribute throughout South Africa at its own expense. Then it would not be possible to accuse us of spreading half-truths or of distorting the Government’s policy. This booklet enables us for the first time—and for that reason we are distributing it throughout South Africa—to give the electorate the true facts about the constitutional proposals of the Government. Previously we were accused of gossipmongering and of telling half-truths, in this connection.

We are accused of gossip-mongering and of telling half-truths, but a Minister said on a platform in the north: “Trust the NP. It does not matter what I say in Parliament: As long as the NP is in power, a Coloured will not gain control of a common department”.

You are talking nonsense.

Who said that?

Minister Hendrik Schoeman.

Prove it. [Interjections.]

What are we actually doing in the Bergs up north? One hon. Minister tells here in this House that the Coloured Minister will have to live in his own group area, and then another Minister, panickstricken, has to issue a statement the next day reading: “No, we are unable to take a decision in that regard as yet. It is a hypothetical question, and the NP is not prepared to reply to hypothetical questions. The Cabinet will take a decision in that regard the day when there are, in fact, Coloured Ministers”. Dr. Org Marais, the NP candidate in Waterkloof, was asked: “Are these people now going to live in Waterkloof?” His reply was that he did not know but that they should ask Mr. “Pen” Kotzé and that the Cabinet would still take a decision in that regard. He said that he himself had no personal opinion in the matter. [Interjections.]

The NP accuses us of half-truths and distortions and of having changed our standpoint.

We also have a great deal of evidence in that regard.

The hon. member may produce his evidence. We are being accused of having changed our standpoint by a party that now wishes to go to the people precisely because they want to effect drastic changes to the constitution of South Africa. At first that party said that the new dispensation of theirs actually was not really a departure from 1977 and that it was consequently not necessary to hold a referendum.

That is not true.

The hon. the Prime Minister said it.

The Prime Minister did not say it.

It was said that it was not a drastic deviation and therefore it was not necessary. Now, suddenly, we have the announcement that a referendum is going to be held. Why?

You will learn why.

Why is a referendum to be held? We have at least had an explanation from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He held a meeting at Nylstroom and subsequently had to explain what he had actually said. It was reported in the Press, however, that the Minister had said at Nylstroom that the reason for the Cabinet’s decision to have a referendum was that when they saw the new constitution they found it such a fine document that they could not help themselves, they simply had to hold a referendum. [Interjections.] The Cabinet has seen this fine document constituting the new dispensation. I should have thought the Cabinet would have been bubbling over with enthusiasm to show that fine document to the voters in Waterberg and Soutpansberg as well. However, we get no indication whatsoever. We were given the impression that the debate on the new constitutional proposals was to have taken place within two weeks, prior to 10 May. Why is that debate not going to take place any more? For the information of that hon. member I can say that our Whips made arrangements for all of us to be present that week.

It is a major task. We cannot prepare something like that quickly. [Interjections.]

I want to give hon. members the reason for the Cabinet’s decision to hold a referendum. They had no choice. The hon. the Prime Minister made a promise to South Africa that if there were drastic deviations, he would hold a referendum. And now the message has come back, not only from Carletonville and Waterberg, but from all four constituencies, that the voters there are keeping the hon. the Prime Minister to his promise and that the NP is experiencing serious setbacks because the Government was not prepared to keep its promises. For the information of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs Beeld, the newspaper that is the most ardent supporter of the NP in the North, reported that they were experiencing problems in Carletonville with Nationalists who did not want to cast a vote because they resented the hon. the Prime Minister’s not having kept his promise. Now, after the hon. the Prime Minister has kept his promise, they feel that they can again vote for the NP, but the Minister maintains that we have changed our standpoint.

Have you or have you not changed your standpoint?

Just give me a chance to complete my argument. This hon. Minister, and I have a high regard for his intellect and debating ability, was instrumental in terminating my membership of the NP through my regional committee in my constituency. That evening—it was at the beginning of March last year, I referred in front of my branch manager to the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information on 1 March in this House in which he said that it was inherent in the 1977 proposals that a man of colour could become a Minister of a common department. When, in front of my people, I asked the hon. the Minister whether he agreed with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, at that time the hon. member for Florida, the hon. the Minister replied: No.

You are fibbing. I nearly said what I am not permitted to say.

No. I challenge you. Come to my constituency. The hon. the Minister told me that he had repudiated him. This happened in front of my people.

That is not true.

I then asked the hon. the Minister: Why do you not do so in public?

It is not true.

In this, the highest Chamber in this country, I invite the hon. the Minister to appear with me on a platform in my constituency in front of his own people so that we may debate this point further.

It is not true.

The hon. the Minister may say that it is not true, but come and debate it in my own constituency, in front of me. I challenge the hon. the Minister. I also challenge the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who was also present on that occasion. This hon. Minister was chief information officer of the NP in 1977.

You are the chief distorter of that side.

What did he say at the time about the Cabinet, about the Council of Cabinets?

Order! Which hon. member said that the hon. member was a distorter?

I did, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

What did this hon. Minister, as chief information officer for the NP, say at the time? Referring to a possible mixed super-cabinet, the hon. the Minister said that the wilfulness of such talk became apparent when the following simple facts were borne in mind: The White Parliament would retain all powers except those which Parliament itself decided to transfer. Consequently the Cabinet Ministers serving on the Council of Cabinets would deliberate as representatives of their own Cabinets. Furthermore, it was stated clearly that they would retain their portfolios in their own Cabinets and no portfolios would be awarded on the basis of their membership of the Council of Cabinets. It was made clear that the Council of Cabinets would not therefore be a supreme Cabinet. [Interjections.]

Will you reply to a question?

No. You have had half an hour in which to speak, man. [Interjections.]

Surely that was the standpoint of the NP in its 1977 proposals.

What did Mr. Vorster say here in this House on 12 April 1978?

I know what he said. However, I am referring now to what was said by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs himself.

Have any changes been effected to that or not? Has Mr. Vorster’s statement been changed since? Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs will not succeed in shouting me down. [Interjections.] This hon. Minister went on to say that this meant that the White Cabinet of 17 Ministers—as it was at the time—would continue to manage their portfolios as in the past. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs himself said. That is what he, as chief information officer of the NP, told the voters of South Africa. Thereupon this hon. Minister and his other colleagues said—after they had changed those proposals drastically—that there would no longer be three Cabinets, but only a single Cabinet, that there would no longer be three Parliaments, but only one Parliament consisting of three chambers. Nevertheless they maintain that this is essentially the same proposal as before.

It is the same principle.

Surely that is not true.

It is still the same principle.

Surely that is simply not true. [Interjections.] How can three Parliaments be the same as one Parliament consisting of three chambers?

Are all three of them sovereign or not?

You have no idea of what this is all about.

Oh really, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is an ecologist; he does not understand this kind of thing. [Interjections.]

What really caused the dissention in the NP? What gave rise to the real dissention? The choice facing South Africa is whether it sees the road it is to follow in the future as the road of separate freedoms or as a single road for all the population groups of South Africa. That is the choice. [Interjections.]

That is an over-simplification of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, whereas the NP of former days gave consideration to a homeland solution, also for the Coloureds and the Indians … [Interjections.] No, surely there were in the NP quite a number of supporters of a homeland idea. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is sitting over there. Surely he would not deny this. Surely he would not deny that he supported the idea of a homeland for the Coloureds.

May I give you an answer in this regard?

Then the majority in the NP came to the conclusion that it was not practical politics for the times. Consequently the 1977 proposals were an attempt to escape from the dilemma of how White sovereignty could be retained while, at the same time, making it possible for at least some justice to be done to the Coloureds and the Indians. Those 1977 proposals were rejected by the Coloureds as well as the Indians. Surely that is a fact. [Interjections.] Then the NP had to make a choice. The question was: What to do now? The choice exercised by the present Cabinet was for a change to be effected.

What did the President’s Council decide?

Yes, what? [Interjections.] So the Cabinet decided that no other option remained since a separate homeland was not acceptable to the liberal wing of the NP. Therefore, the only thing that remained was to accept political integration of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. That was the choice. When I was confronted by the choice between political integration and the abandonment of the sovereignty of my White people over itself on the one hand, and the propagation of a homeland as the solution for South Africa on the other hand, I had no option. Therefore it is the only logical solution making possible the continued maintenance of the sovereignty of the Whites while, at the same time, allowing justice to be done to the Coloureds and the Indians as well. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister of Welfare insinuated that we were un-Christian, that we had no Christian sentiments …

What does Daan say about us?

Then Black, Brown and Indian are all treated alike. This afternoon the hon. member for Innesdal once again tried to foist the standpoint on us that we begrudged other people everything, that we begrudged them development, that we begrudged them their own freedoms. If ever there were a distortion of reality, it is that statement. [Interjections.] I say this because the standpoint of this party is, as far as the Blacks are concerned, that the development of the Black homelands, and everything connected therewith, must be expedited …

What about consolidation?

… that consolidation must be expedited.

You want to give everything to the Blacks again.

The hon. member speaks of giving everything to the Blacks. Is he able to mention one occasion on which I have ever used that argument? [Interjections.] I have always said in public that it is my standpoint that the Government is doing too little too late, also with regard to the Black homelands. [Interjections.] This has always been my standpoint.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Barberton …

The hon. member is wasting my time. There is no time for questions.

No, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Barberton may proceed.

I want to conclude, because my time is running out. With reference to yesterday’s speech by the hon. member for Lichtenburg, as reported in Die Transvaler— “NP wil nie magsdeling hê nie”—the hon. the Minister said that we quoted him selectively. The hon. the Minister said in his speech, however, and now I want to quote a passage from that speech …

Again selectively.

Oh no! I am referring to the following example—

He says it is a lie. At the meeting of the head committee of the NP of Transvaal I asked in a motion …

Your motion was a trick.

… for the NP to reconfirm its policy and standpoint that it was not in favour of power-sharing or mixed Government on all three tiers of Government. Then that motion of mine was not acceptable to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. [Interjections.] This is the simple fact of the matter. [Interjections.]

Frank le Roux said we should go outside to see whether it was not possible to reconcile the two motions, and then that hon. member said no.

I want to conclude now. We, on our part intend to debate the future political dispensation in South Africa on merit with the electorate of South Africa as a whole, and not only in Soutpansberg or Waterberg, Waterkloof and Carletonville. [Interjections.] Those four by-elections are the curtain raisers for the referendum which is in the offing. [Interjections.] So it will be the standpoint of our party, in spite of all the gimmicks in which the NP is engaged at the moment, particularly in Soutpansberg, all the promises that are now being made to farmers …

For example?

But surely that hon. member was there. Promises such as farms, etc. [Interjections.] Despite those promises, we are fighting those by-elections on the basis of this new dispensation, for in this proposed new dispensation we see the disappearance of the sovereignty the Whites have over themselves. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal at a later stage with some of the matters that the hon. member for Barberton raised. However, allow me just to say at the outset that if ever there was a time when it was necessary for all political parties in this country, and all voters in this country, to act responsibly, then that time is now. In the light of that responsibility, I, too, should like to make a responsible contribution this afternoon, without this preventing me from pointing out certain things based on facts. What are the facts? The hon. member for Barberton concluded his speech by loudly proclaiming that they would use these by-elections to explain to the entire people what was going to happen with regard to the referendum. Surely that is nothing new. In announcing the referendum the hon. the Prime Minister indicated very clearly that the referendum would deal with the principles contained in the new constitution. What, then, is the hon. member for Barberton complaining about? Surely he said nothing new. After all, that is the idea which came from the hon. the Prime Minister.

Where is the Bill?

Just give me a chance.

But where is the Bill?

I can assure the hon. member that before the Government goes to the people with a referendum, the new constitution will be available so that the people may take cognizance of its contents. It is not I who say that; that is what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he announced the referendum. What is more, the hon. the Prime Minister also announced that the Bill would be debated in Parliament.

Where do we stand today? Seven years ago the Erika Theron Commission submitted its report. Since then there have been in depth discussions about the political rights of the Coloureds. The hon. member for Rissik, all the hon. members on that side of the House, know as well as I do that that was followed by the Cabinet Committee. What followed after that is history, and to save time I am not going to mention everything again. However, the point I want to make is that since 1977, when we held an election on the basis of the constitutional plan, in depth discussions had already taken place. After that we eventually established the guidelines, after which the federal congress was held. Because the guidelines and the constitutional plan were known, everyone knows that the guidelines were based on the same 1977 plan.

Oh no, Piet.

If the hon. member for Pietersburg would only use his senses. I say that it is based on that plan. The problem is that the hon. members are guilty of political opportunism from morning till night. They are making a tremendous fuss about this NP booklet. The hon. member even asked whether the booklet would be made available to all political parties. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information replied that it would also be made available to the CP. However, the hon. member for Barberton generously said: “Bring as many as you like, we shall distribute them because we shall use them to make political capital for ourselves”. That is a fact; I believe what the hon. member says. They are distorting the contents of this booklet to suit themselves. I can prove it.

I have before me a document entitled “Conservative Party of South Africa: Constitutional guidelines”. I quote—

By way of certain questions asked in the document, the voters are being told in what respect the NP is supposed to have misled them. What are the facts, however? I quote again—

That is question 15. It is a brief description of what in fact appears in the NP booklet. However, the contents are indeed the same. I concede that. They go on to say, however—

I say that that is an infamous untruth; it is a half-truth. What are the facts?

You do not understand Afrikaans.

I had rather not tell the hon. member for Sunnyside what I think of his intellectual abilities. Let us rather leave it at that. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it is untrue that the Whites will lose the political power that they have. What is indeed true is that according to the new guidelines the Whites, this House of Assembly, will have exactly the same power in respect of their own affairs as they had. And that is the point. As indicated in the plan, the guidelines, there will be a Cabinet for matters of common concern, but the power as regards the group-specific affairs of the Whites is vested in this House of Assembly. But what is more, those hon. members go further and say: “A mixed President’s Council will have the final say over Whites.” I say that this is a distortion of the facts; it is a half-truth, because—and they omit to say this—this will only be at the request of the President in respect of matters of common concern. That is the point. [Interjections.] Of course, but why did the hon. member for Rissik not say that? The people outside are being told half-truths in an effort to blatantly mislead them. And it is high time that the people outside should also know that the facts dished up by the CP are not necessarily lies, but are certainly half-truths.

What is more, they go on to say—

And now—

Once again, this is simply a subtle effort to mislead the people outside, because that is not the full implication. The fact is that Coloureds and Indians will accept joint responsibility together with the Whites on matters of common concern. [Interjections.]

Order!

All those hon. members sitting there have been acquainted with the implications of co-responsibility and a joint say since 1977. This was quoted in this House by Mr. Vorster. I have before me quotations from various leaders regarding the acceptance of the concept of co-responsibility and a joint say, that I shall show to hon. members. Now I ask the hon. members for Rissik and Barberton: If we had stated in the original plan that legislation would be initiated in the Cabinet, then surely that constituted joint decision-making and co-responsibility. After all, they were all sitting on this side of the House at the time. What is the difference between initiating legislation and achieving consensus, and power-sharing in regard to that specific matter?

The difference is very great.

No, it is surely exactly the same.

However, I now want to go further. And to me this is still the worst of all. I am sorry the hon. member is not present at the moment, but he is probably in the “Berge”—as he is entitled to be. I shall tell you what is stated on the back of the document I have before me. It is written in the handwriting of the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. However, the hon. members must excuse me if I have some difficulty reading his handwriting. These words are addressed to a voter, a Nationalist, whom he visited. He told him—

And then he goes further—

Mr. Speaker, I say that this is deliberate deception which does not do that party or the hon. member Mr. Theunissen credit. I say it is an infamous lie. However, he goes on to say—

Once again I say that this is a half-truth, because it is not so. In the future dispensation the decisions about White affairs—group specific affairs—will be taken by Whites only in the White House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, Mr. Speaker, what are the facts. These hon. members are making such a fuss about what Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Vorster and so on had to say. However, when they were challenged to tell us, they were silent as the grave. What is the fact of the matter? I wish to quote from the Hansard of 10 April 1961, col. 4192. Dr. Verwoerd is speaking—

That is Dr. Verwoerd. The hon. member can read further. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik, who always makes such a fuss about the fact that he is a student—and I accept that—knows what is stated in “Verwoerd aan die Woord”. It has often been quoted in this House. Dr. Verwoerd said—

I also want to go further. What did Mr. Vorster say? He, too, is often quoted by those hon. members. Mr. Vorster said before the Indian Council in Durban in 1974—

It is interesting to note that exactly 14 days before those hon. members saw fit to walk out of the caucus of the NP, Dr. Treurnicht said in reply to an interjection—if I remember correctly, it was an interjection by the hon. member for Yeoville: Go and read what is stated in the NP policy as preached over the years since 1977 by this side of the House and by all of us. [Interjections.] That was 14 days before those hon. members saw fit to walk out of the caucus. [Interjections.] Up to 14 days before that time, therefore, they had no problem. [Interjections.] Those hon. member’s initially walked out because they attacked the so-called concept of power-sharing. Now the hon. member for Barberton comes up with something different. At that stage it was power-sharing. There was also the homeland idea. Fourteen days before they walked out, Dr. A. P. Treurnicht said nothing in this House about being unhappy about power-sharing. He said nothing about being unhappy about a homeland, but 14 days later he left. Is that honourable? [Interjections.]

He lied to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I must conclude.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Community Development said that my leader lied to Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order! Dr. A. P. Treurnicht is no longer a member of this Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: The hon. member said that he did so while he was still a member of Parliament.

Order! I have given my ruling. I again wish to point out to the hon. member for Sunnyside that Dr. Treurnicht is no longer a member of this Parliament. The hon. member for Virginia may proceed.

I want to conclude by asking just this: That we in the CP, the PFP and of course the NP as well, and also the HNP, should stick to the whole truth, and not half-truths, in this same process in which we are engaged in seeking a future for the benefit of all population groups. Since we have the ridiculous courtship among the CP and the AWB and the HNP, I want to say the following to the CP: Do you really think that the memory of Mr. Jaap Marais and his HNP is so short that they are now going to yield to the creeping of the CP to co-operate with them? I want to quote what Dr. A. P. Treurnicht said as reported in Die Volksblad of 25 April 1981, while he was addressing a meeting at Zastron. He said—

That is what he said in 1981. At that time we had for a long time been …

But then we did not have a mixed Government.

I should prefer not to react to that interjection.

What is more, Dr. Treurnicht went on—this is the point I want to make—and was reported as follows—

Have the hon. members of the CP suddenly become ridiculous? They should consider that, but I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon. member to tell me that I am sick in my brain?

