Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was referring to a propaganda document or pamphlet which was disseminated in the name of a clergyman; a pamphlet which, to the best of my knowledge, is being distributed on a large scale in the Transvaal and elsewhere in the country. The main theme of that pamphlet is the new constitutional dispensation we are working on at the moment and of which we are now dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill that makes provision for it. What the allegation in the pamphlet amounts to is that the new dispensation is actually a communist-inspired plan, and that this communist-inspired plan came into existence owing to connections which I and other members of my Government allegedly have with foreign powers.

My information is, in addition, that this pamphlet is being distributed by CP committee members and workers. [Interjections.] Up to now we have been unsuccessful in ascertaining from hon. members of the CP what their standpoint in regard to this pamphlet is. There is one thing I do know, however, and that is that the person who drew up this pamphlet is a supporter of the CP. Before I deal briefly with the pamphlet, I first want to refer to another aspect. Personally I grew up in the best tradition of membership of the Dutch Reformed Church. I have served the Dutch Reformed Church as an officer-bearer. I grew up in a home in which both my parents were recognized church-people. What is more, Mr. Speaker, my mother died from a stroke which she had while working behind a counter at a mission bazaar. I myself married into a clerical family. I have ministers of the church as family members, ministers who are serving in this church at the moment. I am mentioning these personal aspects. Mr. Speaker, because I have great respect for ministers of the Gospel.

For that reason, when I became Minister of Defence, it was through my personal efforts and under my guidance that the Defence Force was thrown open to all church denominations in South Africa. I also expanded the chaplains’ service so that, when I handed over the Defence portfolio to my successor, more than 100 church denominations of all faiths were served by the chaplains’ service in the Defence Force. What I am therefore going to say here this afternoon must be seen against this background.

I am mentioning these things because, since this dissension in Afrikaner circles arose, my character has not been spared by gossip-mongers in dark corners. My character has not been spared in schools either. My character has not been spared in secret meetings. That harm does not remain there, however, it comes out into the open, because the most sordid slander cannot be hidden under a bushel, no matter how hard one tries. When the harm eventually broke out, it broke out in form of this pamphlet of Rev. Scheuer.

Rev. Scheuer alleges in the first place that the proposals of the President’s Council display a remarkable similarity to the Sprocas report. My reply to this is that in the Sprocas report a national convention and a Bill of Human Rights is advocated, two things which do not occur in the present Constitution Bill.

It is not communistic either.

No, it is not communistic either. Allow me to add, however, that Dr. Dennis Worrall, whose name was linked to this, brought out a minority report in which he stated that he could not endorse that report in its entirety. Rev. Scheuer, however, disseminated thousands of copies of this pamphlet. I should like to know who financed him. In fact, I think we should have the matter investigated. We should expose this matter to the bone. Rev. Scheuer disseminated the lie that Dr. Dennis Worrall’s name was linked to the Sprocas report, although Dr. Worrall had rejected that report; or at least large parts of it. That was the first lie.

This brings me to the second lie. Yes, the caption of the pamphlet is far worse. The caption reads: “President’s Council part of Red plan”. [Interjections.] Imagine! [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that the idea of a President’s Council was born in the 1977 Cabinet Committee. The person who proposed it on that Cabinet Committee—and witnesses to this fact are sitting here in this House—was I myself. If ever I accepted responsibility for something, it was for the idea of a President’s Council. That was Rev. Scheuer’s lie number two. His lie number three is the allegation in this pamphlet of his in regard to the Master’s thesis of Dr. Dennis Worrall. To improve the effectiveness of his tar-brush, Rev. Scheuer alleged in this pamphlet that Dr. Worrall had completed his M.A. thesis at the University of Cape Town on the subject: “An outline analysis of Soviet theory and law”. Dr. Worrall wrote his thesis under the guidance of Dr. A. L. Murray, probably the greatest expert in South Africa on communism; but he is also a well known anti-communist, and as it happens, he is the same man under whom the hon. member for Waterberg completed his thesis. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, can you now understand how this fellow, Scheuer, gave full rein to his imagination and how, merely to get at people with his tar-brush, he even disseminated this blatant lie?

There is a further lie told by Scheuer in respect of the appointment of Minister Heunis. In this pamphlet he alleged that Dr. Crocker of America had supposedly made certain statements from which it was ostensibly apparent that I had confidentially informed Dr. Crocker about what the composition of the Cabinet was going to be. That was as long ago as 1980. I say that is lie number five. In the first place he is not quoting Dr. Crocker correctly, because Dr. Crocker himself said that he had inferred those things from the composition of the Cabinet in 1980. Up to that stage I had not had any personal conversations with Dr. Crocker. However, this angel of light sees fit to cast this reflection on the Prime Minister of the country and a fellow member of his church.

Rev. Scheuer went further. He alleged that the present constitutional changes could be traced back to the Council for Foreign Relations in America, and in this connection he made use of certain quotations of what Dr. Crocker had said, selective quotations which he quoted to suit himself. If one compares them with what Dr. Crocker said, then it is clear that he was selectively quoted. In some respects his quotations are distortions of what Dr. Crocker had supposedly said.

He went further, and this is lie number six. He alleged that Dr. Kissinger was an agent of Moscow, while the fact is known throughout the world that Dr. Kissinger is a greater anti-communist than President Reagan.

That is as stupid as some of the allegations you people have made about us.

It is also just the kind of stupid allegation which the hon. member for Pinelands uses to gossip behind our backs. He and Rev. Scheuer are more or less in the same category. [Interjections.]

Rev. Scheuer made another allegation. He maintained that Dr. Crocker had allegedly said that the government of Mr. P. W. Botha had, since 1978, been a protracted coup d’état. This quotation, too, was wrested entirely out of its context and misquoted. That is lie number seven.

I want to tell Rev. Scheuer one thing and for the rest I shall leave him to his congregation and to the church to which he belongs: Gossip-mongering is the poison of people with an inferiority complex. If this Rev. Scheuer still has a grain of truth left in him, then I ask him to read the book which Mr. Cyrus Vance wrote and which has just appeared and in which my standpoints in regard to America are set out. They stand there as they were written by the American Secretary of State. These comments also refer to my colleague the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information as well as to my predecessor and our standpoints.

I now want to say this to the hon. member for Waterberg: He cannot get away from adopting a standpoint in connection with this pamphlet because this pamphlet is causing a great stir not only in the church but also in Afrikaner circles. I expect him to state here this afternoon that he either rejects Scheuer’s pamphlet or agrees with it. He must give us a clear indication. Is he prepared to dissociate himself from this pamphlet today? I expect this of him and I believe he will do so, whatever the consequences for him may be, for no decent person can associate himself with this Scheuer pamphlet. I give the hon. member for Waterberg an opportunity to do so now. He could have done it by now if he had wanted to repudiate the man.

The same Rev. Scheuer was a planner of the secret, albeit frank, meeting of ministers that was held a while ago. Out of more than 2 000 Dutch Reformed ministers, 193 turned up and a large number of them walked out while the remainder refused to sign the document. I want to help the hon. member for Waterberg today to reject this Scheuer pamphlet. I want to help him.

Leave me alone. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to help the hon. member, because he needs help desperately. I want to help him by telling him that he need only agree with me about what he wrote in Credo van ’n Afrikaner—

Have you read that book?

I have read it, but I do not think the hon. member for Bryanston has read it, and even if he did read it, he would not understand it. [Interjections.]

I shall come back to the hon. member for Waterberg later. I first want to give him a chance to gather his wits in regard to the Scheuer pamphlet. What disappointed me was that the hon. member did not tell me straight away, like a man, that he rejected those accusations. He could have told me that at the time, but now he is sitting there devising clever plans for manoeuvring himself out of this predicament. That is typical of him. After all, we know his subterfuges.

I shall speak later.

I want to continue, and now I first want to talk to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for a while. I hope he feels a little better today.

Much better.

We are now approaching the time when everyone will have to make a choice as far as the new constitution is concerned. Years have passed since we began to talk about it for the first time and the debate commenced. That debate commenced after the Erika Theron report became available. The NP Government under my predecessor then published its 1977 proposals. On the occasion of a general election the matter was discussed in depth. Then a President’s Council was appointed. The President’s Council was not appointed as a result of the influence of the communists, but the President’s Council consisted and still consists today, of the most eminent South Africans in the ranks of the Whites—both language groups are included—the Coloureds and the Indians. These are self-respecting and respected people, men and women who made themselves available to perform a task which called for great sacrifices.

What is more: After the President’s Council a dialogue again took place in one debate after another in the House of Assembly—unceasingly—until four months ago we came to the actual discussion in detail of the Bill. I have the statistics here. In the Second Reading debate there were 25 speakers on the part of the NP, 8 from the ranks of the PFP; the NRP, 5, and the CP, 6. In the debate on the instruction moved by the hon. member for Yeoville there were 10 speakers from the NP; 6 from the PFP; 3 from the NRP; and 2 from the CP. In the debate on the instruction moved by the hon. member for Sandton there were 3 speakers from the PFP; 7 from the NP; 1 from the NRP; and 3 from the CP. During the Committee Stage the PFP made 112 speeches; the NRP, 32 and the CP, 177. During that Committee Stage CP speakers were admonished and told to come back to the clauses 278 times. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now comes forward here, after this entire history extending all the way from 1977, and after his party had refrained from participating in the President’s Council, and after his party had kicked out a PFP front-bencher who had agreed to serve there, and he used the words “the constitution was foisted on South Africa”. Has one ever heard such a ridiculous charge in one’s life before?

It was forced.

That is not true, and here is the evidence I have just finished. It is the result of a dialogue which lasted for years, apart from the second aspect of the matter, namely the hundreds of talks which my colleague had with Coloured and Indian leaders and the numerous talks which I personally had with them. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is talking absolute nonsense when he makes this statement. Hon. members of this House are witnesses to a prolonged debate on this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party will never escape from one word which will always be used to label them, and that word is “boycott”.

Despite us taking part in the debate for so many hours?

I am not talking to that hon. member. I am talking to the Leader of the Opposition.

Talk to the House.

But what is more …

The NP is boycotting the future of South Africa.

Today I think back to what Dr. Verwoerd said during his Third Reading speech on the Constitution Bill which led to this country becoming a Republic. I quote (Hansard, 12 April 1961, col. 4334)—

Sir, here we have arrived at a point where each one of us can share in the process of progress and renewal. However, we have the phenomenon that there are two extremistic parties which, in this House, wish to deny the voters outside the opportunity of being co-creators of progress and renewal, and these two parties have one thing in common: They do not want to move. Extremes always meet…

We do not want to move in the wrong direction.

I did not interrupt that hon. member when he was talking nonsense; consequently he should keep quiet now. I am conversing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I ask that hon. member to buy some Aqua so long and brush his teeth.

The members of those parties are now trying to imply that this Constitution Bill was suddenly conjured up out of thin air. I have just dealt with that. Every party represented in this House today has members who serve on a joint Parliamentary Select Committee, and on the documents of that Select Committee are the signatures of members of that party, of members of the CP, of members of the Government party and of the NRP. In that document they stated that the Westminster system of government in an unadapted form was not in the interests of South Africa. That was point number one. Point number two was that the system of “one man, one vote” in a unitary state constituted a threat to South Africa. Point number three was that the President’s Council was a suitable instrument for holding talks with the respective population groups. The 1979 Bill was referred to the President’s Council, together with the evidence given before the Select Committee. The finding was unanimous. During the past few months every party in this House has been able to make a further contribution on the Constitutional Committee. First there was a Select Committee and now, in turn, this Constitutional Committee. However, the PFP gambled away its chances. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition puts me very much in mind of the anecdote which is told about President Kruger. In one of the books on his life it was told that he had a tame baboon which he took with him on his trips. In the evenings while they were sitting around the fire, the baboon used to bum his tail in the fire and then bite Oom Paul. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reminds me very much of that story. They have burned themselves and now they are biting other people.

This is the background to these proposals. Consequently I must accept this afternoon that there is a common realization on the part of all of us that the correct and responsible course has been adopted, for otherwise we would not have arrived at these collective recommendations. But we succeeded in doing so, and we did so in spite of the PFP boycott. I want to say here this afternoon—and I believe in this—that it is essential because adaptation through change creates the basis for survival. I can understand that change causes uncertainty among people. I understand that. I also sympathize with that. But one of the essential features of life and of history is the fact that there is a constant process of change in progress. This is also true in respect of South Africa. We may not however, allow uncertainty and fear of progress to obstruct us in this course of reform. If it is possible for another attitude to take root among us, an attitude of positivism, if we wish to face up to the relentless demands of the times, we must display a different attitude than hon. members are displaying to one another in this House.

I want to assert that we agree on our objective, namely reform for the sake of peace, security and prosperity. However, there are profound differences in regard to the technique and methods which have to be adopted in order to achieve this. The multinationalism, the diversity of our country’s population, is accepted by all experts. Even our most acrimonious enemies admit this. I believe that the proposed constitution offers a well-balanced approach which seeks unity in diversity. There can be no other unity in South Africa except a unity in diversity, a unity which seeks to maintain a balance between exclusiveness and collectiveness. That is where the equilibrium of our proposals comes into the picture. Even the so-called race federation of the PFP proceeds from standpoints … [Interjections.] It is nothing but a race federation. What else is it? [Interjections.] How they are all arguing at the same time. Do you see, Sir, how right my hon. colleague was when he stated yesterday that there was no alternative before the House of Assembly? The people opposite do not know what they are advocating. [Interjections.]

We stand for a non-racial geographic federation.

Very well, a “non-racial geographic federation”. The other day in his video recording the hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted that that so-called conglomeration could be dominated by a Black majority. [Interjections.]

You cannot say that.

It was a very good video recording.

I challenge you people to appear on television with our leader—if you are not too lacking in courage.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston may not make any further interjections as long as the hon. the Prime Minister is speaking.

Now the baboon may not bite.

That is not fair at all.

Is that a comment on my ruling?

