Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I do so with a truly profound appreciation of the seriousness of the moment and of the occasion. I do so, too, with a profound appreciation of the far reaching consequences which this new constitution will entail for all of us in South Africa. Since hon. members have been provided with an explanatory memorandum, which deals in detail with the various provisions of the Bill, I do not at this stage intend to repeat what has been said or discuss the Bill in any kind of detail at the moment.

At this stage I wish to emphasize that the Bill which we are now considering expresses fully and faithfully the guidelines of the Government and the premises of self-determination and joint responsibility. I realize, too, that an ideal constitutional dispensation, according to the Western perception, is not possible for South Africa. Because it is not possible, I believe that that explains why all political parties represented in this House endorse the standpoint that under the present constitutional dispensation the so-called system of one man, one vote will lead to minorities being dominated by majorities, and to serious conflict among population groups in our country, and that this could have disastrous consequences for the people of our country. Consequently the legislation now before this House also implies a fundamental departure from the system we have employed up to now in South Africa. Obviously I realize that these departures represent a dramatic event in the history of our country. I also realize of course that the effectiveness of any constitutional dispensation in reconciling the conflicting expectations, aspirations and demands and in being able to ensure stability, progress and peace, depends largely, not on the model itself, but on the people of the country, on their attitudes and their conduct.

No constitution as such can change or create attitudes; on the contrary, in this country, probably more than in any other of which I am aware, the constitution is dependent upon its continued existence as a constitution on attitudes which are based on Christian values and civilized norms, for without these the reconciliation which is so essential in this country will not be possible.

It is also essential that I emphasize and endorse at the very outset that the existing constitution of the Republic as well as the proposed new constitution, do not contain all the statutory provisions which regulate political rights, constitutional institutions and relations in our country. Therefore I wish to argue that it is wrong in principle to contend that because the proposals contained in the present Bill do not make provision on the constitutional level for all population groups, it means that peoples and population groups are by definition being excluded from the negotiating and decision-making processes in our country, or that it denies or precludes the existence of other constitutional institutions on other levels of administration in our country. Therefore I believe that it is important that we assess this legislation against the background of these general statements I have just made.

Various people and various parties in this House have assessed the provisions of the Bill and, in the nature of things, it has various implications for them according to their own interpretation of what it implies. On the one hand, so it is being argued, the proposals are condemned because they will lead to the perpetuation of White domination or will even lead to one-party domination. Others again, see in them the abdication of the Whites of this country and the destruction of their rights and privileges.

On the other hand they are being condemned because they allegedly exclude Black peoples from the negotiating and decision-making processes of our country, while others interpret and in fact present them as the first step to the inclusion of Black peoples in the same constitutional institutions as those which will apply to Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

I maintain that it is fundamentally incorrect to see the reform which the constitutional proposals, as contained in this Bill, wishes to bring about in the constitutional sphere in isolation from the processes of adjustment which have taken place, and are still taking place at present, in other walks of life and in respect of other population groups.

We realize more than ever before that the occurrence of comprehensive reform and change must be co-ordinated and synchronized with development and progress in the economic, social and spiritual spheres. This awareness finds practical expression in the phenomenal progress which has already occurred in many varied walks of life in our country.

†It was Eisenhower who said that there can be no peace without law. I know that it is true that there are many other prerequisites and preconditions for order and peace, but I subscribe to the submission that of necessity the law has to provide the framework within which other social sciences, such as politics, must be employed to attain the ideals of freedom, prosperity, stability and democracy.

I believe sincerely that the Bill therefore before us represents an effort to provide, in part, the legal structure within which the political actors of tomorrow will be required to apply their skills and dedication to attain those lofty ideals for this country.

Charles E. Merriman said of democracy that it is not a set of formulas, neither is it a blueprint of organization, but it is a cast of thought and a mode of action directed towards the common weal as interpreted and directed by the common will.

When we therefore speak of democracy as an ideal, we must look at the society which this Bill intends to serve. We should do this in order to determine whether it will be possible to attain, within the framework which the Bill must provide, effective government by means of democratic values and principles. To us, who are of this country, it has become axiomatic that the complexity of the South African society emphasizes the intensity of the emotional barriers that form restrictions and impediments on any progress towards a political dispensation capable of satisfying the reasonable expectations of the various population groups in our country.

In a society which is marked by such diversity, by conflicts of interests and aspirations, by differences of cultures, values and stages of development, by a degree of heterogeneity which has become the trademark of our society, it would be naïve and dangerous to believe that a new constitutional dispensation providing, for instance, for universal franchise, qualified franchise or meaningful participation in the decision-making process, will suddenly transform what is generally referred to as a deeply divided society, into a model State with content and prosperous citizens that will be welcomed into the gallery of Western democracies.

The realities of this country, and, to a certain extent, the perception that some have of it, have led many to say in despair that it is not capable of a democratic solution, and, having said that, that it is not capable of any solution, for if one parts with the ideal of democracy then, I believe, one must heed the advice of Burke—

And yet, despite these restrictions and limitations which I have referred to, we sincerely believe that we can manage to obtain, to the extent that we have not succeeded up to now, the support of reasonable South Africans in an effort to formulate and implement a fair, just and democratic solution within the structural framework, which in part will be afforded by the implementation of the Bill before the House.

However, we need to have a proper understanding of the difficulties that beset us. We need to have an appreciation of our sincere efforts to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of all South Africans. We also need to have the patience while we go about a task that few governments that I know of have taken upon themselves in the world. Above all—this applies particularly to us in this House—we will need to have the goodwill of the people who are represented here now and those who will be when this Bill becomes law.

We have committed ourselves to reform and so we must take care not to forfeit stability. This not only summarizes the political challenges of our time but contains, in essence, the test by means of which the success of what we are now initiating will ultimately be judged or measured by the future.

Stability does not necessarily mean, as people want it to mean, absolute immobility or stagnation. Stability has often been described in politics as the extent to which a political system succeeds in maintaining itself during difficult times by being adaptable. I agree with Burke when he says—

In South Africa, I believe, it is not only a question of change for the sake of conservation and the survival of existing conditions. I believe a change in this system as such has to be effected.

*To the extent to which this Constitutional Bill does not reflect consensus, we shall have to seek it within the framework which it produces.

This is a major problem and the solution is not easy, but I maintain that the solution is to be sought by way of consultation and attempts to arrive at consensus on objectives; it is to be sought by way of reconstruction and adjustment and reform in order to attain agreed upon objectives; and by way of negotiation with and persuasion of other actors in the political drama and on that scene. One the eve of this process, in a more formalized form, I wish to remind hon. members of the words of former Chief Justice Rumpff—

On the threshold of a new constitutional era and in order to determine whether there are sufficient politically relevant factors which will enable us to succeed, we must review and evaluate what we have achieved so far.

My honest opinion is that a greater understanding has arisen of the need for drastic constitutional adjustments in order to establish a dispensation in which everyone, individually and in a group context, may have an effective say in the decision-making processes which affect his life. The various reports of the President’s Council and the Government’s reaction to them as contained in the guidelines to which this Constitution Bill gives expression, the passing of the Black Local Authorities Act last year and the summit conference of 11 November 1982, all contributed to the scepticism which greeted the idea of reform making way for in-depth reflection and healthy debate on the nature and content of reform in our country. What emerged into greater prominence, as I interpret it, was that the majority of the citizens of this country were developing a resistance to extremism and that among them a growing desire was arising to promote peaceful changes with conviction and with sacrifice. The feeling, if I observe it correctly, is that radicalism on both sides of the political spectrum is counter-productive and that reconciliation is only possible through moderation and reasonableness.

When we assess the Constitution Bill in a moment we must take into account that since the unification of South Africa our Constitutional law has never been written completely into a single constitution. It was and is only partially written into the 1910 and 1961 constitutions. Other laws and conventions regulated other constitutional law matters. This will also be the case after the implementation of this Constitution Bill. In this way there is a great diversity of laws in which the constitutional position and the future of the Black peoples of our country are dealt with. However, their position has not been finalized, nor will it be possible to finalize it without consultation and exhaustive investigations.

The Government accepts without reservation that reform and adjustment is necessary in that sphere as well, and established an instrument this year that has to initiate the preliminary work for further development in various spheres.

We are prepared to debate in that forum and elsewhere our premises in respect of the constitutional future of the Black peoples of South Africa.

We are also prepared to debate in the Second Reading the merits of the standpoint that their position ought to be addressed in the Constitution Bill.

The fact that this is not the case, does not, however, mean that they have been excluded from the constitutional and other processes of reform. I shall deal further with this matter at a later stage.

Our assessment of the Constitution Bill is a task which I maintain should be carried out with the necessary humility because it has been and is being produced by fallible people in an imperfect reality.

And that is why it is fitting that in the first sentence of the preamble to the Constitution Bill, we express our humble submission to Almight God, Who controls the destinies of nations and the history of peoples, and that in clause 2 of the Bill we subject ourselves to His sovereignty and guidance.

†In view of the fact that constitutions are being drawn up and implemented by mortals in an imperfect world, there is no such thing as a perfect and universal constitutional model which is applicable at all times to all communities and all States under all circumstances. This Utopian model does not exist.

Although it is self-evident, misconceptions in this regard constitute one of the major obstacles for many people inside and especially outside South Africa to understand the tenets of our constitutional development.

It is often being expected of South Africa by many foreign Governments and critics to utilize exactly the same constitutional models which have for so many years served the industrialized countries and societies of Western Europe and Northern America.

Let me state it unequivocally: We subscribe to those democratic values of our Western European heritage. We state this categorically in the Preamble to the new Constitution, as follows—

Let there be no doubt: We are committed to the upholding and the realization of these values, but we are also thoroughly convinced that it is highly irresponsible and even dangerous to pursue these goals within the framework of structures which apply to highly industrialized and relatively homogeneous societies that are vastly different from our own.

Due to the realities of Southern Africa, it certainly is detrimental to all nations and groups in this country to strive for anything based on the premise of a “one man, one vote” unitary system.

Our quest is to protect minorities, to institutionalize self-determination, to recognize common interests, to maintain effective government and to promote the devolution of power. These are the circumstances which have compelled us to devise and implement something which is unique to the demands and the needs of South Africa.

It is indeed, as I see it, a unity-in-diversity model that symbolizes our common destiny while at the same time preserves different identities on which the constitutional policy of this Government is based. It recognizes our multinational heritage, namely that the population of Southern Africa consists of different peoples and minorities. Of course it is true that it also consists of millions of individuals, but well-nigh all of them prize their membership of distinct entities within the greater microcosm and, rightly or wrongly, these nations and groups compete for political power in order to realize their particular aspirations in all fields of human endeavour. I submit that this last-mentioned fact constitutes an inherent and grave danger, and I would be naive to ignore it. Like any other multi-ethnic society there is a real potential for conflict and polarization in our society. Ethnic polarization is caused when a society becomes entangled in a mounting spiral of expectations, frustrations and deteriorating inter-group relations. Negative perceptions of one another have equally dangerous implications for us in South Africa. All right-minded South Africans and well-meaning friends abroad should do all they can to obviate these tendencies. This is the challenge which confronts us all in this House and in this country. It speaks for itself that this challenge can never be met if we think that survival and peace can ever be achieved by exploiting group animosity, be it levelled against Afrikaners, the English, the Coloureds, the Black peoples or anybody else.

How does this Government set about to meet this challenge?

The Government’s answer is contained in our general constitutional objective, namely that while effective and orderly government is being maintained, everybody, individually and in a group context, should be afforded an effective say in the decision-making processes which affect their interests and aspirations.

This Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill constitutes a serious and bona fide endeavour by this Government to make progress on the road towards realizing the general constitutional objective as far as Whites, Coloureds and Indians are concerned. But let it immediately be added and stressed that this Bill does not provide the total answer for all times to come and for all our constitutional problems. I submit that no constitution can achieve this and that none ever has. There are mainly two reasons for this. Firstly, the Bill as such does not address the problems regarding Black constitutional development. Secondly, it is a political fact of life that steps being taken on an evolutionary constitutional path form part of a process—they are not final solutions—and should be regarded as such. If they are regarded as being final, I believe that we have left the road of orderly, stable constitutional development.

During the no-confidence debate in February this year it was emphatically stated by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—

Why are the Black nations not included in this Bill under discussion? Black constitutional development has gained momentum towards different and separate structures for the Black nations. With due regard to the effective and inevitable co-ordination of common interests, the Government has no intention of departing from this course. Due to the reality of multi-nationalism and ethnic diversity, amongst the Black peoples themselves, the Government remains convinced that it should proceed on this road.

There are individuals and institutions who labour under the misconception that all constitutional problems in Southern Africa can only be solved by a single ideal formula, model or solution. This is obviously not true. If a particular policy aspect or action does not supply the total answer—and may I again issue a warning against absolutist ideas of total and final answers—it is rejected out of hand, despite the fact that it could possibly represent concrete progress in terms of the general constitutional objective for South Africa. I believe that this is an over-simplified approach; the circumstances and needs of the different groups are too divergent and the South African situation much too complex for such an approach.

*In the second place this Bill does not present a final, all-embracing answer because, as has been explained, it forms part of a constitutional process in respect of certain groups. The constitutional development of Whites, Coloureds and Indians has proceeded in a specific way and I concede, with fluctuating degrees of success or failure. Nevertheless the Government has made it its task to undo the consequences of the one man, one vote approach which has been adopted up to this stage, and to cause each group to develop further in a group context. The Government’s policy throughout was, however, that the Whites, Coloureds and Indians should be accommodated in the same constitutional framework. Rigid separatism, homelands and heartlands, were never the policy of the Government.

During the early ’seventies it was realized that satisfactory arrangements in respect of these groups had not yet been made. Consequently the Theron Commission was appointed in 1973 to inquire into all aspects, including the political, pertaining to the Coloured population. The Commission’s recommendations led to the appointment of a Cabinet Committee under the hon. the Prime Minister to investigate the further constitutional development of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The result of the work of this Cabinet Committee was the proposals which were known, and are still known, as the 1977 proposals.

In order to afford everyone involved an opportunity for further reflection, these proposals, the draft legislation in that connection, were referred to a Select Committee under the chairmanship of the present Vice State President. The committee was subsequently converted into a commission which recommended, inter alia, that an expert advisory body, the President’s Council, be established to give future consideration to the question of future constitutional development. The President’s Council was established at the end of 1980 and published its recommendations in May 1982. The Government studied these recommendations, and after a thorough analysis of the recommendations had been made, the hon. the Prime Minister announced the Government’s constitutional guidelines on 30 July 1982. This legislation owes its origin not only to those guidelines, but also to the work which successive Prime Ministers and Government have done in the consitutional sphere over a period of many years.

Because the Bill forms part of an evolutionary constitutional process it naturally implies certain changes to the status quo. And once again there is no political party in this House that wishes to see the status quo preserved. What we disagree about is not the need for constitutional adjustment or reform, but the direction in which one must go in order to ensure these things.

Certain drastic changes to the Westminster system as we know it are being contemplated in the Bill. The movement away from the Westminster system has been urged for some considerable time in South Africa by various persons and bodies. At its deepest levels these efforts spring from the implications of the most conspicuous feature of South African society, viz. its group nature.

There has been a growing awareness that South Africa’s constitutional structures can only serve this society if they reflect and embody the group basis on which our society is constructed. A model which does not satisfy this requirement will lead to the destruction of all values in the country. Herein lies the main reason for the movement away from Westminster: The keystone of the system is the winner-takes-all principle. In a multinational society this must inevitably lead to the majority group dominating the minority groups.

As long ago as 1976 the Theron Commission recommended that—

Although this was a multiracial commission of inquiry and although there was a majority and a minority report, there was consensus on this specific aspect.

In 1980 the Schlebusch Commission formulated its standpoint in this regard as follows—

I cannot conceive of a more clearly formulated standpoint in respect of our future constitutional position than this one.

The President’s Council, in its first report, on page 84, also commented on this matter, and did so as follows—

In the past these facts of South African society had already led to separate political freedoms being created for the various Black peoples and to separate representative institutions for various groups coming into existence. Now the Bill goes further towards eliminating this inherent defect of the Westminster system in a multinational society by making provision for representation on a group basis in separate Houses of Parliament. In conjunction with this the head of government is being placed in the position of being able to compose his executive authority from all three groups.

Our present constitutional structure is also being changed in another respect, and that is in regard to our view of the concept of sovereignty. An inevitable implication of the fact that a plurality of peoples and groups exist, is that the respective groups have their own interests, and in addition to that, general interests in respect of which they have to accept co-responsibility. Consequently a distinction is being drawn in the present legislation between each group’s own affairs and the general or common affairs, which affect everyone. It is therefore essential that each group should have exclusive authority over its own affairs. Surely it is inevitable that Parliament’s final power over such affairs will shift to the own institutions of the groups concerned—in this case their Houses. In that respect the sovereignty of Parliament as it exists today is certainly, and quite rightly so, being curtailed. Consequently the accusation that this Bill is in contradistinction to the 1977 proposals is untrue. The then proposed three Parliaments would have had exclusive legislative authority over their own affairs.

It is also being alleged that parliamentary sovereignty is being further diminished because it is being shifted to the President’s Council as a result of the decision-making function of that body. But what is the actual position in terms of the premises which we, inter alia, accepted in 1977?

In regard to common affairs the Council of Cabinets was to have been empowered to decide to which of the three Parliaments a Bill could be referred for disposal, which need not necessarily have been the White Parliament. This meant that the legislative sovereignty would have been vested in the State President and a Parliament—not necessarily the White Parliament. In that respect, too, the traditional concept of sovereignty was already defunct, and to exaggerate the role of the President’s Council out of context does not change the essence of the argument which I am now advancing here. It is that the realities of our situation had already in the past led to the so-called sovereignty of Parliament being affected by essential adjustments. It was thus affected by the passing of the legislation by means of which Black States became independent, and the legislation by means of which others received their own legislative institutions.

Consequently the question that has to be asked is not where the sovereignty is situated, for in regard to own affairs the locus of sovereignty is different to that in regard to general affairs, just as the locus of sovereignty as far as disputes are concerned, is different to that in regard to matters on which there is unanimity. I would therefore suggest that the question which should rather be asked is whether self-determination and co-responsibility, with retention of stable and effective government, can be realized in our proposals. I maintain that the reply to that is in the affirmative.

The Bill also holds out the prospect of change with regard to the executive authority, and more specifically the office of President. The substance of that change has led to the accusation that the President will have unlimited, and even autocratic, powers. I maintain that this standpoint testifies to a simplistic approach to the constitutional framework that has to further consensus politics, and on the other hand it underestimates the community of interests of the population groups which will be served by the new constitution.

It ignores, as I interpret it, the comprehensive proposed role and powers of the legislative authority as such—the Cabinet, the Ministers’ Councils, the President’s Council and the Parliamentary Standing Committees. It also fails to take into account the Government’s declared intention with regard to the decentralization of the power of the State which must also be conducive to the depoliticizing of a great many different spheres of interest.

It is true that the Bill, and the new dispensation which it will inaugurate, will require a specific attitude on the part of those, including the President, who will hold office in terms of it.

What lies at the heart of the new dispensation, as expressed in the legislation, is that those who may in future become involved in it, will have to perform their duties in a spirit of tolerance; that group interests cannot be held in higher regard than the interests of the country; that the claims of other groups must be moderate and must testify to moderation; and that the achievement of consensus or unanimity and the avoidance of conflict or confrontation will have to be the highest priority. If those attitudes do not apply to the people who have to work and function within this system, the model will not be able to ensure peace, stability and order.

To the extent to which the President will have more extensive powers than the Prime Minister has at present, those powers will exist to enable him to attempt to resolve any conflicting standpoints among the groups. They will exist in order to create new and more opportunities for the formulation of consensus. They will also be applicable or used primarily if the process which affords ample opportunity for the formulation of consensus has been gone through unsuccessfully.

Naturally the President, as with any other component of the proposed political system, will have to believe in that system. I cannot imagine that the system will appoint a person as President who does not have that belief, but if this should nevertheless happen, the system will reject him, and in terms of the Bill it will be lawfully capable of rejecting him.

†I submit, therefore, that successful constitutional reform presupposes a favourable attitude and disposition particularly among the principal actors in the new political system. That applies to all components of that system.

I also submit that the system which is envisaged by the present Bill will have sufficient checks and balances to curtail any component thereof which may lack that disposition.

Yes, we will need to put our trust in all the components of the new system, inclusive of the President. But we need not do so blindly, and this Bill does not require of us to do so blindly. On the other hand, I believe it is as futile to trust blindly as it is to be totally cynical, as many people are in this country.

Every leader of men who does not heed the advice of Jefferson will forfeit his position of leadership. That advice is: When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property. To adapt another statement of his: The representatives of the people, when assembled in the components of the new political system, will not allow this country to be translated from liberty to depotism in a featherbed.

Whatever it is that people fear the President may do or not do—assuming that fear to be genuine—I am convinced that he will be as incapable of things fearful and unconstitutional as the Prime Minister in the system we have today.

*Finally we shall analyse and discuss the validity of the criticism that the Government is establishing a totalitarian state or regime in South Africa, particularly in the light of the fact that this Bill, in contrast with this accusation, seeks to ensure a broader base for political participation is increased.

What is the real position with regard to the office of President, as reflected in the Bill?

In the first place the office of State President and Prime Minister are being combined. This is apparent from clause 7 which includes the present functions of the State President, and clause 22 which makes the President the Chairman of the Cabinet.

Now one may ask what is sinister about the office of ceremonial State President, who is in any event able to exercise virtually all his functions only on the advice of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, being combined with that of the present Prime Minister. What powers can such a person have which are greater than those of the Prime Minister in the existing dispensation? The reason for the combination of the offices is not to create a President with unlimited powers. If that had in fact been the intention, it could have been done in far simpler ways. The reasons for this step are the following: Firstly, a ceremonial Head of State over and above an effective Head of Government is a heritage from the British monarchy, without any real justification for its existence in our system. Secondly, the retention, on the other hand, of the present office of Prime Minister within the context of a Parliament consisting of three Houses is not advisable, because the Prime Minister must be a member of one of those Houses. Thirdly, in order to prevent the executive authority from becoming an issue among the participating groups and Houses, it has therefore been provided that the head of government should take over one characteristic of the ceremonial State President, which is that he may not be a member of Parliament after his election. For the rest he plays the role of the present Prime Minister.

It is also untrue that the State President will have unlimited powers. His powers are limited in the following ways: Firstly, in respect of own affairs, he may only act on the advice of the Ministers’ Council concerned, and he is therefore in precisely the same position as the present State President. Secondly, in respect of general affairs he is, with the exception of a number of matters which will be regulated in the Bill, required to consult his Cabinet in regard to his decisions. The exceptions are the constitutional matters which may at present also be dealt with by the State President according to his own discretion, or matters which the Prime Minister is at present not obliged to discuss with his Cabinet, for example the appointment of Ministers, the addressing of Parliament, the determining of sessions, the dissolution of Parliament, etc. Thirdly, in the exercise of his powers, the President continues to be subject to the prevailing conventions we find these in clause 7(5)—in regard to the appointment of his Ministers, the signing of legislation, etc. Fourthly, the President has no legislative powers and is dependent on the three Houses of Parliament for carrying out the legislative programme, and for his budget. Fifthly, the President’s tenure of office is limited to that of Parliament and in that respect his position is as uncertain as that of any elected politician in the House. Sixthly, when motions of no confidence in him or his Government are passed in all three Houses, he must call a general election, after which a new Presidential election takes place. This is precisely the same as the present position. In the seventh place, the President may be divested of the duties of his office on the grounds of misconduct or inability to perform such duties. This will be possible if he abuses his powers. These are the facts. The allegation that the President will have powers “which tyrants lust after” is therefore untrue and malicious.

However, there is one sphere in which the President will have more powers. Specifically this is to decide in cases of doubt whether a matter is an own or general affair. In this case, too, the President’s power is strictly defined. Firstly, own affairs, and therefore by implication general affairs as well are fully tabulated in the proposed constitution and the President may not go beyond these confines. The schedule on own affairs is being entrenched and the President may not amend it on his own. Secondly, the President is also required to take his decision on the basis of strict criteria, which are laid down in clause 18. If the interpretive decision he takes is obviously and irrationally at variance with this definition, he will have to reckon with the public reaction to such a decision, and he himself will be instrumental in the subversion and destruction of the system. Thirdly, owing to the sensitivity of the question of the distinction between own and general affairs, and its importance to the respective groups, exceptional political pressure will be exerted on him and the President will be obliged to exercise his power in this connection with the greatest circumspection. In this case, too, there is no question of unlimited powers.