Mr. Speaker, I said that and I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of his speech the hon. member for Barberton said that when he had to choose between, as he put it, the abandonment of his White sovereignty and a homeland for Coloureds and Indians, he had no option. No doubt one could hold long discussions about the interpretation of “abandonment of sovereignty”. But what I object to is that from that statement the CP then proceeded to suggest that the creation of a homeland for Coloureds and Indians was something more or less painless, something that could easily be dealt with as a matter of course.

In reports from the far North we see that there is talk of a Coloured homeland in the Richtersveld, in the Western part of the country and another here on the Cape Flats, far from where the battle is actually being fought. The whole object of these statements is to create the impression that it is actually not such an important choice as the alternative. We also read in the Press yesterday that the leader of the CP said: “As kwaZulu met sowat 100 lappies grond ’n selfregerende Staat kan wees, kan ’n selfregerende Staat vir Bruinmense tot stand kom op die grond wat hulle tans besit.”

Now you are way off in your interpretation of it.

I should like to express just one or two thoughts about the “100 lappies grond van kwaZulu”. Surely the leader of the CP knows that that is not true. Surely he knows that kwaZulu does not consist of a hundred or more than a hundred pieces of land.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member of how many parts kwaZulu consisted before we started with the consolidation of that homeland?

I am now dealing with what was said in this country the day before yesterday and not with what the position was four or five years ago. The hon. member and his leader know just as well as we who are present here know—perhaps the people of the Soutpansberg did not know this the evening before last—that kwa-Zulu today no longer consists of more than a hundred pieces of land. He knows just as well as we do that kwaZulu today consists of 10 or 11 parts and that that consolidation process is continuing. What is more, when he spoke in the Soutpansberg the night before last, the leader of that party did not tell those people that consolidation had taken place to that extent while he still served on the Cabinet. So in the Soutpansberg he either displayed extreme ignorance about what the Cabinet had decided while he still served on it or he was trying to mislead the voters in a cynical manner.

We are not finding fault with kwaZulu.

The fact remains, as it has already been stated in this House, that there are more than 600 Coloured group areas and more than 200 Indians group areas in South Africa—altogether there are almost 900. If one compares that to the ten or eleven parts of kwaZulu one realizes that there is a vast difference. So much for Dr. Treurnicht’s comparison, superficial and absolutely misleading as it is. However, that is not the only difference between a self-governing kwaZulu and a self-governing Coloured or Indian homeland. The fact remains that kwaZulu is in a process of restitution to retrieve the land which had earlier been fragmented, not by this Government and not by the Zulu nation itself, but by the policy of colonial rulers in the previous century with their “gridiron policy”. That territory of the Zulu nation is now being restored.

That is not the only difference. The Zulu nation has accepted the kwaZulu territory as their own national home, despite of the fact that the leader of kwaZulu indicated that he did not agree with this Government and its policy of separatism. The fact remains that they have accepted that homeland.

Secondly, the Zulu nation lives in an area which it has occupied historically, which has been its historical home. Ultimately this makes kwaZulu—and all the other national States in our country, too—different from what the hon. members of the CP are advocating as a homeland for Coloureds and Indians. What those hon. members and their leader are advocating is in fact exactly the same as that which took place a hundred years and more ago in the chanceries of Europe when lines were drawn on a map of Africa which became international boundaries to serve the interests of the European politicians and not those of the African nations. To this very day the colonial cartography of the previous century is still the curse of Africa. That arbitrary lumping together of different nations and the dividing up of nations for colonial considerations of more than a century ago are to blame for the fact that we have disputes, wars and civil wars on this continent.

When one assesses the envisaged homeland for Coloureds on the basis of the above-mentioned two matters, viz. the acceptance of the kwaZulu homeland by the Zulu nation and of every other national State by its national group and the historical elements involved, one discovers that what the CP is doing is in fact no different from what was done a century and more ago in Europe with the drawing of boundaries. This National Party which has existed for 70 years and more in this country has never created any home areas for nations. Since our establishment and especially after 1959 when the homeland concept was developed further by Dr. Verwoerd, we have always maintained that we were not creating homelands but acknowledged the historical development of home areas where various nations had settled.

Now, in the year 1983, we find that a White politican and a White political party in this country are preaching the creation of homelands. Because the NP has always maintained that we did not create homelands but that we simply acknowledged historical heritage, we could reject it as irrelevant when our critics in this country and abroad attacked us because the territory of the Black nations of South Africa was smaller than their numbers justified. No country can complain about what history has given him. No nation can complain that the territory it occupies historically is not its fair share. For the same reason that Malawi cannot complain because Zambia is bigger in comparison to its population distribution, the Black homelands, the national States, cannot do it here either. However, the CP are not only advocating the recognition of a historical Coloured homeland or Indian homeland; they are advocating the creation of a homeland. If one embarks upon the area of homeland creation, I want to ask hon. members of the CP and their leader: How can they reconcile this with their sense of fairness and justice, how can they reconcile it with their Christian conscience if they accepted a basis other than numbers for the dividing up of territory? On what grounds do they expect the Coloured and the Indian communities to be content with the area which the CP in its wisdom wants to set aside for those national groups? If it is not the heritage of history, if it is not accepted by that national group itself, what other basis than numbers can one accept as valid? I think we can ask the hon. members of the CP whether they can name a single Coloured leader or a single Indian leader who is in favour of the idea of a homeland for those two national groups.

Buthelezi.

Buthelezi says that he is not in favour of homelands, but he is operating within the concept of homelands.

I shall bring you some Coloureds.

If they cannot show us Coloured and Indian leaders who are interested in the idea of homeland creation, how do they propose to carry their homeland concept through? By means of force? By means of the superior will of the White, on account of the fact that his skin is white? And how do they then propose to avoid confrontation and continued hostility in this country?

If one is forced to take numbers as a basis we must, as a matter of interest, also look at what effect that would have in our country. According to the 1980 census there were 7,8 million Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa at that stage. If one were to divide South Africa’s territory of 1,123 million sq. kilometres according to that ratio the Whites would, by virtue of numbers, be able to lay claim to 640 000 sq. kilometres. That is about the size of the whole Cape Province, viz. 645 000 sq. kilometres. The Indians would be able to lay claim to 114 000 sq. kilometres. That is about the size of the whole Natal, which comprises 87 000 sq. kilometres, and the whole of the Eastern Transvaal.

This is a typical liberalistic speech.

Then the Coloured population would be able to lay claim to the remainder of the Transvaal and the Free State. The hon. member says I am using liberalistic arguments. I ask him: If he does not want to use history as a basis, what other basis than force does he want to use for his homeland creation? His superior right? His God-given vocation as a White? I want to postulate that if the CP does not want to accept the historical heritage, the heritage of Black homelands and the absence of Indian and Coloured homelands he has no basis other than numbers to accept. And he cannot then come and placate the people of the Transvaal with the Cape Flats as a possible homeland for the Coloureds and with Stanger as a possible homeland for the Indians.

But it does not end there. If it should ever happen that that party should accept numbers as a basis, if it should ever happen that the voters of South Africa should entrust their destiny to that party, what would then prevent the black nations from saying: And what happens now that you have rejected your historical basis? What are you going to say to him if he says that he wants his pro rata share of the land? Then, Mr. Speaker, we will not be back at 1948; then we will be 300 years back in history, when the Hex River was the furthest boundary of the White settlement in this country.

The hon. member for Barberton said that when he had to choose between the preservation of his White sovereignty and a Coloured homeland he had no alternative but to choose a Coloured homeland. That is coming from the party who are posing as the champions of the Whites. That is coming from a party who tries to hold up such a policy as serious, practical politics to the voter of South Africa, a policy which is more dangerous than that of the most extreme left-wing member of the PFP. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. member for Umlazi will excuse me if I do not follow on his particular line of argument. I think his is a private fight and I should prefer him to get on with it himself. I hope also that hon. members will excuse me if I do talk a little about the budget itself. I know it is not considered the done thing in a budget debate, but, I should like to say a few words. [Interjections.]

Generally speaking I believe that I can agree with the hon. the Minister of Finance that this is a conservative and anti-inflationary budget. I further believe that the public in general, and business circles in particular, see it also as such. I would go even further and say that outside of this House there has been relatively little criticism, and indeed a certain amount of commendation, because it is argued that the budget could have been considerably worse. I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance rather feels that he has not done too badly. Whilst I generally agree with the philosophy of tight money I cannot help but feel that this budget, although conservative and anti-inflationary …

Harry, you had an hour to talk to the hon. the Minister. Why do you not let the hon. member for Umbilo talk to him now?

I am listening to the hon. member for Umbilo from where I sit now.

I am only asking you to show a little courtesy.

I am only trying to get used to sitting in this bench. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must return to his own seat please. He knows that he may not make interjections from a ministerial bench.

I am sorry—I apologize.

The hon. member for Umbilo may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel that this budget is somewhat unimaginative and lacking in dynamic forward planning. I also believe that certain dynamic forward planning is essential to the development of our country. Three of the biggest problems with which we have to contend are excessive liquidity, which causes inflation, unemployment, which is at a very high level, and also a massive shortage of housing. I believe that this budget does absolutely nothing to alleviate unemployment and inflation, and I am afraid it only minimally assists in the housing problem, and it is in this particular area that I propose to say a few words this afternoon.

It is clear that there have been certain concessions incorporated in this budget, such as the doubling of the home-ownership savings scheme from 10% to 20%, and also the subsidizing of the interest on first-time home-owners. I believe this will help. If one adds this to the concessions made in a previous budget, the hon. the Minister of Finance, I believe, really feels that he is attempting to assist in the home development scheme for South Africa. However, I believe that these are mere palliatives. They do not even start to look at the problem. This being the case, I believe that a lot more notice has to be taken of this housing problem. The hon. the Minister of Community Development, in this very debate yesterday, made an important speech on the subject of housing. I would like to say, here and now, that I concur fully in what he had to say. I appreciate his attitude and, furthermore, I believe that I can pledge the fullest possible support—certainly my support, and I believe also that of my party—for the efforts he wants to make. [Interjections.]

As has been said before—and I reiterate it—the Government alone cannot resolve the housing question. Private enterprise has to take its meaningful place in solving this massive problem that we are faced with. There are, however, certain things that the Government itself can and must do if we are to ensure proper co-operation, meaningful co-operation, on the part of the private sector. First of all, serviced land must be made available in huge quantities, not just a few odd sites, not merely a few projects for bigger contractors. It has to be made available all over the urban areas, for Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites. It must, furthermore, be made available at a price that the public can afford to pay. Just after the war there was a need for a massive housing programme, and that was taken in hand. Special training arrangements were made in the Cott schemes for training building artisans. A further point I wish to make is that the cost of housing land at that time was approximately 10% of the cost of the project. That was roughly the situation immediately after World War II. Today the cost of land, in so many of these schemes, is more than 50% of the cost of the scheme. This is what one is up against today, and why? Because of the massive endowment that has been placed on land, because of all the rules and regulations that relate to the service conditions, etc. Then there are also the idealistic and unnecessary regulations that relate to so many aspects of planning. The hon. the Minister did, of course, mention all these points yesterday. I only mention them again to reemphasize the great handicaps under which we have been working, handicaps that will have to be removed if we are to solve our housing problems.

I wonder how many hon. members in this House realize the magnitude of the problem we are facing. According to the best information available to me, between now and the turn of the century—merely a 17-year period—we shall have to find something in the order of R87 billion in finance to accommodate our housing needs. That works out roughly to R5 billion per year at current prices. The hon. the Minister mentioned many figures yesterday. He indicated that something like R1,8 billion had been spent by the various State departments over the last five years. If one takes that as an indication, one sees how much more we have to find for housing if we are going to make the whole thing work. In 1981—the last year for which I have any figures—the total amount for home building projects in South Africa, for State departments and private enterprise, totalled a mere R1,35 billion. That is approximately a quarter of the amount that we need per annum if we are to start dealing with our needs. I believe that if we are to look at this problem seriously, we have to be looking at that kind of money.

During the last 20 years—this is another point of some interest to indicate why we are in the mess we are in as far as housing is concerned—the Government has maintained its position of providing approximately 3,5% of the budget, in one form or another, for housing. However, private enterprise has dropped from 14% to 7%. This is one of the principal reasons why we are in the trouble we are in. We have to get private enterprise back into being interested in this sort of building operation. To me it is quite obvious that there is a good reason for private enterprise being out of the building industry at the moment and it would be worth our while to try to find out exactly what the reason is.

As I mentioned earlier three of the most important and vexing problems facing us are unemployment, inflation and the housing shortage. I firmly believe that should we have a housing policy that will resolve our housing shortage, the other two problems will fall away automatically, because the building industry, in one form or another, creating homes will find employment for everybody in South Africa who wants to work. With an intelligent and imaginative scheme for training we should have no difficulty in training people to do this work. One must remember that when one provides homes one is creating a situation where people want to live in comfort. They will want furniture, fridges, stoves, television sets, curtains, the Lord alone knows what else. They will want everything that is needed to create a home. These are all other industries within South Africa. If we create the homes, I say we create the basic infrastructure to give full prosperity across a wide range of South African industries.

This is not the sort of business where a lot of foreign exchange is required. It is all internal money that has to be used to build homes. The land is here, the land is ours. It is going to be vitally necessary, if we are going to have such a programme, to ensure that the local authorities and the various departments ensure that the ridiculous regulations and the ridiculously high standards which apply in many cases, are removed. I really do believe most sincerely that if enough attention were given to be able to try to seriously resolve our housing problems, many of the other problems of the hon. the Minister of Finance would be resolved. I know he has many calls upon his purse, and I am not suggesting that the Government should provide the money for this. However, it should provide the land and should be prepared, if necessary, to get rid of the land, not at cost, but at less than cost. It should, if necessary, lose money on the land to get people into houses. It is the old business of putting something in to get something more back at a later stage. I would suggest that if we do proceed with this we will be creating real wealth in the country. It will not be paper wealth, but a situation will be created where our citizens can be fully employed over the broadest possible spectrum.

To conclude on that particular aspect, I believe that we can resolve our housing problem. It merely requires making these thousands of sites available without a lot of silly, unnecessary and stringent regulations. In other words, I believe by doing this we can solve our housing problems and we can build ourselves into prosperity. It has been said that we are in a difficult situation, but if we build ourselves into prosperity, I can assure hon. members that the hon. the Minister of Finance can only be a happy man because everybody will be so wealthy and will be paying income tax and enjoying it. At least I hope so!

As so much of this debate has been taken on political matters I feel that hon. members might find it a little remiss of me if I do not do a little in this regard. In the first instance I should like to take up an issue raised by the hon. member for Berea in respect of the Durban beach front. The hon. member for Berea made some points regarding the beaches in Durban. He further made the point that he was the leader of his party in Natal and he challenged the NP leader in Natal on the question of a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I want to make it clear that I believe that the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was rather unfortunate. I believe he could have kept out of it. He should have had nothing to do with it but should have allowed Natal to sort its own problems out as it has quite satisfactorily done in the past. But, on this particular point I want to make it clear that we—I am now talking as the chairman of the party, seeing everybody else is bragging about his rank—as the governing party in Natal, believe that if you are going to make such a fundamental change, there should be a referendum amongst the citizens of Durban on this particular point. When we come to having a referendum …

[Inaudible.]

You will get your chance to talk, chum. [Interjections.] They should have a referendum amongst the people who were misguided enough to elect PFP people to the city council.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I will not answer a question. They should have a referendum amongst the citizens of Durban who elected the PFP people to the council. I say that it should be a referendum of the people for one good reason. This is a principle as far as we are concerned. In this instance it is a question of the White people relinquishing or handing over certain facilities, authorities, power—call it whatever you like. Such being the case, if they are going to relinquish something, then they must have a say as to whether they agree to the relinquishing of the authority that they had. This is why we believe it is necessary for the White voters who elected those idiots to the council to …

Are you calling them idiots?

Yes, I refer to them as such. I can say that.

How would you vote yourself?

Never mind how I would vote. I would like to hear that hon. member make a speech some time. Has he made his maiden speech yet, Mr. Speaker? I have been here for nearly two years and not heard him make a speech. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that it is necessary to have such a referendum, and I would hope that the Executive Committee of Natal will give that full consideration when the matter is put to them by the Durban city council in due course.

It has been suggested that I go in for “Prog bashing”, but I do not go in for “Prog bashing”. They, unfortunately for themselves, are their own worst enemies. They are totally illogical and totally idealistic in their illogicality and I cannot for the life of me understand that they profess to want change and yet, when the NP is trying to make change, generally in the right direction—I agree that it is not everything that we would like—they do their damnedest to make sure that it does not come about. They are to me a totally illogical and, as has been said before, irrelevant party. We may not be the official Opposition, but I can tell you we are 10 times the use of that mob in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Umbilo will pardon me if I do not follow him in the subject that he has been discussing. However, I should like to follow the example he set at the beginning of his speech and address myself a little more directly to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

*I should like to touch on a subject which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has only once before been raised in this House. By putting forward a few ideas I should like to stress the importance of the malt and beer industry in South Africa. At the same time I want to mention the growing importance of the primary barley industry, which involves about 550 producers in the Western Cape, the Overberg and the Southern Cape.

The brewing of beer is as old as the history of the founding of this country. We heard about it for the first time in the “Dagjoernaal” of Jan van Riebeeck on 4 October 1658. Before the beginning of this century this industry had already grown into a semi-modern industry, established before the turn of the century in the form of the well-known company as Ohlssons Cape Breweries Limited based here in Newlands. Since that time this industry has expanded to the north, and from the founding of the S.A. Breweries Ltd. in 1895, this industry has developed into a wide-ranging and dynamic organization within the economy of South Africa, and its development has been such that today it is a substantial contributor to the State coffers.

One wonders why so little reference has been made to this industry in the past and why, in comparison, so much is said about wine. The explanation is a simple one.

After all, it is a civilized drink.

The hon. member for Wellington must beware—because the Speaker may call him to order! [Interjections.] The explanation is a simple one because there are 10 times more wine farmers than barley farmers. In comparison, and in contrast to the wine industry, the country consumes approximately 12 million hectolitres of beer and about 5,8 million hectolitres of wine annually. The 5 400 wine farmers, of whom the hon. member for Wellington is one, provide the State with an income of R160 million, whereas we few barley farmers on the other side of the mountain, plus a few in the Western Cape, provide the basic product for an industry which provides the Government with an income of R420 million from excise duty. The wine industry is characterized by the fact that the primary producers are involved in all the facets of the industry, and the wine industry is also characterized by a very fine co-operative involvement throughout.

On the other hand, it is only from as little as four years ago that the primary barley producers acquired a share in the secondary malt industry of South Africa, and as a barley producer myself I am justifiably proud to present this industry in this House to complement the wine industry a little.

