Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, usually the Third Reading of a Bill is an occasion to look back and consider the progress of the Bill. At the Third Reading one considers what has been achieved, what amendments have been made and what the standpoints of the various parties in the House are in respect of the Bill. On this occasion it is crystal clear that the Bill at present before the House has not yet been properly debated by Parliament. From the outset it was clear to us that this was not an ordinary piece of legislation; indeed, it was a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa. Therefore one can only conclude that we have made a farce of parliamentary debate by applying the guillotine to this Bill. In fact we only debated 34 out of 103 clauses during the Committee Stage. This means that even the highest Council Chamber in the land did not fully acquaint itself with the various arguments that could be advanced in regard to this Bill. How much more, then, must ignorance as regards the details of the Bill be rife outside this House? That is one of the conclusions I reached, i.e. that at the end of this process of constitutional development, South Africa is more divided and confused about its constitutional future than ever before in its history.

In its propaganda campaign the Government is trying to create the impression that the referendum is limited to a White political debate in which so-called extreme minorities are opposing the standpoint of the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The implications of this debate extend far further than the narrow confines of White politics. Whites are not deciding here on a domestic matter which only affects them. Indeed, one of the most important objectives of the Bill is to establish a constitutional dispensation in terms of which other population groups must be involved in participation and a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa. Although this Constitution Bill was initiated by the Whites, its success, its feasibility, will ultimately depend not only on the participation, but also the approval and support of other population groups, even those population groups that are being accorded no participation in the new constitutional dispensation. The no vote of those who are unable to participate in the referendum on 2 November has already begun to build up in the rest of South Africa. The signs are very clear. One moderate Coloured, Asian, and particularly Black leader after another has indicated his total rejection of the constitutional proposals in clear and unambiguous terms. The no vote of the CP represents approximately 13% of the White electorate. However, in private conversations this 13% of the CP is being built up by the Government as the major threat. They say that the CP must be neutralized, they must be prevented from increasing their strength after the referendum of 2 November. Therein, of course, lies a contradiction. That is merely a recognition on the part of the Government that the market they are really aiming at in their whole propaganda campaign is the English vote. That is very clear from the way in which support is being canvassed.

Why is the CP saying no to this Bill? The reason is not the one advanced by the Government. The CP is saying no because it does not agree that Coloureds and Asians, not the Whites—to be specific, the National Party—should help the Government to administer apartheid or separate development. In essence, that is what they are saying. They say that it is the responsibility of the Whites in their own Parliament to administer separate development and apartheid. That is the difference between the Government and the CP. The CP says that no other population group must be involved, in the Parliament of South Africa, the implementation of the policy of the NP. In contrast, the NP says that it is now going to ask Coloureds and Indians to administer this policy together with them.

The PFP says no to separate development or apartheid, whether it be the 1983 model of the NP, of the Government, or the 1948 model of the CP. However, the overwhelming majority of Coloured, Asian and Black South Africans join us in saying no, and I challenge the Government to prove the contrary. It is very easy, Mr. Speaker. There is no problem in determining that. The Government has the power to hold a referendum for those population groups on the same day that the Whites are to lend their support to the question, a referendum to put the same question to them, because after all, that constitution is going to affect and govern their lives as well. The fact that the Government lacks the courage to do this will be the greatest single cause of the failure of this constitutional dispensation. That is the point I am trying to make here. Ultimately this is not solely a question of White approval. The debate in which we are engaged is a far wider one. For that reason the PFP is not approaching this referendum as a threatened minority representing an unpopular standpoint. Before the result of the referendum is known we know that the no vote forms part of the political stream by which the future of South Africa will in fact be determined. We shall try to find an answer to the tremendously difficult problems relating to constitutional development in South Africa. There may be deep division as to what the solution should be, and there is. Moreover, there will be a great deal of debate about it. However the Government can have no doubt on one score, and that is that those who say no in South Africa will know very clearly that they are saying no because they reject this constitutional dispensation.

The radicals.

No, the hon. member for Pretoria Central must not come and play with the term “radicals” now. He knows as well as I do which moderate Black leaders, Coloured leaders and Asian leaders have already expressed themselves as being opposed to this. I can quote the hon. member in this regard. Nothing better illustrates the division in standpoints and opinions in South Africa than these same conflicting statements made over the past five or six weeks by the Government on the one hand and Black, Coloured and Asian leaders on the other. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must not frown like that. In Monday’s Burger we read the following—

That is the title of a speech he made in Vredendal. The hon. the Minister went on to say inter alia the following—

That, among other things, is what the hon. the Minister said. Now we must read what happened before that. We read the following—

That is what Gatsha Buthelezi says. He also says, among other things, the following—

He goes on to say—

After all, both cannot be right about the same legislation. [Interjections.] There sits the hon. the Minister who says that a no vote will lead to violence, and here we have one of the most important leaders among the Black population who says that a yes vote will lead to violence. The question is simply this: How does he see his interests on the basis of this Constitution Bill? How does he see it affecting him? After all, the hon. the Minister cannot, while retaining his credibility, tell me that the exclusion of Blacks from this Constitution Bill will not lead to the polarization of relations between Black and White. Surely that is clear from what Gatsha Buthelezi says here. Nevertheless, one cannot regard him as a radical Black leader, because if the Government regards him as a radical Black leader then we are in far greater trouble than I thought. Therefore I say that in order to succeed—and that is the lesson of this discord—the new constitution must have significantly more support from the people who are excluded from it than the present one. All available evidence makes it clear that this is not the case.

†Mr. Speaker, we say “no” to this constitution because it is not the result of negotiation and consensus, no matter what the Government may say. It was dreamt up in the back room of the NP, processed through the NP’s congresses and then foisted on the rest of South Africa. The proof of this is that there is not even one reputable Coloured or Indian politician who can claim even the tiniest role in formulating or negotiating any basic aspect of the constitution from the outset. They could only tinker about with the details after the principles had been accepted in Parliament and they could give evidence to the Select Committee.

Further proof that this is not the result of negotiation and consensus is that these Coloured and Indian politicians who hesitantly claim that they will conditionally participate, declare their intention to go in and change it beyond all recognition. A constitution is not a fly by night affair. Within it people try to reform their society. Coloured and Indian politicians who have said that they would participate in the constitution make it clear that their first intention is to reform the constitution before they can try to reform the society. This is a ludicrous state of affairs.

We also say “no” because this constitution will increase racial conflict in South Africa. The Government claims that Blacks will have to be excluded from this constitution because alternative constitutional arrangements have been made for them. These alternative arrangements have become known as separate development and make it quite clear that Blacks can never be citizens of South Africa; that for as long as this is the case, their lives will have to be administered by pass laws, by removals and by the migrant labour system. No hon. member of the NP claims that this is not to be the case when they try to justify the new constitution. On the contrary, all of them say that this is inevitable.

This is why I appreciate the honesty of the hon. the Prime Minister when he responded to Mr. Eagleburger’s statement that there was some kind of hidden agenda: Help us first to solve the Indian and Coloured problem and then we shall look at the Black problem. The hon. the Prime Minister promptly disillusioned the American Administration about it and said that he wanted to make it quite clear that there was no hidden agenda. The hon. the Prime Minister said that the Government had never made false promises as far as Blacks were concerned.

That is why those who say “yes” on 2 November, say “yes” to separate development for Blacks whether they intend to do so or not. Not only will this increase racial conflict between White and Black, but it will also increase it between Coloureds and Indians on the one hand and Blacks on the other hand. Black spokesmen have already made it clear that Coloureds and Asians are being used as pawns in a game of buffer politics between Blacks and Whites. They have made it clear.

We also say “no” because this constitution entrenches apartheid ’83. One would have thought that a new constitution would clearly indicate how South Africa was going to move towards reform, how it was going to assist in removing racial discrimination. Instead this constitution makes racial discrimination a corner-stone of its operation by giving constitutional status to the Population Registration Act.

Also the manner in which “own” and “general affairs” are identified and administered is political racism in operation in its simplest and crudest form. An all-White State President, the creature of a dominant White party, decides by himself what Coloureds, Indians and Whites can regard as “own affairs” whether they like it or not. Coloureds and Indians have already made it abundantly clear that they do not like it. The only basis on which this is decided—we have dealt with this in the Committee Stage—is race.

The hon. the Minister will recall that during the Committee Stage we debated this whole question of group identity, a sense of self-identification, and we tried to come to grips with the very difficult problem of how this is established in a plural society. One expert after the other made it quite clear that an ethnic group’s sense of self identity is something determined by that group itself. No external force can determine for them what should be their own affairs. That is why the manner in which this legislation gives an instrument to the State President to determine what “own affairs” for other groups are going to be, is a denial of the principle of self determination, a denial of the principle of group identity because at the heart of both lies the idea of voluntarily association. The only basis on which it is done in terms of the constitution is racism. We say that racism does not need or deserve a new constitution; it needs to be abolished from our national life.

Fourthly, we say “no” because of the potential for one party dictatorship contained in this constitution. If the central constitutional problem in South Africa is how to prevent or avoid domination by one race group over others, something which the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has repeatedly made abundantly clear, this constitution not only fails to come to terms with this problem, but simply enshrines racial domination in a more sophisticated manner. It is not the old crude White baasskap of 1948. The 1983 model is one of one White party domination. This is evident from the election of the State President, the Speaker and the composition of the President’s Council.

Tell us what you want.

It looks to me as if the NRP has become the official hecklers for the NP, a sort of second-string Wednesday team of the NP.

It is not only one party domination, but in crucial areas the domination of one person, namely the State President. It is false to argue that the new State President’s powers are simply the combined powers of the present Prime Minister and State President. In key areas of decision-making he is given powers. The State President can decide what is own and general affairs. The State President can decide what issue can be referred to the President’s Council for the settlement of disputes between the various Houses. He has the power to withdraw the issue he has referred to them and he can do so at his discretion. These are new powers that are important for the working of the new system. That is why it is a fallacy to argue that he does not have new powers.

The Government propaganda accompanying this constitution is that it is an attempt to broaden democracy in South Africa. This is the phrase used by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This inevitably must bring the idea of democratic government into further disrepute in Africa. Every second tin-pot dictator to the north of us appeals to democratic values to justify his dictatorial rule. We are following the same route with this constitution. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries cannot see the folly of his party’s position in this respect. The very laws used by Ian Smith are now used against people who have been found not guilty in a court of law. That is the respect that was engendered for democracy in that society. We are following the same route here in South Africa. The test is simple: How would the NP feel with a Black President elected in terms of the NP constitution using the NP’s arguments to justify his extraordinary powers and telling Whites that their exclusion from the constitution is justified because White constitutional development is going to follow a different historical path? The magic phrase that will be used by such a Black President will be: “We are trying to broaden the base of democracy”! It is ridiculous and we are bringing the whole idea of democratic government into disrepute.

We are warned about the dire consequences of a “no” vote. I have heard so many stories of lunches being held between Cabinet Ministers and businessmen on this score. I do not mean to be disrespectful to anybody in the House, but I just want to try to rephrase some of the arguments one hears. If there is a “no” vote we hear that PW and Chris will be in trouble, because then FW is going to make a strong pitch for the premiership and will try to reconsolidate with Andries, which would mean a reconsolidation of Afrikaner nationalism. Reform would then stop in its tracks. It is said that FW is verkramp and Chris is verlig. The fact of the matter is that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is no more verkramp or verlig than the hon. the Prime Minister was when he took over as Prime Minister. It is tradition within the NP that the leader in the Transvaal is regarded as one of the logical successors to the Prime Minister. If that is so, the very fact that that hon. gentleman happens to be the leader of the NP in the Transvaal means that he stands a good chance whether there is a “yes” or “no” vote in any case. This is what I would call crystal-ball gazing politics. What would be the advantages of a “no” vote under those circumstances? I shall tell hon. members. Whoever succeeds the hon. the Prime Minister—and I do not wish him personally a short career—is going to have to face the same problems and pressures that any Prime Minister would be confronted with. But he would have one advantage if there is a “no” vote, and that is that he would not be hamstrung by an unworkable constitution. He would at least be able to operate much better under those circumstances. A successful “no” vote will halt the Government in its tracks. It will be a clear message that it should stop wasting time that should be used for reform by messing about with useless and artificial constitutional experiments which can only lead to racial conflict and tension in South Africa. A “no” vote would force political debate back to where it belongs, i.e. how to get rid of “baasskap” and domination and promote peaceful Black/White coexistence. That is the central problem. A “no” vote from Whites would be a “yes” to Blacks that their status as citizens of the Republic of South Africa is still open to debate. Now the gate is being closed on them.

But what would be the consequences of a successful “yes” vote? It would mean that all the objections which I have mentioned will become part of our political reality. In addition to that, precious time will be wasted, at least three to four years, to construct an unworkable and extraordinarily expensive constitutional structure. This time that will be wasted is time that is desperately needed to cope with the demands, to face urgent problems, for example, in the areas of housing, urbanization and job creation. A “yes” vote—and this is very important—will see the growth of an anti-free enterprise pro-Marxist ideology amongst young urban Blacks. Separate development is the future that awaits them. Separate development is seen by many experts as a contradiction of the philosophy of free enterprise. Hon. members must not take my word for it. They must go and read the neo-Marxist analyses that are flourishing under the young Black militants at the moment. They are arguing that the Government’s policy for the Black South African is a denial of free enterprise. In fact they are arguing that capitalism and apartheid go hand in hand. This constitution is simply going to feed that kind of ideology. A “yes” vote will strengthen the growth of right-wing extremism. This is so because in an atmosphere of anxiety, confusion and tension, racial demagogues abound to exploit prejudice and ignorance. An unworkable constitution creates precisely such an atmosphere.

In conclusion I wish to state that there is a final irony built into this constitution. Even if, against all odds, the new constitution operates successfully for only Coloureds and Asians, the very success would be a source of alienation and frustration for the majority of Blacks. It would demonstrate that the only way in which real progress and improvement can take place is when one can effectively participate in the constitution of one’s country. However, there is no likelihood of such a success. We are going to have the worst of all possible worlds. Nothing is calculated to fan demands and expectations more amongst Blacks than when they see to what extent they are going to be excluded from the central constitution of South Africa.

It is argued that South Africa is a unique country with unique problems, problems that demand a unique constitutional solution. But there is nothing unique about domination. It is as old as the hills and it has been a source of violence and conflict in societies right through the ages, and so it will be also in our country if we persist with this kind of constitutional tinkering.

Mr. Speaker, it is striking that when the official Opposition are in a state of internal conflict and tension they always come and look for problems on the side of the governing party. We had this once again this afternoon, in the form of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say about—to quote him—Chris, FW and Andries. This is from the party that held a meeting of the federal executive at which, to begin with, a unanimous decision was announced, whereas afterwards we heard that it was a federal executive meeting which, in the first place, was fairly poorly attended while, in the second place, a number of dissenting votes were cast at the meeting and in the third place, a number of people abstained from voting. It is the “unanimity” of that party that gives rise to this kind of nonsense that is aimed at the governing party.

In the second place I wish to point out that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again illustrated the futility of the approach adopted by the official Opposition, the approach in terms of which they do not take into account the realities of the South African situation. For example, he insisted that because the new constitution affected more than only White interests, it should be tested in a referendum among the population as a whole. However, one fact that the hon. official Opposition must face, as must anyone who wishes to bring about reform in this country, is that unless the Whites can be persuaded to agree to any new dispensation, there will be no reform. That is a fact. As far as that is concerned, the Whites are not prepared to abdicate their position for the sake of theoretical formulae that have nothing to do with reality.

I wish to refer to another remark by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which also illustrates his lack of an instinct for the realities of our situation. The third reason why his party advocates a “no” vote is supposedly that racial discrimination is, according to him, a cornerstone of the new constitution. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to realize that just as the position of the Whites in this country is a reality that must be taken into account, the ethnic diversity, too, is a reality. It is easy to speak about racial discrimination, but identification on the basis of population group is based on a fact, a reality, and anyone who wishes to draw up a constitution without taking that into account is not relevant to the politics of South Africa.

We are dealing here with an historic occasion, historic because we are on the point of adopting a new constitution for our country, a constitution which in fact represents the beginning of a new era in the constitutional history of the country, a constitution that establishes structures and formulates procedures which are to form the basis of a challenging new phase in South Africa’s constitutional development. It is a phase which, in the first place—and however the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tries to make it look ridiculous, it is a fact—achieves a broadening of democracy in South Africa, in that it gives the Coloureds and the Asians a real say in decision-making on those matters that affect their future, in the twofold form of, on the one hand, self-determination or a sole right to make decisions on what are distinguishable their own affairs and, on the other hand, joint responsibility and decision-making together with the Whites on matters of common concern, the Whites that, thus far, have wielded political power alone. This challenging new phase that we are faced with demands of all of us a new political style in the future, a search for reasonableness, a style of negotiation and the patience that that involves, of persuasion and the effort that goes into that, and of the search for accord and the pursuit of resolution of conflict; not the evasion of conflict, but the use of conflict in a creative sense as an effort to reach solutions of problems and eventually achieve co-operation. Let there be no illusions about this: This new dispensation will demand a new political style of all of us and of all who enter the new dispensation together with us. In the third place, this new constitutional phase is one that demands of all of us an enterprising spirit and resourcefulness, a phase that will demand of us a high degree of courage and resolution, as well as faith and self confidence. Let us have no illusions: the path we shall be travelling will by no means be easy or well-marked. We shall have to blaze a new trail, a trial that will demand something of the pioneering spirit of our forefathers, who blazed a trail where others had not imagined it possible.

It is true that there is a degree of uncertainty and doubt among many of our people. There is even a degree of fear and hesitation. That is inevitable. However, let us cast this matter in its historical perspective and let us consider our history and look at other turning points in our constitutional development, turning points that aroused similar feelings and a similar atmosphere. I refer to the founding of the Union in 1910 and also to the establishment of a republic in 1961. At that time, too, there were people who, out of faint-heartedness, worry and uncertainty, preferred to stick to the familiar, however unsatisfactory and unworkable that familiar may have been in dealing with the problems that had to be foreseen in the future; people who, due to their faint-heartedness, did not want to tackle the unfolding of new possibilities, did not want to tackle the cultivation of new strength and new abilities.

Let us just recall once again that at the time of Union in 1910 we had two population groups that, eight years before, had been engaged in a struggle to the death in the form of the war in South Africa; the one, the Afrikaner people, small in number and economically insignificant, and inexperienced in modem life, and also weakened by the recent war; the other population group, the bearers of a mighty world culture. In 1910 it was a venture involving considerable risk to become signatories to the Union in spite of the language differences, the century of struggle and, as a leader of the time referred to it, a century of injustice, too, that had divided those two groups.

Moreover, all this happened despite the great inequality that had prevailed. Nowadays we are so fond of speaking about inequality. However at that time, too, there was considerable inequality, particularly in the economic sphere, but also as far as the level of development was concerned, between those two White groups. There was also tremendous potential for conflict. Moreover there was a tremendous risk involved—a risk, for the Afrikaner in particular, of being ploughed under in the new unity resulting from unification. Nevertheless they went ahead with faith and self-confidence, and these new possibilities were tackled, the potential was perceived, seized upon and developed. We know, too, that this process was not without its ups and downs. We know it was not an easy road. There were even bitter clashes on that early parth to Union. However, who would doubt today that the daring of those who at the time said yes and rejected the no, was entirely justified and also richly rewarded?

At this point let us also dwell for a moment on the other important turning point in our history to which I have already referred, the decision on the Republic that had to be taken in 1960. Again—and we must remember this—there was uncertainty, fear and faint-heartedness on the part of many people. Some people feared that the coming of the Republic would isolate South Africa in the world; that its position as regards security would be irrecoverably weakened. Others were concerned that the coming of the Republic would isolate South Africa in the world of international trade, that it would be economically weakened. Still others warned that the coming of the Republic would result in separation and polarization between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking parts of the White population.

In 1980 a calculated venture had again to be accepted, a calculated risk had to be run; not a reckless action but a calculated, well-planned, duly considered risk. The result was that all this faint-heartedness was put to shame, and a stronger South Africa emerged, a South Africa that today can be proud of its own arms and its own resources of ammunition, and which enjoys a higher military prestige than ever before in its history. It is a republic which, through economic growth and progress, has reached unparalleled heights, a republic in which considerable ingenuity has resulted in progress being made in the constitutional sphere as regards the political emancipation of the Black peoples to the point of independence. Last but not least a greater unity has also developed among Afrikaans and English-speaking people with, for the first time in history, a truly unquestionable and undivided loyalty to one land—the Republic of South Africa.

Now, in 1983, we are again faced with such a turning point. Now, therefore, let us, too, with calculated resolution, display the same pioneering spirit that was so evident on those two occasions in our history, the declaration of Union in 1910, and the declaration of the Republic in 1961. Let us display a willingness and a preparedness to blaze new trails and create new opportunities. Let us display the courage and self-confidence to accept calculated risks, but risks which hold the potential of greater stability and long-term progress for us in this country. Let us be honest and admit this constitution does not create an easy and simple structure. We should be bluffing one another if we said that. Indeed, a constitution for the Republic of South Africa must be a constitutional formula to provide for the complex and very demanding reality of a diversity of population encountered in few other countries. A constitution that does not take this complexity into account is simply not a realistic one. Therefore, although this constitution is complex and, in certain respects, unavoidably difficult, it is—and we must never overlook this—the only proposal on the table of the political debate in South Africa which has a reasonable chance, or even any chance whatsoever, of success. There is nothing else before us that we could seriously discuss. No alternative has been proposed which complies with the two basic minimum requirements for serious debate, viz. that on the one hand it has a reasonable chance of being implemented in practice and, on the other hand, that it has a reasonable chance of being accorded full acceptance by the population groups to which it must be applied.

For a meaningful debate and even—if, theoretically, the no votes were to be in the majority—if the whole situation were to be reviewed or reconsidered, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party advocate, it would be essential to table meaningful and reasonable alternatives to the constitutional plan of the NP. Otherwise we should have nothing to debate. However, any such alternative is totally lacking. The irony of the situation is that all the parties and their leaders know and recognize that the status quo in South Africa, in which the Whites alone have supremacy and have the say with regard to their own affairs, the own affairs of the Coloureds and the Asians and the joint affairs of all three, cannot be maintained as it stands. However, it is only the NP that has come forward with a solution that can only be given serious consideration. Until such time as alternatives are advanced which can be given serious consideration, the debate is in fact meaningless and there is only really one proposal before us.

It is true that the NP is in power. It knows that it has the responsibility and will probably have it for a considerable time in the future, not merely to speculate theoretically in the abstract, but also to do things, to take responsibility for actions and to establish things that can work. That is the responsibility of the NP, of the Government. Owing to its responsibility, this party cannot afford to ignore reality and pursue the politics of escape, because by doing so it would be deserting its duty and its calling.

When one considers the lack of real alternatives it is clear that both the left and the far right Opposition realize that they do not and will not have the opportunity to bear the real responsibility of government and of having to make things work. For that reason they can permit themselves the luxury of dabbling in unrealistic romanticisms and phantasies which do not take the realities of the South African situation into account. Until such time as there is a fundamental change, all we are doing here is debating the initiative and efforts of the NP, and no significant contribution is being made to the debate by the other side.

In this regard I should like to recall two fundamental unrealities embodied in the policy championed by the CP which have often been emphasized in this debate. On the one hand there is the unreality of a proposed homeland outside the Republic of South Africa as a basis for a political dispensation for the Coloureds. On the other hand, there is the unreality of the denial of the need for a joint say and the essential evolution of political relations between the Coloureds and the Asians on the one hand and the Whites on the other.

I should like to refer to an occasion which is often cast in my teeth by certain members of the Opposition. In 1971 I and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, spoke at a congress of the ASB. He spoke about the issue of a political dispensation for the Coloureds. He pointed out that in this country we had Whites and Coloureds within the same State, and said—

He also said—

The then hon. Prime Minister also referred to the need for there to be connecting structures between the Governmental structures of the Coloureds and those of the Whites. He added that the links he described then were not permanent links that would exist for all time. Today, too, we must realize that we are dealing here with a constitution embodying certain evolutionary growth. The then hon. Prime Minister uttered an important truth. He said—

He went on to make an important statement that we shall have to bear in mind in the context of constitutional development in South Africa. I quote—

He was talking to the students—

Accordingly I plead that both now and on the road ahead, when we debate constitutional development, we must please focus to a greater extent on the merits of the argument as matters stand now and as they will be in future. We must get away from this futile hand of the past in which we try to “Hansard” one another and quote what this person or that was supposed to have said. Usually they are quoted out of context in order to give a slant to the truth. Let us come back and argue the merits of the case and stop using cross-quotations of this nature as our hunting pattern in politics. Ultimately we shall make no progress in that way, we shall not keep abreast of reality and it is not a useful and productive analysis on which we can build.

This side of the House is proud to have a share in the making of history, in the making of an appointment with the future, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it. This side of the House has no illusions about the fact that the task ahead will be difficult and demanding. However, let us say, in all honesty towards our descendants, that no easy, obvious and facile solutions are possible in this country. The dispensation in which our Creator has placed us is a difficult one and we must take realistic account of that difficult complexity when we put forward solutions, and when we try to make it acceptable to the public at large that there are specific solutions. We must be honest and we must also give them the hard facts of the matter. Only on that basis can we build a meaningful future, as we are going to do with this Constitution Bill.

