Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Leader of the House, I wish to make the following announcement concerning the business of this House during the coming week: The discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote will probably continue until 12h00 on Friday, 22 April. After that precedence will be given to dealing with legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice, as printed on the Order Paper.

On Monday, 25 April, the discussion of the Justice Vote will commence and will continue until approximately 21h30, after which the Mineral and Energy Affairs Vote will come up for discussion. The discussion of this Vote will probably continue until Wednesday afternoon. The remainder of next week will be devoted to legislation.

Is that a promise?

intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

Mr. Chairman, when questions had begun I, together with hon. members on this side of the House, were absolutely amazed when the hon. members of the PFP greeted with boisterous laughter the reply to the question of the hon. member for Krugersdorp as to how many assaults on the police had been committed in South Africa. [Interjections.] I should like to say to the hon. members of the PFP in this House that no one in South Africa has any illusions about the fact that in many respects the sympathies of the PFP and other people are not with the agents of authority in South Africa. [Interjections.] If the PFP did not mean that in the way that we heard it from them, then I want to say that the first PFP speaker owes it to this Committee to tell us why they laughed so uproariously when we are told how many assaults on the police had been committed. [Interjections.]

While listening to so many speeches in this debate and in debates during this session I asked myself the question: Do we want a bigger war and a smaller future for our people in this country, or do we want a bigger future and a smaller war? We cannot disentangle the war situation in which we in South Africa are engaged from the words and what is said in this House and the emotions they unleash outside South Africa. When I listen to hon. members of the PFP, I draw the conclusion that in many respects South Africa has become a country of political hucksters and grumblers, political hucksters who tout emotions concerning relations politics which will be dangerous for us on the road ahead, and grumblers, people who grumble about all the problems in South Africa as challenges that we have to overcome.

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked a number of questions about the referendum. The hon. members of the CP also asked a number of question in this regard. It reminded me of the very striking saying I encountered on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. Written in large letters against the wall was: “The answer is drugs; what was the question?” I want to say to the hon. members of the PFP and the CP that what we in South Africa must struggle with is not what the question ought to be; we must struggle with what the answers are to be. In these days in which Kallie Knoetze and Mike Schutte are looking for stories, I am told that Kallie asked Mike: “Tell me, Mike, this referendum that the people are talking about so much nowadays, what do you know about it?”, Mike said, “I have not fought him yet, but I am sure he is going to knock both of us out.” [Interjections.] I am convinced that that is true of the PFP and the CP.

When we look at South Africa, then as political parties in this country there are certain things that we must be clear about. As parties, we must agree—the CP as well as the PFP—that firstly, there is no such thing as a perfect solution in South Africa. In the medical world tremendous efforts are made: One group of people transplants a heart, another group opens up the arteries, another group tries to find out how heart problems are genetically causes and carry out research in that regard. Other medical researchers say that people should be made to adopt better diets. However, when we come to politics, hon. members of both the PFP and the CP make out that there are final and absolute solutions for the problems that the Government is struggling with. Secondly: There are no final solutions in this regard either. The CP tries to get the public at large to believe that a final line can be drawn. Neither in respect of constitutional matters, nor in respect of economic matters, nor in respect of social questions, nor in respect of any matter relating to human society, is there any finality. The question is only: Do you stand fast? The sport that I practised in my time was amateur wrestling. One thing I learned in that sport was: If one is unable to move one’s feet, then one finds oneself on one’s back. I should like to say to the CP that this is equally true in politics and in the government of the country: The man who cannot move his feet lands up on his back. Moreover, in South Africa the art is not only to think on one’s feet; that is true of South Africa and the Government—the real art is to also to be able to think when one is no longer on one’s feet. [Interjections.]

Order!

Thirdly, I should like to say to the hon. members of both the PFP and the CP that we must also agree that our country has limits. A budget has just been introduced. The Director-General of Finance informs me that the demand for State funds was in the region of R25 billion to R30 billion. These were justified requests by Government departments that wanted more money, but eventually we settled on a budget of R21 billion. Let us agree with one another that we also have limitations in respect of our economic resources, our money, our manpower and our initiative.

Fourthly, let us agree with one another as political parties that there is no such thing as a society without discrimination. I want to ask the hon. member Prof. Olivier please to provide the hon. members on his side with some information. All of us have travelled throughout the world. In America campaigns are again being launched by the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People and also other organizations that fight for the rights of the Black people there.

Is the discrimination contained in legislation?

With or without legislation, in the world we live in there is no such thing as a society without discrimination and a society without problems.

Do not, then, accuse only the Government. On a previous occasion I said that the apartheid dogs bark in every country in the world, and South Africa has to endure the punishment. In West Germany, France and in every country in Europe the Governments are struggling with people who stream in from elsewhere and they are also considering statutory measures. Indeed, there are certain statutory measures to protect people against people of colour who come in from outside. Whereas the world is only beginning to experience certain problems now, South Africa has been struggling with those same problems for a long time.

Fifthly, I want to put it to the hon. members of the CP that there is no such thing as absolute separation in South Africa. I want to tell the CP that there is an intermediate world in South Africa—and the NP accepts this—an intermediate world where people, peoples and communities meet one another in all spheres, in the economic sphere and in the social sphere, an intermediate world where people mingle, work and live. There are spheres in which we meet one another, and we have to live with that. The NP Government has to live with that.

I should like to say to hon. members of the CP that there is no such thing as a South Africa which is going to be without problems if Dr. A. P. Treumicht were perhaps to come back to this House. Not a single problem will be reduced in any dimension. On the contrary; anyone with common sense knows that the majority of our problems will be intensified by that.

Sixthly, I want to say to the hon. members of the CP that there is no such thing as an identity that can live in any other way than in the hearts of people. With the present Government an era has dawned in this country which I want to call a P. W. Botha era, an era of action. When we look at the danger threatening us, we see our enemies telling other people in South Africa in a very simplistic way: “You have nothing to lose.” Let us judge the P. W. Botha era of action by that we do to give people in all spheres something to lose, so that people in South Africa can say to the enemies of South Africa: “You who are the enemy can offer us nothing.” We do not want the people in South Africa to become comrades of Moscow that adhere to the doctrines of Moscow. We want the other people in South Africa to be our allies in respect of our own doctrines: In our belief in political freedom to have a say in the Government of the day, and in those instruments that have been established to govern the people, and allies in our belief in economic freedom to be able to work in accordance with the best of one’s talents, freedom to be able to live according to the opportunities offered one by the Government. This P. W. Botha era of action offers people those opportunities.

When we consider South Africa and the priorities we must deal with, matters which any member of this House sees as priorities, I ask: Since the hon. the Prime Minister took over as Prime Minister, look at the NP Government and just be fair and decent and ask oneself, firstly, whether we in South Africa have displayed balance in our view of the priorities for the Government of the day and, secondly, whether what one regards as the highest priorities in the economic, constitutional and social spheres have not been dealt with since the hon. the Prime Minister has occupied his post.

I wish to make an appeal to the hon. members of the CP today. Our previous Prime Minister had to struggle for years to take the people with him on the essential road of change. I want to ask the hon. members of the CP: Do not allow your political emotions to carry you along to such an extent that you forget that South Africa is a country with many problems and many challenges that we must deal with in so many spheres.

Since we are discussing this Vote, I should like to say as a Nationalist, together with my colleagues on this side of the House, that we are proud to be part of an era in which the priorities are right. We are proud to be partners in an era in which we know that action has become the watchword. When one practices this type of politics, the politics of the straight and open road, there is no time for byways. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. members for Ermelo, Umlazi, Krugersdorp, Helderkruin and Innesdal sincerely for their positive contributions to the debate. They simply go to show that there is a rich harvest in the National Party which holds great promise for the future.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg informed me that he could not be here today. Consequently I shall not deal with his speech. I hope he is here tomorrow.

Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point compared himself and his party to a small tugboat in a harbour. It was a good image to use. But looking at the hon. member, one cannot help thinking that he should rather have spoken about a big tugboat. What I want to say to him is that the National Party Government is keeping the harbour safe so that small tugboats can move around in it, and if he wishes to help in that harbour without hindering, he is welcome.

The hon. member for Rustenburg also asked me to pardon him since he could not be here. However, he touched upon a matter yesterday on which I want to say a few words before I begin to reply to the debate. He referred to the President’s Council’s report which has just appeared with reference to the investigation carried out by the Science Committee of the President’s Council. Let me say at once that that report is being earnestly studied by the various departments, and the recommendations contained in the report are receiving very special attention from every possible organization within the Government context. The Government agrees that if the present demographic trends were to continue, they could have disastrous consequences for the Republic of South Africa and all its people. Consider only one facet of the matter, the question of the availability of water, a primary necessity for the life of any community and of any country. Consequently the Government is basically in agreement with the President’s Council report that the State has certain obligations in respect of the making of arrangements to try to ensure orderly continued existence, but on the other hand the State also accepts that every married couple has the right to decide in a responsible way on the number of children they should have within their means. This in itself is a tremendous task in a community, the task of developing the right relationships and sense of responsibility. In addition, the Government also accepts that religious and moral norms in respect of population planning should be taken into account. Thorough cognizance should be taken of such norms.

In the sixth place, the Government is convinced all over again that an equal distribution of socio-economic development for South Africa is essential. It is also of the utmost importance that decentralization and regional development should succeed, including an agricultural policy, because an agricultural policy which succeeds is able to provide greater numbers of people with a livelihood and employment opportunities than any other industry.

In the seventy place, the Government accepts along with this report, that the standards of living of all the people should as far as possible be raised. Along with all our other problems which require attention, the process of urbanization and community development should also receive special attention. What is more, Sir, the setting up of a national population development programme cannot be seen in isolation, but must form part of an overall social development programme. Consequently the Government has decided that the Department of Health and Welfare will act as the co-ordinating department and shall seek the co-operation of as many organizations as possible in order to bring the programmes to practical fulfilment. This report of the Science Committee and of the President’s Council is an exceptional document, and I want to bring it to the attention of all South Africans, of whatever political persuasion or to whatever community they may belong. I request all organizations involved in this matter to give it their urgent attention. If there was ever a matter in regard to which our country was able to make a unified effort, it is in connection with this report.

Sir, I wish to make a few general observations concerning this debate and the debates which have taken place recently, those debates which I was able to attend—and hon. members must remember that it is not always possible for me to attend debates. I do have some experience of Parliament, a little more than the hon. member for Houghton. Incidentally, I want to congratulate her on her 30 years of service in this Parliament. Sir, it has been my experience that Parliament does not like being preached to. Every hon. member in this hon. House thinks that he knows more than all the other hon. members put together. Consequently I am not going to give in to the temptation to preach today. I do wish to put a few questions, though, and I am doing so with the best of intentions.

The first question I wish to put, and I am doing so with reference to the debates which I have been able to attend recently, is whether this House is to a sufficient extent arranging its priorities correctly. I should like to put this question to hon. members. If one bears in mind the security situation in the world, in Africa, in Southern Africa and in our country itself, and if one bears in mind the tremendous drought which has afflicted our country, a drought which is assuming terrible proportions, and if one also bears in mind that there is growing and uncalled for interference in South Africa’s affairs by meddlesome organizations and powers in the outside world, do the debates in this House always reveal the will to arrange out priorities correctly?

The second question I wish to ask is whether we are bolstering to a sufficient extent the efforts being made to cope with our most serious challenges while at the same time co-operating as far as possible to maintain civilized values in South Africa?

The third question I wish to ask is whether we as South Africans are counting our blessings to a sufficient extent. Have we not perhaps, in our actions as political parties and also as representatives here in this House, frequently been guilty of spurning the blessings we have received, while we merely drift into an exchange of mutual tales of woe?

In the fourth place, I ask whether each one of us is contributing enough to motivate our people within our particular sphere of influence. Are we not perhaps afraid to motivate our people? Are we not perhaps, through our conduct, furthering the tendency to selfishness and obstinacy among those whom we are called upon to lead?

In the sixth place, I ask whether South Africa, with all the advantages which it makes available to its children, is not entitled to greater enjoyment of life and service on our part.

I am not posing these questions in a party-political spirit. I am not posing these questions in a spirit of reproach. However, when one reaches the stage in public life which I have now reached, many of the things which sometimes entice a young politician into not perceiving the realities fall away.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put questions to me. I want to say at once that I am not going to reply to the first part of his speech today. That is the part of his speech in connection with the security situation, and his questions as to whether we possibly differed on this score. I shall deal with it at a subsequent opportunity. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me what I was engaged in: whether I was engaged in the politics of reunification, or whether I was engaged in the politics of reform.

In the first place I want to say that I cannot understand why he represents these two things as antithetical. When one wishes to engage in politics of essential change in this country—call it reform if you like—on a basis which guarantees stability, one needs a united will. It is very easy to preach things with which one drives everyone into scattered factions. However, it is something entirely different to take people with you on a course which is really in the interests of the country. Therefore my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that I am seeking the greatest possible national unity. At the same time I am seeking this in a spirit which is geared to the economic interests, the stability and the security of the Republic of South Africa, having to be top priorities. Without an agile, lively economy, we cannot achieve stability in South Africa, and without stability we cannot have a healthy economy. Without these two things one cannot have security either, security in various spheres. That is why I am striving for national unity. In the past, when I was still Minister of Defence, and afterwards, I repeatedly, in this House and outside, tried to tell South Africa that there was indeed an onslaught on South Africa; a total onslaught. I went out of my way to unify our Defence Force, and I think I succeeded in doing so. I also went out of my way, after I became Prime Minister, to place the security services in a situation where they could co-operate properly with one another. However, in this effort I did not always receive assistance in motivating the country to get its priorities right. Let me say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if for this purpose I can, on the basis of reunification, bring people together who belong together, people who should not be separated from one another—if that is what he means by reunification—I say: Yes, I am indeed seeking reunification. In my own party, too, there must be room for people who differed with me yesterday and the day before, and who are now prepared to co-operate on this basis in future. Surely I have proved this, not only as Prime Minister, but also as Leader of the NP in the Cape. There are people sitting here with me today, fortunately in a team, with whom I waged the most vehement struggle in the past. I made room for them. I did not reproach them for having differed with me in the past. I want to tell the CP that behind the CP representatives sitting there, there are today large numbers of Nationalists who do not belong there, but who belong in this party.

If that is therefore what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition meant, I can say to him: I am going out of my way to get those people back. Of course! However, I am not only going out of my way to get them back; I am also going out of my way to create a broader unity, across the language barriers, and I am succeeding. I receive evidence of this every day. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this. He knows that there is today a silent movement in this country which is helping me along. He is aware of it.

We shall see in Waterkloof.

Surely he saw it in the results of the recent by-elections—not in those still to come but in those that have already been held. He saw it among the young people.

I come now to the second part of my reply to him. It presupposes of course that I do not flinch from essential and reasonable reform. What I say in this Parliament I am also prepared to say in Waterkloof, Waterberg and Soutpansberg, and I am going to say it there. In fact, I have already said it there. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not imagine that I shall flinch from saying in Nylstroom what I say here. In fact, I have already done so.

I now wish to discuss the question of reform with him. I do not regard myself as a saviour of South Africa. I have never considered myself to be a saviour of South Africa. I do not consider myself to be a new star which has appeared in the firmament and who will change everything overnight. I am not that conceited. However, I am doing my duty, a duty which rests on my shoulders. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that since I became Prime Minister, and before that time too, as Minister of Defence, I initiated numerous reforms in South Africa. Under my personal leadership, many positive steps in the sphere of education were initiated. I initiated positive steps in connection with our labour policy. I initiated positive steps in connection with co-operation between the public and the private sectors. I went further than any other Prime Minister in our contemporary history to cause the private sector and the public sector to communicate and deliberate with each other. In the economic sphere I also took positive steps to support and to help develop small business undertakings in South Africa. I took positive steps—and played a personal part in the process—so that we were able to make considerable progress with the establishment of a Development Bank of Southern Africa, which has indeed already been established. I also participated positively in giving a new format to the policy of decentralization, and we already have evidence of the success of this policy. I myself played the leading role in promoting greater co-operation with many of our neighbouring States and in holding summit meetings with other Governments. Where it was in any way possible, I also went out of my way to speak to leaders of other countries in Africa.

As regards the security of South Africa, I did not spare myself to bring about that measure of reform behind which the various parties are hiding today and reviling one another here in Parliament while outside the security of our fatherland is being safeguarded.

I want to raise another aspect. I wore myself out in an effort to make South Africa largely independent in the sphere of arms supplies. I am not saying that I am perfect, but I am grateful that I had the opportunity to do so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must therefore not discuss reform with me without saying what he means by it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was concerned about my political reputation. He said he was concerned about it because I was allegedly sitting on two poles. As I understood him, he got that idea from one of the newspapers which also has a contribution to make, because before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it here, I had read about it. Perhaps he told the newspaper what to write. Whatever interaction there may have been, I want to thank him for his concern. However, he should not be too concerned, for at least there are rays of light. He said I was sitting on two poles and he was so concerned that this might affect me mentally, and probably physically as well. At least I am sitting on them and not them on me. [Interjections.] At the same time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made an admission, because he said that one of those poles was to the right. Then the other one must surely be to the left. Which one is that one to the left?

The reform pole.

Oh, is that the one to the left? Is the reform pole the one to the left? [Interjections.] You see, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is too clever to reply to that question, but he can always count on the rash hon. member for Bryanston. The hon. member for Bryanston has put his foot in it, or rather his tongue.

The two poles are the reform pole and the rightwing pole.

If the one is then to the right and the other to the left, as the hon. member has now said, and that is reform, than I tell him that I am not in favour of left-wing reform. I am opposed to left-wing reform.

I have appreciation for many of the qualities of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The two of us have had private conversations, and I must say that it is pleasant talking to him. However, when I look at his antics since he became Leader of the Opposition, and I also consider the various standpoints which he has already adopted since he served on the Schlebusch Commission and the various statements he has made since, then he is not sitting on two poles; he is playing musical chairs! One need only read his various statements from that stage until his latest famous statement which he made in the form of an interview with one of the evening newspapers. One need only read his replies to those questions to say to oneself: But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not only be concerned about me. He should be dejected about himself. [Interjections.] I am dealing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now. You can keep quiet.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me what I understood power-sharing to mean. I have spelt out this matter on repeated occasions and if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to read pages 11, 12 and 13 of the speech which I made before the federal congress of the party last year in Bloemfontein and subsequently at all the party congresses, he will find it again there. While I am talking about it now, when I said that I would go to the party congresses, the hon. member for Yeoville who was being presumptuous again, asked me: What would happen if one congress were to decide one thing, and another congress another. I said to him: “Man, just leave it to me. I will work with the congresses because I have confidence in my congresses”. Then the hon. member rattled on eternally about the situation which could allegedly arise at the party congresses. We held a federal congress at which approximately 1 600 delegates were present. We subsequently held the largest party congresses of our party in the provinces which we had ever held and with a few exceptions, whom we allowed to speak in public, I received ratification and support for my standpoints. As I have said, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to read pages 11, 12 and 13 of that speech—I am certain he has them; he is nodding his head as if he does—then he will find a full elucidation of the standpoint which we adopted. I shall nevertheless sum it up for him, and it is also stated in that speech: The principles of self-determination over one’s own affairs, segmental autonomy, and joint responsibility over matters of common concern on the legislative and executive levels. This is the briefest possible definition I can give him. In this House, however, I have also told him already—it was last year and he agreed with me—that my concept of and how I interpret power-sharing in our sense differs completely from his, and he agreed with me.

Yes.

If he knows it, why does he ask me how I see it? Surely he then knows how I see it. Why is he asking that question?

There is confusion in your own ranks.

No, there is no confusion among my people. Have I not this minute stated that, with the exception of two or three dissentient votes, we received unanimous support for it at five congresses? How can there be confusion about it? Oh no, please, the hon. member should not believe everything he reads. By swallowing the stories of those newspapers he is still going to allow himself to be pushed from the frying pan into the fire.

And suffer from indigestion to boot.

We also differ drastically with the PFP on the fundamental question of how South Africa should be governed, because the PFP stands for a federal unitary State. The PFP can do what it likes, but in that federal unitary State the components will be elected by majority vote. And eventually the majority, as a result of “one man, one vote” will have the decisive say in such a federal unitary State. That is why we differ with him, because we proceed from the standpoint of multi-nationalism and the standpoint of minority groups whose interests have to be protected. That was also why I told him—he knows it; I told him this last year that I prefer the term “joint responsibility” rather than “power-sharing”. I also said this to hon. members of the CP when they walked out. It is on record in my statement that I said this to them. However, that was not why they walked out; they wanted to.

We were chased out.

No, I did not chase you out. [Interjections.]

Order!

I did not chase the hon. member out, but he did something else which also happens in this life: He simply walked out.

Of course. Who would stay on with such people. [Interjections.]

I do not want to allow myself to be led down the path the hon. member follows, for it is a rough path. I shall therefore prefer to return to my argument. I shall speak to the hon. member for Lichtenburg; I do not wish to converse with the hon. member for Langlaagte.

That is fine. I think we two know one another.

Fortunately, I also know the hon. member very well. [Interjections.]

I say I prefer the term “joint responsibility”. I said so in my statement and at the same time I pointed out that to say that certain steps contain elements of power-sharing does not mean that one accepts it holus-bolus, just as one does not, when one talks about democracy, necessarily adhere to the communist system which also speaks of a democratic government, of which East Germany is an example.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put a second question to me. He wanted to know what the role of the President’s Council was. It is stated in the guideline of the party; he can find it on page 14 of the booklet he has with him there. That is my reply to that question.

Then he asked me, in the third place, what laws I was prepared to amend. [Interjections.] I can tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I am referring now to the booklet in which my speech appeared and which was published by the party. We are referring now to the standpoints of my party as reflected in the booklet which was published after the federal congress of my party. Does the hon. member not have a copy of that booklet?

No.

Then I shall let him have two copies. That is a promise.

Does this other booklet also reflect your party’s policy?

Yes. But in that one it appears in an abbreviated and cryptic form. I would rather have the hon. member read what I said in my speech at the federal congress of my party. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then asked me what laws I was prepared to amend—those were the words he used. My reply is that the Government and I are prepared to improve any Act, but then only on certain conditions. The first is that this should be done on the basis of fairness and reasonableness, including the interests of the White population.

Only.

Not “only”. The hon. member has been here long enough to know—if she wishes to be reasonable today she will concede the point—how much reasonableness we have already displayed towards other population groups. She must not spoil the position she has achieved in this way. [Interjections.] The hon. member knows me. If she unleashes the devil in me, I can deal with her in another way as well. [Interjections.] As I have therefore said, the amendment of any legislation is subject to the condition that it should comply with the demands of fairness and reasonableness, towards the White population as well. Secondly, it must promote peaceful coexistence and proper order in South Africa. Thirdly, it should not lead to an abuse of civilized Christian values. People may differ with me on this score, but that is my standpoint. I could apply others as well, but for me those are four of the most important criteria.