Fortunately—and one says this with piety and in a spirit of gratitude to the Most High—this industry is today one of the limited number of agricultural industries which is experiencing a period of relative prosperity in the midst of otherwise depressing and oppressive circumstances in agriculture. As I have already said, over the past four years this industry has been able to deliver the essential product for an industry which contributes more than R400 million to the Treasury. Indications are that this trend will continue over the next few years.

Self-sufficiency as far as agricultural products are concerned is probably the most fundamental objective of the agricultural policy of any country, and therefore this Government has always in the past used this aspect as a guideline in the implementation of its policy of administered prices. Accordingly the Government has certainly used this aspect as a guideline in the past when exacting a contribution to the State coffers from a specific branch of agriculture or associated industry.

Taking into account the tremendous growth in the beer market, the malt and beer industry has a long way to go before it can progress to an acceptable level of self-sufficiency, but if one bears in mind the success achieved in the past few years, one has every confidence that this may happen, because at the beginning of 1978, when the important agreements were entered into between the producers on the one hand and the S.A. Breweries on the other, the level of self-sufficiency of the malt industry in South Africa was only 25%. At that stage we spent in the region of R38 million per annum in foreign exchange on the importation of barley. Over the past five years, due to the joint efforts of producer and industrialist in a company in which the producer has acquired an interest of approximately 50%, the malt industry has increased its level of self-sufficiency from 25% to 60%. This was made possible in that the producer and the industrialist were able to co-operate.

I should like to point out the importance of this industry and ask that in future the industry be given priority attention by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I should just like to refer to two aspects in this regard.

Taking into account the estimated increase of approximately 8% in the consumption of beer, by 1990 we shall have a shortage of more or less 100 000 tons of malt in this country. It is estimated that to import that quantity would cost in the region of R60 million. If one also takes into account the fact that virtually 100% of the raw materials for the manufacture of malt are derived from one variety of barley and that this has been the case over the past eight years, then one certainly cannot over-emphasize the fundamental importance of research in this regard, because after the beer industry imported this variety as a matter of emergency in 1975-’76, the production of barley increased threefold. Development of the primary facet of barley production as the basic core of this industry is an essential pre-requisite, and in the light of what has been achieved I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that a generous contribution to research in this regard would pay ample dividends.

†I should like to urge the hon. the Minister in this regard to cast his bread onto the waters, and after not so many days it will return to him three, four and five fold.

*Then there is one final aspect to which I should like to refer. Apart from research, it will be necessary for some advertising to be done and some encouragement to be given to the barley producer to supplement the production shortage. With a target of a 75% level of self-sufficiency the malt capacity in the interior will have to be expanded, but the primary production of barley, as I pointed out, will also have to be expanded considerably. Apart from the supporting research we hope to obtain in future, there will have to be a further incentive for the producer.

In this regard I suggest that encouragement be provided according to the example in the wine industry, by making a beer quota free of excise duty available to barley producers who produce more than 150 tons, for example. [Interjections.] As I said, there are approximately 500 producers, and about half of them produce more than 150 tons. According to our estimates such a quota could mean that the other half would also be encouraged to increase their production and that as a result we should be able to produce in the region of an additional 20 000 tons of barley. I do not wish to burden the hon. the Minister with the details of such a scheme today, but I do want to ask him that, when such a scheme is perhaps submitted to him by the industry in future, he take fully into account the supply position of barley, the growing beer market, and the insignificant cost of such a quota.

On 17 February 1978, when the agreements were entered into between the producer and the industrialist, a breakthrough of historical importance was achieved. The achievements of this joint undertaking are a success story and I trust that these achievements and importance of this wide-ranging industry will continue to be recognized by the Minister and the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister is in the House, because I hope to take up a particular matter with him in a few moments. Just by way of introduction, let me say that I will not be following on the hon. member who has just resumed his seat because he dealt with a particular subject, a subject about which I have no expertise whatsoever.

I do want to take up one point made earlier by the hon. member for Innesdal and I should like to couple that with a few comments made by the hon. member for Umbilo, who is unfortunately not in the House at the moment. The hon. member for Innesdal, in reply to a statement made by my colleague the hon. member for Berea, said that he wished that we would not discuss some of the more difficult subjects like who should be able to use what beach and the whole question of facilities. A great deal has been said about the document which has been used by the NP to gear itself for the future, and under argument No. 1, dealing with the realities of South Africa, we are told: “Die deel van geriewe is noodsaaklik”. That is the point my hon. colleague made and it is the point that that hon. member has ducked once again. That is our charge against the NP.

Do not exploit it.

We do not want to exploit it. We are just saying: Deal with it; let us have some leadership. We say exactly the same thing to the hon. member for Umbilo. It is no good saying: Let us give this to the Whites only. Who were on the beaches of Durban first? Certainly not the Whites; certainly not the NRP, or the PFP. All we are saying is that, if one is going to have a referendum on a matter which has to do with God-given beaches, let us for goodness sake give everybody an opportunity to voice their opinion. What is more, we have to give the leadership. We cannot allow the issue simply to dribble on, because that is when one does have problems. That hon. member refuses to give leadership.

I want to deal with the whole question of constitutional reform as it is unfolding in South Africa. I want to submit to the House that, if constitutional reform is going to have any chance of success, the proposed changes to the constitution of the country must have a moral base, they must be legitimate and they must be consistent. I want to submit in the course of my speech that the NP’s so-called reform proposals fail on all three counts. I shall try to demonstrate that.

Firstly, as regards a moral base to a new constitution or constitutional reform, I submit that constitutional reform must go hand in hand with wide-ranging reform in those areas of the country where anger, discontent and bitterness are often the hallmarks of our society. As a bare minimum, a new constitution should be introduced against a background of systematic dismantling of race discrimination and the return to the rule of law. But that is not happening in South Africa. Whilst we discuss the finer points of constitution-making, we are witnessing on a daily basis the destruction of shacks and shanties while families are huddling together without any alternative housing. We are witnessing the regular deportation of masses of people from urban areas to a life of rural poverty, people whose chief crime it is that they want a job, and we have the categorization of people, human beings, as illegal. The removal of hundreds of families continues against the background of ever-increasing protest, demonstration, in-fighting and even killing. It is particularly sickening that this pitiless treatment of people takes place against pious utterances of Cabinet Ministers and others who talk of constitutional reform as if one can divorce it from life. Detention without trial, bannings, shootings and the harrassment of certain trade unions continue unchecked. If this Government wishes South Africa to take constitutional proposals seriously, they must have a direct relation to the ugly and unacceptable face of apartheid.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the hon. the Prime Minister believes that there must be a moral base to any reform that is contemplated in South Africa. I believe further that he, perhaps more than anyone else, is aware of the consequences that flow from any government which embarks upon a programme of reform. I want to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House on 2 June 1965 (Hansard, columns 6988 to 6990). It was at that time that the hon. the Prime Minister said that you cannot bring Coloureds into Parliament, because if you did so, you would have to include Indians and Blacks as well. When he was questioned about this at that time, he replied—

I agree with him. In other words, at that time the hon. the Prime Minister believed that if one were to include Coloured people in Parliament one could not on moral grounds exclude Blacks. How then are we to defend the new constitutional proposals which by definition exclude Blacks? Surely this is a total collapse of a moral base? I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he gave a second reason, and that also has a moral base. I quote him again—

That is in Parliament—

He went on at that time to say—

The new proposals call for one Parliament. I believe that if one is going to have a moral base to reform, then one has to answer the question that the hon. the Prime Minister himself has raised. I want to echo that question. What right has this Government to introduce new constitutional proposals which on the one hand say to the Coloured and the Indian that they can come into this Parliament, but that they cannot go to the same schools or live in the same areas as the Whites and that they must continue with the same legislation that separates and divides? This is what this Government is doing.

So you are arguing against the referendum?

No. I am not even discussing the referendum. I shall come to the referendum. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I cannot fault his original argument. I believe it is right. I want to suggest that either what he himself has implied is going to take place—and I hope it does—or that these constitutional proposals will never bring about unity in South Africa, unity which is so desperately needed, but rather will cause further division.

On the basis of these constitutional proposals the NP was split. The Afrikaner today is divided, and Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister tries to bring them together. There is ferment and bitterness in Coloured and Indian communities, and the Blacks have been driven even further away from any alliance with the rest of South Africa. There can be no unity, there can be no genuine reform, without a moral base. That is the first point I should like to make.

Constitutional reform must, in the second place, be judged in terms of its legitimacy, and the only way in which one can test the legitimacy of the new constitution is by looking at the process by which that constitution is brought into being. Legitimacy is guaranteed by genuine negotiation. It is made illegitimate without it. The present proposals, however, do not proceed from a broad base of consensus amongst all the leaders of the groups in the country, those who have to live under the proposals and who are thereby made illegitimate. We surely have to strive to govern with the consent of the governed, and if we then decide unilaterally, and only then consult with certain groups and exclude the majority, we must not be surprised if the constitution, like a house built on sand, collapses.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, let me put it to the hon. the Prime Minister again that we welcome the change of heart he has shown regarding the calling of a referendum. Clearly he believes that the changes he has introduced are so drastic and so different from former NP policy that he has to obtain a mandate from the White electorate. Well and good. We support him in that. However, how then can he exclude the Coloured and Indian South Africans? Are they not then going to be directly involved in a new constitution as well by every White person in South Africa?

They are supposed to be one nation, remember.

Once again legitimacy is thrown out of the window for the sake of political expediency. Even at this late stage I urge the hon. the Prime Minister to change his mind again and to extend the referendum to at least three groups that are concerned and who are directly involved in a new constitution.

Thirdly, a constitutional proposal must also have an inherent consistency, and any analysis of the guidelines will indicate, on the one hand, a clear determination to include Coloureds and Indians, but a determination also built in to preserve White domination; on the one hand an apparent attempt to move away from the more blatant aspects of apartheid but on the other hand the entrechment of apartheid in three separate chambers, and the ridiculous and ludicrous balancing act between what is common and what is particular; on the one hand a drawing of Coloureds, Indians and Whites nearer together, something which we need, and the other hand a series of non-negotiables, which include education, residential areas, race classification, separate amenities and the like. This Government has to face up to the truth that it cannot have its cake and eat it. It is this fence-sitting which characterizes its stumbling defensiveness of late and which accounts for the pathetic performance by this Government so far during this session of Parliament. This Government is like Janus, the ancient god who looks backwards into the past while at the same time seeking to look forward into the future. One cannot do that. It is impossible. One cannot look in two directions at the same time. On the one hand they have to face criticism from the CP, by whom they are accused that they are selling out the White man. On the other hand they are under constant pressure from the official Opposition to move away from sham reform and to turn to genuine reform. As a result, under the pressures, there is no consistency, they fight a desperate rear-guard action, with the result that double-talk characterizes every debate, and especially the present by-elections. They have one eye fixed firmly on the by-elections, and there the emphasis is on separate development and White rule. The other eye is fixed on the Coloured and Indian leaders, and there they try to dress up their proposals in “verligte” clothing. The inevitable result is that they are falling between two stools. The image is blurred and no one trusts them any more. No wonder they are having problems in the by-elections. [Interjections.] Of course they do not trust that party. They do not know where that party is going. [Interjections.] I submit, furthermore, that that party itself does not know where it is going. Here I have a document that states: “Voorwaarts sonder vrees!” That may have been true once upon a time, but now their motto is: “Moedeloos terugwaarts!” [Interjections.] We can come to no other conclusion than that what is being said and what is being done by this Government are linked entirely to 10 May and not to the interests of South Africa. The sudden announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister of a referendum for Whites only, is nothing more than a red herring to try to save a possible disaster-situation in Waterberg and Soutpansberg. The delay of the Bill reinforces the idea that because of problems within the party, and the by-elections in particular, we will not see that legislation until after 10 May. I am prepared to put my money on it. [Interjections.] The request from the hon. the Minister of Manpower to delay the discussion of his Vote by shifting the date from 2 May to 23 May is another straw in the wind, because he cannot afford to leave there. He cannot even discuss his labour legislation. This is yet another indication of “panic-stations” within the NP.

Let me therefore now put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that there is something that is long overdue, and that is for him to exert some leadership, to break his silence and give the necessary leadership in a move towards genuine reform in South Africa today. More and more it would appear that, together with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the hon. the Prime Minister is being isolated and that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, together with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon. the Minister of National Education, is winning the day. They represent the “verkrampte” wing of the NP, and they are succeeding. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister must be careful that he does not lose his initiative. [Interjections.] He keeps silent. He is very silent, and his silence confirms the general paralysis in his party. I urge the hon. the Prime Minister to give a moral base and to give consistency and urgency to reform in South Africa before he is engulfed by the “verkramptes”.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands was a good example of the kind of speech we have had from the PFP thus far in this debate. This debate is almost two and a half days old, but up to this stage all we have had from them has been lamentation upon lamentation. There have not yet been any concrete proposals. Up to this stage we have not yet had any policy from them. Thus far we have not yet heard the words “national convention”. Not a single word has yet been said about constitutional guarantees for minority groups in a unitary State. There has been no discussion of policy whatsoever from that side of the House. It was only a year ago that a number of PFP members of Parliament went to visit Zimbabwe. They came back with much fanfare and with the message for South Africa that Zimbabwe was a very good example for South Africa, that what had happened there was a miracle of national reconciliation. That, too, we have heard nothing about in this debate. [Interjections.]

Never in a thousand years, eh?

Does that hon. member still maintain that Zimbabwe is a model of reconciliation? Is that still the hon. member’s opinion? [Interjections.]

*No person who is honest with himself at this stage can still say, in the light of what has happened in Zimbabwe, that a national convention is a possible solution for South Africa, that the peoples of Africa will tolerate minorities—even if they are Black—or that they will respect constitutional guarantees. If there is one lesson that can be learnt from Zimbabwe it is that the policy of the PFP has no chance of succeeding.

That is not true.

If there is one lesson, it is that the policy followed in Rhodesia—which was PFP policy—will have the same consequences here as in Rhodesia, viz. absolute instability and bloodshed.

Will you take a question?

No. What is also very clear from the events in Zimbabwe is that the policy followed by this Government is the only policy which has a possibility of succeeding. It is the only policy which is not only in the interests of the Whites, but also in the interests of the Black people. It is the only policy which thus far has brought peace and prosperity in the whole of Africa. I suggest that this is also being perceived in other parts of the world. The hon. member for Paarl referred to an article in the Houston Post of 6 April. I want to refer to it in more detail. It is an article written by Donald Morris entitled “Tension, conflict between Blacks in Zimbabwe breaks into the open”. He refers to the bloodshed that is taking place there and to the background to these events. He goes on—

He goes on to analyze the possibilities of a peaceful solution in Zimbabwe. He stated the following—

He then proceeds to give possible solutions—

He then ends off—

This is being said by an American, thousands of kilometres away from South Africa, a person who is not a supporter of this Government. However, he realizes what the problems in Zimbabwe are. He realizes that ethnic differences are a reality there. However, the official Opposition tells us that Zimbabwe is a miracle of national reconciliation. The policy of the PFP is not a policy based on realities or a policy aimed at peaceful co-existence in this subcontinent. Their entire existence is based on prejudices against the supporters of this party.

Unfortunately that is not the only party that is based on prejudice. Whereas we on this side are saddled with such an official Opposition, whose policy can only lead to chaos and whose policy will ultimately be used by the Marxists for their own ends, whereas they have tremendous power by way of the Press—a far greater power than their political power—whereas our borders are being attacked and our soldiers are having to pay the ultimate price, whereas we are internationally abhorred and are the subject of boycotts and sanctions due to our policy, while the Government is engaged in sensitive negotiations—more sensitive than any Government has ever been engaged in—whereas in these times realism, understanding and loyalty to the Government’s situation are essential, the CP breaks away and tries to cause division and disagreement. They now come up with the word “power-sharing”. It is obvious that this word is not the reason for their breaking away because—and I can ask them this—would they not have broken away if the Prime Minister had not used that word? What is the answer to that? Would they not have broken away? They do not want to give a reply to that. It is obvious that they would have broken away in any event, because the policy they are following now is light-years removed from the policy of this party. No, that party is based solely on prejudices against people. This story of power sharing and of their having broken away from that is absolute deception. We are living in dangerous times and they come along with a policy which bears no relation to realities. Last night we heard on television that Dr. Treurnicht had said that because kwaZulu consisted of a hundred pieces, a Coloured homeland could consist of the same number of pieces. That is simply untrue, kwaZulu does not consist of a hundred pieces, it consists of only ten or eleven pieces. [Interjections.] Moreover there is no connection between kwaZulu and a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] What is more, there is no connection between a Coloured homeland on the one hand and kwaZulu on the other. KwaZulu has for generations been the traditional, historical homeland of the Zulus. The Coloureds and the Indians have never had an exclusive homeland. The CP policy cannot be implemented. As I understand their policy the CP is simply going to draw lines. [Interjections.] The Coloureds and the Indians then have to buy their land themselves in that territory. What becomes of the White interests, because the Coloureds and Indians will buy in these areas? They will become mixed areas. What happens in every area in the world where Coloureds buy in White areas will necessarily happen in those areas. This means that the value of the land will drop to a fraction of the true value. The White will be compelled to sell to the Indians and Coloureds because otherwise this will not work. It is an unrealistic policy, a policy which will lead to rebellion. It is evident that such an implication is not realized by that party. That party, just like the PFP, is built on a feeling against people and not on love of the cause.

I am proud to be a member of the NP. Over the years this party has shown that it has the flexibility, realism and fairness to achieve orderly co-existence for all the peoples of South Africa. Our policy will prevent the Whites and the other groups from being pinned down or painted into a corner in which confrontation is the only alternative.

Yesterday the hon. member for Pietersburg declared with great bravado that the Whites had a God-given right in this country. I do not dispute that, but that right must be exercised with justice and fairness towards other people, or else it will disappear. We are the only Whites in Africa who still have control over our own affairs, and at one stage almost the whole of Africa was controlled by Whites. The Germans have been here, the Belgians have been here, the French have been here, the Spanish have been here and the English have been here. There was a White people in Rhodesia, too, but they all lost their right to govern themselves. Why? It was because they demanded everything for themselves, because by doing so they enriched themselves and because they failed to accord the indigenous peoples opportunities to improve themselves at an early stage. This resulted in chaos in Africa. In contrast to the peoples of Africa, the peoples of South Africa have flourished under the rule of this Government and they will continue to flourish for many years yet under the rule of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to follow the hon. member Mr. Schutte who made a very balanced contribution here. However, I am strongly tempted to give the hon. member for Caledon a good reply to his contribution. However, I shall rather invite him to come and have a glass of wine and then speak to him in a very fatherly manner.

As was generally expected, this debate has dealt with the Government’s plan for constitutional reform rather than with the budget before this House. Although there are obvious reasons why constitutional planning is of basic importance at this stage, there is also the practical reality that no plan for constitutional reform can succeed if it is not backed up by a strong and viable economy. For that reason I want to return to the actual purpose of this debate—the budget itself.

