Mr. Speaker, in my budget speech I announced a fall in Land Bank interest rates, and today I want to begin by making a further announcement in regard to interest rates. I refer to the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, 1968—the so-called Usury Act, as it used to be known.

At the time of the upward adjustment of the finance charges during June 1982, the three so-called usury rates were adjusted by only 2% each from the prevailing maxima of 20%, 22% and 24%, to 22%, 24% and 26%, although the cost of money had increased by almost 5% over the preceding 15 months. However, the authorities did not see their way clear to allowing the maximum usury rate of 24%, for example, to rise as high as 29%. This would certainly have given rise to exploitation.

Between July 1982 and March 1983 the cost of money fell, and accordingly I am of the opinion that the time is now ripe to move back to the lower levels that applied previously. I therefore propose that the maximum rates of 22%, 24% and 26% be reduced with effect from 2 May 1983 to 20%, 22% and 24% respectively.

If I were to effect a further downward adjustment of the rate at this stage, it would be the small man in particular, viz. the less creditworthy purchaser, who would not be able to obtain credit, and accordingly would not be able to pay for his most essential expenditures. However, I decided, on the recommendation of the Standing Technical Committee on Bank and Building Society Legislation to appoint an investigating team of two persons to investigate the whole issue of the prescription of finance charge rates in terms of the Act. Aspects that will have to be investigated include policy and practice overseas, the desirability of only one rate being prescribed, and the design of a so-called formula in terms of which finance costs may be linked more automatically to fluctuating interest rates. Discussions will have to be conducted with the private sector, too, in this regard.

It is not a foregone conclusion that further adjustment in rates may not take place as soon as the investigating team has submitted its recommendations, or even earlier if interest rate patterns were to drop further. I am also aware of a considerable degree of exploitation that is taking place despite this Act, and accordingly I shall instruct the investigating team to investigate methods of restricting unlawful exploitation. I am convinced that all bodies and persons in this field will offer their wholehearted co-operation in this regard.

†Turning now to the budget, I must state that I listened very carefully to all the speeches delivered during the Second Reading debate, and that I have tended to come to the conclusion now that hon. members of the official Opposition—and also by word of its official spokesman on finance, the hon. member for Yeoville—and I—and therefore also the Government—are miles apart on many matters of finance, on the budget and also on financial policy. The hon. member for Yeoville, for instance, quoted one or two assessments of the budget, neither of which was particularly strongly worded. The strange thing is, however, that having quoted from the Financial Mail the hon. member failed to quote the many assessments in that same publication which were extremely positive, indeed extremely laudatory about the budget.

I do not want to waste any time, Mr. Speaker, to carry on with that. I have about 24 assessments of the budget here, assessments by people whom I would call authorities, and also by authoritative institutions and organizations.

You should table them.

Yes, I can indeed do that. [Interjections.] Without any exception these assessments are extremely positive and approving. Only last night I made some notes of the epithets they used. Among other things they referred to the budget as conservative, flexible, well balanced, reasonable, interesting, innovative, anti-inflationary, etc. The Financial Mail said the week before—

Then they also talk about the budget being skilful, disciplined, forward looking, consistent, appropriate to the conditions, etc. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do want to refer to only two of these assessments. These are assessments by two people who are recognized authorities on public finance in South Africa. They are two leading economists, who wrote me two private letters, which is the only reason why I am not mentioning their names. [Interjections.] The first one says—

Mr. Speaker, I wonder where is the lack of so-called planning now about which the hon. member for Yeoville became so vociferous the other day. [Interjections.]

The other assessment I want to quote is that of a man of whom I have a very high opinion. He says—

Owen, I still say you should stand for Parliament sometime! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is probably a very good suggestion. The hon. member for Bryanston should really consider that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one other point I should like to stress because I believe the hon. members of the PFP have entirely missed the point in respect of this budget. I want to quote a recognized authority, Prof. Brian Kantor, of the University of Cape Town. He says—

Then he said—

He says—

The final point he makes, and this is important, is the following—

That is one of the underlying objects of this budget which I think has tended very much to go by default in the assessments that I have heard from the other side. I find an absolute lack of constructive references to the budget on the part of the official Opposition or, in fact, any positive statements at all in regard to the South African economy. I have listed 12 features—I want to refer to them as economic snippets—in relation to the South African economy which I should like to mention.

In the first place, South Africa ranks in the top 10 countries of the world when it comes to an international comparison of economic growth prospects and its attitude to foreign investors and profits. The reputable BERI Institute in Switzerland places South Africa in eighth position on economic growth prospects—this is a long list of countries—and in seventh position on its attitude to foreign investment in the Republic. In the second place, the return on foreign capital invested in South Africa has risen phenomenally in recent years; in fact, it doubled from 12% in 1956 to 24% in 1980 which makes it one of the highest in the world. In the third place, South Africa is fast reducing its dependence on foreign capital for development purposes. Net foreign liabilities as a proportion of gross domestic product have declined from 44% in 1956 to some 20% today. In the fourth place, the yields on investment in the South African property market are among the highest in the world. In the industrial sector net rental yields are calculated to average close on 11%. In the fifth place, for the second year in succession education is the biggest single item in the budget. In the sixth place, for the first time all taxpayers in South Africa, of whatever race or nationality, will from next year be taxed in precisely the same manner according to the same fiscal legislation. I suggest that for a country with a dual economy and an extremely heterogeneous population, this is a very considerable achievement. In the seventh place, the maximum marginal rate of personal income tax is 50%, compared with 72%, including the then compulsory loan levy, eight years ago. The effective average rate of income tax actually paid by taxpayers is approximately 17%. That is the actual average effective rate that they pay.

In the eighth place the rate of company tax payable is 46% as against the average effective rate actually paid which is a shade over 25%. In the ninth place, the abolition of exchange control on non-residents in February represents this Government’s greatest single profession of faith and confidence in the basic strengths and prospects of the South African economy since it came into power more than a third of a century ago. In the tenth place, the new dispensation announced for building societies will make the South African building society movement one of the most sophisticated and effective anywhere, and will contribute significantly to a widening of the market for home-ownership finance.

In the eleventh place, the Government’s aid to drought-stricken areas, taken per farmer, is the highest in our history and exceeds even that of Australia which is currently suffering from one of the worst—some say the worst—droughts in her experience. In the twelfth place, South Africa will in the current financial year spend approximately R2 000 million in development aid. This is a threefold increase over the past five years, and in relation to the size of the economy represents in all likelihood the biggest development programme, financed virtually entirely from domestic sources, to be found anywhere in the world. I have thought fit to make these few points in order to introduce some perspective in regard to the South African economy.

*In spite of these facts the hon. member for Yeoville and the members of his party had nothing positive to say about the South African economy. In a very effective editorial dated 12 April and entitled “Mnr. Schwarz sien swart”, the Burger said inter alia the following—

They then mention what they are. They go on to say—

One could almost say “Q.E.D. Leave it at that”, but I just want to say a little more.

That is an objective criticism.

Yes, it is objective because after all I think it is quite authoritative. [Interjections.]

*The PFP had nothing at all to say about the dramatic improvement in the balance of payments. It is true that the hon. member for Yeoville made a list of certain aspects of the present economic situation in the country that are not ideal. He said that the country was in a recession, the growth rate was too low, the rate of inflation was too high and unemployment had increased. However, we all know that. It is easy to make such a list. I analysed the problems one by one in my budget speech.

I also pointed out the link between our economic problems and those of the world as a whole. As everyone knows, the world has been enduring an extremely serious depression in recent years. The official Opposition had little to say about this because it did not suit their arguments to do so. He wanted to create the impression that the Government was responsible for the economic problems of South Africa and that they had nothing to do with the state of the world economy and the drought. It is really strange how in many other spheres the Opposition is always reminding us that South Africa is a part of the world and must take cognizance of what is going on in the world. However, when it comes to economic matters, there is apparently no link between our problems and those of the rest of the world.

The hon. member for Yeoville then went on to contend that the fiscal and monetary policy of the Government attested to insufficient planning. According to him the Treasury and the Reserve Bank are too passive. Because I said that the whole idea of showing the economy a red light or a green light was too over-simplified and in fact out of fashion, he inferred, quite wrongly, that we were now showing an amber light. Apparently we are now doing nothing but wait for an upswing in the big industrial countries. And now he says that we must take more purposeful action and carry out more so-called planning.

Here, I think, the hon. member is on very dangerous ground. I hope that the other hon. members and the supporters of his party take cognizance of what he is doing here. The word “planning” sounds all very well. No one can really be opposed to planning in the everyday sense of the word. But in economic politics the word planning often has a different meaning—that is to say, that of socialist or Marxist planning. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if that is the meaning the hon. member for Yeoville wants to give the word “planning”. We must settle this matter; it is fundamental. [Interjections.]

Order!

As I said briefly on Friday, the hon. member for Yeoville was the chairman of a commission of inquiry into the economic policy of his party. At that point he said: “I am a social democrat”. I want to know where that document is. What became of it? Was it lost? What became of this “social democracy”? We do not hear anything more about it.

You also have that document.

I want to know whether the official Opposition advocates socialism, or do they support the system of free enterprise in the operation of the market mechanism? Do they want more direct Government interference in private enterprise or not?

My hon. colleague next to me said in a speech on Friday that if the hon. member for Yeoville wanted to live in Europe he would be in the party of a person like Mr. Mitterand or that of Herr Schmidt, the former Chancellor of West Germany. After all, they are socialists. Has he seen what has become of Mr. Mitterand’s policy?

I would not like to say to which party you would have belonged.

Has the hon. member for Yeoville seen the dramatic change of stance that Mitterrand and his Government have adopted in the past two weeks? [Interjections.] After the great prognostications about how they were going to lay down a socialist regime, they are now engaged in a dramatic policy of financial austerity, more austere than one would find in most countries of the world. That is what will happen to the hon. member too if he is not careful.

*The official Opposition completely misunderstands the Government’s fiscal and monetary policy. [Interjections.] We are not passive. By no means. [Interjections.] However, we are deliberately making less use of direct socialist or arbitrary measures of control … [Interjections.] … and more use of a market-oriented policy, a policy that may be reconciled with the system of free enterprise. Moreover, this market-oriented policy is working brilliantly. Here I refer in particular to the dramatic improvement in South Africa’s balance of payments and in the net foreign reserves over the past year.

Over the past year the Treasury and the Reserve Bank have been exceptionally active, not in the Gazette by way of the announcement of more direct control measures, but in the market for Government stocks, in the market for dollars, etc. By means of this policy we have succeeded in obtaining realistic interest rates and exchange rates, with exceptionally favourable results. Since the middle of 1982 our net foreign reserves have increased considerably and the rand has appreciated again. The interest rates which rose earlier and did their work well, subsequently dropped for the right reasons.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked me to explain what was meant by the “new milieu” in which the budget was introduced, as it was described by one of the vice-presidents of the Reserve Bank. The new milieu means for the most part that the gold price which for more than 35 years was fixed at $35 per ounce, is at present showing major fluctuations in the gold markets of the world. Nowadays the gold price can easily rise or fall by $50 or more within two or three weeks—or even within one week. In addition we live in a world of fluctuating exchange rates. Moreover, in recent years interest rates in the great financial markets of the world have been far more volatile than before. To us in South Africa these realities are what is given and we must take full cognizance of them. It is pointless keeping our heads in the sand like ostriches. We must apply modern techniques of monetary and fiscal policy that are adapted to the new situation. Moreover, we have certainly done so and I repeat that the results speak for themselves.

As far as the “amber light” allegation of the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, I just want to say to him that he is simply wrong. We no longer believe in this green, red and amber light story. Our policy is an active and modern market-orientated policy. It is flexible. It can rapidly be adapted to changing circumstances. One example of this is the substantial fall in the prime lending rate of the commercial banks from 20% in October last year to the present level of 14%. This fall was just as much part of our policy as the preceding increase. In other words, we no longer simply decide once or twice a year what colour light we want to show the economy. We adapt our financial policy as rapidly as circumstances require. [Interjections.]

I now come to the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Yeoville, to the effect that we are merely sitting and waiting for the big industrial countries to show an upswing. He says that we do not have a policy to counter inflation or the recession. According to him we provide no guidance. I want to say to him in all courtesy that we do, of course, take into account the expected upswing in the USA, in Europe and in Japan. South Africa is an important trading country and our exports, and therefore entire economy, are naturally profoundly influenced by what happens overseas. But that does not mean that we do not have a policy in the interim. Our policy has been fully expounded in the Budget. It is not a policy of “reflation” or “artificial stimulation”. It is a policy aimed at containing inflation and further strengthening the balance of payments, with a view to preparing the economy in this way for the exportled upswing which is expected within the new fiscal year.

What does the hon. member for Yeoville want us to do? He was arguing against himself here. He was certainly not being consistent. On the one hand he said that we should do more to stimulate the economy. Amongst other things, he said, we had to reduce the general sales tax. The deficit before loans could be far greater and therefore we would have to borrow more. But on the other hand he states that we should do more to combat inflation and impose more stringent control on the money supply. That is totally contradictory. We can do either the one or the other, but certainly not both at the same time.

†You see, Sir, it is a sort of hit-and-run approach. The hon. member said the rand could buy eight times more when the Government was elected than today, i.e. between 1948 and the present time. However, he did not follow that up with the logical further reasoning or facts. He did not say that over that period during which the rand declined in value real earnings, including pensions, for all the groups in South Africa had in fact risen substantially above the rate of inflation. In other words, real earnings and income have risen substantially and standards of living have progressively risen. He did not say that, but that is the logical thing one must add when one talks of the value of the rand.

*I want to come back to the allegation that our fiscal and monetary policy reveals insufficient so-called planning. The facts show very clearly that over the past number of years, apart from its stabilization policy for the short-term, the Government has also applied a specific financial strategy for the long-term. In order to support this I should like to refer to certain matters.