I have been suggesting that the political style which we have adopted up to now in this country will have to change if we wish to make a success of the new dispensation as it is being contemplated. This Bill makes provision for the participation of various groups in the decision-making processes and for the presence of various groups in deliberations and debates. A high premium is being placed on the contribution of, inter alia, the new, expanded committee system to promote consensus or break down the present conflict style. It requires of all participants—I am also addressing myself to those who are going to participate in this process in future—to refrain from constantly opposing and reviling one another for the sake of petty, sectional political gain, or emphasizing the decisive and polarizing factors in our society and interfering in one another’s domestic affairs. They will, while still retaining the support of their followers, have to accept co-responsibility for the well-being and welfare of all and will rather have to emphasize the cohesive factors in society and try to reconcile the divergent, even conflicting, interests of the various groups to the benefit of South Africa as a whole. Leaders will have to moderate their statements about one another and about other groups, because this new style calls for reconciliation instead of polarization. This Bill requires all participants to school themselves in the techniques of consultation, negotiation, consensus and co-operation. This Bill calls for leadership.

A point which has to be made about the Bill at this stage is that the provisions of the Constitution Bill as such have no effect on the role of the provinces and local authorities. For that reason provision is merely being made for the continued existence of provincial boundaries and the establishment of instruments to bring about the re-structuring of constitutional structures and processes on a provincial and local level in order to implement the guidelines of the Government once the technical investigations in co-operation and consultation with the bodies concerned have been disposed of. Until that stage has been reached, the provinces and local authorities shall continue normally with the functions at present entrusted to them. In the opinion of the Government and also in view of the geographic extensiveness of our country, the existence of a second tier system of government is an absolute requirement. The truth, as I see it, is that the reform policy of the Government, as it is contained in this Bill, testifies to courageousness. It testifies to a willingness to face up to and deal with South Africa’s problems, to do justice to the reasonable expectations of the population groups that will be served by it and to give effect to the principle that no group ought to dominate another or may deny any other group participation in the political decision-making processes. The reform policy of the Government does not bear the stamp of fear, panic or hesitation. Nor does it bear the stamp of weakness or abdication. It is not a policy which is aimed at cosmetic adjustments. It is not born of desperation, uncertainty or lack of faith. It testifies to realism and magnanimity. It testifies to a real will to survive in a just way and to do what are prerequisites to this fearlessly. We shall do everything in our power to bring people together and not to alienate them from one another; to give meaningful expression to the principles of equality and human dignity and to give a visible and unmistakable countenance of legitimacy to the face and heart of South African politics.

It is truly our will and desire that posterity will refer to us as the fearless and not the fearful, as the servants of peace and not as fugitives and as the architects of a new era in the relations politics of South Africa and not as the symbols of selfishness, narrow-mindedness, self-glorification and complacency.

This Bill is going to confront us with important choices that will have far reaching consequences. We shall not escape from the standpoints which we adopt on the Bill in this debate, and therefore I wish to advocate once again that we do not allow this opportunity of making a choice for reform and adjustment to pass, even if we are not satisfied that it is wide-ranging or drastic enough.

I maintain that it would be foolish to reject improvement and the prelude to further improvement because it is not perfect in our view.

It would be equally counterproductive to offer resistance because we insist on exclusiveness and total sovereignty for ourselves alone.

This country has an urgent need for an increasingly democratic debate and for more democratic institutions.

If it is given to us to survive, if it is given to us to liberate people and to establish a fair and democratic political dispensation, then the passing of this Bill will represent the realization of that privilege.

I have faith in the victory of those values and ideals which will make continued existence in our fatherland worthwhile.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult challenges in Africa, and in the Third World generally, is successfully to bring about peaceful evolutionary constitutional change. I think Africa is strewn with constitutional skeletons and wreckage.

This challenge becomes almost impossible, almost superhuman, one might say, when an endangered and a privileged White minority is expected not only to initiate such a change, but also to be present at its completion. In South Africa, we do not have the colonial option available to us, for example, the colonial option being the possibility to withdraw from the scene of constitutional change which has been brought about. We shall have to be present throughout the process and we shall have to participate in the eventual constitution which we ourselves have created.

In that respect, I immediately concede to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that we cannot expect an ideal constitution under these circumstances. From the nature of the case, it will be the result of bargaining, compromise and agreement.

However, the challenge with which South Africa is faced is that such a peaceful process must in fact be initiated. I want to concede at once that the Government has accepted the challenge, but at the same time the Government has bungled the opportunity with this Bill.

The bungling began with the very process of creating the constitution. From the very start, irremediable flaws have been built into the Bill because of the way in which the Government initiated the process and is still proceeding with it. In short, this Bill was unilaterally drawn up, unilaterally ratified and unilaterally tabled in Parliament. The NP committed its constitutional negotiators to a plan which could not be changed without the approval of its congresses. I notice that the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that no constitution as such can create or change attitudes. I concede that to him, but a constitution can reflect attitudes. A constitution can be symptomatic of the feelings, of the ideals and of the cooperation of people who have participated in the process of creating the constitution. In this respect, I believe, the Government has failed dismally. In fact, it would appear to me that the Government is oblivious to the problem of what I call the “validity crisis” of a constitution. The validity crisis of a constitution has nothing to do with its legality, but with the way in which people become involved in the creation of that constitution.

It is not for me to furnish an historical analysis on this occasion of the constitution-making in South Africa, but when we read about the National Convention of 1908, 1909 and 1910, we see that in that entire process of constitution-making, various groups were involved, divergent groups, groups which did not belong to the same party, groups which did not belong to the same province or to the same Republics, but groups which had confronted one another in a bloody war a few years before. They were all involved in that process, and they struggled to arrive at a joint declaration of intent. Having arrived at that declaration of intent, they began to negotiate with one another about the merits of various constitutional possibilities for South Africa. As the hon. the Minister himself said in his Second Reading speech, this laid the foundation for a new attitude, a new outlook.

The hon. the Minister says, for example, that this new constitution requires all participants to school themselves in the techniques of consultation, negotiation, consensus and co-operation. He said that this constitution requires leadership. However, that is not what this constitution can demand at this stage. This constitution should have reflected it in the process by which it came into being. That is the dilemma. That is one of the problems. It serves no purpose for the Government to turn around now and to say that the opportunity was there to serve on the President’s Council. [Interjections.] With whom did the hon. the Minister negotiate? He negotiated with the Coloured Labour Party, a party which had refused to serve on the President’s Council. He negotiated with them and not with the members of the President’s Council. He did not go and negotiate with the Sonny Leons, but with the Currys and the Hendrickses, people who had flatly refused to serve in that institution. Why? Because that was where the true political bargaining process lay. Without that co-operation all those other institutions would have been of no value.

That is precisely the point we want to put to the hon. the Minister now. If he proceeds from the standpoint that it is not necessary to negotiate with other White parties and to involve them in the creation of the constitution, this is the way to go about it.

†Mr. Speaker, this inadequate and faulty process led to a Constitution Bill that has major flaws also in its content. Thus, both in process and in content, we have a totally unsatisfactory Constitution Bill. Firstly, looking at content, Black exclusion from this new constitution is not a matter of temporary political inconvenience. This was made quite clear by the hon. the Minister. In fact, it is a constitutional precondition for the operation of this Bill. In other words, in terms of the logic and structure of this constitution, it is impossible to include Blacks without radically changing the constitution of the country. To call it a step in the right direction because Black exclusion is a constitutional precondition for Coloured and Asian inclusion, is to make a mockery of the prospects of peace in the future of our country. It is as much a step in the right direction as is a step in a dark tunnel towards the light of an oncoming train. It has the illusion of hope, but not the substance.

There is no way we can write the constitutional history of Whites and Blacks in this country separately. It does not help for the hon. the Minister to say that constitutional processes are going to include Blacks in their separate spheres. This is the constitution that is going to count. This is the constitution in which the real power is going to lie. This is the constitution in terms of which the real decisions are going to be taken, and it is futile for the hon. the Minister to argue that there are other constitutional provisions made if the people who are going to be subjected to this constitution have no access to influencing the decisions which will affect their lives. It is as simple as that.

Secondly, when one looks at the content of this Bill, one sees that the extraordinary powers of the President will in many respects be similar to the extraordinary powers enjoyed by the hon. the Prime Minister at present, and these are bad and unchecked enough as it is. We have a Government which can ban opponents, organizations and meetings at will, without any recourse to justice on the part of those affected. These awesome powers are transferred holus-bolus, and instead of decentralizing and checking the powers of the new executive President, he gets all the existing powers, plus new ones that are not subject to review by any court of law. This is stated quite clearly in the Bill. Constitutionally, he may not be a dictator in the technical sense, but he will be an autocrat functioning under a constitution geared for dictatorship. Some people say that it is necessary to give the Prime Minister these powers in this new constitution and to combine his post with that of the President so that he can cope with the right-wing threat. There are people who say that. I find this an extraordinary weird logic—that one has to in fact urge the creation of a dictatorship in order to prevent one. I hope that Providence will spare us such questionable wisdom. We do not create constitutions to serve the psychological predispositions of an individual. We create constitutions for the political government of a country. It is futile for the hon. the Minister to tell me what the personality charactistics of this new President should be, that he should be a tolerant man, that he should perform his tasks diligently, that he should be prepared to compromise and that he should play a conciliatory role. I would hope that the present Prime Minister would do that. He does not need a constitution to do that. The attitude of the individual who is going to occupy the position cannot be legislated for. We have to take our chance with history, and if it is a bad President, it is a bad President, and if it is a good one, obviously we shall be happy. However, there is a fundamental constitutional difficulty here. It is expected of this President to play a conciliatory role, and he is not only the creature of the legislature, but in fact the creature of the dominant party in that legislature. He is as subject to caucus rule and caucus preference as he is at present. In other words, he comes out of the legislature, and he governs in an executive capacity. He has no independent power base in society. He cannot refer to popular will. He cannot refer to being elected by the people. He is simply a creature of 50 members of the NP in the White Chamber. That is his position. It is from that position that he has to play a conciliatory role and from that position he has to demonstrate his remarkable psychological predispositions which the hon. the Minister urges on us.

The other argument concerning the President is that some say that because the CP and the PFP oppose this Bill they cannot both be right. However, in terms of the powers of the President, they can. The CP fears a PFP President and the PFP fears a CP President. Constitutionally the President has got the discretion to confirm the worst fears of either if he should occupy that position. There are no checks and balance on his behalf. He has that kind of discretion to use for good or bad.

Thirdly, the problem of political or group domination has not been ignored in this constitution. In fact, it has deliberately been compounded, nourished and entrenched. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has argued from the outset—and I have never taken issue with him on it because I do not believe it is necessary—that the central constitutional problem in South Africa is the problem of domination, i.e. group domination or political domination. How do we get away from the problem of domination? But in this particular case it is not only domination of one race or ethnic group over others. It is the domination of one single, dominant party over others, in this case domination of the NP over others. In some respects this proposed constitution is moving away from the good aspects of the Westminster system and has carried over some of its worst aspects, of which majority domination by a single party is one. I honestly do not understand the hon. the Minister when he says that we must get away from the principle of the winner takes all. He said in his speech that the principle of the winner takes all must not be a characteristic of the new constitution. He said—

*But, Mr. Speaker, the effect of this Bill is precisely that one party takes all. That party is the winner in the composition of the electoral college, and it is the winner when it comes to decisions that have to be taken in respect of all important aspects, such as the composition of the President’s Council. [Interjections.] To tell us that with this new constitution we are getting away from the Westminster system is nonsense, therefore.

†The proposed constitution, Mr. Speaker, is in fact carrying over the worst aspects of the Westminster system. The present constitution is nothing but a political tool for the NP to run the country as it deems fit. The proposed constitution makes sure that the NP can look after this tool without interference of any kind. This is clear from clause 8 and clause 72.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the PFP has devoted far more serious attention to constitutional mechanisms to prevent domination than the Government has ever done. The PFP has gone into this whole problem of what constitutional mechanisms are available. For instance, we have suggested the decentralization of power, the deconcentration of power, the drawing up of a bill of rights, proportional representation, the testing rights of the judiciary, monority veto—all these are constitutional mechanisms that try to come to grips with the problem of domination. We have gone further by admitting that these constitutional mechanisms on their own are not sufficient. They must reflect a process that has preceded it, a process whereby people have been involved to commit themselves to these mechanisms. Then there will be a greater degree of certainty that that constitution will have legitimacy and support. The Government, however, tries to solve the problem of domination simply by entrenching it in the constitution. The real problem constitutionally, they say, is one of domination. How do we cope with it? By entrenching the NP as the dominant force in politics under the new constitution. That is all it does.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, an important point is that racially discriminatory legislation is not only transferred in toto to this new constitution, but some of the worst discriminatory laws of this land are necessary conditions for this constitution to work at all. Without these discriminatory laws, this constitution cannot work. I refer here specifically to the Population Registration Act and to the Group Areas Act. In this sense what has the Government done? By creating this new constitution it has not set up a set neutral rules in terms of which political parties can compete for power or for position. What has it done? It has taken its own policy and has constitutionalized it by making it part of the constitution. In order to do that it has had to entrench discriminatory practices in order for people to participate in this constitution. For this constitution to work one has not legally but also constitutionally to demonstrate to another person that he is different and unequal because of the colour of his skin. That is why the Population Registration Act is necessary.

*The hon. the Minister spoke about the group nature of South African society. I concede that South African society consists of various groups, but then we do not need the Population Registration Act for those groups to take care of themselves. Then we do not need to embody those laws in a new constitution so that that group nature can manifest itself. If people are not going to do so voluntarily for political purposes, we can write if off as something which is not really a political factor. But this Government cannot do that. It has to embody it in its new constitution.

†This brings us to the paradox of reform built into this constitution. Surely one of the goals of reform must be to remove racial discrimination. Racial discrimination, however, is necessary for this constitution to work. Therefore, if one wants to reform one must hope that the constitution will not work. That is the only way that one can get away from racial discrimination. I challenge the Government to ask any Coloured politician or leader of repute to go back to his constituency and justify the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act as preconditions for making this constitution to operate. It is impossible, Mr. Speaker.

Fifthly, the constitutional role of an Opposition is left alarmingly vague and ambiguous in this proposed constitution, and when I speak of the constitutional role of an Opposition I am not talking only of the PFP, but of any Opposition, whether in the White Chamber, in the Coloured Chamber or in the Asian Chamber. This role is vague, alarmingly vague. It is not clear what position they are going to have. I accept that under the new constitution Opposition parties will have to compete with at least seven or eight or maybe ten other parties in other Chambers for access to the media, to newspapers, etc. The dominant party will always have access and will always be in a position of control. I accept that that is going to happen. But that is part of the hustings. We can fight that out; we can try our best to promote our interests. But what we cannot do is that we cannot fight against a constitution which does not give an Opposition the right actually to play a constructive role. Let me make this very clear. If at the end of this debate there is any question about this issue, the Government is going to face very severe problems indeed. Because to increase the role of Opposition is to increase democratic Government. To decrease it is to drift towards despotism.

*The greatest disservice which this Bill does South Africa is to shunt the central political debate in South Africa onto a sidetrack. While we have to debate the question of how White and Black can co-exist peacefully in South Africa, we have witnessed the most unedifying in-fighting among the Whites themselves over the way in which Coloureds and Indians should be accommodated constitutionally in what is a highly unsatisfactory and inadequate way. Sometimes I think it would be better to have an apparently verkrampte Prime Minister who concerns himself with the realities of South Africa rather than an apparently enlightened Prime Minister who concerns himself with irrelevances. The most striking thing about the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech was not so much its contents. The most striking thing about it was that there was not a single “Hear, hear” during his entire speech. They sat there in deathly silence. I pity the hon. the Minister. First there was this challenge, which complicated his task enormously, and now he is faced with the results of that challenge, which are going to make his task even more difficult within that party. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that from the Transvaal the NP is going to be forced back to the real debate in South Africa. I can see it coming, and I am sounding this warning even at this early stage.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to be subjected from now on to a media onslaught which is going to puff up this Bill, this new constitution, and which is going to present it as the greatest solution South Africa could possibly have arrived at.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared to participate with me in a calm television debate on this proposed constitution. [Interjections.] I have issued this challenge before. Surely it is a reasonable request which I am making. [Interjections.] They can even arrange for the bulbs to fuse at critical moments. I do not mind. But I know the hon. the Minister will not accept the challenge. I address this challenge to the hon. the Leader of the CP as well. We differ profoundly as far as our opposition to this Bill is concerned, and I believe that the public of South Africa is entitled to hear our standpoints, presented in a reasoned manner on television.

I ask the hon. member for Waterberg to accept such a challenge. [Interjections.] We could approach the SABC with a request to debate the merits and shortcomings of this Bill on television. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Waterberg is tempted by the idea of such a debate. [Interjections.]

But you cannot debate it; after all, you agree with each other. [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Speaker, we differ profoundly. That statement of the hon. the Minister’s makes no sense at all. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, there are some who caution me and say that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to woo away PFP support. I am told that I am in trouble; that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to woo away PFP support; that I must be pragmatic and more expedient because of the right-wing threat. I am told that I should be like the NRP—always on the shady side of the Government’s light side. [Interjections.] This Bill poses a greater threat than any right-wing movement at the moment. It is going to become a recipe for right-wing growth should it ever be executed. Allow me to make it quite clear that no matter how strong the propaganda onslaught on this party, the PFP will not be deterred in its opposition to this Bill. [Interjections.] People who may leave us to support the Government on this new constitution have never understood what we stand for in the first place or why they have supported us at all. [Interjections.]

Order!

This constitution, Mr. Speaker, entrenches what we have fought against since our inception, and what we will continue to fight against as long as we are able to do so. Our land and our children—all of them—have suffered because of the present constitution and because of their suffering our land and our children deserve better than this new constitution. They need a much better one; one that we will definitely never stop struggling for.

*The hon. the Minister says there is a need for democratic debate. I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, I am afraid that this proposed new constitution is not going to help us promote that debate.

†No Opposition—and I should like to make this abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker—that is worth its salt and that cares for democracy will voluntarily assist in preparing its country for dictatorial rule. No Opposition party worth its salt will knowingly legislate itself into being constitutionally dominated by one single political party. No Opposition worth its salt will approve that 70% of the people of the country be excluded from participating in the constitution of that country. No Opposition worth its salt will condone racial discrimination as necessary for its country’s constitution to work at alí. Finally, Mr. Speaker, no Opposition worth its salt will stand indifferent to the constitutional position of an Opposition party.

An Opposition concerned about its role in a constitution and about the process of the democratization of South Africa, not only withholds support from a Bill of this nature, but actively and vigorously opposes it in the strongest possible fashion that Parliament allows it. I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again let a golden opportunity slip by. [Interjections.] I want to say quite honestly that I feel that this is an historic occasion here this afternoon. We are, after all, busy discussing a Bill giving South Africa a new constitution. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has, as far as I personally am concerned, given an extremely disappointing performance here this afternoon. He dropped the level of this debate, I believe, to that of an ordinary political debate. I do not think this was the occasion for that sort of thing.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the principle of “the winner takes all”. Surely that is an absolutely simplistic view of the Bill we are busy with here, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that for the first time minority groups—the Coloureds and the Asians—are being given the opportunity to take part in the normal democratic process in the country by way of a chamber for each group. They have full control over their own affairs. So is that an argument to raise on such an important occasion?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say that our actions here are one-sided. From the very beginning, however, the Government has attempted to achieve maximum consensus, and in the President’s Council we did indeed succeed in doing so. We are continuing with our efforts to achieve maximum consensus, as is apparent from the fact that after Second Reading this Bill is going to a Select Committee where the PFP, and the CP and the NRP will have ample opportunity to discuss it. In this way we are therefore again attempting to obtain maximum consensus.

But that is after the principle has been approved.

It looks to me as if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has some fundamental problems getting the members on his side of the House reconciled to this Bill, the whole reform process, this new dispensation. I think that is where the fundamental problem lies.

That is absolute nonsense.

The constitutional development of a country consists of processes that continue for many generations and many years before reaching full maturity. In the case of the USA, Britain, France and Germany, to name but a few, those processes continued for a hundred years or more. In the case of South Africa, constitutional development got its start with the National Convention of 1910. Fifty years later, in 1961, after years of struggle and debate, this resulted in the constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which brought a free republic into being here. In 1983, 22 years later, again after years of struggle and debate, we have now again reached an historic moment in considering the new draft constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1983, in terms of which a new political dispensation must come into being. This political development, in the widest sense—it includes various contiguous processes—will not have been finalized with the passing of this new legislation. The processes of political development will have to continue for many years into the future before reaching full maturity. Gathered as we are here today, we are engaged in making an important and historic contribution to this political development and are privileged to do so, as were generations before us, in 1910 and again in 1961 no more and no less! We have not yet reached the end of the road as far as constitutional development is concerned, the end of all the political processes. Our generation stands in the very midst of this process. As the hon. the Prime Minister has said, no point is ever reached, in the life of any people, when all bottlenecks can be done away with.

At the federal congress of the NP in Bloemfontein on 30 and 31 June 1982, the hon. the Prime Minister said in his opening address, inter alia—

Then there are the following significant words—

These days it is alleged, on the one hand, that the members of Black communities are excluded from this political development and that the Government holds itself aloof when it comes to their political aspirations, and on the other hand that it is supposedly the Government’s secret intention, with this proposed new constitution of 1983, to open the doors to Black people outside the national States, so that they can obtain seats in this Parliament.

Have you cleared your speech with Johan?

I am now dealing with a serious matter. The hon. member must just give me a chance.

But have you cleared your speech with Johan?

Order!

Those are the two allegations that are most commonly made, and they come, on the one hand, from the PFP, as happened again this afternoon, and on the other hand from the CP. Let us now test these allegations against the facts and realities of history and the situation prevailing today.

From the very beginning the right to self-determination and freedom has played a decisive role in the political processes that have evolved in this country, and in the years to come they will remain the cornerstones of political development processes. The political development processes have, from the very beginning, been built on this foundation which, after 70 years or more, cannot now or in the future be changed unless overcome by revolution or violence.

Let us now subject this to the test of history. Whilst provision was consistently made in the South Africa Act, 1909, and the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, for the responsibility for the administration of justice, amongst other things, being under the control of a Minister of State—compare section 139 of Act 9 of 1909 and section 95 of Act 32 of 1961—it is worth noting that it is specifically provided that the management and administration of matters involving people from Black communities rest with the State President-in-Council—previously the Governor-General-in-Council—and not with a Minister of State. In this regard compare section 147 of Act 9 of 1909 and section 111 of Act 32 of 1961. It is clear that from the very beginning it was the legislator’s intention that matters involving people from Black communities would, in this country, be treated differently to those of Whites and other population groups. This principle has consistently been carried through in subsequent legislation in terms of which the Governor-General, and later the State President, was authorized to institute separate courts for people from the Black communities and to grant specific jurisdiction to Commissioners. In this connection compare, for example, sections 9 and 10—as amended from time to time—of the Black Administration Act, 1927, Act 38 of 1927.

Let us, for a moment, take a closer look at the history of all this. When Gen. Louis Botha was Prime Minister he stated, in a speech in 1912, according to De Volkstem of 24 September 1912—

On 16 May 1913 Gen. J. B. M. Hertzog stated in the House of Assembly—

Subsequently Gen. J. C. Smuts stated, in 1917 (J. C. Smuts—War-Time Speeches, 1917, pp. 89-90)—

What I am doing is subjecting the accusations made against us to the test of history and the realities that apply today. Then each person must decide for himself. According to a report in Die Burger of 5 April 1923—before I and most hon. members in this House were born—Dr. D. F. Malan said the following beautiful words—

When he was Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog said the following to a Black audience in Pretoria in 1925—

Listen to these beautiful words—

That was what he said on 4 December 1925. Was that not a prophet talking?

So the political development process took its historical course, based on the foundations of the first Union constitution, i.e. self-determination. In 1936 the Development Trust and Land Act was placed on the Statute Book, an Act in terms of which 7,25 million morgen of land was to have been added to the historical native areas, thus initiating a process of consolidation, a process which is still continuing today, 47 years later.

Since 1950, after the appearance of the Tomlinson report, the process of political development for the people of the Black communities, still based on the principle of self-determination has manifested itself in three phases. Since 1950 and up to the present day I have played an intimate part in this process in the sense of having been appointed as a research officer to Dr. Verwoerd’s personal staff to do ad hoc research for him. Subsequently I was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and, in recent years, Minister of Co-operation and Development.

In 1951 two very important pieces of legislation came to the fore. There was the Black Authorities Bill (Act 68 of 1951) that made provision for a new system of authorities based on the traditional authority of chiefs in the homelands and—very interesting—in the same year the Urban Authorities Bill for people from Black communities in White areas. By way of a system of advisory boards that were introduced, the latter Bill, which made provision for a new system of local government for any by people from Black communities, only underwent further development in correction with a system of advisory boards that were introduced, 20 years later with the acceptance of the Community Councils Act in 1971, which in turn developed into the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, which it was my privilege to place on the Statute Book last year. In terms of that Act people from Black communities can now obtain autonomous and fully-fledged Black local government with authority for and by themselves at local authority level. In the second half of the year the first elections, based on their own voters’ rolls, as for Whites, will be taking place. The process involved in reaching that stage has therefore lasted from 1951 to 1983—i.e. 32 years—and has only now, after 32 years, reached this initial stage.