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. the Minister of National Education was speaking in glowing terms about the pioneering spirit of our Voortrekkers and the people of 1910 and thereafter, the hon. members behind him sat listening to him with grim and unenthusiastic faces. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister argued that there was no alternative to the Constitution Bill. However, the matter being discussed at present, is the Constitution Bill.

All the same, he went on to devote quite a few minutes of his speech to the alternative of the CP. Then he quoted Mr. Vorster. I just want to tell him that while Mr. Vorster was the Prime Minister of South Africa, Dr. Connie Mulder was the chief information officer of the NP. That was in 1968.

The creator of the “magic plan”.

In various debates in April and May of 1968, Dr. Connie Mulder advocated a homeland, and the previous Prime Minister made him a Minister towards the end of 1968 in spite of the fact that he advocated a homeland. [Interjections.]

We are now looking at this legislation retrospectively, introspectively and predictively. When we consider this legislation, we have to consider the situation at the beginning of this year when hon. members on the Government side came here supported, bolstered and cushioned by five congresses which had accepted their guidelines. They were full of confidence that this legislation would be tabled any day and that was when the irresponsible challenge was issued. The feathers that filled that cushion have fallen all over South Africa, and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is still trying to put them back in the cushion but he is not succeeding.

Introspectively we just want to reach a few conclusions. Power-sharing pure and simple is now part and parcel of the policy of the governing party. In essence four Governments are going to govern one territory. We believe that this fact and the fact that own and general affairs cannot be defined in one territory are undoubtedly a recipe for conflict. The problems in respect of mutual demands regarding own affairs, the proper and just allocation of funds, the veto in connection with changes to the constitution, the right of the State President to take final decisions and the potential frustration have not been allayed in any of these debates or discussions.

It must also be stated anew that with intricate legislation such as this it was not in the interests of South Africa for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading and after it had been approved in principle. Just to illustrate how futile it was, I want to refer to the eighty or so memoranda and the evidence, the preponderance of which dealt with the principles. The bulk of the memoranda and evidence dealt with principles. In addition a conservative evaluation of the memoranda shows that of the 80 or so memoranda only three were unashamedly in favour of the legislation, 14 were conditionally in favour of it, 41 were against it and 21 were uncommitted. Among the uncommitted I want to mention witnesses such as Prof. Lombard, Stadler and Du Pisanie who sharply criticized the restricted powers of the court, and the Johannesburg Attorneys Association, Prof. Vorster and Van der Westhuizen and others who only gave evidence in connection with the rights of the courts. What would the scoreboard have read if evidence had been heard on the principle? It is indeed being argued that the constitution was already being debated in 1977, but that was only on the basis of guidelines. This model was only tabled on 5 May 1983. We maintain it is on record how many dozens of amendments there were and how many were accepted. It was a poor attempt at consensus. We were forced into an experiment from the start of this debate from which there is no escape. This fact alone gives one political claustrophobia.

In addition, the guillotine and approximately four mini-guillotines fell during the debate. Only 34 of the 103 clauses were debated in the Committee Stage. Neither congresses nor droughts nor rain nor filibustering are an excuse for the intolerance of an impatient Minister. This is a bullying way of steamrollering the most important legislation we have had since South Africa became a Union. It has been said that the CP were guilty of filibustering.

But you were.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member to accuse the hon. the Minister of bullying methods?

Order! I do not consider that remark to be unparliamentary but the hon. member could perhaps choose his words more carefully.

Sir, I shall certainly do so.

[Inaudible.]

There is really no need for the hon. the Minister to say something like that. He himself often says the same thing.

To the hon. member who accused us of filibustering, I want to say that in the Committee Stage the CP spoke for a total of 15 hours and 2 minutes, whereas the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning alone spoke for a total of 13 hours and 51 minutes, and rose to speak 78 times.

Predictively I want to say this Bill cannot succeed. The behaviour of the hon. the Minister himself does not attest to particular optimism. He said—

The hon. the Minister of National Education said the same thing—

†After six years he has not obtained the co-operation of a significant percentage of the Whites in South Africa. It is an effort to reach for the moon, as the hon. member for Barberton said, to begin to imagine that even with the honest intentions of the hon. the Minister he would get the co-operation of the other groups.

*He conceded from the start that the chances of success were slimmer than in most other countries. On this point he is correct, because there is not a country in the world where this partnership idea has worked. Pre-eminently it did not work in Africa, and the best example of this is Sir Roy Welensky. Where were the prospects of a successful partnership bigger or better than in the old Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland?

Going further predictively, I maintain it is a disgrace—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to this—to speak of revolution if the voters reject the Constitution Bill. They even use Mr. Von Schirnding in the UN to say there will be an explosion in the UN if the people vote “no” in our referendum. It indicates bankruptcy on the part of the Government that it should use that official there to say such things.

What is the other side of the picture when we refer to the White backlash, when we say the White backlash will rise and revolt if a “no” vote wins? Would that be responsible? I say let us forget it. After the referendum we still have to live together in this country and, come what may, with 300 years of experience in this country integrity will continue to triumph. [Interjections.] Put an end to this irresponsible and ridiculous talk of revolution. Stop it! The hon. the Minister in particular should be more careful in his choice of words.

I appreciate his dedication to a stillborn cause but that still does not justify his saying the things he said at Vredendal. It was unbecoming, ridiculous and irresponsible.

It is the fashion among hon. members on the Government side nowadays to say that the CP is siding with the PFP. This is also typical of a disease syndrome. It is absolute nonsense. If there has ever been an organization, if there has ever been a movement in South Africa which has been in conflict with the NP as we always knew it—this was still the case yesterday—it is the English language Press. An attempt was made to control the English language Press in South Africa by means of legislation, but now the English language Press, pre-eminently the Sunday Times, is the ally of the NP. I took the trouble of reading the Sunday Times of 2 October 1960. Three days before 5 October 1960 it said—

This is what the Sunday Times said. There was also an advertisement and a statement by Sir De Villiers Graaff in which he said: “Reject this Republic. Vote ‘no’.” Today in Die Burger there are banner headlines stating that Sir De Villiers Graaff has said: “Vote ‘yes’.” In an advertisement it is stated, inter alia—

If the Sunday Times knew that the NP plan was going to remain as it is, it would not vote for it. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants the people to have confidence in him, he must tell us where he is headed in this regard.

I should also like to lay to rest the entire argument in connection with the 1977 and 1979 proposals. All I want to say in this regard is that the CP considered those proposals to be a continuation of the policy of separate development. The NP of today considered it to be the starting point on the road to further concessions to the Coloureds and the Indians. When it became clear that the Coloureds in particular rejected the 1977 proposals, the Government came up with the 1982 proposals, with a clearer and a more closely defined step towards integration. We elected, as we still elect, to stick to the policy of separate development, viz. full White sovereignty in their own area and full sovereignty to other peoples in their own areas. This was also spelt out by the hon. the Prime Minister himself at the Transvaal congress of the NP in 1981.

During the period 1977 to 1979 the governing party consistently rejected power-sharing and a mixed government most persuasively and with great conviction. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs still rejects it today but he has to clear up this matter with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, because as far as this aspect is concerned they differ radically with each other.

To summarize, I want to say that power-sharing has been accepted. Self-determination is a mockery in terms of the fallible decision of a fallible State President acting on the advice of a mixed Cabinet. Without the right to levy taxes, without the right to change one’s constitution or to work out one’s own salvation in terms of the compulsion of the territorial imperative in one’s own indisputable fatherland, this is in conflict with self-determination. In addition, it is also subject to the general law. It is cynical and absurd. We say “no”, and if that sounds negative, I remind myself that in a time of crisis my people, some of its greatest leaders, men like Paul Kruger, Generals Hertzog, De Wet and De la Rey, Dr. Malan, Adv. Strijdom and Dr. Verwoerd also said “no”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has accused us—this is typical of what we have experienced recently and is nothing but a personal accusation against us—of sitting here with grim faces while we were listening to a brilliant speech by the hon. Minister of National Education. If hon. members have any doubt about this—I listened very attentively to it—they need only read Hansard. Then they will see that what I have said is true. Seen in historical perspective, it is correct to say that things are passing the CP and the PFP by. Let me say this to the hon. member for Brakpan here this afternoon. I was attached to the information office of the NP during the 1960 referendum. I personally am experiencing more enthusiasm and cooperation throughout the country for the coming referendum at this stage than was initially the case in 1960. However, hon. members forget so easily. I want to tell hon. members on that side of the House that a process has been started here in Cape Town in connection with this constitution, in connection with this appointment with the future, which will gain momentum as it spreads throughout the country and which will culminate on 2 November. We are dealing with an edifying matter here; we are dealing with a historic matter and we are dealing with a vitally important matter, a matter that is in the interests of all the people of the Republic of South Africa. More and more the country is preparing to give a positive reply to a cardinal historic question which no one can avoid, not even the opposition parties in this country.

The hon. member for Brakpan went further and made accusations against the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, a person who during the past few years has distinguished himself by the way in which he has handled this constitutional question with extreme patience and exceptional expertise. On this historic occasion of the Third Reading of this Bill the hon. member for Brakpan accused the hon. the Minister of bullying methods. Surely this is not the time to descend to such a personal level, even if the hon. member really believed it, which I do not believe is the case.

In the third place the hon. member said that this constitution would not work. I have been in this Parliament for 20 years and in the Cabinet for 10 years. I should like to say today not only in this House but also to my fellow-countrymen outside that I am convinced that the hard work that was done by the Thereon Commission and particularly after the Thereon Commission, from 10 years ago up to today, is going to be richly rewarded because we are going to have a better Parliament after 2 November, viz. if this referendum gets a “yes” vote in this country, than we have today or have had at any stage in the past in this country. It will be a Parliament which will operate better, which will run more smoothly, a Parliament which will be based on consensus in a country with a diversity of communities like South Africa. I believe this with my whole heart and soul, and I am convinced that with this legislation we are on our way to a destination which will realize that possibility for us in South Africa. In spite of the attempts at criticism by both the PFP and the CP for various reasons, I personally am looking forward longingly to the day—hopefully next year—when we shall be able to begin building together in this country on the new basis, namely away from the futile conflict style of parliamentary debate to which we have become accustomed and which, particularly in recent years, has no longer been able—and I say this with all due respect—to solve the problems of our fatherland. I am looking forward longingly with great expectation and enthusiasm to the construction work awaiting us a few months hence. I do so with as much confidence as I did in 1960, so that we can start building a Parliament which will not be based on conflict but on consensus. [Interjections.] The hollow laughter of those hon. members does not impress me at all. Actually they are laughing at history. In the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning I was privileged to experience how consensus was reached on two important Bills, namely the one dealing with Black local government and the Black Communities Development Bill, with hon. members on that side of the House, so much so that we accepted more than 50 amendments and could therefore report a far better Bill to this House.

We did not have a futile debate in the Select Committee on this Bill and I do not believe we need have one in this House either. We have already had an exhaustive discussion in the Select Committee. We reached consensus in the Select Committee and in this way we were able to improve the Bill considerably. Within a conflict model this is virtually impossible, even with the best will in the world. But in spite of this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came here this afternoon and said that this new Constitution was not going to succeed, it was not going to work. I want to refute his statement with all the conviction at my disposal.

Let us consider this matter further. I want here to quote—because I cannot put it better myself—what the hon. the Prime Minister said at the Federal Congress of the NP last year in Bloemfontein on 30 and 31 July. What is this Government striving for in an honourable way? The Prime Minister said we were striving—

Hon. members must take note of these wonderful words, of these essential truths—

And what follows now, Sir, is true, and we should be grateful for the degree of consensus we have achieved in our fatherland, in the midst of difficult circumstances, even more difficult than some hon. members sitting here realize—

[Interjections.] But, Sir, we believe in these things in spite of any irregularities there may be—

Therefore, in spite of difficulties and problems, on matters of vital importance there is consensus in our fatherland.

Do something about it.

Sir, this entire debate attests to what we are engaged upon but apparently this has escaped that hon. member.

In the second place I want to quote from Hansard of Monday, 16 May 1983, col. 7064, and I think this places the matter with which we are dealing in historical perspective—

When we consider the things in which we are now engaged against this background we have again had the experience this afternoon of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition making the allegation that we were going to continue racistic “baasskap” in the new dispensation here in South Africa. Immediately after that, however, members of the CP stood up and, as happened again this afternoon and is going to continue happening in future, the people are called upon and are led to believe …

Which people?

Our people; the hon. member’s and mine. The people are as it were being called upon as though this Government is going to sell out our people, that hon. member’s and mine, under the new dispensation. Now it is absolutely ironic—and if one does not want to laugh about this one has to sit down and cry about it, in sackcloth and ashes—when one sees what is actually happening here; how that hon. member is calling upon his people to vote “no” for the reasons he has advanced of which I have just mentioned one. Sir, I am not trying to be funny when I say that all that now remains of Supervan is Confused Van, to such an extent that we had to thank the hon. member in an advertisement “for high lighting the confusion among the ‘no’ votes”. That is why the hon. member is in such trouble. I am making an appeal that we consider these matters reasonably and rationally. But while that is the position on that side, members of the CP are attempting to get the people to believe what they want them to believe—in the first place, that we are supposed to be selling out the Whites and their interests here. They also allege that we are forcing integration upon the country whereas members of the PFP say we are perpetuating apartheid here. The important point I should like to make is that hon. members opposite, specifically members of the CP, are telling people that this new dispensation is the thin end of the wedge. They are trying to frighten the people in this way. They then go on to insinuate that we on this side can say what we like and think what we like but that eventually we shall be compelled to do the same for the Blacks as we are now doing for the Coloureds and the Indians. They are frightening our people outside in this way.

Let us consider the facts in this connection. In this regard I should like to associate myself, as regards the historic course of events, with what the hon. the Minister of National Education said earlier. In 1959 the late Dr. Verwoerd announced in this very House that the first Black national State would receive the status of self-government. In terms of that legislation Transkei became a self-governing State a few months later. Of course, that event was preceded by a historic process which took twelve years. What happened then? Many good people, good Nationalists, in South Africa did exactly the same thing as hon. members of the CP are doing now, two decades later. They did exactly the same thing. Those people also said that the NP Government under the leadership of Dr. Verwoerd was selling out the Whites in South Africa. They alleged that the Transkei would first be given self-government, after which it would become totally independent, and that this would lead to the Russians gaining a foothold there, that they would build harbours there and mount weapons there. They tried to frighten our people in that way. They tried to start a national movement against the late Dr. Verwoerd. They alleged that the Russians would not only build harbours in Transkei but that they would also mount heavy weaponry there, as is at present the case across our borders. According to them there would be common cause between the Russians and the Blacks, and the Whites would be forced to their knees. They travelled the length and breadth of the country and frightened our people unbelievably. They berated Dr. Verwoerd in every way they could think of. One of the names they called him was “kaffer-boetie”. That was because, as they said, he had sold out the Whites. That was in 1959, less than a year before the referendum.

However, people forget so easily. A little while ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here that there had never been greater division among our people than existed in South Africa at present. That is the most arrant nonsense imaginable. In 1960, a few months before the referendum, a survey was undertaken by the NP in which it was found that between 40 000 and 50 000 more voters were opposed to a Republic than were in favour of it. I was present at that meeting. There are also other hon. members here in this House who attended that same meeting. That day—I say this for the edification of hon. members opposite—we sat in that meeting with grim faces. We really sat there with grim faces because we were worried that what the facts before us amounted to was that we could not hold a referendum. We must not forget that the major question in that referendum was that of a Republic within or outside the British Commonwealth. That was because the scaremongers at the time had frightened the people in the country so much with all their tales about the possibility of Russian harbours in the Transkei, as well as their stories about all the weapons the Russians would mount in the Transkei etc., that they had become totally panic-stricken. They alleged that the Russians were going to shoot blazes out of the Whites, that they were going to bring the Whites in South Africa totally under the heel of Russian and Black domination and goodness knows what else. The Opposition then, as now, tried to frighten people by telling them that if South Africa left the British Commonwealth, there would no longer be any foreign trade, there would no longer be this, that or the other, and so forth. If the people of this country had believed the ultra-pessimists, as hon. members of the CP are today, and the people who spread the same tales as the CP and the PFP are spreading today, we would have been the most panic-stricken people in the world. Not only would we have been sitting in sackcloth and ashes today but we would also have gone to the dogs in this fatherland of ours.

Thanks to the fact that there were, however, also leaders then, who, in spite of the scaremongering, reasoned things out logically and put both sides of the case, we were able, as is the case now, to go forward to meet the future confidently. Dr. Verwoerd told the people at the time that he could not give them guarantees. Hon. members can read that for themselves in Verwoerd aan die Woord. I can still remember as if it were yesterday, when those tales were told on every platform in the country, when attempts were made to frighten people with regard to what was going to happen to them and it was alleged that the NP was ploughing the White under in this country, how the late Dr. Verwoerd reacted clearly and unequivocally to all the accusations and scaremongering. I am just referring to these matters in passing. It is, after all, an interesting piece of history. I can still remember as if it were yesterday what the late Dr. Verwoerd’s reply was. Coolly and calmly and quietly he said that he could not guarantee that the Russians would never build a harbour in Transkei. He wanted to know how he could give such a guarantee. He said that he could only lay the foundations at the time but that future generations would have to decide—and these were his exact words—“whether and how they were going to build on the foundations that had been laid”. I remember thinking at the time what a privilege it would be to build on those foundations. After that we decided not whether we were going to build on them but how we were going to build on them. Then Dr. Verwoerd said—

He said—

After which the people voted “yes”.

Many years have passed. Hon. members must remember that at that stage Mr. Mitchell was sitting where the hon. member for Houghton sits today. They marched in Natal. There was the Torch Commando and similar terrible things. History is simply repeating itself.

Ask John Wiley how he voted in 1960.

I want to tell hon. members that just as was the case in 1960 we are once again confidently going to say “yes” in reply to the question put to the country on 2 November. This is the course we have to adopt. It is not the course of fear. It is the course of initiative. It is the course of reality. It is the golden course of constitutional development in practical, real terms as other countries have experienced it. Hon. members can take a look at the constitutional development in America, Great Britain, France and elsewhere. One of the major errors of reasoning made in South Africa today, is that one can complete constitutional development within a matter of 20, 25, 30 or even 40 or 50 years. It is not possible. It is not possible in the case of South Africa either. We are engaged in a constitutional development process which started in 1910, which reached a certain peak in 1960 and which is going to reach a further peak in 1983 on the way to gaining a reply in this country to one of the most perplexing problems not simply in Africa but in the world. This country is a microcosm of the world with all its various population groups. One day I told an important American who was on a visit here: Listen, if you have a solution to the cosmopolitan problems of the Republic of South Africa, if you can tell me what the solution is—even if people elsewhere do not have a solution to it—I guarantee you that, even if it costs R100 million and even if the answer is to be found on the moon, this Government will definitely set aside R100 million for the purpose. As a matter of fact, if the answer is to be found on the moon, the Government will set aside R1 000 million for it.

Is that where you got this constitution from?

However, the solution is not to be found because it lies in building, brick by brick, with the greatest patience and dedication. Without that it is not possible to find solutions to these problems in this country.

Sir, I want to conclude. I have been privileged in attempting to make some small contribution in this regard for more than 30 years now. Great Britain eventually became known as “the miracle of the previous century” for the simple reason that when they were faced with similar human problems, they were the only ones who could avoid revolution and who succeeded with evolutionary development. I want to tell this house today that if the people say “yes” on 2 November, which I believe will be the case, this country will be adding a further brick to the building as a result of which South Africa, the fatherland of us all, will be known in the future as the miracle of this century because we shall have succeeded through cooperation and development in solving one of the world’s most perplexing problems successfully under the guiding hand of the Almighty. For that reason it will be a privilege during the next two months to tell each other in the word of Die Stem: “Op jou roep sê ons nooit nee nie, sê ons altyd, altyd ja.” That is South Africa’s privilege at this time.

Mr. Speaker, in the referendum to which the hon. the Minister was referring he and I were on opposite sides of the fence. He is quite correct: We used every weapon we could to try to get a “no” vote. In retrospect I must also admit that probably the most important factor which influenced us was an emotional one. I am referring to the emotional loyalty to our history and to what the Commonwealth represented. With it was a practical fear. The hon. the Minister is quite right. There was a fear, and we tried to get people to vote “no”, but we lost. However, having lost the referendum we accepted the will of the people of South Africa. We accepted the result and we accepted the Republic.

Did you have a choice?

We have been loyal to the Republic ever since. I sometimes wonder whether that hon. member’s colleagues are all as loyal to this Republic as the United party and its members were to the Republic after they had fought against its coming.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask for your ruling as to whether those words do not carry a clear imputation against the loyalty of hon. members in this House?

The hon. member stated clearly that he wondered whether those hon. members were as loyal as hon. members of the United Party were. The hon. member for Durban point may proceed. [Interjections.]

There is also another point which the hon. the Minister made and which is demonstrated here from time to time. I am referring to the difference between a Select Committee where one gets down to the job, and the posturing and gimmicking which goes on when some get before the glare of publicity in this House. An example is this Bill. In almost 10 hours less time spent in the Select Committee than we spent in Committee on only 34 clauses, we listened to evidence for something like three days, we discussed all the instructions which had been submitted by the official Opposition and by the CP and we still were able to debate and to handle more than 350 amendments, every clause, the schedule and the preamble. The difference was one of attitude, of getting down to work. When one’s case was put and it was found to be unacceptable, it was dropped and one would go on to the next point. That is in contrast to the sort of approach we have had to this measure here.

When the NRP approached this penultimate stage in the long road of reform—it started a long way back—and decided to support the Third Reading, we did so with the full knowledge that we were running a political risk, that it would be misinterpreted, but we were prepared to take that risk. We weighed our options but we did so in the same spirit to which I referred just now, namely our spirit of commitment to South Africa and what is right for South Africa. This was the sole yardstick which we applied. We were prepared to take the political risks, to face the consequences of what we were doing because we as a party are rooted in a long tradition of putting South Africa first before the interest of our own party.

We looked at this Bill against another backdrop, against the background of the challenge in South Africa to the whole Western system, its values and its structures. There are legitimate demands for change—changes in the political structures—but there are also other pressures that exploit those legitimate demands and use them to incite and foster violence and terrorism with only one object namely the overthrow of the whole structure of the State as such.

That is the one aspect. The other aspect is the one which the CP ignores namely the background of the natural social and economic changes that have been taking place in South Africa. These changes have taken place naturally and without fuss and many of them have been accepted in legal form in this House unanimously by all four parties in the House. It is against this background that I believe that one has to judge the Bill that is before us in relation to the extent to which it will create a political structure that can meet the challenge to the whole Western system. All four of these parties agreed unanimously in Parliament and in the Select Committee—although in the Select Committee the CP was not represented as a party but some of its members sat on the Select Committee—that the Westminster system could not meet the challenge to the system in South Africa and had to be changed. All parties acknowledged the need for change politically and as far as the constitution was concerned. Where we face the answer of South Africa to those challenges today, I want to say to the Government that while I know it claims paternity—I do not begrudge it that right te stand father to this Bill—I believe it is far more than simply an NP brain-child. It is not NRP “groot brag” but a fact of history that on 3 March 1978 this party asked for the appointment of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to consider the drawing up of a new constitution in South Africa. This was prior to the Schlebusch Commission that followed at a later stage. That Schlebusch Commission received a vast input of ideas from a multitude of witnesses. It sat month after month and heard evidence from academics and everybody who wanted to give evidence except, of course, the PFP. Its members sat on the commission but the party did not give evidence before it.

That is not true.

The party put in a memorandum in regard to its policy but it was not prepared to come before the commission to face questioning as this party was. [Interjections.] That is why the PFP calls this an NP creature. It was because they had no input to its discussions and made no contribution to its form. [Interjections.]

That commission led in turn to the President’s Council and its recommendations all of which are part of the history of this Bill. They all form part of the input up to the stage that we have reached here this afternoon. Therefore, when we look at this legislation, we regard it as being something beyond party divisions and differences. We judge it in regard to what we think is best to South Africa. I have made it clear that we are supporting a “yes” vote in the referendum in regard to the constitution and what we believe it means to the country. It does not mean support for the NP or the Government, and both sides understand this. The hon. the Prime Minister and I understand each other absolutely clearly on this. We are supporting this constitution but it does not mean that we have a coalition with the NP or that we have joined the NP. It does not mean that our differences on policy and on ideology have disappeared. It simply means that we believe that South Africa should take a step forward on the road to change and reform.

Four factors determined our decision. The overwhelming one was that the Bill will bring Coloured and Indian South African citizens into the highest level of decision-making in one Parliament. The second is the fact that the basic philosophical approach of our party of group accommodation, group control over the intimate affairs of a community and joint responsibility for common affairs is incorporated in the new constitution before us.

I shall be forgiven if I quote from that debate on 3 March 1978 to which I referred and in which we called for a Select Committee. In col. 2294 I said the following—

I believe that today as I believed it then.

