House of Assembly: Vol114 - THURSDAY 24 MAY 1984
Mr Chairman, just before the debate adjourned yesterday I was dealing with the speech of the hon member for Rissik, and specifically with reference to four things he mentioned, implying that I was at the forefront in achieving them.
The hon member referred to the position of the State President and to his powers, as well as to the fact that I was supposedly responsible for the fact that the State President could be a Coloured or an Asian. I pointed out to the hon member that in reply to a question he told me that he had supported Mr Vorster. I also pointed out to him that when in April 1978, Mr Vorster explained here the 1977 proposals, which the hon member for Rissik ostensibly supported, he said that the legislation that was to be introduced to put those proposals into effect, would not contain any provision to the effect that the State President would be White, Coloured or Asian. As a matter of fact, he said that his colour would be wholly immaterial. Now I want to know from the hon member for Rissik why he holds it against me when I do things, the principles of which were determined by the leader he supported. What is therefore at issue is not the powers of the State President, but the colour of his skin. If this is what is at issue now, why was it not also at issue then?
However, I want to take this matter a step further with the hon member for Rissik. The hon member went on to say that in the first place the White man has lost his sovereignty in the Republic of South Africa. The self-determination of any group is, after all, not an absolute; it is relative in a society such as ours. If joint responsibility amongst groups implies a forfeiture of the White man’s sovereignty, however, the hon member should not hold that against me. I assume that in the same way that he was an adherent of Mr Vorster, he is now an adherent of the hon the leader of the CP. This is what I assume, Mr Chairman. If we take note of what he has done in this connection, it is clear that it is not I who signed away the sovereignty of the Whites; it is surely the hon member for Waterberg who did so when, in 1981, he endorsed with his own signature a statement indicating that he was in favour of self-determination in regard to own affairs for each group and joint responsibility in regard to general affairs. I therefore want to suggest that in politics we should at least restrict ourselves to the truth. I must admit that it is, of course, no easy matter for the hon member for Rissik to attain those standards. [Interjections.]
It is, after all, true that the hon member for Waterberg lent his signature to a standpoint of which the hon member for Rissik is now accusing me. The only difference is that I accept responsibility for the standpoints I adopt. This is a lesson they could also learn.
The hon member for Rissik went on to say that the Government had succeeded in not finding a solution to the population problems relating to the Coloureds and the Indians. Just notice the interesting way in which the hon member for Rissik argues, Mr Chairman. On the one hand he says that with these constitutional proposals we are forfeiting the sovereignty of the Whites. He says these are the implications of the proposals. At the same time, however, he says that the Coloureds and the Indians are not getting anything under the new dispensation. To whom is the sovereignty being forefeited? Is it suspended in a vacuum? What absurdities are being presented as arguments here? It cannot, after all, be true that on the one hand the White man has lost his self-determination, while on the other the Coloureds and the Asians are not gaining self-determination. It is, after all, only the CP that can reason in this way.
The hon member for Rissik went further, however, and said that the Government had encroached upon the sovereignty of Parliament. In the first place the hon member for Rissik knows, just as well as every other hon member does, that this is not the first time that the sovereignty of Parliament has been influenced or affected. There was a time when this White Parliament had sovereignty over every independent State that was part of the Republic. The sovereignty of this Parliament was affected in terms of the Status Acts which afforded those independent states their independence. The hon member for Rissik was also part of the process at that stage.
When the Legislative Assemblies of the self-governing national states came into being the authority and the sovereignty of this Parliament was also affected. This took place with the active participation of the hon member for Rissik and all his hon party members.
The 1977 proposals, which according to his own admission the hon member supported, not only affected the sovereignty of this Parliament, but the very concepts of general affairs and own affairs were also a fundamental part of those proposals. Is it not true that in terms of the hon member for Rissik’s proposals this Parliament has to forfeit its decision-making powers with regard to own affairs for Coloureds and Indians? It is after all, untrue that Parliament is forfeiting its sovereignty because it is going to be constituted differently in future. By arguing in this way, the hon member for Rissik is admitting that he is far more concerned about the fact that Coloureds will be getting into Parliament and that it will no longer be a totally White Parliament. It therefore has nothing to do with the concepts of sovereignty and self-determination. [Interjections.]
I shall be getting round to the hon member for Lichtenburg. He need not be in such a hurry. Of course the part he played in this is an equally dubious one.