No, Sir, it is a comment on a comment from the other side. Immediately you gave your ruling, an hon. member opposite had a go at the hon. member for Bryanston, which was quite unfair.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Sir, what the opposition of the PFP amounts to is that the constitution places too much emphasis on diversity and too little emphasis on power-sharing. The CP, on the other hand, maintains that insufficient recognition is given to diversity and too much to the sharing of power. Both these standpoints cannot simultaneously be true, because the one cancels the other out. That is why I say that my conclusion is that in reality neither of these parties want to move. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should come into power, it is going to take him years to get a national convention together. That is the first point. Then, as soon as he has succeeded in doing so, it is going to take him many more years to complete it, if he ever does complete it. In the meantime he told me in a reply to a question which I asked in this House that if the national convention recommended something which was opposed to his principles, he would not accept it. That is what he told me. He is nodding his head. It is true.

The hon. member for Waterberg does not want to move either. If he comes into power, he must first get together the people whom his party are now denigrating and slandering throughout the length and breadth of the country, in order to persuade them to accept a national homeland. Otherwise they will have to force them into that homeland by means of violence. Consequently he, too, is going to do nothing. These are two stagnant parties which hold out the prospect of stagnation in South Africa. The one group wishes to allay its fear and scepticism through flight, total isolation and fantastical solutions; the other group believes that it can do it through solutions which amount to capitulation and surrender.

†We who are going to vote “yes” find ourselves on the highway to the future. We are not in the middle of the road. We are on the highway to the future, the highway with more than one lane running to the same destination: Peace, prosperity and security.

You sound just like Ian Smith.

We are on the highway to the future. The other parties are on the turn-offs, the minor roads. They have gone astray.

You are burning your bridges; that is your problem.

I come now to the second point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made. He has made it repeatedly, outside the House as well. He made it in that unfortunate statement of his. The day there was a very delicate situation in this country, he also issued a statement. He later explained that it was part of a speech which he had issued in the form of a statement. I do not wish to argue about that now. In it he said that we were trying to create a constitutional dispensation by eliminating 70% of the population. He said this again in his speech yesterday. Surely it is not a correct representation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with his intelligence, ability and background should not make such a statement. Since 1910, with Union, a process of constitutional development has been in progress in South Africa which, in respect of Black peoples, has reached a stage which has gone much further than the one here as far as the relations between Whites, Coloureds and Indians are concerned. Particularly since 1913, and by means of the 1936, 1959 and subsequent legislation, the Black peoples were placed on a constitutional course along which some of them have progressed to its logical conclusion, to emancipation. Within those national States the same structures are being maintained as are being maintained in Swaziland, Lesotho and in Botswana, which were emancipated by Britain. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deny this historical course of events? He does so because it suits him to deny it for the purposes of his propaganda.

In the second place his statement is wrong because it is not 70% of the population which is allegedly being eliminated from the process, because the urban Black communities constitute 43% of the Black communities in South Africa. In other words, his statement in connection with the 70% is untrue. This is a reflection on his ability—which I do not doubt. However, I do take it amiss of him for making irresponsible public statements of this kind.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been a witness in the past of occasions when we met with Black Governments around a conference table and from which process positive results were achieved. Here I need only refer to the example of the Southern African Development Bank, which has already been established. Then, too, there is the customs agreement and other treaties which have been concluded. Regular talks take place between those governments and my government in regard to matters of common interest. However, he pooh-poohs all these things. To him they are not important. I want to tell him, though, that he may as well try to blow against the southeaster, which is howling outside, because he and his little party will not halt this process.

As regards the 43% of the urban communities, we have stated categorically that we shall lay the foundation of democratic government for them by giving them local authorities. My predecessor has already stated that he would allow them to develop further than mere third tier government. I repeat that. We shall, in other words, give them autonomy on a higher level than the highest form of municipal government. We shall help them to develop their ability to occupy those positions. We are doing so at present. We shall go even further. We shall acknowledge the need for liaison to take place between them and White town and city councils in regard to matters of common interest. At the same time we shall acknowledge the need for the existence of the necessary liaison between them and their national States. Without that we cannot implement the idea of a confederal system of States co-operating with one another on matters of common interest. This will not happen overnight, but it will become a reality far sooner than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s dream of a national convention.

Not in your lifetime.

Oh, I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinelands has control over life. I do not.

I was quoting you; that is all.

What I said was that I could not foresee it being possible for a fourth Chamber to be established here in my lifetime. However, I am sketching to the hon. members what I do in fact foresee. What are dealing with now in regard to this point, apart from the constitutional course which we are following with the Black people and have followed and have to a large extent brought to completion, is another part of the general process of constitutional development among Whites, Coloureds and Indians. As far as this is concerned, the standpoint of every Government and Prime Minister since Union has been that provision should be made for the Whites and the Coloureds within the same State context. Not a single Prime Minister since Union has held a different standpoint in this regard. All of them adopted the standpoint that provision had to be made for the Coloureds within the same state context as the Whites.

Mr. Speaker, just in order to eliminate all uncertainty, I want to ascertain from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he will reiterate that there is no hidden agenda in which provision is being made for the Blacks to become part of the same state context as the others.

I said that in a statement here in this House. Go and read it.

I am merely asking.

Go and read it. In the second place I want to point out that this principle was taken further during the time Dr. Verwoerd was Prime Minister, when he gave the Indians permanence here in South Africa, something which they did not previously have. In 1974 my predecessor, Advocate Vorster, during the opening of the Indian Council, stated the matter as follows—

He said this to the Indian Council as long ago as 1974. Up to the beginning of 1982 everyone within the NP was also united in regard to this principle. This approach was Government policy, and it is embodied in these constitutional proposals now before this House. The allegation that the new dispensation impairs the self-determination of the Whites is in my opinion attributable to a few basic errors of reasoning. The first is that it is not true that if one shares something with someone one loses everything that is one’s own. The second is that it is not true either that if one obtains a person’s co-operation in regard to matters of common interest, this leads to self-destruction. We must not make these two errors of reasoning. A better understanding with Coloureds and Indians is an important element in the security of the Whites. I believe that the proposed constitution gives the Coloured people as well as the Indians constitutional self-determination and constitutional co-responsibility to the same extent to which the Whites demand these things for themselves. To that small group of clergymen, and there are not 193 of them, I just want to say that this is the Christian principle. If we deny the Indians and the Coloured people self-determination on the basis of the fear that we as Whites are going to lose something, we are creating an unsafe future and a grave danger for the continued existence of our own freedom.

There is another important point in these constitutional proposals which I want to emphasize, which is that if we want to do justice to the principle of freedom, we must guard against excessive restriction and at the same time make responsible participation possible. Apart from the provision which is being made for co-responsibility, the new constitution also makes provision for the devolution of power. This is a standpoint which I have proclaimed incessantly both inside and outside this House, the standpoint that any system which is to bring peace in South Africa must have inherent in it the principle of the devolution of power. In this way self-determination and one’s own responsibility are being strongly emphasized so that one’s own freedom can be maintained. Further legislative and administrative steps to give effect to the principle of devolution of powers will still be taken. We have by no means reached the end of this process. Through the devolution of power to decision-making on lower levels where more people can become involved and participate in more areas, democracy in its essence is being strengthened.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Lichtenburg is not here, because I wanted to argue a further point with him. He has a great deal to say here about democracy and alleged that the Government was endangering democracy. It would seem that the hon. member is a great democrat. But on two occasions he and his leader lost a case, firstly in the caucus of the NP and then on the executive committee of the NP in the Transvaal, a meeting which they convened without consulting the other leaders. And when it came to the highest authority of the party, namely the congress, they were not there.

There is a further aspect of the new constitutional dispensation on which I wish to focus attention. One of the principal indictments that have been made against this Government over the years is that we decide unilaterally in regard to others. How can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say in respect of the new constitution that it has been rejected by all leading Coloureds and Indians? Where does he get that information from? After all, they are holding discussions with us and they want to come into the dispensation.

Why?

To participate in it, because they know that at the moment they have nothing and they want to participate in something; they want to accept co-responsibility. And they speak in a far less irresponsible way than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and yet he has representation with me in one parliament. I want to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of what Solomon said, namely—

The trouble with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he was not one of the counsellors. I wish to quote something else to him, something John Galsworthy said. I think it is applicable to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as to the leader of the CP. He said—

I offer this to the Leader of the Opposition so that they can abandon their idyllic dreams and their phantasies and so that we can set to work in a practical way on South Africa’s real problems. Display a spirit of positivism; display a spirit of co-operation and an attitude which does not seek to destroy everything the Government is trying to do under difficult circumstances. Let us move together towards a greater South Africa, and what I say to the hon. member of the Opposition, I also say to the hon. member for Waterberg.

I now wish to dwell for a moment on the CP. I have said before that since 1982 there was no real difference within the NP on fundamental matters. But within any party there is difference of opinion in regard to subordinate matters. If this were not the case, mankind would not be a living organism.

I want to remind the hon. member for Waterberg of a few dates, though. The first date I want to remind him of is 13 June 1979, when I called him in and told him that I wished to include him in my Cabinet. After all, he said he was not in the Cabinet when he was a Deputy Minister. Then, on 20 June 1979, he was sworn in as a member of the Cabinet. When I called him in that evening, I made the same demands of him which I make of every Cabinet member before I appoint him. I said to him that in the first place I wanted to know from him whether there were any differences in principle between him and me. This is the first question every Cabinet member has to answer before he is included in my Cabinet. In the second place I conveyed to him my standpoint in regard to directorships. In the third place I conveyed to him my standpoint in regard to dubious business connections, as well as a whole number of lesser rules which I apply. The hon. member for Waterberg agreed to become a member of my Cabinet and said that he was satisfied with my conditions.

Then, on 5 and 6 June 1981, the Cabinet held a meeting outside Pretoria. We went to a very isolated place where we could not be disturbed in any possible way, not even by telephone. For two days we deliberated there, and the two subjects which we discussed there were South West Africa and its future and this new constitutional dispensation. At the end of that two-day meeting—on 6 June 1981—I summoned the leaders of South West Africa to where we were and said to them: “Do you see this Cabinet sitting here? After two days I can now tell you that we are in agreement as far as you are concerned, and that we are also in agreement as far as principles are concerned”.

In the third place the hon. member for Waterberg confirmed this personally in a speech which he made here in this House on 5 August 1981, and from which I wish to quote briefly as follows (Hansard, 5 August 1981, col. 286)—

That is what he said to hon. members of the PFP. The hon. member for Waterberg made another speech, however, on 21 November 1981 before the NP congress in Transvaal. On that occasion he said—

That is what the hon. member said at the NP congress. These were the discussions we held outside Pretoria. [Interjections.]

What is stated in the manifesto? The manifesto states, and I quote—

However, the hon. member for Waterberg was not satisfied with that. He went even further. He made a speech, which has already been quoted here, although not fully. He spoke here in this House on 3 February 1982. He was speaking to the hon. member for Yeoville, and I quote from Hansard, 3 February 1982, col. 205. He said—

The hon. member for Waterberg did not want to give way. The hon. member for Waterberg was taken in tow by other people. I want to say something to the hon. member today and I am being honest with him when I say this. He is doing the cause of the Afrikaner a tremendous disservice in South Africa. He must free himself from those things which are making the image of the Afrikaner a laughing-stock for our enemies. I want to warn him that there are dissolute forces under him that are causing a rift in circles where a rift should not be caused, and I hope he turns away from this abyss before it is too late.

I said at the outset that we in this House and the voters outside are approaching the moment when each one of us will have to make a choice, a choice between “yes” and “no” in the respect of the Constitution Bill, between the acceptance of challenges which present reality to us on the one hand and a flight into phantasy on the other. I am not saying that this Constitution Bill is perfect. No human creation can be perfect. It is however a basis on which we can continue to build. It is a basis on which we can create improved relations. It is a basis on which we can serve stability and progress and security in South Africa. The future is going to make heavy demands on us. Southern Africa and we here are in jeopardy owing to the strong forces of evil threatening us, and this Government has to contend against them every day. This Government receives advice on the situation daily and whatever government is in power in South Africa will be confronted with the same facts of security and with the same national problems. I want to make an appeal today to a spirit of South Africanism. I want to make an appeal in a spirit of national unity. I want to make an appeal for us to take one another by the hand, and offer each other mutual support to drag ourselves through the mire. For that purpose we must orientate and educate ourselves and the coming generation to be able to cope with the realities of the world in which we live. Our abilities must be developed to the maximum and this cannot be done if we squander our energy in this way. Our leadership should be applied with responsibility but also with daring and farsightedness.

I conclude. I want to ask this: Let us participate with a sense of responsibility in building the future.

†We cannot escape our destiny by refusing to deal with the realities of South Africa. If we are to have security, prosperity and hope in this land of ours, we shall have to convey the message to all population groups which is a better message than Communism can offer us. I am sure that South Africans will not fail our country on 2 November 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention and respect to the hon. the Prime Minister because it is right that the Third Reading debate on the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill should in fact be an important moment in the history of Parliament. For that reason it is also right that the hon. the Prime Minister should give us his point of view on this matter on this occasion.

I want to say at once that I share his appeal that we consider this matter responsibly and his statement that we definitely cannot run away from the realities of the South African situation.

Sir, before I deal with the constitution you will allow me to refer to a few of the remarks made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the same spirit in which he made them—responsibly. What I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the opportunities given to the opposition Parties to participate in the debate, is that we cannot escape the fact that we were not able to debate even a third of the clauses of the Constitution Bill at the Committee Stage. That is unfortunately the case and we cannot get away from it.

I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister represented the policy of the official Opposition as one of capitulation and surrender. It is quite clear that the hon. the Prime Minister does not understand our policy because I cannot accept that he would deliberately misrepresent the policy.

In that connection I also want to say—I am referring here to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order as well—that it is not correct to say that on the video tape to which the hon. the Prime Minister also referred, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was in favour of Black majority Government. That is not correct. I suggest that they take another look at that video tape. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister is doing the official Opposition an injustice when he says our objection to the new constitution can be formulated in the words he used: We believe that there is too much variety in the constitution and too little power-sharing. In all honesty that is a totally incorrect formulation of the basis of our opposition.

I shall refer later to a few of the other points the hon. the Prime Minister touched on.