In the first place, since 1976 the Government has succeeded in reducing the share of total Government expenditure in the total gross domestic expenditure; this has been a matter of deliberate policy. This share has dropped from 25% in 1976 to almost 22% in 1982. In the second place, it has been the deliberate strategy of the Government to reduce the so-called “deficit before loans” in the budget, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, so that it fluctuates about a lower level than before. In 1976-’77 the deficit, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, amounted to 6,2%. Subsequently this proportion has dropped consistently to a low of only 0,9% in 1980-’81, the lowest percentage recorded throughout the entire post-war period. It is foreseen that for the three years 1981-’82 to 1983-’84 the deficit will amount to approximately 2,6% of the gross domestic product, compared with an average of 3,1% for the entire post-war period.

Thirdly, during the eight years from 1975-’76 to 1982-’83 it has been our deliberate financial strategy for the long term to finance the “deficit before loans” without any net recourse to bank credit. This sounds easier than it is, but we have succeeded in doing so. This is reflected in the fact that the contribution of the Government sector to the increase in the overall money supply, the so-called M2, has been less than 1% throughout this entire period, as against a contribution of 21,5% in the preceding eight years.

A fourth aspect of the Government’s long-term strategy in the financial sphere has been the deliberate reduction of the maximum marginal income tax scale for persons. In 1977-’78 this marginal rate was still 72%, if the loan levy was included. As I said earlier, it has since been reduced to 50%.

Moreover, since 1977-’78 the average weighted personal income tax rate has also shown a tendency to fall. Thus the average at the moment, as I have already mentioned, is approximately 17%. This is the effective average personal income-tax.

†Going a little further, I thought the contribution to the debate by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, the finance spokesman for the NRP, was in many respects a good one. He voiced his criticisms, but he did recognize what he called “many positive points” in the budget. He also said that the improvement in our balance of payments position over the last year had indeed been very remarkable. He also said—

He did express his concern about our present low rate of growth and the relatively high rate of inflation. I share that concern. That is why this budget places so much emphasis on curbing inflation. That is why we have rejected the whole notion of “spending ourselves out of the recession”. Instead, we are going to live within our means as far as we can and work ourselves out of the recession.

To use new money creation through the banking system as a substitute for either taxes or borrowing from the non-bank private sector, would no doubt be popular in the short term, but would be highly inflationary. Therefore we have rejected it out of hand. I think the hon. member agrees with me on that point as well.

I also want to refer to the money supply in relation, particularly, to what was said in one of our newspapers. A number of hon. members have referred to the importance of effective control over the money supply. In my budget speech I pointed out that the monetary policy in South Africa had proved increasingly effective and had succeeded in reducing the rate of increase of the broad money supply—M2—from 27% in 1980 to 17% in 1982, and to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 14% during the second half of the year. These figures were questioned by The Natal Mercury. In an editorial on 31 March this newspaper stated—

That was in my budget—

The explanation is perfectly simple. My figures are correct and were, in fact, supplied by the Reserve Bank. Subsequently, the same figures were published in the Reserve Bank Quarterly Bulletin for March 1983. Therefore there is no discrepancy between the figures quoted in the budget speech and those of the Reserve Bank. All that needs to be explained is The Natal Mercury’s mistake. I think they probably looked at monthly money supply figures unadjusted for seasonal variations. For various technical reasons these monthly unadjusted figures are too volatile to be used for purposes of economic analysis. That is why most experts prefer to use annual figures or half-yearly figures adjusted for seasonal variations, as I indeed did in my budget speech.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside—he indicated that he was unable to be present today—referred to agriculture and said that the amount being voted this year was lower than that for the previous year. References have been made in the course of the debate to the importance of agriculture and various aspects of that industry. The hon. member for Ceres, the hon. member for Caledon, the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Albany sounded a more positive note. I should like to dwell for a moment on the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Sunnyside. I have the figures before me and it is clear from them that in 1979-’80, altogether R331 million was spent on agriculture. In 1982-’83, viz. the year just past, the figure was R527 million. This represents an increase of 60% over a period of three years. One cannot really compare the figure for the present financial year, 1983-’84, with these figures because it does not include all the amounts that we must spent on drought relief. I have said this before. That amount will be considerable and I can tell the hon. member here and now that the amount to be appropriated for agriculture in this year, viz. 1983-’84, will be considerably higher than for 1982-’83, and he can take my word for that.

I now come to the question of subsidies. It is being contended that a smaller amount is being appropriated in the main budget for the subsidy on bread in 1983-’84 than was appropriated in 1982-’83. What are the facts? In 1982-’83 the amount was R158 million, and this year it is R163 530 000. And as hon. members know full well, when the bread price is adjusted again it is quite probable that as has happened in the past, we shall have to add an additional amount in the form of bread subsidies. Where, then, does that story come from, viz. that the amount set aside for the subsidy on bread is less than it was last year? That is by no means the case.

I just want to refer once again to drought relief. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture was kind enough to bring to my attention a long and very interesting article that appeared in the 28 March 1983 edition of the American periodical Time, entitled “Australia’s great dry”. The subject occupied many pages. It has been an absolute catastrophe. What are the facts, however? They have 170 000 farmers, and the amount they voted over the year was 317 million Australian dollars. South Africa has 70 000 farmers and the amount we are spending is already as much as R150 000. Therefore we compare far more than favourable with this extreme effort on the part of Australia to furnish aid to the drought-ravaged areas. I mention these things because I think they ought to be made known. As far as agriculture is concerned, therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever as to the attitude of this Government. Surely this may be seen every year from my approach as Minister of Finance. I know of no more important industry in South Africa than the agricultural industry. It is our policy to keep that industry strong and healthy in spite of the extreme droughts.

†I now wish to refer to the hon. member for Parktown. He made a very hectic attack on the Government. He said the Government apparently did nothing for anybody. He asked: “Would the budget improve the quality of life of South Africans?” Of all the questions asked in the debate that was perhaps the most remarkable. That hon. member has all the facts that are published in the statements that go with every year’s budget. If the hon. member will look to see what we have spent on housing, health, social pensions, food subsidies, bus and rail subsidies—all these social services—he will find that in the five years since 1978-’79 the amount has risen to nearly R3,5 billion. That represents an increase of nearly two and a half times in five years. The hon. member must be fair. Let us have a look at some of the other countries. The hon. member says that he travels to other countries. Let him bring something comparable then. These expenditures on social services for all our people have increased two and a half times in five years and now stand at R3,5 billion. What more can this Government do at a time when education, for instance, has increased from R1 400 million in five years to nearly R3 500 million? In that same period the expenditure on defence, police and the security services has increased from just over R2 000 million altogether to R4 200 million. We have to finance that. It is absolutely essential. With all that going on and development aid, as I have already said, having risen to R2 000 million from R1 000 million five years ago, what more can this Government possibly do? And at the same time we have reduced taxes substantially. He wants to know what we are doing for the South African public. Well, what have we done, Mr. Speaker? We have lightened the tax burden substantially and we have increased benefits even more substantially. An interesting point, Mr. Speaker, is that many of us are becoming obsessed with statistics. For instance, we would look at national income per capita, and that sort of thing, and if that changes then we say that is the whole story. An extremely interesting study is being conducted at Oxford University at the moment, a study covering many countries. That study tends to show that possibly the most important single parameter in the whole study of quality of life is life expectancy. We must look at the statistics relating to life expectancy. The hon. member for Parktown has not even seen the study. It is being done by infinitely more able people in this field than the hon. member, and I say this with great respect. He shakes his head and yet he has not even seen the rationale of the study. If he looks at how life expectancy increases then he will realize what the point is of this study. But he has not even seen it, and is not prepared to look at it because he is a scientist! According to this authoritative study, which is receiving increasing publicity throughout the world, how does he think the South African public, all races, makes out? Is there a better performance as regards the increase in life expectancy in the whole African continent than in South Africa? The hon. member must think about these things. It is not something to be swept aside by merely a shake of the head while you know nothing about it.

*I am pleased to see the hon. member for Vasco at his post again. He is a very valuable member of our financial group and of our caucus, and his speech in this debate proved once again that there is nothing wrong with him. I thank him for his kind words.

I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Smithfield, the chairman of our finance group, on his speech. He set a very fine standard right at the start of the debate, and it is certainly not his fault that members of the official Opposition were unable to maintain that standard. Nevertheless he set the example. Behind him sits the Deputy Minister of Finance and I want to thank him, too, for his contribution to this debate. There have been so many good speeches in this debate from this side of the House that I cannot mention all of them by name. I thank them all.

The hon. member for Caledon discussed the production of barley and asked whether it would not be possible to provide encouragement in the form of a beer quota, free of excise duty, to producers producing more than a specific quantity, e.g. 150 tons of barley. I note that the hon. member for Ceres is smiling faintly. He is probably thinking of the wine farmers. We must be very careful here. What happened in the case of the wine farmers was a very exceptional case. We must beware of precedents, or else the tobacco farmers and I do not know who else will eventually come forward with representations for lower excise duties. In any event, I shall discuss the matter with the hon. member for Caledon.

The hon. member for Boksburg discussed marginal profit gold-mines and advocated the appointment of a committee to determine what incentives should be made available to mines in order to persuade them to provide accommodation for the 400 000 hostel dwellers who would qualify as regards families. Sir, we are carrying out studies with regard to the entire matter of assistance to marginal profit mines and in the process we shall certainly also give attention to the proposal put forward by the hon. member. I should like to discuss the matter with him personally.

†As far as members of the NRP are concerned, I listened to all their speeches and I thought we had some very constructive debating from them.

The hon. member for Umbilo, for example, put a great deal of stress on the question of housing. He did so quite correctly. I thought he might be interested in a reference I found on housing. It is the view expressed by a very distinguished authority in this field, who has just been in South Africa. He has spent some time here indeed. It is Prof. Floyd Slate of Cornell University in the USA. He visited Johannesburg, where he lectured. He also lectured here in Cape Town, as well as in Natal and elsewhere. He says—

That is the problem of solving the housing position—

These are his own words, Mr. Speaker, He continues by saying that if the very efficient systems of mass housing in South Africa impressed him—and the quality of housing was better than he had expected—it was possible better than South Africa could afford. I think he raised a very important point here. It is a pity the hon. the Minister of Community Development cannot be present in the House today. I do think, however, he also made a very valuable contribution when he explained housing policy. I also think it ties up very well with this view expressed by this American authority.

He said it was also possible that the expectations of the poor tended to be unrealistically high. He felt that the change in housing policy from State provided housing to greater reliance on self-help was the proper way to go. Then he said—

The hon. member for Umbilo made the same point. That is a point we have been making for a long time. The Government cannot handle all the problems of housing, and when it tries it usually ends up making mistakes. That seems to be a general rule worldwide.

I thought the hon. member might be interested in that. I listened to him with great interest when he addressed himself to that subject.

The hon. member for Edenvale—as I have always found him doing—made a very useful contribution to this debate. He spoke mainly again about pensions, which is a specialized field of his. Talking about the transferability of pensions and the problems we have in that respect, I must point out that it was very unfortunate that the problems were of such a nature that we actually had to postpone that very worthwhile step. The hon. member said the problems encountered were political. How right he was! It was a most unfortunate thing. He suggested that we might consider appointing a commission of inquiry—a representative commission—to look into this matter again. I might tell the hon. member that this is a subject we have been discussing for a few months now, and I would in fact welcome an opportunity of talking with him, as I believe this is something we should not simply allow to go by default. Otherwise the tax burden on this Government is going to become absolutely excessive in the future.

I am just selecting a few points, more or less at random, which have caught my eye, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Durban North expressed his concern about unemployment, and also possible unemployment following upon the step in relation to the aid to marginal mines. However, we have looked at that very, very carefully, and we are also in touch with the Chamber of Mines. That is something of which we will obviously not lose sight at any time.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker—and I do apologize that I cannot refer to all the valuable contributions that were made—I should merely like to say that the budget, in my view, must be judged against the background of the prevailing general economic situation. We all know that the world is in a state of economic depression, and that this has adversely affected our exports. We all know that although the dollar price of gold has recovered from the low point of below $300 during the second quarter of 1982, it is still well below the $613 average price of 1980, and even below the $460 of 1981.

We also all know about the drought and what that has done to our economy. Against this background the outstanding feature of the budget is that it is possible to keep it anti-inflationary without raising taxes. I believe it is a sound and conservative budget, which will not require any financing by way of the creation of new money. Yet it does not provide for higher direct or indirect taxation. In fact, the personal loan levy of 5% has been abolished. I think the key to this satisfactory outcome lies in two basic features of our policy. The first of these is the tight rein that we keep on Government spending by trying to eliminate all unnecessary Government spending, and the second is our market-oriented interest rate and exchange rate policies. I think that the dramatic improvement in our balance of payments position and the net reserves over the past year have provided ample proof that this strategy is working. I am sure that further results will follow in the months ahead.

Finally, Sir—this is the first opportunity that I have had to do so—I should to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton very much indeed on her 30 years in this House. I must say looking at her that she does not look as though she has been in this House for 30 years or indeed anywhere else for 30 years! I hope that things will continue to go very well for her in this House.

I commend the recommendations contained in this budget to the House with great confidence and I thank you, Sir, for your indulgence.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer hon. members to page 2-6 of the estimates of expenditure, in particular to the item that states that there will be a loss on the parliamentary refreshment rooms estimated, for the coming year, at R239 000. [Interjections.] I think hon. members opposite will realize what it is I am about. This side of the House has opposed, as strenuously as it possibly could in recent years, the shabby rule that provides for the fact that in our parliamentary dining-room only Ministers may introduce Black guests, and that if an ordinary member of Parliament wants to introduce a Black guest to eat on these premises, he has to be referred to the VIP room and has to have, in any event, the permission of Mr. Speaker. We have heard from the other side, over the past few years, arguments supporting this shabby rule. One is apparently that we are a club, we operate like a club, and there has to be consensus about the rules of a club. I shall deal with this aspect in a moment. Parliament is not, in that sense, a club. We are, in fact, being heavily subsidized by persons who do not happen to belong to the so-called club. [Interjections.] Secondly we were told that we had not gone through the proper channels. That can no longer apply, because we have been through all the proper channels, such as the Select Committee on Parliamentary Catering and the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements. We have been through all those. Thirdly we were told that this was not the proper forum for raising such a matter. It is somehow improper for us to expose our domestic details to the people outside. Well, we are actually asking for money from the taxpayers of South Africa, so I can see no better place to discuss such a matter than Parliament itself.

