Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I regard it as a privilege as the leader of the NP or Government party in Natal to be able to take part in this historic debate. I have come a long way with this great exercise in constitutional reform. The hon. the Prime Minister and, I believe, are the only two members in the House now who were here at the birth of this exercise.

The Cabinet Committee that, many years ago, began this inquiry into constitutional reform, gave rise to the so-called 1977 proposals. Those proposals have been carefully examined and carefully refined and improved until today we have this draft constitution before the House.

A constitution cannot be cluttered up with all kinds of details. [Interjections.] A constitution, especially a written one, prescribes what I would call an orderly way of life or a philosophy of government. It is a fundamentally important document, just as the document before the House undoubtedly is. One could have hoped for a substantial consensus in this the country’s highest tribunal on so important a matter. That it is not so will not deter us at all, nor will it deflect us from our great objective.

I think it is notable that the draft constitution before the House goes so far as to entrench the Government’s broad economic philosophy. Indeed, the preamble states it as a national goal—

This Government has always turned its back on socialism, and always will. It is private enterprise, operating side by side with a sound public sector, that lies at the heart of our impressive economic and financial prosperity in South Africa.

I should like to refer briefly to some of the financial provisions. They were dealth with by, among others, the hon. member for Hillbrow yesterday, and I want to comment on some of the things he said too. The financial provisions are contained in Part IX, headed “Finance”, in the Bill, and I think they are remarkably concise and are fully adequate for the purposes of the constitution.

I should like to interpose here that this is, after all, a Second Reading we are dealing with in this debate. We are supposed to be discussing the principles of the Bill before us and not the mass of details. There will, after all, be plenty of opportunity to discuss the details. Enshrined in the draft constitution is the first great principle of public finance, namely that there can be but one single financial authority in any country. Thus the very second clause of Part IX, clause 82, states quite specifically that all revenues of the Republic are vested in the President. The Bill also makes provision for a State Revenue Fund. That is done in clause 83. Into that State Revenue Fund all revenues shall be paid and from it funds may be withdrawn only in accordance with an Act of Parliament. Then, clause 84 identifies a general State Revenue Account to finance general affairs, as is currently provided for in the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975. This clause also provides for accounts for the financing of the own affairs of the several groups. Provision is also made for the proper auditing of all the accounts and for the auditing of the contents of Appropriation Bills.

Clause 86 deals with the transfer of funds from the State Revenue Fund to the respective so-called own accounts, if any exist, of the several population groups. Clause 86 is important and I should briefly like to quote the following from the explanatory memorandum—

1. (a) statutory allocations according to a fixed formula prescribed by a general law;
2. (b) additional ad hoc grants; and
3. (c) conditional grants.

The explanatory memorandum goes on to state—

These are then set out. It is very important though to note that the Houses do not have the power to impose taxes or to raise loans in order to finance their own affairs. These are general matters and not matters for the Houses individually.

The hon. member for Hillbrow claims that the draft constitution is defective. He says it is half-baked because it does not contain details affecting the financial administration of the provinces or of local authorities. Of course it does not. A constitution in all its ramifications cannot be contained in one single piece of legislation. Look at the position presently obtaining. Take the provinces, for example. The relevant financial provisions and powers are contained in the Financial Relations Act. So far as local authorities are concerned, they draw their powers from provincial ordinances. That is not provided for in the constitution. We are working on this matter, as the hon. member and the opposition know. We are giving a great deal of attention to the position of the provinces in the new dispensation and indeed to the position of the local authorities. The hon. Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has just given notice of two more draft Bills in this context. A great deal of work has been done. For example, in regard to local authorities there was the Brown Committee, followed by the Croeser Working Group. The latter Group is still very active. What is happening is that we are examining the position downwards from the top as well as upwards. We will certainly have a good deal more to lay before the House affecting that side of the whole constitutional dispensation.

Talking of financial administration, there is the basically important Exchequer and Audit Act, an Act which is inseparably bound up with the proposed Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. However it is not contained in the same piece of legislation. I think the opposition should take note of this. When they say that the draft Bill before us is defective for these reasons, then one is entitled to ask what they are talking about.

What intrigues me very much is the reason why the official Opposition should be so hectic in its oppsition to what is, certainly, constitutional reform. Ever since I have been in this House, and in the Senate, I have been told how many times by those hon. members and their predecessors in that party—or parties, as there have been quite a few parties subsumed under its latest name—that we need reform. Was the PFP not a Reform Party before? [Interjections.] What has happended to that aspect of it?

The hon. member for Houghton let slip a very interesting thing on Monday. There was talk of a fourth chamber for Blacks and that type of thing when the hon. member let slip something to the effect: “Sit almal saam”.

Of course.

In other words, Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites must all be sitting in this Parliament.

You got the message.

I am coming to the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition. He will remember his sojourn in the Senate. He will be sorry he ever sat there. We will come to that. If one says, as the official Opposition has said all along, that the proportional principle is essential, then it immediately means Black majority rule. It is as simple as that. A Std. 6 schoolboy will work that one out. [Interjections.] I have nothing against the Blacks.

You should resign your seat and stand in a by-election.

Do not worry about by-elections. We will deal with you in the referendum. Talk of elections! We will see what Natal does in the referendum.

Are you going to stand?

I am standing for the whole of Natal, and I think those hon. members are going to be looking a little bit sorry for themselves.

I want to say this. You know, Sir, the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP who is being rather vociferous today, does not make speeches but he does have the habit of sniping at one all afternoon. The hon. member was at one stage, together with me, a member of the upper House, the Senate, in which we were both privileged to sit. I should like to make a few quotations from a speech I made in the Senate on 13 May 1976, and I want to quote from column 2268 of Senate Hansard.

Were you then an elected member?

Do not get excited, my friend. If you listen, you will probably learn something about your own party that you have never known. In this speech I was expressing my concern about this very party. I said

They were then the PRP. Do those hon. members remember that? Good. Now we know what we are talking about. I went on to say—

Then I went on to refer to what I called the remarkable speech of the hon. Senator Bamford, the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP sitting over there. I said that he had made a most remarkable speech in the Senate. I now want to quote what he himself said. He was speaking very provocatively and he was talking big in regard to what he had said in Durban. He said he was asked a question by a person who was obviously a Nationalist and, when I challenged him to say whether he knew the man, he said that he did not but he thought he was a nationalist. [Interjections.] He was obviously being asked a question by a very sensible man! In his speech in the Senate to which I have referred, the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP was telling us what happened at the meeting in Durban. He said that these were the questions that they put to him—

He was then challenged by the hon. Senator Dr. Loock and he repeated this three or four times during the course of my speech. When he was asked whether this was so at a later stage, he said “of course”. A little later on when he was again asked this, he said: “I said so. Of course we will have Black majority rule”. [Interjections.] The hon. Chief Whip was then, of course, in plenty of trouble in subsequent debates. Even in this bound volume from which I am quoting, this cropped up a great deal. After a while I think he realized what he had put his foot into and he started to try to extricate himself. If any hon. member wishes to be diverted in this House, I suggest he read this explanation and tell me what it means.

Which explanation?

The one you gave. [Interjections.]

It is here in this volume. I shall give the Hon. Chief Whip two references and, if he can reconcile the two, I shall also be very glad if he will explain it to me.

I say that that hon. member owes this House an explanation. You see, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was very quick to challenge my hon. colleague here next to me to appear with him on television—not in the House, where this debate is taking place. There is nothing wrong with this House. [Interjections.] This is the highest tribunal in the country. There is nothing wrong with the debate here. However, seeing he is in a challenging mood, I shall follow suit. I now challenge the hon. Chief Whip to tell this House exactly what he meant when he said: But of course there will be Black majority rule with the PFP.

Can I do so on television with you?

Of course there will be Black majority rule with the PFP, he said. [Interjections.] Sir, I think the public outside are going to follow this with great interest. The hon. member has put his foot into it and his party has put its foot into it.

I am asked: Why is the PFP so hysterical in its opposition to this Bill. It is for this precise reason. Of course they will not back the President’s Council. Of course they will not back this constitution and they will not do so because it does not give Blacks a majority in this House. That is what they are after. [Interjections.] I say that one has to take the development of this country and of its people into account. At this moment it cannot be done. For a long, long time it will not be possible to do it. It cannot be done in my time; not in the hon. members’ time, not in our grandchildren’s time. [Interjections.]

Order!

The whole doubtful and collapsing image of the PFP has been laid bare; it is in that statement. The hon. Chief Whip must get up in the House and tell the country exactly what they mean when they say: “Yes, Black majority rule”. He must then refer to the so-called explanations he gave which completely confounded the Senate; there was nobody who understood those explanations. That is as far as I wish to go …

Just give me the references.

All I say is that I think that what we are witnessing today is not a mockery—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said of this Bill and which was picked up by some of the Opposition Press, that this constitution is a mockery—but what we are witnessing is an utter failure on the part of the official Opposition of the country to seize its opportunity to show a semblance of statesmanship and help the country forward in one of the greatest exercises in constitutional reform we have ever seen in this great country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister spent most of his time dealing with the financial implications of the Bill, but he did go on to say that he was very glad to participate in such an important debate. Of course, so am I and I think everyone of the hon. members of the House, if there were time, would like to participate in this important debate. He says that he was in at the birth of the beginnings of these constitutional changes. I hope he will be here at the death as well in order that a new constitution could emerge which would be far more just and equitable. I want to warn the hon. the Minister, however, in terms of private enterprise. If he wants to kill private enterprise in South Africa, he should enshrine it in the Bill because I want to tell him the Bill excludes the majority of people in this country. What he will do by enshrining private enterprise in the Bill is to say to the Black people of South Africa that private enterprise has nothing to do with them; it has only to do with us. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. the Minister who is in charge of the Bill that his lack of response to my hon. leader’s challenge to take part in a television debate is nothing short of remarkable. He is always the first hon. Minister who wants to speak on every occasion, including in this House. Here he has an opportunity to go on to television with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, not just anybody, but a reasonable Leader of the Opposition, and to participate in the debate. [Interjections.] What does he say? He does not only run away, but he then says: “This is just a gimmick”. Does he not know that immediately the general election was announced in Great Britain, for example, within hours the leaders of all the parties there were given an opportunity to state their point of view on television? Does he not know that television debates are going to take place there as they did in the USA? He himself said this was one of the most important weeks in the history of our country, but he does not want to talk about it. I want to tell the hon. the Minister: Give me a chance to get on to television; I shall take it like that.

I am sure you will. [Interjections.]

Sir, I shall take on any of them any time. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information who is sitting next to that hon. Minister that he knows what it is like to be on television; he spends half his life on it! He should tell that hon. Minister that he will help him, he will help him with his make-up; he needs it. [Interjections.] He should say that as somebody who is intimately connected with the SABC he will tell the chairman: You should speak to the Director-General, let us have this debate, let the sparks fly. [Interjections.] He has a lot more pull than he realizes, but I will not elaborate on that. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that when he replies to the debate and says that he refuses to accept the challenge of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he has no confidence in the Bill, no confidence in himself or in his party, and I do not blame him.

The second point I want to make is that that hon. Minister was very annoyed yesterday when we made the point across the floor of the House that inadequate consultation and negotiation has taken place before the Prime Minister announced his proposals. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that it did take place, but the hon. the Minister and his colleagues also tell us that there is really no significant change between the 1977 proposals and these.

What are you saying?

I say that they are both equally bad. I agree to an extent that there is no real change here, and just as the 1977 proposals were rejected by the majority of people in South Africa, so will these proposals be rejected as well.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he cannot have it both ways. Either negotiations took place and there are significant changes since 1977, or there are no significant changes and therefore the same people who rejected it then will reject this as well.

Mr. Speaker, addressing this Bill, I want to say that only those who are deaf to the strident voices demanding their rights and only those who are blind to the drama which is being played out in our towns and cities would deny that the central problem facing South Africa is Black—White coexistence. Let it be said once again that Blacks are here to stay and so are most Whites. How to live in peace against the background of this reality is the burning question of our time. If we are agreed on this fundamental point, the question which follows is simply this: Does the proposed new Constitution Bill before us address itself to this central problem? The answer is clearly “no”, and for this reason alone it deserves to be rejected. But, to be fair, let us ask yet another question. Is this Bill a step towards political democracy? The hon. the Minister who has just taken his seat said that certainly not now, but some time in the future, Blacks can be included. Not in his lifetime, not in my lifetime and not in anybody else’s lifetime. He sounded so much like his brother-in-law, it is just not true. And look at him now. [Interjections.]

The real crux of the debate ought to be whether this Bill is a step towards political democracy. You cannot talk in terms of political democracy which does not at least include the African people. Before you can answer that question, you have to look at some of the background. In 1978 Dr. Connie Mulder, the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said (Hansard, 7 February 1978, col. 579)—

I have no doubt that this remains the ultimate goal of the CP. What I want to know, and I want to know it from the hon. the Minister, is whether there has been any deviation from this policy by the NP. Any hon. Minister can answer. Has there been a deviation or does this Government stand by Dr. Connie Mulder’s statement in this House? Can I ask the hon. the Minister? Can I ask the hon. the Prime Minister? Surely he must know.

Go ahead. Put on your priestly garb.

Now he starts getting cross because he cannot answer the question.

Let me then look at some of the legislation that that side of the House has introduced in the last 10 to 15 years to indicate their position. In 1970 the Black States Citizenship Act, Act No. 26, was promulgated. This Act lays down, and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development will know this, that—

And then they give certain conditions—

This is all-embracing. Every Black South African became a citizen of one of the homelands even if he had no relationship whatsoever with that homeland. The homeland citizenship for those not domiciled in a homeland area—in other words, all those who live outside of the homelands—is ultimately decided by the language a person speaks. This is very interesting. Nevertheless, the same Act expressly protected the right of South African citizenship for Blacks, but, of course, this was all changed by the Status of Transkei Act, No. 100 of 1976. I need hardly stress that in terms of that act every person falling within one of the categories of persons defined in Schedule B shall be a citizen of Transkei and shall cease to be a South African citizen. Then when Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei became independent, the identical provision was promulgated. What does that mean? It means that more than 8 million people were deprived of their South African citizenship between October 1976 and 1981. So it seems that the Government is still very much in line with Dr. Connie Mulder’s statement. This steady and accelerating move towards Mulder’s logical conclusion is reaffirmed by the pressure that is being exerted on the remaining independent homelands to ask for final independence.

Another giant step in this direction was the whole Kangwane and Ingwavuma débâcle. Clearly as far as legislation is concerned there is no contradiction of Dr. Mulder’s statement that there will not be one Black man with South African citizenship left. Indeed, a survey of the legislation makes it clear that this goal is being proceeded with with considerable enthusiasm. But this is to fly in the face of reality. Anybody who moves through South Africa and stops at any village, any town or any city, will see those areas teeming with throngs of Blacks who are not there on a visit, but are there as an integral part of our economy and of our society. Truly, when this Government comes with this kind of final goal, then surely we must believe whom God would destroy, he first sends mad. This a mad Bill. It flies in the face of reality. The answer to this question is clear. This Bill is not a step towards political democracy, but rather an entrenchment of the view that says to the Black man: Look elsewhere for your citizenship, your protection and your rights; you certainly are not going to get it here in the central Parliament of South Africa. If the Bill does not even deal with the most urgent problem facing South Africa, namely a Black—White coexistence, then by its silence and by its composition it excludes Blacks permanently from the central decision-making process in our land. It comes as no surprise therefore that Black leaders are on record that the inclusion of Coloured and Asian South Africans is designed to strengthen the White group in its retention of power. The co-option of Coloureds and Asians reinforces the permanent exclusion of the Black majority. I want to warn this Government again that a sure and certain consequence is the increase of conflict between Black and White. White South Africa could have chosen the high road of reform, real reform. Instead the Government has chosen to take yet another step in the direction of siege politics. The thin white line is being extended to include Coloured and Asian South Africans, but it is a battle where there can be no winners. That is why we have stressed that this Bill is politically illegitimate. The hon. member for Pretoria West said that he could not really understand when he looked at the dictionary and at the definition, how we could use these terms. Let me put it to him this way: Legitimacy for a constitution does not come from fine words and slogans, but comes from its adherence to fundamental democratic principles, one of which is government by the consent of the governed. That is where it gets its legitimacy from. One can take any Parliament, any Government, anywhere in the world. They can have fine constitutions, but if their people do not commit themselves to that constitution in the end those Governments will be overthrown.

As far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned, we are being told by the hon. the Minister of Health that this proposed constitution does not provide for the sharing of power. He says it does not provide for the sharing of power but for the sharing of responsibility. The balance of power, he says, must be retained in White hands. Sir, this is the crudest form of “baasskap” that the hon. the Minister has spoken against again and again; so I cannot believe that he agrees with his colleague. It is a blatant and cynical device to retain meaningful power in White hands alone. What we are saying to the Coloureds and Asians if we cannot do without them in our factories—especially in our armaments factories as the Prime Minister use to say—is, please come and share with us our factories, but never our schools; please share responsibilities with us on our borders, but never in White residential areas; share our constitution, but do not share real power with us; accept the responsibility but not the power. The retention of power in White hands is being buttressed by ever-increasing control over the free expression of dissent. If hon. members do not agree with this statement, just let me refer to some of the legislation passed by this Parliament during the last session. Firstly there is the Intimidation Act; then the Protection of Information Act; the Demonstration in or Near Court Buildings Prohibition Act and then the Internal Security Act, an Act which does not impose any restrictions on the actions of the Security Police, nor restoring habeas corpus to the individual or the right of protection by the courts. I do not believe that these measures are necessary, but if the Government is determined to rob Blacks of their meaningful rights then these provisions are absolutely necessary and will go on being necessary, and the siege will continue.

Furthermore we must look at the policy of uprooting communities. Removals continue. So, on the one hand the Government says to the Coloured and Indian people: Come closer; work with us within a constitutional framework, while everywhere else it forces separation. From October 1980 to September 1981 62 White, 2 583 Coloured and 1 201 Indian families were removed. As far as Blacks are concerned removals continue. Between 1960 and 1980 on a conservative estimate 1¼ million Blacks were removed from White rural areas and more than 75 000 from urban areas. Influx control has not been relaxed. On the contrary, it is being tightened.

So, where is the reform which must accompany the introduction of a new constitution if it is to work? It has been estimated that 40% or more of the Black population of the Cape Peninsula are here unlawfully. These people are faced with a stark choice: Either starvation at home or violation of the law in order to survive. It is a tragedy that some of the people who were arrested in the Cape Peninsula yesterday and the day before are pleased to be in gaol; to such an extent have they been hounded by officials and by the police when they sought shelter in the veld. The treatment of human beings at KTC is neither Christian nor civilized, as this Bill pretends to be. Despite the preamble of the Bill I say that that kind of treatment is nothing short of barbarism.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in possibly one of the most important debates in this Parliament since 1910. As we were reminded yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in 1910 the South African constitution came into being and, as a compromise, excluded Blacks. It is no mere coincidence that in 1912 the ANC was founded. Initially a moderate movement, it has inexorably moved to assume a more radical role over the years until today the external wing of the ANC has opted for what they call the armed struggle. [Interjections.]

If this Bill is passed we will compound a terrible mistake that was made by our forefathers. We can say with hind-sight—one can always understand things a lot better when one looks back—that certain things our forefathers did were right while others were wrong. We find ourselves, however, right in the situation in which we have to learn from the mistakes of the past. Today the mood of the Black people is very different from what it was in 1910, and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the introduction of this Bill strengthens the position of those who have opted for violence. It feeds the despair of thousands and millions who, with incredible patience, have sought to redress their deeply held grievances to peaceful means.

A constitution, we are told, should surely reflect unity and be a mechanism for the resolution of conflict. It ought to guarantee the rights of groups and individuals to live in peace in their own land. This Bill certainly does not offer those guarantees. I will, however, tell this House what it does guarantee.

The introduction and the passing of this legislation guarantees that the threat on our borders will grow. It guarantees that urban terrorism will continue and escalate. It guarantees that Black youth will become more militant. It guarantees that more young White people will leave the country in despair. [Interjections.] It guarantees that Black trade unions will spend more time and more energy on political rather than on economic issues. [Interjections.] It guarantees that the divisions which are endemic in South Africa are going to widen and deepen, thus increasing the risk that the very fabric of our society could be torn apart from top to bottom.

What country are you talking about?

I am talking about this country, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I want to ell the hon. the Minister of Finance that all who vote for this Bill must be prepared to accept the dreadful consequences which may well flow from the passing of this measure. Everyone of those hon. members of the NP and everyone of those hon. members of the NRP, all those who become part of the passing of this Bill, which fails to address itself to the most burning issue of our time, namely Black/White co-existence, must accept the responsibility for what they are doing. [Interjections.]

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I want to plead, urge, beg, do anything, that this hon. Minister should not take this monstrous and illegitimate Bill any further. [Interjections.] The real choice is not, as has been suggested by the NRP, either to go along with this Bill or to endorse the status quo. There is a third choice. There can be an acceptance of realities. The question which cries out to be resolved in South Africa is Black and White co-existence, and we can return to the drawing board with a new commitment; a new commitment for a new South Africa, which will include all our peoples, a new dispensation which is grounded on justice, which is our only guarantee for peace and security. [Interjections.]

The mere introduction of a constitution can either unite or divide the people. I must say that the signs on every hand are of division and not unity. For goodness sake, Mr. Speaker, before it is too late in this country, let us find one another—Black and White—so that we can have a future together. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands followed in the footsteps of various other hon. leaders of his party by shamefully neglecting to make a positive contribution to this extremely important debate we are at present conducting. [Interjections.]

The hon. member argued that we should reconsider and redraft this legislation from scratch. However, when they were given the opportunity, through the establishment of the President’s Council, to make a contribution, they preferred to boycott it.

How much notice did you take of their recommendations?

The hon. member devoted the greater part of his speech to Black White problems. It goes without saying that we agree with him. This has also been said repeatedly by members on this side of the House. The hon. member said we have to accept that the Whites and the Blacks are settled here permanently. But of course! This side of the House agrees with that. This has also been said repeatedly. However, this side of the House has also said that the Black man will not have a say, within the scope of this constitutional dispensation, by way of a fourth Chamber. This does not mean—this has been very clearly spelt out by various hon. members on this side of the House, and I therefore do not want to spend my time on that—that the Black man is not being given the opportunity also to have a share in working out a future dispensation through which we could have peace and prosperity in this country. The Cabinet Committee has been appointed and the Cabinet Committee will hold in-depth discussions with the various Black leaders, as has been indicated by this side of the House.

What is the problem now? The problem is that the hon. member for Pinelands and his colleagues have come here to derigrate and to criticize. In the same way, the hon. member for Waterberg, the hon. the leader of the CP, said that they rejected the constitution because the Whites wanted to be governed by Whites and not by a multiracial government. The CP says we are giving things away; the PFP on the other hand says we are giving too little away. What does this show? What this shows is that neither the CP nor the PFP has come up with a positive contribution, a workable alternative. [Interjections.] As has been pointed out several times already, the fact of the matter is that the PFP has a specific policy which has to lead to Black majority Government, as the hon. the Minister of Finance also indicated. In contrast, the hon. members of the CP want White domination and say that if the constitution is not formulated in that way, a separate homeland has to be created. This cannot work. A year or two ago the hon. the leader of the CP himself said that it was not feasible. What has happened, since the hon. the leader of the CP left the NP, for it suddenly to have become feasible?