We have almost reached the end of this debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that the PFP has three fundamental objections to the Constitution Bill: In the first place there is the exclusion of the Blacks; in the second place it provides for domination by the White majority party in the new dispensation; and in the third place it gives the apartheid policy constitutional form in that it embodies the apartheid policy in the constitution. He said that in our honest opinion these facts had to lead to an increase in tension, an escalation in the contrasts and the further estrangement of groups in South Africa.

I waited in vain for any of the speakers on the Government side to reply to these three points. Up to now there has not been a reply to any of the three points, except by the hon. the Prime Minister when he referred to the one problem, namely that of the Blacks. I think the hon. the Prime Minister misinterpreted the reference to 70%. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that the Blacks resident in the Republic, excluding the independent States, form 70% of the total South African population. That figure is correct. He did not refer only to the urban Blacks, but also to the 70% of South Africans who are excluded from this constitution. Those are the facts of the matter. The hon. the Prime Minister also indicated that there was a separate process of development for the Blacks. We know about that. However, the fact remains that we know that no representation of the Blacks permanently residing in the Republic through the channels available to them, for example, to Blacks in the independent States, meets the political aspirations of those Blacks. We can bluff ourselves and say that we are making provision for it. However, that will not free us from the dilemma. I also want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that to say that local Government, no matter how developed it is or what form it takes, is the answer to demands for participation in the central political decision-taking process, is not correct. If the situation in South Africa was different, if we had a situation in which we as Whites were told that we had to be satisfied with development up to local self-government level, no matter how high, we would not accept it because we would not be satisfied to remain excluded from the decision-taking process at central level.

I would have liked to reply further but I just want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs said the same thing here yesterday in his concluding words—as I understood it—that we are saying, namely that we cannot put off the challenge of finding a way to accommodate the Blacks any longer. We have said repeatedly—and I am utterly convinced of this—that the cardinal problem in South Africa is the problem of Black-White relations. This is the overwhelming problem, and until we are able to find a suitable solution to that problem we will in fact not yet have solved that fundamental problem in South Africa.

I want to dwell for a moment on one of the other objections of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely the question of the apartheid policy. On a previous occasion I said that this Constitution Bill represented the application of apartheid in its highest form as we have been applying it in South Africa over the past decades. Because apartheid is embodied in the constitution, we are no longer merely dealing with a policy. It is now in fact part of the structure of the constitution and it has thus become something completely different. Parliament itself, as it will be constituted, is an apartheid institution. It consists of three separate institutions based on race and colour. In the second place this constitution can only function within the framework of the Government’s apartheid policy. The division between own and general affairs is but one example of this. It forms the basis of the entire approach. The system can only function owing to the use of the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act. In that sense the hon. the Prime Minister should feel elated—and I mean this most sincerely—because it is a triumph for a policy he has supported unashamedly over the years. It has now been embodied in its highest form in the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. For years now the hon. the Prime Minister has been the chief architect of the apartheid policy affecting the Coloureds and the Whites. I readily admit that positive things have been achieved in this regard, as was the case also during the time when the hon. the Prime Minister was Deputy Minister and Minister, which lead to the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds. That is not in dispute. However, I do not want to discuss that now.

The principles of the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the broad political position of the Coloureds have followed a consistent line from the start. There is a consistent line since October 1958, when he was appointed Deputy Minister, and throughout his entire career as Minister and as Prime Minister. He has played a leading role in all matters pertaining to the political position of the Coloureds. It was the hon. the Prime Minister who in another capacity was responsible for the removal of Coloured education from the provincial administration and its transferal to the central Government. It was the hon. the Prime Minister who played a leading role in the application and implementation of the Group Areas Act. It was the hon. the Prime Minister who played a leading role in the establishment of separate universities. It was the hon. the Prime Minister who was the chief architect in connection with the Coloured Persons Representative Council. It was the hon. the Prime Minister who assisted in abolishing Coloured representation in this Parliament, although he said initially that this would not happen. However, he later explained why this had to happen. It was also the hon. the Prime Minister who played a leading role in the inclusion on the Statute Book of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. That resulted in his chairmanship of the Cabinet Committee in 1976 and the proposals of that year, followed by the 12-point plan, in which yet again the line of thought of the hon. the Prime Minister came very clearly to the fore. I want to quote from it—

That is correct. No one is disputing this. I quote further—

In this 12-point plan the fundamental belief of the hon. the Prime Minister is again confirmed that apartheid between Whites and Coloureds is necessary and desirable. The present proposals also attest to this.

The basic principles that have guided the hon. the Prime Minister over the years are based on three points. In the first place, under no circumstances did he want to endanger the position of supremacy of the Whites. In the second place, he believes in the necessity for separate political development between Whites and Coloureds. In the third place, he believes in the separate community development of the Coloureds. I can use innumerable quotes in this connection to support my statement, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so. I need only refer to Hansard, Vol. 7 of 1963, cols. 7484, 7485 and 7490.

Under these circumstances it is incomprehensible to me that the CP or anyone else can accuse the hon. the Prime Minister of moving away from apartheid. This is simply not supported by the facts.

Just read the little blue book.

There is no logical basis for saying that the hon. the Prime Minister is considering moving away from the apartheid policy of the NP. [Interjections.] Equally incomprehensible are the statements made by people that this constitution is only the start of reforms and that it represents the start of the reform process. The hon. the Prime Minister himself referred to reform. What are we to understand by reform? For most people in South Africa reform means moving away from apartheid. That is what reform means and that is what most people understand by reform. Some of the liberal NP people who support the Constitution Bill do so on the basis of the fact that, as they have told me and other people, it is the first step being taken so that we can eventually move away from apartheid. If that is true, if I am to accept that that is correct, then the implication is that the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to deviate from the policy he has followed consistently since 1958. However, I see no reason to assume this. In the second place, he would actually then have a “Hidden agenda”—a question was put to him about this—which he does not want to announce to this House at present. However, the hon. the Prime Minister has said that he does not have a hidden agenda. I just want to say that I hope we can get away from the idea mooted by some people, namely that these constitutional proposals, this new dispensation, is the beginning of a process of reform which will mean the gradual abolition of the apartheid policy. There is no provision of that nature in this Constitution Bill.

Sir, my time is limited and so I want to conclude. I honestly believe that this dispensation is not going to work. Our path since 1958 lies strewn with one failure after the other, specifically with regard to the Coloureds. When the CRC was established it was said that this was the answer to the political rights of the Coloureds, and Coloured representation was accordingly removed from this House. The former Prime Minister said that there would be a Cabinet Committee and that this would be the answer. I just want to say that our path over the past 20 to 30 years lies strewn with one failure after the other in respect of everything except the essential political alternatives as regards the Coloured and Indian communities. We are simply repeating those failures with this constitutional dispensation. Under these circumstances there is no other choice for me or anyone else but to say that this constitution remains essentially imperfect and inadequate and that it can only be given a no vote on 2 November.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member Prof. Olivier merely repeated the points made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I shall refer to the two points he tried to demonstrate here—I am using the word “demonstrate” because it was difficult for him to make his points. In the first place he referred to the question of the Blacks. He said that no answers had been given with regard to them. Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has, however, risen in this debate to say what the Government’s approach with regard to Black politics is.

Yesterday evening the hon. member for Pinelands referred to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs as “a very brave man”. Of course he is a brave man. However, I want to say that the Government and the NP are also a brave Government and a brave party and will do their share. I admit that the Black problem is the important theme of future politics. The question is how we are eventually going to settle relations between Whites and Blacks in the sense that there will not be a winner or a loser. In the long run we are only going to win if there are in fact no winners, no winners in the sense only that everyone will be winners. If we are not all winners, we do not have a reply. We do not have an example in history either. When we look at Africa, we find that there has in fact never been a case where there was a White winner. However, we also find that there has never been a case where the Blacks have been the eventual winners. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head.

I was talking to my colleague.

I am sorry he was not listening because I was trying to communicate with him.

I am trying to listen but I am being distracted a great deal.

I would appreciate it if he would just listen to me because I should like to have a debate with him.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier complained about the Cabinet Committee. He said that the path of constitutional development was strewn with failures. At least we now have the culmination of a process which may possibly be successful. We believe that it will probably be successful—after all, no one can guarantee anything. A Cabinet Committee was also established in 1975 and which continued its activities in 1976 and published a report. This led to the 1977 proposals. Things have therefore been developing over a long period and I maintain that we shall in fact achieve success in the future.

The second major objection of the hon. member was that the new constitution would make the new Parliament an apartheid institution. I find that really strange. When we have a White Parliament in which there are only Whites, it is not an apartheid institution. Then it is acceptable to that hon. member. However, the moment Coloureds and Asians enter Parliament, it becomes an apartheid institution. The hon. member has the idea in his head that because there are separate Houses and because provision has been made for the handling of own affairs and general affairs, that is apartheid.

He stated that the constitution could not exist without the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act. As far as the Population Registration Act is concerned, it has in fact been written into this measure as part of the substructure in terms of which the various Houses come into existence. However, on what basis does the hon. member bring the Group Areas Act into this? It is surely not valid to say that if the Group Areas Act is abolished, this dispensation will collapse. Nobody is advocating its abolition but the point is that when we discuss what is included in a constitution, we must not drag in other things simply because it sounds good. There is a great deal of opposition among the non-Whites to the Group Areas Act, probably more to its history than to its existence. However, that Act is not written into the new constitution and it is not true to say that it forms the basis of the Bill.

The hon. member also referred to the involvement of the hon. the Prime Minister in what we would like to regard as the development of the Coloured community. The hon. member sees it as breaking down the community life of the Coloureds. The hon. member seems to hold the view that the moment one really identifies groups and works with groups, whether it be racial groups or economic groups or whatever, one adopts an apartheid approach. It is not valid to argue like that. Even in the United States—the hon. member knows about this—there are supreme court decisions to the effect that one can frequently only assist an individual if one can classify him as a member of a group. I want to admit yet again that this is not said in the constitutional context of South Africa, but in America the opinion is held that in terms of assistance to individuals one has frequently to protect groups. A second viewpoint which also comes to the fore in court decisions in the USA, is the principle that “reasonable differentiation is not incompatible with equal treatment”. I think the hon. member will admit that. It is a new attitude towards the old approach which applied in the USA, namely that “separate but equal” is not possible.

The hon. member also referred to reform and said that to him reform meant only one thing and that was moving away from apartheid. I maintain, and I believe this, that reform means that people are assisted, that people are afforded the opportunity to improve their circumstances, to be happier. When we analyse the Bill before us, we find that it is also aimed at affording people the opportunity to help themselves.

The hon. member referred to a hidden agenda. He seems to hold it against the hon. the Prime Minister because he said that there was no hidden agenda with regard to the Blacks. The hon. member shakes his head. Then I misunderstood him and I do not know what he was kicking up a fuss about. There is in fact no hidden agenda. The Cabinet Committee has already been directed to investigate what has to be done with regard to the outstanding aspects of Black political rights. In this connection I want quickly to link up with my first idea. If we can get an answer to this, it will allay fears. It will allay the fears of the Coloureds and the Asians who do not want to participate in the new dispensation now because they are afraid of the Blacks and first want to see who the potential winner will be. It will also allay the fears of the Black people that they are simply being excluded and that no efforts are being made to assist them to improve their circumstances. It is also going to allay the fears of Whites, both those to the right of the political spectrum and those to the left of it. To the left people are afraid that because Blacks are excluded this is not an answer. To the right there is the fear that because there is no answer in respect of the Blacks, we should rather do nothing because this could lead to the one man, one vote approach. After all that is how hon. members of the CP see this matter.

I want to refer to a few further aspects in the few minutes still at my disposal. If we have to analyse the effect of this legislation, we can only analyse it after 2 November, and thereafter when it is implemented. I want to project to 2 November. We all know that in the caucus of the official Opposition there are quite a number of people who would very much like to vote yes. I have here a cutting from the Sunday Express referring to the meeting of the executive and the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville supported the standpoint that the PFP should say that although they did not believe that the proposals merited support, they should divorce it from a party political organization away from the party context. Actually, he wants the freedom to be able to vote yes. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville and also a few other hon. members there, that they can vote yes and they can also say as much. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a very tolerant man and he will not take steps against them. He will allow them to do so. He proved his tolerance with regard to Mrs. Di Bishop. He proved it with regard to the Free Nelson Mandela Campaign. He proved it with regard to the statements made by the hon. member for Constantia regarding the Defence Force and action taken in the operational area. He is therefore a tolerant leader. He is a very good leader. They need therefore not worry.

What is perhaps less well known, is that there are also members in the CP caucus—or should I rather say that there is no absence of the need to vote yes. I do not want to mention names now …

Mention them.

I shall mention the relevant person’s name if he also asks me to do so, but thus far he has not been one of those persons saying that I should mention names!

Perhaps I should dwell on the PFP for a while. In that party there are a number of hon. members who if they have to consider what they are going to do on 2 November, will tell themselves that they are 49% in favour of a yes vote and 49% in favour of a no vote. However, there is a 2% floating vote. They do not yet know exactly how they are going to vote. I am not now referring to those who have already decided that they are going to vote yes; I am referring to the others. I want to tell them as well that they can rely on the tolerance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I also want to ask them, as I want to ask thousands of people outside, people who are basically supporters of that party, just to consider what they are going to do on 2 November if the result is no. Cannot they see how a number of CP members the HNP and the AWB are going to rejoice when such a result is announced? What will be going on in their minds then? Are they also going to rejoice? Are they going to be glad? Are they going to have hope? Those hon. members need not stand with them. I am merely asking them whether they are also going to rejoice when they see them rejoicing. I notice that the hon. member for Greytown thought for some time before he shook his head. However, because everyone was watching him he had to say that he would rejoice with them.

He is the original slow thinker.

I maintain that he will think long and hard before he rejoices with them if there is a no result in the referendum. They are not going to be happy. I think it is going to leave a bitter taste in the mouth. I think the hope they have that the answer will be yes is something they must also consider for themselves—what it will mean if that hope dies.

I also want to ask the hon. members of the CP: Do they really believe that peace will be preserved with the maintenance of the status quo and the daydream of the wonderful ideal?

Of course, yes!

The hon. member for Rissik says he believes it; he says he believes that the maintenance of the status quo will preserve peace. [Interjections.] But the hon. member did say he believed it. If he did not say so, there must be something the matter with my ears and the ears of quite a number of other hon. members as well.