Are you therefore prepared to abolish the Group Areas Act?

I shall deal with that. I said in public—and people took it amiss of me—that no Act was a sacred cow. Poor Israel of old suffocated under laws. Hon. members can read about it in the Bible. I do not intend to suffocate this country under laws. There is a very old saying: “Law is but a means to peace and order; it is not by itself a source of peace and order.” I agree with that, and that is why I am not wedded to any law in its original form. Surely this Parliament is there to amend laws. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition then ask me that question? However, if he asks me what principles I do not wish to change, then I can discuss the matter with him. Then I wish to refer him to that speech again. There are certain things in this country which, if they were to change, would cause civilization to collapse.

It would cause the NP to collapse.

Then civilization would collapse. I am talking about civilization now. That hon. member will not understand it. [Interjections.]

I want to go further in pursuance of the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. During the no-confidence debate I dealt rather fully with my own standpoint, the standpoint of the Government as well as that of my party, in respect of our relations policy towards Black peoples. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may differ with me; I concede that, but this party is based on the premise of a national policy (volkerebeleid) in South Africa. From it stems our attitudes, our actions and our policy in respect of the Black peoples in this country. We admit that they possess the same fundamental characteristics which entitle them to recognition thereof, just as we demand this for ourselves. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can differ with me in this regard and he can say that he does not adopt that standpoint. However, I dealt with it during the no-confidence debate and I should like him to go and read it if he has not done so and if he has the time. Even if he does not have the time, he should still do so because he is paid for doing his job just as I am. Consequently, I do not wish to deal with those matters again today.

Today I wish to refer to another facet of our national life, and that is the relations, as I see it, between White South Africa and the other two population communities or groups, i.e. the Coloureds, the Brown people, and the Indians, the Asiatics. The first statement I wish to make is that it has never at any time in the history of the NP since its inception been the official policy and/or principle of the party to treat the Coloured population group on the same basis of principle as the Black peoples, not be cause the Black peoples are inferior but because they are different. Never in the history of the NP since its inception has it been a standpoint of principle with the party that it should deal with the Coloured population on the same basis of principle as the Black peoples. I want to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few ideas to mull over in this connection. Let us in the first place refer briefly to General Hertzog’s standpoint. He was the father of this party. He led it for many years. General Hertzog stated his standpoint on repeated occasions, but I shall quote only one outstanding example, that of 13 November 1925—

I am quoting him in his own words, the way he spoke. We who knew him, know that he spoke like that. Then we have the Dr. Mal-an/Strydom/Dr. Verwoerd eras. This was the period during which an intensified establishment of parallel development occured. This was also the time when a word was used which has been misused by our opponents. I admit this candidly. I am referring to the word apartheid. But in spite of that, the standpoint was adopted during the Malan/ Strydom/Verwoerd era that economic and social upliftment of the Coloured population should occur. I am referring only to the Coloureds now; I shall discuss the Indians later. I said the premise was that social and economic upliftment should occur. Not at any stage during that period either was the Coloured population seen in the same light as the Black population groups. Hon. members must bring me just one reference in which these leaders adopted a standpoint of policy or set actions in motion which amounted to that. In that spirit there are the well-known words of Dr. Malan which I now wish to quote here, words which have always remained a guiding principle to me. These are words which he uttered long ago at a time when he was addressing Christian students. The words which he used were the following—

To this day these words still remain a guiding principle to me. The difference in Dr. Malan’s standpoint in respect of the Coloureds on the one hand and the Blacks on the other, was that he was in favour of group representation for Coloureds in the White Parliament. In this connection I can recount many interesting things, but this is not the time for that. After all, I am not giving a history lesson, but replying to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Dr. Malan’s standpoint was also the standpoint of Dr. Verwoerd. His standpoint, too, was that they should receive representation here. He went even further and said that they should not only receive White representation here, but that they should in future even receive Coloured representatives. He stated this in writing in a letter to Mr. Menzies, with whom he was on friendly terms.

[Inaudible.]

The difficulty is, Sir, that one cannot reason with our friends opposite about these things. If you try to do so, they seek outside issues, and the hon. member for Houghton is always in the forefront in this regard. She must just keep quiet for a moment…

Get on with your speech.

I shall speak whenever I like and I shall not allow myself to be dictated to by the hon. member. Let us understand one another very well on this score.

During Dr. Verwoerd’s period of office a new era began when he appointed me Deputy Minister of the Interior, as it was known at the time, with special instructions, inter alia to look after the interests of the Coloured population group.

It was during that time that they were kicked out of District Six.

No, it was not during that time. The hon. member should keep his ignorance to himself. He cannot make my speech for me. Up to now I behaved very decently towards the hon. official Opposition, and if they do not want it that way, we can do it another way as well. But then we are going to have a proper mess today. They must therefore make their choice. I shall continue to speak to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He at least distinguished himself from the rest of his party as far as decency was concerned.

As I have said, I was appointed Deputy Minister of the Interior with the special assignment, the assignment to establish a Department of Coloured Affairs and to take steps to bring a Department of Community Development into existence. Dr. Verwoerd told me that I should not leave it at that, but that I should go out of my way to create instruments to raise the community to a higher level of development. On 17 May 1961, I made a speech here in Parliament in my then capacity as Deputy Minister. I spoke on behalf of the Government and before I spoke I cleared my speech with Dr. Verwoerd. I said (Hansard, 1961, Vol. 108, col. 6576)—

[Interjections.]

Order!

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. It must be enormously irritating to have to sit with such people. I continue—

That was what I said in 1961. I then set to work in real earnest, and never in the history of South Africa have upliftment measures been adopted more rapidly than they have been since that time, and this was done in the interests of the Coloured community in South Africa. In this connection I wish to quote the words of a person whose status cannot be questioned by hon. members opposite, a person who was never a friend of this Government. I am referring now to Prof. Sakkies Fourie, the then member for Edenvale. Prof. Sakkies Fourie spoke during that same debate and said (Hansard, 1961 Vol. 108, col. 6588)—

That is what Prof. Sakkies Fourie said at that time already. It was under the NP Government that the standard of living of the Coloureds was raised to such an extent that tens of thousands of them were able to become home owners. It was under a NP Government that their education, primary, secondary and tertiary, made great progress. It was under an NP Government that they made tremendous progress as artisans. I have the figures here but I do not want to tire hon. members with them. They need only look up the figures since 1979. It was under an NP Government that they began to go into commerce and industry and were accorded a proper and respectable place in the Defence Force and the Police. This was, in other words, a further phase in dealing with the position of the Coloured population as such.

Then came the Vorster era. The accusation has been made that it was under the regime of Mr. Vorster that Coloured representation in this House was terminated. But what is not said in fairness is that during his term of office as Prime Minister, the first commission consisting of Whites and Coloureds was appointed to institute an investigation into and bring out a report on the economic, social and political interests of the Coloured population. That report and what followed on it, brought about a new development in South Africa. The appointment of and the investigation by, as well as the report of that commission brought a new dimension to our relations policy. No one can get away from that, because after the receipt of that commission’s report, a few statements followed to which I wish to refer. These were statements which the Government emphasized in its interim and in its final White Paper. I have them with me here.

Hon. members will recall that two White Papers appeared, an interim White Paper and a final White Paper—in which recommendations were made and replies were furnished in regard to the entire report. For the purposes of the record, I believe that we should first consider the interim White Paper.

In that White Paper it was stated that the Government wished to make it clear that the appointment of the commission had been done with specific terms of reference, viz. in the interests of the advancement of the Coloured population itself. It was a matter of high priority for the Government in the light of its own policies.

The White Paper went on—and this is important—to refer to direct representation in this House, something which it did not want. Then, however, it was stated—

This was stated categorically. The White Paper went on to state that the Government, after the appearance of the Erika Theron report, had arrived at the conclusion that the Westminster-based system of government did not necessarily have to be followed slavishly in the Republic. That is the essence of the point I wish to emphasize.

This, I maintain, brought about a new dimension, it ushered in a completely new era in regard to the relations between the Whites and the Coloureds. From it stemmed the well-known Cabinet Committee, which submitted the 1977 proposals. From that followed the Schlebusch Commission, on which, inter alia the hon. the Leader of the Opposition serves.

However, what is important for the purpose of our argument is what the previous Prime Minister said in this House at the time in reply to questions put to him by the hon. member for Sea Point. I am not going to quote the entire speech here; I am merely summarizing it. The former Prime Minister said that in respect of the prospective new era there should be no prescribing of colour or race as far as the President that was to be elected was concerned. This was the way it was stated in the 1977 proposals. In the second place, seven members of a mixed Council of Cabinets would be non-Whites. A mixed President’s Council would come into existence and the Council of Cabinets would function like a normal Cabinet. These things have all been recorded in this way in Hansard.

This led to the Schlebusch Commission, from which three important results flowed. The first result was the rejection of the system of “one man, one vote”. The second result was the establishment of the President’s Council. The third result was the feeling that there should be consultation and deliberation among population groups over as wide a field as possible in an effort to raise the level of acceptability of any proposals.

Let us, however, go a little further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said I was sitting on two stools, but let us consider the position. The hon. member for Waterberg was at that juncture still a member of Government. What did he say at the time, on 3 February 1982? He was speaking to the hon. member for Yeoville and said that the President’s Council was in the process of considering the 1977 proposals, and I am now quoting him in my own words. He also said that when the report of the President’s Council was presented, the Government would adopt a standpoint. He referred to the mixed President’s Council. Well, he was not there when we had to adopt a standpoint … [Interjections.] But let us leave it at that for the moment.

However, there was another interesting thing to which the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning referred here the other day. Perhaps I should also refer to it. I am referring to the final report of the Schlebusch Commission, because it implies quite a number of things. The final report of the Schlebusch Commission—R.P. 23/1981—has the following to say—

Then comes the important aspect—

Then follows a list of extremely interesting names. There are, inter alia, the names F. van Zyl Slabbert, D. J. Dalling, C. W. Eglin and F. J. le Roux. [Interjections.] The name H. D. K. van der Merwe is also there. [Interjections.]

The whole caboodle!

Yes, and there are others as well. There is Mr. Vause Raw as well, and others. However, we are not quarrelling with them, because they do not have another standpoint today. But what were these people, whose names I have just mentioned, saying? They were saying that a President’s Council should be established. This was on the basis of the majority report of the Schlebusch Commission. What were they also saying? They were saying that all documents should be referred to the President’s Council for investigation. Well, then the President’s Council was established and whoops! What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? I do not think he wanted to boycott it. [Interjections.] He can inform us later about that part of the story. Perhaps he could ask Mr. Sullivan to interview him on that matter as well. There are a few other hon. members in his party, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has reason to be concerned. He will just have to share his concern with them.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Pinelands is not present here today. I can understand that he has other work to do. Apparently he has a great deal of work outside the House, during the Second Reading he quoted from a speech which I had made in 1965. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition pursued the matter and also referred to it. I was quoted as supposedly having said the following—

In view of the history of this matter which I have just recounted, what do these words have to do with it? Surely a completely new situation has been created. I make no secret of it. We decided to break away from the Westminster system, and that is what makes a big difference. If the circumstances of 1965 were to have applied today I would have argued in exactly the same way today. As long as one uses the Westminster system as a basis, one cannot ensure that justice is done without “one man, one vote”. However, when one deviates from the Westminster system, one can ensure that justice is done. This is the heart of the matter, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agreed with it. I see I am convincing him. [Interjections.]

Under the present circumstances the picture is completely different. Firstly, the proposals of the Government make provision for the maximum devolution of power in respect of the third tier of Government. This is in accordance with standpoints I have been advocating in this House for years. People laughed at me when I said that we should examine the models of other States to see whether we could not, by means of the devolution of power, solve part of our problems.

Secondly, we want to promote the system of separate systems of government for separate matters strongly, If there has to be “local option”, it must apply in the Free State as well.

Yes, of course.

Do you think the Free State should have “local option”?

If that is the hon. member’s standpoint, the Free State should have it as well, but I am coming to that in a moment. We wish to promote the system of separate administrative systems for separate matters strongly. We wish to move away from the Westminster system which in 1965 was still the basis for the allocation of rights. In the meantime we have made a great deal of progress with separate freedoms for Black peoples and our concept of confederal co-operation has shown progress over a wide area without our having had to give official recognition to it. I do not wish to force the issue, because I know there are Black States which maintain that they do not want a confederation. However, I am satisfied if they co-operate with us on the basis of common interests, as they are in fact doing. There is nothing which gives me more satisfaction than to be able to help contribute at this stage of my public life, to the termination of the Westminster system. No justice can be done to the various population communities of Southern Africa, with their own characters and ways of life, under that system. With that system more than one African State has ended up in despair, and now they are grabbing at the straw of socialism, only to end up in even greater despair. As far as this matter is concerned, my approach, in conclusion, is that we should strive for specific protective measures for minority groups in contrast to the United Nations’ original over-emphasis of measures to protect the individual. That is my point of departure.

I do not wish to deal with too many subjects this afternoon because there is quite a lot of time left for this debate. However, I do owe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition another reply, i.e. on the referendum. He put certain questions to me in that regard. On previous occasions, inter alia on 29 November 1980 in Ladysmith, Natal, and on 15 April 1982 here in the House of Assembly, I referred to the possibility of a referendum on the new constitutional dispensation. I have my speeches here. I said that if the Government’s latest proposals were accepted by the Congresses and were to differ drastically—the words I used were “deviate drastically”—from the 1977 policy of the party, we would put the proposals to a test by way of a referendum. Only after this would we come to Parliament. After the congresses of the party had accepted the proposals in 1982, I pointed out that there were no fundamental differences in regard to the 1977 policy, but that the differences were in fact structural. In other words, a referendum on those grounds would therefore not be necessary, but I never spelt out a referendum on other grounds. That is the whole point. I do not do as hon. members on the opposite do, who frequently give their speeches to the Press before they make them here in this House. Some of them never make speeches here, but merely write in the newspaper what they wished to say here.

What is the position in regard to the preparation of the so-called new constitution? It seems to me that like Paul of old I shall have to begin spoon-feeding them, because my friends opposite have been out of office for such a long time that they do not know how legislation is prepared. They are used to getting it on a platter here. The Cabinet decides on the principles of a Bill and then the department concerned must cast those principles into the form of a Bill. Only when that has been done does the Bill go to the State Law Advisers to prepare it for introduction in Parliament. Consequently it is a lengthy process. Apart from that, it is not only one law which has to be amended; it is not only the constitution which has to be amended. Legislation in connection with local government is also going to be introduced, and that is not all that will have to be amended; other amendments will have to ensue.

There is a second aspect. No one can simply say “abracadabra”, and there you have legislation ready to be introduced by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has to conduct lengthy talks and negotiations, with not only one political party among the Coloureds and with not only one among the Indians, apart from his occasional negotiations with his colleagues. Is it fair to expect the hon. the Minister to have the Bill ready prior to the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill or prior to the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote or prior to a certain date. After all, the parliamentary session will still last a long time. I can give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that we are going to sit until that legislation has been disposed of. It seems to me he can prepare himself for a winter session.

I said there was more than one piece of legislation involved in this matter. There will be enough time to discuss the Bill, but it is not the right time now to discuss the constitution. The hon. members may in fact refer to the guidelines. The Bill will come.

Not before 10 May.

If we can succeed with the law advisers—we are not going to make them over-hasty—we shall try to have it available long before 10 May.

A few days?

But what difference does it make? We are going to sit for a long time. In any event, we are going to the country with that Bill by way of a referendum. What nonsense is the Opposition indulging in now? They must get their priorities straight.

You do not want the voters to know what the Bill contains.

The hon. member for Bryanston is not even making an impression any more with his foolishness; I shall simply ignore him.

After the constitution legislation has been introduced—I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to listen because the hon. member for Sea Point cannot extricate him from his difficulty—it will be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution after the Second Reading. There, too, there will be an opportunity for thorough discussion. I have consistently adopted the standpoint—I can be quoted in this regard from numerous speeches—that the processes which we are setting in motion must be evolutionary; not over-hasty.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put questions to me which he could have answered himself. He asked me to tell him whether the Coloureds and the Indians would also have a referendum. I shall clear up this matter with them; not with him, because he cannot speak on their behalf. I have had talks with them, very proper talks.

It seems to me they are thinking about it.

They are thinking about it. I gave them an opportunity to think about it, and if they want a referendum, they shall have one. However, it is not for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me what I must do. Once again he has issued a statement before he had the facts, and I see the newspapers have dealt very badly with that little statement of his—that is true.

In the second place he asked me what the question would be. In the referendum legislation passed by Parliament, the procedure is stated in Chapter II. In section 7 one reads—

1. (a) determine that a referendum of Whites, Indian, Coloured and Chinese voters, or voters of one or more of such population groups, in the Republic or in a particular region of the Republic, shall be held on a date specified in the proclamation, for the purpose of ascertaining the view held by the said voters in relation to any matter stated in the proclamation …

Paragraph (b) reads—

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is asking me, in conflict with this Act, to state before 10 May what it will be. [Interjections.] Yes, yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cried out forcefully “We want to know before 10 May!” However, it is not the referendum which is going to be held on 10 May. The hon. the Leader must not ask such questions. He should tell the people who help him to look up things and convey information to him that they must do better work. It seems to me he needs new staff as well. [Interjections.]

In this connection I just wish to add that the Government has now availed itself of this opportunity to cast the NP’s guidelines into legislative form. We have not completed the process yet. The law advisers have an enormous task, and we must give them an opportunity to complete it.

It is a terrible job …

Their work as jurists is of course not of the high standard one would have had from that hon. member! However, he may offer his services if he wishes. I am not certain, though, how long he will be employed.

The system contained in the new legislation will differ a great deal from the existing Westminster System. That is why I am of the opinion that the voting public who elected the present Parliament should be consulted on the principle of the legislation. A general election is concerned with the question of confidence or lack of confidence in a Government and the election of members of this House, but at a referendum a question or two is submitted to the voters, about which they have to decide on merit.

I now want to make the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an offer. He should listen now and forget about the little note he has there. I want to make him an offer. He, every party represented in this House and every hon. member here, may make representations to the Government on how the question should be phrased; but the final decision will be taken by the Cabinet because we are governing this country. I would suggest, however, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition divides up his party in such a way that one group draws up a positive question and another group a negatative question, because that is his dilemma. However, I shall assess the negative question of his as well. He could even draw up a third question, namely the one in respect of which a person may vote simultaneously at both places. I am saying this for the sake of the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.]

I wish to say that it is a reasonably sound principle to construct drastic constitutional amendments upon the outcome of a referendum. In a level-headed moment when I announced the referendum, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said that he endorsed that principle. A well-known constitutional authority, Karl Friederich, put it as follows—

Consequently the Government does not want to make the principles of a new constitution dependent upon the existence of only one party-political Government, but would prefer to base it on a wide foundation by means of a referendum. This in itself is in my opinion a considerable deviation from the Westminster system of government. It is already a further step which we are taking in this direction. At the same time it is an action which is calculated to help promote stability and national unity. I have consistently adopted the standpoint that adjustments and reform in the Republic of South Africa should occur in an evolutionary way. The principle of evolutionary processes was also applied by previous National Party Governments, as well as the present one, in respect of the self-determination and independence of other peoples.

I want to be very frank with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about the date of the referendum. My entire background compels me to say today that I cannot call a referendum in the drought conditions prevailing at present. I am not prepared to subject the country, during these serious drought conditions, to the inputs of energy which will accompany and which will be necessary for a referendum. In other words, I shall wait with a referendum in the hope and belief that better conditions will set in for large areas of our country. I think that we are in agreement on this score.

Secondly, a sufficient amount of time will have to elapse to get the registration of the voters in order, because I think we should hold that referendum in the most effective way. There may be other measures as well which will have to be adopted to make a proper referendum possible. Let me say at once today that I am prepared to subject myself to the outcome of that referendum. I shall accept the outcome. But what difference does it make whether one wins or loses? What matters is the correctness of one’s standpoint.

Now, I should just like to say a few words about three other facets of this matter. The Whites’ choice is crystal clear. By supporting the Government’s proposals, the White voter is choosing a course of confidence in the future, reasonableness, justice, responsible co-existence and neighbourliness with the Coloureds and Indians. With that I am not excluding the other population communities. By rejecting the Government’s proposals, however, the Whites are choosing for themselves a dead-end street and an evasion of their responsibilities.

That is an absurd thing to say.

You may think so. The hon. member has never accepted responsibility. [Interjections.] The hon. member has never ever accepted responsibility. Mr. Chairman, allow me to dwell for a moment on the hon. member for Rissik. He was a member of the caucus of my party, and towards the end, just before he walked out, he said that he had never trusted me. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member never trusted me. He never displayed any loyalty to me either. That proves to us what kind of sense of responsibility he has. I shall take no further notice of the hon. member for Rissik. Nor does he count among those people I wish to reunify. [Interjections.] The hon. member cannot be loyal to any leader. It makes no difference who helps him. He cannot display loyalty to any person. [Interjections.]

Order!

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the doubters will also vote against us. [Interjections.] I know the doubters will also vote against us. The people with audacity and faith will, however, vote “Yes”. If those who vote “Yes” are in the minority, South Africa is choosing the way of doubt.

You are already making the people despondent.

Order!

What are you going to do if the people vote “Yes”, Daan?

Order!

I am prepared to accept that outcome …

Surely, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture may not say “you” to an hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today to rise and tell me that he will also accept the outcome of the referendum. Then, at least, the two of us will arrive at a point at which we can speak frankly to one another.

It is not his referendum; it is the NP’s referendum.

Of course it is his referendum as well. He is a South African. He is a member of this Parliament. He helped to make the law, and when the majority in this Parliament votes in favour of a matter, he must, as befits any good South African, participate in it, and not follow the advice of the hon. member for Sea Point by boycotting everything. [Interjections.]

As far as the Coloured are concerned …

You should refer to him as the hon. member.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, why do you not call him to order?

Order!

The leaders of the Coloureds …

Mr. Chairman, you should call him to order.

Order!

I am not talking to the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member just happens to be here. [Interjections.]

By accident. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sandton just happens to be here. He is of an ephemeral nature. [Interjections.]

The leaders of the Coloureds will be consulted on a possible date and the method of testing public opinion in their community. I am adding once again that this does not exclude a referendum. Their choice is equally clear. Either they choose the course of boycott, and consequently of no say over their own interests, or …

[Inaudible.]

But of course. The important point is that this Government is in office, and not that hon. member’s party. Cannot he get that into his head? [Interjections.] He thinks he is governing. He is like the fellow who was sitting in a tree and who looked down and said: “Look, I have the whole world beneath me, it all belongs to me”. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member is not governing. The Coloureds are choosing the way of acceptance of self-determination over their own affairs in a system of the devolution of power, and joint responsibility over matters of common interest together with the Whites.

Hobson’s choice!

As far as the Indians are concerned …

Do you endorse this pamphlet?

Order!

The South African Indians or Asians …

I am asking whether you endorse this pamphlet?