It seems to me that there are at least 10 good arguments why this shabby rule should at last be repealed. What we want is the right of all hon. members of Parliament to introduce, at their own personal discretion, such guests as they want to introduce into the parliamentary dining-room without having the sop of having to go to Mr. Speaker and being shunted off to the side-room, however elegant it may be. The first argument is that this rule is a personal affront to South African citizens of colour who are introduced on to parliamentary premises. I was present at a luncheon in the VIP room not so long ago when a Black bishop sat next to me. We spoke about Parliament and its procedure, about politics and about the world. When we got onto the question of the parliamentary dining-room I had to tell him what the rule was—otherwise I would have lied—whereupon he asked: “Well, why are we dining here?” When I had answered him, he said: “If I had known of the rule, I would not have accepted the invitation; I am here under false pretences.” [Interjections.] Now that is a heavy indictment of us, a heavy indictment indeed. Would hon. members suggest, for example, that we should have a special box in the Nico Malan Theatre, that the rest of the theatre should be White and that if we wanted to take a Black guest, we should go into that separate box in order to view the same spectacle? I ask this question, because in this VIP room we eat the same food, though not in the same place. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the second argument. I thought that the hon. the Prime Minister was moving away from what he calls unnecessary and hurtful discrimination. What on earth, I ask, is necessary about this particular act of race discrimination? Does the hon. the Prime Minister and his party believe that there will be racial friction in the dining room? If not, what is necessary about it? I understand that there are only two non-negotiables in the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy. One is that schools shall remain separate and the other is that residential areas shall remain separate. Suddenly, when one starts asking questions, a whole host of other, apparently minor but very important, non-negotiables start raising their heads. You see, Sir, we were told last year by the hon. the leader of the House, who is not present today for obvious reasons—and unacceptable reasons, let me say, as far as we are concerned—that this was never put before the NP caucus, nor would it ever be. So it rather looks as if this is one of the non-negotiables on a hidden agenda.

The third argument, one I have touched on slightly already, is that in fact the Parliamentary dining-room is subsidized by the taxpayers in this country. We are asking the taxpayers for R239 000 in order to subsidize our loss, and the taxpayers are not only White, they are Indian, Coloured and Black as well. I cannot understand how, morally, we can ask those taxpayers to support us in regard to a segregated facility where we lay down the rules.

The fourth argument is that we have not kept pace with other institutions. There was a dining-room at the Coloured Persons Representative Council headquarters in Bellville South, but the Coloured people did not provide a separate room for White guests. Why do we discriminate when people of other groups are perfectly happy to share their facilities? I can refer to another institution of this Government’s making down the road, namely the President’s Council. That has a dining-room and there is no segregation there. There is no limit on Black guests there.

In the fifth instance, apparently we are going to have a new constitutional dispensation. But all members of Parliament, although they may be in separate Houses, are going to be equal. What is then going to happen?

There will be a three-chamber dining-room.

And you are going to eat in the kitchen.

Are we going to have three dining-rooms, or what is going to happen? Are we going to have separate tables in one dining-room? What happens to Coloured MPs? Will they be allowed to invite White guests into the dining-room? Sir, we are on a course of lunacy. What is going to happen? Has the Government in fact given thought to these very practical problems?

There is a sixth reason. It is that all other parts of Parliament are open to Black guests. I can take them on a conducted tour to the Gallery, to the library, to the memorabilia and the museum, to my office, and all over. I can take them all over without the consent of Mr. Speaker, but I cannot eat with them. What is this holy cow? I do not understand it. They use the same toilets, let me tell you. The toilet syndrome has gone—remember the famous one of Minister Du Plessis—but the dining-room syndrome is still with us.

In the seventh place, it is doing incalculable harm to our relations with the outside world. How can one justify it? The hon. member for Sandton a year or two ago related the story of the cricketers, the delegates from the International Cricket Conference, and the débácle that occurred when it was realized that they could not be accommodated for lunch in our dining-room. Is it suggested in this day and age that the West Indian cricketers, who gave us such joy this year, would not be able to be invited to our Parliamentary dining-room by an MP, by the hon. member for Sandton who is the spokesman on sport of the official Opposition? Is it believable? It makes a mockery of our so-called détente and our moving away from discrimination.

There is an eighth reason. This rule was first conceived in 1949.

That is a coincidence!

That was 34 years ago. In 1968 there was admittedly the sop of the VIP room, but for 34 years we have solemnly denied members the right to introduce ladies and gentlemen of colour into our dining-room.

How long has the Prime Minister been in Parliament?

In the ninth place, I believe that this rule constitutes discrimination against ordinary members of Parliament. Why have one rule for Ministers and another for MPs? It goes against the traditions of this House, because that is a special perquisite for Ministers.

Finally, Sir, we face here a historic irony, because that dining-room was the debating chamber of the House of Assembly of the old Cape Parliament from 1885 to 1910. Do you know that the gentlemen who graced those benches … The hon. the Prime Minister smiles.

Who smiles?

We are talking about Merriman, about Rhodes, about Leander Starr Jameson, about Onse Jan Hofmeyr and Lord De Villiers. We are talking about men who fought as a non-negotiable for a non-racial franchise for the Union of South Africa. Do you think they would have permitted their room, where all those magnificent debates took place, to be turned into a segregated dining-room when they stood up for non-racial franchise as a precondition for Union?

In the light of all these circumstances I ask the Government to reconsider its attitude. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the CP I want to say that basically we are satisfied with the present arrangements applying in Parliament. We feel that the arrangements applying in Parliament at present make provision for all eventualities, including the reception of groups of people of colour. If the governing Party respects the present arrangements, we shall support them.

Because we are now discussing the vote on Parliament and the new constitutional guidelines make provision for a new Parliament, I should like to ask a few questions about this. It is mentioned in the guidelines that for the first time in the history of the Republic, directly elected White, Coloured and Indian members of Parliament, together in one Parliament, will be able …

Order! I am of the opinion that the hon. member may not discuss that now.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the hon. Chief Whip you …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Rissik cast a reflection on the Chair by passing the remark: “He has been given his instructions”?

I was referring to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was not referring to you. I was referring to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member looked directly at you and said: “He has been given his instructions”.

The hon. member for Rissik must apologize to the Chair.

You are asking me to apologize for something I did not do. If that is your ruling I shall do so, but I did not say that.

You did say it.

I did not.

The hon. member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it not a rule of debate that when a member gives an explanation his word must be accepted …

I do not accept it now.

Order! The matter has been settled. I have already given my ruling and the matter has been settled.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Law and Order has said that he does not accept the word of the hon. member for Rissik, although it is a recognized rule in this House that an hon. member must accept the word of another hon. member.

The hon. the Minister of Law and Order attested that the hon. member for Rissik looked at the Chair and said: “He has been given his instructions”, and my ruling was based on that.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, after you gave your ruling, the hon. the Minister said he did not accept the word of the hon. member for Rissik. My standpoint is that it is a rule of this House that an hon. member must accept the word of another hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In spite of the fact that the hon. member for Rissik denied making that allegation, you gave a specific ruling concerning his behaviour. Your ruling was therefore based on the hon. member in fact having said what he said.

The further remark by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order only followed later. I feel the hon. the Minister of Law and Order may tell the hon. member for Rissik that he would in the normal course accept his word but that he cannot do so in this case. Those are the words he used. The matter has now been settled and the hon. member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, in order to complete my argument I should like you to give me the opportunity to quote something which concerns the present situation.

Order! I regret that in this instance, since we are discussing the vote of Parliament, I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the constitutional developments which may take place in future.

Mr. Chairman, surely Parliament is part of the future. After all, this Parliament must make decisions. [Interjections.]

Order! The vote of Parliament which we are now discussing, concerns the administration of this Parliament. At present it is only this Parliament, the Parliament in which we are now sitting, that is at issue. The hon. member may ask the questions he wants to ask now, when the new dispensation for Parliament is under discussion here in future.

Mr. Chairman, If I were to quote to you what the policy of the governing party was and I were to say that I wanted certain questions replied to as a result of the policy of the Government at present governing this Parliament, would you allow me to do so?

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that what we are discussing here is the administration of Parliament as it is constituted at present. I request the hon. member’s co-operation. We cannot discuss any future parliamentary dispensation now. What we are discussing now is the administration of Parliament as we know it. I shall allow the hon. member to proceed, but I warn him that I shall call him to order if he deviates.

With reference to the policy of the Government which is also responsible for the administration of this Parliament, I should like to ask certain questions and I hope that you will allow me to do so.

Order! The Government is not responsible for the administration of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, surely it is a State department. [Interjections.]

The point is that that is not the case. I have given my ruling and unless the hon. member for Kuruman wants to discuss the administration of Parliament he will have to resume his seat.

The governing Party has certain standpoints in connection with the use of the facilities in this Parliament. For example, it is its standpoint that the dining-room of this Parliament may not be used by people of colour. The governing party also has a policy in terms of which it states that in future there can be White, Coloured and Indian parliamentarians in this Parliament with equal status, and with the same tasks and rights.

Order! The hon. member is circumventing my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, whereas at the moment, as far as people of colour are concerned, you are not allowed to … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member an opportunity to deliver his speech.

Whereas at present people of colour are not allowed to use the dining-room, I should very much like the hon. the Minister to tell us what their policy is. Our support for the present situation will depend on the standpoint he will adopt in the future. The Government may have changed its standpoint in the meanwhile. I have said that we are satisfied with the present dispensation in this Parliament. That is why I should like to know whether the Government also intends to change the present arrangements in connection with the customs of this Parliament. We should like to have replies to this because we say that if White, Coloured and Indian parliamentarians have the same status and rights …

Order! The hon. member must please resume his seat.

Help, Louis, help.

Order! Did the hon. member for Rissik says: “Help, Louis, help”?

Yes, I said he must help, Sir, but I was not talking to you, Mr. Chairman.

To whom were you talking then?

I was saying he must help his party, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order and with all due respect: For the past few minutes the hon. member for Rissik has been taunting you in your capacity as Chairman. He looked at you and said: “Help Louis, help”. He was not saying that I must help my party as he is now pretending. He looked at you as Chairman and then said: “Help, Louis, help”. He has been doing this for the past few minutes.

I shall give the hon. member for Rissik an opportunity to furnish an explanation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Law and Order is constantly talking and making interjections. He is known to be the adviser of his party. [Interjections.] All I said to him was that he should help his party, and I repeat that I was not referring to you as Chairman. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Law and Order is constantly making interjections. He who is supposed to maintain law and order outside, is not able …

Order! That has nothing to do with the hon. member’s explanation.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order acts in a disorderly fashion when we want to listen to you. That is why I told him that he had to help his side. That is what I meant.

I am prepared to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and to accept his word. But I warn him that from now on I shall be keeping a close watch on him.

Mr. Chairman…. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to keep some order and to contain himself just for a little while.

Sir, we in this party have consistently said, in the Select Committee on Parliamentary Catering and in the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements that we believe that it should be the right of every Parliamentarian to invite into the parliamentary dining room the guests of his choice, remembering at all times that any guest is his responsibility. The behaviour of his guests, their general demeanour, is the member’s responsibility. In his matter I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition when he says that there is discrimination against ordinary members of Parliament.

Sir, we have limited time for the discussion of the Votes of the various Ministers and all I want to say is that the governing party in the last general election used the slogan: “Now, more than ever, vote Nationalist”. It was an excellent slogan, and they came back to this House with a mandate for change. There is an expectancy in South Africa, and excitement, a feeling for change, and I say to the Government here this afternoon: Now, more than ever, is the time for them to reconsider their attitude in this particular matter. Now is the time that they should demonstrate in the small things, in a small way, their intention, their honourable intention, to bring forward meaningful change in South Africa. They should allow members of Parliament, who, after all, are representatives of the people of South Africa, the right to entertain in their dining room the guests of their choice. We therefore support the official Opposition in their stand in connection with this matter.

Mr. Chairman, for years now there have been arrangements concerning this matter in this Parliament which have worked reasonably well. However, every year the PFP brings up this matter. Let me say emphatically that the Government does not plan to act without regard for Parliamentary institutions.

Pretend that you are speaking at Palm Springs now.

The Government is not going to act without regard for the parliamentary institutions involved. Here I have in mind the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. This is the only correct way. Hon. members heard the ruling by the Chair that this is not a Government matter. It is a matter that concerns Parliament. This, then, is the view of the Government, and it will not deviate from it, because if it were to do so, it would violate the tradition of this high Chamber. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, what are the facts? Firstly, the catering facilities here are cramped. Every hon. member knows that. Secondly, it is a fact that the existing facilities are primarily intended for hon. members of this House, for their families and for their voters. [Interjections.]

That is a new argument.

Thirdly, proper and good provision is made for outside guests. Any hon. member who seeks to present matters as being different to the way I have sketched them here, namely that proper and good provision has been made here for essential outside guests, is telling an untruth and is giving the world outside a mistaken impression of what the circumstances here really are. Of course this may not be satisfactory for all hon. members, but this is not the sort of matter which can, according to my honest conviction, be dealt with by way of a public debate in this House … [Interjections.] Sir, I am only putting the case of this side of the House.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to put his view.

I am saying, Sir, that the existing arrangements may not be satisfactory to all hon. members, but this is not the sort of matter which can be dealt with by way of a public debate in the House. It must be left to the relevant parliamentary committee, namely the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, to reflect on calmly. This is the correct way of dealing with this matter. We all know that a new constitutional dispensation is in the offing and in conjunction with that provision will surely be made for more ample and better catering facilities for hon. members as well as for members of the public. For hon. members to come and make politics about this matter here at this point is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.

Sir, I have nothing further to say about this on this occasion.

Mr. Chairman, I think I express the opinion of every member on this side of the House when I say that the reply of the hon. the Minister was astonishing. Sir, we have been through all the proper channels. The block is the NP caucus.

