House of Assembly: Vol112 - THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1984


Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 19, the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders consist of 17 members.

Agreed to.


Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

That leave of absence in connection with the business of the Commission for Co-operation and Development be granted to the following members: Messrs P J Clase, W H Delport, W J Hefer, Z P le Roux, W C Malan, J H W Mentz, A E Nothnagel, D M Streicher, H J Tempel, G P D Terblanche, A T van der Walt and Dr M H Veldman.

Agreed to.


Bill read a First Time.


Mr Speaker, yesterday I gave a number of reasons why I personally have no confidence in this Government, and I come now to the final reason to which I wish to address myself in this particular debate. This reason relates to central business districts in our metropolitan commercial centres throughout South Africa.

On Monday, 21 November 1983, the Times of London carried an advertisement, which stated that the South African Government was dedicated to ensuring that each of South Africa’s many nationalities had the ability to realize its economic aspirations. Here I have in my hand a copy of that advertisement. As hon members can see, it is a very large one. It appeared in the Times of London and, I believe, was read by people throughout the world. Now, the statement made in this advertisement is in fact not a true reflection of South African society today. The British public, I submit, was misinformed, and allow me to give two of the many reasons why I believe there was a misrepresentation in this particular advertisement.

Firstly, in the central business districts of all our cities in South Africa a vast commercial operation takes place. Millions of rand are paid over counters for goods of every type. These areas are the heartbeat of every city. That money is paid over by people of every race and colour. The hands putting down the money are white, black and brown, and it is happily accepted by the traders in all those areas. Yet, this very Government denies 80% of the population access to those areas as traders or as owners of either property or of commercial undertakings.


That is untrue. [Interjections.]


I will be very interested, Mr Speaker, to hear the hon the Minister of Community Development tell the CP why that is untrue because to the best of my knowledge it is still part of the Group Areas Act. It can be done by exception only with the odd permit given.


You are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]


Well, set me right then. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I would more than happily admit error if the hon the Minister of Community Development can prove me wrong. If other race groups are allowed to trade in city centres and to own property in the city centres, I would be most, most interested in hearing that. I believe it is something that the whole of South Africa does not know. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, Mr Speaker, I believe that this is blatantly discriminatory. It is harmful discrimination, based on the colour of a man’s skin, and it is furthermore against the principles of a free market system.

The viewpoint of the Erika Theron Commission, the majority viewpoint of that commission, was that the Group Areas Act should not apply in specific central business districts and industrial areas. The Riekert Commission recommended much the same, and they went even further than the Erika Theron Commission and recommended that:

… provided that the institution of such areas shall not be refused by the Minister concerned if a formal request for such institution has been received from a local authority, including a management committee and a consultative committee in Indian and Coloured group areas.

That was the recommendation by the Riekert Commission. Assocom itself—the traders who are in a privileged position and who are protected from Black competition by the Act—want it removed. Yet, in a so-called era of reform it still remains on the Statute Book.

May I ask the hon the Minister of Community Development directly across the floor whether he now states in this House that Black, Coloured and Indian traders may own property in central business districts without having to obtain special permits to do so? Is that indeed the case?


Administratively we carry out the report of the Riekert Commission. [Interjections.]


You see, Mr Speaker, here we have a typical example again of NP double talk. They say that they have accepted the recommendations by the Riekert Commission, yet the law remains unchanged. The law remains on the Statute Book, and the very problem that has got this country into the very bad odour in which it is throughout the world is the result of this type of legislation on our Statute Book. We are well aware that other countries also discriminate but yet this country has the effrontery to put that discrimination on its Statute Book. That discriminatory legislation regarding ownership in central business districts is still on the Statute Book. [Interjections.]

The second aspect relates to Proclamations R3, R4 and R5 of 1968. The most odious provision of these proclamations is that no member of a specified population group may work, except by permit, as a manager or a charge-hand, a supervisor or an executive, a professional, a technical or and administrative employee, for a member of another population group.




This is indeed unbelievable, Mr Speaker. It is unbelievable in this day and age. These provisions are discriminatory. They are equivalent to job reservation. They restrict job opportunities, particularly job opportunities of those Blacks, Coloureds and Indians with university training. They are against the principles of a free market country. The Riekert Commission recommended their removal. Assocom too recommends their removal. Yet they remain, the legacy of Verwoerdian apartheid and a monument of NP fear of the CP.

May I ask, Mr Speaker, whether the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has any intention of abolishing these proclamations. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I believe it is actually the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism who should deal with this. If he wants to say nothing, what then about the hon the Minister of Community Development? Can he tell us? [Interjections.]

We in these benches believe that these proclamations and the Group Areas Act should go. We say that at the very least this session should see the end of these proclamations and the end of the application of the Group Areas Act to central business districts. Surely this is the very least that a reform-minded government can do in this era of constitutional reform. However, they are still in force together with many other evils of apartheid, and I therefore have no confidence in this Government.


Mr Speaker, it is a great pleasure and indeed a unique occasion to be able to follow the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and to congratulate him upon the incisive and thorough way in which he raised critical issues. The Salem affair has been described as the biggest swindle in maritime history which has not yet been resolved. The hon member also drew the attention of this House to legislation that is archaic and which reeks of racial prejudice and economic stupidity, and we hope that the hon the Minister is going to do something about it.

Before I turn to a theme that has become central to this debate, namely the impact of the new constitutional set-up on South African politics, I should like to touch briefly upon one or two matters relating to foreign affairs.

There is no doubt that much has happened in the field of foreign affairs since the adjournment of this House early in September last year. I think hon members on all sides of the House will agree that if one is to judge by the time allotted to this subject and the exposure given to the hon the Minister then clearly foreign affairs is the dominant issue in South African politics today. While certain recent developments have been hopeful and encouraging, much else in this field has been disturbing. There has been a distinct cooling off in the climate of relationships with some of our trading partners in the West, and this regrettable. There has been the constant eroding effect of the Government’s discriminatory policies on our foreign relationships and the painfully slow pace at which thus far it has been prepared to get rid of race discrimination in South Africa. There has been the disturbing growth in the disinvestment lobby in the USA that has spread from city to state and that has now reached the US Congress itself. There has been the negative impact of certain events in South Africa on our foreign relations. In this regard I want to refer particularly to the impact on public opinion of the forced removal of the people of the village of Magopa.


Nobody was forcibly removed.


Of course they were forcibly removed. [Interjections.] They were forcibly removed.


That is not true.


They had no option but to move. To hold a pistol to somebody’s head and say: If you do not move voluntarily we are going to force you to move, is in fact a forced removal. [Interjections.] It was this particular action which put President Reagan’s policy of constructive engagement under severe pressure. In fact, it was events such as this that eventually caused the President of the USA to say:

In South Africa the apartheid system institutionalizes racial injustice.

I believe that all of these issues will have to be debated in full during the course of this Parliamentary session. However, for the moment they have been overtaken and overshadowed by momentous events here in Southern Africa. I believe that these momentous events give cause for a great deal more hope than the ones to which I have referred, and could have a dramatic impact on South Africa’s foreign relationships both in Africa and with the Western World. I wish to refer to two of these events.

In the first instance I want to refer to the opening of the multi-faceted negotiations with the Frelimo Government of Mozambique and secondly, to the bold initiative on Angola and South West Africa which the hon the Prime Minister announced in this House on Tuesday. I use the expression “bold initiative” advisedly because the initiative started by the hon the Prime Minister is not without risks and dangers. However, the road from war to peace is never easy and it is often not short. What I believe the hon the Prime Minister succeeded in doing in this House on Tuesday was to create a climate that is essential if peace and the settlement process are to grow. I pray, as I believe all other hon members do, for my country and all its people and for all the countries and all the peoples of this region that the initiative that has been started is going to succeed.

I want to conclude by saying that I think it is also appropriate at this time that we express our appreciation to the persons in our Government service and in the services of other countries around Africa and in the Western World who have worked so hard to make it possible for a peace initiative to be made and for a peace process to start. We know that their services and skills will have to continue because they will be essential if this process is to be brought to a successful conclusion.

Further matters regarding foreign affairs we believe should be left for a future debate.

Much time has been devoted by hon members on the other side in advising the PFP as to how and how not it should behave and should conduct itself in the new political circumstances of South Africa. It was started by the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, and I am glad he is here today.

Let me state the position of the PFP on this matter so that there can be no doubt about it. First of all, to use a punchline from a referendum poster, “The PFP is here to stay”. Make no mistake about it. No NP, no combination of the NP and political surrogates is going to remove the PFP from the South African political scene. This is so not just because over the last 20 years or so, as the young lady on my left will have demonstrated, we have been tough and durable and we do not recoil in the face of temporary setbacks, but because the PFP is founded on certain fundamental principles and certain basic values which are much more durable than any political party. These principles embrace such concepts as the rule of law, civil liberty, individual dignity, equality before the law, the sharing of political rights and responsibilities by all without the domination of one group over the other and the right of every citizen of this country to lead a full life without discrimination based on race, colour, creed or sex.

Secondly, the PFP is determined to play a full and active part within the new constitutional structure. One might ask “Why?” The twofold answer is clear. First, because of our deep commitment to the principles that I have mentioned. Our commitment to those principles is not based on an ideological obsession or political whim; it is based on a deep conviction that these principles provide the best and perhaps the only foundation for good government and sound group relationships and economic progress and individual happiness in South Africa. It is our belief that these principles, these values, will have to grow in stature and acceptance in South Africa if our people are going to prosper and if they are going to live in peace.

Secondly we believe that even from the Opposition benches we have a vital role to play in shaping the future of our country. This is not based on arrogant or superficial assumptions about the role of an opposition, but on the profound belief that if the concepts of democratic government and sound administration are going to survive in South Africa, then there has to be an effective, active and determined Opposition. That is fundamental to good parliamentary government. I say, heaven help South Africa, heaven help the people of South Africa if Parliament, whether it is uni-cameral or tricameral were to consist merely of the NP Government and hand-picked set of opposition toadies. What kind of government we would have in South Africa if the Government were allowed to choose its Opposition?

People will say that it is going to be more difficult for an Opposition to fulfil its role under the new constitution. This is so, but I want to say that the PFP will respond by being even more skillful and more determined than it has been in the past. People will say that the situation in which the Opposition will have to operate is going to be different. Yes, it is going to be different and we shall respond by adapting our tactics and our strategy and our style, if necessary, without at any stage losing sight of our prime goals and objectives.

While the new constitutional system will put many obstacles in the path of an Opposition, the one thing it cannot do is to destroy the need for effective opposition as an integral part of the process of achieving good government in South Africa. You cannot destroy that, even if you tried. So let the Government take note that the PFP is going to respond to the challenges of the times and is going to make its impact felt both on the political life and on the process of decision-making in South Africa—understand that clearly.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning followed his colleague by also referring to the constitutional changes that are going to take place. I do not underestimate the importance of what is going to happen. While I hold the view that the changes are inadequate, that aspects of the new system could be counter-productive and that the exclusion of 70% of our people from participation in the system is fraught with danger for the peace and security of all South Africans, my apprehensions are tempered with a tinge of excitement at the fact that South Africa will never again be able to return to the status quo of White political exclusiveness. That is a reality. It is important at this stage that we in this House and the people of South Africa should realize what will have changed under the new constitution and, equally important, what will not have changed. What will have changed on the formal side are:

  • — New elements of the population will have been brought into the decision-making process.
  • — There will be new rules and new procedures and new structures through which decisions can be made.
  • — There will be a new point of departure, a new constitutional baseline from which South Africa will have to move ahead.

That is the reality of the changes which will have taken place. And if one looks at the referendum result it appears that there is a new mood of expectation about reforms that have not yet taken place but reforms that people expect to take place in the future. Having now changed the rules, having changed the structures and the composition of the decision-making machinery and having raised the level of expectation does not mean that we have changed in any way the substance of the laws on our Statute Book. It does not mean that we have in any way changed the essence of the problems facing the people of South Africa. We might have opened a door to new opportunities, but the new constitution will in itself not have changed any of the realities or any of the challenges facing the people of South Africa. That is the situation. Let us look at the reality.

All the apartheid and racially discriminatory laws remain on our State Book. They will still be on our Statute Book when the new dispensation comes into being. They include the Population Registration Act; the Mixed Marriages Act; the Immorality Act; the Group Areas Act; the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act; the Prohibition of Political Interference Act; the Urban Areas Act, with its pass laws and its endorsements out; all the inequalities in education, job opportunities, housing and communal facilities. In addition all the inroads into civil liberties and the restriction on the freedom of the Press will remain, as will all the challenges presented by urbanization and of rural poverty. So too will the problems facing the ordinary South African in the cities; the problems of affordable housing, of security for the aged, of efficient transport, of protection against crime and of meeting the ever rising cost of living. All these problems will still be there. Economic problems such as the balance of payments, sustaining economic growth, unemployment and inflation will remain. Similarly, the problems facing South Africa in the fields of security and internal relationships remain for us to solve under whatever constitutional dispensation there might be. Then there also remains the unfinished agenda of reform away from discrimination based on race or colour. That agenda has not been completed. As a matter of fact, it has hardly been started in South Africa. That unfinished agenda is still there. There will, furthermore, remain the urgent need for further constitutional evolution until we have a constitution not shaped by a NP Government and a White Parliament but a constitutional system in which all South Africans can believe and through which all can participate in the Government that rules over them. That is what still lies ahead of us in South Africa.

It is against the background of this unfinished agenda, of these unsolved problems, these outstanding challenges that the PFP is going to participate in the new constitution. It is against this background that the PFP is going to demonstrate the value to South Africa of effective opposition. It is against background of the outstanding challenges that the PFP is going to keep the focus of Parliament and of the Government on the real issues facing South Africa, namely on the practical day-to-day issues affecting the lives of the ordinary citizens of South Africa and on the overriding issue that peace, security and progress requires co-operation not just between Coloured, Indian and White South Africans, but between Coloured, Indian, White and Black South Africans. We acknowledge that this broad-based co-operation is a challenge that faces the Government and Opposition alike. We know that it needs more than a constitution. It requires an attitude of mind and of heart without which one will not get co-operation in South Africa.

It is against this background of the unfinished agenda for reform that we in this party are going to apply the pressures for reform in South Africa. We are going to apply the pressure as we did in the past over sports, trade unions and job reservation. We are going to apply pressure for reform away from race discrimination and pressure for socio-economic reforms which will raise the living standards and improve the quality of life of all South Africans.

Against the background of the unsolved problems of South Africa, this party is going to keep this careless and indifferent Government on its toes. The Government says that we must adopt a consensus style of politics. Consensus is the new in thing from the Government benches. We are quite prepared to seek consensus where it is in the interests of the country that we do so, but there are two things that the Government must not expect us to do. The first is that we renege on the fundamental principles in which we believe, and the second, that we abandon the Opposition’s role as the watch-dog of the public’s interests, as other political parties have done, to become the political lap-dog of the Government of the day.

If we did either of these things we would not only be untrue to ourselves, but we would be doing a disservice to the public of South Africa. Let me say finally on this in word “consensus”, that if consensus in the modern South Africa means anything, it is not only going to mean just a cosy consensus between White political parties in a White House, but a real consensus between White, Coloured, Indian and ultimately also Black South Africans. It is this real consensus for which we in the PFP will strive.

Let the Government and other parties take note that we are going to keep them on their toes. Where is evidence of corruption, whether through the misuse of funds or the abuse of executive power, we will probe until it is exposed, just as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has done today. Where there are shortcomings in our national security system which enable spies to operate with impugnity in the heart of our sensitive defence establishment, we will, within the rules of this House, press for inquiries to establish who was responsible and to identify shortcomings and to put right the defects so that this kind of thing can never happen again. Where there is mismanagement or wastefulness or inefficiency which add to the financial burden of the ordinary South African taxpayer, we will point these out. We will point to the failures of the Government in matters affecting the daily lives of the ordinary citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.] We will also talk about the hon the Minister of Law and Order when he starts talking about only firing a few shots to … [Interjections.] Let there be no misunderstanding about this. Where there are curtailments of civil liberties or personal freedom, we will speak up against the Government. We will stand up for those people in South Africa who are pushed around, for those who are humiliated and for those, however humble, whose dignity as human beings is offended. We will seek consensus, not just with the Government but with all South Africans, on measures which seek to dismantle apartheid and extend freedom … [Interjections.] Yes, with all political parties. However, this means Coloured, Indian and Black political parties as well. Let the Government take note that we will fight tooth and nail against measures which are designed to entrench apartheid. We will fight tooth and nail any measure which seeks to limit individual freedom or liberty in South Africa. We will also fight tooth and nail any measure which seeks to undermine the rule of law.

At times, when we find the Government is wanting, when we find it inefficient, wasteful and insensitive to the needs, desires and aspirations of the ordinary individual citizen of South Africa, we will, as we are doing today, express our lack of confidence in the Government. We will do so not only because it is our right, but also because we believe it is our duty to South Africa to do so.


Mr Speaker, I should like to reply to questions asked yesterday by the hon member for Brakpan. I also just wish to say that the hon the Prime Minister apologized for not being able to be present at this point, and accordingly I shall also answer the questions that the hon member for Brakpan put to him if time permits.

Before coming to that, particularly since I might not have the time later, I cannot refrain from making a few remarks about the speech by the hon member for Sea Point.