Order! If the hon. member for Bryanston wishes to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister, he must rise and ask leave of the Chair to put his question. It is then for the hon. the Prime Minister to decide whether or not he wishes to reply to a question. Does the hon. member for Bryanston wish to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister?

I should merely like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he endorses this pamphlet.

Order! Does the hon. the Prime Minister wish to reply to a question by the hon. member for Bryanston?

No, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Bryanston should rather go out and buy himself some Aqua-Fresh. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must resume his seat.

The South African Indians … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask you whether it is not the usual practice for a presiding officer to say that the member who is on his feet, may proceed rather than to say to an hon. member who is asking a question that he must resume his seat? Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is not the way …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot question my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking you for a ruling.

My ruling is that the hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking you whether it is not more proper to say that the hon. the Prime Minister may proceed …

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

The South African Indians or Asians as a community are also standing before a choice, or various choices, and I am not talking behind their backs. What I have to say here now, I have said to them as well. Firstly, they can choose to maintain the status quo. That is their business. Or they can choose to seek to join up with a neighbouring State, kwaZulu. They can also choose to achieve co-operation under the new dispensation along the courses which I have tried to outline here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put a question to me in regard to Indians in the Free State. Even if one were to abolish the old Acts which have been applicable to Northern Natal and the Free State since the days of the Republics, there would in respect of the movement and residence of Indians in the Free State still to a large extent be the Group Areas Act which would regulate such matters. In the second place, there are no Indians living in the Free State. In other words, there is no need for a group area for them. [Interjections.] Surely that is the case.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton must give me a chance, before she is perhaps subjected to something here to which she ought to be subjected. [Interjections.] This is something which I should like to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I also say it to the Indians themselves. I think that agitation to have the Free State thrown open is simply going to cause unnecessary friction.

Really?

I am speaking now as a person who was born in the Free State and who would like to see the character of the Free State being retained.

That explains a lot.

Do you not think there is a principle involved?

No, there is not, because I am not prepared to concede that the fathers who made of the Free State a model state, acted in an unethical, dishonest or unchristian way. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am prepared to discuss movement with the Indians. I am prepared to discuss transit with them, but I think the interests of the Free State should be taken into consideration here and that there should be very thorough talks with the elected leaders of the Free State as well. [Interjections.] I shall allow myself to be led by them. [Interjections.]

Order!

The truth is you are just funking the issue.

Order!

I shall deal with other matters later. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to conclude by saying one last thing to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. Any Prime Minister in this country must take many factors into account if law and order and goodwill is to be preserved in this country, and not least of these are those factors in regard to that sector of the population which is represented in this House. I shall continue along the course which I believe can lead to justice, greater justice, more efficient government, as long as I remain spared to do so. However, I am not prepared to hand South Africa over to chaos. Nor am I prepared to pursue a course which will place South Africa in the position in which other States to the north of us have ended up by going downhill and following the course contained in the proposals of the official Opposition.

With that I have disposed of the first part of my reply. I shall reply later to the other matters which were raised.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister has touched on quite a number of matters which are of particular importance in the present political situation. I cannot possibly do justice to them all. However, important announcements have been made which directly affect the official Opposition.

The first question which the hon. the Prime Minister put to me was why I drew a distinction between the so-called politics of reunification and the politics of reform. I think I made this quite clear in my speech when I said that the type of politics of reunification to which I was referring constituted an attempt to reunite the NP under its old banner. I tried to say that this actually represented a different approach from the politics of reform. Naturally, if the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to reunite the country or to obtain the maximum degree of national unity, we understand that and we can support him in that. However, that was not what I asked. I specifically asked whether he intended to reunite the NP under those circumstances.

The hon. the Prime Minister also tried to reply to certain questions, such as the question of power-sharing. I must admit that in this respect he has left me as confused as ever. The reason why I asked the question was precisely because it was not clear exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister meant by that. I think he will concede that power-sharing is a concept which is naturally accommodated within the policy of the official Opposition. We have never tried to run away from it and we have always said quite clearly what we mean by it.

When the NP starts using the concept, however, it uses it as though it bore some resemblance to the meaning which the official Opposition gives to it. The hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way to say that this was not the case. However, he did not tell us exactly what elements of power-sharing were embodied in the power-sharing in terms of the Government’s constitutional guidelines.

What the hon. the Prime Minister said in connection with the President’s Council I do find illuminating. However, I think the hon. the Prime Minister should make the same point in respect of the NP candidate for the by-election in Soutpansberg. In his speech the hon. the Prime Minister said that the President’s Council would advise the President at his request on matters of national interest and that it would take final decisions in the events of conflicts between chambers. When the President gives a final decision, which is binding, it is not merely advice, but it becomes a part of the legislative process. That is all we wanted to clarify.

†I was particularly disappointed with the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply to the question concerning discriminatory laws which could be amended or removed from the Statute Book. I have asked specifically that the hon. the Prime Minister should actually indicate which laws, or even one law, he thought qualified for such consideration. All that the hon. the Prime Minister did was actually to lay down certain criteria which he regarded as necessary in terms of which he would judge the adequacy of such laws being removed. That is actually begging the question. What law does he have in mind?

*Let us examine the criteria. He spoke about fairness and reasonableness, about peaceful co-existence and growth, about the preservation of Christian civilization, and about the fact that it should not promote communism. If the hon. the Prime Minister were to repeal the laws which prohibit Indians from enjoying the Free State just like any other person, would any of these principles be compromised? I do not think so. If they were compromised there, why not elsewhere as well? Surely, therefore, the hon. the Prime Minister can say quite clearly in the light of his own criteria which discriminatory practices should be got rid of.

†Another aspect which I found revealing was that the hon. the Prime Minister devoted a considerable amount of time to explaining the Government’s position—he actually went into an historical analysis—on the whole question of the Coloured population. I suspect the hon. the Prime Minister was not really talking to me, but to the CP in this regard. Do you know why, Sir? It is because the Conservative Party has consistently used the logic of homeland development and applied it to the Coloured population. In fact, in doing so, they have trapped the Government in terms of their own logic. They ask why can one not consolidate a few group areas, etc., for the Coloureds and why can one not treat the Coloureds out of their own areas in the same way that one treats Blacks out of the National States. The logic, of course, is quite compelling if you accept the assumptions on which that logic is based and if you think those assumptions apply to the political situation in South Africa. But, if you accept that the homeland policy is not working for Blacks and can never work for Black people, then equally the homeland policy cannot work for Coloureds and Asians. That is where the Government is locked into trying to defend an indefensible position and why they have to go to these extraordinary lengths to explain why a different kind of solution is necessary for Coloureds and Indians.

However, there was a more sinister point that the hon. the Prime Minister made. He went back to his speech that he made in 1965 as it is recorded in Hansard. In it he said—

However, now that they are moving away from the Westminster system, they do not have to do that. In other words, now that they are moving away from the Westminster system to the proposed tricameral system, the Groups Areas Act can remain. All those discriminatory practices can remain on the law book because it can now be justified in terms of the new tricameral system. In other words, the tricameral system will only function in terms of the existing discriminatory practices and those practices will not be removed. I suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister should also explain this to the Coloureds and Asians when he talks to them in this regard.

He then quoted Prof. Sakkies Fourie as justification for the fact that he, as Deputy Minister at that time, and since then the Government and particularly the Prime Minister himself, had done a great deal towards the upliftment of the Coloured population. I think one should do justice to the memory of Prof. Sakkies Fourie and read exactly what he said on that occasion. I quote from column 6588 of Hansard of 17 May 1961—

That is what he said and I think one should quote it all in order to put it into perspective.

The next point I would like to respond to which was raised by the hon. the Prime Minister, was the attempt again, in a sense, to remove the Black constitutional, economic and social development away from the existing debate. I have to concede to the hon. the Prime Minister that there is a fundamental difference on this issue between this side of the House and the Government. I believe that we are going to run into great difficulties on this issue as far as constitutional reform is concerned. I do not believe that it is possible to talk responsibly about constitutional, economic and social reform in South Africa by simply suspending the future of 70% of the population from the debate. I think we have to talk about them and take note of them. In this respect, I want to refer briefly to the opening remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister, remarks which I believe to be very important. He referred to the report of the President’s Council on the whole question of population increase and what could be done. The hon. the Prime Minister made some very valid points. He said that economic growth should be more equally distributed in South Africa. I agree with him that we should have a sound and sensible agricultural policy. I agree with him that we should improve the living standards of the people and that we should be aware of the dangers of over-urbanization of communities that were not effectively developed in the urban areas. These were obviously all valid points and, of course, we will support the Government in any attempt to assist with these very real problems. However, the Government then also has a responsibility to see to it that its policies do not aggravate the very problem that the hon. the Prime Minister identified this afternoon. There is no question that a policy of large-scale population relocation and removal aggravates rural and agricultural development. There is no question that the large-scale resettlement of masses of people stimulates urbanization and increases rural poverty. This again coincides with population increases. There are definite fundamental aspects of Government policy towards Blacks in this country which, in fact, aggravate the whole question of population increase. In that respect it is equally necessary that we look at those issues when we discuss the constitutional, economic and social future of South Africa,

The hon. the Prime Minister then came to the question of a referendum. He said he never said that there were not other grounds on which a referendum could be held. Mr. Chairman, I have never denied that but surely it was reasonable for us to expect that the ground which the hon. the Prime Minister had mentioned was the one that he was considering the only one on which he would call a referendum. That is a reasonable deduction to make or otherwise, why bother to mention it? Why bother to say so? I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that there is a need to inform the public and to tell them what is going to happen so that they may know when a referendum is called, exactly what the issues are. However, to say that the new constitution is going to differ substantially from the existing Westminster system and that a referendum is therefore necessary is something which we all knew right from the start. There is nothing new in that; so why is this suddenly grasped as the reason, over and above drastic deviations, for a referendum? Right from the outset when the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council submitted its recommendations, we knew that there was going to be a deviation from the Westminster system. So suddenly now to make this the big issue simply does not convince me. I somehow think there is another reason which the hon. the Prime Minister has not referred to.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that the other population groups, the Coloureds and the Asians, will also have an opportunity to have their opinions tested, obviously also by means of a referendum if they so wish. From newspaper reports it is quite evident to me that the Coloured and Indian spokesmen who have spoken so far are convinced that it will be a referendum. What I do not understand—and I would ask the hon. the Prime Minister to respond to this perhaps on a later occasion—is whether there is any objection to a referendum being held on the same day on the same question. Could the hon. the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks this would not be wise so that we could get clarity on that issue as well?

The hon. the Prime Minister then extended an invitation to all parties interested to formulate questions which the Government would consider. He made the point that, in the final analysis, the Government is in power and will accept responsibility for whichever question is formulated. Obviously we will respond and we will make use of that opportunity. We will formulate questions which we think would be reasonable questions to ask depending on what we believe needs to be tested. In that sense I think we will, also through debate and other inputs, try to make clear to the Government what kind of questions and what kind of developments we would find unacceptable and difficult to support. If the hon. the Prime Minister is really interested in unifying the country behind reform, then he will consult as widely as possible to try to establish what the broadest basis of consensus is for change in this country. In that respect we will assist the hon. the Prime Minister and it is his decision to decide what questions will eventually be formulated. However, I think the hon. the Prime Minister is in a sense jumping the gun because before the question is formulated, he is already telling us what the options are facing the people who have to vote. He says that if one votes this way then that is the way one is going to go.

That is an attitude …

Yes, but one can only see that and we can only enter into the debate in a sensible manner if we have the privileged information which the hon. the Prime Minister has, and that is obviously the kind of question that he has in mind because he can only say that if one says no to that question one is going to be in a “doodloopstraat” or one is going to be on the side of the angels. The only way in which the hon. the Prime Minister can say that, is to have some kind of pre-knowledge as to what the question is going to be. I would therefore urge the hon. the Prime Minister to suspend this kind of spelling out of options until there is clarity as to what exactly the question is and everybody can see whether they will be in a “doodloopstraat” or not. It is quite possible that many of us may think that we shall be ending in a “doodloopstraat” if we say “yes” to the kind of question that may be formulated. This, however, remains to be seen.

*In conclusion. I come back to the final point raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. That is the question of the Indians in the Free State. I think it is indefensible that we should receive such an answer from the hon. the Prime Minister in this day and age in South Africa. It is not a question of implicating or accusing our forefathers. They acted according to their lights, and some of them made mistakes; some of them were perhaps wiser than others. However, this does not absolve us in this House of the responsibility of providing guidance at this stage and of asking whether this is right. Is it right that in this day and age, now that the Government itself is beginning to consider a dispensation under which, according to them, there will be full participation in the new government institutions of the country, we should still have this prehistoric practice where people are simply prohibited from entering a certain province of South Africa merely because of the fact that they are Indians? Surely it is the responsibility of the Government to provide guidance in these times and to say which direction we should take.

In the same way, I believe it is the responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister to give us a clear indication of the degree of power-sharing which there is going to be under a new dispensation, about which discriminatory measures are going to disappear in the sphere of politics, of the economy, etc. It is true that the hon. the Prime Minister has said that he has arranged for greater dialogue between the private and the public sector. In the course of that dialogue, however, one thing has become quite clear, and that is that there are measures taken by the Government which are making progress in the field of the private sector under the free market mechanism completely impossible. Therefore the onus is back on the Government to remove those measures.

In this respect, we cannot simply keep diagnosing and formulating the problem. That is a favourite habit of the hon. member for Innesdal: He is always diagnosing; there is a lament which we keep getting from him: Help us, help us, help us; this is how difficult it is. However, he is not prepared to stick out his neck and to say which measures should go. I want to say this of him, though: He has gone further and said that section 16 of the Immorality Act should be deleted. I cannot get the same reply from the hon. the Prime Minister; not in these days of the Bergs.

I should appreciate it if the hon. the Prime Minister, when he re-enters the debate, would give us greater clarity, if he deems fit, concerning the whole question of what exactly the Government means by the whole question of power-sharing, and why the Government thinks it is not appropriate that a referendum for Whites, Coloureds and Indians should be held on the same day and on the same question, since they are going to participate in the same constitution anyway. Also, would the Prime Minister not spell out to us, on the basis of the criteria he has laid down, which discriminatory measures should disappear from the Statute Book?

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the reaction of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister, I can tell the hon. the leader in a single phrase that he as Leader of the Opposition, his party and other political parties in this House have been carefully weighed and found wanting this afternoon.

When we consider the future of the Republic of South Africa and think of the course adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government, there are certain questions we all have to get replies to in the course of this debate. The issue in this country is not a struggle between Whites and non-Whites; the issue is a struggle between chaos, violence and repression on the one hand and Christian civilization, law and order and justice on the other. That is why the NP is the political home of those White voters who in a spirit of friendly nationalism, with a realistic outlook and compelled by a desire for justice and equilibrium, want to take other nations and population groups in South Africa with them along the road of peaceful co-existence. The NP is building a secure future for all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa through orderly development, using the sound building materials of law and order and a fair constitutional dispensation which on a democratic basis gives expression to the lawful constitutional aspirations of the multiplicity of nations in South Africa with the preservation and protection of what is unique to each one of them.

It is necessary for us to get replies to certain questions from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party this afternoon. These are questions we should like to have answers to. In view of the introduction to my speech this afternoon, I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he and his party stand as regards chaos, violence and bloodshed in the Republic of South Africa. He should give a clear reply to that question.

I do not like it. I am afraid of it.

[Inaudible.]

I see the hon. member for Houghton is very sensitive when we discuss this matter. Let me immediately come to the hon. member for Houghton. When 400 people marched on Parliament to hold a demonstration here and arrived at a church service, the hon. member for Houghton was seen among that crowd of people.

That is just not true.

We also saw people carrying placards bearing ANC slogans. Then that hon. member is so sensitive this afternoon and asks the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to accept a certain petition. This is the hon. member who, when we were having problems with squatters in the Western Cape, became involved and warned the Government about its actions. A mere two weeks ago eight people died as a result of violence which erupted between two factions at Crossroads. What was the cause of this? They were illegal squatters. Now the hon. member for Houghton is silent. She has not said a word about this or about her involvement there.

Let us refer for a moment to a leader of one of our national States. How did he react to the same question and to the PFP? The Chief Minister of Ciskei labelled the group of PFP members who visited his country as hypocrites who came like snakes in the night to poison intergroup relations. He issued a warning and accused the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of no longer being able to control his party. This afternoon I should like to confirm this statement.

During the no-confidence debate this session the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to quote from a speech made by Gatsha Buthelezi. It concerned the new guidelines of the Government. What did he quote? He quoted the following—

He was then asked across the floor of this House whether he agreed with this and his reply was “of course”. I think it is necessary for him to spell out to us quite clearly where he stands in connection with violence and bloodshed in the Republic.

During that debate the hon. the Prime Minister reacted to that speech and said there were people who, in spite of all his efforts to seek peaceful solutions for the Republic, were resorting to violence, and he said we were ready for those people. However, what reaction did we get from that side of the House? The hon. member for Yeoville said: “I must tell you that as far as I am concerned, I am not seeking confrontation and bloodshed in this country. I do not want it. That is also the standpoint of my party”. This afternoon I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that that party in which he finds himself is a circus, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a circus acrobat who is trying to ride two horses simultaneously. However, he is not going to succeed. He is playing a dangerous game while the NP and the NP Government are trying to seek solutions for the problems facing the Republic of South Africa because of its multinational structure.

I now come to the CP and I want to tell them that they are following exactly the same road, a dangerous road, a road which will lead to violence for the Republic of South Africa.

You are following the road of integration.

When one speaks of demonstrations at Parliament, I want to refer hon. members to an article which appeared in Rapport of 13 March of this year under the caption “Vrae oor Salmon Barnard se dinge, maar die KP-LV swyg”. I am glad that hon. member is in the House this afternoon. That hon. member donated R2 000 so that people could come to this Parliament. To do what? They were supposed to lodge a spontaneous protest. Three days before this article was published, the hon. member spoke about voters in his constituency who wanted to pelt Parliament with stones. This afternoon I want to tell the CP that they are following exactly the same road. They are following the road of the Afrikaner-weer-standsbeweging.

You are a mud-slinger, that’s all.

As early as October 1979 the AWB was registered as a political party. There are three things I want to spell out to hon. members. In the charter of the AWB it is stated: “Aangesien dit duidelik geword het dat die politieke situasie in Suid-Afrika in ’n rigting beweeg wat vir die Blankes onaanvaarbaar is … The hon. the leader of the CP said in this House that it was unacceptable to the Whites. That is point No. 1. In the second place, in 1979 the AWB came up with the idea of the creation of a Coloured homeland. The CP also got this from the AWB. Then there were also the stories and the threats in connection with power-sharing, power-sharing as it is now being contemplated by the Government. The CP has taken over the policy of the AWB in toto. The leader of the CP is a chameleon who changes his colour wherever he goes. This is quite clear. He is a chameleon who simultaneously has one eye on the AWB and the other on Jaap Marais and the HNP. The most important thing is that the most dangerous weapon of the chameleon is his tongue. I see the leader of the CP as a chameleon.

There are other people who have found it necessary to issue a warning in regard to all the talk of violence coming from the CP. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we listened to the hon. the Prime Minister for quite a long time. I want to tell him that the facts and interpretation of the history of the nations in Southern Africa, as recounted by him, are highly questionable. In the second place I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that his knowledge of statecraft, as a subject in theory and in practice, is equally questionable. In the third place, I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that his erroneous version in respect of the CP members during the years they were in the NP, including their behaviour in the caucus during that time, was shameful. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that there are two things in this life which one cannot escape. The one is death and the other is the truth.

The truth will still catch up with you.

The truth in respect of the politics of the past few decades will still catch up with the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the behaviour of and the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister have today in connection with the Indians is in no way morally justifiable, seen in the light of so-called one nationhood. This standpoint he adopted in connection with the Indians today is merely the result of the fact that the CP is gaining more support by the day in the Free State. [Interjections.]

Today I want to point out that the flame of nationalism which burnt in the old NP has been extinguished. It has made way for neoliberalism, that foreign flame that wants to consume the tried and trusted principles of a nation’s continued existence. What is most shocking about the new NP and the hon. the Prime Minister is that they still pretend that they are not planning and creating a change in principle in South Africa.

Today the new NP is held together by newspaper which is playing inter alia on the sentiments of credulous people. We are watching the birth of a new generation of voters—dyed-in-the-wool nationalists. A variety of methods are being used to bring about this change in principle in South Africa. During the past few decades journalists, columnists, academics, theologians and political leaders of the new NP have shaped the instruments for implementing these methods. The new NP was therefore part of an onslaught on the essential elements of Afrikaner nationalism and therefore also the desire of the Whites to continue to exist in South Africa. The onslaught was aimed in particular at the courage of the White man.

How do you come by all this astounding nonsense?

According to the technique of the new NP they first had to make the Whites despondent, and for this purpose use had to be made in particular of the numbers of non-Whites. In this state of despondency, in this spirit of capitulation, the voter had to be forced to agree to a compromise. This compromise had to be associated with the admission that we in South Africa—including the Whites—have been internationalized. That is why the advice of Dr. Kissinger had to be accepted.

It is becoming clearer all the time that the American influence on the new NP is increasing. [Interjections.] The question is no longer whether there is an influence from America, but to what extent that influence already applies in the new NP. [Interjections.] After all the NP has already admitted that Dr. Kissinger’s advice has to be accepted. However, I want to ask whether the advice which already has to be accepted …

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

No, Sir. I do not have any time now to reply to questions. [Interjections.] I believe it is not only Dr. Kissinger’s advice which has to be accepted, it is already the advice of the far-left wing in American politics that has to be accepted. The dynamo par excellence who had to set this process of revolution in South Africa in motion, was none other than the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. For some time now, like a director, in a theatrical way, he has been injecting a spirit of despondency into our people. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information was on stage in Southern Africa while the White man was being forced out of Southern Africa. During the past few years the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information has built up an oppressing, pessimistic cloud over South Africa …

Hear, hear!

… which will only disappear if the “change agents” are allowed to continue their work among the Whites in South Africa unhindered.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information has a very responsible task. This is to make the policy of his Government and conditions in the Republic of South Africa clear to the outside world, to interpret them and to defend them. Now our party, Mr. Chairman, has had personal experience of the tactics and techniques of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. The hon. Minister made a political speech at Thabazimbi. That speech was given excessive television coverage, while the hon. the Minister totally misrepresented the Coloured policy of the CP. Statements were made ex cathedra about our policy without submitting a single policy document as evidence. In that way our party’s policy was totally misrepresented by the media and by the hon. Minister. I therefore want to ask: How can South Africa and its people have confidence in the judgment, knowledge and fairness of the hon. the Minister? How can South Africa trust such an hon. Minister with its interests abroad if he is not prepared to present the policy of his own political opponents correctly?

We really hurt you, didn’t we?