The third reason is the fact that a rejection of the Bill and the new constitution means the perpetuation of the present position of exclusive White political power and domination, if this Bill is not adopted, what we have is the existing constitution. The fourth factor which influenced us were the many amendments brought about in the Select Committee and in the Committee of the whole House to accommodate our objections to the original draft: Opposition representation in the President’s Council and participation in the Joint Standing Committees, presidential accountability to Parliament and the Executive—that I shall argue with the PFP any time—provision for consultation on the position of the provinces, the right of Parliament to demand joint sessions, the recording of own powers in the constitution and the right of the courts to test whether laws were passed according to the constitution.

Against this we had to weigh up our own objections which we have—I am not going to repeat them—our own reservations and the arguments of the other parties opposed to the Bill. I can dispose of the arguments of the CP in one sentence with due respect to them. I like some of them very much but not their policies. They stand for a reversal of natural changes that have already taken place. They also stand for a reversion to Verwoerdian ideological apartheid. They want to extend it to Coloured and Indian independent States. I shall say no more except that we in this party regard that as midsummer madness. We do not regard it as worthy of serious debate to discuss the impossibility of Coloureds and Indians having their own power bases in independent States.

The PFP’s objections are more complex to understand. Their main reason for opposition is clear. It is because they reject in principle any system which does not ensure an open non-racial society in which there would be no group political rights. In terms of their philosophy political power would be determined by proportionate representation on a non-racial “one man, one vote” basis without any group basis on a common voters’ roll.

Correct.

That is correct. [Interjections.] That is the motivation. Unfortunately it is not the case they are putting to the voters of South Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has given three basic reasons for rejecting the constitution. He says it was designed by an NP caucus and congresses and imposed on South Africa. His second reason is that the Blacks were not consulted and are excluded in perpetuity from constitutional development. His third reason is that the State President will be a dictator. Let us look at these three reasons.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members served on the Schlebusch Commission and listened for many months to the evidence given before it. They will not deny that on the very first day we met in Pretoria I proposed that members of other races should be co-opted to that commission so that they could participate around the table in designing a new constitution. It was the first proposal made at the first meeting of that commission. At the end, when that commission had done its work, all agreed that the Whites alone could not design a constitution and that the other races should be brought in.

What became of that decision?

I am going to deal with it. [Interjections.] The hon. Chief Whip must please be patient and make a speech himself one day.

Then do not tell half-truths.

I am coming to half-truths.

We in the commission were agreed on that need. What right does the PFP have, having boycotted the President’s Council which was recommended by the Schlebusch Commission, having refused to sit on it, to say now that the recommendations of that Council submitted to the Government on a new constitution are exclusively one party NP proposals?

Let us look at this question of Black consultation. Both the NRP and the PFP wanted Black representation in the President’s Council. When this proposal was voted down, the NRP accepted the Council for Black South Africans, which accepted South African citizenship for Blacks, and which would not only consult with, but form a joint committee with the President’ Council on drawing up a new constitution. The PFP rejected that out of hand.

So did the Blacks.

Its attitude helped to ensure rejection by the Blacks. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is not here, but I tried to negotiate until midnight on the night before the Black summit which rejected the Black Council, trying to get an alternative. The hon. the Prime Minister will know the contacts I made and the suggestions we discussed to try to find a compromise which would bring about negotiation with those Black leaders. By then the PFP and some newspapers had so spread their poison that the Council was an inferior body, that it was racial discrimination and that they could not accept it, that the poison had taken root and the Blacks rejected that body for negotiation.

I want to know how you negotiate with somebody who refuses to talk to you or to use the mechanism provided for negotiation. It is an echo of the PFP’s boycott attitude. I believe very sincerely, and I say this after deep thought, that one of the tragedies of South Africa was the refusal by Black leaders to take the opportunity to become part of the negotiating process. If I had the time I should like to expand on that. However, there is a senior Cabinet Committee which is going to resume negotiations in another form. That is exactly what the PFP stands for and what we stand for, namely negotiation on an agreed accommodation in the constitutional structure. We are not prepared to wait until that negotiation has taken place and in the meantime deny the opportunity to participate in Government to the Coloured and Indian peoples because of negotiations that were rejected in 1978 and which may still take months or even years still to negotiate. We do not accept the “all or nothing” attitude of the UDF and the PFP which want “all now or nothing”.

I do not have the time to deal with the question of presidential dictatorship, but unbelievable half-truths and exaggerations are being made in that regard. There will be other opportunities to deal with this matter. But the fact of the matter is that the President will be subject to the Cabinet in all his major decisions and he will be accountable to Parliament. It is nonsense to say that if he gets a vote of no-confidence he will simply dissolve Parliament. If it is so, he dissolves himself too because after a dissolution there is a new President. What really matters is that if this Bill is rejected, we shall go on with the existing constitution with its exclusive White power. We shall go back to all the “awesome” powers of the President under the present constitution. When one listens to hon. members of the PFP describing the new constitution, one would think that we are already living under a dictatorship. There is no third alternative hidden in the wings. There is no PFP alternative. They did not even try to put an alternative into the debate. They merely put in their printed policy and said that they hoped that we would read it. That was their only contribution.

The choice is now and the NRP has opted for “yes” now. I want to call on all men and women of goodwill who care about South Africa’s future—whatever party they support—to answer the challenge to South Africa’s future with a resounding “yes”. I want them to say: Yes, we want to live in peace and harmony in South Africa; yes, we want to ensure stability and security for all; yes, we want this for our fellow-citizens of colour too; yes, we want to remove injustices and hurts; yes, we want to see South Africa move forward to a new destiny. Let us put aside our prejudices and dislikes. [Interjections.] My dislike of some of those hon. members and my prejudice against the PFP is something which I would find very hard to put aside. But if they were to see the light and walk with us on the road to a new destiny, I would even try to put away those dislikes and prejudices. Let us march together, not as political parties, but as South Africans with a common goal in order to create a new South Africanism and a common patriotism for the sake of this country and its future. Sir, we shall vote for the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me here some carefully compiled notes, which I drew up for my speech here this afternoon. I am, however, once again so stirred by the occasion of this momentous debate that I intend to depart very extensively from this excellent speech I have prepared, and, who knows, I shall endeavour to deliver perhaps not too bad an alternative speech. [Interjections.]

This occasion, Mr. Speaker, is a memorable one. I do not know how many hon. members of this house will ever experience the making of a constitution again in the course of their natural lives. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston will have an opportunity to make a speech later.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely asking questions. [Interjections.]

It does not happen every day in the life of a nation that that nation, represented by its Parliament, and by its political parties, endeavours to refashion its constitution. A constitution after all not only entrenches a philosophy of government but it may also be said to enshrine a nation’s way of life. That is the great objective of this exercise. The fact that there are unfortunately political parties in this country, and also adherents to those parties, who cannot see the fundamental importance and significance of this exercise is indeed a tragedy. It is, however, a tragedy we will survive because we are so firmly on the right road that I believe nothing can deflect us.

This Constitution Bill has not been taken out of a hat as a magician might try to take a rabbit out of a hat. This constitution has come a long way. Before 1977 a Cabinet Committee was appointed, interestingly enough, under the chairmanship of the hon. the Prime Minister, who was then still Minister of Defence. It so happened that I had the honour of serving on that committee. Since then many further inquiries have taken place. It is not necessary for me to endeavour to detail all the study that has been devoted to this subject in the form of Cabinet Committees, Cabinet discussions, Select Committees, commissions, the President’s Council, this House and many other forums. What we have before us today in the form of this Constitution Bill, despite whatever may be said by hon. members of the Opposition, I believe, is a most considered and a most thorough document, a document of which this House and the country can be justly proud.

I want to preface today some remarks I am going to make in a moment by referring to what I can best describe, I believe, as the propriety of the hon. the Prime Minister’s conduct in this whole affair. The hon. the Prime Minister took the initiative and had the imagination, and, what is more, had the courage to match that imagination with the pursuance of this delicate and fundamental matter, often in the face of the most unreasonable and the most hysterical kind of opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister has been criticized. He has been misrepresented. If, however, one looks at the hon. the Prime Minister’s conduct in this whole matter, I believe, one has to talk of the propriety of his conduct. At every point he has tried to do the right thing. It is no use the official Opposition or the CP saying we applied the guillotine. Where does that get anybody? Has there ever been in this House a more thorough discussion, in our time or possibly at any other time before, of any measure than there has been of this Constitution Bill? [Interjections.]

You were not here.

I have been here quite often. I know what has been going on. I also know the hon. member for Pinelands talked of a unanimous decision when in fact it was an absolutely split vote. [Interjections.] Let us not worry, however, about minor distractions and aberrations today. We have had enough of that already from the hon. member for Pinelands and his hon. colleagues. I want to say that at every point the hon. the Prime Minister has insisted upon democratic procedures and the most thorough study. Look at the time that has been given to this measure. How can this House be expected to give more time to it? The country has to be governed. In my opinion it is the weakest of all criticisms levelled at the Government to say that enough time has not been given for this House to study and debate this issue.

You are very sensitive about it.

I wan to turn to a matter which lies very close to my heart. In doing so, I may possibly be stating my views on what I believe is a fundamental issue for our future. Perhaps it will be a sort of testament of my stand here. Some years ago, around 1968-’69, I happened to be Vice-Chancellor of a famous university in a beautiful province. I was at the time increasingly astonished and concerned at the activities of a small minority not only of students and staff but also of certain elements of the Press and others. At that time there was great disruption of university affairs throughout the world. It spilled over here. There is no doubt that there was an attempt made by the far-leftist liberal radicals to take over the University of Natal.

Is that what Judge Harcourt found?

Yes, it is. I have his report.

He found that you were responsible and you had to resign.

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He had better read the report. I want to say that we took a stand. We took a stand first of all for decency. We took a stand for law and order. We took a stand for fundamental education.

Sir, that set me thinking. I am a humble South African, who does not give himself any airs, but the question occurred to me: What were the English-speaking people of South Africa really doing to assist the authorities of this country to withstand the persistent and huge undermining and subversive effort on the part not only of outsiders but also of certain South Africans? I have in my background that my father, as a young man of 20, happened to be the Private Secretary of one of the great South Africans in this country, John X. Merriman. If there had been a few more John X. Merriman’s in this country and a few less Chamberlains and Alfred Milners, there would never have been an Anglo-Boer War. I often heard from my father the importance of true national unity in this country and I have always borne that in mind. It seemed to me that, however humble and unimportant I might be, it was about time that some English-speaking South African should get up and be counted …

Hear, hear!

… and be seen to withstand this never-ending element of subversion on the part of a minority.

I do not think you have read Harcourt’s report.

That is how I happened to take the decision to come here, and it is a decision I have never regretted in my life for one moment. It was not so easy, but we need not worry about that. I want to say that, despite the attempts on the part of certain elements almost to crucify us, it had no effect other than to make us more determined than ever to persist in the stand we had taken. To me one of the great privileges of my life has been that I could be a member of the South African Government under a National regime. [Interjections.]

Now we come to the constitution and the testing of the acceptability of this constitution, of this the great document before us. We hear all sorts of ideas. We hear that so and so is going to oppose the new constitution, that you must say “no” for this or that reason. One of the things of which I am most proud is the fact that I happen to be the leader of the NP in Natal. Some 14 or 15 years ago Natal was a place where the NP had three seats in Parliament. We were a minority party and we were up against it. However, we stood firm by our principles, we fought the good fight and today we are certainly on the political level the majority party in Natal, and I believe we are still gaining ground rapidly every day. [Interjections]. We come now to the acceptability of this constitution.

Of the 40 political seats the NRP has 21. [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the NRP ought to think clearly. I am not endeavouring to attack them at all. [Interjections.] I am merely stating facts. The hon. member for Umhlanga must look at this in proper perspective. [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon hon. members to give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

Thank you, Sir. I am accustomed to this from the PFP. We are dealing now with fundamentals, and that is the one thing they cannot possibly endure. What we are talking about today is eroding their whole base. The official Opposition is as little the representative of the English-speaking people of South Africa as Swapo is of the people of South West Africa. [Interjections.] That must be clearly understood. What gives me such great heart when we look at the two great language groups of this country, the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking groups, who must work together to achieve the greatness of this country—they are working together, but more and more still—is the fact that the English-speaking people are now, under the pressure and stimulus of this constitution and particularly the referendum, emerging from their long sleep and standing up to be counted, and they are never going to look back. We started something here with the English-speaking people of South Africa—Sir, you can mark my words today—which will never be halted. Increasingly they are going to stand by this Government. They are doing it every single day already. They are going to stand by the Prime Minister.

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talks about Natal he must be very careful. When one talks about the English-speaking people of Natal one is talking of basically conservative people, in the best sense of that term. One is talking of patriotic and responsible people. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must never come and talk about the farmers of the Midlands of Natal as being racist. What made the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ever say something like that, is completely beyond me. He is reported in several newspapers as having said that farmers in the Midlands of Natal are racists. They will never forgive him.

He did not say that.

What did he then say? Could the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell me what he actually said? I have read similar reports in three different newspapers.

What newspapers are you talking about?

I am talking about South African newspapers. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. member would give it to me in writing. I would appreciate it. He has been reported that way, and he knows it.

I made statements afterwards. [Interjections.]

Whatever the loquacious Chief Whip of the official Opposition, who never gets up to make a speech, says, those are the facts. [Interjections.] If the hon. Leader of the Opposition would tell me in writing what he said I would appreciate it. Sir, I can tell you that is being held against him and it is going to be held against his party. If there is one party that is going to suffer in this referendum, not only in Natal but in the whole of South Africa, it is the PFP.

What does the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party stand for? Let me put it bluntly. There was reference today to Zimbabwe and the redetention of people who had been freed by the High Court there. He did not condemn that.

Of course I condemned it.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that it was done by the previous Government. He did not condemn it. What he is aiming at, as surely as I am standing here, is a Zimbabwe for South Africa. Nobody in this country will fall for that. No thinking South African will ever fall for that. It is not a question of Black and White, but of civilized, decent standards; that is what it is. It is not a question of Black and White. Hon. members must get this fixation about Blacks out of their minds. What I am interested in and what this referendum is about, is the true national unity of the two great language groups, and nothing that has happened in many years has been giving a greater spur to that movement than exactly what we are seeing before us today. I am vastly encouraged by that.

I do not think the politics of this country are ever going to be the same again. There are alignments forming now which can only be to the good of this country. Those alignments are in the shape of decent civilized standards of government and of co-existence. [Interjections.] It is no use the Opposition saying that there is a flaw in this constitution because the Blacks …

Order! I have called upon hon. members to give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech. Since they do not want to do so, I now prohibit any further interjections during the rest of the hon. the Minister’s speech. No further interjections whatsoever may be made.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on that?

Yes, the hon. member may.

I believe it was I who interjected predominantly over that period of time. I regret, Sir, that I was not in the House when you gave that ruling. I want to ask you, Sir, under those circumstances and as I see myself as predominantly responsible, to reconsider your ruling.

The hon. member was not the only one who interjected. Other hon. members also interjected, and I therefore stand by my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at what is happening in this country regarding this issue. What has Mr. Harry Oppenheimer been saying? Harry Oppenheimer has been talking most responsibly on this issue. [Interjections.] Of course the hon. member for Pinelands will laugh. It is the most embarrassing thing for him that I can mention. Nothing could be more embarrassing. What does The Friend say, a paper talking for a great many people in the Orange Free State? The Friend says “Vote ‘yes’”. What does the Daily Dispatch, talking very largely for the Border, say? The Daily Dispatch, which has been anything but in favour of the Government, says “Vote ‘yes’”. What does the Financial Mail say and what does Finance Week say? These two publications, representing a vast spectrum of business and financial thought in this country, say “Vote ‘yes’”. What does the Sunday Times say? Here I want to say that the hon. member for Brakpan has completely misread the significance of this when he said that we are to be criticized because the Sunday Times is urging people to vote “yes”. He has completely misread the signs. The Sunday Times is not doing this because it loves the NP; the Sunday Times is doing it because it realizes that this is what the great majority of South Africans want. That is why the Sunday Times is saying that. It is as clear as daylight. This is not the only big newspaper that is going to come out like this. They are coming out one by one. Talking about that, I have here the leading article of The Cape Times of this morning. Obviously this is PFP philosophy. It is exactly what they would be saying. Here we have a most embarrassing situation because the Sunday Times has come out urging “yes” whereas The Cape Times is trying to show that it should be “no”.

Those unbalanced fellows down in the Cape.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have just had an interjection by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I assume, Sir, that your ruling applies to both sides of the House and that you will deal with him as you would have dealt with us.

My ruling applies to every hon. member in this House. If it was not clear then, I hope it is very clear now. I do not want any further interjections whatsoever. The hon. the Minister of Finance may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to show the hollowness of these arguments for voting “no”. They now say the following of the assertions of the Sunday Times—

This is the very phrase that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used today. He spoke about crystal-gazing. If ever there was a newspaper that crystal-gazed every day of its life, it is The Cape Times. The Cape Times goes on in this way but there is absolutely no way that it can get away from the fact that the biggest newspaper in the country which happens to be an English-language newspaper is telling the people of the country: Vote “yes” in the referendum. Hon. members of the official Opposition must see the signs and must read them correctly.

I say, Sir, as I view the future I stand here realizing the problems we have. We have political problems, we have colour problems and we have social problems. We also have financial problems at the moment just as the whole world has except that our problems in that respect are not as bad as those of the rest of the world. However, all these things are challenges. They are not reasons for pessimism. These problems are reasons for resolution. They are reasons for standing together on the things that count and voting as one man. I am convinced in my heart of hearts that the great majority of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in respect of the issue of the constitution and the question of the referendum are going to stand together as one man on 2 November and put the whole issue beyond doubt. I should like to mention one further point of detail. When we speak of the referendum we must understand that this was not something that was snatched out of thin air by the hon. the Prime Minister. I happened to be at a meeting in Ladysmith on 29 November 1980 when the hon. the Prime Minister in dealing with these important issues and looking ahead said that it might be necessary to test the whole country, the whole electorate. He said that he was prepared to do that, if necessary, in the form of a referendum. That was virtually three years ago. That is consistency, Sir. I say that the country sees that and that the country is going to back the hon. the Prime Minister and we are going to go straight ahead. Nobody says that this a perfect document but it is the very best that can be put before this House. Nothing that has been said by the hon. members of the Opposition parties has suggested any alternative to us.

I thank you for your indulgence, Sir. I state with absolute conviction that we can look forward to a victory to nothing on 2 November.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance gave us the history of this constitutional legislation during the course of which he mentioned Mr. Merriman with approval and approbation. Perhaps one should remind the hon. the Minister of one historical fact and that was Mr. Merriman’s comments on the fatal flaw that existed in the 1909-’10 constitutional proposals namely the exclusion of the Blacks, a mistake that we are repeating today in 1983 in an era when White domination has been outlawed throughout the civilized world. At the time, Merriman had the following to say in a letter to General Smuts—

I want to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance of those words. Perhaps in five years’ time if the hon. the Minister and I survive that long, we can get together and discover just how accurate his prophecies in respect of this fine new road ahead of South Africa will be, providing, of course, his first prophecy has been realized and that is that the electorate of South Africa are going to vote “yes” on 2 November.

I hope I am around.

A man who refers to a majority of South Africans and excludes the whole of the Black race in South Africa must have a very clouded crystal-ball indeed. Every reference that the hon. the Minister made to English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans and later to the whole of South Africa excluded any reference to Black South Africans. One can perhaps understand this coming from the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, what I cannot understand is that it also came from the man who is responsible for the fate of 17 million Black South Africans, namely the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He is prepared to justify a new constitution with proposals which totally exclude the Blacks of South Africa. I find it arrogant beyond belief. I find that the Government can only possibly justify what it has done by the self-deception of believing—evidently the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development believes that—that giving Blacks in the urban areas local government franchise rights and giving them a first tier franchise, so-called, in the homelands, is a substitute for the exclusion of these people from the new proposals. I am not remotely impressed by the Cabinet Committee that is considering the future of urban Blacks, but the hon. member for Durban Point appears to be impressed. What worries me is that hon. Ministers like the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development go around in business circles and elsewhere telling them about a hidden agenda, and I personally do not believe there is such a thing as a hidden agenda behind the new constitution proposals.

Black affairs are going to be general affairs once this constitution is adopted. That means of course that the White House, the Coloureds’ House of Representatives and the Indian House of Delegates will consider Black affairs as general affairs. It means of course that in practically every case and certainly when there is anything contentious and certainly when any of the hon. the Minister’s ugly little brain children are concerned—here I refer to the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill as an example—there will be disagreement. I cannot conceive of an Indian House daring to sign any Bill which would have in it provisions such as those which are contained in the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill. Therefore Black affairs are constantly going to be sent to the President’s Council, for the President’s men to decide on matters which apply to Black people in South Africa. It is possible that hon. members opposite truly believe that the 17 million Blacks in South Africa are going to be satisfied with that sort of dispensation in the year 1983? For no other reason than this one, this constitution, I believe and my party believe, is doomed to failure. It simply cannot work.

We do not believe, as so many deluded citizens appear to be believing, that this is a step in the right direction. We believe this is a false start which we are taking today with this new constitution. I challenge the hon. the Minister of Finance who quoted a number of newspapers as advising the White electorate to vote “yes” to indicate whether a single one of those newspapers was unequivocal in its approval of the constitutional proposals. They did not just say that this was not perfect; most of them talked about a fatal flaw, a calamitous flaw, a badly flawed constitution and not one of them was able to recommend the constitution outright to its readers. I think the hon. the Minister ought to remember that.

As for the Coloured Labour Party which is going into the constitution, let me point out that it represents but a section of the Coloured population, and even that party is emphatic that the exclusion of the Blacks is a grave error. In giving evidence to the Select Committee the Coloured Labour Party had this to say—

Exactly the same thing was said by the Indian Council which of course has stated that it wants a referendum before it makes up its mind as to whether or not it will participate in the new constitution.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Finance if he does not think there ought to be a referendum for the Coloured people and a referendum for the Indian people so that we can assess whether other races will opt to go into this constitution. I am quite sure that he will not recommend that because he is not merely as certain about the Indians and the Coloureds as he appears to be about the Whites.

What about the Black South Africans? What do the Blacks themself say about this? Dr. Motlana, for instance, said that the NP “have not addressed the crucial problem in South Africa, the accommodation of the overwhelming number of Africans.” The problems, he said, “cannot be solved by a constitution which establishes apartheid dictatorship and even more firmly entrenches the privileges and power of the White section of the population.” Leading Black clerics have said the same thing. The formation of the UDF and National Forum should not be brushed aside as something unimportant. They arise out of opposition to a Constitution that excludes Black people. Chief Buthelezi, as the leader of my party has pointed out, expressed his total outrage to the suggestion that local government and a vote in the homelands are reasonable substitutes for inclusion in the new Constitution. I have a long quote here of his reaction to the crude piece of propaganda that was put out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information on behalf of the Department of Co-operation and Development. It asked a silly question. It asked why Blacks are not included in the new dispensation. Having asked the silly question, because we all know why the Government does not include them, it gives a silly answer. It says: Blacks have their own governments and administrations, as for example, in kwaZulu or in Soweto where new councils with extended powers are to be established. Chief Buthelezi’s reaction to this was quite predictable to anybody but this insensitive Government. He wrote to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and said—

He went on to say that he was now having serious doubts as to whether to advise his people, and Inkatha in particular, whether or not to participate in the local government elections that are due to be held in November. This Government goes around in its crude fashion and destroys the very thing it wishes to prove. By its own actions it is now going to cut out of participation to those local government elections thousands upon thousands of Blacks in the urban areas. Buthelezi’s concluding paragraph was—

We on these benches also despair for South Africa. Not only is it for Black readership that the Government produces documents that disseminate falsehoods, but also for the rest of the nation. Just take this full page advertisement which has been issued to the local press, costing well over R500 000 and paid for, the hon. the Prime Minister assures us, by the NP and not out of some slush fund á la Information scandal. This advertisement would have been fine if the Government were selling eyewash, but unfortunately it is selling a new constitution for South Africa. At the very time that the press was grinding out this advertisement, talking about “a secure future for ourselves and our children”, “peaceful coexistence and a united South Africa”, a few streets away the Carlton Hotel was experiencing a bomb attack. I have a statement in a newspaper here telling us that “bombings in South Africa climb past the 50 mark”. I wonder if there is any member of that Government who would predict—perhaps the hon. the Minister of Law and Order—that there will be fewer bombings in South Africa after this new Constitution is implemented than we have experienced over the past two or three years.