†He again raised the question of forced removal and he used the example of, if I heard him correctly, Magopa. But that is not an example of forced removal at all.


You tried.


That is not an example of forced removal.


Until the …


Will the hon member please give me a chance? I did not interrupt her when she spoke.

This particular incident has done South Africa a lot of harm because of false press reports. What are the facts? Since 1975 South African authorities have been negotiating with the people living there. There were roughly 350 families living there. The town was not planned. The conditions were undesirable, and if I am not believed, I will offer to take any hon member of this House, anyone who doubts my facts, there and show him the situation. There were squatters in that camp with no fresh water. The schools that were there could only be described as shacks or dilapidated slums. No proper hygiene measures were taken, and over a long period negotiations were conducted with the majority leader there, with the main chief, the man in charge there who was recognized as the leader of the people. This particular leader eventually agreed to move after the new place at Pachsdraai was provided with fresh water at points easily accessible and when new schools were built. This was an area of 10 000 ha as compared with 7 000 ha at Magopa. The area has scenic beauty and is well vegetated and wooded. A high and primary school were built; clinics were provided and roads were constructed. All in all it cost about R8 million to provide these amenities.

Then, as a result of an internal rift or feud within the family, the main chief moved with two-thirds of the people. They moved completely voluntarily and they were paid compensation for their properties and their transport was free. They moved voluntarily. According to my information, the other brother of the chief saw in this the chance to exert his own chieftainship by remaining, because if he had joined with the 130 families who apparently sided with him, he would have had to fall under his brother who moved.

The result is that this was purely an African tribal matter—these are the facts—until some newspapers got to hear of it. Then they started to portray this matter as a forced oppressive move in overseas Press reports without finding out the facts, without bothering about the facts, because who in these circles in any case knows anything about African dimensions, their sorrows and their possible social rifts? Nobody cares about that. Nobody cares to take the trouble to interest themselves in what is really going on in a village like that. We did!


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


No, my time is unfortunately limited. The hon lady has already taken some of my time by her interjections. She must learn to discipline and control herself before the end of her political career. [Interjections.]

I was abroad at the time. I saw the Press reports myself and telephoned the Deputy Minister in South Africa and asked him to go out himself and take with him some news reporters he could trust. [Interjections.] That included quite a number of overseas correspondents at whom the hon members are now laughing. I can mention their names; then we will see whether they still laugh.


Alistair Sparks was there as well.


They laugh at Alistair Sparks. The Deputy Minister took them there. When they arrived there, there was a person on his feet making some agitating speeches. They then invited the hon the Deputy Minister to address them, which he did. Thereafter he was cheered and applauded. Each came to sake his hand and the Press people present said that they did not know that this was the truth, because then they started to discuss with individuals why they would not leave. Then they heard the truth, the facts I have conveyed to the House this afternoon.

As a matter of fact, thereafter my colleague, Dr Koornhof, called the two brothers to Pretoria and held a discussion for five hours with them. He tried to reconcile them, and in the presence of the Deputy Minister one of the brothers called him aside and said: “Look, this has nothing to do with Whites, with the Government, with your politics or your policies; it is just that I hate that Bastard”. These are the facts.

Then, instead of the hon member for Sea Point trying to find out the facts, he jumps up in this House again and again makes the same accusations, but luckily the whole thing died down in the overseas Press after the Deputy Minister took the reporters there. Reports still appeared in papers abroad, but now unfortunately as much smaller news items, because now the bad news was out: The South African Government was not to blame and there was no cruelty involved, but it was a rift between two Black brothers.


Are you still going to move the others? [Interjections.]


I am dealing with a specific case raised by the hon member for Sea Point here today. If the hon members cannot take the facts, if the facts are too unpalatable for them, they must learn the lesson that in future, before they contribute to the sending out of reports on South Africa, they must check their facts. That is all I am asking. It is a reasonable request. [Interjections.]


Order! The hon the Minister is giving a full exposition of certain facts. It may be that hon members differ with him. If hon members do wish to differ with him, they will be given the opportunity to do so in this House. However, at this point the hon the Minister must be afforded the opportunity to furnish his explanation and hon members must listen to it. Those who do not wish to do so are free to leave the Chamber. However, there are indeed hon members present who do wish to listen. In any event I cannot permit the debate to be conducted in this way. The hon the Minister may proceed.


Thank you. Sir, I do not mind, but I accept your by ruling. However, the hon member can carry on cackling. She is no longer able to bother me.

As regards the debate relating to foreign affairs, the remarks made have for the most part centred around the events relating to Mozambique, South West Africa and Angola. I should like to convey my thanks to the hon the Leader of the Opposition, the hon member for Houghton, the hon member for Sea Point, hon members of the NRP and the hon member for Brakpan, all of whom discussed this matter, for the way in which they did so, in that at least it cannot be said that members of this House have exacerbated the already difficult task of the Government. In many respects hon members have facilitated the task. We appreciate that. This is a difficult and delicate situation, that we must handle in a delicate fashion. Therefore I appreciate the way in which this matter has been dealt with in this House. I am sincerely grateful. In particular I wish to convey my thanks to the hon member for Sea Point for the compliments he paid the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, the SA Defence Force, too, should be included. They have worked with us as a team, and that goes for the diplomatic effort as well. I am sure that they, too, will appreciate the hon member’s compliments.

The hon member who asked more direct questions—and I do not take it amiss of him for doing so—is the hon member for Brakpan. He said (Unrevised Hansard, 1 February):

The main question now is what the politicians are going to do with the precious time the South African Defence Force has bought.

He says this with reference to Operation Askari. He goes on to say:

Firstly, it is necessary for the Government to spell out in very clear terms what its plan with South West Africa is. The Government has said “That the people of the territory should themselves decide on their constitutional dispensation”. However, we believe that there are a number of matters surrounding the South West Africa question that are unclear. Some of the urgent questions are not asked in public. We regard our national security as too precious to do that. We are grateful that certain matters that were unclear have already been made clear to us confidentially, but certain questions remain vague and require further explanations.

He then says:

Firstly: What does the hon the Prime Minister mean by the words ‘I believe … that the leaders of South West Africa who came to see us are now under no illusion about my Government’s determination to resolve this matter one way or another and as soon as possible.” These words must have special significance in the light of the statement by the hon the Prime Minister that South Africa’s interests must have priority over the interests of South West Africa.

He then asks:

Does this mean a solution at all costs, in other words, Swapo will eventually be able to fly its communist flag in Windhoek?

No, it does not mean a solution at all costs. I can give the hon member that assurance. What the hon the Prime Minister does require is the following: There have already been so many years of dispute during which literally hundreds of resolutions have been adopted by the General Assembly of the UN and during which resolutions, the wording of which has become increasingly threatening, have been adopted by the Security Council of the UN. There have already been so many years of what I could almost call misunderstanding in the territory itself, in which at present there is hardly a single political party I am aware of that is not critical of South Africa and the South African Government. Even in the West we are castigated, reviled and accused of being the one power that supposedly prevents the establishment of peace and a democratically elected Government in South West Africa. On occasion we have even been squeezed, pressurized and warned by the Government of the USA. The hon the Prime Minister pointed out that in one year South Africa had made available to South West Africa an amount of R1 250 million, in cash and by way of credit loans or guarantees for loans, and in addition had spent between R400 and R500 million on defence. Indeed, the expenditure is already nearing R1 700 million, for a million people of a country that does not form part of our country and who never have formed part of it. South West Africa is another country. In view of all these circumstances it is now time for the Government to ask itself what are the interests of its own people and what are those of the South West Africans. There are, of course, many matters of common interest, as the hon member for Brakpan rightly said. There are many important factors that ought to bind us together and in regard to which our interests run parallel, entirely parallel. The Prime Minister put it like this. If a choice had to be made between the interests of the Republic of South Africa and those of South West Africa, then, he, the Prime Minister, would give priority to the interests of the Republic of South Africa. To quote an example of what was said to me by the hon the Prime Minister: He said that if the farmers and the people of Soutpansberg or Waterberg, or the farmers of the Vryburg area, were suffering due to the drought and required assistance, and we were no longer able to furnish them with assistance, whereas amounts of this nature were being spent in South West Africa, then we should first have to look after our own people.


But he gives millions to the Black states.


No, that does not go to the Black states. [Interjections.] The hon member must please check his facts and ascertain how much money the White legislative assembly has at its disposal. At present they have R150 million invested that they are not even using.


That is chicken feed.


It may be chicken feed, but it is not chicken feed in Soutpansberg, where the farmers are going under as a result of the drought. It is not chicken feed in our country where our own people want roads and where bridges are being washed away by the cyclone. The hon member can say what he likes, but if that is the attitude of the CP, it will be on record; we heard it very clearly here today. [Interjections.] To whom did that R50 million in drought assistance go? Who uses the roads that are built in South West Africa? Go and look at the budgets of that territory. Does the hon member know anything about them? No, he knows nothing about them. Nevertheless he comes here and advocates that the Republic of South Africa should be disadvantaged. It does not matter if the drought impoverishes us; storm-waters can wash away our bridges, but in South West Africa they can carry on building bridges, roads and fly-over bridges that are used once a month by a tractor. The hon member is content with that. We shall take cognisance of this and it will be disseminated. [Interjections.] I promise you, Mr Speaker, that this reaction on the part of hon members of the CP will be conveyed to the voters, as surely as I stand here today.

The hon member asks questions relating to Walvis Bay. Walvis Bay is an integral part of the Republic of South Africa. There is no doubt whatsoever about the position of Walvis Bay. There is a representative of Walvis Bay in this House. Therefore there is no doubt about the position of Walvis Bay. It forms part of the Republic of South Africa. Almost a century ago the British annexed Walvis Bay and made it part of the Cape of Good Hope. At the time of Union in 1910 Walvis Bay became part of the Cape Province, and today it still forms part of the Republic of South Africa, together with 12 islands along the coast of South West Africa. Now, it may happen that the position of Walvis Bay could create problems in the future. That may happen. We shall not create those problems, but if one day a friendly, well-disposed and mature government becomes established in that territory—and the sooner the better, I hope—then that government knows that it will be able to negotiate with South Africa about the use of Walvis Bay. In that case I am quite convinced that in a spirit and an atmosphere of friendship, one will be able to negotiate solutions and agreements that will not be to the detriment of the inhabitants of South West Africa.

Then the hon member says that the CP believes that every population group in South Africa will have to be satisfied if we want to create a secure and satisfactory future for South Africa. Here I agree with the hon member. I should be only too willing to invite him to the next round of discussions so that he can see what a difficult task it is to satisfy every population group in South West Africa. [Interjections.] It would hardly be described as the easiest task on earth. If the hon member had listened, however, he would have heard that the Administrator-General and certain parties have made encouraging progress on their own. They have indeed made progress. They now say that the Multi-Party Conference—and six parties belong to it, including the National Party of South West Africa—is a natural endeavour that commits itself to the urgent need to bring about peace, national reconciliation, independence and economic prosperity. They state that it is their conviction that these goals cannot be achieved under continued political subjection. The parties, including the National Party of South West Africa, therefore regard their present position as one of political subjection to South Africa. They say that they cannot go along with this.

Moreover, they do not have, as they put it, a pious faith in the omnipotence of the military struggle. They put it categorically to us in this House, to everyone here in South Africa, that they are unable to achieve their goals, those goals that they have set themselves—we did not specify them on their behalf; indeed, they are fully entitled to do so—under continued political subjection to South Africa or by a pious belief in the omnipotence of the military struggle. It is their right to say that, because that is how they see the matter.

They say, too, that national reconciliation and significant negotiations can also expedite the process of independence. The Multi-Party Conference is of the opinion that the existing political and constitutional order is unsatisfactory and in conflict with the national interests of their people as a whole. This, too, is their own decision. Now they say that they will accordingly endeavour to find ways and means to work out a political and constitutional dispensation which will be acceptable to the people as a whole, and which will fit into the framework that South Africa and the Western contact group have worked out. They therefore accept the basis of the Security Council’s resolution 435, because that is what we and the Western Five worked out.

They go on to say that they accept a constitutional dispensation which will be acceptable to the people as a whole. They then say that they will contribute towards eliminating the hindrances that stand in the way of an acceptable settlement, and that stand in the way of independence with international recognition.

These are the goals that were spelt out in a considered statement by six parties issued on 24 January 1984. The six parties are the DTA, Swanu, the Damara Council, the Rehoboth Freedom Front, Swapo Democrats and the National Party. They signed it and, what is more, confirmed it the day before yesterday in a letter to the hon the Prime Minister. Therefore, not all the peoples and groups, but those parties that I have mentioned here, parties that are in fact representative, to a greater or lesser extent, of all the peoples of South Africa, have now conveyed this to the hon the Prime Minister. Greater clarity than that I am unable to provide. In any event, it has never been the task of the South African Government to work out an internal political dispensation for South West. Government after Government have stated clearly that that is a task to be performed by the inhabitants of South West Africa themselves. One will find this in the booklet issued by the National Party at the time of the election we fought on 30 November 1977. All the hon members of the CP were, of course, together with us in the same party at the time and we all used this booklet. It contains a foreword written by the late Hon B J Vorster, who was Prime Minister at the time. He said:

Ek is daarom des te meer dankbaar dat die Nasionale Party ná bykans 30 jaar aan die stuur nog steeds met trots sy rekord van goeie regering in hierdie publikasie aan die kiesers van Suid-Afrika kan voorhou.

Not only he but all of us endorsed the following: The territory as a whole will become independent, elections will be held countrywide to elect a constitutional assembly on the basis of one man, one vote in order to decide on a constitution; the Secretary-General of the UN can satisfy himself that the election regulations are fair and just and that no intimidation is taking place; discrimination on the basis of colour will be removed, and all South West Africans may return to South West to take part in the elections peacefully.

It was inter alia on this basis that we won the election with the biggest majority ever. We won it on the basis of the record that the late Mr Vorster and all of us can be proud of. This document was approved by the then Prime Minister. We all distributed it and it was at all our election offices. We all said that there could be no doubt about this one matter, thank goodness. We were ad idem, and I am pleased about that. We achieved consensus in that regard and that consensus was also reflected in the contribution of the hon member for Brakpan, and I thank him for that, although there is a difference as far as the financial contribution of the Republic is concerned.

The hon member added that he was concerned about the role of Swapo and Sam Nujoma. He then said that they, apparently, did not support the freezing of the offensive. On the basis of the first statements that were issued, the hon member is correct. The Press statements that were issued worried me, too, but at the moment we are not acting on the basis of anything that Swapo accepts or rejects by way of Press statements. The hon the Prime Minister stated clearly yesterday that this disengagement, this ceasing of hostilities, and the steps that are being taken to withdraw and achieve a ceasefire, took place on the basis of assurances given by the American Government, and until such time as the American Government tells us that either we or the other side has committed infringements or acted in conflict with understandings, promises and undertakings, South Africa will carry out its part of the bargain in terms of its undertaking to the USA. We on the South African side will do nothing that runs counter to the undertaking we have given the USA, but we expect of the USA, too, to comply with the assurances it has given us. If they do not honour those assurances, then I am sure that they will indicate in public who the parties are that have not honoured those assurances.

The hon member went on to say that they were concerned about the prestige of South Africa, which had sustained a heavy blow in the past, and about assurances given in the past which had not been honoured. South Africa has never given assurances in regard to South West Africa that it has not honoured. As the hon the Prime Minister pointed out, since the days of Gen J B M Hertzog—here is the letter he wrote to the Permanent Mandate Commission in which he recognized that he did not have sovereignty over South West—right up to the time of the consultation of the people of South West Africa—they were the people throughout the Territory who were consulted to find whether they wanted to be incorporated in the Republic during 1946, and right up to the plebiscite offer made by the Government in 1970-71 when South West Africans sat in this Parliament and one of them was a Deputy Minister, this has been the position. In 1970-71 I was a member of the legal team and the Government instructed us to invite the World Court to hold a plebiscite in South West to determine whether the people wanted to continue to be governed by the Republic or whether they preferred to be governed by the UN. [Time expired.]


Mr Speaker, before I react to the speech of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I should like, from this side of the House, to intimate that we associate ourselves with the expression of concern in the House about the serious drought conditions that have had disastrous consequences for our farming community, and also for our country’s economy in many respects. Likewise our concern at the extent of the damage done by the floods in the past few days, more specifically in the eastern parts of the country.

We also want to express our appreciation for the Government’s action in granting the greatest possible assistance in this connection. We should like to associate ourselves with that; we gratefully welcome it.


What of Swaziland?


It is for the Government to decide what assistance it can grant there.

I do not want to react at very great length to the speech of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. For the most part he was reacting to speeches already made. From this side of the House I want to say that we can well understand the importance, extreme delicacy and great responsibility of the task of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Whether we agree with him at every turn is another matter, but we on this side want to say that we comprehend the extreme difficulty of the task.

It seemed as if the hon the Minister saw a loose ball to run to Soutpansberg with. I do not know whether he will perhaps lose the ball before he gets there. He is someone who can juggle with any balls that might appear in the political arena. I have experience of that in Waterberg. There, on occasion, the hon the Minister apparently made me a founder member of the HNP, which is not the case. [Interjections.] He cannot, after all, make of me anything his heart desires! [Interjections.]




On occasion, in Walvis Bay, the hon the Minister intimated…


You nevertheless accept responsibility for it.