The logical point of departure in analysing any budget, is the financial results of the previous year. When we analyse the financial results of the 1982-’83 financial year in this budget, we must of necessity come to one predominant conclusion, namely that the effective co-ordination between fiscal and monetary policies made a key contribution during the past financial year to the successful implementation of the broader economic strategy of consolidation and adjustment. In the application of this strategy the hon. the Minister of Finance and his department accomplished certain remarkable achievements such as the dramatic improvement in the balance of payments since the middle of 1982, the loan agreement between South Africa and the IMF in November 1982, the abolition of exchange control over non-residents and the elimination of the financial rand. The consequences of these steps displayed the inherent strength of the South African economy most effectively to the outside world. There has also been the effective application of realistic and market-related interest rate patterns, with the attendant beneficial effects on the general economy, the achievement in the 1982-’83 financial year of reducing the deficit before loans by almost R600 million as against the budgeted amount to a level of 2,2% of the gross domestic product, and the effective control over the money supply. Through these achievements the image of a stable and strong South African economy was again clearly conveyed to the rest of the world, and for that reason the hon. the Minister of Finance and his department deserve the thanks and appreciation of every right-minded person in this House.

When one analyses the budget proposals for the new financial year, there are three impressions that come into prominence. The first impression is that this is a constructive budget in which there was no shying away from structural changes that were deemed essential to stabilize sound and disciplined fiscal and monetary policies in South Africa. There are structural changes such as the following:

The marginal gold mines. There can be little doubt that the subsidy scheme at present in operation has become obsolete in the course of time and must therefore be amended.

Finances of local authorities. The formula that has been introduced with the objective of paying property tax to local authorities on all State-owned properties is commendable. It is a further step in the right direction in the policy which is aimed at expanding the free market economy.

The Public Debt Commission. The proposed amendment to the operation of the State Debt Commission is meaningful and essential. At a time where the emphasis is to an increasing extent being placed on effective management, it is essential for the Government sector to concentrate on eliminating the duplication of activities.

Taxation of Blacks. I am convinced that there is wholehearted support for the decision that all tax-payers in South Africa should be taxed on the basis of the Income Tax Act. I can only hope that all institutions will cooperate in implementing the new system effectively.

These structural changes introduced by the hon. the Minister can only contribute to greater discipline and stability in the South African economy.

The second impression left by the budget is that the Government has now committed itself to the lowering the inflation rate as its highest priority. In his analysis of this complex problem, the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned certain structural factors which contributed to the inflation rate, factors such as low productivity, insufficient competition, tariff protection and increases in administered prices.

As far as I am concerned, low productivity goes hand-in-hand with the serious shortage of trained and skilled manpower and with the resultant sharp increase in salaries and wages which exceeded the rise in productivity. For that reason the Government’s decision to invest ever increasing amounts of money in education and training, is the only long term solution to enhance skill and raise productivity in this country.

The increase in administered prices in its turn goes hand-in-hand with a lack of investment capital by the so-called service industries. For that reason the hon. the Minister of Finance’s appeal to the public and private sectors to get together and investigate the capital structure of these undertakings is a new and original idea which should be welcomed by everyone.

In certain respects tariff protection and insufficient competition go hand-in-hand with the inability of the industrial and agricultural sectors to compete successfully on the international markets. For that reason the exhaustive high-level investigation into this entire problem has been generally welcomed.

It is clear that the Government is trying in a purposeful way to contain inflation, in particular through its own general strategy of continued market-directed financial discipline. As was the case with the first impression the final impression the budget made on me, was also a predominant one. It was the absolute sympathy the Government has with the struggle for survival of the South African farmer in a devastating drought and the absolute confidence of the Government in the important contribution agriculture makes to the economic stability of South Africa. This basic truth was stated very strikingly by the hon. Minister of Finance in the words of Napoleon—

Against this background I as an agriculturist want to express my great appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Finance and also to the hon. the Prime Minister and his entire cabinet for the extreme aid measures they are adopting to overcome a disastrous situation in agriculture. This feeling of gratitude and appreciation runs deep and strong among farmers in South Africa. The Government’s purposeful action will not only keep the right people on the land, namely the family farmer in whom the resilience of agriculture is actually to be found, but it will also restore the confidence in agriculture of prospective young farmers who want to make it their lifelong vocation.

It is also generally realized that the practical application and implementability of the assistance scheme will actually determine its impact. For that reason I want to express the hope that persons and bodies involved will co-operate productively in the practical application of this scheme. For that reason I want to request at this early stage that the guidelines and norms in terms of which the assistance scheme will be implemented, should not totally exclude those farmers who were self-sufficient in the past; those farmers who through judicious economic planning brought about stability in agriculture in the past. These are farmers who must be retained for the future of agriculture at all costs.

Against this background I am sincerely grateful that the hon the Minister made a very important basic concession in his budget proposals, namely that farmers will be allowed to invest the returns from which they are obliged to sell livestock with the Land Bank and that these returns will not be taxable if they are used within four years of being invested for the purchase of livestock. This concession contains elements of a basic standpoint which is of vital importance for the selfsufficient stability of the agricultural sector, namely the standpoint that the agricultural sector should be allowed to invest money at the Land Bank in good years which will only be subject to taxation in the year that money is withdrawn. I realize only too well that this request has been made repeatedly to the hon. the Minister of Finance and what the hon. Minister’s reply to it was. But against the background of the drastic effect of the devastating drought on the stability of agriculture, I again want to take the liberty to repeat this request to the hon. the Minister of Finance in a friendly way. It goes without saying that the extension of this concession to include the entire agricultural sector, will enhance the possibilities for self-sufficiency of the farmer and his family and will in that way increase his selfrespect and certainty.

With these few thoughts I should like to support this budget and congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on a budget which attests to constructive thinking and adaptability.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ceres asked the hon. the Minister to allow farmers to invest their money in the Land Bank tax free in good years and we should like to support that request of his. I think it is a very good and reasonable one.

The hon. member Mr. Schutte, who is not in the House at the moment, referred to the former Rhodesia and made the statement that the Whites in Rhodesia had wanted to keep everything for themselves. The Whites in Rhodesia followed a political policy of power-sharing in terms of which Black and White had representation in one Parliament, with a minority of Blacks represented in that Parliament. This led to a power struggle in the Rhodesian Parliament, for every time a decision had to be taken, the Blacks brought out a minority vote. A power struggle developed and the Blacks began to look for allies and they found them in Moscow and Red China. Eventually these allies enabled these people to come into power and today we find that a man such as Mr. Mugabe is governing there.

That is only a half-truth.

The Whites are getting out of there. If the Whites in Rhodesia had followed the policy of the CP by dividing Rhodesia so that a part of Rhodesia could be given to the Mashona and another part to the Matabele, then the Whites of Rhodesia would have had the moral right today to govern themselves in a part of Rhodesia. Then it would not have been necessary for a man such as Mr. Joshua Nkomo to flee his country or for his people in Zimbabwe to be shot, and they are all Blacks. Then one would have had a policy and a recipe for peace. Zimbabwe is the best illustration in Southern Africa of the fact that a policy of separate development, a policy of separate freedoms, is the only just policy and the only permanent solution for peace.

What are you getting at?

What I should like to say to that hon. member is that power-sharing and mixed government led to a power struggle which eventually brought about the downfall of the White man in that country, and that separate development is the only recipe for peace in a multiracial and multinational country.

Several NP members have tried to prove by referring to the twelve point plan that members of the CP endorsed an election manifesto in 1981 in which a homeland for Coloureds was rejected as impractical. That is a fact. We cannot run away from it. However, the manifesto rejected power-sharing, a multiracial government and political integration. That is also a fact which the governing party cannot run away from. The hon. member for Mossel Bay admitted proudly, and said he was not ashamed to say that the NP had changed its policy since the 1981 election.

I never said that.

The hon. member said yesterday that he was not ashamed to say that the NP had changed its policy since 1981.

Where do you find that in Hansard?

The hon. the Prime Minister said last year that if the new constitutional plan was a drastic departure from the 1977 proposals, he would put the plan before the voters of South Africa by way of a referendum. Therefore his announcement the other day that a referendum is in fact going to be held is an indication of a drastic change of policy.

The hon. member referred to these information documents of the NP, these little blue books, and I want to say that it is not necessary for us to reproduce them. The NP should give them to us. They should give us the real thing, this blue book which has been printed in the Prog colours, because we want to distribute them thoughout the length and breadth of South Africa, so that the true policy of the NP can be conveyed to the voters of South Africa. This plan is a drastic departure from the 1977 proposals of the NP. However, I do not want to quarrel with the NP about this, because it obtained the approval of its congresses for this policy change. I want to ask briefly: What are the facts? The CP members have deviated from the NP policy in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians as it was before the 1981 election. The other side of the picture, however, is that the NP has changed its policy in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians and has deviated from the NP policy as it was before the 1981 election.

What gives you that idea? [Interjections.]

The NP changed its policy from one congress to another. Or did it not change its policy? [Interjections.] It really mystifies me that members of the governing party should say that they have not changed their policy. The hon. member for Virginia says that his party has not changed its policy. The fact is that hon. members on this side of the House as well as hon. members of the governing party fought together within the old NP during the 1981 election and subsequently deviated from the policy on which they had been elected. The CP deviated from the plan of 1977 and is now seeking to bring about the political development of the Coloureds and the Indians in terms of separate development and the self-determination of peoples. We believe that every people must be able to govern itself within its own geographical area.

Where is your Indian homeland, Jan?

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. the Minister of Community Development asks me where our Indian homeland is, I want to ask him whether he will not lend me the homeland he drew for the Coloureds. After all, I believe the homelands he drew is much bigger than the one we have in mind.

I only drew that plan to try to point out your own foolishness to you.

We shall let that hon. Minister have some more information about our homeland once we are in power. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the CP has accepted the logical consequences of separate and parallel development. The NP, on the other hand—and Prof. Sampie Terblanche speaks of the new National Party; it is the new National Party which is sitting over there—says one country, one nation, one legislature and one executive for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. They stand for power-sharing and for a multiracial government and consequently for political integration with the Coloureds and the Indians. That is why we have two political parties in this House today, the members of which were once united in the NP of Dr. D. F. Malan, Mr. Strijdom, Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. Vorster; two political parties that have been born of the old NP, one of which says that it stands for separation while the other one says it stands for integration.

What is integration?

The hon. member for Kimberley North asks what integration is. I want to answer his question by referring to the sport policy of the NP, the steps taken by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in order that segregated sport could be normalized—as it was called—into multinational sport, and then further normalised into multiracial sport. [Interjections.]

But you supported him at the time.

But were you not the chairman of that study group?

Now the NP has normalised the 1977 plan of three Parliaments into one Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order!

They will proceed to normalize it into one multiracial Government in South Africa. I want to point out to hon. members of the official Opposition that they need not be in a hurry. They need not feel anxious either. The governing party is already on the road of political integration, and the PFP’s ideal will eventually be realized in South Africa in terms of NP policy. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am sorry. My time is too limited. [Interjections.] If the hon. Chief Whip would give me an extra ten minutes, I would reply to the hon. member’s question. [Interjections.] The one element of the old NP tells the other element of the old NP that they, the CP, originally rejected the policy of a Coloured homeland, but that we are now accepting it. The other element, the CP, is saying to hon. members of the new governing NP that the new governing NP used to reject integration and power sharing, and have now accepted them.

As far as the Black peoples were concerned, the policy of the old NP was always clear and unequivocal. Each people would be guided to self-determination within its own geographical area, would govern itself and could achieve sovereign independence. We in the old NP said that this was a policy of liberation, a just and Christian policy. We said it was a policy for peace and prosperity, a policy which would eliminate conflict. We said it was a policy which offered a permanent solution to the problems of a country with a diversity of races and peoples. We propogated this just, liberating and Christian policy with enthusiasm throughout South Africa and the whole world. We sold this just ideal with enthusiasm, while—and now hon. members must listen carefully—the liberal political parties in South Africa, as well as the outside world, dismissed this policy as being unchristian, unjust, racist and oppressive. I shall quote arguments from debates conducted in this House long ago, arguments advanced by the Opposition side and by the outside world, which correspond exactly with the arguments advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Welfare and Community Development, by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and by the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member Mr. Schutte. I want to put it to those hon. members that they are inciting people of colour in South Africa against the conservative Whites in this country. [Interjections.] That is what they are doing. [Interjections.] They are inciting the people of colour against the conservative Whites in this country. [Interjections.] Hon. members have only to go and read the debates to see how they are inciting people of colour against the CP.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Does the hon. member have the right to say that we in these benches are inciting the non-Whites against those people?

Order! I think the hon. member for Kuruman must withdraw the word “incite”.

I withdraw the word “incite”. Nevertheless, those people are creating an image of the CP and its supporters which is totally wrong, a totally false image. [Interjections.] That party is creating the image of the CP which was used against the old NP by the old Liberal Party which sat on this side in years gone by. [Interjections.] That is what is happening.

What is the situation with regard to the Coloured people, however?

[Inaudible.]

But we are not racists. [Interjections.] My hon. friend opposite should just listen … [Interjections.] for in terms of the policy of the CP, there are far greater opportunities or prospects for the Coloured people and for the Indians than there are in terms of the NP’s policy. [Interjections.] What was the situation of the Coloureds and the Indians under the policy of the old NP? I remember very well the frustration in the NP when the Opposition parties asked: What will be the final outcome of the NP’s Coloured policy? I remember the frustration very well.

[Inaudible.]

We could never give a clear, logical reply. [Interjections.] There is something I should like to tell that hon. Deputy Minister. The hon. the Minister of Manpower, who is now losing the struggle in his constituency, said at Kuruman that there were to have been three Ministers of Finance in terms of the 1977 proposals, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister would like, I shall let him listen to the tape recording. [Interjections.] The old NP could never give a clear, logical reply with regard to the Coloureds. Why did the NP find itself in this invidious position? What is the truth with regard to the Coloured people? As far as the Coloureds are concerned, there have always been two views in the NP, two schools of thought which have been kept together only by NP unity. One school of thought was the liberal one in South Africa which said that the Coloureds should be uplifted and should eventually be accommodated in this Parliament. Hon. members have only to read the articles written by Mr. Piet Cillié in 1960.

And Genl. Hertzog?

That hon. Deputy Minister would go right back to Jameson if that were necessary to justify his policy. [Interjections.] The other school of thought saw the Coloureds as a people in the making, a people which could achieve self-determination in its own right. That is why we find that Coloured homelands were advocated. Minister M. C. Botha, supported by the hon. member for Pretoria Central, Dr. Connie Mulder and the hon. member for Klip River, argued in favour of a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of National Education also advocated this outside Parliament. Today I want to tell hon. members what happened. NP unity stood in the way of a Coloured homeland in South Africa. NP unity stood in the way of a Coloured homeland as practical politics in South Africa. [Interjections.] There were people who argued in favour of a homeland. That is why projects such as Atlantis were planned. Atlantis was to have developed into a Coloured metropolis. There was some creative thinking, together with colleagues on that side of the House, about the possibility of a Union Building for the Coloureds, colleges, universities, their own Supreme Court and a Parliament for Coloureds which were to have been provided in Atlantis.

Where did you hear that?

If I am not mistaken, the hon. the Minister of Community Development was a participant, like myself, in this process of creative thinking. [Interjections.]

It happened at your secret meetings.

Together we envisaged certain growth points where Coloureds should be concentrated, and together we decided where certain growth points for Coloureds should be identified. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give me that map. We may be able to use that map. Do hon. members know how, as a former Matie, I had to fight with the hon. the Minister for Mineral and Energy Affairs when he wanted to give the Coloureds the whole of the Western Cape, when he said that Stellenbosch should also be included? I had to ask him: “Please, my friend, just leave Stellenbosch out of it.” [Interjections.] So those two schools of thought were kept together by party unity. These two streams paralysed creative thinking in the NP, with the result that the NP could not make any progress in this direction. A homeland for the Coloureds was not practical politics because it would endanger the unity of the NP.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended for dinner, I was saying that the two schools of thought which had existed within the old NP paralysed creative thinking within the NP and that the party could not advance any further in that direction. A homeland for Coloureds was not practical politics because it endangered the unity of the NP. Integration, representation of Coloureds in this Parliament, was unacceptable to the old NP. This, too, endangered NP unity.

In my opinion, the hon. the Prime Minister has chosen the wrong course. He has chosen the liberal course. However, I want to give him credit for having decided that the NP had to get out of this dead end and had to get away from the road to nowhere. The NP had to decide whether to pursue the course of political integration with the Coloureds, and to lose conservative members to the right, or to face up to the logical consequence of separate development, i.e. the development of a Coloured national State, and to lose the liberals to the left. The hon. the Prime Minister and his chief lieutenant, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, played their trump card on 24 February. By accepting the policy of the NP as explained in this blue book, the NP chose the course of political integration and it will have to pursue that course all the way.

To us in the CP, political integration was and remains unacceptable. Therefore there is a new reality of which we must take cognizance in this House. The reality is that the liberal members of the old NP are sitting with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister Heunis in the new NP. They have to go and sell a political policy of power sharing, multiracial government and political integration to the electorate of South Africa at a referendum. The conservative members of the old NP are sitting in the CP today. We have accepted the logical consequences of the policy of separate development, parallel development, as our ultimate aim. We have accepted the logical consequences of the self-determination of peoples as our ultimate aim and ultimate ideal.

If this was possible for the Tswanas—those hon. members must listen carefully now—we say that it is possible for the Coloureds and the Indians as well. It was possible in the case of the Tswanas. The fatherland of the Tswanas consists of six different areas that extend from Pretoria to Kuruman and Thaba Nchu. If it was possible for the Tswana people to obtain self-determination within that country—only 50% of that nation’s people live within their own borders; the others live throughout the length and breadth of South Africa in Black townships within White areas and on farms—it is possible for the Coloured people and the Indians as well.

Where?

If it was possible for the Zulus to obtain self-determination on ten blocks of land, which is the ideal of the 1975 consolidation proposals—unless the NP has since departed from them—and if this was right and just, it can be right and just in respect of the Coloured people as well.

I want to repeat tonight that in terms of the CP’s policy for the Indians and the Coloured people, it is possible that they can be guided towards self-determination, self-government and sovereignty in their own geographical areas. Therefore, we say that this is possible for the Coloured people and the Indians as well.

Where?

