Mr. Speaker, it is with great seriousness and gratitude that one avails oneself of the privilege of participating in this House today in a discussion on a new constitution for one’s fatherland. One does so with extreme gratitude, realizing what a long way this Constitution Bill had to come before arriving at this House. One can, of course, also make all manner of statements, but there remains one statement which crops up time and again, a statement which makes one realize that today’s problems can only be solved by the people of today and with today’s resources. It is also a good thing to look back at our history and to learn from our history in order to ascertain whether there is any help or advice to be found in it. Frequently one can find help there.

However, one must then be honest with oneself and also realize that under certain circumstances the mistakes made in history are more important than the successes achieved. This is because one can definitely learn from the mistakes made in the past. However, one should also examine the successes to ascertain under what circumstances they were achieved. In this process clichés will be of no assistance to us. The problem which has to be faced today is the problem of drafting a constitution for South Africa, in which provision has to be made for Coloureds and Indians, provision which at this stage does not exist for them.

When we consider this problem, Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House—at least up to this stage, for that is how I understood the hon. the leader of the CP yesterday—who has any doubt at all in his mind that the present position of the Coloureds and the Indians is unsatisfactory, and that we have to create a new dispensation for them. Consequently we do not differ on this point. Surely this is a very good starting point. After all, it is a good thing for us to start with the matters on which we do not differ.

It is also important for us to go a little further and begin to build together on the possibility of creating this constitution. Let us begin in the year 1972, with the appointment of the Erika Theron Commission. We were in agreement on this. However, I want to go further, and quickly too. We pass over 1977 and the Constitution Bill of 1977, which was referred to a commission of inquiry, the so-called Schlebusch Commission. I shall also pass over that because at that stage we still did not differ from each other. At that stage there were still no differences of opinion in connection with what had to be done, because all the parties represented in this House served on the Schlebusch Commission. The terms of reference of that commission were to try to draft a constitution for South Africa.

The Schlebusch Commission recommended that a President’s Council be established. Once again, the second report and recommendation of that commission was unanimous. The President’s Council was established in terms of an Act of this House. How the President’s Council was constituted is general knowledge. It is a council consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese. There was no quarrel about that either. Everyone agreed on that. It is true that at the first subsequent election the hon. member for Sunnyside began to kick up a fuss about the possibility of prayers supposedly being said incorrectly. This was in connection with the opening prayer of the President’s Council. Up to that stage, however, we were all in agreement. The hon. member for Sunnyside was also part of the machinery that established and constituted the President’s Council. I was at that stage the Administrator of the Free State, and I am therefore the only person who would be able to say that I played no part in it. However, I gladly accept that decision. [Interjections.] Up to that stage we were following the same course.

However, certain recommendations were made in that report. The seventh recommendation of the second report—the majority report, which was accepted by the Government—was also incorporated in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Fifth Amendment Act, 1980. This entailed the establishment of the President’s Council, an advisory body which could, inter alia, advise the State President with regard to new constitutional models for the Republic of South Africa.

Shortly afterwards—after we had worked together up to that point—the first defectors left and began with their boycott activities. We did not expect support from the PFP in connection with the possible new constitution for the Republic. We did not expect those people to agree with us. However, a few strange things did happen along the way. There were a few by-elections, inter alia in Stellenbosch and Noordrand, and when certain organs of the Opposition Press began to pressurize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition into participating he came up with a wonderful scheme and said that we were now entering the negotiation phase, and that he and his party would in fact participate during the negotiation phase. Mr. Speaker, I do not know where that negotiation phase is.

It is now.

I have not yet seen it. Is it now? This is a debate, Mr. Speaker. The only possible negotiation phase is in a Select Committee after this debate. However, what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? He did not ask that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. No, he demanded that this Bill be read this day six months. Where is the negotiation? We do not expect co-operation from these people. The fact remains that they do not see South Africa the way we see it. They see South Africa as a unitary State, and when one sees it as a unitary State one can only support a “one man, one vote” system. This is unacceptable to us and for that reason it is not relevant here.

However, we had other people who worked with us, other people who had gone along with us since 1977. Yesterday the hon. the leader of the NP in the Transvaal said here that the hon. member for Waterberg had defended the 1977 proposals enthusiastically. Then the hon. member for Lichtenburg let the cat out of the bag by making an interjection. He said: No, he had never defended them. [Interjections.] Can you see, Sir, what the crux of this matter is? Can you see why the NP has not existed for the past 10 years in Waterberg?

He did defend them.

He did not defend them. The hon. member said so yesterday.

He did defend them.

Well, I accept that. I accept the fact that I have to accept this again today, because Parliament requires one to accept the word of an hon. member, but I do not attach much importance to the hon. member’s assurances. His assurances are worth nothing.

I want to go further. Those hon. members went along with us during the process of waiting for the recommendations of the President’s Council. On 3 February the hon. member for Waterberg—all this appears in Hansard—said to the hon. member for Yeoville: “You must receive an answer. You must read the NP’s policy. We are merely waiting for the recommendation of the President’s Council and then we shall come forward with a new constitution.” On 23 February of that same month he walked out.

You are a day out.

And you people are years out. A day is nothing. [Interjections.] The strangest thing of all in this whole matter is that on 1 April, a month later, when the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs asked the hon. member: Do you people still stand by that declaration you signed?, the reply was: Yes. The hon. the Minister then read the declaration out to him because he wanted there to be no doubt about this. He asked: Do you still stand by the fact that historically the Whites and the Coloureds have the same territory in South Africa? He then replied: Yes, I stand by that. If one says that historically they have the same opportunity, then any right-minded person must tell me how one can change history.

You will also do that.

I suppose there are people in the CP who want to change history. All day long they are falsely changing, or trying to change, history. [Interjections.] Let us be candid with each other and say that it is of no use those hon. members trying to imply in this House, as the hon. member for Jeppe did yesterday, that Dr. Verwoerd was in favour of a homeland. Outside this House where one only has one thing to do, which is to live with one’s own conscience, one does as as one wishes with one’s conscience, but in this House one cannot convince anyone because it has been stated in black and white on various occasions that former Prime Ministers said it was not possible. It is not necessary for me to quote these references to those hon. members. It is to be hoped that they can read them themselves. Those hon. members cannot try with lavishly selective quotes to ascribe things to Dr. Verwoerd which he never said.

What has been said has been said.

What has been said, is correct.

What has been signed, has been signed.

Yes, what has been signed has been signed, but not always. Some people’s signatures are worthless. [Interjections.] All I want to say is that I challenge those hon. members. If they are honest people, if they are people with any courage, they have to say that they differ with Dr. Verwoerd. If they do that, they may proceed, because then they are correct. However, not one of them has the courage to do that. [Interjections.] Those hon. members will not distract me from the subject; we are discussing serious matters. If they do not say what is right and honest, they cannot make an impression on us. If they allege the contrary, we know that they are lying. That is the position with the CP.

What do we want to achieve in South Africa? What are we trying to achieve with the Constitution Bill? In the first place we seek security. I have outlined a few matters and I am not making excuses when I say that the NP outlined them. Of course the NP out lined them. Of course the NP drafted the Constitution Bill at present before this House. Of course people will tell you that this is NP policy and that the NP is trying to entrench itself forever in this House. That is not true; it is not stated anywhere that the NP wants to entrench itself for ever in this House by means of the Constitution Bill.

What is true—and I make no apology for this either—is that it is necessary for the balance of power to remain in the hands of the Whites in order to ensure stability in this country. [Interjections.] Let us get away from that myth that what we are dealing with here is power-sharing.

Is it White supremacy now?

Yes, it is. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are not dealing with power-sharing. Power-sharing is not a factor. I have to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister spelt this out quite clearly when he said: I prefer the word “co-responsibility”. Let us say this to the hon. members of the CP opposite. Their hon. leader, when he discusses these matters, is fond of speaking English. He then refers to “division of power; not sharing of power”. We are not dealing with “sharing of power”; we are dealing with “sharing of responsibility”. [Interjections.] We make no secret of the fact that in this Bill we have made provision for other people such as the Coloureds and the Indians to have co-responsibility, for them to share responsibility with us.

Over the Free State as well?

We are not dealing with that, and the hon. members opposite cannot put me off.

What about the Free State?

I shall discuss this with the Freestaters myself. I owe the hon. member nothing. All he has from the Free State is a good wife and he is giving her a raw deal too. [Interjections.]

The second objective of this Bill is security. We want to ensure security. Because we want to ensure security, it is necessary for us to ensure security for the Whites by means of the Bill. We have made no secret of this either. There are very good reasons why this must be so. It is necessary because the Whites who have up to now had the sole say in this respect, now have to share with others certain privileges they alone enjoyed. For that reason we have to give them security in what remains. Surely there is no doubt about it.

In the third place we are also making provision in this Bill for the reasonable expectations of the other ethnic groups.

It is just as well that Pik is not here now. He would not stand for that.

Sir, the cackling in that chicken coop over there will have to stop sooner or later. [Interjections.] The question is whether this Bill complies with the reasonable expectations of the people of colour involved here. We have been asked whether we negotiated with these people, whether we spoke to them, whether they indicated that they were prepared to co-operate. The reply to these questions is yes. That does not mean to say that they all agreed. How can one expect people to agree with everything in the Bill? There are hon. members in this House who want nothing to do with it, one group because we are giving everything away and the White man has nothing more to say, and the other group because the White man is reserving everything for himself. What does one achieve with this? The fact remains that there are Coloureds and Asians who are prepared to co-operate. There are also reasonable expectations that this attempt at constitution-making can succeed.

The other problem is in fact whether it can succeed or cannot succeed. I think there is a possibility that this Bill can succeed. Never before in this respect…

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, do you not find it strange that all the hon. members you silenced yesterday, are building up steam again? Before the afternoon is over, they will again be give you problems. I predict this—let me also be a prophet for a change. [Interjections.]

As I said, this Bill can succeed. For that reason I should like to take a look at a few of what are termed own affair and common affairs, and more specifically at the own affairs. My department is greatly affected by this because a particularly large section of own affairs is concerned with health and welfare. It is necessary for welfare services to be brought as close as possible to the specific groups of people to whom such services apply. This is also nothing unusual in South Africa.

The Coloured peoples as well?

Yes, the Coloured ethnic group as well. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that no people or group can be uplifted except by its own people. Since the emphasis is in future going to be placed on the upliftment of communities, it is necessary to have decentralization in this direction and for Coloureds and Indians to be recruited, as is the case with Whites, to uplift their own people. Therein lies the future of South Africa. In that way we have an opportunity to control the tremendous population explosion in South Africa which is our number one priority in future. If we cannot succeed in doing this, I want to say now that we shall not succeed in doing anything in this country. In this regard I fully support this proposed decentralization. The policy will be centrally co-ordinated and determined, but every community will have to undertake its own upliftment work.

As far as health is concerned, I think we are very close to the position where we have to take health services as well as preventive services to the people themselves. In the field of health services there has already been a large measure of decentralization. The provinces, local authorities and everyone is involved with health. In this case as many people of colour as possible have to be trained to care for their own people, to provide their own health services and to build up everything for their own people. The 4,5 million Whites in this country cannot go on providing health services for over 20 million people on their own indefinitely. This is not possible. We cannot afford it either. The bill for health services in this country is assuming such breath-taking proportions that we shall have to take a serious look at this position in any case. Decentralization will have to take place, so that every community will care for its own people.

I therefore welcome decentralization, because this is a step in the right direction. The proposed constitution is following the course which the Government want to adopt in connection with decentralization, with the devolution of power and with the decentralization of development. This is where the future of South Africa lies. By means of decentralization work must be provided elsewhere for the large numbers of people who are streaming to the cities because there is no work for them in the rural areas. The Small Business Development Corporation and the industrial benefits which are being offered, are the start of this process. In view of this it is therefore a privilege for me to also pledge my whole-hearted support for this Bill.

I should like to deal with one more aspect. It is frequently asked what will become of the provinces. As a leader of the NP in a province, I feel it is necessary for me to point out that it has never been suggested that the provincial authorities will disappear. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Umlazi pointed out yesterday that the Government had said that these authorities would continue to exist in their present form for at least the next five years. However, it was not said that provincial councils would then disappear. It was said that changes may take place on the second tier of government. The hon. the Minister who introduced the Bill, also said this and I feel that this should be emphasized. Today it is possible to elaborate on the details of the process of decentralization. As far as I am concerned it is not impossible that in certain respects the provincial administrations will be given more powers than they have at present.

In South Africa we have to contend with the problem of multinationalism. As the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development said, perhaps we do not have the ideal solution, but the possibility now exists to cause people to co-operate within a group context. The opportunity and the machinery are being created and with the goodwill of the NP and its leader, Mr. P. W. Botha, I do not doubt that phenomenal successes will be achieved in this regard in future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare sounds as if he wants to make the constitution measure we have before us work, particularly as regards the Coloureds and the Indians. He is the leader of the NP in the Free State and he is also a Cabinet Minister. I want to ask whether he is prepared to initiate legislation that will allow the Indian community to live in the Orange Free State equally as they do in the other provinces. Is he prepared to initiate something like that? Is he prepared to put the test what he is saying here today? Sir, he remains silent.

Constitutions are not introduced every day. They are reserved for new countries or for countries that have changed their status. We have changed in 1910, when we became a Union and again in 1961, when we became a Republic. The one was preceded by a convention and the other one by a referendum. In this case we have had neither. Constitutions are, or should be, holy cows; not to be tinkered with, not to be breached and not to be assailed. A country should be proud of its constitution, be prepared to fight for it and, if necessary, to die for it. Constitutions should provide hope, meaning and fulfilment for all its peoples and should entrench the freedom of all its peoples to live together in peace and harmony, with entrenched protection of freedom of religion and speech and all legitimate endeavours.

In the context of this constitution that being put to us here we must ask ourselves, firstly, whether it will improve the position, whether it will solve South Africa’s problems and whether it will avoid confrontation and satisfy the aspirations of all its people. On the question whether we need a new constitution or not I say “yes”. However, I must say “no” to the other questions. If I am asked whether we need one urgently, the answer is “yes” because time is of the essence. We are a party of reform. We need reform and we stand for reform. That is what the PFP is there for.