I shall accept responsibility for my own actions.

The hon the Minister intimated that the hon member for Lichtenburg and I agreed with everything that had been discussed in the Cabinet. That is not quite true either. I think the hon the Minister is forgetting a few things that were said. I am not running away from joint responsibility, but I think the hon the Minister will indeed remember that on occasion it was said that I had a little difficulty with the Government’s approach to the internal administration of South West Africa because he supported a kind of federal system there, whilst the NP was, in principle, opposed to a federal system. I added that I felt almost like a boxer who had to take part in a fight with his one hand tied behind his back. Reacting to that, the hon the Minister said he could understand his colleague’s problem.

I am just mentioning this in passing, Mr Speaker…


But you did nevertheless accept the decision.


Yes, but it is only right to take note of the reservations that were indeed expressed. I do not want to go into that in any greater detail, but I would just like to say here: It goes without saying that this party accepts that if a choice has to be made between the interests of the Republic and those of South West Africa, and it is an either/or choice, we would put the interests of South Africa first. But everyone here in the House will agree that not all situations in South Africa are that simple. It is not necessarily an either/or choice. We in this party merely ask for some understanding of the fact that the overall majority of the Whites in South West Africa are “our” people. Besides, the security situation in South West Africa is extremely important to the security situation in the Republic.

Sir, before I go any further I should like to move the following further amendment to the motion of the hon the Leader of the Opposition:

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House has no confidence in the Government because—
  1. (a) it has left the country in uncertainty about the disastrous consequences of the new Constitution;
  2. (b) it has failed to maintain clean State administration; and
  3. (c) it is unable to check the extraordinary increase in the cost of living.”

There have been several references here to the result of the referendum. We have no fault to find with the factual statement that for each two yes-votes there was one no-vote. [Interjections.] Sir, I expected the hon member for Brits to raise the question of the “three sixes” here. Just for the edification of that hon member, and also others who made such a ridiculous spectacle of themselves by running away with this whole issue of the three sixes, may I just say what my exact words on that occasion were? If I had had your leave, Sir, I would have played for hon members a tape recording of my speech. In the meantime the hon member for Brits must “swot up” his theology a little. This is what I said:

Sommige mense sê die ja-stemme het sowat 66,6% gekry—dis drie sesse, sê hulle—en ons s’n is nou so een derde. Nietemin laat ons nie nou al die afleidings maak nie …

Then I went on to say that we were disappointed in the result. But those are the words I used. Mr Speaker, now you can judge for yourself how ridiculous it was to have seized upon these words and to have said that we had called the yes-voters anti-Christs. So those were my words, and the theologians and ex-theologians on that side know that when one adds anything to that one is guilty of an untruth and that if one further construes what one has added to something like this, the untruth is twice as bad. [Interjections.] I now come to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs.

To get back to the referendum result: Let us suppose that in South Africa we had proportional representation. This is the system that is applied in some Western countries. I am not advocating the system here this afternoon, but anyone in the outside world looking at this result could calculate that if we had indeed had proportional representation here, the no-vote could lay claim to 55—as against 111—of the 166 seats, and then the 111 would still have to be subdivided amongst the NP, the PFP and the NRP. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I am glad to be able to bring a little happiness to that side of the House, because the result nevertheless leaves the NP with a feeling of great uncertainty. The NP does not know how strong the NRP’s vote was, whilst the NRP will say that it was considerable. Nor does the National Party know what its actual yes-vote support from the PFP was. In the regions where the PFP is strongest there was a considerable percentage of people who voted “yes” with the Government. There are people who analysed the figures. The hon member for Yeoville, for example, said on occasion that the yes vote of PFP supporters must have been about 93%. I am not saying so, but the NP must certainly have obtained a good deal of support from the PFP. [Interjections.] Let us say the percentage was 25% or 30%. The NP still could not feel there was nothing to worry about, because it would mean that the NP had lost a considerable number of people who, during previous elections, had indeed voted for the NP. From 1981 the votes against the NP’s proposals increased from 223 000 to almost 700 000. That is, after all, the reality of the matter.

I also want to refer to certain propadanda in the referendum struggle. I want to refer, for example, to the misuse of an ANC statement which the hon the Minister of Law and Order made public. The ANC was flung in the Conservative Party’s teeth. At the polling booths the National Party put up posters saying that the ANC was also voting “no”. The hon the Prime Minister said: “For those who have, up to now, thought that they could court a no-vote or a stay-away vote, the time has come to think again. You are in the company of the ANC.”

There is an English-language newspaper which said that that report about the ANC and that view expressed by the hon the Prime Minister were worth at least 100 000 yes-votes. If that was not worth anything to them, why did they use this propaganda?

I now want to say, however, that everyone with an elementary knowledge of politics in South Africa knows that the Conservative Party did not court a no-vote, being pre-eminently the no-vote party. He will also know that the Conservative Party is an enemy of the ANC and its objectives. He knows that the ANC rejects separate development, whilst the Conservative Party demands separate development. He knows that the ANC demands a unitary state, whilst the Conservative Party rejects a unitary state for various peoples. He knows that the ANC wants to overthrow the White Government in South Africa by force, but that that the Conservative Party wants to maintain a White Government for Whites. The ANC is an enemy of separate freedom for Whites, whilst the CP stands immovably for separate White freedom. The ANC is an enemy of the concept of dividing the population into various peoples, ethnic groups, nations and so on, and therefore it is also opposed to the National Party which advocates three separate Houses. It must therefore be even more implacably opposed to the Conservative Party, because the Conservative Party rejects the Government’s and the ANC’s powers-haring. The Conservative Party rejects the Government’s and the ANC’s concept of one nation. It rejects the Government’s and the ANC’s standpoint of one common fatherland and one government for the country.

Let us go a little further. Hon members thought they were very clever. There are numerous no-votes amongst the police and our security people, whose life’s work it is to combat ANC terrorism. The hon the Prime Minister says, however, that they keep company with the ANC. Surely there are numerous no-votes amongst national servicemen and Defence Force members who are fighting the blood-brothers of the ANC, who are risking their lives for a free White people. Yet their Prime Minister nevertheless says they are keeping company with the ANC.

In the light of this, any link-up between the CP’s no-vote and the ANC must be labelled as far-fetched and irresponsible. The apparent logic on that side of the House is that because the CP and the ANC are both opposed to its new constitution, the CP is in the company of the ANC. That is the naïve form of reasoning which …


That is not so.


Of course it is. The hon the Minister must go and study a bit of logic. His simple deduction was that because the CP advocated a no-vote, and the ANC also advocated a no-vote in opposition to the Government’s constitution, they are keeping company with each other. In terms of that kind of logic, it can also be said that because the National Party and the PFP are opposed to the Conservative Party’s policy of an individual fatherland for Coloureds, they are also keeping company.




I am just saying that is the type of argument that was advanced. The National Party and the ANC reject the Conservative Party’s policy. Then surely they are also keeping company. The National Party and the United Democratic Front both reject the Conservative Party’s policy for the Coloureds. Then they are also keeping company by virtue of that form of reasoning. It would surely be just as ridiculous to accept this kind of argument as the other argument, ie that because we voted “no”, and the ANC also says that it is opposed to that, we are keeping company.


You have the wrong end of the stick.


I do not know whether the hon the Minister still has a political stick.

I am now speaking about certain propaganda that was made. I was referring to the ANC propaganda and said that it was not worthy of a party with any self-respect to advance such an argument.

I want to refer hon members to certain assurances that were given to the people, assurances on the basis of which they voted “yes”. Here in my hand I have the information document drawn up by the hon member for Helderkruin, entitled Grondwet 1983 in ’n neutedop. Here one finds, for example, and I quote:

Die Blanke Volksraad en instellings bly onveranderd. Ten einde die bestaande regte van die Blankes nie aan te tas nie, word die Volksraad onveranderd behou.

Can hon members believe that people would say “yes” to this? This House of Assembly is the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. In terms of section 102(4) of the constitution this House of Assembly will convert unaltered into the new White House, but no longer as a sovereign White Parliament governing the whole of South Africa. So it is ridiculous, is it not, to make such a suggestion, and yet people fell for it. They said: “Hooray! We still have our own White sovereign Parliament.” This is, after all, what we saw during the campaign. People told us that we were lying and that this Parliament would remain a sovereign White Parliament. But that is not true, Sir.

In the very next paragraph of the information document—it is amazing—the hon member says:

Benewens die Volksraad word daar nou ’n Raad van Verteenwoordigers vir die Kleurlinge en ’n Raad van Afgevaardigdes vir die Indiërs gekies. Hierdie drie Huise vorm nou saam die Parlement.

That is a very important point in the whole political debate, ie where the sovereignty now lies. Does the White people still have a sovereign Parliament? It does now, but under the new dispensation it will surely not have it any more. It is therefore an untruth that was being proclaimed there. [Interjection.] There is still an hon member who, in his wisdom, thinks that is the gospel truth.

There is something else I want to refer to. Section 37 of the constitution states that Parliament will consist of three Houses. It is no longer one White Parliament. It is a Parliament with three Houses. The present White Parliament will merely be one of the Houses, a third of a Parliament, and with fewer powers than a third of a Parliament!

I am now talking about propaganda that was disseminated. Here is another example. The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs reproached us in this House for having disseminated an untruth, ie that the Government was in favour of mixed government. He reproached us for having said that. Subsequently, during the campaign, we heard that there would not be a mixed Government, but a joint Government!


The referendum was on 2 November.


We are dealing with the implications of this referendum. If that is an end-goal as far as the hon the Minister is concerned, let me say that for the Conservative Party it is a starting point.

On 21 September, in Pretoria, the hon the Prime Minister addressed an audience at Tukkies. I read the following in Beeld the next day:

Die Eerste Minister is luid toegejuig toe hy gesê het: “Dieselfde mense wat die Blankes vandag regeer, sal ook die Blankes in die nuwe bedeling regeer.”

If I had been in that audience and had believed that, I would also have clapped. But that is surely not true! It is, after all, an elementary untruth to say that the same people, the same Whites who are governing today, will also be governing the Whites in the new dispensation. That is surely not true. We are, after all, getting a multiracial Cabinet. In the book of the hon member for Helderkruin we get the statement that because there are matters of common concern, it is only logical that all three groups should be represented in the Cabinet, ie that the Whites and the Coloureds and the Indians should be members of the Cabinet. Surely that will be the Government of the country! Or was it anticipated, even at that stage, that there would only be one Government, and that is the State President?

I think I can leave it at that, except to say that there is no unanimity in those ranks either. The hon the Prime Minister says that the same people who are now governing the Whites will also be governing them in the new dispensation, but the hon member for Randburg says: “The picture that many people have of the National Party simply continuing to govern, is a totally false one.” I think the hon member has yet another small point to clear up with his leader-in-chief, the Prime Minister.

I think that most people agree that the implementation of the new constitution will, in more than one respect, not be an end goal, but rather a starting point. The Conservative Party also says it is a starting point, although in the same breath we ask: Quo vadis? Where are you taking us? That is the important question. On 3 November, when the results of the referendum were made known, we were treated that evening, as on more than one occasion before and after that, to all manner of opinions and standpoints. On that occasion the Indian leader, Mr Rajbansi, uttered the now well-known words about their having “a foot in the door”. What I want to say to that is that if the new constitution, with provision for an individual House for Indians, with a Ministers’ Council, with a veto-power and with Indians governing with Coloureds and Whites, and governing Coloureds and Whites, is but a foot in the door, what would it look like if the door were really open?

Let me go further. These people who say it is a starting point, these “yes” people, meet the hon the Prime Minister. In such a case, I would ask, if I may: “Come in, Rev Hendrickse. Come in and tell us: Do you accept that the constitution is only a point of departure?” I think the answer is “yes”. “You say you stand for a system of one man, one vote in a unitary state?” He says “yes”. “You reject separate development?” He says “yes”. He rejects it. He is asked whether he wants to include Black people in the system. He still says “yes”. If the hon the Prime Minister wants his co-operation, does he reply: “Hand over the goodies?” He says: “Yes, that is so.” Our question to Rev Hendrickse is: “You say Nelson Mandela told you: ‘You, the Coloured people, hold the solution to the problems of South Africa’.” He says “yes”. What we are telling Rev Hendrickse is: “You say we have come through the struggle with that man.” He says “yes”. What I am trying to say, Sir, is that if Rev Hendrickse were to obtain a majority in the Coloured House of Representatives, he would be a Cabinet colleague of the hon the Prime Minister and those hon gentlemen. That is what would happen if he were to become the leader of the majority party in the Coloured House. That is the man who said of the Prime Minister: “Botha cannot afford not to make this thing work; in order to make this thing work, he needs the Labour Party—if you want us, hand over the goodies!”

Those are the people who say it is just a starting point. Do hon members opposite deny that that is the company they are keeping? It is a figment of the imagination, a farfetched misrepresentation, that the ANC and the CP are in the same company, but what I have sketched now is a real issue, because this leader’s support was sought for the yes-vote and he said he would vote “yes”, but that these were his conditions.

As far as the PFP is concerned, I think it is common knowledge that that party also accepts the constitution merely as a starting point. According to them there must still be much greater movement towards one man, one vote, even if it is for the last time.


In a federal state.


Yes. We can debate that with each other. A federal state is, however, still a unitary system, with a super-authority.


No, that is not so.


But of course!


It is not unitary.


Whether one has a racial federation or a territorial federation, it is always a top structure that is going to take the final decision. That top structure is going to be mixed so that power-sharing will take place.

The NRP—some people say it stands for “Nat Reserve Party”—of course advocates “ultimate joint decision-making in one forum”. Those were the words of the hon member for Durban Point, the hon leader of that party. During the referendum campaign they said that the fact that there would be Coloureds and Indians in Parliament would mean the end of exclusive White political power. That is their standpoint. Those are the brothers, the yes-vote brothers of the NP!

They also said that this was the beginning of negotiations on sustained constitutional change, particularly in regard to the inclusion of Blacks. Those are the people who voted “yes!” Those are the people with whom the NP was keeping company.

For some NP representatives it is also true that the constitution is introducing a dispensation in which White political parties, including the NP, will become irrelevant. It seems as if they want to argue that this does not matter, that it is all the same. Last year the hon member for Smithfield actually gloated over the fact that political parties—he meant the Opposition parties in particular—would become irrelevant in the new dispensation. If he merely meant this in regard to the CP … [Interjections.]


I spelt out the fact that it was the CP.


Why pay so much special attention to us? We are not the only Opposition party.

The hon the Prime Minister said that now, after the referendum, he was looking for the people who voted “no”, but our experience is just the reverse. [Interjections.] I am referring to concrete people. I am speaking about academics and not backward people. Academics say that they cast a qualified yes vote because they thought they had thereby reached the final goal and would not go any further. They said that now, however, it appeared to have just been the starting point on a further road towards also including the Blacks in the same dispensation.

For the CP the referendum was one fight in a struggle that continues. The referendum result and the possible coming into effect of the new constitution—this is not final yet—is not a final goal or a dead-end street as far as we are concerned. What we are saying is that it was merely one fight in an on-going struggle.

This party draws very great strength from the words of the song which says:

Die stryd wat ons vaders begin het,
Sal woed tot ons sterf of oorwin het.

In the process it is possible that we may go under, but the struggle will continue until we die or are victorious. We shall make our contribution in the struggle which we regard to be in the interests of the Whites of South Africa and also the non-White peoples, a struggle based on separate development.

A people can be swamped by mass immigration; a people can be overwhelmed or wiped out by military force or a people can reach its end-goal gradually with its thinkers and spiritual leaders alienating themselves from their own people and no longer having a vision of the future. It is a fact, however, that in one of the most dramatic events in South Africa’s history, the Great Trek, not a single ordained spiritual leader accompanied the trekkers, but they nevertheless did not go under!

If there is a creative and richly imaginative core or minority group, the imagination and the life of a people grow around that core. There are several political parties, of course, which claim to have imaginative programmes for the future. But the point of the debate is: Are those richly imaginative programmes really imaginative or ill-fated? What vistas are opened to our people? Are they realistic from a self-determination point of view, or are they disguised capitulation?


What does your homeland indicate?


That homeland has much more viability than the Government’s national state Qwaqwa.

What does the National Party’s history indicate? That history indicates, does it not, that in 1914 and 1915 the National Party had a small beginning, that in 1933 it had a small beginning and that in the elections of 1938 and 1943 it experienced one frustration after another. That party, the party of which the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs is now the Transvaal leader, sacked its organizers two years prior to the election in 1948 because it had no money. Yet two years after that the same party was in power. If it is alleged that we have now reached a final goal, the daring, the nerve and the determination of a people is being underestimated. We venture to say, although we do not arrogate that right to ourselves exclusively, that this party would like to play the role of a mouthpiece of a people that lives and wants to live in freedom and justice.


Mr Speaker, the speech of the hon member for Waterberg was interesting in many respects. For example, I found it interesting that the hon member made it clear at the very outset of his speech that when there was a real conflict of interests between South Africa and South West Africa, the Government should place the interests of South Africa above those of South West Africa. In my opinion, however, the most prominent feature of the hon member’s speech this afternoon was that it will go down as one in which the hon member made it clear that the CP dissociated itself from the ANC. I never imagined and I did not believe that we would ever see the day in this House when an Opposition leader would get to his feet to give official notice of the fact and to explain to the world that his party did not support the ANC. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member with all due respect that we take it for granted that the CP is opposed to the ANC, and the hon member must therefore understand that it was not necessary for us to be informed that they are, in fact, opposed to the ANC. We gave them credit for that in the belief that that was in fact the case. I therefore want to thank the hon member most sincerely on behalf of this side of the House for his assurance that the CP is in fact opposed to the ANC.