In view of the fact that there are no other steps that we can take we resort to the old traditional mechanism in terms of which this House can stop the spending of public money in a way which it regards as being unacceptable. In the circumstances I move as an amendment—

I feel that if hon. members want to be subsidized by the tax-payers of this country for petty apartheid, then they must pay for their own petty apartheid.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is an oversimplification to say that rarely has there been so much in the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote as there has been during this parliamentary session, given the circumstances under which we are going to discuss it. I intend to discuss several matters which have dominated the debates in this House up to now, namely the by-elections, the Government’s constitutional guidelines, the announcement of a referendum, etc. However, I have given the hon. the Prime Minister an undertaking by way of personal correspondence that I shall clear up a matter during his Vote concerning which the position may have been unclear. I am referring to the whole question of confidentiality between the hon. the Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition.

This problem arose as a result of the questions I asked the hon. the Prime Minister about the Seychelles hijack or coup d’état. Before coming to the possible causes of the confusion, I should just like to explain very clearly the standpoint adopted as a matter of principle by my party and by myself with regard to this matter.

Firstly, I believe it is important and essential that the hon. the Prime Minister should furnish the Leader of the Opposition with confidential information concerning matters affecting national security or any matter which the hon. the Prime Minister may deem to be in the national interest. Secondly, it is my own firm intention as the present Leader of the Opposition to honour the confidential nature of such information and to maintain this situation of confidentiality. Thirdly, it is the exclusive prerogative of the hon. the Prime Minister to decide when such a situation arises, and it is the responsibility of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that this practice is not abused or dishonoured. Fourthly, what applies in this connection between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition applies equally, I believe in respect of every member of the Cabinet and every member member of the Opposition, and I have informed my caucus accordingly.

The question, then, is how a misunderstanding arose between me and the hon. the Prime Minister concerning this practice. The whole matter has a bearing on the attempted coup d’état in the Seychelles, the subsequent court case and matters arising from the findings of that court. Judgment was given in the court case on 29 July 1982, six months before the no-confidence debate was to commence. Immediately after the judgment the Government reacted to it, and I and members of my party made it clear that we were not satisfied with the Government’s standpoint in this connection and that we intended taking the matter further. I asked for a full investigation into the possible involvement of the National Intelligence Service and the Defence Force, and the PFP’s chief spokesman on defence matters declared that there should be an open debate on the whole matter in Parliament.

On at least four subsequent occasions, up to and including the no-confidence debate, I gave notice in public of my intention to raise this matter by way of motivating my motion.

So the hon. the Prime Minister had six months in which to call me in at any time and to inform me of any security matters or matters of national interest which could possibly be involved in such a debate.

After I had asked about one and a half dozen questions during the speech with which I opened the debate, the hon. the Prime Minister still did not call me aside, and try to inform me as to the sensitive matters that would be involved.

Only when the hon. the Prime Minister entered the heat of the political debate himself did he make me the offer across the floor of this House. My reaction was simply the following: Fistly, although I appreciated the gesture and said so, I could not accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s offer in this case and it would not have helped to clear up the problem of the questions which had already been asked. Secondly, although I honour the practice of confidentiality, as I have just said, and although I regard it as essential, I found myself in an embarrassing position on this occasion since I could be politically compromised.

Therefore I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister with the greatest courtesy and in all humility: I have always honoured confidential discussions between him and myself and I intend to do the same in future, should the occasion arise. The hon. the Minister of Justice knows that I keep my word in this connection. However, I do not intend to compromise myself politically or to allow myself to be intimidated where this practice is brought up in a political debate, whether deliberately or not, or where a confidential practice becomes a public issue between two political parties. The hon. the Prime Minister is enough of a political animal to know exactly what I am talking about. When I say that I shall respect this practice, I want to make it quite clear that I am not begging for it and that I am not in desperate need of it. The hon. the Prime Minister has the prerogative to decide when such a situation arises, and I shall abide by the decision of the hon. the Prime Minister in this connection. That is all I want to say about the whole matter.

I come now to the present political situation. I think the moment the CP accepted the challenge issued by the hon. the Minister of Manpower, the whole tone of this parliamentary session changed. Since then the debates have been dominated by the by-elections. Underlying the whole debate on the by-elections is the theme of the so-called rightwing threat in White politics. I have said from the outset that the threat from the right is being overestimated. It simply depends on the context in which one evaluates it. In this connection, I believe, the NP finds itself in a dilemma. Should the NP fight the threat from the right with a view to the reunification of the NP? This is the one question which arises. The other question which arises is: Should the NP fight the threat from the right with a view to systematic reform in South Africa? I believe that at the moment the NP is trying to do both, and the symptoms are clear. That is why we have this double talk, vacillating statements, vague generalities and—it seems to me—a total lack of self-confidence on the other side. I want to predict that as long as the NP tries to do both, it will be crushed as a party in the mill of South African politics.

How great is the so-called “right-wing threat” in actual fact? According to Rapport of 5 December 1982, the right-wing party, the CP, has the support of approximately 15,6% of the White electorate. The same survey indicated that the PFP had 18,4% of the support—and the PFP has 26 seats—that the NRP had 5,5% of the support, with eight seats, and that the NP had the rest, with 44,3% of the support of the White electorate. Common sense tells one that if one has to choose four seats which the CP, with 15,6% of the support, should take, Soutpansberg and Waterberg are very high on the list. Even though I say that the rightwing threat is being overestimated, therefore, I should not be at all surprised if the CP took those seats, although I hope they will not.

Then you are voting NP.

However, I must add that the challenge issued by the hon. the Minister of Manpower must be one of the silliest acts, coming from a politician of his experience and stature, that I have ever seen in this House. It is against this background that we have to judge the dilemma of the NP.

Let us examine the attempt at the politics of reunification. The basic premise of the politics of reunification is that the NP can be reunited and can again become the only power base of the Afrikaner and its parliamentary mouthpiece. This is the basic approach of the politics of reunification. Every attempt is therefore being made to realize this ideal. I believe, too, that this endeavour is exemplified by the political style and conduct of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and leader of the Transvaal NP. That is what his style is directed at. There is a noticeable lack of enthusiasm about the whole question of reform, and in particular about the whole question of constitutional proposals: Try not to mention it, avoid it, but defend it where necessary, but above all, leave the door open so that the right-wing groups can come back. Of course, this has a definite effect on the style of certain hon. members on the other side taking part in the debate.

What are the consequences of this? The consequence of this attempt within the NP—what I call the politics of reunification—is to isolate the initiative for reform within the NP and to dull its impact outside the party, and we are witnessing this now. We can see it in public performances and in the way in which these by-elections are being fought. As I have said, the initiative for reform is being isolated within the NP and I think one can see signs of the fact that the real burden of keeping up the momentum and the enthusiasm for constitutional and other reform is resting on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and to some extent on the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister—and that is why it is necessary to discuss this under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. I am not saying this in an attempt to isolate them. They are being isolated simply as a result of the public conduct of other hon. members on the other side who have the responsibility to adopt a standpoint in public. It is clear to me that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who has borne a tremendous burden of work in recent months, is actually one of the few people who consistently talk about constitutional development or who show any enthusiasm for it.

This brings me to the so-called politics of reform, which is the other leg of the dilemma in which the NP finds itself. As far as the politics of reform is concerned, the objective is to enlist the greatest possible support for systematic reform, and also for a movement away from exclusive White domination. That phrase has been used repeatedly by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Our political problem, our constitutional problem in South Africa—and in this respect I agree with him—is how to get away from the problem of domination. This the hon. the Minister has said repeatedly. The politics of reform constitutes and attempt to spell out as clearly and unequivocally as possible what kind of changes can be expected in the constitutional, social and economic spheres, and—this is particularly important—what sacrifices and consequences this will involve. There is actually no one on the other side who is prepared to put this fearlessly at all levels, but in so far as an attempt is being made to do so with a certain degree of conviction, this attempt is also personified by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may get along very well at a personal level, but at the moment there is a definite difference between them with regard to the style and impact of their public conduct in respect of the whole question of reform.

What is important is that the politics of reform takes it for granted that it is not possible to limit the support of the Afrikaner to one party. This is accepted. The Afrikaner’s support is going to be manifested right across the political spectrum. The members of the CP perceived this at once.

This has always been the case.

No. Here in Parliament, however, the NP was able to argue for a long time that it was actually the only mouthpiece of the Afrikaner in Parliament. With the advent of the CP, however, some ambiguity arose about this. The real dividing line is no longer being drawn between Afrikaans and English, but between those who believe in reform and who work for it and those who are against it. Any party which does not make a clear choice between the two will be pulverized between these two processes.

One of the unintended consequences of Mr. Fanie Botha’s action is that he has brought this dilemma of the NP to a head by means of the by-elections. The hon. the Prime Minister can now start showing the way in his Vote so that the NP can escape from this dilemma. The real question is not whether the hon. the Prime Minister has the courage or the inclination to do so, but whether he is prepared to do so and whether he is prepared to accept the consequences of doing so for his own party. That is the real question.

This brings me to the whole question of the constitutional guidelines of the Government. Nowhere is the dilemma between the politics of reunification and the politics of reform more clearly manifested than in the way in which the Government has handled its own constitutional guidelines and legislation in this connection. Where it became clear that there were tensions in this connection was with the recruitment guide which has been discussed repeatedly. I do not wish to dwell on it now, except for saying that the recruitment guide, which was brought up in this discussion for the first time by the hon. member for Yeoville, contained a certain emphasis. It said, for example—

It goes on in this vein. NP recruiters in Waterkloof were advised to emphasize the fact that we are dependent on one another and that we must work together. This is the kind of emphasis which I believe to be essential if there is to be effective reform. Yesterday, however, we got a different manifesto from Soutpansberg. It was published by Minister Fanie Botha. In it, the following is said—

The hon. the Prime Minister has said so too.

I am not saying that this is not part of the policy. It is a question of emphasis. The heading is: “Die nuwe bedeling”. There is nothing new in this dispensation. We have had it for 35 years. What is the new dispensation? The new dispensation is about how we are going to be interdependent, how we are going to share power. That is what the voters want to know more about. They know about the old stories. [Interjections.] Surely this is not a new dispensation. It is as old as the hills. It is this emphasis which we notice when the Government starts talking about its constitutional guidelines. That is why I think it is time the hon. the Prime Minister gave us some clear guidance with regard to the Government’s guidelines, with regard to the new dispensation, before people go to the polls on 10 May, because it is clear to me that we are not going to get the Bill on the Constitution in time for us to react to it in a meaningful way. It does not seem to me that we shall.

I undertake to introduce the Bill before the by-elections are held.

Yes, but it may be only a day or a week-end before the by-elections. That does not leave us enough time. We must have it now; then we can discuss it.

Since when do you draw up the programme of Parliament?

The hon. the Prime Minister draws up the programme, and he said that the Bill would be introduced as soon as possible after the recess. [Interjections.]

Secondly, it does not seem that we are going to know before 10 May what question is going to be asked in the referendum. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to put his case.

I think it is only fair that under these circumstances, the hon. the Prime Minister should answer certain questions for us in very simple language. Firstly: What does he understand under the concept of “power-sharing”, and how, according to him, is it built into the Government’s guidelines that have been announced up to now? There is wholesale confusion about the concept. Some speak of full power-sharing; some speak of healthy power-sharing and some refer to limited power-sharing. It is no use the Government’s saying that its interpretation of the concept of power-sharing is different from ours. We should like to know exactly what the interpretation is which the hon. the Prime Minister, as leader of the NP, gives to the concept, and to what extent it is NP policy.

Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what exactly the role of the President’s Council is going to be under the new dispensation. Early the other morning, at a quarter past six, I was lying in bed listening to the SABC, when I heard a report from Soutpansberg according to which the hon. the Minister of Manpower had said that the President’s Council would merely play an advisory role. According to the publication The Constitutional Guidelines: A New dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, this is obviously not the case. In this publication, it is stated at least three times that in the event of disputes between the Chambers, the President’s Council would have the power to make a final decision which would be binding upon all parties. This is said repeatedly. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister can clarify this matter for us.

Thirdly: Does the hon. the Prime Minister consider it right that the ban on Indians should remain in the Free State while it is the intention that they should be involved up to Cabinet level under a new dispensation? Is this right under the circumstances? Does it make sense while we are talking about reform at the same time?

Fourthly: Does the hon. the Prime Minister consider it right that a Coloured Cabinet Minister should be obliged to live in his own group area? Can an exception not be made even at that limited level? It seems to me that confusion and a lack of clarity prevail among Government spokesmen as well, especially when one listens to the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs.

Fifthly: Would it be possible in principle for a Coloured or Indian to hold any Cabinet post whatsoever? According to this information brochure, it is the prerogative of the State President to make appointments as he sees fit.

Sixthly: A question which is exciting great interest is whether there is any statutory discriminating measure which the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to remove from the Statute Book as a token of the Government’s good faith with regard to moving away from discrimination.

I believe that one of the most dangerous consequences of the constitutional debate and the debate about the by-elections so far is the false impression which is being created to the effect that reform, and constitutional reform in particular, has to do with the Coloureds and the Indians only.

But no one has said that.

I said that this impression was being created, and the hon. the Prime Minister can now correct that impression. He said in 1965 that on a certain basis, reform at the level of the Indians and the Coloureds was bound to have moral consequences for others. I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to clarify that standpoint. I want to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said in 1965. The hon. member for Pinelands also quoted this at an earlier stage. I quote—(Hansard, volume 15, col. 6988)—

That is if Coloureds were to be involved. I quote further—

He is referring to Parliament—

That was why the hon. the Prime Minister, who was the Minister of Coloured Affairs at the time, said—

I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to give us some more information concerning the new guidelines which the Government has in mind in respect of the Cabinet Committee which has to investigate the whole position of urban Blacks. I believe that we have now reached a situation where the hon. the Prime Minister’s own political reputation is at stake, as it were, because of the initiatives which he himself launched with the Government’s constitutional guidelines, with the elections which are now being fought and the guidance which should be provided in South Africa. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to say: “Forget about the right-wing threat; this is what South Africa needs on the road that lies ahead and this is the road we are going to take”. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has the inclination to do so, but I also believe that there are very influential persons in the Transvaal who are restraining the hon. the Prime Minister. I think it is time we put an end to the way in which the Government is using the so-called right-wing threat. On the one hand, they say that the hon. the Prime Minister cannot move because the right-wing is making it difficult for him. On the other hand, when a by-election is held in Soutpansberg and Waterberg, and the question is asked whether the CP can win, they say: No, they cannot win. How can there be a right-wing threat and no threat in Soutpansberg and Waterberg? I think we must accept that there are certain seats which the CP can win and that they must be isolated so that we can get on with the job of reform in South Africa. This brings me to the whole question of a referendum.