I maintain that in actual fact this constitution, which we are at present discussing, affords the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians an opportunity to protect themselves; viz. to protect their own identify, their own intrinsic characteristics and their own nationalism. On the other hand it also affords these three groups the opportunity to protect each other through joint decision-making and joint responsibility in regard to matters of common concern. This affords them the opportunity to work together for a future of peace, security and stability—and in this regard the Black peoples are not excluded, as I have already indicated.

I want to refer briefly to another statement by the hon. the leader of the CP. He said that the constitution would lead to a struggle, and that that struggle would continue until we died or were victorious. I want to ask: How far will this rhetoric take us, these rhetorical statements which only inflame the emotions? Or is it in fact a challenge when he says: We shall fight until we die or are victorious? If the hon. member does, in fact, consider this a challenge, I want to ask him whether this is the reason they are protecting the AWB. Is this the reason why the AWB is not unambiguously refused membership of the CP? [Interjections.] The hon. member went on to say that there was pressure on the Afrikaner to forfeit his national consciousness in favour of South Africanism. Since when is that true? Since when has it been true that the Afrikaner has to forfeit his national consciousness? I challenge any one of those hon. members to show us in which clause of the legislation that appears.

The entire Bill attests to this.

What nonsense. Surely that is not true. The constitution Bill does, in fact, afford a people an opportunity to maintain its own heritage. It has never been national consciouness to begrudge others their own nationalism. As a matter of fact, therein lies our future. A previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, said at one stage, when there were problems between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people: Lend each other a helping hand. However, that did not mean that this would lead to a loss of identity and a loss of individual nationalism. For what earthly reason would this be the case now? As a matter of fact, recognition of each other’s national conciousness and nationalism are confirmed in the constitution Bill.

However, the hon. member made another very important statement I should like to react to. He said that we on this side of the House are hiding behind communism in order to win a political debate. It is extremely irresponsible to say that, because the hon. member for Waterberg himself has, in the past, frequently pointed out the danger of communism.

Of course.

The hon. member says “of course”. Has the danger of communism suddenly disappeared since he walked out of the NP? Is communism suddenly allied to that hon. member and his party in pouring out their hatred, jealousy and envy onto the NP so as to break it? Is that what is now all about? Is that the reason why the danger of communism now supposedly has to serve as a shield for the NP? I think that is extremely irresponsible.

There is another point I should like to clear up. Yesterday the hon. member for Brakpan alleged that in his contribution the hon. the Minister of National Education was supposed to have indicated that the syllabuses of schools would be a matter of common concern. That is devoid of all truth. When I put that to the hon. member as he was leaving the House, he replied that he had not said that the hon. the Minister had said it, but that it appeared in the Constitution Bill. However, that is not what is stated in the Constitution Bill. In paragraph 2(2)(c) of Schedule 1 it is stated that norms and standards for syllabuses and examinations and for certificates of qualifications are general policy.

You do not understand Afrikaans.

The hon. member can go and read it for himself. He must take my word for it. There is a vast difference between the norms and standards of syllabuses and their contents. The contents of the syllabuses are an own affair; there is no doubt about that.

That is a semantic exercise.

I want to make a few more brief remarks about the Constitution Bill. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. member for Rissik would shut his mouth now. The Erika Theron Commission indicated that the existing Westminster-based system of government simply could not continue to solve the problems we are facing. That commission went on to recommend that a satisfactory form of direct Coloured representation at the various levels of government and in the decision-making body was essential. After that came the Cabinet Committee, the constitution plans of 1977 and the Schlebusch Commission. The Schlebusch Commission made exactly the same two important recommendations, in addition to many others, namely that the Westminister system of government, without adjustments, did not afford a solution for the country’s constitutional problems, and that the system of one man, one vote was simply not practical politics. Then followed the appointment of the President’s Council and the consideration of its proposals by the Government, during which the Government also laid down specific guidelines. There were six guidelines, of which I only want to bring two to the attention of this House. The first guideline was that the steps taken had to be as acceptable as possible for all the population groups involved. Secondly, in the general interest of all population groups, Whites had to be guaranteed a feeling of security and permanence and the other population groups had to be given the prospect of being able to fulfil their reasonable expectations.

What has always been and still is, the reality which all the commissions, committees, councils and all the persons involved had to take into account in considering the solution to the problem? In the first place there were political rights. The Whites and the Blacks have equal political rights, each in their own geographic area, but in contrast we have the Coloureds and the Indians who have absolutely no political rights. In the second place, historically the Whites and the Blacks have had a specific territory to which they had become attached, but in contrast we have the Coloureds and the Indians who have not historically had a separate geographic area. As a matter of fact, the historically the Coloured territory is exactly the same as that of the Whites. When the repatriation scheme could not be implemented and Dr. Verwoerd announced that from that moment onwards Indians would have citizenship, they also shared exactly the same geographic area. In the third place, various peoples developed, and the Coloureds and the Indians developed to such an extent that they have become an essential component of the available manpower. In short, they have become an integral part of the economic activities of the country, as well as in the cultural and sporting spheres, the academic sphere, etc.

The question now arises: Does the Constitution Bill offer a solution? Does it offer protection to minority groups, because in this country there are only minority groups? Are the retention of identity and survival of the population groups entrenched in the legislation? Does it afford all three the groups a just and fair opportunity to participate in the decision-taking process? My reply to this is “yes”, because each group has the exclusive right to consider and to decide on its own affairs in its own House, i.e. those matters determining its identity, its characteristics and its way of life, and no other group can, in any way, deprive that specific group of that right. The President’s Council does not have any authority or right to make decisions in connection with own affairs either. The worst that could happen would be that the President could request the President’s Council to decide whether the question or a specific matter is an own affair or a general affair. As far as general affairs are concerned, each House has the opportunity to consider these and eventually decide jointly. In some cases a matter might also be referred to the President’s Council for a decision.

In conclusion I want to say that the question which arises today is whether this Constitution Bill can work. I maintain that this constitution can work, provided the Cabinet, the Councils of Ministers; the President’s Council, the representatives in all the Houses and all members of the general public want it to work. If they do not want it to work, nothing can work, no matter who suggests it. Any solution in this country requires recognition of each other’s rights and privileges, of each other’s human dignity and the desire to co-operate. If the real leaders, White, Coloured and Indian, who put the interests of their country and their people first, act responsibly and negotiate with each other to bring about a mutually acceptable dispensation, for the benefit of everyone, then it can work. Of course, this requires understanding and the desire to succeed, understanding for the fact that the Whites are relinquishing established customs, but also the realization that this does not include rights or specific rights over their own affairs. These they are not relinquishing. There should also be understanding for the fact that the Coloureds and the Indians are now being given rights that they did not have before. This is obvious. They are being given reasonable rights, namely to decide on their own affairs and to accept joint decision-making and joint responsibility. Of course, this is also a tremendous challenge to the Coloured and Indian groups. It is one thing to be given responsibility, but it is quite another thing to know what to do with that authority and responsibility.

Finally, sound relations are the key to everything. That is what we must aim at, and all manner of mechanisms to avoid conflict and to promote consensus between groups have been built into the legislation, It is necessary for all those involved, both inside this House and outside, to participate in the new dispensation in a constructive spirit and with a sincere desire for harmonious co-operation. Then the Bill can work and we shall have a prosperous future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Virginia. The day before yesterday, yesterday and today, while the debate was in progress, he furnished the best possible proof to indicate why the draft constitution cannot work. He mentioned all the “provideds” that had to be complied with. He says everyone must have the will to have it work. Let me tell him that the majority of the people entering upon this dispensation, i.e. the PFP, the Coloureds and the Indians, say they are not satisfied with the dispensation; they want it changed. From the very start it falls through the mat, with all the “provideds” given by the hon. member. Those people do not want to let it work.

The hon. member says the CP stands for White supremacy. Let me tell him that we do not stand for White supremacy; we stand for full freedom for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. The NP stands for White supremacy, as stated by the hon. member’s provincial leader, the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare who is the NP leader in the Free State. He said yesterday that the balance of power must be kept in the hands of the Whites. He then motivated this by saying that because we alone have thus far been the bosses, we could in future afford to decrease our status as bosses slightly, but we would still be boss. The CP does not advocate any form of White supremacy, except over ourselves.

We have had a strange discussion revolving around the draft constitution. The majority of the speakers spoke about historical matters. They did not speak about the future and about what South Africa would look like under the new constitution. [Interjections.] There is no enthusiasm on that side, and I can understand that, because no one arranges his own funeral with any enthusiasm. [Interjections.]

At this moment the Whites of South Africa have sovereign authority. When the draft constitution is implemented—I do not believe it will even happen—the Whites will no longer have sovereign authority. Today Parliament is a sovereign institution, but if the draft constitution is implemented, Parliament will no longer be a sovereign institution. The sovereignty will then shift to the non-elected President’s Council and President—they are not elected by the voters. The draft constitution makes provision for political integration from the top to the bottom. The Cabinet will be a multi-racial Cabinet. There will be one multi-racial Cabinet that will have an overlapping function. Parliament will be a mixed Parliament. The Standing Committees will be multi-racial committees. [Interjections.] Look, I am no racist, but neither am I a “multi-racist”, as that hon. member is. [Interjections.]

Order!

The President’s Council, which is going to have the final say, will also be a mutli-racial body. The draft constitution also makes provision for excessive powers for the President. I want to allege that in the Free World or the Western World there will be no head of government with as much power as the proposed President of South Africa. He will have more power than any other head of State in the Free World. Let me just point out some of his powers. He appoints the Cabinet, and there is no restriction. [Interjections.] The State President does not, at present, appoint the Cabinet. [Interjections.] The powers to be vested in this President are powers, if one compares them with the 1977 proposals, which were to be vested in four people, i.e. a President and three Prime Ministers. All the powers that were to be vested in those four people, are now to be vested in one President.

Apart from the fact that the President is to appoint the Cabinet, he will also appoint 25 people to the President’s Council, people who are accountable to him just as the Ministers will also be accountable to him. He is going to decide what are own affairs and what are affairs of common concern, and no court may dispute that. He can agree to Bills without consulting the Cabinet. He can dissolve Parliament or the House without consulting the Cabinet. He can interfere in the legislative function of a House and bring such a House to a standstill. At the moment the President cannot stop proceedings in this House. In the future, however, the President will be able to bring a House to a standstill, and interfere in the legislative function. He can walk in and say: You little hon. members with your orang-outang faces are talking about things that you are not allowed to talk about and I am going to stop you. If a motion of no confidence is then moved in the Council of Ministers, he can dissolve the council and arrange to have its members chucked out. He can also declare war. This President, with all his powers, is not elected by the electorate. He is divorced from the voice of the people. What is more, it will be extremely difficult to get rid of him. He could only be got rid of if all three Houses approved a motion of no-confidence in him. It could, of course, happen that, by way of by-elections, or by members walking over to join the CP, there could be a change as far as the majority party is concerned. In such a case one would not be able to get rid of the President. He would then be able to continue appointing his Cabinet, the President’s Council and the Councils of Ministers. He governs in spite of the fact that he no longer represents the White majority.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to come to the hon. member for Virginia and several other hon. members who kept harping so incessantly on the question of own affairs. If one compares this Bill with the guidelines, one sees that in this Bill an attempt is being made to extend own affairs. The end-result, however, is that no own affairs remain. There is no single own affair left, because to qualify us an own affair, it must meet certain requirements. The first requirement is that a group must have full control of the finances relating to that aspect, without interference from any other group. This includes taxation powers and borrowing powers. If that is not the case, it is not an own affair, because then the group must look to someone else for money. Secondly, the group must have full legislative and policy-making rights, otherwise the relevant affair is not an own affair. If a Bill concerning the own affair of a House clashes with any general law, the Bill of the House must have precedence and the general law be declared ultra vires, otherwise one is not dealing with an own affair. Because these so-called own affairs do not meet these requirements, they are not own affairs. If a House were to decide to transfer a certain amount of money from education to hospitals, it would not have the right, after it had received its appropriation, to do this itself. It would first have to obtain approval to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether, if the CP were to come into power and the Indians did indeed accept a State of their own, they would be given a free hand in formulating immigration policy.

That necessitates a long answer. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, however, that the Indians would be completely independent. In their own country immigration would cause them problems, because they would have to provide work for their own people. That would nevertheless be their own affair; they would have sovereign status. They would make such a decision about their own country, but would not be able to decide about South Africa. I am telling hon. members opposite that there is no question of own affairs, because no single chamber can make any law that conflicts with a general law. Nor does one have control over finances, and one cannot borrow money. One cannot even make a transfer from within one’s own budget. There is no question of that. These so-called own affairs are a misnomer. It is an agency system. A Chamber is merely an agent of Parliament as a whole. What is more, in their attempt to extend own affairs they did not make much progress, because on the basis of the budget I once again tried to ascertain how many matters would be agency matters and how many general matters, and the figures I came to were 80% for general matters and 20% for agency matters, and that 20% must be divided up between three chambers. That is not even 7% each.

Today the Whites have full sovereignty, but in the new dispensation our freedom would amount to having a 7% share of agency affairs. Those would be the powers we would have. The Indians and the Coloureds would get even less. They would have even less freedom than the Whites. I therefore want to tell hon. members opposite that there are two things the draft constitution will be doing. In the first place it will bring about and implement integration, whilst at the same time wanting to retain power in the hands of the Whites. The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare said as much yesterday. He said that the balance of power should be retained in the hands of the Whites. He was that was justified because they are now the only bosses and could therefore still be the bosses in the future. Hon. members opposite are now telling the voters that that is the guarantee they are giving them, because they will be retaining the balance of power in their hands. In other words, the Coloureds and the Indians must forever be in a subservient position. That, however, is domination. Can hon. members believe that there is a party which, in the closing stages of the twentieth century, is saying that they want to build their future on domination? And they want to base it on injustice, because the system that is to be incorporated is an unjust one. What we are telling everyone in South Africa, and in the world at large, is that if the world is tired of domination, so is the CP. We have no interest in domination.

Ferdi, verligtheid does not suit you.

We are interested in freedom. The hon. member for Pretoria Central does not know what verligtheid means. He thinks that if one is politically dishonest, one is verlig. If one can cheat the Coloureds and the Indians, one is verlig. All I can say is, that is no achievement. Nor is it verlig. What we are saying is that we have no interest in building our future on a piece of trickery. We say that what the Government is doing here is to build a Hamman’s gallows on which it wants to string up the Coloureds and the Indians, but eventually the Whites will be hanging on those same gallows for having been so unjust. That is why we have no interest in that. The question we are asking is: Can this power be kept in the hands of the Whites? We say: No, it cannot be done, for the simple reason that it is unjust. It is discrimination of the worst possible kind. What is more, the NP cannot hold out, because they are entering upon this dispensation as a minority. The NP will not be able to hold out with this piece of unjust legislation in the future, because they are entering upon that future as a minority. In the new Parliament decisions will have to be taken on cardinal issues, for example group areas and the inclusion of the Black people, and there will continually be two chambers opposing the NP. There is consequently no chance of reconciliation. Even the most moderate party in the Coloured population, the Freedom Party, says that it is going into this with the purpose of abolishing group areas. The NP is entering the field as a minority. It is two chambers against one, but that is not all. In these three chambers the majority of the elected representatives of the peoples are also going to outnumber the governing party, because the hon. members of the PFP, together with the Coloureds and the Indians, will constitute 157 members as against 151 for the rest. [Interjections.] I know the chambers take separate decisions. But now you use your minority; and then the matter must go to the President’s Council, and then you use the diabolic powers of the President and of the President’s Council to give your minority the right of way. In other words, the Government is deciding, even at this stage, that it is continually going to frustrate the majority, including the majority of the electorate in general. Let us suppose that the PFP comes along today and moves an amendment to the constitution to include the Black people and the rest of us vote it down. Then let us say that the President, who must eventually sign the law, says he is not going to sign it, that he is first going to refer it to a body such as the President’s Council. Let us further suppose that the President’s Council then tells the President that the PFP was right. That will be binding on the President. He would have to sign then. Would you, as democrats, you who have had a mandate from the electorate in election after election, accept the fact that a body which has not been elected by the people can give a decision in favour of the PFP?

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense. Under the new dispensation the majority of the elected representatives in Parliament could be in favour of the Group Areas Act being abolished and the Black people being brought in. Then the President’s Council has to decide and thus frustrate the majority. I am saying that this constitution is a successful formula for a power-struggle. We cannot continually frustrate the majority. Rev. Hendrickse unequivocally said that if he did not get his way, he would disrupt the whole situation by way of a boycott. And hon. members know this, because they have made provision for it in this Bill. Sir, what do you think South Africa’s Parliament will look like if two of the three Chambers have a puncture every year and Parliament has to run on only one piston? What impression would this create in the world at large? A model of instability. What foreign investor would show an interest in such a Parliament, a Parliament having to run on one piston every other year? What I am saying, Sir, is that here we have a formula for chaos in South Africa.

Just look at the extraordinary powers being vested in the President. Sir, every group is going to struggle to get that position. If the Coloureds and the Indians are anything like normal people, which they are, they will, like every other population group, be struggling to get their hands on that post. If they did not do so, they would not be worth their salt. Everyone who is worth his salt, is going to try to get his hands on that post. That is where the power-struggle is going to lie. That is where the spark of conflict is going to be kindled in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has said that moderation is a prerequisite for the success of this new constitution. My contention is, however, that political power-sharing is no place for moderates. In power sharing there is no place for a moderate. Just look at the rest of Africa and at the rest of the world. Moderates have no place in such a situation. In erstwhile Rhodesia Ian Smith began with a moderate man. He appointed Senator Jeremiah Chirawa to his Cabinet. But no one, inside or outside Rhodesia, was satisfied with him. Then he made a second effort and made Rev. Muzorewa Prime Minister, and about him people had not previously been saying very flattering things. Then, however, he was relatively moderate, but no one, inside or outside Rhodesia, was satisfied with him. Where did they end up then? At Lancaster House, where Mr. Ian Smith, Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo signed away their freedom.

That is the point to which this constitution has brought us in South Africa. We are being asked to sign away our freedom, and the Coloureds and Indians are being asked to sign a document that holds out no hope of freedom for them. We shall thus be placed in the same position as Rhodesia was at that time. And what happened then? The strongest man seized power, and having seized the ball, he ran with it. And where is Mr. Nkomo? No one in the world, not one of those people who kept pressurizing Zimbabwe, not one of those powers, objects to the atrocities being committed there. In the meantime Mr. Nkomo is walking the streets of London, there near Lancaster House where he signed away his freedom. I get the impression that he is looking for what it was he lost there, but he will not find it there. It is simply gone.

This draft constitution that we have before us today is a product of the Cape liberals.

Who are they?

That hon. member is one of their slaves, one of their pawns. As I have said, it is a product of the Cape liberals. If it had not been for Dr. Verwoerd, this would have happened as far back as 1960. In 1960 the Cape liberals mounted a similar charge. Dr. Verwoerd, however, was too strong and too clever for them and put a stop to it there and then. Die Burger started it off by saying that there should be forward movement. That is also what is being said today—a forward movement. Die Burger said at the time that the Coloureds should have direct representation in Parliament. Dr. Verwoerd, however, intervened and put an end to it as quickly as he could—boots and all—so much so that Die Burger was forced to report—

And, Sir, let me say that there was much less potential for integration in that than in what we have in this constitution today. Dr. Verwoerd, however, put a stop to it. Dr. Verwoerd was never an integrationist, and what the Government is doing here now he would also have put a stop to, just as he did at the time.

But he would not have accepted a Coloured homeland.

Very well, so Dr. Verwoerd did not propagate a homeland as the end-product. What, however, did he do? Let me just give one further quote to indicate how strongly Dr. Verwoerd was opposed to integration.

Leave all that history now.

Yes, I will. Dr. Verwoerd said on occasion—

If he were to have said it today, the Government would have had him investigated. But if Buthelezi says he is going to make good his desires by violent means, they are too scared to have him investigated. If a White man, however, makes even the slightest sound that could in any way be interpreted as violence, or just sounds like violence, he has to be investigated. I say the Government has become afraid, because they cannot keep this thing going.

With reference to the charge mounted by the Cape liberals, Dr. Verwoerd announced a plan which was described in the following terms by the S.A. Digest—

Of that plan Dr. Verwoerd said that then the Minister of Coloured Affairs would virtually be in the position of a Minister of Foreign Affairs handling relations between one State and another. Is that integration? For him the end-result may not have been a homeland, but let me tell you that it was the starting point on a journey towards that goal. Before their independence Black States were all States within a State. Dr. Verwoerd said there were only two paths we could follow: Either integration or separate development by way of territorial separation. You have not chosen this path.

Who is your “you”?

The governing party, Sir. Here they are not following the path of separation. The CP stands for emancipation, the partitioning of land areas and the partitioning of political power. That is what we stand for.

The content of this Bill cries out against its preamble. In the preamble we read, amongst other things—

Mr. Speaker, at the moment the Whites have full self-determination. We cannot help other population groups either by depriving the Whites of their self-determination, whilst at the same time not giving those population groups any self-determination rights themselves. We believe that the right to self-determination which the Whites have, must be maintained, whilst at the same time the Coloured and Indian population groups must also be given self-determination rights, just like those of the Whites. Now hon. members of the NP allege that a Coloured homeland is not practicable. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to allege that the reason is because the Government does not want to make it practicable. [Interjections.]

They want nothing but integration. [Interjections.]

If, with what we already have, we began establishing a Coloured homeland today, it would be an even better homeland than some of the existing Black States. We agree that this is a starting point. After all, we do believe that those people should be allowed to purchase and obtain additional land. [Interjections.] We believe that in 1983 we could make a better start on a Coloured State than was ever made on all the Black States in 1913.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time to answer any questions now. [Interjections.] Our starting position now is a better one than in the case of any Black State.

I also want to allege that no party in South Africa has even struck nationalism as hard a blow as the NP has now done. It has struck nationalism a severe blow. [Interjections.] In the life of every people there are two forces at work—the force of nationalism and the force of internationalism or imperialism, and our people’s history is the best example of this, as far back as the previous century. Just think of the struggle between Pres. Paul Kruger and Cecil John Rhodes, or the struggle between Gen. Botha and Gen. Hertzog, or even the struggle between Dr. Malan and Gen. Smuts. So it goes on. South Africa first, was Gen. Hertzog’s slogan. There again we find nationalism as opposed to imperialism. Those forces are also at work in the life of every other people.

The political power-base of the Black homeland leaders is their nationalism. Pres. Mangope’s political power-base is Tswana nationalism. For every Tswana nationalist, however, there is also a Tswana imperialist. Just think, for example, of Motlana. For every Matanzima and every Lennox Sebe there is also a Nelson Mandela. So one could go on. Over the years, especially when the NP came into power, who spoke for the Black people? It was people like Albert Luthuli. That was because, at the time, there was not yet any basis for their nationalism. In time, however, nationalism grew amongst them and internationalism was relegated a back seat. [Interjections.] Now, however, the NP comes to light with a plan to lump Whites, Coloureds and Indians together. The NP wants to lump them all together. [Interjections.]

But that is not true.

It is true. The NP is destroying nationalism. [Interjections.]

That is not true at all!

The NP is destroying nationalism. They are destroying nationalism and are too afraid to acknowledge it. [Interjections.] They are destroying nationalism and—what is worse—they are crippling those Black leaders who believed in nationalism and who believe in the Whites as the standard-bearers of that nationalism. Now they no longer carry that banner. The NP’s very name clashes with what it is now doing. [Interjections.] The NP’s name clashes with its conduct. They are no longer the standard-bearers of nationalism, having become intercessors for internationalism. [Interjections.]