The CP does not want any change in the position that existed from 1949 onwards; nor does the HNP, who wants to go back to 1969. They are not in touch with the need for the changes which have taken place in South Africa. History will show that one group cannot dominate another group without giving them some rights. The days of colonization are over. The NP must not run away with its tail between its legs. They sit here with a large majority, 126 members as against the 53 of the Opposition parties—and they are going to get a bonus in the form of eight hon. members from the NRP, who are not only supporting them here, but who will obviously come over to them, if one has to judge by the speech of the hon. member for Umhlanga on SABC-TV or to the speech by the hon. the leader of the NRP, who yesterday bared and prostrated himself in front of the NP and said: “Please come and get me.” [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir. We will watch that party in the same way as we watched the SAP before they were absorbed by the NP. It is an identical situation. It will not be long before the leader of the NRP will stand in Durban Point as a member of the NP. If he succeeds, perhaps he will emulate the hon. John Wiley and become a Deputy Minister as well.

The NP can fearlessly go ahead with real and meaningful change, not sham reform, not reform which entrenches vertical walls of apartheid and gives token and toothless representation to the Coloured and Indian people while omitting to deal with 70% of the Black population, reform that makes no provision for provincial and local government changes which are eminent and makes this Bill premature, that puts the role of the Opposition parties into meaningless minorities, that entrenches the leading party in a winner takes all situation, that solidifies and entrenches the position of the President and gives him unabridged powers, and that creates an oligarchy. This is a Bill of major importance which affects the lives of every single person. This is a Bill which should have brought major changes and relief to the dreadful political drought which we are suffering at present. But this Bill is so full of impediments that we cannot look at it. It should be withdrawn and the deficiencies cured.

I should like to just mention two of these deficiencies and impediments. The one is the role of the Opposition and the other is the question of finance, in so far as it affects the budget. Let us, firstly, look at the role of the Opposition by looking at the electoral college which is going to elect the President and the Speaker. The electoral college will consist of 88 members in terms of clause 8 designated by resolution of each House. What does that mean? It means that the majority party can come with a resolution designating 50 members of a White Assembly to the electoral college. That resolution cannot be changed. It will have 50 names on it. What then will be the role of the Opposition parties? None of the Opposition parties have 50 members. Therefore we cannot propose 50 names, and we cannot amend that resolution. Therefore we must accept the 50 members the NP are proposing, which means we have no say in the important electoral college that elects the State President, with all the powers that he is to have. This in fact carries over to the House of Representatives and to the House of Deputies as well because they are placed in exactly the same position, although at this stage nobody knows what the composition of those Houses will be. What should have happened is that there should at least have been some proportional representation if one wants to get away from the Westminster system.

To take the matter a step further, if, for example, the 25 members and 13 members of the other two Houses were hostile, the NP have still ensured themselves with a majority of 12 members in the electoral college itself, so they have also ensured that they will win the election with a clear majority. Why all the sham? It is not really necessary. All that one needs to do is to take the NP caucus and let them elect the President and the Speaker. Do not let them come to Parliament with a farce that is meaningless. The only time that there is proportional representation is in connection with the question of nominated members, namely eight, three and three for the different Houses. That is in proportion to their respective number of members. But nowhere else is proportional representation dealt with at all. In the case of the President’s Council it, again, is designated by resolution and it is exactly the same sort of resolution that we are dealing with here. It might be a little different in that the Opposition can put up 20 members because our membership consists of more than 20 members, but we shall still be voted down and the same will happen in the case of the other two Houses. The NP will always retain its majority. In addition to that, one will then find that 25 members are nominated by the President.

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

I do not have sufficient time now, Sir. The hon. the Minister has two hours to deal with these matters. The Government nominates its members to the President’s Council where they have a majority of 30 members. Therefore the Opposition parties will not only have no say in the election of members to the President’s Council; they will also have no representation on the President’s Council, and when Bills are referred to the President’s Council the Opposition parties will have no say. Surely there should be proportional representation on the President’s Council? Surely all the parties should be proportionally represented there?

When it comes to the appointment of the Cabinet, everything is quite clear. The President has the clear right to nominate all the members of his Cabinet and he is obviously not going to nominate members of the Opposition to the Cabinet. The hon. the Minister of National Education mentioned last night that Coloureds and Indians might be nominated to the Cabinet to deal with general matters. But will their powers permit them to come to the White House of Assembly to pilot their Bills through this House? Or are they merely going to receive a token representation by being appointed as Ministers without portfolio so that they do not have to come to this House? We would like an answer to this.

When it comes to the Ministers’ Council in terms of clause 23, exactly the same argument applies. Only the ruling party will nominate people to the Ministers’ Council.

With regard to matters which are own affairs, as dealt with in clause 21, the President has the sole right to decide. The exceptions are set out in subsection (2). The President does not have to act with the Executive Cabinet as well.

When it comes to joint sittings, the Speaker will preside and will determine the rules. But as far as that is concerned it states that “no resolution shall be adopted at any joint meeting”. What then is the purpose of a joint sitting of Parliament? What will be discussed? There is nothing to discuss. The Bill does not provide for anything to be discussed. Even the opening ceremonial cannot be held because if a ceremonial is held where are 308 members of Parliament going to be put? In addition, if their wives are going to be invited to the opening of Parliament, where are 616 people going to be put? Will a tent be erected in the grounds somewhere?

The Good Hope Centre.

Clause 66 deals with joint committees and the rules and orders of each House. There again, the ruling party will decide who will be represented. Then we come to Standing Committees which are dealt with in subsection (1)(c). A Standing Committee is to be a permanent committee and it will be a committee that will sit throughout the year even when Parliament is prorogued. As far as I understand the position, Bills will be referred to the Standing Committees. However, subsection (2)(b) states—

Although reference is made to political parties, it does not say all political parties. The word “all” is left out. Therefore again only the majority party in each House will be represented and the minority parties, i.e. the Opposition, will have no representation whatsoever. There is no formula set out in the proposed constitution. The question is being left high and dry. If we have to look for any kind of guidance we must look to the second report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council where it says on page 82—

Where is that ratio? The Government does not go so far as to mention that ratio in this Bill. But when we turn to page 42 of that report we read—

Again it is the majority party. Clarification is required. What is the role going to be of any Opposition? Will there be five committees, for example, as mentioned by the President’s Council? There is no mention of this here at all. I also want to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to follow the suggestion of the President’s Council of referring Bills to a permanent parliamentary committee. Is that the intention? Since the Opposition has so little representation, what is the role of the Opposition going to be in a diminished Parliament, having lost most of its functions in terms of schedule 1 of this Bill?

Let me turn now to our main objection, i.e. the exclusion of Blacks. We regard this to be the greatest defect of this Bill. Let me remind hon. members that on page 89 of the report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council it says—

It then goes on to say that of the six options open to it it takes the fourth option, i.e. partition for the Blacks and consociational democracy for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. So there is nothing for the Blacks, and as far as consociational democracy is concerned, there is no proportional representation; there is no segmental autonomy; there is no consensus and there is no veto. So where then is the element of consociational democracy? It is clear therefore that the White Opposition will play a diminished role in a House with lesser functions and responsible for less jurisdiction.

Another question I should like to refer to briefly is the question of finance. The President’s Council suggested a whole formula for the main budget. The budget would go before a permanent budget committee. The Minister will then place it before the House and thereafter it goes back to the permanent committee and thereafter to the three Houses. The individual Houses will have no power to tax or raise loans to finance its own affairs because finance falls within the category of general affairs. Appropriations of public revenue or any tax must be initiated by the Minister. So we are going to have six budget debates. The main budget is going to be placed before all three Houses while each of the three Houses individually will have its budget as well. If the Appropriation Bill is rejected by all three Houses Parliament will have to be dissolved. If only one of the three Houses rejects the budget it will go to the President’s Council. If on the other hand it is the budget of a particular House and that is rejected it cannot go to the President’s Council. However, the President may then decide that to be a general matter instead of an own matter and then it can go to the President’s Council. A budget in respect of own affairs is dealt with by way of an ordinary Bill.

All these safeguards that have been built into this Bill emphasize that the Government has no faith in this proposed constitution, no faith that it is going to work. Provision is made for the dissolution of a House and provision is made in case the other two Houses do not play ball or where there is no quorum. It is clear that the Government has no faith that this proposed constitution is going to work, because they have not consulted sufficiently. The hon. the Minister of Finance will present the main budget in order to provide for State revenue. Which way will the cookie crumble? Will the three Houses be able to allocate money among themselves for different Votes such as the provincial administrations and will there be some formula or other in regard to the ratio of money provided for that Vote and, let us say, Education? Is it going to be the same in all three Houses? Is there going to be a gap between one House and another or is it intended to close that gap?

I also want to refer to some of the practical implications as well as the cost of this exercise. Firstly, it is intended that this tricameral Parliament will be situated in Cape Town. Where will the three Houses sit? It is obvious that if this plan is to work properly and the Standing Committee system is to be effective, the three Houses should be situated in one complex. Where will the members of the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Deputies sit? Where will the President’s Council be situated? What about all the extra expense that is going to be involved in regard to matters such as caucus rooms, parking, offices, typists, secretaries, documentation, Hansard, translations, the parliamentary staff, the privileges that are granted to members, the three Maces that should be in the various Houses and the symbols that have to be changed, to mention but a few? In my humble estimation the cost of the erection of such a building will amount to at least R50 million. Looking at 2,2% of the budget, I estimate an additional R10 million at least. It will also cost an additional R14 million in expenses, apart from the capital outlay. We would not complain about this if it were worth it, if it brought meaningful change. However, to bring about half-baked changes that are not going to bring any relief to this country does not justify expense of this nature to the taxpayers. They will now have to meet all this additional expense in order to prop up this type of puppet arrangement that has been presented to us. It is unforgivable that the taxpayers will have to pay for this.

A further point is that this constitution is drawn up in such a way that if an election is won by two votes, the Government will have all the nominated members as well as having majorities in the electoral college and on the President’s Council and by this means they can entrench themselves.

Finally, I wish to deal with two issues. I should like hon. members to listen very carefully to this first point. The Preamble to this constitution refers to Christian and civilized standards. Why is the word “and” included? Why is the “Christian” separate from the “civilized standards”? In the interests of millions of South Africans who are not Christians but who respect the Christian standards that are based on Christianity would it not be better to resort to the present wording of subscribing to Almighty God? There are 11 other principal religions in South Africa. Practically all the members of the House of Deputies and some members of the other Houses will fall into this category. Such a person taking an oath of allegiance must not feel that he is being disloyal to his own religious beliefs. I have looked up the constitutions of other countries and they talk only of “Almighty God”. Secondly, the Bill makes no provision for changes in provincial and local government, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. It is, however, clear that change in this direction will come. The Bill, therefore, is premature because it has not provided for this. The same thing holds good as far as the Black community is concerned. We know that there is a Cabinet Committee that has been appointed, but there are no recommendations in regard to the Blacks. Therefore, until the position of the Blacks has been finalized and until the position of provincial and local government has been finalized, a Bill of this nature is premature.

Finally, I want to say that there is only one thing left for the NP to do and that is to remove this Bill from this House in its present form and come back to this House with a constitution that we can support, that we can all live for and fight for and, if necessary, also die for, and let those who die for their country, not die in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by saying that in the life of a people, the instituting of a constitution is a point of departure and an act of faith whereby, we believe, the future can best be opened up for the people. It is a point of departure for the development of the civilization of the people which can be used as a foundation stone to be built on. In view of the historic nature of the occasion, one must realize that one is privileged to be able to participate in this debate. I am proud to be one of those people who, in the words of the preamble to the constitution—

That is what we are dealing with, a constitution which is best suited to the history and traditions of our people.

If we just take a look at the more recent constitutional history of our people, we note that in 1961, and again subsequently up to 1977, we on this side of the House—in 1977 and also in 1981—were given a mandate to allow history to evolve and also to give the people of this country the constitutional standing to which they are entitled. Traditionally it is so that the Coloureds and the Indians have also been present in this country. We have now reached the point at which we must also institute governmental institutions in order to fulfil our role. We must now take positive action to fulfil our historical and our traditional role and give effect to it.

I should like to quote what Dr. Wessels said in his book entitled Die Republikeinse Grondwet. He says—

That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely what we are engaged in today. We are creating new forms which must comply with the demands of our level of development of civilization. It is also true that “vanweë sy eie lewens- en wêreldbeskouing, en vanweë sy eie beskawingsgeskiedenis, elke volk sy eie stempel op sy staatsadministrasie afdruk.” We have today reached the point at which we must fulfil our calling in this country. We must now answer the question that has been asked for many years; the question quo vadis? We can now say that the constitutional development, too—not only that of the Blacks, who are following a certain fixed course, but also that of the Coloureds and Indians—is now being given concrete form. We are today answering the question “quo vadis?”. We are going on to answer that question in the same specific way that we answered the manifesto of the NP before the election of 1981. I quote the fourth point from that manifesto, as follows—

As regards own affairs there is an absolute division of power. We are precise on that point; on the absolute division of power. However, then we go on “with a system of consultation and joint responsibility where common interests are involved.” That, too, is the point that we reached today. [Interjections.]

Since the time at my disposal in this debate is very limited, I only want to touch on a few matters. The first is the attitude of the CP to this legislation. The CP’s objection to this Bill stems from their view that the Coloureds and Indians should be given separate homelands. On what moral grounds is this objection of theirs founded? I ask these questions because they motivate their case in such an exceptional way. They motivate their case by arguing that just as in the case of the Blacks, the ultimate consequences of the full development of the process of separate freedoms is an independent state. In this respect, viz. that of constitutional development, they therefore put the Coloureds and the Indians on a precisely equal footing to the Blacks. They then also argue that this has always been the policy of the NP. This is just where the lie occurs. It is just here that we realize very clearly what deception is taking place. This is deliberate deception; a deliberate deception of the electorate; something which, at the same time, is a form of treason. It is a form of treason in respect of the voters of South Africa to carry on with misrepresentations of this nature. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, do you know how they justify this policy of theirs? It is interesting to take note of this. Yesterday the hon. member for Jeppe backtracked to as far back as 1949; twelve years before the founding of the Republic. The hon. member for Waterberg backtracked to 1960; a year before the founding of the Republic. [Interjections.] What I find so disturbing is that they study Hansard to determine what Dr. Verwoerd said in 1949, but omit to mention what he said in 1961. That is what I find so shameful in this regard. However, they have not studied Hansard, or else they have in fact studied it and deliberately omitted to mention certain things. I shall inform them as to what Dr. Verwoerd said. [Interjections.] In December 1961 Dr. Verwoerd said the following—

This is not true, Mr. Speaker: “Dit vorm geen oplossing vir die Kleurlinggroep nie, en ’n eie tuislandbeleid is in hierdie geval glad nie van toepassing nie.”