How do we know that the international standpoint is being conveyed in South Africa correctly, fairly and in a responsible way? The time has now come for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be relieved of his duties as Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister must do this in the interests of responsible government. The Sunday Times of 12 September had the following to say about that hon. Minister—

It went on to say—

He was referring to the NP—

Quite right to be afraid of us.

Today the new NP is paying this price in the four by-elections and throughout the country because they were not prepared during the past five years, since 1977, to inform the voters of South Africa about that so-called policy … [Interjections.] … while the CP members …

Why did you not do so then?

… did in fact say that, on the basis of the questions asked and the replies received in the caucus of the NP, on the basis of the information documents distributed by the NP, the policy of the NP was not one of power-sharing and a mixed government. [Interjections.] There is something I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is this: Pay the price for refusing to state the policy of the NP, as the hon. the Minister himself said in the Sunday Times. I also want to tell him: Pay the price because the party refused to inform the public, pay the price because that party was afraid of the PFP, pay the price because that party was afraid that the voters would be scared off. I maintain: Pay the price and ask the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to resign from his post. Pay that price so that we in South Africa can all strive for Christian honesty in politics in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member was so confused that he referred to matters here which should actually have been discussed under the Foreign Affairs Vote. If we have ever had to listen to an HNP speech it was the speech that hon. member just made. [Interjections.] In the no-confidence debate on 3 February 1982 Dr. Treurnicht referred to the hon. member for Yeoville, and I am quoting from Hansard, col. 205—

What is stated in this manifesto? I am quoting from point No. 4 of the programme of action—

On 17 March 1982, at the end of a meeting in Pietersburg, Dr. Treurnicht said—

On 27 March 1982, at Rustenburg, he said the following in connection with the exercising of political rights by Coloureds—

He went on to say—

On 4 April 1982 the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs asked Dr. Treurnicht in this House whether he still stood by the standpoint he had adopted when he was still a member of the NP, namely that historically Whites, Coloureds and Indians shared the same territory and that independent States for them were not possible in practice. Dr. Treurnicht’s reply was: “I stand by it.” At that stage Dr. Treurnicht’s dilemma was that he could not elevate a homeland for Coloureds into a policy because he had signed the NP election manifesto the previous year.

In Beeld of 17 April 1982, under the caption “Misverstand, sê AP” the following was stated—

Two days later, on 19 April 1982, Dr. Treurnicht said the following in Port Elizabeth—

On 21 July 1982, Dr. Treurnicht said the following in Germiston—

On 5 October, at Vierfontein in the Parys constituency, he said that he had not changed his policy. He said a sovereign Coloured state was a possibility, whereas the year before last he had rejected a Coloured homeland as being impractical.

On 9 October 1982, at Pietersburg, he said that the CP would not create heartlands or homelands for Indians and Coloureds in South Africa if his party came to power. He said the heartlands were already there and that there was basically no difference between a heartland and a homeland. According to Dr. Treurnicht 60% of the Coloureds live in the South Western Cape and 86% of the Indians live in Natal. According to him the two areas are thereof essentially already the heartlands of the two population groups, and the CP will therefore not establish heartlands.

At Petrusburg he repeated what he had said at Pietersburg and added that he did not foresee a heartland for Coloureds in the Free State, presumably with the by-election in Parys at the back of his mind.

Die Patriot of 20 February 1983 proclaimed in banner headlines: “Treurnicht dui koers aan”. It stated—

It went on to say—

The homeland policy is clear proof that within months Dr. Treurnicht has deviated drastically from NP policy. I can quote examples to prove that he has also changed with regard to other important aspects of policy. I maintain that this indicates that Dr. Treurnicht has accepted HNP policy in toto. It is only with regard to the Indians and the AWB that there are still minor differences between these two parties. The CP leaders, and Dr. Treurnicht in particular, initially tried to keep some distance between the CP and the HNP after the party had been established, but it now seems as if, within a few months, they have been forced to take over HNP policy. What I find even more incomprehensible is why the CP leader decided to establish a party in the first place. The question arises whether it was not merely so that he could be the leader. The credibility of the CP leader has been seriously jeopardized. The question which unwittingly arises is how they can gain credibility if they now accept HNP policy, which they have proposed for years and, what is more, are opposing the HNP in Waterberg at the moment. There are many aspects of the CP’s politics which are repulsive, for example, the untruth which is being circulated that the NP has sacrificed the principle of White self-determination. What I find most reprehensible is its strategy of not discussing with the voters the realities in the country. I also came across the following in the introductory article of the Patriot of 25 February 1983—

In other words, a separate telephone system, separate railways and separate roads. Just how absurd can a party become? Imagine, if you will, Sir: Four or more separate telephone systems existing side by side; four or more separate railway systems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I return to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, I was surprised last night when I got home to hear that I had reportedly, accordingly to the SABC-TV, pledged the NRP to vote for the Second Reading of the Constitution Bill and to support a Yes-vote for the referendum. In fact I spent over half of my time explaining the conditions under which this party would give its support and so I want to make it quite clear that there was no unqualified support. I outlined the conditions, which are on record in Hansard, of our Federal Council by which we will judge the Constitution Bill and on which we will determine our attitude. I say quite frankly that I hope, and I said it before, that the Bill will contain sufficient of the philosophy of this party to make it possible for us to support it.

I want now to turn to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech of this afternoon and to say quite frankly that I was disappointed. The thrust of my appeal to him yesterday afternoon was to restore the climate in which reform could prosper, a climate that has been harmed by the by-election atmosphere. We have had it again now across the floor of the House, the battle of the Bergse, breaking down the climate for the movement towards reform. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that one cannot rush reform. However, I do not agree with the chairman of the PFP who was quoted as follows in a newspaper headline—

I do not agree with this proposal of the colleague of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This is not simply that it should not be rushed but in fact puts it right back to square one. It is the call for a new joint Select Commitee, for new evidence, for new everything. Having been through all that before, I see no point in it. However, I do agree that once cannot rush this sort of thing. Equally though, if one allows it to stall or to move so slowly that it appears to be a negative movement at times, then one will destroy the climate just as certainly as hon. members have helped destroy it by means of the by-election speeches they have made in this House and at the hustings in the by-elections. This was the disappointment that I felt this afternoon when for an hour and 40 minutes or whatever it was the hon. the Prime Minister restated matters. He said very little that was new. There was, of course, the population report, but he gave us very little else that was new. It was a mark time speech, a restatement of attitudes rather than an inspiring of confidence in the reform process in which we are about to participate more positively and finally. This is what is needed. True, there are only about another three weeks to go, but even in that short period a tremendous amount of damage can be done unless we can restore the spirit that was building up in South Africa in favour of constitutional change. When we come to face the details in this regard as we shall do, I hope, next month some time, we will then have to recreate confidence if that legislation as such is to establish a basis on which to create confidence in this country.

I referred as did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to some of the unnecessary laws in South Africa contributing towards the climate to which I have just referred. I am not alone in this. I have here a report of the speech by the hon. the Minister of National Education of 12 February this year. At a meeting at Monument Park he is reported to have said—

He was referring here to the Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act and so forth. I also have here a cutting of a letter from a political correspondent of a Nationalist newspaper who on 22 February this year wrote as follows—

He also referred to the issue in regard to which the hon. the Prime Minister replied in response to an interjection because in his column in that newspaper he went on to say—

There are other quotations of a similar nature that I could make but I do not have the time. This is the view of Nationalists. This is the view of a Cabinet Minister and of a Nationalist political correspondent. This view has also been expressed by other Ministers. This is what I mean by the climate for reform, not the generalizations that the hon. the Prime Minister gave us. Of course he will support any change which falls within his principles, which does not endanger South Africa and which does not endanger group rights. Those are obvious platitudes and everybody agrees with them. What we want from the hon. the Prime Minister is a bold step further than the mere known, the mere repetition of what has been said before. We want something that will give people the confidence that the Government is serious in what it is doing.

One of the issues which I raised was that of local option. That was where I quoted the comment of the SABC favourably. I want to put it clearly that the SABC says—

I now want to repeat what I quoted yesterday—

I should like to know to what extent this reflects the sincere belief of the Government in the policy of local option. But when one has local option and if that option is exercised in favour of exclusivity, then one must make provision for other open facilities and open opportunities for those who are excluded.

Why exclude Kingsborough?

I say if the option is exercised for exclusivity—for Whites only to put it another way—then opportunities must be created for or facilities must be shared with those of other groups who are so excluded. “Option” cannot mean the total exclusion of other races from participation in and use of either natural or man-made amenities and opportunities in South Africa. “Option” therefore has a double content: The right for any group to decide and choose for itself—“selfbeskikking”—which we in this party accept, but which the official Opposition does not accept—it is their right to differ because they accept the right of the individual to self-determination and not of the group. We accept the right of the group. With that right goes the responsibility for provision of alternative facilities, alternative areas, alternative amenities when local option is exercised exclusively in favour of one group. This is what I believe we must get clearly as part of the philosophy of the new dispensation because it will help to create the climate about which I talked. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the leader of the NRP that the statements he has made are not correct. It is not true that the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon consisted of nothing but a repetition of facts and generalizations. The hon. the Prime Minister spelt out to us the road that lies ahead in a very clear and statesmanlike manner. The hon. leader was probably not paying attention. The hon. leader also says that the hon. the Prime Minister did not come along with any bold steps. Who in this country has taken more bold steps than the hon. the Prime Minister? [Interjections.] Only the other day, the hon. the Prime Minister surprised the hon. members with the announcement of the referendum. The hon. the leader of the NRP cannot surpass the hon. the Prime Minister when it comes to bold steps.

We are faced with a very hard reality. We are faced with the challenge of finding a formula in the constitutional sphere which will do justice to all the people of a country with the most complex population structure in the world. This is a hard reality for the Government, but it is also a hard reality for all the parties sitting in this House, a reality we cannot get away from. What help are we getting from the Opposition in this connection? In this debate they have given us weak knees, cold feet, irresolution, negativism and even hostility. From the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who boasts that his party is the party of real reform, we have had irresolution and halfheartedness in this debate. With regard to the great democratic step of a referendum, his attitude in this House is “Yes, but”, or “Yes and no”. The CP members who participated in these strategies for reform are now shamelessly running away from their own creation. The hon. member for Rissik is even running away from what he said in the caucus on that fateful day when he walked out, on that day when he led his people out of the caucus. One feels sorry for the hon. the Prime Minister, who has to embark upon the essential reforms in this country with such a negative Opposition. I want to say to the House that the Opposition and the CP have become an albatross around South Africa’s neck.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to come to what is probably one of the most topical subjects we could mention in this debate. It concerns decentralization or the distribution of economic activities. Throughout the world, one of the big headaches of statesmen and leaders is how to distribute economic activities throughout the entire country, in other words, how to take away from the “have areas” and to give to the “have-not areas”. The successful implementation of a regional development programme is undoubtedly one of the most difficult tasks in the modern world. Countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Italy and Sweden have had little success in their attempts to divert more economic activities to less prosperous regions. They even had to use coercive measures to achieve what they did achieve.

In South Africa, too, our leaders started investigating the matter at an early stage, to see whether we could not do something drastic in this connection. There have been several investigations since Union, and there have been repeated deliberations about how prosperity could be brought to the rural areas. However, it was this hon. Prime Minister who gave a new dimension and an impetus to our decentralization policy and who introduced a special dynamics into our attempts so that we have been able to achieve great success in this connection, even in a time of recession such as we have had for the past 10 months. Over the past 10 months, applications have been approved for 701 projects for regional industrial establishment, representing a capital investment of R1 452 million. This is indeed a phenomenal achievement.

In this decentralization project, the hon. the Prime Minister has shown great vision and drive. Decentralization is so important to our country with its particular population structure that I want to make the statement that South Africa may stand or fall by decentralization. If our decentralization policy does not succeed, we are headed for disaster. From every point of view it is imperative that decentralization should succeed. The only way of countering our population explosion is to link it to decentralization. Cities all over the world, in Asia, Africa, South Africa and elsewhere, have been flooded by hordes of unemployed who multiply recklessly. We must prevent a repetition of that in this country at all costs. This can only be done by creating jobs and decent conditions for people in decentralized areas away from the big metropolises. So the problem of urbanization is closely bound up with decentralization. If one succeeds in bringing about decentralization, one will be alleviating one’s urbanization problem as well. We shall have to take drastic action to place the distribution of our country’s population on a sound basis. An excellent start has been made with this by the hon. the Prime Minister. Our Black States have 13% of the best land. If this land is properly cultivated, it can supply 23% of the country’s requirements. If they utilize that land properly, it can produce food for 25 million people. Therefore it will have to be an absolute priority for the Black States to establish full-time Black farmers on an economic basis. We must not say that Black farmers are not good farmers. It is not true. The problems of the Blacks is that they do not have capital for farming; that they have not been trained and that they do not always have land on which to farm. Black farmers will have to be given the maximum amount of assistance and training so that they may eventually become independent in their farming operations.

In the few minutes I have left, I should like to recount what two Black leaders told me in Bloemfontein the other day. It is very clear that the people of South Africa, people of all colours, have confidence in the ability of the NP to solve South Africa’s problems. In Bloemfontein last week, two Black leaders told me that I should convey this message to the hon. the Prime Minister. They are two Black community leaders, two dignified persons. They told me: “The NP is on the right road, and the day the NP loses, we shall kill one another in this country”. How right they are in saying this! If the NP were to fall in this country, people in this country would “kill one another”.

Mr. Chairman, in responding to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, it is very difficult to deal with what he said because his attack on the political parties consisted purely of epithets that he threw around without any discrimination, if I may use that term. I do not intent to respond to that.

With regard to decetralization, I am pleased he raised it because I think it is time that some other issues were debated during the discussion of this particular Vote. As far as we are concerned, if decentralization is based upon sound economic reasons as opposed to ideological reasons, we shall support it. One of the things that South Africa cannot afford, is to waste money today in respect of the creation of jobs, because the creation of jobs is a number one priority in South Africa. If we have massive unemployment it does not matter how good our constitutions are. The reality is that one has to eat. To eat is one of the vitals in South Africa. If one does not have a job and if one does not have any money, then one’s ability to eat, as hon. members will appreciate, is somewhat limited.

The reality is water.

As long as one realizes that one has to create jobs at the cheapest possible price and to create them in the areas where it is possible to do so cheaply and for sound economic reasons, then decentralization will receive the support of this side of the House.

Sir, it is important that other matters should be discussed in this debate which, of course, takes place in the shadow of the byelections in Waterberg, Soutpansberg, Carletonville and Waterkloof. There are very many important issues that obviously one cannot raise in the short period of time such as one has, but let us take, for example, the issue of South West Africa. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will deal with this tomorrow even although I, unfortunately, cannot be here. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister will forgive me for that. At the present moment Swapo is sitting in Paris together with the United Nations and is busy plotting in order to see what they can achieve against us.

I think we ourselves have to be conscious of what is happening. We should also realize that an internationally acceptable political solution will also have to be one which will ensure that democratic principles are maintained in that territory. This must be a priority as far as we are concerned. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will deal with this. While we are so busy with Soutpansberg and Waterberg we cannot forget about the realities of international politics as they affect South Africa.

The second matter I should like to touch on, if I may, is an issue which the hon. the Prime Minister said he would deal with, particularly if it was raised in this debate. That is the question of parliamentary privilege, which we have previously raised, and which we discussed at some length during the Salem debate. I think the hon. the Prime Minister said he would state his attitude and what the Government intended doing in this regard, if anything. I hope they intend doing nothing. Let us, however, state our attitude in regard to this matter.

Firstly we believe that there has to be freedom of speech in this House, and the media should be allowed to report what hon. members say in this House. We also believe that hon. members of Parliament will behave responsibly, and that Mr. Speaker and Parliament itself can, if such responsibility is not exercised, take apporpriate action in terms of the existing rules of this House. There are many precedents for this. There is a practised tradition which has established this course of conduct. Therefore we believe that this matter should be allowed to rest as it is. We believe there should not be any further steps taken in regard to it, and also that the present procedure, as it stands, is adequate.

The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that during the discussion of the Bill on petroleum products the official Opposition, and I in particular, referred to an issue in respect of which there was some need for restraint because it concerned the publication of information which could prejudice the interests of the security of the State. The hon. the Prime Minister is quite correct in that. I believe this line of conduct will be followed by hon. members. When they debate this issue, I believe, they will indeed, as they have in the past, bear the interests of security in mind. I do believe, however, it is also important to bear in mind the principle which we tried to set out in 1975. We pointed out in 1975 that the public of South Africa would react better when it was taken into the Government’s confidence, and that the national interest required a delicate balance to be struck between what the public needed to know on the one hand, and the national interest on the other hand. On the one hand we cannot afford to publish information which will seek to assist those who want to harm the country. On the other hand, however, we do need an informed and a motivated community because if we have an informed and a motivated community we will be better able to deal with the problems of the country.

I want to repeat here today—and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will respond to it—that if we lose the democratic and historical privileges which members of Parliament have to speak freely in this House, and also the privilege that the public is entitled to know what is being said in this House, one of the precious values that we strive to maintain in the conflict in which we are involved, and in the conflict still ahead of us, will be lost. That price is too high a price to pay. We have to maintain that because after all what we seek to maintain is the democratic privilege of this House.

The hon. the Prime Minister continuously refers to the fact that he is happy—he said it again today—to be part of the process by which the Westminster system will be abolished. The Westminster system of government, however, is not only a constitution, not only the form of Parliament, not only the form of franchise; it is also the combined traditions on which the practice in this House is based. Therefore I hope the hon. the Prime Minister does not have in mind the abolition of that tradition, that history, as well, because that is a very valuable thing to us. Once we have a new constitution, I should like to see—I also believe all my colleagues should like to see—that the Westminster traditions in regard to parliamentary practice should certainly be maintained. The freedom of speech which exists in the Westminster system should also be maintained. So too should the method of debate be maintained, because the reality is that those things are very valuable heritages, which we should certainly not like to abandon.

The third issue I should like to raise is one on which I have—albeit unsuccessfully—tried very hard for some time to get a real debate going in this House and that is the premise that constitutional change needs to go hand in hand with economic change. Whenever I have raised that issue, all that hon. members on that side of the House say, is that I must be a socialist or that I am a socialist. What utter rubbish in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself today! If one wants socialism, just look to that Government with its nationalized industries and an economy that is controlled. So those hon. members must now throw that epithet around, because that will not be productive in the circumstances prevailing here. When one raises that issue, all they seem to want to do, is to try to smother that debate as quickly as possible. That debate is, however, necessary for South Africa, because politics is not only about freedom and constitutions. It is also about economics, about equality of opportunity, prosperity for people. Why is one here as a member of Parliament? One is here to do something for the people one represents, to uplift them economically, to see to it that they get their fair share of the cake. That is, in fact, what that debate should be about, but everybody seeks to avoid the debate. I do find some pleasure, however, in the fact that I have now, at last, got some support, interestingly enough from the chairman of the SABC, Prof. Mouton. At the annual general meeting of Sanlam he said—

*In other words, what he now proposes, is that we not only concern ourselves with the political aspect of the constitution, but that we also consider the economic problem arising from it.

†I should therefore like to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to say, when he speaks in the House tomorrow, whether in fact it is the intention of this Government to deal with economic reform as well, because if one does not have economic reform going hand in hand with political reform, political reform will not succeed. [Interjections.] I commend that to the hon. the Prime Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the last point he raised, the hon. member for Yeoville made much of economic reform which was to accompany political reform. To the best of my knowledge, there is also a clear connection between labour relations and economic reform, and this in fact preceded the economic reform in South Africa. We are grateful to learn that in principle, the hon. member for Yeoville and his party also support the policy of decentralization in so far as it will provide jobs as well.

He raised a matter which I should also like to refer to. In a certain sense, one is glad to learn that the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned about Swapo’s involvement in South West Africa. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister will also deal with this aspect in full. However, I think South Africa’s standpoint on this matter has been clear throughout, and that is that the people of South Africa have to decide about their own affairs, but that no one can allow a force such as Swapo to come into power in South Africa behind the barrel of a gun, in order to establish a Marxist-orientated one-party state in that territory. However, I shall come back to this.

At the beginning of this month, the hon. the Prime Minister declined an offer which the President of Zambia had made him. The President of Zambia had wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to have talks with Sam Njoma and Oliver Tambo, the leaders of Swapo and the ANC. In declining this offer, the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was not prepared to talk to leaders who were committing acts of terror and revolution in South Africa with communist weapons. I should like to make a few remarks arising from this commendable attitude adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister. The fact that the hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to talk to terrorist leaders does not mean that the Government as such has turned its back on discussion or dialogue as a method for solving the political problems of Southern Africa. In fact, the premiership of the hon. the Prime Minister up to now has been characterized by dialogue. There has been dialogue with leaders of the various peoples and population groups on an on-going basis. There has been dialogue with the leaders of self-governing and independent States on an on-going basis. There has also been dialogue on an on-going basis with Coloured and Indian leaders, specifically in connection with the new constitutional dispensation. I think that these talks have in fact been responsible for creating a climate of confidence between these leaders without which no meaningful reform can succeed in South Africa.

It should also be mentioned that States in Southern Africa have become independent precisely on the basis of dialogue and discussion. Elsewhere in Africa, States have had to obtain their independence through the barrel of a gun. It is ironic that States that have obtained their independence by way of dialogue and negotiation should receive virtually no international recognition.

The hon. the Prime Minister’s refusal to talk to terrorist leaders underlines another important aspect, which I should like to point out, and which some people sometimes lose sight of. After the Maseru raid by the S.A. Defence Force, it was again strenuously argued that instead of taking action against terrorist bases by means of hot pursuit operations, that which actually drives people to terrorism, the so-called apartheid system, should be removed, because that would put an end to terror and revolution. Anyone who believes that terror and revolution in South Africa will be ended merely be replacing the existing order with, for the sake of argument, a system of one man, one vote, is living in a fool’s paradise. Swapo and the ANC are not concerned with reform or with improving the lot of their own people, but with the replacement of the existing order with a Marxist system.

The hon. the Prime Minister has been pointing out these objectives of the ANC and of Swapo all along. However, there are people in South Africa who do not believe him when he does this. In this connection I want to quote two independent sources in order to remove all doubt. Evidence given before an American Senate committee during March 1982 furnished irrefutable proof of the communist nature of these two organizations.

I want to quote a second independent source, namely the African Communist. It is possible, I suppose, that people may be mistaken about the objectives of communism, but it is highly unlikely that the communists themselves will be mistaken about their own objectives. In one of the latest editions of The African Communist, there is an interesting article under the heading “The Vanguard party in the fight for socialism.” From this article it appears that there is dissension in the ranks of the S.A. Communist Party. The left wing is accusing its leaders of deviating from the communist revolution by giving support to these liberation organizations in Southern Africa. It is pointed out that this is not true and that there is an undeniable connection between the objectives of these liberation organizations and the communist system. In fact, it is made very clear in the article that these liberation movements are simply the forerunners of the communist revolution. Even Lenin is quoted where he said—

Dialogue with these people, therefore, would mean sitting down around a table to talk about the destruction of South Africa. Therefore one is grateful for the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister was not prepared to do this. However, one wonders what the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have been in this connection.