†Ever since the hon. the Prime Minister announced that there was going to be a referendum the old game started again of political pundits, particularly on the side of the Government, trying to say that there is tension within the PFP, that the PFP is divided on this and that and they are going to be in difficulty. They have been saying for the last two or three years that we are always in difficulty; that there are various wings and tensions and so on, but we have been doing remarkably well under those circumstances. I want to concede immediately that the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement of a referendum was unexpected. It was unexpected because he himself had already given an indication that there would not be a referendum.

That is not true.

Oh yes! I have got it all here. On 29 November the hon. the Prime Minister said at Ladysmith that he would go to the people if there were drastic revisions and changes. He said it again on 15 April, and it is recorded in Hansard. According to Die Burger of 3 September 1982 the hon. the Prime Minister also said at Bloemfontein—

In Hansard of 30 March this year he says—

But at Bloemfontein on 2 September said that the principles were not drastically different from those accepted in 1977. Therefore his announcement was unexpected, but it was also most unusual that the referendum was announced on the day that the budget speech was delivered. Why such indecent haste? It almost created the impression of panic.

As far as the PFP is concerned, a certain clear distinction must be drawn. We distinguish between the need for reform—we have stated this clearly, it is part of our constitutional policy and of our economic policy—and the Government’s constitutional proposals. We have criticized that; we have spelt out what our objections are and we have made it quite clear that if those objections are carried over into legislation we shall oppose those aspects of the Bill as vigorously as we possibly can whilst moving amendments and improvements where we can.

As far as the referendum itself is concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Sea Point: “Are you going to participate in the referendum?” Yes, we are going to participate in the referendum. Obviously we are going to participate in it. There is nothing wrong in participating in a referendum.

How are you going to vote?

The hon. member for Durban North wants to know how we are going to vote in that referendum. He is obviously an unwitting victim of his own ignorance because how can I answer a question of that kind if I do not know what the date is or what the question is going to be? Supposedly the question is going to be formulated in terms of a Bill which has not yet been tabled in Parliament. It would therefore be nonsensical to divulge what we are going to do. However, I want to assure the hon. the Prime Minister, if he tells us what the question is going to be, that we will consider that question; we shall toss it about amongst ourselves; we shall let it roll on our tongues for a while and then say that we have decided how we are going to vote. Most likely, once we have taken that decision, we will either vote “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister need not have any doubts about that. [Interjections.]

The fourth issue which hon. members on the Government side will have to distinguish is the question of whether one participates in a new constitution or not. We will obviously decide that once we know what that constitution entails, and once we can establish whether Opposition parties—and not only the official Opposition—are in the same position, or worse off or better off. Just as the Government are participating at the moment in the changing of a constitution which they regard to be undesirable, it is in principle possible to do so, as we are indeed doing as well. We will therefore wait to see what happens, and I suggest that the more information the Government supplies to us the better informed they will be of our response in connection with what we are going to do. [Interjections.]

There are, however, those who try to seize upon a referendum in an effort to create the impression that the PFP and the CP are in the same boat. That is ridiculous. We are poles apart. Ideologically and in principle we are in fact poles apart, and the Government is trying to sit on both poles. [Interjections.] Yes, that is their difficulty. We are saying that there is a very simple test to establish what the difference is among the PFP, the Government and the CP. There are three questions—on citizenship, on discrimination and on power-sharing.

What is the position in respect of citizenship? The CP says only Whites are citizens of South Africa. The Government says Coloureds, Asians and Whites are citizens of South Africa. We say that everybody—Coloured, Asian, White and Black—are citizens of South Africa. That is the clear difference.

In connection with moving away from discrimination the CP says discrimination should be maintained in order to entrench and perpetuate the Whites’ position of privilege and domination. The Government says some discrimination can be removed, while we say all discrimination has to be removed. [Interjections.] It is as simple as that.

On the question of power-sharing the CP says no power-sharing, the Government says limited, healthy power-sharing among Coloureds, Asians and Whites, while we in the PFP say we want power-sharing among all groups in South Africa. [Interjections.] Therefore we oppose the Government, Mr. Speaker, because the Government is not moving fast enough. The CP in turn opposes the Government because it believes the Government is moving too fast. We oppose the Government because we believe it is not doing enough to bring about genuine power-sharing. The CP oppose the Government because they believe the Government is doing too much to bring about power-sharing.

It is between these two poles that the Government will have to make up its own mind, because ultimately, comes the day of the referendum, we can be sure everybody will know quite clearly where the different parties stand in respect of the question of reform or not. However, the referendum gives the hon. the Prime Minister a fantastic opportunity of deciding between being a statesman and being simply a party politician. The hon. the Prime Minister can use this referendum really to test what the forces for reform are like in this country. This point was made very eloquently by the hon. member for Yeoville when he said the hon. the Prime Minister could try to test the climate for reform or he could simply be a party politician and try to put party policy before the people of South Africa.

One thing we must realize, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not only Whites who have an interest in this referendum. All those people who are not part of the White electorate but who are also vitally interested in reform—and they are by far the majority of South Africans—have an interest in the outcome of a referendum in which people have to decide whether they support reform or not. Through his own actions the hon. the Prime Minister can isolate the right-wing threat and show it up for the insignificant minority which it is, or he can build up that right-wing threat into one of the big ghosts of White politics, in which case the NP itself will suffer.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Prime Minister wants to play petty politics by using a referendum in this way the NP will suffer most in the long run because the fifth column against its own constitutional proposals are to be found within the ranks of the NP. That is where the real Jack-in-the-box is going to be. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Prime Minister really wants to test the climate for reform by way of a referendum, he can consult widely with all those who have a stake and an interest in reform—Coloureds, Asians, Whites and Blacks. He can consult with us. I do not say we have to formulate the question. Nevertheless, the hon. the Prime Minister can consult with us on how best we can all go about testing the climate for genuine reform in South Africa, and once we have formulated that question the result will isolate the right wing for what it was, and will give the hon. the Prime Minister a mandate really to move and to bring about systematic change in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to draw attention away from himself and his party, and the problems they are experiencing by resorting to all manner of tricks. However, there is one question he did not get to. It is what we in this country would really like to know, viz. how he and his party are going to vote in the coming referendum. [Interjections.] I also just want to say that we appreciate the hon. the Leader having had a copy of the speech he made this afternoon printed for us in last Saturday’s Argus. When the hon. the Prime Minister called a referendum, he caught the hon. the Leader of the Opposition well and truly on a hook, and it is quite a spectacle to watch him and his party wriggling on that hook. The hon. the Leader has a major problem, namely: How is he going to advise his followers to vote in the referendum? Thus far he has not said anything about this question, nor did he do so this afternoon. He says that before he can express an opinion on this, he will first have to know a number of things. In the first place, he wants to know when the referendum will be held. Why the date of the referendum is important to him in deciding how he and his party are going to vote is not very clear to me. In the second place, he wants to know in what manner the Bill will be submitted to Parliament. This is another obscure requirement. In the third place, he wants to know when the Bill will be submitted. In the fourth place, he wants to know what the results of the coming by-elections are going to be. In the fifth place, he wants to know whether Parliament will deal with the Bill during this session and, finally, how the question that the voters will be asked, is to be formulated. Only when he has all these particulars will he be able to tell the country and us how he and his party are going to vote in the referendum. The political correspondent of the Argus went on to ask him why he wanted to know all these things first before he could tell us how we must vote. I want to quote the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition because he said—

He also said that in this House this afternoon. However, I say to the hon. Leader: His moment of truth and the moment of truth for his party is imminent. He will not be able to postpone this matter indefinitely. I can assure him that his own people are becoming impatient about these delays and the best example of this is to be found in the interview he conducted on Saturday with the Argus. In this newspaper there is speculation about the formulation of the question to be put to voters in the referendum. This is the great problem. At the same time, certain questions are put to the hon. the Leader. It is clear to me that that party is afraid that the question the Government is going to ask will be linked to the Government’s own proposals. They maintain we should rather phrase the question in general terms. That is what the hon. the Leader said this afternoon. We should phrase it in general terms, more or less along the lines of: “Are you in favour of change in South Africa? Do you want change, yes or no?” Surely that would be a meaningless question because there is not a single White or political party I know of that does not want change and that does not want to move away from the present state of affairs. On this basis everyone in South Africa will vote “yes” to such a general question and why should one bother to hold such a referendum? What can the Government do with the results of such a referendum? Surely it will not have a mandate, directive or indication of how the voters feel. It would be an exercise in futility. However, the question is why the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition would like a question in general terms to be asked in the referendum? In my opinion the answer is obvious. In this way he wants to try to keep the discord in his party under the surface because he knows as well as we do that many of his supporters want to vote “yes” to the question we shall put and want to say “yes” to the proposals the Government is going to submit to the voters. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted this himself in the newspaper interview. The correspondent put a question to him and the hon. the Leader replied as follows—

He is therefore afraid that a strong group of his supporters, including the hon. member for Yeoville and others, will vote “yes” on the basis of “a step in the right direction”, while the other half may vote “no” because the Blacks are not included in the new dispensation. That is the dilemma of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

We want to tell him that the question will not be worded in general terms, but that it will of necessity have to be linked—and it will be so linked—to the Government’s constitutional proposals. Why else are we going to the people with a referendum? That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in trouble, because he himself told the journalist in that same interview—

That is just his problem. From the questions put to him, it is clear in what deep trouble the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is regarding this matter. He was asked: Is there any question you can now formulate to which you can propagate a “no” vote? The hon. the Leader replied to that: It is not my responsibility to formulate the question. The correspondent then said—

This is not unusual behaviour on the part of the hon. the Leader; we frequently experience it. Eventually, after the correspondent had been unable to obtain any reply to his question from the hon. the leader he gave up in despair and asked—

I can just say that we can understand Mr. Sullivan’s frustration.

As far as the speculations regarding the hon. the Prime Minister’s reason for announcing the referendum is concerned, various standpoints have been adopted. The CP say they forced the hon. the Prime Minister to take this step. The Progs give various reasons. Some of them have said he was afraid of the results in the four by-elections, while other Progs, have said that that was not the reason; the real reason was that the hon. the Prime Minister was trying by means of the referendum to mobilize the latent support among English-speaking voters.

I cannot understand why there is uncertainty regarding this matter. One need only look at what the hon. the Prime Minister said on 30 March in this House when he announced the referendum. In simple terms it amounts to the following: We are going to hold a referendum because we are going to change the Constitution of South Africa; not because there is a supposed deviation from the 1977 proposals in the 1982 proposals. [Time expired]

Mr. Chairman, if one could look into the future and see a political graveyard… [Interjections.] There one would find the grave of the South African Party, the grave of the United Party …

And the NP.

One would also see the grave of the PFP …

And the NP.

Order!

On the tombstone would be written: R.I.P.—“Rest in Pieces—Progressive Federal Party. Cause of death: In decision.” [Interjections.] Since this referendum was announced, in fact since the guidelines were announced for the Government’s proposed new constitution, we have not been able to get one firm commitment form the PFP in this regard. I shall be demonstrating this as I go along. [Interjections.] This reminds me of a figure in classical literature who was unable to reach a decision. If one could tranpose his famous words and make them applicable to the PFP, one would have the following: “The question or not the question, that is the question.” Because the only thing we hear from the PFP is: What is the question? That is what we hear all the time. [Interjections.] It is very obvious, however, what the question is going to be.

Tell us.

Let me tell the hon. members what the question is going to be. There is a new constitution in front of those hon. members, and what is their reply? Is it “yes” or is it “no”? [Interjections.] There is no secret about what the new constitution is going to look like. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is an open secret.

Have you seen it?

It is an open secret what the new constitution is going to look like. [Interjections.]

Order!

So it is not all that difficult to make a decision about whether one is going to support this constitution or is not going to support it.

Which constitution?

That should not pose any problem to any one of us. It poses no problem to the NRP or the CP. They know exactly how to react. The PFP, however, wants to know: What is the question?

That is right.

We do not give blank cheques.

The PFP also reminds me a bit of an old maid who is getting on a bit in years and who suddenly gets a proposal. She is getting a little desperate by the time she gets this proposal, and whilst in her heart she says: “Yes, yes, oh yes, please!” her mother says …

You are talking about Helen now, are you?

Her mother says: “No, that guy has a bad reputation and is not our class; so you cannot go with him.” So whilst her heart says: “Yes, please!” her mother says “No”.

Who is the guy? Tell us about him. [Interjections]

Let me put it differently. We have heard the quotation of the interview with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which appeared in The Star on 15 April and in The Argus or The Cape Times of 16 April. On the one hand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says: To commit myself before I know the question would be crazy. On the other hand, however, he says: If the hon. the Prime Minister were to put more than one question, the hon. the Prime Minister would be forcing me to select the one that I object to most in order to say: “No.” [Interjections.] The only way in which I can interpret that, is that there is an inherrent tendency to say “No” to this, a sort of instinctive feeling to say: If the NP says “Yes”, we must say “No”.

We are open-minded.

There is another point in the interview where this comes to the fore. At the end of the interview, the interviewer asks him: “What if the Government loses the referendum?” Then he goes on a bit about what would happen to the NP in such a case.

Tell us what he says?

Then he says: Where would it leave the PFP and the CP? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied: “Well, we would be fine, because we have said ‘No’ all along.” So, even before the question is formulated, the Opposition has been saying “no” all along. Therefore they say they cannot make a mistake. This sort of indecision on the part of the PFP will get them nowhere. Again this afternoon, for instance, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried in his speech to conceal the problems the PFP have with finding an answer to this question …

Which question?

… behind a number of frivolous questions he put to the Government.

Answer just one.

I will answer two. The one question is: Does this process of constitutional development include Blacks?

I know it does not.

It does. The process of constitutional development indeed includes Blacks …

By excluding them.