In 1951 the former Act, the Bantu Authorities Act, made provision for the existing tribal authority, which consisted of a chief and his councillors, to manage tribal affairs.

One may not like it and one may disagree, but no reasonable and responsible person can deny the historical facts that have spanned 70 to 80 years of our country’s history. Nor can one deny the historical realities. There is, of course, the difficulty that history has passed some of those hon. members by completely, and this afternoon in this House too. These tribal authorities developed into a regional authority which could rope together a number of tribal authorities in a specific region. From the regional authority the territorial authority developed as the umbrella authority over all the linked-up tribal and regional authorities in the territory of a particular people.

That process took nine years, and subsequently that political development process entered its second phase—in my lifetime—and led to the historically important announcement on 20 May 1959 in this House. That afternoon it was my privilege to sit up there in the gallery and hear Dr. Verwoerd announcing, on that historic occasion, that each Black people would be helped towards achieving self-government and hence its own fully-fledged legislative assembly, its own Cabinet, its own Chief Minister and, if it should so choose, independence. That afternoon Prof. F. R. Tomlinson was sitting next to me, and when the then Leader of the Opposition stood up and, as was the case this afternoon, did not grasp the historic nature of the occasion and let it pass him by, Prof. Tomlinson sat back and said: What a tragedy we are witnessing here! Subsequently history proved him to have been quite correct, just as history—I am no prophet—will prove me right in what I am saying here this afternoon.

A logical ingredient of what happened in the House on that historical occasion in 1959, a logical ingredient of that political development, was the termination of the limited representation that the people of Black communities had in this Parliament. Substance was given to this epoch-making constitutional turn of events in the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, 1959, whereby the process of political development of Black peoples and national States, still based on the principle of self-determination, entered the phase that was to last to this very day, 24 years later, a process in terms of which our four national States, i.e. Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, became independent States. A fifth, kwaNdebele, is now asking to become independent during 1984, and other national States are in various stages of considering this possibility. In the meantime this political development process has also led to all national States in South Africa developing fully-fledged self-government, hence with their own legislative assemblies, their own Cabinets and their own Chief Ministers. Because of historical factors only one, Kangwane, although lodging strong pleas to enter upon phase 2, has not yet achieved this goal, although it has entered upon phase 1, that of self-government.

The third phase in this political development process since 1950—seen historically and realistically—was reached when the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, announced in Parliament in February 1983 that a Cabinet Committee consisting of Cabinet members closely involved in political development, would be established to advise the Cabinet, on the basis of negotiations conducted with the widest possible spectrum of leaders of Black peoples, of independent and of self-governing national States and of Black communities, about further political development in general and about the identified bottle-necks in particular, with a view to taking suitable steps—an historic moment in the history of this process of political development. The Government declares that it regards continuous consultation and negotiation as an indispensable method of carrying through political development within the framework of its political objectives and of finding answers to problems that unavoidably crop up in the process.

The Government also accepts the fact that large numbers of the Black peoples will be present in the RSA on a permanent basis. This fact must also be borne in mind in the responsible planning of the political development process. To try to think these people out of existence, or to pretend that they do not exist, amounts to irresponsible and dangerous escapism, which the Government does not want to make itself guilty of. Self-determination at local government level by Black town councils and village councils is assured in terms of the 1982 Act. Such local authorities form structures embodying the potential for the co-ordination of local community interests with contiguous RSA structures and, where practicable, also with neighbouring States and self-governing States. It is accepted that Black people in the RSA also have expectations that go beyond local government level. The meaningful satisfaction of those expectations is undoubtedly one of the most important political challenges facing us at present and in the years ahead. That is the challenge that inevitably has to be met, but with great responsibility, because the problem is naturally exceptionally complicated. I am grateful, to the very depths of my being, for the privilege of being able to be part of this, because the process for making this possible was initiated in February 1983 by the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, as Gen. Hertzog and Dr. Verwoerd had done earlier in 1950 and 1959. Allow me to state this afternoon—it will be recorded in Hansard and remain as evidence—that I myself have no doubts about the favourable trend of further political development, as has been the case since 1910. As in the past 70 years or more, Blacks and Whites will again work together, will take one another by the hand, as I personally learned from Dr. Verwoerd in 1950, and peacefully bring this process to maturity. Both Blacks and Whites want to maintain orderly Government in this country and promote the spiritual and material prosperity of our country and its people in so far as this can be done along political lines. I can present the House with a beautiful historical picture of how this has successfully been done for more than 70 years now. Have we then lost so much of our mettle that we are no longer able to do it? The aswer is no, we have not.

From what I have said, it is therefore very clear, if we apply the test of historic and present-day realities, that allegations made in this country about people from Black communities not being involved in the political development process of this country, are untrue. They are definitely not being excluded from the political development processes at all. In accordance with the principle of self-determination which, throughout this country’s history, has been the foundation on which the political development processes have been based, the political development process of people from Black communities therefore clearly lies along another path.

Nor does the Government hold itself aloof from the political aspirations of the people from Black communities. This does not, however, mean that a fourth chamber in this Parliament is the solution. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning put it very well and very clearly (Hansard, col. 213, 2 February 1983)—

As we indeed do—

for people from Black communities outside the national States. Then there is a very significant sentence embodying a very dynamic aspect. Listen to this—

That would be impractical and unheard-of. I myself said in Parliament on 1 February 1983 that a fourth chamber was not the only means by which political solutions for the South Africa’s problems could be found. There are other and better ways in which plural communities can find solutions. The process for doing so has already been initiated by the NP Government and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular. With a positive attitude we shall indeed find that solution. As I said initially, we are in the very midst of processes of political development involving all population groups on the basis of the principle of self-determination. Do hon. members opposite not realize that the new dispensation being introduced by this new constitution clearly embodies the principle of self-determination for the White people. Brown people and Asians? This process will continue and, in my opinion, enter upon a fourth phase, that of confederation or of the establishment of multilateral and bilateral structures to realize certain political objectives, i.e. those of ensuring all people from the various population groups a share in the decision-making processes and of realizing the aspirations—based on human dignity—of all the people in our country, regardless of colour or other differences. In this country, I believe, we are well on the way to achieving this by way of the reform process, and this new Republic of South Africa consitution, 1983, is therefore an epoch-making milestone in this political development process to ensure, on the one hand, the self-determination of Whites, Brown people and Asians and, on the other hand, the acceptance of meaningful joint responsibility in matters of common concern. In the political history of this country that will be the significant fact, whilst the dispute that suddenly flared up around the word “power-sharing” will merely be a footnote, something which, in our time, created an unnecessary and untimely political ripple.

How important, difficult and challenging the demands are which these political development processes present to South Africa and its people is apparent in what the famed British historian, Arnold Toynbee, wrote about South Africa. This has alwas been a personal inspiration to me, and I quote—

I firmly believe him to be right. If we—the White people, Brown people, the Asians and Black people—in South Africa can introduce political formulas in terms of which we can live together in peace, mankind in general will benefit from it. If that does not appear possible, mankind will be the victim. For many years mankind will suffer. Toynbee gave a clear exposition of this in a brilliant article about South Africa.

I conclude by saying, on the basis of my many years’ experience of public life, that I am convinced of the fact that South Africa has the human material and the leaders, in all our various peoples and communities, to accept this great challenge and successfully complete this difficult task—because difficult it certainly is—in spite of some people who are now coming to the fore in an effort to prevent the country and its people from doing so. I therefore make a simple but sincere appeal to everyone—I am doing it for the sake of my children and the children of many peoples—to join us and work together so that under the leadership of a Statesman of stature, Mr. P. W. Botha, we can build a strong South Africa, a fine South Africa and a peaceful South Africa. On this occasion my call is: Let us build together. I personally believe that in this historic moment in our history, “Het dachet Overal”, and like our celebrated poet, D. J. Opperman, I believe—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development concluded on a poetic note and I shall begin my speech on a poetic note, in view of the historical significance of this debate. Somewhere a poet said, with reference to another event in history—

The hon. the Minister quoted many passages of historical note. He concentrated mainly on the policy in connection with Black peoples and applied that policy bolus-bolus to what is now being proposed for the constitutional position of Coloureds and Indians. In my opinion that was inappropriate. I do not think it is a comparable parallel. We would say that one should in fact pursue to its logical conclusion what has been done in connection with the Black peoples, and this is not being done in the present case.

This Bill was rejected by the CP at its introduction. In that way we indicated our stringent and resolute opposition to the Bill. We shall do the same at the Second Reading and this should come as no surprise because we have been rejecting the principles which are an integral part of this Bill throughout the past year in the debate we have been conducting with the governing party. We also rejected those principles during the recent elections. At the same time I believe the support which the CP received during the recent by-elections strengthened our hand to a very important extent in our resistance to the principles of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, one could wish that greater unanimity had prevailed among the Whites, and of course between the White community and the various other groups involved in this matter. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development made us listen to so many quotations, yet I do think he should have spotted the following one as well. This is the statement of the Federal Council of the NP in 1961, in which it was stated—

This is precisely what we are now going to get. We are going to get this in a mixed Parliament, in a mixed Government and in a mixed President’s Council. The only thing that they cannot also mix is the President. [Interjections.]

Since we are quoting now, I may as well go further, as follows—

In addition he may just as well have quoted what the then Prime Minister said. It was this—

He might just as well have quoted this as well because it is appropriate in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning placed very heavy emphasis on, inter alia, reconciliation and Christian values. No one will argue with him on that score. Those are all very important things. Allow me, however, to make a few statements in this connection. The first statement I wish to make, is that favourable attitudes are not at variance with separate freedoms for separate peoples. In the second place reconciliation is not at variance with the preservation of identity. Reconciliation is a concept we hear quite often these days; it is a concept that is mentioned with great eloquence by the World Council of Churches and other church bodies. We even hear it quite often these days in the political sphere. Reconciliation is also not at variance with the preservation of an own right; regardless of whether it is a personal right or the right of a people.

In the third place, Christian values are not necessarily preserved in a multiracial community of political power-sharing and by way of mixed government. [Interjections.]

When we talk about change, I argue that change and development are essential. Of course they are essential. None of us allege that Coloureds, Indians and Blacks should be kept in a subordinate position. No one alleges that the political say of the Coloureds and Indians at the present juncture is satisfactory.

What about immigration?

If self-determination is precious to the Whites, surely it is equally precious to the Coloureds and Indians, just as it is to the Black peoples. Recently we heard a very firm statement on the part of a Brown leader, who said—

The reference here is to the Coloureds. We accept that. I would say that we welcome it. Moreover we say that if it is not precious to those groups—Coloureds or Indians—if self-determination is not precious to them, it is and will always remain precious to the Whites, and the Whites still refuse to be governed by a body which includes the representatives of other groups. [Interjections.]

I say again that change is essential. The question, however, is along what lines the change is to be brought about. In South Africa we inherited a colonial dispensation, a single colonial structure into which the British forced a diversity of Black peoples, other non-White groups, as well as the Boer Republics. That is the legacy we received and that legacy was fought against. The single State context also received a single State authority. That was what happened. It was not, as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development tried to imply here, that it was simply inevitable from the beginning. At the National Convention—we know this—there was a fight and a struggle to prevent the extension of the non-White franchise to the Transvaal and the Free State.

It was not all that inevitable. It was necessary to fight against it. Now we say: Those peoples who were forced into one the context of one State and compelled to accept one State authority, were not destroyed in this process. They did not cease to exist, nor have they ceased their fight to regain political authority for themselves. The aspirations of these peoples to a political say have not disappeared.

The history of the NP regime has one clear message and course, namely that the Whites were not prepared to relinquish their political power. It was realized that if one shared political power with others one lost it. It is an axiom. If one shares power, one loses it.

It was realized that the culmination of separate development politically had to mean that the one common fatherland had to be divided so that each had an area of jurisdiction, an area of authority, in which its people live and govern themselves. If one accepted the principle of a citizens’ State viz. that all within the State context comprise one nation, undifferentiated, then it was not necessary to excise national States for Black peoples out of South African territory, for then all of us were simply citizens of South Africa. However, if one accepts the principle of a people’s state, as the NP accepted it and are not consistently implementing it now, then one cannot give Blacks a joint say with Whites over the same territory. Then, I say, one also cannot give it to the Coloureds and Indians, inch for inch, in the same territory over which the Whites exercise a say.

If you accept Coloureds and Indians as co-claimants to White territory because, according to the argument, they use the same services such as water, electricity and so on, one cannot advance any argument for failing to grant that the Blacks within the borders of the Republic of South Africa may put forward the same claim. If you accept Coloureds and Indians as people belonging to the same State as the Whites do, then one has no argument against the inclusion of Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu, and the city which the Minister still wants to build here in the midst of the Coloured people, then one has no argument against the people in those residential areas also being recognized as part of the abovementioned State.

Now we are saddled with an anomaly. Black peoples receive national States; they receive self-government; they receive independence. Their citizens outside their territories remain linked to their own national States and to their own people; but Coloured people, to mention only this one group, are first reduced to a minority group, an appendix, and then in turn elevated into participants in one nation. On the one hand they are claimants to an own Chamber, but are then forced back into a minority position according to their numbers. If the Whites and the Indians in that dispensation do not consent, their number of representatives remain precisely as now proposed.

On the one hand the ethnic plurality of Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians is accepted, but on the other hand it is accepted that only Blacks receive national States while Whites, Coloureds and Indians are forced together into one State, one Parliament, one Cabinet and a President’s Council.

I maintain specifically that if Blacks are being excluded because the potential for conflict between the Whites and the Blacks is too great and too dangerous, if the issue here is the potential for conflict in the Black and non-Black ratio, then it is short-sighted and dangerous to ignore the potential for conflict between Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

If, on the other hand, everything depends solely on favourable attitudes, then there is no reason why favourable attitudes will not also make a success of a Unitarian State comprising Whites and Blacks if it is allegedly able to make a success of political integration of Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

What we have against this Bill in the second place is that it is treason against nationalism. Nationalism is love for one’s own people. It is the belief that that people has its own task and calling to fulfil. It is the ardour for its continued existence and freedom. It means the rejection of government by foreigners. It means the demand for government for one’s own people by one’s own people in one’s own country. That is the essence of nationalism.

What we find now, however, is a terrible opposition to racism. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information lashed out at racism in Thabazimbi and Tzaneen. He is welcome to fight racism. We are also fighting it. [Interjections.] My question is whether what he was really fighting was not nationalism.

The impression one gets the moment one comes up for one’s own people and their interests is that to do so is suddenly racisistic. In that respect they are speaking the same language as the World Council of Churches or the British Council of Churches, those people who in fact condemned the implementation of a policy of nationalism in South Africa as “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”. Now that policy has been declared a heresy in Ottawa. It is nationalism which those people have it in for.

The Government is now declaring Whites, Coloureds and Indians to be one nation. All are now minorities. Something which for the Afrikaner had hitherto been very important for his identity and self-determination, viz. separation and social and political separateness, is now being presented as an obstacle to social justice for Coloureds and Indians.

Pressure is now being exerted on the Afrikaner—on the Whites in general, but on the Afrikaners in particular—to change. They must exchange their nationalism as a people for a general South Africanism. They must ahbor awareness of colour. They must display the courage to integrate politically. Talk about courage! The courage which is now expected of us is to integrate politically and to relinquish the right to self-determination of the Whites. That is the courage that is now being called for. They must change their attitudes and turn away from racism. The Whites must now be ashamed of being white. Or they must at least keep quiet about the fact that they are white. They are being told that to be white is an injustice to non-Whites.

If one, as a White, refuses to be dominated, even by a minority veto in terms of the new dispensation, one is suddenly a racist; then one is suddenly playing into the hands of communism; then one is being extremistic and a member of the extreme right. We all know what the dangers of communism are, but concealed in this action of hiding behind communism may be refined deception in order to avoid internal political debate. Even if one advocates “one man, one vote” in a unitary state, and one utters threats, as a Coloured leader has done and says “If you want us, hand over the goodies”, you are still a partner and you still qualify for membership of a multiracial coalition cabinet!

The Bill also makes a farce and a mockery of self-determination. The word “self-determination” is being bandied about across the floor of this House, but surely self-determination does not imply only the right to live in one’s own residential area. Why do I say that the Bill makes a farce and a mockery of self-determination?

Firstly, the White Parliament will disappear. The contention is being made in NP information documents that the structure and character of the House of Assembly must be retained. This is being said in so many words. It may in fact be possible to retain the structure, but the character of this House of Assembly is surely that it is the sovereign Parliament of this country. Then surely it is misleading to profess that that party still stands for the House of Assembly retaining its character in the new dispensation. It may in fact be possible to retain its structure, but not the character. The White Chamber, as far as its character and authority is concerned, will not even be a shadow of this House of Assembly. The sovereign White Parliament is being ousted from its position, and this is being done in spite of firm assurances in the past that this would not happen. This was the standpoint which the NP adopted towards the old UP. In future it will be one third or less than one third of a Parliament, because the three Chambers are not a Parliament either, particularly not when such a great say is vested in the authority and the wide powers of the State President. Surely it is no longer a Parliament; surely it is no longer a House of Assembly, such as this one, when it can be vetoed by a minority group in those three Chambers, when it can be dominated by a State President, when it no longer has its own Cabinet or its own head of government. Surely it is no longer the same. And then we talk about retaining self-determination!

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: Is there a self-respecting people in the whole wide world who will give up its sovereign Parliament and relinquish its political power? Is there a people that has done this? Can one imagine that a people would want to commit political suicide in the name of favourable attitudes and Christian love? If one does indeed wish to do this, bring in the Black peoples as well and let the love be complete and all-embracing.

Self-determination is a farce if a people does not have its own Parliament, because self-determination is the right—so we interpret it—of a people to decide every facet of their existence, without interference, themselves.

I now wish to quote from clause 41, verse (3), subdivision (3) of the clause. [Interjections.] Hon. members can hear that I was in church quite recently! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I sit in the same church with certain of those hon. members, but one does not even see them. I quote from subsection (3) of clause 41—

1. (a) such House passes a motion of no confidence in the relevant Ministers’ Council or in the Cabinet within 14 days from the day on which a session of Parliament or of such House commences

What does that mean? It means that the majority in a House are being penalized because it has no confidence in that Ministers’ Council. It means that a government can be protected against the will of the majority of the people. It means that the President does not need the advice of his Cabinet. It is one of those clauses in which he does not need advice. It means that the victory of a political party at the polls means nothing. In that case the victory of the winning party means nothing. It is dominated by the other Chambers. It means that you are putting paid to democracy.

Mr. Speaker, self-determination is a farce if a people is governed by foreigners, because a basic fact, a basic claim of nationhood and of nationalism, is self-government. But according to this Bill, Whites will be governed by a multiracial Government. We have said this before, and we say it again: It is unacceptable; we reject it.

The President’s Council states that partition is justified for the Black peoples because they wish to be governmed by their own people. We say that Whites want to be governed by Whites and not by a multiracial Government.

I say that in this Bill self-determination becomes a farce. Why do I say that? One House of Parliament can veto a motion of the majority in the White Chamber. An ordinary majority, for example in the Indian Chamber, can defeat the will of the Whites. To tell the truth, it is so absurd that a single Indian who constitutes the majority in the Indian Chamber can defeat the will of the White nation. Surely that is the case. And it is not only a farce; I say it is unacceptable and untenable. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now we are hearing the naïveté that the self-determination of the Whites is guaranteed in respect of their own affairs in their own Chamber. Oh please, is it not ludicrous? With all due respect, Sir, who are we trying to bluff with that? Who are we trying to persuade that the self-determination of the Whites is guaranteed in that way? After all, the self-determination of a people includes matters such as its defence, justice, law and order and particularly the passing of its own budget. Surely it also includes dealing with its own foreign affairs. Surely it includes transport, commerce and industry and control over labour, influxes, etc. But all these matters are now becoming common matters. They are not own affairs and that means power-sharing in connection with all these matters and if you share power you lose power.

Let us consider the question of own affairs. Those own affairs are being inflated like a balloon. Even school cadets are being included to make up the number. It is very clear now: Everything is common affairs except those few which have been specifically excluded and which, through the kind offices of the State President, may be certified as own affairs. In addition, one cannot question his decision.

Over every own affair is suspended the ceiling of a general legislative policy and general norms and standards, and the provision of finances and so on. It is truly a farce and quite ridiculous to talk about own affairs and real self-determination.

For example I can read out to hon. members what are own affairs and common affairs in the sphere of agriculture. Common affairs are for example, the budget from which the funds for own affairs have to be provided. One cannot control weeds if it is not done with money voted by the other two Chambers. The fixing of the maize price, the milk price, the floor price for meat and fertilizer prices is not one Chamber’s affair. It is everyone’s affair.

What about the general policy on marketing and the export of produce, the wages and conditions of service of farm workers, the housing of employees and so on?

I want to make this statement. Other hon. members on this side are going to refer to the wide powers of the President. I just wish to say, however, the no politician has ever placed our people before such a terrifying choice. What do I mean by that? I mean that political integration is being introduced, that different ethnic and racial groups with conflicting ideals and with many conflict-causing factors are being amalgamated in one Parliament; that a multiracial coalition Cabinet can be constituted, perhaps with the prayer “moge het treffen”; that conflict and power struggle is what lies ahead for one; that legal experts tell you it cannot work. You do all these things and you do not leave a door open through which to escape from the failure without the consent of all three Chambers. You are therefore being forced into a marriage without the choice of being able to annul the marriage. You are being bundled into a house, but there is no back door and the front door is then bricked up.

The composition of that Parliament which consists of three Chambers is something one cannot get out of unless the other two also agree that they also wish to get out of it. You are now exchanging your White Parliament’s sovereignty for the veto-right of a minority group’s Chamber. You are exchanging your own White government for a multiracial coalition government. If you ever wish to recover White self-determination, you are dependent on the consent of the majorities of the other two Chambers. You will never again recover White self-determination without the consent of the other two Chambers, without the consent of people who have already said: One man, one vote in a unitary State. That is their ideal. These are the people who have already said that race classification, separate group areas, separate residential areas and separate representation must be abolished. These people have already intimated these things. Those people have to give you the green light if you again wish to regain your self-determination!

What are we being forced into? This Bill does not bring peace. This Bill unleashes one of the most serious episodes of conflict in the political history of our country and this side of the House says—

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time, in the latest phase of his political career, in the new phase which commenced approximately a year ago, that the hon. member for Waterberg has concluded his speech with reference to struggle. [Interjections.] We on this side are also engaged in a struggle, but we are engaged in a struggle for peace. We are engaged in a struggle for the acceptance of practicable solutions. Contrary to what the hon. member wishes to intimate, viz. that this Bill places us before one of the most dreadful choices of our existence, this Bill is in fact giving us the choice of accepting a practicable alternative which holds out the promise of freedom, identity and security for all who participate—and this when what that hon. member and his party as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the PFP are offering, is inherently totally unable to ensure a spirit of co-operation and security for all groups in South Africa.

The “winner takes all” concept has been mentioned. In terms of the proposals of the hon. member there can only be one winner, no more. For as long as we communicate with one another on this basis in South Africa, there will be no secure future for anyone in South Africa.

The hon. member quoted from 1960 to motivate the standpoint he adopted today and has been adopting recently. Is that not typical of what we have learnt about the CP in recent times? He quoted from 1960 as though 1977 never happened, as though we had not, since 1960, effected dramatic changes in the policy, the prospects and the statements of policy of the NP. We went through a painful process in 1977 by deviating from what was said in 1960. The NP’s leaders went from congress to congress boldly, openly and honestly and stated clearly and unequivocally: Here is a new dispensation. At those congresses it was said that we must…

But you said that you were not deviating.

At those congresses it was said that we must, while retaining the principle of self-determination, find a way of accommodating the other two population groups, since our policy for Black people was not applicable to them, nor could it be made applicable to them. That is why 1977 and 1978 up to 1983 is different from 1960.

It is becoming increasingly different.

The hon. member for Waterberg defended these essential changes in the policy of the NP with conviction. From 1977 until the beginning of 1982. [Interjections.] He defended the fact that there could be a mixed electoral college that together elects one State President. He defended the fact that there could be a mixed Council of Cabinets. From 12 April 1978 he defended what the then Prime Minister said: That Council of Cabinets would be of an executive nature. Surely these hon. members are familiar with that quotation. They would do well to go and read Hansard, 1978, col. 4549, once again.

What did Mr. Vorster say?