What is stated in Hansard?

I shall now quote Hansard: it is stated even more clearly there. This is what Dr. Verwoerd said on 10 April 1961 (Hansard, 1961, col. 4191)—

We are today engaged in doing exactly what Dr. Verwoerd said.

In the third place we are going still further. I hope the hon. member is listening now—

But surely that is the heartland concept.

It seems to me we are forgetting that he said that. Let us look at the rationale behind his argument. It is that the position of the Black people is totally different to that of the Coloureds. What is the rationale? Basically the rationale is this: The Black peoples in this country were nations at one stage. They had their own territory that they had bought with their blood, with their martial prowess. They then became peoples because they had been conquered. Now they desire to go back, to become a nation again, to become independent again. That is the desire of the Black man. This desire exists. It explains the policy of the NP. It explains the concept of separate development in separate national States, because the feeling of nationhood, the pride of nationhood is inherent in the Black man.

This is not the case as far as the Coloureds are concerned, and we know that. The Black has an historical longing for his ancestral ground, where the spirits of his forefathers are, where his tribal schools are, where he has burned his leaders. The Black man’s pattern of authority is his nation—his paramount chief, his chiefs. He had his own structure of authority that was imposed. He had his own culture. Do hon. members know that he had his own architectural style? He had his own language. He had his own customs. That is why the Black man is proud of having been a nation and wants to be a nation again. This is not the case with regard to the Coloureds, who have never been a nation. That is the rationale behind this statement by Dr. Verwoerd and that rationale is still valid today. That also explains why ±50 000 kwaNdebele voluntarily returned to kwaNdebele last year.

The best authority I can quote for everything is this regard is the hon. member for Waterberg himself. In 1981 he said—this has often been said, but it does not seem as if it has penetrated to those hon. members—20 years after Dr. Verwoerd said the same thing, and this makes me think that he knew what Dr. Verwoerd said, because he said virtually the same thing—

Therefore he motivates this very simply.

What he says is a fact; it was a fact yesterday, it was a fact the day before yesterday and it will be a fact tomorrow. There sits the hon. member for Waterberg. He said—

For that reason, and for that reason only—that is his basis—“the concept”, the idea, the possibility “of single ‘own’ States for the Coloureds is not feasible.” Nothing has changed in that regard. The historical facts are still the same. The Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians still reside within exactly the same geographic territory.

What Act are you dealing with.

If I am hurting the hon. member, I am pleased, because I intend to.

This artificiality of preying on the NP, as it were, is something that the CP must put a stop to. They must be courageous enough to admit that they have deviated.

The PFP also had something to say.

†I want to turn to the PFP. I shall attempt to answer the hon. member for Hillbrow as I progress with my speech. The hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Berea have averred that we are in a legitimacy crisis and that, as a precondition to come out of this legitimacy crisis, we should accept Blacks within the constitutional framework now proposed. What do they mean by “legitimacy crisis”? What do those words mean? Is the emotive word “crisis”, or is the emotive word “legitimacy”? What are they trying to say? I thought to myself I should like to find out exactly what they mean by “legitimacy crisis”. I therefore looked at the Oxford dictionary and, if words have any meaning, “legitimacy” means “the condition of being in accordance with a law or principle”. How can there possibly be a legitimacy crisis if the laws of this particular Parliament are accepted throughout the country? Obviously, they are not necessarily agreed to, but they are accepted. They are accepted on the basis set out by Judge Condozo of the US Federal Supreme Court, who with reference to law said—

That is a principle of law. Bentham said the following—

The mere fact that the TBVC countries took independence shows that they consider this to be a legitimate government. The legitimacy of this Parliament is beyond question. Why the PFP say there is a legitimacy crisis, I do not know, unless it is for the reason…

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

I am terribly sorry, but I do not have the tine.

I was just going to help you out.

Why then, Sir, this strange and convoluted attitude? I shall tell you why. They are trying to draw a red herring across the trail of the constitutional development of the Indians and Coloureds. The PFP voters must realize that this Bill is a step in the right direction, that this is a step forward in the political emancipation of the Coloureds and the Indians; and their voters will not agree to the Black people having a veto right over the constitutional development of the Coloureds and Indians, because that is exactly what the PFP MP’s want. It is symptomatic of the PFP MP’s boycott mentality, and their PFP voters will not agree to that.

*I want to conclude. We have reached the stage at which we want to fulfil our calling. We want to carry out our twelve-point plan. We want to put into effect our undertaking to the public in 1977 and 1981. That is why we have this draft Bill before us today, which I wholeheartedly support. In this context I should like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister. In February 1982 he said—

That is on record. [Interjections.] Equally important, or perhaps even more important, is that the hon. the Prime Minister said in February this year—

That is what we are doing today. The NP is today building good relations. We shall build good relations, consult and co-operate, in order to make South Africa great at all times and without tiring. We ask the Coloureds and the Indians to co-operate and to build good relations together with us. We as the members of the CP, too, and all the White voters to join us in building good relations, because South Africa’s future depends on relations. If we fulfil our calling in this way and build good relations in this way, then the words in our national anthem will be true, because then we shall be “bondsmen only to the highest” but “before the whole world free”. It is my wish, too, that this draft constitution will bring this about.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer briefly to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Pretoria West. Inter alia, he said that the various Black peoples in our country were proud of what was their own. However, he added—I do not know on what authority he did so—that the Coloureds had no such pride in what was their own. [Interjections.]

National pride.

It seems to me as though the hon. member for Kimberley South wants to confirm that.

I just want to refer briefly to what the hon. the Minister of National Education had to say. He said that those matters a people or a population group regarded as being so important and sensitive to its existence and identity, that it did not want people of other groups to have a say over or interfere in that regard, fell under own affairs. I assume that the hon. the Minister wants to make this statement of his applicable to Coloureds as well. I find it incomprehensible that the hon. member for Pretoria West can argue that we are dealing here with a group of people that has no pride in its identity … [Interjections.] … whereas the hon. the Minister of National Education wants to argue in his plea in favour of this constitution that every group has affairs which it deems to be essential for the advancement of its own identity. There is something which is even more astonishing. Recently we have heard repeatedly from the Government side that the Coloureds are not a nation (volk), nor are they a nation in the making. However, this afternoon we were told by an eminent legal man, the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, that the Coloureds have suddenly become a nation (volk) once again. [Interjections.]

However, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to lapse into a party-political debate, which is more appropriate to a discussion on a motion of no confidence. We are dealing with what is probably the most important piece of legislation in the history of this Parliament. In effect the Bill we are discussing means that this highest council chamber in the country is discussing legislation for its own termination and for establishing in its stead a new supreme authority, a sovereign legislative authority, in South Africa. I really do not think this is the time for being frivolous or trying to crack jokes.

Speakers in this debate have repeatedly stated that no people can maintain its freedom at the expense of the freedom of another people. That is true, and I do not think any of us will disagree on that score. However, I should like to know from any hon. member opposite in what respect, in terms of the legislation before us, provision is being made for granting the Coloureds and Indians real freedom. I have read this legislation repeatedly, and I can only conclude that the Whites, who at present make their own sovereign laws in respect of themselves, but also in respect of others, are expected to give up this sovereign power over themselves without granting the other two population groups any real freedom. That is the fact of the matter.

It is a pity that we have so little time to debate this proposed new constitution. Recently we have been told repeatedly by the Government and by the propaganda media of the Government that White self-determination is not being affected. We heard this during the by-elections in particular. This is then linked to the argument that Whites will retain control over and management of the so-called own affairs. What an exercise in futility this draft constitution is, particularly in regard to these so-called own affairs. I think it is unique in world history that the constitution of a nation, as contained in this schedule, contains one paragraph after another, none of which are worth the paper they are written on. A description of so-called own affairs is given in schedule 1 of the draft constitution, but at the same time we find that that schedule has no legal force. At most, and it is not even indicated as such in the draft constitution, it is a guideline or criterion which could be used to determine what so-called own affairs are. The exclusive right to determine what so-called own affairs are rests exclusively with the new President. What an amazing draft constitution we are dealing with! We have been hearing propaganda, for the consumption of Whites, and possibly for others as well, that we need not be concerned about so-called own affairs, because they are being entrenched in the constitution. But how are they being entrenched? Those so-called own affairs could be altered from time to time according to the arbitrary decision of the President of the day—whoever he may be.

And the courts are unable to do anything about it.

That is true. No other authority or court can give an opinion on the decision of the President in that case.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that there was no such thing as a sovereign legislative authority. I can only ask him to read the draft constitution, which determines that in terms of the new dispensation Parliament will be the sovereign legislative authority.

It is a political term.

I do not know whether that term also means nothing. We are expected to dispense with the present sovereign legislative authority of this Parliament and to replace it with a new tricameral dispensation. We are also expected to write into the constitution that we as a White people will not be able to alter any of the basic aspects of the constitution without the approval of the other two groups. That is what is expected of us. We are being expected to chain ourselves voluntarily to the two other groups and to agree that the key to the lock of the chain be taken out of our hands and thrown away, unless the other two groups are prepared to co-operate. It is simple fact that it is written into the constitution that it will not be possible to alter the most important aspect of that constitution unless a majority in each of the three Chambers approves that change.

What do you want to change?

Moreover, it has been stated repeatedly in the past that we reject a system of “one man, one vote”, and perhaps justifiably so. However, a tricameral Parliament is now being established—this is one of my main objections—in which each chamber will have precisely the same status concerning all matters of common interest, and that means virtually all matters. The representatives of a small minority group, the Indians, are now being granted precisely the same legislative power as the representatives of the vast majority, viz, the Whites, concerning all matters of common interest as well.

What is even more astonishing about this draft constitution is that its provisions envisage in advance that it is not going to work in practice. That is why detailed provision is being made for such a contingency, in case one of both of the population groups involved here do not want to co-operate.

But those provisions are already part of the constitution.

In other words, those who drafted this “splendid” document, as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development described it at Nylstroom, already foresee that this thing is doomed to failure. What is even more astonishing, is that provision is already being made in this draft constitution for the life of this House of Assembly, of which we are members at present, to be prolonged artificially in the new dispensation, that it can be prolonged artificially, contrary to all present provisions and it is left to discretion to determine artificially that this House of Assembly, as elected at present, under our existing constitutional dispensation, may remain part of our future constitutional dispensation for longer than the required five years. [Interjections.] I think this step is unheard of in any democracy. The hon. member for Pretoria West said that every people should imprint its own nature and character on its constitution. He said that we should determine the cause of the history of our own nation. Throughout the history of the nation (volk) I belong to, our standpoint, our unshakeable standpoint, has been that government over ourselves would be exclusively in our own hands.

What nation do you belong to?

To the Afrikaner nation. I do not know what nation the hon. member belongs to. I am not ashamed to say that I am a member of the Afrikaner nation. Perhaps the hon. member for Pretoria Central is ashamed of that. Throughout history our standpoint has been that government over us as Whites would remain exclusively in our own hands. That is the standpoint of the White nation today as well. I want to sound a word of warning. If the present Government thinks that it has the support of the majority of the Whites in this country for this witches’ brew which is now being presented to us as a constitution for the future, they are making the biggest mistake of their lives. If the Governing party thinks that it has a mandate from the voters of South Africa to implement it in practice, then I think it is also making the biggest mistake of its life. However, now we have the odd phenomenon that even before the voters could be tested on their real opinion concerning these proposals, the proposals have already been brought to this Parliament to be finalized. We have been promised that they will be tested afterwards by way of a referendum.

Are you going to accept the result?

Of course not! It remains my democratic right to promote democratically what I believe in. That has also always been the standpoint of the NP, as I knew it. We shall continue to state our standpoint that peaceful solutions can only be found in this country in the idea of a people’s state, in the principle of each group governing itself to its full logical conclusion, each group governing itself.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that we shall accept one another’s bona fides to the greatest possible extent in this House. Let us listen to one another’s arguments and let us try to refute them, but let us keep personal remarks to a minimum in a serious debate such as this one.

The hon. member for Barberton expressed a few interesting thoughts. I shall not have time now to react to the aspects he raised with regard to the constitution. I want to join issue with the hon. member concerning his remarks in connection with the concept of “people”.

To which people do you belong?

Allow me to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that I am a proud member of the Afrikaner people. However, we must be quite clear in our own minds about what exactly we understand under the concept of “people”. Over the years, the word “people” has been used very loosely in this country. In official documents we have used the term “people” when a different term would have been more appropriate. Even in the constitution of the NP—a document which was drawn up very long ago—reference is made to “volk”, which is not quite correct in the light of the correct definition of “volk” or “people”. By the way, this constitution of the party also refers to “Union of South Africa”. Therefore I think this document can be rewritten as far as that is concerned. According to the Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, by Odendaal, Schoonees and others, second revised edition, 1979, “volk” is defined as follows—

The primary requirement for a people, Sir, is therefore unity of language. In the second place, as a result of historic development, these people must have a clear sense of cohesion. The definition goes on to say—

Do the Coloureds form part of the Afrikaner people?