†I should like now to go back to the no-confidence debate of last year. During that debate I made certain statements in regard to the results of the Government’s initiatives on reform. I said then:
I also said then:
I believe that this is a suitable occasion on which to consider those statements and to determine whether they can still be held to be true.
Of course, I accept the fact that these statements of mine should be evaluated against the background of certain events that have happened since. What are those events? Firstly, Parliament approved a new constitution by a two-thirds majority; secondly, on 2 November last year the White electorate, also by a two-thirds majority, approved that constitution. Hon members in this Committee who argue against that new constitution and who have said that if they have the chance they will destroy that constitution are therefore doing so against the will of two-thirds of the White electorate. Thirdly, Coloured and Indian leaders are engaged in elections for the new Houses of Parliament; and fourthly, the date for the implementation of the new constitution has been set down for 3 September of this year.
I submit in all sincerity that nobody in this Committee can dispute the fact that these events prove that the great majority of the White electorate not only recognize the need for reform but also approve of the way in which the Government is tackling that reform; and secondly, that the great majority of the White electorate in South Africa are aware of our situation and of the problems that beset this country, and that they accept the Government’s bona fides also with regard to the political development of the Black people. I say therefore that these events prove the sincerity of the Government and also that the Government is honouring its commitment to evolutionary change. They prove moreover that our appreciation of good intergroup relationship and belief in mutual respect and co-operation rather than in confrontation and rejection runs deep in our society. I believe that this augurs well for the future of our country.
These events have shown that the new dispensation can be launched successfully in plural societies. In this regard I submit that we are setting an example to other countries with similar problems. Despite pessimism and frantic warnings the White electorate has shown that they are able to rise above themselves and their fears and prejudices. I believe that this spirit will have a wide and beneficial influence on the elections which are to take place on 22 and 28 August this year.
Of course, when progress of this nature is made, it is impossible to avoid some negative side-effects. Extremism both from the left and the right became more pronounced during the past year. However, while such reaction is to be expected, I believe that our task is to prevent those forces from gaining momentum and from jeopardising our reform initiatives in this country. I say this in all seriousness: Our people inside this House as well as our people outside this House are being held responsible for these initiatives to gain momentum. I believe that all right-minded South Africans should join hands in defending every small step taken towards peaceful co-existence in this country. I should like to repeat this: I believe that every right-minded South African should actively support every step to ensure evolutionary reform in South Africa. Whether in terms of their policies such a step is adequate or not, the fact is that the process is in movement and is expanding in terms of the participation of people.
*I want to say in all modesty that the most dramatic event in the constitutional history of our country took place last year with the acceptance of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill by this House and its endorsement by the voters. The fact remains that this had a dramatic effect, because whether we like it or not, for the first time in the history of our fatherland people other than Whites are becoming part of the legislative authority at the highest level in our country.
That is surely what the United Party wanted.
I admit that the hon member for Rissik can talk with more authority about the United Party than I can. His past enables him to do so.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?
I am not prepared to allow the hon member a question.
Order! The hon the Minister does not want to reply to a question.
I announced that the constitution would come into effect …
You are too short-tempered.
The hon member is too slow-witted.
Be civilized for a change and answer us.
I shall answer the hon members.
I announced that the constitution would come into effect on 3 September and that we now found ourselves in an important preparatory phase in which concrete steps would be taken to make this possible. Everyone in this House will have to prepare himself to participate in the new constitution. We shall have to prepare ourselves emotionally and psychologically.
I should like to raise a question: What is our attitude in this House towards the new dispensation? I believe that the answer to this depends on our evaluation of the new dispensation and the criteria we adopt to gauge it or assess it. Let me acknowledge at once today that at this level we are wrestling with the basic problem—every party sitting here—namely that our criteria for assessment and frequently also for condemnation are not always in line with the problem on hand and with what is constitutionally possible in our society. We cannot use First-World criteria. They do not apply to South African society. Those criteria are based on the individualistic systems of the Western World and do not apply to a multi-national society. They were not designed for multinational societies either. We cannot pass such tests. As a matter of fact, no society with comparable problems and a similar population structure can pass them. In comparable situations Western constitutional recipes have, time and again, been found to be unsuitable. In this connection I associate myself with what the hon member for Klip River said. But no one should accuse us of not pursuing Western ideals. In fact, these ideals and truths are articulated in the preamble to our constitution. But what is at issue here is how we can, by using other methods, realize those ideals in the specific circumstances prevailing in this country. Western criteria cannot be applied when we measure aspects of constitutional development in South Africa such as of scope, rate and objectives.