One wonders whether he, too, would have declined this offer from the President of Zambia. I suspect that he would not. I suspect that he would have accepted the offer eagerly, because, after all, his party is also prepared to sit down around a table with Nelson Mandela at their proposed national convention. If it is true that it is the object of these liberation organizations to establish a communist regime in this country, there need no longer be any doubt about who the real destabilizers are in Southern Africa. Surely the ANC and Swapo are serving as instruments of destabilization. Surely one cannot destabilize a country such as Mozambique, for the sake of argument, because destabilization presupposes stability, and there has been no stability in Mozambique since Frelimo came into power. I do not wish to take this matter any further, but that is why one cannot really destabilize that territory. To South Africa, on the other hand, stabilization is a matter of deliberate policy, and had it not been for the food provided by South Africa, its employment programmes, scientific and technological projects, transport network and electricity supply, it is unlikely that there would have been much left of Southern Africa. I also think the hon. the Prime Minister himself has played an important part in this positive policy of stabilization, and this has been emphasized in particular by his refusal to enter into a dialogue with these people who are specifically trying to bring about destabilization.

Mr. Chairman, generally speaking, the Conservative Party supports the remarks made by the hon. member for Randfontein. However, he must forgive me for not reacting to them, because there is another aspect which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister.

On 18 April, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs alleged at a public meeting in Louis Trichardt that I had abused my privileged position in this House on 14 April because I was afraid of being sued for libel after having made certain allegations against the hon. the Minister of Manpower. I am just wondering whether this allegation by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs was not in itself an abuse of privilege. I want to tell him that what I alleged in this House is recorded in no fewer than 42 letters and telegrams to the hon. the Minister of Manpower, the hon. the Prime Minister, two MECs and other hon. Ministers. This took place during the period between 22 February 1980 and 26 April 1981. Why were the writers of those letters and memoranda not sued for libel? I understand that the hon. the Minister of Manpower now wishes to address the farmers’ association of Levubu on this matter. This is not a matter for a farmers’ association, but a political matter. Therefore the offer I made in this House on 14 April still stands, i.e. that a public meeting be held at Louis Trichardt so that this matter can be thrashed out before the voters of Soutpansberg. However, I want to go further and to take the matter one step further. I want to refer to the Njelele irrigation scheme. Section 95 of the Water Act (Act No. 54 of 1956) provides that under certain circumstances, the Minister of Water Affairs may take over the functions of an irrigation board for such period as he may deem fit. On 12 August 1968, the present hon. Minister of Manpower became the Minister of Water Affairs, and then the power was conferred upon him by section 8 of Act 77 of 1969, apart from any other powers, to take over the water works of an irrigation board holus-bolus. In addition, he was empowered to repair, alter or enlarge any water work, and for this purpose he had to utilize moneys voted by Parliament. The water work became a Government water work. Section 95A, which does not replace section 95, goes on to provide, however, that no rates shall be assessed on the land as long as the irrigation board is indebted to the State. This is an astonishing provision. On 20 January 1970, the Njelele irrigation board petitioned Parliament through the Select Committee on Irrigation Affairs to write off the capital debt and interest with regard to the canal. The petition was lodged too late, however, but apart from that, it was anticipated that the Minister would take over the works in terms of section 95A.

In terms of Proclamation 16 of 1971, dated 29 January 1971, the hon. the Minister took over the water works in terms of section 95A. On 12 May 1971, the petition of the Njelele irrigation board was once again submitted to the Select Committee on Irrigation Affairs, and on 7 June 1971 it made the following recommendation—

So the Minister of Water Affairs, as he was at the time, was instrumental in this decision. What was the proposal of the Minister of Water Affairs? It is dated 22 March 1971. I have it in front of me. It is numbered 109-106-4. He has now taken over the water works and now he says—

Around 9 June 1971, the recommendation of the Select Committee was accepted first by the House of Assembly and later by the Senate. Now comes the sting in the tail.

Order! Which Vote is the hon. member discussing now?

Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, and he is responsible for all the members of his Cabinet.

What year is the hon. member talking about?

I am talking about 1971, Sir, and I am talking about actions of the hon. the Minister of Manpower while he was Minister of Water Affairs.

Order! I do not think the hon. member’s speech is relevant to the Vote of the present hon. Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you very courteously to allow me to refer to this matter, because it concerns the integrity of a Minister who is still a Minister of State. [Interjections.] It is a fact which has now come to light and I urge you to allow me to deal with this point.

The hon. the Minister was the owner of Hayoma farm and Skull Point at the time when the debt was written off, and he owned 514 ha of scheduled land out of a total of 3 099 ha of scheduled land under the scheme. His share of the capital debt and interest of R1,1 million was one-sixth, which equals R190 000. According to the official records on this matter, he omitted to declare his interest in this scheme and in this debt to the Select Committee on Irrigation Affairs or to Parliament. I have his proposal with me and I also have here the petition and the official records of the House of Assembly. As Minister of State, he asked the taxpayer of the Republic of South Africa to write off a debt in which he had a share of R190 000, without, however, declaring his interest in that debt or in that scheme. That is why I say that the hon. the Minister of Manpower is an embarrassment to the Cabinet, an embarrassment to the hon. the Prime Minister and an embarrassment to South Africa.

Order!

Sir, I shall not take the matter any further, because I have made my point.

The hon. member indicated a short while ago that he questioned the integrity of a Minister of this House. The rules of this House provide that the integrity of a Minister can only be questioned by way of a substantive motion. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw that.

Sir, what do you want me to withdraw?

The questioning of the integrity of a Minister in the hon. member’s speech.

I shall now go on with my speech, Sir. I abide by your ruling. [Interjections.] I withdraw it if I said that he was dishonourable.

Will the hon. member withdraw any reflection he has cast on the integrity of any hon. member, in this case an hon. Minister?

Sir, I withdraw it. The facts speak for themselves.

I just want to make this further point. The hon. the Minister of Manpower said at Louis Trichardt that I was gossiping behind his back. I followed the normal parliamentary custom of giving notice throught the Government Whips that I would speak last week. I gave notice again today that I would attack the hon. the Minister of Manpower in this debate.

You are lying.

I informed you of it.

I did so through my Whips.

Order! It is unparliamentary to say “You are lying”. The hon. member for Tygervallei must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir. [Interjections.]

I find this very curious. When we raise matters in this House, we are gossiping behind the hon. the Minister’s back; when we challenge him to appear at a public meeting, as Mr. Tom Langley has challenged him to do, the leader of the NP in the Transvaal says that the place to discuss such matters is Parliament. So one can never win against the hon. the Minister.

That is correct. You can never win.

I repeat: The hon. the Minister of Manpower is an embarrassment to the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister said today that we should get out priorities right. What are the priorities? In drought conditions he allows the hon. the Minister of Manpower and the Leader of the House to involve South Africa in a lot of by-elections in the midst of drought conditions which he brought about. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister was and still is very upset about this.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to react to the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, except to say to him that it seems to me as if he is steadily getting deeper into the mire. I am afraid he will have difficulty extricating himself.

I briefly wish to discuss with the CP their idea of a heartland. I have heard that two heartlands have been suggested. First it was the Cape Flats and now I hear that it is the Richtersveld. Hon. members of the CP are accusing us of having left the NP. The hon. member for Kuruman, as well as the hon. member for Rissik, had a great deal to say about that. They say that we have abandoned the policy of the NP; now they have the policy of the NP. I ask any one of them to bring me proof of which NP leader has ever declared himself in favour of a Coloured homeland, or when it has ever been NP policy to give the Coloureds a homeland.

It was never the principle of the NP that we would have a coloured government. [Interjections.]

The principle of a homeland for Coloureds has never been accepted by the NP. Nor has it ever been recorded in any NP policy document. If the hon. member could show me a document in which it has been recorded, he would be able to convince me, but there has never been an official policy document of the NP in which a homeland for the Coloureds has been advocated. Nor has any Prime Minister advocated it.

Let us consider what they want to do. It is humiliating. Let us consider the Cape Flats, which they regard as a heartland. Surely this is an illusion, if not an hallucination. Within the heartland they are talking about, the Cape Flats, lies the entire industrial area of Cape Town and its suburbs. At the centre of the heartland there are a number of White farmers, as well as Indian property owners. The municipal valuation of the farms of these farmers and the properties of the Indians is R6 billion. However, the market value would be approximately R12 billion. Surely that heartland does not belong to the Coloureds. There are certainly not many property owners among the Coloureds in that heartland. The land belongs to the Cape Town Municipality. The houses which have been built there are not the property of the Coloureds. There are very few Coloured property owners. Most of them are tenants. D. F. Malan Airport is situated in the centre of that Coloured heartland.

Yes, but according to their policy, they could purchase it.

Yes, the Coloureds could purchase it. There are not yet many Coloureds in that heartland who own property. As I have said, they are tenants.

The idea of a homeland originated with Dr. Connie Mulder. They are unable to give an instance when he said that, since he used to go around whispering about it in corners. He was duplicitous, as he has always been. He called meetings of people here and spoke about a homeland for the Coloureds, but he never said it on any platform.

Ask Gerrit Viljoen.

When Dr. Connie Mulder was Minister, he never …

He did. He said it in Brakpan.

I am talking about when he was a Minister. When he was the NP leader in the Transvaal, he never said that in public. Hon. members cannot give me an instance when he said that. He used to whisper it in corners, because he was duplicitous about everything. He did not keep to the straight and narrow. He trod a crooked path.

Hon. members also spoke about former Minister M. C. Botha. Perhaps he did say that, but he was not a leader.

Was he not a leader?

No, he was not a leader in the NP. He was never a provincial leader, nor was he ever a leader. He was a Minister.

Is a Minister not a leader then?

I think he said it on occasion to provoke Dr. Connie Mulder, to place him on the downhill path. Unfortunately, Dr. Connie Mulder did not fall for it. [Interjections.]

Let us consider the Richtersveld.

[Inaudible.]

Which thousands of farmers? I said that one could settle a few thousand Whites and Coloureds there, below the Orange River Scheme. However, can one make a whole heartland out of a few thousand farmers? Hon. members were talking about the tremendous mineral wealth of the Richtersveld. I think minerals in the Richtersveld are as scarce as hens’ teeth.

As scarce as the CP.

Yes, as scarce as the CP. Can one imagine a more ridiculous idea? The whole of Namaqualand and Bushmanland do not have enough voters for one constituency. Now those hon. members want to establish a heartland with 2 million Coloureds. That is ridiculous. That is like playing with “dolosse” and dolls. I no longer play with “dolosse” and dolls. My grandchildren indulge in that sort of thing. [Interjections.]

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

Every Nationalist Prime Minister has rejected this idea, and the man who rejected it most vehemently was the late Dr. Verwoerd. I do not wish to quote it now, but hon. members can go and read for themselves in the 1961 Hansard how firmly he rejected it. And these are the people who say that they stand by Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjections.] Of course it is disgraceful, but everything they do is disgraceful. The CP maintain that they proclaim the true NP policy. I ask them to bring one single piece of evidence to show when a homealnd has ever been the policy of the NP, under which Prime Minister or leader. I shall pay them for that evidence. It would be rewarding for them to be able to come forward with such evidence, but they will not find any such thing.

The hon. members of the CP brand us as integrationists and as having deviated from true NP policy. I now come to the 1977 proposals. One of the proposals reads—

They supported these proposals until 1981, but now they are claiming—and the hon. member for Lichtenburg said this once again yesterday—that the Council of Cabinets would have no powers.

I now wish to quote the former hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, in Hansard of 1978. He said (Hansard, 12 April, col. 4549)—

The hon. member for Rondebosch asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether he was aware that the following was said in Pro-Nat of September 1977—

That is what the man who introduced these proposals in this Parliament said. That is his statement. However, those hon. members are coming forward with a completely different story. You can imagine, Mr. Chairman, that if they are coming forward with this kind of story face to face with us here, what they are proclaiming in the Bergs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Mr. Van Staden would probably not take it amiss of me if I did not react to his argument. At this stage I do not intend entering a debate between the CP and the NP. There will be many other opportunities for that.

I should very much like to come to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. However, before coming to that, I should like to comment briefly on the statement of the hon. member for Innesdal, who was so friendly as to refer to me, viz. that surely no human society existed where there was no form of discrimination or differentiation. However, I am also unaware of any society where there is statutory discrimination against people on the basis of race and colour. I am not aware of any. If that hon. member knows of any such instances, I should like to hear about them, since this is the crux of the matter, what the debate is all about.

As far as the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech is concerned, I certainly appreciate certain aspects of it. Here I have in mind, inter alia, his reference to the report of the President’s Council, as well as other aspects. I shall come back to a few of those aspects in my speech. What was disappointing to me, was the lack of guidance—and my hon. Leader said this too—shown by the hon. the Prime Minister, guidance we expected of him at this stage concerning what he understood by reform and concerning the reform measures he envisaged. Secondly, I was disappointed that the hon. the Prime Minister seemed to be unaware of the inherent contradictions in some of his premises in respect of the fundamental problems in our country.

Let us turn to the question of the Blacks. We cannot say, on the one hand, that we believe in the traditional policy with regard to Blacks, which the hon. the Prime Minister confirmed once again here this afternoon, while at the same time admitting that there are Blacks who are permanently settled here amongst us. We cannot try and seek a solution for those Blacks either by way of a constellation of Southern African States, or by giving them representation in the independent States or homelands. There is therefore a fundamental contradiction in this regard, which I should very much like to discuss further with the hon. the Prime Minister at some stage. There is a fundamental contradiction. We cannot continue to implement an ideological policy which is permanently in conflict with the fundamental facts of our situation.

Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister indicated that the principal premise of the Government was its ethnic policy. However, I am still awaiting a reply to the question I have put here time and again. If these are indeed ethnic concepts, for what valid, rational reason are we still placing the Coloureds in a separate Chamber? If the premise of the Government is its ethnic policy …

Did you not hear the standpoint I stated some years ago concerning the Coloureds? Do I have to repeat everything?

All I am doing, Mr. Chairman, is referring to the inherent contradictions in the premises of the hon. the Prime Minister. We cannot say, on the one hand, that our policy is an ethnic policy, and then at the same time try to find a justification for placing the Coloureds in a separate Chamber, since the Coloureds are not a nation, nor are they a nation in the making.

Thirdly, I wish to refer to the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to the Indians. He said that he had presented the Indians with three choices. In the first place, they could choose to accept the status quo. Secondly, they could choose to go along with kwaZulu. Thirdly, they could choose to accept the Government’s proposals. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as if these are, in fact, false alternatives which are being created here. Surely those are not the only choices they have. Those are not the only possibilities available. These are not the only ways in which the political accommodation of the Indians could be approached. We cannot present people with those choices and say to them that they have to choose, and that if they do not choose what we propose, such and such alternatives await them. Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out once again that there are inherent contradictions in those premises of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I wish to add here and now, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not regard laws as sacred cows. I appreciate that. He has said that before and he repeated it here this afternoon. However, the hon. the Prime Minister should now give us the freedom to ask him, with regard to each particular statutory measure, whether or not he regards that specific measure as a sacred cow. He should not begrudge us that right. Nor can he then take it amiss of us if we were to say to him that there are laws which we believe should be abolished. We would expect him—and I believe this is how the hon. the Prime Minister would react—to tell us in a responsible manner which measures, in his opinion, should be retained. Of course, the problem in this respect is to find specific criteria in terms of which to assess whether or not certain laws should be retained. The Government finds itself in an ideological dilemma in this regard. The premise of the PFP is very clear. We reject all forms of statutory discrimination and distinction. The standpoint of the CP is also very clear. They believe in domination and discrimination. However, as long the premise of the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd was believed in, viz. that a maximum degree of division was desirable, we had a simple recipe. However, as soon as one deviates from that principle, the problematical question arises as to which criteria we should apply to determine whether or not a particular statutory measure or a particular custom should be continued with. This is the dilemma of the National Party.

The hon. the Prime Minister has now presented us with four criteria, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has indicated. The first is the question as to whether the continuation of a measure is desirable and whether it would be fair and reasonable to abolish a particular measure. In addition, the hon. the Prime Minister said, the interests of the Whites had to be taken into account.

The second criterion the hon. the Prime Minister put to us, was the question as to whether it ensured good order and peaceful co-existence. The third was whether Christian values would be maintained, whereas the fourth was that it must not promote communism. In all humility I wish to say that these are fine premises, and I do not think we would disagree with him at all on those points. However, those premises do not provide the necessary criteria whereby to determine whether a law should be maintained or continued with, whether or not a custom should be continued in South Africa. These are not criteria. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already mentioned the relevant problem of the Asians in the OFS, and in the northern districts of Natal. We have to apply these four criteria in this regard. In respect of any of those criteria, it is my contention that we should be able to give a clear answer in terms of the criteria as to whether or not the law should be retained. I am saying this in all honesty and fairness. However, I wish to go further. There is section 16 of the Immorality Act. If I were to apply those four premises of the hon. the Prime Minister, I wish to reiterate that there is no justification whatsoever for retaining section 16 of the Immorality Act. The same applies to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. If we abolish that Act, it would not mean that we would be disregarding fairness and reasonableness. Nor could we say that we would be harming the interests of the Whites. We could not say that we would be endangering good order and co-existence. Nor could we say that we would be violating Christian values. We could not say that we would be promoting communism thereby. I wish to repeat that these premises are sound, but they do not provide us with the criteria to determine whether or not a measure should be retained. However, I wish to go further. The Prohibition of Political Interference Act could also be measured against those premises, but once again those criteria do not provide an answer to the question as to why that legislation should continue to exist. This also applies to the Group Areas Act, as well as so many of the customs which have been and are still being retained in terms of the Separate Amenities Act. I reiterate that there must be other criteria. The criterion should be, as the hon. the Prime Minister himself put it: What is in the interests of this country? When he replied on the question of the referendum, he himself said that what was important, was not his own position, and I wish to give him full credit for that. I think it is a standpoint of which cognizance was taken in this House with a great deal of appreciation. As he said, the criterion is what is important to this country. That is the criterion, the only criterion, which we should apply with regard to the question as to whether or not we should allow legislation to be retained. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Prof. Olivier spoke of certain dilemmas of the NP. Like him, I, too, want to deal with dilemmas but I want to discuss certain dilemmas of the PFP. I want to make specific reference to the election campaign in the constituency bordering on mine in Pretoria, i.e. Waterkloof, in which the NP may boast of an excellent candidate in the person of Dr. Org Marais. I want to begin by making a few statements in connection with the election in Waterkloof. The first is that the PFP may definitely be pardoned for harbouring great expectations in launching its election campaign in Waterkloof. After all, it is true that the majority of Mr. Thomas Langley, who represented that constituency for a period of approximately 17 years, was more or less halved, i.e. from 3 668 to 1 840 votes, from the 1977 election to the 1981 election. It is also true that if this trend were to continue, the PFP could possibly gain the seat. Secondly, it is also true that a good performance by the PFP in Waterkloof is of tremendous importance. The PFP suffered a humiliating defeat in the Stellenbosch by-election in 1982, and a fine performance in Waterkloof would enable the PFP to rid itself of the Di Bishop spectre.

A third statement is that the PFP is now able to put everything into the Waterkloof by-election. The PFP’s support is localized in a small number of urban areas. The PFP is participating in only one of the five by-elections. Whereas the endeavours of other parties are spread over five constituencies, the PFP can aim all its big guns at Waterkloof.

Do you want us to put up a candidate in Waterberg?

Those hon. members are welcome to put up a candidate in Waterberg. They will not bother us at all.

There are only six Progs in Waterberg.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended for supper, the hon. member for Yeoville had asked me whether they, too, could put up a candidate in Waterberg. They are free to do so. It would not bother as at all. However, it was their choice to put up a candidate in one constituency only. There is no election pact between them and us. They can put up candidates wherever they want.

They also posed a question concerning the large number of postal votes cast for the PFP in Waterkloof as against the relatively small number cast for the NP. It is easy to reply to that question. According to a report in today’s Transvaler the NP yesterday objected to 44 postal votes, of which the returning officer had to reject 40. The vast majority of these postal votes were completed prior to the announcement of the by-election at the end of February this year. Some even dated from October last year. In addition, the PFP lodged two applications for postal votes from people who are deceased. This explains the large number of postal votes in Waterkloof.

The PFP must not rely on the large degree of support they obtained in 1981. Much of the support they obtained in Waterkloof resulted from protest votes against the person of Mr. Thomas Langley. Many people in Waterkloof told me that they could not vote for the HNP and that the NP could not rely on their support if it fought an election with such a candidate.

It is clear to us that the PFP’s election campaign in Waterkloof is degenerating into a circus. I should like to dwell briefly on this on the basis of Press reports. Early in the election campaign the PFP’s candidate, Mr. Tertius Spies, saw fit to draw a distinction between Pretoria Progs and Houghton Progs. By doing so he admitted the existence of two opposing parties in the PFP, viz. a left-wing, the Houghton Progs, and a more moderate right-wing. In his early campaign Mr. Spies consequently saw fit to conduct his election campaign by using mainly the Pretoria Progs—as we understand it they are the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Bryanston, and others. The leftist power clique of the PFP evidently entered the election campaign during the past week and is now cracking the whip.

According to a report in Beeld of 15 April, the hon. member for Walmer said last week at a PFP meeting in reply to a question, that the PFP could offer its voters no firm guarantee for the future and that irresponsible people could wrest the power from the hands of the PFP if the PFP were to come to power. According to the same report Mr. Spies prohibited reporters of Beeld from attending all further house meetings of the PFP. This sensational decision by Mr. Spies was conveyed to the political reporters of Beeld by the national organizer of the PFP, Mr. Neil Ross.

The next day an editorial appeared in Pretoria News under the heading “Think again”, in which the following was said—

Do the NP allow people to attend their house meetings? Or do they have no house meetings? [Interjections.]

After various newspapers had intimated their dissatisfaction with the action of the PFP, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, according to a report in Beeld of Tuesday 19 April, made the following statement—

As leader of the PFP he did not say that the reporters of Beeld were welcome to attend meetings in Waterkloof. He said—

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

No, I do not want to reply to a question now. What I am quoting here, was published in Beeld …

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Is the hon. member taking a point of order?

No, Sir. I merely want to say that if the hon. member is frightened to answer a question …

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria East is not prepared to reply to a question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition could have denied these newspaper reports if they were untrue. On 19 April a report also appeared in the Rand Daily Mail under the heading “Not PFP style”. I quote from the report as follows—

And then follows this advice to the PFP—

In Die Burger of Wednesday, 20 April, I read the following report—

If the PFP reckons that it is going to win the election in Waterkloof with this kind of action, it might as well kiss a victory in Waterkloof goodbye.

Mr. Chairman, we are in full sympathy with the hon. member for Pretoria East in what he said about the PFP and Beeld, because a party such as the PFP that has been supported by the Press for so long I believe owe them a debt and an explanation. We leave that for the time being.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but my time is very limited.