While we are now discussing the ANC, as well as the referendum, I should like to refer to certain things the hon member said. [Interjections.] He made it clear that he was objecting because it was stated on the Government side that the NP considered the CP, the ANC and the PFP to be in the same camp as far as this matter was concerned. This argument is very important. It is important because the hon member for Waterberg and his party went from one platform to the other saying that the NP wanted to destroy the future of the Whites with the referendum, that the Whites would have no future in this country under the new constitution. The relevant argument is that there was not a single organization in South Africa or in the world—and that includes the ANC—that wanted to end the influence of the Whites in this country, that was in favour of a yes vote. Every organization in the world intent on destroying the existing dispensation in South Africa, was in favour of a no vote. I therefore believe that that argument is extremely relevant, also in order to refute the arguments that the referendum will have a negative and adverse effect on the position of the Whites in this country.

Today the hon member for Waterberg said that as far as he and his party were concerned, the new constitution was only a starting point. As far as the CP is concerned, it was undoubtedly a very poor start. [Interjections.] However, as far as the NP is concerned, and as far as the Government itself is concerned, that wants to work out a future in this country, not only for the Whites but for every other population group living here, the result of the referendum was a very good starting point. As far as the rest of the hon member for Waterberg’s speech is concerned, I am convinced that this was in fact the speech he made from one platform to another throughout South Africa, and was not believed anywhere. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Waterberg went on to refer in passing to the so-called Coloured homeland, which according to him will be such a powerful idea for the future. In this connection we have already asked on several occasions where that homeland is supposed to be. Where is the CP’s Coloured homeland? The hon the leader of the CP, and other hon members of his party, have never told us where that homeland is.

The referendum took place on 2 November 1983. On 11 November 1983 an article was published in Die Patriot, which told us more about where this Coloured homeland could possibly be. In this newspaper the following appeared, inter alia, and I should like to quote it here. It was suggested that the Cape…




Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik, who is so full of twisted frustrations, should stop shouting interjections. I hope it is possible for him to do so. [Interjections.]

In this article in Die Patriot the following statements were made, and I should like to quote them. It was suggested that the Cape become an independent Republic, which would naturally be a Coloured Republic. I want to quote the following:

… nie ’n lappieskombers agter die Kaapse duine, soos ’n prominente Kleurlingleier ’n moontlike Kleurlingtuisland beskryf het nie, maar ’n volmondige, soewereine, onafhanklike Republiek.

Elsewhere in the same article it is stated:

Ons sal nie meer deur hulle …

This refers to the Coloureds:

… beskou word as hul onderdrukkers en weerhouers van hul normale staats-en burgerregte nie, maar as hul vriende en hul bevryders. Dit is nou as ons die hele Kaapland aan hulle gee.

The writer of this article then went on to say:

As die oorlog nie op ons afgedwing was nie, sou Transvaal en die Vrystaat nooit deel van die Britse Unie geword het nie, en sou die Kleurling seker lankal tot voile politieke wasdom gekom het in Kaapland of in, soos ek dit sal noem, die Republiek van Hexanië, soos ons die Republiek sal doop.

Mr Speaker, I should now like to know from the hon member for Waterberg … [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I obtained this copy of Die Patriot from the hon member for Jeppe. By the way, I want to thank him for sending it to me. On the front page of this newspaper—the hon member must have been this—there is a beautiful, big photograph of the hon member for Waterberg. On page 11 of this newspaper it is stated that the whole of the Cape should be given to the Coloureds as in independent, Cape Republic—the Republic of Hexania. [Interjections.] Now I should like to know from the hon member for Waterberg whether he has consulted the people of the Cape about this.


No, he has only discussed it with Liewe Heksie. [Interjections.]


Yes, he may have discussed it with Liewe Heksie, but did he perhaps consult the hon member for Kuruman about this? Does he know whether the hon member for Kuruman agrees with this? Is he opposed to the proposal as published in this article in Die Patriot, or does he agree with it?

Mr Speaker, we should like to know from the hon member for Waterberg whether this article, as it appeared in Die Patriot, is a true reflection of the CP’s intentions. Is this the “hidden agenda” of the CP? What is the actual truth in this connection? [Interjections.]

Today the hon member for Waterberg raked up everything he possibly could to indicate that there could be a rift between the Coloureds and the Whites, or that it would be difficult for the Coloureds and the Whites to work together in a government.


Why are they sitting in separate chambers?


The hon member for Rissik should rather keep quiet. [Interjections.]


May I please ask you a question?


No, I am not prepared to reply to a question now.

In his speech the hon member for Waterberg emphasized every possible decisive factor. The hon member obviously has an interest in the existence of division in this country, in the matters which could possibly bring the Coloureds and us closer together, the matters we have in common, the areas of common interest which exist, being ignored and in emphasis being placed on the matters which will bring friction and tension between the Coloureds and the Whites. I want to tell the hon member that this is the wrong approach in a multinational country like South Africa. However, it is not only with regard to White/Coloured relations that the hon member’s party adopts this approach. Every political party tries to broaden its power base, and there is no doubt that the NP is also doing so. In this regard it is the strategy of the NP to bring about greater unity among the Whites in South Africa in every possible sphere. However, the CP is trying to consolidate its power base by bringing about division in every possible sphere it can in South Africa. This affects the church, education and the cultural sphere, and I should like to mention an example in this connection.

In South Africa we Afrikaners are members of various churches. The members of a specific church do not belong to that church on the basis of politics. Politics is not the dividing line; there are historical dividing lines. As far as I am concerned the unity of every church must be maintained and we must place our church affiliations above politics. However, I was really shocked when I read an article under the caption “Die Swygende Kerk” in the same edition of Die Patriot of 11 November 1983. I cannot consider this article as anything else but a frontal attack on the DR Church. In this article inter alia the following was said:

Die kerk het ’n taak ten opsigte van staatkundige aangeleenthede … Sedert 1976 is veranderings voorgestel wat in 1977 ’n geskilpunt in die verkiesing geword het. Die Algemene Sinode het op sy sitting van 1978 nie hiervan kennis ge neem nie … Op 3 April 1979 is ’n Konsep-grondwet gepubliseer maar in October 1982 het die Algemene Sinode hieroor geswyg … In Mei 1983 is ’n tweede Ontwerpgrondwet gepubliseer en dié keer is dit deur die Volksraad aangeneem en goedgekeur … Die vraag is nou of die kerk nie ’n roeping het om in hierdie verband te handel nie. Moet die kerk nie te middle van die politieke geskil standpunt inneem nie? … Het die kerk nie reeds sy plig versuim nie en het die kerk in hierdie saak hom nie reeds onderskei as die swy gende kerk nie?

I want to tell the hon member for Waterberg that it does not befit the hon member’s party and it does not befit the hon member for Waterberg personally to pass comment on the religious life of the Afrikaners in such a way that for the sake of political gain or possible political gain, division will enter the Afrikaner churches. The time has come for us to accept that we must keep the church out of the political arena. I hope that the hon member will take this appeal which I am making to him in this connection seriously because I mean every word of it.

On several occasions reference has been made to the SABC in this debate. The SABC has been attacked left, right and centre and I should like to say a few words in this connection. The SABC operates in terms of the Broadcasting Act, 1976, and the licensing conditions contained therein. In terms of the legislation the Government’s authority is extremely limited. It advises the State President on the appointment of the board and appoints advisory boards in connection with programmes. The Government also gives approval for the establishment of certain broadcasting installations. Other than that the Government has extremely nominal powers as far as the SABC is concerned.

It is important to take note of the fact that the Government does not subsidize the SABC. The SABC gets its revenue from licence fees and advertising fees. Financially therefore it is totally independent of the Government.

The SABC is a South African institution, and its services benefit all people in South Africa. The point of departure of the Government in this connection is in the first place that the independence of the SABC must be maintained and in the second place that the credibility of the SABC must be maintained and that the SABC itself must also take steps to protect and improve this. It is not in the interests of the Government for the SABC to be seen as a lackey of the Government, and the Government does not want this to be the case and does not want the SABC as a lackey either.

For that reason the Government will never prescribe the programmes of the SABC; something which it does not have the right to do in any case, except in the case of certain programmes intended for overseas broadcast.

The task of the SABC is to inform, to guide and to entertain. However, this is a very difficult task to perform in a one channel situation, because one cannot inform, guide and entertain simultaneously in the same programme. What may be entertaining to one person, may not be entertaining at all to someone else.

What should our attitude be with regard to the SABC? Because my time is limited I shall be brief in this regard and say that I get the impression that there is a specific arrogance with regard to views in connection with the SABC among members of the public. Frequently the SABC is judged on this basis: If I am not entertained, it is a bad programme; if I am not informed, it is a bad information programme. Today I want to make this one observation in connection with the SABC: In our approach to the SABC every one of us has to realize that there are millions of other people also watching the programme who have a different taste, point of departure and standpoint. One should not adopt an arrogant approach to the SABC’s programmes, and in this regard one should not be selfish and only want to see programmes that satisfy one’s own taste. When we consider the SABC, we should be accessible to, tolerant of and receptive to the needs of other people.


Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs will excuse me if I do not follow the trend of his speech here this afternoon. He was in the earlier part of his speech obviously waging the battle of “Die Berge” once again, and as I am more interested in the Natal constituency of Pinetown, I shall leave the battle of “Die Berge” to those who are involved.

At the outset I wish to place on record condolences from the benches of NRP relating to the loss of life and to those who suffered loss of life in their families in the recent devastation that has taken place in Natal and kwaZulu. Reports that emanate from those areas are somewhat confusing at the present time and it is obviously going to be a matter of days before we shall be in a position to ascertain what the position is. When one hears that the Umfolozi Bridge has been partially washed away on the N3 road, that there is no alternative route northward, that the railway bridge in this area has also been partially washed away and that this also applies to many of the roads leading northwards towards Zululand, those of us, who know the area, realize what a disaster this is and the suffering it is going to cause. One is also aware of the tremendous damage that is going to be suffered to property particularly in the agricultural and industrial fields. The impact of this is going to be enormous. Suffice it to say that this tragedy illustrates that drought is not the only problem with which the agricultural sector in this country has to contend.

Coming to the speech I want to make here today, I want to comment on certain aspects which have made themselves evident in the course of this no-confidence debate. I want to make it quite clear that the significance of the yes vote in the referendum must not in any way be minimized by those who opted for the no vote. Attempts to belittle the result have been made by both the PFP and the CP during this debate.


How many NRP people voted “yes”?


I will come to that. The hon member for Sea Point who is not with us at present laid emphasis on a strong Opposition. If ever an official Opposition, the shadow Government of the country, abrogated its responsibility as an official Opposition, that party certainly did. I think the results of the referendum show this to be precisely the case.


It is better than no Opposition at all, is it not?


The electorate did not think so. It must not be forgotten that the CP and the PFP were bedfellows during the referendum campaign and deliberately went out of their way to sow seeds of confusion amongst the voters. I must say that I for one am not impressed in any way with the so-called magnanimity of the PFP in arriving at their decision to now work within the framework of the new constitution.


What would you have liked us to do?


To resign your seats. That was the only alternative open to you. We in the NRP appreciated the implications of supporting the new constitutional proposals at the start. Our decision was made easy by virtue of the fact that we have sensed the need for constitutional reform for many years. As far as possible we do try to practise what we preach. We realized too that if this were to come about, it would be necessary to participate fully in any moves in the direction of constitutional reform that may emanate from the Government benches. This is precisely what took place, and happily we participate at every level. We gave verbal evidence before the President’s Council and the Schlebusch Commission. We participated in the President’s Council and finally supported the new constitution itself. We accepted the fact that it has certain flaws. We have repeatedly stated from these benches, and wish to reiterate it again, that South Africa is after all a plural society. The need for protection of group rights and the importance of evolutionary constitutional reform is essential through the process of negotiation and not in any other form. It was inevitable therefore that as a result of our participation and our attempts to bring about constitutional reform, certain aspects of NRP policy would find their way into the new constitution. This is precisely what happened. There is no doubt that the moderate and responsible role played by the NRP during the referendum campaign instilled a sense of confidence in the minds of English-speaking South Africans. This fact more than any other contributed to the massive “yes” response from this section of the community which was referred to yesterday by the hon member for Yeoville.

I wish to put the record straight as regards the repeated assertions that only 10% of the population were able to participate in the referendum. This is a bogy that we heard thrown around repeatedly during the campaign. What was not made clear by those who propounded this philosophy was the fact that no departure from the 1960 constitution, can be given effect to other than through the channels of this Parliament. Whether you like it or not whether you agree with it or not, it is a fact. It is therefore logical, as a start, that voters for this Parliament should express their approval, and were asked to do so, because they were the ones who were being asked if they were prepared to relinquish power. Now that this has taken place, the road is now open for further stages in the process of constitutional reform.

While I am on the subject, I would like to associate myself most strongly with the sentiments expressed by some of my colleagues regarding the despicable and contemptible manner in which the PFP, strongly supported by the MP for Berea and the hon the Leader of the Opposition, endeavoured to intimidate the White voters of Natal into voting “no” by arousing the feelings of other race groups. Great emphasis was laid last year on the destabilization emanating from those benches. Theirs was a deliberate attempt to destabilize the political system in South Africa. Happily, these tactics misfired and I hope that the Pinetown voters will bear that in mind when they go to the polls on the 15 February.

As regards the new constitution process itself, I too must reiterate the need for accommodating the non-homeland Black. He is part and parcel of the population composition of the Republic and must be accepted as such. I must also warn the Government that they must guard against any attempts to arbitrarily link Black people to a homeland or an independent state as a means of removing the problem. There are numerous Black people in both urban and rural areas who have no allegiance to any state other than to the Republic of South Africa and as such should be regarded as “ware Suid-Afrikaners”.

Much play was made during the referendum campaign that the new constitution would not work. I am not prepared to accept that this is a correct assessment. However, what is clear is that the spirit of government will have to change to make it compatible with the basic principles of the new constitution. Hurtful discriminatory laws will have to be removed from the Statute Book and a new look in regard to the economic restrictions in all sectors will have to receive priority attention. One cannot get away from the fact that poverty caused by restrictive economic measures becomes the responsibility of the State if government is responsible initially for the imposition of the restrictions. The phasing in of a new constitution always heralds a new era. In the South African context we see this constitution as a start to even greater constitutional reform in the future, something that is badly needed in this country. It is an era in which the hopes and the ambitions of all South Africans must be satisfied.

One of the greatest challenges with which the Government will be confronted in the future will be its ability to instil in the hearts of all South Africans, irrespective of colour, creed or race, a sense of dedication and loyalty to this country.


Also those excluded from the constitution?


You are very feeble.

When this has been achieved, the process of constitutional reform will have been completed. Nothing must now be allowed to impede the implementation of the new constitution. I would remind the Government that those who supported the yes vote and are not supporters of the Government wait anxiously and impatiently to see if the confidence they expressed, by voting “yes” in the referendum, was justified.


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Mooi River and his party are now heading for a by-election in our province, Natal, together with the official Opposition. It will be held in less than two weeks time. Listening to the hon member for Mooi River, one cannot help thinking that one can actually envy the NRP this first test after the November referendum. At least the NRP can hold up its head and tell the voters of Natal: We can show you a consistent record since November. The NRP did not agree with every aspect of the proposed new constitution, but, like the PFP, it had its reservations about the proposed constitution. However, the NRP’s approach to the referendum was the exact opposite of that of the official Opposition. They said: In general we can support the basic principle although we disagree about certain aspects of it. They can therefore go to the voters of Pinetown and tell them: As was the case in November, we can come to you with the same programme; we are bringing you the same message now that we brought to you in November and that you endorsed.

However, in the case of the official Opposition, after virtually four days of debate on the motion of no confidence one comes to the astounding conclusion that the PFP we knew before the referendum is still exactly the same party with exactly the same tired arguments and exactly the same standpoints we still recognize in the House today. The fact that they and those who think as they do suffered the greatest beating in the history of South Africa, and the fact that their own supporters deserted them in their tens of thousands, would not seem to have had the slightest effect on their approach to politics and to the future of South Africa.

One would have thought that such a result, such a test which one failed at the polls, would lead one to a more penetrating self-examination. Surely this is the time when a political party should say to itself: I failed the actual test I was faced with. What was the mistake in my approach? What was the mistake in my message? How am I to look the voters of South Africa in the face again? We find the same old arguments, the same destructive approach in this debate we had before the referendum, as if nothing happened in South Africa on 2 November.

Not only is there no sign of self-examination in the official Opposition: The dust of the referendum had hardly settled before the PFP and its spokesmen began to tell the Government exactly how the mandate of the voters should be applied to suit the PFP. Those newspapers supporting the PFP have not stopped doing so since November last year up to the present. I want to refer briefly to a report in last Sunday’s issue of the Sunday Tribune, one of the no newspapers. In a long article entitled “Exit Westminster, enter from the right, what?” this conclusion is arrived at:

We want reform to be purposeful and progressive.