I shall read what is written in the records of this House—

From 1978 we began living in a new phase.

If only the hon. member would admit that from 1977 to the beginning of 1982 he lived and spoke under one flag and advocated NP policy, and if only he would tell us what made him change his mind, perhaps we could conduct this debate on a higher level.

And power-sharing?

I shall come to powersharing in a moment; or let me deal with it right away. Let us take a simple example. I have quoted this before in the House, but I think I should do so once again for the sake of the record. In terms of the 1977 plan, there were to be matters of common interest. Hon. members cannot argue about that. Legislation on matters of common interest would come before all three Parliaments. They do not dispute that either. Legislation accepted by all three Parliaments would be signed by the President, who would be elected by a mixed electoral college. They do not dispute that either. If, in terms of the 1977 plan, a law on matters of common interest had gone through that process and the President had signed it, it would surely be a law the implications of which would entail that rights would be bestowed on or taken away from people, or that financial demands could be made on them, depending on the nature of the law. Then surely it would be a law that had not been passed by the White Parliament alone.

The White Parliament was supposed to have retained all its powers.

Surely it would have been a joint law passed by all three Parliaments. If all three together could make a law affecting everyone, and it were to be implemented by a President and a mixed Executive Council of Cabinets, then there were indeed elements of power-sharing in the 1977 plan. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Jeppe had noted down all the remarks he has made thus far, he would be able to use them to make a speech when has a turn to speak. I call upon the hon. the member not to make any further interjections and to afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity of making his speech. We are discussing a constitution for the Republic of South Africa, and the hon. member is a member of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. I request him to behave accordingly. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I am not insulting hon. members. By using logic, I am really trying to clarify the differences between us and to bring the illogical aspects of their arguments to the fore. They cannot get away from the fact that for seven years now there has been a completely new approach within the NP, an approach which was approved by the NP in a democratic way, and that for five or six of those seven years they were part of it and associated themselves with it.

Alterations have been effected to the 1977 plan, on the basis of these new guidelines, and in this new Bill in which these guidelines find expression. We are not denying this, nor are we trying to explain it away. We are being open and honest about it, as we were during the by-elections. The essential elements of the 1977 plan, viz. that there will be joint decision-making on matters of common interest and separate decision-making on own affairs, however, remain still part and parcel of this Bill. The essential elements that matters of common interest will be decided on jointly in one organ of executive authority, is being reaffirmed here. The essential element that one joint head of State will be elected jointly is also being affirmed here. If what we are submitting here at this juncture is mixed Government, then the 1977 plan was also mixed Government. [Interjections.] I want to call a witness to confirm this. He is sitting in this House, viz. the hon. member for Rissik. That day when we held an executive meeting lasting six hours, the hon. member had the courage to stand up and say that he conceded that since 1977 he had been concerned that there were, in fact, elements of power-sharing in the plan. Everyone sitting here is witness to that.

That is untrue.

The hon. member informed us of this during the executive meeting, thereby confirming that what I have said thus far is true. If ever there was proof that the Westminster system has major defects, we have seen it in this debate. In this debate, while we are all paying lip service to the idea that we have reached an important milestone, an important moment in our history, we find that there has been no attempt on the part of either of the two main Opposition parties represented in this House to address the real problems we are wrestling with. The official Opposition is failing dismally because it is not addressing itself to the reality of diversity, the strength of own nationalisms, the importance of ethnicity and ethnic differences. In contrast, the CP are failing dismally because they are not addressing the necessity for co-operation. The hon. member for Waterberg said that we are all agreed that every people, every population group, should have full political rights. However, when we discuss how this should be done, we have complete confusion. Then hon. members sit there as they are doing now and make jokes; they laugh and behave in such a fashion that they have to be called to order and reminded that they are members of an hon. House that is debating an important matter. Thus we see how the gravity of the moment passes them by, because they are intent on trying to destroy the hon. the Prime Minister and this party. That is all they are trying to do.

Thus far in this debate there has been no evidence, either from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or from the hon. member for Waterberg, that they are truly seeking a synthesis whereby to address our problems effectively. I want to ask this question: If we as Whites, on an occasion such as this, do not even try to seek mutual agreement, to reach an understanding, how can we expect a spirit of co-operation to be created among peoples and population groups? Thus far in this debate the Opposition has let slip the opportunity to serve South Africa. Instead of seeking solutions together, we have had wisecracks and the attitude that this is a debating contest. I want to give one example of this with reference to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say. He advanced a clever argument with a fine play on the word domination, and he said that in this way we were entrenching NP domination for all time. However, reality differs radically from the impression he tried to create. The present reality is that one majority, viz. the NP, dominates all other White minorities, and therefore the Coloureds and the Asians as well.

And the Blacks.

No, not the Blacks. The Blacks are following their own path, and they have progressed much further than the Coloureds and the Indians. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that. In terms of these proposals the Coloureds and the Asians will also have the opportunity of establishing their own majority in democratic elections, and that own majority will be in a position to define and formulate the majority opinion of that population group and to state the standpoint of that population group, in interaction with the other population groups, and to exert influence on decisions affecting them, more influence than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is exerting on decision-making in this House at present. This Bill is now creating opportunities for these groups, opportunities which are of broad scope, which are meaningful, which are worthwhile; opportunities to participate constructively in decisions affecting their fives. At the same time, sufficient formulas are incorporated in this Bill to ensure that that influence cannot be used destructively, in conflict with the interests of the country; that it cannot be used destructively in conflict with the interests of the Whites or the Coloureds or the Asians. Consequently, it creates a balance between the security and the rights and opportunities of each separate group, with the full protection of the security of each individual, of that which is dear to him and of that which is his own.

Now I want to discuss the hon. member for Waterberg. We have heard A. P. Treurnicht speaking, and we have listened to the message of Jaap Marais. It was the voice of A. P. Treurnicht, but the message of Jaap Marais. [Interjections.]

He belongs in the Kappiekommando.

When the hon. member for Waterberg was still in the NP, he proclaimed a different message to the outside world.

It was always somewhat half-hearted.

However, when he broke away from the NP, he tried to hijack this party, and when he could not succeed in hijacking the NP, he hijacked the policy of the HNP, enveloped it in a cloak of seeming decency, and lo and behold, without turning a hair the hon. member for Waterberg is now advocating what he was fighting with conviction a year or so ago. [Interjections.]

The arguments advanced by the hon. member for Waterberg and his party against this Bill basically amount to the following: It is mixed government. It is integration. It is the end of White self-determination. It is power-sharing. I want to reply to them on this today, Mr. Speaker.

Is it true?

Mr. Speaker, my notes contain the same question the hon. member for Rissik is asking now; the question of whether it is true. Are these accusations true? If the hon. member for Rissik would only give me a chance, I should like to reply to him on that score. [Interjections.] Is the interpretation given to the Government proposals by the hon. member for Waterberg, indeed accurate? My reply is in the negative. I want to motivate this.

Let us first take a look at what the hon. member neglected to say in his argument here today, and at what he and members of his party neglected to say when they speak about these matters in public. They neglected to mention the own structures incorporated in this legislation for the Whites, for the Coloureds and for the Asians. They neglect to mention the fact that there will be a White Chamber; not a meaningless chamber, but one that will have full and final legislative authority over own affairs. [Interjections.] This is precisely the same as in the proposed White Parliament of 1977. They neglect to mention that those powers—and these are disparaged too—over own affairs include everything which directly concerns the community life of the Whites, their traditions, their culture, their language, the education of their children, sensitive facilities, and a whole series of other important matters.

And their sport as well?

Everything to do with group security and the feelings of the group…

What about their sport?

The hon. member for Kuruman can put all those questions to me over a cup of coffee. Unfortunately I do not have the time to reply to them all now. Mr. Speaker, he must please just allow me to complete my speech. [Interjections.]

They also neglect to mention that, built into the Government’s standpoint, there are things such as the devolution of power that on the local government level, with the powers granted them, provision is made for each group to have own local government that will have the sole say as regards own, sensitive affairs. They also neglect to mention that incorporated in these proposals is the division of power on every matter which intimately affects every community, and which is intimately concerned with the community life of every community, its education, its sensitive facilities, its identity, its culture, etc.

Where is the money for that going to come from?

Furthermore, they remain silent about a particular characteristic of the present Bill. That is that Parliament will never vote on a one man, one vote basis. Nor do they mention that decisions will be taken in the separate chambers—separately and in the group context—in which the standpoint of each group will be formulated, on matters of common interest as well. They neglect to mention that. Such a system is not integration. It is the accommodation of every group so that it can have a say in every decision affecting its life, form an opinion about it and exert an influence on it, but in such a way that there can be no ganging up of minorities among groups and that each group can formulate its own group ideals, unhindered and separately.

We do not conceal what I am saying here now when we speak to Coloured and Asian leaders. I did not conceal this when I spoke to a thousand Asians in Natal. We are not ashamed that this is our policy. It is the recipe for peace. The recipe the hon. member for Houghton was pleading for when she asked by way of an interjection: “Why not one Chamber with ‘one man, one vote’?”—that is the recipe for chaos in South Africa. We are not ashamed that we are incorporating differentiation and that we take the separate formation of opinion within the group context as the point of departure for this system.

The conclusion I arrived at is that the majority vote of the Whites—and of the other groups as well—can be asserted on all matters within the group context, that the majority vote of the Whites cannot be undermined by the minority parties joining forces, nor can the majority vote of the Coloureds be undermined by the minority parties joining forces. This applies to the majority vote of the Asians as well.

Of course there are elements of communality incorporated in this. Of course there are common institutions. Of course there is joint decision-making. But—and this is an important “but”—simply to dismiss what this Bill contains by labelling it as mixed Government is to do violence to the truth. It is a specious argument. The co-responsibility incorporated in it and on which hon. members have now turned their backs, the elements of power-sharing incorporated in it, have been there since 1977, as I have already proved. Therefore I say that the opposition of the hon. members of the CP to this Bill is based on a misrepresentation of the principles contained in it, as well as on an opportunistic about-face as regards standpoint on that part of all the members of the CP.

In addition, the alternative which the hon. member for Waterberg mentioned in passing, viz. own sovereign States for Coloured and Indians—he linked this to the idea of a people’s state—is based on a specious argument, viz. that if it can work for the Black peoples, it could also work for the Coloureds and Indians. I wish to refute his statement by calling the hon. member for Waterberg himself as a witness as to why it cannot work. He signed the manifesto of 1981 and I want to quote from it. In it the following is stated—

I think we still agree thus far. However, the hon. member also said—

Let us analyse this statement. Not only did he say that a separate sovereign Coloured homeland would not work. He even endorsed the reason why it could not work, viz. that the Whites, Coloureds and Indians historically share the same geographic territory.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister to indicate to us where in that manifesto the hon. member for Waterberg endorsed the acceptance of power-sharing? [Interjections.]

Allow me to quote it. Inter alia, he endorsed point No. 4 of the twelve point plan. This concerns the division of power …

The “division” of power?

Listen carefully. I quote further—

After having said that the various groups should decide on their own affairs themselves, he said—

[Interjections.]

I do not want to digress from my main theme, but I want to confine myself to the reasons why a Coloured homeland cannot work. Firstly, I agree with the reason the hon. member agreed with at that time, viz. that Whites, Coloureds and Indians historically inhabit and share the same territory. Historically we share the same territory, whereas the position as regards the Black peoples is different. If it was true at that time, then surely it is true now. If we want to debate this matter seriously with one another, the key question of this whole debate as far as it affects the CP, is: Are the Coloureds and Indians part of one State community together with the Whites, yes or no? We said “yes” in 1977. We also said “yes” in the manifesto of 1981, and the NP is still saying “yes” today. [Interjections.] The NP has always said “yes” in respect of the Coloureds. The NP has never said anything but “yes”. I want to prove this by quoting from a speech made by Dr. Verwoerd in 1961. We, too, can go that far back in history. After having explaind how the policy of separate homelands for the Blacks could work, he said—

Who is true to the history of the NP and its leaders? We, or those hon. members?

Our policy was different in respect of the Indians. At first we said that they should go back to their original fatherland. We followed a policy of repatriation. However, in Dr. Verwoerd’s time we took a deliberate decision and said that it would not work. Despite the ideal, and despite the fact that it would have been a good thing if we could have succeeded, the NP took a deliberate decision because the realities compelled it to recognize the permanence of these people as part of the population of the Republic of South Africa. If only hon. members of the CP would admit that they are deviating from NP policy—that is the admission we seek—the debate between us and them would be much clearer. However, they must refrain from presenting themselves to the outside world as being the true exponents of the message and principles of the NP. They are the deviators and absconders. The NP sits on this side of the House.

There are other reasons why the Coloureds and Asians are not comparable with the Black peoples. Each Black people has its own nationalism. By the way, allow me to ask the hon. member for Waterberg: Do the Whites of South Africa, as we represent them here in this State—do they constitute a people’s state (“volkstaat”) or a nation state? [Time expired.]

It is not a nation state.

Mr. Speaker, the Battle of the Bergs has ended in a draw, and now we are in extra time. However, this is something which I cannot afford to waste.

†This debate today, in which various speakers have given us a certain amount of history, is another step in the long fight for constitutional change to extend rights to other population groups in the decision-making process in South Africa. It is a process which goes right back to the old United Party federal plan of 1972 and to which, I believe, the NRP has made a major contribution over the years. I think it is fair that I should also put one or two facts on record as the hon. the Minister did in his introduction. Following the 1977 proposals which, I know the Government will not agree, were rejected universally as totally unworkable, on 3 March 1978 in this House Mr. Bill Sutton moved a private member’s motion which I seconded calling for a Joint Select Committee on the constitution by both Houses. It was rejected then. On 30 September the hon. the Prime Minister, in his first public speech, appealed for “co-operation in forging a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa”. Two nights later I answered and offered the co-operation of this party and our experience in Natal of negotiating the Natal plan which was the first-ever official agreement on a constitutional issue between race groups. I wrote to the hon. the Prime Minister on the 5th and confirmed my offer.

What was the date?

I wrote to him on 5 October 1978. In March 1979 the very Select Committee that we had asked for, a Joint Select Committee, was appointed and later became the Schlebusch Commission. That in turn led to the formation of the President’s Council. This party served on both these bodies and gave evidence before both to put its constitutional proposals. Finally, we saw much of our own philosophy reflected in the reports of the President’s Council. This was unlike the Official Opposition which boycotted it and saw nothing of its view reflected.

Some Government speakers, although not so much today and I want to compliment the hon. the Minister for Internal Affairs for his forthright and frank exposition of this measure, have pretended that this Bill is merely an extension or “ontplooiing” of NP policy. I was elected to this Parliament 28 years ago to fight in the infamous and enlarged Senate created to circumvent the constitution against the removal of the Coloured voters from the common roll; to fight in turn the removal of Native representation and finally the removal of the token substitute representation of the Coloured people so as to create exclusive White political power in an all White Parliament just for Whites. To pretend today that this Bill is not a reversal of that process, would be to debase the historic significance of this occasion which the hon. the Minister emphasized, in other words the significance of bringing Coloureds and Indians into political decision-making in South Africa.

It was against this background that the NRP considered the measure before us in the greatest detail, both on its merits and on its defects but, above all, on its significance and its future implications for South Africa. We did this with an open mind and judged it on balance. This party has therefore decided by an overwhelming majority on its federal council and on the recommendation of its Natal and Cape head committees that we will not oppose the Bill in principle. [Interjections.] Neither will we support the amendment of the PFP and the Unholy Alliance of that party and the CP. [Interjections.] We realize that the rejection of this Bill, …

Why don’t you join the Nats? Nobody will notice and nobody will care.

… to vote against it, is to vote for the maintenance of the status quo in South Africa … [Interjections.] … a status quo of White domination and of exclusive White political power, and we have decided to accept this measure as a starting point for change. From this we shall continue to seek amendments of those aspects with which we disagree and with which I shall deal in a moment. I want to make it very clear to the noisy yappers on my political left that our acceptance of this Bill does not imply support of the Government itself or of NP policy in general. [Interjections.] It represents solely the acceptance of the constitutional framework proposed by this Bill as a starting point for reform in South Africa. I believe that to do otherwise would be to betray the Coloured and Indian leaders who have risked their political lives, as the NRP has done … [Interjections.] … to co-operate in the search for a new deal for South Africa. It is easy to confront and to condemn. This is a gamble which one takes in co-operating in respect of something which one believes is right.

Vause, you don’t have to apologize.

Sir, I am not listening to the Bryanston pup.

You don’t have to apologize, just walk across the floor.

Why don’t you keep your mouth shut! [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member for Bryanston should know by this time that when the Chair calls for order, it expects order and that interjections shall cease forthwith. The hon. member for Durban Point may proceed.

Last year, Sir, the NRP identified its objections to the Government guidelines and listed the changes it sought. I want to deal with those briefly today, measured against the Bill that is before us.

Our first objective was negotiations with Black South Africans to seek an agreed accommodation within the constitutional structure, including an in-depth investigation into their own aspirations. This Bill re enacts verbatim the provision in the present constitution in regard to Blacks. Therefore, it does not provide any accommodation for them and in no way meets our belief that Blacks must be accommodated in the constitutional structure. However, the Government has appointed a Cabinet Committee to negotiate, and it has thereby conceded in principle the objective we aim at. The principle that negotiation is necessary has been accepted. It is not the commission we asked for and this remains an issue that this party will continue to pursue because we believe that there can be no final solution to South Africa’s constitutional development without an agreed accommodation for the Black people.

Our second objective was the participation of Opposition parties in the procedures of Parliament. The Bill excludes members of the Opposition parties from the election of the President and the President’s Council but there is a permissive provision for participation in joint standing committees. We shall at the Committee Stage seek to have that changed to a mandatory provision.

We also recognize that in the present Constitution for which we would be voting if we opposed the Bill, the election of the State President is by the majority party in the House. We also recognize that at present we have no say at all in electing the President’s Council which is appointed by the President. We also have no say in the election of the Prime Minister who is elected by the caucus of the NP. These rights are theoretical and in practice not something which we enjoy today.

The third aspect is the retention of an elected system of provincial government. This is not at issue because it is not dealt with in the Bill. I give notice, however, that we shall oppose any future move to replace elected councils with nominated administrations.

The fourth aspect is safeguards against the misuse of presidential and executive powers. We have given very close attention to this aspect because of all that has been said about it. We find that the wild claims made show a total lack of homework. The existing powers of the State President are re-enacted verbatim as are his executive powers to appoint Ministers, assign portfolios and assent to Bills, call and prorogue Parliament and so on. The only new powers I can find—I should like to know what other new powers the PFP has found—relate to the operation of the three-chamber system, the resolution of disputes, the certification of group matters within the criteria laid down in the Constitution—all powers pertaining to the operation of the system.

It is with the last of these that we have reservations. We believe that the President’s power to certify what is a group and what is a general matter should be subject, as inter House disputes are, to the President’s Council decision. We accept that it is not the function of a court to make political decisions, but we believe that the President’s Council should be brought into this in the same way as in inter-house conflict.

We have one other query and that is in regard to the power to dissolve a single House, something to which the hon. leader of the CP has referred. I can understand it if it were because a majority had lost power in that House and there was a vote of no confidence in that House’s Ministers Council or leadership. Then it could be dissolved alone. If, however, this power were to be used as a sanction against opposition to the Government as a whole, that would be a travesty of democratic principles. I hope that the hon. the Minister will deal with this and make it clear that a single dissolution could only happen in terms of convention, by the resignation of the majority leader following a no-confidence vote.

For the rest constitutional conventions are retained. The President acts on the advice of the Cabinet or Cabinet Council. There is parliamentary control by a simple majority in each House, by petition and resolution, to remove the President, by no-confidence vote or by rejection of the budget by a majority of one in each Houses. The President is linked to the dissolution of Parliament. Therefore, there is effective parliamentary control provided it is exercised by all the Houses. The President or the Cabinet has no power to amend laws. All these safeguards have been weighed by us against the fact that in the event of conflict between the Houses, the President’s Council can approve the budget or a law passed by one House.

Obviously government has to continue. One cannot allow a minority veto to paralyse government, so any constitution must ensure its continuation. Even the PFP in its own proposed constitution provides that on financial and budgetary matters the veto provisions of its policy will not apply. It realizes that government must continue. But the ultimate safeguard against abuse is that the withdrawal of Coloureds and Indians would destroy the credibility of the whole system. I believe that that knowledge alone will lead to the greatest effort to reach consensus, because no Government wants to see a mockery made of its whole constitutional development.

Finally, we consider the allegation of domination by the majority party. That is the present position: The majority dominate and make the decisions. The Opposition can only oppose. If it is the PFP and the CP, they shout and scream at the Government and if it is this party, they try to make a positive contribution. But the Government decides. If you vote against this Bill, you are voting for the Government to continue to dominate. What are you gaining?

They believe in “loser takes all”.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they believe in “loser takes all”.

The last of our objectives was the entrenchment of group and own affairs in the constitution. This has been met completely. Another member, the hon. member for Umbilo, will question some of the detail and the format and another will deal with what we believe is very important, namely the inclusion of taxation rights to groups. I will not elaborate on that now.

On the whole the Bill accepts the philosophy for which we stand, namely of group control over intimate group affairs and of joint responsibility and decision-making in matters of common concern.

Our objections are, therefore, to a large extent met in the Bill in respect of these last two matters, i.e. presidential power and of group affairs. Our objections are only partly and not satisfactorily met in respect of joint standing committees and we will follow this matter up. The Bill also acknowledges in principle negotiations with the Blacks, while provincial government as such is not affected by this Bill. Our objections stand in respect of those aspects where we have not been met, and we will continue to pursue them. We will continue to press for the constitutional accommodation of Blacks and for a joint forum for final decision-making by the three Houses on common affairs, instead of the proposed system, which we believe is clumsy, for resolving disputes and will press for a check on the President’s power to certify group affairs.

We have weighed all this up and have decided that despite these objections of principle and method the Bill does not preclude our continuing our efforts to change them in future. Above all, the problems and defects do not outweigh the urgency of getting reform off the ground by bringing other groups into the parliamentary system.

Finally, we have considered the aims and the principles on which this party was founded. In relation to the overriding principle that “political rights be enjoyed by all on an equitable basis within a federal-confederal system” we will strive to achieve the “all”, which that implies. In regard to Whites, Coloureds and Indians, I want to read from paragraph 1.8 our “Aims and principles” the following—

We believe that this Bill fits into our concept of groups controlling their own intimate affairs where White, Coloured and Indian live together in the common area. We believe that it should be on a federal basis, i.e. a federation of groups, but linked in joint decision-making on common affairs while running their own intimate affairs. Whilst the Bill does not satisfy our desire for the accommodation of all races, it is a step forward within the framework of the philosophy of the NRP for the common area. We believe it can be extended to what we envisage as the ideal.

Finally, I turn to the preamble. Whilst it has no legal effect, it is in fact a declaration of intent that commits us in South Africa … I want the hon. the Minister to take note of this, that the preamble is a declaration of intent that commits us in South Africa, and to the extent that the ideals contained in the preamble are not implemented in the Bill itself, we believe that those ideals impose a duty on Parliament on South Africa, to move forward from the base of this constitution until they are fully implemented.

Our acceptance of this measure as a starting point entails a solid commitment by the NRP as a party to constructive participation in influencing South Africa’s evolution towards a form of Government which can give us the sort of future to which we are dedicated, the sort of future in which all South Africans can live in dignity and peace with mutual respect for each other, in harmony with each other and in security. Our acceptance of this starting point is an indication of our faith in the ultimate destiny of South Africa. We believe that we move forward from this point and that this party has a continuing role to play in influencing the direction of that evolution.

We shall not vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances in which South Africa presently finds itself, I have to agree completely with the hon. member for Durban Point despite the fact that he said at the beginning of his speech that we on this side of the House were unlikely to agree with him on certain issues. However, the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly true that there is a measure of urgency in bringing about a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa. There is a measure of urgency for bringing the Coloureds and Asians into the new constitution, into the constitution as a decision-making process in South Africa which they have so far not enjoyed. We agree with the hon. member on that point. The hon. member also made significant play this afternoon on the degree of his party’s philosophy been embedded in this proposed constitution. I should like to grant the hon. member that pleasure because, after all, if one looks at the results of the by-elections in the Transvaal it is obvious that that hon. member’s party will not have very many more opportunities in its own right, with the possible exception of a few more years in Natal, of being part of the constitutional process.

Just you wait and see.

We shall wait and see, but the hon. member is an incurable optimist, a quality that I admire. He has won every election in which I have taken part! However, I would suggest to that hon. member that every party in this House does have certain elements of policy and principle in common. There are things that we have always shared with the NRP from its United Party days. There are certain things that we still have in common with the CP and I think that there are also certain limited fields in which we could even be in agreement with the PFP.