Do they not realize what the potential for confrontation is? Do they really believe that homelands for Coloureds and Asians are attainable?

Of course, yes.

Do they think for one moment that they will gain the co-operation of the Coloureds and the Indians to establish homelands?

Yes.

Do they think they are going to get that co-operation soon?

Yes, just as Dr. Malan believed it in 1948

But Dr. Malan did not even refer to it in respect of the Blacks in 1948. When did he ever refer to it? The hon. member for Rissik must produce proof. He is speaking absolute nonsense. They must remember that a pressure cooker that is heated builds up a great deal of pressure, and the dream of independent states for the Coloureds and the Asians is not an escape valve. If this is in fact the course we have to follow in the future, the history of the White man here in South Africa is going to be very short in comparison with the full history of South Africa. What is more, that short chapter is not going to be written from a White point of view.

I believe that on 2 November we will find that all reasonable and rational people are going to vote Nationalist, not in the sense of party loyalty but Nationalist in the sense of the South African approach. The time has come for South Africans to come forward to prove their South African nationhood; so that we can live not in hatred but in love, not in conflict but in an effort to find each other.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. member for Randburg the assurance that the approach of the CP is not one of hatred or oppression; nor is it one of denial of human rights. The approach of the CP is to give people greater and more comprehensive rights than the NP plans to give them. And then, Sir, while we are talking about farce, and terms of that nature, on a previous occasion I said that if the approach of the CP in regard to reasonable structuring was a farce, then the NP was engaged in a bigger farce as far as certain Black peoples and their spatial ordering in national States are concerned.

But, Sir, I want to confine myself chiefly to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. In certain respects the hon. the Prime Minister did not disappoint me, but after what could almost be termed the threats of the week before last as to how much he would have to say to me, I must say that he did not come very close to that. Allow me to make a few remarks in this regard.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that I had not wanted to break away. That is true, Sir. I had not planned to break. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that I had been taken in tow. I want to tell him that I adopted my standpoint after due consideration, and when I stated my standpoint in the caucus that morning I did so knowing full well what the consequences would be. I also wish to say that I walked out of there without knowing who would walk with me.

If it is a question of forces that supposedly exerted pressure, then one very interesting question is this: Who are the forces that support the hon. the Prime Minister in his constitutional plan? Who are the forces that support him?

The hon. the Prime Minister referred to some dates. I do not believe that those dates are all equally significant. Quite honestly, I think that in fact they are of very little significance. I believe that his reference to 20 June 1979, when I was sworn in as a member of the Cabinet, has no significance at all. If he had asked me at the time whether I agreed with his principles, I should have answered wholeheartedly in the affirmative, because I agreed with a Prime Minister who rejected power-sharing; a Prime Minister who opposed a mixed, multiracial Parliament; a Prime Minister who gave the assurance that the power of the Whites would not be wrested from their hands; a Prime Minister who opposed the old United Party and who warned against the possibility that the sovereign White Parliament could be overthrown. He warned against that. That, then, was the Prime Minister with whom I agreed at the time.

Now I should like to come back to the reference made by the hon. the Prime Minister to the Rev. Scheuer. I have a few things to say to the hon. the Prime Minister about this. I say this with all due respect. In the first place, however, I shall not permit the hon. the Prime Minister to choose a time and place for me to say what he wants me to say. [Interjections]

In the second place, if I am to put it clearly to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, I say to him that we shall not dance to the hon. the Prime Minister’s tune as that hon. Minister does. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Moreover, neither the CP nor I accept responsibility for the pamphlet of the Rev. Scheuer, any more than the NP does. [Interjections.]

You merely distribute the pamphlet for him. [Interjections.]

In the third place I wish to state clearly that I shall dissociate myself from every untruth in that pamphlet.

Well, do so then.

However, one cannot be prosecutor and judge in one’s own case. So much, then, for this matter.

I also wish to point out that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order is being very talkative. What is wrong with him? We are still awaiting his report on the AWB.

I am still awaiting your reply. We want to know whether it is “yes” or “no”.

The hon. the Minister has been given my reply on innumerable occasions. However, it seems to me as if his ears do not work very well.

[Inaudible.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as the clergymen are concerned, I just wish to say the following. I should like to say a few things about those clergymen and their reports. First of all, those clergymen can and will speak for themselves. [Interjections.] In the second place, I want to ask: Why the huffing and puffing about 193 clergymen who made a statement that does not accord with, or does not please, the Government? However, when 123 clergymen issued a statement reflecting a completely different political direction, no one said a word. No one dissociated themselves from them then. Nor can I understand why these clergymen should be crucified. These clergymen did not meet in the synodal context to make a religious statement. They are responsible citizens of this country who want to be informed about the implications of the new constitution just like anyone else, and who, moreover, have just as much right to make a pronouncement on it as anyone else. Whether one agrees with it or not, is not the point.

I also wish to indicate that I myself have addressed clergymen, at their request. I have also answered their questions. They were people who wished to discuss the implications of the new constitutional dispensation. I have done so. Moreover, I believe that I had the right to do so at their request. I also wish to point out that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also addressed a meeting of clergymen. I do not believe he preached a sermon to them. He spoke to them about the constitution.

I shall keep my sermon for you.

Very well. Of course, I can do that too. I can preach a sermon to the hon. the Minister, if he were only prepared to listen to me.

I also just wish to point out that the fact that the clergymen made a pronouncement in the interests of the people of which they are members is nothing new; it is nothing strange. In fact, I want to refer hon. members to a publication—it is available in the parliamentary library—entitled The Dutch Reformed Church and the Boers It originally appeared under the title The Truth about the Boer and his Church—a well-considered document by nine of the most prominent clergymen of the Dutch Reformed Church, who presented an apology, a defence, of the Boer nation; not of the Dutch Reformed Church, but for the Boer nation that was being defamed and slandered abroad. These were clergymen that defended the Boer nation and its existence and its political interests against the outside world. The hon. member for Innesdal is not present, but I suggest he reads it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Law and Order would do well to read it too.

Answer the question as to whether the constitution is Christian or not. [Interjections.]

I have my own speech to make, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister made very strong statements about untruths here. I am very sorry but I must now ask the hon. the Prime Minister why he tells untruths about me.

Such as?

I shall mention three. I do so in all humility, but nevertheless in all sincerity. In the first place he says that in the caucus on 24 January I did not voted against the motion submitted to the caucus by the hon. the Minister of Manpower. I did, in fact, vote against it. Perhaps it escaped his notice, but this created the general impression: Here is a man who simply walks out; he did not even have the courage to vote. That is untruth number one.

I now come to untruth number two. It relates to the acceptance of power-sharing. The Chairman of the President’s Council made a speech in Pretoria, and in the course of the speech he said that there was not a single Minister, Deputy Minister or Nationalist Member of Parliament who had not accepted power-sharing in Mr. Vorster’s time.

Correct.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that the chairman of the President’s Council is correct. I cannot, of course, speak for other people. I was a member of the NP in Mr. Vorster’s time and I did not accept power sharing, not in a single word nor by implication. What is more, even in 1981 the hon. the Prime Minister rejected the suggestion by the hon. member for Pinelands that he too had at that stage accepted power sharing. He said: Do not talk rubbish.

As far as the third untruth is concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister made a speech at Nylstroom. On page 28 of that stage he referred to events within the NP. Referring to the general election he made the following allegation—

There is one small item in the above which is not true, it is “in die Kabinet bly ons almal stil”. With all due respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, I wish to say that that is not true.

The hon. member was somewhat uncommunicative.

it is one thing to use the expression “not very talkative”, but quite another to suggest that these matters were not discussed and that one was suddenly confronted with this standpoint in the caucus.

For the most part the hon. member did not have a contribution to make.

No, Sir. What we have here is an untruth, and that untruth was told by the hon. the Prime Minister, viz. that it was only at the caucus of 24 February that he was suddenly confronted with the standpoint that had never been mentioned in the Cabinet.

Of course. It is so.

The fact of the matter is this. The hon. the Minister of Manpower can talk, because he moved the motion and he ought to know. He ought to know that after the discussion had begun on the boundary to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred, that matter was not thrashed out. The hon. Minister began spelling out his parameters and at that point there were colleagues—who are not sitting on this side of the House—who said: Wait a moment. They asked penetrating questions. That matter was shelved until a meeting of the Cabinet and that meeting of the Cabinet was not held before 26 January 1982. The hon. the Minister spelt out his guidelines then. That was on 26 January. [Interjections.] Yes, I am right. I am quite right. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development ought to know that, because he leaked a report from the Cabinet to the Press. [Interjections.]

There was a second occasion when this matter was discussed again, and discussed in depth.

But surely that is not true.

On the second occasion it was discussed in depth.

Surely what you are saying about the hon. the Minister is not true.

The hon. the Minister issued a statement to the newspapers concerning what had taken place in the Cabinet.

The second occasion on which this matter was extensively debated was on 16 February. I made pages of notes for myself regarding the standpoint I adopted there. Then came 22 February and the special Cabinet meeting of the hon. the Prime Minister, the occasion on which he issued his statement on healthy power-sharing. At that meeting of the Cabinet the matter for discussion was from the outset the issue of power-sharing. Whether or not one agrees with power-sharing, one cannot announce such an untruth, viz. that it was only on 24 February, in the caucus, that he was suddenly confronted with a different stand-point. That is an untruth.

I should like to deal with a few other statements. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information that I take it amiss of him that with reference to the by-election in Waterberg, the CP victory there and our standpoint with regard to the referendum, he made statements linking us with Marxists, terrorists, the ANC and all the leftist forces. I regard that as most unfortunate, and I do not believe it was responsible. I think the hon. the Minister should not do that, because if he looks over his shoulder, what does he see?

And Rev. Scheuer?

The hon. the Minister can deal with Rev. Scheuer himself. If I see him, I shall say that to him. [Interjections.]

That is the fourth untruth, and I say that to the hon. the Prime Minister. The CP is not distributing it. On the contrary.

It was distributed in Waterberg and in my constituency.

The hon. the Minister of Manpower should rather go and ascertain who the people are that distributed it. He must not link everyone who is against him, to the CP. That is the problem: If one is opposed to the Government, one is suddenly CP or Marxist or whatever.

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

No, Sir, I think the hon. the Minister should rather give me the opportunity to say what I have to say, because he will have a great deal more time to speak.

At this point let me turn to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He has a great deal to say about conflict and so on, but some time ago the hon. the Minister made a very strong statement. I am now referring to 26 January 1981—

Not even “abolish”; only “question” (bevraagteken).

I still say that.

I accept that. Then, however, one should not be so quick to bandy about the term “revolution” and, merely because we adopt a standpoint that differs from that of the NP, maintain that we in the CP will be responsible if there is revolution in the country. One can talk about many of these things. One can talk about the so-called bedfellows—who is whose bedfellow? Who is the Government’s bedfellow? At whom is an effort being directed to persuade him to go along with this scheme? I am not talking now about anyone who merely happens to agree with them; it is requested that he must agree, must go along with the scheme: Rev. Hendrickse. One should read what Rev. Hendrickse has to say. He said—

That is what Rev. Hendrickse said at Somerset East on 26 February this year. He then says that Nelson Mandela told him—

Then Rev. Hendrickse says about him—

When we link people, we should give some consideration to who is standing behind us.

I should like to refer to a few basic facts. Before coming to that, I just wish to say that the hon. the Prime Minister is very fond of waving a pamphlet around here. He waves it around at meetings and says: Guess who signed it? And then the suggestion is that Andries Treurnicht signed it.

I signed it and you merely came along afterwards.

Oh, really? In that case, do not hold me so responsible for it. Since I have signed it, I wish to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that there is nothing in that pamphlet about power sharing. I also wish to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that there are colleagues in his Cabinet who do not know the difference between power sharing and the division of power.

You do not either.

They do not even know the difference.

You do not either.

Speak for yourself. You can go and look at your ignorance in the mirror.

But, since we are waving pamphlets around, what did the hon. the Prime Minister do in 1961? At the time he defended Dr. Verwoerd when he spoke a few words about a State within a State. He then said that the Prime Minister had not, of course, said that that was NP policy.

Is that 1961?

1961. It appears in Hansard, col. 6710. I quote as follows—

Well, I admit that that is quite a long time ago, but it was a very strong statement. We are speaking now about signatures, and waving them about. In 1968 the NP published—and this is a photostat of the publication—“1948, 1968 … en nou, Die toekoms!” The following, inter alia, is stated under the title “Afrikaners en Kleurlinge”—

The homelands for the Bantu become an example—similarly for the other homeland areas. I quote further—

Then there is further discussion of the own homelands for each people and, together with that, the highly important reservation of the White homeland. Who signed this? B. J. Vorster, B. J. Schoeman, W. A. Maree, J. G. H. van der Wath of South West, M. C. van Rensburg and P. W. Botha. Do not, then, wave so many pamphlets containing signatures around in front of us.

Why are you going back to 1968? Surely you know that there was a commission of inquiry … [Interjections.]

Very well, if the hon. the Prime Minister does not want to be reminded of that, why does he quote what I said in 1982 and before?

There are a few basic facts that are of great importance. On cannot deny or overlook the existence of peoples and ethnic groups in South Africa. Secondly, there is a growing insistence on political power to protect one’s own people and ethnic group. Thirdly, a living people fight for its future and for enduring liberty. We are not fatalists who accept a blind fate. Fourthly, people who cherish their freedom cannot realize their self-determination for all time under one government in the same territory. As far as we are concerned this is a fundamental statement.

Then we say that it is impossible to maintain the status quo. You do not do so with the Black people, and we say that you cannot do so with the Brown people either. It is impossible to maintain the status quo. The fact of the matter is that Brown people and the Indians do not have the same political rights as the Whites. Our standpoint is that they ought to have equal rights as regards their own political actualization and so on.

Why are we opposed to this constitution? It seems that time is going to catch up with me, but I do just wish to mention a few matters briefly. Firstly, it is due to the disastrous implications for the self-determination of the Whites. If one takes away one’s people’s sovereign parliament, one takes away its political self-determination. If one subjects the political actualization of one’s people to the veto of two other political institutions of equal power, then one is enslaving one’s own people. Surely that is true as regards general legislation in the three Chambers. The three Chambers have to agree to it. If all three do not agree to it, then the President plus one Chamber plus the President’s Council may govern.