We shall tell you where. I want to tell those hon. members that the policy of the NP in respect of the Black peoples is the right one for the Coloured people and the Indians as well. That is why we say it is a liberating policy. It is a just and Christian policy. It is a policy for peace and prosperity and a policy which will eliminate conflict between Coloured people, Indians and Whites in South Africa. It is a policy which offers a permanent solution in a country with a diversity of races and peoples. I want to tell that party tonight that we have accepted this just, Chistian and liberating policy and that we shall advocate this policy throughout South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Kuruman should have drawn a parallel between Zululand and a Coloured homeland. We have all heard of the hundred pieces of which Zululand is supposed to consist. Now, all of a sudden, there are only ten, according to the hon. member for Kuruman. Now I want to ask the hon. member what an extra nought is among friends. It is typical of the political propaganda of the CP that the hon. member should have drawn a parallel between the position of the Republic of South Africa and that of Zimbabwe. Surely South Africa is recognized as a sovereign, independent State, while Rhodesia was a British colony which was at the mercy of Lancaster House. Then the hon. member spoke about the Shona and the Ndebele and he said that Rhodesia should have followed the policy of his party. Surely that is exactly what the NP is doing in South Africa in respect of the country’s Black peoples. We do not need to listen to what that hon. member wants to tell us about this. I also want to know what message the hon. member was trying to put across by means of the parallel he wanted to draw with Zimbabwe. When one examines the former Rhodesia’s policy, one sees that it was far to the left of the PFP.

In the second place, we come to the referendum. The hon. members of the CP are now trying their utmost to prove in this House that the fact that the Government is going to hold a referendum in South Africa proves that it has deviated from the 1977 proposals. In the course of my speech I want to deal with 1977 and 1982. The hon. member for Kuruman told us that both the CP and the NP had deviated from the 1981 manifesto. I want to tell that hon. member that the NP of today is just as close to the 1977 proposals as the hon. member for Kuruman and his party are to the HNP today.

Then the hon. member also accused us of being a new NP. I want to tell him that any party which has got rid of a piece if deadwood such as he is bound to be new and fresh. The hon. member also alleged that the people of colour in South Africa were being incited against the CP by this side of the House. All they have been speaking of all along is a Coloured homeland, and now I want to ask him: Show me one Coloured leader in South Africa who is prepared to say that he will support the CP in its plan for a Coloured homeland. I shall tell you what the position is, Sir. Any party which cherishes an organization such as the AWB in its bosom is looking for trouble What person of colour or what Jew would want to get involved with that hon. party while it is cherishing an AWB in its bosom?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the idea of a Coloured homeland which was supposed to have endangered the unity of the NP. I have not been a member of the NP for many years. I joined the NP in 1979, and since then I have attended every congress. I have come to the House of Assembly and I have attended every caucus meeting ad I have never heard that there are people in the party who talk about a Coloured homeland. The hon. member for Rissik said—my hon. leader in the Transvaal cornered him on that—that he had been fundamentally in favour of a Coloured homeland since 1958, and had nevertheless remained in the NP.

Were you not in favour of a Coloured homeland while you were still a member of the UP?

That is a lie, Mr. Speaker. That is an absolute lie. Anyone who says that is lying. It is not true. Let me deal with the hon. member for Bryanston at once. I want to tell the hon. member that I have always been under the impression that the old United Party made one cardinal mistake in respect of the referendum of 1960—that we voted against the Republic and that we opposed it.

I voted “Yes”. [Interjections.]

How did that hon. member vote “Yes”? Do hon. members know how he voted “Yes”? He did not have the courage to go and vote “Yes” at the polls, but he voted “Yes” by means of a UP postal vote. [Interjections.] That is precisely the delemma of the PFP today. We know that they are going to agitate against the new dispensation, but their supporters are going to vote “Yes” in this referendum by means of PFP and NP postal votes. The proverbial cat is among the pigeons in respect of the referendum in South Africa. I want to say that I have not encountered so much enthusiasm among Nationalists in a long time as there has been in this Parliament since the announcement of a referendum in South Africa. However, we have heard some very anxious noises from the Opposition with regard to the referendum. The hon. member for Yeoville performed such a beautiful egg-dance the other day. He told the hon. the Minister of Finance that this budget was a so-called amber budget. I want to say to the PFP that the standpoints they are adopting in respect of the referendum seem to me we have the same amber hue. However, they should know that the colour which comes after amber is red and then it will be too late for them to change their standpoint in South Africa. This referendum is going to draw the final dividing line in South Africa between the reasonable people and the extremists. What is more, the standpoint of every political party in this country is going to be judged in the light of the realities of the circumstances in this country. So every hon. member of this House, including the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bryanston—for I know these hon. members want to vote “Yes” in the referendum—will have to wrestle with his own conscience in future. [Interjections.] Yes, I shall arrange a postal vote for the hon. member.

There are some people in this country who refuse to recognize and accept reasonable reform. I am referring to our friends in the CP. Then there are those in the politics of this country who refuse to accept reform within the framework of certain realities. These include the hon. members of the CP as well as of the PFP; hence the sudden flutter, when the referendum was announced, about what the question in the referendum was going to be. Only two arguments are advanced from the Opposition side. The PFP argues about what the content of the question is going to be, and the hon. member for Yeoville is a striking example of this. The CP, on the other hand, says: No, the referendum is about the drastic deviations in respect of 1977.

Then what is it about? You tell us.

To me it is simply about two matters. I shall come to them. In the meantime, the hon. member for Pietersburg should start writing out his resignation. Firstly, it is about reasonable reform in South Africa, and secondly, it is about the realities within which reform has to take place. When one speaks of reform, the CP goes into a state of shock. [Interjections.] I want to put this question to those hon. members: Is it really so far removed from the familiar in the political debate of South Africa? I say it is not. One does not want to trace the whole history of the matter. My friend the hon. member for Virginia has already said that this matter has been in the air since the days of the Erika Theron Commission. I submit that what is taking shape in South Africa today was initiated by ex-President John Vorster. I challenge any hon. member to deny this. I say that what is taking shape in South Africa today was initiated by ex-President John Vorster. The basic premises of 1977 and the basic premises of the new dispensation are not irreconcilable in terms of any argument which any hon. member could advance. Let us take some of these premises for the purposes of my argument, but before I come to that, I want to ask the CP where they stand in respect of 1977. This is a vital question, because we must know whether they support the HNP or ex-President John Vorster.

We support the CP. [Interjections.]

I am putting this question to them because here in the House of Assembly the CP is supporting the HNP in its opposition to 1977. In Waterberg, however, they are making use of the speech made by ex-President John Vorster before the Tukkies, in support of 1977.

Who is making use of it?

The hon. members of the CP are making use of the speech of ex-President John Vorster in Waterberg. I now ask them: Where does ex-President John Vorster stand? Speaking of ex-President John Vorster, I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik in passing that he makes very surprising statements at times. I think the hon. member is going cuckoo, as they say. [Interjections.] Just listen to what the hon. member said in this House in a debate on the Culture Promotion Bill. He said that this was another wonderful thing about the governing party: Whoever happens to be the Prime Minister of the day, they rally behind him, and if he is out the following day, they rally behind the next man.

Yes, that is true.

The hon. member says that this is true. I say this is the best indication one could have of the loyalty of that hon. member. What does he mean? When did that hon. member join the NP? [Interjections.] The way I see it, it was in the time either of Mr. Strijdom or of Dr. Verwoerd.

1959.

I ask the hon. member: Did he rally behind Mr. Strijdom, and when Dr. Verwoerd came into power, did he rally behind Dr. Verwoerd as well?

It was the principles of the NP with which I agreed.

And when Mr. John Vorster became Prime Minister, did he rally behind him? [Interjections.] When the present hon. Prime Minister came into power, the hon. member for Rissik was a member of the NP caucus, after all; did he rally behind him or did he not? [Interjections.]

I was loyal to him. [Interjections.]

There is another question I want to ask the hon. member: Whom is he going to rally behind if Dr. A. P. Treurnicht does not return after 10 May? Does he still support Dr. Connie Mulder, perhaps?

Let us examine a few of the premises against the background of the self-appointed guardians of the people in South Africa. It will avail the CP nothing to wash their hands of 1977 like a Pontius Pilate of old, exuding righteousness, because this is precisely the argument I have with those hon. members: The NP has not changed since 1981, as the hon. member for Kuruman alleges. The first point I want to make is that the fundamental principle remains one geographical area for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. This has always been so and Adv. John Vorster stands by it. He said so at the University of Pretoria. Now I ask the hon. members of the CP where they stood and when they broke with 1977.

Since you accepted a mixed Government.

I am coming to that. The hon. member should just exercise a little restraint.

Let us examine the second point. Surely the election of the executive president by an electoral college consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Asians in the ratio of 50:25:13 remains exactly the same. So the hon. members must tell me what has changed. I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik how he reconciled himself to that formula for electing a President in the presence of Moslems and Buddhists. That is the type of politics which those hon. members are practising.

By the way, while we are talking about the election of the President: I am very sorry that the hon. member for Lichtenburg is not here, but the hon. member for Rissik is the acting leader, after all. Let us see what Dr. Hartzenberg, the hon. member for Lichtenburg, said at a public meeting at Messina in Soutpansberg. This gives an indication of the vulgar, nauseating politics practised by those hon. members. At that meeting the hon. member for Lichtenburg told the people that the formula was right and if the NP was in power, there would probably be 50 Nationalists sitting in that electoral college. Then he said that they would probably be the 50 senior Nationalists. Then he said the following to his audience: “Now I ask you: How can you trust P. W. Botha, S. P. Botha, Piet Koornhof, Pik Botha and Gerrit Viljoen not to vote with the Coloureds for a Coloured President?” [Interjections.] The hon. member says “Yes”.

Are the Coloureds lepers?

That is the level to which these hon. members have descended. Surely the hon. member knows how the Prime Minister is elected within the NP. The Prime Minister is elected by the caucus of the NP and every member of that electoral college is bound by a caucus decision. Just look at the kind of suspicion-mongering one gets from those hon. members, however. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the composition of the Cabinet. In 1977, the Cabinet was a mixed Cabinet with executive powers. Furthermore, there was a fixed ratio of 7:4:3 in respect of White, Coloured and Asian. This has been changed into merit only in the election of the President. Now the hon. member says it is a Council of Cabinets. I want to ask him whether he accepts Mr. Vorster’s word.

Yes.

The hon. member says be accepts Mr. Vorster’s word.

Ask Mr. Vorster what he says.

What did Mr. Vorster say? [Interjections.] Mr. Vorster said that the Council of Cabinets would function …

Order! I think the hon. member for Turffontein is entitled to speak without so many interruptions by Government members.

Sir, I do not really want to say thank you, but I say it all the same. [Interjections.] Mr. Vorster says that the Council of Cabinets will function in the same way in which our Cabinet functions at the moment. If the present Cabinet is an executive Cabinet, therefore, the Council of Cabinets will have an executive nature too. That is what Mr. Vorster said, and the hon. member for Rissik said he accepted the word of Mr. Vorster.

What does Jaap say?

In the fourth place, I want to question the hon. members of the CP about the principle of the various legislative bodies. In 1977 these took the form of three Parliaments. Under the new dispensation they are three chambers of one Parliament. Now my hon. leader, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, has put certain questions in this connection to the hon. members of the CP, because they said that this was a drastic deviation and it made an enormous difference. Now I want to ask the hon. members of the CP whether it was envisaged that those three Parliaments of 1977 would become sovereign Parliaments.

Not a word out of them now.

They are not prepared to reply to that, even though they raised a hue and cry recently. Those Parliaments were never intended to be sovereign bodies. In both cases, whether they be three Parliaments or three chambers, the principle and the functions remain exactly the same. Elections for the chambers take place on separate voters’ rolls; the character of the White Parliament is preserved intact and the self-determination of each group with regard to its own affairs is very clearly spelt out.

Let us listen to the suspicion-mongering of Dr. A. P. Treurnicht when he was a member of this House. I quote from Hansard, col. 1256, of 18 February 1983, where Dr. Treurnicht says the following—

I want to ask the hon. members: What is Dr. A. P. Treurnicht insinuating? If he is insinuating that this is the policy of the NP, I say that Dr. A. P. Treurnicht is a liar, and we shall level that accusation at him wherever we may find him.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Turffontein, because his speeches are enjoyable. He lays it on thick, and then things begin to heat up.

I should like to react to the speech of the hon. member for Kuruman. He made a few statements which the hon. member for Turffontein has already dealt with. It seems to me as if that hon. member does not understand matters very well. Nor do I know whether it will help to explain them to him. He vents his spleen, all the hon. members of the CP vent their spleen, about power-sharing which has now supposedly become the policy of the NP. If there are any of them sitting there who cannot understand that there was an element of power-sharing in the 1977 proposals, then they are not in their right minds. Anyone could see that there was an element of joint responsibility built into those proposals, participation by people other than Whites alone. The hon. member now says that we are inciting the people of colour against the CP. Eulenspiegel said: Everyone hates me, but I bring it upon myself. It is their statements, their conduct and their attitude towards people of colour that makes people hate them. The hon. member spoke about the benefits the Brown people would supposedly enjoy somewhere in the west. I think his leader said in Gordonia. He speaks about the West Coast, the west, the desert, Namaqualand or Bushmanland. I do not know whether the Coloureds would be satisfied with that part or with the Cape Flats as a Coloured homeland. The night before last, at Messina, the hon. member’s leader spoke about the region to which I have just referred, that region in the west. The hon. member for Benoni said that the biggest concentration of Coloureds was here in the Western Cape, around Cape Town. Those hon. members should give some thought to that, or if they want to excise an area for the Coloureds which will not be so expensive to buy out, they could perhaps consider taking the Western Cape, and Cape Town, too, while they are about it? After all, they would then have 80% of the Coloureds together here. As far as the Indians are concerned, if they want to be honest—because 80% of the Indian population is concentrated in and around Durban—they must consider taking Durban for the Indians. Would that not perhaps be cheaper?

I wish to touch on another matter here. The election in “die Berge” is not as innocent as it appears. History is being made here. Do hon. members know what is happening here? A personality struggle is in progress here. A leadership struggle is in progress. A political struggle for survival is in progress here. After all, all hon. members who sat here are my witnesses that Dr. A. P. Treurnicht, who at the time sat in this House as leader of the CP, did not reply immediately and say that he accepted the challenge of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. He looked to the left and then to the right. After that he looked behind him. I think he was looking to see whether Koos van der Merwe was not trying to tell him what he ought to do. He did not decide immediately. [Interjections.] Only later was it decided that he would accept that challenge. Did Dr. Treurnicht take that decision himself? No, he did not decide that himself. The decision was taken on his behalf. Who took the decision on his behalf? There are other people who decided on his behalf, people who would like him out of the way. And now I am looking specifically at the hon. member for Rissik. [Interjections.]

What do you mean?

Mr. Speaker, surely it is true that this is a leadership struggle. After all, every political party can only have one leader. There cannot be four leaders. Anyone who tells me that the HNP and the CP are not going to combine in the future knows nothing about reality. One only has to see how the CP is crawling before the HNP. [Interjections.] Now that new party will, of course, have one leader. However, there are people who are already organizing to get Dr. A. P. Treurnicht out of the way.

There are four possible leaders for the CP. There is Mr. Jaap Marais. The hon. member for Pietersburg, for example, would be very pleased if Mr. Jaap Marais became the leader of the new party. The hon. member for Sunnyside would also be pleased if Mr. Jaap Marais were to become leader of the new party. The hon. member for Kuruman would also be pleased if Mr. Jaap Marais would become the leader of the new party. The hon. member for Rissik, on the other hand, is of course a person who champions Dr. Connie Mulder. The hon. member for Rissik puts his money on Dr. Connie Mulder. Of course, the hon. member for Rissik has his allies too. The hon. member for Jeppe is one of them. The hon. member for Langlaagte also wants Dr. Connie Mulder as leader.

Then, too, there is another man who could be mentioned as possible leader of the new party. That is, of course, the hon. member for Lichtenburg here are some people who are pushing him strongly. They say that he is the “lig van Lichtenburg”. Then, too, there is the hon. member for Barberton. The hon. member and also the hon. member for Koedoespoort, of course, both want the hon. member for Lichtenburg to be their leader. The hon. member for Meyerton, too, would like to see the hon. member for Lichtenburg elected leader. Mr. Speaker, let us now take a brief look at the stages through which the CP has progressed. The CP has gone through various stages. The first stage was the arrogant stage when they were walking around in the lobby of Parliament boasting that they were going to hijack the NP and run away with it. We all know what the subsequent history of that was. The next stage was the stage when they were boasting that they would checkmate the NP of Transvaal. The next stage was the stage of Germiston District. However, that was a disappointing stage. The tears flowed then.

Yes, and what about the saliva?

Yes, the saliva too. [Interjections.] At that stage they began to crawl before the HNP. The unfortunate aspect of the matter was that after the next stage, the Parys stage, they began to look for a scapegoat. Mr. Speaker, do you know who their scapegoat turned out to be? It was no one but Dr. Andries Treurnicht himself. He is the scapegoat. He must go. He is no longer good enough. Of course, this is not a secret. It is true that there are hon. members in the CP who are no longer satisfied with the leadership of Dr. A. P. Treurnicht; I do not blame them, of course. [Interjections.] After all, Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Dr. Andries Treurnicht is an honourable cultural leader. He was also an honourable church leader. However, he is no political leader. Surely hon. members will agree with that. There are hon. members of the CP, too, who will agree with that. [Interjections]

Of course there are certain things that that new leader will have to do. This new leader will have to have the courage to tell us, or tell the public, how they are going to co-operate with the AWB, because the present leader is unable to say. He is trapped. The AWB takes him on tow. The new leader will also have to tell us what he is going to do with the Vorster ties, because Mr. Jaap Marais says that as long as they retain the Vorster ties they will not be able to become one party. Therefore they will have to break those ties, because after all, they are going to become one party. That new leader will have to be grateful for this by-election so that they can show the voters what progress they have made, because they were unable to do so at Germiston District and Parys. That new leader will also have to be grateful for the referendum, because after all, they say they are going to win in the referendum. Therefore they are going to be grateful for the referendum; they must not be angry. [Interjections.] The new leader will have to dissociate himself from the little man imported from Britain, that little Willmer, a British immigrant who is not even a citizen of South Africa but who addressed that CP in the Skilpadsaal so movingly that they accorded him a standing ovation. They even made him a member of their head committee. He will have to dissociate himself from that little man who has come to do a great deal of harm in this country. The new leader will also have to dissociate himself from the leader of the Kappiekommando, who says she will discourage the people from serving in the Defence Force. I should like to know what their standpoint is in that regard. [Interjections.] The new leader must not be an imitator. He will have to tell the voters frankly what their policy is, not what they want to hear but what they must hear.