I am, however, not going to go into the whole issue again. We have listened to three hon. Ministers setting out the basic frame work of our constitutional approach in this debate here this afternoon. To sum up, it has two parallel simultaneous developments—one for the Black nations, which each have historical territories of their own, in which they have had traditional forms of government and in which they can advance to full independence. As the hon. member for Durban Point has himself conceded, the Government has also appointed a committee to look into the accommodation of those who do not live in the national States.

Then we have another parallel leg. The hon. member for Durban Point, towards the end of his speech, quoted from the principles of his party in connection with the Coloureds, the Whites and the Asians living in a common area. These three groups have not had traditional areas of their own. They have not, each separately, had their own traditional forms of government. They have always shared the same geographical area, and consequently we have that leg. These two legs form the basic pillars which will culminate in a confederation of States, something which the hon. member for Durban Point also mentioned.

So as far as the confederal part of the NRP’s policy is concerned, we have that in common as well. It is really only a chicken and egg argument in connection with who came first. I should suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if one looks at the 126 hon. members on this side of the House and the eight hon. members of the NRP, the age of this party and the relative youth of that party, as well as its relatively brief life expectancy, I should submit that all they have in common with us is what they have got from us and not we from them. However, the hon. member for Durban Point is quite right on the other score, which is the urgency of the matter.

I believe that all political parties represented in this House—in fact I know it because I have heard so again this afternoon; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said it, as has the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Durban Point—agree that South Africa needs a new constitutional dispensation of one kind or another. They have all agreed that the status quo is untenable.

*They have conceded that it is untenable. The only exception, the only party in White politics that still says today that the Westminster system in South Africa is still tenable and desirable is the HNP, a party which has been trying to gain a seat in this House since 1969; that has never succeeded and never will succeed because the clock cannot be turned back to that extent—if, indeed, it can be turned back at all. Then we do accept that all the parties represented in this House at present are at least agreed on that. We all agree that the status quo is untenable.

The second aspect about which I believe we all agree is that if a new constitutional system is, in fact, to come into being here, then it can only be established in one of two ways. The one way is a peaceful, evolutionary, democratic way; the constitutional way. The other is by way of armed violence, revolution and rebellion. Once again I believe that all of us in this House are agreed that this should take place by peaceful constitutional means. We have an existing constitution and therefore, if we are to do so in this way, this means that the change must be agreed to by this Parliament. If, then, in the third place, one agrees that this is a matter of urgency—as hon. members on the NP side and the hon. member for Durban Point have put it—that we cannot wait another 50 or 100 years before this Parliament approves it, then one has to determine at this point who can bring this about. I contend that the NP is the only party—if one applies that test—which is in any way capable of changing the present dispensation by constitutional means, with or without the support—partial or total—of the various Opposition parties. I believe that the hon. member for Durban Point displays a considerable degree of realism. Indeed, he has recognized this cardinal fact. That is why he states that the principles he can support, the principles of the NP’s constitutional plan that are acceptable to him, will enjoy his party’s support and that at the same time they will try to improve those things that are not acceptable to them. This is a positive approach and it is the only possible approach in the present situation. The other parties have already shown that they will not be able in the foreseeable future, before it is perhaps too late, to effect any constitutional changes whatsoever here.

There are other tests, too, that must be applied. Any constitutional change must not only be approved by Parliament but must also be acceptable to the other population groups of the country; and that includes the Blacks, and it includes also the Coloureds and the Asians. It need not be totally acceptable to them but they must at least see their way clear to co-operating within the system and operating within it. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development sketched the whole history of the development with regard to the Blacks and indicated that there was a considerable willingness on the part of those people to co-operate within one aspect of the system I have sketched—because four countries have already become independent, a fifth has requested independence and all the others are self-governing. Therefore they are operating within the system of the NP’s constitutional plan for the Black people. On the other hand, we have seen that on the part of the Labour Party and even the S.A. Indian Council there is a degree of willingness to co-operate in the tricameral Parliament. The S.A. Indian Council have said that they are prepared to give it a fair chance.

The next test is that what we do in this country must not bedevil the situation domestically or abroad or create an unacceptable climate. Nowadays the NP’s constitutional development plan is eliciting positive a response among our most important trading partners and other people whom we may regard as friends overseas.

Assessed in terms of these norms, all the other parties fail. The PFP have clearly shown that their policies are not acceptable to the White electorate. They cannot come to power in this country, and accordingly they cannot put their constitutional plan into effect. Therefore it is a pointless operation. Since they, too, agree that the status quo ought to change, they ought to adopt the kind of attitude that the NRP adopts, namely to support this and to try to improve what they can improve and to criticize the rest.

The CP receive a degree of support from misinformed and uninformed people because they play semantic games in respect of power-sharing. However, they know that we said that they were merely conjuring up spectres. Apparently they are unaware of the difference between a nation’s State and a people’s State (“volkstaat”). In that way they want to pull wool over the people’s eyes. They have also turned a somersault with regard to their principles and their promises to the electorate, as the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has indicated. Moreover, in view of the kind of image they convey and their derogatory attitude, not one of them could inspire sufficient confidence in people of colour, whether Black, Brown or Asian, to sell their homeland policy, even if it were practicable, which it is not. Accordingly, that, too, is a pointless operation.

I want to sum up and conclude. It has been proved that all the other alternatives are untenable and impracticable. Moreover, the parties opposite know that their alternatives are untenable and impracticable. Since 1982 I have not once heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spelling out his constitutional policy here. Nor have the CP even begun to spell theirs out in detail. All those two parties can do is to shoot down the positive planning and proposals of this side of the House without presenting any alternative whatsover. If one does not have an alternative, one cannot really have a say in the historical set-up we are dealing with this afternoon. I wish to conclude by saying that in South Africa’s specific circumstances it is obvious that since we all agree that a new constitutional system is necessary and that it must be brought into being by peaceful and constitutional means and must be completed within a reasonable period, there is only one party that can do this and that is the governing party. All other parties would have been able to play a far more constructive role if they had supported a workable plan to the extent they were able to do so without rejecting it totally. By rejecting it they, like the HNP, reject any change and, like the HNP, they stand for the status quo, which is untenable.

Mr. Speaker, in following up the speech by the hon. member for Benoni, there are a few remarks I should like to make. All the parties represented in this House, and also those outside it, probably agree that the status quo cannot be maintained. What we have here is a choice between one group that insists on a system of “one man, one vote” within a geographical federal system, and on the other hand, there are those who think that the concept that is already being put into practice with regard to the Black peoples, can be taken further on the basis of a White homeland, a Coloured homeland and an Indian homeland. We have probably all become aware that that concept of homelands for the Coloureds and the Indians will not be practicable because there are no traditional leaders with established political bases or political traditions in regard to those groups.

The NP did not come up with this concept that is being debated today in a brief, ill-considered moment. This is a concept which had its origin as long ago as 1976 and which has since been worked on and adapted. Debates and consultations have taken place in this regard. It is a concept based on the point of departure of the NP which had its origin in 1914, almost 70 years ago. This is the same NP which has lived through an entire process of development in South Africa and has a tradition and outlook on life of its wn. Moreover, our hon. Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, has been actively involved for at least 46 years in the development of this party. Therefore, if he takes into account that there is a certain framework and direction here in accordance with which the concept has been built, one must realize that this concept has also been built with due regard to the various population groups, with due regard to the development of the history of South Africa, to the needs of a multinational community and, in addition, to the approach of fairness and justice towards the community of Southern African population groups.

There are examples of constitutional formation in the history of several other parts of the world. Let us begin with our own past. After the Second War of Liberation, the Boers and the British tried to reach agreement at the time of Union on 31 May 1910.

That was the beginning of the coming together of the Boers and the British, and the end of the Second War of Liberation, but in that context, whereas there was a political union, there was a period in which the Boers and the British did not yet trust one another but deemed it necessary to incorporate in the constitution of 1910 entrenched clauses to secure the language rights, for example. I shall come back to that aspect later.

I am reminded of the USA where, after a civil war which caused great bitterness, a federation of States was decided on. That was the beginning of greater co-operation among elements that had fought one another.

†After the cessation of hostility in the Second World War, the economic realities implanted into Europe the embryo of future closer co-operation when statesmen like Mr. Robert Schuman of France and Paul Henri Spaak of Belgium, started the European Coal and Steel Agreement. This developed into the common market of six to be followed by the European Economic Community of nine members, which has since increased to ten members, with more knocking at the door. We also have the concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Council of Ministers and now the European Parliament. Fourty years ago countries that were fighting each other, that were at each other’s throats, could never have imagined that forty years after 1945 they could grow into a concept of closer co-operation by forming the European Parliament. What is important to remember, is that none of the participating members sacrificed their national sovereignty and yet all of them have voluntarily, but with varying degrees of caution and hesitancy, accepted the concept of limited power-sharing for the sake of safeguarding their future economically and strategically and also for the sake of ensuring the retention of fundamental concepts of democracy, against the onslaught of Marxist socialism, atheism and dictatorship.

We have seen concepts of unity growing elsewhere as well, formed on a different basis. We all remember the 17th of June 1953 which day has subsequently been recognized as a public holiday in Western Germany because East Germans rose against the power of the Russian dictatorship and were crushed by the power of the military might. We remember what happened in Hungary where a type of unity was forced on the Hungarians by their Russian masters by military power. We also saw attempts to create unity by the Nigerian concept where the Obos and Hausa were brought together by military power. We know about the attempt to bring closer unity in Cyprus where, 20 years later, it is still necessary to have United Nations troops as a peacekeeping force. We know the situation in Zimbabwe where, after the Lancaster House Agreement under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington, we now see that one of the architects of the principles of majority government, Mr. Joshua Nkomo, is now a voluntary exile in Britain. These concepts of unity have failed.

*However, South Africa has its unique problems. South Africa has its problems of heterogeneity and at the same time it has a history of growing economic co-operation. It has a past of conflict among ethnic and cultural groups with the striving for the preservation of own identity and interests. At the same time, however, we are experiencing that escalating danger of total destruction of own values and identity for all groups, White, Brown, Asian and Black, by conflict-exploiting Russian communism and imperialism, under whatever name or cloak it may be presented. We in South Africa must try to avoid conflicts, without forfeiting our own values and identity. We are therefore compelled to work out our own formula based on our factual situation, our population composition, our history, our ethnic and cultural diversity and also taking into account our feasible future needs. I stressed the words “taking into account our feasible future needs”. I say this because there may be other future needs, as seen by one side that wants a one man, one vote system. There are also the future needs seen from another point of view, in terms of which virtually watertight separation among the various population groups is seen as a solution. However, we must also take cognizance of the fact that in the Western World there is an increasingly systematic standpoint being adopted against South Africa or against what the Western World sees or regards as official racism. This means that we are going to find it increasingly difficult to play an open and constructive role in the community of nations.

Looking at the situation in Southern Africa, we see that in this concept that is now being proposed and which has been worked on for many long years, and in regard to which many discussions have taken place, responsible discussions with leaders of all political shades of opinion among the Coloureds, and with leaders of innumerable political shades of opinion among the Indians, we must realise that what is feasible is being put forward here. [Interjections.] I refer here to the fact that Coloureds and Indians are being involved so as to exercise authority in the highest parliamentary structure over their most intimate community interests. At the same time they are gaining a responsible say in the decision-making process as regards common affairs. What is important is that the whole process being presented here is a change of style. It is no longer a style conflict debate. The style being presented in the new process, is a style in terms of which joint deliberation in a committee system in standing committees is being introduced in terms of which members will be compelled to persuade their co-members of the committee by way of intelligent argument and logic to try to achieve the feasibility of the matters concerned.

In the conflict style which prevails in the present parliamentary structure, the opposition seldom succeeds in persuading the Government that its approach will be unsuccessful. Moreover, the Government very seldom succeeds in persuading the Opposition that their standpoint is faulty. However, we have examples of the committee system that prove the opposite. I wish to mention the example of a select committee in which I serve, a committee which attended to the establishment of Black local authorities. All parties of this House are represented on that select committee—the PFP, the NRP and the CP as well as the NP. Contentious legislation was discussed in that select committee and outside evidence was heard. Eventually 48 amendments were moved. Those amendments were accepted without it being necessary to vote on them even once. They were all unanimously accepted because the style of operation in closed committee is different to the style of approach in debating in the open House. The style of operation in the system that is now being proposed stresses consultation in standing committees, in which everyone will have a part in the deliberations and decision-making.

Who is the “all”?

All the participating bodies—the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians—because the members of all the standing committees will be representative of all those population groups and they will participate in decision-making. However, the final decision will rest on the acceptance thereof by the separate chambers—the White chamber, the Coloured chamber and the Indian chamber. Therefore power politics is not being built into this, but instead the consensus style is being built in in an effort to strive for communality.

Is that only the majority party or all the parties?

In the nature of the matter, it will not only be the majority party; the minority party, too, will, if they have reasonable representation in the chambers in question, have representation in the standing committees. [Interjections.]

Where does the minority govern? Tell me that?

In South Africa.

In terms of this system a mechanism is being incorporated by means of which the Coloureds and the Indians, together with the Whites, will be given a responsible say, but the system makes no provision—this must be stressed—for overthrowing the power politics within a unitary structure. It makes no provision for that.

If the PFP thinks that the only solution lies in the total sacrifice of the existing system in favour of a system of majority government in a one man, one vote system in a unitary political structure, even though it be federal, they are making a mistake, because that would entail an alternative power politics for which we are not prepared. Any system that is to achieve success in South Africa must be a system in which the Whites can participate without being deprived of their rights and values. That is just what is built into this system. Therefore the Whites can safely accept this system in the knowledge that their values, their authority over their own affairs and their rights are not being affected. At the same time the Coloureds and the Indians are being involved in the system in that they are able to exercise authority over their own affairs and that they can make responsible inputs into and have joint responsibility in regard to common affairs. Therefore this is not a system of surrendering of power.

The hon. member for Waterberg intimated that he endorsed the standpoint that if one shares, one loses. He is right. If one shares, one does lose. However, I want to take it further. If we are to analyse that concept, we can say that if one divides—as he himself previously advocated—one loses. If one wants to retain all power for oneself, retain all authority for oneself, then one also loses. [Interjections.] One loses one’s prestige, and one loses, when one pursues that approach. However, if one shares without prejudice in fairness and in justice, then surely one gains; one gains goodwill and one gains friends.

I wish to conclude with a quotation from a poem, a German poem translated by the hon. member for Standerton. It concerns a bridge—I see this draft constitution as a bridge—and it reads as follows—

Sir, let us build a bridge.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River will forgive me if I do not follow his train of thought.

In this probably the most significant debate that I have participated in in the past nine years in Parliament, I would like to commence with something of a personal credo. In common with my colleagues, I love my country. I believe unswervingly in democracy. The interests of ordinary South Africans, no matter how humble, have been for 20 years, and are today, my paramount concern. I seek a dispensation which is fair to all. I seek a Government which is humble in its service to those whom it governs. I strive for a society in which merit is the criterion and not colour. For me equality of opportunity is not an empty slogan, it is a way of life. I am imbued with at least two of the specific ideals expressed in the preamble to this Bill, namely that it is the solemn task of Government—

Sir, these are fine words; they express fine values. It is in the context of these values that everything I say this evening should be judged.

The constitution of a country provides the ground rules for the regulation of society. It is a founding document, which to obtain legitimacy, should be subscribed to by all the participants in the political process, a document adumbrating the perimeters and the structures within which divergent elements might differ in a civilized manner. It is a charter within which Government may function. To mean anything, it should be supported by the majority of those who consent to be governed in terms of the checks and balances thus laid down.

In a world of shifting loyalties, in an era of endemic instability, in a country deeply divided by so many factors, it is the constitution which should attract loyalty and goodwill. It is the constitution which should provide permanence, which should be the anchor of a stable society. In the end result, a constitution should be that great social contract which brings all of us together in this country.

I have mentioned the concept of a social contract, a meeting of minds, an agreement which is neutral, in other words, fair to Government and yet protective of minorities and individuals. I am talking about ground rules accepted by all, and I ask myself whether this Bill qualifies.

Let us look at it, firstly, in the narrow sense of White politics. Of course it does not qualify. The PFP’s agreement has not been sought, nor has the agreement of any other political party represented in this House been sought. All Opposition parties have been placed in this position. One week after the Bill was tabled, we have to vote either “yes” or “no”. The principles decided upon by the Cabinet appear to be not negotiable. Yes, we accept the package or no we do not. If we vote “yes”, then the Government knows well that we sacrifice virtually every principle we have fought for over the years. If we vote “no”, then the NP will attempt to label us as being negative, as being boycotters and the like. For us who play a part in the parliamentary process, this new constitution can never be a social contract. It is for the PFP, and can only be, a constitution imposed by the parliamentary majority of this House over the parliamentary minority.

But what of the Coloured and Indian communities? Neither they nor their elected leaders, nor even other leaders within those communities, have been party to any serious negotiations relating to matters of high principle. Certainly elements have been consulted. Those elements which represent the remnants of institutions long discredited have post de facto been informed of the Government’s intentions, but negotiation and consensus on a broad front have not even been attempted. Then, the NP seems to forget that 70% of all South Africans are Black, and yet they feature not at all. Neither were their leaders consulted in connection with this constitution.

When all is said and done, no matter how benign the intentions of the hon. the Prime Minister may be, when a ruling party in South Africa, in attempting to institutionalize its own policy, imposes its own constitution upon the population without the consent of a definite 70% of that population, imposes it without any serious negotiations with the Coloured and Indian communities having taken place, and imposes it expressly against the wishes of what is possibly a majority of Whites in this country—and I say that with some confidence after the results of the recent by-elections—imposes it against what is possibly the express wishes of the White majority, such a constitution can never be that respected, that founding document I spoke of earlier. It can never be that focal point for loyalty, that instrument of national stability. It is destined to fail dismally in those roles.

There is another unhappy consequence that will flow, and that is that this constitution is incapable of providing any permanence. I say this because the constitution is not neutral and, because it is not neutral, it will survive only as long as the NP remains in power. That is how long this constitution is going to last.

And that is not for very long.

Even while this Government rules, while the NP remains in power, the constitution, I venture to say, will change year by year. Not that this phenomenon is new. Ever since 1948 the NP has regarded the Constitution of South Africa as no more than a document of convenience to be kicked around at its own will and to be amended from time to time as needs dictated. I call as evidence the removal of the Coloureds from the common roll, the High Court of Parliament fiasco, the inflated Senate, the removal of Coloured and Black representation, the deflated Senate, the abolished Senate, nominated members of Parliament and the denial of the proper representational rights of the Transvaal as recently as 1981. All this I call as evidence of the NP’s attitude towards this document of convenience. All these measures and many others bear witness to the lack of respect shown to our Constitution by the ruling White NP majority. So I can state without any fear of being proved wrong now or in the future that this Bill contains at least two fatal flaws. Firstly, it does not provide even the beginnings of a social contract, that prerequisite of consent and legitimacy. Compared even with the Act of Union, which at least could be claimed to be a contract or agreement entered into between the Whites of the country at that time, this Bill cannot claim even that status. It falls far short. It is not a contract at all. It represents no more than the will of the representatives of perhaps 10% of the population of this country. This is therefore a 10% constitution! That is what we are dealing with here today.

Furthermore, it does not aspire remotely to be a framework which is anything other than a transitory set of rules, convenient for the moment, malleable in the hands of the White parliamentary majority, lacking entirely in those elements essential for a stable and contented society. It is a constitution made of putty! On those two grounds alone, Mr. Speaker, this Bill should be rejected.

There exist, however, other compelling reasons why this legislation should be jettisoned. In enacting a new constitution Parliament is presented with a unique opportunity of constructing a basis upon which the State can govern effectively and upon which ordinary citizens and groups may feel secure in their rights and privileges. This Bill pays lip service to the independence of the judiciary, and yet it denies that one impartial and objective institution in our country any role at all in the testing of legislation and even of presidential decisions. In other words, it is not the constitution which is sovereign; sovereignty rests with the politicians. The first amendment to what is perhaps the greatest democratic constitution in present-day operation—that of the USA—reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, if this Parliament in the passing of this new Constitution Bill, enacted a provision of that nature, or a provision containing, as a protection for the people, an element or elements of rigidity, or even incorporated an entrenched Bill of Rights, which would be guarded and upheld by the courts, only then would this new constitution be guaranteeing the basis of freedom for the inhabitants of this country. However, we are doing none of these things. This is not a constitution for the people nor of the people. It is a constitution for the NP and of the NP, and on that ground as well we must vote against it. There is still more, however.

Any true democracy secures the position of minorities and of the Opposisition parties within that democracy. This Bill, however, does not. The hon. the Prime Minister has spoken of moving away from the Westminster system and yet the very worst elements of that system are indeed retained. The minorities in each of the three chambers of the proposed Parliament are all but emasculated in their participation. Proportionality is extended in regard to representation of racial groups. There, however, it ends. After that that worst elements of the Westminster system is once again affirmed and allowed to be perpetuated, namely the concept of the winner taking all.

A minority in any chamber may have no say in the election of the President, nor even of the Speaker of Parliament. A minority in any chamber may have no say in the composition of the President’s Council, which is a vital organ within the new structure. NP spokesmen have stated that the Opposition parties will be included in the joint Standing Committees. This statement of intent, however, is nowhere being formalized. In practice minority parties will remain at the mercy of the Government of the day, which, because of the composition of all the decisive bodies, means at the mercy, for the time being, of the NP and of the NP President. That is a very sound reason for voting against this Bill.

There are at least two more strong reasons for rejecting this legislation. The first relates to the position and the powers of the President. It is argued that the President will hardly command greater power than the present Prime Minister. That is not true. In the new dispensation his power is far greater. It is the President alone who will decide what are “own” affairs and what are “general” affairs, and his decisions, which are vital decisions particularly when related to laws affecting race discrimination, can be questioned by neither man nor beast, nor even by the courts. His word, prejudiced or otherwise, in this crucial function will be indisputable law. The provision is a recipe for the perpetuation of racial injustice.

Secondly, once elected, the President is a functionary whom it is almost impossible to remove. Only when he has lost the confidence of the built-in parliamentary majority in the White chamber might he be replaced, and then only after a tortuous procedure. [Interjections.] This represents neither more nor less than the institutionalizing of a form of dictatorship with a President not responsible to the people but only to the caucus which elected him. White South Africa may go along with the present hon. Prime Minister as President, but I ask: With a constitution as weak as this, will South Africa and all its people acquiesce in the hon. member for Waterberg assuming those powers?

He cannot assume them, because he cannot obtain a majority.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay should not laugh at that. It is not outside the bounds of possibility.

It is.

Finally, I ask myself this question: Once this constitution is law, will we be any freer? Will South Africa feel any more secure, any happier, than before? Surely not. The Group Areas Act will still apply. The pass laws will continue to bedevil race relations. Bannings, detentions and political harassment will continue apace. Squatters’ shacks will be bulldozed. Forced removals of families will not cease. Race discrimination will operate on all fronts as before. The end result is that, although the constitution may change and its preamble may be a show-piece for the world, nonetheless all the evil, the unjust and the offensive laws will remain on the Statute Book as they are today. The impotence of everyone except the governing White caucus is entrenched.

Rejection of this Bill by the PFP does not mean that we are anti-reform. [Interjections.] We seek genuine and real reform and we see that there are major flaws in the constitution as it applies today, but it is folly to switch from one constitution to another which is inherently perhaps even worse. We are as ardently in favour of bringing about a fair dispensation in this country—and we will help to bring that about—as any other group in the land, but I want to say that this Bill is not good enough. It perpetrates a fraud against the Blacks of South Africa.

That is a disgraceful remark.

It perpetrates a fraud against the Coloureds and the Indians of South Africa. It is also neither more nor less than a fraud against the White population of this country. We oppose this Bill today, we will oppose it tomorrow, and we will say “no” until our voice can no longer be heard.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 201100.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, if I were to follow the hon. member for Sandton in his completely negative and destructive approach it would require so much time that I would not be able to make a constructive contribution, as I hope to do, to this debate. Let met only refer to his repeated assertion that 70% of the population, meaning thereby the different Black nations, do not figure in the new constitutional setup. One can say this only with complete disregard of all the arguments that were put forward by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in this regard.

He also made the assertion—his hon. leader also did—that there was no guaranteed role for an Opposition under the new dispensation. In the new dispensation there is the same provision, implicitly, as there is in the present dispensation for an Opposition. It is not only for an Opposition in a single chamber but in three different chambers.

His claim that the Opposition should be represented in the electoral college can be effectively countered by referring to the practice in several of the States in the USA where the majority of the voters in a State determine on what side all the representatives of that State on the electoral college for electing the President would go.