One of the problems which we face in South Africa today is that in the climate of Westminster politics we are trying to promote a new form of consensus government in South Africa. That is one of the problems we have. 1983 will certainly go down in history as the watershed year for constitutional reform in South Africa. This very session of Parliament will determine the future of South Africa. This is the year in which we as political parties will determine whether South Africa will remain locked into negative conflict Westminster-style politics or whether we will be able to create a new positive consensus based on political framework. The National Party, the New Republic Party and the Progressive Federal Party have all stated one way or the other that what South Africa needs is a new political dispensation based on the principles of consensus government within an evolutionary time scale. I may remind my colleagues in the Progressive Federal Party that even the Buthelezi Commission confirmed its belief in this principle.

Did you sign it?

No, I did not sign it. Unquestionably our present Westminster winner-takes-all politics is totally inappropriate for South Africa’s plural society. The only White parties that openly propagate conflict politics are the Conservative Party and the HNP. The time has come for those with a real commitment to a new positive consensus-based system to stand up boldly and to give real leadership to their supporters and to show South Africa that they have the courage of their convictions to put South Africa above petty party politics. Politics is the art of the possible. What is possible is determined by those in leadership positions. The debate in this House this session will sort out the men from the mice, the pragmatists from the fundamentalists and those who have a real contribution to make to peace and prosperity from those who are more concerned with their own selfish interests and petty party political objectives. In the present climate the role and attitude of the official Opposition especially, including its leadership, is of paramount importance in the reform process. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition some pertinent questions.

Is it my Vote?

No, Sir. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition participated in it and I believe that he must stand up boldly and answer questions at this very critical time. If he does not, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is opting out of his responsibilities to promote consensus government in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have the opportunity in this debate to reply to me. I want to ask him whether he stands for consensus government within the framework of an evolutionary time scale. That is a very simple question to answer. What do we hear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saying at Waterkloof? He is the one who spoke about double speaking and dual standards earlier on in this debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is on record as having told his audience in Waterkloof after his return from Germany that the hon. the Prime Minister’s guidelines for reform were sham reform.

How many postal votes have you got in Waterkloof?

I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether he agrees with that. Does he agree with that? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sandton says yes. [Interjections.]

Order!

If ever there was a case of double standards which has to be answered in this House, it is that of the official Opposition and in particular its Leader that requires to be answered. What does he do? He goes to Waterkloof and he says that the hon. the Prime Minister’s guidelines are a sham. However, when he comes to this House, he hedges his bets. He says that they will wait and see what the question is and what the provisions are that are contained in the legislation dealing with the constitution. [Interjections.]

What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did do for us in this House during this debate, was to tell us that they would not boycott the referendum. Therefore, the only question to be asked is whether they are going to say yes or no. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is a man of his word, whether the words he uses have meaning and whether we can understand and rely on what he says as being his guidelines. [Interjections.] In terms of the new dispensation that is to be based on the hon. the Prime Minister’s guidelines—the question of the referendum will be based on those guidelines as well and I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will help the hon. the Prime Minister to formulate a question—what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say on 4 June 1980 according to Hansard col. 8040? He was speaking about the President’s Council and the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission in that regard. [Interjections.] Jealousy will get the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nowhere. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have to say in that debate? He said this—

That is of the Schlebusch Commission, the commission on the constitution—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition nods his head. He agrees. He goes on to say—

That is, the PFP—

And this, Sir, is the key—

He puts the emphasis on the legitimate leaders of the various population groups. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether Mr. Rajbansi is a legitimate leader of the Indians.

I do not know. [Interjections.]

Are Mr. Hendrickse and Mr. Curry legitimate leaders of the Coloured community?

I do not know. [Interjections.]

The emphasis is put on legitimizing of leadership for the negotiating process. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. members whether the recommendations of the President’s Council embrace the process of negotiation with legitimate leaders?

No.

Therefore one can come to only one conclusion and that is the PFP puts the opinion of Black leaders above that of Coloured and Indian leaders. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the answer to it. It suits the hon. leader so well to reclassify leaders to suit his own purposes: The selfish political party interests of which I have spoken before. There is no question about that.

They promoted the boycott of the S.A. Indian Council election. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the following statement. I shall tell the Committee in a moment what the source is. This is recorded in Hansard. A member of the PFP was asked—

He then replied—

What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say at Waterkloof? He said that the whole process in South Africa, a historical occasion, the watershed between the Westminster system and consensus government is that the proposals and the guidelines of the hon. the Prime Minister are a sham. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he stands by his statement that the hon. the Prime Minister’s guidelines for a new constitution are sham reform. Does he stand by that? Why is he telling the Coloured and the Indian leaders not to participate in the new dispensation and yet by their own words—it was Mr. Japie Basson who said that in his swan song here in Parliament which one remembers so clearly because he was thrown out of the PFP … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, addressed his arguments chiefly to the official Opposition. I think the hon. member stated his case particularly well. [Interjections.] I can also understand the feeling of tremendous discomfort on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his friends behind him, because last year at his congress in Durban he was told in no uncertain terms by no less a person than Prof. Wiechers that the NP’s guidelines must be supported. I can understand the feeling of discomfort of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition even better, because it was no less a person than the hon. member for Houghton who said on that occasion that she was surprised at the tremendous support—she warned against it at the time—which the guidelines of the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP were enjoying in South Africa. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so uncomfortable. He is not comfortable in his seat. It is not a pole or two on which he is sitting; he is sitting on a stick of dynamite, since he is in the uncomfortable situation of having right from the outset withheld his participation in the process of bringing about sound reform in South Africa. The fact that change and reform have been taking place in South Africa over the past number of years, and that within the framework of the NP policy of separate freedoms, self-determination for people and co-responsibility for those people with whom we have to share the rest of South Africa, has passed that hon. member by. I understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition being challenged by the NRP. One welcomes the responsible attitude of the hon. members of the NRP.

They bow and scrape.

They need not agree with NP policy. However, they see, and admit, that there is movement on the road of change. They need not agree with every detail…

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

No, Sir. One welcomes the attitude of the hon. the leader of the NRP and of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

On this occasion I also want to deal with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. There are very few occasions when he uses a debate—he did so this time—to spell out very clearly what differences he has with this side of the House. His approach is one of no differentiation in South Africa, one of no separation, one of no discrimination. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the PFP support equal civil rights for all.

Yes. What is wrong with that?

They support an equal and absolutely intergrated community. That is the best recipe …

That is quite correct.

Very well. The hon. member for Houghton says that is quite correct. That is the best possible recipe for Black domination and for racial friction resulting from a policy of forced integration if that political party were to come into power in South Africa. The PFP is like an out-of-control locomotive rushing headlong towards a precipice. The PFP does not draw any distinction either between Coloureds, Indians and Whites on the one hand and Blacks, who already have a political dispensation, on the other. Group interests, group-specific communities and the retention of a group-specific identity have no place in the terminology of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. These things leave him absolutely cold. It is beyond my comprehension how he can still deny that they want to create a unitary state, irrespective of whether or not it is a federation, without recognition being given to the plural nature of our society. Consequently his concept of power-sharing is clear and bears no relation to what is being proposed by the NP for the three groups, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians, that share South Africa. We, on the other hand, draw a clear distinction as regards the Blacks who already have their political dispensation, one which cannot be revoked. That patter is irrevocable. It surprises me that those hon. members can call themselves the enlightened people in South Africa. On the contrary, they are the people who cling to the old obsolete imperial jingoistic, liberalistic ideas in South Africa. I also find it strange that those on the far left …

Are you one of the idealists?

I am glad the hon. member is reminding me of the idealists. Evidently he is an example of the idealists. [Interjections.] It is strange that those on the far left, like those on the far right, want the same dispensation for everyone in South Africa. What the CP wants for the Blacks, they evidently also want to do for the Coloureds. They draw no distinction among the various population groups. In this regard the CP, like the PFP, is unfortunately making the biggest blunder in South African politics. If the CP is so much in earnest about the homeland idea, I want to put a few questions to them. The first question I want to put, is this: Why must the Coloureds themselves buy the land which they want, whereas the Blacks need not buy their land? The second question I want to put, is this: Prior to the Erika Theron Commission was there any form of representation in favour of a homeland for the Coloureds? In addition I want to ask: At the time when the hon. the Prime Minister was chairman of the NP’s constitutional committee, which had to work out a dispensation for the Coloured and the Asian, did they submit any representation for the creation of a Coloured homeland to that committee?

I told the members of that committee what we wanted.

Did the hon. member have the courage of his convictions to put it in writing officially? At the time I was sitting in this House as a member of the South African party and the hon. the Prime Minister and other members of that committee can confirm that the opposition party did make representations to him.

Well done!

Of course! However, we did not request the hon. the Prime Minister to create a homeland for Coloureds in South Africa. For that reason I say that if those hon. members were so very much in earnest about this matter, they could have informed the committee that they would like to see the creation of a homeland or heartland for the Coloureds in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the debate is now centred mainly around the new constitutional dispensation. I do not intend to reply to the speech of the hon. member for De Kuilen. Allow me to make a single remark in consequence of the words used by the hon. member for Innesdal earlier today when he said, inter alia, that the apartheid dogs were barking everywhere in the world. If I have to be described as an apartheid dog, I accept it.

You misunderstood me.

However, I can remember that a year or two ago quite a few dogs were barking with me, but today they no longer have the courage of their convictions to bark with me.

You misunderstood me completely.

The hon. the Prime Minister told us that there would be a referendum among the Whites. We also understood from the statements made by the Rev. Allan Hendrickse that it had also been agreed that a referendum would be held among the Coloureds and, we assume, among the Indians as well. The hon. the Prime Minister also said that the referendum for the three groups could not take place simultaneously, for obvious reasons. It is difficult to fight an election in Waterkloof and Waterberg on the same day. For that reason I accept that it would be even more difficult to hold a referendum for Whites, Coloureds and Indians on the same day.

However, I should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister among which population group the referendum will be held first. Is it going to be held among the Whites first, or among the Coloureds or the Indians? [Interjections.] I do have a reason for asking this, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

If it is the intention to hold the referendum among the Whites first, and the Whites were to say “no” …

Of course they will say “yes”. Do not be so silly.

… will the hon. the Prime Minister still proceed with a referendum among the Coloureds and or the Indians? [Interjections.] I should like to know on what basis it will be decided who is to be consulted first, and I should also like to know the reason for one group being given precedence over another as to which group is consulted first. If the referendum is held first among the Whites and the answer is “yes”—as hon. members opposite obviously think it will be …

Of course it will be “yes”.

… and the referendum is then held among the Coloureds and they say “no”, what will the NP and the hon. the Prime Minister say to that? [Interjections.] I should like replies to these questions.

Those are such simple questions; even old Bessie could answer them.

However, there was one thing I found interesting this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. It was that the hon. the Prime Minister addressed himself to the Indians. He told them they had a choice. He told them that they could either accept the proposed new dispensation or they could possibly elect to be incorporated into kwaZulu. If I misunderstood the hon. the Prime Minister he must please set me right.

Or the status quo could be maintained.

Yes, or the status quo can be maintained. Mr. Chairman, I cannot do otherwise but read measure of extortion of the Indians into this statement by the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I listened attentively to the hon. the Prime Minister as he tried to explain to us why the Coloureds could not be treated the same as the Blacks. What the argument of the hon. the Prime Minister amounted to was not that he considered the Blacks to be inferior—and I accept that—but that the Coloureds were different to the Blacks.

Of course.

I also accept that. The hon. the Prime Minister’s argument was that the Coloureds spoke our language, to a great extent shared our culture with us, and were probably far close to the Whites than to any other population group.

In the course of his speech the hon. the Prime Minister also said that he would get round to the Indians later. However, the hon. the Prime Minister did not do so. The Indians do not speak our language. As far as I know, the Indians do not share the White man’s culture either.

Nor do they share the Black man’s culture.

Of course the Indians are not Blacks.

Of course they speak Afrikaans. I bought merchandise from an Indian in Barberton and he spoke Afrikaans to me. They definitely speak Afrikaans.

However, there is no reason to tell me that an Indian is closer to me than a Zulu. There is no reason to tell me that an Indian is closer to a White man than a Tswana is, or that the difference between a North Sotho and a Zulu is slighter than the difference between an Indian and White. [Interjections.] There is one thing I should like to know. If it is now the philosophical argument that the Coloureds are closer to the culture of the Whites, and we therefore have to accommodate them in the new dispensation, what philosophical or basic argument is being used in the case of the Indians?

Their basic worth is human beings.

Mr. Chairman, the reaction we have already had repeatedly and even ad nauseam— in previous debates as well—in criticism of our standpoint that the Coloureds should also be given a homeland of their own, as is the case for the various Black nations, is a contemptuous and mocking reference to the scattered areas where Coloureds are living in their own group areas in South Africa. I want to repeat our argument. If the hon. members opposite are serious about the fact that because the Coloureds live in scattered group areas in South Africa …

How many?

It does not matter how many.

It does matter.

If the fact that the Coloureds live in scattered group areas in South Africa makes the possibility of a homeland ridiculous, I want to put it again to the Government: Recently the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development announced that the Government had now decided to build a Black city in the Western Province …

They do not have freehold. That is the difference.

That is coming, because the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is a fervent supporter of freehold for the Blacks, in that area as well, and those hon. members know it. [Interjections.]

That is not true and you know it.

Order!

Does that also make the Government’s Blacks homelands an absurdity? [Interjections.] If an hon. Deputy Minister could ask mockingly here the other day during the budget debate whether there would be 620 casinos, we are entitled to ask: When will there be a casino in Soweto?

Since when has Soweto been an independent State?

But those hon. members want to imply that every Coloured group area will be a Coloured homeland in terms of our policy … [Interjections.] … which is of course ridiculous.

Order!

Let us debate the principle of this matter calmly. It is not going to help the Government to decry us as racists and heaven knows what else. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that whereas in the past the NP was seeking increasing freedom in separation—in the political sphere as well—this Government has now bid farewell to this endeavour. If the hon. the Prime Minister tells us he does not believe in a unitary state as the PFP does, that statement is not unqualified, because how can one say one does not believe in a unitary state if one combines Whites, Coloureds and Indians in one geographic area into one political dispensation? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to start with I just want to make a few remarks and put a single question. I want to put a simple question to the hon. member for Barberton. After all, he was the great negotiator with the other parties prior to the by-elections which are now being held.

He is bowing and scraping all the time.

This has already surprised us to some extent, but I want to ask him: Since they are propagating this idea of the heartland or homeland for the Coloureds, why did his hon. leader not put up a candidate in the Malmesbury by-election? After all, that is the heartland where they want to establish the Coloureds. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the region in which … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Standerton does not need a chorus to help him make his speech.

It is one of the main areas in which those people are living, as well as the people who have knowledge of the concept of the Coloured in the structures of society. Those hon. members are trying to sell their policy in the far North …

Where there are no Coloureds.

They are trying to sell their policy there, an area in which the Coloureds are present to a lesser extent. If we wanted to tell the people in the Malmesbury area of the problematic of Blacks in the Northern region, they would say: Man, those regions form part of my country, I agree with that, but I am not in a better position than the people in those particular areas themselves to give a decisive answer in this regard. Those hon. members are not putting up a candidate here to announce, present and to sell their policy, because they know what happened to their party in Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] Surely this is the logical, absolute truth. They may advance all arguments, however good they may be …

Will you go and sell the policy of a Black chamber in the Cape Province?

The short-legged lie cannot outrun the truth. The truth will overtake it.

Would you want a Black chamber in Cape Town?

The hon. member for Barberton is a black sheep.

I want to come to the hon. member for Rissik. This afternoon he said across the floor of this House that he had not been disloyal to the party to which he had belonged. Does he endorse the speech which the hon. member for Brakpan addressed to the hon. the Minister of Manpower last week, a speech on which he again touched this afternoon? He does not answer. I repeat: Does he endorse the speech which the hon. member for Brakpan addressed to the hon. the Minister of Manpower?

Yes, of course.

I appreciate that. It is the political style of the hon. member for Rissik.

I greatly appreciate the courage of a man who is prepared to admit when he has erred.

On one occasion a matter was handled in Parliament—not through Parliament, but through the parties—concerning the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member had allegedly said on occasion that our hon. Prime Minister was the “JR” of South African politics. He allegedly said this on one occasion somewhere on the South Coast. That matter was dealt with by a committee here in Parliament. Shortly before those occurrences disciplinary action had been taken against the hon. member for Pretoria Central and he was suspended from the party. Had it been possible to suspend the hon. member for Rissik, he, too, should have been suspended from the party, because of that allegation. However, the hon. the Minister of Manpower protected him so that he might remain a member of the party.

If my contention is correct and the action of the hon. member does not constitute a deed of disloyalty towards the leadership of the party, then I do not know what the concept of disloyalty means. This afternoon, however, he said in this House that he had always been loyal towards the leadership of the party. That was not so. However, I leave it at that.

I think out people and the other peoples of this country, especially the peoples invoved in the constitutional dispensation, are standing on the threshold of one of the greatest and most dramatic moments in our history, viz. the writing of the new constitution. Whether or not hon. members want to admit it, these things will be recorded as facts in the annals of our history. Whether or not they want to inform their voters, students and pupils will learn this as history. There is no doubt about this whatsoever. To me this moment is something special since I, as part of the Afrikaner people in particular, but also all the people concerned, have triumphed over prejudice, prejudice born not of fear of one another, but prejudice concerning our future society. Our objective is, in the first place, to survive the total onslaught against us and, secondly, to ensure contented society and co-existence of peoples. It is true that in the formative years of our history we included certain matters as bulwarks in our existence. We need not pass this off, because it is part of our history. This country in which we are living, has wrestled with its people, with its children! This is how we know our country. The recent flood disaster at Laingsburg and the present disastrous drought are only two of the occurrences of which we take cognizance. However, the people living in this country have also wrestled with one another. I need only outline a few events from our history. The Great Trek, the border wars in the Cape Province, the Battle of Blood River, the Battle of Rorke’s Drift and the Battle of Isandlwana bear testimony to this. A certain Mr. Raw was also involved in the Battle of Isandlwana.

There was a Vause and a Raw.

There was a Vause and a Raw, but was there at the time … [Interjections.] These events and facets virtually form a consistent pattern throughout the history of our people. For example, I can also refer to Amajuba and to the Anglo-Boer War. These are proof of the peoples in this country having wrestled and struggled with one another on the road of South Africa.

But what was the consequences of these struggles? In the first place there was the time in our history when the Boers and the British joined hands and found each other. Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people found each other with the concept of loyalty and mutual respect and trust. They developed the country into the country we have today. Bright beacons on this road were the advent of Union and subsequently the advent of the Republic. Further beacons—and now we are moving closer to the NP’s function—are the establishment of new States with new enthusiasm and nationalism. We are speaking of Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. We speak of new men and new States knocking at the door.

We speak of the new republic.

I can also refer to kwaNdebele … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton will excuse me if I do not react to his speech because there are two previous speeches to which I would like to react.

The first was the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East. It was an election speech with an eye on Waterkloof. That hon. member made certain accusations. First of all he suggested that there was something funny about the postal votes of the PFP. That was obviously said out of sheer jealousy, because the latest figure we have show that we have had in excess of 1 000 postal vote applications, and to only have 40 odd of them rejected, I do not believe is bad. If he wants to know about postal votes, I would suggest that he finds out from his colleague, the hon. member for Stellenbosch about what happened to postal votes for the NP. I understand that they are before the Attorney-General, who is still to make a decision about what is to happen to those postal votes.

He then brought up the fact of the Beeld reporter being present at house meetings. I want to tell this Committee that apparently last night at the Pretoria Country Club in Pretoria there was a meeting concerning the Waterkloof by-election which was attended by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and the candidate, Dr. Org Marais, and the English Press was not allowed to attend that meeting! [Interjections.] So here we have a prime example of the double talk of which we hear so much from hon. members in those benches.

There was another speech to which I should like to react. I would think that people—and there are many this evening in the public gallery—would have been totally confused by that speech.

Nats are hypocrites.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

I withdraw that remark, Sir.

I am now referring to the speech of the hon. member for Durban North. He devoted his entire speech to attacking the official Opposition.

May I ask you a question?

No, Sir. I shall answer as many questions as the hon. member took.

Are you talking to the Committee or the public gallery?

Order! Hon. members must afford the hon. member the opportunity to make his speech. The hon. member may proceed.

I would say that that speech was more fitting for a member of the NP than for a member of the Opposition. [Interjections.] I believe that the only reason why that hon. member is not now in the NP is because he could not win Durban North as a member of the NP. [Interjections.] I want to give the hon., the Prime Minister some advice, if he does not mind. I want to say to him that if he would like to have the hon. member for Durban North then he should offer him one of the indirectly elected seats and he will have him in a flash.

In 1978 a new Prime Minister stood on the steps of this very building and almost the first thing that he did was to promise South Africa and South Africans a clean administration. My subject today is clean administration, and the question is: do we have it? Do we have clean administration? I pose that question because the budget that has been tabled in this House by that Government and the hon. the Prime Minister is not the whole budget. We have a budget amounting to R21 billion in expenditure but that is not all the money extracted from the public. There is also a hidden budget of some R1 000 million and perhaps even more which is not featured in the expenditure accounts tabled in this House. I have been through them very, very carefully and I have also taken the trouble to consult members of the Public Service, with officials who have confirmed that these items are not included in this budget of expenditure. This money is taken by the Government of the hon. the Prime Minister from the public of South Africa. I am referring here to the funds held by the State Oil Fund and the Strategic Fuel Fund Association which in this tax year will probably amount to more than R1 000 million. What is more important, these funds are not audited by the Auditor-General or his staff. Parliament is therefore not given the opportunity of establishing whether these funds are properly controlled or not. The official Opposition has no idea of how these funds are spent or whether they are in fact spent properly. We are the official representatives of many South Africans and we are not given the opportunity to judge whether these funds have been properly spent and whether they have in fact been spent in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate legislation.

Who is getting kick-backs?

We have always been a strong and effective Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sandton entitled to ask “Who is getting kick-backs?”

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I want to repeat that we have always been a strong and effective Opposition and I believe that we have been a watchdog that protects the public’s money. I also believe that this so-called clean administration is making our job more difficult. It is keeping the Auditor-General away from public funds and, when this fact is exposed in this House, the right of a member of Parliament to have parliamentary privilege is threatened. I believe that the voters of Waterkloof must note the behaviour of this Government and should strengthen the Opposition team by sending Tertius Spies to this House. [Interjections.]

As I have said, in this tax-year an amount in excess of R1 000 million will flow into these two accounts and that is the last that Parliament is likely to hear of it. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether this is an indication of clean administration.

Harry, you must really be a very unhappy man.