The NP, on the other hand, puts it to the voters clearly and without ambiguity that the status quo cannot be maintained in South Africa. We shall have to make a plan, now and not later, to give political rights to the Coloured and Asian people in South Africa. We shall have to give them political rights and that is what we are going to do. The problem is only how, and we have been working out how this should be done for seven years, and now we have found a method that these people can also go along with. The NP states very clearly that the Coloureds are not our enemies. The Coloureds and the Asians are welcome allies in the struggle against communism here on the southern tip of Africa.

The hon. member for Pietersburg spoke about Coloureds as aliens yesterday. However, they are not aliens. They have been here in Cape Town, here in South Africa, for more than 300 years. There is not a single town in South Africa which does not have a Coloured. He said that the Afrikaner had the right to be here. Then I want to tell him that the Coloured has just as much right to be here. He says that we are going to remain here. Of course we are going to remain here, but they must accept the reality that the Coloureds and the Asians are also going to remain here. They and we all want peace, and this is the recipe that we propose. The NP states bluntly that it is not concerned with White interests alone. At the present stage it is concerned with the interests of all the people. However, the issue here, and the issue in the referendum, is specifically that of the rights of Coloureds and Asians. We state frankly that we should like to improve the standards of living of the Coloureds and Asians to such an extent that they will come onto the same level as the Whites. We are giving them a say in their own affairs and they will be able to discuss matters of common concern with us. [Interjections.] The NP states clearly that it does not want to reduce White rights. We want to find methods to give to others what we want for ourselves. We are seeking an answer to the challenges faced by the Republic of South Africa. We do not go around gossiping, undermining and plodding through the mud. We tell the voters openly what we are struggling with, and we ask them in a democratic way to help us and to give us permission for what we intend to do. We are seeking co-operation among the Whites and the people of colour in Southern Africa. We are seeking a just dispensation for all. Not only are we part of Africa; we also have to be to the benefit of Africa.

Show me one example in Africa where the Coloured or the Asian has been a threat to the White. They have not been a threat to the Afrikaner or the White in South Africa either. It is true that they are an essential ally against communism and domination by majority groups. There is no other people or group in Africa that is closer to the Afrikaner than the Coloured. He speaks our language, attends our churches and shares our culture. The Coloureds are highly civilized and intelligent people who know no other civilization or way of life than the Western one. We as Afrikaners must be crazy or stupid or must be wanting to commit suicide or genocide if we reject the Coloured on the basis that his skin colour is darker than ours.

All minority groups in Africa—Black, White or Brown—are threatened by majority groups, for example the Shonas in Zimbabwe, who are depriving other groups of all power. That is the lesson we have to learn from Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid in an attempt to ascertain whether there were any arguments to which I could react, but he did not raise one argument which could be regarded as a contribution to this debate. This typifies the NP-despondency we have been witnessing up to now in this debate. Up to now they have merely been reacting to points raised by the PFP or the CP. There is no sign of any initiative from the side of the NP. They are despondent and discouraged as they are sitting over there. What has happened to the vitality of that party in this debate, one in which they ought to be at their strongest?

†I wish to deal with a different matter today, a matter not related to the by-elections but one which I believe in the long run will have greater consequences for peaceful existence in South Africa than the by-elections in Waterkloof or Soutpansberg. I wish to deal with a matter which has again aroused concern among all South Africans who have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. It is a matter which I believe has brought shame on this Parliament which is responsible for the laws which have been passed and which exist in the country. I refer to the shooting of the elected community leader Mr. Saul Mkhize at Driefontein in the Transvaal. There may be “shs” and “oohs” coming from the NRP and the NP, but it is a most serious incident and is a result of the policy which I will deal with.

He was elected by a community of 5 000 Blacks living on property which was purchased by the Blacks in 1912. Under our present security laws a community such as that is not allowed to hold an open meeting in order to elect its leaders without a permit. In December 1982, fortunately, they did get a permit from the local magistrate for the specific purpose of electing representatives to negotiate their removal with the Department of Co-operation and Development. Approximately 3 000 of the 5 000 residents took part in that meeting and elected representatives. Mr. Saul Mkhize was elected chairman on 26 December.

This matter has a long history. As long ago as June 1981, after the Driefontein residents had been informed that they would be moved, Mr. Saul Mkhize wrote to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development for more information. That was in 1981. He wrote in his letter, inter alia, the following, and I quote—

Lastly he asked—

The hon. the Minister replied a few months later, in October, and he informed Mr. Mkhize, inter alia, as follows—

The letter ends—

They were therefore told in 1981 that their removal was a fait accompli. No negotiations took place. At the meeting of 2 April this year, when Mr. Mkhize was shot, the residents intended to discuss the sinking of boreholes because of the drought and also to discuss a petition which had been drawn up to deal with the removal issue. The petition which was to have been presented to the department reads as follows—

That was an innocent, honest and straightforward petition which was going to be discussed at that meeting. This petition on its own is a shattering indictment against the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and against the Government’s removal policies as a whole. The petition expressed the belief that the Government’s refusal to negotiate was harmful to relations in South Africa. What an understatement, Mr. Speaker! They say it is harmful. The refusal to negotiate with people who are being moved by force has disastrous consequences and will in the long run have disastrous consequences. When the chickens come home to roost the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development will probably not be here any more but some of us will be here and the hon. the Minister’s children will still be here. The policy of mass removals is ruining our future, and the tragic shooting of Mr. Saul Mkhize is just the tip of the iceberg of the suffering and the brutality that goes hand in hand with those removals. The petition which I have read also refers to public statements made by the hon. the Minister from time to time. I am sorry that he is not here and I know he could not be here. He knew that I was going to raise this matter here tonight.

On 20 February this year, for example, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is quoted in the Sunday Tribune as saying the following—and this is one of the statements which, I presume, the Driefontein Committee were referring to—

That is what he said. He states further in the article—

These are the type of statements which we have heard from the hon. the Minister and which are echoed by Government representatives. They are cynical statements, Mr. Speaker. Driefontein is the reality. The statements are cynical. The death of Saul Mkhize is the reality. The statements are cynical. Then the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development has the temerity to criticize the CP for their policy of a Coloured homeland. To me it is a retrogressive, ridiculous, dangerous policy. At a meeting in Nylstroom which was reported on in The Citizen of 8 April this year he states the following referring to the CP—

This was what the hon. the Minister wanted to ask Dr. Treurnicht—

This is a typical example of a holier-than-thou attitude. How can he remove the people of Driefontein and the hundreds of thousands of others to a homeland to which they do not wish to go? This is what he criticized the CP for. Where are the billions of rand to come from to move these people against their will to homelands to which they do not wish to go?

When we look at the history of the legislation dealing with land for Blacks and their removals, we find that it goes back for decades to the beginning of the century and even before that. Even before the passing of the Native Land Act in 1913 there were laws in existence which prevented Blacks from buying land from Whites or from selling land to them. In 1911, at a meeting in his constituency of Bethlehem, the then Minister of Lands dealt with these laws. He said the following—

Laws that have the same effect as those that existed in 1911 and before then exist today but today they have been sugar-coated with sweet phraseology and expressions such as “compassion” and “human dignity”. Those are the expressions that the hon. the Minister uses. In reality, today’s removal or resettlement laws are as much Kaffir laws as they were in 1911. They remain Kaffir laws because they reflect the contempt with which legitimate Black aspirations are being brushed aside. [Interjections.] In 1983 we use sophisticated phraseology and public relations methods to try to conceal the cruelties of these laws. In fact, they are more severe now and they are more drastic than they were in 1911 because they now deprive Blacks of their South African citizenship.

I wish to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister who is not here now but I trust that he will be informed of the questions. Why did his department refuse to negotiate with Saul Mkhize and his committee? [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister is here. I should like to ask him why there was that refusal in regard to an elected member of a peaceful settled community? Why is it necessary to remove all the residents of Driefontein if only a portion of that farm is going to be flooded by the proposed new dam? What is to be the fate of Driefontein, of Daggakraal and of Ngema, all in the same area? Are those people still to be removed; if so, when and where to? These are questions which the hon. the Minister or his deputy must answer not only because the House has to know but also because the country and the people involved want to know.

There are different versions in regard to what exactly happened in regard to the circumstances surrounding the shooting. I cannot comment on the circumstances except to say that they appear to be questionable. However, what the hon. the Minister of Law and Order should tell this House and the country is why two young constables were sent to break up an open meeting which the police regarded as being illegal? Why were two young constables sent to such a meeting? The hon. the Minister must tell us whether it is correct that Constable Nienaber, one of the two constables, arrived at Driefontein the day after he shot Mkhize dressed in jeans and a short-sleeved shirt and with a gun strapped to his waist.

That was not Constable Nienaber. It was mentioned in the report.

The hon. the Minister must give us an anwer.

It was not he and you know it.

He can tell us during this debat or at any other stage.

You know very well that that was not Constable Nienaber.

He must tell us whether that constable got onto the horse of the … [Interjections.]

He is lying. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Law and Order has said that the hon. member for Durban Central is lying.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well… [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Minister allege that the hon. member for Durban Central was telling a lie?

Mr. Speaker, I am replying to you, if hon. members would only give me an opportunity to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! A point of order has been raised. The hon. the Minister will have the opportunity to give an explanation. At this stage I simply want to know whether the hon. the Minister has accused the hon. member for Durban Central of telling a lie?

Mr. Speaker, when hon. members keep on interrupting me, I cannot even give you a “yes” or “no” answer. [Interjections.]

Order! I am simply asking the hon. the Minister whether he said the hon. member was telling a lie.

I said he was lying.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The security laws which regard that meeting as illegal are themselves a threat to security in this country, and the Driefontein incident is an example of that. If those people cannot hold meetings to elect a legitimate leader in a peaceful way, where are we going to if we want to resolve our complex situation in South Africa?

Why do you not speak the truth?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. the Minister to ask such a question?

Order! The hon. the Minister of Finance merely posed the question why the hon. member did not speak the truth. He did not accuse him of telling a lie. The hon. member for Durban Central may proceed.

Sir, the death of Saul Mkhize is therefore not a mere statistic in our country; it symbolizes the destructive consequences of forced removal and the plights of people who have no say in this House. As long as that remains the situation, the Government will be tempted to continue with this sort of thing. They are greater threats and of greater significance in South Africa than Waterkloof, the referendum or anything else that we have debated in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. member for Durban Central steered clear of PFP policy. A little party like that one, that lacks the courage of a mouse because they do not want to venture to contest more than one vacant constituency, will also refrain, when there are disputes between Houghton and Waterkloof Progs, from permitting one of their hon. members in this House who is as young and inexperienced as that hon. member, to venture to discuss PFP policy. I shall come to the PFP later, and when I do so I shall put certain questions to them about their attitude in respect of certain matters.

At this stage I should like to say a few things to our hon. friends in the CP who are sitting there looking totally despondent. It seems to me as if their arguments have dried up completely. Yesterday and today we heard the NP being accused of equivocation. The hon. member for Lichtenburg accused us of that, as did certain other hon. members on that side. They told us about a Coloured homeland that would comprise only four large districts, whereas all other Coloured group areas would remain within White South Africa, but then Dr. A. P. Treurnicht appeard on television last night and we heard what he had said in Messina the previous evening, less than 12 hours previously. He said that all the Coloured group areas would become part of the Coloured homeland. I know that party and its members. We know, too, that Dr. Connie Mulder is a member of that party. Perhaps this is a little detail which they have not yet sorted out with one another. Therefore I want to say that people who are guilty of equivocation of that nature are not in a position to talk about equivocation. Who is really the equivocator: The “Waterberger” or the “Lichtenburger”?

Both these gentlemen said that if the Coloureds wanted additional land they could purchase it. In this regard I want to put a question to the hon. members sitting there and I sincerely hope that they will ask the hon. member for Germiston District to come back, because there are questions I want to put to her as well. Those people over there do not have the ability to reply to them. My question is: Is it, then, possible that when Coloureds can purchase and develop such an area, the CP will permit that land to be included in the heartland? Any one of the three hon. members sitting over there can reply to this. [Interjections.]

I put this question because when they were sitting on this side of the House—many of them have been here longer than I have—they decided, together with the HNP—I am referring to hon. members of that party who were sitting here at the time, too—that a group area like Reigerpark should become a Coloured area. All the Coloureds of the East Rand would be settled in that area. If one looks at the East Rand, which is represented in this House by 18 constituencies, and one places all those people together in one area and wants them to be included in a heartland, then surely it is only reasonable to expect that they can be given a reply if they would be prepared to buy such a place. If the CP were to say: “Very well, they can buy it”, then I want to ask them: What becomes of the mine in Reigerpark? I have heard their leader say that the mines can also go to those places. This specific mine has shafts in Reigerpark and in Boksburg and the tunnels meet underground. To whom, then, does that mine belong? Does it belong to the White South African, or will it belong to the heartland of the Coloureds? This kind of practical matter is the kind of thing that they must go and spell out to the voters of Waterberg. They must not be guilty of such equivocation.

The hon. member for Rissik would do well to pay more attention when I speak to him. He is the man who writes in the newspaper about the four core areas. He agrees that the majority of Coloureds live in urban areas. We have now listened to the figures quoted in this regard. In 1977 and prior to that they said that the Coloured Parliament would have a say over Coloured areas. Now I want to ask: What, then, of such a Coloured area that is to be incorporated? What do they say now? Under what will such areas fall? If the Coloureds in the Coloured group areas throughout South Africa were to decide that they were coming back to this heartland, were to leave the Transvaal and come to the Cape, then we would encounter problems in large numbers of factories where these people worked. If the White owners of those factories do not have labourers to work there, what will the group of CPs do? Will they permit Black labour to take the place of the Coloureds leaving Transvaal? If they do that, then surely what their policy leads to is that the number of Blacks in Transvaal cities will increase. Then they must not tell me that their policy does not lead to increased numbers of Blacks in our White cities. Sir, the hon. members of the CP are so quiet, so tired and so despondent that one really cannot devote much more attention to them. Therefore I shall leave them at that.

About 14 days have passed since the hon. the Minister submitted his budget, made his Second Reading speech, and I think it is now time that hon. members in this House should speak to the hon. the Minister, too. He is sitting there looking so lonely. I have begun to wonder whether he still realizes that what we are engaged in here is a budget debate. I want to refer to some of the announcements made by the hon. the Minister. I want to say to him here and now that we welcome the standpoint of the Government that State aid to certain low-grade gold mines will be reviewed and that in future, financial aid will only be provided to those gold mines that suffer losses on their mining activities. I believe that the Franzsen Commission which, according to the hon. the Minister, has already issued a provisional report in this regard, must also give its earnest attention to the percentage of South African workers employed at such a mine. I propose that the percentage of South African workers at such a mine be far greater than the average in the gold mining industry before such a mine qualifies for financial aid. In the majority of cases these mines are situated in metropolitan areas. Because it is a locality-bound industry, it is my view that where such a gold mine is dependent on a State subsidy, we must see to it that the local urban Black worker is employed. This will mean that industrial decentralization can be expedited. In my opinion it is uneconomical that we should import labour to such locality-bound industries in metropolitan areas and then leave the local population, as a workers’ corps, to the growth of the secondary commerce and industry in that region. By doing this, we delay the process of industrial decentralization to the platteland and to the homelands. In most instances the natural population increase of the region is sufficient to supply the total labour requirements of that mine. The East Rand is saddled with more than 750 000 such Black workers and many of the mines are situated on the East Rand.

Secondly, I believe that where such a gold mine receives financial aid, note must be taken of the way in which the mine uses its capital. Here, too, I agree with what the hon. the Minister had to say about this. It often happens that large sums of money are invested in buying up the existing White housing for so-called future expansion of the White staff of such mines, and then that housing often stands empty for many months. Property in metropolitan areas is always a safe investment, and if employers provide properties with the aim of accommodating their employees therein, it is to be welcomed. However, when the houses stand empty and in this way artificially increase housing shortages in a town or city, this gives rise to inflation. Because this creates a shortage in the existing housing market of a town or city, the demand increases and consequently the cost of housing in that town or city also increases, and this eventually filters through to the lower-income group in that town or city, who are unable to afford the higher housing costs and whose needs the State, and therefore the taxpayer, eventually have to meet. This, therefore places an unnecessary financial burden, not only on the local inhabitants, but also on the State. I therefore believe that it is an evil, if I may call it that, that has to be combated. This trend, that of buying existing housing, is something that not only the gold mines can be accused of. I concede that. Certain State and semi-State institutions can also be charged with doing this, as can the multi-national companies. I foresee that this trend will increase as the gold price rises again and as the economy recovers. Therefore it demands urgent attention. I therefore wish to ask the hon. the Minister to arrange that the commission should also consider this trend that is occurring in South Africa, and that we do so before entering the growth phase. The step taken by the hon. the Minister with regard to the subsidization of lower grade gold mines is in line with the policy of the Government of escaping from the subsidy system, and I think it is to be welcomed.

The gold mines are far and away one of South Africa’s biggest employers and this industry is probably the employer with the largest number of hostel inhabitants. Therefore there they can possibly be branded as the employer that has done the least to combat fragmentation of the families of their employees. And now the official Opposition will probably want to cross swords with me. One can already foresee their hollow arguments. Therefore I shall use a practical example to prove the opposite of the kind of arguments they advance. One such mine is situated on the East Rand in the heart of a Coloured town accommodating approximately 26 000 Coloureds. This mine employes in the heart of the East Rand 11 000 Black workers from beyond the borders of the Republic, beyond the borders of the homelands. In contrast, this mine employs only 14 Coloureds, and that is in the heart of a Coloured town. Not only does this mine discriminate against Coloureds—and I am not going to mention its name because, looking through the list, I see that the rest of those that receive aid do the same—it also discriminates against South African Blacks. This mine has recruited only 150, or 0,8%, of its total Black staff on the East Rand. Therefore it can safely be contended that this specific mine has contributed nothing to the prosperity of the urban Black man and is doing still less for the Coloured town in which it is situated. Only about 560, or 3%, of the mine’s workers are from Ciskei, whereas 5 400, or 31% of them, come from Mozambique. I think that hon. members of the official Opposition would do well to go and speak to their voters, because it is their voters who are the owners and managers of such mines. We have been speaking to the mine bosses in this country for more than 80 years. It is my view, and I believe that it is also the view of the whole of South Africa, that whereas we do not have the power to peg the gold price at the level we believe it should be, we do nevertheless have the power to see to it that South Africans, White, Brown and Black, should at least enjoy the benefit of employment opportunities at mines that apply for State aid.

I tend to agree with Mr. Harry Oppenheimer—and this may sound strange to hon. members of the PFP—about a statement he made in a report about migrant labour on mines. I quote from this report as follows—

I now ask hon. members of the official Opposition to make their influence felt. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and I wish to express the hope that he did not only have Black people in mind but also Coloureds and Indians when he wrote the foreword to this article.