*I should like to associate myself very briefly with the very effective refutation by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs of the emotional clichés, half-truths and quicksilver logic that characterized the speech by the hon. member for Waterberg. The basic difference between the approach of the NP and that of the CP is that the policy of the CP, in contrast to that of the NP—one can study their policy documents; one will not find it anywhere—makes no provision for any recognition of the reality of common affairs and therefore for the essential need for structures to deal with co-responsibility. Both of these are concepts that have figured prominently since 1977 in the political arsenal and political planning of the NP.

The change in the policy of the NP with regard to a constitutional approach in respect of the Coloureds has been a dramatic one. It was a dramatic change, with which the hon. member for Waterberg and his associates initially associated themselves. However, a more dramatic change took place at the beginning of 1982, and the hon. member for Waterberg and his associates left the NP and at that stage not only rejected the few adjustments which had been effected to the guidelines of the NP, but went back and rejected the whole package, the whole caboodle as it were, as regards 1977 and the subsequent developments. In fact, therefore, they reverted to the position before 1977. As the hon. member for Rissik has rightly intimated on more than one occasion, they have in fact gone back to before 1969.

Fundamental to the whole approach and argument of the hon. member for Waterberg is the feasibility, the realistic practicability of an “own” homeland, of an own State territory for the Coloureds and Asians. If that is not feasible, it is not realistic and honest politics to base a policy on it. If we were able to find a homeland or a State territory as a solution to this problem it would really be such a simplistic and theoretically neat solution, a solution which would be such an obvious extension of the approach adopted with regard to an own political dispensation for the Black peoples, that if it had been at all feasible, then surely, over the past decades, at a time when those hon. members were still in the NP, there were leaders in the NP who would have perceived, accepted and implemented that. Not one of these able leaders—I refer here to people like Mr. Strydom, Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Vorster, our present Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, and Dr. A. P. Treurnicht before 1982—ever accepted or recognized the feasibility on practicability of a homeland as a basis for a realistic policy for a political dispensation for the Coloureds. If it had been possible it would have been such an obvious solution that it must surely have been discovered by such leaders a long time ago.

To me the essential characteristics of the constitution or guidelines of the Government, and of the draft Bill based on them are, firstly, the serious grappling with the hard realities of the South African situation and, secondly, the endeavour, in view of the sometimes oppressive dilemmas we are faced with, to find a solution which would be the best possible one in the circumstances. When I say that, I also say, firstly, that an approach which evades, denies or escapes the true facts, is not true to and is irresponsible as regard our calling and, secondly, that an approach which pretends to offer a problem-free, perfect and ideal solution in our complex situation is misleading and creates a false complacency which must inevitably lead to disillusionment.

In my opinion the programme of principles of the National Party already incorporates the three essential points of departure on which this draft constitution has been based, namely nationalism, but a nationalism tempered by Christianity which also strives towards fairness vis-á-vis the nationalism of others, and realism, a responsible realism. On the basis of these points of departure the NP also recognizes in its programme of action, as reformulated in April 1981, the basic and fundamental reality of multi-nationalism and the population diversity in South Africa, a recognition that the NP carries into effect in a sober and realistic, but also in an honest and consistent way, and not by way of mere lip service.

The recognition of the reality of multi-nationalism and population diversity in terms of the programme of action of the NP brings with it the need for the greatest possible degree of vertical differentiation and separation in order to achieve a maximum degree of self-determination concerning its own interests for every population group. But realism also demand that it be recognized that in spite of differentiation and self-determination, common interests among the various population groups also continue to exist and even arise in various forms and various levels, and the structures wherewith to implement joint responsibility in regard to these common interests are therefore essential and inevitable.

Indeed, it is specifically due to the successes achieved as regards the development aspect of separate development that common interests have come into being, common interests which could no longer be handled on a proper and fair basis by means of structure for self-determination alone. To the extent that separate development has unfolded, it has not only created new situations but in practice has, in fact, also come up against specific practical problems. And all this has demanded adaptation in regard to means of approach.

The experience of reality has shown that while separation or differentiation continues to comprise a significant and essential component of the solution, it does not afford the total answer or constitute the only component of the solution. Separation and differentiation do not provide the master-key which alone can open all doors. Accordingly, alongside separation and differentiation, recognition must also be given to the indispensable role of communality within the reality we are faced with. Thus the essence of the approach of the NP is not an ideological and unrealistic obsession with either pure communality, as in the case of the PFP, or pure separation as in the case of the CP; the NP offers a balanced combination of the essential separation in order to ensure self-determination, and the indispensable communaltiy in regard to which joint responsibility is inevitable. Only when the communality is a qualified and therefore a limited communality, limited by the demands of self-determination and, on the other hand, when self-determination takes realistic account of the limitations imposed on it by joint responsibility, can effect be given to a new dispensation based on nationalism—fair and Christian nationalism—and realism. It is therefore a misrepresentation to contend that differentiation or separation and self-determination is being thrown overboard in terms of the new draft constitution. In the first place there is the fundamental distinction between “own” and general affairs, and the legislative authority over own affairs is exercised by an own House only, whereas the executive authority is exercised by an own Minister’s council. In the second place, voting rights are exercised on separate voters’ rolls, and every population group elects its own representatives in its own constituencies for its own Chambers. Thirdly, each Chamber elects its own representatives to the electoral college and to the President’s Council, although both of the latter bodies function in joint decision-making. Moreover, the guidelines make provision for viable own institutions for local government for the various population groups.

On the other hand, however, it is just as much of a misrepresentation to contend that the Coloureds and the Asians have been given no real power in a dispensation which supposedly only entrenches the supreme authority of the Whites alone. Apart from the mentioned own structures and power, with their significance and real political responsibility and effectiveness, the representatives of the Coloureds and the Asians are also full-fledged and unlimited participants in the decision-making of the electoral college in which they designate the President, and also of the President’s Council, and therefore in the latter case they are also joint decision-makers in cases where the President’s Council, on the request of the President, issues a ruling as regards the conflict between the chambers in respect of a general Bill. The Cabinet can and will undoubtedly include Coloured and Asian Ministers as well, and their co-operation will be essential and will have to be obtained for the effective functioning of the executive. The co-operation of each Chamber will have to be obtained for the acceptance of general laws and the budget, and the representatives of all the population groups will play a significant role in the joint standing committees of the three Chambers. The co-operation of all the Chambers must also be obtained for changes to the entrenched sections of the constitution. Structures to provide for joint responsibility will be created on a metropolitan or regional basis, where delegates from separate local authorities can decide jointly on joint services. The practical realities of the draft constitution therefore establish an equilibrium between separation and communality, between self-determination and coresponsibility. Only people whose vision is distorted by ideology can persist in harping on only one of the two sides of this balance, in their effort to discredit the realistic nationalism which finds expression in the draft constitution.

In certain important respects this balancing factor finds expression in the constitution in the person and office of the President. He is no dictator, is able simply to ride roughshod over the wishes of people and groups. It is true that he is a person vested with powers to resolve certain deadlocks and to ensure that the effective government of the country is continued. However, in essence the President is pre-eminently a balancing factor. Indeed, as one elected by the electoral college, he is also a reflection of the political, cultural and population diversity represented in that electoral college. As chief of the executive he must achieve co-operation and co-responsibility within his Cabinet, but also between the Cabinet and the Ministers Council, for the sake of effective government. He must negotiate with the leaders in the Chambers to obtain their support in order to have general bills and the budget approved. He must harness in the State machinery the population diversity which consults, advises and decides together in the President’s Council, in order to promote consultation and consensus. He must take his prestige and credibility as a leader into account when using his powers to resolve constitutional issues, whether by referring a conflict on a general bill to the President’s Council for a ruling, or by dissolving Parliament or a Chamber, or by reducing a quorum of a House, or by deciding the issue in regard to whether or not a specific matter is an “own” matter.

As I have argued, the distinction between own and general affairs is fundamental to the equilibrium between self-determination and co-responsibility. The recognition of these affairs also entails a recognition of the essential diversity of the population. By recognizing own affairs, scope is created for effective self-determination. In own affairs those matters are recognized which a people or population regards as so important and sensitive for its existence and survival that it does not wish people of other groups to interfere in the administration thereof.

I do not believe that where own affairs are concerned, it is always primarily a question of jealously separating and isolating them for the benefit and use of the own group, but rather that they are primarily a matter of the group wanting the sole say over its own affairs and how they are dealt with and administered. Accordingly, that is why scope is left in schedule 1 for orderly arrangements whereby to make own affairs accessible to members of other population groups as well; this, of course, applies where and to the extent which the population group concerned itself deems it desirable as regards its self-determination.

In paragraph 2 of schedule 1, education is classified as an own matter in its totality and at all levels. Because education from the pre-primary to the tertiary levels and in all its aspects of formal, informal and non-formal, is seen as a continuous, comprehensive unity …

Does De Lange agree with that?

… it is regarded in its totality as an own matter for each group. Moreover, aspects of certain matters which would otherwise be general, are regarded as part of education as an own matter in so far as they are an integral part of the educational setup, for example sport within the official school context, school cadets and school health services.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister to explain how training by correspondence, correspondence colleges and so on can be an own matter? Here I have in mind in particular Unisa which provides education for all races.

That is an own general matter.

As I shall mention later, that is one of those very matters for which provision is made in schedule 1, i.e. that a service which is presented predominantly by a specific population group may also be made available to other population groups.

What is it then? [Interjections.]

Education and training is probably one of the most cardinal and sensitive of all the own affairs. Indeed, education is the bearer of the values, way of life and culture of the community; it maintains the identity and progress of the group and in addition it ensures the group’s feeling of security. Therefore the group must itself be able to control and administer its education autonomously. Education is of fundamental importance for the group because it prepares the youth for adult life to enable them to play their party in the community in several different respects, but also to be able to ensure their own quality of life by entering a profession and the labour market. To be able to be successful, education must build on what is given in the society of the group in question, it must take account of and link up with the background, the state of development, the milieu of life, the language and the customs; in brief, with all instruments and possibilities, but also with all hindrances and limitations which are present in the existence and reality of the group and which are relevant to education.

Therefore it is obvious that every population group would like to have a say in respect of its education in order to ensure for itself that the quality of such education should be as good as possible and that the optimum human and material resources will be made available in that regard. As I have already argued, an undifferentiated unitary educational system or educational department is unacceptable to the country as a whole. For administrative, educational and cultural reasons it is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable from the constitutional point of view of self-determination.

However, education, too, cannot be entirely isolated and dealt with as an own matter. As I have already said, education prepared the adolescent specifically to take his place or places in the world of reality. That world in which he has to live is also occupied by several other groups and peoples, not only his own, with the result that responsible education must also prepare the adolescent to find and maintain his place within the multinational reality of South Africa, and to do so effectively.

Education also prepared the adolescent for a world that is characterized by an interdependent economy in which manpower and occupational possibilities are increasingly based on interdependence between population groups. Therefore it is all the more essential that with a view to the mentioned interdependence, certain aspects of education be regulated by way of norms and standards regulated as a common, general matter.

The world for which education prepares him, apart from the diversity of groups, does also have certain joint elements, e.g. patriotism in respect of the same fatherland, joint national duty, in many respects, too, a common language and religion; in other words, communalities to which education, too, must orient itself. Last but not least their are also various spheres of education in regard to which the various groups can co-operate by way of co-operative services, to which reference is made in the De Lange Report, or by making the own services of a specific group available to other groups. For example, there is the case which the hon. member for Durban Point referred, viz. institution for tuition by correspondence, and in addition, the accessibility of certain tertiary educational institutions.

Accordingly it is apparent that there must also be a well-defined, prescribed, ministerial and legislative function concerning general or communal aspects of education in order to lay down an overall macro-policy in respect of certain matters as mentioned in the first schedule. This has to do with norms and standards relating to the financing of education, norms and standards relating to syllabuses, examinations, certification and norms and standards in respect of the conditions of services and salaries of teachers.

As regards these specific matters, it will be necessary to decide, specifically in the interests of meaningful self-determination, on the maintenance of equal standards with regard to certification and implementation of salary policy at a common level. In this way education will, in my opinion, serve as an important keystone of this new constitutional dispensation, a keystone which is probably the most important of the own affairs but in regard to which it will also be necessary to decide at a general level in respect of these defined matters which I have mentioned and which are spelt out in the schedule. Ultimately education will be the determining factor, in the short-term as well as in the long-term, in instilling that attitude among all the population groups of South Africa that will be involved in this constitutional dispensation, an attitude which the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development, at the beginning of his speech, referred to as a key value if we are to ensure the success of the new dispensation.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it must have been very difficult for the hon. the Minister who has just resumed his seat to defend this new dispensation, particularly in view of his previous statements. There is, for example, the question of the feasibility of a homeland, a concept he initially defended, but is now rejecting. I want to tell him that nothing he said this evening has convinced me that education is an own affair.

The moment of truth has come for this Government. Its constitutional plan is now at long last embodied in a document. This mystical constitutional plan has been presented at meeting after meeting by Government speakers in an unbelievable variety of spectral guises. This is a plan which has quite rightly been described by the hon. member for Barberton as the act of surrender of the Whites. For now the era is also passed in which Cabinet Ministers were the undisputed double-talk champions in South Africa’s political history, the era in which an unbelievable number of untruths, half-truths, distortions and deliberate concealment of facts were dished up to a trusting electorate. I shall give hon. members proof of this.

There sits the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, right in front of me. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Langlaagte he admitted in this House of Assembly that a Coloured could, for example, become Minister of Transport Affairs. Then he made a speech at Bulge River. I spoke to five of the people who heard that speech. They told me that they had put the same question to him and that he had told them, after he had asked three times whether there were any newspaper reporters present there or not, that never, as long as the NP was in power, would there be a Coloured Minister of Transport Affairs.

I say you are lying.

I say you are lying. I spoke to those people.

Order! The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, but it is an infamous lie. I never said any such thing.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, may I give an explanation?

The hon. the Minister must first withdraw the remark. He can then give an explanation, if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I also withdraw it. I also said so. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are aware that on election-day in Ellisras he went to the HNP and told them that the NP and the HNP had one common goal, namely to destroy Andries Treurnicht. We shall never forgive him for that.

Mr. Speaker, is someone entitled to make such false accusations?

The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs went to Mr. Gertjie Roets …

I honestly did not say that.

I spoke to the people there and you did say it. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs visited Mr. Gertjie Roets and told him that the President’s Council would not have the final say if there were a conflict between the three chambers. They then showed him the little blue book of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, whereupon he said that it was a printing error.

The hon. the Minister of Manpower did the same thing in Soutpansberg. The little blue book is wrong and the President’s Council will not have the final say.

We then put a question on the Question Paper of this House, a question to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. That hon. Minister told the truth and said that the little blue book was right. These are examples of half-truths, distortions and concealment of facts.

I now come to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. This afternoon he had a wonderful time here playing the man and not the ball.

That is nonsense.

Do hon. members know what he said? He said that there were, in fact, elements of power-sharing in the 1977 proposals. However, the hon. the Minister wrote this booklet entitled Stem met vertroue, in which he said—

On the next page it is stated—

Now I want to ask: Who is telling untruths?

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

No, I do not have the time now. That same hon. Minister who told these untruths here, made reference to Dr. Verwoerd and said that Dr. Verwoerd rejected the idea of a homeland for Coloureds. Why did he not quote Dr. Verwoerd in full? I shall quote to him from one of Dr. Verwoerd’s speeches, and this is a speech he made in the Senate on 15 February 1949. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister can go back to 1922, whilst I am only going back to 1949, he is the one who is antiquated. Dr. Verwoerd said—

He then went on to say—

Let me go further. That same hon. Minister said in Soutpansberg that the powers of the envisaged White Chamber in this new dispensation would be the same as were the powers of the envisaged White Parliament in 1977. Mr. Speaker, surely that is an infamous truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I meant an infamous untruth. [Interjections.]

Which is it to be: An infamous truth or an infamous untruth? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that hon. Minister has also written scare-stories. I have what he wrote here in my hand. Here it is, and now let us see who laughs last. The document is entitled: “Die Nasionale Party steeds die waarborg”. In this document the hon. the Minister wrote the following under scare-story No. 5—

That has been changed.

When, and by whom?

A year later, and by Mr. John Vorster himself. It was on 12 April 1978. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I can continue in this vein. However, time does not allow me to do so. I can, however, give so many more examples of how the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has said first one thing and then another; and then he still has the temerity to point a finger at other people and to say that they are telling half-truths, when he himself was guilty of absolute untruths, half-truths, concealment and distortion of facts during the recent by-elections.

Infamous truths, not so? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the same applies to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. In his speech here this afternoon he asked what the position was in terms of the 1977 proposals. He then went on to say (Hansard, 16 May 1983)—

The sovereignty of this Parliament…

I said not necessarily the White Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said that in terms of the 1977 proposals legislative sovereignty would be vested in the State President and not in the White Parliament.

The hon. the Minister said that it would not necessarily be vested in the White Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, surely that is not true. It says so here, and it is an absolute untruth. I shall quote it again—

But surely that is a lie. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, section 59 of the Constitution provides that legislative sovereignty is vested in the White Parliament. Do hon. members know that these items of information the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs wrote said that the White Parliament would retain all its powers and authority. On Monday, 30 January 1978, Mr. Vorster spoke here in this House. I am quoting from Hansard, col. 67, of that year, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, sovereignty would therefore remain vested in the White Parliament and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s version was therefore untrue. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the time has passed when Cabinet Ministers could dish up untruths, half-truths, distortions and concealments of facts to the voters. The CP will ensure that every White voter in this country is informed of the facts of this diabolic act of surrender on the part of the governing party. [Interjections.]

As it is there are indications that the voters are rejecting this Government, and quickly too. I want to point out that in the four elections he held as Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster polled 78% of the votes cast. That was the position in 1977. Today the Botha Government polled a meagre 43,8% of the votes cast. This means that the Government has been reduced to a minority party that no longer even represents the majority of the Whites. [Interjections.]

This also means that the Botha regime has recklessly squandered the precious NP legacy of a John Vorster. [Interjections.]

The question I now want to debate is: What remains of White self-determination? Since the split, the NP has consistently guaranteed that White self-determination would remain intact, and the CP has consistently warned that White self-determination will in fact be destroyed, and with it White civilization.

The status quo of the White’s political power today is simple: In terms of section 59 of the Constitution the White Parliament has sovereignty. This means that the White’s status quo involves sovereignty over all matters within the geographic area of the Whites.

In what way does this new dispensation impinge on these rights? In the first place there is the matter of sovereignty. The White Parliament loses its sovereignty to the President and the President’s Council. No one can dispute this. This fact has frightening implications for the Whites. The White voter therefore loses not only the sovereignty of his White Parliament but also his direct control over the bearers of that sovereignty, viz. the members of Parliament. In the new dispensation the White voter does not elect the President or the members of the President’s Council. The arm of political authority of the Whites is therefore being shortened. The arm of political power of the Whites simply no longer reaches far enough for them still to be able to have political control over themselves. This means that real self-determination for the Whites has disappeared. Under the new dispensation White members of Parliament cannot be blamed by voters for the behaviour of the President and the President’s Council because the objections of the White members of Parliament may be vetoed by the other chambers, may be ignored by the President or may be dismissed by the President’s Council. Under these circumstances what White voter is going to feel that he has political power or self-determination? I say democracy is dead, self-determination is being laid to rest.

The second way in which the political rights of Whites are being impinged upon lies in the fact that the Whites are no longer even able to decide what is their own, because the President must do that for them. Whites are now becoming minors who are placed under guardianship, and that whilst the Whites at present have full sovereignty in their hands.

The third way in which their rights are being impinged on lies in the farce of own affairs and general affairs. The Government is trying to confound the voters with the cry that the Whites will retain full self-determination over their own affairs.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member continue with his speech when he is stretching the truth to such a degree? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe may proceed.

The Government is trying to confound the voters with the cry that the Whites will retain full self-determination over their own affairs, and I want to tell that hon. member that this is a pathetic farce. The CP wants to give the Whites an urgent warning. They should take a close look at general affairs. They should remember that at present the Whites have sovereignty and the sole say in these matters and that under the new dispensation that political power will slip through their fingers. The Whites should also take a look at own affairs. There one comes across the greatest fraud in South Africa’s political history. One need only take education as an example. How can the hon. the Minister say that education is an own affair, whilst staff, finance and syllabuses are general affairs?

I want to conclude by saying that the draft constitution is a farce. Whites, Coloureds and Indians are going to reject it. There is only one honourable way out for the Government: They must abandon this monstrosity and go back to the drawing board.

The hon. the Prime Minister should take the blame for this ridiculous and abortive attempt—he who in the past rejected a tricameral Parliament and is now accepting it; he who in the past said that Coloureds may not sit in this Parliament and is now proposing that they should sit here; he who in the past said that the Coloureds were not part of the White nation and is now saying that they are; he who, when Mr. Vorster said in 1977 that there was no power-sharing, stood by and said nothing. This makes me think that the hon. the Prime Minister was an extremely silent member of Mr. Vorster’s Cabinet. [Interjections.] For this reason I want to say that in the history of the Whites in South Africa there will one day be written: Pieter Willem Botha: “ Mené, mené, tekél ufarsin”.

Mr. Speaker, I would never have thought that the day we discussed a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa here in this House, it would be discussed at the level to which the hon. member for Jeppe has just sunk.

You flatter him; his speech had no level.

I think this is probably the lowest point to which a debate in this House can sink. I have sufficient respect for some hon. members in the CP to expect them to repudiate the hon. member unequivocally for the level at which he has just conducted the debate. What the hon. member had to say does not deserve a reply.

You cannot reply to it.

The hon. member for Sunnyside should rather keep quiet. When the hon. member for Jeppe was speaking, I was involuntarily reminded of an occasion when the hon. member for Sunnyside had participated in a debate and I had to speak immediately after he had spoken. The then Prime Minister sent me a message saying that the time had come for the debate to be raised from the level to which it had sunk. The hon. member for Sunnyside should therefore rather refrain from such remarks. [Interjections.]

That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sunnyside entitled to tell the hon. member that what he says is a lie?

Of course.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Jeppe referred, inter alia, to sovereignty. This is the only part of his speech that was in any way at such a level that one could give any attention to it. However, he demonstrated quite clearly that he has absolutely no idea of the meaning of sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty doctrine …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Jeppe still make interjections?

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that we are discussing the Constitution Bill of the Republic. I do not think this is the time to make jokes. If there is any further frivolity, I shall simply take strict action and ask the culprits to leave the Chamber. We must conduct further proceedings with the necessary seriousness.

The sovereignty doctrine laid down three requirements for sovereignty. In the first place the sovereign’s power should not be a secondary or derived power; secondly, he should not be responsible to anyone; and thirdly he should not acknowledge any superior. I maintain that if these requirements are made the norm, there is no democracy at this point in time in which there is in fact a sovereign. Even in the so-called mother of Parliaments, the Parliament of Westminster, there is no longer a sovereign. According to these norms even the British Parliament is no longer a sovereign Parliament. From an investigation of the works of English constitutional lawyers, it appears that they no longer refer to “parliamentary sovereignty” either, but to “parliamentary supremacy”, specifically because acknowledge that there is no parliamentary sovereignty in British constitutional law. Now the hon. member for Jeppe comes along, however, and hawks around the concept of sovereignty here. He alleges that it was stated that in the new dispensation this House would be the sovereign authority. This reveals his abysmal ignorance of the concept of sovereignty. I leave the hon. member for Jeppe at that, because I should like to make a positive contribution to the debate.

The object of the new constitution we are at present discussing is to involve Coloureds and Indians in the governmental process of the Republic of South Africa. This involves acceptance of the fact that in future the Whites will no longer, as a population group, govern alone, as is at present the case. Implicit in this acceptance is the fact that the country will be governed on the basis of joint responsibility, co-operation and consensus in all matters of common concern. Now hon. members of the CP come along and allege that it is being made impossible for them to change the constitution in a constitutional and parliamentary way if they were to come into power. They go on to allege that they could only change this constitution by means of a coup d’état if they came into power.

Who said that?

They go on to say that we should not judge them too harshly if they find common cause with the AWB because they will only be able to change this constitution by means of a coup d’état.

Who said that? [Interjections.]

The hon. members must not insist that I reveal who it is that said that, because I should not like to refer, in this House, to allegations which were made to me under specific circumstances.

Say it! [Interjections.]

The hon. members must not taunt me or I might again do what I did to the hon. member for Sunnyside.

Say it!

Some of the hon. members who are now insisting that I say it, are the source of my information.[Interjections.] However, I set greater store by their confidence higher than that, so much so that even under these circumstances I cannot reveal who they are. However, the hon. members know what they said to me. I need not refer to these hon. members, allegations, however, because Dr. Connie Mulder had occasion to say the same thing. However, I leave the source of this statement at that. Irrespective of the moral reprehensibility of this standpoint, I ask myself whether this point of departure is at all correct.