The Cape Liberals said at the time that they would carry their plan through as soon as there was strong leadership. The strong leadership, however, went against their plan. When they finally lost, they said that the plan would perhaps again rise from the ashes one day. It has done so, and to crown it all, they have found a scapegoat. Now they are going ahead with this plan of theirs. I want to say unequivocally that every hon. member sitting in those Government benches carries the banner of internationalism, and no longer that of nationalism. [Interjections.] Therefore I know, believe unquestionably, that this proposed constitution will never really get off the ground in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, since February last year I have been listening in this House to speeches made by the hon. member for Lichtenburg in this House, and also of course by other hon. members of the CP. What the hon. member for Lichtenburg said here today was, incomparison with his other three or four speeches so far this session, nothing new. The hon. member did not produce a single new idea. What we heard from him today was a repetition of his previous speeches; the same old arguments, one after another. [Interjections.]

What was significant though, Mr. Speaker, was the following. While I was listening to the hon. member I could only conclude that the frustration which had built up in him over a period of years, and which he did not have the courage of his convictions to unburden himself of while he was still in the NP, is now bursting out in the form of a real Hyde Park speech. [Interjections.] When the hon. member had the opportunity to give expression to these things that worried him, he did not avail himself of it. When he could have adopted this standpoint in the NP, he did not do so.

That is not true.

Now it is nothing but an outburst which he could no longer control today and that is why he came so close to Hyde Park today.

Unfortunately time does not allow me to reply to the hon. member’s arguments on the constitution.

You cannot.

The hon. member for Sunnyside need not interrupt me in that crude way now. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member knows our time is very limited. In any case, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will reply very fully and specifically at the end of the debate to all the arguments pertaining to the constitution.

I should just like to express a few ideas with reference to the contribution of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. He and his colleagues cannot tell the NP anything about nationalism. They cannot teach the NP anything about nationalism. Who introduced nationalism, as we know it in this country, into politics?

You have now betrayed it.

It is the NP that did so, the party which is in power today. There was a stage at which the hon. members of the CP also made a contribution to it, but today they cannot arrogate to themselves the right to tell the NP that it has betrayed nationalism and to try to teach this party what nationalism is. [Interjections.]

One major defect in the hon. member’s argument is the fact that he holds the Whites, himself, his party and what it stands for to be above the interests of South Africa. The nationalism for which the NP stands has never placed the Whites, as nationalist above the interests of South Africa. The NP has always stated that the interests of South Africa come first. That is what the hon. members of the CP no longer wish to realize today, because it does not suit them.

I should very much have liked to discuss matters further with the hon. member but my time is limited. What one also found striking, and which in fact caused one pain, was that the hon. member told us with so much conviction this afternoon that a Coloured homeland was a practical possibility and that its borders could be determined by way of partition. Until 18 months ago the hon. member was saying just as enthusiastically that it was not possible and could not be established by way of partition. Now I want to put a question to the hon. member. I know he cannot reply now, but he can reply on a subsequent occassion, or one of his colleagues could reply. The question is this: Will the partition to determine the Coloured homeland in South Africa include only Namaqualand, or the Cape Peninsula as well? Where, precisely, are the heartlands going to be situated? Can the hon. members of the CP identify the Coloured homeland for us in this debate? [Interjections.] We have received many replies already, but 18 months ago the hon. member said with as much conviction that it was not possible.

I should have liked to discuss the matter further with the hon. member, but my time is limited. I know that most of his arguments will be replied to. I want to refer to another speech, a speech which I deemed to be of so much value that I feel that it must be replied to. It is of great importance to the electorate that the speech made by the hon. member for Waterberg should be replied to in greater detail. I know that it will still be followed up, but I want to make a contribution to the process. Owing to a lack of time I should not comment on the PFP’s standpoint in this debate either. The results of their standpoint are well-known and I do not have the time to deal with it now. The speech of the hon. member for Waterberg which he made here on Monday contained many untruths, half-truths …

Tell us what they were.

I shall. It also contained so many distorted nuances that one cannot allow it to go unanswered.

Why do you not have him investigated?

Let me identify a few of them for the hon. member. The hon. member said that the history of the NP had one clear message of course, which was that the Whites were not prepared to relinquish their political power, and that when a person had to share power, one loses it. The hon. member spoke about a citizens’ state (burgerstaat) in which everyone within a State context comprised one nation. He spoke about the principle of a peoples’ state (volk-staatbeginsel) as the NP, according to him had accepted it. He also said that if a person accepted this principle of a peoples’ state (volkstaat), Blacks could not be given a joint say with Whites in the same territory. According to the hon. member, therefore, only the Whites comprise the peoples’ state. I should like to know from the hon. member for Lichtenburg whether this is correct. Is the assumption correct that only the Whites form the peoples’ state?

The hon. member for Waterberg went further and said that one could not give the Coloureds that right, inch for inch, in the same territory over which the Whites exercised a say. He said that if a person accepted Coloureds and Indians as co-claimants to White territory because they, according to the argument—whose argument?—used the same services, services such as water, electricity and so on, one could advance no argument as to why Blacks within the borders of the RSA could not be denied the same claim. This is the message which the hon. member conveyed to the electorate of South Africa. Is it possible?

The hon. member also said that if one accepted Coloureds and Indians as part of the same peoples’ state as the Whites, one could have no argument against the inhabitants of Langa, Nyanga, etc. also being recognized as part of the peoples’ state. Why did the hon. member use the term “citizens’ state”. It is an old, archaic form which is no longer used in constitutional law today. Not a single contemporary writer or academic of note uses that term anymore. I shall tell hon. members why the hon. member used that term. He used it because it suited him to keep that term in common parlance. The hon. member knows that these days one talks about a nation state. The USA, even with its federal state form, is a nation state. The hon. member also knows that in South Africa with its development of peoples, its history and traditions, it is wrong to talk in that sense of a nation state. However, it suits the hon. member to talk about a citizens’ state. It suits him to talk about a peoples’ state as he understands it. A peoples’ state, as he understands it and not as the NP understands it, is in fact a racial state, a state in which he considers himself to be above others, with the exclusion of others. That is the hon. member’s peoples’ state. That is the state which he accepts. Surely it is nothing but the German Herrenvolk concept and the principle of National Socialism. It is nothing else but that. [Interjections.]

The hon. member’s terminology means that the Afrikaner and every other people must be given a State of their own. The hon. member for Pretoria Central got the hon. member to admit yesterday that the Afrikaner are a people. However, the Whites as such in South Africa do not constitute a people. The Whites as such constitute a nation. The hon. member made that admission. According to the hon. member for Waterberg—the Afrikaner and every other people must receive a State of its own. But what about the other groups? What about the other groups that do not constitute a people. I am referring to the groups which were identified here yesterday. Are the Coloureds, to the hon. member’s way of thinking, a people and does he for that reason wish to create a peoples’ state for them? Are the Indians, consisting of Moslems and Hindus, a people to his way of thinking, and does he for that reason wish to create a peoples’ state for them? To the hon. member’s way of thinking, are the Indians a people? [Interjections.] The hon. member might as well reply to me. He need not read a letter again, as he did yesterday. I am asking him: Are the Indians a people? As soon as one asks the hon. member a question which he does not want to answer, one has this kind of situation.

If the Whites are referred to as a peoples’ state, one is discriminating against the Coloureds and the Indians as citizens of the RSA. Why does the hon. member use the term “people of the state” (staatsvolk)? Does he mean by that the Afrikaner people and, if so, why? [Interjections.] I had a look at it. He is not using it here for sentimental reasons, for the purposes of some voters who think back with longing to the two old Boer Republics? That is the reason why the hon. member uses terms such as “citizens’ state” and “peoples’ state” etc. He knows that terms like that are music to the ears of many Afrikaners whose sentiments he is exploiting for selfish reasons.

The hon. member went further and said that Whites, Coloureds and Indians were being forced together in one State. That was precisely what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said this afternoon. Surely the hon. member knows that there is no question of forcing the groups together, and in one state. Surely the hon. member for Waterberg knows that the members of the CP have never objected to Coloureds and Indians being citizens of this country. Why are they objecting to that now? Surely they never objected to it when they, as members of the NP, granted citizenship to the Coloureds in South Africa and the Indians in South Africa. Now they are suddenly being forced together, but for years the hon. members contributed to Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa being South African citizens. Why are they using this aggressive language? What do they wish to achieve? [Interjections.] Since we wish to determine a new future for South Africa by means of a new constitution, they are seeking, with this aggressive language, to prise the groups apart.

The hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg said that this Bill was treason against nationalism.

May I please ask a question?

No, I have very little time. The hon. member for Waterberg also referred to love for one’s own people and he said that inter alia it meant the rejection of government by foreigners. He also said it meant the demand for government for one’s own people by one’s own people in one’s own country. No one has ever reproached the CP for unashamedly advocating the interests of the Afrikaner. However, with what is the CP in fact being reproached? The CP is being reproached for practising a nationalism which is racistic. That is why the CP is being reproached. [Interjections.] The CP is therefore being reproached because it wishes to protect its nationalism behind its White skin, as well as by the exclusion of the true realities. I ask those hon. members: Since when does South Africa belong only to the Whites? They know that Coloureds and Indians have citizenship of this country and they also know that they have freehold rights in their own group areas. Why are they advocating this kind of nationalism? [Interjections.] It is for selfish purposes only.

The CP states further that the Government is now declaring Whites, Coloureds and Indians to be one nation.

Yes.

I want to ask the hon. member for Barberton since when a Coloured person who has citizenship is not a South African citizen? Since when is an Indian who has citizenship not a South African citizen? Since when are all citizens, Whites, Coloureds and Indians, whom we are dealing with now, not South African citizens?

What about the Zulus?

The hon. member knows what the policy is and what the guidelines are. The hon. member for Waterberg also said something which I take extremely amiss of the hon. member, i.e. his having used this debate to say these things. He said that pressure was being exerted on the Afrikaner now to change and to exchange his nationalism as a people for a general South Africanism. He should abhor his awareness of colour. He should display the courage to integrate politically. The right to self-determination of the Whites was being surrendered and he went on to say that the Whites should now feel ashamed of being white. They must keep quiet about the fact that they are white. They were being told that being white was the equivalent of injustice to Blacks. I ask myself whether it is possible for us to experience such a day when a Christian was able to proclaim so many falsehoods and untruths in one speech. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. member for Waterberg where the Government or the NP ever said these things. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member for Rissik to reply to this. He will be given an opportunity to do so. The hon. member for Rissik must tell me where the Government or the NP ever said these things. [Interjections.] Why is the hon. member for Rissik also proclaiming such falsehoods?

The hon. member for Waterberg said that this Bill made a farce and a mockery of self-determination. This is, once again, the kind of language which the hon. member for Lichtenburg also uses. He said that Parliament would disappear, it would lose its character, and he asked what other self-respecting people would give up (opdoek) its sovereign Parliament. This is a new word which is now being used across the floor of this House. They say that the Whites will relinquish their political power. Moreover, they say: Self-determination is the right—so they interpret it—of a people to at least decide every facet of its existence itself, without interference. Did hon. members not listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central yesterday? Surely that was an adequate reply to that question.

Why is this message being conveyed while the hon. members, all of them as they sit there, resolved, accepted and put into writing the following, together with us, namely that the 1977 proposals substantially stated that we accepted that Whites, Coloureds and Asians occupied the same fatherland, although in their own residential areas? Surely we accepted that. Secondly, it entailed that because we were living in the same fatherland and because we accepted that people had the right to a say over their own administration, there could be only one government in the country, but there could be different government institutions. Surely the hon. members accepted this just as we did. Thirdly, we also accepted that people should have the opportunity of participating in the decision-making process, on matters which affected their lives.

That is not stated there. [Interjections.]

In addition the hon. members accepted, as we did, that there were areas which affected people solely as groups, and that there ought to be self-determination by the groups in respect of that which affected their lives. Surely those are things which we accepted jointly.

Moreover the hon. member accepted, as we did, that one Parliament should have a right of decision over the resolutions of the other Parliaments, and that in the case of a conflict, the President could promulgate a law with the consent of one of the Parliaments. Consequently it could be either a Coloured or Asiatic Parliament. Surely these facts were accepted by them; surely they were accepted to such an extent that one of the senior members of the party of the hon. member for Waterberg, the hon. member for Meyerton, came to this House with a private members’ motion last year in which he was to have moved that the House expressed its appreciation for the successful way in which the NP had, over a period of 30 years, governed the country constitutionally and economically. [Interjections.]

That was the old NP.

Order!

The hon. member referred to a coalition Cabinet. Why did he talk about a coalition Cabinet? Surely the hon. member knows that there is no question here of a coalition Cabinet. Surely the hon. member used that word deliberately because he knew that in common parlance it means that a party out of weakness or owing to a serious problem has to combine with another party to be able to govern. That is when a coalition is formed. Surely the hon. member knows that we are not going forward to meet the future in a state of weakness; we are doing so from a position of strength. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am sorry.

The hon. member went on to say that the Bill made a farce of self-determination, and then referred to the so-called veto right which the Indian Chamber has over the White Chamber. Why did the hon. member not distinguish between an amendment to the constitution and/or other matters? Surely the hon. member knew that the point he was making related to the amendment of the constitution. However, the hon. member presented it as being generally applicable, for once again it suited him to present it to the general public in this way instead of spelling it out for them as it really was.

The hon. member did not tell us about the 24 guarantees which are contained in clause 98 of the Bill. There are 24 built-in guarantees to protect the right of self-determination. [Interjections.] If hon. members have not studied clause 98, it is their business; not mine. Those 24 built-in guarantees are there to protect the right to self-determination of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. All 24 of those guarantees are applicable to the Whites in exactly the same way as they are applicable to the other two population groups.

If the hon. members of the CP do indeed wish to grant the Coloureds and the Indians what they claim for themselves—after all this is the popular term which they use, very piously: We grant other people everything we claim for ourselves—what about the practical situation? If this has to be applied in practice, they run out through the back door. Are they prepared to grant those guarantees to other people as well? Those guarantees are extremely favourable. As I have said, they are also applicable to the Coloureds and Indians. It is also important—why did the hon. member for Waterberg not identify this as well—to give the Coloureds and the Asians the guarantee that the Whites will not turn against them either. The Coloureds and the Indians know that the conservative-minded Whites as they are represented in that party, will turn on them if they should come into power. These guarantees also mean that the Whites are not only telling the Coloureds and the Indians that constitutionally they should enter the future together with us and that there are guarantees which are applicable to us in equal measure. They know that they can accept this from the NP, but they also know that it cannot be accepted from the CP. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg why he only told the House this half-truth. Why did he only emphasize this half-truth? Surely he knows that the whole truth is that if a conflict situation should arise between the White and/or Coloured Chamber and/or Indian Chamber, there are extensive procedures to make provision for accommodating that conflict. Why does the hon. member not spell this out? He does not do so because it does not suit him to spell it out.

There are a few other matters which I should also like to discuss while I am dealing with the hon. member. Hon. members of the CP expressed concern with regard to sovereignty. Surely they know that the sovereignty of the Whites was seriously encroached upon in 1977 and afterwards, with the co-operation of those hon. members. If there was a conflict and one of the Parliaments were to use its veto rights, other ways had to be sought to reach a decision and the President with just one of the Parliaments would have done that. Is that not an encroachment upon sovereignty? Did hon. members agree to it? On their authority the President and the one Parliament would have been able to enforce legislation. That implies that the President could ignore the White Parliament in this case.

Can I ask the hon. Minister a question?

No. Surely that is blatant power-sharing. Why do hon. members wish to object to it now if they agreed to it in 1977? For five years they agreed to it enthusiastically. [Interjections.] In the 1977 election, based on those proposals, those hon. members and their supporters returned the National Party to this House with the largest majorities in history. In 1981 those hon. members fought an election on that same basis, which was again won with overwhelming majorities. And then this is the message which the hon. member for Waterberg is now conveying to the electorate. I take it amiss of him.

On these same matters their next leader, Dr. Connie Mulder—symbolically he is still sitting in the gallery at this moment—also made an ecstatic comment. He said—

The hon. member for Waterberg, as the then leader of the NP in the Transvaal, said on 7 March 1981 in Randfontein at a meeting which he held to oppose Dr. Connie Mulder that—

That is precisely what the NP congresses did with acclamation. But where is the hon. member for Waterberg sitting today? What is he proclaiming now? I am therefore not surprised that the hon. member for Waterberg said the following in this House this year (Hansard, Friday, 18 February, col. 1265)—

How is it possible that a person can be so naïve? How is it possible that a person can use a public forum such as this House and in such an important debate noise these falsehoods and untruths and distorted nuances abroad and mislead the electorate on the scale on which they are at present being misled?

You are a brave man who does not want to reply to a question.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen knows that when I have enough time at my disposal no member can accuse me of not wanting to reply to questions.

However heart-rending it may be and however much of a pity it is that there should have been a political split in the ranks of the Whites, that a rift should have occurred in the politics, to a large extent, of the Afrikaners, and however unpleasant it may be that some of our colleagues should be sitting opposite and that we now have to conduct this political dialogue among the voters, I am grateful that we do not need to convey this kind of message to the country to acquire temporary popularity or to sow confusion among our electorate by using language which is calculated to mislead them. I want to tell the hon. member for Waterberg and his party that in regard to these constitutional matters the electorate in South Africa is rapidly realizing that the use of this type of language, and arguments of this kind are merely for the short term and not the long term. The electorate of South Africa knows and appreciates that the constitution with which the NP is going to the country and which we are now debating here, is the long-term solution for South Africa. That is why it is such a special privilege for us to present, from this side of the House, this long-term proposition to our people in a positive way instead of misleading our people in the short term as that party is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order will forgive me if I do not reply directly to his speech. He addressed his speech for the most part to hon. members of the CP and I am sure, judging by the noise here next to me, that he scored a few haymakers.

†The NRP came into this debate and took its stand fully aware of the seriousness and the dangers of and the risks attendant upon the stand we have taken here by supporting the principle of the Bill at the Second Reading stage. That does not mean, however, that we do not have serious criticism of certain aspects of the Bill. The correct procedure for rectifying that is to do it during the Select Committee stage and the Committee Stage in this House.

You cannot change the principles then.

That is the very point. We are supporting the principles of the Bill.

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

I am sorry, but my time is very limited.

Put your trotters in your mouth again.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Umhlanga entitled to interject across the floor that I should take my trotters out of my mouth?

Order! The hon. member for Umhlanga must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. I said that he should put his trotters back in his mouth.

It still has the same meaning. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

There are many aspects of this Bill that we would like to see improved during the Committee Stage. We would, for instance, like to see a change in the formula for representation of elected members to the President’s Council. We believe that instead of being elected by the majority of the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Deputies, that perhaps it would be preferable to have proportional representation in respect of the representation of the different parties. I also believe that when it comes to the question of the provinces that we would like to exchange certain views with the Government. There are many aspects of the detail that we shall endeavour to change during those stages.

How can you?

However, let me say now that we in the NRP have decided to support this Bill for inter alia the following reasons, and I trust the hon. members of the official Opposition will listen because I shall be coming a little later on to their logic or illogic for not supporting this Bill.

In the first instance the new Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill, which heralds a new dispensation for South Africa, is a positive start in the process of reform, which will not increase conflict or destabilize South Africa. It is the result of many years of negotiation …

With whom?

… starting with the Schlebusch Commission, on which the PFP served, and continuing with the President’s Council, on which the PFP did not serve. It has gone right through a number of processes and has ultimately ended in this House with the Bill we are discussing at the moment. As I have said, it is the result of many years of negotiation among Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa.

And what about Blacks?

Perhaps even more significantly it presents, for the first time in South Africa’s history, an offer enabling members of other population groups to become members of Parliament and to participate in the political decision-making process in South Africa. That, in the historical context of a plural society, is a very significant change indeed with a view to the prospect of a peaceful solution of the problems of South Africa.

Let me remind hon. members of the PFP that the only alternative to this measure here today is increased conflict. Fortunately there is no possibility that the PFP will ever become the Government of South Africa and execute their policies. [Interjections.] Nor, of course, is there any realistic possibility that the CP will ever become the Government of South Africa. If, however, it should happen that they did become the Government of South Africa, that would bring about an increasing conflict situation. It would mean that the possibility will then only be one of back to Black majority rule, in terms of the policy of the PFP, creating a situation similar to what we have in Zimbabwe at the moment, or one of back to classical apartheid in terms of the policy of the CP. This is the only realistic constitutional proposal which has a hope of successful survival in South Africa.

Irrespective of the price we have to pay? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that this Bill also extends the democratic process to members of the other population groups, and that that is also a considerable improvement.

What about the Blacks?

Let us come to the question of the Blacks now. I am glad the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked that question, Mr. Speaker. The Black people are the majority in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am sure hon. members will agree that before it will become possible to incorporate them into a system such as the one proposed in terms of this measure it will be necessary for a considerable amount of negotiation to take place first. [Interjections.] There are many questions that will have to be answered in order to create a just society in South Africa, which will accommodate the aspirations and the needs of all the population groups, and not only those of the Black majority as advocated by hon. members of the PFP. [Interjections.] I want to repeat what the hon. leader of my party said, namely that we are satisfied that the process of negotiation has commenced, in order to calculate and assess what the aspirations and the needs of the Black people are, this process will have to continue in future. We have already commenced with a Cabinet Committee to proceed with this process of negotiation.

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

No, not at the moment. [Interjections.] We believe that that Cabinet Committee, which is paying attention to Black aspirations will ultimately become a commission of inquiry, which will then bring to the fore the real leaders of the Black people and will also highlight the real aspirations of the Black people.

I should like to turn briefly to the hon. member for Umlazi before returning to hon. members of the PFP. We listened with great interest to what the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon. member for Umlazi had to say about the future of provincial councils, something which is of considerable concern to the NRP since it happens to govern the Province of Natal.

Not for long.

We do accept what the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in his Second Reading speech, and I want to quote briefly from that speech, as follows (Hansard, 16 May 1983)—

The hon. the Minister went on to say—

I say that that should apply equally to the promise the hon. the Minister has given the House that there will be no change to the structure of provincial government except in full consultation with the members of the provincial councils of the different provinces. We believe that we now have an ideal opportunity to allow for a process of devolution of power and of local option in respect of the formula that could apply in each province.

I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us when he replies to the debate whether he visualizes it as a possibility that Natal could have a different provincial structure to that of the other provinces. In Natal we have a unique population structure and we have a unique geographic situation. I believe it is therefore essential that we should consider the possibility of having different provincial structures applicable in the different provinces. We are certainly encouraged by the fact that the hon. the Minister will not attempt to bring a Bill to the House to change the provincial structure unless he has the agreement of the provinces concerned. As far as we of the NRP are concerned, there is one cardinal principle regarding provincial government, namely that whoever runs the second tier of the regional government structure must be democratically elected to do so. That is the cardinal principle for us. We look forward to a lot of discussion with the hon. the Minister and his department regarding the future structure of the provinces.

Now I want to turn to the hon. members on my far left, the hon. members of the PFP. I want to say to them that, despite the dangers to this party and despite the unprecedented and hysterical attacks on it by certain English-language newspapers in South Africa …

At least you are getting Press recognition.

… despite hysterical attacks on the NRP by the PFP, we are determined to see that the aims and principles of the NRP bring about the establishment of a new Republic.

Nigel Wood does not agree with you.