No, the Coloureds do not form part of the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.] Sir, “nasie” is defined as being—

So “nasie” is a constitutional concept, while “volk” is a cultural one. When we look at the Verklarend Handwoordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, 1979 edition, we see that “volk” is defined as follows—

Against this background we must now examine the speech of the hon. member for Barberton and the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg, and we must ask ourselves what these hon. gentlemen mean when they wax so eloquent here about the concept of “volk”. The hon. member for Waterberg said in his speech (Hansard, 16 May)—

Allow me to ask the hon. member for Waterberg: Does he believe in the separate existence of the Afrikaner people? Sir, I am asking the hon. member whether he believes in the separate existence of the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.] He says here—

In other words, the people should reject all foreigners who govern it as a people. The hon. member goes on to say—

Further on the hon. member says—

Elsewhere he says—

But since 1910, the Afrikaner has never stood for political separateness. Never during the past 70 years has the Afrikaner people campaigned for its own separate political status, as the hon. member for Waterberg alleges. The hon. member for Waterberg goes on to say—

What do we have here? Reference is made here to a “people”, and in terms of this, special rights are to be accorded to the Afrikaner. The hon. member goes on to say—

If under “people” we understand the Afrikaner people, we must ask ourselves whether it is indeed true that the Afrikaner people has always governed itself while excluding all other people. Or is it correct to say that the Afrikaner people shares power in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, let me refer to the population statistics for South Africa in 1980. According to those statistics, there were 4 528 100 Whites in South Africa at that time. Of these, 2 528 080 were Afrikaners, which means that almost 2 million Whites were not Afrikaners. If an hon. member gets up on the other side, therefore, and says that he demands self-government for the Afrikaner people, without any power-sharing, then I say to him that he is contradicting the reality of 73 years, because the Afrikaner people does share power. I challenge anyone to deny that the Afrikaner people does share power. The other Whites with whom the Afrikaner shares power in South Africa are 1 763 220 000 English-speaking people, 11 000 Dutch-speaking people, 40 000 German-speaking people, 16 000 Greek-speaking people, 16 000 French-speaking people, 57 000 Portuguese-speaking people and 6 000 Italian-speaking South African citizens. These are the people with whom the Afrikaner shares power. But now the hon. member for Waterberg comes along and says that a people rejects being governed by foreigners.

Let us consider the religious denominations to which these 4,5 million Whites belong. We find that the members of the Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk, of the Gereformeerde Kerk, of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk and of the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa number 2 194 260 in all. As against this, the people who do not belong to Afrikaans churches number 2 343 840. Therefore the number of Whites belonging to other churches is larger than the number belonging to the Afrikaans churches. These other people with whom we as the Afrikaner people share power, who are they? Let us see who they are, Mr. Speaker.

We do not share power. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, let us see who these people are. We share power with 2 180 White Moslems in South Africa. We also share power with 1 440 White Hindus in South Africa. We share power with 300 White Confucians in South Africa. We share power with 1 100 Buddhists in South Africa. We share power with 119 220 Jews in South Africa. We also share power with 228 000 atheists in South Africa. Now I want to allege with the utmost conviction today that for hon. members of the CP to say that the Afrikaner people does not share power is a negation of a reality which has existed in South Africa for many years.

Now I want to refer to the CP’s programme of principles and policy.

Do you have a copy?

I do, thank you very much. It was given to me. [Interjections.] In paragraph nine of this document it says—

Now I want to know from hon. members of the CP whether this applies to the Afrikaner people as well. [Interjections.] I want to put the question to hon. members of the CP a second time: When they say in their programme of principles, in the ninth paragraph, that they regard it as absolutely essential that every people should have its own political structure and government institutions, does it apply to the Afrikaner people as well? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in the ninth paragraph of the CP’s programme of principles it says that every people should have its own government institutions. I am asking hon. members of the CP whether this applies to the Afrikaner people as well. I put the question to the hon. member for Barberton. [Interjections.]

The White people should have its own government institutions and should govern itself.

Mr. Speaker, there is no White people in South Africa. What there is in South Africa is an Afrikaner people. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. member for Barberton whether or not the Afrikaner people in South Africa shares power. [Interjections.] Does the Afrikaner people share power, or does it not? [Interjections.] That is what we want to know from the hon. members of the CP, Mr. Speaker. Does the Afrikaner people share power, or does it not?

You say that it does not share power.

Not with Coloureds and Asians. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe says that they do not share power. The hon. member for Barberton says they do not share power with Coloureds and Asians. Which of them is correct is a matter they will have to settle among themselves. [Interjections.] All I am asking the hon. member of the CP, for the fourth time, is this: The ninth paragraph of their programme of principles reads as follows—

I am asking them whether this applies to the Afrikaner people as well.

It applies only to the White people.

But there is no White people in South Africa. [Interjections.] There is no White people in South Africa, Mr. Speaker. There is an Afrikaner people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

With regard to self-determination, the CP says the following in its programme of principles. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central is doing his utmost to make himself heard. Hon. members must please give him an opportunity now to develop his argument.

Mr. Speaker, in this policy document of the CP, we read the following—

Does this apply to the Afrikaner people? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I put this question to the hon. member for Waterberg. After all, he is never at a loss for an answer. [Interjections.] His programme of principles says that self-determination is the right of a people to take its own decisions without any interference with regard to every facet of its existence.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are we debating the constitution of the CP or the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill? [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order.

Hon. members of the CP must realize that what we are dealing with here today is actually a tragedy. It amounts to deception. The effect of what hon. members of the CP are doing is to deceive the people of South Africa. The hon. member for Waterberg says: “If you share power, you lose power.” I should like to tell the hon. member that if the Afrikaner loses power it will not be because he shared power. If the Afrikaner loses power in this country, it will not be because he shared power, because he has been sharing power for 73 years; it will be because he has become divided in himself as a result of the conduct of the men sitting in the benches of the CP. [Interjections.]

I want to make one further point in conclusion. The CP is not the only party in South Africa which is trying to sell the idea of a State for the Afrikaner people. The AWB is doing the same. What does the AWB say in this connection in one of their documents? I want to quote it in conclusion—

The AWB says that every White person who is a Christian and who identifies with the aspirations of the Afrikaner becomes a member of the Afrikaner people. They admit that this will ultimately lead to an Afrikaner dictatorship. The question we ask is this: In the light of all these facts, why does the CP not repudiate the AWB? In the interests of this debate, and in the interests of clarifying the whole situation, the CP is obliged—and we demand it—to make its standpoint on these matters quite clear. Let us please get away from the idea that a people does not share power. Because this Afrikaner people has vision and because its leaders have vision, because the Whites want to survive in this country, they will do what is necessary in order to ensure their own survival, their own security and their own progress. That will be done in terms of this constitution which embraces us all.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Pretoria Central will excuse me if I do not pursue his rather exotic debate on what we are and what constitutes a “volk”. I say this because as far as I am concerned I am a South African, just as I understand every other hon. member in this House as well as all the other citizens outside who are not in this House are South Africans. Therefore I shall not participate in the hon. member’s exoticism and I shall leave it to the Afrikaners to sort this out for themselves.

As my hon. leader stated yesterday we in the NRP will be supporting this Bill in principle. Having said that, I want to make it quite clear that during the Committee Stage we shall obviously have quite a lot to say in regard to matters with which we disagree.

Do you agree with the decision to support this Bill?

I agree that I shall make my speech and you can make yours. [Interjections.] I believe that hon. members of this House should bear in mind the fact that in so far as the NP is concerned, the change in the constitution that they are recommending is a very great change indeed. I freely admit that as far as we in this party and, I am sure, the PFP are concerned, the change is nowhere near what we would like to see. However, as I have said once before, I believe that it is traumatic for the NP to make this sort of change which is completely different from the path they have been following for the past 35 years. As far as we are concerned, we will support this Bill at the Second Reading for one principal reason only and that is that in so far as the NP is concerned, I believe that in principle they have gone as far as they dare go at this stage in time. In modern terminology they are playing from the bottom line in principle. I say that because if I look to the benches on my immediate right, I can see what would happen if they even tried to go in principle any further. The first thing that would happen would be that the PFP would no longer be the official Opposition; somebody else would. That is one point I would suggest the PFP bear in mind when they oppose the Bill.

The NP has, as I have said, changed the direction it has been going for the last 30 odd years. This is why we can go with them: For the first time they are getting on to the same road we have been travelling for a long time. Admittedly they have a long way to go to get up to the ideas that we would have; maybe they never will get up to that, but at least, as we seet it, they are moving in that direction.

I regret very much indeed that in this Bill there are major omissions, for example there is no particular reference to the non-home-land Blacks. I am aware that there is a Cabinet Committee that has been set up to look into this, but I believe it would have been better if, when the new constitution was presented, it had been possible to provide for an accommodation in terms of governmental processes for the non-homeland Blacks as well. In spite of the fact that they are not provided for in the Bill, we have had assurances from the hon. the Minister that the matter is being investigated with a positive intent of bringing them into the constitution somewhere along the line. I therefore believe that we can go along. If other people are prepared to immolate themselves on the altar of their own political ideology, then we are not prepared to immolate the Indian and Coloured people who have indicated that they too are prepared to accept this as a starting point.

What does Nigel say?

The hon. member will not have the opportunity of saying anything after the next election; he will be kicked out. [Interjections.]

Will the NP take over Natal?

The ignorant pigs we have in that area—why do they not …

Order!

Sir, I am sorry; I should not have insulted pigs. Sir, I withdraw that remark.

Having decided to support the Bill in the Second Reading, I should like to make this point: As we are supporting the Bill in the Second Reading, we should like to make sure that the Bill is going to be successful. We know that from here it goes to a Select Committee, and I should like to cover one particular aspect which I believe is of prime importance. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to having a look at the question of what constitutes general affairs and own affairs. I should like to suggest that it is rather cumbersome to refer to “own affairs” in English; I would be rather inclined to suggest that one works on “group affairs” or “common affairs”—I do not mind—but “group affairs” is less cumbersome in English. We believe that while certain affairs are in terms of schedule 1 designated as “own affairs” it would be desirable to have certain other affairs clearly defined as “general affairs”. I am perfectly well aware that according to the Bill before us what is not defined as an own affair is to be classified as “general”, but I think that if one is going to put this into the constitution at all, certain aspects should be clearly defined right from the outset as own and general affairs.

It seems you are having an affair with the NP …

For goodness’ sake, why can that hon. member not be quiet? He cannot make a decent speech himself. Why then does he not listen to one? [Interjections.]

I would suggest that the definition in schedule 1 relating to own affairs is rather ragged and very clearly needs looking at in the Committee Stage. I believe that there should be a minimum of affairs in the constitution that are own affairs. I believe it is essential that affairs which are closest to one’s heart, for example education, social welfare, culture and health, should be own affairs. I also believe it is vital that there should be affairs that are general affairs right from the word go in the constitution, for example, foreign affairs, defence, strategic planning, justice, police, prisons, industrial development and so forth. There are a number of these affairs that should be clearly defined in the constitution as being affairs relating to Parliament as a whole. All other matters should, I believe, be treated as “general” unless and until the Houses themselves in Parliament make application for them to become own or group affairs. If it were done that way, I believe it would have the effect of improving this Bill in respect of two of the clauses which are most objectionable to many people, namely clauses 18 and 20, which deal with certain powers of the President. If certain affairs were entrenched as affairs relating to the Government as a whole or as group affairs and the rest could be changed on Parliament’s decision through the various Houses, I believe it would not be necessary for the new President to have to define which affairs were own affairs or general affairs. The question of whether the courts could investigate the matters would then fall away, because it would not be necessary if it were agreed by Parliament. I am not saying that it is possible. I am saying that it is necessary and desirable to investigate the practicality of looking at it from that angle.

Do you want the entrenchment of the Group Areas Act?

I would like to entrench that hon. member somewhere: About six feet under! [Interjections.] We believe that what I have suggested would be desirable not only in the sense that it would remove the necessity of retaining those rather unfortunate clauses, which have drawn a lot of fire, but also because it would raise the status and stature of the individual Houses in that if the House of Representatives, for example, decided that they wanted something as an own affair, a group affair, they could raise that issue in their particular House and also pass it on to the other two Houses. I am sure that, generally, people would not insist on a matter being their own or group affair unless it really meant something to them. I am sure one would therefore get the co-operation of the other Houses. They would be seen to be looking after the affairs of their people, and credibility is going to be a vitally important matter if the constitution is to function properly.

I believe that it is necessary to have this constitutional change. If we do not have it, we have a choice of two alternatives. The one is the retention of the status quo, which I believe is more or less the attitude of the CP. [Interjections.] That is the attitude that was adopted in 1948. It is clear, hardline separation of the peoples and the governments. The other alternative is the policy of the PFP, which means that a situation like they have in Zimbabwe will develop. I cannot see that as being very desirable either. I believe it is necessary for all people of goodwill and good faith to give serious thought to supporting this new constitution, because it is the best that the people who have the power are able to give us at this stage. They have already indicated that in due course they will look at aspects that are not quite satisfactory at the moment. They have indicated that they accept that somewhere along the line the non-homeland Blacks will have to be brought into the system.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member knows perfectly well that I do not have the time.

I believe that at this stage the Government is dealing from as close to the bottom line as they can. I believe that we must support this Bill. It does give us some hope. If we do not support it, I believe we will go back to the Dark Ages. If we do go back to the Dark Ages which the PFP is trying to push us into, there will be no return for anybody.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the contribution of the hon. member for Umbilo and the reaction to it of the official Opposition has made us envious. I have always believed that it was a characteristic of the Afrikaner people to be at loggerheads with one another. I want to welcome the hon. member to those ranks and tell him that he has fared well.

Over the centuries, the crux of South African politics, the point of conflict as we know it, has always revolved around the politics of colour. Today too we are engaged in planning the accommodation of the politics of colour in a new constitution for South Africa. History has shown a clear process of political segregation in this regard. In the past, and even today, ethnicity has been the motive behind the grouping of the proverbial birds of a feather, instead of total integration in a unitary State with majority rule as its basis. There have always been two premises; separation and “own” self-determination as opposed to mixing and majority rule. It has been a laborious and difficult process, in the course of which mistakes have probably been made too, and it has brought us to this exceptional milestone in South Africa’s politics today.

Our participation during the past decade in the process which has given rise to this exceptional milestone has been intense, complicated and emotional, since it pointed to a complete change in a system of government we grew up with, viz. the Westminster system. It is a system under which we have achieved all our national goals thus far, for example, our own symbols and our own sovereign independence. It has been the only system we have known since Union in 1910. It had to be changed—and every party in this House agrees on that score—to meet the political needs of the times we are living in, needs arising from the sometimes conflicting ideals of a heterogeneous population. On the one hand, there are the Whites who want to retain their rights, and on the other, there are the Coloureds and Indians who are demanding their rights. It is indeed a challenge which is difficult to solve without the sympathetic co-operation of all those involved.

In addition, courage and faith are indispensable prerequisites in order to ensure success. I think that to a large extent, the new constitution meets the demands of those concerned. The Whites retain their own rights. I repeat: The Whites retain their own rights, despite what hon. members are seeking to advance in this House in an effort to prove the contrary. The Whites retain their own rights and the Coloureds and Indians are obtaining rights in respect of their own affairs, while common rights are decided on together.