… in the sense that a Cabinet Committee was appointed to look into different matters concerning Black people, inter alia, also their political position. Only a year ago we passed in this Parliament a Bill which created a whole new dispensation at local Government level for Black people in urban areas. So of course it does include Blacks, but not in the same constitutional dispensation. However, the process of reform does include Blacks; and it is going on all the time.

A second question the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked is: What is the Government going to offer the Coloured and Indian people as a gesture symbolic of the elimination of discrimination? He painted a scenario where at this point in time, in order to establish its bona fides, the Government should select one issue, a symbolic issue, and in regard to that do away with discrimination to prove its bona fides. The answer to that is simply that no such thing is going to happen in the sense that we do not need symbolic gestures at this point in time to prove our bona fides towards the people we are dealing with.

It is very interesting to note that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pleaded that we should have a general question put, the question whether people are in favour of reform in general. My colleague who preceded me has already dealt with this a little. I just want to illustrate the confusion in the ranks of the official Opposition. On the same day on which an interview with the Leader of the Opposition appeared in The Star in Johannesburg the same question was put by The Argus to two people who are normally very close advisers of the PFP. One of those is Dr. Hermann Giliomee, and his response was—

*It is precisely the opposite. Even worse: A Prof. David Welsh, a co-author of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, says more or less the same, in the sense that he says—

This is how these advisers of the PFP comment on the same day on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopts exactly the opposite standpoint.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

Since the previous two speakers dealt mainly with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I shall not react to them now. Perhaps I should just say to the hon. member for Helderkruin, since he began his speech by referring to the grave-yard, that I am sure he remembers the old joke about Meraai who lay there because she indicated a right turn but turned left. Somewhere in future perhaps the Government party will also have such a tombstone in that grave-yard.

When one studies the speeches of the hon. the Prime Minister, it is notable that one word, one concept, occurs repeatedly, and that is the word “corner-stone”. He used this word very frequently. It is also a fact that he uses that word in a specific context. A further fact is that the word was also frequently used by the hon. the Prime Minister’s mentor, Dr. Malan, and I do not think it is far-fetched to say that the hon. the Prime Minister took this word over from his mentor. To give hon. members an example of the context in which the hon. the Prime Minister uses the word, I want to quote from Hansard of 4 March 1968, where he says (Hansard, Vol. 22, col. 1508)—

He was referring to the corner-stone that this Parliament should consists of Whites. The hon. the Prime Minister is now destroying that corner-stone of his mentor. Why? Is it an act of conviction or is force of circumstances compelling him to do it?

I have before me a book entitled Survival, written by Anna Starke. On the cover it mentions that it contains “taped interviews with South Africa’s power élite”. In other words, the book gives a verbatim account. On page 59 she quotes the hon. the Prime Minister verbatim as follows—

Do you know that I have repudiated that?

No, I do not. If the hon. the Prime Minister did repudiate it, I accept it with thanks. It is said in many quarters that the guidelines of the Government are merely a point of departure. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is nodding his head affirmatively.

I am only nodding my head at you.

However, I do not really want to know what the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says; I should like to know what the hon. the Prime Minister says. Are these guidelines indeed a point of departure or are they the end point? I should like to know whether this is a starting point, the end point or perhaps something in between. If it is a point of departure, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he does not think that the time has come for him to enlighten the people of South Africa as to where he is heading. On one occasion Dr. Verwoerd paid tribute to great leaders of South Africa and said, inter alia, that they saw the mountain top before them through a haze of cloud. They had a clear vision of where they wanted to go. Because they had that vision they made their way there. What vision does the hon. the Prime Minister have? Where is he leading South Africa? If this is a point of departure, where does the end point lie? I think we are entitled to know what the hon. the Prime Minister’s thoughts are. I was very pleased to hear that the quotation that I read to the hon. the Prime Minister a moment ago was not true, but the latest proposals by the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government, are in line with the achievement of that end point.

If the hon. the Prime Minister regards these proposals as an end point, does this mean that he thinks that no more changes are going to take place in South Africa and that no further reform whatsoever is ever going to take place? Surely this cannot be true. If this is not the end point—and any sane person must realize that it cannot be the end point—then it has to be a point of departure. If it is not a point of departure the only alternative is that the hon. the Prime Minister is moving without knowing where he is moving to. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member the opportunity to deliver his speech.

I think the hon. the Prime Minister is in for a very rude awakening as far as these constitutional guidelines are concerned. The voters of Soutpansberg and Waterberg are being requested by his lieutenants to vote for the NP. I have met some of these people and some of them are going to vote for the NP, but for totally different reasons than what is contained in the constitutional guidelines. Some of them told me: The hon. the Prime Minister will never appoint a Coloured and an Indian to the Cabinet, and they are going to vote for him because his people have told them that.

That is not true.

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said this at Bulgerivier, viz. that a Coloured or an Indian would never be appointed to the Cabinet. If one then asks those people: What are you going to do if you wake up one morning and you find that South Africa has a multiracial Cabinet? Sir, you should see the expression on those people’s faces. Then the wrath of those people is going to come down on the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government. A very popular statement that is being made, is that the voters are not properly informed and the CP is exploiting this ignorance. It is said that it is distorting the facts and misleading the voters.

That is true.

Hon. members confirm it. I do not really even need to produce a quotation, but I should like to prove my case. In Rapport of a week ago the NP candidate in the Soutpansberg, Mr. S. P. Botha, the candidate of the hon. the Prime Minister, was quoted as follows—

“Boel” is a typical word of the former MP for Soutpansberg.

There are many newspaper headings, for example, “Treurnicht verwerp die politieke feite” and so on. Another heading reads “Die kiesers is nie ingelig nie”. I agree with that, because the voter ought to be informed.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt very superficially with the pamphlet of the NP in Soutpansberg. However, I want to deal with the pamphlet in more detail. It is, after all, the constitution of South Africa that is at stake here. Therefore it is the most important question that one could ask a nation. In such a case surely it is the right of the voters to be properly informed and supplied with all the facts. The pamphlet reads “U kandidaat, Minister Fanie Botha. Die nuwe bedeling”, and then there is the following: “Hier is die feite oor die nuwe bedeling.” Let us look at what the “facts” are. One of them is: “Ons Blanke skole sal blank bly. Net ’n Blanke Kan Minister wees van ons Blankes se onderwys, opvoeding en kultuursake.” Right. I have no argument with that. The pamphlet goes on to say: “Net ’n Blanke Kan Minister wees van Blanke welsyn en die versorging van ons eie bejaardes.” That is still fine.

Why do you tell a different story then?

We do not tell a different story. Let us continue. The pamphlet goes on to say: “Net Blankes sal in ons eie Blanke woongebiede eiendom mag besit. Net Blankes mag stem vir die verteen-woordigers van die Volksraad. Die Volksraad sal net uit Blankes bestaan. Solank die NP regeer, sal net Nasionaliste in die Volksraad lede van die kieskollege wees wat die President kies”.

Right.

Right. “Die President sal die hoogste gesag wees”. That is what it says here. Every other assertion about these matters is not true. Do you still say that is correct?

Yes!

Do you still say that is correct? Mr. Chairman, we have a demonstration here today—here in this House of Assembly—of how voters are not correctly informed. In this pamphlet it is said: “Die nuwe bedeling. Hier is die feite”. They say that anything to the contrary said about this is not true. [Interjections.] Now I put it to those who say that the voters are not correctly informed that every observer who sees this spectacle here today will know who does not inform the voters, because after all, according to them, every other contention about this is not true.

About this, yes. [Interjections.]

They say that this is the new dispensation, but, Mr. Speaker, just look at what is happening now. Of course, I had expected them to say that one could only talk about this, about these things. When one talks about other things, one lies to the voters. Now one is not allowed to talk about the other things.

Order! The hon. member for Lichtenburg must not refer to hon. members as “they”, but as hon. members”.

Very well then, Mr. Chairman, hon. members. It is contended that everybody who says something different about this is not telling the truth. I now want to inquire from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he agrees that these are all the facts relating to the new dispensation. [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Prime Minister agree that these are all the facts? [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Prime Minister agree that anything different that is said about this is not the truth? [Interjections.]

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to distribute this pamphlet among the Coloureds and Indians? Is he prepared to bring this pamphlet about the new dispensation to the attention of the Coloureds and Indians? Is he prepared to distribute it among them and tell them that it contains all the facts about the new dispensation and that anybody who says anything different from this, is not speaking the truth? [Interjections.] I ask whether you are prepared to do that.

Yes.

Nak says “yes”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the question in the referendum. I, too, want to turn to that now. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister once again that the Opposition parties be consulted about the formulation of the question to be asked in the referendum. [Interjections.] I also want to request the hon. the Prime Minister to put the same question which is going to be put to the Whites, to the Coloureds and Indians as well when he consults them.

That is impossible.

Do not say now that it is impossible. Why should it all of a sudden be impossible?

Since the White Parliament is going to amend the constitution, the White voters must decide about that specific question.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the same question which is going to be put to the Whites, be put to the Coloureds and Indians as well. They must not put one question to the Whites and another to the Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] We already see in what direction you intend to go. [Interjections.] Of course. Of course that is the direction you intend taking. [Interjections.]

Order! I have already requested the hon. member for Lichtenburg to refer to hon. members as “hon. members” and not as “you”. I now call upon him for the last time to abide by my decision.

Very well Mr. Chairman, hon. members. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please afford the hon. member for Lichtenburg the opportunity to continue with his speech now.

Mr. Chairman, members on the opposite side provide us with one concrete proof after another of the Government’s equivocation and also of the fact that it is not prepared to tell the Whites the same story that it tells the Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is quite true.

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I can say about the things asked in this pamphlet. No one who is in full possession of his senses and who is an objective observer of South Africa will, when reading this document, remain under the impression that it concerns a dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. In this pamphlet there is not a single reference to a Coloured or an Indian. However, now the hon. the Prime Minister’s candidate will go to the voters of Waterberg with these selected facts. The same is happening in Soutpansberg. However those voters are not asked whether they are in favour of a multiracial Cabinet. The hon. the Prime Minister is not asking for a mandate from those voters by means of a request to them to vote for him in favour of a multiracial Cabinet. Those voters are not being put in a position to vote for that.

However, then the hon. the Prime Minister’s people arrive in Soutpansberg, in Waterberg and in other constituencies as well, and when the people there put it to them that the NP is going to appoint a Coloured and an Indian to the Cabinet they try to evade it by saying that in 1977 the people of the CP also voted in favour of a multiracial Cabinet. That is how they are trying to evade the issue now. However, I contend that that statement of theirs is not true.

Of course it is true. [Interjections.]

It is not true. We have never accepted a multiracial Cabinet. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman that was a council of cabinets which would have had no executive authority. [Interjections.] That council of cabinets would have had no executive power. [Interjections.] The composition of that Cabinet is the best proof that it was not a Cabinet which would be entrusted with portfolios. Why not? Because at that stage the Cabinet consisted of a Prime Minister and 17 Ministers. The council of cabinets would have consisted of a President, three Prime Ministers and 10 Ministers, i.e. seven Ministers short. Seven portfolios are empty. Do you intend those portfolios to be operated by a windmill?

Order! I have requested the hon. member in a friendly manner to refer to hon. members as “hon. members”. However, the hon. member is once again saying “you”. Could I have that hon. member’s co-operation please?

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, the NP is not going to ask permission from the voters of Soutpansberg to bring Coloureds and Indians into the Cabinet. They are not asking them for a mandate to have a White Chamber, a Coloured Chamber and an Indian Chamber. They do not say to them that this House is going to be only one-third of parliament. This House will no longer have sovereignty either. They do not ask the voters to give their permission for introducing a Coloured and an Indian Chamber. They do not ask a mandate for multiracial Standing Committees which will begin to deal with the legislation, the decisions and other matters. When they go to Soutpansberg and Waterberg, the hon. members do not ask the voters for a mandate for a multiracial President’s Council which will take a final decision. They do not ask the voters of Soutpansberg and Waterberg for a mandate to put an end to the sovereignty of the Whites and they argue with one when one says that the NP’s proposals will destroy and put an end to the sovereignty of the Whites.

Nonsense!

Just listen to that. The hon. member says “nonsense”. So what I am saying is nonsense. I want to ask hon. members today …

Nonsense!

That hon. member repeats that it is nonsense. I am very glad that he has said that; I want him to say it. However, the question is how one judges where real sovereignty lies. It is in the hands of that body which will have the power to change the constitution in future. That is where the sovereign power of a country is vested, with the body which can change the constitution.

The sovereignty does not change.

I want to say to that hon. member who is so quick to say that the sovereignty does not change, that if this constitution is changed, this House, this Assembly that is now sovereign, will no longer be sovereign.

That is not what he said.

Of course he said that, man. You did not listen properly and your attempt to help was misguided. The hon. the Minister’s attempt to help was misguided.

Order! I am not going to allow the hon. member to continue to play games with the Chair in this manner. The hon. member must obey the ruling of the Chair, otherwise I shall be compelled to take action against him. I have asked the hon. member in a friendly manner, for the sake of the dignity of this House, to refer to other hon. members here as “hon. members” and not as “you”. However, the hon. member persists in ignoring this. I ask the hon. member once again in a very friendly manner to comply with the request of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, where the constitution of a country may be changed is where the sovereignty lies. The proposals that the Government is making now will have to be brought before this Parliament and this Parliament will make a decision and its decision will be final. The constitution will be changed if this Parliament decides to do so. In the proposed future dispensation an hon. member of the White Chamber may come and speak about constitutional change. When he goes back to his voters and they ask him what happened as far as the constitution was concerned, he will say that we in the White Chamber have already taken a decision, but we do not yet know what is going to happen as far as the constitution is concerned because the Coloured and Indian Chambers still have to decide. While hon. members in the White Chamber are busy with other work, the Coloured Chamber and the Indian make decisions but they can also propose amendments. In fact, they may propose the direct opposite to what the Government recommends. The hon. member’s voters may again ask him what the constitution looks like at that stage. He will then have to say that he still does not know. So in the first place, the Whites are no longer sovereign because their decision depend on what the other chambers decide. In the second place, that hon. member will have to say to his voters: These chambers have taken a decision now, but I do not know yet what the decision is because it depends on what the President’s Council, which has not been elected by the people, is going to decide over the heads of the people who have been elected by the various peoples. What a demonstration of democracy! People who have not been elected by the nation but who have been appointed, have a higher authority than people who have been elected by three different peoples. They will take the final decision.