If we analyse the constitution at present under consideration, we find that not a single clause in the Bill, or the Bill itself, is entrenched in the sense that it cannot be repealed or amended parliamentarely or constitutionally. It is merely that different requirements are set for the amendment of certain provisions, and in this way those provisions are afforded more protection than others. There is, however, no suggestion of entrenchment in the sense that a provision may not be repealed or amended. Clause 98(1) of the Bill which reads as follows—

If we refer to clause 98(2), we find the following—

And what does clause 90, to which reference is made in clause 98(2), provide? Clause 90(1) reads as follows—

Now I want to ask hon. members of the CP: Is that perhaps the provision in the constitution that the CP wants to amend?

Oh, man, do not ask such nonsensical questions.

Sir, the hon. member for Barberton says I should not ask such nonsensical questions, but in view of the CP’s recent wooing of the HNP, whose policy it is that South Africa should be a one unilingual country, this question is quite relevant. I therefore ask whether that is perhaps the provision the CP wants to amend and what it wants to amend by way of a coup d’état.

The answer is no. Go on.

When we refer to clause 98(3), we find the following—

Then follows a number of sections referring to a number of provisions—

The provisions referred to here all concern the right to self-determination of the three relevant population groups, and joint responsibility and co-operation in connection with matters of common concern.

Because a new dispensation is now being envisaged in which the right to self-determination of the three relevant population groups regarding group-specific affairs, and joint responsibility regarding general matters are being regulated constitutionally, it is after all necessary for the respective group to have the assurance that their self-determination and joint responsibility, as regulated in the constitution, cannot be done away with without their co-operation.

Is the CP opposed to the principle that all three Houses should decide on the repeal or amendment of these provisions?

We rejected three Houses, man!

If the hon. members of the CP object to this principle, this runs counter to the whole essence of joint responsibility which they at one stage joined with us in accepting. Or does the CP object to the requirement of an ordinary majority of the total number of members in each House for the repeal or amendment of the relevant provisions? After all, we can hardly allow these important provisions in the constitution to be repealed or amended by an accidental majority, or majorities, which in actual fact are minorities within the content of the total number of members in each of the three Houses or in any one House. Or does the CP object to the essence of joint responsibility and the constitutional provisions giving substance to this?

We reject everything.

Is that in other words what they would want to amend if they came into power?

We shall repeal the legislation.

If so, then they have every right to do so, but then they should not, with the unfounded allegation that they would not be able to change the constitution in any other way than by means of a coup d’état, to try to explain away their links with the AWB.

If the CP is now not prepared to accept joint responsibility, they owe this House an explanation, in view of the fact that from 1977 until recently they consistently accepted it. The hon. members have consistently been hiding behind a semantic stalking horse i.e. the word “power-sharing”.

Just listen who is talking!

Surely the hon. members know whether the word power-sharing appeared in the 1977 proposals or not? The same elements of power-sharing, which at present appear in the constitution, were also contained in the 1977 proposals. Those proposals contained those same elements of power-sharing, and that is the crux of the entire matter.

The fact of the matter is that all provisions in the constitution and the constitution itself may be parliamentarily or constitutionally repealed or amended. The constitution even prescribes the procedure to get around every possible bottleneck in this connection. The only requirement is that a majority has to be obtained in each of the Houses. That is the basic problem of the hon. members of the CP: How to gain the majority in the House of Assembly, because the moment they can gain a majority here, there are no problems with the constitution. Their dilemma is the fact that they know that they cannot gain the majority in the House of Assembly, because if they could gain the majority there is absolutely nothing—I repeat, absolutely nothing—in the constitution which would prevent them from amending the constitution in any way they wished. [Interjections.] The hon. members should study the constitution again. If the hon. member for Barberton wishes, I shall help him with this, and he in turn can explain it to the other hon. members of the CP.

With the advent of a new constitutional dispensation, the emphasis should be on establishing and building it up rather than on repealing and amending it. In this connection it is important to bear in mind that laws only form the skeletal structure of the community; the spirit and the attitude of the community constitute flesh and blood. The constitution will succeed to the extent that the relevant population groups want it to succeed. If the positive attitude, which is indispensable for the constitution to succeed, is lacking, it will not succeed, but if it does not succeed, be warned that no peaceful accommodation of the rightful political aspirations of the three relevant population groups in the Republic of South Africa will be possible. Be warned that those persons who refuse to make a positive contribution are sowing the dragon’s teeth of confrontation in South Africa and should not be surprised if the basilisk of conflict makes its appearance.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put it to the hon. member for Mossel Bay that what has been said during the past 30 to 40 minutes has really been a debate on the politics of the past, namely the argument between the NP and the CP. We on these benches are members of a party which looks to the future. Today we are looking at a constitution Bill which is going to take South Africa into the future. It is very clear from the provisions in this Bill that the proposed constitution for South Africa is following the political philosophy of pluralism in which this party believes. It is for this reason that we support this Bill, despite the fact that there are certain elements of it with which we disagree.

My time is very limited. I have been asked to look at those provisions of the Bill concerning the question of finance, and this I intend to do.

It has been said that a constitution is the book of rules with which politicians must comply. I agree with this. I have often said that the constitution is to a politician what the Bible is to a Christian or what the Koran is to a Moslem; it is the book of rules which we have to abide by. It is in this light that we look at the matter of finance.

Much has been said about the fact that under the provisions of this Bill the President will have almost dictatorial powers. It is in this light that I want to examine Part IX of the Bill which appears on page 50.

Looking at this Bill, one finds that all the financial provisions that are contained in the present Republic of South Africa Constitution Act are contained in this Bill. That means that we have the same protection under this Bill that we have in our present Act. However, there are other provisions which are new and which are to a large extent concerned with the appropriation of moneys for the various groups that are going to make up the new Parliament of South Africa, which is going to consist of three chambers.

One of the new clauses in the Bill, clause 85, clearly states that the accounts of the State Revenue Fund shall be investigated, examined and audited in terms of the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. What does this mean? It means that the control over the finances or the revenues of this Parliament is going to be exercised by the Auditor-General, that the report of the Auditor-General is going to be examined by a Select Committee of this Parliament and that that Select Committee will report back to the members of the various Houses of this Parliament so that the people will have a say and will know exactly how the President and his Cabinet are spending their money. I believe that in that regard the Republic of South Africa will be protected.

Clause 84 introduces a new provision, namely that in future the State Revenue Fund will have three separate accounts for each of the various population groups, namely the Indian, the White and the Coloured chambers. There is some concern in our minds as to how we are going to debate a budget or an Appropriation Bill in future, because it means that we are going to have a General Account which is going to apply to all three chambers, and then there are going to be three individual accounts which apply to each individual chamber. Perhaps someone on the Government side will give us some idea of how we are going to debate this. However, what it does mean here is that the appropriation of State funds, the public’s funds, is going to be debated by this House. It is said that money is power and thus, if the executive President is going to be a dictator as some claim he will be, then he is going to have to have money in order to exercise the power of a dictator. Therefore the question we have to ask ourselves is: Where is the money going to come from? It is clear from the provisions of this Bill that the money has got to be appropriated by Parliament through its various chambers. Therefore I submit to hon. members of the PFP and the CP that any power that the President might derive from that money must be approved by the constituent Houses that make up the future Parliament.

The other aspect that we are concerned about is clause 86. My hon. leader tells me that we shall be able to debate this in detail in the Select Committee and during the Committee Stage. This clause deals with the aspect where various payments will be made from the State Revenue Fund to the three individual accounts. It is clear that there is going to be a formula according to which the money will be allocated to the three accounts of the individual chambers. However, as a pluralistic party we believe that it is absolutely essential for each of the three chambers to have the power to levy taxes upon their own people in order to fund certain programmes which that individual chamber might decide it would like to do on its own. For example, if it was felt by Parliament as a whole that there were not sufficient funds for a particular project which, let us say for argument’s sake, the Indian chamber would like to pursue, then the Indian chamber would have the power to levy taxes upon its own people in order to fund that particular programme which it so desired.

I have very limited time, but having studied this legislation, we believe that the talk about the President of the future having dictatorial powers is not quite correct because when one looks at the financial aspect of the legislation before us, one sees that anything he does has got to be approved by Parliament, whether it is to levy taxes upon the people or whether it is to spend the money obtained through those channels.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not know enough about financial matters to follow the hon. member for Amanzimtoti as far as the substance of his speech is concerned. But I am happy that for once at least the two major parties of Natal seem to see eye to eye on the principle of probably the most important legislation ever to be submitted to this Parliament.

*Whilst Natal actually occupies a special position in the provincial sphere, being the only province governed by an Opposition party, it is perhaps necessary, just in passing, to express a few ideas about the second tier of government. The hon. member for Durban Point mentioned the fact that provincial government is not actually the point at issie in this legislation, but on the other hand, since we are bent on reform, it would perhaps be a good thing to put forward a few ideas about the future of both second-tier and third-tier government. This legislation does not, in fact, contain any new provisions for second-tier government as such, but it is indeed provided that those provisions in the existing constitution that deal with provincial councils should remain unchanged and, in terms of Schedule 2 of the Bill, remain in force in the Provincial Government Act, 1961.

For how long?

What is indeed provided for in terms of clause 15 of this Bill is the mechanism for transferring powers from the first tier of government to the second tier or from the second tier to the first or third tiers, and even laterally.

The opportunity is therefore being created here—and the hon. the Minister referred to the reason why—for the existing position in regard to provincial councils remaining unchanged. What is being introduced, however, is a mechanism for transferring these powers. The reason why this is not being tackled now is obvious. In July 1982 the Government, with the hon. the Prime Minister as its spokesman, made it clear that it was in favour of the maximum devolution of power and decentralization of administration.

Because we on this side of the House believe that, where possible, there should be local authority institutions for the respective population groups, and since provision must also be made for the satisfactory financing of these local authority institutions, a fair amount of negotiations and discussions must still be conducted. When all is said and done, local authorities—and of course also, to a lesser extent, provincial authorities—deal with those matters of closest concern to the voters. These matters are, however, still going to take some time. Technical investigations into the furnishing of services at both metropolitan and regional level are still going to take up quite some time, and there is probably the prospect of metropolitan or regional authorities developing as a result of such investigations. There is consequently a strong possibility that the role, the composition and the functions of second-tier government will only clarify themselves as time goes on and only reach full maturity when the position of first-tier government—what we are now considering here in the House—and of course also third-tier government has been set out. Only then will a clear pattern of second-tier government emerge.

Because this unavoidably going to be a long process, and also because the country has, for virtually 10 years now, been considering this whole new dispensation—this evening we are only discussing the pattern of the top-tier—we cannot wait any longer, the country cannot be left in uncertainty any longer, and we must therefore proceed with this first-tier stage. What one can say at this point, however, is that in this new dispensation second-tier and third-tier government will also bear the stamp of this dual principle which is basic to this legislation. I am referring to the principle of individual decisions being taken about own affairs, on the one hand, and joint responsibility, on the other hand, for matters of common concern.

It is therefore now possible to ask Parliament first, and then later ask the electorate, for a final answer. This does not mean, however, that the future of provincial government—second-tier government—must remain shrouded in vagueness. That is why I thought it necessary that we should in fact, in this discussion, focus attention on provincial government. The basic norms that have applied in the consideration of the legislation under discussion will, after all, also have to apply in regard to second-tier and third-tier government. In fact, as far back as July of last year, the Government laid down five guidelines in regard to a future dispensation for the provincial system.

The basic norms applicable to all levels of Government are firstly that nothing should be considered that would have a destabilizing effect on society. When we speak about this new dispensation, this new constitutional future for our country, it is perhaps important for us to bear in mind that it is specifically in a time of change, such as the present time, that the stability of the community is more important than perhaps at any other stage.

The second norm is that nothing must be done to encroach upon the security of the Whites. When one says that, one is not doing so on racist grounds. The security the Whites have guaranteed has brought us to the present point of constitutional development. Whether one regards this as a good thing or not—and the different parties in the House will react differently to this—it is a fact that South Africa largely derives its present constitutional position from the fact of the White’s feeling of security here on the southern tip of Africa, that the Whites could feel that their security was not threatened. Reform can only emerge from that with which one is familiar, from that which one knows.

The third norm which Government would have to take into account at the second and third tiers, is that it will have to comply with all the reasonable expectations of all three groups. When I speak of “reasonable” expectations, I am speaking of that which falls within the realm of the possible, that which can be achieved. Actually the three relevant groups can make different demands. They can also make impossible demands, thereby encroaching upon the reasonable expectations of other groups. This is consequently a further norm that has to be borne in mind.

The fourth norm—and this actually goes without saying—is that nothing should be done that can jeopardize effective decision-making. When all is said and done, whatever constitutional model one decides upon, the country still has to be governed, and effective decision-making therefore continues to be an important norm.

Last year the hon. the Prime Minister, at a congress at Bloemfontein, specifically laid down five guidelines for second-tier government. He said that provincial boundaries would remain unchanged. Secondly he said that provincial councils would serve out their present term of office. Thirdly he said that in order to give effect to self-determination in regard to own affairs and joint responsibility for matters of common concern at all levels of government, the provincial system would, of necessity, be subject to certain adaptions in the course of time. In accordance with the changes that took place, one could expect certain provincial powers of the provincial councils to be transferred to individual local authorities; other functions would be transferred from provincial level to metropolitan or regional authorities; and still others perhaps to one of the three chambers of Parliament. The fifth guideline that was laid down was that technical investigations would still have to follow. A re-apportionment of functions would give rise to new regional groupings, and each provincial authority would be consulted about this. I think that this last promise made to those involved in second-tier and third-tier government, i.e. that the future of those tiers of government would only be decided in consultation with the parties themselves, is the biggest single source of reassurance, to all those who were asking what the future of the other tiers of government in the country would be, that there would be no summary decision to abandon an existing or useful administrative institution before the widest possible consultations and discussions have been held. I had the privilege of raising this question of the powers of the various tiers of government in my very first speech in this House. In that speech, as far back as 1978, I referred to the fact that provincial powers still had their origins in the old fears and jealousies between the various colonies. On that occasion I made a plea for a review, reallocation of powers amongst the first, second and third tiers of government, and I am grateful that that time has now come. I am grateful that we can move forward in a direction in which the legislation we have before us at present can be the golden thread that can be woven into the other tiers of government in the future so that each of the three population groups—the Whites, Indians and Coloureds—can claim own affairs for themselves and have a say in those matters of common concern to us all.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to speak after the hon. member for Umlazi has spoken. I think his preview of second-tier government has certainly contributed towards eliminating a great deal of confusion that has prevailed about this aspect.

A preamble to a constitution, whether in the form of a state credo, in the form of a declaration of intent or in the form of an exposition of national objectives is, strictly speaking, not characteristic of the constitutional process in South Africa. Let me give a few examples. The Natal Voortrekker Constitution of 1938, for example, had no preamble. The Orange Free State Constitution of 1854 did not have such a preamble either. Even the constitution of the Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek of 1858 made no provision for such a formal preamble. Nor did the constitution of the Afrikanerbond of 1883. Not even the South Africa Act of 1909. The first formal preamble to a constitution was that of the Republic of South Africa Constitution of 1961. The preamble to that Act also forms the basis for the preamble to this draft constitution.

A preamble ought to be the key to understanding the constitution itself. If a preamble is worth the paper it is written on, each clause in that constitution ought, strictly speaking, to have a bearing on a definition in the preamble. On closer analysis this is undoubtedly the case with the preamble to the draft constitution. This exceptional preamble—I think everyone in the House will agree that this is an exceptional preamble—with its exposition of specific national objectives, is indeed the foundation-stone on which each clause is built. For each of us who has paid close attention to the content of the preamble and the relevant clauses, it is as clear as daylight that a specific accusation levelled at this draft constitution—that it supposedly clears the way for a communist take-over in South Africa—is devoid of all truth.

What are the facts? In the preamble we recognize the fact that it is the God of the Bible who controls the destinies of nations and the history of peoples, including the destinies and histories of those peoples and population groups here at the Southern tip of Africa. Any constitution which, as this point of criticism would have it, clears the way for a communist take-over and for an atheistic form of government could never, in its preamble, grant recognition to the God of the Bible. In fact, if such a constitution were intended to clear the way for a communist take-over, the first step would surely have had to be the deletion of any such reference in the preamble or the related clause in the constitution itself. An outstanding characteristic of this specific preamble to the constitution, which also draws a red line through the accusation that it is part of a Red conspiracy, is the fact that religious freedom is declared to be a national objective. It is interesting to note that even in the present constitution religious freedom is nowhere entrenched or even mentioned in the preamble. In other words, since 1909 religious freedom in South Africa has been maintained merely by virtue of convention, which is perhaps again proof of the fact that something which has established itself through convention can be just as binding as, for example, a provision in a constitution. In fact, there are countries that do entrench religious freedom in their constitutions, though there is little question of religious freedom in the countries themselves. I think the really classic example of this is the Soviet Union. In spite of the fine entrenchment of religious freedom in section 124, there is nothing of such freedom in practice. So much for that, however. I think it speaks volumes that in South Africa religous freedom has been preserved intact by way of convention, without entrenchment in the constitution, but on the other hand one greatly appreciates the fact that religious freedom is now also declared to be a national objective in the preamble, because it is specifically religious freedom that has played so important a role in the history of our own development.

I think that within the context in which it is used here, religious freedom basically means two things. Every citizen of the country can, without fear of persecution by the authorities, practise the religion of his choice, and each citizen of the country is entitled to participate in the decision-making processes without his religious convictions or religious outlook serving as a disqualification. I think it would be wrong, however, simply to conclude that the religious freedom stated here to be a national objective, was such that one could simply, in the name of religion, for argument’s sake, commit acts of terror or revolution. Religious freedom is, for example, entrenched in the French constitution, and in the same section in which it is entrenched, it is defined in such a way that in practising one’s religion one may not disturb the public order as defined in the Act. I think this specific connotation in regard to religious freedom has also established itself in South Africa by way of convention. What is also true, however, and has likewise established itself by convention, is that declaring religious freedom to be a national objective also leaves room for the prophetic calling of the Church vis-à-vis the State, revealing as it does a willingness on the part of the State to be confronted on current affairs by modern-day prophets. Religious freedom, as set out in the preamble, does not mean that the country is going to be governed in accordance with a neutrality principle, as is alleged in some quarters. The first of the national objectives pin-pointed in the preamble is: “To uphold Christian and civilized standards …” The maintenance of Christian values is therefore not being discarded with the acceptance of the new constitution. This is also the first time in our country’s history that the maintenance of Christian values is being included in the preamble to the constitution. I am aware of the fact that the Christian character of a State is not so much a matter of what that State says or what it writes down, but rather of what it does. On the other hand it is also true that the principles in accordance with which a Government intends to govern a country should also be reflected in the constitution.

It is also important to point out, in this debate, that the declared intention to govern the country in accordance with Christian principles does not conflict with the principle of religious freedom expressed in the same objective. When the Government therefore declares that it wants to maintain Christian values, it is in no way applying moral constraints to anyone. It is preventing no one from practising the religion of his choice and is excluding no one from the decision-making process on the basis of such person’s religion. It is merely manifesting its intention to govern the country according to Christian principles on the basis of its convictions. It is the very principle of religious freedom that gives the State the elbow-room to declare its intention too.

I think it is clear, from what I have just said, that a preamble that makes provision for the maintenance of Christian values and religious freedom cannot possibly promote communism.

I just briefly want to refer, too, to two other national objectives of particular significance to our situation in South Africa. I am referring, in the first instance, to the objective of respect for the rights and freedoms of all the promotion and protection of the self-determination of population groups and peoples.

I think the constitutional history of South Africa went hand in hand with the first struggle for independence against imperialism, which only fully ran its course as recently as 1961. It should therefore not surprise anyone that the freedom and self-determination of peoples and population groups should enjoy a high priority as a national objective in this new preamble to the draft constitution. I think that in this respect history has taught us that no people or population group can continue to exist in freedom at the cost of other peoples or population groups. I think the hon. member for Klip River also pointed out earlier this afternoon that: He who wants to maintain his freedom at the cost of the freedom of others, is the loser in the long run. I think that the draft constitution, and the preamble in particular, must specifically be seen as an effort to allow other population groups to come into their own politically, without prejudicing the self-determination of any of the parties involved.

It is also general knowledge that in Asia and Africa, where capitalism could not develop as a system, it was actually the political proletariat, the people who were excluded from the decision-making processes, who replaced the economic proletariat, the labourers, as the revolutionary agents in the communist advance, and therefore it is only logical that any effort to wipe out suspected political exploitation or actual political exploitation would be the correct action to take to stop any communist advance. That, too, is the very intention of this constitution.

Another aspect I finally want to refer to—which has also been declared to be a national objective—is the intention to promote the spiritual and material prosperity of everyone and to promote private initiative and effective competition. South Africa finds itself in the dubious position of having the only two elements that have thus far ushered in communism world-wide. I am referring, on the one hand, to actual or suspected forms of political exploitation and, on the other hand, to actual or suspected forms of economic exploitation. Just as it would be a logical step to intercept various forms of political exploitation, it is also a logical step to intercept various forms of economic exploitation. This can only be done by providing everyone with the necessary prosperity, but one cannot, for the sake of argument, provide for the welfare of people by means of socialism; both in the First World and in the Third World this has led to impoverishment. One can only do so by way of capitalism, controlled capitalism that makes provision for private initiative, but which also promotes such effective competition as will not in turn promote monopolies. I think that the fact that this aspect is also expressed as being a national objective in the preamble, speaks volumes for order and stability in South Africa.

I think that if what is theoretically expressed in the preamble can be given substance in practice, there is a fine future awaiting us all in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randfontein will forgive me if I do not follow up the points that he made during his speech. He dealt more specifically with the protection of religious freedom in the constitution but I want to deal with the Bill before us in more general terms. I shall nevertheless touch on some of the other points which the hon. member for Randfontein mentioned during the course of my remarks.

Constitution-making, which is what we are in the process of doing and shall be doing in this House over the next two days, presents a daunting challenge to any society because the process has always to be designed to try to ensure an enduring, stable and ordered legal framework within which the State can function in order to satisfy the aspirations of all its people. I think that it is an invariable fact of history that when nations have embarked upon making constitutions they have done so either against the background of conflict already experienced or potential and anticipated conflict. That certainly was the case in South Africa when our constitution was formulated in 1909-10 against the background of the intense conflict and strife of the Anglo-Boer War. At that time we opted for the Westminster-type constitution which has been in operation ever since and which was modified in order to provide for republican status in 1960. It is that constitution that we are in the process of replacing at the present time again when our country is faced with the prospect and the potential of a conflict situation. It is in that sort of atmosphere that we should be looking at the constitutional proposals that are before us at the present time.

I believe it is common cause among all parties in this House that the Westminster system in its totality has proved to be inadequate for or inappropriate to the South African situation. Certainly some of us on these benches have from 1959 committed ourselves to the need to move away from the Westminster-type system in order to seek a constitutional framework or dispensation that would be more suited to the situation in South Africa. We stated then that while the system had obviously been successful in a homogeneous society such as the United Kingdom with its background of pioneered parliamentary government and its strong and powerful adherence to historical customs and traditions, these factors were not always present in South Africa. We have always believed that the nature of our plural society has dictated that we seek a constitutional dispensation away from the winner take all electoral system, a system that would provide for the needs and aspirations of all our people without fear of domination of any single one group by other groups. Having said that I think it is also true to say again of all political parties in this House that while we believe that the Westminster system in its totality is not suited to South Africa, clearly many aspects of that system are a valued part of our national heritage and our way of life, and we would not seek to reject them in our quest for a new dispensation. One thinks of free elections, one thinks of the free operation of parliamentary government and opposition, one thinks of the answerability of the head of State to the people, and one thinks of a free and independent judiciary, all of which are surely aspects of the Westminster system and our own heritage that we would not lightly discard.

So, Sir, I want to come to what we are doing now. What we should be seeking is a constitutional framework which will, inter alia be a recipe against conflict in South Africa, provide maximum security for the State and all its people and prevent domination of any one group by any other group in this country, if there is any hope of any new constitutional dispensation in South Africa providing for these things. There are, however, two essential prerequisites in my view. In the firste place the new dispensation must be fair and equitable to all the people who are going to be subject to its authority; and, in the second place, it must carry the legitimacy of acceptance by all sections of the population who must have been party to its making. These I would see as the essential elements, the essential prerequisites in a constitution for South Africa at the present time. I believe that these two prerequisites are totally absent from this Bill. This is the tragedy about the Government’s response to the present situation in South Africa. There is mood for reform in South Africa, there is a general mood for reform in this country; there is, I believe, a realization among the overwhelming majority of White people in South Africa that there must be change. Their motives may be various, their attitudes may be different, but the majority of White South Africans believe that the time has come for reform, that the time has come for change. There may be differences as to the extent and the timing of the changes which people consider necessary. There will be those who will believe that for the sake of altruism, for the sake of simple justice and equity, we now have to provide a constitutional framework which will satisfy the aspirations of all our people. That might be one motive. But there will be those also who believe that for the sake of our very security, the security of the White minority in South Africa, we have to seek change and reform; in other words, we have to seek evolutionary change in order to resist revolutionary change in this country. There will, of course, also be those who will say that for either of these two motives, what we must at least do is to—if I may quote—“make a change in the right direction”. If the Government has had any positive reaction to its timid and confused initiative towards constitutional change, I believe it has been the superficial hope that its guidelines and this Bill are in fact a step in the right direction. That has been the general positive reaction, if there has been positive reaction, to the Government’s proposals.