Never mind the advertisements, because advertisements are noted for hyperbole. Let us take a look at the flowery Preamble to the Bill which we have been told renders a Bill of Rights redundant. It talks about “upholding Christian values and civilized norms”. I want to know whether Blacks married by Christian rites will be allowed to live normal family lives, wives and husbands together, after this new Constitution has been implemented. It talks of “furthering the contentment and the spiritual and material welfare of all”. I wonder whether the 2 908 Indian and Coloured families who were moved under the Group Areas Act in 1982, as the hon. the Minister of Community Development told the hon. member for Johannesburg North this afternoon in answer to a question, will agree that their spiritual and material welfare is being cared for. I wonder whether the people who are living in Soweto and the other townships will agree that the new constitution is going to further private initiative and effective competition. Nonsense! There is a lot of rubbish in this preamble. It does not mean a thing to the Blacks. The interesting things is that the three laws that the Coloured and the Indian race groups most abominate, i.e. the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act and the Separate Amenities Act, will not be able to be altered by them at all under the new constitution. What, I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, is in this Bill, a Bill that excludes Black people entirely—except for clause 93, which, of course, simply leaves the situation in the hands of the State President—can possibly bring peaceful co-existence and a secure future for ourselves and our children? On the contrary, we believe that this Bill can be found guilty of causing hostility between the races and of setting in motion a process of polarization and conflict between the races. There is, I believe, one truth, and one truth only, in this newspaper advertisement, and that is: “South Africa versus South Africa.” That is the only truth contained in this advertisement. For that reason alone we in these benches shall vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton I just want to say that whatever the subject may be that this House is discussing, the hon. member has the ability to revert to one subject that is an obsession with her. All the speeches she makes are actually one and the same speech. It is always one and the same subject that is involved; it is one and the same point of view, and she is never pro-South African. I have never seen her join the House in constructively trying to work at any project we may have been busy with here. It would seem to me that over the years the hon. member has got herself into a position in which she can no longer do otherwise. I do not think there are any of the hon. members on this side of the House who would like to follow up on what she said. So much for that.

I just want to make a few remarks about the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Very early on in his speech he advanced reasons why he thought that one should not vote for the constitutional proposals. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, left out the actual reason. He did not tell us the actual reason. He could so easily have done this in a single sentence. He could easily have told us: “We are opposed to those proposals because our proposal is one of a racial federation. We want to hold a mixed convention, and whatever you do, that is the reason why we are opposed to it.” Surely that is correct. Was that not, after all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s actual reason? I therefore do not want to go into the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution in any greater detail. His standpoint is well-known here. For that reason, and chiefly for that reason, his party is opposed to the proposals before the House.

The occasion that brings us together here to conduct this debate is a very important one, and I am also glad to be able to say, in this connection, that I think that it is a good thing for the House to have decided to set aside more time for the Third Reading. I am saying this because the debate, as conducted thus far, and as it will be conducted in future, would seem to meet the expectations that have brought us together here. I am therefore glad that we can have a long debate on this subject.

This is an important occasion, I believe, for us all. Not only is it an important occasion for those of us sitting here, but if there are people who—I believe—are particularly interested in what is decided here, it is those who are involved in this—the Coloureds. They will, after all, also be entering upon a new dispensation. As important as this is to us, those of us who are chiefly interested in this from the White point of view—was the referendum of 1960 not a deeply emotional experience for us—I believe that the Coloureds, who also have a deep interest in this, will be particularly interested in what the result is going to be when the referendum is held in November. One can, of course, understand this, because the fact is that that population group has been involved in negotiations with us for a very long time. For a very long time now there have been discussions between them and us. Over the years expectations have been created, expectations that in future they would also obtain a place in the constitutional dispensation in this country. It is therefore of the utmost importance to them to know what place they are going to occupy in the political dispensation of the future. That is why we hope that the result of the referendum will be such as not to be a disappointment, and this also applies to those of us on this side of the House who are trying so hard to establish a political dispensation in which the Coloureds will also be given a place. I therefore think that it is of the utmost importance, for everyone involved, that the result will be what we expect it to be; in other words, that the majority vote “yes”.

Hon. members opposite—I am almost inclined to designate them the partners in the “no”-camp—actually indicate, in all their arguments, that there are really only three reasons why they oppose the legislation under discussion. Actually there are three alternatives involved in this. The first alternative is that of the hon. members of the PFP. I do not, of course, want to repeat all the debates we have conducted here over the years. I do, however, want to make one statement. The alternative offered by hon. members of the official Opposition is, of course, that of integration. Whatever form it happens to take, it is and will remain that of integration. That has already been rejected in the past. I believe that it is even rejected today in the hearts of the majority of responsible people in this country. Nor do I think that on the road ahead that alternative has any chance of selling itself to hon. members on this side of the House. Nor does it have a chance of selling itself amongst the other population groups in South Africa; the reason being, of course, that the built-in conflict, and also the history of the world, of humanity, during the past 25 or 30 years, attest to the fact that that alternative leads to clashes which, wherever this happens to be applied, are so serious that this has never been able to succeed anywhere at all. It has never succeeded anywhere in Africa. Nor has it succeeded anywhere else in the world. We would therefore do well to write that alternative off. It is unacceptable in South Africa. Not only is it unacceptable to us, but also to the general masses in this country. [Interjections.] One merely has to take note of what is going on at the present moment, even amongst the Black people of this country. From time to time they try to form groups in South Africa. It does not work, however, and for the same reasons that it cannot work elsewhere in the world. So we would do well to write off that alternative too.

The other alternative, is, of course, that of establishing a sovereign State for Coloured people in South Africa. That is an alternative presented to us by hon. members of the CP. When it comes to that alternative, Mr. Speaker, allow me at once to allege that one can also forget about that, and there are a few very important reasons for saying that. I the first place it is as true as can be that the people who are really involved—the Coloureds themselves—reject that completely. They reject it outright. We know of no single responsible group in the Coloured population which accepts it. We can therefore quite comfortably forget this alternative too.

The second reasons is, of course, that it is specifically rejected by the White population in that part of the country where the major concentrations of Coloureds live. That is also as clear as daylight.

There is a third very important reason why this alternative is also completely unacceptable and impracticable. The reason for that is that those parts of the country that are being suggested or are being offered to them, i.e. the desert areas, are totally uninhabitable. We find them uninhabitable and that is why they are uninhabited areas today. With all the money and possibilities open to us, we have never tried to develop them, simply because they are not physically capable of being developed. There is also another very important reason. It is impractical to contemplate a homeland for a population group of millions of people, with all the components involved, and to think that this can be accommodated in two or three small and limited dwelling areas in which large numbers live, as is the case here in the Western Cape. What is more, it is impractical to think that a modern State, with all the complexities involved, can be constituted in such a way that there are hundreds of small units adjacent to White towns in that State. No person in his right mind, who has ever thought about the possibilities of sovereignty, could advocate that.

I want to point out one interesting possibility of such sovereignty. Let me do so from a practical point of view. Let us suppose that there is such a sovereign State here in the Western Cape. Let us suppose that a portion of it is situated along the road between here and D. F. Malan Airport. Let us suppose further that one fine morning that sovereign State decides, together with the rest of the world, that motorists must drive on the right hand side of the road. In travelling from here to the airport, for the initial stretch we shall therefore be driving on the left-hand side of the road, only to be stopped suddenly and told to drive on the right-hand side. Just this side of the airport we then have to switch again and drive on the left-hand side of the road. It is this kind of madness that one gets when one talks of homelands and sovereign States in the proposed geographic situation. That is why I am saying that it is not viable.

Let us suppose that the relevant party convinces sufficient voters to vote “no” on the day of the referendum. If that were to happen, in the absence of the impossible situation of integration on the one hand and a homeland situation on the other, what remains? The only alternative left to South Africa would be that for all time the Whites alone must maintain control in a country in which various groups live. If that is the only remaining alternative, it means that in South Africa we would have to see whether the masses would be satisfied with such an alternative. If we expect peace on a voluntary and permanent basis in a country like South Africa, it means that Coloured people and Asians in this country must be prepared to subject themselves permanently to the decisions of this House. That is totally unacceptable. It is totally unrealistic to think that there would be anyone who would be prepared to accept this as his lot.

Therefore any proposal in this connection, by any person, would have to be given serious consideration by the voters of South Africa. When faced with this choice, they will have to decide whether they are really going to reject this alternative. I believe that what is before the House now is an alternative indicative of the realities of our country. It is truly indicative of the realities of South Africa. In saying this, let me add that dividing interests up into own affairs and affairs of common concern is indeed also in line with the realities of today. This has not just been created recently in the form in which we want it brought together in the constitution. It is a pattern of life that has been in existence for a very long time now. In this country it is the pattern of life that has carried us all along and brought us to where we are today. If the proposals before us are accepted by the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, this would be an indication of confidence, of co-operation and of an effort or the will to obtain unity in this country in our feeling for one another, an effort or the will to create a structure for co-operation in the future. If that were to happen, it would be the most wonderful thing that has ever happened in South Africa in modern times. Sir, there is no country in the whole wide world which, under these circumstances, could have made so much progress with such an experiment. There is no other country with as complex a population structure as South Africa.

That is not true. Have you ever been to Yugoslavia, for a start?

There is no country in the world with a population structure like ours where, in modern times, the kind of unity has been brought about that has been brought about here in South Africa. Let me, however, go further. Neither is there any country in the world that has become such a target for attacks from outside and inside the country itself. There is no country which, under these circumstances, has experienced such an onslaught to kindle the spark of conflict. Nor do I know of any country in the whole wide world where the potential for strife, enmity, discord and distrust is as great as here in South Africa. In spite of on slaughts that we have already had to endure for so long, we have come to the point of being able to decide on this issue largely in an atmosphere of calm. That in itself is a great achievement. For that very reason it behoves us all to go out of our way to stand together now, in an atmosphere of calm, so that we can reach a decision that will be of benefit to all of us.

With regard to the division of interests into own affairs and general affairs, let me say that for 200 or 300 years now we have been living in close contact in that area where the majority of the Coloured people live. The various industries, particularly in the economic sphere, have been structured in such a way, in this connection, that no new structures have to be created. I am thinking, for example, of the building industry, the transport industry, the manufacturing industry and agriculture. The Coloured people in the Western Cape are built into those structures. As far as the future is concerned, I think it behoves us to look, not so much at what the situation looks like in other parts of South Africa, and what people in general or the voters in other parts say, but rather to look at what the voters here in the Western Cape say.

It is in this part, where the largest percentage of Coloureds live, that voters already have their ideas lined up. I want to remind hon. members of that. Last year there was a by-election in Stellenbosch. Last year this subject was a hot potato and the voters of Stellenbosch had a chance to pass judgment. What was the verdict? For every 15 votes against the CP there was one vote cast for the CP. If one were therefore to ask what the voters of South Africa are saying about the position of the Coloureds, one would ask for the opinions of the voters of Stellenbosch, Paarl, Somerset West, Worcester—in other words the Western Cape—rather than for those of Waterberg. As far as this matter is concerned, Stellenbosch’s verdict is the verdict on the future of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have now listened to four Ministers from the Government side, and the nearest we came to the content of the Bill was when the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development spoke of the two pieces of legislation that he was handling. The hon. the Minister of Manpower told us that if this experiment succeeded, it would be a miracle. I want to agree with him. It would be the same as the belief of a man who, jumping from the Hundredth floor of a building, thinks he is still going to come out of it alive. I once heard about such a man who, passing the twentieth floor, said: “So far, so good.” I think that is the position in which the Government now finds itself. In regard to the Conservative Party policy of a separate State for the Coloured population and for the Indian population, the hon. the Minister mentioned the ridiculous example of a person who, travelling from here to the airport, and passing through another State whose use of the road was different, might have to drive on the right-hand side of the road. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether they did not know, when they decided to make Venda in his constituency independent, that there was the possibility of this happening. He must surely have known that this could also happen if they were to say that in their territory one has to drive on the right-hand side of the road. Hon. members would have to do so if that were their decision.

But that is not the same situation.

Of course it is the same situation. If the hon. the Minister is driving from Durban to Richards Bay, and kwaZulu is independent, what is the hon. the Minister going to do if kwaZulu decides that he has to drive on the right-hand side of the road? He will then surely have to drive on the right-hand side of the road. In travelling from East London to Alice, through Ciskei, he would have to drive on the right hand side of the road if Ciskei says he must do so. It is a ridiculous example that the hon. the Minister gave.

The official Opposition, it has been said, possibly has a problem, and I too have a suspicion that there are difficulties in their ranks. Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I think that he himself is, to a very large extent, responsible for their problem. He makes the same mistake as many people in the National Party in thinking that the National Party is irrevocably committed to apartheid. Many of the NP members are finding out—like many hon. members of the NP, and also the English-language newspapers—that that party is no longer committed to separate development. In truth, that party is very close to the PFP and is going to end up where they end up. Many people in his party are realizing that. Hence his dilemma. The further we progress in our discussions of this Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill, the more this constitution becomes completely unacceptable. It is becoming increasingly clear that the aims of this constitution cannot be realized and that this constitution is going to plunge South Africa into chaos. What is this constitution doing?

At the first tier of government it is unequivocally introducing integration in all respects. NP members can argue as much as they like. If there is one joint, multiracial Cabinet, no one can say that is not integration. It is unadulterated political integration. If there is one Parliament with three Chambers, if there is a multiracial President’s Council, if there are multiracial Standing Committees, hon. members surely cannot argue that political integration is not being introduced. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not see.

Secondly this Constitution Bill is breaking down democracy in South Africa. What remains of democracy if there are elected representatives in three Chambers of Parliament, but if the final decision is given by non-elected people in a President’s Council. That is surely a breaking-down of democracy. Then there is also a State President vested with powers to amend and adapt laws. Clause 98(3)(c)(i) reads that the State President, by proclamation in the Gazette, has the right to amend or adapt laws to regulate the implementation of this Act. That is the power of a Parliament. Let me ask the hon. the Minister to tell me what other President in the Western World has so much power? Surely these are excessive powers that this man is being given. These are the powers of a Parliament.

This legislation also embodies the destruction of the sovereignty of Parliament and the right to self-determination and freedom of the Whites, without giving any freedom and right to self-determination to the Coloureds and the Indians. I want to state that if this legislation is ever implemented, the Whites will have less of a right to self-determination than do the citizens of Qwaqwa and Gazankulu. After 331 years of struggling for freedom in this country, the Whites will end up with only one and a half pages of so-called own affairs, all of which are subject to general laws, and they will not have any source of income of their own with which to do the financing either. That is what remains of the struggle for freedom that has been waged over the past 300 years.

This legislation is also entrenching the integration that the Government is introducing and is attempting to close, once and for all, the door to the right to self-determination. It will also make it impossible for Whites to withdraw from this system in the event of its being unsuccessful. In 45 countries in Africa formulas for political integration and power-sharing have been implemented on 45 different occasions, and all have failed because they could not accommodate the minority groups or the Whites. What I am saying today is that this Government’s formula is the worst of those 45 that have been introduced into and implemented in Africa. I am saying this because they also tried, in the States of Africa, to keep the power in the hands of the Whites, not one single man, a President, but by way of a majority in Parliament. That did not work, and that is why this formula is the worst that has ever been put to the test in Africa, and not one of those formulas ever worked. So this formula will not work either.

This legislation hides two very important aspects. It is a constitution for the Republic of South Africa, but it makes no mention of provincial or regional government or government at the local level. We know, do we not, that the Government is favourably considering the idea of joint service committees to include the Blacks as well. Whilst the Government is introducing political integration from the top, with the Coloureds and the Indians, it is also going to introduce integration for the Black people from below, at the local and regional levels. Having taken the first step on the road to political integration, the Government will not be able to prevent itself ending up where the PFP is going to end up, and that is with one man, one vote in South Africa.

If only that were true!

The hon. the Prime Minister tells South Africa that there Will be no Black people in a fourth House in this Parliament in his lifetime. Those were precisely the words of Mr. Ian Smith who told his people: Not in my lifetime. Mr. Ian Smith is still alive and there is a Black, radical, Marxist government in power there. He has lived to see it. Today I venture to say that if this legislation is introduced, the hon. the Prime Minister will also live to see it, however much he may wish not to. The hon. the Prime Minister has used the same words. He says he is going to maintain civilized standards. Mr. Ian Smith used precisely the same words, and what has remained of civilized standards in Zimbabwe? The Government cannot prevent itself ending up with one man, one vote, because the Government is entering upon this dispensation as a minority. Who are their allies? Here we have the hon. member for Durban Point. He is their ally. He says the Government made a mistake in saying that there would be no fourth House and that there should not be a fourth House. Who are their coalition partners in the Cabinet? [Interjections.] I shall be coming to that. Who are going to be their partners in the coalition Cabinet? Their partners are going to be the Rev. Hendrickse and the Indians who say that the Black people should be represented in a fourth House. At all levels those hon. members are going to be in the minority, and they cannot stop that. That is a fact that is emerging.

Finally, I want to come to the effort being made to place the CP and the PFP, who are politically further removed from each other than the east from the west, together with other bodies that are even further to the left, in the same camp. [Interjections.] Surely that is a ridiculous thing to do, and the question is: Why is the Government doing it? The Government is doing so because it wants to hide its own allies from view, its own allies and partners in the new coalition. The hon. the Prime Minister was, at one time, an advocate of a State within a State. I do not have time now to quote, but it is in the 1961 Hansard. Subsequently he underwent a metamorphosis, to point of now being an advocate of a coalition within a coalition, a coalition with the men of the NRP within a overall coalition with the Coloureds and the Indians.

I read in the Citizen of 1 September of last week a beautiful story that unfolded in the Johannesburg city council. There the NP has a coalition with the erstwhile NRP members, who are now an independent ratepayers’ organization, and with other independants. I read that they had concluded an agreement with the PFP to send someone else to a congress, but in the end the ratepyaers’ association forced them to back-pedal for fear that the coalition would be torn asunder. Then the NP had to apologize to the PFP. In the Johannesburg city council Mr. Carl Venter had to apologize to Mr. Sam Moss because of the ties they had broken with the PFP. The NP is ashamed of its allies. The hon. the Minister said where Mr. Harry Oppenheimer stood. Why did the hon. members of the NP not rejoice at that stage? He also said where the Sunday Times stood. Why did the hon. members of the NP not rejoice at that stage?

There is more I should like to say about the NP’s allies. A short while ago Rev. Scheuer published a pamphlet. In that pamphlet he put a question to the Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council, Prof. De Crespigny. That question elicited a tremendous reaction. They specially designated a Nationalist to make propaganda in regard to that issue, but the following appeared in the Sunday Times of September of last year—

When Rev. Scheuer wrote this pamphlet, of which there are hundreds of similar ones here and elsewhere in the world, the Government showed signs of nervousness, but they could have cleared this matter up by simply telling South Africa what the position in regard to Prof. De Crespigny was. In the article it was stated that a person with the same initials and birth date was a member of the ANC.

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

I know what the hon. the Minister wants to ask, and I shall answer that question. He does not have to ask it.

The hon. the Minister had a great deal of time. We want to know from him whether a member of the ANC helped to draw up the constitution of South Africa. The hon. the Minister wants to put a question to me, but I want to tell him that my colleague, the hon. member for Waterberg, and I were in the Cabinet. The hon. the Minister wanted to ask, did he not, whether we had served in the Cabinet at the time. We say that the hon. the Minister dealt with these matters and that we trusted him.

But surely you are telling a lie now.

Well, if it was not the hon. the Minister who dealt with it, then it was another erstwhile colleague of ours. Nevertheless, we trusted that colleague of ours, and it is obvious now that that trust was misplaced.

Hon. members opposite wanted to tag us with the PFP label, but let me tell hon. members that they are looking for trouble if they try to do that, because we are going to tag them with the labels they deserve. Tell us whether he was a member of the ANC, yes or no. Why has the country not yet been told where he stands? Does the hon. the Minister perhaps not want to find himself in the position of having to say that the ANC helped write the constitution for South Africa? Is that what the hon. the Minister is doing?

That is why we are saying that the NP is tagging us with labels meant for certain people. The NP must not think we are going to sit still—we are going to fight. We are going to reject this constitution. We are going to fight it with all our might, because this constitution is going to plunge South Africa into chaos. I therefore believe that it will also be rejected in the referendum.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lichtenburg really overstepped the mark this afternoon. I believe that when the hon. member comes to reflect on his speech, he will be ashamed of it, especially of the last part of it. I believe that the hon. member is going to feel very much ashamed of the last part of his speech, because it was absolutely disgraceful. It is not in the hon. member’s nature to say such things. The hon. member is a well-bred and honest person. [Interjections.] There is really no need for the hon. member for Kuruman to be vulgar. I want nothing to do with his vulgar remarks. The hon. member for Kuruman is really rolling around in the mud now. That is where he belongs, anyway.

I want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg that we know him as a well-bred person. We know him as an honest person and as a person whom we can respect in spite of his strong opposition, based on his convictions, to this measure. We know that he can be a passionate debater, but not at this level. He does not usually debate with this kind of acrimony. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterberg does not have to support him now.

I will support him.

The hon. member for Waterberg also says things which one would not have expected of him. For the hon. member for Lichtenburg to make the direct allegation that Prof. De Crespigny is a member of the ANC and that the ANC has therefore contributed to the drafting of the constitution of South Africa is absolutely disgraceful, after all. It is a lie.

I now want to tell the hon. member who relies so heavily on the Rev. Mr. Scheuer’s pamphlet that it will probably be commented on at a later stage of the debate. Therefore I do not wish to discuss the matter in detail. However, I want to refer briefly to something which is said in the Rev. Mr. Scheuer’s pamphlet. In the first paragraph dealing with Prof. De Crespigny, this clergyman writes, inter alia—

This is said by a serving minister of the church to which I belong. I say here today with sorrow in my heart that this minister who serves in my church is lying when he says that. The hon. member for Rissik said in a speech earlier this year that this pamphlet was not being distributed by the CP. However, this pamphlet is being distributed in a calculated way by members of the CP in certain constituencies as CP literature. This disgraceful tissue of lies by the Rev. Mr. Scheuer has been distributed in a calculated way by members of the CP as CP literature in my constituency, is Losberg, Waterkloof and Namaqualand, inter alia.

I want to ask the hon. member for Lichtenburg who distributed the pamphlet which reads—

Was this distributed by the CP? It contains a photograph of president Kaunda of Zambia. This pamphlet comes from Kempton Park.

Who distributed it?

That is what I am asking the hon. members of the CP.

But you are the policeman.

This is what happens. Why is the hon. member for Lichtenburg making the allegation today that Prof. De Crespigny was a member of the ANC and that he helped to draft this constitution? The hon. member for Lichtenburg has made these allegations in a calculated way, and in doing so, he has harmed not only himself, but this House as well. I say it is disgraceful and I say it is a lie which he has told.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Law and Order allowed to say that the hon. member for Lichtenburg has spread a lie?

Order! The hon. the Minister is not allowed to say that the hon. member for Lichtenburg has told a lie.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Lichtenburg himself senses what this House, with the exception of his colleagues, of course, thinks of the last five minutes of his speech. It leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth, and with that bad taste in our mouths we shall leave this House to go and fight a referendum. If that is the level at which the hon. members of the CP are going to conduct this referendum campaign, then so be it. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg that we do not want to go prowling around the back alleys. We do not want to go crawling into the sewers, if that is where the hon. member for Lichtenburg wants to be.

In his speech—I tried to note down all the points—the hon. member repeated exactly what he had said in previous speeches. I do not wish to yield to the temptation of replying to every point, because there are other matters which I think should also be debated. There is another question which I should like to put to the hon. member. When we go to the voters after this Third Reading, we should also say to them: “If the NP’s proposals are not acceptable to you, what is the alternative?” Then we should also ask the electorate: “What is the alternative of the CP?” I just want to refer to two matters that have a bearing on such an alternative. Before I come to that, however, I just want to tell the hon. member that we shall tell the electorate who the direct partners of the CP are who support them in their opposition to these proposals.

That is right.

I should just like to identify two, neither of which is very important. The one which I do not wish to identify as a partner and which, to my regret, is slowly disappearing from the scene, is the HNP. The more I have to deal with the hon. members of the CP, the more I long for the days when Mr. Jaap Marais was still sitting in that bench. I should not mind at all if Mr. Jaap Marais were to return to the bench where he used to sit, instead of those hon. members. Then there is a small group consisting of 15 or 17 people known as the Kappiekommando. These are strange people, unbalanced people in certain ways, people who send out incoherent and libellous circulars, and this seems to be the way they spend their days. But the hon. members of the CP have another partner, and that partner is the AWB. The hon. the leader of the CP is clinging desperately to the AWB and the hon. member for Lichtenburg is clinging desperately to the AWB. Only they will know why. Hon. members will recall that the hon. members of the CP ridiculed an investigation of the AWB earlier this year. They ridiculed the statement that the activities of the AWB would be exposed. Some of their members have been arrested, some of their members have been taken to court, some of their members have already been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for very, very serious crimes, and the hon. members’ ridicule seems to have disappeared. These people remain their allies, and then the leader of that alliance, Mr. Terre’Blanche, has the temerity to hold one meeting after another while he himself is awaiting trial on serious charges in terms of the Terrorism Act. He has the temerity to issue challenges left and right to the hon. the Prime Minister and myself and to say what he would do if this referendum were to succeed, if this Government were to give South Africa to the Blacks, how he would take it back through violence.

Now hon. members of the CP should tell us where they stand with regard to Mr. Terre’Blache’s talk of violence. I am aware of the fact that the hon. leader of the CP has said in speeches that he dissociates himself from this kind of talk. I shall not make any reproach against him in this connection, therefore. However, Task hon. members of the CP to tell us, in the light of this, where they stand with regard to this partnership of theirs. When the voters are evaluating all the alternatives, surely they should know these things as well. [Interjections.] I want hon. members of the CP to tell us whether they are still so proud of their partners in the AWB; whether they are still maintaining this close partnership with the AWB, as they did up to a few months ago.

You are telling an untruth. [Interjections.]