Let us not start by weighing the new constitution up against Western standards which, as I have said, cannot be applied.
Let us weigh it up against the particular circumstances and demands of this country. The question is not whether we are achieving success in terms of those models, but whether we are achieving success in terms of the demands and the circumstances of South Africa. People talk so glibly about acceptability as a test for constitutional reform, and therefore also as a test for the new dispensation. But, Sir, is it not, after all, a fact that organizations’ and people’s requirements for acceptability differ from one other? What, for example, do we mean when we say a dispensation has to be acceptable to foreign countries. There is, after all, not only the single international world. The Western World demands a different democratic and economic system to the Marxist World. There can be no suggestion of South Africa being acceptable to them in terms of their criteria. Let me emphasize this here: We do not draft constitutions to satisfy foreign countries and we do not draft constitutions for the purposes of export to foreign countries. We focus on our requirements and circumstances. In this connection we also have to realize this truth, namely that local acceptance to a large extent determines overseas acceptance. I believe that the true test if whether we achieve success in terms of local requirements of acceptability. Let us weigh it up objectively against the reaction of people inside South Africa. The hon the Leader of the official Opposition, in spite of his opposition to the system itself, is leading his party into the new dispensation. He is going to participate, and even went so far as to distribute, in pamphlet form, a speech in which he advocated participation. We have therefore made progress in terms of acceptability. [Interjections.] He says he does not accept it, but he is going to participate. Only he can understand that sort of logic.
The NRP has already demonstrated its participation during the referendum, not thereby indicating approval of every facet, but indicating approval to the process taking place in this country.
Several Coloured leaders, both political and otherwise, are actively involved in a campaign to propagate the new dispensation among their voters.
The unequivocal decision of the Whites in the referendum has had a positive ripple effect on all groups and in all spheres.
In spite of attempts to persuade them that Black people are excluded from the constitutional development, more Black leaders than ever before in the history of South Africa are at present participating in negotiations on their future. Today there are more formal and informal forums than ever before for negotiation and bargaining with leaders of Black communities in independent states, in national states and outside those states. Notwithstanding the great and deep-rooted philosophical differences, discussions are taking place over a wider spectrum than ever before. This is happening to such an extent that the hon the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he would like to give evidence before the Cabinet Committee.
The new constitution has also made a large contribution to the success of the diplomatic initiatives being taken. Do we understand to what extent the requirements for stability are being met in the constitution? I am not thereby implying that the new constitution is final. When the then Prime Minister participated in the constitutional debate of 1961, he said that that constitution was not the final constitution for South Africa.
One fact remains, and that is that the image of South Africa has changed. Its image, as perceived by Africa, has changed. It has also changed as far as the world view of South Africa is concerned. Just consider what is happening in the southern part of the continent. In every sphere South Africa is making progress.
I want to issue a word of warning and that is that in our debates and in our actions here we should not lend strength to organizations outside Parliament and our country that are not striving for peaceful co-existence in South Africa. We should have no illusions about how sensitive the lines or threads of reform in this country are. We must do everything in our power to continue the process. I want to issue a word of warning that we should not weave the emotional threads too lightly. The hon the Leader of the official Opposition knows what I am talking about. As a matter of fact, he expressed his concern about this very aspect. There are radical standpoints, both left-wing and right-wing, which can only lead to violence. I want to emphasize that this is also true of extreme right-wing standpoints. We should not confuse these standpoints with a desire to preserve, nor should these ultra-right-wing standpoints and movements be confused with conservatism. At present there is a dangerous tendency for one to be the guise behind which the other flourishes. I want to repeat that in the name of conservatism and a desire to preserve radicalism is flourishing. It is a tragedy that there are groups in the country who conceal their true intentions behind alleged conservatism and a desire to preserve. They pose as guardians of the traditional, but their actions and associations contain the seeds of destruction. This is just as dangerous as those who seek the destruction of the existing social system under the guise of liberalism.