Why is Harry not taking part in this debate?

We will not be deterred either by a vociferous, hysterical minority, even within our own ranks.

What sort of new Republic?

I want to say to the hon. members of the PFP that they should examine their attitude very carefully, because there is total lack of logic or adherence to principle in the way they are opposing this Bill. The hon. member for Berea said the other day that he could not understand how the NRP could possibly vote in favour of this Bill since we represent Natal in this House. [Interjections.] I want to put a question to him via the hon. member for Pinelands who said that if this Bill is passed by the House it will not have legitimacy in the eyes of the majority in South Africa and that it would not fulfil the tenets of democracy because it would not be government with the consent of those governed. If the hon. member is consistent in his principles, can he say that he believes that the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu is a legitimate Government?

Of course it is.

He says it is. If the South African Government had allowed the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission to be implemented in Natal, can he say that that would have been a legitimate Government?

Of course.

He says it would be. That is very interesting, because that would be the Government if a minority of South African citizens in a specific geographic area of South Africa in which the majority of South Africans would not be involved in the election of the leaders. [Interjections.]

The problem with the PFP is that they are inconsistent. In their manifesto one sees in bold type that they stand for the rights of minorities. They are the knights in shining armour who will defend the rights of minorities. What do they do, however, when the Coloured, the Indian and the White minorities agree to have a part of South Africa under a constitution which excludes the Blacks? It is the same principle as that applied by the Buthelezi Commission to kwaZulu and Natal. Yet in one case they approve of it and in the other case they do not. That is the idiocy of their policy. We can understand why that party is becoming known as the White face of radical Black power in South Africa. I need only refer to the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.] What that party is doing in opposing this Bill is nothing more than an attempt to apply a Black veto to a constitutional design for Coloureds, Indians and Whites. That is what it is. They want a Black veto to be applied to the legitimate constitutional rights of the Coloureds, Whites and Indians.

What does your party say?

My party says this Bill is the start of a process which will lead to an improvement in the quality of life and participation of all citizens of South Africa ultimately.

I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether his signature is worth more than that of the hon. member for Berea. They both signed Commission reports. Is his signature worth more than that of the hon. member for Berea? The hon. member for Berea signed a report and within weeks he denied what he had signed. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Sea Point still stand by his signature on the Buthelezi Commission report? Does he? [Interjections.] Let me make the assumption that the hon. member does still stand by that report, because a question was put to this party by the hon. member for Berea, who pretends to be the leader of the PFP in Natal. I want to tell them that we are going to reckon with them. We are going to take the pants off them in Natal. [Interjections.] Their opposition to this Bill is the most serious mistake they have made in their history, and they have made a lot of mistakes. The White electorate are going to reject them, and what that party stands for. At least the hon. member for Groote Schuur is honest enough to admit it is Black majority rule.

It does not. [Interjections.]

Sir, we are having great difficulty in understanding what they stand for what they do not stand for.

I want to come back to the Buthelezi Commission. That commission presented the only kind of constitution, that that party will vote for. That is a certainty.

It is good stuff.

The hon. member says it is good stuff. Mr. Speaker, do you realize that the Buthelezi Commission recommended for Natal and kwaZulu a transfer of power to a Black majority?

The sharing of power.

No, no sharing of power. The commission recommended a constituent assembly of 150 members. They recommended “one man, one vote”, universal adult franchise. There was only a minority veto and a bill of rights, but that is not worth the paper it is written on. Out of that 150 representatives 78%, in the words of the hon. member for Berea, will be Blacks, Zulus. They will be members of Inkatha. 10% of the representatives will be Whites and even less, 2%, will be Coloureds, while 13% will be Indians. So I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he still stands by that formula of the Buthelezi Commission.

You have given the wrong formula.

I am using the figures which the hon. member for Berea gave us. [Interjections.]

It is quite surprising to see how hysterically the Press has reacted to the NRP and how concerned the PFP is about us. For a party which has been called irrelevant so often, the amount of attention which is being paid to it now is phenomenal. [Interjections.] One need only read the newspapers. One sees it all over, even in the NP Press and in the PFP Press. There is only one reason why they fear us: They know that we are true to our principles and that we have worked for them irrespective of the danger to this party, in the interest of South Africa to bring about a just society. If one believes in justice for all the members of the plural society of South Africa, then one can inevitably come to only one conclusion and that is that we cannot have a formula where one group dominates the other. [Interjections.] We can come to only one conclusion and that is that the policy be based on the protection of group rights and, in particular, the rights of the minority groups. Unless one is prepared to accept the realities of South Africa’s plural society, which dictate that its very validity and acceptability to others will have to be based on group rights, one is going off on the wrong track.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill will help us along the road to finding a peaceful and prosperous South Africa in which we shall all be able to live without fear. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House have listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North. We have also shown the same interest in the speech made by the hon. leader of the NRP. I think that the hon. members of the NRP have taken a decision which can be interpreted as putting the interests of South Africa first.

For a long time we have watched, with careful interest, the strategy applied by the NRP and I must say that I am not surprised at all by their stand on this Bill because I have always regarded them as solid South Africans. They realize that there is very much at stake at the present moment; so that one can only describe their attitude as one of immense responsibility. South Africa, and hon. members on this side of the House, should be grateful for the attitude taken by the hon. members of the NRP. I have no doubt in my mind that, in the long run, South Africa will reap the benefits of the attitude taken by the NRP. I believe that, in the long run, race relations in South Africa, as a result of their attitude, will improve. But what is more, as a result of their attitude, we shall also find that the spirit of cooperation and goodwill amongst English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans will improve terrifically.

*Mr. Speaker, today hon. members of the NRP have set an example to all the other opposition parties in this country. Unfortunately not one of those other parties has adopted the same standpoint. Not one of the other two opposition parties was prepared to put the interests of South Africa first at this stage. By this time they should have known that we have been struggling with this question for years now. Yet none of them has a proper answer, a proper alternative, to the plan put forward by this side of the House. They have merely adopted obstructionist tactics. With extravagant words and expressions they are trying to stampede the people of South Africa. I was completely amazed at the fact that the hon. member for Lichtenburg could use more or less the same words that we heard here this afternoon from the hon. member for Pinelands. That is how we have come to know the hon. member for Pinelands. He talks about “diabolical” Bills, “monstrosities” and examples of “barbarism”. We are familiar with that kind of language from the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Lichtenberg, however, adopts the same kind of attitude, even when he knows that the steps taken by this Government are specifically aimed at eliminating the conflict situation in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

For the sake of the record I should like to quote a very strange passage to the House this afternoon. It concerns something that happened in 1971 when the hon. member for Waterberg also contested that constituency. He did so as a Nationalist. Today we heard from the hon. member for Lichtenburg that this Bill means integration from start to finish. In 1971 the hon. member for Waterberg stood in that constituency for the first time. I want to quote from a report that appeared in Die Burger of 8 June 1971. Who was on the platform with the hon. gentleman? It was none other than the present hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. This report carried the following heading—“Verligtheid toegejuig.” Then Mr. Pik Botha spoke of that time. At that meeting there were a large number of HNP supporters, some of whom put questions. I think Mr. Louis Stofberg was also there. They had come to put questions to the hon. member for Waterberg and Mr. Botha. Mr. Botha was reported as having said—

Now listen to this—

One would then have expected the hon. member for Waterberg to object to that. What did he do? He did even better than the hon. member for Wonderboom, the present hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. The report goes on to say—

Today, however, the hon. member for Lichtenburg comes along here and says these constitutional steps will lead to integration, but eleven years ago the hon. member for Waterberg had to defend this side of the House against accusations of integration. [Interjections.] I have never levelled the accusation that the NP’s sports policy was wrong. I have never levelled the accusation that its policy of separating the power and authority of the various groups was wrong. Those hon. members are free to read any of my speeches in Hansard. The hon. member for Waterberg, however, defended these aspects, yet today those hon. members are accusing the NP of the very same thing.

This brings me to the hon. member for Waterberg’s policy, as announced in this debate, his policy of a homeland, this new idea that is suddenly being proclaimed by these great new spirits who developed this philosophy. I want to tell them that it is very easy for those hon. members to say that it was “the Cape liberals” who had wanted it. That is the sort of accusation that is being made today. The hon. member for Waterberg surely had a chance to test the so-called “Cape liberals”, not in Waterberg, but simply amongst the people of Malmesbury. There he could have tested his homeland policy. That was his chance to show how strong that standpoint is. Elis experience in Stellenbosch, however, had already shown him how things stood. Therefore one can go some distance from here, wherever there are 150 Coloured people, and try to make the electorate believe that the Blacks in South Africa are the issue and that this is the start of complete integration. [Interjections.] One can try to do that. The test is here in Malmesbury, Stellenbosch, Worcester, Beaufort West, Piketberg, Cape Town …

Kuruman.

Yes, Kuruman too. That is where the test lies. We know the hon. members will not do it.

What, in fact, is their attitude? Their homeland policy differs in one respect from the policy of the HNP.

In what clause is that?

I am dealing with the constitutional development of South Africa in order to determine whether a possibility exists for a homeland or not. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is, after all, their policy. I shall indeed be getting round to the draft constitution. Hon. members need not be afraid about that.

Their policy does not differ from that of the HNP. Independent homeland development for the Coloureds, says Mr. Louis Stofberg, according to the Transvaler of 2 March of this year, is HNP policy. He says their policy embodies the development or an independent homeland for the Coloureds. The hon. member for Lichtenburg says, according to the Transvaler of 15 March—he is saying the same thing today—that the policy of separate development must consistently be carried through, as far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned, by way of the partitioning of land area and political power. Those hon. members are riding on the HNP’s back, the HNP did the spade-work for them.

And in Germiston you rode on the PFP’s back.

What I am alleging is that it was not the concept of power-sharing that was under discussion last year. They have been supporting the idea of a homeland for a long time now, but they only went along with the 1977 plan for reasons of their own. I want to take that aspect further. In November 1978 the hon. member for Waterberg—he was then a Deputy Minister—addressed a meeting in Bloemfontein. On that occasion he said he disagreed with what Prime Minister Vorster had to say about the Council of Cabinets, i.e. that the Council of Cabinets would have an executive function. He said the Council of Cabinets was just a consultative body for representatives of the three Cabinets. So all the while that hon. member went along with the 1977 plan …

And you?

Now the hon. member is asking me that question. If he knew his political history, he would surely know that I had said, at the time, that the 1977 plan was a move in the right direction. He knows that, does he not?

And that is why you are now a Nationalist.

Exactly. It seems to me I knew more about that plan than that hon. member.

The NP’s information publications in 1977 expressly stated, in connection with the constitutional plan, that the Council of Cabinets would draft legislation on matters of common concern and arrange the programme of priorities for dealing with it in consultation with the leaders of the relevant Parliaments. It was also stated that the Council of Cabinets would function like an ordinary Cabinet, with its policy being formulated by the Chairman after discussions had been held. In those information documents it was said that Ministers could mutually address the various Parliaments.

What I am alleging is that today it is not a question of power-sharing and the sovereignty of the House of Assembly, nor the powers of the President, as those hon. members alleged. There is only one thing involved here. The hon. members know that the proposed constitutional plan will go through; it cannot be stopped. They will find more and more of the other groups also working within this framework. All those hon. members are doing is to get a foothold so they can say: Look at us, we shall protect the interests of the Whites. It is nothing more than an opportunistic step being taken by our friends in the CP. They have only waited for the right moment to do the greatest possible amount of damage to the NP.

You are a “hensopper”, you are a joiner.

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman must withdraw the words “hensopper” and “joiner”.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

What they must realize, is that in the process they have done even greater damage to the interests of South Africa. Today we are going ahead with the writing of South Africa’s history. With this legislation we are starting on a new chapter. Having, for more than a century now, left the interests of the Coloureds and their status largely out of the reckoning, we are now going to change the positition. Even steps that were taken in the past to establish representative and responsible government for the Coloureds in the Cape and elsewhere, were completely off target. As individuals they had a little authority, but as a group they were never part of the picture. We had to find a satisfactory constitutional dispensation for these people. All the decisions could not be made for them by the Whites. Their political rights remained limited. Even today they have very few civic rights. History is full of instances to prove what I am now saying, and I therefore do not want to elaborate any further. We offered the Coloureds separate development, with their own schools and authoritative bodies. There were even times when some of them were on the same voters’ roll as the Whites. They were then told, however, that their voting qualifications had to be increased. The indirect representation they had in this House of Assembly gave rise to a great deal of scepticism. The whole pattern was therefore unsatisfactory, and two conflicting poles developed. On the one hand there were the Coloureds who had to be given a greater say, whilst the Whites on the other hand felt that their right to self-determination would perhaps be jeopardized if the Coloureds were to be accommodated at all levels within White institutions. Today we may question the success of the Coloured Representative Council, but this body was not the only instrument for self-expression. It did, however, plant beacons and taught us the valuable lesson that something like that could never be the end of the road of political development for Coloureds. Any new dispensation had to incorporate the possibility of effective decision-making, giving them a say in everything that affected them. Because this legislation passes that test, we are taking the right step, at the right time, to make South Africa a better country.

Mr. Speaker, if there was one hon. member of the governing party who really spoke from the heart today, who was enthusiastic about this particular Bill and who spoke with conviction, it was the hon. member for De Kuilen. I find it perfectly understandable that the hon. member was just about the only member of the Government party who spoke enthusiastically about this Bill. After all, the hon. member was a member of the old United Party for most of his life and of his political career.

You were, too.

I often sat on the Government side and listened to the hon. member for De Kuilen when, as chairman of the Coloured Affairs study group of the United Party, he put forward his party’s standpoint on Coloured and Indian policy in South Africa. I recall with what gusto he criticized the old National Party, which was founded on the principles of separate development, and how in its place he put forward the policy of federation of the United Party. Consequently, the hon. member for De Kuilen thoroughly enjoyed supporting this Bill today. I also want to tell the hon. member that he and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries should go and read what that Deputy Minister had to say a decade or so ago, viz. that the hon. member for Waterberg and his followers truly represented the old NP. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister displayed exceptional insight at the time. I consider him to be one of the most conservative members in the ranks of the Government party. That is why the hon. member for De Kuilen simply repeated today what he has always believed in.

One of the characteristics of this debate has been that the governing party has shied away from discussing and analysing this Bill, and in the process, they used the method of analysing the policy of the PFP, on the one hand, and the CP’s programme of principles and standpoints on the other. I do not think that either we or the PFP mind, since we seek every possible opportunity of stating our policy. However, what is interesting is that the governing party itself failed to provide an analysis of the views behind this particular Bill.

Now I should like to come back to what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs had to say. On Monday he referred to me and, inter alia, he said the following (Hansard, 16 May 1983)—

I maintain that what the hon. the Minister said here on Monday was untrue.

You definitely used words to that effect.

Yes, that is a different kettle of fish.

I briefly want to refresh the memory of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister was present in the caucus in 1977 when the 1977 legislation was being discussed. I want to refresh the hon. the Minister’s memory, since what I am saying here now, I said that day in the Synod Hall in Cape Town, as well as in the caucus on the 24th, here in this House, as well as on the Transvaal executive. The hon. the Minister must listen carefully now, since I am going to repeat what I said. In the Synod Hall I asked the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, whether the President’s Council, the electoral college and the Council of Cabinets did not contain elements of power-sharing. That was my question to him, since I knew what the background was within Afrikaner politics since the time of the so-called Cape liberal element and their standpoints against Dr. Verwoerd. I put the question against that background, and I want to repeat now that I was the person who put that question to Mr. Vorster. There was one man who rose and said that he thought that there were, in fact, elements of power-sharing in it, and that was the hon. the Minister of Law and Order.

Now you want to crucify me.

Then Mr. Vorster rose and told the meeting that there were no elements of power-sharing in it. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs was the chief information officer of the NP. I want to tell that hon. Minister again today—and he knows that for many years I have had a high regard for him—that he cannot show me a single document in which the NP had stated before 24 February 1982 that it accepted mixed government or power-sharing as its policy and standpoint.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to reply to questions now. [Interjections.]

Would you not merely concede that power-sharing is qualified and defined in all the NP’s documents? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is the last person who could ever point a finger at hon. members of the CP.

I qualified and defined power-sharing in all the information documents of the NP.

That hon. Minister never used the term, or concept of, power-sharing in a single document. Never! He did that for the first time on 24 February last year.

The NP still rejects power-sharing as it is defined in its information documents.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is still a young man, and if he wants to redeem himself in the South African political scene, and if he wants to play a role in South African politics and in the continued existence of his people and of the Afrikaner, he must stand up and acknowledge that he is pre-eminently the man who has changed and who is now adopting a different standpoint. [Interjections.]

Daan, do you still stand by the 1977 proposals?

I have finished speaking to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. [Interjections.] I come now to the hon. member for Pretoria Central. Yesterday he made an extremely theatrical speech here on power-sharing and the concept of “people” (volk). I just want to put two things to the hon. member, since he happens to be present in this House today. One of the characteristics of that hon. member is that he is never present in this House. [Interjections.] He is very rarely present here, and each time he advances as the reason for this absence that he was productively absent. [Interjections.] I just want to refer the hon. member for Pretoria Central to a few aspects of the present Bill. I quote from the Afrikaans text of the preamble to the existing Act as follows—

And then it goes on to state—

Here again we have the term “volk”. Hon. members must try to decide for themselves what the hon. member for Pretoria Central meant when he spoke about “people” (volk). [Interjections.] Furthermore, we find the following words under the heading “die Republiek” in the existing Act—

Here the word “volk” occurs again. Now the hon. member must again go and explain this in his newspapers. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, now I want to turn to the hon. member for Randburg. Yesterday he said that the hon. the Prime Minister had included the hon. member for Waterberg in his Cabinet because he had become the leader of the NP in the Transvaal.

Daan, which “volk” do you belong to? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randburg …

Daan, which “volk” do you belong to? [Interjections.]

Order!

In 1981 the hon. member for Randburg invited the hon. member for Waterberg, as leader of the NP in the Transvaal, to chair a meeting at which the hon. the Prime Minister was to make a speech. At that meeting that day the hon. the Prime Minister said the following of the hon. member for Waterberg—

Hon. members can go and reflect on that themselves. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, now I want to say a few things about the present Bill. In clause 8 it is provided that the House of Assembly will consist of 50 members, the House of Representatives of 25 members, and the House of Deputies of 13 members. Now I want to make the following categoric statements. The first statement I want to make, is that this Bill is depriving the Whites of their sovereignty. That is my first statement. My second statement is that the proposals contained in this draft constitution do not cause the Coloureds and the Indians of South Africa to acquire any real, material rights. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the present Bill affects the sovereignty of this Parliament as an institution. This composition of 50:25:13, if my conclusion is correct, exists because it reflects the ratio between the number of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Since this Bill is the beginning of a new constitutional development, I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: If the population figures in respect of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians change in the future, is the composition of the various chambers of Parliament going to change, too? That is the first question.

According to my interpretation—and the hon. member for Parys said this during the by-election in Parys—there could be more Coloureds than Whites in South Africa in 40 years’ time. If this is the position after 30 or 40 years, does the hon. the Minister make provision for the composition of the Coloured chamber, as well as the electoral college to be adapted to the altered position as far as population figures in South Africa are concerned? If this is not the case, we are creating a situation of white domination in this constitution, so that in 30 or 40 years’ time our children will be placed in the position where they will be the minority and they will have to say to a majority: “Our position is entrenched and you are not allowed to change it.” Then it will be blatant domination. If this composition does not change—and that is what hon. members of the Government party are saying—then I say that perpetual White domination over Coloureds and Indians is being incorporated in this Bill, something which the CP rejects in principle and in essence. That is why I say that this Bill is depriving the Whites of their sovereignty, yet it is not granting the Coloureds and Indians full citizenship and self-determination. That is why the CP maintains that this is a built-in conflict situation, unless the ultimate intention of the left wing of the governing party is that these chambers should eventually become one, as a particular professor has already said.

There is another point I wish to make. If the Coloured people are not defined by the Government party as a people, a people in the making, a nation, or a nation in the making, and if the Coloured people are the same as the Whites as regards their language and their religion and they form a cultural unity, like the Whites, then I want to know on what basis the Coloured people are being placed in a separate chamber. If they speak our language, if they have the same religion as we have and if they are not a separate cultural entity, on what basis are they being placed in a separate chamber? I maintain that there is only one reason for this, it is because the colour of their skin is different from mine. In that case, it is blatant racism. The CP are not the racists. Racism is inherent in this Bill.

This Bill is a conglomeration of old, obsolete ideas of White liberalist ideas in Southern Africa, that is all it is. In this respect, it is not a new Bill. These are not new ideas. One finds old, obsolete liberal standpoints built into this Bill. I want to mention one of them. Cecil John Rhodes said the following—

That is an interesting question. What is civilization? What does it mean to be civilized? I just want to mention by the way that I know Zulus, Tswanas and other Black people who are more civilized than many White people with all their titles. Being civilized does not depend on a person’s culture, race or whatever. The norms for being civilized are something completely different. Cecil John Rhodes said—

Those were the words of Cecil John Rhodes. I should like the governing party to tell us what is Christian and what is civilized. I should very much like to know.

I want to mention another aspect as well. If one of these chambers consists of people who adhere to the Islamic, Mohammedan or whatever faith it may be—after all, we are a country in which religious freedom applies—how is the governing party going to convince that chamber that they should uphold a Christian view of life in terms of the constitution being presented to them? I want to ask my former hon. colleagues since they are going to vote on this legislation today, whether, in view of the history of our people and in view of the struggle to survive until now and to be able to continue to survive in the future, they are sure that they are not today signing away the sovereignty of their people who have been established in this country for centuries? I also want to ask hon. members of the governing party whether they are completely satisfied that they are granting Coloureds and Indians full citizenship in South Africa.

Yes.

If hon. members reply “Yes” to that, I accept it. In view of my knowledge of the history of my people and of the struggle and endeavours of the Whites for survival in South Africa, there are two courses which can be adopted, that of the PFP, or that of the CP.

Mr. Speaker, in the limited time at my disposal it is difficult to reply in detail to some of the questions put by the hon. member for Rissik. Unfortunately this will not be possible. One thing which did strike me, however, in the standpoints adopted by the CP—this is linked to one of the questions put by the hon. member for Rissik—was the question of whether we are going to give full citizenship and real rights to the Coloureds. The hon. member stated that no fundamental rights are being given to the Coloureds and Indians, as if the CP’s policy would eventually give more and better rights to the Coloureds and Indians than we could do.

The CP maintains that the Whites are losing their freedom and that the Coloureds are not getting any additional freedom. How does that work? If we have freedom and we are losing it and the Coloureds are not getting it, what is happening to it? I do not understand that argument. I should like the CP to explain that argument to us in due course. As far as I can see, their only possible explanation could be that these people will all lose their freedom because they will all be under a Presidential dictator. That is the only possibility I can see. However, this argument does not hold water.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg took that argument even further. On the one hand he maintains the Whites are losing some of their freedom, whereas on the other hand he accuses the NP of wanting to entrench White domination in the constitution. Both these things cannot be true. The Whites cannot be losing their freedom on the one hand, while the legislation means White domination on the other. How can he reconcile these two aspects? They are trying to attack us on all fronts, but their arguments do not hold water. This is like the argument the hon. member for Waterberg used regarding power-sharing. He simply made the statement that if one shares power, one loses it. This is a contradiction in terms, because if one shares power, what does it mean? Let me explain this in concrete terms. If you share power with Coloureds, then the Coloureds share power with you. Is that not so? In other words, if we share power with the Coloureds, surely they share power with us. If we therefore lose power when we share it, the same thing is happening to the Coloureds. This therefore means that all power is lost, that there is no power left anywhere. That statement by the hon. member for Waterberg may sound very impressive, but on closer examination it does not hold water. That is why we have ceased discussing concepts such as power-sharing with the CP. It makes no impression on them. They simply cannot understand the argument. I concede—and I said so in this House in 1981—that there is a specific form of power-sharing which, if one structured it in a specific way, and even if one still called it power-sharing, amounted to the surrendering power. That is the form of power-sharing advocated by the Progs. Although it is still called power-sharing, what it amounts to, if one considers the concept, is surrendering of power. I concede that this is true, but then one is no longer dealing with actual power-sharing. By definition, if one shares power, one has to retain something, or else one is surely not sharing it, but giving it away.