I think that the hon. the Prime Minister is the one who should be unhappy. I want to take the Information affair as a case in point. The funds that flowed into the Special Defence Account of this very hon. Prime Minister were channelled through the Department of Information into various nefarious projects. The Auditor-General had no power of inspection and audit. This has subsequently been changed. Had he had the right to audit, then the Information Affair would probably never have happened, but it did happen and it is still in the minds of the South African public.

Against that background I find the situation relating to the audit of these Funds intolerable. In the last five years probably some R4 billion has flowed in and what an opportunity this represents for anybody who is unscrupulous enough to abuse his position? Why does this happen? Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister can tell us why he prevents the auditing of these accounts. Why does he prevent the auditing of those accounts by the Auditor-General?

He cannot even look at one when one is talking to him.

It is not as if nothing can go wrong; it already has, as the House and the country know full well.

The hon. the Prime Minister cannot look you in the eye.

Order!

There are two matters on which I should like to comment in this regard. Firstly, in the regard to the Salem I want to say that the calibre of people with whom we are dealing in that affair is astonishing. Since the special debate we have had the chance to do some more investigation as to the people involved and in particularly Mr. J. C. J. van Vuuren. He had two convictions of fraud and one of theft by false pretences in 1977, yet in 1979 the SFF Association paid him over R10 million. [Interjections.] In this connection I should like to quote the Sunday Express of 10 October 1982—

i.e. J. C. J. van Vuuren.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that this afternoon, when I heard the hon. member for Brakpan speak, I thought that our public life and the way in which we behave in the House had sunk to great depths, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central it seemed is competing with the hon. member for Brakpan. I want to say to him that, in a sense, on balance, I think he is doing better than the hon. member for Brakpan. What concerns me is that if this is such a fundamental issue and if there is so much money at stake, why did the hon. chief spokesman of finance not raise the matter during the Second Reading debate? I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agrees with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville says nothing; I therefore assume that the hon. member does not agree. [Interjections.] We are tired of double standards. Here we see this Lord Muck again scratching around in the dustbins of our public life looking always…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for the hon. member to use the expression “Lord Muck”?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Those hon. members who appoint themselves as the public watchdogs of the public purse, also appoint themselves as the watchdogs of Press freedom, but what do they do? As soon as they cannot trust a candidate not to shoot his mouth off, they ban any responsible newspaper from getting near him. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to come to something positive. The Government is engaged upon some of the most exciting and the most important things in the history of this country. I should like to mention only one of those, the creation of economic opportunities and social stability outside of the major metropoles in our country. It is true that already we see in our large cities their failure to respond to the massive migration of people into those cities; their failure to respond to the large-scale urbanization which is taking place. This is one of the great challenges of our time. Most important is the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has been doing something about urbanization and the concerns of urban Black people in the metropoles. What is also important, I think, in the long term is that he has embarked the nation on one of the most ambitious decentralization and deconcentration exercises in our history. Not only has he recognized the reality of the problem we face, but he has created instruments to deal with it, instruments such as the Small Business Development Corporation, the Southern African Regional Development Bank which will commence its operations one of these days, and also the Decentralization Board which is giving effect to this policy.

It is interesting to note that in the period from April last year to 28 February this year the Decentralization Board approved no fewer than 701 applications for new and additional industries providing work for 56 000 people and involving a capital of almost R1,5 billion. Only 126 of those applicants were from the existing metropoles. What is encouraging is that 49 of those applicants came from eight foreign countries, many representing first-time investments in our country. These involve R129 million and will provide employment for over 11 000 people. That is in the first year of the operation of this policy. It is a policy of consent, a policy which is implemented with the agreement of all the parties involved.

Whilst it is not the intention of the Government to harm the existing metropoles and whilst we know that the existing metropoles have their own impetus for growth, their own growth potential, I believe that the steps that have been taken are profound indeed because we simply cannot allow a situation to arise where we drain the self-governing States and the homelands and their environs of all the economically active people in those communities. We cannot take the economically active people out of those communities, transport them over thousands of miles to metropoles which are already strained and train them and use them within that milieu for as long as they are useful and then return them to the homeland areas when they are no longer useful. We will have to encourage viable community life in the urban areas, certainly. One accepts that we will have to meet the challenges of the urban areas. However, we will also have to meet the challenges in those areas where people already live and can and wish to work within a secure culturo-political environment and where they can make their contribution at other levels of society, where they can make their contributions as fathers and community leaders, expending their wages locally and not just sending home a small surplus. If they spend all their wages locally, that in turn will create spin-off industries, service industries, perhaps an informal sector and retail industries, which in turn are in fact the largest employers in real terms. This will encourage agriculture to produce cash crops, and so on, all of which is absolutely vital. We simply cannot allow these areas of our country to become dormitories for children, women, the aged and the infirm who have to struggle on without the most energetic and economically active people.

The PFP, the big reformists of the PFP, have a policy of laissez faire, of “Let the people come: It is cheap employment; it does not cost very much to create jobs.” The fact is we simply cannot do that. I would not wish what is happening in the great cities of the Second World, for example Mexico City or Rio de Janeiro, upon the next generation of Black people in our country. We will have to do something different. We will have to get away from the policy of laissez faire on the one hand and from the way in which the colonial powers ran this part of the world previously. If we do not act, our metropoles will become strained under undue population pressure. They will reach a size out of the human scale. They will become ungovernable by anybody in any organized sense. They will also become extremely costly to operate as has been shown by all of the great megalopolises, half of which are bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy and which are certainly expensive to run.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Look at New York City, if you want one example. Has the hon. member visited Rio de Janeiro? Has he visited Kinshasa, if you want to come closer to home? If it is Kinshasa that you want for the generations yet unborn and young in this country, then as far as I am concerned you are on the wrong track. Of course, that is very typical. Those hon. members want to use them and abuse them whilst they are economically active and then pull them off like an old sea-boot and return them to starve in the Black areas. The fact of the matter is that the population explosion, the exponential population growth, is one of the cardinal problems of our time and will increasingly be a problem. We know that the only way to deal effectively with that problem is to upgrade people’s social life, to upgrade their economic life and to improve their life circumstances, and through that the population growth tends to drop. That we must do.

We cannot redistribute wealth easily, but we can relocate opportunity in our country.

With those few words I see that my time has almost expired. I just want to say that Pan-Africanism has failed Africa and African socialism has failed Africa. We shall have to find new ways. I think that this decentralization policy is a remarkable policy for which I thank and congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate the hon. member for Maitland for at least attempting to bring this debate back to the level at which it should be under the Prime Minister’s Vote. I hope that I too shall also be able to keep to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote as such.

The sad story of South African politics generally has been one of too little to late. We of the NRP are not raving liberals. I do not think that anybody could really call us that. Neither are we in fact hard-line reactionaries. I rather think, however, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Point, that we do represent the views of a very substantial number of moderate, responsible people, not only in the White community but in the other communities as well.

It has been suggested that we of the NRP are inclined to have a soft line toward the NP. This is possibly true, but why do we have a soft line for the NP? I think one must bear in mind the peculiar position we as a party hold. Any statements and recommendations we make in this House may well have to be upheld somewhere else; in other words, as the Government of a province, to wit Natal, we cannot make irresponsible statements which, regrettably, people who do not have this responsibility may well be able to do. We know the sort of problems that are involved in government and as a consequence, as I say, we cannot be irresponsible.

From experience we believe that the public of South Africa—and I mean the whole public of South Africa, not merely the Whites—want strong government and they want just government. They do not want “kragdadigheid” and they do not want arrogance. One of the reasons we are doing our utmost to support the apparent intention of the NP today is because they appear to be moving in the direction of just but at the same time strong government. We of the NRP believe that this new constitutional proposal is all about strong government and we believe that South Africa will not be able to exist unless we do have strong and just government in which the whole of the population of South Africa have an opportunity of participating.

This is where I return to my original theme of perhaps too little, too late. We believe that at the time of presenting the new constitutional proposals, not to bring in some sort of plan of consideration for the Blacks, is rather unfortunate. We believe it to be a serious mistake indeed. We believe further that at some stage the Government are going to have to bring the non-homeland Blacks into some form of Governmental participation, and they are going to be faced with a very serious problem because the current proposals are based on numbers, on proportional representation, and when they do find themselves in the position of having to bring in the Blacks—which, we are convinced, they will have to do at some future stage—they are going to find themselves lumbered with this albatross of proportional representation.

At that stage, we must remember, the non-homeland Blacks will be considerably in excess of the combined numbers of the Whites, the Asians and the Coloureds. This is going to be something of a problem. No matter what system we try in order to bring them in, other than the proportional system, it will be looked upon as blatant discrimination. We can do what we like about it but it will be seen as blatant discrimination.

We in the NRP believe in doing what is right because it is right, and not because we are forced into it. This is again getting to the point of what I was saying at the beginning: Too little, too late. Let us look at the few areas in which the Government have made these sorts of mistakes. For years for example they said that power-sharing was definitely out. They are now going to have to go into it, and they are leaving out, I believe, one of the major elements. I have already referred to that.

In so far as sport is concerned, who started sport boycotts? I am sorry to have to say that it was South Africa who did that, with the Japanese jockeys, with the Maori rugby players, with the D’Oliveira cricket problems, etc. We started all these problems, Mr. Chairman. We have changed now, however, and I am thankful that we have changed. Sport, to all practical intents and purposes, in South Africa is what is euphemistically referred to as normalized. It is a peculiar usage of the English language but it is nonetheless generally accepted. In respect of the concept of local option we have been told that this is a joke, that it is sheer nonsense. Now it appears that local option comes into the new dispensation. It has become part of Government policy. Yet, on a situation such as this idiotic nonsense that is being given a lot of publicity at the moment—the film Gandhi —all one should have done was to say this was an historic occasion, and that all cinemas that had premières on may open without the need of making an application. The Government should have made a plain statement. I appreciate the efforts of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I do believe, however, he should have said: “Never mind making applications”. To some people, under these circumstances, with this sort of historic film, it was like waving a red rag under a bull’s nose. Again too little, too late.

The same applies in the case of job reservation. We have virtually removed job reservation in South Africa, except in one area—in the mines. For goodness’ sake, let us not be ridiculous. It is again a case of too little, too late. This is our whole problem: Too little, too late.

That brings me to the question of local government. In 1978 when the Natal plan was put forward it was rejected. Now, to all practical intents and purposes it has been accepted. Now when it is acceptable to the Government, however, it is not acceptable to the people for whom the plan was devised originally. We do the right thing, and believe in doing the right thing as we see it, timeous-ly. We believe that this would save us and our country a lot of trouble in the future. We believe further that if we were to make this constitutional change in the correct manner, this would reinforce our overseas friends’ faith in our good intentions, and further it would convince them that their constructive engagement policy was worthwhile. I might just add that if I did not think it was for the good of South Africa, I would not give a tinker’s damn about what people thought overseas, because what counts is what is good for South Africa, not what is good for America and not what is good for Britain, Germany, France or any other country. [Interjections.] In this instance, however, I believe that the good of South Africa would be best served.

Nice to hear that from an Opposition bench for a change.

We in this party believe that the future of this party or any other party is irrelevant compared to the future of our country. We see our duty as that of assisting and encouraging the Government towards a safe constitutional future. [Interjections.] There are certain hon. members in the PFP who did not appreciate the analogy of liners and little tugs used by the hon. member for Durban Point to describe our function. Perhaps they would prefer another analogy, i.e. that of our looking upon ourselves as experienced, well-trained hounds nudging a large of flock of very valuable merino sheep which have miraculously changed from marauding wolves. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow up on what the hon. member for Umbilo has said. At least, as far as he was concerned, the debate was kept at a high level. I cannot, however, agree with everything he said. [Interjections.] It is very easy to govern in retrospect, and I think that was what he was doing.

We have been governing Natal since 1910.

When one has to govern for the future, however, one has to take present circumstances into consideration.

*I should like to refer to a matter to which the hon. the Prime Minister has already referred. I refer to the report of the President’s Council on the demographic trends in South Africa. This report is so important that I believe it requires the repeated attention of this House. When one has to make provision for orderly planning and government, the population growth, immigration trends and the areas in which people prefer to work and live are of major importance. Demographic trends are important in South Africa in particular since they have a very considerable effect on the policy patterns we are going to establish in the future. This report of the President’s Council is a unique report. Demographers and sociologists regard this report as one which can serve as a handbook in years to come for the planning which must emanate from this. To me it is a matter of great importance that we in South Africa start following a population policy and that it is essential for this country to do so. In a population policy such as this the cooperation of our neighbouring States in Southern Africa, the self-governing national States as well as the independent States, would be of the utmost importance. Their co-operation would have to be obtained in this regard. It would be the Government’s responsibility to formulate a policy of this nature. Furthermore, it would be the Government’s responsibility to monitor the pattern of population increase and immigration trends and in addition, to prescribe measures. These measures would, however, have to be well balanced in that they should not infringe on the liberties of individuals. They would have to be of a nature which would make them acceptable to the individual, as well as to the community, because measures alone would not render it possible for such a policy to succeed. A fine balance would have to be maintained at all times between the population and the available resources of a country. The hon. the Prime Minister has already referred to this. The position we are experiencing at present as far as water supplies are concerned, is an excellent example of what happens when there is no correlation between population numbers and the available resources.

The harsh statistical realities of the report have caused the timid to shudder and the fearful have already started fleeing, whereas the Government is intent on resolving these problems within the framework of given facts and on the cornerstone of self-determination founded on nationalisms. I shall come back to this at a later stage.

Population trends affect every conceivable aspect of society, inter alia, aspects such as urbanization, housing, education, training, the provision of employment, health services, the provision of food, family care, etc. Since we are acquainted with the statistics which emerged from the report, I should like to refer to a few trends. The rate of increase of the White population has declined drastically over the past few decades. The Coloured birth rate has started to show a strong decline since the sixties, whereas the Asian birth rate has also started showing a strong decline since the seventies. As against this, the Black birth rate has also started declining, but the mortality rate amongst babies has begun to fall as well. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in the natural Black population growth.

Some of the problems resulting from this include, inter alia, the question of education facilities, which is going to place a tremendous strain on the facilities of the Blacks. The number of Black pupils in South Africa has increased by 500% in the past 30 years. The number of students doubles every two and a half years. In 1981, there were more Black children starting school than there were White school going children. By the year 2000 there will be 7 million Black children at school.

The urbanization process is gathering momentum. Economic development always causes a drop in job opportunities in the agricultural sector and an increase in job opportunities in the industrial sector. The consequence is that more people go and live and work in the metropolitan areas, which naturally leads to urbanization, and this affects housing and the provision of job opportunities. It is anticipated that by the year 2000, all data remaining equal, there will be a backlog of dwelling units that is six times the present backlog. There will also be 240 000 work-seekers per annum who will have to be accommodated. Within this framework the NP will follow a policy of self-determination.

The NP does not flinch from these problems but will tackle these overwhelming statistical facts on the basis of self-determination. South Africa operates on nationalisms and for that reason we have already made a great deal of progress in the process of making certain peoples and nationalities independent. It will be possible to limit the population increase in co-operation with people. The attraction of metropolitan areas must be reduced. In this regard, we are achieving great success by means of the creation of job opportunities beyond our borders.

Governmental structures for each population group’s towns also give us the process for carrying self-determination into effect. This, however, does not mean that we should be obsessed with spheres of common concern in which co-responsibility in government will be essential in the years ahead.

Great progress has been made in the economic political field. Our labour policy has all the elements of self-determination, while meeting the rights of each individual, viz. to be able to work, to negotiate, to be trained, to organize, to associate and to enjoy protection.

In my opinion self-determination does not mean desperate separation or isolation. Self-determination consists of the urge towards self-realization, the urge towards growth and the urge towards survival. It includes contact with others and the influencing of others. No community, least of all we in South Africa, can live in isolation within watertight compartments. The cornerstones of self-determination are not assailed by common and coordinated structures. A confederal system in South Africa is of the utmost importance for ensuring order and prosperity. The hon. member for Rissik is grumbling but I want to repeat that to work and to live along with others on joint basis does not mean that one is surrendering one’s self-determination, except if certain hon. members are afraid of contact. If such people are afraid of contact, they have no future. Just as a confederal dispensation and co-operation in various fields do not prejudice one’s self-determination, so one joint Parliament cannot affect people’s self-determination if they have the desire and the will to have their self-determination continue.

The hon. members of the CP have certain speeches which they weave around themselves. I see self-determination in the same light as a moth that has gained the courage to spread its wings against the sun and the wind and nature outside. When one remains in a cocoon, one will never have the opportunity of influencing other people and conveying to them one’s impressions of life. In this country of ours we shall assure our self-determination by influencing other people.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with some of the statements made by the hon. member for Umbilo particularly those that attested to maturity, ripeness and insight. The hon. member for Springs also made an effort along those lines, but his courage failed him halfway.

For the past two days I have been listening to debates in this House. It is very easy to indulge in mud-slinging and to level accusations, such as that people have deviated from this and run away from that. I just wish to contend that the hands of a man who indulges in mud-slinging are not clean.

Who is talking now?

It is I who am talking, the member for North Rand. It is no art to sling mud, nor is it the word of a hero. I just wish to address the warning—and I do so in a good spirit—that that bucket may be overturned. It is being said here now that we ran away from the 1977 proposals and that on that occasion we said one thing and on another occasion we said something else. My bench is full of quotations of the hon. the Prime Minister saying that Coloureds and Blacks cannot sit here with us, and of this person saying this and that person that.

Surely I dealt with that this afternoon.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister did say that. At a certain stage of the history and the development of the party, the hon. the Prime Minister stated that as the NP policy. However, we are no longer there. That is the point I am making.

With all due courtesy towards you, the point I made was that I would say the same thing under the same circumstances.

Under the same circumstances the hon. the Prime Minister would say that again, but under different circumstances he need not, in his own words, continue to do so. I just wish to contend—it is as simple as that—that under changed circumstances we, too, probably have the right to say that as far as our policy on the Coloureds is concerned, in the light of the new circumstances we have decided that independence is better, that full freedom is better than half a freedom. As far as that is concerned, we do not stand alone. Members of the Cabinet of the hon. the Prime Minister also favoured that standpoint shortly after 1960. In this regard I just wish to quote the following—

Here he puts the question asked by the Press. He goes on to say—

This Minister of the present Cabinet states—

This is an academic and an intellectual for whom I personally have a high regard. I just want to make the point that this is not something we have sucked out of our thumbs. It is a discussion which has been conducted for a long time by educated people at a high level. Hon. members must now stop this nonsense of suggesting that it is supposedly our baby and ours alone.

We are not talking about discussions; we are talking about policy.

I am talking about policy, Sir. Separate States represent a different policy to the integrated Parliament of that hon. Deputy Minister.

What do the Brown people themselves say?

I can tell that hon. member what Tom Swarts, a member of the CRC, said. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are leading me astray and wasting my time.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier said that discrimination and domination were the soul of the standpoint and policy of the CP. I just want to say to that hon. member that the policy of the CP is the best counter to discrimination and domination and the undermining of the creation of freedom in one’s own State. [Interjections.] There is no better counter to discrimination and domination than to give the Coloured his freedom and to assist him to develop on a parallel basis alongside the White man.

I now wish to address the hon. the Prime Minister in all earnest. We are not alone in our fears and concern that the processes that have been initiated by this constitutional dispensation are going to lead to one of the most terrible scenes in this country because it creates or may create new areas of friction. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will react to this at a later stage.

In this regard I also wish to quote men like Dr Piet Cillie and Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjections.] No, I am not touting their names. Dr. Piet Cillie says, inter alia—

He went even further. [Interjections.] Dr. Cillie went on to say—

He asks: Do you know those people? He also asks—

This is an implicit part of this new constitutional dispensation. He goes on to say—

In what year was that written?

I shall lend it to the hon. member and then he can read it himself. Can the hon. member read? Has he been to school? [Interjections.] An hon. member asked me what Dr. Verwoerd had said. Here it comes. The first was by way of a Press interview at which Dr. Verwoerd said the following, referring to people who kept insisting on small concessions, small concessions such as “a mixed marriage is no sin”, “we are relatively one nation”, “the Group Areas Act is not a sacred cow”. It was in reference to these things that Dr. Verwoerd said—

That is my fear today and I am being quite honest with the hon. the Prime Minister. Whether he means it or not, that will be the logical consequence of the processes that have been set in motion. The first part of the process is conciliation—coaxing, pacifying, trying to persuade them to agree for the sake of so-called peace and fairness—and when one sees that they react in the right way, one accommodates them—bringing them to Parliament and giving them a chauffeur and ministerial posts—and after one has accommodated them fully, one has given the new process an injection, and it will be that of assimilation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to react to the speech by the hon. member for North Rand. I tried hard to understand him and to follow the argument he tried to advance to convince me that what is going on in this country, is wrong. After all, that is the idea the hon. member tried to convey. The hon. member advances his argument on the basis of the alternative policy of the CP, which is to prevent these problems.

What policy?

That is just what I want to know. The CP can try hard to shoot down the policy of the NP. I do not understand the hon. member’s argument because I have not been able to follow him, just as I have been unable to follow the arguments of his party colleagues. I asked the hon. member, since he made such a strong attack on the policy of the NP this evening, what the policy of the CP is that it wants to put forward and that will solve the country’s problems. Has the hon. member ever tried to spell that out to us in this House? I do not know; I am looking for that policy but I cannot find it anywhere.

What is happening in this House? The Opposition, particularly the CP and the PFP, are playing a game. My lasting impression—I gained it in the Bergs, as they are known—is that the Opposition are constantly engaged in casting suspicion and distorting NP policy. They distort it and then they present this distorted policy, apply it to the NP and say to the voters: Look at that, that is what the NP looks like, that is the policy of the Government and that is where the Government is heading. Surely that is not true.

An eloquent example of this was the speech of the hon member for Lichtenburg. He quoted a few extracts from a pamphlet and then presented it as the last word on the proposed constitutional dispensation. Then he says that this is the misleading example given by the NP. In fact the NP has a sinister, wrong and destructive goal in the future because it does not know where the road along which it is taking the country, leads to. After all, that is what is being said in practice. Now that party comes along with a so-called alternative policy but it does not spell its policy out and then it says: “That is the NP. Forget about it”. We are playing a dangerous game when we do that.

Have any of the Opposition parties ever won a single argument in this House concerning the principles according to which this country is governed? At the beginning of this session the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of no confidence in the Government. I do not want to argue with him about politics. At this point I am merely assessing the matter. There is the standpoint he put forward, the charge-sheet he drew up, the acclamation he received from his own ranks and the publicity he enjoyed in the newspapers. Right until the last, the interesting phenomenon occurred that speaker after speaker on the NP side brought this charge-sheet, in its slanted and distorted form, back to the reality, stated the matter in perspective and tore the charge sheet to shreds. Ultimately the leaders of the PFP and the CP were sitting there empty-handed. Then they began once more with a further argument, but in this House they lose every argument. They cannot show me a single argument that they have won. Outside this House, however, it is another story. Outside this House members of those parties tell of how they win the arguments in this House. This is a farce. When things go on like this then surely that is fraud.