How was the Senate elected?

I have no objection if there is a Senate consisting of members of my own nation; let there be such a Senate.

But I am asking you how they were elected.

That does not matter. They were always members of my own nation. Besides, the State President did not appoint 25 people to the Senate who were responsible to him.

Only a few less.

Yes, but that makes a very big difference to the outcome.

The hon. members on the opposite side of the House are misleading the voters of Soutpansberg and Waterberg about their own policy because they are not telling them the whole truth. Langenhoven said that half a truth was worse than a threefold lie, and that is precisely what is happening today; half a truth is being proclaimed and not the full truth.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the acting leader of the CP to tell us in the clearest language imaginable what the CP’s standpoint with regard to the AWB is? The AWB …

Order! The hon. member for Brits may only ask a question, not elaborate on it.

It is very clear that that hon. member wants to waste my time. We have said on various occasions that we have nothing to do with the AWB and that we condemn violence. What more does the hon. member want to know?

Does the CP dissociate itself from the AWB?

The hon. member will not succeed in his efforts to waste my time.

The hon. members on the opposite side of the House are not only misleading the voters of Waterberg about their own policy because they are afraid of their own policy and because they know that if the voters realize what it means, they will reject it; they are also misleading the voters about our policy. [Interjections.] Yes, that is true and I want to give an example.

Order! Hon. members must afford the hon. member for Lichtenberg the opportunity to make his speech.

We told hon. members last week what our policy was. I told hon. members that the nucleus of our policy, the heartland of our policy, was the rural areas plus the large group areas, while other group areas would not form part of it but that, just like the present Black townships, they would remain ordinary Coloured towns in White areas.

Name them.

Must I name one? Heilbron in the Free State would be one.

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs rose and delivered a sermon. In the course of his sermon he asked whether there were going to be 620 casinos in these towns, as if they were all going to become independent. [Interjections.] No, I beg your pardon, it was the hon. the Deputy Minister of Health and Community Development. The first mistake he made was to say that there were not 620 Coloured townships. Not all these various Coloured group areas are separate; some of them are adjacent to one another. There are only 255 different towns. While he was speaking I rose and asked him whether there could be casinos in all the Black towns of South Africa. I did this to draw his attention to the point I wanted to bring to his attention. He went on all the same and made that statement which is untrue.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information made a speech at Thabazimbi. He asked: What about all the Coloureds from the Limpopo to the Transkeian coast? I ask him: What about all the Xhosas living between the Limpopo and the Transkeian coast?

How many Xhosas are living on the Limpopo?

There are Xhosas living on the Limpopo and there will likewise be Coloureds living outside their State. There will be Coloureds living outside their State just as there are Xhosas living outside their State. More than half of the Xhosas are outside their State. More than half of the Xhosas are not living in their country. However, there will be more Coloureds living in their own country than Xhosas living in their country. I go further and repeat: If our policy is implemented, the Coloured homeland will start off with more land than at least six of the Black States.

I now want to turn to the hon. the Prime Minister and come to a very important aspect. I am referring to the question of this new constitution. The professor in political science spoke a while ago, and I had hoped that we would be given an explanation of the constitutional dispensation. After all, this is the hon. the Prime Minister’s opportunity to inform us about his vision for South Africa. However, I understood from a very reliable source that the Government plans to announce or table, or whatever the method of presentation will be, the new constitution on about the Friday before the election of 10 May—in the region of the sixth. Because there will be only a weekend left, the Opposition parties will be powerless to prepare the necessary propaganda to counteract it. Apart from this, radio and TV are going to be employed to propagate this constitution on a large scale. I now ask myself the question: How is this going to be done? Is it going to be done in a biased manner or as in the case of this document which I have here? Or is it going to be done in an objective manner? I think we all agree that the voters of South Africa will only be able to pass a meaningful judgment if they are well informed. For that reason I want to put a request to the hon. the Prime Minister. The NP no longer represents 50% of the people. [Interjections.] It no longer represents 50% of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] Therefore my request to the hon. the Prime Minister is this: As head of this Government he must kindly see to it that all the Opposition parties in South Africa together be afforded the same time as that which is going to be used to make these proposals known to the public over the radio and television services. I call upon him to see to it that that will happen. [Interjections.] I make the same request to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. The same period of time which is given to the Government’s proposals must be given to all the Opposition parties together. I do not ask that each Opposition party be given the same length of time as the Government. I ask that all the parties together be given the same length of time as that which the Government will have. I ask that the Opposition parties be given the opportunity to put their alternative policy. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs must not explain our policy on television. I ask that we be afforded the opportunity to do it ourselves so that the voters may be informed.

Then you will lose hands down.

The Minister of Law and Order says: “Then you will lose hands down.” Let us lose, then. After all, he wants to win, does he not? So I invite him to take this step in order to be able to win. [Interjections.]

This brings me to my final point. The NP, under the banner of nationalism, is destroying nationalism in South Africa … [Interjections.] … not only among the Whites but also among the other peoples in South Africa. In the life of each nation there are two forces at work, the national force and the imperial, inter-ethnic force or whatever. Our own history provides one of the finest examples of this. We had Paul Kruger and Cecil John Rhodes who advocated different ideologies. Then there were Genl. Hertzog and Genl. Louis Botha with different ideologies, South Africa first as against the idea of empire. Later there were Dr. Malan who advocated the concept of nationalism and Genl. Smuts who advocated the concept of imperialism. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to elaborate on this, but at the outset, as a matter of interest, I just wish to put a question to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. If he wants equal television time …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May that hon. member refer to an hon. member here as “he”?

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may leave the matter in my hands. I shall apply the same rules to all hon. members. Before I could ask the hon. member whether he had, in fact, said that, the hon. member for Yeoville interjected.

All I said was that the same rules applied to everyone in this House, and I am sure you agree with me.

The hon. member need not make interjections about it.

But surely I have the right to do so.

Order! How did the hon. member for Umlazi refer to the hon. member for Lichtenburg?

I referred to the “member for Lichtenburg”. I may have forgotten the “honourable”. If I did, I am sorry.

The hon. member for Umlazi may proceed.

I should just like to put a question to the hon. member for Lichtenburg concerning equal television time. I shall do so right now, before continuing with my speech. Does he then want equal television time for his cronies, the HNP, as well…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Umlazi is once again referring to the hon. member for Lichtenburg as “he” and not as “the hon. member for Lichtenburg”.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik is now making the procedure ridiculous. The hon. member for Umlazi said that the hon. member for Lichtenburg wanted to do certain things and then he asked whether “he” agreed. I had no objections when the hon. member for Lichtenburg said with reference to hon. members what “they” were allegedly doing. He used the direct form of address, “you”, and that is not permissible. The hon. member for Umlazi may proceed.

Does the hon. member for Lichtenburg want equal television time for his cronies, the HNP and the AWB as well?

No, I said for political parties.

What is the HNP then?

Are you not going to give the HNP any time?

The hon. member for Lichtenburg—and I do not wish to discuss this specific matter—referred here once again to their idea of a Coloured homeland policy. We on this side of the House are not interested in how generous the hon. member for Lichtenburg and his party are trying to be towards the Coloureds, how large the homeland they are going to create for the Coloureds is going to be, and how much larger it is going to be than the homelands for Black peoples. We are not interested in how much land they are prepared to give the Coloured population. In a previous debate I asked hon. members of that party: If you run away from the historical basis on which the territories of Black peoples in this country originated, on the basis of what right do you claim for yourselves the privilege of being able to decide how large the territory of a national group should be? If they are venturing into the realm of the creation of homelands, then they are moving away from history, and history is the only basis on which people can regulate their interrelations. If one does not accept the legacy of history, one can only expect strife and discord. Then the same question recurs. Can the hon. member for Lichtenburg tell us: If they do not wish to create a homeland on the basis of numbers, if they wish to create it on the basis of their own generosity, could he bring us at least one Coloured leader and one Indian leader who would accept that generosity of theirs and say “Thank you, boss”?

You have the wrong end of the stick.

In their whole approach to the homeland idea, the hon. members of that party are trying to get away from the predominant question the voters of South Africa are going to ask them. If they should succeed shooting down the new dispensation of this Government in respect of the Coloureds and Asians, the voters of South Africa are still going to ask them: What are you going to do with the Coloured and Indian people in this country? The reply the hon. members of that party will give, will simply not be satisfactory on any moral grounds.

Members of that party, just like members of the official Opposition, are trying to wish away the differences between the various Black peoples on the one hand, and the Coloureds and Indians of this country on the other. They are trying to conjure away for the voters of South Africa the differences in origin, the population shifts of the various peoples and the physical location of these people. The Opposition parties are trying to minimize these differences, the PFP on the one hand because it gives them an excuse to condemn something which will expose their view of a so-called Black majority in this country, the CP on the other hand because they can exploit White uneasiness at events in Africa, and particularly in Zimbabwe, and create the illusion that they will be capable of maintaining the status quo. In fact the hon. member for Lichtenburg gave us an example of the kind of propaganda they are engaged in in this country. They asked whether these proposals were a point of departure or whether they were perhaps the final destination. However, he answered his own question by saying that the Government was aware that this could not be the final destination. We are all aware that no new dispensation in a developing community can be an end in itself. We know that life itself is movement and development. The object of the hon. member’s question as to whether the proposals were a point of departure or the final destination, was very clearly to cause the suggestion to take hold that the proposed dispensation as far as the Coloureds and Indians were concerned, was simply a point of departure, and that in time, Blacks would also be included in this dispensation. This is the bogy which hon. members of the CP are trying to conjure for the voters of South Africa and particularly for the voters of Soutpansberg, Waterberg, and elsewhere. [Interjections.] They are doing this in an effort to make people believe that this dispensation is not really concerned with Coloureds and Asians, but that it constitutes a threat to the Whites in this country.

Over the years, the NP’s standpoint has consistently been that there are nine Black peoples in this country, that historically they occupy certain territories and that we have recognized those as homelands. Over a period of 35 years this Government has assisted in and worked towards the development—economically, politically and otherwise—of the homelands until all have become self-governing, and some have become completely independent. That standpoint of the NP has not only been in existence since today. It is a standpoint the NP has proclaimed over the years, ever since it came to power.

Hon. members of the CP are trying very hard to create the impression that the standpoint of the NP has changed. Certainly we have made certain changes in our policy, but the basic direction of the NP is still precisely the same as it was at the time it came to power.

Let us go back for a moment. The hon. the Prime Minister said here in this House that we saw the political future of the Black peoples as being on a different course from that of the Indians and Coloureds. If hon. members of the CP, as well as their friends in the HNP, do not wish to accept this, and if one takes into account the fact that the CP would possibly accept what the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor said, but that the HNP do not accept it, let us then go back to what Dr. Verwoerd said. Hon. members of the CP, as well as the HNP accept his statements. Let us go back to the beginning of Dr. Verwoerd’s term of office. I wish to quote what Dr. Verwoerd said in this regard concerning the difference in approach—which is still precisely the same as the standpoint of the NP today—to the Black peoples and the Coloured population. On 4 May 1959, eight months after becoming Prime Minister, he said the following—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, why I do not know, but today the hon. member for Lichtenburg did not succeed in making his speech in his usual hit-and-run way. Like measles, the hon. member’s spotted policy is beginning to show gaps in places. The hon. member is now trying to imply that their policy is beginning to take root. I wish to refer to a remark the hon. member made when he made a speech in this House on a previous occasion. On that occasion, in reaction to a question from me, viz. “Show us the capital city of this homeland,” the hon. member said: “They themselves, and not you, will decide where it should be.” I am not arguing with the hon. member. The hon. member is adhering to that standpoint of his. What is so interesting about those hon. members is that they profess to be apologists for the Coloured people, that in terms of their policy they are creating ample opportunity for the Coloureds to exercise their right of self-determination. But, what are they doing? They are disregarding the fact that exercising the right of self-determination takes on various forms. They believe that the only way in which one can exercise one’s right of self-determination, is by way of a nation-state.

Why do you not want to eat with them?

Those hon. members are making all kinds of jokes here. If the hon. member for Kuruman would give me an opportunity to speak to his parliamentary leader, he might also learn something about my standpoint. They are disregarding the fact that self-determination takes on many different forms. On the one hand they say that the Coloureds have a right of self-determination in respect of the decision as to where their capital city should be situated. If those hon. members are prepared to leave only secondary elements of the right of self-determination to the Coloureds, then I think they will also have the confidence to leave a primary matter to the Coloureds, viz. the question of whether or not the Coloureds would accept the homelands in terms of the CP’s policy.

And the Zulu as well?

Now the hon. member is falling into the trap their leader fell into by asking: What about the Zulus? There is a significant difference between a homeland for the Coloureds and a national State for the Zulus. Firstly, there is an historical territory associated with the Zulu nation. Secondly, the Zulus display a real desire to exercise their right of self-determination by way of a national State. That is why the Zulus are self-governing today. [Interjections.]

What about the report of the President’s Council?

I was waiting for the hon. member for Brakpan to ask me about the report of the President’s Council. I challenge the hon. member, in terms of that particular paragraph he has in mind and which appeared in Rapport by way of his own correspondence, to say that this is the standpoint of the Coloured group.

Influential leaders.

I went to the trouble of corresponding with the President’s Council concerning that very standpoint, since I would like to meet a Coloured leader whose mind works in the same way as the CP’s. I want to argue the matter with him and determine in all earnestness what his standpoint is.

Is that statement therefore untrue?

If that hon. member would only keep quiet and give me a chance. The way the hon. member is construing it is untrue. I correspond with the chairman of the President’s Council and he referred me to a member of the President’s Council with whom I had further correspondence and whose authorization I have to state this standpoint here or on any other occasion. I held talks with Mr. Les du Preez. Mr. Les du Preez drew my attention to the fact that all the evidence that came before the Les du Preez Commission was referred to the Schlebusch Commission. All the evidence—as hon. members are aware—which was given before the Schlebusch Commission, was, in turn, referred to the President’s Council. If hon. members were to analyse the matter now, they would ascertain that it was Mr. Van Tonder of Randburg who was making propaganda for that cause. I strongly deny that there is a movement in the Coloured community, of whatever nature or in any form, to accept the policy of the CP.