There is another matter I also want to take up with the CP, and that is the concept of self-determination, because they simply use this concept at random. The hon. member for Waterberg defines self-determination as follows—and I am quoting from his unrevised Hansard of Monday—

This is totally unqualified and totally without consideration of any other peoples that are possibly living round about. [Interjections.] It is stated here “… to decide every facet of their existence, without interference, themselves”. We even find it necessary to qualify a principle as lofty as the upholding of Christian standards in the preamble to the constitution. In the preamble it is stated—

But what happens when one sees self-determination defined in these absolute terms? In the same way as nationalism, when it gets out of hand, becomes chauvinism, self-determination, if no limits are set on it and no account is taken of the rights of other peoples, becomes imperialism. This is easy to illustrate, but I do not have the time to develop this argument further now. I want to maintain that as long as this is the definition the CP gives of self-determination, they are following a course which will land us in trouble in the future, because this form of self-determination is actually imperialism since it means that one decides on everything for oneself. Any form of joint decision-making on any facet of one’s national life cannot therefore exist in terms of this definition. If the hon. member for Barberton were to think about it carefully, he would have to admit to me that this is what it amounts to. It is because such an absolute form of self-determination is not possible, in a world where there are also other peoples, that the NP has another definition of self-determination. I do not want to give a definition in this connection now, but would prefer to illustrate it.

When a people is in a situation such that others are not able to prescribe to it on those things that are important to it, that people has self-determination. That is how we have arranged matters in this new constitution Bill. As far as education, culture and all the instruments one needs to maintain one’s own identity are concerned, we are preventing any other group having a say. I want to leave the CP at that, for the moment, and get to the PFP, because there is also something in the PFP’s argument that I feel we should take cognizance of.

I am very glad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is here at the moment. The PFP bases its opposition to this constitution Bill on five material points which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized. The first point is that no provision has been made for Blacks. The second point is the alleged dictatotial powers of the President. The third point is the alleged domination of one party in the proposed dispensation. The fourth point is the allegation that all racial discrimination that exists at present is being transferred intact and has, as a matter of fact, been made a prerequisite for the functioning of the new system. The fifth point is the vague role allocated to an Opposition. Unfortunately I do not have time now to go into and to refute each of these allegations, but a great deal has already been said about this. The point I want to make is that all these aspects to which the PFP objected do substantially exist in our present constitution. If we therefore had the present constitution before us, on the basis of its reasoning the PFP would have to refuse to accept our present constitution. It is a fact that in any new dispensation, including this new dispensation we are now advocating, certain elements of the old dispensation are being retained and certain things are also being added. Certain facets of the Westminster system are being retained because we had no option. However, certain things are being added, and what are they? Between 3 million and 3,5 million people who at present have no vote, are being fully enfranchised. This is being given a group basis, in such a way that one group cannot dominate another. [Interjections.] The point is that those people who at present have no say, are being given a meaningful say. Let us confine our argument to that fact. This is the one side of the issue, and a fine characteristic of this legislation. These millions of people will be in a position to have their say and to bring their grievances to this Parliament to be discussed with those people who up till now have had the sole say. This is one of the new elements.

Another aspect I want to refer to is a negative aspect in the sense that no doors are being closed. Those hon. members are so concerned about the future of the Blacks. This constitution Bill does not close any doors that were open in the past. The doors now being left closed are doors which have always been closed; in other words, it is not a case of the constitution Bill closing doors that were previously open. No further impediments are being imposed. There is nothing in the legislation introducing any impediment which did not already exist. The point I want to make is that the opposition’s objections are aimed at the present dispensation, and in this way they want to block the positive aspects of the dispensation. This is the best example imaginable of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

One asks oneself why the Opposition is so strongly opposed to this. I think one of the answers lies in the almost panic-stricken appeal from their ranks: Do not make the Opposition irrelevant! I think they are afraid they will become irrelevant, and I think their fears are justified. But not because of the constitution Bill, because one could maintain that in terms of the Constitution Bill the Opposition would be given a far greater say than it has at present.

Where do you see that in the Bill?

There is indeed something they will be deprived of. Every day in this House they plead the case of the voiceless multitudes outside, but they will not be able to do so any longer because those people will be here to put their own case.

The Blacks as well?

What is more, those people will be able to put the case of the Black man with far greater conviction. The Opposition will therefore be in the position of no longer being able to speak on behalf of the Coloureds, and the Coloureds will be able to speak better on behalf of the Blacks than the Opposition can. If that happens, at least 50% of the speeches they make in this House will fall away. I think that is where one must seek the reason for their strenuous opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly late in the day in our discussion of the Constitution Bill. It is nevertheless a pleasure for me to be able to participate in the discussion.

I want to start with the course the Constitution Bill has followed to where we are today. In the process of discussing the legislation and its formulation, many things happened outside this House and one cannot allow these to pass unnoticed.

We know that after the CP was founded, and they had to find a place for themselves in the political hierarchy in South Africa. The way in which they could do that was to dissociate themselves from the standpoints adopted by the NP and the Government. In order to succeed in that they had to try to destroy the confidence the electorate had in the NP and the Government and to put distrust of the NP and the Government in its place. I shall illustrate this by means of a few examples.

We know that on the occasion of the by-elections in the Bergs the CP caused the story to take root that a Black Chamber was coming. They said that a Black Chamber would be set up within the proposed constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.] This story was proclaimed as the truth in the Bergs, and the CP had a share in it; we came across it everywhere.

By whom?

I did not attend any of the meetings of the hon. member and so I cannot say that I heard it from him, but some of the representatives said that this story was being told. After all, it is true that they were saying so.

Order! Hon. members are not entitled to give a loud running commentary on the hon. member’s speech. The hon. member for Ventersdorp may proceed.

Now that it is clear from the Constitution Bill that no provision is being made for a Black Chamber, they are ignoring that fact. What they have neglected to do, is to put this matter right with the electorate and to tell them that they did not do justice to the integrity of the Government and the leader of the National Party. This is an important aspect. But that is not all. They also said that we were going to have mixed schools. They said that own education would not apply in this new constitution. Those are the stories we heard everywhere in the Bergs.

Stop telling stories.

I am not telling stories, I am telling the truth. We know exactly what went on in connection with all these things. In the guidelines the hon. the Prime Minister identified a few matters that were going to be own affairs. He said that education was one of them. He went on to say that the character of this House of Assembly would not change. According to the proposed constitution this House will be the White Chamber which will be called the House of Assembly. I find it very interesting that the CP cannot differentiate between the Parliament and the respective chambers. They criticized us about the sovereignty of Parliament. When we refer to the White Chamber as the House of Assembly …

Is where we are now sitting the Parliament of South Africa?

I never said that the House of Assembly is the Parliament. The House of Assembly was one Chamber and one part of the Parliament and the Senate was another. The nature and character of this House will remain the same.

The CP told malicious stories about education matters. They tried to make the voters suspicious of the hon. the Prime Minister and the leaders of the National Party. When they realized that this was not going to happen, they did not go back to the voters and tell them that they had given them the wrong information in that connection. They did not tell them that they were wrong and that the NP was right. They omitted to do so.

But that is not all. What did they also say? They said that there were not going to be any own affairs and that all the matters would be general affairs.

We still think so.

How dense can one be? I thought that a member of this House had to have certain qualifications. However, it seems to me as if hon. members cannot even read the schedule. The hon. member for Waterberg discussed agriculture in reference to own affairs. Production and extension have been classified as own affairs. Those hon. members never said that.

Today I want to say in this House that a political party which wants to undermine the voters’ confidence in the leaders of another political party and in addition does not tell the truth, does not have the right to exist in the long term. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy it when they make interjections, because it proves to me that I am getting under their skin.

I want to deal with another matter as well. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that in the early sixties Dr. Verwoerd advocated the starting of a Coloured homeland. However, how can the hon. member say that in view of the statements which have repeatedly been read out in this House in connection with Dr. Verwoerd? The hon. member for Jeppe quoted the 1949 Hansard to prove that Dr. Verwoerd advocated a Coloured homeland. Let us accept for argument’s sake that Dr. Verwoerd did in fact say that. They claim so vociferously that they are supporters of Dr. Verwoerd and they hold him in such high esteem for what he did and what his ideals were. We in the NP do the exactly the same thing, but one thing we do not do, is to ascribe a standpoint to him which he did not once implement in the 17 subsequent years, not even when he was Prime Minister for eight years. As I knew Dr. Verwoerd, I therefore cannot accept that he was a man who would have advocated something without implementing it. He would have implemented it if he had believed in it. After all, he announced the Bantustan policy in this House in 1958. If in 1958 he could announce the Bantustan policy, which formed the basis of the self-governing Black nations …

Bantustan?

Bantustan. At that stage they were still called Bantustan. [Interjections.] At that stage the hon. member for Rissik was not yet a member of the NP. At that stage Dr. Verwoerd announced the creation of self-governing Black States and implemented them. He gave them character and content. For that reason I now ask: Would a man of Dr. Verwoerd’s calibre have neglected to implement a Coloured homeland if he had believed in it? I maintain that any person who makes such an allegation, is ascribing a negligence to Dr. Verwoerd which he was not capable of. I want to state that categorically here today.

I now come to another matter, namely a Coloured homeland. If the CP is advocating a Coloured homeland, what does that essentially imply? It implies, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg said, that the Coloureds have to be given total freedom and total independence in their own areas, as is the case with the Black nations. If the CP is propagating this, I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik: In the years he was in the NP, how could he say that we had to move away from the Westminster system? After all he supported it. Now I want to ask: Why should we move away from the Westminster system if we are going to give all the other nations their own independent States? If one propagates a Coloured homeland one has to adhere to the old Westminster system. Then there is no necessity to move away from it. Is that not exactly what happened in Rhodesia? When we wanted a division of government and political rights here in connection with the Black nations, Rhodesia did not follow that policy. They followed the Westminster system with detrimental consequences. The CP now wants to adopt exactly the same system in connection with the Coloureds, and then at a later stage, when they cannot establish a Coloured homeland, if the Coloureds refuse to accept it, what will they do? Then the Westminster system remains as the only alternative.

What about Buthelezi?

No, I am asking the questions. That is a problem.

What about the Black nations that refuse to accept independence?

I have been asked the question: What about the Black nations that refuse to accept independence? After all, we know that President Sebe did not want to accept independence. He said so and argued against it, but how did it eventually come about? Not by reviling him and abusing him.

Who is reviling the Coloureds?

That was not accomplished by reviling and abusing him. [Interjections.] That was accomplished by means of negotiations initiated by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Rissik say to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs: “You are a liar and you know it”?

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

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Today I want to state here that it will require discretion and powers of conviction on the part of the Government to get all the Black states opt for independence.

Surely the same applies to the Coloureds.

Yet that is what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker. If the Coloureds refuse to accept a homeland—and there is not one of their leaders who is at present willing to accept it; whereas there are Black homeland leaders who are prepared to do so—I want to ask what the CP is then going to do with the Westminster system which they at present have? After all they will not then have changed the system. It will continue to exist on the same basis. I now want to know from the hon. member for Rissik what he would do in such a situation? [Interjections.] It is very easy and also very idealistic to speak like the hon. member for Lichtenburg did here this afternoon, but what he said amounted to an over-simplification of matters. He wants to give the Coloureds a homeland, perhaps somewhere in Namaqualand. The CP is promising them equal opportunities, except that someone is going to get very little and someone else is going to get virtually everything. After all, that is what it amounts to. [Interjections.]

I now want to ask what the CP is going to do when this matter backfires on them? What are they going to give the people of South Africa then? [Interjections.] I believe that the most advantageous political approach in the long term depends on honesty, correctness, and frankness. The CP also makes use of stereotype terms, which they want to claim for themselves, for example their claim that they represent the Whites and the Afrikaners. We in the NP also represent the Whites. The CP does not have the sole right to use those terms. We can represent the Afrikaner and the Whites just as well if not better. Indeed, the NP has proved over the years that it can do so. Thus far it has done so decently, and over the years it has also led this country in peace and prosperity to where we are today. This will also be the case under the new constitutional dispensation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Ventersdorp will accept my not participating in the protracted debate which has already resulted in the election of the Bergs, but confining myself instead to the Bill under discussion and to other matters. The hon. member for Helderkruin raised certain matters to which I shall reply specifically in the course of my speech. In fact, at the moment I am the last Opposition speaker who can participate in this debate.

†Mr. Speaker, one thing that has emerged from this debate is that no hon. member has underestimated the importance of this discussion. It has been an occasion upon which this exclusive White winner take all Parliament has admitted that the constitutional status quo based on White exclusiveness and on the concept of the winner take all is no longer a viable basis for peaceful co-existence in South Africa. This is, of course, something for which my colleagues and I in the PFP, in the PRP and in the Progressive Party before that, have worked long and hard. It was during the years in which the NP was doing everything in its power to bolster constitutional systems based on the twin pillars of White exclusiveness and winner take all parliamentary sovereignty. That is the political argument that has been going on for 20 years or more.

To the extent to which this debate is an admission by the Government that it has been wrong in the past, it is to be welcomed. To the extent to which this is an indication that the White Parliament wants to move away from the status quo, it opens up new opportunities for the future. The future of this country will, however, not be determined by this Government’s admission of what has been wrong. It is going to be determined by what this White Parliament is going to do to put matters right. [Interjections.]

The future will not be determined by the fact that we have abandoned the constitutional status quo. It is going to be determined by the quality of the new constitutional structures which we put in the place of the status quo. When I consider the quality of the new constitutional structures envisaged in this Bill, and the nature of the political forces which, we believe, they will generate, I must admit that I weep for the future of my country and its people. [Interjections.] Yes, I weep for the future of my country and its people when I consider what this Government is doing. [Interjections.] When I consider the pathetic explanations of the NRP why, in spite of their so-called principles, they are going to cross the floor and vote with the Government, all I can do is refer them to the leading article in this morning’s The Citizen, a newspaper which normally supports the NRP against the PFP. I quote—

I also think of the tortuous explanations we have had of why this Bill should be supported. There seem to have been only two rare moments of truth in this debate from the Government’s side. One was when the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare explained that in the end this Bill aims to entrench White baasskap. He used much more refined language, but that is what it was about: When the chips are down, power must rest with the White man in South Africa, and that is the essence of the Bill.

The other moment was not part of a speech, but it was the reaction of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to something the hon. member Lichtenburg said in his speech.

*In essence the hon. member for Lichtenburg said with reference to the Government: “You are throwing the whole lot together, Indian, Coloured and White.” When the hon. member said that the hon. the Minister was rather upset and indignant. Why? He said it was not true. The words “throw together” are, of course, not elegant, but are the people not being brought together in one Parliament? Are they not being brought together in one Cabinet? Are they not being brought together in one President’s Council? Are they not being brought together in joint committees?

That is an over-simplification.

Why is the hon. the Minister running away from it?

Because it is only half of the truth.

Why does he not say “that is so”? Is the experience of the Battle of the Bergs rooted so deeply in his soul that he cannot bring himself to say this now? Is he running away from the fact that by means of this Bill the Government envisages bringing these people together?

The voters of Waterkloof understood my message.

Having listened to the explanations advanced and having studied the Bill, I feel I want to weep for my country, and I believe millions of South Africans feel the same way. Here the Government has an opportunity which it is wasting. Here we have a Government that is simply failing to meet the challenge of the times. It is not that the Government does not know that the status quo is no longer tenable, because it does. It is not so much that the Government does not know what is wrong, but that it simply cannot bring itself to do what is right. I believe the Government lacks the insight, the will, and, to put it bluntly, the strength of political character to put something viable and enduring in the place of what it knows is an untenable status quo.

Like what?

Why is the Government allowing a tremendous opportunity to slip by? I believe there are two reasons. Firstly, it is clear that the Government still remains tied to its ideological past so that it cannot walk freely into the future, let alone lead the people of South Africa into it. Secondly, it is clear that the Government cannot bring itself to weaken the hold which it as the NP has on the levers of power of government, in South Africa. That is what it is about.

If one then looks at the Bill and analyses it, what does one find the Government doing? It is turning its back on the status quo of White exclusiveness in Parliament, but in its place it is entrenching White domination. It is also abandoning the status quo concept of “the winner takes all” in a Parliamentary system, but at the same time it is entrenching an even more repugnant concept, namely that of one-party majoritarianism in a presidential system. That is what it is doing. These two features of the Government’s plan, viz. entrenched White domination and entrenched one-party majoritarianism, together with the total exclusion of Black South Africans are recipes for polarization and for on-going political strife and turmoil in South Africa. They will ensure that this new constitution, far from being an instrument of national unity or source of national pride, will itself be the focal point of the political power struggle in our country for years to come. That is what is going to happen. This constitution will not only divide White, Black, Coloured and Indian, but it will divide White and White. White South Africans, as I know them, will not take kindly to one-party dictatorship.

The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will be the first to admit—I refer to his opening speech—that he said precious little specific about the Bill he was introducing. His speech oozed good intentions and was heavily interspersed with well-worn clichés and quotations, contemporary and historical, from around the world. The hon. the Minister should have realized that the people of South Africa were entitled to expect that this would be a very serious debate about the constitutional future of South Africa and not the intentions of the Government. He should have realized that constitutions do not function on intentions or clichés. They function because of the structures that are created and by the processes that are set in motion.

Let us look at the preamble to the proposed constitution. The hon. the Minister must realize that Christian and civilized standards are not upheld by having reference to them in a preamble when the substance of the constitution allows the Government to harass, bully and persecute squatters at KTC. He must also realize that the rights and liberties of all in our midst are not respected when the substance of our constitution denies political rights to 70% of our population.

That is not true.

The constitution of South Africa does deny Blacks rights in this country. He must realize that the independence of the judiciary is not upheld when the constitution allows a Government to deny citizens access to the courts and to ban and banish them and to detain them without trial. He must also realize that private initiative and effective competition is not furthered by including this in the preamble when the Government of the day is entitled to deny to the majority of our people the right to freehold title to land.

As far as the exclusion of Blacks is concerned, both the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development have confirmed our worse fears. They have highlighted the fatal flaw in the approach of the Government towards constitution making. Instead of treating the constitution as a mechanism for resolving conflict, the Government treats it as if it were an NP toy. It seems to think that political power can be turned on and off like a tap. It seems to think that political rights can be handed out as if they were daisies in springtime.

We say to the Government, as my hon. colleagues have said, if it is essential to give Coloured and Indian South Africans constitutional rights so that they can exercise co-responsibility with Whites in South Africa, it is equally, if not more, essential to give those same constitutional rights to the Black South Africans of our country. This view of ours is not based on an ideology or political philosophy. It is based on the fact that to admit that Blacks are permanently in South Africa, to admit that they are increasingly integrated into our economy, to admit that they have a claim to political representation and yet, at the same time to declare, as the hon. the Minister has declared, that the Government has no intention of departing from its course of developing “different and separate structures for Black nations” is to build instability and conflict into the very foundations of the constitution of South Africa.

I believe things have already gone wrong with the hon. the Minister’s constitution. Why have things gone wrong? It is because this Government has no clear understanding of the significance of a constitution and really has no respect for it. Instead of trying to see this as an instrument that seeks to provide the legal and structural framework within which politics can take place, conflicts can be resolved and the government of the country can take place, this Government sees this constitution as contained in the Bill as an instrument for institutionalizing the policies of the NP and for entrenching the power of the NP. That is what it is about.

It is for this reason that this Government has not even tried to find consensus in South Africa for this new measure. It is not prepared to negotiate or compromise or to seek agreement, except on its own terms. It has simply brushed aside the views of Black leaders in South Africa.

The Government has not made a single meaningful concession to the Coloured and Indian people in order to try to reach consensus. It has even rejected the consensus achieved in its own President’s Council on the key issue of the separation of the legislative and the executive powers in South Africa.

Now the Government rushes on, forcing a Second Reading debate in Parliament before the public, which is vitally affected by the Bill which was published 10 days ago, has had an opportunity to study and to digest and to respond to the proposals contained in the Bill. Against this background the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has the temerity to say—

*How can a government expect to reach consensus within the framework of a constitution when it is not even prepared to seek consensus around that constitution itself?

†I believe the hon. the Minister has done South Africa a disservice by avoiding frank, open consensus-seeking discussion on the Government’s proposals. The hon. the Minister has done South Africa a disservice. His performance, the very procedure which the hon. the Minister has followed, generated opposition to the point where there is opposition of a fundamental kind to this Bill among people of all sections of the South African community. The Government of South Africa ignores that opposition at its peril.

I should like to take a look at the Bill itself. What has been presented to this House is a misshapen, and in all likelihood, an unworkable constitutional oddity which, in spite of the valiant efforts of the Government’s law advisers and legal draftsmen, is the product of a futile attempt to reconcile the NP’s race policy and the maintenance of the NP’s political power with the political and constitutional needs of a modern multiracial South Africa.

By failing to provide for Black South Africans in this constitution, the Government has left a huge and destabilising void in the constitution itself. By failing at this stage to define the rights and functions of local and regional authorities, this Bill leaves South Africa with a unitary system of government. By failing to separate the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, and by putting the constitution beyond the testing power of the courts, it paves the way for executive tyranny. By leaving the rights and liberties of individual South Africans at the mercy of politicians, it continues to debase the concept of the rule of law. By entrenching apartheid and discrimination in the structures of government, it undermines the security of all groups in the South African population. Finally, by building White domination and one-party majoritarianism into the constitutional system, this Government is ensuring that the new constitution of South Africa is going to be a source of bitter division and bitter strife for many years.

Let us be clear on one cardinal point in respect of this constitution: In this Bill the rights, the powers, the functions and the sovereignty of Parliament are going to be curtailed and restricted. On the other hand the awesome powers which the executive already has under the Westminster system are going to be extended and entrenched. Parliament, consisting of three Houses, will no longer decide on what matters it can discuss, what laws it can pass and what amendments it can make. Parliament, as the body elected by the voters of South Africa, will no longer be free to make the final decisions on matters which are vitally important to all the people of South Africa. Parliament will not even be free to elect an acting Speaker or to decide on its own quorums.

So much for Parliament, let us rather look at the other side. Let us look at the NP and the NP’s new White President.