The hon members for Sea Point, Yeoville, and others, asked for more information on the working of the new dispensation. I should like to give the information I have at my disposal at present. Hon members will understand that it takes time to introduce certain administrative changes. Some hon members of the Opposition parties are, in fact, participating in those processes, for example in the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and in the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements of this House. In order to assist hon members I indicated yesterday what dates we had in mind for certain events. I want to refer to certain other important aspects. At the beginning of the year a working committee of officials was appointed to co-ordinate Government action in connection with the implementation of the constitution. All the departments directly involved in this are represented on this committee which meets under the chairmanship of the Director-General of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. From the functions of this working committee it is clear that attention will have to be given to certain aspects.
The first of these are the elections. In view of the commencement of the new constitution three months from now, the election of representatives for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates is probably the most important aspect in connection with the implementation of the constitution, not only because nothing can take place prior to the election of the representatives for these two Houses, but also because of the political implications. It is an undeniable fact that the acceptability of the new dispensation to Coloureds and Indians will, to a large extent, be determined by the success or otherwise of their elections. That is why there is such a bitter and vicious campaign being waged against the Coloureds in regard to their participation.
The Department of Internal Affairs made an early start on the spadework, and the delimitation of the 120 constituencies by the delimitation commission will be finalized by the end of May. The registration of voters also closes at the end of the month, and it is expected that the voters’ rolls will be available in July. It has already been announced that the elections will take place on 22 and 28 August. I want to take this opportunity to make an appeal to Brown and Indian voters, and I should be obliged if hon members of all parties would associate themselves with this. The acquisition of political rights does not mean much in itself. It only brings dividends if those who acquire them do in fact exercise them. That is why the new dispensation for the Coloured and Indian populations will not entail any benefits if they do not seize upon these newly-acquired political rights and make use of them. I therefore make an earnest appeal to these two communities not to allow the opportunity for participation to slip through their fingers. The casting of a vote on 22 and 28 August is not merely a civic duty; it is also a duty which must be exercised by everyone who has the progress of these two population groups at heart.
The new constitution has come into being in a process that, for Whites, has been difficult and often dramatic. No one is more aware of that than I am. In this regard Whites have done their share. Whether or not this dispensation becomes a successful reality, now depends on the Brown and Indian communities or voters. If the hand that has been extended is rejected, it takes no prophet to predict that that would mean a serious, and even a fatal, setback for peaceful constitutional reform. A tremendous responsibility rests upon these communities, because in the same way that we Whites held the future in our hands on 2 November, on 22 and 28 August it will be in the hands of the Brown people and the Indians. I hope that the responsibility acquired will be accepted with responsibility.
Attention is being given by all relevant departments to essential legislation in respect of the new dispensation so that it can be piloted through this House during this session. Various Acts are involved. A few technical amendments to the constitution have to be effected. An amended Exchequer and Audit Act must be placed on the Statute Book. Arrangements must be made to make funds available for the new dispensation for the rest of the financial year. The following Acts must be amended: The Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, the Payment of Members of Parliament Act; the Parliamentary Service Act; the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act; the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Schemes Act, etc.
Considerable progress has been made with regard to Parliamentary matters. A Subcommittee on Standing Rules and Orders has dealt with the preparation of draft joint procedures and with the adjustment of the internal procedures of the House of Assembly. In this regard special attention was given to the role that the joint committees will play in the new dispensation, to the new legislative procedures as demanded by a tricameral Parliament, and to the most effective utilization of joint committees, as well as to new budgeting procedures in an effort to shorten the process.
An investigation has also been launched into the possibility of a change in the future sessional pattern, and in the process the possibility of rationalizing and structuring the legislative programme, and even of abbreviating it, is being investigated.
The administrative measures and structures have also been investigated. In the discussion of his Vote my colleague, the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, reported on the progress made by the Commission for Administration as regards the provision of the necessary administrative infrastructure for the new dispensation. I shall confine myself to the remark that excellent progress is being made as regards the creation of the administrations, the transfer of functions and the staff and organizational implications.
My colleague the hon the Minister of Community Development is performing his task in regard to the accommodation of the Houses as well as the accommodation of Ministers, members of Ministers’ Councils and members of Parliament.
The phasing out of the President’s Council and the SA Indian Council is also being attended to, as I announced yesterday.
It is evident that the Government is giving attention over a wide spectrum to putting the new dispensation into effect as efficiently and expeditiously as possible. It is also evident that this is a wideranging task, but I have every confidence that, humanly speaking, we shall be here in September to usher in a new and exciting era.