They must tell this to the voters of South Africa. [Interjections.] Those hon. members, Mr. Speaker, have held one meeting after another with Mr. Eugene Terre’Blanche.

That is untrue.

Dr. Connie Mulder and Mr. Eugene Terre’Blanche have addressed dozens of meetings in South Africa together. They have done so during the course of this year. [Interjections.]

Order!

They have done so in the course of this year. They have addressed dozens of meetings together. [Interjections.] But up to now, the hon. the leader of the CP has not been willing to say that he is not prepared to travel this road of the AWB.

I have spoken about that repeatedly.

The hon. member for Waterberg will have an opportunity’to reply to this.

I have never encouraged the use of violence.

I am not talking about the use of violence now. I am talking about the matter which I have identified to the hon. leader of the CP here tonight.

When will you get round to talking about the Bill itself? [Interjections.]

Let us refer now to another matter which the voters of South Africa may consider as an alternative. The NP has now become the so-called integration party, after all.

Yes. That is so.

We are now introducing integration.

Yes, of course.

Mr. Speaker, I am not denying that. I am by no means denying that there is a form of integration in this. Nor do I deny that there is a form of power sharing in this. We are not running away from that. [Interjections.] However, I want to point out some of the absurdities which hon. members of the CP want to offer the voters as an alternative in the referendum. Hon. members of the CP are telling the voters of South Africa that that party will promote a White majority occupation in the Republic of South Africa at all times.

In the White part.

I am now asking the hon. member for Lichtenburg where that White part is.

We shall show you once we are in power. [Interjections.]

Where is that White part? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lichtenburg says he will show me where that White part is. When will he show it to me? I want to know from the hon. member when he is going to show it to me. When will he show me that piece of White land to which he is referring now?

Just wait until we are in power. Then I shall show it to you. [Interjections.]

The hon. member has only to tell me when he is going to show it to me, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. the Minister a chance to continue with his speech now.

Mr. Speaker, this is what is so absurd about the matter. South Africa has the second lowest White population increase of any country in the world. According to demographers, there will be 9,4 million Whites in South Africa in 50 years’ time.

Does that please you?

In 50 years’ time, there will be 84 million Blacks in this country.

Are you quoting from Wimpie de Klerk’s seminar?

Order! Did the hon. member for Kuruman and the hon. member for Rissik not hear my request that the hon. the Minister should be afforded the opportunity to make his speech? They will kindly abide by it.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that it does not really bother me, except when the hon. member for Kuruman makes such vulgar remarks as he made at the beginning of my speech.

Furthermore, I want to point out to hon. members of the CP that there is not a single district in the whole of the Republic of South Africa in which Whites are in the majority. Hon. members of the CP will just have to live with their own absurdities. As an alternative, they propose to the voters of South Africa that three separate States should be brought into being in South Africa—a White State, a Coloured State and an Indian State.

Of course.

With three State Presidents? Is that correct?

Yes, of course.

With three Prime Ministers?

Of course.

Yes, of course.

With three Parliaments?

Of course.

With three sovereign Parliaments?

Of course.

With full second- and third-tier government?

Of course.

All of them sovereign?

Yes, they are all sovereign. With three Appeal Courts?

Of course.

Well, the hon. member for Lichtenburg is still agreeing, Mr. Speaker. And with three State administrations with full departments?

Yes.

With three Defence Forces?

Yes.

And because the territory of the Coloureds and the Indians will also have a coastline, I suppose they will each have their own Navy as well, will they not?

Yes.

With their own submarines and everything? [Interjections.] And three Police Forces into the bargain, I suppose?

Yes, of course. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, these are the ridiculous alternatives which hon. members of the CP are offering the voters. Furthermore, hon. members of the CP are suggesting that this entire massive administration, which I have just identified, should be established, as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned, in group areas consisting of 650 fragments, as far as the Coloureds are concerned, and goodness knows how many fragments in the case of the Indians. The hon. member is so strongly opposed to integration. Whites, Coloureds and Indians must not take any decision together, not even about cleaning the pavements. Then the hon. member says it is his party’s policy that the Coloureds and the Indians may buy land for themselves in the adjoining White territory and may settle there. Then one will have mixed residential areas. [Interjections.] It says so in the hon. member’s policy documents. I am quoting verbatim from his policy documents. In spite of that, he is adopting this righteous attitude about integration this afternoon. The voters of South Africa will not be misled by specious arguments such as these. They are going to reject those hon. members completely. They are gong to reject them by a majority which they never expected.

Unfortunately, in times such as these, emotions are being aroused with regard to the referendum. Unfortunately it is a fact that as a result of the conduct of hon. members of the CP who have concentrated on certain professions over a period of years, emotions have been aroused in certain professions.

I wish to refer to one unfortunate meeting, namely the meeting of clergymen which took place a few days ago. The news of that meeting was most distressing. The standpoint of the Government, of the NP, and surely of this House, the highest authority in South Africa, is that the voice of the Church is recognized by the State, that it is respected by the State, and that we recognize the fact that the Church has the right to convey to the State its views on constitutional matters. Furthermore, it is the standpoint of this Government that we wish to maintain cordial and healthy relationships with all religious denominations.

While the hon. the Prime Minister was conducting a discussion, on his own initiative, with representatives of the three Afrikaans churches and the AFM on certain matters which are of common concern to Church and State, the 193 clergymen held a secret meeting, behind closed doors, and subsequently issued a statement entitled “Getuienis van 193 predikante”. It is tragic when one notes the percentage which they represent. There were 193 clergymen out of a total number of more than 3 400. So it is not even 7%.

It is more than the 19 academics, though.

One of the persons who convened this meeting was the same Rev. Scheuer who published a certain pamphlet and who spread these lies. [Interjections.]

What does one deplore about the statements made by these gentlemen? They entered the political arena and said—

This is what the CP supporters say. Secondly, they say—

Can you believe it, Sir? This is what is said in this document. It goes on to say—

We, the Government, are running the risk of anarchy! It goes on to say—

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik whether he agrees with me that the principle of control over one’s own affairs and the principle of co-responsibility with regard to matters of common concern constitute a Christian approach. Does he agree that it is a Christian approach to tell someone that he can be in control of his own affairs and that he can participate in joint decision-making with regard to matters of common concern? Whether or not we approve of this politically, does he agree with me that it is indeed a Christian approach? Why is the hon. member silent now? After all, he is a former clergymen. [Interjections.] Sir, do you see what we are faced with? An hon. member of this House does not have the courage of his Christian convictions to rise in this House and to say that those two standpoints based on those principles are also Christian. Is it not disgraceful?

But Mr. Speaker told him to keep quiet.

Mr. Speaker dit not tell him to keep quiet. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to go on using words such as “disgraceful” with reference to the hon. member for Rissik, while you have ordered the hon. member for Rissik to keep quiet?

The hon. member for Jeppe has totally misinterpreted my request to the hon. member for Rissik. I merely asked the hon. member not to interrupt the hon. the Minister by making interjections.

I am very serious in asking the hon. member for Waterberg the same question. Does he agree that if we accept these two concepts as principle, i.e. control over one’s own affairs and co-responsibility for matters of common concern, it will be in accordance with Christian principles?

Not specifically Christian principles. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member reject it as non-Christian, then? [Interjections.] This is what is being said by the clergymen who support him, after all. The clergymen who support the hon. member for Waterberg and his party are saying that the principles contained in this constitution are not Christian. The hon. member for Waterberg owes us a reply to that. He is going to have a turn to speak. I ask him to state his views on the matters so that we may tell the voters where they stand with the party which is trying to enlist their support for certain alternatives. It is no wonder, in my opinion, that the Moderator of the Northern Transvaal Synod, Prof. Johan Heyns, said the following about this statement, according to today’s or yesterday’s Beeld—

He went on to say—

This is what the Moderator of one of our regional synods says about this document, and I agree with him whole-heartedly. Hon. members opposite may tell us, inside or outside this House, where they stand with regard to these matters. My standpoint is that we are entitled to differ with one another. All I want to say is that we want to differ with one another on political matters, we should do so on political platforms. Let us use the political arena for this purpose. The clergymen must not make it difficult for us to hear the Word of God. That is the appeal which I am making. Do not make it difficult for us by doing this kind of thing, by adopting this kind of standpoint and issuing this kind of statement from meetings held behind closed doors.

I understand from the Whips that my time has expired. However, I should very much like to say something to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. All I want to say to him—I am very sorry that I did not have time to get round to this today—is that I could not understand why he could not get off the ground earlier today. There was no spirit in his performance. He looked the way he once looked after playing for Western Province. He was dejected and weary, especially because Western Province had lost against Northern Transvaal. [Interjections.] I asked the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what was wrong with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, why he was not speaking so well today. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that it was because he was speaking uphill. [Interjections.] He is speaking uphill because his whole world is crumbling beneath his feet. He used to rely on the businessmen, but the businessmen have said that they are not with him. Their periodicals say so. [Interjections.] He used to rely on the academics, but they, too, have said that they are not with him. He has admitted to the newspapers that he is going through a crisis. He has said, for example, and I quote—

That is what the hon. member says. His own friends are deserting him. His own members are deserting him. I am referring to the hon. member for Bryanston, the hon. member for Wynberg, the ex-professor and the hon. member for Yeoville. I am saying this in all friendliness. Not much remains. I almost caught the eye of the hon. member for “Dalling”, but he is not one of them. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows, after all, who the people are who did not agree with him in his caucus. Now, out of dejection, he says that he no longer has an alternative. “I cannot go to the country with my alternative: all I can say to the country is “say ‘no’ and make the Nats think again.” [Interjections.] That is the hon. member’s alternative: “Say ‘no’ and make the Nats think again.” That is all I want to say to the hon. member. I do not have time to develop the rest of my argument. This, then, is as far as the official Opposition is able to go.

[Inaudible.]

I might just quote what has been said in this connection by the hon. Chief Whip who is now being so clever. I do not know when this was last done in this House. The Chief Whip of the official Opposition is a very honourable man, after all, and therefore we accept that what he says is the true policy of the PFP, because he is their Chief Whip, after all. What does he say? I quote what the hon. Chief Whip said in the Senate with reference to a newspaper report on a meeting which he had addressed—

That was the question which was put to him at the meeting. The Chief Whip’s reply to that was “yes”. The third question which was put to him at the meeting was, and I quote—

The Chief Whip’s reply was “yes”, and he went on to say—

But this is not what I am concerned with. My concern is the standpoint of the Chief Whip, and the hon. Chief Whip said this in the Senate on 11 May 1976.

What was the answer to the last question?

No, I do not wish to deal with that now. I wish to deal with the political side. [Interjections.]

You are a “skelm” (rogue)!

I am sorry, but I do not wish to join issue with the Chief Whip at all as far as the fourth question is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sandton allowed to say that the hon. the Minister is a “skelm”?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question was “yes …”

Order! I have asked the hon. member a question. Did the hon. member say that the hon. the Minister was a “skelm”?

But he is, Mr. Speaker!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, and I ask him to finish the quotation.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I shall read the reply with pleasure. The Chief Whip replied “yes, of course”. I have the Hansard with me. [Interjections.] So this has been their standpoint all these years. The Chief Whip spelt it out to us. Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not really drop a bomb by saying that the policy of his party was one which would result in Black majority rule. [Interjections.] Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not really drop a bomb by saying that his policy would result in Black majority rule in South Africa. He has now told the electorate, on a cassette which is going to be distributed in large numbers, that this will be the final outcome of his party’s policy. There have been many articles on this in the newspapers.

That is an untruth, and you know it!

This is the position.

Order! The hon. member for Green Point must withdraw the words “and you know it” unconditionally.

I withdraw my remark that “he knows it”. He obviously does not know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, the way I understand the rule …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “and you know it”.

I have already withdrawn them, Sir.

I am sorry but the hon. the Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister who has just resumed his seat said that I was one of the members in the PFP caucus who disagreed with my hon. leader. That is, of course, untrue, but in one respect I do disagree with my hon. leader, and that is in regard to his idea that the NP should think again. Thereby he was implying that the NP had the ability to think. Perphaps there I do disagree with my hon. leader. I do not always know whether the NP does, in fact, have the ability.

At this stage I do not want to get involved in the unpleasant altercation between the NP and the CP. We did, however, have the NP whining and sobbing at having accusations of Black peril levelled at it, at having Black peril tactics used against it. The NP, however, is the creator and the arch exploiter of Black peril as a political instrument in South Africa.

Horace, you are the White peril.

For decades now the NP has used Black peril tactics to make White voters antagonistic towards the Opposition. They have shamelessly exploited the Black peril issue. So for the Government to complain now about this being used against it is, I think, going a bit far.

In a whole series of effective arguments the hon. the Minister mentioned why a Coloured homeland could not be created in South Africa. I agree with him. The arguments he raised were good ones. They were effective arguments. Each of those arguments, however, can be used as effectively against the Government’s official policy of homelands for the Black people in South Africa [Interjections.] Each of the arguments that hon. Minister mentioned to indicate why there could not be any Coloured homeland in South Africa is equally valid in regard to the Black people in South Africa. Do you know what it is all about, Sir? It is all a question of numbers. If there had been 20 million Coloureds in South Africa and only 2 million Black people, the Government would have advocated a policy of a House for Black people and a homeland for the 20 million Coloureds in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is not a question of the principle involved. It is not a question of the realities involved. It is not the question of race that is involved. It is a question of the NP’s fear in the face of the numbers of Black people in South Africa.

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Finance is not here at the moment, but the hon. the Minister of Manpower is back in the House. They so easily say that the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians reject PFP policy and accept NP policy. The hon. the Minister of Manpower knows what a challenge is. I challenge the Government to hold a referendum amongst all sectors of the population in South Africa, the Blacks the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites, and to ask them to say whether they support the policy of the NP or that of the PFP. I challenge the Government to do it.

Ah, man, you are being silly!

I am not being silly. Unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s acceptance of such a challenge, because he means nothing in the NP. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Manpower, however, is a man who would accept a challenge of that nature. He is a man who likes a challenge. I challenge the Government, if it has the courage, if those hon. members are not cowards as far as this specific point is concerned, to hold a referendum in South Africa in which all the people from all sections of the population in South Africa are asked to decide on the policy of the NP and the policies being adopted by all the other political parties in South Africa. I do not believe that the Government would have the courage to do that, but I would like to express the hope that it will do so, because that would put an end to all the ridiculous arguments that we hear so frequently from those hon. members. I believe that on 2 November South Africa will vote “no”, that on 2 November every reasonable and responsible South African will vote “no”. Each South African will do so because this constitution represents a linked series of dangerous steps in the wrong direction for South Africa, a linked series of dangerous steps that spell disaster for our country’s future.

This afternoon some important and pertinent questions were asked here. I listened very attentively to hear whether the Government was going to give any answers to those questions. All hon. members in the Opposition parties will agree that up to the present stage of the debate the Government has not yet replied to a single one of the pertinent questions. The Government cannot get away with that. The Government owes it to South Africa to answer those questions when they are put to the Government by the elected representatives of the people of South Africa. It is the Government’s responsibility to answer such question honestly and frankly. The Government cannot get away from those questions.

I want to begin with a question. It is frequently said—it is said to English-language business leaders and other English-language voters—by NP representatives who go to talk to them about criticism: “Do not worry; this is only the first step and many things have yet to happen.” The Government owes South Africa an answer. Is it the first step? What will the future of this constitution be, where is the Government taking South Africa, where is the Government heading?

I say that the constitution represents a series of steps in the wrong direction. Step one in the wrong direction is that of 20 million South African citizens being excluded from the process. They are being totally excluded from this process. 20 Million South African citizens—i.e. the Black people—were not consulted at all in the drafting of the constitution. 20 Million South African citizens are not acknowledged in the Act itself. No provision is being made for them. To read the constitution one would think there was not a single Black citizen in South Africa, because no provision is being made for the Black man in the constitution. In studying the constitution one sees that the Black people cannot be incorporated in this constitution. There is no possibility for the Black people to be incorporated in the constitution. 20 Million South African citizens, 30 million South African citizens in 17 years’ time, citizens who will furnish the majority of our matriculants, the majority of our skilled workers, who will make the major contribution to the country’s gross domestic product, to South Africa’s state coffers in the form of the taxation of personal income, that powerful group which is effectively going to control the country’s economy, finds that no provision is being made for it in the constitution.

The apposite question to the hon. the Minister is: What is the future of the Black man in South Africa in the light of this constitution? Is he going to be incorporated into this constitution, or does the Government foresee the constitution being amended or being replaced by another constitution to make provision for the Black people in South Africa?

The constitution has not yet become law and is not yet being implemented, but already there are indications, and even proof, of racial conflict in South Africa being ominously on the increase as a result of the fact that the Black man is not being acknowledged in this constitution. In the next few months the Government is going to be faced with that increasing conflict. The Government is going to be faced by organizations which represent the Black man in South Africa and which warn the Government that it is moving in a direction that can only result in violence in South Africa, because the fact that the Black man is not acknowledged in the constitution leaves him only one other possibility, and that is to obtain his future rights by violence owing to the fact that there are no political possibilities for him to exercise those rights. That is the message that this constitution spells out to the Black man in South Africa. Then I also want to refer to the statements by Inkatha and the UDF, an organization representing more than 400 Black organizations. Dr. Hennie Kotzé of the Rand Afrikaans University found, for example, that whilst 67% of the Black opinion-formers were opposed to a White Government for South Africa, the percentage increased to 80% when it came to a Government by Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The Government must therefore realize that it is proceeding with this constitution in the face of strong opposition from 90% of South Africa’s people.

The second step in the wrong direction lies in the fact that the pillars supporting this constitution are the pillars of apartheid. There will be separate Houses in which there will be no opportunity for people to get to know one another, to communicate and to work together. The constitution is based on racial classification and the Group Areas Act. It is based on permanent racial discrimination in South Africa. Let me ask the Government this pertinent question: Is it going to make provision for the abolition of racial discrimination? Why does this Bill not make provision for racial discrimination to be abolished, or why is an undertaking not given that it will be abolished? Why has the Government not, in this legislation, made provision for a Bill of Rights or any other form of undertaking that it is going to abolish racial discrimination? Why is no mention made of that? Why does the Government remain silent on the question of racial discrimination?

May I put a question to you?

No, I do not have the time to answer the hon. the Minister’s questions. If there are Coloured and Indian Ministers sitting in Parliament, they are part of the White political milieu, but when they walk out of the gate, they are part of the Black socio-economic milieu. Then they must catch a Black train. When the Coloured and Indian Ministers enter the Union Buildings they are part of the White political milieu, but once they leave the Union Buildings and walk through any park, they are driven from that park by policemen with dogs because they are again part of the Black socio-economic milieu.

With three Cabinets?

No, I am not going to answer the hon. the Minister’s questions. If an Indian Minister of Justice were to be appointed, he would have to obtain a permit to visit Bloemfontein.

There are anomalies and conflicting aspects in this constitution, and the Government has not, as yet, given any undertaking that it is going to resolve them. We know that the Government is petrified with fear about the right wing. This has prevented the Government from undertaking real reform. If the “no” votes were to win the referendum, and the Government were prepared to go back to the drawing board and tackle this matter in the right way, i.e. if it were prepared to consult recognized and accepted leaders of all South Africa’s citizens, including the Black people, and to incorporate them in the process—the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must listen now, because I am now making him an offer he cannot refuse—and if the Government were also prepared to give an undertaking that it would abolish all forms of racial discrimination and create a democratic dispensation in South Africa, not based on apartheid, we in the PFP would stand by the Government in its struggle against the right wing. Then we should be prepared to help the Government and to assist it in the face of the onslaught from the right wing. That is a very genuine offer that I am making. Under those circumstances I would be prepared to help the Government if the “no”-votes won the referendum.

My last question is: What does the Government propose to do if the “no”-votes win the referendum? We in South Africa would very much like to know what the Government intends to do then. The Government must not threaten the English-language voters in order to get their votes. Do not tell them that if there is a “no”-vote, that would be the end of reform in South Africa. Do not tell them that if there were to be a “no”-vote, the CP would come into power and that would be such a terrible prospect. Why can the Government not act positively and effectively? Why can the Government not tell South Africa that in the event of a “no”-vote the Government would go back to the drawing board and make a decent job of the South African constitution?

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Bryanston entered this debate with bravado and issued a number of challenges and put a number of questions. Inter alia, the hon. member asked whether the Government did not want to hold a referendum among all the population groups, among everyone in this country, to test opinions. I want to challenge the hon. member for Bryanston to go to Mr. Skosana, the Prime Minister of kwaNdebele. Let me just qualify that, however. The hon. member was in the company of such a Prime Minister on occasion, and that Prime Minister told him that he was not speaking to a piccanin. At least the hon. member is a frontbencher in his party now, and perhaps they would receive him. Perhaps the Prime Minister would receive him if he were to approach him courteously. The hon. member must go and ask Mr. Skosana whether he would be prepared to serve in the same Government with the Prime Minister of kwaZulu. The hon. member does not understand the hearts and minds of the Black people. The hon. member presents a completely different picture when he quotes a few militant speakers and presents them to us as an example. The Government is not driven by fear to establish Black States. Those people have a desire to express their own nationality in separate States.

The hon. member asked why the Government had not incorporated a Bill of Rights into the constitution. I want to ask the hon. member whether he has read the preamble to the constitution. Has he read it? If so, does he understand the contents? Is he not moved when he reads it? Has it no meaning for him? We are in earnest about this, and we are going to the voters with it. One of the objectives of the Government with this constitution is to ensure peace in this country. Even though the Opposition argues against it, and even though the CP questions it, it remains our objective. However, peace is not a dormant process, a process without activity. Peace makes heavy demands on one. It requires a continuous process of discussion, negotiation and sympathy. Peace requires attitudes that can bring about peace. If one reads the history of Europe, of the bloody wars that were fought there, when there was no peace, one sees that they were waged between the civilized nations of this century, and those wars broke out because attitudes were not right.

I want to come to the topic under discussion, the debate which is concerned essentially with a new constitution. Today the hon. member for Lichtenburg stated passionately that they would fight this constitution with everything they have. It is easy to arouse bitterness in people, and the hon. member for Langlaagte knows what I am speaking about. It is easy to arouse bitterness in people, it is easy to make it part of one’s growth process, but it will reap bitter fruits in later years. One of the reasons for the Great Trek, as set out in our history books, was the emancipation of the slaves in the 1830’s. Opposition to this had such a tremendous impact on our people, that our history books cite this as a reason for their trekking into the interior.

As we progressed, however, we no longer advanced that as an argument, as a fact, and our history books almost ceased mentioning it. In fact, later generations said that it was un-Christian to blame Christian forefathers for not wanting to emancipate the slaves. This is no longer advanced as an argument today. Other reasons are given for the Great Trek.

I want to refer to another piece of history now. A great number of interesting topics were discussed in the debates of the Legislative Assemblies of the northern provinces—at that time, after the Anglo-Boer War, they were really colonies of Great Britain—the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The then member for Winburg South, Mr. H. G. Stuart, made a certain pronouncement with regard to the National Convention of 1909 in a speech he made in the Legislative Assembly. Interestingly enough, this speech was reported in the third person. At that time, members were permitted to give standing ovations in the Legislative Assembly when someone made a good speech. I truly believe that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning deserves such a standing ovation by this House. At that time it was quite permissible for members to give standing ovations.

With reference to the representatives of the Orange Free State in the National Convention, which was discussing the unification of South Africa, Mr. Stuart said, and I quote—

Of course, the document he was referring to here was the document concerning the unification of South Africa. In a further reference to the work of the delegation Mr. Stuart went on to say—

Those are almost prophetic words, Mr. Speaker. To create an instrument for the future, in fact, to fulfil future expectations, is what Mr. Stuart was referring to. I quote further—

Mr. Speaker, this was someone who had fought in the Anglo-Boer War. This was the man who had said this. This is what he had to say about the work of soldiers who had fought with him on the battlefield, and who had then gathered around a conference table to work out a future for this country; an agreement on the future between two parties that had confronted one another with arms only a few years prior to that particular event. Mr. Stuart regarded that as a greater achievement than the confrontations and hardships on the battlefield. History has distanced us from those events, however. If we wanted to recall those events, however, we would realize that those two northern provinces—the Transvaal and the Orange Free State—were stripped completely bare in 1909—not long after the Anglo-Boer War. There was still bitterness, sadness and re-sentiment in the hearts and minds of those people. They were poverty-stricken. I grew up on one of those farms. There are still some burnt-out ruins dating back to the Anglo Boer War on the farm on which I grew up. These are things that affected the people deeply. I have just quoted what one of those people had to say, viz, that the task performed around a conference table, the determination and purposefulness with regard to the future displayed there, was greater than the battles, the famous battles of Gen. De Wet, Gen. De la Rey and others; greater and of more far-reaching importance than all those events. This is how it is described in our history books. Hon. members would do well to go and read about it.