In the present circumstances, even with the NP as it is today—a minority party among the voters—in the new constitution it will be a minority party in Parliament as a whole. The President, who will be the executive head of State, will in effect be elected by the NP caucus. The Speaker, who is the ultimate authority over all three Houses, will in effect be elected by the NP caucus. The President’s Council, which alone can make a final and binding decision on matters of dispute between the three Houses, is dominated by members nominated by the NP caucus and the NP’s President. The White Nationalist President who would not be an integral part of Parliament as the Prime Minister as the head of the Executive is today, would have vast new powers to interfere in, to direct and at times even to veto the legislative process. The White Nationalist President, in the exercise of his constitutional functions, would be beyond the testing power of the courts. The White Nationalist President would not only have the very considerable powers associated with the executive system of presidency as defined in this Bill but he would also take over the awesome judicial and legislative powers that have been given to the Executive by 35 years of the NP’s abuse of the Westminster system. The President outside of Parliament will be able to rule South Africans by decree in very many ways. He will be able to ban people, he will be able to restrict people, he will be able to act against people without their having recourse to the courts of this land.

However, if that is what is being done on the one hand then let me also say that if the Government’s entrenchment of one-party majoritarianism and White baasskap in South Africa is disturbing and unacceptable, then I find the Government’s cynicism towards the Coloured and Indian people quite appalling. What this Government is saying—and this flows both from the Bill and from the explanations that we have had from this side of the House—to the Coloured people is: Yes, you can have some say but on our terms and in accordance with our rules and within the framework of the apartheid structures that we will create for you. Provided you operate within our rules you can have a say but if you try to bend those rules, if you try to change apartheid, if you try to move away from discrimination, bear in mind it is the White Parliament, it is the White majority, it is the White President who will have the final say. What kind of consensus is this? What kind of consensus government is it that provides for the domination by the White group of all the other groups in South Africa? Even if elected to Parliament a Coloured person is going to have no effective say. He is going to be locked into a minority position in respect of almost every important aspect. He is going to be subject to the overriding decisions of the President’s Council. He is going to be limited in what he can say and what he can decide by the arbitrary decisions of the President.

In conclusion, one must ask: Where does the Government and where does this House go from here? I believe that the South African society, including our political society, is caught up in a compelling ongoing process of change and reform. Nothing that the Government is going to do is going to stop that. By introducing measures of this nature that will entrench apartheid in our constitution and that will try to reinforce the political power of the NP, the Government may retard the process of reform for a while. That it may be able to do. By means of this legislation the Government may be able to make reform more difficult in South Africa. It may even damage the movement for reform in South Africa. However, this Government will not be able to stop reform. This Government should realize that because of the content of the Bill and the way this matter has been handled over the past year, the Bill is rejected by a majority of people of all races in South Africa. This Bill is not a reform measure. This Bill is an anti-reform measure in South Africa. I believe that if this Government had the interests of its citizens at heart it would withdraw this Bill. It would try to seek a new consensus around a new acceptable constitution for South Africa.

What would you put in its place?

We have told you.

In the process, it would have to turn its back on the members of the CP not because the members of the CP are not concerned about the future of their country, because they are, but because their political policies are based on a fantasy of a South Africa that never was and a South Africa where they have never been.

We will be part of that consensus. We shall share in seeking that consensus. However, let there be no doubt about the fact that seeking consensus in respect of a new and acceptable constitution is one thing. I want this Government to have no doubt about this whatsoever that we in the PFP are going to fight tooth and nail against any attempt by this Government to ram its race policy in the form of a new constitution down the throats of the people of South Africa. That is why we oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point has been a front-bencher in this House for a number of years. He was in the wilderness. For a while, when he was leader of that party outside this House. During the years he spent outside this House, as well as those he spent in it, he was to state his standpoint both inside and outside this House. In fact, the hon. member did everything in his power to do so; he did not hide his thoughts under a bushel. In the urban areas in particular he tried to promote his standpoint. He and the party he belongs to are still the Opposition. They have never been denied the right to promote their standpoint in an effort to see it triumph.

On this occasion, the hon. member told us that he would also be participating in the future dispensation and that he would try to obtain consensus, but that he would still be working towards an ideal constitution. What has he achieved in the present dispensation and what will he achieve in the proposed dispensation? All he has succeeded in doing all these years has been to generate animosity towards South Africa, towards the NP, with its good intentions in respect of all the population groups. That is what he has succeeded in doing. He has not initiated any meaningful reform whatsoever. All he has done, has been to generate animosity and to sow suspicion against us.

Now the hon. member is sowing suspicion in respect of the proposals before this House as well. He said that he was going to participate, but then he pointed out all the shortcomings it contained, which were not really shortcomings at all. In doing so, the hon. member is going to cause a few black marks to be recorded against our name once again. Fortunately his credibility as far as Mr. McHenry and so on are concerned is no longer so sound. [Interjections.] Consequently, it will no longer carry the same weight. I regret to tell him that, but the hon. member knows that it is true. Fortunately for us, it no longer carries the same weight as in the past. [Interjections.]

It is true that the hon. member raised a number of interesting points. He is creating the impression that the Black people are being competely left out of the dispensation that is to be created in terms of the Constitution Bill. I wish to state categorically that the statement of the hon. member for Sea Point that the Black people have been left out of the future dispensation, is incorrect, since 10 million Black people who were previously part of the Republic of South Africa and who formed part of the politics of this country, have already exercised their option. They will defend that option they exercised and which led them to full option. They will defend tooth and nail that option they exercised and which led them to full independence—we know that. There are several million of these people who have already progressed a long way on the path of self-government. Just try to take that away from them! As far as the people who have not yet travelled that path are concerned—there are indeed very few of them—in terms of the good intentions of the Government, a plan will indeed be devised. This is the declaration of intent that has been put into practice, and the hon. member knows it.

As far as constitutional affairs are concerned, we have already placed many millions of people on a path concering which we have no hesitation in saying to the world that a dispensation has been established for them which is capable of standing the test of time.

It is true that we have not yet progressed that far in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians, and that is what we are trying to do at present. The model we are presenting, is quite apparent and very clearly identifiable in the proposals before this House at present.

I notice that the formula the hon. member for Pinelands is advancing in his attack on the proposed dispensation, has nothing to do with Coloureds and Asians. He concentrated only on Black people.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Houghton adopted the same approach. Let me ask them directly whether they support the proposed dispensation in respect of the Coloureds and the Asians.

No, not at all.

Clearly you have not been listening the last three days.

Those hon. members did not make it very clear, since their speeches solely concerned the Black people.

They should be present in this House.

I want to raise a further point in respect of the hon. members for Houghton and Pinelands. Those hon. members have created the impression that we in this country do not make provision for human rights in respect of the people who are going to be living and moving within this dispensation. In fact, hon. members created the impression that no provision was being made for human rights in the proposed new constitution. I want to say categorically to those hon. members here and now that we in this country certainly do not compare unfavourably with the rest of the world as far as the provision of human rights, of basic civil liberties, is concerned. [Interjections.] In 1970 our ambassador at the UN said as much there, and in 1974 he said that here, too, as a member of this House. I am speaking about the present hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. He gave us an explanation as to why we need by no means take a back seat to anyone. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister pointed out to us another ray of light. Civil liberties which are written into a constitution, which are laid down in a bill of rights, are not as powerful as those which are part of the common law and statutory law and which are guaranteed by our court rulings.

The hon. member for Houghton said that we should have a bill of rights, since our court rulings are watered down. The hon. member for Houghton forgets that Ghana, which was called a “sparkling example”, had a bill of rights in their constitution. At that time that country had a sound budget. Not only did it have a good budget, but it had been led to independence over many years by Britain. However, what has happened now? Today nothing remains of those human rights. In this country the NP and all the population groups have together found a solution such that we can practice our civil liberties in such a way, that South Africa has become a country of stature. By “civil liberties” we understand our right to participate in the process of law, not only freedom of movement and freedom of speech, but also freedom of association in terms of the law, the right to draw up a will, to go to court if one’s rights have been violated, etc. In the process South Africa has become a large industrial country. We are also highly thought of as an investment country. Why is this the case? Because people know that civil liberties, the process of law …

It is quite sickening.

I know it hurts to hear what I am saying. South-Africa can guarantee all this. South Africa can guarantee this although no bill of rights was incorporated in either the 1910 constitution or the 1961 constitution. This has been possible because at the same time we had representatives in Parliament who kept within the limits of the law. They participated in the discussion of Bills and put their case to the outside world and, if necessary, they defended these laws. Moreover, our courts have been accessible to everyone. Everyone has been able to approach the courts with regard to the implementation of these laws. These are the facts of the matter, and this is what has made South Africa a great country. As a result of the laws we made and the principle of the accessibility of the courts, we have succeeded in maintaining the delicate balance among the various population groups in this country. We have done this in such a way as not to encroach upon one another’s rights. Now the question arises: Does this proposed constitution in any way assail human rights? Not at all. I want to tell hon. members unequivocally today that this constitution is the first constitution with the national objective of respecting and protecting the human dignity and the rights and freedom of all. In fact, we are taking it a step further. We are stating as a national objective that we shall also uphold the independence of the judiciary. In future, the preamble to our constitution will not merely be a preamble. We shall all be judged in terms of its goals and national objectives, and surely it is true that with these guarantees we are giving one and all, guarantees which are going to operate within the bounds of this constitution, people will know that their human rights are being protected.

The hon. member for Houghton expressed strong disapproval of, for example, the arguments of the President’s Council with regard to why proposals concerning human rights cannot be included in this constitution. She knows that she called it “Thatcher’s exercise”. I think the hon. member should go and read it again. To give the President’s Council its due, I think that it was an extremely fine piece of work which, in fact, analysed the advantages and disadvantages. I think that for the sake of the record we should say why we did not spell this out explicitly. On the one hand, as far as the advantages are concerned, it will undoubtedly be the case that a bill of human rights will state very clearly principles such as equality, equal treatment, protection of the individual and the protection of children. But will we have the protection of children, to take this as an example, embodied in the constitution? It does not make sense. This is an important Bill the basic guideline of which is the protection of all human rights and ensuring that those human rights will not be violated.

Let us now consider the disadvantages of incorporating this in the constitution. For example, the right to participate in the legal process is so broad, that we would have to draw up an extremely long schedule. We cannot entrench everything. For example, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are matters which would cause problems for us if we were to entrench them in the constitution. We are aware that every day the freedom of speech is abused and that it is restricted by our laws on libel. If we wish to guarantee the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly for all—I am aware that hon. members want this—what would happen if the AWB were to disrupt meetings of the PFP? Would the PFP be satisfied with that? I am sure they would not. As soon as such principles are written into a constitution, they create standards whereby the validity of legislation has to be tested. Then we shall have reached the stage hon. members would very much favour, viz. that we should have to grant our courts a testing right. I should be the first to say that we should look into and consider this. However, the moment one does this, one politicizes one’s judiciary. Then one is calling upon the judiciary to pass judgment on politically motivated legislation.

What do they do in America?

Apart from that, allow me to refer hon. members to what a certain authority on constitutional law, Mr. Hunt, said at the University of Cape Town. He said—

The moment we start ignoring the mechanisms we have created—and the mechanisms we have created can work, providing all parties co-operate—the courts will not be involved. However, should we create a testing right, it would make that mechanism superfluous. That is why we cannot accede to that. Therefore our situation demands that we should place our courts on a footing—an independent footing—and afford them the opportunity of passing judgment on basic rights as contained in the common law, in statutory law, etc., at all times.

In conclusion, I just want to refer to one other aspect. If we consider the constitutions of other countries in which human rights and other rights are entrenched, we encounter odd phenomena. I do not want to mention countries by name. However, in a particular country in which people have the constitutional right to carry arms—an entrenched right—that right cannot be repealed. In another country, it is impossible to try and introduce legislation with regard to prescribed working hours or compensation in respect of employees, because that is in conflict with the provisions entrenched in the constitution. This kind of thing is unacceptable to us. Consequently, the broadest possible base we are able to offer for a future South Africa, in which we have a delicate balance to maintain among the interests of all groups, is to be found in the perpetuation of our statutory law and our common law and in the independence of our judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, since this debate began on Monday, 41 speakers have participated in it. I shall try to reply later tonight to the respective standpoints of the various political parties. However, you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to confine myself for the moment to a certain peculiarity which I have observed in this House. That is the conspicuous absence of one hon. member of this House. [Interjections.]

Do not worry. He will be here to vote against you.

You always hint at things, but it is always your party that splits. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition while he was making his speech. He will concede that, I am sure. Nor did I interrupt the hon. the leader of the CP or the hon. the leader of the NRP. Therefore I expect the same courtesy from hon. members on the other side when I am replying to a debate and reacting to issues raised here by hon. members themselves.

Your colleagues interjected throughout. [Interjections.]

Order! I think we have had sufficient interjections now. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the hon. member for Groote Schuur should be so quick to react, even before I have identified the hon. member concerned. [Interjections.] Surely there is not only one member of the PFP who is not present while I am speaking at the moment.

Where is Harry?

Looking at them, I see that several of them are absent.

Do not worry. We will all be here to vote against you. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, surely it is a fact that the hon. member for Yeoville … [Interjections.] … is not a man who is reticent about his proposals on what the constitutional dispensation in South Africa should look like. In fact, he has written several newspaper articles recently, in which he has set out his views concerning the kind of constitutional reform that should be brought about in the country. For this very reason it must surely seem strange that the writer of these constitutional articles, in which he outlined his models and described the requirements for such models, should be absent from this House for the greater part of the debate. [Interjections.]

However, there is another important phenomenon which can be observed here, Mr. Speaker. This is that the hon. member for Yeoville, who obviously has definite ideas on this particular subject, has not availed himself of the opportunity of stating his standpoints in this House, so that they could be placed on record.

He was not allowed to do so. [Interjections.]

However, I have a different suspicion in this connection, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that there is another reason. It is not that the hon. member did not want to put his standpoint, but that he was not afforded the opportunity of doing so. [Interjections.]

That is absolute rubbish.

It is said that words are powerful, but that silence has a special meaning; and the silence of the hon. member for Yeoville, whether it has been forced upon him or whether he has chosen it of his own free will, has a story to tell us, and that story has to do with the inherent division within that party.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton. This is not the first time she has won. [Interjections.] Not only is it not the first time she has won; it is not the first time she has placed a leader of her party on the road to his downfall, because the hon. member for Houghton has already broken two leaders of the Progressive Party—and one of them attempted to make a come-back tonight. The only way for the hon. member for Sea Point to make a come-back will be to join the group. Now I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if I were he, I should be careful of a fellow party member who has the record that she had of destroying men politically.

I want to refer to the statements made by the hon. member for Sea Point. He said that as far as the Westminster system was concerned, the NP Government…

It abused the system.

I thought that the system in terms of the present constitution, within which he functions and within which his party functions, was a system in which the winner takes all.

You abused it.

In what way did we abuse it? [Interjections.]

You must not win so many elections, Chris! [Interjections.]

Apparently one abuses the system if within the system one wins elections. The basic problem with the official Opposition is that they do not believe in this system. They do not believe the winner should take all. They believe the loser should take all.

The hon. member further made the statement that it is what this Parliament is going to do that is going to determine the future of this country. I subscribe to that statement and also to the sentiments expressed in it. However, I have here two documents to which I want to refer. First of all, I have here the constitution of the PFP. Nowhere in this constitution do I find the constitution they propagate for South Africa.

That is a domestic constitution. [Interjections.]

What I do find is a commitment to certain principles that are enunciated in this constitution. A very important one is the following—I only have the Afrikaans text available—

*Remember, the hon. member for Sea Point says that the body which should bring about reform in this country is this Parliament.

It should take the final decision.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Speaker, when proceedings were suspended I was reacting to the hon. member for Sea Point and I was about to read from their constitution.

Their domestic constitution.

Yes, I concede immediately, their domestic constitution. That is one just for themselves. I want to read from the Afrikaans version, the Pretoria version of their constitution. I do not have the Hillbrow or other version with me. I quote—

Those guarantees are not specified—

*However, the official Opposition went further and appointed a team of investigators, a commission, which had to work out proposals for them—not a constitution—which they could take to the national convention. So those hon. members do not have a constitution for the country. They do not have any constitutional proposals which they want to submit to the electorate. They only have constitutional proposals which they want to submit to an unspecifiable and unspecified convention. However, see what has happened tonight. [Interjections.]

†I will come to that. Just give me a chance. The hon. member for Sea Point said some very important things. He quoted from The Citizen of today to support his view in terms of his own perception of what the NRP must do. This is very important. What does this article say? This article, which he uses in support of his argument, states that an Opposition’s function is to oppose. Because the NRP does not oppose, it has been rejected by The Citizen and also by that hon. member. What were the pious words which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition uttered in this House when he assumed office? He said that his approach would be to support the Government when he agreed with it and to criticize it when he disagreed with it. However, his predecessor in office quotes The Citizen to support the view that the function of the Opposition is to oppose.

Read the quotation fully. You are ignoring the quotation.

I want to go further. The hon. member for Sea Point actually propagated a standpoint tonight which is symptomatic of the official Opposition. When one analyses their arguments—I am going to do so—in respect of the constitutional proposals, there is one inevitable inference which must be drawn, i.e. that they do not believe they can become the Government of this country, nor do they aspire to do so. If they had believed in their ability to become the Government of this country and if they had had the will to do so, they could not have argued that the constitution represents or reflects NP domination.

Are you going to have a general election before the Bill comes into operation?

I am replying to statements made by hon. members of the Opposition, including the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I can understand that the hon. member for Groote Schuur would rather not hear the answers. I can understand that, because he himself has been a yo-yo in South African politics. Surely this is a fact. Surely the hon. member for Groote Schuur cannot claim to have been consistent in his political thinking in South Africa. Surely he knows that what I am telling him now is true. After all, he has had a lot of political alliances in his life. Therefore I can understand that he should want me to keep quiet about his party. But I do not intend to do so. The hon. member for Sea Point said last year, and I wonder whether he still remembers it, that he would welcome the day when Coloureds and Indians came to this Parliament…

To this House.

Wait a minute, just give me a chance. He said it did not matter whether there were one, two or three chambers. It is recorded in his Hansard. I shall quote it to him presently. Last year, the hon. member for Sea Point was ecstatic about the fact that Coloureds and Indians could come to Parliament, irrespective of whether it consisted of two or three chambers. But what does he do today?

He is laughing.

Apart from laughing like a hyena, he opposes something which he welcomed last year. I can quote it to him. [Interjections.] These are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Let me refer at once to his television challenge. I cannot understand the reason for this obsessive exhibitionism. [Interjections.] That hon. member should either allow me to reply to him or absolve me from the obligation to reply. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me use playground terminology to reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once and for all in respect of his playground tactics. He wants to play at marbles without the marbles. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate the Government’s constitutional proposals with the Government and with me on television, while he himself has nothing to debate or to implement. [Interjections.] After all, in terms of his own domestic constitutional proposals, that hon. member does not have a policy. He only has proposals which he wants to submit to the national convention. The convention can reject them or accept them in part or in their entirety. After all, he has not yet told us which of these constitutional proposals of his are negotiable and which are non-negotiable, so that I can enter into a debate with him on the subject. Surely it is sound procedure, in this House as well, when we call a Government to account in respect of its decisions, actions and standpoints, to state and debate our alternatives at the same time. [Interjections.] He wants to conduct a democratic debate on a subject—and I want to emphasize this—without submitting anything himself for debate and for clinical analysis by his opponents. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member cannot even debate his policy in the highest forum of the country, this House, but he wants to do so outside, on television. [Interjections.] The hon. leader cannot even face up to the truth in his debating in this House, and he could not even give a critical analysis of the Government’s proposals.

Those hon. members profess to be the champions of and the spokesmen for the voiceless people of this country. This is the characteristic of the role in which they have cast themselves. I want to tell him that during this debate there have been witnesses in these galleries of the unedifying events of the past three days. If I had been a Coloured person listening to this debate, I would surely have been convinced tonight that the Opposition speakers, with the exception of the hon. members of the NRP … [Interjections.] … took no interest whatsoever in my well-being.

The hon. member for Sandton also spoke. He is not here at the moment.

No, I believe he will be here later.

Yes, he may be here later, but he did not apologize to me for the fact that he would not be here when I replied to him. The hon. member for Sandton told us about his political creed here in a theatrical way. Let us consider the terms in which he spoke of Coloured people who say that they are prepared to co-operate under a new constitutional dispensation. The authority which those hon. members have been quoting against this Government over the years, the people who, according to them, had political credibility, have been the Labour Party and its leaders. When it suited those hon. members, these people could be quoted in this House against the Government. When the Labour Party—and I am not alleging that they agree with the Government’s proposals—decided that they were going to participate in the constitutional process of the country, in what terms were they referred to? They were referred to as “remnants of the past”. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sandton said that. It is a fact. Those hon. members only quote people when they agree with them, but their intolerant attitude towards all people and all institutions that contradict them cries to high heaven.

The Government has endeavoured in all honesty to do what? To broaden democracy in this country, to afford more population groups an opportunity to participate in the institutions of the country and to share in the decisions on matters affecting their lives as well as those that are of common concern to us all. It may be inadequate, as the hon. member says, but does it broaden participation in the democratic process or does it not? Anyone who has studied the matter is bound to conclude that it does. The criticism which is levelled by the hon. member and his party, and by others as well, is that we are creating a dictatorship in this country. I can tell him that we can create a dictatorship in the country today on the strength of a majority of one in this House. We do not need the new constitution for that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has finally demonstrated during this session and this debate that he has no contribution to make to political thinking in this country. I tell him frankly that he has proved himself to be a political prisoner of the rich people of this country, who can buy themselves a safe refuge elsewhere if the danger were to arise of his proposals being implemented in this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have always believed, to the credit of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that he is a prisoner of the people in this country who are so far to the left that if one had to draw a scale which would register both left and right of the centre, there would not be enough paper on the left hand side to be able to register it. I want to apologize to him for this view: I was wrong; he is not a prisoner—he is just as far left as they are. [Interjections.]

His assurances that he wants to play a constructive role in this House as leader of that party—unlike his predecessor, obviously—are without any substance. They represented a transparent tactic—I level this charge at him—to create a reasonable image for an unreasonable party, and I shall prove this. He had a role to play, even in the formulation of these proposals which he condemns today, but he did not play it. What is more, he forbade other people to play such a role. He persuaded other people not to do so. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the chance to range himself on the side of reason. He could have done so without sacrificing the identity of his party; he could have done so within that party and even within their objectives for South Africa.

I know—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows I do—that there were times when he came very close to doing this. There were times when he played a role on the Schlebusch Commission which brought him very close to doing this. He will be severely censured one day for having missed those opportunities.

I have said—I admit this again tonight—that the proposals, as contained in the constitution Bill, are not perfect. I make no such claim, because perfection does not exist this side of the grave, but anyone, whoever he may be, who fails to see the bona fides and the effort made by the Government in this measure is doing the country and its people a disservice. I want to say this to him: Transparent tactics and gimmicks will not protect him from the critical scrutiny of moderation and reason in South Africa. It will not protect him from the judgment of voters outside. I say to the hon. member tonight—I regret that I have to say this—that he has caused himself to become irrelevant in South African politics. If there is any role left for him to play—and I do not know how long they are going to allow him to play it—then it is to revise his own approach and that of his party in respect of the pressing problems of this country. He is riding a see-saw, but he is too light for what is sitting on the other side. I believe that the schoolmistress who took him there is not going to allow him to stay on that see-saw much longer, because he keeps falling off.

†I want to come now to the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member raised an issue with which I want to deal with immediately. It is an issue which I believe is sensitive to a man of his religious belief. I would therefore like to deal with it in a vacuum. He said—

Let me say immediately to the hon. member—I believe I can say this because we are friends—that since Union in 1910 South Africa has been governed according to Christian values and not according to the principle of religious neutrality. Bills that have been passed in this Parliament support this view.