The constitution faces all of us with the challenge and responsibility of making a success of the new dispensation for the sake of ourselves and our children, for the sake of everyone who lives in this country and shares it with us, and also for the sake of initiatives that we envisage in the constitutional sphere. Failure will mean either that we are not given another chance, or that we shall be in such a weak negotiating position that we shall not be able to offer any certainty to those who come after us.
The constitution faces the Coloureds and the Indians with the challenge and responsibility of participating in the processes of government on an equal basis in a sophisticated system. I think that they, too, perceive that this is an opportunity to be grasped with faith and enthusiasm. It is not an easy course to choose. It brings division, and in many respects it is an uncharted course, but for those who put South Africa’s interests first there is no alternative. The greatest test, because it is a personal test—this links up with what the hon member for Mossel Bay had to say—lies at the level of human relations. It seems to me that we have become so mature, or at least that there are a sufficient number of mature people, to enable us to pass that test well, but ultimately this is a personal matter which each of us will be faced with individually, and concerning which no one can give guarantees to another.
The constitution provides a framework and establishes the structures within which those concerned can participate in the decision-making process. The hon member for Yeoville is correct: It is not the Act that will succeed or fail; it is we who will succeed or fail. That is the one responsibility we cannot shift onto anyone.
†The hon member for Sea Point has raised certain issues and among other things he referred to three voids that he perceives in this dispensation. I should like to deal with them but cannot cover all of them today. The hon member said that “The first gaping hole is the whole question of second and third-tier government” and “No one knows what form of local government there is going to be for Coloureds and Indians or for Whites”. He also said: “No one knows under what laws or ordinances they are going to operate”. I presume that the hon member lives in South Africa, but let us deal with these issues nevertheless.
The Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs appointed six committees of inquiry into local government affairs. These committees were representative of the central, the provincial and local government levels. It was also representative of three population groups involved in the proposed constitution. The various municipal associations and interested groups, such as the Institute of Town Clerks, the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, the Institute of Municipal Engineers and the United Municipal Executive were all involved. Mr Chairman, more than 9 500 manhours have been spent on deliberations by more than 120 experts in the field of municipal affairs over a period of six weeks to work out a system, and we have deep appreciation for the work that these men have done. All political convictions are represented on this council and they have succeeded to work together. Not all of those gentlemen approve of this dispensation but as responsible people they are prepared to work within the system.
The hon member for Durban Point has a fear that we are moving too fast with these things while the hon member for Sea Point says we are progressing too slowly. [Interjections.] Sir, I find it difficult to reply conclusively to these two opposite views. Certain proposals are presently being considered by the Cabinet and draft legislation will probably be introduced later during this session. [Interjections.] I may also add that existing legislation—and I want the hon member for Sea Point to listen to this—and ordinances already provide for the establishment of local authorities for Coloured, Indian and Black people. Therefore the only new legislation that is required in this regard is for co-operative action to render joint services by the Regional Services Council, and that is certainly not a foreign idea. Hon member’s fears regarding the operation of the new system are unfounded as the Co-ordinating Council considered the recommendations of the committees and was unanimous on most of their proposals. They were unanimous in their view in relation to the need for uniform electoral qualifications for all groups as far as their local government participation was concerned. They differed strongly on the question of what those qualifications should be. The reason for that is that they have, as a matter of experience, functioned in the various provinces within systems applicable in those provinces. Therefore it was not always possible to persuade people to accept other norms and qualifications. Somebody has to take that decision, however. They were in agreement regarding the need for and the composition of joint services bodies, their finances, their functions and the delimitation of their areas of jurisdiction; and perhaps most important of all, the need for co-operation with other people as well.
These bodies will provide the instrument to collect and distribute the new sources of revenue proposed by the Department of Finance.
Furthermore they were unanimous in their view regarding the need for the training of staff for the new local authorities and the preparation of the councillors as well as the structures required for training purposes to supplement the existing educational and training institutions. They were also unanimous regarding the criteria that should be applied in order to determine the viability of local authorities before decisions were taken on the establishment of new municipalities. They were also unanimous in their view that a delimitation board should be founded for determining the boundaries of local authorities in such a way that their viability should be ensured. This implies that non-viable authorities will not be left out in the cold. The interim measures will remain in force to ensure that their needs are honoured at local government level.