When a gold mine is situated in the heart of a Coloured town on the Witwatersrand, and it employs a mere 14 Coloureds and 5 000 South African Blacks as against 11 000 foreign workers, I doubt whether that mining group has fulfilled its Carlton promises. I should like to hear from hon. members of the official Opposition whether they agree with me that this constitutes discrimination against South Africans. If they are really so bankrupt so far as policy is concerned, then they should go and say so in Waterkloof as well.

I want to put a further request to the hon. the Minister, viz. that in its investigations, this commission he has appointed should also determine what incentives the mines are being given to persuade them to take these steps with a view to escaping from their hostel labour. We must create for them the instruments whereby to do this. In this regard we have heard very fine things from the hon. Ministers concerned over the past two days. It is a recognized fact that mines play and have played a major role in the upliftment of the poor Whites of 50 years ago. I believe that they can continue to play that role and, indeed, they must do so. 400 00 hostel dwellers in South Africa are accommodated by the mines. They can do a great deal for the families of those people if they assist in making accommodation available and making use of the existing Black towns in our metropolitan areas, in areas where the gold mines are established.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. Whip is heading my way. I shall therefore conclude. If one adds the number of workers, one finds that this could be a city as big as Soweto. When one looks at the metropolises on our goldfields, it is clear that these mines can play that role that we should so much like them to play. Indeed, I believe that they are able to play that role. Therefore I wish to request the hon. the Minister to conduct earnest discussions with them in order to determine in what respect they can assist the Government as far as the housing of South Africa’s mineworkers, particularly Black and Coloured mineworkers, is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it was indeed refreshing, in a way, to hear the hon. member for Boksburg not confining his whole speech to the battle of the “Berge”. It has become quite obvious to us in the Opposition benches that the battle for the “Berge” is being fought and could possibly be won here. It reminds me of the historical reference that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. We are equally reminded of the fact that many people have met their Waterloo in similar surroundings to this. So for those of us who are not involved in the battle of the “berge”, there are also other aspects that are deserving of attention in this very important debate.

Before I go on to refer more specifically to the actual substance of my speech, I just want to refer to a point that was made by the hon. member for Durban Central who referred to the fact that the NRP took the shooting of Mr. Mkhize somewhat lightheartedly.

He is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace!

I would like to make it quite clear that we in these benches very much regret the manner in which the shooting incident involving Mr. Mkhize took place. We look to justice to take its correct course in this matter, and any inference …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Umhlanga entitled to refer to the hon. member for Durban Central as being a disgrace?

Yes.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. But I say his leader should teach him some manners.

I therefore trust that the inference made by the hon. member for Durban Central has been adequately countered.

Actions speak louder than words.

That is despicable. That is absolutely despicable.

I did not see the hon. member for Constantia’s face at Crossroads after the latest killings.

The budget debate must not be allowed to run its course without further reference being made to the crisis that faces the country at the present time as a result of the disastrous drought in the summer rainfall areas of the Republic.

Do not bring politics into the question of the drought, eh?

That hon. member is merely showing his stupid insignificance. [Interjections.] Normally farmers are the only ones that feel the effects of the drought, and one wonders whether the hon. member for Greytown has the common sense to appreciate that this may be so. The severity of this drought, however, is being felt by all sectors of the community, though obviously in different ways. On the one hand one has the farmer fighting for economic survival, whilst on the other hand one has the urban dweller confronted with water restrictions and rising prices for fruit, vegetables and many other foodstuffs.

Let me now deal briefly with the problems that confront agriculture. There is little doubt that a number of farmers will be unable to survive the present problems that have been created by the present drought. Some are going to sink economically. I say this, in spite of the drought relief measures that have been announced by the Government. Here I want to commend and welcome the concession made by the Government and announced by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Finance, measures involving firstly the consolidation of debt by the Land Bank over a 22-year period and the capitalization of the interest for the first two years, secondly the carry-over of debts to the cooperatives and thirdly—and this I think is probably one of the most significant factors—the income tax relief that has been accorded those farmers who have been compelled to sell off livestock as the result of the drought. While I am lavishing praise on the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, I do want to commend him once again for the speed with which he and his department reacted to the representations of organized agriculture. This did indicate to those of us who are closely involved in the agricultural industry, that the hon. the Minister was aware of the desperate situation that exists in agriculture. What the Government must take heed of, is the depths to which the agricultural industry has sunk and the tremendous efforts that will be required to put it back on its feet.

It is coincidental indeed that the 1982-’83 drought has a common factor with the oft-quoted 1933 drought, this being that both droughts were experienced in years when the world’s economy was in depression. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance informed the House yesterday that an amount of R371 million had been earmarked for drought relief measures. I would venture to say that the long term effect of a drought of such proportions as we are experiencing at the present time, will have far-reaching effects on the agricultural community for many years to come. While the proposed relief measures offer a short term solution, they will, regrettably, come to naught if similar climatic conditions are experienced next year.

A source of concern, though, is that agriculture, through no fault of its own, is finding itself increasingly in the ribs of the State. This is not a desirable situation for any industry. I make bold to say that the position would have been even more serious had agriculture not been assured a sense of stability within the framework of the Marketing Act.

In a speech during the debate on the Land Bank Amendment Bill my hon. colleague from Amanzimtoti indicated that the hardships suffered during difficult times like this bring out certain plus points. To put it in another way, we must not lightly forget the lessons that are learnt from the present unhappy position and the situation in which we now find ourselves. The agricultural sector has prided itself on being a net exporter of agricultural products. This is a proud reputation that has been built up over years but, regrettably, it has now been severely dented. The impending importation of some 2 million tons of maize is indeed a humbling experience, to say nothing of the cost and the loss in foreign exchange.

It is regrettable indeed to note that, as a result of the drought, the estimated reduced export earnings from agriculture this year will be in the vicinity of some R700 to R800 million and that the contribution of agriculture to the GDP will fall substantially in 1983. The fickleness of our climate has highlighted the risk factor in agriculture as never before. I must warn that agriculture in this country is on the brink of disaster. I must also point out that the future free availability of staple foodstuffs is in serious jeopardy. Drought will be blamed for a multitude of problems that exist in agriculture and I foresee that in the years to come many deficiencies in the industry will be laid at the door of the present drought. However, I must point out that this would not be entirely correct or fully justified. The drought conditions experienced have brought to the surface, or should I say, have brought to a head an ailing situation that has been prevalent in agriculture for some years. This has been simmering, as it were, below the surface. This has been caused by the lack of a long-term agricultural policy, and we must ask ourselves: “What is the reason for this?” A glance at budgets over recent years epitomizes this very point. Agriculture’s allocation of the total budget has been systematically watered down over the years, with the result that certain essential services have been curtailed and even terminated with highly detrimental results. It is important that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture get their act together when consideration is being given to the fixation of producer prices during the next few weeks. I see in this the need for wise counsel when it comes to the extent of the price increases that are due to be announced. These should not necessarily be influenced by the present supply position of any one commodity as a result of the drought, but the normal production cost increases must be the recognized norm. The economic problem, as a result of the drought, must be tackled at source or at core. I see this taking its form through drought relief measures, even if this means increasing the amounts already allocated. It would be imprudent to effect a rescue operation in any other manner.

As stated earlier in my speech, all sectors of the community are feeling the effects of the drought. I would like to turn my attention to the so-called non-farming sector, comprising largely of urban dwellers. First let us look at the ripple effect the drought has had on so many small towns and villages. Their economic viability has been threatened as a result of the fall-off in trade and business—remembering at the same time that the rural economy and stability is entirely dependent on its surrounding farming community. In other words, the very infrastructure of many rural centres becomes threatened when surrounding farmers suffer economic set-backs in one form or another. The implications of this are all too obvious—the depletion of the population in the rural areas and the movement of such people to the larger towns, which is an undesirable development in every sense. Mr. Speaker, it is seldom realized how dependent the rural people are on one another and that their social, educational, cultural and economic existence is closely intertwined. These links can only be maintained if the society in which they live is stable and is assured of a sound future.

Now what of the urban dwellers in the larger towns and the metropolitan areas? It is indeed true that the ripple effect of the drought has also left its mark here. Small businesses, such as nurseries, etc., face the possibility of having to close down. Stringent water restrictions have been imposed across the board and cities are warned that unless industry and the private sector co-operate to reduce the consumption of water, they will be subjected to even more stringent restrictions before the end of this winter.

Mr. Speaker, consumers must gird themselves for an increase in the price of vegetables and fruit. These have rocketed over recent months, but there is every prospect that these prices will escalate further as a result of the shortages in the months ahead. Many irrigation areas are without water and others are restricted so severely that production has fallen. There are cases of expensive irrigation plants lying idle as a result of the lack of water. We must accept that the normal system of supply and demand does not apply at the present time.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, yes, there are a few plus points that have come to light as a result of the drought crisis. Firstly, a greater awareness has been created among all sections of the population in regard to the plight of the agricultural sector in times of drought; and secondly, the importance of harnessing adequate water reserves for the future needs of the country is also accepted, whilst appreciating—I am glad to see the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is present—that the yardstick need not necessarily be the critical situation in which the country finds itself as a result of an every 200 year drought.

I commend to this House that we remember and learn from the lessons of the 1983 drought. Let us prepare and plan in the long term so that we will be better equipped to meet a situation of this nature in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon. member for Mooi River. I agree with many of the things he said. I am a country MP myself and we are also struggling with the problem of depopulation in our part of the country. I shall refer to this problem again at a later stage in my speech. I wish to associate myself further with the hon. member for Mooi River by firstly thanking the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister and Deputy Minister of Agriculture very sincerely on behalf of my fanners for the assistance they have negotiated for our farmers. I also see it as the hon. member for Mooi River does, viz. as short-term aid which will assist the farmers to plant a new crop so that they can continue to produce. However, we shall definitely have to look at long-term solutions, and I am pleased that the Jacobs Committee has already been asked to institute an investigation in this regard. We look forward to the announcements which are to be made in respect of assisting agriculture in the long-term.

I wish to devote my speech to the battle of the Bergs, and then I shall conclude by referring briefly to some of the issues raised by the hon. member for Mooi River.

Firstly I wish to say that I found it very strange this afternoon that the CP continually tried to explain the Coloured homeland policy to us here and that they again raised all kinds of arguments here this afternoon which had previously been decided were impracticable. That reminds me of the story about the man who fell into a pit and broke both his arms and legs. He then called for help. When the people came to assist him, they let down a rope and when the rope reached the bottom they told him to grab hold of it. He shouted up at them: I cannot hold the rope because my arms are broken. Then they said to him: Clamp the rope between your legs. He shouted to them: I cannot do that because my legs are broken. Then they told him: Well, grip it in your teeth. He did so, and they began to pull him out and when he was almost at the top of the pit, they asked him whether he could see the light. He said: “Yes” and then he fell all the way down again. [Interjections.] That is where those hon. members are. They are at the bottom of the pit again. We started out together in 1912 and we came all the way together, then suddenly, last year, they saw the light and they fell all the way back. Now they want to come and pretend that a Coloured homeland will work. That is completely impracticable.

During the Easter recess I became involved in the battle of the Bergs and I noticed certain things up there. In my opinion, and I believe that this House would agree with me, the issue for the CP is never principles, but always persons. They did not leave the NP because of principles, but because of personalities. They are not fighting the by-election in Soutpansberg on principles, but, together with the HNP, against one person, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, who is being slandered and denigrated. I heard some of the stories there and I cannot repeat them in this company. This is what they are doing although, as the Minister of Manpower and MP for Soutpansberg, he has represented that constituency and has been wrestling with the problems which the hon. member for Mooi River mentioned, for 25 years.

The CP is also taking part in the election in Waterberg and there too, the issue is not principles, but persons. The characters of the hon. the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers are being disparaged. I should very much like to know from the CP and the HNP why they are fighting together in Soutpansberg and separately in Waterberg. It seems to me as if they want to demonstrate in Waterberg that they are not married, but in Soutpansberg they are living in sin because it suits them. [Interjections.] By mentioning what I did, I have proved that to the CP it is never principles that are the issue, but always persons. I will concede that they do, in fact, use standpoints of principle to disguise their personal differences and feuds.

As I have said, I helped out in the north during the Easter recess. Apart from the gossip and the subtle casting of suspicion on the NP and the new constitutional proposals, I found that Waterberg was a neglected constituency. Adv. Hans Strijdom would be very upset if he were to see how his constituency which he represented in this House for many years had been neglected by Dr. A. P. Treurnicht since the beginning of the seventies. Not only are the people of Waterberg neglected politically—our leader in the Transvaal once said that they had been put on a starvation diet, and that is true, but that is not the only truth—the people of Waterberg are completely neglected in the socioeconomic sphere as well. The former MP of that constituency did not endeavour to achieve for that area what the hon. member for Mooi River mentioned here. The problem of depopulation and the maintenance of a vitally essential infrastructure are matters which have been badly neglected.

If one compares Waterberg with Soutpansberg—I was there as well—one finds that real attention has been given to these problems in Soutpansberg. Irrigation schemes have been established. Sufficient infrastructure has been created. Various things have been undertaken by the MP to attract people to that area. The people of Soutpansberg have not been neglected in the socioeconomic or the political sphere. The depopulation of the rural areas is one of the matters against which every MP from the country districts has to fight. I have considerable experience of this, since I also have to deal with this monstrous problem and I have to fight it every day. Every MP from the rural areas has to work intensely to keep as many of his farmers as possible on their farms and to give as much assistance as possible in respect of the establishment of industries in the rural areas as is possible within the framework of the plan which the Government has announced. An MP from the country districts has to assist his farmers and other people with representations about real problems. He has to see to it that matters in this regard are properly motivated at the relevant Government departments or organizations.

I am saying that this has not been the case in Waterberg. Dr. A. P. Treurnicht must tell me if I am accusing him falsely, since I am going to issue a challenge to him. If he is a man, he must accept it and tell the people in Waterberg, and the farmers in particular, what he has done for them in the socio-economic sphere. He must name all the projects in which he has played a leading role during the past 11 years and which were successful and which have had a positive effect on the general development of that area. He must tell us and the people of Waterberg what these things are. The former member for Waterberg will not be able to do this because that constituency has become impoverished under his leadership. If the people of Waterberg wish to ask what the Government has done in Waterberg in the socio-economic sphere during the past 11 years, they should ask Dr. Treurnicht, since he represented them in this House during that time and he should have negotiated certain things for his people and that area. Waterberg has learnt a lesson from the escapades of Dr. Treurnicht and they will not vote for a party that does not offer a meaningful solution to the problems of South Africa, and even less for a person who lives in the city and only visits his people occasionally when he needs their vote. Never again will they vote for a person who knows nothing about farming, or the economy. I am saying this this evening; and this will be the case. This time they will vote for Mr. Eben Cuyler, not only because he lives in Waterberg and because he is a farmer, but because he represents a party which offers a specific solution to this country’s problems. Waterberg also has faith in the NP’s policy and its principles and because the NP has always been good to this country and to all its people, they will vote for the NP again. Because Waterberg does not have an MP at present, I should like to plead for a cause on behalf of those people in this House. It has a bearing on something I noticed there. I see that both the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture are present tonight. The Government has staked out a piece of land which stretches from Marico through Thabazimbi, Ellisras and Potgietersrus, as far as Louis Trichardt. It lies along the Botswana border. It is a strip of approximately 10 kilometres and the Department of Agriculture has undertaken to make assistance available so that farmers from all over the country can go and purchase farms and settle there. Agricultural Credit will finance the loans concerned. The Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act, No. 87 of 1979, has been made applicable to that area. At present, farmers are interested in going to settle there. To be considered for assistance by the Department of Agriculture they have to have an option of at least three months, and the price of the land they wish to purchase also has to be such that the Agricultural Credit department sees its way clear to financing it. During my visit to that area, I found that some of the owners who do not live there, but in other areas outside that strip, want R45 000 for an option from a farmer who is interested in settling there. Even before a price is discussed, that particular person wants R45 000 …

That is a disgrace!

I agree wholeheartedly that it is a disgrace and I told the people of Waterberg that I would broach this matter in this House and I believe that the hon. the Minister will give them a reply on this matter when he visits them there in the near future. This option money is not included in the purchase price which the prospective purchaser has to pay per hectare.

I am very pleased about the tremendous step the Department of Agriculture has taken, since I believe that it will combat the depopulation problem there and that it will encourage population density. In conclusion, I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture to see if we cannot implement the regulations contained in the Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act, No. 87 of 1979, more stringently in that area. I even wish to express the thought this evening—and I hope that certain people will read this at some stage or another, or will hear about it—that if the regulations mentioned do not have the desired effect in that area, we shall have to consider instituting land tax on the unoccupied farms there. In this way we can compel those irresponsible sellers not to allow this scheme of the Government to fail. I hope and trust that we can use that area as an experiment, since the Department of Agriculture cannot play that role alone; we shall also have to get other Government departments to assist in launching a co-ordinated effort. Then this can serve as an example of how through meaningful action, other areas in South Africa which have become depopulated, may once again become populated.

Mr. Speaker, I like to speak after the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. One of the main reasons why the NP has been in power continuously for 35 years is the economic stability it has created in our country. Looking at some of its achievements, we see that at the time of the take-over of the Government by the NP in 1948, our people were in the stranglehold of poverty. We had been through depressions. It was the NP that reached out a hand to our people, particularly the people in agriculture who, in the struggle against droughts, had been left by the wayside. In 1948 our country was still caught up in the stranglehold of the consequences of the misery of the last World War. The old United Party was not capable of pulling our people out of that misery and once again it was the NP which, not only socially but economically as well, built our people up into the powerful nation which we are today.

Our agricultural industry was built up so effectively that today we are one of the seven agricultural exporting countries in the world. Furthermore, we saw to it that we became self-sufficient in respect of our most important foodstuffs in South Africa. Our agriculture has become one of the biggest earners of foreign exchange.

Then, too, the important thing that we overlook is the aid being given to our agriculture in the drought conditions which we are experiencing at present. The hon. member for Mooirivier has just referred to that. In the constituency of Gordonia, a farmer who is in phase five receives R58 per small stock unit per annum in cash from the Government. That is the portion he need not repay. That is in addition to what he receives by means of transport rebates or low-interest loans. Therefore, one cannot understand why the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. member for Lichtenburg do not notice these things.

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

No. Since that hon. member is now so obstreperous and since they also want to use Gordonia as a homeland for Coloureds, I just want to say that one could describe the CP members as too big for a table napkin and too small for a table cloth. They are a little higher than the HNP; they appear to be a little better than the HNP, although their understanding and political ideas are the same, but then on the other hand they are too small-minded for the NP. It was for that reason that they left the NP. A great deal has been said about brainwashing here tonight. There are some of those hon. members whose brains have been washed clean, because every night as they sit in their bath they undergo brainwashing.