There are a number of stately old oak trees, anchored in the soil of South Africa, standing in Government Avenue. Their trunks are full of scars; some of them are old and weather-beaten, which lends a great deal of character to them. However, those trees are always given a new lease on life, their leaves become green and they live anew. I implore members of the CP: Do not prevent our people and the youth of our peoples from renewing themselves; do not deny them the right to live. There is a specimen of a dadoxylon standing in front of the South African Museum. It is a petrified tree which is 250 million years old. The future caught up with that tree. It became fossilized. It was not even useful enough to become coal, like the trees in the Eastern Transvaal. It became fossilized in the same period as all the other large animals, the fossils of which we are now excavating. There were the mammoths in Siberia. They were elephants. They were relatively hairy, large, strong animals, but they were also stupid. [Interjections.] Some of those animals were grazing when the future overwhelmed them and they were swamped. We do not want our youth to become petrified tree stumps, fossils, which would only be useful for excavation in later years.

We want to continue striving, struggling and working along this path. I can understand that there may be doubt in the minds of our people. That is only logical. I can understand that it will be argued …

You also have your doubts.

Sir, I know there is doubt. The hon. member for Brakpan referred scornfully to the fact that the Sunday Times supported the Government’s initiatives. I want the hon. member to go and read the history books. When the Anglo-Boer War broke out, The Friend, which was opposed to the Free State Government, adopted a standpoint in favour of the Boer Forces.

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

No, Sir. The Friend immediately adopted a standpoint in favour of the war effort.

The Argus supported Jameson.

Yes, and now it is supporting you.

I want to state unequivocally that we are not wooing hon. members of the PFP. We do not need them. However, there are English-speaking people in this country who go along with us. All English-speaking people are not necessarily PFP supporters. They are going along with us as far as this dispensation and this work are concerned.

I can understand the fact that there is doubt. I can understand that our people are concerned. I can understand that they are clinging to certain practices, traditions and customs. That is logical. What I do not understand, however, is the bitterness one finds. The hon. member for Waterberg knows that I have a great deal of respect for him personally.

That is not reflected in your speech.

That hon. member must leave me alone. However, I cannot forgive the hon. member for Waterberg for splitting the ranks of the Afrikaner with this movement at this time when we need one another.

Speak to the people opposite about that.

I want to state emphatically that he is shaking the very foundations.

This document is a challenging one. It is an ambitious document because it is fundamentally uplifting and because its ultimate goal is a noble one. We are therefore justified in saying: Let us replace the word “baasskap” with the word “leadership”; let us make the peoples in this country, the Black peoples in their own States and the people who are interwoven here, the leaders of Africa; let us make this State the leading State in the world.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and to other hon. members on the Government side that we in the PFP have tried in the past weeks to stress the importance of several aspects, not only the prerequisites of successful constitution-making but also the necessary methodology which should be followed in aiming to achieve a widely supported dispensation. To support our arguments we have for instance drawn parallels with the procedures which were followed in the making of Union in 1909. Of course, it was rather interesting to hear the hon. member for Standerton speak earlier this evening and mention some of the aspects of that debate. What a far cry it was from the debate which has taken place here in the past weeks.

We also drew attention to the consultative process which led to the acceptance of the constitution of the United States so many years ago. We have pleaded for less haste, for wider consultation, for further discussions, for a proper negotiation, all matters which are vital to obtaining that degree of consensus so essential to eventual success. We just cannot reconcile constitution-making with what has happened here in past weeks. One has only to examine the parliamentary passage of this Bill to understand what I am saying.

Firstly, the detailed provisions of the constitution were kept secret from the public of South Africa and from all Opposition parties until only 10 days before the commencement of the Second Reading debate. When it was finally put to Parliament there was no element of discussion, consultation or negotiation involved. It was put before us—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will concede this fact—as a prepackaged take-it-or-leave-it parcel. That may be the way and the style of the NP, but it is certainly not designed to gain consensus.

Next came the Select Committee. When the first motion to introduce the guillotine was debated—the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House—the deliberations of that Select Committee were fully discussed, so I do not wish to go into them again tonight. However, some statistics of what transpired makes illuminating reading. For instance, 342 amendments were moved, of which 140 were agreed to. All this happened in the space of 14 hours and 20 minutes, which means that one amendment was dealt with in every 180 seconds. This must be a world record of some sort of dubious status.

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

Sir, I would be grateful if I could be protected from the hon. member’s ridiculous questions. [Interjections.]

Are you afraid of questions?

I do not want questions from that side. [Interjections.]

You are misrepresenting the story.

You are a second-hand Nationalist. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Bryanston must contain themselves.

I am prepared to take questions from the Government, but I am not prepared to take questions from people who pretend to be Opposition but who really are supporters of the Government.

Why are you misrepresenting the facts?

The Committee of the Whole House then debated the various clauses for some 53 hours, with a further six hours being devoted to divisions, before the Government guillotine finally dropped. This occurred when we were dealing with clause 34, the clause relating to the powers of the courts. It is ironic that in those 53 hours, the hon. NP members and the hon. the Minister himself, while often accusing others of filibustering, used by far the most time; nearly 24 and a half hours. When closure came last Wednesday evening, 96 Opposition amendments fell away and were never considered, let alone debated. The rules of the House may well have been observed and I believe that they were, but I say that this is no way to make a constitution.

However, if we complain about the truncation of discussion and debate in this House, how much more valid are the objections when one looks at how the South African Broadcasting Corporation is being misused in order to promote the plan of the NP? Anything even remotely disadvantageous to those who do not support the proposals is given massive time and major prominence. Any newscast containing any small snippet of argument against the constitution is heavily counterbalanced by at least two other news items favouring the Government’s attitude. What is even worse, is the failure by the SABC so far to arrange for any meaningful debate to be conducted, either on radio or on television, between the proponents of the differing standpoints. Surely the country has a right to see and to hear the viewpoints of the differing parties. Surely the SABC has a duty to provide this service before such a major issue is finally voted upon. To plead that the NP will not co-operate, is hardly an excuse. Even if the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning fear debating with our hon. PFP leader in public, there are surely other proponents of the Government’s plan who are not gagged by caucus decree or by caucus discipline. Surely there are other people who agree with the Government’s proposals who are prepared and who are competent to argue their point of view.

Mr. Speaker, clause 1(c) of the conditions pertaining to the broadcasting licence under which the SABC operates, reads as follows—

Clause 1(d) reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that the SABC, in its coverage of the constitutional debate to date, is verging on being in breach of both the spirit and the letter of the terms of its licence and is therefore being in breach of the law. In addition it is doing so in order to favour one point of view while discrediting the other. In this connection, I regret that it is my duty, on behalf of my party, to issue a warning: In the next eight weeks we are going to witness an intensive campaign, arising out of the passage of this Bill. The SABC, funded by the public and supposedly standing apart from the ruling party, has a clear duty to inform the public of either side of the case; those for ánd against the constitution. In terms of their licence, the corporation has to do so factually, impartially and without distortion.

Mr. Speaker, my party will do everything humanly possible to make available to the SABC information, statements and views expressed by our leaders on public platforms and at other venues around the country throughout this period. We will use every means to make available to the SABC all the information it requires in order to put both sides of the case to this country. However, we expect a fair deal. And we are not going to beg for it. We demand it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister may grin, but bearing in mind the fact that the corporation holds a broadcasting monopoly, if that fair deal is not forthcoming we shall consider seeking redress through the courts by petitioning the courts to enjoin the SABC to adhere to the conditions of its licence. Quite apart from court action, we shall bring public pressure to bear upon the corporation to ensure that that corporation for once, in one campaign, is prepared to tell South Africa both sides of the story.

Does that apply to the English language Press as well?

Mr. Speaker, I feel that you should instruct that hon. member who has been interjecting since I started, as you did some of our members earlier, that he should not interject for the rest of my speech. [Interjections.]

Quite apart from the SABC, once this Bill is passed, all of us will have a duty to make our views known to the electorate, and it is obvious that the media will play an unprecedented role in exposing South Africans to the conflicting standpoints. It is fair to say that the NP has well and truly kicked the ball off during the past week in the relaunching of the rehashed Ian Smith Rhodesian Front advertising strategy of: “We are here to stay; safeguard your future,” etc. That was the Ian Smith Rhodesian Front strategy of some years ago. [Interjections.] I want to tell the Government that it worked in Rhodesia until disaster struck the Rhodesian Front, and it may temporarily work here. We shall see. However, what is important is that no matter how many millions are spent by the NP, the advertising should not be such—and here I point a finger at the Government—as to falsely categorize as traitors those who sincerely believe that a “no” vote is in the true interests of our country. It is crude in the extreme to portray honest South Africans who vote “no” as voting “for violent change”. That is dishonest and despicable. It is crude in the extreme to say that people who sincerely believe that a “no” vote is in the interests of this country—“vote for revolution and dictatorship”. That is a lie. I want hon. members opposite to know this. If any of them is the publisher or the printer or the brain behind this type of advertising then he is guilty of a lie. It is also misleading and dishonest to suggest that those who vote “no” are against “peaceful coexistence and equality of opportunity”. I say, Sir, that it is wrong and it is evil to suggest that people who vote “no” are against the “promotion of common interests through co-operation”. I say that it is wrong and misleading to suggest that people who vote “no” are against “fairness, freedom and prosperity through justice”.

There is another truthful and sincere point of view, and I cannot say it better than was said by the S.A. Catholic Bishops’ Conference in their written evidence to the Select Committee. Unfortunately, my Whip tells me I do not have the time to read what they said. However, they ended by saying—

I agree with them!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton is luckily representative of a small but arrogant section of South African society. We always have had this type in South Africa ever since the Jameson raid. No small wonder then that the hon. members for Turffontein and De Kuilen and I could not stomach it in the U.P. caucus in which we found ourselves in previous days. South Africa can do without his type.

I wish to approach this matter of constitutional change from the point of view of a background to our country as I see it today. Not long ago Arnold Toynbee wrote—

I am the first to concede that that is an exaggeration, but I think it is appropriate to quote him to show how important are the decisions which we are taking here in Parliament.

The decade of the ’60s saw the withdrawal of the war-weakened metropolitan powers from Africa in response to the post-war rejection of colonialism, the rising tide of Black nationalism and the upsurge of international communism. The next decade saw the collapse of the remaining White controlled States in Southern Africa and the attempted total isolation of our country, the ultimate target of the communists and the symbol of guilt or perhaps the skeleton in the cupboard of the Western powers who, although originally motivated by self interest, had nevertheless brought civilization and law and order to Black Africa. The tragedy was that the more their former colonies degenerated after being given independence, the more the antagonism of the world mob to the breath-taking success of South Africa and Rhodesia increased. Eventually through blackmail and threats the abject surrender to Marxist terrorists heralded the inevitable collapse of orderly administration in Rhodesia, now appropriately named after the well-known ruins. Nearer to home South West Africa is the penultimate goal of the Soviets.

Everywhere we find the presence and the influence of Soviet Russia and her satellites and their endless supply of arms to Black terrorists while the Western powers wring their hands and do little else although they surely must remember that Lenin said not so many years ago that the road to New York and London lay around the Cape of Good Hope.

And you are helping them.

Here in the southern tip of Africa, in this continent in agony, we have a mineral treasure house for the West with an interminable supply of strategic raw materials, a military and economic giant, a vitally strategic important anti-communist State. We are in a process of orderly change, not an abdication of our responsibilities or a surrender to revolutionaries. South Africa is on the move. We are engaged in internal negotiation from strength and not from weakness. Superiority and prejudice and suspicion in our country are making way for mutual respect, co-operation and peaceful coexistence. There is no external model for South Africa to follow. Nowhere in the world is there any single country constitutionally accommodating people of different colours that can be held up as an example to South Africa.

The decade of the ’80s will be for us a decisive decade, and our choice is a choice of peaceful coexistence or conflict and strife for our children, if not for us. Let South Africans then be an example to the rest of the world of how different nations and groups sharing the same country, at different stages and levels of development can find a solution to the problem of coexistence, because nowhere else, has this yet been achieved. Indeed, in the great United States of America there are race riots in Miami. In Britain, the so-called mother of democracy, there are the Toxteths and the Brixtons, and you even have among Whites, because of religious differences, the Belfasts. All have their riots, their arson, their looting and their seething latent discontent, generally in the inner cities where Whites and Blacks rub shoulders in urban slums.

Many South Africans outside the normal run of the mill supporters of the NP see things like I do and like I have tried to picture them. South African businessmen, professional men and South Africans with a real stake in their future want reasonable and sensible change to succeed. They do not want it to fail. Many of them speak English as their home language. Many of them have roots that do not perhaps go so deep as those of the traditional supporters of the NP, but they all want South Africa to succeed. They do not want South Africa to fail. Many of them do not even speak English easily. Some of them are Greeks and others are Germans. There are others who have either been chased out of neighbouring countries or who, after having seen the writing on the wall in those countries, like the Portuguese and the Rhodesians, have left and have come here to make a new life for themselves and their families. They do not want to start all over again somewhere else.

If they see things like this, how much stronger then are the views of the descendants of the earlier South Africans, most of whom support the NP and many of whom supported the old UP in the days gone by. All of these people have for centuries built up this country from scratch to a modern industrial giant. What appeals to all of them, these old and these new South Africans, is the strength and vitality of our country. What they seek today is insurance for the future. That is why they appreciate what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing for South Africa. That is why they will overwhelmingly vote “yes” for constitutional change. They see South Africa as a growing giant, even if they only see it in many cases on television. They see Saldanha, Sishen, Koeberg, the Tugela basin industrial development, Sasol and the P. K. Le Roux Dam and they are impressed and proud of South Africa’s achievements. They see a decentralization policy which attracted R1 billion in 1982, of which 10% came from outside the Republic. They know that that will create jobs for 60 000 people and consequential benefits for more than a quarter of a million of our Black inhabitants. They read about and they remember the Leader of the Opposisition when he denigrated the Carlton and the Good Hope conferences. They read about and they remember the hon. member for Yeoville warning against the lifting of exchange control while shortly after it was lifted R250 million came into South Africa for investment. They are aware of the fact that South Africa is one of the world’s 12 top investment countries and that the International Monetary Fund granted South Africa a loan of R1 billion in the face of a United Nations vote of 121 to 3. They also did this in spite of disinvestment campaigns of those friends of the hon. member for Houghton, Messrs. Solarz and Wolpe.

Admittedly, this must be hard for a Prog to understand. People who spend their time finding fault with everything in their country doubtless find it hard to comprehend that others do indeed appreciate the strength and importance of South Africa. What is more, those people are proud of their country with its defects and everything else. Strangely enough, South Africans in general do not seem to appreciate how lucky they are, but overseas investors do. They appreciate that South Africa is neither of the Old World nor of the New World nor of the Third World. South Africa is unique and it was said not so long ago that it is a world in one country. People see South Africa as a land of endless opportunity. Everywhere else people look at South Africa either with awe or in anger. Nothing seems to get more sensational publicity than South African affairs except perhaps the Loch Ness monster! Liberals and Progs are mesmerized by the unfavourable attention we receive and they pander to our detractors in their anxiety to appease them. Communists, of course, delight in our dilemma.

Some other South Africans are afraid of anything new. They want to turn the clock back. They are not prepared to meet the challenges of our time. The new South Africa will leave them far behind. I say that we must forget about trying to model ourselves on others. We must look at our assets and I believe that one of our very greatest assets is the “new spirit” that has emerged in South Africa in recent years, a new desire for consensus and peaceful coexistence, of which the Bill before us in such conclusive evidence. Unless there is change, there is no progress. I ask hon. members: What businessman and what farmer would wish to stay where he is and not progress? To stand still is in fact to go back. The CP and the HNP want to go backwards. The PFP wants to take a leap in the dark. They are the White voice of Black power. The NP wishes to take a step forward. Our constitutional proposals are not infallible, but what counts is not the terminology and the method but the spirit, the real intention, the real wish and the real desire to find consensus and the real aim of ensuring peace, prosperity and security. The whole background to this Bill is the necessity for finding a new deal, to get away from the most unreasonable features of the past in South Africa. We of the present generation have inherited many of those features. That is why Mr. Vorster appointed the Theron Commission. That is where the present constitutional proposals began. That is why he fought the 1977 general election. It was to get approval, which he got by a substantial majority, the biggest, I think, in history, for recommended change.

A new Prime Minister in South Africa is the equivalent of a change of government elsewhere in the world. In South Africa the only change that can be brought about is change that originates within the framework of the NP. Each NP Prime Minister imprints his own stamp on his own administration. For example, the present Prime Minister does not just pay lip-service to private enterprise; he promoted it at the Carlton and Good Hope Conferences and he practises it in his decentralization policy. He does not simply say that he hopes for a better deal for South Africa’s population groups. He himself goes to meet some of them in Soweto. He negotiates a new deal with the Coloureds and the Indians and he spearheads a new spirit in the NP and in the Republic. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister is getting support from traditional Opposition ranks. I ask hon. members: If a man is doing something good for South Africa, will you vote for him or will you vote against him because for the past 30 years he has been your political opponent? Will you put South Africa first or will you put party-political considerations first? That is the question that South Africans are going to have to face on 2 November.

South Africans are not being asked to vote for the NP as they would in a general election. They are being asked to approve a new constitution for South Africa, a constitution conceived by a wide spectrum of fellow South Africans of different political parties and different colours and approved by NP formations, plus academics, plus church leaders and, after passing through Parliament, now even being blessed by some of the Opposition newspapers. Mirabile dictu! Of course, no one could ever possibly satisfy everyone. Who can satisfy all the farmers? Who can satisfy all the housewives? Who can satisfy all the business people? Who can satisfy all the taxpayers? I cannot even satisfy all the fishermen! But we must do what is right and what is practical. The spirit behind our constitutional proposals is unquestionably sincere and the proposals themselves are capable of both acceptance and execution. I say to my fellow South Africans: Do not be held back by traditional antagonisms and fears from doing what South Africa requires you to do. Rise above past prejudice and future doubts. The extent of our victory on 2 November will be what the world will see, namely that the overwhelming majority of South Africans are both moderate and reasonable. This will be South Africa’s answer to its detractors. There was only one thing that could possibly have caused us to become unstuck with this referendum. That would have been the official support of the official Opposition and the newspapers that support them. [Interjections.] Fortunately, however, we have been spared the first by the PFP deciding to try to wreck, as usual, the Government’s effort to bring about a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa, and secondly, by the quite astonishing spectacle of the English-language newspapers being divided into two camps—those who are for and those who are against.

Can you believe it, John?

Some people would say it is wonderful. What influence advertisers can have on newspaper editors’ policy decisions, while others would say: “What a healthy, independent and free Press we have in South Africa!” [Interjections.] For once, on this topic, I have to say tonight, silence is golden. [Interjections.]

The reason why I decided to embark on a political career was because I hoped that I could make, in my own small way a contribution to that will-o’-the-wisp ideal which so many South African leaders have followed, and which so few have succeeded in capturing for more than just a while—“volkseen-heid”, “nasionale eenheid”, national unity South Africanism in a broader sense. In the Republic referendum in 1960, South Africans were given an opportunity of uniting; an opportunity which they did not take. Some people saw that referendum as an act of revenge by Afrikaner Nationalists. Others saw it as a severing of old ties with the British Commonwealth of Nations, to which they were attached by sentiment and by war-time alliance. [Interjections.]

Those people were of the war-time and the pre-war generation, of which I was neither. Still others, like myself, were concerned that South Africa was not economically and militarily strong enough to risk its loss of Commonwealth membership and its Commonwealth preferences, and to stand alone. In the event, however, the advent of the Republic has made South Africa stronger through self-sufficiency, and has made South Africans more determined than ever to make it a greater and a safer Republic.

National unity is being forged in South Africa by the week. Now we have a golden opportunity, in terms of the referendum to be held on 2 November, of unifying all moderate and reasonable people still further, while, at the same time, being fair and just to two groups of South Africans who have been left behind by the march of South African constitutional history and constitutional events. They will, however, now play their part in the building of a greater future for all of us who share one country, without having any other country to turn to. Moderate South Africans will not allow this opportunity, I am quite convinced, to slip through their fingers. They will not let South Africa down when she needs them. They will vote “yes”, in confidence, hope and faith.

Mr. Speaker, the forthcoming referendum has brought strange bedfellows to the fore. I would never have thought that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries would sing in the same choir with the Sunday Times and the Daily Dispatch of Mr. Donald Woods. What is more, the song they are singing is: “Ja, Oompie, ja, môre gaan ons trou.” [Interjections.]

The marriage contract between the Whites, Coloureds and Indians is under discussion now, but no one—not one of the hon. members opposite who have spoken thus far—has made a single reference to the Constitution Bill.

They are ashamed of it, of course.

I find it very odd that not a single hon. member on the Government side has referred to the Constitution Bill thus far. They are giving the Bill a wide berth. [Interjections.] I expected hon. members of the NP to try to convince this House with enthusiasm that this constitution is going to work.

I now want to turn to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. The hon. member for Lichtenburg put a question to him. The hon. member for Lichtenburg wanted to know whether or not Prof. De Crespigny was a member of the ANC. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order tried to evade that question. [Interjections.] In his capacity as Minister of Law and Order, however, he ought to know whether or not that is true. Because he did not reply, we have no choice but to assume that Prof. De Crespigny is, in fact, a member of the ANC. [Interjections.]

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

No, not now. We have no choice but to conclude that Prof. De Crespigny …

But I said that he is not!

Why did the hon. the Minister not reply to that in his speech then?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it polite of the hon. member to ask another hon. member a question and then not give him the opportunity to reply to it? [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. the Minister had 30 minutes in which to reply to my colleague, but he did not do so.

Mr. Dries van Heerden wrote the following in Die Vaderland on Friday, 18 March—

In view of this prediction by that newspaper reporter, I wish to put the following question this evening: What say do White political parties have in the new multiracial tricameral Parliament, in the new multiracial Cabinet, or executive authority? For example, what say does the NP congress have in the multiracial system of government being envisaged by the NP? What is going to happen to a draft resolution adopted at an NP congress? I recall that members of the NP have always valued highly their say in the highest authority of the party, viz. the congress. Over the years, proposals by ordinary members of the NP became resolutions, which were later incorporated into legislation. The NP congress was the highest authority of that party which gave its leaders instructions to carry out. What will become of a resolution adopted by an NP congress? What will become of an instruction given by a White party such as the NP to its leaders?

One of the draft resolutions serving before the Free State congress of the NP at present is the following—I quote from Die Vaderland of 5 September 1983—

This draft resolution is before the NP congress in the Free State at present. If the Free State congress adopts this draft resolution under the new dispensation, the leader in the Free State will have to rise and say: “The congress accepts this instruction, but remember that we cannot implement it without the approval of the Coloured and Indian Houses.” The will of the White Nationalists will be made subject to the decision of the Coloureds and Indians.

The NP held five congresses to adopt the policy set out in the blue booklet, and which is incorporated into this constitution. However, it may be that within a year or two, the NP will find that this constitution is not working. The NP congress may then decide unanimously that the constitution must be altered. Then the chief leader of the party would have to rise and say: “Members of the congress, you have decided unanimously that the constitution must be altered. However, you must remember that I first have to negotiate with the Coloured and Indian leaders. You must remember that we need the approval of the Coloureds and Indians to alter this constitution. I cannot carry out the instruction of this congress without the consent of the Coloureds and the Indians.” I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning: What does he think the reaction of the congress would be if it were told that? The congress would realize that it was powerless. The hon. the Minister’s party would realize that it was powerless, since its decision would be subject to the approval of the Coloureds and Indians.

This will be the one major factor leading to the destruction of White political parties in South Africa. What are the implications for White political parties? One of the implications is the formation of political parties across the colour line.

Oh rubbish.

The hon. member must not say “rubbish”. He must first go and consider this.

Another implication is that interest groups will rise up in the place of political parties. These people may see that a trade union achieves something by striking, and decide to join a trade union because they are not achieving anything as members of political parties. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. the Minister should tell us whether it will be possible in the new dispensation for the PFP and the Labour Party to consult on matters of common interest. Can they do that? I want the hon. the Minister to give us the answer. Is the Political Interference Act going to be abolished? [Interjections.]

The constitution of the Republic of South Africa has been amended a number of times due to decisions by NP congresses. This Parliament was able to alter the constitution to make South Africa a free and independent Republic. I also fought for, and worked towards, this. This Parliament gave Transkei and Ciskei their freedom by altering the constitution. It is my contention this evening that this constitution is the last constitution of the Republic of South Africa which the NP will alter with the approval of its congresses alone. This is the last time a White political party will be able to alter its constitution by way of a White Parliament. This constitution is the death knell for the White Parliament—the last in Africa—and for White self-determination.

And you are the corpse.

It is only a yes-man who could say “yes” to political suicide, political emasculation and political sterilization.

What kind of say do the White Opposition parties have in the new system of government? An Opposition party which has, say, 49% of the support of the White voters, i.e. approximately 2,2 million people, only has a say when a matter is discussed in the White Chamber. Such a White Opposition party only has a say after the President and his multiracial Cabinet have reached consensus with the representatives of the majority party in the Coloured and Indian Chambers. There will be 2,2 million White representatives whose will and standpoint will be made subject to the will of 400 000 Indians.