The hon member for Sea Point made a very important observation, an observation with which I incidentally concur. He said, and I quote:
These were his words, Sir. Strange words indeed. By the same token he alleges that one of the flaws, one of the voids, one of the gaps in the constitutional system is the exclusion of Blacks from participation in the political processes.
That is not exactly what I said.
What did the hon member say then? He should correct me if I quote him wrongly.
Mr Chairman, if the hon Minister would read my Hansard he would see that I said that Blacks were excluded from second tier government outside their homelands, and that they were entirely excluded from first tier government. I did not refer to third tier government.
Mr Chairman, the fact is—that is the point I am trying to make— that Blacks have been participating in what the hon member for Sea Point terms the cornerstone of a political dispensation.
On which a political dispensation must be built.
Of course, on which it must be built. What the member is in fact saying, is that when we passed the Act—and he took part in the process of passing that legislation—we built a cornerstone for the constitutional participation by Black people outside the national states and outside the independent Black states.
You must now build the edifice.
That is another matter. The point I am trying to put across to the hon member is that when this legislation was debated here in the House, and also during last year’s referendum campaign, their major objection to it was the exclusion of Black people.
No, that was not so.
The second point made by the hon member for Sea Point, Mr Chairman, is that he fears second tier government might disappear in future. He wants to know what is going to happen in connection with second tier government. The hon member knows that the second level of government is accepted as part and parcel of the constitutional system of South Africa. I have said on every occasion that there will always be a need in this country for that level of government and administration. However, I have also said that the composition of these second level institutions, their functions, their authority and their finances will in the final analysis be determined after Parliament has agreed in regard to what those functions are going to be that will devolve upon local authorities.
In the second instance, it seems to be clear at this stage that there cannot be a repetition of second systems for the various groups, and therefore, in the conclusion of the restructuring of governmental institutions, second level government institutions will probably work with general affairs only. However, the final answer to this cannot be found in one day.
That was the point that I made.
Yes, I am coming to that. The hon member for Sea Point must in all fairness bear in mind the fact that second-tier government consists of three main components. In the first place it consists of an elected council that serves as a legislative body. The second component is the appointment of the administrator with his executive; and thirdly, a team of officials responsible for giving effect to the ordinances and decisions at provincial level. Without any feeling of animosity towards him, I want to ask the hon member whether this statement implies that all these components will disappear. The answer to that is no.
The legislative function will continue?
I have just stated that not all components will disappear. The hon member must please listen to what I say. We will come to this House when these investigations have been completed. Let me say immediately, however, that I am not going to rush into things until proper investigation and consultation have taken place. I am committed to this and I have assured everybody that that is the way I will act.
That is exactly what we asked for.
I am not fighting with the hon member. [Interjections.]
*I now come to the hon member for Waterberg.
Oh, but he is not here.
Man, do not be such a coward.
Order! Did the hon member for Rissik say that the hon member was a coward?
I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]
I thought very seriously about whether to react to the hon member for Waterberg at all.
You need not if you do not want to.
I gave the matter very serious consideration and decided to do so. I want to refer the hon member to the Cillie investigation into the Soweto riots. I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg to go and read that report in order to see what the consequences of clumsy handling of relations issues can lead to. The fact is that the hon member for Waterberg was the Deputy Minister in control of Black education.
Who was the Minister?
He was responsible for it. The judge referred to the questions and answers put here and he referred, inter alia, to a question asked by Mr Derrick de Villiers, the former member for Parktown, who is no longer here. On page 80 of the report the hon member for Waterberg replied to a question by the Opposition concerning the gravity of the matter by saying that he was unaware of any problems. On page 92 he replied to a question about certain incidents at schools by saying that his department was unaware of any such incidents. In the same section of the report the following appears:
The following appears in paragraph 2.5.9 on page 566:
The speech the hon member made yesterday was a reflection of an unapproachable mind, of a steadfast refusal to deal with realities. I say this today: If that hon member, when he occupied this responsible post, had been doing his work rather than undermining his party colleagues, we could have avoided tragic consequences in Soweto. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Waterberg launched an attack on certain Brown and Black leaders. I do not dispute his right to react to them or their right to react to him, but with specific reference to the constitution I want to refer him to the following. Not one of the Brown leaders to whom he referred has rejected the constitution, but he is leading his party on a course of rejection. He is not only leading his party on a course of rejection; he is rejecting it in the grossest form. He says it is a thorn in the flesh. 66% of the voters approved a “thorn in the flesh” for the voters. [Interjections.] In the words of the hon member for Rissik, the CP will devote itself to destroying the new dispensation. The CP is not even prepared to give the new dispensation a chance; they want to undermine and destroy it from the outset.