Those newspapers and the official Opposition have no learnt anything from 2 November and have, indeed, immediately begun to alter the constitutional reforms awaiting us to suit themselves.

It is a pity that the hon member for Yeoville is not there at the moment. Yesterday he made the same attempt to try to prescribe to the Government how it should proceed with its mandate. He tried to be a spokesman for the English-speaking people. He linked this to his allegation that four out of every ten Afrikaans-speaking people voted no. If for argument’s sake one were to accept that the hon member’s argument is correct, I wonder whether the hon member and his party members realize what a tremendous charge they are levelling against their own party with that statement. According to the latest census six out of every ten Whites in South Africa are Afrikaans-speaking and four out of every ten are English-speaking. Thus, if that ratio applies, of the more than 2 million votes cast on 2 November, 1 206 000 of the voters would have been Afrikaans-speaking and 804 000 English-speaking. If the hon member for Yeoville is correct in saying that four out of every ten Afrikaans-spealang people voted no, this would mean that 482 000 Afrikaans-speaking voters voted no. If one subtracts the 691 000 voters who voted no, this leaves 209 000 English voters who voted no. This is out of a total of 804 000 English-voters. This is according to his own figures. This means that only one out of every four English-speaking voters in the country followed the lead of the PFP. Of course, it follows that 724 000 Afrikaans-speaking voters voted yes, or almost 30 000 voters more than voted no. However, it also follows that 576 000 of the yes votes were English-speaking votes. I now ask myself: On what basis can the hon member for Yeoville and his party claim, in this House and in South Africa, to speak on behalf of the English-speaking South Africans if three English-speaking votes agreed with the standpoint of the NP and the NRP for every one vote for the PFP? As a matter of fact, on the basis of the figures of the hon member for Yeoville himself, one can level an even more damning charge against the PFP. In 1981, out of a total of 1 350 000 votes, that party gained 260 000 votes. I should just like to mention in passing that the hon member for Waterberg referred here to 223 000 votes against the NP in 1981. However, he does not know what he is talking about. The PFP alone received 260 000 votes; the HNP 189 000 and the NRP 103 000. In 1981 all the Opposition parties combined attracted 575 000 votes as against the 775 000 votes for the NP. It is therefore absolute nonsense to talk about 223 000 voters who voted against the NP at that stage.

To get back to the hon member for Yeoville. On the same basis of support as 1981 of a total of 2 million votes, as against 1,35 million in 1981, the hon member’s party should have gained 385 000 votes for the no side. If one accepts that that party enjoys very little Afrikaans support, according to the hon member himself it received 209 000 English-speaking votes on 2 November. In other words, on the basis of its position in 1981, that party lost 45% of its potential supporters to the yes side. And then the hon member for Yeoville and other spokesmen of that party take it upon themselves to tell the National Government, on behalf of English-speaking South Africa, how it should implement this referendum mandate.

The PFP will have to give serious attention to its own credibility. It is not the case, as the hon the Leader of the Opposition said, that his responsibility is actually very small; that he need only set right what went wrong in his party, and that the great responsibility actually lies with the hon the Prime Minister.

One calls to mind the slogans of the official Opposition prior to 2 November when they told the voters of South Africa: “This is not a step in the right direction: It is a step in the wrong direction”, as a matter of fact they used the expression: “It is a step in the White direction”. And now, after they have held their congress and have considered their own constituency interests, they have come along and said they are going to participate in this process which, prior to 2 November, they referred to as a step in the wrong direction. If they still want to go to the voters as the same party with the same message, surely their credibility is in serious danger.

The hon member for Yeoville came along and told the hon the Prime Minister “English-speaking South Africans do not like apartheid”. Of course, in the same way that we do not believe in the caricature they make of apartheid, in the same way that we do not like it, English-speaking South Africans do not like it either. But what does the PFP regard as apartheid? The PFP regards separate voters’ rolls as being apartheid. They regard separate boards as apartheid. The PFP regards self-determination of every population group as apartheid. These are the characteristics of the new constitution and that is why they told the people of South Africa prior to 2 November: “Vote no. Vote against apartheid.” If this is what apartheid is in their eyes, their own people did not believe them and voted yes, and they must look to their own credibility. If this is what they consider to be apartheid, 1,3 million people voted yes for apartheid.

When one has gone through as traumatic a period as 2 November 1983 undoubtedly was for the official Opposition, I think the time has come for them to consider their own message to South Africa, because if they do not do so, they are not only going to lose permanently the 45% which, according to the figures of the hon member for Yeoville, they lost in the referendum, but they are going to continue to lose the support of South Africans—both Afrikaans and English-speaking—in South Africa.


Mr Speaker, I want to state at the outset that we in these benches appreciate very much indeed the concern of the hon member for Umlazi regarding the future of the PFP. We welcome his interest and his concern, and we assure him that we will listen carefully to his advice to make sure that we will last far longer than he will ever last in this House or outside of it.

I also want to make it clear right at the beginning that no one in this party, least of all the hon member for Yeoville, has claimed that we speak for all English-speaking South Africans. We have never made that claim, and it is therefore quite wrong for the hon member for Umlazi to suggest that we did. All the hon member for Yeoville did was to draw attention to certain conclusions arising out of the referendum, which has happened exactly in that hon member’s speech as well, and which I intend to do also. I should like to state right now that I want to come back to the preoccupation of the hon member for Umlazi with English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking Whites in South Africa.

The no-confidence debate is understandably conducted against the background of the referendum held on 2 November 1983, and equally understandably Government speakers have emphasized, as has the hon member for Umlazi, the overwhelming mandate which they received from the White voters. However, they are quite wrong when they state that “the people of South Africa have given the green light for the new constitution”, and it is also not true to say that South Africa has supported the Government and rejected the PFP’s call for a no vote.

What is true is that the White electorate voted “yes” in large numbers. That is significant, and it would be stupid and blind for anyone to underestimate a clear majority of the power group in South Africa. We do indeed not want to minimize that to any degree whatsoever.

How we interpret the yes vote is another matter. It is our view—and we have stated this repeatedly during this debate—that the majority of those who voted “yes” did so as an expression of hope that the incessant conflict would be eased and that relationships within South Africa would be improved. They will indeed be anxiously awaiting signs that their hopes were not misplaced.

The second truth emerging from the referendum is that the strength of the right wing was hopelessly overestimated and feared by the Government. Despite the very brave speech by the hon the leader of the CP, and his remarkable juggling with statistics this afternoon, it is clear that CP supporters supported the Government in large numbers during the recent referendum. There is no question about it. Whatever the reasons are, the fact of the matter is that they voted “yes” with the Government. We stated at the very beginning—in fact the hon the Leader of the Opposition was derided and belittled when he stated it again and again—that the Government was far too scared of the right wing, and that they had hopelessly overstressed their importance. That is, as we have always stated, indeed what was holding them back.

I believe that one of the results flowing from the referendum is that we do not have to overestimate the power of the right wing, which means we do not have to stumble along on the road of reform. We can indeed move a lot faster. I believe that at last the hon member for Mossel Bay too can understand that some of the aspects of the PFP’s policy, which they have taken over, they can go on taking over. They do not have to hesitate any longer. [Interjections.] I say to the Government: Stop dragging your feet because you do not have to any longer.

The third truth in the referendum—and this is as serious and as much a reality as the fact that Whites in overwhelming numbers voted “yes”—is that since the referendum Coloureds and Indians in South Africa have been divided as never before and no one can be certain as to the outcome either of the referendum or the elections that still have to take place. Therefore, I say to the Government: Do not count your chickens before they are hatched. There are serious problems in South Africa and the divisions in South Africa which are so rife should give cause for concern and not for euphoria.

In the fourth place, the referendum united Blacks in opposition to the Government and to the constitution in particular. This, too, is a reality, but nobody on the other side seems to think it worth mentioning or worth worrying about. It is this kind of reality with which we have to come to terms. It is no good the hon member for Mooi River suggesting for one moment that the PFP sought to scare White voters. That is nonsense. We would have been irresponsible if we had not warned White voters—this is something very of the consequences of their actions. This is also a reality. Black dissent which stems from the rejection of their own political aspirations is stronger in 1984 than it was in 1983. Support for the banned organization, the ANC—about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon—is almost certainly stronger as a result of Black exclusion and it is equally true that new groups have been formed in South Africa and are mobilizing opposition to the new constitution. This, too, is a reality which the Government dare not ignore. However, no mention is made of this. There is so much euphoria about the fact that some people in South Africa voted “yes” and gave the Government the green light that these other important matters are completely overlooked. These are as much realities as the overwhelming White mandate and cannot be swept under the carpet. Just as it will be stupid to ignore the White mandate so, too, will it be stupid to ignore the feelings and the aspirations and the views and ideas of the vast majority of the people living in South Africa who will not go away.


We have never done that.


Oh, yes you have. I shall deal with that hon member later on. I liked very much what he said the other day and I want to come back to him later on.

I repeat that the hon the Prime Minister is justifiably proud of securing a two-thirds majority among White voters. There can be no doubt that if a general election were held in the near future he might well return with even more seats than he holds in this House today. That process can continue until all opposition is wiped out. However, after having done this, what will they have achieved? This certainly will not solve the burning problems still facing South Africa. It should never be forgotten that Prime Minister Ian Smith won all 50 seats in his Parliament but because his support came only from one small group within a total population it meant nothing in the end and he was driven to the negotiating table holding no real cards. In the midst of all its euphoria it would be well for this Government to take stock not only of some of the realities but of all of the realities facing all of us in South Africa.

The Government has appealed for positive support from the official Opposition. The Government should know that this cannot happen until Ministers stop appealing and start repealing the obnoxious laws still on the Statute Book. The original goal of the NP has often been summed up in the single word “apartheid”. It has been argued during this debate by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that apartheid has been misunderstood and that that has been the problem. He said that the goal was never to discriminate but to grant self-determination to all the groups in our country. He said it was a freeing not a binding concept. However, this serves to make nonsense of history and Hansard is replete with evidence to the contrary let alone what this Government has done to the country and its people. I do not want to waste the time of the House by quoting ad nauseam from statements made in the past in the House, but I want to refer to a single debate which took place in 1953 when the then Minister of Justice introduced the Reservation of Separate Amenities Bill. I quote from Hansard, col 1053, 6 August 1953, and I should like the hon member for Umlazi to listen very carefully so that he can understand at last what apartheid really means. In the course of his Second Reading speech the then Minister of Justice said:

If a European has to sit next to a non-European at school,…

He was using terms which were used in those days:

if on the railway stations they are to use the same waiting-rooms, if they are continually to travel together on the trains, and sleep in the same hotels, …

Even five star, I suppose:

it is evident that eventually we would have racial admixture, with the result that on the one hand one would no longer find a purely European population and on the other hand a non-European population.

The aim of apartheid was to maintain racial purity. One of the reasons for the introduction of that legislation which remains on our Statute Book to this day, he said, was that “renegade Europeans, Communists, Neo-Communists and ultra-liberalists … incited the non-Europeans to demand …” What were they to demand? Listen to this: “… equality with the Europeans everywhere.” It is terrible that they should demand equality. The then Minister made it very clear that this could not be tolerated and had to be stopped. Equality for all was not part of the grand design.

I want to make another quotation to make the point that the original goal of the NP was very clear. Another speaker during that same debate summed it up by stating that the central question was (Hansard, col 2086, 21 August 1953):

Do we stand for the domination and supremacy of the European or not? We must first answer that question before we can speak about fair treatment and the rights of the non-Europeans. For if you stand for the domination and supremacy of the European, then everything you do must in the first place be calculated to ensure that domination.

Who said that?


That is P W Botha.


Yes, the present Prime Minister, the hon member for George.

That was the goal. If the Government seeks support from the Opposition, then it must state clearly and unequivocally that its former goal, its master plan, its vision of White domination has changed, because that is the central problem facing South Africa: Domination, whether it be by Black or by White. One has to resolve that; one does not have to commit oneself to it.

First of all, therefore, let us have a clear statement of intent from the Government. Secondly the Government must demonstrate that is genuine in its abandonment of apartheid or of White domination as defined by the hon the Prime Minister.

The hon member for Innesdal has courageously declared in this House—he has often been courageous—that the Government has kicked out the apartheid dog. I regret to tell him that the apartheid dog is not dead, it is not even tied up. Its bark is heard everywhere in South Africa and its bite remains vicious and dangerous. I agree with him: Let us by all means do that, but it is not a name that has to be changed; it is a goal that has to be changed. It is not a shadow which can be removed; it is the substance of apartheid which must go. A rose by any other name, they say, will be just as sweet, and it is no use calling a savage Alsatian a Pekinese and expecting it to become a lap dog. You will lose your leg, my friend, if you try to kick it! Get rid of the dog right now. Discrimination on the grounds of race and colour, socially, economically and politically, is as hurtful and as oppressive and as unjust and as dangerous as long as it dominates the laws and practices in South Africa. Whatever term one gives it, that will be the effect. One can have all the high-sounding, beautiful words in any preamble to any constitution, but if those high principles are contradicted by instruments in daily use, they are hollow and hypocritical. They have become not goals but cosmetics trying to beautify a corpse.

In conclusion, let me say again that the original goal as defined by the present Prime Minister in 1953 was that apartheid meant domination by the White man of the Black man. Hon members tell me that that is in the past, and I hope that they are right. Let me accept that it is in the past. Let me say that the hon the Prime Minister has now taken a lead and has said that that is in the past and that we will no longer do it and that from now on it is truly equality, self-determination and a place in the sun for all South Africans. What about a timetable? The hon the Minister stood up and spoke for 40 minutes, never once giving an indication of what is going to be happening in 1984 in terms of the new constitution. He made no mention of whether there is going to be a referendum for Coloureds or one for Indians or whether there are going to be elections. He did not say what is going to happen when, why or how. We have a right to know and we demand to know. One of the ways for the Government to prove its bona fides is to tell us what it is going to do now that it has received a mandate.

I want to suggest another way in which the Government can demonstrate that it has truly turned to a new path, and I am sure that the hon member for Innesdal will agree with me on this point at least. Change the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and Section 16 of the Immorality Act, which would at least give those of us sitting on the Select Committee a chance, if we come to the conclusion that these provisions should be repealed, to repeal them.

Secondly, the NP has said recently that it is not prepared to get rid of the Group Areas Act. It is no good my going on saying that we should get rid of it, but let me at least make a suggestion which could contribute towards better relationships in South Africa. Why cannot this Government declare designated open areas in each major city of South Africa as a start? In those areas people who wish to live together can live together, irrespective of race or colour. Let the amenities and schools in these open areas be totally open. District Six afforded this Government a magnificent, a golden opportunity to do just that, but there is nothing to stop the Government from doing it now. They should allow exceptions so that there can be islands of normality in an abnormal society.

Thirdly, I ask this Government, as an indication that it has truly taken a step on the right road away from domination, to declare a moratorium on forced removals. Whatever the facts of one particular place are—and there are differences of opinion—let it be known that the greatest single cause of unhappiness and anger in South Africa is when people are forced to move from one place to another. Right now, as I speak, people are being moved from Duncan Village, while there is no alternative accommodation for them. We are receiving telephone calls from East London telling us that this is happening.


From the Black Sash. [Interjections.]


It does not matter. What that hon Minister should really be concerned about is the health and welfare of those people who are being evicted or driven from their homes against their will.

Fourthly, the Government could recognize urbanization, not as a threat to its former ideology but as a socio-economic reality which needs to be dealt with sympathetically and sensibly.

Finally, there should be a commitment by the Government to negotiate with all genuine Black leaders towards a new political dispension which will exclude none and protect the rights of all. This will not solve all our problems; I do not pretend that it will. It will only be a modest start on the road away from the cul de sac of the dead and dying past and offer new opportunities for Black and White alike to live in peace.

I urge the Government in the midst of all the celebrating of its victory in the White referendum to take these steps without delay because anything which does violence to the human dignity of the individual or to the group will never be tolerated and can only exacerbate the growing conflict in our land.


Mr Speaker, I want to refer to a few points which the hon member for Pine-lands made towards the end of his speech. At this stage I would really only like to remark—I shall return later to some of the other things he said—on his statement regarding the time table.

That hon member requires the Government to attach a timetable to constitutional development. I wonder whether the PFP has ever really considered the consequences of a possible national convention if ever they should come into government and whether it would be possible, even purely theoretically, to attach a timetable to it. When one is dealing with a constitution, one does not force people to adopt a certain timetable, but one negotiates with people over an extended period of time.

That brings me to the final point that he made. The hon member urged the Government to embark on a process of negotiation with the real leaders of the people of colour. I recall, from the speech of the hon the Leader of the Opposition last year—towards the end of the year just before we adjourned—that he said he rejected the claim by the Government that it had in fact negotiated with Coloured and Indian leaders. Those of us who had the privilege to be part of the proceedings and to observe developments week by week and sometimes day by day, reject that rejection of his with the necessary contempt. I say this because this Government has embarked, over the past few years in particular, on a process of serious negotiations regarding not only constitutional reform but many other aspects of the Government of this country with all recognized leaders.