For the first time since becoming a Union the Coloureds, who to a large extent have been a pawn in White power politics in the past, are in fact being given legislative and executive political rights. At the same time the Indians are also being accomodated in the system and are being granted full legislative and executive political rights. These are rights which are demanded by all people and all citizens throughout the world. These are rights which confirm the dignity and right of existence of every person in his own country and which make him a fully-fledged and participating citizen of his own country. Whithout these rights, no citizen of any country would be satisfied. The Coloureds and Indians will form part of the South African Parliament in future. They will elect representatives by way of their own voter’s rolls to deal with their own affairs in separate Chambers. They will be co-responsible for the election of the executive President, whose right it will be to include Coloureds and Indians in his Cabinet. However, they will also be co-responsible for the dismissal of the President, if this should prove necessary. They will have their own Ministers’ Councils and a full say in their own affairs, including legislation. Together with their White counterparts, they will have a say in matters of common interest and they will be represented in the President’s Council.

This satisfies a real shortcoming which exists in the South African constitutional pattern as we know it today. Today 2,5 million Coloureds and almost 1 million Indians have no political rights. This state of affairs exists as regards the Coloureds, despite efforts gradually to give them a say in their own affairs by way of their own Coloured Persons Representative Council. Today Coloured leaders agree that the provisions of the new constitution make better provision for their constitutional needs and they are prepared to co-operate, firstly in their own interests, and secondly—and more important—in the interests of our country, South Africa.

As I said earlier, the success of the new dispensation will depend to a large extent on the sympathetic co-operation of everyone involved. In my humble opinion, the willingness of the Coloured and Indian leaders to participate demonstrates their genuine desire to ensure a peaceful and prosperous future for South Africa. The courage and faith displayed by the Coloured and Indian leaders must and will ensure success and contribute towards our entering a prosperous future together. This creates new possibilities and responsibilities for the Coloureds and the Indians. After many years of lagging behind, they will in future be accompanying on the difficult political and administrative paths which characterizes the times we live in. We do not begrudge them that and we wish them prosperity and success in this new undertaking.

We will differ with one another in such a process of constitutional development. In our search for solutions to the complex problems facing our country, it is permissible to disagree with one another. No two people can ever be completely like-minded about any given matter—let alone two or more political parties that are often compelled to disagree in order to save or destroy their right to exist. However, what I find shocking and tragic, is that parties sacrifice their morality to win votes, sacrifice their morality in an effort to further their cause. During the recent by-elections in the Bergs supporters of the CP told me personally that it had been pointed out to the hon. member for Lichtenburg that Progs and people of colour could not form a bloc in the electoral college to get their own candidate elected, a matter which the official Opposition in fact objected to by way of one of their speakers today. When the hon. member objected that there would be no Progs in the electoral college, I wondered whether he thought that we on this side of the House would be so foolish as to draw up a constitution which would allow them to govern the country, when they could even succeed in doing so by way of the ballot box. In any case, when the hon. member for Lichtenburg was told this, his reply was: “Yes, but Nationalists can be bribed.” I was embarrassed to hear this. My norm of decency has not even allowed me to consider such a possibility. I am really concerned that the hon. member for Lichtenburg could think of such things. I do not expect this of an Afrikaner, and I accept that the CP are Afrikaners. I do not expect a decent fellow Afrikaner to intimate that his fellow Afrikaners are corruptible. One feels compelled to ask a few questions in this regard. One would like to ask the hon. member for Lichtenburg: Does he have a price? Does he have a price and does he, as a result, think that other people also have a price?

Did you inform him that you were going to attack him?

I regret that the hon. member is not present here now. It is his duty to be present in this House. We are all in this House because we are engaged in piloting a very important Bill through the House. Therefore it is not my fault that the hon. member is not present. I am asking whether the hon. member has a price. I am asking his party whether they have a price.

No, we do not have a price.

If they do not have a price, on what basis do they believe that other people have?

P. W. Botha cannot buy us.

Now one wonders how someone manages to foresake one’s old caucus after planning and working together for nine years and whether this is not perhaps sufficient reason to believe that other people are quislings too. I object to that kind of behaviour. I believe that we are dealing with serious matters. I also believe that we should discuss this matter in a decent and civilized manner and that in the process we should also display honesty and sincerity towards our voters.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is another more important matter I am concerned about. There is another very important matter I am concerned about. In the course of my travels through Soutpansberg I found on a number of occasions that enmity had arisen among Whites towards Black people, an enmity bordering on hatred. I find this dangerous, particularly since on more than one occasion that enmity gave rise to remarks of “shoot”. That is dangerous indeed. It is dangerous since it polarizes people to the extent that in the long run, conflict must unavoidably follow. What are the CP doing about it? What are the HNP doing about it?

They are fanning the flames.

I did not hear them repudiate that on one single occasion; that they tried to stabilize their followers or convince them to bring more meaning into this situation of racial conflict.

We in South Africa cannot enter the future unless the Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians co-operate with one another. I want to blame this on the CP, in this House as well. If the day should come when this conflict, as I see it, becomes unavoidable, I shall blame the CP, they who are proclaiming so loudly that they want to be the saviours of the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in so far as the speech made by the hon. member for Swellendam is relevant, I shall react to it in the course of my own speech. I just want to associate myself with his warning about the consequences of fermenting racial hatred and racial suspicion in our country.

In the debate on this constitution Bill I have been struck by three phenomena in particular. One of these is the total lack of enthusiasm, in this House as well as outside. This is shocking, especially when one thinks of the 1961 constitution, and the keen interest which was taken in that, as well as the dedication which it elicited. I am really amazed at the lack of enthusiasm and the extreme coldness with which this Bill has been, and is still being received. However, I want to indicate that in my opinion this is understandable.

The second phenomenon I want to refer to is the fact that instead of being a unifying factor—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition indicated that a constitution should be—this Constitution Bill has in fact become the greatest divisive factor among the people of South Africa. In my experience of politics and the history of politics, it has become the greatest single divisive factor among the Whites, as well as among the Coloureds and the Indians. At the moment it is also the strongest divisive factor between Black and non-Black in this country. A constitution, which ought to unite people, has become a factor which is dividing people and which is causing mutual antagonism.

The third phenomenon is the lack of faith in this Constitution Bill. Even before this Constitution Bill has been put into operation, the axe is already striking at the root. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the rejection by the Coloured leaders themselves of the real foundation on which this constitution is based, the distinction which is drawn between “general affairs” and “own affairs”, where in terms of White politics, “own affairs” are actually the apartheid measures which the Whites want to perpetuate and even to entrench within this constitution.

I do not wish to repeat my own words in this connection. Hon. members on the Government side have to account for this. In last Sunday’s Rapport, Mr. Jac Rabie wrote as follows—

There are no bargaining possibilities. This matter is laid down in the Schedule to the constitution. He went on to say—

Here he is referring to all those laws which form the basis of this constitution. He went on to say—

He says they should be changed. He goes on to say—

He goes on in this vein. He asks why the President should not be elected by the entire nation. He asks why it should be done, for all practical purposes, by the NP caucus. He says—

In the latest edition of Rapport Ekstra, Mr. David Curry said the following—

What greater indictment could there be than this, coming from the people who have to participate in this scheme! He goes on to say—

He goes on to say—

They should not entrench it in a constitution. He goes on to say—

We have had no denial from that side of the fact that this is the essential reason for the distinction which is drawn between “own affairs” and “general affairs”, that this is the essential reason for embodying “own affairs” in the Schedule to this legislation. Therefore I ask: What chance does a constitution have of being successfully implemented and of meeting the requirements of a constitution when right from the start, even before it has been put into operation, the people who are supposed to make it work are saying that on the basis on which the constitution has been drafted, it cannot work? [Interjections.]

In my humble opinion, the outstanding characteristic of this constitution is its schizophrenic character. That schizophrenia arises, for example, from the powers and functions of the President. On the one hand, the Government rejects the presidential system recommended in the first report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council, and on the other hand, they reject the Westminster system as well. I hope to say more about this at a later stage. On the one hand, we say that as far as the political rights of the Blacks are concerned, we are keeping to the course which the Government has taken, i.e. the course of separate institutions. At the same time, it is said that we have created a Cabinet Committee which is to consider the political rights of the Blacks. On the one hand, we say—I shall come to the Blacks presently—that reform is essential. Reform in respect of the fundamental problems of our country can only mean the removal of apartheid. At the same time, apartheid is being perpetuated and entrenched in the constitution. As far as power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians is concerned, we say that we must share power with them, because the present situation is untenable. At the same time, we say that they must remain in a politically subordinate position. On the one hand, we say that White domination must disappear; it has become untenable.

No, Nak does not say so.

Yes, the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare has already wielded the axe.

On the other hand we say, as the hon. the Minister apparently said, that we are going to entrench White majority. Concerning the concept of “identity” there is the same kind of schizophrenia: The Whites, the Afrikaners, may have and do have their own identity, but I am still waiting for the hon. the Minister or anyone else to tell me what the identity of the Coloured person is.

The one moment they talk about self-determination. They say that they want to give the Coloureds and the Indians self-determination, but when we ask whether it will be true self-determination, whether they will have self-determination in their group areas so that they will be able to allow Whites to have rights of ownership and occupation in the group areas of those people and whether they will have the right to open their schools and universities, they say: No, those things are subject to general policy and to a general law. The outstanding characteristic of the constitution Bill is its schizophrenic maintenance of conflicting premises and standpoints. The reason for this is quite clear: It is very easy when we say that apartheid has to solve everything.

It is the same as in the days of Dr. Verwoerd, when the answer was said to lie in the maximum degree of separation. The moment we accept—I concede this to the hon. the Minister—that apartheid is no longer the key which can unlock the whole world, that it is no longer the solution to our problems, we are in trouble, because then we have to look for logical and acceptable alternatives. To keep falling between two stools is not going to help us in this country.

I want to furnish some further explanations on the basis of a few things I have pointed out. Let us take the question of the President. The hon. the Minister and hon. members on the Government’s side have asked: Why are you so worried about the powers and functions of the President, for these are no greater, after all, than the State President and the Prime Minister have under the present dispensation? For the purposes of the argument we may take this to be correct, although it is not quite correct.

I said that there were certain spheres …

That is true, and I am coming to that. Nevertheless, this is the point of departure.

If this is so, it is precisely the combination of all those powers in one person which creates the problem. When the powers are divided between two individuals, it is a manageable situation, but when all powers are combined in one individual, a total situation is created which means that the product resulting from the combination of the powers of the two individuals is more than just the sum of its parts.

And on top of that he is the leader of the NP.

Yes, and on top of that he remains the leader of the NP.

The problem here arises from the fact that the Government could not make up its mind: Should it introduce the presidential system or should it retain the old Westminster system? The Government rejected the recommendation of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council, which proposed a purely presidential system. Instead, the Government has created a hybrid system which I believe cannot and is not going to work, and the like of which I have not seen in any country in the Western World. The presidential system is based on a number of fundamental premises. The first is total separation between the executive and the legislature. The second is the fact that the President must have legitimacy through being elected by popular vote, because he is above the legislature. In the third place, that approach entails a system of checks and balances. In the fourth place, the President is both Head of State and Head of Government. These are all aspects that were recommended by the Constitutional Committee, except for the checks and balances, which did not feature in its recommendations.

Now, what are the characteristics of the Westminster system? The first is separation between the Head of State and the Head of Government. Under this system, the Head of State has mainly ceremonial and titular powers and functions. Then there is no separation between the executive and the legislature. The Head of Government remains part of the legislature as well. In addition, the Head of Government represents the majority party in the legislature. A final characteristic is that the Head of Government remains accountable, firstly to his caucus and secondly to the legislature from which he comes.

Now what do we have in this Bill? As I have said, the Government rejected the presidential system recommended by the Constitutional Committee. At the same time, it rejected the Westminster system. In other words, it has combined all the bad characteristics of the two systems in this Bill. One could say, therefore, that it has created a hybrid system which is not going to work. In the first place, the separation between the executive and the legislature which characterizes the presidential system is not observed. Secondly, this President is not elected by popular vote. In the third place, as we know, and as I shall indicate, there are no effective checks and balances with regard to the exercise of his powers. What has been taken over from the presidential system, however, is the combination of the offices of Head of State and Head of Government in one person.

Of the Westminster system the Government has retained, firstly, the fact that the President comes from the legislature, and, secondly, the fact that he is placed in office by the majority party, because the majority party appoints the 50 members of the electoral college. After his election, however, the President is no longer a part of the legislature. Then he is independent of it. In that sense, he is no longer responsible or accountable to the legislature. Furthermore, he can only be removed from office by means of an extremely complicated procedure. Finally, he can no longer be removed by the caucus of his party. Even if that caucus no longer has any confidence in him, therefore, the caucus as such cannot remove him as the caucus can do today if it is dissatisfied with the Prime Minister as the leader of the party and as leader of the caucus. [Interjections.]

He fires the caucus.

You have absolutely no authority for saying that.

I am talking about the constitution. [Interjections.] The constitution does not provide for the caucus of that party to remove him.

Nor does the present constitution. [Interjections.]

As far as the powers of the new President are concerned, therefore, one can say that he has all the enormous powers conferred upon him under existing legislation. In addition, as the hon. the Minister indicated, he is receiving a whole number of new powers. There are so many of them that I shall not take up the time of the House by enumerating them all. I shall only mention a few fundamental aspects. There is no restriction on the number of Ministers he may nominate. There is no provision which requires him to nominate those Ministers from the governing party. There is no limitation on the period for which he may appoint Ministers. At the moment, he may appoint Ministers who are not members of this House, but then only for a limited period. Then there is his right to decide about own affairs and general affairs—this has been discussed repeatedly—and the fact that the courts have absolutely no jurisdiction as far as this matter is concerned. He may also reduce the quorum of each House by proclamation. When a matter is in dispute, he has the right to refer it to the President’s Council or to refrain from doing so. He can also order the dissolution of the Houses. It does not have to be preceded by a successful motion of no confidence. He also has the right to determine who are members of the Cabinet. Today, when the Prime Minister appoints someone as Minister, he automatically becomes a member of the Cabinet. In terms of this new constitution, this is not the case. Only those Ministers who are heads of departments for general affairs are automatically members of the Cabinet. All other Ministers have to be specially appointed by the President as members of the Cabinet.

I also have serious misgivings about the question of consultation with the Cabinet. I am concerned about the fact that it says in the new constitution that while the President has to act on the advice of the Ministers’ Councils, he has to act on the advice of those Ministers who are members of the Cabinet in so far as the Cabinet is concerned. This is a fundamental terminological difference which could in fact give rise to major political disputes.