Since when?

Since 1910. Will the hon. member please give me a chance. I am replying in all courtesy to one of his colleagues. The Public Holidays’ Act provides only for Christian holidays, without preventing other religious groups from keeping their own holidays. The hon. member will concede that point. Secondly, the opening prayer of this Assembly has an unquestionable Christian character. It has always had that. Thirdly, section 1 of the Publications Act provides as follows—

This Act was passed by this Parliament.

This has been the practice for 72 years and it is now explicitly mentioned in the Preamble, but in no way whatsoever—I would like to stress this—does it mean that non-Christians are forced in any direction, especially in view of the principle of freedom of religion, simultaneously acknowledged in the Preamble. What is more, the Preamble to this Bill, if accepted by this House is not part of the Bill itself. It underscores the objectives and values to which we subscribe. Therefore the hon. member will find that in terms of clause 2 of the Bill, which is part of the constitution, we in fact do what the hon. member suggested we should do. I hope that he accepts, as far as this matter is concerned, the sincerity of the government in this respect.

Sir, I would like now to come to the debate.

*Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I made some remarks at the end of my Second Reading speech. I said that if this draft legislation was accepted, this country would be faced with important choices with far-reaching consequences. In the second place, I said that we would not be able to get away from the standpoints we had adopted in this House. Hon. members who have participated in this debate have revealed their own standpoints and those of the parties they represent with regard to the vital problems of this country, firstly in respect of the concept of reform as such. They have also revealed their standpoints in respect of their participation in the processes leading to reform, whether complete or incomplete, they have also revealed their standpoints with regard to the objectives which we want to achieve by means of change in this country.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me, since I shall not be able, unfortunately, to thank the speakers on this side of the House individually for their contributions, to make a few general remarks. The first is that they realized the seriousness of the occasion and of the subject. Secondly, their contributions were at a level which I think a debate on a country’s constitution requires and justifies. Not a single hon. member on this side of the House said anything or placed any emphasis which could harm the attitudes which are the foundation of success. I want to thank them for this. I want to tell them that I realize that it is very easy to appeal to people’s emotions in order to get them to resist giving up any thing. I know it is easy to appeal to people’s selfishness. I know it is easy to appeal to the basic things in people’s lives, in the life of a group. It is more difficult to appeal to people’s reason and intellect. This party has sacrificed support, and I shall prove that historically, because it could not yield to this temptation. Therefore I say without fear of contradiction that this debate will be remembered for the contents and accents of the contributions made in this House by parties and by hon. members. The judgment of history will not be very kind to many of us.

Secondly, I want to come to the hon. member for Durban Point. It is very interesting that there should be hysterical laughter when we speak of the NRP and its standpoint. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Berea is usually noisy, as he has been tonight, but usually he speaks before thinking. He comes from Natal, but unlike the NRP, his party has never been able to control the Natal provincial council. I would not be so arrogant in my judgment of other people if I were unable to defeat in an election those whom I condemn. Natal will never accept the PFP if they think they have any chance of winning.

When they think they are going to win, they choose something better than the PFP. [Interjections.] The hon. the leader of the NRP and his party have not accepted or supported this legislation without reservations. Hon. members of the NRP have levelled serious criticisms against this legislation. However, the hon. the leader of the NRP and his party have done an important thing. They have availed themselves of the opportunity. [Interjections.] They have availed themselves of this opportunity without endorsing the standpoint of the legislation in its entirety of fully associating their own standpoint with it. In doing this, what has the hon. the leader of the NRP achieved? He and his party have become a part …

Of the NP. [Interjections.]

… of the process of reform. [Interjections.] Do you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? It is a lesson to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When he became the leader of the PFP, this was the role he wanted to play. At that time he was also prepared to give credit where credit was due and criticize where criticism was required.

Then the Houghton clique hijacked him.

Yes, then he was hijacked by the Houghton clique. Now, with malicious joy, he ridicules other hon members who want to participate in the process of reform in this country. [Interjections.] This also goes to prove, Mr. Speaker, that although people may belong to different political parties, there are things on which they can agree with one another.

Why did they not allow Harry to speak?

This is the first time I have heard people being reproached for their willingness to agree with those things which they really approve of, while differing on other points. The advocates of reform and of renewal are blaming other people for participating in those processes. [Interjections.] Disparaging other parties will get them nowhere, however.

The NP is very good at that. [Interjections.]

The fact is that the NP has at least committed itself to reform. The PFP has committed itself to obstruction and boycott. Therefore I want to make a prediction now, Mr. Speaker. I have a feeling—a feeling which is based on historical facts, I believe—that when their national convention takes place, the PFP is going to boycott it. [Interjections.] They are going to boycott their own national convention, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with the basis of the criticism which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has levelled at this measure. He says that the Government is bungling the reform processes in general because this Bill was unilaterally drafted and is being unilaterally enacted.

Yes, that is quite true.

I put it to him that in the first place, this is a lie. If he had used his own knowledge in the service of the truth, he would have known that.

That is also a lie. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the facts, Mr. Speaker. Allow me to point out, too, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a further totally unfounded allegation in saying that the Government had only negotiated with the Indian and Coloured political parties about the guidelines after those guidelines had been accepted by the NP’s federal congress. That is another lie.

Yes, that is another lie.

Of course it is a lie. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. I am glad he admits it.

No, it is a lie which you are telling there now. [Interjections.]

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that it is a lie. However, this is not the first time one has been unable to accept his word. I want to refer to this as well.

Nor is it the first time that we have not been able to accept your word. [Interjections].

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what processes were gone through which eventually brought us to the introduction of this Bill.

The second question I wish to bring up for discussion, is what role the official Opposition played in those processes. In the first place it is simply untrue that this Bill, as the hon. leader of the Opposition wishes to imply, was drawn up overnight and in secret and then tabled. Let us consider the facts. In 1973, under the guidance of the former Prime Minister—I want to emphasize this—the first multiracial commission since 1948, as far as I know, was appointed inter alia to enquire into the progress made by the Coloured people in the political and constitutional sphere.

In 1935 there was one, and there was another in 1936.

Oh please. Sir, the hon. member is just like a fish: His fins move up and down. I am talking about commissions appointed by this Government.

What happened to Erika Theron.

What are the facts? A multiracial commission was appointed to consider the progress of the Coloured people in the political sphere. This was not done at their request or at the request of the Progs, but on the initiative of the NP under the leadership of Mr. Vorster. He said they should identify the obstacles which impeded progress, and make recommendations on a new system. That commission took three years to complete its work. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give evidence before the commission? No, Sir. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether his party gave evidence before this commission …

It has nothing to do with politics.

The hon. member says it has nothing to do with politics! The question of whether Coloured people had made economic progress, whether they have made educational and social progress, and whether they have made political progress, has nothing to do with politics! However, he says every day that one cannot view political progress in isolation because reform in one field has implications for the other. He said he did not go because it had nothing to do with politics!

I go further. For the sake of this debate we will just have to give attention to these matters. They brought out a report, a minority report and a majority report, on a constitutional dispensation for the Coloured people. I shall make a quick summary of it. They all said that the Westminster system could not serve this society. Secondly, they said the Coloured people should have a say on every level of government. However they did indicate what form the model should take.

That is untrue.

They did not say what form of model should take. They did not spell it out. They said we should appoint an expert committee.

Multiracial.

The Government—and it is this Government which is governing this country and not those squatters on the opposite side—then appointed a committee. The former Prime Minister appointed it. Of whom did it consist? It consisted of the leader of the majority party, the NP, in the Transvaal, viz. Dr. Connie Mulder …

What about the Government’s White Paper? Why are you omitting to mention that? Clause 5! [Interjections.]

The second member was the then Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Marais Steyn. The third member was Mr. Johan van der Spuy, the leader of the NP in the Free State. He was subsequently succeeded by Mr. Schlebusch. Then there was also Mr. Horwood of Natal; the then leader of the Cape, who is at present the Prime Minister; and Mr. Hennie Smit, the then Minister of Coloured Affairs. [Interjections.] This committee then brought out a report on the form which the proposed model was going to take. This was done after the committee had consulted with Coloured and Indian leaders.

It also afforded people an opportunity to give evidence.

Yes, parties were given an opportunity to give evidence. Once again, however, they were conspicuous by their absence. Do you know why, Sir? It was because this was not a political matter.

That was a Cabinet Committee.

What happened then? The Government did what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will do with his proposals which he wants to submit to the convention. The Government submitted the proposals to every congress. I need not remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that Dr. Connie Mulder suspended the party membership of certain members of the NP because they would not accept them. It is time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again found the courage to get rid of those things which are destroying him. After the congresses had accepted the proposals, they became the policy. They were subsequently formulated in a Bill, and the Government referred that Bill to a Select Committee of this Parliament. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. I. F. A. de Villiers, as well as the hon. member for Sandton served on that committee. There was a fourth member from that party on the committee as well. This Select Committee, which was subsequently converted into a commission, worked on this Bill for 18 months and took more than 1 500 pages of oral evidence.

Which you ignored.

Wait a minute. Give me a chance. Let me first expose the duality and un-realiability of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party. The Select Committee received 41 memorandums and 60 witnesses gave evidence. Not one of those witnesses was able to construct a model for us.

So you simply went ahead and made a mess of it.

No. What happened then? That Select Committee then adopted a resolution, which is known, that since the need existed for wider consultation than that which fell within the scope of a Select Committee, and in order to elevate and extend the level of acceptability of any proposals, it proposed that a President’s Council be established, which would be able to consult over a wide area. The only respect in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his people differed with us, was that they wanted Black people on the council.

No.

He was opposed to the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition rejected it for the same reason as that for which he is rejecting this Constitution Bill, namely that it does not make provision for Black people. I shall indicate later why he wants it this way.

It is one of the most important reasons, but that is not all.

What happened next? After the appointment of the President’s Council the Select Committee brought out its final report. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition served on that committee. That committee brought out a unanimous report. I am quoting from it—

What was the commission’s task? Its task was to help draw up a constitution for South Africa. Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, together with others, said that neither Parliament, nor the Commission, nor any other Government institution would be able to accomplish this task to the same extent as the President’s Council. He recommended that the Commission, which was originally a Select Committee of Parliament, be relieved of the work it had to do.

Why is this legislation not being referred to a Select Committee now?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to allow himself to be relieved of the task of inquiring into and reforming the constitution. He said he was not consulted. But that is not all. What else did he say? I quote paragraph 9 of this report—

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who wishes to accuse me of there not having been any consultation, stated that the President’s Council could do so more effectively than I could in Parliament or a Commission could.

That is untrue.

Yes, it is stated in the report. I can understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saying it is untrue. After all, his members make a habit of signing reports willy-nilly and then denying it elsewhere. Look at the signatures here. I have been quoting from the final report, and who signed it? It was Van Zyl Slabbert, D. J. Dalling, I. F. A. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin. Let us now consider the validity of the criticism levelled at my Government and myself.

Stop waving your hands around and just talk some sense.

How would you understand sense in your condition? [Interjections.] I think you should take water.

*It is no good whining about these things now. This is the historical course of events. The hon. the leader cannot deny that he said that the President’s Council was better able to carry out an investigation than the House of Assembly or our Commission.

I deny it.

The hon. the Leader denies it. He is therefore denying what he signed. That is very interesting. This is the standard of debate which we have to take into account now. He signs something and then says he denies that it stands there. [Interjections.] Although they differed—I said this—on the President’s Council, they brought out a minority report and then adopted the resolutions which I quoted. Then they prohibited their members from participating in the institution for consultation, investigation and advice. That is a fact. But then they stated that they did not have the opportunity to participate in the formulation. My next question is this: Did they then go and give evidence before the President’s Council, which they said was better able to institute an investigation than either Parliament or a Government institution or the Commission? Did they give evidence? The answer is no, they did not give evidence before an institution which they said was better qualified and equipped to institute an inquiry.

May I ask a question?

No, not now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can put a question later.

Surely there were people representing different political standpoints on that President’s Council. Surely there were Coloureds and Asians with different political standpoints. While we are on this subject now, surely the representatives of the CP also signed the report. Surely they also decided that the President’s Council, with a multiracial composition—this is under their signature—was better able to draw up a constitution than the Commission or Parliament or a Government institution. The hon. member for Rissik’s signature is appended to that report. He went even further and said that the only people who could be represented on the President’s Council should be Whites, Coloureds, Asians or Chinese, should be older than 30 years and should be South African citizens. This he signed. The hon. member for Brakpan also signed this. [Interjections.] Now this is interesting. Just listen to what the hon. member for Jeppe says. He should rather learn the wisdom of remaining silent. The former member for Waterkloof said that the President’s Council was power-sharing. This is on record in Hansard. That hon. member said so himself, not I. What was the main recommendation of the President’s Council in respect of the legislative authority? It stated that group institutions for own affairs and institutions for common affairs should be established. That is what it said. With one or two dissenting votes, that was its recommendation. But what has happened now? I shall now deal specifically with the accusation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Before the Cabinet, or the caucus, or the Federal Congress or any congress had received or considered the guidelines, the hon. the Prime Minister and I conducted interviews with reference to the report of the President’s Council with the various political parties among the Coloureds and with the Executive Committee of the Indian Council. What are the facts? The accusation has been levelled at me that we did not conduct interviews. From 7 October 1980 when I was appointed Minister of Internal Affairs, under whom constitutional matters fell, I attended meetings and held talks with Coloured and Indian organizations and political parties on 84 occasions. [Interjections.] And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that I did not consult people. That was up to 5 May 1983. A total of 46 talks and meetings took place up to 12 May 1982, and 12 May is an important date because on 12 May the report of the President’s Council was tabled. From 12 May until we informed our own caucus on 4 June, we consulted with Coloured political leaders. Then the guidelines were formulated and submitted to the Cabinet. Subsequently it was submitted to our own caucuses and only then to the Federal Congresses. What right does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have to consort so recklessly with the truth in this House? Surely it is not true.

I want to go further. I dealt with this process of consultation in my Second Reading speech, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ignored my speech. I want to say with great respect that he had the temerity to reject the Bill on behalf of people and interest groups as a result of the fact that no one was consulted in the process. The natural disapproval which the hon. member for Sandton, who is here now, showed the “remnants” to which he referred, can be ascribed to two things. It does not suit the official Opposition that the Coloured leaders wish to co-operate. Nor does it suit those hon. members that Indian leaders wish to co-operate. It especially does not suit them that the Black Alliance in Eshowe has been broken. That does not suit them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has passed through five different phases since these facts became known. They say the proposals are divisive. Of course they are divisive in respect of Black alliances. That makes him unhappy. I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is it or is it not progress if Coloured political leaders whom they praised the day before yesterday as the true spokesmen of their people wish to co-operate in a constitutional dispensation?

Whom are you asking?

This is the record of the official Opposition, and then they cry out pathetically: We were not consulted! Over a period of ten years since 1973 the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not availed itself of one opportunity to make its inputs in respect of reform.

What about the Schlebusch Commission?

The best he was able to do was to appoint his own commission, the recommendations of which would not be submitted immediately, but to the national convention which they are contemplating.

I want to take it further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled the accusation at me and at the Government that the proposals represent White domination and NP domination. That is the accusation he is making against us. I have a few questions.

May I put a question?

Yes, you (“jy”) may; you (“jy”) may put any number of questions.

“U”; not “jy”. Do you not know your parliamentary procedure?

Sir, the colour of the hon. member is red; I can understand why. It is not true that according to the perception and the policy of the hon. member and his party, this Parliament… [Interjections.]

Order! One further remark from the hon. member for Sandton and he will have to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker …

Order! No further remarks from the hon. member for Sandton during the rest of this debate.

Sir, in those circumstances I withdraw from the Chamber. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Sea Point say that Parliament was changing the constitution of the country. They say that until Parliament changes the constitution, the status quo is maintained, the status quo being that only Whites are being represented in the House. He says that before he has obtained unanimity on a national convention, he has nothing to submit to the voters to which they may attach their approval or disapproval. What does the reality of politics dictate? Surely the hon. member knows. Surely he will not be able to constitute a national convention. Let us suppose that it so happens that he does. He cannot even reconcile the conflicting standpoints within his party; how does he think he is going to succeed there? What does he do then? Then he ignores Black political rights, he ignores Coloured political rights and he ignores Asians political rights because what he has, in the political reality in which we are living, has no viability or value whatsoever. Yet he says that the NP stands for NP domination and the White domination.

What is basic to the hon. member’s standpoint? The hon. member knows that he cannot come into power in this country with White votes. He can only come into power in this country with Black votes. For that reason he is unable to put forward any proposal which meets with the approval of everyone. He says that is a validity crisis. He says that if one does the wrong thing in the process, there is no integrity in respect of one’s initiatives. The fact of the matter is that I explained to him to what extent he and his party could have reduced this crisis he is referring to through their contributions. However, he prefers to do nothing. Surely he knows that the process does not end there. I said that apart from the constitutional statutory amendments, the proposals must contain the inherent idea that a new style of government must be developed.

The hon. member for Hillbrow and other hon. members asked me what the role of the Opposition in terms of the new constitution was. I want to ask him what the role of the Opposition in terms of the existing constitution is. I also want to ask him since when the functioning of the House of Parliament is described in the constitution. But what have we done now? Precisely in order to anticipate the accusation of the hon. member, we say that Standing Committees can be appointed, and I have stated repeatedly that the conflict style of government as we have been engaged in here during the past three days must be replaced by a style of government in which we are able to solve our problems in Standing Committees.

You want a compliant Opposition.

Listen to what the hon. member for Berea is saying. There are other colleagues of the hon. member for Berea who do not do in a Select Committee what that hon. member does. There are other colleagues of his who are prepared to abide in this House by what has been decided by a Select Committee. I want to give him an example. The hon. member for Houghton knows about this. Last year we passed the Black Local Authorities Act, and we did not agree on it once. If I remember correctly, we made more than 50 amendments to that Bill. The members who had been members of the Select Committee were, however, honourable enough to defend in the House what had been done during the sittings of the Select Committee. I maintain that if we want to make a success—not of the constitution—of the bringing together of parties and population groups, we must do so with the idea of consensus foremost, and not do what is at present happening here.

What am I pleading for? I seem to be doing so in vain. My plea is that we should use these structures which this constitution seeks to establish to reduce the number of issues and, if possible, eliminate them. For that reason this constitution makes provision for long processes of inquiry, of persuasion and of consultation in the search of unanimity in a difficult country. I wish to say, with all the earnestness at my command, that I cannot say whether we will succeed with it. There is one thing I do wish to say, though. During this debate I have realized that the responsibility for endeavouring to achieve this rests solely on the shoulders of the National Party. I wish to say in all earnestness this evening that we need not expect to receive any assistance from the official Opposition or the CP.

May I put a few questions to the hon. the Minister? The first question I wish to put is whether the consultation with the Coloureds and the Indians to which the hon. the Minister referred was related to the 1977 proposals or whether it occurred prior to the acceptance of the 1977 proposals. The second question is whether the hon. the Minister can explain to me why the first report of the President’s Council on the central authority was ignored in the resolutions which were eventually adopted by the party congresses?

The reply is simply “no”. I did not negotiate on the 1977 proposals. [Interjections.] Yes, I did negotiate with the Coloured leaders in 1980 on the whole political situation, but the hon. member accused me of not having negotiated with them on this constitution before we announced our guidelines. I said that was a lie. I told him that the report of the President’s Council was tabled on 12 May. The hon. the Prime Minister and I had talks and to prove this I shall give the hon. member the dates. The hon. member should read his Hansard again. The hon. member is still going to be very sorry about many of the things that are stated there. The President’s Council tabled its report on 12 May. That same day the hon. the Prime Minister and I met the Labour Party leaders, the Freedom Party leaders and the Executive Committee of the Indian Council. On 26 May I met the provincial caucus of the Transvaal. On 2 June I met the Freedom Party, the Labour Party and the Volkskongres. On 3 June I met the Executive Committee of the Indian Council. Only on 4 June did the Cabinet approve of provisional guidelines for submission to its caucus. That caucus took place on 5 June. I am saying repeatedly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is a lie to say that we did not hold talks with Coloured political leaders before we announced the guidelines of the federal congress.

Not the guidelines in connection with the 1977 proposals.

The guidelines in connection with the proposals of the President’s Council and our own policy.

Not in 1977.

Oh, good heavens! [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then let the Bill go through to the President’s Council.

Did you negotiate with Coloureds and Indians on the Bill?

Why did you then sign for it to go through to the President’s Council? [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that the hon. member is not getting any further with this.

What is the purpose of the Bill? The purpose of the Bill is to give Coloureds and Asians an effective say in the decision-making processes which affect them and the country as a whole. One would have expected that the official Opposition would at least then and at least in respect of this group have conducted a debate on the contents and the calibre of the proposals. However, they did not do so. They are not saying that they have a better method of giving people a say. Do hon. members know what Coloured leaders tell me? They said members of the official Opposition advised them not to co-operate in the system because Blacks had been excluded.

That is a lie. [Interjections.]

How does the hon. the Leader know what other people get up to? The fact of the matter is that the official Opposition cannot come to grips with the legislation. The Bill makes provision for a Parliament consisting of three Houses. During the discussion of my Vote last year on 26 April the hon. member for Sea Point challenged me on this point and I am quoting him from Hansard, col. 5397, where he stated—

Read the rest of it.

That is what the hon. member said. Now they come here and now the hon. member wants to keep them out. Do you know until when, Mr. Speaker? He wants to keep the Coloureds and Asians out of the political decision-making processes until his national convention has been disposed of.

And that is never. [Interjections.]

After that they still wish to keep them out here until he has persuaded the White people to accept his concoction.

Then he will first ring McHenry about it again.

That will be when pigs learn to fly. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to conclude what I have to say about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party. I want to put it to him that he must stop levelling the accusation that the NP is entrenching its position. After all, this accusation of his implies three things. In the first instance, it implies PFP frustration, because they know they can never come into power in this country with White support. Secondly, it implies that the PFP hopes to come into power with the support of Black votes, and in the third place it is symptomatic of the PFP’s inferiority complex, which causes it to believe, paranoically, that we really have to entrench ourselves against that party in a constitutional way. We have no need to entrench ourselves against the PFP. I am saying this will all due respect, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows it, in any case, and that is why he is seeking support from elsewhere in order to be the winner. [Interjections.] There is only one reply to this ridiculous accusation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He and his party must beat us at the polls and take over the government. In recent years we have already had four elections. During that period I have not even experienced an average term of three years between two elections. I challenge the PFP to beat us in an election. They had a chance to do so in Waterkloof. They have just had a chance to show merely what progress they are making. [Interjections.]

Finally, I wish to say a few words to the hon. member for Hillbrow. The role of an Opposition party is qualified by the effectiveness of that Opposition party. It is determined by the calibre of the Opposition; not its numbers. Least of all is it determined by the constitution. In terms of the present constitution, this situation was never otherwise. Nor is it any different at the moment, and it will not be in future. Consequently the hon. member for Hillbrow need have no fears on this score.

He argues that the President, in terms of the present legislation, will have unlimited power. Of course this was dictated to those hon. members by their newspapers long before this debate began. What are the facts? In the combination of the offices of President and Prime Minister the President—with one exception to which I shall refer—does not have more powers than are contained in the combination of the two offices.

No, that is not correct.

That is not true at all. [Interjections.]

I am saying there is one exception, to which I shall specifically refer. If the hon. member for Sea Point would only wake up, Mr. Speaker. However, occasionally he does experience a moment of clarity. [Interjections.] I did tell the hon. member that there was one exception, an exception which I shall deal with for his sake.