After all, the White Chamber cannot reintroduce a sovereign Parliament for Whites if the other two Chambers refuse it. Or can it?

No, it cannot.

An hon. member says that it cannot. If one replaces one’s people’s government by a mixed, multiracial government, one deprives it of its self-determination, and then that people will do one of two things. Either that people will be passive and, in the long term, will lose more than political power—it will lose everything—or else it will refuse to be jointly governed by others and will seek ways and means to regain its self-determination. The one has the situation that Dr. Verwoerd warned against, viz. an unending state of at least cold civil war fought for survival.

If one subordinates a people’s claim to own affairs to the decision of the President, if merely a question from another Chamber makes one’s own affair a general affair—as will be the case—if the President has the final say in this regard and the courts are unable to test it, then surely this does not constitute an extension of democracy. Then it is a violation of democracy. Then it is an intolerable shackle on the political life of one’s people and one will be making the office and task of the President a storm centre in the politics of the country. Surely, what is being done here is to give two other groups a say over areas and matters that do not concern them. After all, an Indian Minister is now being made a member of the Cabinet. His people have no say in the Free State. Or are they going to have a say there?

Surely one cannot guarantee self-determination when one has three or four different administrations for various peoples in the same territory. Surely one does not have self-determination if, unlike the Black States, one does not have one’s own constitution and security services, if one cannot draw up one’s own budget, impose one’s own taxes, or have one’s own area of jurisdiction within which one’s own laws are applied by oneself.

For the non-Whites too, this has implications. The Whites are being deprived of their sovereignty without real and meaningful self-determination being given to the Coloureds and Indians. They are subject to the veto of the Whites, just as the Whites are subject to the veto of those two Chambers. After all, their own affairs become a general affair as soon as the White Chamber says that it also has an interest in them.

The Government is bringing Coloureds and Indians into the Parliament and Government of the Republic of South Africa and is making them joint rulers over Whites. As I said to the Prime Minister on 16 and 22 February—being, according to him, a silent member—it is unacceptable. I do not accept it. The Government is making them joint rulers over, for example, the Zulus, the North Sothos, Gazankulu and Dr. Phatudi. They will decide jointly whether KwaZulu should become independent. They are going to decide jointly whether Gazankulu or Lebowa are to become independent. Surely that simply cannot work.

†Let me say this in conclusion: Any living nation will say “no” to political suicide.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the leader of the CP concluded with a very clear explanation of the reasons why he cannot support the new dispensation. Basically, his standpoint is that each population group should have a country of its own where it can govern itself. I do not think he will dispute it if I sum it up in such a positive way.

I should like to ask the hon. member since when this has been his standpoint with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. Since when has he believed this? Does this belief date from the time when he broke away from the NP, or did he hold these views when he was still a member of the NP? You see, Sir, this is our problem, and that is why the hon. the Prime Minister referred him to what he had signed. What he is saying is a direct contradiction of what the NP has been saying in unambiguous terms since 1977. If he believed it then, we never heard him say so—none of us who are sitting here. Never did we hear him say that. In fact, we took him at his word …

That was a mistake.

… when he said that it was impossible for them to be given their own country, and when he also endorsed the reason for this, namely the fact that the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians had historically shared the same geographical territory.

The challenge addressed to him by the hon. the Prime Minister was to admit that he had changed his mind, to admit that his present standpoint differs drastically, in substance and in principle, from the one to which he put his signature in 1981. He is not prepared to make that admission. What does he do? He turns around and quotes from a document from 1968 which none of us has examined.

You can.

I should like to examine it, because I am sure it will be illuminating to read the entire document. However, he quotes from it and creates the impression that NP thinking has always tended to support the idea of homelands for the Coloureds.

He brought Dr. Verwoerd into the matter as well. In the light of that, may I quote him too? Dr. Verwoerd said on 12 December 1961-

He is referring to own States—

Do you think that is our policy?

That party’s policy is to put them in their own homeland, but Dr. Verwoerd said it was not practicable. He said this as long ago as 1961. [Interjections.]

Let us come back to the hon. member for Waterberg. He had a great deal to say about power-sharing. When the hon. the Prime Minister or anyone on this side says, in reply to someone like the hon. member for Pine-lands, that we reject power-sharing, surely he knows that when we talk about power-sharing in such a debate, we are talking about power-sharing on a basis of one man, one vote, within one society in which self-determination is not possible at all. In all those pamphlets of mine which the hon. members are waving about, it says that we reject power-sharing. After all, we defined power-sharing in every one of those pamphlets and said that power-sharing was Prog policy.

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

No, please! The hon. member’s leader would not answer any questions.

We accepted something else, and we were agreed on this. This was that after we had divided power as far as possible, and ensured the power of decision-making of each group with regard to its own affairs, we would not only consult, but accept co-responsibility, with regard to matters of common concern within one territory. I can give hon. members six quotations from Mr. Vorster where he said that co-responsibility meant a joint say. As the hon. members know, we have avoided the concept of “power-sharing” because it is associated with the Prog policy which we completely reject. Semantically speaking—the hon. member for Waterberg is an authority on semantics—there is no doubt that co-responsibility and a joint say do in fact constitute a form of power-sharing. What the hon. the Prime Minister did when he said in his statement that this was a healthy form of power-sharing was finally to clear up the semantic ambiquities surrounding this matter and to say: “Of course it is not our intention, in terms of ‘co-responsibility’, to cheat the Coloureds and the Asians, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg has said in this House, but it is our intention that they will indeed have a substantial say in matters of common concern.”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member received another challenge from the hon. the Prime Minister, and that was to dissociate himself from a pamphlet which the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with in detail. I should like to ask the hon. member a very simple question in this connection: Has he read the Rev. Mr. Scheuer’s pamphlet?

Yes.

In other words, the hon. member knows what is said in the pamphlet. I want to ask him another question. He knows the hon. the Prime Minister; they have come a long way together. Does he agree that the hon. the Prime Minister is a tool in the hands of communism and that he would allow himself to be dictated to?

No.

Sir, the hon. member dissociates himself from that allegation in the pamphlet. Does he agree that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning are tools in the hands of communism, that they are puppets that are being manipulated from abroad?

No more than I am, according to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister never said that of the hon. member for Waterberg; what he did say was that with regard to this “no” vote, the hon. member found himself in the company, for totally different reasons and motives, of people who hold views that are totally alien to him and with which he should not be associated in any way.

The same applies to you.

Allow me, then, to ask the hon. member: Can he not simply tell us, so that we may put the matter behind us, that the whole purport of Mr. Scheuer’s pamphlet is false? It is a pamphlet which contains libellous allegations against fellow members of his own church, which accuses them by implication of being spies of foreign powers in South Africa, of being pawns and Trojan horses from outside. Can he not at least show some loyalty to his ex-colleagues by saying that this is not true?

I have given my reply.

No, Mr. Speaker. What did the hon. member say? He said that he rejected any untruth contained in that pamphlet. However, he is not prepared to say that it is in fact an untruth. Until he does, we shall tell him that he does associate himself with the allegations made in that pamphlet. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. member has read a pamphlet and is acquainted with its contents, and then refuses to state his standpoint on such a simple matter, he can never govern this country. A person who cannot take a decision on such a clear-cut and simple matter and who does not have the decency to say, at the request of the hon. the Prime Minister, “Let us rise above this level of debate”, cannot govern the country. [Interjections.]

Order!

We find it disappointing that the hon. member is unable, as usual, to adopt a clear standpoint on a simple matter. The hon. member devoted the greater part of his speech to defending himself and explaining that while he was in the NP, he did in fact take strong action and was prepared to take a strong stand. I am just as tired as most hon. members of the interminable argument about what caused the rift. However, it seems to me that the hon. member for Waterberg is not yet tired of it, because I understand that he regularly raises the matter at public meetings. Unfortunately, this forces me, too, to give some attention to the matter again. What gave rise to the real problem? It was not the final statement by the hon. the Prime Minister in which he said that NP policy was a healthy form of power-sharing. It was an article in Nat ’80. What appeared in Nat ’80 was an exact quotation of what the hon. the Prime Minister had said in this House.

It was before that day, and you know it.

As a matter of fact, I want to go back now to something that happened before that day. Before the hon. the Prime Minister said that, he said in the Cabinet that he was going to say it. He told us in the Cabinet what he was going to say. Now the hon. member must tell me whether or not I am telling the truth. No one objected to his saying it.

What about 16 February?

There was no objection to the hon. the Prime Minister’s saying that there could be only one government in one country and that the Coloureds and the Indians shared this territory with us.

I argued against that standpoint at length.

Not in the Cabinet. [Interjections.] Before the no-confidence debate, long before 16 February, the hon. the Prime Minister …

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Krugersdorp entitled to say that I have intrigued with the speakers?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

We are not speaking now of 16 February, but of a time long before 16 February. Before the hon. the Prime Minister spoke in the no confidence debate, he stated that he was going to say those things. No objection was raised. He went further and said in the caucus that he was going to say it. There, too, no objection was raised. He subsequently said it in this House, and still no objection was raised. The hon. member for Brits then reported it in Nat ’80. The hon. member for Waterberg did not voice his objection to the man who had said this and who had, by that time, said it on three occasions in his presence, but to the hon. member for Brits. The hon. the Prime Minister then asked: What does this mean? Then the explanation followed. I want to concede to the hon. member for Waterberg at once that when the hon. the Prime Minister called the Cabinet together and said he was going to issue that statement, he and the hon. member for Lichtenburg objected to it.

For the third time.

However, there was a Cabinet meeting after the Monday on which the hon. the Prime Minister had called us together and before the caucus meeting at which the rift took place. We finished early at that Cabinet meeting, and the hon. the Prime Minister then gave us the opportunity of discussing the matter further. On that occasion the hon. member for Waterberg did not avail himself of the opportunity of voicing his objections. He should have sensed even then that according to his view, serious trouble was brewing. He did not speak his mind on that occasion.

The matter had been dealt with the day before.

The hon. member has said: “I was in fact aware of the consequences of what I said in the caucus.” Did he make any attempt, as the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, to go and see the hon. the Prime Minister, who is the national leader of the NP, and to discuss the matter with him and to try to prevent what did in fact happen at that caucus meeting?

But we had three debates on the matter in the Cabinet.

The leader of the NP in the Transvaal at that time was in fact aware of what the consequences would be when he rose in the caucus to split the party in two and he admits that he did not make a single attempt to go and see the national leader to try to prevent it and to discuss the matter openly. The hon. member cannot get away from the fact that when he was alone with the hon. the Prime Minister, he did not take the opportunity of adopting a clear standpoint. Right up to the end he created the impression that he fully agreed with the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

The last aspect which I should like to clear up is whether or not the hon. member was present when the vote was taken. The hon. members of his party will tell him that more than one vote was taken at that caucus meeting. [Interjections.] The hon. member walked out before we raised our hands. There were two occasions, and the hon. member and the hon. member for Jeppe had left the hall when the final vote was taken. [Interjections.] More than one vote was taken, and the hon. member left the caucus before the end of the meeting. [Interjections.] At best, there is a misunderstanding, but I want to tell that hon. member that there are more witnesses on this side of the House who know what happened on that day than there are in that chorus opposite.

One of the most important fundamental themes of this debate and of the debate outside is what the consequences of a “yes” victory would be and what the consequences of a “no” victory would be. The hon. the Leader of the PFP says that a “yes” vote would promote separate development, that it would promote White domination and a pro-Marxist movement among Blacks and among ultra-right-wing White extremists.

I did not say Marxist.

I was quoting from your Hansard.

The two right-wing groups are not Marxist.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it would at the same time promote ultra-right-wing White extremism. The CP says that a “yes” vote would destroy separate development and self-determination, that it would make nonsense of White self-determination and would be a blueprint for conflict. When we analyse these two statements about what a “yes” vote would mean, what do we find? In the first place, we find that as far as the effect of the “yes” vote on the Whites is concerned, two totally conflicting and irreconcilable conclusions are being drawn. The PFP says that it would promote White domination and the CP says that the Whites would no longer be able to govern themselves. Can one imagine that two hon. members, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Waterberg, both highly intelligent and with the same religious, cultural and academic background, could have studied the same document and come to conclusions that are diametrically opposed? What does that prove?

That just goes to show how confused the document is.

No, Sir. It proves that the interpretations given by those two hon. learned gentlemen to the new constitution are not accurate and scientific. For the sake of political expediency, in order to suit their arguments and their theories and their philosophies, they both ignore those aspects of the constitution that are at variance with their propanganda about it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party completely ignore the meaningful rights and the powers that are being given to the Coloureds and the Indians. He pretends that they do not exist. He absolutizes those provisions which ensure the reasonable protection of vested White rights and which spell out a legitimate role for the Whites. The hon. member for Waterberg does exactly the opposite. He ignores the provisions with regard to the preservation of vested White rights and he pretends that these do not exist. He absolutizes the participation of the Coloureds and the Indians, as though it meant that those two groups were now going to rule over the Whites. How much longer are the White voters going to tolerate such opposition parties, parties which are so unable to produce their own alternative solutions that they have to resort to misrepresentations, to a clever circumvention of the true provisions of the Bill and to interpretations which cannot be scientifically substantiated?

The fact is that the new constitution makes it possible to achieve two essential objectives at the same time. Firstly, it adequately guarantees the preservation of White security, of White vested rights and of those values which the Whites regard as non-negotiable. We say that this must be so, for without this, it would not be possible to ensure stability and progress in this country.

Secondly, it achieves the objective, at the same time, of offering the Coloureds and the Indians full and meaningful participation in the process of decision-making which affects their lives. [Interjections.] There are indeed certain risks attached to reconciling these two objectives, as the Bill in fact does. I am by no means suggesting that it does not entail any risks.

What are the risks?