I regret that I have not had the time to discuss the question of Black people. I am also sorry that the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development is not here at the moment. His interpretation of history and his quotations of what General Hertzog and General Smuts said are incorrect. They said those things in the spirit of indirect rule, as it was being applied by Lord Lugard and Sir Donald Cameron under the colonial system at the time. When they said this, neither General Hertzog nor General Smuts nor anyone else was thinking in terms of independence for the Black States. To give the interpretation to these statements which the hon. the Minister did is in fact completely unsound. If the Government truly believes that we must not exclude the Blacks from the constitutional bargaining process and from the political decision-making process, how can we proceed with a constitution which totally excludes the Blacks, which—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out—permanently and finally excludes the Blacks? The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said that there could not be a fourth chamber. Even if it were theoretically possible for a fourth chamber to be created, Blacks could not be involved in this constitutional dispensation. The implications of this are clear enough. What are we telling the Blacks? We are telling them: Under this constitutional dispensation you can never participate in the political decision-making process.

Under these circumstances, I want to ask again what purpose is served, before the Cabinet Committee has given proper attention to the position of the Blacks, by proceeding with this Bill at this stage, especially in the light of the resistance on the part of the Coloureds and the Indians and the division which exists among our population.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier asked numerous questions here, and in actual fact was inviting me to attack him. The content of his speech was the same as that of his fellow party members who have already spoken. I shall react to it. In the course of my speech he shall be getting replies to most of the matters he asked questions about, except of course the question, with about eight or nine subdivisions, which he put when he compared the Westminster system to a presidential system. He explained to us how the Bill differed from these two systems and suggested that the Bill contained negative aspects of both systems. I want to ask the hon. member just one question in this connection. Is it fair to say that when the ceremonial duties of the present State President and the executive powers of the present Prime Minister are vested in one person, this is diabolical? Is that fair? The hon. member made that statement without elaborating on it. I want to tell the hon. member that we are not specifically seeking a presidential system, a Westminster system, a coalition model, a consociative model, or whatever. We are seeking a model which is workable, can be implemented and can serve as a basis for a constitutional process in this country which is fair to everyone. This is what we are seeking. This is the basis from which we are proceeding.

I should like to deal with three aspects. Two of these aspects came to the fore in the speeches of various hon. members, namely the idea of the validity crisis of the constitution—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter—and the powers of the President. If I subsequently have the time, I should also like to express a few ideas regarding the economic goal in the preamble to the Bill.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the Government, and by implication this side of the House as well, has absolutely no feeling for what he referred to as the validity crisis surrounding the constitution. He went on to say that the validity crisis in the constitutional sense had nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of the constitution. I agree with him on that score. However, he made the cardinal mistake of saying that the validity crisis revolved around the involvement of persons in the drafting of the constitution. This is not the complete picture, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows it. He will agree with me that the essence of legitimacy or validity actually lies in acceptance by persons involved in that constitution. A great deal could be said about this. I admit that the mere aspect of involvement in the drafting process can contribute greatly to its validity or legitimacy, but there are also other aspects which are equally important.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also stated that we drafted this constitution one-sidedly, sanctioned it one-sidedly and tabled it in Parliament one-sidedly. When he was however confronted, by means of an interjection, with his party’s boycott of the President’s Council, he referred the hon. the Minister with whom he had negotiated and said he had negotiated with the Labour party, which also boycotted the President’s Council. It was therefore not one-sided. He admitted, to save his own skin, that there had in fact been negotiations. [Interjections.] The hon. member even went so far as to say (Hansard, 16 May)—

If he says that, how could he then have made the first statement? The two statements cannot be reconciled.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then went on to refer to the national convention of 1908 and 1909 in which everyone—the British Government, the various provinces and the republics that had lost their independence—were supposedly involved. However, where were the Black leaders at that stage? Where were the Coloureds and the Asians? And yet we also had a certain legitimacy under that constitution as regards acceptance by Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. That constitution still stands today.

Why are you changing then?

Because we are introducing a better dispensation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the national convention. In all honesty I want to ask him whether the legitimacy in his definition of the present constitution is greater than the legitimacy of the envisaged constitution as regards acceptance by those involved who are not included and do not have a share in it.

They did not have a chance.

They did not have a chance, but today they are still quite happy? If that is correct, why are we still quarrelling about an amendment? I maintain that for these people the present constitution has less legitimacy than the planned constitution. This applies not only to the Coloureds and the Asians, but even to the Blacks, who see a very positive development in this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that. I also base this statement on announcements and other initiatives associated with this; for example the appointment of the Cabinet Committee. A remark by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech was—

This requires an overall dispensation in which we seek an effective method to give them a say in the decision-making processes affecting the interests of each of them. This sort of remark does not pass unnoticed. The initiative now being taken is a positive initiative in this regard.

I want to return again to the concept of legitimacy. The hon. member also knows that constitutional law philosophers differentiate between formal and material legitimacy. Material legitimacy is not relevant at the moment because it concerns the basis one establishes for oneself. If one establishes oneself on a legal-state basis, the test of legitimacy is its contents, things like representation, freedom of the individual and the like. However, here we are dealing with formal legitimacy. In this regard they also differentiate, however. They say that legitimacy in the creation of a new State basically requires the idea of a national convention. This is also what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted to us in terms of 1908 and 1909. But surely we are not creating a new State here. Surely we are engaged in amending the constitution of an existing State. This legitimacy in terms of the formal aspect of the amendment of a constitution or a new constitution for an existing State requires something else. It requires acceptance, which can be implied through participation, but can also be explicit through statements in favour of it. In this regard there has been the promise of referendums. The Government is therefore also following a positive course still in terms of its search for legitimacy.

Mr. Speaker, effectively the Blacks are also being subjected to this new constitution, although they are not actually participating in it. In terms of the hon. member’s logic does he believe that they should also be subjected to a referendum?

No, I do not think it is necessary. I understand the hon. member’s point. According to his interpretations of logic, yes, but if the Black people have to make a choice in a referendum between this constitution and the new envisaged constitution, they do not have a choice to exercise, owing to their not being involved, but the other persons involved, do have a choice because they are directly involved in this in terms of having a say, in terms of decision-making, but also in terms of the exercising of powers at the executive level.

I want to leave the matter of legitimacy there, yet perhaps say just one more thing about it, namely that we are not suggesting that this constitution is legitimate, in the fullest sense, in the eyes of all the subjects of the Republic of South Africa. However, we do believe that we at least have a base from which we can build up legitimacy in the future, because it is a future process of negotiation in the exercising of decision-taking which can send out ever-widening ripples and which, who knows, may one day result in a completely legitimate constitutional dispensation. If the hon. member is not prepared to accept that, he must submit an alternative which offers a better chance of success.

The second aspect I want to refer to briefly is the matter of the alleged extraordinary powers of the President. In my opinion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made an irresponsible remark when he said that the President would be an autocrat acting under a constitution “geared for dictatorship”. He went on to say that he and the CP would agree, because he is actually afraid of a CP president and the CP is afraid of a Prog president. However, neither of them is afraid of an NP president or a Labour president. I think there is some truth in the touch of irony which came to the fore here.

I should like to dwell for a few moments on the CP, Mr. Speaker. Actually they are nothing but a bunch of bashful HNP’s. They are too bashful to say that they are HNP. [Interjections.]

Oh man, you are a scared Prog. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterberg says “Oh, man”.

And you are a bashful Prog.

That the hon. member for Waterberg felt free to get up and issue an invitation to all members of the HNP to join his party, on the basis of his constitution model—which coincidentally is exactly the same as that of the HNP, with homelands for Coloureds and Asians thrown in for good measure—I feel deserves a definite reaction. HNP members are going to join the hon. the leader of the CP’s party. What it really amounts to is just a choice between leaders. There is no choice between two policies. [Interjections.] He is going to get virtually all of them, except perhaps the few decent ones who will remain with the HNP. [Interjections.]

The second report and recommendations of the President’s Council also included a recommendation in connection with supernumerary powers for the President. However, this recommendation was not accepted by the Government. As a matter of fact, it was rejected. Hon. members are aware of that. Now people like Barry Dean and Van Zyl Smit, people preaching “constitutional change”, are going about pretending that these supernumerary powers have also been accepted. This forms part of the agitation around the allegations regarding a dictator. I want to suggest to hon. members that they re-read the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. He devoted more than two pages of his speech to a summary of the “checks and balances” which do, in fact, exist in connection with the President. I just want to raise one further argument in this connection.

In terms of this legislation all relevant conventions remain. In terms of this Bill the President is also obliged to act in Council; to consult his Cabinet, or his Ministers, as the hon. member Prof. Olivier put it. We can consider the formulation of this in the Committee. However, who forms his Cabinet? We know that there will be Asian and Coloured Ministers in this Cabinet, originating from the majority parties in the respective chambers, but also from the ranks of members outside the chambers, who will at least have to be acceptable to the majority party in each chamber. We also know that if the process is even remotely to take its course, the agreement of these people in the Cabinet will have to be obtained, because otherwise they will simply block the legislation when it is introduced in the chambers, thereby destroying the entire system of consensus. This is not one of the existing checks and balances.

That is not in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is surely not necessary for everything to have to appear in the Bill for us to know how it will operate.

How do you guarantee it then?

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would only be reasonable, he would have to concede that he knows as well as I do that what I am telling him now is, in fact, the practical reality of this situation.

I should just like to express a few thoughts in this connection. A great deal has been said about merit. Merit is not a simple concept. I do not think hon. members of the Cabinet will hold it against me when I say that not all members of the Cabinet were elected to the Cabinet on the merit of their managerial ability. The hon. member for Waterberg will not hold it against me either if I say that he would never have been a member of the Cabinet if he had not been the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] In which there is, of course, also a certain degree of merit. That much I grant the hon. member for Waterberg. In point of fact, I do not want to get at him. What this amounts to is that provincial representation in the constitution of the Cabinet also serves as a basis of merit. This will also be the case in regard to membership of the three envisaged chambers of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately my time has expired. I just want to ask hon. members to take another look at what appears in the Bill under discussion. Many things which may appear to them to be extraordinary powers being vested in the President, are in fact merely aimed at promoting the process of consensus, and not at giving rise to autocratic actions.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the friendly piece of advice that he must not become impatient with, or irritated at, the hon. member for Randburg. After all, he is only a bashful Prog, someone who, in terms of his legitimacy theory and other reflections, is seeking some way of joining the PFP. [Interjections.] We always knew him to be a bashful Prog in the NP ranks.

In his very first sentence the hon. member said that the linking up of the offices of State President and Prime Minister was nothing diabolical. In that sense it is not, but if we read clauses 18 and 20 about the powers to which the hon. member for Barberton referred, we see that those powers are diabolical indeed. The hon. member also came to light with the old story that we had hijacked HNP policy. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs also said so. We set out our policy at a congress we held in August 1982, after a policy committee had subjected matters to an in-depth investigation. Subsequently we accepted and approved the policy at a congress, and it and that of the HNP are poles apart. [Interjections.] The hon. the leader of Transvaal ought to have a little more political acumen than to ever make such a remark. As far as the language question is concerned, the question of the independent States and the question of a nation-State for the Indians, to mention but a few, our policy and that of the HNP are poles apart. We do agree with the HNP, however, that this diabolical plan of the Government should be rejected. There we do agree.

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

I have only 15 minutes.

The point of departure of this legislation is a search for consensus, a search for reconciliation. Judging from the whole speech of the hon. the Minister, I think that the search for reconciliation and the movement away from a conflict-style are actually to a large extent basic to this legislation and that moderates should now come to the fore so that moderation can prevail. This puts me in mind of what Pres. Steyn wrote to Senator Malan on 4 January 1910—

That comes from the Free State.

A search for consensus, reconciliation in this mundane world, this side of the grave, is surely a figment of the imagination. Since the days of Adam, reconciliation and conflict have been part and parcel of being human. That is a fact. One’s efforts should be aimed at how one is to reach an understanding between the various population groups in order to allay conflict. The hon. member for Randburg spoke of acceptance. That will not be accepted. That one will never have. Conflict must be allayed through reaching an understanding. The best understanding that can be reached, as history has taught us, can be reached through partition.

If the governing party is sincere in its efforts at reconciliation, why does it not demonstrate this in White politics? Just let us take a brief look at what history has to say about this. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Jeppe dealt very effectively with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. [Interjections.] He did this so well that he provoked the acknowledgment from the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs that Mr. Vorster had changed the policy in 1978. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs acknowledged that power-sharing and mixed government had not been present in 1977. [Interjections.] He then said that Mr. Vorster had changed this in 1978.

As far as the role of the Council of Cabinets was concerned … [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister knows, does he not, what Mr. Vorster’s standpoint was about where the executive authority is vested. Just look at the constitution. The hon. the Prime Minister is not even compelled to appoint a Cabinet. The only proviso is that he may not appoint more than a certain number of people to the Cabinet, but he does not have to appoint a single Cabinet Minister. That is why I say that Mr. Vorster’s standpoint has always been that executive power is vested in the Prime Minister.

I also want to refer to what Mr. Vorster wrote to Ds. Boshoff in this connection. He told him—

He is referring to the present Prime Minister—

That is the present standpoint of Mr. Vorster.

But he still stands by the 1977 plan; you no longer do. [Interjections.]

Sir, I wish I could just be given a chance to deliver my speech.

If the policy has changed since ’78, where is the documentation? Where is the documentation to which the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs referred? We have a great deal of proof to the contrary. We have proof from the hon. the Prime Minister’s own policy statements in 1981. “Power-sharing is unacceptable.” “Consociation is unacceptable.” The hon. member for Benoni said that anyone who spoke of power-sharing was “verkramp”. How beautifully did the hon. member for Pretoria Central not reject power-sharing, but today he has such technical answers to questions about “people” and “nation”.

We spoke in the Prog context, and you know it.

He speaks of one flag that we marched under. The NP’s flag was: Rejection of power-sharing, rejection of mixed government. What happened then? The PFP totally rejected the 1977 proposals. On 3 April 1979 the Government published the draft constitution. Meanwhile, the NP caucus and groups, we had in-depth discussions on the Bill, but no finality about that Bill was reached; no finality whatsoever.

It was a point of dispute.