A White political party whose standpoint is diametrically opposed to the agreement and consensus decision of the Government party with Coloureds and Indians, brings that party into direct conflict with the standpoints of the Coloureds and Indians. Although the debate will be conducted in separate Chambers, the conflicting standpoints will be carried over into the different Chambers. What is going to happen in this country if someone like Mr. Peter Marais, the leader of one of the Coloured parties, should make the following statement in the Coloured Chamber? I quote from Die Burger of 12 March—

What would happen if he were to make that statement in his Chamber? I quote further—

What would happen if this attitude were carried over from one Chamber to another? What would the reaction of the Coloureds be if the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs were to say in the House of Assembly, and at Bulgerivier as well, that a Coloured could become Minister of Transport Affairs, but that he did not think there were any Coloureds competent enough to fill the post? Or is President Heunis, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, going to forbid members of the National Party to make similar statements, or to make pleas? Is he going to forbid National Party branches to send draft resolutions such as the one by Rouxville to their congresses? We have a built-in mechanism for conflict in this situation. Over the years, the NP’s aim has been to avoid and eliminate conflicting standpoints among Whites and Whites, and Whites and Coloureds. All the arguments the NP has advanced over the years—implementing the Political Interference Act and placing the Coloureds on separate voters’ rolls—are being thrown overboard. Does the Government party want the system of government of the Opposition parties in South Africa to become irrelevant, or to be eliminated, to disappear, so that there will be no Opposition in a system of government in which a dictator can do as he pleases?

You are irrelevant.

The hon. member for Kimberley South may say that this party is irrelevant if he wishes, but when we leave this House, the CP will go and warn people throughout the length and breadth of South Africa about what the constitution says, since not one of the hon. the Ministers who spoke here today stated what the consequences of this constitution would be. We will go and tell South Africa what the consequences of this constitution are going to be. We will go and tell South Africa that the freedom of the White man will be signed away by this constitution, without giving the Coloureds and Indians any real freedom. We will go and tell South Africa that this is the last time that the White man will have been able to alter this constitution by way of the resolutions of its congresses. In future, the hon. member for Kimberley South, who has such a big mouth, will have to go and beg the Coloureds and Indians if he wants the constitution altered.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kuruman, I shall probably be allowed to digress a little and to say a few words about something else. I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time I have been able to spend with the officials and hon. members of this House and for everything I received from this House. It was more than I deserved, and one is grateful for it. I am grateful for the opportunity which the hon. the Prime Minister gave me to be able to serve in the office which he entrusted to me and in which I was able to make my humble contributions. I am indebted to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for that. I am grateful to the Department of Co-operation and Development and the senior and junior officials, typists and clerks, and everyone in that department who helped to facilitate my task. No one will begrudge my mentioning two persons by name this evening, who meant a very great deal to me in the department. I think it is necessary to mention them by name. I am referring to Mr. Hennie Pienaar, known as “Pine” Pienaar, and Mr. André Human, my private secretary. As long as we have officials of that calibre—I am not running other officials down now—all will be well with our Public Service. Furthermore I am very grateful to have had, until a short time ago, a constituency which I represented here. Those voters sent me to this place and gave me the opportunity to act on their behalf here. These days I do not have a constituency. I do not know what is preferable. One misses a constituency if one does not have one, and if one does have one, the people can pester one. It is therefore a matter of choice.

I have followed the course of this debate very meticulously. We are now in the Third Reading stage of a Bill which is of very great importance to South Africa. The purpose of a Third Reading debate is to see how matters will turn out in future if the principles of the legislation are implemented. What is going to happen if the principles passed at the Second Reading are implemented? The hon. member for Kuruman levelled a whole series of reproaches, implying that certain information had not been furnished. I just want to tell the hon. member for Kuruman that he should not underestimate the intelligence of our people to such an extent. I do not think that more information than the Government has furnished to date could have been given. The hon. member for Jeppe may shake his head if he likes, but that is the truth. That reminds me of the joke about Roman Catholic Italian who married a Roman Catholic girl. They decided that they did not want to start a family immediately and they attended a family planning course. The priest got to hear about this and asked the Italian to come and see him and said to him: “It is against the rules and principles of the church”. The Italian looked him up and down and said: “But, Father, you don’t know the game, how you can make the rules?” [Interjections.] I now want to ask hon. members of the CP, as well as hon. members of the PFP, because it applies to them as well: “You don’t know the game, how you can make the rules?” If they had wanted to participate in the game, then they would have had a chance of determing the rules. However, they did not participate in the game. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head.

Not according to your rules.

One only lays down the rules when one knows the game, and if one does not take part in the game then one cannot lay down the rules.

This evening I want to dwell for a while on one idea which has kept on emerging during these debates, namely that since we are now going to implement this legislation we are phasing out the possibility of a Coloured homeland, we cannot now create a Coloured homeland. I agree that we are phasing it out, but since 1955 it has never been a possibility. In 1955 the Federal Council of the NP decided that the possibility of a Coloured homeland should be investigated. It was phased out. It never became a reality and this evening I wish to speak earnestly to a few of my friends opposite. I want to mention them by name. I am referring to three of my friends on the opposite side, namely the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member for Kuruman.

With such friends you do not need enemies!

Towards the end of the ’fifties and the beginning of the ’sixties, we moved towards becoming a Republic and at that stage we were all active in student politics. We were very active in student politics. In fact, we went to help the hon. member for Rissik to swing Rissik in favour of a republic and at the time the hon. member for Lichtenburg was the organizer in that constituency. Mr. Sybrand van Niekerk was also active there. [Interjections.] I now want to come to a specific matter. In those years the hon. member for Rissik and I both served on the executive committee of the ASB, and I received an assignment from the ASB executive committee to submit a document which could reflect the republican aspirations of the Afrikaans student. I prepared that document and submitted it to the executive committee, of which the hon. member for Rissik was a member. [Interjections.] The executive committee accepted that document. It can be examined today in the archives of the ASB; it is lying there. I was forbidden—I shall come to this later—to present the document. I wish I could present it today; that would really be an enjoyable experience. In that document we said that the republican aspirations of the Afrikaner student were an executive State President with far greater powers than the new executive State President will have. In that document we said there was no possibility of a homeland for Coloureds or Asians, and the Coloureds and the Asians should be accepted into the future political dispensation in South Africa. [Interjections.] No, it is no use hon. members protesting; it was stated there.

The third thing that was contained in that document was that provincial authorities should disappear and that regional authorities should be established. At the time we differed in only one respect with the arrangements which have now been made for the regions, and I still do not like it. I told the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning: Why should we include Kimberley in the Western Transvaal, where there are only Tswanas and Whites? We accepted those regions. We accepted the disappearance of provincial authorities.

Let me say this to the hon. member for Rissik: We held that executive committee meeting in Pretoria and Mr. Daan Verwoerd, the son of the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, took that report to Dr. Verwoerd after the executive committee had accepted it—hon. members can ask Prof. Strauss of the University of the Orange Free State if they like; he will give them the date and the place. What happened then was interesting. The present hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development and Prof. Strauss then came to me and said: Dr. Verwoerd says it is too soon to say these things. [Interjections.]

Moreover it was at the same time—I want to place this on record today and over there my friend Dick Putter is sitting in the officials bench—that Prof. Wickus du Plessis was to have gone to America to deliver a paper in which he would have said—remember this was in 1958—that the Black States would ultimately become independent. I drove him to Jan Smuts airport, and there Dr. Eiselen was waiting to speak to him and told him: “Dr. Verwoerd says you may not say that.” In February 1959 Dr. Verwoerd announced it.

What I am trying to say, is this: We must not regard these things as meaning that there cannot be progress.

Nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense; those things can be verified, and the hon. members are free to do so.

Having pointed out these things now, and calling to mind the idea of a Coloured homeland and what Prof. Carl Boshoff said about the area of jurisdiction of Coloured areas, I want to tell hon. members that the idea of Prof. Carl Boshoff and Sabra in regard to a Coloured homeland, an Indian homeland and/or Black homelands does not correspond to the idea of the hon. members of the CP.

What difference does that make?

It is important. The hon. member for Lichtenburg is asking what difference it makes, but the CP is using him and Prof. Boshoff to make certain propaganda.

Sabra is an independent body.

I want to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg whether he agrees with Prof. Carl Boshoff’s proposal before the Central Consolidation Committee that Pietersburg should become part of Lebowa … [Interjections.] … that Phalaborwa should be included in a Black State and that the corridor between the Ciskei and the Transkei should disappear. Those people have no idea of what the consolidation of homelands is all about. Sabra and Prof. Boshoff have a policy of partition, not a policy of consolidation or the adjustment of boundaries.

Are you talking about the consequences of the new constitution now?

I am talking about the consequences of a homeland, which we have eliminated.

We have not eliminated it.

Talk about casinos instead. You know more about them.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must withdraw that remark immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte passed the same remark earlier on.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

You are a “lafaard” (coward).

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture entitled to say that an hon. member is a coward?

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that one may not use the word “lafaard” but one can say that he is “aardslaf” (awfully silly).

The hon. member for Jeppe can keep his pleasure at the thought of casinos to himself. There is nothing hanging over my head. In fact, I wish we could discuss that report. I have no problem with it.

Just say farewell nicely.

The hon. member must know that when we talk about reform in South Africa, we have to keep on reforming.

As long as you do not “deform”.

Surely the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Koedoespoort know better. Surely they know that in Afrikaans, just as in other languages, the word “reformation” is constantly used in a religious context.

What does “reformation” mean in theological language?

I only studied theology for two years. The hon. member for Rissik attended theology classes for six, seven or eight years—I do not know how many. [Interjections.] The hon. member never preached, while I held mission services every Sunday. Reformation means that you should always strive for ideals according to the inspiration you receive.

Without impairing one’s faith.

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

To finish his sermon.

I have only one message in this sermon and that is that the hon. member for Rissik knows nothing about a sermon. I have said previously that in this entire urge towards reform that is prevailing in South Africa we should have no illusions about the fact that in dealing with this reform situation in regard to the Coloureds and the Asians we are at the same time indirectly dealing with a reform situation in regard to White-Black relations in this country. We must not have any illusions about that. If we, in this urge towards reform, were to interpret the concept of sovereignty in one’s own circle as meaning that it has no points of contact with other circles, we would be making a mistake. That is my problem with the CP and the PFP. The basic principle of sovereignty in one’s own circle is either interpreted too narrowly, as is done by hon. members of the CP, or too widely, as is done by hon. members of the PFP.

The hon. member for Durban Point must not feel bad because I have not referred to his party. I do not think it is necessary, because we understand one another’s standpoints in this connection.

They are political “bywoners”.

If we accept the concept of sovereignty in one’s own circle, we are no longer talking, as the PFP does, about individuals; then we are talking about a group. Then we are no longer talking about these things in the way the CP does, with its narrow interpretation of a people. When we talk about sovereignty in one’s own circle it is a group of people that is included, not a people or a nation or whatever those hon. members are trying to imply by the term, but also not individuals as the PFP is trying to imply.

And you yourself do not know what is what.

I know precisely what is what. I know precisely where we are going and we shall see what is said in this referendum.

Is that the reason why you resigned?

No. I just want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that with that remark he is proving that he is sicker than I am. We have formulated concepts in this country and we have situations in this country which have not existed since yesterday. These are situations which have existed for a long time, situations which demand solutions. We can no longer delay. I hope that we can get this referendum behind us and that we can dispose of the situation of the Coloureds and the Asians. I want to say today, and this is my earnest prayer, possibly the last word I will ever speak in this House, that I hope we will arrive as soon as possible at the biggest problem, the problem of relations in South Africa, and here I am referring to White-Black relations. We shall experience problems dealing with the situation of the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites, but once we have found a workable concept for those situations, the greatest task of all three these population groups is in dealing with the relations with the Blacks in this country. I am convinced that we shall find a concept for the Coloured-Asian situation, perhaps not as satisfactorily as we think, but eventually it will in fact work out. The urgency of the other need which exists, namely to deal with the relations in respect of the Black people in this country, is becoming so great that we cannot regard it tomorrow’s problem. We must talk to one another as if this were morning and we must say that this matter requires attention this afternoon. My prayer is therefore that we will arrive at the situation as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister will excuse me if I do not follow directly on his line of thinking, but he will appreciate that in respect of the skeleton-rattling with his past colleagues, I am obviously not in a position to participate in that debate. However, I would like to take this opportunity, as this is likely to be one of his last speeches in this House, to say how we in this party will miss him, his ebullience and his enthusiasm in his speeches. All I can say is that for a man retiring because of ill-health, this evening’s speech was a remarkable performance.

I think all hon. members of this House have accepted the fact that we have to have change. We have to have constitutional change and, if we are to have constitutional change, quite obviously we must change our Constitution. Again it is obvious that if we are to change our constitution the only people who are in a position to do this are the NP who are in control of the Government at this time. Having said that, they have now come forward with a constitution which is certainly not wholly as we would like to have it. What is remarkable, however, is that two, diametrically different interpretations have been attached to this constitution by the other two Opposition parties. According to the CP this constitution will very definitely destroy the White man’s birthright in South Africa. They have made this point time and time again. Again, as far as the PFP is concerned, this self-same constitution, which will, according to the CP, destroy the White man’s birthright, is indeed going to entrench White supremacy. This, of course, makes it very, very difficult for anybody who does not understand, and who has not read the constitution, to formulate an honest opinion when it comes to voting yes or no in the coming referendum. Of course, the truth of the matter is somewhere in between. I believe this to be so because in this Constitution Bill, beyond any measure of doubt, the White man in South Africa is relinquishing some of the privileges, and, I might say, also some of the responsibilities that he has carried in the Union of South Africa, and subsequently in the Republic of South Africa, over the past 73 years. What is more, the Coloured and Indian communities will be taking up some of those privileges because responsibility in government is a privilege. They will be taking up that privilege in participating in government in the future.

I believe one should fry to look at this logically from the points of view of the various political parties. If we follow the philosophy of the CP there is not likely to be any material change at all except for an extension of the homeland concept. On the other hand, if we were to follow the concept of the PFP, there would obviously be no change at all now because that party does not accept this constitution. Therefore I think one should have a look at this in order to see what the results would indeed be. Hon. members of the PFP believe that if we were to reject this constitution it would drive the NP back to the drawing board, from where they would come forward with a new constitution that would be more acceptable to the PFP—more enlightened and more acceptable. That is the belief of the PFP.

Are you not in favour of that?

The hon. member for Johannesburg North wants to know whether I am not in favour of that, Mr. Speaker. It is rather a ridiculous question to ask, knowing our viewpoint. Obviously we would like something a little more advanced than that which is in this Constitution Bill at the moment. We are not, however, so idiotic as to believe that the NP, being the Government, and governing with a substantial majority, will only change their policy in order to suit our policy, as it would seem the PFP believe the NP should do in respect of the policy of the PFP. I believe that should a no vote carry the day one would not have the NP going back to the drawing board. I believe that what will happen will be that the NP will duck for cover and say: “Brother, that was a nasty risk we took”. From there on we would have very little talk about change. The other alternative would of course be that the CP would perhaps take over from the NP because the White population of South Africa generally loves success. They support strength, and it would be looked upon as a weakness on the part of the Government if a no vote were to carry the day. Therefore I should say that that is likely to be the situation. In other words, if one were to follow the attitude of the PFP, a no vote would mean real trouble for this country because we all know that if there is no change we are likely to have trouble.

What if your crystal ball happens to be dirty?

Why does that hon. member not dry up and make his own speech in due course?

Sir, I believe we must say “yes” to this constitution because, for the first time it emancipates the Coloured and Indian South Africans. Thereafter I do not believe progress can be stopped. The non-homeland Blacks cannot with justice be excluded and I believe that the very fact that the Government has a Cabinet Committee investigating this matter, is positive proof of their acceptance of this simple fact. After that, when there is some accommodation in the main stream of politics for the Black South Africans, I believe that the next and final logical step must be the reassembling of South Africa into a commonwealth of South Africa. The whole of the South African community will then participate in the full South African and international political scene.

I do not believe that we can achieve this progress without a change of constitution. If it is not what we would want, that is unfortunate, but the NP are the Government and as this achieves some change, in the right direction, we would be foolish to turn it down.

It was unfortunate that in the debate in the Committee Stage we could not discuss all the clauses in detail.

It was a disgrace.

It was a disgrace the way some people behaved. I believe it was unfortunate that we could not discuss all the clauses, but I think it is a pity that the guillotine was not brought down on the clauses, rather than on the time factor, in the earlier stages of the debate. At least we would then have had an opportunity to discuss a considerably larger number of the clauses in detail. I have a certain sympathy for the fact that, if one had allowed the debate to run its logical course, we could still have been here this time next year.

Or six years from now.

Well, I do not know how many years. I believe that in spite of that, as a consequence of amendments being put on the Order Paper, there were a number of very substantial changes made which we of the NRP felt should be made to the Bill and, that being the case, whilst, as I said earlier, we are not totally satisfied with the Bill, we do believe that it is a vast improvement on the original Bill which came before the House.

Mr. Speaker, with this Third Reading debate on the constitution we have reached the last stage of this measure. A great deal has been said about the constitution. Earlier on the hon. member for Sandton indicated that he was unable to associate himself with this constitution-making step. He drew a comparison with previous situations and tried to make out that we had acted too hastily and that, as far as the public of South Africa was concerned, this constitution was indeed being steamrollered through Parliament. I want to state, however, that this constitution is not something that was made this year. With the Erika Theron Commission we had the first preparatory steps leading up to this constitution. As long ago as 1976, i.e. more than seven years ago, a Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. the Prime Minister, who was at the time Minister of Defence and Cape Leader of the NP, began to work on the preparation of this matter. After that we had a caucus discussion in 1977, followed by four provincial congresses. The 1977 election was basically fought on the contents of the Constitution Bill. Further preparatory work was also done on the Cabinet Committee. In 1979 a Bill was submitted which was referred to a parliamentary Select Committee consisting of members of the House of Assembly and Senators from all political parties. This committee was subsequently converted into the Schlebusch Commission. They deliberated for a year and received more than 100 written representations and heard oral evidence from many witnesses.

The matter was then referred to the President’s Council, and the 1981 election was fought on this issue. Numerous discussions took place between the present hon. Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the then Minister of Internal Affairs, and Coloured and Indian leaders. The hon. the Prime Minister was involved in numerous talks with Coloured and Indian leaders. I understand that there were in total more than 200 discussions involving the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and Indian and Coloured leaders. The federal congress was also held on this issue. A further four provincial congresses were also held. A series of by-elections were held. A new Constitution Bill was submitted and was referred to the parliamentary Select Committee on which all parties were represented. Written representations were made on oral evidence was heard. A long debate was held on the First Reading of the Bill and there was another long debate on the Second Reading. There were debates on Instructions. The Committee Stage was debated for almost 60 hours and provision was made for a 10 hour debate on the Third Reading. There were numerous discussions during the appropriation debate on the Votes of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and of the hon. the Prime Minister which were concerned with this matter. Congresses were held by the Coloured Parties; not one party only, but various parties. The Indians discussed this issue fully in the Indian Council and among themselves.

If ever there was a constitution which was thoroughly prepared, which was discussed in depth, which was brought to everyone’s attention throughout the length and breadth of the country, it is this constitution we are now discussing. Consequently, to try to create the impression that the matter has been steamrollered through Parliament; is wrong. I want to make an appeal to the Opposition, the official Opposition as well as the CP, not to try to pretend that the issue was steamrollered. What did in fact happen was that a tactic was used to try to create the impression that they did not have an opportunity to discuss certain aspects. I wish to state that there is not a single aspect of this Bill which was not the subject of a full discussion during the past seven years and not a single aspect which hon. members of the Opposition, of all parties, did not have a full opportunity—one which they availed themselves of—of holding some kind of debate or other on this matter.

We come now to a situation where we are moving in the direction of a new constitution in Southern Africa. We find that we have to look back at our history in order to clarify certain aspects. South Africa, as part of the New World which was colonized and which acquired its freedom, a new world which consists of population groups which came to this country from Europe, Africa and the East, has a certain political history which has to be taken into consideration. It is a political history which, similar to those in the rest of world, resulted in the formation of nations. In Europe the formation of nations was also linked to the course of history and this was a process which occurred over many decades and centuries. If we take the Black peoples in Southern Africa into consideration we must be aware of the fact that there are various nations here and that they do not consist only of Black people. If we look at the development in Europe during the postwar period; we see that co-operative agreements gradually developed from the diversity of nations. I am referring to the European Common Market. Initially six nations, subsequently nine nations, then ten nations—and now talks are taking place with the possible inclusion of even more nations—became involved in economic co-operation. We in South Africa are at present going through a similar process of developing formulas to bring about closer co-operation without the identity of the participating bodies suffering as a result. In Europe another process was also set in motion. The European Parliament developed, and none of the participating nations sacrificed any of their sovereignty. However, it is a process, and we are going through a similar process. If, in this constitution, we involve the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites in a system in which all can have a responsible say over and participation in matters of common interest, but in which each component preserves its full right to retention of identity, it does not amount to domination. Hon. members of the PFP are trying to imply that the constitution is an entrenchment of apartheid and that it is negative apartheid. What is happening here, however, is the retention of the right to self-determination and identity of the respective peoples. We shall gradually have to learn to appreciate and to trust one another.

The hon. member for Pinelands will know that with Union there was virtually a contract between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people to form one nation. The Coloureds, Indians and Blacks were not an effective part of that nation which set out along the road to unification in 1910. [Interjections.] I have said that they were not a material part of it. I want to emphasize that if, in the fifties, there 40 000 Coloureds in the Cape and in the whole of South Africa out of 2 million who were on the voters’ roll, it is therefore clear that even at that stage they were still not a material part of the political process in South Africa.

You are making the same mistake today.

What we are doing today with the tricameral parliamentary structure which we are now accepting is to create the opportunity for all adult Coloureds to play a full part in decision-making over own affairs and to give the Indians a full decision over matters which are of importance to them. They will have their own Ministers’ Council. They will elect their own representatives according to a voters’ roll compiled from their own population group. While they will have a full say over their own affairs they are simultaneously being involved in responsible discussion and decision-making on matters of common interest. This constitution is an opportunity for those who, in goodwill, wish to participate in a responsible way in the determination of an orderly future in South Africa.

†However, this constitution does not provide for those who have political demagoguery in mind. [Interjections.] That is why organizations that see the future for South Africa only in terms of the possibility of Black majority rule and preferably radical Black majority rule have no place in this constitution. It is also not true that this constitution entrenches NP rule because in this constitution provision is being made for the White electorate to elect representatives to this House on exactly the same basis as at present, unless the PFP suggests that they have no chance whatsoever of ever winning a democratic election among the White electorate. If the PFP were to put forward acceptable policies, under this system they could obtain a majority in this House. However, as long as their policies are totally unacceptable it is those policies that will determine that the NP will continue to rule in this House. As long as the NP enjoys the mandate of the majority of the White electorate, the mandate given by the White electorate will determine that nothing is done in the parliamentary structure that does not have the agreement of the majority of the Whites. However, because the NP has proven beyond any doubt that it is prepared to co-operate reasonably with reasonable to among the Coloureds and Indians, its possible is not a policy of oppression. Its policy if policy of finding the greatest amount of can sensus among the various population group especially among people of goodwill.

For that reason I believe that this constitution as it is before us is a signal of goodwill. On the other hand, the attitude of the Opposition can be compared with the attitude of some of the participants in the Geneva disarmament talks. They participate therein but there is absolutely no intention on their part to make any progress towards disarmament. The attitude of the NP is one of goodwill, of reasonableness, of trying to do away with confrontation politics and of moving along on a basis of better understanding, of leading the people of South Africa to be able to trust one another in the future. What the future brings will be determined by the attitude of the people who participate in it. It is not the letter of the law that is of importance but the attitude of the people who participate therein. For that reason I hope that we will have a massive “yes” vote on 2 November.

Mr. Speaker, few people will be impressed with the arguments of the hon. member for Klip River when he suggests that the policy of the NP is not one of oppression and particularly when he tends to support that argument by referring patronizingly to reasonable Coloureds and reasonable Indians whom the NP is prepared to include. However, he makes no reference to the Black group and he makes no reference whatsoever to who is going to determine whether people are reasonable or not. What he is really suggesting is that they will select people whom they deem to be reasonable and they will then allow them to participate in the constitution.

Nobody will be impressed either with the hon. member’s efforts to defend the process according to which this constitution has been placed before South Africa. We know that the constitution is the product of the NP. We know that the constitution has been steamrollered through the House, and the hon. member for Klip River can argue as much as he likes, but history will record that in a vital matter such as the constitution of a country only 34 clauses of a Bill containing 103 clauses were allowed to be discussed. The hon. member for Klip River says that every aspect of the constitution has been discussed at one stage or another. He is of course totally correct, but he should look at the remaining 96 clauses. He should look at the amount of time which was allowed, for example, to discuss the budgetary provisions, the financial provisions—how they are going to work in terms of the new constitution. This is a vital matter in any constitutional set up. Of course, when one talks about bulldozing and steamrolling and the hon. member tries to deny that, no one will be impressed either if one considers the way in which the Government is utilizing the media in South Africa, television and radio in particular, to put a totally one-sided point of view, virtually only the point of view of the Government and those in favour of this constitution. I do not want to spend more time to deal with those aspects.

I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Finance is at present not in the House because this afternoon he spent some time purporting to talk for the people of Natal. I want to talk specifically about the Natal province. Had the hon. the Minister of Finance been here, I would have asked him what his advice was in 1960 to the people of Natal, because really when he stands up in this House and says that the people of Natal are now suddenly going to come forward with a “yes” vote and that is his advice to them, that gives me great confidence indeed because last time in 1960, his very strong advice to the people of Natal was to vote “no”, and in that he failed.