In this regard, however, we face certain problems in South Africa. If the Black people of South Africa continue to reject the system of democracy on account of the fact that they reject the status of the body for which an election takes place, there can be no building of confidence in the ability of the Black people or, if they have the ability, in their willingness to participate in the processes of democracy and to subject themselves ultimately to the results of democracy. Therefore, in the process of identifying who the real leaders are, I think it would be as well for the PFP on their part also to urge Black leaders—and for that matter anybody else—to participate properly in the delicate instruments of democracy. That is the only avenue for the building up of confidence among all the people of South Africa in order to unable them eventually to take part in a confederation of states which will also be an instrument and a forum of democracy.

*Before I come back to the PFP, I should like to tell the hon member for Waterberg that it is the height of arrogance for him to rise in this House and to speak on behalf of the Afrikaner. He does not have a mandate from the Afrikaner people. He spoke about a people as if though he were the representative of the Afrikaner people today. It seems to me that his clock stopped at 2 November and that he has forgotten about the result.


You should just tell the truth.


To the hon member for Rissik I just want to say that he was so accustomed to being the backbiter and the scandal-monger in the National Party over the years that he has set himself one task where he is sitting on the other side of the House today. He tries to ruin every personality on this side of the House as well as every speech. However, we got to know the Conservative Party very well during the referendum campaign. At every meeting we held, we could identify the CP’s as the people who had no manners. We identified them as the rowdy element, as the people who had no manners. This is the truth. They went about with their big CP posters and behaved in such a way that we all felt ashamed of them as Afrikaners. We felt ashamed of the fact that we actually had to witness that kind of behaviour in a referendum campaign which was to introduce a new constitution for South Africa and in which people of colour were eventually to participate. If this is to be the example set by the Whites, and specifically by the Afrikaners, to people of colour with regard to the processes of democracy, it surprizes me that we are getting the co-operation which we are in fact getting.

The hon member for Brakpan produced an absolute gem here yesterday when he said: “I just want to say that for self-determination one requires one’s own territory; one requires the right to levy one’s own taxes.” I do not have time to discuss this statement now. Perhaps we can do so in the course of this session. However, if I interpret that statement of the hon member correctly—he must correct me if I am misinterpreting his statement—then I want to state categorically that he never supported either the letter or the spirit of the 1977 proposals. Then we on this side of the House cannot help knowing that he and his colleagues were sailing under false colours when they were members of the National Party, which has been clearly spelling out two directions in South Africa since 1977, namely self-determination and co-determination. We can juggle with words as much as we like, but those have been the two legs of NP policy. But now they are talking about a Coloured homeland.


You are talking nonsense.


I should be glad if the hon member could convince me.


You do not know what the 1977 proposals involved.


I just want to point out to the hon member that I was the party’s information officer in 1977. I helped write that propaganda and I understood it, but I never had anything like a Coloured homeland in mind while I was handling that material.

In his brilliant speech yesterday in which he put the hon member for Yeoville in his place, the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance mentioned—and this is very interesting—someone who had said that R4 billion had been lost in respect of general sales tax. Then the hon member for Rissik said, in one of his regular monotonous interjections, that we could have created a Coloured homeland with that. I wonder whether we always realize what it would have meant if it had really been the policy of this country to establish a Coloured homeland. One does not need a mere R4 billion for a homeland, after all. One does not simply need a piece of land. One needs a certain degree of homogeneity among the people. One also needs their goodwill, for when one enters into an agreement with people concerning their constitutional development, then it is a contract which one has entered into, and that contract has two sides. The man sitting opposite one, signing the contract, must have confidence in one and in one’s integrity and he must also accept one as a person.

Now the CP wants to give the Coloureds a homeland. The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs quoted a short while ago from a little tabloid published by them and he said that that publication said that once they had located the Coloureds in a homeland, the Coloureds would regard them—ie the CP—as their friends and their liberators. Well, the hon member for Pietersburg made a speech before the students of Stellenbosch in which he said that we should change the flag. This is the man who has to sell the Coloureds the idea of going to live in a homeland, of accepting that as the realization of their political aspirations. That man now says that the flag should be changed. A certain dish which is typical of the Indians…


Were you there?


I have it at first hand. My son was there.


If your son is like you, I would not believe him either. [Interjections.]


This is the way we know the hon member for Rissik. We shall just have to put up with him, because he has no more credibility than his interjection. The hon member for Pietersburg said that a typical Indian dish should be featured on the flag for the sake of the Indians. For the Coloureds, he said, a knife should be introduced, a dagger. Did the hon member for Pietersburg say that or not? [Interjections.] Does he deny it?


Ask your son.


He told me that the hon member had said so. Does the hon member deny it? He cannot deny it because it is the truth. And that it is the party which wishes to come to the people and to say: “Trust us. We shall solve the constitutional problems of the country. We shall be able to gain the confidence of the Coloured people over whom we have ruled up to now, so that they will be able to stand on their own feet.” And yet this is what he thinks of those people. What chance of success do they have with that attitude? But this is the way we came to know them at one meeting after another. We asked the hon member for Waterberg long ago to admonish his followers. [Interjections.] For example, we heard them refer to Coloureds and Blacks at meetings in terms which are no longer used in decent company. We heard this at various places. This kind of abuse is the main thing which hon members of the CP have in common. In that process, did we hear a single word of admonition from their leader, the hon member for Waterberg? Did he once admonish them by saying: “My friend, even if your Christian conscience does not prevent you from insulting your fellow man in this way, please refrain from doing so in the interests of political strategy”? Pious words are no longer enough in South Africa today. We must come forward so that we may be judged by our actions and the actions of our supporters. Every word spoken at meetings which militates against Afrikaner decency and Afrikaner Christian values we lay at the door of that hon member and every hon member of the CP.

†Mr Speaker, I want to return to a few remarks in connection with the PFP. As in the case of the CP we have had the dubious pleasure of having heard speeches in this debate so far which should really have been made before the referendum and should have ceased thereafter. Those speeches by both the CP and the PFP were not believed by the electorate otherwise we would not have had the resounding victory that we in fact had. Also, I think if we on this side of the House had had the opportunity to hear these speeches before the referendum we all would have been much closer in our predictions of the actual victory margin. Most of us did not expect to win by that margin. Having listened to the quality of the speeches and the content thereof we can now understand why the electorate rejected those statements. The extremist interpretations of the new constitution by both of these extremist parties were not believed by the electorate and I believe will never be accepted or believed by the electorate. They were designed specifically to suit their own political ends and do not reflect the reality of the purpose or the practical implementation of those proposals.


It is because you had the assistance of the media.


We could have had all the assistance of all the media and we would not have been able to sell it if the product had not been good. It is an old adage in the marketing world that one can advertise a bad product as well as one possibly can but ultimately it will not sell. A product must have certain qualities in order to be able to sell it to the degree that we were able to sell our special product.

I believe a lesson that we all have to learn from the result of the referendum is that the public of South Africa—and I am speaking specifically of the White electorate—have come to terms with the reality of South Africa. On the one hand they reject the complete misunderstanding of the PFP of the reality of ethnicity in political processes and of group interests. On the other hand they have also come to reject the point of absurdity to which the CP wants to drag ethnicity. We really had the possibility that if ever they should win, we would have a Coloured homeland rammed down the throats of people who would not want it, and the same goes for the Indians. But we had some problems with them, or they had problems with themselves when it came to a completely independent state for the Indians, because the hon member for Waterberg said: “Oh, we will watch them as far as their immigration policy is concerned.” What kind of independence is that? Is that honest politics? I reject it out of hand because it is as false as a plastic flower. [Interjections.]

I think the one lesson that we all have learnt is that the public of South Africa are wary about entrusting their future to people with extremist ideas. Many, many voters who previously supported the PFP were faced with this ultimate decision—this was no more armchair politics, this was for real—namely, are we going to vote for reform which acknowledges ethnicity in a sensible way, to take place in South Africa or are we now going to run the risk of either of these extremist parties gaining control of South Africa?

A grave responsibility rests on us on this side of the House, and that is that we shall have to walk this very narrow tightrope between these two extremist interpretations, and we will have to handle future constitutional development without overemphasizing ethnicity to the point of ridiculousness but, on the other hand, not ignoring it. We will have to be careful not to play fast and loose with the group loyalties and nationalisms prevalent in South Africa.

The PFP has failed to understand what we have been saying over the years. For the benefit of hon members of the PFP, I want to quote a few passages from an authoritative source such as The Economist of August last year when for the first time, to my knowledge anyway, a really balanced article appeared in as authoritative a publication as that. This is not good news for the hon member for Green Point and that is the problem of the PFP. With all due respect to their hon leader himself, the PFP look at South Africa through the eyes of the social and political scientists from Europe and the USA. The hon member may smile, but that is obviously the reason why, when he referred to the State Security Council in this debate earlier this week, he preferred to quote no less an ignoramus on this topic, than Robert Rotberg to support his views. Instead he could have availed himself of the hon the Prime Minister’s open door. We went to trouble to have an open Press conference and, for the first time in the history of South Africa, we made known various aspects of the operation of the State Security Council. Yet it all went unheeded; it passed their recognition and their cognizance. Why? Because they look at South Africa’s problems through the eyes of foreign political and social scientists. As far as our political situation is concerned, those foreign eyes portray one thing, and that is that while group affiliations sometimes manifest themselves in some respect, it certainly is not necessary to embody them in constitutions. That however is their view, and that is why the hon member for Pinelands when talking about the people of South Africa has this all-consuming obsession of including everybody as if everybody were the same and could be viewed and approached as a unity.

Looking at South Africa through local eyes compels one to understand that the reality of group identities and of ethnic groups in South Africa must be embodied in the constitutional framework otherwise we will have chaos in this country. That is one lesson we can learn from the referendum.

However, Mr Speaker, I want to quote now from this article. It says here, referring to Africa:

There are no general prescriptions …

For multi-national States to maintain internal harmony, that is:

… only a need to face facts. False expectation makes matters worse.

It then goes on to say about Africa:

There several thousand tribes and nations once enjoyed some sort of political autonomy in the pre-colonial age. Then came their involuntary squashing into a mere 50 odd States. It was absurd to hope that many of the African nations thus flung together would live in harmony.

The author then asks this very pertinent question:

Why should a Yoruba and a Hausa be expected easily to share a single country when such close relations as Irish and Scots, or Poles and Russians, or Serbs and Croats find it so hard?

He then occupies himself with an analysis of the ideas of thinkers and theorists in this respect, people who maintain that a single ideology can unite people across ethnic and group-loyalty lines. He comes to the conclusion, however, that not even as powerful an ideology as communism was able properly to accomplish this. His final verdict is that after forty years, communism too has failed in its appeal.

The second point he makes is that the economy of a country and the need for people to increase their economic welfare, are factors seen by some people as a possible unifying force. He comes to the shattering conclusion, however, that even economics, bread and butter matters, have not been able to politically unify people across ethnic divisions in Africa. Being White Africans ourselves this is a truth we know only too well. The conclusion of this author is, however, that not even economics have been able to unify people in Africa politically.

He then goes on to say that the available options fall basically into four categories. These are the options in respect of politically placing a multi-national country on a sound footing. As a first option he offers one that might be attractive to some countries, but one that would certainly not work in South Africa. That is the option of absorption. According to him this option worked in the USA because of the predominantly English-speaking White population there, mostly Christians too. There were, in other words, a host of common denominators uniting the population and making it an easier country to rule.

There is, however, one interesting thing, I believe, we should all remember. This is something too, to which the reaction by the United States Government will certainly be very interesting. It is expected that within the space of a decade about 30% of the voters in the USA will be of Spanish origin. In some of the Southern States these people are already demanding mother-tongue education, which is, of course, through the medium of Spanish. What is ultimately going to result out of this situation is something we are watching with great interest.

The second option, Mr Speaker, is that of despotism. I do not even bother to probe this option any further. I do not believe it behoves us to talk about this option even.

The third option is that of secession. In respect of this option the author whom I have already quoted says:

It is understandably taboo and should be regarded as the ultimate failure. However, if one bit falls away hundreds more will clamour to follow.

He then goes on to say:

As time passes by there is better cause for this taboo to be broken.

The fourth option is the gentleman’s option; the federal option. Suffice it, Sir, to quote the following:

The success of Nigeria’s experiment is still touch and go. Of course, we know what has happened in the meantime to this Nigerian experiment. I quote again, as follows: Even more sophisticated Yugoslavia without Tito is at risk. Third World federations sound nice but rarely work.

The author then comes to the conclusion that, as far as secession is concerned, there is one important question that remains to be asked, and I quote him again:

After all the bloodshed of 1947, is it likely that an unpartitioned India would ever have been viable? Can Turks and Greeks ever live harmoniously together on an independent island? Are Ruanda and Burundi, now partitioned into tribal units at the cost of near genocide, not better off in two more homogeneous parts?

Repeating that secession is an undesirable option in Africa, the author finally refers to forcing multinational countries to adopt single, unitary governments:

But the bitter and growing lesson is that such things are sometimes impossible.

The fact, Mr Speaker, is that the PFP have painted themselves into a nice little corner. Together with the United Nations and other forces outside South Africa, they have condemned as apartheid, every minute step this Government has taken according to its own policies, to fulfil the rightful political aspirations, as well as social and other aspirations, of the peoples of South Africa. [Interjections.] Our actions are continuously denigrated as apartheid. How many times have we not heard that word today? The abomination that has been made of the word apartheid outside this country is not only shared by members of that party, but it is propagated by them in their efforts to oppose the constitutional development undertaken by this Government. I wish to put this one question to them today. In the first instance let us take the parallel of South West Africa. The United Nations have adopted resolutions acknowledging Swapo as the true and sole representatives of the people of South West Africa, and they cannot rescind those resolutions despite the reality that Swapo is not the true representative and the fact that those resolutions have proven to be stumbling blocks in the way of a negotiated solution to the problem. If eventually so-called apartheid leads this country to peaceful co-existence, what will be the position of all those who have continually condemned every step that we have taken on the basis of differentiation as being discrimination and apartheid and racism? I think those members opposite should rethink their attitude and the terminology that they use in our politics.


Mr Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Education and Training on his appointment as Minister and express the confidence that he will be a good Minister in his department.

Now that I have congratulated him on that, however, there is something else I want to congratulate him on. The hon the Minister has acquired the title in this House of the person who is the best exponent of the politics of hatred, venom and insult. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister what it is within him that makes him hate the hon member for Waterberg so much. I want to say to the hon the Minister that he must get rid of the venom and hatred within him. Then, too, it is that hon Minister who has the nerve to criticize the CP about the manners displayed by their people at meetings and elsewhere. I want to remind the hon the Minister that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. It is his leader, who is sitting in this Parliament, who told an hon member of this House of Assembly: “Jy laat my aan cholera dink.” It is his leader who told a White citizen of the Republic of South Africa in Pretoria: “Jy het ’n orang-oetanggesig.” It is his leader who will go down in the history of South Africa as the biggest disrupter of meetings in our political history. And then that hon Minister has the nerve to point a finger at the CP! [Interjections.] It is the leader of that hon Minister who has gained the title of the greatest somersaulter in South Africa, because it was he who said on 12 September 1978: “A tricameral Parliament is not the policy of the NP.” It is he who made various statements and then went to five congresses on the basis that the NP had not changed. After the congresses had approved them he said: “Now we have changed.” [Interjections.] That was political fraud and the leader of that hon Minister will go down in the political history of South Africa as the great yo-yo of politics.

The hon the Minister of Education and Training also told us that he was in fact the author of the 1977 document. [Interjections.] Now he was only present. Was he present or was he present? I say that in 1977 that hon Minister helped to write that the White Parliament would retain all its powers. He spoke about the “bangmaakpraatjies”—that a Coloured or Indian person would never become a minister. He helped to write that the President’s Council would only be an advisory body and would not have any powers. Now he is sitting there. He wrote that and we are not going to let him forget it. They changed, and after they changed, they went to the congresses and led their congresses up the garden path.

While I am looking at all those hon members, I want to ask this: Is there a single hon member of the NP who is prepared to repudiate the hon member for Randburg? He said that the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act should be abolished. I now ask those hon members: Is there a single hon member of the NP who will say: “I do not want those laws abolished”? [Interjections.] You see, Sir. I repeat my question: Is there a single hon member of the NP with the courage to say here today: “I say that the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act must not be abolished”? [Interjections.] Sir, next week in the Soutpansberg we are going to read that there is no one over there who wanted to say that. [Interjections.] Secondly I ask: Is there a member of the NP who is prepared to say that he repudiates ouboet Wimpie de Klerk when he says: “Buig of bars, ons moet met die ideologie van apartheid breek”?


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


The hon the Deputy Minister can ask me a number of questions, if he likes.


Does the hon member think that the Afrikaner nation needs the group areas or immorality legislation to stay White?


If the hon the Deputy Minister is implying thereby that he wants the group areas or the immorality legislation to be abolished, then he must say so. I stand for their retention.

We asked another question. It is Thursday already and the question we asked was: Where is the NP heading? I ask the hon members opposite about the position of the Black people. Is another hon Minister not going to stand up and spell out to us clearly where—quo vadis—the NP is going with the Black people? Please tell us that. Sir, do you know what is happening here? The NP has become like a little cart that is travelling along. The hon the Prime Minister is driving and the passengers are Mr Rajbansi, the Rev Hendrickse and a few of his other henchmen. The passengers all know where they want to go—they are the back seat drivers—but the driver does not know where he is going. He is really feeling his way in the dark.