Oh, it was a tremendous point of dispute! One only has to refer to my Hansard, Volume 100, col. 4414, where I again refer to correspondence I had with the then Minister of Internal Affairs. There was no consensus about the 1979 Bill. On 30 March 1979 a Select Committee was appointed, not to look at the draft constitution, but to look at the constitution so that the PFP and all the other parties could also be drawn into the Select Committee. That was the purpose. Since then this matter has been shelved. The whole matter involving the new dispensation was then shelved. We spoke no more about it. In the internal affairs group we did not speak about it, and even in the caucus we did not speak about it. All the way through to 22 February 1982 we rejected power-sharing and mixed government.

Then came 22 February 1982. While we were waiting for the findings of the President’s Council, the NP accepted power-sharing. We speak of a search for consensus and of reconciliation, but whilst awaiting the President’s Council decision, we were not allowed to proceed with a debate on this in the caucus. We had to conform before the facts were known or get out, and that at a time …

But you were the chairman.

I was the chairman; I am coming to that. It will be remembered that I suggested postponing the debate. [Interjections.] Within three hours and thirty minutes our fate was sealed. Is that a search for consensus? Is that a search for reconciliation? In 1950 the NP caucus did not convene for three consecutive weeks because Dr. Malan and Adv. Strijdom had deep-lying differences about a certain matter. The reason for that was consensus and reconcilation. [Interjections.] In February 1982, however, we had to conform or get out. Are we dealing with a search for consensus and reconciliation when the hon. the Prime Minister says he would rather work with the Coloured leaders than with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or if a member of his congress says he would rather work with Chief Minister Buthelezi than with the hon. member for Waterberg? Is that an effort at consensus? Is that reconciliation? This Bill creates nothing more than a racial federation of the three population groups. It is not linked to any land area. I do not think I can describe it more eloquently than the NP itself described the idea of a racial federation in the ’seventies—

We still say so. It is still the case.

But their plan differed completely from our plan. They did not have own affairs.

That is also, in fact, what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to. The pressure for more rights will become increasingly more irresistible in the search for consensus and reconciliation. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also said: “Money is power”. One cannot exercise one’s right to self-determination if one cannot levy taxes in order to do the things one wants to do. It is impossible. That was not the case with the 1977 proposals. The White Parliament would only have lost those powers it relinquished itself. Now we have in Schedule 1, which covers 1⅔ folios, a list of own affairs without own taxation. So the majority of matters are being made subject to overall policy and umbrella laws.

The hon. the Minister of National Education is not here at the moment, but he spoke, amongst other things, of education that would be subject to general policy. He spoke about syllabuses. Do hon. members think the teachers of South Africa will accept the fact of other population groups having a say, for example, in the history syllabus? Are we going to follow S. F. N. Gie or are we going to read Prof. Van Jaarsveld’s books and present that picture of history? [Interjections.] How can there be any question of self-determination if other population groups have joint decision-making rights about cardinal matters such as the amendment of the constitution, finance and broad policy matters and, above all, if the entrenched provisions can only be jettisoned with an overall majority in each of the three Chambers? An Opposition party that comes into power in any of the Chambers, would not be albe to change the fundamental provisions of the constitution unless it could persuade the majority party in each of the other two Chambers to agree to that.

One accusation we cannot level at our predecessors in 1910 is that they did not keep the options open for us. With this Bill, however, the options are being closed to us. One can no longer change the constitution unless one can persuade the majority party in each of the other two Chambers to go along with that. Our options as a White people, a White community, have been closed to us. Tomorrow the axe is going to fall. We shall be compelled to make the best of a constitution that has not yet stood the test of time. Is that self-determination? Right up to the time the constitution was tabled, the worst had not yet been revealed to us. In spite of that, in the recent four by-elections in an urban constituency, a suburban constituency and two rural constituencies, those opposed to the new constitution drew 54,1% of the total votes cast.

Now you are including the Progs.

Yes, I am including the Progs. They are also opposed to it, after all, though for different reasons. Has the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs now won a debating point? [Interjections.] Here there is also the NRP that supports him.

We are just pointing out how you think.

We know why the NRP supports the hon. the Minister, because it is the old federal policy of the United party. That is what they accepted, and that is why they are now supporting it. [Interjections.] The Governing party has been outpointed in the first round.

Now I come to the next aspect. The President can appoint a Cabinet without the members of that Cabinet being directly responsible to the people for their actions.

That is also the case today with the Prime Minister.

No, that is just the point. That is not the case today. Today they must go to the people every five years to be elected on the basis of their policy. The Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council said that Ministers should not be accountable to the people, but to the President. That is why I say that that runs counter to the basic principles of democracy. I would have liked to discuss certain aspects relating to the President’s Council, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. At this stage I just want to say, about this Bill, what the late Mr. Strijdom said of the United Party’s plan: It is a diabolic plan. The people of South Africa will not accept it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brakpan once again tried to seek justification for the decision they took on 24 February of last year. I do not think it is necessary, once again, to go into all the drama surrounding that decision. I have no doubt, however, that what happened that day in the NP caucus presented a merciful avenue of escape to hon. members of the CP. Long before that happened, they had already decided that they wanted to go. They themselves have acknowledged here their tongue-in-check support or total lack of support for the 1977 plan. The hon. member for Rissik has already admitted as much. I therefore allege that 24 February 1982 presented those members with a merciful avenue of escape, because then they had something they could advance as justification for leaving the National Party. It was nothing more and nothing less. We can now fight about what was said prior to that occasion, or on that occasion, but those are the facts.

I also want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that we can argue about what the content of the 1977 plan was or was not, that we can argue or not argue about Mr. Vorster’s interpretation, but the truth of the matter is, however, that the 1977 plan was not accepted by the Coloured community. That simply led to our having to do some more thinking about a constitutional model for South Africa. Today the CP wants to introduce the concept of a Coloured homeland.

One asks oneself the following question: If the Coloured community did not want to accept the 1977 Plan, how the deuce are they going to accept the idea of a Coloured homeland? And how is the CP going to get a substantive portion of that community to accept it? I think that merely confirms the fact that we have come to the point of simply having to find a solution. The debate must be about what the new constitution must look like.

I want to put a further point to the hon. member for Brakpan. He says that the new constitution is aimed at bringing about consensus amongst the three relevant population groups. That is true. What was the 1910 constitution, however, other than a compromise between the two erstwhile British colonies and the two Boer Republics? Is it not a fact that that constitution of 1910 did, in fact, finally deprive the two Boer Republics of their freedom? That constitution, which is today still basically our constitution, was therefore, from the point of view of the Boer Republics, not the most acceptable of models either. That is true, after all. What, however, happened after that? Our forefathers did not bury their heads in the sand or run away from the realities of the situation. They were prepared to accept the challenge and assume a leading role in that situation. I think the hon. member for Pretoria Central clearly pointed out earlier how, in terms of the 1910 constitution, leaders manifested their vision by accepting the challenge and showing the way.

I think it goes without saying that in this situation today we must, can and will do exactly the same thing. We must say that for the next 70 years, or whatever the length of time we are allotted, we will come to grips with the challenge, manifesting the necessary vision, as our forefathers did in the past. The hon. member for Brakpan says the NP aims at bringing moderates together. What is wrong with that? Does the hon. member for Brakpan want to be an extremist?

I want to retain my principles.

Does the hon. member want to be a radical? To five according to one’s principles, actively pursue those principles, does not mean being a radical or an extremist.

Unless that is the nature of one’s principles.

Yes, unless that is the nature of one’s principles. I do not think that there is much difference between our principles and those of the hon. member for Brakpan. This means, however, that effect must surely be given to those principles by way of moderation. There is no evidence of that today, however, in the way in which that party gives effect to its principles. This justifies the conclusion that that party’s principles are indeed extremist and radical.

Separate development too?

I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the speech of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He remarked that it was a pity that the constitution being discussed today was a divisive factor in the ranks of the Whites and in the ranks of the other population groups. He also says it is not possible to see this constitution as a means of achieving overall agreement. Does any hon. member of that party really think it is possible to table a constitution that would meet with overall agreement in the ranks of the Whites or in the ranks of any other population group? Is it possible, in South Africa, to table a constitution that would meet with overall agreement? That party is not in a position to produce one, because when all is said and done, what they advocate, the minimum they would find acceptable in a constitution, would not be acceptable to the CP, and probably not to this side of the House either. It is nonsensical to state that overall agreement in regard to this constitution is indeed evil or something far removed from reality. The contrary is, in fact, true.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier also says the composition of this constitution is schizophrenic. In saying that, he must also say that reality, the composition of the population, in South Africa is schizophrenic. Surely that is so. What is this constitution trying to do other than take cognizance of the reality that in South Africa we are dealing with two components, two pillars, that one cannot get away from, i.e. self-determination and joint responsibility in regard to matters of common concern? There are own affairs and affairs of common concern. Someone who tries to deny either the one or the other, is not taking reality into account. What the hon. member is therefore saying is merely that the reality of the situation in South Africa is schizophrenic.

I am sorry, but I cannot but say that, in the way in which they are dealing with these realities, the official Opposition are acting irresponsibly, not realizing the possibilities that exist. They profess to know what is going on in Black politics, as well as in that of other groups, but I doubt whether they really know what is going on. I do not think they have any comprehension of White politics. That is why they view constitutional matters so irresponsibly. In fact, they view constitutional development in South Africa irresponsibly. They are irresponsible in the sense that they misrepresent and mislead, exploiting the emotions of nice, good people who do not, in fact, always realize what South Africa’s dilemma and problems are.

I should like to dwell for a moment on a specific aspect of the draft constitution, i.e. the committee system. I see the committee system as a special challenge when it comes to the future implementation of this constitution. I specifically see it as a method of seeking consensus which could be an important means or instrument for reconciling the views of the specific population groups. As far as that is concerned, I just want to say that it is important that our judgment of the new constitution should differ from judgments based on our present thinking on constitutional matters. I think that we frequently make the mistake of judging everything proposed in the new constitution along the lines of our present understanding; in other words, in terms of the stereotyped Westminster system. We forget, however, that we are indeed making a big leap into the new system. It is true that the whole of the old system is not being shot down in flames. Elements of that system still remain. We forget, however, in judging this new system, that we are dealing with a totally new scheme of things, with a new set of facts, and that we must specifically regard the committee system as a method of reaching consensus, with all that that entails. I want to say something about this leap that we have to make. When all is said and done, what we must understand here is that it is no longer a question of the “winner takes all” approach. It is no longer a question of—and this I say specifically for the CP—judging what has been tabled in the light of our present conception of things. I want to take that statement, that question of the hon. member for Rissik about the committee system, as formulated in the draft constitution, a little further. In clause 66 provision is made for the establishment of Joint Standing Committees or committees. It is true that the idea of the Standing Committees is not comprehensively defined in this draft constitution, but on the other hand we must bear in mind that it is indeed unique that this is now being written into the constitution; in other words, the fact that parliamentary privilege in regard to the composition of committees of Parliament is already being entrenched in the constitution, is unique. I think it is also an indication of the value and status to be accorded these committees in the future dispensation. I think it is an indication that this will be used by Parliament in its efforts to have the new dispensation succeed and that it is indeed a sign of the seriousness with which matters are being approached. The committee system is thereby allocated a specific status, which means that the existing views about how parliamentary committees are to be employed are indeed largely being amended. Again, one cannot simply project one’s present view of the use of Select Committees or Standing Committees of this Parliament onto the new system and say that is how they are going to work there. Once again we must make the leap in our realization that this embodies a new system.

In an effort to achieve consensus and regulate conflict, naturally negotiation amongst the three Houses of Parliament is a prerequisite. In that respect I think the committee system can specifically fulfil a useful and practical function. It could offer an opportunity for private, informal negotiations between the representatives of the three Houses. It could give the representatives of the various groups an opportunity of meeting one another on a wide front and on a more personal basis. This could enable the committees to conduct discussions with each other in a more rational fashion. This could also lead to better communication between the three Houses, which would contribute to reducing tension and conflict and therefore lead to greater stability in terms of this system. The committees are regarded as an important instrument for the smooth functioning of the tricameral system. If one looks at the possible functions of the committees, one sees that there are a few that can be noted. I should like to mention six of them.

The first is the possibility of the committee system facilitating the handling of legislation and relieving the workload on Parliament as such. Secondly, there is the handling of financial matters that could be placed on the Standing Committees’ agenda. Thirdly, there is the supervision of the executive authority and administration as we find at present, for example, in the Select Committee on Railway Accounts. Fourthly, there is the very important possibility of developing and also recruiting leaders by way of the system of Standing Committees. This would be made possible by the opportunities presented to each individual member to participate in the proposed system. Fifthly, there is, of course, the important function of preventing conflict; i.e. the reconciliation or accommodation of divergent and potentially conflicting interests of the three individual groups. In the sixth place, the system of Standing Committees could, of course, amongst other things, look after the overall domestic arrangements of the institution of Parliament as a whole.

I also just want to point out briefly that there are two separate systems of committees that can be employed in the future dispensation. The first is that of the so-called internal committees of each chamber. These committees, I believe, could still function in the same way as the committees we are at present familiar with. They could be composed along the same fines and also function exactly as they do in the present dispensation. This would be possible in that committees of this nature could handle the individual, internal affairs of the relevant chamber for which they are appointed. Thus one such Select Committee could also investigate a specific Bill relating to a specific own affair. Such a committee would also be able to investigate a Bill which came before that relevant chamber and which involved a matter of common concern to all three the chambers. It would, of course, still be necessary for Bills on joint matters to follow the normal channels through each chamber. Because this is so, there would still have to be an in-depth investigation into each Bill of this kind. This therefore creates the possibility of such a individual Select Committee or internal committee of such an individual chamber still being able to investigate Bills of common or joint concern.

In the second place there are, of course, the joint committees of the three chambers. In terms of clause 66 of the measure under discussion these will be Standing Committees appointed for the duration of each session of Parliament. It would, however, also be possible—in fact, I believe this to be an unrestricted possibility—for ad hoc or consultative committees to be appointed for specific purposes, for example the handling of specific pieces of legislation, or in an effort to obtain consensus in regard to specific aspects.

I do believe, of course, that there are still a few questions that crop up in the process. One is, for example, the question of the autonomy enjoyed by the joint Standing Committees in particular. Factors that could play a role here are, inter alia, the separation of the legislative and executive authority. It is clear that the system does not draw an absolute distinction between the legislative and executive authority, and therefore one could possibly allege that on the strength of this the Standing Committees would not be fully autonomous.