As in the case of any system in the world, unco-operative participants can hamper the successful and sensible implementation of such a system. That is why provision has been made in this Bill for orderly government even if such a situation were to develop. This has been done in the new constitution. The approach in the new constitutional dispensation is that co-operation between reasonable leaders on matters of common concern is not only being made possible, but is indeed being made easy. At the same time, the new constitution ensures, by providing for self-determination with regard to own affairs as the foundation on which that co-operation is to be built, that the sensitive matters, those that are of intimate concern to the respective groups, will not give rise to disputes or friction. [Interjections.]

The CP and the PFP want to make caricatures of the new constitution by interpreting it in ways which are not in accordance with the facts. The compelling circumstances of our times require greater responsibility than we are getting from them. [Interjections.]

Let us examine, in the second place, the aspect on which the CP and the PFP are agreed as far as the new constitutional dispensation is concerned.

Chris is the only one who understands this constitution.

They agree on one aspect, while differing radically with regard to what it means for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians respectively. They agree that in their opinion, the new constitution will promote conflict.

Of course.

They all say so. I want to make the statement that conflict is an integral part of our situation in South Africa. The new constitution will not put an end to conflict. Conflict will remain part of the world we live in. The implementation of the PFP’s policy, if they came into power tomorrow, would not resolve conflict. No more could the CP’s theories be able to create a utopia without any conflict in this country.

It is not possible in this world.

That is correct.

Not in this country; nor anywhere else in the world, including America. Ask Pik.

Does the hon. member for Rissik wish to make a speech? [Interjections.] After all, the question is not … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you to protect me, please. Hon. members of the CP are disrupting my speech, and I submit that they are doing so on purpose.

The question, therefore, is not how conflict can be eliminated. After all, it is part and parcel of our entire situation here in South Africa. There is no way of uniting the ANC, Black power organizations, the S.A. Communist Party, the UDF, the PFP, the NRP, the NP, the CP and the HNP and White Power organizations under one banner and getting them to pursue the same objectives. Conflict is inevitable in this country, no matter what policy is implemented at any given moment and no matter by whom it is implemented.

That includes your policy.

Yes, mine as well. [Interjections.] The crucial question, therefore, is who is going to join forces with whom in this struggle. That is the question.

And who is going to decide?

The outcome of the referendum on 2 November is going to be of decisive importance in answering that question. A “no” majority on 2 November would have two consequences. Both the PFP and the CP would claim it as a victory of their respective policies and standpoints.

Then you should call an election.

Both those parties would claim it as a victory for their conflicting standpoints.

Then you should call an election.

The PFP would describe it as a vote in favour of a system of one man, one vote in a unitary state, and the CP would argue that it was a vote in favour of total separation and also in favour of their unworkable Coloured and Indian homelands.

Then call an election on that basis; then you will know what the true state of affairs is, after all.

While they were trumpeting forth these claims of theirs, the ANC and the Black power organizations would be sowing their seed with renewed energy in this chaotic breeding ground of conflicting claims between those two small parties, the PFP and the CP. No one of any consequence would regard a “no” victory as a victory for the PFP or the CP. No, in the centres where the overthrow of orderly government in South Africa is being planned, a “no” victory would give cause for rejoicing. There they would rejoice at the check to orderly development which would be caused by a “no” vote in this country. There they would rejoice at the dismay which would be felt by moderate Coloured and Indian leaders because the door through which they had been prepared to enter had been slammed in their faces by a “no” vote. There, in those planning centres that wish to see chaos in this country, they would rejoice at the boost which a “no” victory would give to the front organizations of the real enemies of South Africa. In the eyes of many, inside and outside South Africa, a “no” victory would be the writing on the wall. They would say that reason and moderation had lost and that extremism of the left and of the right had won. Because extremism had won, many sensible people would think and feel, the forces would now be drawn up for a destructive battle in South Africa, and they would lose heart.

On the other hand, a strong “yes” victory on 2 November would have precisely the opposite effect. It would not put an end to conflict, but it would be a significant set-back for those who desire unrest in South Africa. There would still be battle-lines, but the effect of a “yes” victory would be that which our enemies are most anxious to prevent. What is it that our true enemies wish to prevent? They wish to prevent us from making any progress towards the creation of a common will on the part of reasonable leaders of all peoples and groups to resist the onslaught on South Africa.

A “yes” majority would be an important step towards building a bulwark in this country, a bulwark against everything which threatens those things that are mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution Bill. A “yes” majority would be a victory for growing co-operation between reasonable people. A “yes” victory would be a victory for the protection of the group interests and group security of all the peoples and population groups.

Therefore, as the hon. the Prime Minister has rightly said, the choice between “yes” and “no” is one which will be of decisive importance for the future. “No” would result in stagnation which would be seriously detrimental to South Africa. “Yes” would be a great step forward for reasonable, positive co-operation with the preservation of group safety and group security.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments. Since we have common cause in this issue it would be a waste of very valuable time of which I have precious little.

We have come to the Third Reading of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill. We now see history in the making. We see South Africa at the crossroads. We see South Africa having to decide in a few weeks’ time whether to take the path of evolutionary reform towards sharing power with other South Africans of colour or to take the path towards deadlock and stagnation. I believe that the latter path will be the only result of a rejection in the referendum of this reform initiative. We as a party have come out very clearly and stated our position. The new constitution, we believe, is a step in the right direction. Furthermore, we do not consider it a hesitant step. We believe it is a bold step. We believe it is a bold step because it is going to bring Coloureds and Indians right into the highest decision-making structures of central Government, and the implications of such a step on the pace and direction of future reform can hardly be imagined at this stage. We need, Sir, to consider only the natural economic and sociological forces and the changes they have already precipitated in our South African society to appreciate the tremendous impetus for change which a system of government based on joint responsibility and aimed at consensus will and must produce. Surely it is only bigots who refuse to see this. Responsible South Africans—and by these I mean those who have a real stake in this country—accept this, and more and more of these responsible South Africans are advocating qualified support. I think it is well known that Mr. Harry Oppenheimer has stated publicly that South Africa is on the road to meaningful and fundamental reform. He has warned us that we dare not turn back. However, turning back is precisely what the PFP is advocating. “Back to the drawing board” is their parrot-cry. Perhaps The Cape Times showed the PFP’s true motivation in its editorial of this morning where it clearly expressed the wish that a “no” vote would bring the Government down. I think that they believe that by bringing the Government down they will be able to inject a little life into the PFP. What a desperate attitude that is, Sir!

Wouldn’t you like to bring the Government down?

Sir, we are now discussing the constitution of South Africa. Do they not realize that a “no” vote will not be interpreted by the international community as a rejection of the constitution because it is inadequate? Do those who subscribe to the “no” vote not realize that the anti-South African lobby will make a meal of it on the basis that racist White South Africa has rejected even these hesitant steps to extend political rights? Do they not realize that this will be a wonderful weapon in the hands of the disinvestment lobby in the United States? Do they not realize the value of a “no” vote to the World Council of Churches, to the sports boycotters and to the host of other miserable fanatics that are ranged against orderly change with stability in this country? Dare I ask, Sir, whether this is not precisely what some people in South Africa, those advocating a “no” vote, would like to see? Let me state quite clearly that a “no” vote will cause the international community to lose patience with us. Our traditional friends will no longer be able to defend us; in fact, they may not even want to defend us. I ask again: Is that what those voting “no” would like to see in this country?

Having said that, Sir, I should like now to turn my attention to the official Opposition. One has only to examine the company they keep to have a deep sense of satisfaction that* one is supporting the new deal which has the backing of the moderates in this country. One has only to look at the patrons of the UDF to realize what their objectives are in their opposition to this measure. I could in the same vein say a few words about the AWB and a few others but, unfortunately, the lack of time permits only the questionable pleasure of speaking to the official Opposition. Fortunately, Sir, I believe that South Africa is seeing through the pompous morality, the pompous moral piety of the PFP…[Interjections.] In what is taking place in South Africa it is seeing a fundamental shift away from apartheid and White domination. PFP arguments to the contrary are not washing any longer, and I want to tell that party that they are in fact undermining their own credibility. In that I feel absolutely no sorrow whatsoever! When a person like Prof. Marinus Wiechers who addressed the PFP congress in Natal—I think it was late last year—advocates a “yes” vote in the referendum, to quote an example, then surely the warning bells must be ringing in that party. One understands then too why even the caucus is divided on the subject. Why else would the Leader of the Opposition have to warn the public representatives of that body to toe the official line? I do not think that warning was only directed at Mr. Sam Moss and other members of the Johannesburg city council. He has warned the public representatives to toe the line or else. They must get their act together because one of their shadow leaders in Durban is saying that it is not really important if one does not toe the line. I refer to Mr. Michael Emmanuel, who is making statements to the Press and who is the gentleman who was going to take the Government to the Supreme Court because of their adverts which appeared in the Sunday newspapers recently. He, I believe, is a shadow leader, a shadow to the hon. leader of that party in Natal, the hon. member for Berea.

I would now like to turn my attention to that hon. member for a moment because he has seen fit to attack us for supporting the constitution. He asks why we are supporting the constitution now while we called upon voters in the last general election to keep Natal free by voting for the NRP. I want to assure him that the measure of common sense amongst Natalians ensured just that. You see, Mr. Speaker, Natalians know what they are voting for when they vote for this party. They know what our policy is for the simple reason that we do have a policy and we put that policy before the voters of Natal and that is more than one can say for the PFP. They realize also that this constitution reflects a large measure of that policy in a most significant way. There is much of that policy to be found in this constitution and that is one of the major reasons why we are voting “yes”. That is why Natal is going to be the province that is going to bring out the greatest “yes” vote percentage-wise in South Africa. Those who voted for the PFP in the last election certainly did not know what they were voting for but they do now. They know straight from the horse’s mouth that it is nothing more nor less than a cleverly disguised form of majority rule. The leader of that party, Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert, has said so himself. Not only has he said that…

Quite untrue. Totally untrue.

Not only has he said that but he has also clearly stated what he thinks of Natalians. I suppose that is also untrue. I can tell him that Natalians do not take kindly to his snide remarks. I can tell him further that his party is in big trouble in Natal. It does not help the hon. member for Berea to try to scare the voters of Natal into voting no for Coloured and Indian accommodation in the constitution. It does not help to use the bogy of the presence in the province of millions of Zulus. I am convinced there is a place for the Zulu nation in greater South Africa but I am also convinced that the Zulu nation does not appreciate being used as a political football by the PFP.

I want to quote from Hansard what the hon. member for Berea said yesterday when he attacked us (Hansard, 7 September 1983)—

Having said that I want to ask that hon. member if I say to the voters of Natal that I believe that White, Coloured and Indian voters should vote “yes” and that they should go into the committees and carry the fight for the better South Africa right into the halls of what will then no longer be an all White Parliament able to slam the door on the legitimate rights of all South Africans, White, Brown and Black, will he still say that I am a sell-out? Will he say that I am despicable?

We will say that you are telling your voters a half-truth.

I see. He would not call me despicable? [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member for Berea. This is what we are saying. Do you still say that I am despicable?

You are selling out.

I am selling out? Thank you. If I am prepared to go stomping about outside the halls of power shouting “no” it will not, both in the past and now, cause apartheid finally to succumb. A “yes” vote to our way of thinking offers a far greater chance of success. If I say that would you say that I am selling out?

Yes.

You would? I am so pleased. Then the hon. members would also say that the Natal Mercury is selling out because that is what is written in the editorial of that newspaper this morning, 8 September 1983.

Natal is not going to be intimidated by the PFP and anyone else into accepting majority rule. Natal is going to lead South Africa into a new era of reform on 2 November 1983 and we in the NRP are going to play our part and we are going to continue to give the lead in that province.

Mr. Speaker, for the past day or so we have been hearing what the effects of this Bill are going to be upon our South African society. Thus far I personally have been very disappointed that the full consequences of the principles of this legislation have not been spelt out to us. I shall therefore listen expectantly to the hon. the Minister when he replies tomorrow.

But you always enjoy listening to me.

Yes. My hon. friend the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs said in his speech yesterday that at the Third Reading of this Bill we could discuss the effect of the legislation on the country. I looked forward eagerly to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s exposition of how he saw matters. I know he is an able and intelligent person. Apart from the fact that he did not do so, he did himself an injustice in two other respects. In the first place he referred to the time when the two of us were student leaders. In the second place he referred to certain matters affecting the past 18 months. I do not want to discuss the second point today. However, I do want to refer to the first point.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that in the years when we served on the ASB executive and I was the Director of Racial Affairs for two years, I set out the policy with regard to the future of the Coloureds in this country to the ASB. I did so as a member of the executive and as the Director of Racial Affairs. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that I submitted my paper, in which I indicated that a solution to the Coloured problem, if we see them as a problem—they in their turn probably see us as a problem too—lay in the fact either that the Coloureds would have to become totally assimilated with the Whites in one common Parliament in a system in which there were no laws separating the two groups—or that the Coloureds would be recognized as a separate ethnic unit, a group to which complete sovereignty and independence had to be given in a specific area. The only deputation opposed to my standpoint and at whose request I had to shelve my research, was the deputation from the University of Stellenbosch. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not shoot down my arguments then and did not differ with me either. For that reason I want to tell him that he is the one man in this House who should know what our standpoints as students were.

The second matter I want to raise concerns the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. The hon. the Minister did not reply at all to the matter of Prof. De Crespigny. The hon. the Minister will remember that the Sunday Times—the NP’s bedfellow which supports the Constitution Bill and is asking the people to vote yes—reported on this last year.

But the Prime Minister replied to it.

I am now dealing with the hon. the Minister. This appeared in the Sunday Times last year, but the hon. the Minister did not say a word about it.

It has been replied to in full.

No, that is not correct. Rev. Scheuer wrote about it and the hon. the Minister did not reply to it.

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

No, I do not have time to reply to questions now. The hon. the Minister had half an hour yesterday evening in his reply to the hon. member for Lichtenburg.

But the Prime Minister replied to it.

The hon. the Minister said that someone else would discuss it later. While the hon. member for Kuruman was speaking the hon. the Minister stood up and suddenly said that Dr. De Crespigny was not a member of the ANC. [Interjections.] I am very unclear and uncertain about the actual position of Dr. De Crespigny. [Interjections.]

Rather reply to me about the clergymen.