Is the CP going to participate in standing committees in the new dispensation, together with Brown people and Asians? Is the party going to exercise its right to submit names for appointment to the President’s Council? The CP is the mouthpiece and the platform for extreme rightist elements in White society …
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?
No, Sir, the hon member may not.
No one begrudges them the right to be such a mouthpiece and platform, but what makes the hon member and his party think they have the right to imply thereby that White rightist radicalism is in order because it is White, while Brown and Asian leaders may not say anything about their expectations for themselves? [Interjections.]
Why is the hon member for Waterberg playing this transparent game? There are reasons for this. He wants to build up an image as the man who puts people of colour in their place, while according to him the Government’s image is that we play footsie with other leaders around the negotiating table. That is the game the hon member is playing, and in the meantime the hon member and his hangers-on are inciting emotions which, if this escalates, could affect the governability of the country. [Interjections.] Allow me to say to the hon member and to other hon members of his party that the Government will speak to all leaders who articulate, in good faith, the rightful aspirations and expectations of their people, and we shall continue to speak and continue to negotiate as long as there are bottlenecks. Moreover, the Government will deal in the same way with radicalism of whatever nature and among whatever groups, both left and right, because their ideologies and actions will have the same disastrous consequences.
During the discussion of the Prime Minister’s vote the hon the Leader of the Opposition referred with great admiration to the CP’s way of arguing. He found their logic very interesting. He said that if the CP—
Sir, a remarkable thing has been happening here, because the hon member for Waterberg argued along exactly the same lines. Yesterday he said:
When two parties with such widely differing policies admire one another’s logic, then something must really be wrong somewhere. The fact of the matter, of course, is that not one of these two policies is logically or tenable in South African circumstances. That is the basis for the clear resemblance between the two.
What exactly would be solved in terms of PFP policy if the independence of the TBVC states and the progress made in regard to multilateral co-operation were to be unilaterally undone tomorrow and these states and their citizens included in the so-called “non-racial federation”, or any other federation the composition and functioning of whose federal bodies its champions usually fail signally to spell out? And what exactly would be solved in terms of CP policy if the progress made to date with the constitutional development of Coloureds and Indians were to be wiped out and we were instead to begin hunting assiduously for land for Coloured and Indian homelands, or even White homelands, to the extent that the logic of Aksie Eie Toekoms gets the upper hand over the CP?
I now turn to the hon member for Pietersburg. I want to refresh that hon member’s memory. The hon member made factual errors on three occasions, and I say “factual errors” in order to stay within the rules of the House.
At one point yesterday he said:
That is the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs. The hon member went on to say that thirdly if one laid claim to one’s own territory then one renounced the remainder of South Africa.
To that the hon member replied:
He went on to say that according to the 1980 census, 85,2% of the Coloureds in the Cape Province were resident in a few magisterial districts. As far as the Asians were concerned, 81% of them lived in Natal and 61,2% in four magisterial districts. He then said:
That is very interesting. That forms the basis of the homeland that the hon member for Pietersburg has in mind for Coloureds and the CP’s homeland for Indians. He says that a resettlement process is unnecessary and that people will not be pushed into a certain area. They are already there. However, the point is that they are not the only ones who are there. Let us look at the facts in this regard. Let us take a few magisterial districts to which the hon member referred with regard to the Indians. In Durban there are 235 960 Whites and 159 820 Indians, and therefore the Indians are in the minority. In Pietermaritzburg there are 55 720 Whites and 51 360 Indians, and in Pinetown, 74 600 Whites and 230 450 Indians. As far as the hon member’s homeland for Indians are concerned, their policy surely has only one of two implications. If the Indians are not moved, the Whites must move. That is the one implication, but if the hon member does not want to take that implication, he is implying that these hundreds of thousands of Whites must go and live in an independent Indian state. What, then, would become of their self-determination, which the CP is so concerned about? What ridiculous ideas is the hon member trying to advance in this debate? However, let us consider the position with regard to Brown people. Wynberg is surely one of the districts where large numbers of them live. In this district there are 146 420 Whites and 418 100 Coloureds. In Goodwood there are 63 040 Whites and 169 840 Coloureds. In Paarl there are 22 960 Whites and 72 380 Coloureds. In Gordonia there are 16 980 Whites and 68 140 Coloureds. In Worcester there are 20 900 Whites and 59 800 Coloureds. In Namaqualand there are 12 260 Whites and 49 760 Coloureds. In Somerset West there are 14 800 Whites and 26 280 Coloureds. In Stellenbosch there are 22 060 Whites and 36 500 Coloureds. This, then, is the homeland that people do not have to be pushed into, because the basis already exists. The CP must tell how they will decide in terms of this policy. Are the Whites to be moved …
… to Orangia, to the White homeland, or are they going to fall under the government of an independent state?