Now I want to take the argument a little further as regards the alternative to the NP. This relates to the very aspect which the hon. member for North Rand has just mentioned. As regards the retention of group specific rights I want to say that no one is more conservative about their own rights than the White people themselves. The only way to really retain those rights, however, is to give others rights in such a way that they are not jealous of your rights. This gives us a point of departure, and as against that the Opposition lose their arguments time after time because they have no counter-argument to that. One cannot simply demand things for oneself without giving them to others, and if one gives them to others one must do so in such a way that they can survive and so that they can develop a pride in them.

That, surely, is where the policy the CP wants to prescribe for the Coloureds in this country, fails miserably. There is one requirement in regard to the Coloured homeland which they are always evading. Have they never tried to find out what it is? They suggest a solution for themselves: They will create a homeland and draw its borders. All that is all very well. However, there is one question they do not answer, namely: Do the Coloureds want the homeland?

Do the Zulus want a homeland?

Yes, that is the difference.

Does Buthelezi want a national State? [Interjections.]

That is the factor on which the possibility or impossibility of a Coloured homeland rests and that is where they make a mistake time after time when they compare it with the Black homelands. Within the Coloured homeland there will be no one who wants a Coloured homeland, but there is support for Black homelands on the part of the Black leaders. Surely that is true; and that is where the difference lies. If they want to impose this upon the Coloureds, what will happen? Their point of departure is 1977. If that is their point of departure, and if they want to create a homeland for the Coloureds, they must at least demarcate their territory for them. How are they going to obtain the cooperation of the Coloureds to create that homeland? Surely there is only one way and that is to obtain co-operation in this regard. How does one obtain their co-operation in this regard? It is obtained by holding discussions with them. And how does one hold discussions with them? Then we are back to the President’s Council again. I do not want to go into that further because it is a futile argument.

However, I have another bone to pick with the hon. member for Kuruman. In a previous debate the hon. member spoke about a rural area for Coloureds in the vicinity of Kimberley, for the resettlement for the Coloureds of Ghosis. He asked that the Griquas from that part of the world, those from Campbell, should also be given a place within that rural area in which they could preserve their culture. Now we find the person, who is really responsible for the idea of a Griqua homeland that, like a ghost, keeps re-appearing in my constituency. I have looked for this for a long time, because every time I put paid to this ghost, it appears again somewhere else. This homeland is not acceptable in my constituency. The hon. member for Kuruman is now propagating the idea of a homeland although he knows that it is unacceptable to the Whites and the community in that part of the world. Now, however, he is contending that it is the NP that want to establish a homeland there. He hides behind the NP as regards the unacceptability of his own policy. That is the important difference between the NP and the CP. We are straightforward and we say exactly what we are doing. We negotiate and we obtain the co-operation of all the people involved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prieska must forgive me if I do not react to his speech, because I want to focus my attention more directly on the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister.

†Col. Gadaffi of Libya, when he was seeking union with Egypt, once said that he was a leader in need of a country. It seems to me that South Africa today is a country in need of a leader. Above all, we are a country in need of a statesman who can give us clear-cut leadership for reform. I believe that there is a fundamental process unfolding in this country, and every White politician from the hon. the Prime Minister down and every White voter is going to have to confront the question whether White political, economic and cultural survival in Southern Africa is going to depend upon domination or upon sharing. I mean real domination, as expressed by hon. members of the CP, or real power-sharing. There is no middle road between the two when one analyses the situation logically. One cannot walk two roads. One cannot have discrimination and not have discrimination. One cannot have race classification and not have race classification. One cannot be all things to all men as the NP is now trying to be. The voters themselves want to know from the party they are going to vote for whether the party stands for domination or power-sharing. As long as the NP does not make a clear choice between one of those two directions, it will lose support to left and right just like the old United Party. Perhaps as soon as 10 May arrives we shall see that lesson unfold. If the NP in Waterkloof is now having to pay for canvassers, as was alleged in the Sunday Express of last Sunday, then the red lights are really flashing for that party.

The question I want to ask is: What would a statesman do if a statesman were Prime Minister in South Africa today? What should the hon. the Prime Minister do with the precious opportunity of leadership which he has? One only has one such opportunity in South African politics; it falls to very few. It is clear to me that a statesman, if he were Prime Minister, would know at least three things. He would know that he must break out from the narrow confines of Afrikaner nationalism.

Secondly he must know that he has to break out of the political prison of the apartheid ideology. He should also know that he must reach out to the rest of South Africa and build a new broadly based constituency, which could be inspired by loyalty to the whole of South Africa on the part of all South Africans. A statesman-leader would also know that he must avoid the mistakes made by other societies in conflict.

In this respect I should like to mention a few examples. He would know that he must avoid following the pathetic example of Edgar Whitehead in Rhodesia, who fiddled around fruitlessly, who dithered at the fringes of the problem until the initiative was swept away from him by the Rhodesian Front. He must also know, however, that he should avoid the example of the Rhodesian Front, the party of Mr. Ian Smith—a tragic example. The Ian Smith Government came into conflict, into direct conflict, with the rising tide of Black nationalism. They tried to deal with it by containing it, by ignoring it, by suppressing it, by banishing it, by controlling it. They tried everything possible to defeat it until it defeated them. They even tried a so-called world beating constitution in 1969, a constitution which was supposed to last a 1 000 years, but which was a pathetic failure. They tried everything except generously to accommodate that tide while they still had the power to direct its course. Through their failure Zimbabwe is left today with less protection for the minorities than any previous settlement proposed ever offered.

A statesman in South Africa today would also know that he must avoid the example which is currently fashionable in certain circles—alarmingly so—of a so-called reforming dictator. If that is the option which a Government in this country were to follow it would give its opponents no option but to resort to war. Democracy cannot be found along that road. A true South African statesman, I believe, should take his inspiration more from men like Abraham Lincoln or Benjamin Disraeli. Those were men who had the courage to take initiatives for reform timeously and boldly.

I should like to dwell briefly On the example of Disraeli. It is an instructive example, and one does not hear too much about it. It has been said that reform in Britain was an easy matter because that was an homogeneous society. However, that is far from the truth. Pre-Victorian and Victorian England were deeply divided societies. They were divided very deeply along class lines. It was even said at the time that there were two nations in England—the rich and the poor. At that stage Parliament and all the wealth of the nation were in the hands of the feudal landowners and the wealthy merchants. Moreover, they were widely resented by the masses. In turn they were profoundly fearful of extending the franchise to those masses. There was on-going and widespread agitation for reform. It went on for decades. There was even unrest at times.

Finally it reached the stage—prior to Disraeli’s great reforms—where agitation had reached the point of rioting.

The Tricolor, the symbol of the French Revolution, had been hoisted at Birmingham. Farm labourers had burnt threshingmills in the country. The house of the Duke of Wellington had been stoned by angry mobs. Ten thousand workmen had besieged the palace of St. James, and there were over 1 million signatures on the Chartist petition for suffrage. The response of Parliament then was very much like this Parliament’s response. It was characterized by inertia and by endless, inconclusive wrangling.

What did Disraeli do? And this is the important point. Disraeli, as a high Tory Prime Minister, with one master stroke, cut through the pettifogging, and went much further than his party had ever considered. He approved a domestic franchise, which gave a single vote to every household. For that—and this is important—the Prime Minister of the rich was rewarded by the poor, and the Tories, in 1874, won by a clear majority of 50 seats.

Disraeli said an important thing. He said the party that enfranchised those new electors would have some chance of rallying them to itself. His faith in the common people was rewarded and England never suffered the travail of a bloody revolution.

What are we doing?

What I say is that if this Government really had faith in extending rights and the franchise, it could do it properly and be rewarded for doing so. The statesman that South Africa needs today is one who can recognize that the true security for the Whites or for the Afrikaner, or for any minority group can never lie in exclusivity, in domination by manipulation or by brute force. It lies in partnership. By embracing this fellow South Africans, such a statesman-leader would be embraced in turn. South Africa needs a new Disraeli. If the hon. the Prime Minister were to boldly take a reform initiative to go much further than the guidelines proposed, if he were to say what laws he was going to abolish and do something about it; if he were to go to the country to ask for support for real power-sharing, to bring non-White people into this Chamber; if he would turn his back on the old, narrow ethnic nationalism of the past; he could be the founding-father of a great new South Africa. That would have been the greatest step that any Prime Minister could have taken in the last 100 years.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia, who has just resumed his seat, had a great deal to say about leadership. He said that what our country needed was a leader, but I want to say to him that what our country does not need is a boycott leader. [Interjections.] That is what our country does not need. Nor do we need a Young leader or a telephone leader. We need a leader who speaks openly, and if that hon. member would only listen he would understand what our leader says in South Africa. It is very clear to me that that hon. member is not a Pretoria Prog, but rather a Houghton Prog. [Interjections.] He comes along with his apartheid story, his Rhodesia story. After all, it was their policy that was applied in Rhodesia. [Interjections.] That hon. member for Constantia must not come and talk to us about loyalty and pride as far as Africa is concerned, because he does not possess any. After all, he is a Swapo sympathizer. He is also a critic of the Defence Force of South Africa. He says that they commit atrocities against the enemies of South Africa. He falls into the same class as their candidate in the last election, Di Bishop.

My goodness, that is a great compliment.

I wonder why those hon. members have been so quiet about destabilization during this session. The other day, before the by-elections were announced, during the no-confidence debate, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had much to say about destabilization in South Africa, and indeed he accused us of destabilization. However, I am going to tell hon. members this evening who the destabilizers are, who the instigators of revolution in South Africa are. The instigators of revolution in South Africa are behind that party. It is the supporters of that party that are going to cause us in South Africa a great deal of trouble. The hon. the Prime Minister said today that stability was not merely a high priority but a top priority, and he is not the only one who says that. In the past the enemies of South Africa used apartheid as the great factor with which they wanted to hurt and destroy South Africa. Now, however, that story is on its way out to some extent. Those hon. members—or the enemies of South Africa—are now attacking us with their destabilization story, and that hon. party and its supporters join the chorus and tell the world, in the world Press, that South Africa is the scapegoat. They say that South Africa is the destabilizer. Let us see what America has suddenly found out. America, too, has said that we are the culprit. In this regard I want to quote the following—

That is the fact of the matter. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister wants to bring the PFP to understand, but what they do not want to understand and in regard to which they do not want to help South Africa. They join the chorus against the Republic.

Let us consider the gravity of this situation. Eight months after Mr. Hlapane gave evidence before the American Senate Committee concerning what was going on in the ANC, he was shot dead by an AK-47 within South Africa. We must give the hon. the Prime Minister the credit for having been the first one in South Africa to identify the total onslaught and try to motivate the people to fight it. That was at the time when he was still Minister of Defence. He had the whole people behind him except hon. members of the PFP, who wanted their supporters to believe that we in South Africa were responsible for the danger and were the cause of the revolution. The cause of the internal revolution in South Africa is surely to be found in the PFP.

In 1974 the hon. the Prime Minister stated clearly that we wanted nothing from any other country and did not wish to interefere in the affairs of others, but that we also did not want them to interfere in our domestic affairs. After assuming power in 1978 he stated very clearly in a speech at Upington that we were going to stay here. We are going to do so. We are not “fat cats”, like the rich, who will flee from the country. We are going to stay here. The hon. the Prime Minister said that if we were to leave here, chaos would occur in this country. Everyone ought to agree that if the Whites were to leave here, chaos would occur, civilization would disappear, and law and order would collapse in ruins. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister had in mind. He has on several occasions spoken of the interdependence of the peoples within South Africa.

We speak clearly. We are not equivocators. We want to say—the hon. the Prime Minister has already said it—that we are important to the other African States and that we are a part of Africa. We have a very important role to play in Africa. We recognize that South Africa is surrounded by instability and that there is tension on the continent. We are aware that there are economic problems due to various factors, for example the population increase, etc. One could say that there has been no other leader in South Africa that has done more for stability in the southern part of our continent—I refer to all the African States around us—than the present hon. the Prime Minister. It is not the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government that is responsible for destabilization in this region. It is the Cubans in Angola and the Russians in Mozambique. It is also due to factors such as Marxism and socialism, which are imposed on people, as well as the unrestricted population increase.

However, the most important factor in the instigation of revolution within the country is the conduct of hon. members of the PFP and their supporters. Cedric Mayson, who fled from South Africa and is now in London, has said that he will return to a neighbouring state to destabilize us further. He admits that he is guilty. He fled after being engaged in ANC activities here. The dangerous element in this country that poses a threat to the security of all Whites and all peace-loving people in South Africa, is the leftist element in this country. That element is largely comprised of supporters of the official Opposition.

Another dangerous element in the Republic of South Africa which has a destabilizing effect is the rightist element in the country. I am now referring to the supporters of the hon. member for Rissik. One can consider what happened in Pietersburg, an event that we profoundly regret. An assistant engine driver, accompanied by his brother, pulled out a firearm and for no reason began to shoot at the Blacks. He said that he had shot three Blacks because he hated them and that he would have shot more if he had had the chance. He is not sorry about what he has done. What was the cause of this happening? I contend that the actions of these irresponsible young people are the result of racial incitement by the members of the CP.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon. member contend that the shooting that took place in the Northern Transvaal was the result of the policy of the CP?

Order! Did the hon. member refer to any hon. member of this House?

No, Sir. I said that the consequence of the policy of the CP was that people became so stirred up against other races that it could lead to bloodshed in this country.

That is true!

Mr. Chairman, hon. members are repeating that it is true. Does it meet with your approval that it can be said in this Committee that the policy of the party can result in people being shot?

The hon. member did not refer to any hon. member of this Committee. It is not un-parliamentary to refer to the conduct of a party outside this House.

Mr. Chairman, if I were to say that the policy of the NP were aimed at causing people to be shot, would that be parliamentary?

The statement is not un-parliamentary in the sense that it casts a reflection on hon. members in this Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the arguments of the hon. member for Vryheid because I do not think it is necessary to do so. In any event I do not think the statement he made belongs in this Committee.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he has done with his inheritance here in South Africa. He took over the leadership of a party of 135 members with the greatest unity there has ever been in the history of this country. What did he do with it? It was he who, for the first time in South Africa, managed to split the strongest party in two. [Interjections.] He shattered his inheritance in a scandalous fashion. Under the previous Prime Minister, nationalists and English and Afrikaans-speaking people were united in the greatest unity in a country that was moving forward and taking the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks along with it. The present Prime Minister has said that he does not want people to regard the Coloureds as lepers. The hon. the Prime Minister told the Whites that they hated the Coloureds. That is the statement that was made. Moreover, we as party colleagues were split from one another by statements and principles that had their origin in the NP. Today there is a split in the Church, today there is a split in Afrikaner ranks in every field. There is a split in this country from the southern tip of the Cape up to the Transvaal. I want to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister. What have you done with your inheritance?

Frittered it away.

He purified it.

He purified it. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he purified it. Therefore this means that we are faced with the situation this evening that the church has also been purified. Is that what you are saying? [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs whether that is what he meant, with reference to the division that exists in the church? [Interjections.] The division that exists in the country today I lay before the door of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to say this, too: The Indian has now reached the point at which he can be told: You take what I give you or I put you under Buthelezi. I think that the Indians will agree with me this evening that a homeland would be better for them than the option given them this afternoon. They will at least be able to look after their own affairs. However, what is happening now? He is now being threatened with Buthelezi. Buthelezi has said: “The Botha Government needs me”, and I think Buthelezi was right. Our history has shown us in the past and it will show us again that one cannot make one person happy and thereby make the other person unhappy. That is what is happening in our country today.

We have the situation in this country that Parliament is going to be divided into three chambers. The 176 members of the White part of that Parliament will be subject to the right of veto of the members of the other two chambers. The time of the Whites in South Africa is past under the new dispensation. Their time is past. [Interjections.] Hon. members must bear this in mind: Nonsense cannot wipe out the facts of life. The fact remains that the power of veto of the two Coloured chambers of Parliament will prove the impotence of the Whites in South Africa. It will prove that the Whites can do nothing. It will not be possible to take a decision from this Chamber. One will not be able to go to one’s people and tell them: “In the Parliament to which you elected me, I have today successfully completed business on your behalf”, because two other chambers will have to decide further in that regard. I do not want us to be mistaken this evening as to what Verwoerd said in his time. I should like to quote what Verwoerd said, and in this regard I should like to quote from a very good newspaper, viz. Die Burger. The extract reads as follows—

That is what Verwoerd said. [Interjections.] The present hon. Prime Minister was also in the Cabinet at the time. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon. member speak as discourteously as the hon. member has done of the late Dr. Verwoerd? [Interjections.]

Order! The rule stipulates that only serving members have to be addressed as “hon. members”. The hon. member may proceed.

The book from which I have quoted is The Press as Opposition by Elaine Potter. It is a good book to read because in it we see what Verwoerd had to say and what Die Burger had to say in reply.

I had never thought that an hon. member like the hon. member for Innesdal would have spoken about the apartheid dog barking.

The hon. member did not listen properly. I was speaking about the whole of South Africa.

That is how these people are thinking today. It is the American way of thought. These are the Havard clichés—the apartheid dogs. It is the Martin Kings and others who introduced this kind of thing into South African politics. [Interjections.] We are still going to see in this country that that kind of discussion, in which people who practise apartheid are referred to as dogs, will go down in history as something which people who have made certain statements will bitterly regret.

This evening we are faced with the situation of the Indians. It is quite in order that there may be an Indian in Mayfair. It is in order that there can be an Indian among my poor people; but he must not go to the Free State, nor may he travel through that province. That is political exploitation in its gravest form. Is there a difference between an Indian living in Mayfair and the one who may want to travel through the Free State? The CP has caused the hon. the Prime Minister to capitulate, because he turned around in mid-stream. Before the Free State congress I quoted from the Free State Statute Book of ’54. The hon. the Prime Minister said there were too many laws in Israel, but there we have an Act which the hon. the Prime Minister wants to remain on the Statute Book—

Other Acts must be removed from the Statute Book but this one must remain. I ask whether it is fair that White people in May-fair can be evicted from their homes—the hon. the Minister must not tell me that this is not so, because I have facts in this regard—whereas the Indians are allowed to stay there. I know that the hon. the Minister is trying to shift the boundaries, but we are not going to discuss that now; we shall discuss that on 17 May when the Townships Board comes under discussion. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: What have you done with your inheritance; what have you done with what John Vorster handed over to you? The hon. the Prime Minister and his whole Cabinet will have to account to the nation for that.

Mr. Chairman, once again today we have had a fine demonstration of a party that makes a fuss about the role it plays: They come from the bosom of Afrikanerdom and their task is to save the Whites in this country. The hon. members showed today that theirs is a lost cause. One only stoops to the personal level that they stooped to today when one has a weak cause. One also shouts a man down when one is afraid that what he says may be heard. When one shouts a man down at a meeting; one is afraid that the audience might hear what he is saying.

I am not going to discuss in detail what the hon. member for Langlaagte had to say, but I want to say that he certainly did not disappoint us this evening; he carried on in his old familiar way and charged the hon. the Prime Minister with all kinds of misdeeds and accused him of not having preserved his inheritance but of having dissipated it instead. In any event, no one takes any notice.

Since I happen to be following the hon. member for Langlaagte, I should like to ask the hon. members of the CP a question. They make such a point of claiming to be people who show great credibility in their actions. The other day the hon. member for Rissik said in a different debate that the member who spoke before him was a lawyer whereas he himself was a scribe. [Interjections.] However, the credibility of the hon. members of the CP must be questioned. The scribes, the manipulators and the splitters are loudly proclaiming that they now speak on behalf of our people. The hon. member for Langlaagte says that the hon. the Prime Minister split the party, this strong party. We have often been over that before. Surely he knows that he walked out.

They deserted.

After all, it was not we who walked out. The hon. members opposite walked out. However, when they put the spotlight on our actions, the mask of these so-called national saviours is ripped off. What was the standpoint of the hon. member for Rissik in the debate last week in regard to the outcome of a referendum. It was very significant. He said that they would come back to this House and fight it.

Of course.

What is he saying by implication? He is saying that he will reject the verdict of the people; he will not accept it.

That is what democracy is all about, is it not?

Yes, that is correct, but the hon. member is saying by implication that he will not accept it.

Dr. A. P. Treurnicht says he will not take it.

Order!

This unwise attitude adopted by the hon. member can easily be explained because it would mean the end of the CP if in that referendum the people were to give a positive verdict—and I have no doubt about that. Surely the CP would then no longer have a case. That is why they are fighting the Government. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Give me a chance, Daan.

Order!

When Dr. Treurnicht and his henchmen, the hon. members who are sitting there now, walked out, they went to the Transvaal Head Committee. What was the idea? They thought that if they could hijack the Transvaal head committee they would have a basis that would promote their cause. That is where they made their first mistake. They miscalculated. After a day of discussion in which standpoints were put forward by both sides—because everyone had the chance to put his case—the majority of those people judged the matter objectively and did not support the CP. That is very significant.

What are we to infer from the negotiations that took place between the CP, particularly their leader, Dr. Treurnicht, and the HNP?

And the AWB.

Is the HNP leprous?

Order!

For many years and in several elections while those gentlemen were in the NP, they fought the HNP.

You and John Wiley are now sitting together.

Only recently, however, you differed only as to the allocation of seats. There is no difference in policy about which you argued. If Jaap Marais had agreed that you would get two-thirds of the seats …

Who are “you”?

… that the CP would obtain two-thirds of the seats, they would have co-operated with them. Surely then, their policy is the same.

If the HNP agrees with you?

That would be pointless. The hon. members of the CP can equivocate as they like. They bear the responsibility of having split the Afrikaner. They will have difficulty shrugging off these arguments I have dealt with. The endeavour of the hon. member for Langlaagte to hold the hon. the Prime Minister responsible, made no impression whatsoever. It is only a small group that has flaked off, and the people will deal with them. They cannot split as they have in fact done without being called to account for doing so.

Just like General Hertzog and Dr. Malan.

The hon. member for Rissik refers to General Hertzog and Dr. Malan. There is no comparison whatsoever between the circumstances of that time and what the CP have done over the past year. There is no connection whatsoever. Circumstances that prevailed at that time were completely different to those of today. The reason why those hon. members differed with the Government and walked out had nothing whatsoever to do with policy or principles.

Of course it had.

Of course not. What was being considered at that stage was exactly the same as what those hon. members were faced with in 1977 and 1979. It is true that there were certain adjustments, but at that stage those hon. members had no reason whatsoever to differ. But they simply adopted the standpoint that there was in fact a difference. I want to say to them this evening—and they know in their hearts that this is true—that at that stage Dr. Treurnicht was not yet ready to walk out. But the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Meyerton, through their actions, left him no choice. I interpret the fact that he walked out before names were taken, as an effort to extricate himself from this affair. Unfortunately, however, those hon. members had already gone so far that he no longer had a choice. He had always been their kindred spirit, one of them, and as a result he had to stay with them. [Time expired.]