And what was yours?

He failed, and I believe this time he is going to fail too.

I shall tell the hon. the Minister what my advice is, and I shall deal particularly with the Natal situation because I believe that the consequences of this constitution are particularly significant and dangerous in so far as Natal is concerned. I want to give three reasons for saying this. The first is that it is so because of the composition and the distribution of our population. We have a 10% White minority, we have an 11% Asian minority, we have a very tiny Coloured minority and we have the vast Zulu majority. Because of that we are increasingly sensitive to the need to find an accord and consensus in Natal among all sections of the Natal population.

I believe that there is an interdependence among groups across economic, across social and across political lines in Natal far more concentrated and irreversible than in any other section of South Africa. It is a fact which is recognized throughout Natal that no one group can be isolated from the other, and the alienation of any group from the others can only spell disaster for our future prosperity and for the possibility for peaceful coexistence in the future in the province of Natal.

The sensitivity of the situation in regard to this constitution at this time is in my view dramatically underlined by the fact that the Zulu people have indicated time and time again that they are not interested in any separate dispensation which keeps them apart from their fellow South African and Natal citizens. Instead under, I believe, wise and responsible leadership they have shown a totally remarkable and refreshing willingness to sit down with their fellow citizens, their fellow Natalians to work out a dispensation which will involve power-sharing and which will at the same time give protection to all groups and to all minorities concerned. This, I believe, is real evidence of an understanding. It is real evidence of a fund of goodwill at a time when these are very rare commodities in a potential explosive racial situation such as we have in South Africa.

It is this priceless asset for Natal which I believe is being directly and immediately put at risk if this constitution is to be accepted because it will mean a rejection of the goodwill of the Zulu nation with disastrous consequences which may be felt for decades to come in the province of Natal. I want to talk directly to the hon. the Minister. I hope he is not going to get involved in another conversation. There is no provision in this Bill, in this dispensation, for the vast majority of the people of Natal. They are deliberately excluded. It is no good the Government saying as they do that they are provided for separately in terms of some other dispensation because the Government knows, this Minister knows and the Prime Minister knows that they have rejected that separate dispensation. As far as they are concerned there is no difference …

They have also rejected your policy.

No, they have not. They have rejected the different dispensation which the Government offers them. They have been left in limbo and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any difference now, as far as the Zulu people are concerned, between the attitude of the Government in terms of this constitution and the attitude of the Government in terms of the 1977 proposals. I believe there is no difference whatsoever as far as that group of people are concerned.

I want to quote here—I have quoted it before, but I think it is particularly appropriate in this debate—from a pamphlet issued by the NP relating to their 1977 proposals. It is in the form of a question and answer session. One question was the following—

That was in 1977. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is still the attitude of the Government in terms of this constitution. The hon. the Minister does not provide for these people, namely for homelands which reject independence. It is a totally take-it-or-leave-it attitude. It is arrogance in the extreme. I would even call it reckless and dangerous arrogance in terms of the situation in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister talks about an expansion of democracy in South Africa. What is his plan for people who reject separate independence and who are totally and specifically excluded from this plan? He must answer this question, because we are dealing here, in the case of the Zulu people, with some 5 million people. What is their future? How does he or the Government intend to meet their aspirations? I think it is a vital question which needs to be answered, certainly as far as we in Natal are concerned.

I have now dealt with the question of Black exclusion, which I think is a consequence of particular significance to Natal. However, there is another aspect to these proposals which is of special significance to Natal, namely the whole threat in this constitution and in the Government’s guidelines to the provincial system. The hon. the Minister must know, or ought to know, that Natal has been and is particularly sensitive about the powers of the provinces. When one reads through the debates which preceded the act of Union in 1910, one finds that this was a matter of vital concern at that time. It was a contract of Union that provincial identity and powers should be recognized and protected. In this constitution that is put totally at risk. In terms of the constitution and the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in Bloemfontein provincial councils are going to be phased out. This is another matter which is of grave concern. When one looks at clause 98 of this Bill and at the powers of the State President to take over from provinces and assign provincial ordinances to other legislative bodies, this is the beginning of the end of the provincial system. This is a matter of concern in Natal.

The third aspect is the fact that this is an apartheid constitution. Apartheid has been consistently rejected by the people of Natal in election after election. In election after election the NP has claimed that it is going to win in Natal, but the fact of the matter is that apartheid and the authoritarianism which goes with it have been consistently rejected by the people of Natal. In this constitution we have a strict adherence to rigid apartheid. We have the Population Registration Act which is essential to this and we also have the situation of own affairs and general affairs which, again, entrench apartheid into the constitution of South Africa.

I have outlined three points which I believe are of particular concern to the people of Natal. Against that background I want to deal for a moment with what I believe to be the extraordinary and despicable attitude and the despicable role of the NRP in this situation. The NRP are primarily a Natal party. They won seats in Parliament in the last general election. They retained control of the Natal Provincial Council behind a slogan which stated: “Keep Natal free, vote NRP”. I believe that if that slogan meant anything, it meant keep the Nats out of Natal, it meant keep Natal free from Nat domination, it meant safeguard our provincial powers and it meant keep Natal free of rigid and entrenched apartheid. Yet at this stage in this whole debate on the constitution they are now prepared to sell the past. They are a party of sell-outs. They are preparing to sell out the Blacks of Natal, they are preparing to sell out the Indians of Natal and they are prepared to sell out the Whites who value and cherish the provincial system in Natal.

Do you really think that drivel will go down in Natal?

They are prepared to lead Natal into Nat authoritarian apartheid camps. This is what they are doing. I do not know what they think they are doing, but they apparently seek for themselves the role of some sort of latterday Trojan horse by means of which they will hand over Natal to the very policies, the very philosophies which the voters of Natal have consistently rejected at election after election. I believe that the NRP have sold out the past as far as the people of Natal are concerned. We in these benches will keep faith with the people of Natal, the Black people of Natal, the White people of Natal and the Indian people of Natal, because we believe that if we are going to have peaceful co-existence in our province it is absolutely essential that we have got to get back to the drawing board and it is absolutely essential that there should be negotiation. We should get back and seek the path of real, peaceful co-existence in the province of Natal which can provide for the security of all the people of that province.

Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of his address the hon. member for Berea stated that he would be addressing himself to certain problems which were peculiar to Natal. I listened carefully and I detected the same strain, however, that has been running through the argument of hon. members of the PFP throughout the debate and to which I shall return in a moment. The hon. member for Berea tried to develop and argument on the basis of a fairy-tale version of the attitude of the Zulu people towards constitutional development in South Africa. My impression is that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi is under extreme pressure from the radicals within the ranks of his own people. I had the opportunity recently of discussing the constitutional proposals with a sophisticated Zulu gentleman.

Some of your best friends are sophisticated Zulu gentlemen.

When we got to the matter of the exclusion of the Blacks from the draft constitution his reaction was that he was not interested in whether the Blacks were included in the proposals or not. In fact, he said to me, he was not interested in anything I was proposing for him. He added that he had never asked me for a new constitutional dispensation. All he was asking from me, he said, was that I should give him back the country I had stolen from him. Once he was governing the country I had stolen from him, he said, I could come back to him and beg my rights from him, upon which he would then consider what he would be prepared to grant me.

Why do you not talk to his leaders?

Mr. Speaker, that is the type of radicalism that one finds within the ranks of the Zulu people. Those are the people the hon. member for Berea tried to portray here as people who were only too prepared to sit round a table and discuss power-sharing with us. In fact, power-sharing runs contrary to the traditions of the Zulu people. Throughout the history of the Zulu people they have never been prepared to be ruled by anybody but themselves. To say that we should sit round a table with the Zulu people and work out a constitution on a basis of power-sharing, in terms of the PFP’s policy of a national convention, is nothing but a fairy-tale, and the hon. member for Berea should not expect us to be so naïve as to believe that type of fairy-tale. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, when I came to Cape Town this year for this parliamentary session, I expected the debate on the Constitution Bill to be one of the highlights of my parliamentary career.

That just goes to show that you no longer know your own party. [Interjections.]

The kindest thing I can say in this connection is that this debate, both at the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage, as well as thus far during the Third Reading, has not lived up to my high expectations.

Does that include your Ministers?

Hon. members on the Government side have always done their best to review the realities of South Africa and to set them out clearly. In particular, they have set out the realities of the composition of our South African society and have pointed out that it is not possible to bring about peace, security and prosperity for one population group in South Africa at the expense of another population group. The fact is that we in this country have all to experience peace, security and prosperity together or else we shall all go under. That is the hard reality we cannot escape.

Another equally important reality is, however, that we cannot bring about peace, security and prosperity in South Africa for all the people of this country unless we can succeed in maintaining stability in this country, im maintaining law and order in this country. I believe this has been the underlying theme of the speeches of one hon. member after the other on this side of the House throughout this entire debate—that we have to deal with the realities of South Africa.

I believe that this Constitution Bill is an honest attempt to accommodate these realities according to their merits. Hon. members on thi s side of the House have also analysed the Bill in this light. No one on this side of the House has ever claimed or suggested that this Constitution Bill is perfect. No one has ever claimed that this Constitution Bill can be implemented without problems or that it holds the solution to all the problems in South Africa. However, we do believe that it is an honest attempt to accommodate the political realities of South Africa in such a way that stability in the country will not be jeopardized.

One hon. member of the PFP after the other has argued that the Constitution Bill does not comply with the liberalistic views they hold for it. There is no doubt that we on this side of the House are not in favour of those liberalistic views and that a constitution which complies with the liberalistic ideas of those hon. members is unacceptable to us. The electorate of South Africa are also not prepared to subscribe to the liberalistic views of those hon. members in the form of a constitution. Let us therefore be clear on the fact that this Constitution Bill does not comply with the liberalistic views of those hon. members and that it is not intended to comply with them either.

Because this constitution does not comply with these views, hon. members of the PFP are not prepared to see any merit whatsoever in it. However, one has to bear in mind that in effect the hon. members of the PFP are rationalizing because when they had the opportunity to co-operate from the start in working out a constitutional dispensation for South Africa, they refused to participate and withheld their contribution. Now they have to justify their behaviour and for that reason they have to find fault with the result which was obtained without their co-operation. The criticism of hon. members of the PFP has to be seen in that perspective.

Hon. members of the CP totally disregard the realities of South Africa. They totally disregard the composition of the population in this country. They have come here with a fairy-tale, the possibility of a Coloured homeland. This reminds me of a meeting that I addressed a while ago in one of our beautiful Boland towns. During question time, someone in the audience stood up and asked me: Do you not think that a Coloured homeland will be the ideal solution to accommodate Coloureds politically? I then said to him: Yes, I think it is an interesting idea, but let us consider it for a moment. I said to him: When we refer to the Coloureds, we are not talking about a handful of people; we are talking about 2,5 million people. He agreed with me on that. I then said: We are therefore not speaking about a reservation; we are speaking about a large piece of the country which we shall have to allocate to these people. He said he agreed with me on that. I then said: Then one has to accept that the piece of land will have to have the necessary infrastructure and that it will have to be viable as an independent State. Once again he agreed with me. I then told him that one would obviously have to allocate that part of the country where the largest percentage of the Coloureds were residing at present so as not to cause large-scale migration. He then began to realize where this reasoning was leading. He dug in his heels then but nevertheless said he would accept that. I then asked him whether he realized that 80% of the Coloured population resided in the Western Cape. He said that he did. I then told him that the only part of the country which measured up to all the requirements with which we had agreed such part of the country had to comply was that part of the Cape situated west of a line drawn from Mossel Bay in the south to Port Nolloth on the West Coast. To which he replied: That will be the day! Sir, it is easy to become lyrical about these flights of fantasy, Particularly when one is an hon. member from the Transvaal it is easy to write off the Western Cape as a Coloured homeland. It is easy then. [Interjections.] However, it is another matter when one is dealing with the realities of the situation. We do not have time for these flights of fantasy.

Hon. members of the CP have also come to light with irrelevancies and misrepresentations regarding the implications of the Bill.

Such as?

They revealed their narrow-mindedness, disbelief and fear of the future.

Give examples.

I do not have the entire evening in which to speak. Hon. members of the CP created an absolutely false image of the Afrikaner people. The Afrikaner people I belong to are not a narrow-minded people. They are not a panic-stricken or unbelieving people. On the contrary. The Afrikaner people are a believing and fearless people who have held their own over the centuries. They were able to do so because they were a fearless and believing people. They still are. Those hon. members must not conjure up false image of my people here.

Hon. members of the official Opposition and the CP have not suggested an acceptable or attainable alternative to the Constitution Bill. On the contrary. They revealed a negativism, a cynicism, and an irresponsibility which can only be revealed by hon. members of an Opposition …

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

No, I am not prepared to reply to questions now. The hon. member is just wasting my time. They revealed a negativism, a cynicism and an irresponsibility which can only be revealed by hon. members of an Opposition that does not have the responsibility the governing party has. It is always easier in any situation to sow the seeds of disbelief, mistrust and doubt than to promote belief and confidence. Hon. members of the CP excel at creating doubt and mistrust. However, that is no achievement. It is the easiest thing in the world. I want to ask those hon. members: Whose cause are they serving? Whose cause are they promoting when they adopt the standpoint they have adopted here? I want to suggest an infallible criterion to them to determine whose cause they are serving. They need only look at the people sitting with them who are serving the same cause. They range from the Tutu’s on the one hand to the far right AWB on the other. They include the entire spectrum of radical politics. These are the people who want to place South Africa on the road to confrontation and conflict which can only lead to a situation in South Africa—and this was also my reply to the Black man to whom I referred earlier this evening—where it will no longer be worthwhile to bicker or argue about who is going to govern South Africa because nothing will remain to govern.

I want to make an appeal that we go ahead with this Constitution Bill with confidence and with courage and belief in Him who determines the fates of peoples and nations. If we do so then all will be well with South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has again reminded us tonight that the NP is in control of South Africa and that it has received a mandate from the White electorate, as was echoed by other speakers, and therefore they have a plan for South Africa which they will pursue and they are not going to adopt our policies which he described as liberal etc. etc.

Not liberal. Liberalist.

Okay. Even worse. I want to remind that hon. member that the NP came into power in 1948 with a plan. They told South Africa then and they told the world that they had a solution for South Africa’s problems. They coined a word which has become a swear-word in the world. They coined the word apartheid. That was their plan. They received a mandate from the White electorate. That was all they were interested in then and I suggest that, fundamentally, that is all they are interested in today as well. I want to suggest to him that he has brilliantly given an example of the very point that I am going to make tonight. On top of my notes I have the heading “the legacy of apartheid”. That rather quaint phrase, “the sophisticated Zulu gentleman”, which, no doubt, will go down as well in history, says a great deal about the person that uses it.

What is wrong with it?

If that hon. Deputy Minister does not understand what is wrong with it, it shows that he is in exactly the same category as well. However, what did he say? The hon. member described him as radical and as demanding back the land which had been stolen from him by the White man. I want to remind that hon. member that that is the legacy of apartheid.

That is the legacy of your forerunners.

This Government has been in power for 35 years and I want to suggest to that hon. member and his party that if he wishes to know the hallmarks of the plan which they had for South Africa, I will describe them to him. First of all there is the hallmark of heartache. When one looks at the history of what that party has done to the people of South Africa and to race relations in South Africa, it can be summed up in one dreadful word—the heartache they have caused people by their actions and by their inaction. It is their policy which is designed to break up family life. That is part of the plan. [Interjections.] It may not be liberal, but it is heartbreaking and there can be no doubt about that. I believe the policies and the plan of that Government when they came into power can only be described as sordid.

The second hallmark is the hallmark of division which that hon. member has himself described. Surely he must know that one cannot ignore the wishes, thoughts and ideas of that sophisticated Zulu gentleman. One cannot simply push that person aside and say it too bad and that he should go on with his radical attitude. I say this because they are going to do just that and this plan which excludes by design that same radical, sophisticated Zulu gentleman and others will only make them much more radical. [Interjections.] Whether one likes it or not makes no difference. It is a fact. That hon. member talks about the realities of South Africa and the fact that hon. members on that side described all the realities. That is a reality. Perhaps it is even more sophisticated, I do not know. I want to say, however, that we have ghettoes right throughout South African that have been built on the foundation of the dreaded apartheid. From the cradle to the grave people are steeped in division and that division is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. It can be described in this way: The wind that was sown in 1948 is being reaped as a whirlwind today. We have confrontation and anger which lead to more and more insecurity not only for the Blacks but also for the Whites. It is in our own interests to listen to the voices of people whether they are reasonable or unreasonable. Does that hon. member really expect people to be reasonable after having been treated the way that they have been treated for so long? Does he really expect that? We would not be like that. Not one of those strong, NP members would dare to knuckle down under the kind of treatment that they have meted out year after year and generation after generation. [Interjections.] They are still doing it today. They have bedevilled race relations. That is the legacy with which the apartheid plan has left South Africa today. After 35 years of government, there is no sphere of life that the NP has not tainted. What about marriage and sexual intercourse? Think of the sordid details about people climbing up trees and looking through windows and shining torches. [Interjections.] That is part of the legacy. Is the hon. the Minister of Law and Order proud of that? Is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries who has so much to say, proud of it too? He is now part of it. Has he agitated in the caucus of the NP to get rid of that sordid arrangement? Every sphere of life has been affected—marriage, sexual intercourse, employment opportunities, residential rights, occupation, movement, education, amenities and, above all, political rights. That is the legacy that this NP with its apartheid plan has bequeathed South Africa.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries stated earlier that he wanted to appeal to the people of South Africa to set aside past prejudices and to stop thinking in terms of what had been done in the past. The tragedy is that where this Government has now had a new opportunity such as is afforded few governments in the world after 35 years of ruthless rule to take a brave, new step away from past prejudices and the policies of rejection towards a new spirit of acceptance and unity, with one day left for the discussion of this new constitution, this powerful NP, powerful in the mandate that it has received from the White voters, powerful in the laws which it has placed on the Statute Books, powerful in its security laws, does not have the courage and the foresight to seize what could have been a golden opportunity.

We had speeches today from the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. We certainly heard the voices of those two hon. gentlemen but it was the spirit of Ian Smith that was present in them this afternoon and this evening. Time and time again they spoke about moderate people, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, as though we were living in a dream world, as though there were only Whites living in South Africa, as though one could legislate for only one group and expect nothing to happen. Is that the reason why they chose as their slogan the expression: We are here to stay? Those were exactly the same words that Ian Smith used namely: We are here to stay. If I were in that party I would complain because of the way this has been plagiarized and just lifted out from the 1974 “safeguard your future” slogan. Because he did not have the good spirit to turn his back on past prejudices and strike a new blow for unity in his own country or begin genuinely to share, he went with one step after another to disaster in that great country. This Government is leading this country step by step in the same direction. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell me differently when I say that the apartheid plan that was introduced in 1948 has been entrenched in this new constitution. Where then are the nice, good words that he spoke this afternoon? Where is this new spirit and forward leap into a new South Africa of unity and purposefulness and accepting one another under the creating hands of God? There are going to be three Chambers based on race—not oh culture, not on education, not on history, but based purely on pigmentation, and that is the constitution that is supported by “Nerps” and the Nats. The Population Registration Act is the foundation stone of the constitution. One cannot have the constitution without it. It is there. There are going to be White, Coloured and Indian MPs, but the Groups Areas Act is to remain in order to make this constitution work. What will happen when those Coloured and Indian MPs dare to voice their opposition to those laws from their seats and they find that they can do nothing about it? It is like saying to someone: You are out in the cold and you are hungry. Come on inside. Sit down, but don’t you dare eat, don’t you dare participate. You can come and have a look and you can have the shadow but not have the substance of power. The legacy that has been handed down to us for 35 years is entrenched and steeped in this new constitution and that is why we have to say “no”. Own affairs are a testimony to entrenchment.

Finally, the hon. Ministers who have spoken today could have been speaking as though there were only Whites living in South Africa who are now accommodating Coloureds and Indians. Do they not realize that the Blacks are here to stay? Those are the very words that they are using in their slogans and in their newspapers. They are also saying to you and to me that they are here to stay and that they are not going to go away. The only way that problem can be resolved is to seek an accommodation; not to surrender, not to give up but not to ignore—to come to terms. The only voice of sanity from that side of the House today came from the hon. the Deputy Minister who is retiring. I salute him. He is a very brave man because he made it very clear and I am very sorry indeed that he is retiring. He has more courage and foresight in his one finger than that whole party has in its whole body.

I want to conclude by saying that come 2 November—and let us assume for a moment that the NP together with the “Nerps” get their victory, let us assume that they get a massive “yes” vote—the same problems will still be there. There will still be the millions of shadowy figures standing on the outside and saying: We are also voting and because you have deprived us of the opportunity in the constitution you leave us with no other alternative.

Mr. Speaker, it is late and I shall deal with only one or two matters which emerged in the course of the debate. There is one thing I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tonight. I have already said this to him in private, and I now want to say it to him in public. He will not make progress in South Africa as long as he has members like the hon. member for Pinelands.

What has that got to do with you?

He is the greatest burden a political Opposition can have.

You do not like the truth; that is your trouble.

Just consider the statement he made tonight when he spoke about the “legacy of the NP since 1948”. What are the facts, however? It is a fact that the standard of living of the White population of this country is among the five highest in the world. Furthermore it is a fact that under the NP regime the Coloured population produced a middle class which did not exist before the NP came into power. It is also a fact that the way of life and standard of living of the Black peoples within the Republic of South Africa are in stark contrast to those of people in the rest of Africa. In other words, the facts contradict the untruth he proclaimed. He came here like an angel of light and disseminated a number of untruths merely in order to make a little propaganda. I leave him among the trash-cans in which he usually rummages about in the political sphere.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Lichtenburg will not be here tomorrow and therefore I wish to discuss a few matters with him now. He raised a matter tonight which I cannot allow to go unanswered. He referred inter alia to Prof. De Crespigny. He correctly admitted that when Prof. De Crespigny was appointed he, I am referring now to the hon. member for Lichtenburg, was a member of the Cabinet and that the Cabinet discussed Prof. De Crespigny’s appointment. The hon. member accepted co-responsibility for his appointment. We discussed each appointment to the President’s Council separately. Does the hon. member admit that?

Yes.

The hon. member admits it. The hon. member is now saying that Prof. De Crespigny was questioned because he had allegedly been a member of the ANC. This evening I telephoned the head of the Intelligence Service and asked him whether there was any truth at all in this statement. His reply was that they had never had any doubts about Prof. De Crespigny as far as membership of the ANC was concerned. He said such an allegation was devoid of all truth. Why, then, does the hon. member make such irresponsible statements? Surely he is not in the habit of doing that.

He knew he was lying.

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Law and Order entitled to say that the hon. member for Lichtenburg knew he was lying?

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Why did the hon. member for Lichtenburg say such an irresponsible thing? Surely he played a part in the appointment of this man.

The hon. member made a second allegation. He said that Prof. De Crespigny was vice-chairman of the Constitution Committee of the President’s Council. He quoted from the pamphlet by the Rev. Mr. Scheuer, and I shall have a little more to say about Rev. Scheuer tomorrow. His name should in fact be “the Rev. Mr. Scandal-monger”. I now want to tell the hon. member, and he knows this, that there was no such thing as a vice-chairman of the Constitution Committee of the President’s Council. In other words, in two paragraphs the hon. member made two statements and there was not a word of truth in either of them. Is that the kind of propaganda with which the hon. member wishes to go to the country? It does not suit the hon. member. After all, he comes from a very respectable home. The hon. member knows that I have respect for him. Why does he behave in this way?

He is a “liegbek” (liar).

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Rissik is the last person who should talk about behaviour in this House. He natters away incessantly.

I said that it did not suit the hon. member for Lichtenburg, and I think he owes this House an apology for having disseminated such an untruth. Is the hon. member not ashamed of himself?

No.

But has he deteriorated to such an extent in the company he now keeps? No, the hon. member must give serious thought to his behaviour; it does not suit the hon. member.

Why did De Crespigny leave the country?

The hon. member will have to ask him that.

You sent a letter to the president…

Surely that letter was made public, but what does that have to do with this argument now? The hon. member should rather think about his past dealings with Mr. McHenry.

I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I also listened to the cobearers of their burden. Really, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was weak this afternoon. I do not know whether he was feeling unwell. Do you feel unwell?

No.

He reminds me of a story which I think he will enjoy, perhaps he knows it. A student was attending a student function and on his T-shirt he had the letter “K”. His fellow students asked him: What does that stand for?” He said: “It stands for confusion.” But when they told him: “But we do not spell ‘confusion’ with a ‘K’”, his reply was: “By gad, you do not know how confused I am.” [Interjections.] There is a large letter “K” hanging over the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; he is very “confused”, because he painted himself into a corner, and having done that he found the hon. member for Waterberg was also in that corner. [Interjections.] These two therefore found that they had painted themselves into a comer. All they still have to do now is to take Mrs. Di Bishop, and the hon. member for Waterberg should take Rev. Scheuer, and make those two their chief agents to act on their behalf. Then they will have the right people together.

In view of the lateness of the hour, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.