Under NP rule our industries have grown, our mining has been developed and in the process a large number of jobs have been created which have counteracted unemployment in our country. In the technological field, too, we have made progress. A major example of this is that South Africa’s stature in the world has grown in respect of the manufacture of fuel from coal. Today our Sasols are monuments to this Government because it enabled the South Africa’s experts to bring these projects into being. As far as the arms embargo is concerned, South Africa has emerged stronger than ever. Consequently on this occasion tonight we also want to praise and pay tribute to our Prime Minister and all who assisted him in establishing Armscor. We can also consider the vast expanses of our country that are crisscrossed with a network of tarred roads built after 1948. I am not even mentioning the freeways in and around our cities that we use every day. We look at our storage dams built under NP rule, and I pose the question: Where would we have stood with regard to the drought if we had not had these storage dams and also if we had not created the facilities for generating power?

However, if we want to continue on this road of economic stability there are a few things that we shall have to take into account in good time. One of these things that I wish to mention concerns the Coloureds. I should like to refer to the role which the Coloureds have played in our economy until now, and the role which they are possibly going to play in the new dispensation in future. The fine things we have said about the Coloureds must now be put into effect. We have made speeches to the people about just treatment of the other population groups. That time has now passed. We shall no longer get away with such popular talk. As long ago as 1922 General Hertzog said that justice would have to be done to the Coloureds and that all the injustice would have to be removed.

The time has passed in South Africa when 15% to 20% of the population of this country must assume responsibility for the total administration of this country, particularly as far as our military and economic obligations are concerned. On the other hand, of course, we should also be grateful and acknowledge that the Coloured has also made his contribution to this country; that he has made his contribution to building up the economy of this country. Particularly with regard to agriculture—and we need only refer to farm labourers—these people, too, have been through the years of drought and depression. In those years the employer of the farm labourer was also, for the most part, a person who lived below the breadline. We are now able to realize under what difficult circumstances those farm labourers, too, helped to build the economy of this country; how they, too, assisted in maintaining our agriculture. They also worked for meagre wages in our industries, for example. In the mines, too, they earned very meagre wages.

Although these Coloured farm labourers are unskilled we cannot afford to withdraw that labour force and place it in homelands for which infrastructures would still have to be created in any event. We are mechanizing in South Africa. That means that we shall be making relatively less use of unskilled labour and more and more use of skilled labour. Nor must we overlook the role which the Coloured has played as a consumer in South Africa. Although his purchasing power is low, he is an important consumer of some of our most important staple foodstuffs.

When we look at the present position of our Coloureds, we find that according to statistics of 1980, 81,9% of Coloureds were literate people. However, it is a fact that 65,1% of Coloureds were not economically active. It is precisely in this 65,1% of the Coloured population that there is enormous potential, potential which must be developed. As the Coloureds are uplifted, their standard of living improves and they plan smaller families. From 1950 to 1980 the number of births per woman among the Coloureds decreased from 6,42 to 3,29. This resulted in a lower mortality rate as well. The life expectancy of the Coloured increased from 44,82 years to 59 years from 1950 to 1980, as against a life expectancy of 49 years in the rest of Africa.

Why do we say these things? We say these things to prove that we have a large group of people in this country to whom joint responsibility should be afforded in our overall national set-up. However, this evening we also wish to convey a message to our Coloureds. The standpoint of the NP is that one of the conditions for change in this country is that White identity must be ensured. The other important condition for change is that it must comply with the reasonable aspirations of the other population groups. I am now specifically referring to the Coloureds. I want to emphasize the aspect of reasonable aspirations, because we know that there is a group of people among our Coloureds who have unreasonable expectations. There is also that group among them that listens to the prompting of anti-Government people who tell them that the NP is again engaged in trickery and deception. When we give the Coloureds a joint say, they must realize that they have to assume full responsibility for those things in regard to which they want a joint say. The idea of the new dispensation is not only to create talk-shops. There will be places where things wil have to be done in a purposeful way. The political say which will be given to the Coloureds will of necessity strengthen the sense of responsibility of the Coloureds, and once the Coloured acquires the feeling that he is part of this country because he is recognized as part of this country, he will also feel called upon to take up arms against the enemies of South Africa. Then he will also feel called upon to live in a dignified way in this country and in so doing to strengthen the economic preparedness of our country. I should like to use the image of a bird who has the ability to fly, but one should not kick him out of the nest before he has developed. We find certain contradictions in our Opposition parties, however. The PFP wants to kick him out of the nest before he even has wings. That points to destruction. The CP says that if he wants to develop his wings further, we should clip them. Then we turn him into food for the lions. Hon. members surely know that in reality this means that we would have a group of people in South Africa who would be frustrated and would therefore be a breeding ground for the promptings and effect of communist and other adverse influences. No, let us rather follow the path of the NP, which is an evolutionary path because the NP is a party that wants to grant responsibility to people, according to their capabilities, so that we can evolve together on the road of peaceful co-existence. Then our economy will remain stable and in addition, our Minister of Finance will in future be able to present budgets like the present budget, budgets which bespeak the expertise and ability of this hon. Minister and his department.

Mr. Speaker, with the acceptance of the NP’s constitutional guidelines for a new dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians by its congresses last year, congresses which of course were devoid of conservatives, the NP’s policy underwent a radical change. I concur with the hon. member for Innesdal when he says that the NP’s policy has changed dramatically and in many respects, and I also concur with the hon. member for Mossel Bay when he says that the NP’s policy has changed.

Yes, over the years.

For that reason I should like to exchange a few ideas on the basis of these guidelines. I maintain that the most important and most essential element of these guidelines is the power-sharing which has been introduced, with one racially mixed government of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. During the past few days the word or concept of “power-sharing” has become the point of dispute between the CP on the one hand and the NP on the other.

At the outset I want to say that up to and including 22 February 1982 the NP never, in any election or information document, in any Skietgoed or Nat ’80s, in any speech recorded in Hansard or in any public speech recorded in any book, differentiated between any forms or kinds of power-sharing.

Now you are talking nonsense. I fought three elections on that basis.

Not once up to 1 and including 22 February 1982. [Interjections.] I maintain that the NP used the word or concept of “power-sharing” exclusively and solely with regard to the policy of the PFP.

The word “power-sharing”?

Yes, and also the concept of “power-sharing”. It does not matter. I challenge any member of the NP to bring me any document in which the NP differentiated between kinds or forms of power-sharing. The NP never did this. The NP stated unequivocally that it was a “Prog-Fed term”. One need only read through NP documents to see that time and again when the NP used the word “power-sharing” it did so only with regard to the policy of the PFP. It was never used in connection with NP policy.

The word was used to say various things. It was said, inter alia, that it was “one man, one vote” in a unitary state. It was also said that it was the PFP’s federation policy. On another occasion reference was made to the right of everyone to decide on all essential matters in one common Parliament. In contrast the NP consistently referred to its own policy as the “division of power”. The NP used two absolutely different concepts for the two parties’ policies. There was never any suggestion of power-sharing in the National Party. We could quote a host of examples in support of this. The NP reject power-sharing without qualification and without making any differentiation as regards contents or meaning. The NP rejected it absolutely. [Interjections.] Suddenly on 22 February 1982, however, the hon. the Prime Minister made the following statement in that notorious announcement of his, and I am quoting him—

For the first time we learned about forms or kinds of power-sharing. From that moment we began hearing about NP power-sharing and PFP power-sharing. Both are power-sharing. Very soon the newspapers were referring to nothing but power-sharing with regard to the NP’s policy in the same way as they always referred to it with regard to the PFP’s policy. This was done without differentiating between forms or kinds. In Die Vaderland of 24 February it was stated—

This was done without differentiating between the form or kind of power-sharing. [Interjections.] On 24 February of this year, a year later, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition discussed these things in this House and he asked the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs—

It is a pity that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here at the moment, because I maintain that when he used the word “power-sharing” here he used it in its old meaning, as the PFP and also the NP always understood it. That is why the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning replied: “Yes, it is”. His reply was therefore in the affirmative. When he replied in the affirmative he did not differentiate between a sort or form of power-sharing. He replied to the question the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had asked. [Interjections.] I maintain that the NP has thus stated that power-sharing is its policy without trying to differentiate between forms or kinds. [Interjections.] In this way the NP has created great confusion among the people outside, in other words among the electorate, who always knew in the past what the NP meant when it used the word, term or concept “power-sharing”. At the meeting of the NP Head Committee on 27 February 1982 in the Transvaal that committee rejected the following amendment—

[Interjections.] In 1977 the NP had published an election pamphlet entitled: “’n Eie Oplossing Vir ’n Besondere Probleem”. It stated a challenge: “Om volwaardige politieke regte vir Blankes, Kleurling en Indiërs te verseker sonder magsdeling en magstryd”. It did not use the words “sonder ’n bepaalde vorm of soort van magsdeling nie”, because such differentiations were never made. [Interjections.] That is why I maintain that since 1977 the NP rejected power-sharing and accepted division of power as its policy. However, when the hon. the Prime Minister said that the concepts of consultation and joint responsibility were forms of healthy power-sharing, he was referring back to 1977 because in 1977 the words “sonder magsdeling” and also “beraadslaging en medeverant-woordelikheid” were used in the election pamphlets. The situation is now as follows: If power-sharing had not been introduced in this proposal in 1977 consultation and co-responsibility could not have meant power-sharing in whatever form at that stage. This is not the only proof of the 1977 proposals. In the election pamphlet of 1977 the following question was asked: “Korn die Grondwetplan neer op magsdeling?” The reply to this was: “Ons glo nie an magsdeling nie. Dit is ’n Prog-Fed term … [Interjections.] … “wat beteken besluitreg van almal oor alle sake in een gemeenskaplike Parlement. In this election pamphlet the information officer, who at that stage was Mr. F. W. de Klerk, the present hon. Minister of Internal Affairs, said the following—

Please do not start shouting again, let me finish speaking first—

That was in 1977, but now it is different.

That was in 1977. In 1977 the then leader-in-chief of the NP, Mr. B. J. Vorster, said that there was no power-sharing. He meant this in the sense of what power-sharing means. In 1983 he said in a speech at the University of Pretoria that there was no power-sharing in the proposals he had submitted. Ex-Minister M. C. Botha, who was a member of that commission said—

[Interjections.]

Order! If hon. members do not want to lower their voices, they should hold their conversations outside. The hon. member may proceed.

I want to ask the following: When did the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs realize that there was a form or kind or element of power-sharing in the 1977 proposals after he had repeatedly denied that there was any power-sharing when the HNP accused the NP of advocating power-sharing? [Interjections.] When did he wake up because he has said that for five years we were under the impression that it was not power-sharing whereas he has suddenly said now that it was in fact power-sharing?

I repudiated power-sharing … [Interjections.]

Now his definition of power-sharing is that there are kinds and forms of power-sharing. At that time he said that there were not kinds or forms of power-sharing. [Interjections.] When the 1977 constitution plan appeared, it was stated categorically that it did not admit power-sharing. At that stage one common Parliament meant Prog policy to the NP. Today one common Parliament no longer means Prog policy to the NP. However, what is the difference between “joint” and “common”? There is no difference. They mean exactly the same thing—one joint or common Parliament in which power-sharing is essentially present and where Whites, Indians and Coloureds together form the Government to govern Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

Mr. Speaker, we former clergymen have a habit of playing with words in a masterly fashion. Having just listened to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, I find this more true than ever before. The hon. member for Koedoespoort devoted his entire speech to accusing the NP of having suddenly, out of the blue, accepted power-sharing now. He also referred to ex-President John Vorster. It makes no difference what one calls a thing—and I want to say it frankly here this evening—the fact remains that in 1977 the NP had by implication already accepted power-sharing. [Interjections.] I want to motivate this statement. This is my sole concern this evening.

Boy, it was you who said that that baby in the crib was no longer the same.

That may be, but that is why I said at the beginning that I had also settled this matter to my own satisfaction. For the sake of the argument, I just want to say tonight that when Whites, Indians and Coloureds together elect a State President, they are not electing that State President separately. That State President is being elected in conjunction with other population groups; in other words, in the choice of that State President who, in this case, is going to have executive authority, surely you are sharing your choice with two other population groups. Surely that is power-sharing. The issue is not who said what. The question is: Is it a sharing of power or not? I had to work this out for myself as well: It is a sharing of power.

There is a further illustration. According to the 1977 proposals no Bill could become law before it had been approved by all three Parliaments. Consequently the White Parliament would surely not pass legislation on its own; other Parliaments had to do so as well. In that way, too, one was sharing one’s authority. [Interjections.]

Reference was also made here—and I have already mentioned this—to ex-President Vorster. I should like to quote what he said about the 1977 plan on 22 August 1977—

What ex-President Vorster said here, still applies today. It applied in respect of the 1977 proposals and it also applies in respect of the proposals which will be before Parliament.

When one listens to the speeches made at public meetings and one reads the newspapers and talks to people, it seems as though the political discussion at the moment is sometimes inclined to take an unsavoury turn. It is taking an unsavoury turn because religion is being turned into a political football which is being kicked around at will in an attempt to win votes or to cast suspicion on the constitutional dispensation envisaged by the Government. In this evening’s Argus a report appeared on a book which has just been published, written by two theologians of the Methodist Church—

These theologians of the Methodist Church say that Christians cannot possibly accept the envisaged constitutional dispensation of the Government because it excludes Black people, and the exclusion of Black people is supposedly un-Christian.

On the other hand there are also people from the so-called right-wing circles who are whispering from house to house, and sometimes this is even said out loud at public meetings, that the Government, in the new constitutional dispensation, is going to turn its back on Christian norms and values because political power on a Cabinet level will be shared with people who are not Christians, and who even worship Eastern deities. The hon. member for Lichtenburg adopted this standpoint at a public meeting in Algoa Park earlier this year. The Burger reported this meeting in this way: “NG leraar kap NP en KP-leier steun hom”. I am now quoting what the NG theologian was alleged to have said—

And then, according to the hon. member for Lichtenburg—

Here once again we have the undertone that in the new constitutional dispensation one can write finis to Christian norms and values. There was the same insinuation in connection with the prayer with which the President’s Council was opened. It was alleged that the name of Christ was deliberately omitted there to accommodate non-Christian members of the President’s Council. The incorrectness of this statement is general knowledge today. On the front page of a newspaper which no longer exists today, it was insinuated that this new Parliament of South Africa was going to be opened with a direct prayer to Allah. I do not think that the NP, and specifically the Government, deserves to be accused of intending in future to govern the country in accordance with principles other than those which apply at present simply because it has committed itself to joint responsibility and joint decision-making in a system in which Asians and Coloureds are also involved. What are the facts? Surely there is at present no single impediment in our constitution which prevents a non-Christian from participating in the decision-making processes. At present there is not a single impediment in our constitution which prohibits a non-Christian from becoming a city councillor, of becoming a provincial councillor or of having representation in this House. There is not a single impediment which prevents a non-Christian from becoming a member of the Cabinet, Prime Minister or even State President. There is no such impediment because religious freedom is part of our constitution. When religious freedom is part of one’s constitution, it surely means that all of the citizens of the country are entitled to equal constitutional privileges, regardless of their religious persuasions, that they are entitled to occupy the same offices within the specific state structure.

I wish to point out, however, that there should be no misunderstanding about this. Religious freedom is part of the Republic of South Africa Constitution, but not because it implies a standpoint on the part of the Government that all religions are of equal value in content and that people are therefore entitled to equal treatment. Religious freedom in the constitution of the Republic has another motive. It is based on the Christian virtue of tolerance. Religious freedom is therefore written into our constitution because the Government places a high premium on Christian tolerance. When one drafts a new constitution, surely one cannot expect the Government to be less Christian in respect of this matter by deleting religious freedom. Given the sensitiveness of this matter, surely one cannot imagine a situation in which one has religious freedom in a constitution which makes provision only for the constitutional needs of one population groups while it should be deleted in a constitution which makes provision for the constitutional needs of several population groups.

Given the structure of the South African society, it seems to me that there are only two options: Either one deletes religious freedom, or one retains it with the result that one is obliged to share political power with people who have religious convictions different to one’s own. Now I know it is being argued that one should not share power with a population group which predominantly has religious views different to one’s own. That is the argument that is being used. The fact of the matter, however, whether we want to admit it or not, is that even if we establish 10 homelands for Indians, we will ultimately be compelled to accept joint responsibility in respect of matters of common interest. I am referring to decisions affecting finance, defence, transport and foreign affairs. Surely there is not a single political party which would want us to delete religious freedom, apart from the “Blanke-volk-staatparty”, otherwise known as the AWB. The AWB is also infiltrating the CP. However, there are no other parties which want religious freedom to be scrapped. Surely we have a White nation here which came into existence because religious freedom was not applied as it should have been in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.

If it is an inevitable consequence now that one must share political power in a democratic system—because one has religious freedom—with people of other religious persuasions, why is suspicion being cast upon the Government in this connection? Nor is it correct to try to insinuate that the country is in future going to be governed in accordance with a principle of neutrality. Surely the country is not necessarily going to be governed in accordance with principles other than those which apply at present. This country is going to be governed in a different manner and style, but not necessarily in accordance with other principles. In respect of the separate matters, the country is going to be governed in terms of the principles and policies of the majority party in the respective chambers. As far as the White chamber is concerned, surely the country is going to be governed in terms of the principles of the NP. Surely those principles have been clearly demarcated, i.e. that the party recognizes the supremacy and guidance of God in the destinities of nations and peoples and seeks the development of our national life in accordance with Christian national principles. In other words, identity, culture, the continued existence of a specific group, community life, etc. are not going to be dealt with in accordance with principles other than those which apply at present. Why then these insinuations? The designation of a President will not take place in an unprincipled way either. Surely principles are involved in that process as well. And as far as matters of common interest are concerned, the inputs which will be made in the Standing Committees, surely these will not be made in a way which is detached from principles and detached from policy. No, I say it is mischievous to allege that government is inevitably going to take place in accordance with other principles. It is possible for it to take place in accordance with other principles, but that is also possible now. For example, if the PFP were to come into power, South Africa would be governed in accordance with other principles than those applying at present. There is nothing new in this.

I want to conclude by saying that I think we Afrikaners suffer from a malady.

Proveritate.

I was opposing pro veritate when the hon. member for Rissik was still a UP supporter. We Afrikaners suffer from a malady and if we find ourselves backed into a corner when it comes to arguments, we seize upon a Biblical text, or upon religion, to get out of it. I think we should stop this, because by doing so we turn religion into a political football. With this I also wish to express the hope that the insinuation that the country is in future going to be governed in accordance with all kinds of unholy principles will not be made again, because it is untrue. During the no-confidence debate this year the hon. the Prime Minister said (Hansard, col. 129)—

And this will not change.