Some commentators have said in effect that the proposals are defective and inadequate but that at least they are a start. There is a recognition that groups other than Whites, mainly the Asians and the Coloureds, must be included, albeit on a junior partner basis, in the legislative process in South Africa. Many too have said that although the total exclusion of Blacks from the new dispensation is a patent defect, there may still be a chance for them to be included later. This has been some of the reaction that we have had. However, when one looks at the Bill, I want to say that none of these hopes is realistic in terms of what is provided in the Bill before us. That is the tragedy of the present situation. There are no doors being left open in this Bill. There is no declaration of intent which can justify hopes that this dispensation can lead to the greater involvement of others in the constitutional and legislative processes of South Africa. When one looks at the terms of the Bill one realizes that the reverse is in fact the case. The Bill closes the door to effective future change. The Bill lays down that while Coloureds and Indians will have some say with Whites in the legislative process, they will be strictly compartmentalized between own affairs and common affairs, and that in all matters the operation of the Constitution will be strictly dependent upon the pillars of the apartheid philosophy of the NP. It will be strictly dependent on the Population Registration Act, on the Group Areas Act and on the Separate Amenities Act. Not only will they be part of Government policy in future but they will in fact be some of the pillars upon which the new constitution of South Africa is based. They will be entrenched both by the 4:2:1 formula written into the constitution in respect of the power of Whites, Coloureds and Asians in the legislative process, and by the considerable power given to the President. As we know, the President will be the creature of the majority party of the White power group, and one of his functions will be to delineate between what are own affairs and what are common affairs where there is a dispute over these matters, and what is to be considered by the three chambers which are being created by this Bill. So much then for the so-called effective or healthy power-sharing as it affects Coloureds and Asians in South Africa.

But what about Black South Africans? There has been a good deal of talk this afternoon by the hon. the Minister himself and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development about the whole situation of Black South Africans vis-à-vis the new dispensation which we are discussing at the present time. Is there really a chance that Black South Africans, as some apologists for the constitution suggest, may be included at some future time in the present process? Does this new constitution that we are formulating leave the door open for that? Clearly it does not. It closes the door very firmly indeed. The very nature of the 4:2:1 formula in the constitution applying to White, Coloured and Asian influence precludes the possibility of a fourth Black Chamber. This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has been quite emphatic that there is no intention of having a fourth Black Chamber. Hon. members opposite stated categorically that as far as they are concerned, as far as the Government is concerned and as far as hon. Ministers are concerned, the Blacks will not be included in this particular dispensation and that there is no intention that they be included at this or any other stage. We have been told that they will be dealt with separately. We have heard speeches, this evening again from the hon. the Minister of National Education who talked about the whole question of self-determination. The Blacks are told that they will have a different sort of dispensation and that they will be able to achieve full sovereign independence over their own areas and work towards that end. They have been told that all they have to do is to ask for this sort of dispensation and they will be given it. It will not be forced upon them, but if they want it they can proceed along those lines.

In this regard I want to ask two questions. Firstly, I think the Government have got to be much more specific as to what they intend doing about the urban Blacks. We have been told that there is a Cabinet Council considering the situation, but how do they propose to include the urban Blacks in the new arrangement in South Africa? That is the first question to which I believe we need a definitive answer. We must not only talk about urban Blacks. The second question I want to ask is: What about the Blacks in South Africa generally who are not interested in separate in dependence or self-determination, separate independence from the rest of the Republic of South Africa? I want to ask the hon. the Minister: What is he going to do with these people? It is all very well standing up and saying that it is the policy of the Government that there be self-determination, that there be separate provision for Blacks, but how are Blacks who do not want that sort of self-determination going to be affected by the new dispensation in South Africa?

I want to come back to the two prerequisites which I mentioned for a new constitution to be successful. Firstly, there must be fairness and equity for all. Then there is the legitimacy arising out of the acceptance of all sections who must have been party to the making of that constitution. How does this constitution measure up to these prerequisites when we relate it both to the urban Blacks in South Africa and the non-urban Blacks who reject independence? What hope, I want to ask as we consider this constitution, have we that it will be respected by these people as the instrument of Government and order in our society? When I talk here of ±70% of the population of South Africa, the answer is, if one looks at what hope we have, that we in fact know that they have never been consulted about this dispensation and that they have been specifically excluded from it, and we know that they therefore cannot be expected to have any particular respect for it. This, again, is the basic and incurable defect in the Bill before us and the manner in which the Government has gone about introducing the Bill at the present time. It means that this new constitution cannot hope to prevent conflict in South Africa. Rather does it invite conflict and it can offer no real hope for our security in South Africa.

To illustrate the point I think there is no more graphic example that I can give than to ask this House to look at the situation in the province of Natal, the province from which I come. Looking at the situation in the province of Natal we find that the population statistics in Natal reflect the following: The White population is 566 000 which is equal to 9,29% of the total population of the province. The Coloured population is 93 500 which is equal to 1,53% of the total population of the province. The Asian population is 669 000 which is equal to 10,98% of the total population of the province. The Black population is 4 767 000 which is equal to 78% of the total population of the province of Natal. To start with then, in terms of the Government’s attitudes and this Bill, the new constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 78% of the population of Natal will not only not have been consulted about the new constitution but will have been specifically excluded from its operation and provisions. That is the fact of the situation. Again one asks where the basic elements are of the legitimacy of a constitution by participation and acceptance. To make it worse, however, Mr. Speaker—and again citing the example of Natal—the Government’s argument that we have had ad nauseam here this afternoon that there is justification for excluding Blacks from the operation of this Constitution Bill does not apply in the province of Natal because the Government knows indeed that the Zulu people have not once, but a hundred times and more, stated in the clearest possible terms that they do not want a separate dispensation, that they regard themselves as part and parcel of South Africa, and that they do not want sovereign independence. The Government knows that. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development nevertheless spoke here this afternoon for more than half an hour … [Interjections.] That hon. Minister should know that, particularly when one deals with the situation in Natal, one has nearly 5 million people who have made it very clear that they are South Africans, and that they intend to remain South Africans. They have made it abundantly clear that they do not want a separate dispensation. What is more, and what makes the position even more critical in the province of Natal, is that the Zulu people have produced their own initiative in the form of the Buthelezi Commission last year, in which they asked for shared power. They took the initiative of saying they wanted to share power. They made concessions, and they provided at any rate a basis—although it may be an imperfect basis—which amounts to an important initiative taken in Africa at the present time by a powerful group of Blacks seeking a formula for sharing power with their White compatriots without domination over minorities.

Mr. Speaker, what was the Government’s attitude to that initiative?

They boycotted it. [Interjections.]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, they boycotted it. [Interjections.] That is the Government that is so ready to accuse us in these benches of indulging in boycott politics. When that initiative came, however, the Government said they wanted to have nothing to do with it at all. They wanted to have nothing to do with participating in the discussions. They boycotted the discussions, and when the report was issued they rejected that report as well. That was an attitude of total boycott. [Interjections.] Now, despite all that, they come with these proposals, specifically excluding the Blacks from the operations of this Constitution Bill, from this new dispensation, proposals, which, I believe—as far as Natal is concerned—amount to a total slap in the face for the entire Zulu nation, and a sure recipe for polarization between Black and White in the province of Natal. [Interjections.]

We have to measure that again, Mr. Speaker, against the test of legitimacy by way of participation and acceptance. This is why I am totally amazed that the NRP, a party which actually has its strongest base in Natal, that that party of all parties, could do what it has done today by agreeing to support this measure, and to do so in the face of the opposition by the overwhelming majority of the people of the province of Natal … [Interjections.] I believe it is absolutely remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that effect and pusillanimous party should come along as an opposition party—as I have already indicated—displaying an attitude of that nature in respect of the situation which exists in the province of Natal. [Interjections.] Let us look at it again. Let us try to be generous to the Government and to the hon. the Prime Minister. Let us say when he consults with the people of Natal he gets 51% of the people supporting his proposals. This will mean in effect that of the 9,29% of White people he might receive a 4,7% support. He might receive a percentage support from the Coloureds, and he might also expect a 5,5% support from the Asian population. That means a total support—on the basis of a 51% acceptance from those three population groups—of 10,96% of the total population of the province of Natal. That means he might expect the support of maybe 11% of the total population of Natal. This, Mr. Speaker, is hardly a basis for an enduring constitution. It is hardly a basis for providing security for either the people of Natal or of South Africa.

In all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is absolutely vital that the Government should do what we have told them to do. They should go back to the drawing-board with this Bill in its entirety. There is certainly need for reform. Everybody is convinced that there has to be reform. For heaven’s sake, Mr. Speaker, let us get around a table with representatives of the South African nation and let us work out a new dispensation together before it is too late because the alternatives provided in terms of this Bill—the alternatives without joint consultation—will be polarization leading to a confrontation situation in South Africa. We believe that as an instrument of reform this Bill is a sham. We believe it is nothing more than transparent tokenism, which, in our present situation, is a sure recipe for conflict and disaster, and we therefore cannot support it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will forgive me if I do not react to all of his arguments. I did not bring my computer, or my calculator, with me and I do not think one can solve political problems by giving streams of figures. Also, I do not want to enter into the argument that hon. member has with the gentlemen of the NRP. That is a domestic matter and I think they can fight that one out for themselves. For myself, I think that we and the NRP are getting on very nicely.

There is an aspect of this debate that amazes me. In 1974 I came into public life and do you know, Sir, what heated battle was raging nine years ago in 1974? Do you know what question dominated every public platform and every debate at provincial government level and outside? It all centred around the question whether or not we should open the Nico Malan to all races. That was the debate that was raging then. The gentlemen on that side of the House and their newspapers told us then that that was a cardinal reform, that that was meaningful, that that was vital and important for the well-being of this nation. Members like the hon. member for Groote Schuur boycotted it and went from platform to platform in this country holding forth about this matter. Here, however, a few years later we have before us this Constitutional Bill and let me remind those gentlemen that the founding fathers sat for more than a decade. Yet in a few short years we have reached the stage where in this Parliament we are about to extend the rights the gentlemen on that side of the House and we on this side of the House enjoy as Parliamentarians to 80 Coloureds and 40 Indians.

Can Blacks go into the Nico Malan?

Can a Coloured Minister live where he likes? [Interjections.]

Sir, I will not allow those hon. members to obfuscate the issue, because those gentlemen conduct the politics of a world of illusion, and I want to say that South Africa is sick and tired of the politics of a world of illusion. [Interjections.] The fact is that we have before us a Bill which is extending to others the rights the gentlemen opposite and I have as members of Parliament. A little old lady living in Kensington who cannot get a telephone will be able to phone her member of Parliament. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. Those hon. members can laugh, but everything they have said today has been full of contradictions. What did the hon. member who has just sat down, say to us? He asked: Why not a fourth chamber?

Why not one chamber?

He was referring to a Black chamber. He was asking: Why not a Black chamber? Yet in the same breath he shoots down the whole philosophical argument upon which the three chambers are built. Then we have the contribution of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who I must say, cannot ever rise to a great moment in the history of this country.

Racism is not a philosophy.

Order! If the hon. member or Greytown wants an opportunity to speak, he must arrange with his Whips to get such an opportunity. The hon. member for Maitland may proceed.

It is a truism if one looks at the history of our country that our society has always been the story of a society in transition. We moved from being a trading post to being a colony. We moved from being a colony through the climacterics of the Boer Republics. We moved through Union in 1910 to a Republic in 1961. When we arrived at the point where we had resolved many of the great and traditional struggles which existed in this country we found that there were still many other unresolved questions, including the question that is before the House now.

What is interesting to me is that this country was founded as a halfway trading post to the East. It was a halfway house between the then old world and the new world. It is curious to me that that remains our historical position today. We remain the trading post at every interface of society between the First World and the Third World. We still live with that reality. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or another hon. member who spoke after him—I am not sure—said that the Bill which is before the House now was a step into the dark. I want to say that when one day people look back on this debate and on this time in our history they will see it in the very real sense of a step into the light. [Interjections.] This is not an end.

Is it a beginning?

It is an end and a beginning. [Interjections.] Winston Churchill has been quoted across the floor. When his country was in a crisis period of its history he said—

I want to say that if those hon. members quote that gentleman aptly, they will find that he also had a message for them. The fact is that we are standing before a period where the rights and responsibilities that will be extended by the Bill before us are very real indeed. They are the products of the conscience and reason of civilized men.

I make no apology for the fact that this Bill has about it a South African flavour. When I read this Bill the first time—I was in my study, I remember—I sat back and thought to myself: This is South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when opening this debate today, said that Africa was littered with the skeletons of wrecked constitutions. He then proceeded to tell us why we should wreck this costitution in advance because it retains powers that will guarantee stability and further orderly progress in this country. He then advocated the open-ended slippery slope of a national convention which we have had offered to us from time to time but, may I say, never at election time. At election time that is quietly tucked away in the cupboard. The Bill before us is not the result of an unilateral decision by Nationalists, but it is the result of a multinational decision by all three communities which have participated.

Nonsense!

That hon. member says it is nonsense. The only relevant people in the book of those hon. gentlemen on the opposite side are not the people who seek liberty, but the people who seek liberation. That is the great difference. We on this side of the House seek liberty, but the effect of what those hon. gentlemen do and say is to unleash the forces of liberation. Those are the forces of tyranny. Aeschylus has said in the Eumenides—

The fact is that they stand not for liberty, but for liberation. It is interesting to me that the people whom those hon. gentleman always regard as relevant, are the unelected men. They are people who are elected in the office of newspapers in the twilight of the evening, the people who were at Lancaster House. The proceedings at Lancaster House were blown up and while it was in progress we heard that this was the example of reconciliation which we should follow. We also heard from one of the hon. members of one of the Pietermaritzburg areas ad nauseam about this matter. They say nothing about it now or about the role of the Opposition in Zimbabwe; that is no longer relevant. The fact is that they ignore the Black homeland leaders and regard them as “Uncle Toms” and all sorts of things. However, as soon as they would come with attacks upon the Government, these leaders suddenly become relevant. I say that those gentlemen are not for liberty, but for liberation. George Washington said the following about government:

I am for women’s liberation.

Order! I should like to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that he should not forget what Mr. Speaker told him earlier this evening.

George Washington said the following at the inception of the United States Government: “Government is not reason, government is not eloquence, government is force”. Bertrand Russell said the following: “The essence of government is that it is the repository of the collective force of its citizens”. Without strong government in Africa, the expanding of freedom and of rising standards of health, liberty, education and all the other things that are important in life, will not be possible.

Finally I want to say that some members on that side of the House have said in this debate that this solution of ours to the problem under discussion is too complicated. It is a fundamental truism that if you move from a simple society—such as in New Zealand where they have one House; the Upper House was abolished in 1952 and they have a homogenous society of 2,5 million people who primarily have the same problems—to a more complicated population mix, you will find that the constitutional response becomes more complex. Therefore, in our situation, with its complex demographic and historical background, a composition of different people with different cultures and sometimes competing cultures and different levels and pace of development, the fact that we have a complex response is predictable. The fact that we have strong guarantees in order to protect pre-existing rights whilst extending rights simultaneously, is also not strange because we must maintain order if we want to maintain ordinary progress for higher standards of life and liberty in our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasant experience to be given a turn to speak after the hon. member for Maitland has spoken. I do not want to elaborate much on his speech, because it was a particularly clever piece of work he gave us here. I want to refer to the official Opposition and ask why South Africa has had such a poor official Opposition inflicted on it. One finds that they have the courage of their convictions to submit, to this Parliament, legislation aimed at curbing smoking. They feel so strongly about that that they can commit their intent to paper and submit it to this House. When it comes to a constitution for South Africa, however, they do not have the courage of their convictions to commit their sentiments to paper, come to this House and say how they think the constitution of this country should be changed. Why are they so afraid? The reason is that they are always engaged in double-talk. Outside this Chamber they say: No, we do not fully agree that it is a question of a unitary state and also giving the franchise to Black people in one parliament. They say that, however, merely to hide the fact that that is the hon. member for Houghton’s view. I do not, however, want to dwell on those hon. members any longer, because I do think that when this constitution for South Africa has eventually been formulated, we will perhaps find ourselves with three other official Oppositions that could furnish us with better performance.

When one wants to make changes to the constitution of South Africa, one must of necessity do historical research. Any constitution one draws up must aim at achieving certain future objectives. It is perhaps a good thing to echo President Kruger’s words: Take from the past and build your future on that. I do not think one should only go back to 1977 or to 1961, however, or like the hon. member for Jeppe, to 1945. I think we must go back to our beginnings in this country. We must look at what gave rise to each period of change and how that change affected the people, how the people accepted those changes and how the people then developed further. We must also look at how stability was established in this country and what subsequently came to pass.

331 years ago, on a beach not far from the foot of this mountain in whose shadow we are foregathering this evening, a small group of White people bowed their heads in South Africa for the first time to offer a prayer to their God. It was wonderful to hear how beautifully the hon. member for Randfontein summed it up this evening. They praised and extolled their God for having led them here safely and for having guarded and protected them. On that occasion they also asked for His blessing so that they would be able to carry out their allotted task here. Little did they realize that that call to them would be transformed into a calling, a calling which, for generations to come, they would have to answer to in this country, a calling to establish Christian and civilized values and to extend such values. It is a good thing for us to entrench this in the constitution. For a period of 250 years, however, their descendants, and the descendants of all the other people who also came to settle here, were frequently in conflict. There was even armed conflict in which they clashed with one another because there was no unity in this State. It was therefore understandable why, at the beginning of the century, the two economically most prosperous groups virtually exterminated each other in the biggest conflict yet. Only subsequently did they realize that they were dependent on each other, as was the case with every other person living here, that future co-operation would be essential and that they could not ensure economic growth and political stability in this region unless they were prepared to stand together. I find it symbolic that they specifically had to return to this place, this company garden, to avow before that same God, that in the sight of God and of mankind they accepted their responsibility to promote the spiritual and material well-being of everyone in this country.

That is why I ask the hon. member for Waterberg, in deep humility, that hon. member who came to this House with the support of the AWB and the Kappiekommando, whether he still accepts that responsibility of promoting the spiritual and material well-being of the Coloureds. Is he going to promote it by driving the Coloureds into the desert, when his people, with much more expertise, greater economic capability and more means at their disposal, have up to now struggled to make a good living there? Is that how hon. members on that side of the House see their calling in Africa?

When the leaders of the two Boer Republics and the two British colonies drew up the present constitution in 1910, each included his own non-negotiables and these were accepted by the other party. It is true that with the acceptance of that constitution they also accepted power-sharing in regard to their republics and their colonies. Jointly they subsequently decided to make the then Native reserves in their territories independent of this State. I wonder whether our people realize, in their day-to-day living, how difficult those decisions must have been for both sides in 1910, for the Boers to share authority over the republics with those who, only a few years before, had brought tears and sorrow to their families, and for the colonists to share power with those simple, rural people. Despite that constitution, for generations those two groups continued to quarrel and fight. Notwithstanding that, however, the economic growth and political stability of this State has increased tremendously since 1910. Eventually those two population groups, as a nation, were so firmly united that they accepted one flag, one national anthem and even one republic, independent of the Commonwealth of Nations, as their common State. Just look at what they have achieved since 1910, in the spiritual and material sphere, for all the people of Southern Africa. [Interjections.]

I do not expect to whip up the hon. member for Rissik; he looks like a whip. [Interjections.]

Just look at how this country grew once everybody was prepared to place South Africa above individual interests and above group interests, when they were prepared, in the words of Gen. Hertzog, to put South Africa first. That is what one must read in a constitution.

The constitution of 1910 did not immediately dispel the bitterness, hatred and envy between the Afrikaner and English groups. Because of a shortage of trained teachers, that constitution could not immediately provide for the creation of equal educational opportunities. It did not immediately bring everyone prosperity out of poverty; it did, however, establish a basis for joint consultation for the promotion of this common State, just as we hope the draft constitution will do.

Whilst this political process was unfolding, there were numerous soundless revolutions taking place in the country. The hon. member for Maitland spoke of that group of people as the people who just want to support the so-called freedom-fighters, and what I am saying is that revolutions took place in this country without our even realizing that they were taking place. The English-speaking people, in whose country the industrial revolution had taken place some 100 years previously, and who at that time occupied the positions of postmaster, stationmaster, constable and other similar posts in the service of the State, carved themselves a better niche in the industrial and commercial world. After 1910 they sought greener pastures. As they left that sector, the Afrikaners, the rural individuals, took their places in the Public Service, took over the State administration and let the country grow. They jointly built up the State further.

If one looks at the Coloureds, one sees that in 1910 the Coloureds were still virtually slaves. How much have they not progressed, since then, in the technical and academic spheres! The Indians cast off the yoke of plantation labourers. The Black man also gained his freedom and has a much better standard of living than any Black man in the rest of Africa.

Those were, however, not the only revolutions that constitution brought about. No one can dispute the fact that we are leaders in the mining field. At the beginning of this century we struggled in the agricultural field, but after the constitution had united the people, we grew, and by the end of this century we ought to become one of the seven food-exporting countries in the world. As an industrial country we also grew at a tremendous rate, and we trade comfortably in the rest of the world.

Although there are regions in the world where various peoples are continually waging war, in this State we are emancipating peoples and, in the process, offering guidance in the establishment of an alliance of Southern African States. Whilst our Defence Force defends our borders, we are continually engaged in carrying out the principles stated in the preamble to the constitution. Although we are engaged in that war, we still see our way clear to distributing Bibles on our borders.

We can indeed say that since accepting our responsibility for the peoples of South Africa with the advent of 1910 constitution, we have been very richly blessed indeed. That is all true, but it is also true that whenever a leader has lost sight of his calling and has ignored the preamble to the constitution, standing up in this House and saying “I will not stand for that”, this country has been divided. Then there was discord, economic growth was impeded and Christian values began to suffer.

It therefore does not make all that much difference what is contained in the various sections of this constitution. What the people of South Africa are mutually going to undertake, in terms of the preamble, will determine whether this country grows spiritually, economically, socially, culturally and politically. That is what is of concern to everyone in this country.

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

No, Sir. In order to remain prosperous and to continue growing, South Africa must grow economically at the same rate at which its population is increasing. In 1983, as in 1910, political stability depends on the economic growth and prosperity of each of the peoples that form a component of this South African nation. It is therefore important for us to amend the constitution in such a way as to make provision for joint responsibility, by all population groups, in matters of common concern. That is important. We must amend the constitution so that each people can have a joint say and joint responsibility for its own welfare in this country, because that is important to each population group, as it is important to this country. This new constitution has no meaning if we are not prepared to fulfil our calling, as contained in the preamble. By accepting this constitution, the Whites will be giving their word to the other groups that they will, in future, have a say in the administration of this country.

It is, however, interesting to see how the Opposition has thus far approached this Bill. The leftist Opposition regards it as an entrenchment of apartheid, whilst the radical right, the hon. member for Waterberg and his party, regard it as a selling-out of the Whites. The leftists inside and outside this House ask for a declaration of intent. We challenge them, during the referendum, to commit their declaration of intent to paper and to present it to the Whites of South Africa, side by side with the preamble of this Bill, so that they can decide the issue. Our request to those on the far right is: Who is right, you or Jac Rabie, the Coloured, who wrote in Rapport yesterday—

Inside and outside this House the PFP continually asks for a national convention. The hon. the Minister held consultations on as wide a basis as possible when drawing up this Bill, and after we have concluded this debate, the Whites will be able to decide about it by way of a referendum. I therefore now want to know from the official Opposition: If the Whites declare themselves to be in favour of this constitution, will the official Opposition accept this decision as being that of the White convention and acquiesce to that fact?

Unlike the 1910 constitution, this constitution does not merely aim at unity amongst the Whites. This Bill must prepare the way for a much greater unity, that of the South African nation. As such it is welcomed by all moderates in South Africa, all those who do not begrudge others what they demand for themselves.

Lastly, this Bill makes provision for Cape Town as the legislative capital of the Republic. Here in the Company garden He who controls the destiny of this nation gave the first harvests, the first food from the soil of Africa, to the founders of this State. Here, I believe, He will continue to bless them with wisdom and knowledge, the food of life.