The credo of the hon the Prime Minister is clean administration. The hon the Prime Minister promised South Africa a clean administration. Last year the CP issued an urgent warning to the hon the Prime Minister about alleged irregularities on the part of Mr Fanie Botha. What was the hon the Prime Minister’s reaction to that? To begin with, he blatantly refused to honour his promise of clean administration and the investigation of alleged maladministration. He refused. In the second place, he defiantly stated in this House (Hansard, 22 April 1983, col 4365):

I shall go and defend him, whatever the consequences may be …

And today? It is general knowledge that the CP was right about Mr Fanie Botha. What is one now to expect of the hon the Prime Minister, who said defiantly that he would defend Fanie Botha whatever the consequences? I say that the least the hon the Prime Minister can do is apologize to the CP and, secondly, to institute an investigation immediately.

The Fanie Botha débácle was proof that the hon the Prime Minister is guilty of a cover-up and that his credo of clean administration has sustained a heavy blow.

This year we warn the hon the Prime Minister once again against deficient State administration by the hon the Minister of Defence. I told the hon the Minister of Defence that I intended referring to him, but obviously he was unable to be present. That hon Minister has an incredible record of poor administration, and the hon the Prime Minister is following the same disastrous path with the hon the Minister of Defence that he followed with Mr Fanie Botha.

The important objection to the hon the Minister of Defence is that he does not know what is going on in his department. Last year we were amazed when the hon the Minister said that he had not known that senior members of the Defence Force—two brigadiers—were involved in an armed attack in the Seychelles. He did not know about it! We may not discuss the spy Gerhardt, except that I may say that he did not know about that either.

Due to this hon Minister’s talent for being unaware, he has been referred to in this House as “the unconscious Minister”.


You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


Never mind, we shall see who ought to be ashamed of himself.

I want to mention two further examples of the deficient administration of the hon the Minister. I shall begin with the following: Last year the hon member for Pietersburg and I approached the Defence Force and asked whether we could be told whether there would be tours to the operational area this year. Do you know, Sir, what the Defence Force told us? This is what they told us: The hon the Minister is not allowing any tours this year, because no funds are available. We accepted that, but then found out that the entire Defence study group of the NP had been to the border on the quiet, and that not one of the three opposition parties had accompanied them! [Interjections.] I regard this cheating of the opposition parties as a blatant insult, and as a clear indication that this hon Minister is not interested in the co-operation which the Conservative Party is willing to offer in regard to Defence matters.

I want to give yet another example of the blatant politicization of the Defence Force by the hon the Minister. During the referendum campaign CP speakers were forbidden to go and talk politics to the soldiers in their bases, but the hon the Minister did so himself. Another example of the politicization of the Defence Force by the hon the Minister is the inexplicable step of having a propaganda video film made by the Defence Force.


Did you see it?


Yes, I did see it.


Is it propaganda?


Of course it is propaganda. We asked the Defence Force for what imaginable reason they were entering the political sphere by making a video film. We asked the Defence Force to withdraw from the political terrain. My hon leader and I eventually asked the Defence Force whether they would not afford the opposition parties the opportunity to put their standpoints. This was refused. In this instance, National Party propaganda was unashamedly shown to all soldiers and the hon the Minister reduced the SA Defence Force to the status of a third rate NP organizer.

There are several other examples of the deficient administration of the hon the Minister and I shall provide examples of them. Ministers are taken to party-political meetings of the NP by helicopter. Ministers use military helicopters to go and hunt.

The other incredible thing about the hon the Minister is that whenever we launch a political attack on him he runs away and contends that we are attacking the Defence Force. He says that we are attacking Gen Viljoen. He hides behind Gen Viljoen and the Defence Force. The hon the Minister is not present, but I want to ask him today whether he will not please try to scrape together a little courage and stand his ground. Clearly, by hiding behind the Defence Force he is setting a poor example for the morale of the SA Defence Force.

I should now like to turn to the hon the Prime Minister … [Interjections.] The hon Chief Whip should rather try to restore discipline in his caucus. He is known as probably the weakest Chief Whip in the history of the NP, because he is unable to maintain discipline and he knows it. In spite of that, he makes interjections and last year he was even a mime.

As a politician the Minister of Defence has failed. There is considerable evidence of his deficient administration. We appeal to the hon the Prime Minister today not to make the same mistake with regard to the Minister of Defence as he did with Mr Fanie Botha. He must get rid of him, and in this instance he must not again place the interests of the National Party above the interests of South Africa.

I now come to the end of my speech, and at this point I should like to draw a comparison between the positions of Mr B J Vorster, Dr Connie Mulder and the present hon Prime Minister. Mr B J Vorster was driven out of public life by the hon the Minister for a certain reason, viz because he was supposedly guilty of a cover-up. Today the hon the Prime Minister is being charged specifically with having been guilty of a cover-up, because this up to this day he is refusing to have the Fanie Botha debacle investigated.

As far as Dr Connie Mulder is concerned, according to the hon the Prime Minister be was guilty of poor administration and he told an untruth in this House. However, the hon the Prime Minister himself told untruths in this House.


Prove it.


I shall prove it now. That just shows how uninformed members of the NP are. According to the report of the Erasmus Commission, the Minister of Defence wrote a letter to Dr Eschel Rhoodie on 4 July 1977, in which he said:

Ten opsigte van die feit dat ek die pro sedure as oneties en onreëlmatig beskou, wil ek daarop wys dat u sekerlik ook so sou voel indien u Minister in die Volks raad in ’n Begrotingsdebat moet opstaan en onwaarhede moet voordra.

The hon the Prime Minister told untruths here, and he is undoubtedly the poorest administrator we have ever had if one calls to mind the Seychelles affair, the Ingwavuma issue, the Salem incident and so on.


Mr Speaker, is the hon member for Jeppe entitled to say that the hon the Prime Minister told an untruth here and then to quote from a document written by someone else?


Let me set the hon member’s mind at rest. This document forms part of the report of the Erasmus Commission and the hon the Prime Minister accepted that report. Therefore he also accepted this letter, and by so doing placed the seal on the fact that he told untruths in this Parliament.


Sir, may I ask the hon member a question?


No, man. I have only half a minute left. The position, then, is that the hon the Prime Minister cannot point a finger at Mr Vorster about covering up because he himself is covering up as far as Fanie Botha is concerned, and the hon the Prime Minister cannot point a finger at Dr Connie Mulder because the same goes for his weak administration and the fact that he told untruths here. The hon the Prime Minister said that he would take the consequences of the Fanie Botha affair. There is only one thing he has to do. He must do to himself what he did to John Vorster and Connie Mulder and leave public life.


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Jeppe presented his speech with such poor taste here that I am not going to devote much time to him. I shall nevertheless return to some aspects of his speech later.

In the first place we on this side of the House wish to convey our thanks to the SA Defence Force for the emergency aid which is being rendered and which has been rendered during the last few days in the disaster areas of Natal and South-Eastern Transvaal. This demonstrates to us once again in what circumstances the Defence Force is available to render assistance.

In the second place, we wish to convey our thanks to the SA Defence Force, on behalf of this House, for bringing Operation Askari to a successful conclusion. We want to congratulate them on their achievements in the battles, as well as the goal which was achieved. We want to congratulate the Defence Force on the acquisition of that particular missile-carrier and the missiles which were captured during the operation. This missile is unique. Let it therefore be a breakthrough for us so that we can prepare to defend ourselves against that type of weapon.

In addition to that, we should also like to convey our sympathy to the next-of-kin of the men who died during that operation.

Arising out of this, the hon member for Wynberg made allegations in his speech which must be viewed in a serious light. In his speech the hon member maintained that he was a friend of the Defence Force and that he had friends among the officers. I want to tell him that the old saying that with such friends one does not need any enemies, is precisely applicable to him.

In his speech I heard the voice of Moscow.


Are you referring to the hon member for Wynberg as being the voice of Moscow?


The hon Chief Whip is not listening to what I am saying. He should listen. In the speech of the hon member for Wynberg I heard the voice of Moscow, and I shall indicate why I am saying this.


Mr Speaker, with great respect, when an hon member says of another hon member that in his speech could be heard the voice of Moscow, I would ask you seriously to consider whether it is not a necessary inference that there is a communist connotation?


Mr Speaker, I shall content myself with the thought. I shall not elaborate any further on it.


Order! I have considered it carefully but would not rule that it means that the hon member is a communist.

*The hon member, however, must watch his language.


Sir, in the speech made by the hon member for Wynberg the following appeared:

I now want to address myself to the hon the Minister of Defence. I assume that there are convincing reasons why there was a deviation from the policy of non-interference …

Sir, it is those countries that accuse this Government, this State, of allegedly interfering in the affairs of our neighbouring countries in order to destabilize them. This is a flagrant, arrogant and disgraceful accusation against this Government. The hon member for Wynberg was invited to join us in paying a visit to and holding discussions with our Defence Force command. Now I ask: In what case and where, in what situation, did we interfere with the Government of Angola or with the Government in Luanda, or anywhere else for that matter? In what way was this done? However, he accused this Government of interference in that neighbouring country.

Moreover, the hon member created in his speech a psychosis of doubt, of resistance and of ill-feeling towards the Defence Force. In this connection he associated himself with people—it makes no difference who they are—who write in newspapers about doubt, resistance and ill-feeling. Now we know the hon member to be one of those who championed the conscientious objectors in the discussion of a piece of legislation which we dealt with last year. We told him at the time that we would see what would happen in future.

In this connection I just want to quote what the previous main speaker on defence matters of the official Opposition had to say about a similar operation, namely Operation Protea. I am referring to the hon member for Yeoville. What did he say as main speaker on defence matters of the official Opposition? I shall quote him (Hansard, 24 September 1981, col 4886):

One of the remarkable things which one should perhaps mention right away in respect of Operation Protea is that while one mourns the loss of every single life—and we do hold every life precious—the operation was conducted, I believe, with the greatest care. The approach was that there should be the lowest number of casualties possible. I believe this goes to the credit of all who were involved. It is commendable in fact that an operation of this magnitude could be carried out with so few casualties.

Furthermore, he also said (col 4692):

The issue of South African forces being engaged in activities beyond our borders also needs to be examined. Hot pursuit, retaliatory and pre-emptive raids are recognized counter-insurgency activities. That is recognized and those who condemn it, must remember that others too have used this technique. It is not inappropriate to mention, for example, that France, who has condemned it, in fact indulged in that very activity when it was trying to hold Algeria, and justified it both legally and otherwise. The question that I pose very simply to those critics is …

This question the hon member for Yeoville may just as well put to the hon member for Wynberg:

Can a country which gives bases for terrorism, bases for attacks upon its neighbours, expect those bases to be immune from attack by the people that they are designed to destroy? That is the simple question. Can one allow a base on one’s territory and then think it can be immune from attack?

It was the hon member for Yeoville who made this speech in the House. Now, however, his successor as chief spokesman on defence matters of the official Opposition made a speech here in which he questioned the actions of the Defence Force, thereby sowing discord and creating an attitude of doubt among our people.

The hon member for Wynberg also said that he should have been informed about Operation Askari. How can a security force makes its proposed operation public? Besides, what does the hon member want to do with the information? Is he to be trusted with such information? For example, if the police throw a cordon around the Stander gang, must they first announce their intentions in the media? The hon member alleged in his speech that our Defence Force and officers were leading our young men into danger. If the police has thrown that cordon around the Stander gang, are the police not also risking their lives through that action? If the hon member buys his son a perfectly ordinary motor cycle, he is also placing his life in danger. Surely that is a logical conclusion we have to draw. What is war if it is not dangerous? We must know that if we are waging a war, it is a risky undertaking. However, we must bear in mind the objective and the undertaking. I want to put it to the hon member for Wynberg that we shall reproach him in this House with what is stated in the overseas media that are going to quote him as their friend against South Africa.

I should now like to refer to the hon member for Jeppe. It is a great pity that he is not present in the House now. One may as well ignore him. Yet I do want to tell him that he is the last person in this House who can talk about manners. Sir, I am saying this with all due respect to you, since you had to take steps against him because he displayed such scant respect to the Chair that he kicked open the doors of this House. In his speech he touched upon many events of the past. Among others he quoted Mr Vorster and Dr Connie Mulder. After all the evidence, speeches and documents that have been presented to support certain events, have been stripped away so that only the naked truth is left, only one great truth remains and that is that Dr Connie Mulder as Minister brought Mr Vorster to a fall.

The hon member for Pietersburg said here yesterday that not a word had been said about the future of the Whites. He said he did not know where the Government was taking the Whites. I find that astonishing. Did he not participate in the debates on the constitution? Did he not participate in the debate and discussions during the referendum campaign? The political architects and the political engineers of this House—and that includes the hon member’s people as well—signed a plan and drew up a constitution. The hon member’s people took part in this process.

Political engineers and political architects from other ethnic groups also took part in this process, with the hon member’s approval. They did so with the hon member’s blessing. I am referring to the President’s Council. The hon member’s own people are serving on that body. That body helped to construct a framework for the future, a future which holds challenges and responsibilities for the Whites, but which also holds opportunities and a future for them. A superstructure must be added to that framework by means of a joint effort on the part of all the peoples involved.

I only have a minute at my disposal and I therefore want to conclude. Various poems by Van Wyk Louw, by Shakespeare and other poets have already been quoted here, but I now want to quote a poem by one of our young poetesses, Lina Spies, and I trust that, with your leave, Mr Speaker, the Chief Whip will allow me to do so. The poem is entitled “’n Paternoster vir Suid-Afrika” and reads as follows:

Here, laat die name geheilig word
van al die kinders van die land
van hulle wat modderkoekies gebak het uit sy aarde,
dassies skrikgemaak het in sy klowe
wol getrap het in sy krale.
Ek het asemloos toegekyk: swart bolywe geboë oor magtelose diere
en skerp skêre wat my laat wag het,
bang vir glip-slag, die bloed, die pyn.
Maar die swart versigtige hande het selde dieper as die wit geknip
en ek kon die lootjies uitdeel
want die arbeider was sy loon waardig
volgens die aantal wat hy vrygemaak het
om ligvoets teen die somerheuwels uit te wei.
Maar die bale is lankal toegewerk en weggestuur,
die wololie van my voete afgewas,
my bene nie meer lam getrap nie.
Vergewe ons die vergeetagtiges, die uitgerustes,
soos ons hulle vergewe, die luidrugtiges
wat nooit binne die kraal was nie,
wat nooit rietperd gery
en kaalvoet geloop het nie.
en Here, sion hande aan:
Kyk, om my wit pols is ’n armband van gras;
my donker speelmaat het dit kunstig gevleg
soos ek nooit kon nie …
Aan u behoort die land
en die son
en die skape van sy weiding
Gee ons liefdevolle hande, Heer,
en sny U self versigtig aan die belemmerende kleed
dat daar nie onnodig bloed verspil nie
en deel U self dit lootjies uit

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Standerton is the National Party’s chief spokesman on defence matters. During this week a number of burning issues on Defence have been raised on this side of the House by the hon member for Wynberg and other hon members, but all the hon member for Standerton did was to attack the hon member for Wynberg in particular with smear stories which called his bona fides into question. These obviously are tactics which he has learned from his master, the hon the Minister of Defence and his speech is not worth reacting to.

The referendum result that the National Party gained recently seems to have had the effect of causing that party to lapse into smug self-satisfaction. An atmosphere of complacency seems to have overtaken the National Party in the wake of that result, and this, I must say, is a disturbing thing.

I should like to comment on three features of the debate, and the first is this tendency towards complacency. It is a disturbing mood, and I believe it is necessary to remind the House and the public that a favourable referendum result in itself certainly did not help the people to Rhodesia to solve their problems or help them to avoid a tragic, bloody war. It is ironic indeed that the National Party, in their compaign for the “yes” vote, used an advertisement which said “Rhodesia voted no and that is how they became Zimbabwe”. This is a gross distortion of the facts of that situation. This slogan should have read: “Rhodesia voted yes. That is how they became Zimbabwe”. This advertisement refers to a referendum held in 1922. What relevance has that to the present day? The fact is that in Rhodesia there were two referendums in recent years which have a real bearing on our situation. There was a referendum held by Mr Smith in June 1969 on his so-called 1969 constitution. He called it a world-beater. It was the parity constitution. Mr Ian Smith did much better than 66%. He received almost 75% of the total number of votes cast in that referendum. Subsequently there was another referendum. It was held ten years later in connection with the adoption of the so-called Zimbabwe/Rhodesia constitution. That was in January 1979, and on that occasion Mr Ian Smith received over 80% of the total number of votes. He actually received the support of 85% of the electorate, and that for a constitution which lasted less than a year until it was swept away by the new state of Zimbabwe.

The clear moral of that situation is that an overwhelming majority obtained from a limited electorate in a referendum on a onesided constitution provides absolutely no grounds for smug complacency. Anyone who believes that the disenfranchised people of South Africa will calmly accept the political non-existence to which this new constitution is going to consign them, is living in a fool’s paradise. We would do well to take account of the words of Edmund Burke. More than 200 years ago—in 1777—he said:

People crushed by law have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies they will be enemies to laws, and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.

Having made those sombre observations, however—which, I earnestly hope, will not be fulfilled in South Africa—I should like to refer to two aspects of this debate which perhaps have some mildly positive potential in our politics of today.