It is very easy for the hon. the Minister to threaten people but he is unable to deal with the actual, essential problems of South Africa.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Minister is now leaving the House because he cannot reply to me. I shall ask him these questions again in Potchefstroom. [Interjections.]

I want now to put just one question to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and at the same time apologize to him because I sometimes have rather a lot to say while he is speaking. I want to ask him: When I say that there is a form of integration in these constitutional proposals of the Government, does he agree with me or not? Would he say that I was wrong, that I had interpreted him incorrectly if I were to say anywhere in the country that there is a form of integration in these constitutional proposals? [Interjections.]

You are misusing Prog terms like “integration” and “power-sharing”.

Very well. That is interesting. The hon. the Minister now says I would be misusing the term “integration” were I to say that. Does he realize that while he was in the Free State last night the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, his benchmate, in fact said this? He must not only look at Mr. Myburgh of the Sunday Times, he must now also look at the hon. the Minister of Law and Order because he said that last night.

It is the same old argument as that on power-sharing.

No, Sir, the hon. the Minister says we are gossiping about him when we say it is a form of integration.

That is true.

The hon. the Minister has just said it is true.

Yes, you are gossiping.

I am not gossiping. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order said here last night: I am not denying that there is a form of integration in this.

Is that gossiping?

Yes, is that gossiping?

I want to get to the next point. The hon. member for Durban Point quoted the other day—it was very interesting—from a speech he made a number of years ago. I also want to refer to it. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the hon. member for Klip River and said that that hon. member had said that there was no power-sharing in the new plan but that there was joint consultation and responsibility. The hon. member for Durban Point then questioned the hon. member on this. He then asked the hon. member for Klip River whether the proposed plan of the Government was power-sharing. The hon. member then replied “no”. Then the hon. member for Durban Point said: “There we have it. It is not power-sharing”. After that the hon. member for Klip River stood up here and asked whether he could ask the hon. member for Durban Point a question. What was that question? I am quoting—

To which the hon. member for Durban Point replied—

I want to say that the majority of members on the Government side, except these who really knew what the Government had in mind in 1977, said together with me that there was no power-sharing in these proposals. In South African political terminology power-sharing means only one thing, namely mixed government and integration. I want to tell the hon. member for Klip River that I am coming to Ladysmith. I am going to hold meetings there and I am going to refer to the fact that the hon. member asked the hon. member for Durban Point in Parliament whether he knew what the consequences of power-sharing were. [Interjections.] I want to ask the governing party today, as we shall ask the people in the NP Do you know what the consequences of power-sharing are? The hon. the Prime Minister has said that this side of the House has changed, that our standpoint has changed. I want to say that I knew exactly what I was voting for in the caucus of the NP in 1981. [Interjections.]

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

No, I do not have the time. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Klip River and several other hon. members as well: Do you know what the consequences of power-sharing are? [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to ask them: Do you know where you are headed with South Africa? Do you know where you are headed with your fellow-countrymen? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it is totally impossible to follow the debate with the noise going on.

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

The hon. the Prime Minister discussed the consequences of this Bill today during this Third Reading debate. Recently I reread the speeches Dr. Verwoerd made during the Second Reading debate on the 1961 constitution. I want to say that the late Dr. Verwoerd spoke with the greatest responsibility about the aspirations and the ideals of the Afrikaner which had been locked up for decades, namely the ideal of a Republic, an ideal which the NP wanted to bring about in South Africa. This was locked up in the ideals and the principles of the NP. At that stage the late Dr. Verwoerd told the Afrikaners with the greatest care, sensitivity, understanding and absolute honesty that he could not give them their ideal of the old republican form of government that they knew, but he also told the English-speaking people with the same honesty that he wanted to bring about a republic for them, who had a monarchistic background, in which they could live. That was the standpoint of the NP at that stage. If there is one person who knows these things it is the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He may very well take over from the hon. the Prime Minister subsequently although I do not believe he will get that far.

This tricameral parliament with which the NP is presenting us today, was never a built-in ideal of the NP and was never part of the plan the NP had for the Afrikaner or for the Whites.

And a Coloured homeland?

The NP considered a Coloured homeland to be impractical. It was not a fundamental standpoint of the NP. The fundamental standpoint was that there would not be integration.

Quite recently, on 10 September 1978, Mr. Piet Marais, the former member for Moorreesburg, a man who always hunted with Die Burger and conjured up these things, proposed a tricameral parliament. None other than the hon. the Prime Minister stood up and condemned and repudiated Mr. Marais in the strongest language on his standpoint regarding a tricameral parliament. In that statement the hon. the Prime Minister said that the executive of the NP in the Cape had discussed and investigated the matter thoroughly. When the then member for Mooi River said things about power-sharing, the hon. the Prime Minister was in the House. In his reply to Mr. Bill Sutton’s proposal at that stage the hon. the Prime Minister did not speak as the chairman of the Select Committee on the Constitution and say that the member for Mooi River had asked the wrong question.

Of which Select Committee was the hon. the Prime Minister chairman?

Of the Cabinet Committee.

This tricameral parliament proposed by the NP was never an ideal of the NP. It is a new concept built and founded on the liberalistic ideas which we have had for centuries in South Africa and which we have rejected. The party that is being consistent is the NRP and that is why they can agree with this. The principle of the tricameral parliament was the underlying principle of the old federal system of the United Party.

That is not true.

The CP therefore sees these constitutional proposals as the destruction of the sovereignty of the Whites. We do not see that the Coloureds or the Indians are going to receive full self-determination in this. For that reason I want to say that we shall go from platform to platform to fight it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik began with his student days and told us that when he was a student and director of racial affairs, he had two points of view about the Coloureds. The first was that there should be no separation and that they should be accepted completely. His second point of view was that if that were not possible, Coloureds should be given full sovereignty. I do not want to argue with the hon. member about that, because I do not know what he did while he was a student, but this afternoon I want to ask him what he did when he was a member of the NP caucus.

Since 1972 the hon. member and I were both members of the NP caucus. I do not want to speak now about events in caucus meetings, but I do want to tell the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for De Aar that they never, on any occasion, made a plea for a Coloured homeland. Why did the hon. member for Rissik not take the opportunity to give evidence before the Theron Commission? The hon. member must not shake his head like that now, because I am speaking to him very seriously.

You yourself are a homelander.

I should like to react to what the hon. member for Kuruman said. Prior to 1973 I too discussed the possibility of a homeland for Coloureds, as we all discussed various possibilities and various solutions, and I shall be coming back to this aspect in a moment. I do, however, again want to ask the hon. member for Rissik why he did not, for example, go and give evidence before the Theron Commission?

The hon. member for Waterberg referred to a 1968 pamphlet that was signed. Surely the discussion on the Coloureds only began in 1973 with the appointment of the Theron Commission. Surely the Theron Commission was appointed by the Government, its terms of reference being to determine why development amongst the Coloureds had not taken place as it should have. The commission went into all the aspects, including the constitutional aspect. So in my opinion it is extremely irresponsible of the hon. member for Waterberg now to quote from a 1968 pamphlet. We must get to the year 1982.

The hon. member for Rissik also stated that a tricameral Parliament had never been an built-in ideal of the NP. I concede as much, but we have been talking about these matters since 1973, have we not? In the course of his speech the hon. member said that certain hon. members of the NP—he did not mention their names—had it in the back of their minds that there would be something like that. What he is therefore accusing us of is that there have always been hon. members on this side of the House who never went along with NP policy. We all went along with NP policy and, each and every day, shared our thoughts, held joint consultations and worked out plans. That brought us to where we are now. When the hon. member for Rissik saw that he could not get his way, he jumped up and broke away. I want to join the hon. the Prime Minister in saying that he then took the hon. member for Waterberg in tow.

I should now like to refer to the pamphlet of Rev. Scheuer, and I think the hon. member for Rissik will give me a reply. Does the hon. member dissociate himself from that pamphlet? The hon. member is a trained theologian, a man who holds to the truth, is he not? I want to ask all the members of the CP: Did the CP not acquire this pamphlet? Does the CP not have this pamphlet in stock?

No, we do not.

Did the CP not distribute this pamphlet during the by-elections in the Bergs? There sits the hon. member for Pietersburg. He is uni-reformational. He is honest. He will tell me. Did they not have Rev. Scheuer’s pamphlet there in their election offices? [Interjections.] The hon. member must answer me. Did they have Rev. Scheuer’s pamphlet in their election offices or not? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister is putting a question to the hon. member for Pietersburg only. Other hon. members need not all try to answer.

Now let me come closer to home as far as the hon. member for Rissik is concerned. Were there not copies of that pamphlet in the election office in Waterkloof? Were there no copies there? Rev. Scheuer’s pamphlet was in the CP election offices, was it not? If one has a pamphlet in one’s offices, and one distributes it, surely one is giving it the seal of one’s approval.

I want to state that I am convinced that next year the Constitution Bill will be the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. We have comprehensively debated the principles and particulars of this constitution, and now we are dealing with the Third Reading. This afternoon I want to emphasize that the prerequisite for the success of any constitutional dispensation must inevitably be healthy relations. What is the utmost importance in South Africa is that there should be healthy relations between the various people of this country, between the various population groups. As far as I am concerned, the emphasis falls very strongly on attitudes, our palpable attitudes towards one another in future, but then also our attitude to the various institutions in our country, in particular our palpable attitude towards the constitution of our fatherland and towards the institutions that are a product of that constitution.

Now the fact is that during this debate on the constitution, the question of conflict was discussed. We heard about that on numerous occasions. We have been accused of integration—only this afternoon by the hon. member for Rissik—and we have also been accused of mixed government. In this debate even the national flag has been claimed for only one population group. In this debate on the constitution I have also seen characteristics in the Afrikaner with which I cannot identify myself and which I refuse to accept as being part of the Afrikaner. I want to state this afternoon that outside this House the greatest ever gossip, disparagement and character assassination campaigns in the history of South Africa have been launched, and there were even attempts to proceed with those campaigns in this House. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the fact that you have not allowed the dignity of this House to be affected. Certain Afrikaners have set certain things in motion which are still rampant and which do not bode well for the future of the Afrikaner people. One is actually amazed, after all that has been said and done, after all the campaigns that have been waged, at the degree of goodwill that still exists, the willingness to co-operate and the present-day enthusiasm we encounter for the referendum.

It is so easy to conjure up spectres, and it seems to me as if this is the task the CP has set itself. It is so easy to claim in public that the NP is now on the road to integration. It is so easy to proclaim that the NP is selling the White people down the river. It is so easy to proclaim, as is indeed done, that everything is now being given to the Black people and that everything is now being done for the Coloureds. I want to ask this afternoon, however, whether the political bottlenecks that are going to be eliminated, the political frustrations that are going to be brought to an end or the political stability that we are going to bring about, are not of great value, of the greatest value to our country? Are those aspects not of cardinal importance to the future of this country? Are they not indispensable to the future of this country? Do we want to continue on this course of denigrating one another? Do we want to continue sowing devastation in our country? Or do we want to bring about constitutional stability in our country?

This afternoon I want to ask what benefits we can derive from the new constitution. What benefits can the respective population groups derive from the new constitution, and what benefits can South Africa as a whole derive from the new constitution? There are many benefits. What benefits can the Whites derive from the new constitution? Firstly I believe it will satisfy the political conscience of the Whites. It is going to do this because if one really has a political conscience, one can no longer stand by and allow 2,5 million people to be without any political rights. [Interjections.] We now want to carry through the principle of self-determination to the Coloureds of South Africa as well. As hon. members know, in the constitution under discussion we are going even further, because it is stated that in the case of affairs of common concern the Coloureds are also being given co-responsibility. I believe that with this new constitution the Whites of South Africa will be able to say that they have made peace with their political conscience; that they are satisfied at also having been able to cut this political knot, this constitutional knot.

The second advantage that the Whites of South Africa will derive is that of having achieved a constitutional breakthrough, of having rounded things off constitutionally. What we began with, the principles we laid down, what we have carried out over the years, also in the establishment of independent States for the Black peoples, did not comprise the end goal. We had to go further. We also had to find solutions for the other population groups. Constitutionally we had to round things off. Today I want to say, with all honesty, that that was not an easy task. We had to make this constitutional breakthrough, and that is what the NP proceeded to do. In the process some people left us. In the process we met with opposition. The fact of the matter is, however, that we did make this breakthrough and that we are now busy rounding the whole process off constitutionally.

The third great benefit that this new constitution has for the Whites is that we shall now be able to proceed in a restful political climate surrounding the White community, in comparison with the dark clouds banking on the horizon, the hostile climate that can result from the policy of enforced homelands. There is one thing, I believe, that we must take cognizance of, and that is that in numerous Coloured communities there are instances of unrest. The level of unrest is rising, unrest which we dare not play around with, which we dare not provoke, particularly not by way of irresponsible things that are sometimes said. We must take account of hostility that could possibly result from a policy in terms of which people are forced into accepting what they do not want.

Now what about the Coloureds? For the Coloureds the constitution will embody recognition. For the first time they will, in their fatherland, be recognized as full citizens of the country. They will be given full recognition in their participation in the decision-making processes of the country. For them it will embody the benefit of acceptance, but also that of responsibility.

In giving this to the Coloureds of South Africa, we shall see this population group making a bigger contribution towards generally improving attitudes, we shall see, too, 2,5 million people prepared to express their patriotism, to serve their country unstintingly and with dedication.

To sum up, for South Africa as a whole, I want to say this afternoon that the new constitution embodies no threat and will not adversely affect anyone at all. No rights will be adversely affected. The rights of the Whites are not going to be adversely affected by the new constitution. The Whites do not have to relinquish anything. Nothing is being taken away from the Whites. The Whites are not being threatened. On the contrary, they are being given security, and a new future is being opened up, not only for the Whites, but for everyone in this country. What I am saying is that no threat is being posed to the Christian religion, no threat whatsoever to anyone’s religion. One hears in public, however, stories about how our Christian religion will be threatened, that the Christian religion is going to be encroached upon.

In the new constitution there is no threat to anyone’s language and culture. On the contrary, I want to state that Afrikaans will be promoted, because the people to whom political rights will be given in terms of the constitution are largely people who speak Afrikaans and who are prepared to go on promoting this language.