A further factor that could play a role in this autonomy involves partiality and party discipline, and of course, the question of the permanence and stability of the position of members of those committees. In that regard, I believe, we have a positive indicator in the sense that the members of the Standing Committees will be appointed for the duration of a full parliamentary session. Another question which does, of course, of necessity crop up is whether these Standing Committees would hold open or closed meetings. I think it would be a good thing—judging as a whole, and I do not want to elaborate on that—if we were to accept that closed meetings, particularly with a view to reaching consensus, would be the obvious thing to have, because people would then not have to speak in an open forum, but would rather be given an opportunity of seeking consensus or agreement in all honesty and sincerity.

A third question that crops up is that of the position of the chairman. The chairman could, of course, be the most senior member of the majority party. The chairman could, however, also be a specific leading figure in a specific chamber. I think this is also an opportunity that we could regard as a challenge in developing leadership, and also in identifying true leaders who could succeed in achieving maximum consensus and agreement amongst the three chambers.

There are also a whole series of benefits involved in this. I believe, for example, that in this way better use can be made of members because obviously more of them—members of all three chambers—would get the opportunity to take part in the decision-making processes of Parliament as a whole. As I have already indicated, here there is an opportunity for leadership development, and also an opportunity for reaching unanimity and achieving national unity.

Last but not least, I do not believe it is possible for the system of Standing Committees, unassisted, to fulfil the function of bringing about consensus between the various individual groups. When all is said and done, that is what the President, the Cabinet, Parliament and the President’s Council are there for. I do, however, believe that in the new dispensation the committee system can play a very positive and dynamic role in pursuing this goal.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member for Westdene will not mind if I do not devote too much of my time to his speech. He really was indulging in some flights of fancy because a number of the subjects he discussed are in fact not in the Bill. They are what he hopes will result from the Bill. He is an idealistic young man and he is putting the best possible complexion that he can on this new constitution. However, there were one or two things that he said that I feel I must challenge. In the first instance, he questioned the fact that this constitution was divisive. The very fact that one has to listen to hon. members of the CP arguing almost hourly in this House with the hon. members of the NP is surely evidence in itself that there is tremendous division among the White people as far as these constitutional proposals are concerned.

The hon. member for Westdene also said that there was no way in which one could obtain a constitution that was acceptable to everybody. However, there is a way in which one can obtain a constitution that would be more acceptable than the one we have before us today, and that is obviously if there is proper consultation with members of all population groups at a properly convened national convention. That is the way in which it is possible. Obviously, it will also not be acceptable in every possible way to everybody, but compromises and consensus would result if that process were used.

I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has kept one of his promises and is back in the House to hear what I have to say to him. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has very wide gaps in his South African history. One of the statements he made which I found very surprising was that for the first time this Bill gives minority groups, the Coloureds and the Indians, the opportunity to participate in the normal democratic processes of this country. I wonder where he gets that from. Does the hon. the Minister not know that up to 1910 the qualification for the vote in the Cape was non-racial? Blacks, Coloureds and Indians could qualify on exactly the same basis as the Whites and, if they did, they got the vote. Therefore, they were very much able to take part in the democratic processes at the time. Does the hon. the Minister also know that when in fact the Act of Union was passed, non-White voters—I use that term to encompass all, in as much as we now use the term “Blacks” exclusively—actually constituted 15% of the electorate, which is quite a considerable number?

But the principle of self-determination was built into it.

Forget about self-determination. The hon. the Minister said that they had no part in the democratic processes until this Bill was introduced into this House, and that is a lot of nonsense. Does he know, I wonder, that these non-White people actually had the right to sit in the Cape House of Assembly? They could be elected as members of the Cape House of Assembly, any of them. However, the hon. the Minister tells us that we are taking a step forward today. It is obvious to me that the hon. the Minister does not know his history. He does not know of the compromise that was worked out at Union when the Cape franchise was retained for the Cape only, and not extended to the other provinces; henceforth non-White people could not sit in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa. [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Minister not know about the common roll vote of the Coloured people, and of the African people until 1936 in the Cape, that the African people lost their vote in 1936 and that the Coloured people by extraordinary means were taken off the common roll in 1955 and then lost their separate roll representation in 1968? I may say that this took place through the machinations of the very man who sits in this House as Prime Minister today, and who is very anxious to pass this new constitution that will allow Coloureds and Indians to have representation in their own chambers and to sit in a joint Cabinet. Does he not know that it was because the Coloureds were exerting too much influence regarding the people who were going to be chosen to become MPs that indeed all the machinations started? He should know also that the four White representatives of the Coloured people were taken out of the House for one reason only, and that is that the then Progressive Party was set to win those four seats at the next general election.

The hon. the Minister must know this, and he ought to know because he is aware that the vote is the key, the key to all human rights in this country. I can tell him that if the Blacks still had the vote on the common roll in the Cape, none of the disgusting proceedings that went on at KTC could ever have been possible in the South Africa of today. [Interjections.] Had the Coloureds still had the vote, the group areas removals could not have taken place in the Cape—District Six could not have been removed. The vote is the key to everything in South Africa, as it is the key to democratic processes anywhere else in the world.

The hon. the Minister says that Coloureds and Indians get full control over their own affairs. I wonder whether he has looked at schedule 1 of the Bill which defines which are own affairs and which are not own affairs. Does he realize that practically every single one of the so-called “own affairs” such as education, health matters and housing, has the important proviso that it can only be regulated by the particular group “with due regard and subject to general policy and any general law in relation to such matters”? This means that Coloured House of Representatives cannot touch the Group Areas Act. This means that there cannot be mixed education at either school level or university level because that is subject to general policy or general law. This means that there cannot be mixed residential areas because that matter too, like housing, is subject to general law or general policy. So, whom is the hon. the Minister fooling when he says that Coloured and Indian people from now on, will have full control over their own affairs?

The third little lesson I have to give the hon. the Minister today is in parliamentary procedure. How can he say that it is still possible to get consensus on the Bill, to argue it out and to change it any way we like when it goes to the Select Committee where, he says, the PFP, the CP and the NRP will be able to …

But you have ignored and boycotted all the attempts …

Never mind about what we have done; I am talking about our glorious future as outlined by the hon. the Minister. The glorious future is that in the Select Committee to which this Bill will be referred after Second Reading, the other three parties can have their say and change the Bill. But the hon. the Minister knows full well, or he ought to know by now, that once the principles of the Bill have been accepted at Second Reading, there is nothing of real importance that can be changed in the Select Committee. The Select Committee can only deal with minutiae and with nothing else. Is that the way in which the Government is trying to obtain what the hon. the Minister calls “maximum consensus”?

I am not going to enter into the argument about whom and what the Government has consulted before it issued the draft Bill, but as far as we can gather, it talked only to itself. It talked to its own party congresses and thereafter it consulted only with the leaders of the Coloureds and the Indians; it did not negotiate, but consulted. What concessions did the hon. the Minister make when he consulted with the Coloured and Indian leaders after having drafted the Bill? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us this when he replies at length tomorrow.

Why should I, when you accuse us of not having done anything? [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon. the Minister must be childish about this.

I am not being childish …

This is a very important matter. We would like to know what concessions, if any, he made to the Coloured and Indian leaders whom he claims he consulted. We know he did consult them after the draft Bill had been framed—that is the important point. He did not talk to the official Opposition …

You boycotted it.

… and he did not talk to the Blacks, who in fact account for 70% of the population of this country.

We have heard a number of quotations both from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, and from the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Planning and Development. I must say that hearing that hon. the Minister quoting Burke is really rather absurd. It is a bit like my quoting Calvin. Really, to hear the hon. the Minister quoting Burke, one of the great liberal minds of all time, is absurd.

He must be turning in his grave.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development quoted what General Smuts said in 1917. I should like to bring him up to date. At Cambridge years later General Smuts stated that segregation was gone and that one could as soon try to sweep back the waters of the sea with a broom. He said that years after 1917. Does the hon. the Minister remember that in 1945 General Smuts appointed the Fagan Commission to investigate the position of urban Blacks who, as he recognized then, nearly 40 years ago, were permanently resident in the urban areas of South Africa?

I want to give the hon. the Minister another quote, and I think it is far more relevant to this Bill than the quote of General Smuts in 1917. It is a quote from J. X. Merriman and it comes from the book on Merriman’s correspondence, edited by Prof. Lewsen. In a letter he wrote to General Smuts just prior to the National Convention Mr. Merriman said—

How do you then explain that, while Merriman said that, up to the present day Blacks have never been in this Parliament? That is a historical fact.

That is a quotation the hon. the Minister ought to look at. Because I am short of time, I am not going to quote Olive Schreiner, but he ought also to read Closer Union by Olive Schreiner. He may learn a bit of wisdom from that too.

I want to point out that the Act of Union was passed in an era when race domination was still part and parcel of the whole colonial system and was widely practised and accepted by all the Western powers. The Act of Union was passed prior to the great town-ward drift of Blacks from the rural areas, with the profound influence urbanization has on people. The Constitution of 1961 reinforced the situation, and that was bad enough. Today, more than 20 years after the Republican Constitution came into being, more than 70 years after Union, and long after colonialism disappeared, in an era in which the whole concept of race discrimination has been universally outlawed for us in this House to introduce a Bill which blandly disposes of the entire Black question in one clause, clause 93, which consists of about 10 lines, and to frame a measure which actually constitutionalizes race discrimination, is nothing less than a total anachronism. It was bad enough when the Act of Union was passed and a compromise had to be reached, it was bad enough 20 years ago when the Republican Constitution was accepted, but to do this today is utterly absurd. All the measures the hon. the Minister quoted, namely the Act of 1950, the Act concerning urban authorities and the Acts based on the report of the Tomlinson Commission, were all drafted in the hope that apartheid would succeed. But apartheid has failed. The hon. the Minister has admitted it. Nevertheless the Government behaves as if it has succeeded. [Interjections.] Do keep quiet. We all remained silent when you were talking. [Interjections.]

Order!

Dr. Verwoerd preached territorial apartheid just so that power sharing could be avoided. The hon. members of the CP will understand that. This is of course exactly what the hon. member for Waterberg recognizes when he talks about a Coloured homeland. We believe there is no better case for giving political rights to the Coloureds and the Indians, than there is for giving political rights to urban Blacks, because there is no homeland for them either.

The hon. the Minister boasts that self-determination has reached this wonderful stage of more independent homelands and more to come. All I can say is: God help them! However, the hon. the Minister forgets that millions of the so-called citizens of those idependent homelands were born in this country, live in this country, work in this country and will die in this country. What Dr. Verwoerd realized when he preached territorial apartheid, was that people want to exercise their rights where they lived. Dr. Verwoerd was aiming at territorial apartheid, where people, as he said, would move back to the homelands by 1978 and would exercise their full rights there. The whole thing has broken down and yet the Government goes on behaving just as if the apartheid solution have worked.

The hon. the Minister says that when local government for Blacks is instituted next year, or perhaps later this year we will have gone a long way to satisfying their aspirations, but that we will not have gone the whole way. He places all his faith in the Cabinet Committee which has been appointed to look into this difficult problem. The problem arises only because of the nonsense of this Government in not admitting Blacks to the Parliament of South Africa and to the political decision-making processes that go on in this country. The stupid argument about needing 13 or more chambers can be equally applied to the Whites who are not a homogeneous group in this country, and to the Coloureds who, in terms of the Group Areas Act, consist of seven different groups. Nobody can say that the Indians in this country are a homogeneous group. I believe it is the acme of self-deception for this Government to believe that the Blacks will ever be satisfied with an arrangement that excludes them from normal citizenship rights and from the decision-making processes.

I will pray for you, Helen.

Your prayers would go to the wrong person; so do not pray.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has pointed out the highly expensive nature of this experiment. I just want to point out that we are going to need something like 390 members in all, to run the lives of some 8 million people. In America, Congress, the Senate and the Cabinet, which is appointed from outside the Congress and the Senate, have 570 members for a population of 220 million people.

Finally, I want to ask whether there are no lessons at all that this Government ever learns from the past exclusion of Blacks from the democratic processes in this country. Do they not learn any lessons? If they do not learn lessons, they are destined to repeat all the mistakes of history, to paraphrase Santayana.

How is it that this Government is unaware of the growing bitterness and hostility of Black South Africans? Do they ever bother to listen to what Black South Africans say? Do they bother to listen to what Motlana says, to what Buthelezi says and to what Azapo says? There may be radicals. They are here with us. Some of these people may well be considered as radical, but they are representative of young Black South Africans. The Government would do well to see how they regard these constitutional proposals. Can it be that the Government has learnt nothing from the fact that what has always been non-violent opposition to the Government has turned into violent movements which are now dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Government? The ANC was not a violent movement until it was banned. It then became a violent movement. [Interjections.] The ANC has no constitutional way of expressing its displeasure with this Government. The Government attaches no importance to the increasing number of acts of urban terrorism. Does the obvious correlation between the deprivation of rights and the conversion of thousands of moderate Blacks into extreme radicals, who no longer have any hope for a peaceful solution, carry no message at all to this insensitive Government? I find it astonishing.

This Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill makes no mention of the one thing that is desperately needed in a South African constitution, namely a bill of rights. The President’s Council’s arguments against a bill of rights were fatuous arguments. Despite the flowery preamble to the Bill which talks about “respecting human dignity and the rights and liberties of all in our midst,” there is no protection whatsoever for the civil rights of our population. All the obnoxious measures that allow discrimination along racial lines, all the authoritarian enactments that allow detention without trial and which abrogate the rule of law, remain unchallenged and cannot be challenged. Indeed, if anything, this Bill diminishes the role of the judiciary in South Africa. That is inevitable as long as apartheid, enforced racial separation, remains the cornerstone of policy.

I conclude by saying that this Bill, while it is supposed to replace the Westminster system, which all of us agree is not a suitable system for our heterogeneous country, in fact retains its worst features, namely the winner-takes-all feature and the feature of centralized power. These are the worst features of the Westminster system. The best feature of the Westminster system, namely universal adult franchise under the rule of law, is totally bypassed. This Bill does not reform. It deforms. That is what it does. It is divisive. It has divided the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, and the only people that it has unified are the Blacks. It has unified the Blacks against the Whites and against this Bill.