The first is that it would appear that in the wake of the referendum result the NP has gained a new confidence in its dealings with the CP. Their former attitude of exaggerated concern—their sometimes hysterical reactions—seem to have ameliorated, and if the referendum has served to release the NP from the psychological shackles of the CP, then we can perhaps say something positive has come out of the referendum.

In the hope that the NP is now set to be more bold on the road of reform I should like to register an appeal in respect of one important aspect of the implementation phase of the new constitution.

I refer to the physical location of the new MPs and their new chambers. There have been rumours about this matter; about where the new Coloured and Indian chambers are going to be located. The most common talk is about a Coloured chamber in the present quarters of the President’s Council, down on the Foreshore, and an Indian chamber somewhere in Plein Street. I do not know what the situation is. Whether these rumours are true still remains to be seen. We await a declaration. However, be j tween now and the time when new buildings can be erected there is going to be an interregnum, a period from the time when this new constitution is put into practice until everything is firmly and finally established. During this period it would appear that these other chambers are going to have to conduct their business in other parts of Cape Town, and I believe that would be a serious mistake.

I believe it should be policy to ensure that right from the first day the new chambers should meet within the precincts of this Parliament.

Dr H M J VAN RENSBURG (Mossel Bay):

How will you accomplish that?


I am sure that temporary arrangements could be made if there is a will to do so. [Interjections.] All right, I shall make some suggestions. One suggestion is that the Senate Chamber could be used. Another suggestion is that the formal Dining Room, which used to be the old Cape Parliamentary Chamber, could be used, even if it should mean temporary arrangements in respect of the accommodation of catering and office conveniences. [Interjections.] I believe we can make a plan. Where there is a will there is a way. I believe that if one is serious about breathing life into this new constitutional dispensation one will approach this matter seriously as a symbolic issue. By establishing the new chambers within the precincts of this Parliament the new constitution, bravely flawed as it is, could be launched to the best possible advantage that its limited provisions allow. To have them operate in some other part of Cape Town would sour the beginning of the so-called new deal, and in view of the fact that Coloureds and Indians cannot even sit with us in the present Dining Room as our guests, I believe that their physical entry as colleagues into these historical parliamentary precincts would in fact be a significant symbolic step, which I would encourage the Government to take. With apologies to Mr Neil Armstrong, it would be a very small step for mankind but a giant leap for the NP.

With great deference to you, Sir, I also want to make the observation that it would be extremely difficult for Mr Speaker to physically absent himself during the sittings of these Chambers from these precincts in order to attend meetings in other parts of Cape Town. I hope that the Government will respond in this regard.

There is a third feature of the debate with which I should like to deal. I refer to another trend that seems to have emerged this week and which may also have mildly positive potential. I am referring to all this talk about consensus government. If the Government is really serious about embarking upon true consensus government then perhaps we may have something to which the PFP can really respond positively. The principle of consensus government, like many other points of policy that have been picked up from this party, is a cardinal ingredient of PFP policy. For the sake of the record I should like to refer the House to the PFP’s constitutional blue book which sets out policy that was adopted at our Durban Congress in 1978. Section 4.4 states quite clearly:

The PFP believes in consensus government.

Section 4.4.3 gets to the heart of the matter and states:

Consensus implies a willingness on the part of all the significant political groupings represented in the legislature and the executive to co-operate in the protection and promotion of the interests of the country while taking each other’s interests into account as well.
Dr H M J VAN RENSBURG (Mossel Bay):

Words, words, words!


Mr Speaker, this is a definition, and that hon member is a legal man who understands the importance of words on occasion. This actually is the heart of real consensus government and if the Government is thinking seriously of moving in this direction then perhaps we stand at the beginning of a more fruitful era in our politics. However, the hon the Deputy Minister of Welfare and of Community Development—and I am pleased to see him in the House this afternoon—spoke on this matter at great length. In fact, he devoted the best part of his speech to it on Monday. I am sorry to say, however, that despite all the flowery words from the NP, that hon Deputy Minister poured a great deal of cold water upon any hope there may have been that we are moving into an era of consensus government. If his words are actually a true reflection of what the NP is thinking when it talks about consensus government then there is a very, very wide gulf between what we understand by it and what that party understands by it as well as what that party understands by it and the actual meaning of consensus government.

While discoursing on this subject, the hon the Deputy Minister laid out areas of broad agreement which he said do in fact cross party lines, and it was an impressive list. I am very grateful that he set these matters out. He mentioned broad agreement on economic and strategic issues, broad agreement on the necessity to maintain law and order and broad agreement to maintain infrastructural development; the need for home-ownership, the need to preserve the environment, the maintenance of our cultural heritage and so forth and so forth. I have the hon the Deputy Minister’s revised Hansard here.

*These are his own words:

I have mentioned a long list of matters on which there is consensus among our people, and I could greatly add to this list. What must still be added is an act of will; a change of attitude among our people…

However, the hon the Deputy Minister gave away the whole game when he said the following earlier on in his speech:

In Pinetown we and the NRP gave a practical demonstration of consensus politics.

†What was this practical demonstration of consensus politics in Pinetown? In this regard the hon the Deputy Minister had the following to say:

It was very clear to us as the senior party that our interests must be subservient to our prime objective, namely to defeat the PFP.

That is the giveaway. His basic point of departure for consensus with the NRP on this occasion is that they jointly agree to try to get rid of the PFP. What kind of basis is that; what kind of consensus is that? That is merely warmed over National Party exclusivism using the NRP as a catspaw. The NP cannot even begin to start on the road of consensus government if its starting point is that it wishes to destroy, to exclude and to crush one genuine element of the society that it claims it wishes to embrace in the consensus.

Whatever the NP may think of the PFP and its policies and principles, the fact remains that we represent a genuine, legitimate, sincere segment of South Africa, and we are not going to go away, as the hon member for Pinelands said. We are here, we are not going to go away, and we are a growing force. Moreoever, let us look at the statistics. Approximately 20% of the White electorate are supporters of this party. This is on record, and it is on record in Rapport after the referendum. This is a figure to which we have been growing. Not only that, but if one looks at this 20%, at how this 20% is made up, there is another fact that one must take into account, and that is that within that 20% the PFP represents the majority views of English-speaking South Africans. There is no doubt that some 30% of the English-speaking South Africans support the NP. That is a fact that must be conceded too. The NRP represents a very small section as well.

Equally it cannot be denied that a very significant slice of the White electorate, indeed the majority of the English-speaking electorate, sees this party as its chosen vehicle. So, if the NP is seeking to enter an era of consensus, if it is seeking to draw a Hendrickse, a Curry, a Rajbansi into the process of government, then the question must be asked: What about a Slabbert, what about a Treurnicht? They too represent legitimate sections of our society. Where is the logic in the Government suggesting that it wishes to move in the direction of consensus by seeking to draw in representatives of those communities while one of its points of departure is to smash legitimate representatives of parts of the White community?

The fatal defect of NP thinking is that it has always been obsessed with a desire to have exclusive control over political affairs. The only people the NP has ever sought to draw into the process of government are people who first have to agree with the NP. The Government makes a big play of having made overtures to the English-speaking electorate eg, by saying that they have an English-speaking Minister of Finance and a Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. That however, is not indicative of consensus; that is a travesty of consensus because it requires that one must first become a Nationalist or someone indistinguishable from a Nationalist like the NRP before there can be any consensus with the NP.

If they are genuine about consensus government, then the NP will allow all these leaders of legitimate sections of our society to be what they are and they will seek to draw them in in that capacity as genuine leaders of elements of the society. Perhaps that will be the beginning of true consensus and perhaps that will represent a major change of heart on the part of the NP.

If the NP’s victory in the referendum has caused them to have that kind of a change of heart, then this party has no hesitation in promising constructive participation in the earnest hope that this will further down the road lead towards full democratic partnership amongst all the people of South Africa. However, until we have firm evidence of a genuine change of heart, we have no confidence in the NP.

In view of the fact that this is the last no-confidence debate under our present Westminster system, and it is a historic occasion, I should like to conclude by saying that our guidepost in the political life of South Africa, whatever the constitution may be, is the guidepost of democracy; free democracy. I want to quote Winston Churchill who said in the House of Commons on 11 November 1947:

Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

The principle of government by the consent of the governed is our guiding principle in politics, and we will serve that principle in the new political system as well.


Mr Speaker, since this no-confidence debate is probably going to be the last of its kind under the present system, one would have expected the hon the Leader of the Opposition to have gone out of his way to weigh up the policy of his party against that of the NP. That did not happen, however, and it did not happen in the case of any of the other PFP speakers. We have grown accustomed to the hon the Leader of the Opposition not stating all his points and his policy at the beginning of debates such as this, but at the end of the debate, in his reply. Consequently we foresee another great plethora of policy statements in his reply, on which no one can make any criticism or comment. That is exactly what we expect.

When one looks at a referendum one sees that a referendum has the habit of determining the stature of the leaders of political parties, as well as the stature of the co-leaders of political parties. In that way there is a certain conclusion which can be drawn about the leadership of the Conservative Party. The stature of the leadership of the Conservative party is going to be determined by the three sixes of which mention was made. The time has come for the hon the Leader of the CP to tell us whether there is any connection in his mind between the three sixes he mentioned and the three sixes mentioned in the book of Revelations. The Leader of the CP must answer that question, because his reply will determine his stature in the politics of South Africa.

†When we come to the stature of the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to refer to a few things. It is in order for a leader of the Opposition to move a motion of no-confidence in the Government if he is certain that his party can be elected as an alternative government in a forthcoming election. He must be convinced that he has the support of the voters of this country and that he has a viable policy.

The hon Leader of the Opposition himself has no confidence in the fact that his party can become a viable government. I am sure that he has no confidence that his party can possibly win a next election. He goes so far as to say that in a pamphlet which I have here. In this pamphlet “The balance of power puts secure future within your reach”, the hon the Leader of the Opposition says the following:

Give us the balance of power in the next election and we can lead this country to safety.

He is only opting for a balance of power, and when one looks at how he goes about it, it becomes very intriguing indeed. He says that after the next election he will lead the country on a balance of power as follows: He says that the NP will have 75 votes, the PFP 50 plus votes and the other opposition 40 plus votes. This, of course, pre-supposes that the hon the Leader of the Opposition can get a working agreement and arrangement with, inter alia, the CP. They will ask the voters to vote for them because they will be able to obtain a working arrangement with the CP. If that is not true, they must at least say that they have a working arrangement with the NRP. I will put it this way to the voters of the PFP. If they can believe that the PFP can come to a working arrangement with the CP, they deserve to vote for the PFP because no one in his right mind can possibly think of the hon member for Houghton agreeing with the hon member for Waterberg. The gullibility of the PFP voters is therefore exposed and not only that, the confusion in the minds of the PFP leadership is made manifest. How can they then possibly form a coalition with those parties.

I would like to underline the confusion in the ranks of the leadership of the PFP. No less a person than the hon the Leader of the Opposition himself said the following: “I said that a simple yes/no question would result in more confusion than clarity”. Confusion is indeed now reigning. He is correct and nowhere is it more manifest than in the leadership of the PFP itself.

In order to underline the confusion in the leadership of that party and the confused way in which they attempt to lead their voters to the polls, I would like to quote from a pamphlet issued by that party which is called Comment. Somewhere in this pamphlet we find this gem written under the hand of the hon the Leader of the Opposition himself. He says:

To ask whether one supports the new constitution is to ask whether one thinks it is good enough for South Africa. My short answer is No.

So far, so good. It is a short “no” answer. Then he says:

If I am asked whether I will participate in the new constitution my short answer is yes.

That is again a short answer. However, now comes a rather revealing statement. He says the following:

I can see no other way of pursuing nonviolent constitutional change but to participate in this system.

If that is the only way that non-violent change can take place then I suggest that any other way of trying to come to an arrangement would lead to violence. If that does lead to violence, the whole policy of the PFP has gone by the board because now their national convention is not an alternative. That is obviously so. I see the hon member for Hillbrow is shaking his head, but he should read what his leader says. It says in this pamphlet:

I can see no other way of pursuing nonviolent constitutional change.

He is quite clear about it. That means that at present the hon the Leader of the Opposition has no policy regarding a national convention and he is asking the people of Pinetown and other places to vote for a party without a policy.


You must be joking.


No, I am quite serious. If that is so, I do not know where confusion can be more manifest than in these statements. The confusion is further underlined when, after considering all the pros and cons of the referendum and all the difficulties he has had and all the statements he has made, the hon the Leader of the Opposition comes to the revealing and blissful conclusion: “The PFP is off the hook”. How confused can one become.

*I want to go further and say that the time has come for us to be positive. We must argue in a positive way, because on 2 November the South African nation indicated that it wanted the constitutional development for all the people in this country to be disposed of. At least 30% of the Progressive Federal Party supporters also said so. The constitutional development process for all the population groups is now taking place.

It is taking place among the Coloured group. I do not wish to interfere in their affairs, but they are beginning to participate in this constitutional development. Then one realizes there are three things that are happening among the Coloureds. Firstly, they have a leadership that knows where it wants to go. Secondly, they have attained a political maturity. Thirdly, they are prepared to intertwine their political future with that of the other population groups in this country. This is a wonderful thing that has happened.

In the same way we find that things are stirring among the Indians as well. If the Indians, like the Progressive Federal Party, decide that this is the only way of proceeding with development without disturbances arising, they, too, are going to vote the right way and participate.

Today we are experiencing the wonderful situation that that stream of political development which was dammed up for so long, and which could almost have become pestilential as a result of disturbances, etc, is now flowing further. That dam has now been broken and the stream of development is flowing again. That stream of development is taking place today thanks to the far-sighted leadership of the hon the Prime Minister. When the history of the referendum is written, the stature of one political leader will tower above the rest, namely that of our Prime Minister.

One often hears that the development of the Black man is not very clear, that the NP does not know where we are going with the Black man. I want to say that the process of constitutional development of the Black man is taking place in front of our very eyes. A new climate of realism is developing among our Black people as well, a realism in which they understand that we were established here in order to build Southern Africa together into something great, a realism which perceives that stability can only be built on political realism.

When we consider the development which is taking place all around us, we must also look at the development which is taking place in our independent states. I have here a little book which is well worth reading. I am referring to a little book entitled Multilateral Co-operation in Southern Africa, 1983. This demonstrates to one the course of development of our independent states. I want to refer to only a few aspects of this process. Firstly, it is written here that the South African Republic, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda, and Ciskei have all agreed to the following:

The burden which 62 multilateral and nine regional meetings placed on the five states was worth the effort.

†There were 62 multilateral and 9 regional meetings. All I can say is that the five states are moving forward like a flotilla of ships to a common destination, each with its own captain and its own crew. We have embarked on a common course in South Africa. We see in this book matters such as the agreements that have been reached as regards the principles of multilateral co-operation, the framework of multilateral co-operation, the Development Bank for Southern Africa and the 1983 work programme etc. Then there are hon members in this House who still dare to say that the National Party does not know where it is going. We know very well. All we ask the people of South Africa is: Follow us. We know where we are going.

*We can become enthusiastic about the developments which are taking place. It is worthwhile becoming enthusiastic. In this way our dialogue with all the leaders is developing. The national states, too, are engaged in discussions. We need only consider what happened on Monday. On Monday a number of local authorities came together in Cape Town to establish a Co-ordinating Council for Local Authority Matters. Serving on that body are Whites, Coloureds and Indians under the chairmanship of the hon Minister Heunis. Is this not a wonderful development? It is of historic importance. This is something we can be proud of. It shows that there is movement and that we are moving forward. We know where we are going.

One can also think of the Black local authorities, approximately 18 of which were personally established by Dr Morrison during the past few months. I have attended certain other similar meetings. Those Black people are enthusiastic. The mayors are brimming with confidence and glad that they can do something for their people in this country. In addition, they know that they have the support of the Government whenever they need it.

Sir, are we able to grasp over what a broad front the Government is causing development in the constitutional sphere to take place? The front is so extensive that one cannot perceive everything. Take note of this, we are on the move. Consultations are being held, and breathtaking developments are taking place.


Are you bringing the Blacks in?


If the hon member for Langlaagte cannot formulate a question properly, he should rather not ask one. He must formulate his question clearly so that I can know what he is talking about.

The leaders of the national states met the hon the Prime Minister in January this year and matters of common interest were discussed. This meeting was such a great success that similar meetings will take place again in future. Is this not something reassuring, the fact that the future of this country is in safe hands? We know where we are going. The hon member for Lichtenburg said that we did not know where we were going. I want to tell him that we do know where we are going. Never before in the history of South Africa has there been so much simultaneously geared constitutional development. Let me add: Never before has the future held so many attainable promises.

The guidance we receive from the Cabinet inspires confidence. Just look at the 66% yes-vote in the referendum. We have thorough, scientific and skilful political leadership. With realism we are building up our stability and moving forward. Outside our borders as well the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is bringing about major changes. He is working untiringly day and night. We wish him everything of the best.

When we make a survey of the leadership of South Africa, which has now emerged as a result of the referendum, we want to give humble thanks for the outcome of the poll. We want to give thanks to the Father for having shown us this mercy. We also want to give thanks for the spirit of friendly nationalism which has taken root. We want to ask the Opposition to help build with realism for the sake of stability. Instead of moving a motion of no confidence here, a motion of full confidence in the Government should instead have been moved.

Mr Speaker, I now move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.


Mr Speaker, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 18h24.