Consequently the report of the President’s Council is erroneous.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg is making a great fuss about the question of sovereignty. Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. Would he be prepared to reply to a question?

If I were given a turn to speak.

Nevertheless the hon. member is prepared to make a lot of interjections. However, if I should put a question to him, he would not be prepared to reply to it by making another speech. Therefore I am not going to take issue with him any further now, and I shall rather address the Committee on the question of sovereignty. [Interjections.]

Is it, in fact, the standpoint of hon. members of the CP that there is only one form of sovereignty? Is there, according to them, only one way in which a person can exercise his right of self-determination? Is it in fact true that an American, in terms of his own constitution, in terms of his own Declaration of Rights, in terms of the testing right of the law courts, is less sovereign than a White member of this House of Assembly? Mr. Chairman, to claim something like that, would be absolute nonsense. Surely one cannot place the concept of sovereignty on a pedestal and claim that there is only one way in which one can exercise one’s sovereignty. What are hon. members of the CP doing?

In a very subtle way, those hon. members are proclaiming nothing but a sugar-coated baasskap. On the one hand, a Coloured is in a position in which he can decide where his capital city should be, but on the other, those hon. members balk at the question when Coloureds have to decide whether they accept the idea of a homeland in terms of which they can exercise their political rights. [Interjections.] What are those hon. members doing? If one were to carry their arguments with regard to a Coloured homeland through to its logical conclusion and take into account that there dare not be any difference between a Coloured and an Indian homeland, one would find that hon. members of the CP are not only preaching sugar-coated baasskap, but that they are, in fact, acting like neo-colonialists, who are prepared to draw dividing lines in terms of which …

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

No, I am not prepared to reply to any questions now.

How many parties support your party’s guidelines, Leon?

Yes, how many parties do your people support, Leon?

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman and the hon. member for Rissik must please give the hon. member for Krugersdorp a chance to complete his speech now.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the CP are specifically saying that when they were faced with the question of whether they should choose the course of giving up White sovereignty or the accepting of a Coloured homeland, they chose the course of a Coloured homeland. However, that is not what their supporters feel deep down in their hearts. Deep down in their hearts, their supporters are people who have balked at the way of peace; people who no longer believe in the politics of negotiation. They are people who believe that the problems of South Africa can be solved through the barrel of a gun.

That is not true!

Mr. Chairman, I am directly accusing supporters of the CP of this.

I am telling you that it is not true.

The CP are apologists for the most extreme left-wing, as well as the most extreme right-wing views possible in the entire political spectrum.

You are talking nonsense. What you are saying is not true.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg knows that it is the truth.

It is objectionable.

The hon. member may well find it objectionable. We have encountered this in them time and again. The objectionable things the supporters of the CP do in order to lend support to what the hon. member for Lichtenburg says in this House, simply do not fit in with the facts.

In contrast, Mr. Chairman, the NP is set on a political course of peaceful negotiation; a course which we believe serves the best interest of the White population and all the other inhabitants of this country. We refer to our leaders with great respect, and as a junior member of this House, I wish especially to do so. However, the fact of the matter is that today the Government has to govern on the strength of today’s perceptions. We are no longer driving the same vehicles as those in which people drove many years ago. Consequently, we act in the same way when we are dealing with the political demands of today.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half hour.

The previous speaker said very little to which I have to reply. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put questions to the hon. the Prime Minister, questions to which the hon. the Prime Minister will probably react himself. I must admit that I have problems with the logic of certain parts of his discourse. However, I shall leave it at that. The hon. member for Lichtenburg also has a case against the Government, but I shall leave him at that, too.

†Mr. Chairman, I believe that this debate offers the opportunity to clear away some of the fog on the political scene at the moment that has arisen out of the blunder of the by-elections. These are by-elections that could not have come at a worse time for South Africa. I think that the budget debate should have demonstrated to the hon. the Prime Minister the price that he and his Government are paying for the image of uncertainty and hesitation that is building up about them. This is going to be a critical year for South Africa, and I think everybody recognizes that fact. It will be a tragedy if the expectations built up by the hon. the Prime Minister are destroyed or broken down for the sake of a new votes. The hon. the Prime Minister had the courage to challenge the troglodytes in his own party and to set a process of reform in motion. However, what he seems not to accept is that having started that process he has to accept that, with it, the right wing will become a fact of life that cannot be wished away and that cannot simply be brushed aside. It is there; it will not go away; it is there to stay. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will come to learn that the way to contain the threat from the right is by clear, unequivocal and firm adherence to a definite direction.

I have heard the hon. the Prime Minister say that this is a time for cool heads. I believe that it is essentially so. There are two temptations which I feel must be avoided and the first of these is arrogance. Nothing could be more fatal to the process of reform than an arrogant approach in respect of the attitude of people who dare to differ with the views of the Government. The second one is to evade differences or to pander to the right wing.

A major aspect of the whole process of reform is the climate in which it is to take place. I hope it is only the by-elections and not some deeper reason within the NP that has created such an obvious change of attitude, change of climate and apparent change of heart within the Government ranks. I repeat that I hope it is only because of the by-elections and that there is not some deeper motive for it. However, the rhetoric of reform which had excited the country, which had made people expectant and hopeful has been conspicuous by its absence from political speeches over the past few weeks. We find desperate claims being made that the Government is planning nothing more than what it planned in 1977.

*He said that there was no difference. It is exactly what was proposed in 1977. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs even said that there had been no difference since 1948, let alone 1977. I am not the only one who is complaining about this. I should like to quote from an NP newspaper of the 12th of April, this month. This quote comes from an editorial in Die Vaderland and it reads, inter alia, as follows—

It goes on as follows—

This, to me, is the most important aspect—

This is the message which I should like to emphasize and underline for the hon. the Prime Minister. This is from Die Vaderland, one of his own newspapers. It is reflected in other newspapers as well. I now come to a contrasting report.

†This report appears in the Rand Daily Mail in which the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is quoted—

Nobody believes such rubbish. If there has been no change from 1948 until today, what is the CP doing sitting here? What is all the hullabaloo about? Of course there has been change—change of direction, change of emphasis, fundamental change of principle; the fundamental change from totally exclusive White political power to a system in which Coloureds and Indians will share in the decision making of South Africa, a reform of power-sharing, maybe not what everybody thinks is right, but a total reversal from exclusive White political power to a division and a sharing—a division in respect of intimate matters and a sharing in regard to common matters—of political power with other groups. This is fundamental change.

The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government will have problems if the climate is not right, and for this their main target at the moment should be to take the country, White, Coloured and Indian, with them. In this respect he must not underestimate the NRP. I believe we are not speaking just for eight MPs and the people who vote for us, but also for the vast majority of moderate and thinking South Africans who are opposed to the Government, who will not vote for the Government for historic and other reasons, who will not support the Government as a political party but who want to see reform. They are in our party, they are outside it, they are in the PFP or they are in the political wilderness. I believe we are speaking the language of those people who want to see reform but are opposed to the Government. I also believe that we have already had an influence on the course and direction in which reform is moving. Only this morning, after the 07h00 news, there was a report, an editorial comment on the radio on the issuer of the Ghandi premiere incident. This, I believe, is extremely important because this affects the climate in which reform must take place and the governments dilemma. This commentator accepts that there have been problems and that harm has been done to South Africa, internationally and internally. What must the Indian people, whom we want to see in this new dispensation, think when they hear the arguments going on—compounded by the two words “on request”? If the hon. the Minister of Community Development and listened to my hon. colleague’s advice he would have left out these two words, “on request”, and have said that the premieres were open in this instance because of the particular circumstances. Then the whole incident need not have happened. However, the SABC this morning states that this incident was partly a product of the high degree of centralization that is characteristic of South Africa’s Westminster constitutional system. It said further that it was unnecessary and created embarrassing politicization. Now let me quote—

I continue to quote, and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister is listening—

What about that?

The piece goes on to suggest that this should be extended, and I quote again—

So it goes on. This is, of course, fundamental. Once again this party, the NRP, has pioneered a new direction in political thinking for South Africa. We have been pleading and fighting for local option, which has been rejected, but now the Government’s own public media—in this case the SABC—says this is the new policy. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister may be the captain of a big liner. He may have charted that big liner’s course and have steered it into some pretty rough seas, but if he is going to get into the safety of a harbour, out of the storm, he is going to need a tiny little tug like the NRP to guide him in. [Interjections.] I say that, because a little tug can push a great big ship around. No matter how confident the captain is, no matter how well-trained he is and no matter how big the ship is, without the tug and the pilot it will go onto the rocks. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the part that this party is playing in the reform process, as demonstrated once again this morning in the proclaiming of local option as the answer to the serious problems of South Africa in a multiracial situation, a multi-ethnic situation, with local differences which require different approaches.

Go down to Llandudo and see what happens when you get towed around.

In the time that I have left in my present speech—because it is limited—I want to say that I believe that it is not only the Government that has an obligation. Each Opposition party also has an obligation to say exactly where it stands in regard to the proposed constitutional reform. In my view the first step should be for the hon. the Prime Minister to get his Bill before us, and I accept that it is on its way. If there is a technical problem, let us know what the problem is. Only then can we have an in-depth examination backed up by knowledge. Today in this debate, or tomorrow, the hon. the Prime Minister can restate the basic principles boldly and clearly and clear away some of the fog and confusion I have talked about. As far as this party is concerned, our stand is absolutely clear. Our highest body, the Federal Council of the NRP, has identified differences and points of agreement in principle with the Government’s guidelines. It is on record in the Hansard covering the no-confidence debate and I am not repeating it now. This party is also committed to constructive participation in the process of reform. This means that we will examine the Bill in this spirit, and that we will evaluate it on merit against the guidelines established by our Federal Council. It means that we will participate in debate on the Second Reading, in the Select Committee and in the referendum fully and as a party, and in support of it or in opposition depending on how the Bill turns out. But we will participate. We will not boycott. We reject boycottt politics. Having evaluated it, we will judge it on balance without non-negotiable preconditions on detail.

I want to say clearly what our test will be, the final, acid test. It will be whether the proposed dispensation leaves the door open for evolutionary development towards the sort of South Africa we believe in. That is fundamental and non-negotiable. We are not so naive as to think that the Bill is going to be a perfect mirror of NRP policy-of course it is not going to be that. [Interjections.] It is going to have a lot of elements of that in it, and what is going to determine much of our attitude is how much of our policy, how much of our philosophy, is contained in it. What is must, however, do if we are to support it is to provide a structure and a direction within which our concept, our vision for the future, our aims and principles, are accommodated or can be accommodated by amendment, addition or adjustment.

I am not listening to what Nationalist rhetoric at the moment says and what Nationalist policy is at the moment. I am talking of the structure which the Bill is going to introduce, I am talking of what the new constitution will look like. If that legislation does not by its structure and the principles underlying it exclude or eliminate the possibility of removing defects by amendment or by addition that will greatly influence our attitude and strengthen our hope that it is going to be the start of a new dispensation for South Africa. If we believe that it is a starting point for a new deal, even though it is not perfect and not exactly as we would like to see it, if we believe it is a starting point for reform with the potential of developing to what we want to see, then we will support it in principle and in the referendum. That will be determined by the detail which comes out in the legislation.

We welcome the decision that Coloured and Indian opinion will be tested. I agree that it should not be done concurrently. We believe that the wording of the question must be simple and direct. It should be a simple question requiring a “yes” or “no” on whether the legislation, once passed by the House, must be implemented. I do not have the time to deal with this, but we reject the proposals put by the chairman of the PFP who wants to go right back to square one, right back to a Joint Select Committee, to another Schlebusch Commission and to another President’s Council they can boycott. Then we come back to square one after another three years of fiddling around.

But there is at present a Select Committee on the Constitution.

That proposal we do not accept. Later during the discussion of this Vote I shall deal with other matters concerning which we have strong differences with the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government on party policy and direction.

Mr. Chairman, at one stage during his speech the hon. member for Durban Point looked so happy that one could have sworn that his plan is to be discussed when we discuss the new constitutional guidelines.

Everything good comes from us.

He gave the hon. the Prime Minister advice as to how he should deal with the right-wing parties in the coming by-elections. We do not need his advice. We know how to deal with the rightwing and the left-wing. We shall see what happens on 10 May.

No Government can afford to ignore the circumstantial factors applying during a specific period in a country’s history when it is engaged in working policies for action and making plans for the future. That is why the Government is looking carefully at and giving definite attention to a report like that of the Science Committee of the President’s Council regarding demographic trends in South Africa. Because we feel that it is necessary for our people to be acquainted with the contents of the report, we are disseminating this message so that our people will get to hear about it. That, too, is why we are also telling them what facts are that we are dealing with day after day. We are also telling this to those people who in the party organization context, have to pave the way for us so that we are able to put across the NP’s plan to the people at large. We make no excuse for this. Nor do we make any excuse for the way in which we are doing this. We are implementing something in our political discussions, something which the CP, in any event, knows nothing about. Our style is one of persuasion and not the politics of deceit.

The NP does not treat reports of this kind the way the CP, through the hon. member for Pietersburg, treated the report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council regarding the constitutional proposals. At a meeting in Rustenburg he told the people that the Government spent R25 million on the President’s Council, that they sat for months on end and only came up with two little books. The hon. member for Yeoville must not think he is the cat’s whiskers now, but the hon. member for Pietersburg went on to tell the people that the Government could just as well have given Harry Schwarz R20 000 to write the same books within 14 days. [Interjections.]

You cannot buy me that cheaply.

The NP Government does not do that sort of thing with reports of this nature. The NP takes cognizance of the facts contained in them and seeks practicable plans. That is why on 10 May the voters are again going to prove to us, by voting for the NP, that they have confidence in what the NP is working on at the moment.

When hon. members of the CP had an opportunity, while they were in the NP, to make an appointment with the future, and had to keep that appointment, they became despondent. Everything became too much for them. Now they want to form a laager.