This constitution embodies no threat, but we do find creative elements. We find that solid structures are going to be built. We also find that this constitution is going to promote and strenthen the attitudes of the people of South Africa.

I want to conclude by making a very serious plea. I want to direct this plea at the CP in particular: Let us stop this gossip, disparagement and character assassination campaign; let us stop this campaign of untruths that are being spread about integration and about everything that is now being done for the other population groups, and let us go to our people and call upon them for a greater and sturdier contribution so that we can join together in creating a finer, greater, stronger and better South Africa for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, since I am now rounding off the discussions in this debate on behalf of the official Opposition I shall continue in the same serious vein as the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not want to go into all the points he made at this stage, but one I found droll. He said that one of the benefits the new constitution held for the Whites was the satisfaction it gave them as far as their political conscience was concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister said the Whites could not have an easy political conscience if 2,5 million citizens had no political rights. That I can well understand, but how can the Whites continue to have an easy conscience when 17,5 million citizens of South Africa will never be able to obtain full and equal political rights in South Africa unless they renounce and forfeit their South African citizenship and birthright?

Are they the people of the country?

They are the people of the country; they are citizens of South Africa. Double standards are being applied. There is one standard for one group and another for another group. However, I do not want to attack the hon. the Deputy Minister, because I was impressed by his seriousness and by the tenor of his speech, and the attitude he revealed to what, to my mind, is a very important and weighty subject.

†Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if in spite of the political banter that has been exchanged across the floor one way and the other, there was any one of us who was unaware that we are participating in a debate on a subject which, whichever way it is decided in the end, can influence and change the course of South Africa’s political history. I want to approach the matter against that background. I am sure that there is no hon. member in this House who has South Africa’s good at heart who can be completely free from personal emotion when participating as a member of Parliament in a discussion in regard to a decision of the nature we are going to take as we come to the conclusion of the debate on the Third Reading of this Bill I can appreciate the fact that hon. members opposite who see the occasion from their point of view, are imbued with a sense of challenge. We saw this on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down. However, one sees this challenge tinged with a degree of apprehension as they turn their backs on a past that has failed to produce an answer in regard to the constitutional future of this country. For 35 years their past has failed to produce an answer to the constitutional problems of this country.

We of the official Opposition on these benches are also imbued with a sense of challenge. We are also imbued with an awareness of the gravity of the issues that are at stake. However, we do not have the apprehension of the hon. members opposite. We have a very, very deep concern for the people of this country and where this proposed constitution will lead them if it is ever implemented.

Apart from our personal emotions, there is to my mind an element of both irony and tragedy in these events of which we are today a critical part. As far as the irony is concerned, depending upon what happens in South Africa during the next few months, we in this House could be saying farewell today to our brand of what is known as the Westminster system of government. I think we must acknowledge the fact that the Westminster system has been the foundation of our parliamentary form of government for over seven decades. It has provided this House with a basis for its rules, its procedures, its conventions, its ritual and even the title of its chairman. Mr. Speaker. This Westminster system with all its defects—and it does have defects—has had a profound impact upon the attitude of our people towards the concept of representative government and towards the values that go with it. While we in our human weakness as legislators have not always allowed these values to be translated into practice, I believe that these values which have been inherited from the Westminster system have been and are an important part of our South African political heritage. The irony is that at the very time that we are turning away from Westminster and the Westminster system—in the words of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the keystone of that system is the winner-take-all-principle—because we do not like the winner take all principle, the Government is entrenching that very same winner-take-all-principle, in many ways in an aggravated form, in the new Botha system of government for South Africa. Let there be no mistake about it. Whatever else these is in this constitution, the new system as set out in this Bill entrenches the domination of one party and one group over all others, even more firmly than it was under the South African variant of the Westminster system over the past 70 years. That is a fundamental point namely, that whatever else it is, it entrenches the winner-take-all-, one-party, one-group domination in our South African political constitution. That is the irony of it.

However, there is also an element of tragedy in it, and I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister in this connection. The tragedy is that at the very time the voters of South Africa have come to acknowledge the need for reform away from the constitutional status quo—and it has been a long, hard struggle by the members of the Opposition even to get the Government to acknowledge the need to move away from the status quo—at the very time that the voters have decided that they are prepared to accept reform, this Government has come forward with a constitutional plan that is so ill-conceived and so defective that if it is implemented it is going to set back this very process of reform for a decade or more.

What has gone wrong with the Government’s process of constitution-making? What, in fundamental terms, not in detail, not in terms of personalities, has gone wrong? It is not that the Government does not realize that the status quo cannot be maintained. It has come to realize that the status quo cannot be maintained. However, what has gone wrong, is that this Government is not prepared to abandon the philosophy of apartheid and that this Government is not prepared to take its hands off the levers of absolute power in South Africa. So, built into this new constitution must be the principle of apartheid and the retention of political power in the hands of the NP. Therefore, while moving away from the status quo—as this constitution does—this Government entrenches both apartheid and one-party domination in the new constitutional structure. Should this Government ever be so unwise as to implement this constitutional plan, in spite of its current determination, this constitutional plan will fail, and it will fail not because it is not moving away from the status quo, but because it is incapable of creating the essential conditions for good and stable government in South Africa. It cannot create the conditions for good and stable government. There are three reasons why it will fail and why it will not create the conditions for good and stable government.

Firstly, it will fail because instead of providing the basis for peaceful co-existence in South Africa, it will increase the risk of racial conflict in our country. Much has been said on the subject, and I want to emphasize only one or two points. The exclusion of Blacks concerns 70% of our people, 43% of whom—here I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister—live in the urban areas. Their exclusion from this constitution, not by accident, not by an oversight, but by a deliberate act of Government policy, must undermine the position of moderate Black leaders in this community. It must play into the hands of the political extremists. It must give rise to mounting anger. It must lead to increasing polarization. The omission of these people must lead to increased racial conflict in South Africa. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister when he replies to tell us what advice he would give to a young Black man who comes to him and asks what he must do when he is cut out from institutions created by the constitution of South Africa. How does he exercise power when he is cut out deliberately by Parliament from the machinery created by the constitution of the Republic of South Africa? Let us go back into history and imagine what the advice would have been to young Afrikaners if Lord Milner had said: “Do not expect the vote here. Go somewhere else and not to the country where you were born. You can come here but you can vote somewhere else.” What advice would people have given to young Afrikaners at that time if they had been told that? The hon. the Prime Minister today intervened in this debate and I think what he said once again brought some clarity on a very important issue.

*The hon. the Prime Minister revealed the Government’s future plans for the Blacks, particularly the urban Black South Africans. He said that they would be given local government. He went on to say that that local government would be at a higher level than third tier government. He said that there would be liaison between the Black municipalities and the White, Coloured and Indian municipalities. He added that there would be liaison between these autonomous Black institutions and the Governments of the Black national States. Beyond that, however, he was silent. He said nothing about political rights for these people at the central level. What about their essential political rights? What about those rights which make the difference between a full and equal citizen and a subordinate in this country? There are people who believe that this Constitution Bill is a step in a certain direction.

In the right direction.

Yes, they believe that it is in the direction of full and equal citizenship and political rights for Black South Africans. What we did in fact hear from the hon. the Prime Minister today, and also in the light of his earlier statement and his statement two weeks ago in the Free State, was that whatever was contained in this Constitution Bill and whatever it proposed, it did not propose a single step in the direction of full and equal citizenship and full and equal political rights for Black South Africans together with Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said that there was confusion among people who are going to vote “no”. As far as this subject is concerned, there is far greater confusion among people who will possibly want to vote “yes”. The NP says that the Constitution Bill is not a step in the direction of extended rights for Blacks, while throughout South Africa there are in fact many people who are under the wrong impression that it does in fact mean a step in the direction of extended rights for Blacks. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister and his lieutenants will assure people on television that this is not a step in the direction of extended rights for Black South Africans.

†The question of racial conflict is not confined to the exclusion of Blacks. It also applies to the Coloureds. One can ask them: Why did you accept the position as a politically impotent minority operating within the parameters of apartheid institutions and subject to the apartheid laws which are imposed on you by a White political party? To offer people rights under those circumstances is to fan the flames of frustration and resentment which already exists amongst them.

There is also a second reason why this constitution will fail. Instead of helping South Africa to move away from apartheid and discrimination it increases the number of apartheid laws, structures, departments and institutions. In doing so it not only extends apartheid but it also entrenches it in the constitution. I do not want to repeat the points raised by the hon. member Prof. Olivier, but what is happening in this constitution is that apartheid is being absolutized. Even in hospital services, where there were not separate departments before, there are now going to be a Coloured, Indian and White department. In every field there is going to be a Coloured, Indian and White department, written into the constitution of South African. So, instead of moving away from apartheid this is in fact entrenching apartheid in the national life of South Africa.

Thirdly, it is going to fail because it does not provide the base for strengthening democracy in South Africa. It will further weaken democratic government by opening the door to one man, one party domination over all South Africans. Democracy is not strengthened by giving people a vote unless that vote enables people to have an effective say in the decision-making process. To give the Coloureds and Indians a vote and to bring them into the system provided they accept the dominant position of the White minority, is in fact not the way to extend democracy in this country. This constitution is carefully contrived to ensure that absolute power reposes in the White dominant party and the person it nominates as President. That combination of concentrated one man, one party authoritarianism has the final say on what are own affairs, on what laws can be referred to what House, on what amendments can be vetoed, on what laws can nullify the decision of any House, on the allocation of funds and on the matters that are general affairs. It is this dominant White party that can pass laws and can keep their nominee in office as President, regardless of the views of the other two Houses and the views of the majority of members of Parliament.

Fortunately for South Africa, even if this constitution is proclaimed as law, it cannot work and it cannot last because it holds within it the seeds of its own destruction. The question simply is: Why should the people of South Africa suffer the anguish and frustration and increasing racial tension which this constitution will bring while it goes through the process of finding out that this constitution fails to meet the needs of the people of South Africa? That is why we in the PFP believe that the people of South Africa deserve better than this constitution. The hon. member for Durban Point said rejection of this plan means the perpetuation of exclusive White political power. I believe he is misreading the tide of history in this country. Rejection of this plan will no more result in the perpetuation of White exclusive power than the rejection of Mr. Vorster’s plan of 1977. No, Sir, this latest NP plan must be seen against the broad sweep of South African history; it must be seen in its context; it must be seen against the socio-economic trends and changes. What we must realize is that there is no way in which there can be a perpetuation of White exclusive power. If this plan fails, if this plan is withdrawn, if this plan is defeated, there will be another one and yet another one until at last this Government or its successor finds a constitution that is accepted and respected by all the people of South Africa.

That is why we believe that the result of a resounding “no” vote will not be the perpetuation of White power. All it will be is the rejection of this particular defective apartheid model of 1983. So, we believe that the hon. member for Durban Point and his colleagues on the other side are wrong. We do not believe that a “no” vote is going to have a negative impact whatsoever. On the contrary, we believe that a “no” vote is going to do something positive for the people of South Africa. It is going to be a most positive vote. It is going to be an opportunity to stop this Government in its tracks as regards this particular experiment. It is going to give South Africa and the Government the opportunity to remodel, reshape and re-examine this proposal and raise its level of acceptability until it can be something that is accepted in South Africa. It is going to be the opportunity to shape a proper constitution. It is going to be the opportunity to avoid the anguish and agony of increasing racial tension while we move towards a new constitution in South Africa.

As far as the official Opposition is concerned, a “no” vote on 2 November will not be a vote of despair or of negativeness. It will be a vote of confidence in the people of South Africa. It will be a vote of confidence in their ability to find a way of living at peace without sacrificing democratic principles in our country. The PFP, and its predecessors, have for many years been in the forefront of the movement for real reform in South Africa. This party, and its predecessors, have fought against apartheid, discrimination and injustice. We have fought and worked for a constitution that can provide the basis for peaceful co-existence in South Africa. Whatever the outcome of the referendum on 2 November may be, let political friend and political foe take note that the PFP will continue to be in the forefront of reform in South Africa. We will continue to fight against apartheid, injustice and discrimination. We will continue to work for a constitution that one day will be accepted and respected by all the people of South Africa.

By the majority!

Let them also know that we will redouble our efforts because of the urgency and seriousness of the situation created by the folly of this NP Government.

We in the PFP will do these things, not only because we want to be true to ourselves, but also because we believe that, irrespective of the political parties to which they belong, South Africans who are privileged to occupy positions of leadership at this stage in our country’s history owe it to South Africa, and not to any political party, to help our people and our country find a way to live together. Our people—I stress: all our people—can live together in peace in the future.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Sea Point resumed his seat, he completed, according to my calculations, the 536th speech on this Bill.

I want to say at once that I am acutely aware of the importance of this debate. I am also acutely aware of the consequences that could result from the decision on 2 November. Listening to all the speeches on this Bill, I could not help noting, with great concern, hon. members’ inability to reach agreement in this House on a specific step in the reform process. Whether this proposed constitution is adequate or inadequate, it does nevertheless represent a break with the existing situation. It does not, furthermore, detract from any alternative advocated by any political party, if the people in the new system want that. What is tragic and ironic is specifically the fact that it is not possible for the official Opposition itself to make the break.

I have no illusion whatsoever about the fact that regardless of whether the decision is “yes” or “no” on 2 November, it is going to change the country’s history. A vote of either “yes” or “no” must, of necessity, have a ripple effect on future constitutional development in the country. If the people with whom the decision rests on 2 November are not able to relinquish the existing system, this means that they despair of the possibilities of reform that the democratic participation of people can ensure in this country. It is a choice between hopeful expectation and despair at the possibility of taking a step along the road towards allowing people to participate in the decision-making process in their own fatherland. For the sake of the respective political positions we occupy in White politics we can go on doing what we have been doing during the past few months, but then we must realize that we have to accept the responsibility for it. Change, however, is inevitable. Not one of us sitting here can get away from that fact. We are going to make a contribution, either by way of what we do or by way of what we do not do. Whatever decision we take, the fact remains that this will influence our lives.

Mr. Speaker, on this note I should like to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations in the fourth report of the Select Committee on Pensions, a report that has already been approved by the hon. House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.