He is simply not listening.

Yes, and then he and his hon. colleagues talk about critics. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the President will now act on the advice of two sets of Ministers. For his legislation he will be dependent on three chambers instead of one. Surely those are restrictions which are being imposed on him. His tenure of office runs simultaneously with that of Parliament. If a motion of no confidence in him is passed by all three chambers, he must resign and call an election.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg tendered an apology and said that he could not be present here this evening. However, he put a question to me. Suppose the PFP came into power, he asked, surely the President can remain in office. The political reality …

That will not happen.

Of course it will not happen. We need not even worry about it.

It will not happen because we will kick out the President.

Surely the political reality dictates that the President will not be able to govern in circumstances of that nature. [Interjections.] Surely he will not be able to govern in such circumstances. What kind of nonsensical question is the hon. member then asking? Surely it is not written into our present constitution that the hon. the Prime Minister must resign when a motion of no confidence in him is passed. The realities of politics and the way political institutions function surely that he will not have a choice in this respect. Why are people who are supposed to know about constitutional matters prepared to noise fallacious arguments of this kind abroad in the form of false messages? [Interjections.]

This brings me next to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He and I have known one another for many years. We have known one another for a long time. We both received our degrees at the same time. He did better than I in the examination, but in practice he is truly weak. He has not read this Bill, or else the people who read it for him, read it badly. I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he must beware of the advice of the hon. Prof. Olivier, because his advice is wrong. The motion of no confidence surely compels the President to resign, in contrast to the position of the existing President. If his budgets are turned down he is also compelled to resign. However, in those circumstances the existing President stays on. Therefore he can in fact be deposed, but the hon. member says that it is so difficult to get rid of him. The Bill provides that in any event he can be got rid of every five years. However, the hon. member says it is difficult to get rid of him. On what basis, then, does the hon. member say that?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is an interesting man. He is a terribly interesting fellow. He says that the Group Areas Act remains and the Population Registration Act remains. However, what does he also say? He tells us that he does not believe in “one man, one vote” in one institution, but he does also believe in group representation. However, the groups are to identify themselves as they wish. That is truly a fiasco! Then a person is White in one local authority and Brown in the next. [Interjections.] That is what he says. That is how ridiculous his proposals are. What does he also say? He also says that all Acts that differentiate, discriminate. I want to ask him: At what period in the history of the Brown people and the Asians—and he can look at any period in their history—have they made better progress in the economic, educational and political spheres than under the NP?

Especially when you threw them out!

When we debate here we must please just confine ourselves to the facts.

I now turn to the CP. [Interjections.] There is one lesson we have learnt in this country, and we are still learning it every day—in the past few days in particular it has been impressed upon us forcefully—and that is that no problem can be solved by piling concept upon concept to which we attach any significance we wish, as we please and then, in a spirit of self-satisfaction, reassure ourselves or deceive the voters thereby. On one occasion the American Ambassador at the UN said: “Words should have meanings, and actions should have consequences.” I want to deal with that. I want to say that the hon. member for Waterberg is equally ignorant about the meaning of the words and concepts with which he seeks to formulate political solutions for this country, and he goes about it in as irresponsible a way as the people in the UN. Not one of us—and I begin with myself—is capable of being an expert in every field. However, if we do not have the ability or take the trouble to understand and distinguish concepts such as people, nation and race, then we are doing this country a disservice, and we are doing ourselves a disservice too, if we put ourselves forward as political leaders. It is only when a man attaches meaning to words which they do not possess and in addition, is selective in his choice of points of departure, that he can make a speech like the one the hon. the Leader of the CP made in this debate. That speech once again attested to the inability of unwillingness of the hon. member to confine himself within the bounds of what semantics and logic demand of one. If it is unwillingness, then his accountability is greater than it would have been if it had been due to inability. As far as I am concerned there is no one in this House who is better at misusing words to conceal his thoughts than that very hon. member. I say that in a forum such as this, where it is expected of people to maintain a reasonable level of debate, where standpoints are tested against the criterion of reason, that hon. member and his party stand out like a sore thumb.

I now want to deal with the idea of a people’s State (“volkstaat”). I do not think that all of us here perceive the dangerous warnings that are appearing on the horizon of this country. The hon. member for Pretoria Central effectively exposed the hon. member to public contempt as regards the use of the terms “people” and “people’s State”, and indicated very convincingly that the idea of an Afrikaner people’s State in which the Afrikaner shared nothing with anyone was a total fiction and an emotional façade for a disturbing fact. A people’s state implies certain things. In the first place, it implies a homogeneous cultural group that exercises all authority within a specific geographic territory. That is what a people’s State means. It is interesting that the CP and the “Volkstaatparty”—the AWB has registered as a political party, the Blanke Volkstaatparty—advocate a people’s State. They advocate one as I have defined it, because another one does not exist. If they advocate such a State for South Africa, it is an Afrikaner people’s state because that is the only White people living here, except if people want to discard their culture and become Afrikaners.

What does this mean in terms of their standpoint? The CP, like the Volkstaatparty, believes that power-sharing means loss of power. However, the concept of a people’s state entails grave implications for the White non-Afrikaners in this country. In essence it means the exclusion of all non-Afrikaners from the decision-making processes of their country. It also holds grave implications for many hon. members in this House.

Good-bye, Harry. [Interjections.]

This philosophy implies the exclusion of hon. members who are not Afrikaners, from the decision-making and governmental processes of the country. Instead of the official Opposition deriving so much pleasure from the acrobatic stunts performed by the CP in their opposition to this Government, they should rather consider what they are nurturing in their opposition to the Government. [Interjections.] We must achieve clarity in this debate. It is not only the hon. member for Waterberg who spoke about this but the hon. member for Brakpan as well, and he went a great deal further. If the CP and the AWB succeed in their aim, they will reduce all Whites who are not Afrikaners to the political wilderness in this country. They will be depriving 40% of the White population of this country of their participation in the administration of the country. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterberg said—these are his words and not mine—that when a people shares power it loses power. He said that that was obvious. I want to ask the hon. member: Did the Afrikaner people lose power when they shared it with English-speaking people in this House? Did the Afrikaner people lose power when it shared it with members of the official Opposition? Are we beginning with a specious argument, or is this a racist onslaught? In other words, does a people lose hold of power only when it is shared with people of a different colour, but not when it is shared with aliens who belong to other peoples. This is a very interesting matter. I want to ask the hon. member whether, when he refers in such disparaging terms to the Brown people … [Interjections.] He calls them … [Interjections.] I now come to the hon. member. He should rather be quiet. I did not interrupt him. I shall refer to his terminology in a moment. When he refers so disparagingly to the Coloureds, does he know that they are voluntarily defending the dispensation to which he refers on the borders of the country? When he speaks about people, by definition, in the terms he uses, then he forgets that they are helping to keep him in this country.

You too.

Yes, I admit that. The CP uses the term “people” and “people’s state” (“volkstaat”). I wish to venture a prediction this evening; I say that it is not an illogical curiosity to refer to “people” and “people’s state”. That is exactly what they want to do in South Africa. The AWB has now registered as a political party, but the hon. member for Waterberg has not yet rejected it. What does the constitution of the AWB say? It advocates an Afrikaner dictatorship for the country. Sir, do you see this sinister connotation and correlation between the people’s state concept and the association of the CP with the AWB? We must say these things to one another. They are not going to be able to shut their minds to the Coloureds and the Asians. I want to ask them: What are they going to do with the non-Afrikaner White person in the country in their people’s state? They owe the country an answer to that. What are they going to do with the White non-Afrikaner in their people’s state? Are they going to establish heartlands for them? I want to say to them that when practical solutions had to be found and implemented in Western Europe in the ’thirties and ’forties for the survival of minorities in a people’s state, millions died. I want to repeat that millions died. Even the people of the people’s state were destroyed. [Interjections.] This is not the first time in the history of our people that people have toyed with the idea of “herrenvolk” in a people’s state. I say, Sir, that this is not an illogical curiosity. It is a concealed meaning. The hon. member for Waterberg is fond of saying: I shall not take it. However, there is one thing I want to say. The National Government will do everything in its power to destroy this malignant growth or outgrowth in the political life of our country. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Waterberg says that I travel in a military aircraft. That hon. member travels with the golden pass of a Minister.

And you too.

Yes, I am a Minister. [Interjections.]

I now turn to the next statement of the hon. member for Waterberg because I want us to reach finality in our debating of this matter this evening. The hon. member for Waterberg has been known since his student days and throughout his career for an exceptional ability, and that is to select his words with care. Let us see what he says. Let us listen to what the hon. member says. He says that Christian values are not necessarily preserved in a multiracial community of political sharing and by way of mixed government. He also says that reconciliation does not conflict with the maintenance of identity. Who said that? Can you understand what the hon. member is doing? He is setting up these straw dolls and then, by way of malicious innuendo, implying that the National Government has said these things, and then he says that these things are not irreconcilable with one another. After all, that is how we have come to know him. However, no one in this House has said that. Let us go a little further. The hon. member also uttered these very interesting words. He said that reconciliation was an expression used by the World Council of Churches. That is the third malicious innuendo. Because I said that we sought reconciliation among conflicting interests and aspirations in this country, I am to be tarred with the brush of the World Council of Churches in this Parliament. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon. member that reconciliation is not an invention of the World Council of Churches. Reconciliation is not an invention of mine. The politics of the State function to create order and reconciliation in a divided society, so as to reconcile conflicting interests. What is more, this concept of reconciliation did not originate in politics. It did not originate in my terminology. Do you know where it originated, Sir? It originated with Christ, because he came to reconcile God and man and to reconcile men, in their sinfulness, with one another. There is no one in this House who is better qualified, academically and professionally, to interpret the message of the New Testament. Reconciliation is a key concept of our Christian ethical heritage. It belongs to the Christian, however, it may be distorted as the hon. member for Waterberg may want to distort it.

I have no hesitation whatsoever in repeating this evening that in the full awareness of our weaknesses and deficiencies, we as the Government will do everything in our power to bring about reconciliation between man and man, people and people, and group and group in our country, in the knowledge …

The Blacks?

I shall come to the Blacks. The hon. member has a record as regards what happens when people like him deal with the affairs of Black people. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member for Waterberg must go and read the Cillié report. What lies behind the hon. member’s carefully formulated statements and innuendos? The hon. member for Brakpan let the cat out of the bag. He talks about the constitutional plan as a diabolical plan granting diabolical powers. I think he knows what “diabolical” means, because he sits behind the hon. member for Waterberg. He says this despite the fact that the plan is oriented towards consensus and reconciliation. What does the hon. member for Brakpan go on to say? He says that reconciliation is a chimaera. He says it is not possible—the best we can still hope for is an understanding, because we shall never accept one another. I ask him how one achieves an understanding if one does not bring about reconciliation between standpoints. That is his alternative to the co-called diabolical plan that is aimed at reconciliation and consensus, but according to him it means a good understanding by way of partition. I do not wish to deal with the reprehensible nature of his innuendos.

I want to state the standpoint of the Government without qualification. I say that the peace of prosperity of the country can only be maintained and ensured if we all work hard at reconciliation, if we work hard at mutual acceptance of each other as we are, if we work hard at the forming of consensus as regards the basic values we wish to maintain. There is no other, easier way out. Let us criticize one another, if we wish to, as regards the correct methods, but we dare not evade our responsibility in this regard by way of a sly play on words.

I now turn to another statement made by hon. members opposite. According to the CP and their spokesmen, the constitution Bill makes a farce of self-determination because according to them, self-determination means that a people—I gave the definition of a “people”—decides for itself in regard to every facet of its existence, without any interference, and that includes every one—it also includes defence, justice, law and order and foreign affairs. That is the basis of the peoples’ state—unpleasant concept that it is—with all its consequences. The demand of self-determination is that there may be no mixed government. I wish to state categorically that the Government is not in favour of the absolute point of view concealed in this. The absolute view which is implicit in this was not adopted by the previous Government and the previous Prime Minister either. The hon. member of the CP did not adopt that view either, or else they kept quiet about it. I shall come to that.

It has already been said—but to conclude the debate I must repeat it—that paragraph 4 of the twelve-point plan, as contained in the election manifesto signed by the hon. member for Waterberg, was defended and promoted less enthusiastically by him. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that. What did he say with regard to paragraph 4? He said that self-determination was not absolute, but he wanted to divide a part and the rest he wanted to deal with by way of a joint say. I wish to quote a statement to the hon. member. The 1977 plan is aimed at giving a say to Coloureds and Indians concerning matters which affect them alone. Is there any argument between this on that score? Does the hon. member for Waterberg dispute that? I contend that it was, moreoever, designed to give them a joint say in a way which would place no population group on a footing subordinate to any other concerning matters affecting Whites, Coloureds and Indians jointly. Do hon. members agree with that? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Barberton agree with that? Perhaps the hon. member for Sunnyside will agree with it. [Interjections.]

Do you still beat your wife?

I have never beaten her, but I keep my word. That hon. member should try it for once. The hon. member for Sunnyside is a religious person. I ask him whether the 1977 proposals that he supported implied a joint say. [Interjections.] This is terribly interesting, because I quote what the previous Prime Minister said on 20 August 1977. But what did the hon. leader of the CP say the day before? He said—

Today they are using a former Head of State for political purposes. On 3 October the former Prime Minister spoke again, and I agreed with what he said then. I am not running away from the path along which he led us. He said—

On 2 November—this is extremely interesting, because hon. members must recall that this is the man who accused other people of being fifth columnist—the hon. member spoke again. He said—

That is what Dr. A. P. Treurnicht, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education had to say. He goes on—

That hon. member was a member of the Government and that is what he did with it. The hon. member will recall that I was accused in this House last year of being the man who had discovered the term “a joint say”. That is very interesting. I want to ask the hon. member, and I shall put it briefly: Did the fact that the electoral college could elect a President who could be White or Brown or Asian, constitute power-sharing?

Surely I said in the Cabinet that that did not constitute power-sharing.

No, the hon. member did not say that in the Cabinet. [Interjections.] In the 1977 information document—it was in less detail, I concede—but on 12 April 1978, the leader of the party, who had the right to interpret the party’s policy, spoke in this House and said that the Council of Cabinets had the same power regarding matters of common concern in respect of the submission of legislation as has the Cabinet of today. He went on to say that if this Cabinet had executive powers, the Council of Cabinets will also have them with regard to matters of common concern. Do we share power with one another in the Cabinet? If so, then there was power-sharing in the Council of Cabinets. If we do not do so, then surely there is no question of mixed government.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must not come along with semantic evasions. If the Cabinet of today implies that the members who sit in it share power with one another, then the Council of Cabinets was a mixed Government. However, if the hon. member argues that we may not share the decision-making power in the Cabinet, then the Council of Cabinets did not constitute power-sharing. The hon. member must make his choice. I do not have difficulties with the hon. member’s standpoints, but I do have a difficulty with regard to the other matters I am now going to deal with.

The hon. member never objected, either in Mr. Vorster’s time or in the time of the present Prime Minister, to this definition of the powers of the Council of Cabinets. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg is fantastic, but I think that sometimes it is better for him to confine himself to cattle. Do hon. members know what he says? He says that he made a list of “own” affairs and of matters of common concern and he says that 80% are matters of common concern and 20% are “own” affairs. He then divides the 20% by three and says that it is only 7%. [Interjections.] I want to say to him that if that is the way he deals with cattle, he should give up farming. This is the first time I have heard anyone dividing up percentages in that way. [Interjections.]

According to that legislation—and this is as it appears in Hansard, too—it was possible for the President to be a White, a Coloured or an Asian.

Which legislation?

That of 1977. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on 12 April 1978 Mr. John Vorster said in this House and in the presence of the hon. member for Waterberg that the legislation that would be introduced to word the proposals would not contain a provision stipulating that the President would have to be a White, a Coloured or an Asian.

And Andries voted in favour of it. [Interjections.]

However, at that stage the hon. member for Waterberg was prepared to accept a State President who would be a Coloured or an Asian.

Just as long as he was a Nationalist. [Interjections.]

Chris, it seems to me that you must have been sitting there and dozing when we discussed this matter in the caucus.

I now want to turn to the next accusation. I now wish to deal with the next accusation. On 23 April, in Waterberg, the hon. member for Waterberg made the following statement, and I quote him.

From what are you quoting?

From the transcription of the television film of that meeting. The hon. member for Waterberg says there—

Mr. Speaker, the words “fifth columnist” have a specific meaning. I am now going to state what they mean. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines fifth columnists. Surely we are acquainted with them, too. After all, we have had to deal with them in the past. I quote the definition of fifth columnist from the dictionary mentioned, as follows—

Therefore, fifth columnists are people who pretend to be what they are not. [Interjections.] They are people who deliberately and cold-bloodedly gain a position from which they seek to destroy an existing system.

That sounds somewhat familiar.

Yes, it really sounds familiar, Mr. Speaker.

Well, just, go and listen to what the Labour Party has to say. [Interjections.]

Of course, that system can also be a political party or a political organization, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] The institution they seek to sabotage may be a political party. The institution they wish to sabotage could even be their own party. [Interjections.] Let us just take a look at this. What is behind the use of the words “fifth columnist”, and what are the implications?

The first implication is that people who champion Black rights are fifth columnists. According to the hon. member for Waterberg, that makes fifth columnists of hon. members of this House, people who, within their own parties, champion the same causes as those of which he accuses the Labour Party. [Interjections.] If this submission of mine is wrong, then what the point of view of the hon. member for Waterberg amounts to is that people are only fifth columnists because they are not White. The hon. member can make his own racist choice if he wishes. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that in the new dispensation the Coloureds and the Indians will be the fifth columnists of the Black people because they wish to promote the rights of the Black people. [Interjections.] In the context in which the hon. member and the CP used the word I should like to ask who—apart from the members of the CP themselves—are fifth columnists. After all, we are all looking for solutions to satisfy the reasonable aspirations of the Black people as well. Indeed, the hon. member for Waterberg was entrusted with an important part of this. He had a share in legislation that sought to give Black peoples political rights outside national states and independent States. After all, he agreed to this. When he was a Minister and a Deputy Minister, he agreed to mixed meetings between White and Black.

Repeatedly. His signature is there to prove it.

When he was confronted with the reality of life, he did it, but while fighting in Waterberg for selfish purposes he rejects everything for which he previously stood. [Interjections.] Then he has the gall to call other people fifth columnists.

That is a leader of the people!

If the hon. member did not mean it like that, then he must rectify the matter, but it does not attest to the values that he claims to represent. [Interjections.] The fifth columnists to whom he refers are on the border, keeping his position safe for him.

Who is speaking now!

He has never been on the border. I ask him: Does he agree with my description or definition of a fifth columnist? If there are people in politics in this country who have consistently sabotaged and undermined their leaders, then they are the members of the CP. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rissik was chairman of my caucus group and he will concede to me that I have never said anything different in the caucus to what I am saying now.

Let’s vote, Chris. [Interjections.]

Just wait. Those hon. members cannot speak for 14 hours and then want to keep quiet. Secondly, he never objected to what I said. The hon. member for Rissik—and I say this in a friendly spirit—accepted that Black people had to be consulted as regards the constitution for White, Brown and Asian. He signed his acceptance of that. Not only did he sign the recommendation that there should be a Black council; he also appended his signature to the recommendation that mixed committees of the President’s Council could co-operate with committees from the Black council concerning this specific subject. [Interjections.] He was prepared—and I praise him for that—to append his signature to that. The hon. member for Brakpan was also prepared to do so. The hon. members of the CP in the Cabinet also accepted the report. Indeed, the hon. the leader of the CP made suggestions as to who should serve in the President’s Council. [Interjections.] He once even recommended that Mr. Frank le Roux should serve in it. I said to him that he should stay in Parliament. After all, we are dealing with facts now. Sir, you must bear in mind that I am now merely reacting to the arguments of hon. members. The former member for Waterkloof—the hon. member will probably still remember him—said that even when one began to speak about advice, one shared power. He said that even when one began to discuss matters and wanted to give advice, one was sharing power. Believe it or not, the hon. member for Rissik then appended his signature to this terrible power-sharing with the Indians and Coloureds—and one Chinese, to crown it all—in the President’s Council!

I just want to mention that the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Lichtenburg apologized for not being able to be present this evening.

Finally, I want to refer to the hon. member for Rissik. He asks whether the electoral college is going to be appointed on a numerical basis or whether that composition is going to be changed in 40 years’ time when the numbers have increased. Did the hon. member not read the Bill? Surely the hon. member knows that that is one of the protected clauses. It is very interesting that the hon. member did not ask the question when he was propagating the idea of three Parliaments in terms of which one Parliament would have a right of decision in respect of another Parliament as regards matters of common concern. Why did he not do so then? In all fairness, why did the hon. member not ask at that stage whether the numbers in the electoral college—he supported it at that stage—were going to change if the numerical ratios changed? I cannot recall the hon. member asking that in the caucus.

I want to say to the hon. member that we never proposed that this should remain on a fixed basis. Let me give him an example. Surely all the constituencies in the country do not have the same number of voters. Surely provision is made in the Act for loading and deloading of constituencies, is it not? Provision is made for loading and deloading of 15%. In cases of very large constituencies, the loading of 30% applies. The hon. member knows that.

Less for the Transvaal and more for the Cape.

Yes. The hon. member knows that. Why did he not put forward his equalization concept at that stage? I shall go further. The hon. member knows, for example, that in the United States of America every State has two Senators. Some of those States have a few hundred thousand voters, whereas others have up to 15 million voters. I want to say to the hon. member that we are working with quality. He will understand what I mean. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. member a final question. Does he believe in religious freedom?

Yes.

Is it true that the hon. member, like the rest of us—this also applied in respect of our predecessors—sits with people in this House who have not accepted the Christian doctrines?

Yes.

He says it is true.

All I say is that you must not convince Daan; we do not want him here. [Interjections.]

There are Whites living in our country today who have no links with the church, and there are atheists and agnostics. There are altogether 328 280 of them. The Jewish part of our population numbers 119 000. We have heard of non-Christian churches with a membership of 27 000. Have the hon. member and his party ever argued that White heathens should not also be allowed to come and sit here? If he has not done so, then he is making a political doctrine of regligion. I want to say this evening that this country has too many disputes and difficulties to be able to afford to unleash another, churchified, conflict as well. [Interjections.]

I want to repeat, for the edification of the hon. members, what I began by saying. I said that this model, and any other model, would demand a quality of leadership which we have not had before.

And do not have now!

Yes, perhaps not now either. The hon. member may be right. [Interjections.] I added that our survival was dependent on the victory of the values in which we believe. I want to say this evening that I am not ashamed to seek to secure the position of the Whites in this country, because, together with others, the Whites are concerned with the administration of the state on the basis of Christian principles. Secondly, I wish to say that this is an involvement on the part of not only Whites, but also Black, Brown and Asian people. I do not need prophetic gifts to say that the survival of the Whites can only be justified if they serve these values. If they no longer serve them, if the values they profess are not victorious, then we shall forfeit our right to survival. Thirdly, I want to say that all the leaders in the country will have to scale down their demands. The country does not have the resources—financial, physical or emotional—to satisfy all the demands. It does not have them.

Finally, I say that I want to perpetuate the position of the Whites, for their own sake, but also because it is in the interests of Brown, Black and Asian that their position should not be undermined. In Africa the degree of development of democratic institutions, stability and security is dependent on the position of the Whites and the entrenchment of that position.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.