I now request the attention of the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Sea Point. They asked certain questions about the financial and economic implications of the new constitution and our programme of reform, and I think I must reply to them. By carrying out a programme of socio-economic reform, the State, clearly, does not only lay claim to the scare resources of the country, but also takes decisions about the utilization of those resouces on behalf of the community. The new constitutional dispensation represents a structure whereby a far larger section of the population can participate constitutionally in the decisions on the distribution of the available, limited resources of the country in the provision of public services.
The hon members for Sea Point and Yeoville put certain questions to me concerning the financial implications of the new dispensation. Let me just say in passing that not one of the two hon members has ever spelt out to me the implications of a system of one man, one vote. [Interjections.]
Neither I nor my party endorses the principle of one man, one vote in a unitary system. [Interjections.]
I did not say that the hon member supported the principle of one man, one vote in a unitary system. He wants it in eight or ten little federal states.
I want to put it to the hon member for Sea Point that the cost of a constitutional dispensation cannot be measured in terms of money alone. If that were the only criterion we should rather have had a dictatorship. After all, that would have been much cheaper.
Not in the final instance, and not in effect, either. The hon the Leader of the Opposition is intelligent enough to understand that. Perhaps he and I should conduct a discussion about this.
I want to put it to both the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Yeoville that the cost of a constitutional dispensation is measured in terms of the stability it provides, both in the political and in the socio-economic spheres. Against this background—the hon members do not differ with me on this score—I once again want to ask the hon member for Sea Point whether he has yet calculated the cost of the alternative that he advocates.
What is it? Can the hon member explain that to me?
If you give me the time when you are finished, I shall explain it to you.
The Chair decides who may speak; not I.
Political stability has a price. We must have no illusions on that score. However, on the other hand—I concede this—there must be economic stability as well. That is of cardinal importance for political stability, and for that reason we must guard against excessive demands being made by the Government on the scarce resources, which in the long-term would seriously prejudice economic growth in any event.
Once again I want to say to the hon member for Yeoville that the new constitutional dispensation should not be assessed only in terms of its capacity to allocate resources, but also in terms of its implications for the country’s capacity to create income and employment.
No, you do not understand me.
I do understand. The hon member should just listen. Therefore it is of the utmost importance—I agree with the hon member—that a procedure should be established capable of maintaining a sound balance, to the satisfaction of all parties, between the increasing demands on the one hand and the limited resources on the other. Surely that is the issue. How, then, can the hon member contend that I do not understand him?
Matters which are of special relevance to the socio-economic sphere, eg education, housing and health, are for the most part defined as own affairs in the constitution. Make no mistake: The mere presence of Brown people and Asians in Parliament has financial implications. However, they are better able than any of us to articulate their expectations and needs themselves. That, of course, has financial implications. However, as far as I know, not one of us in this House is not committed to eliminating disparities in accordance with the country’s resources.
The hon member for Yeoville specifically asked whether the financial allocations to the individual Houses would be in the form of a global amount. That was his first question. I think it is reasonable to adopt the assumption that the various Houses in the new dispensation will have discretionary powers as regards the financing of own affairs by way of, for example, ad hoc transfers from a central revenue fund. In the nature of the matter they will also have to decide for themselves on the utilization of the so-called imposts for which provision is made in the constitution. However, to afford the Houses greater certainty with regard to the long-term availability of funds for the financing of own affairs such as education, provision has also been made in the constitution for transfers which will be calculated by way of formulas. These are the so-called statutory allocations to which reference is made in the explanatory memorandum on the constitution and which the hon member for Yeoville specifically enquired about.
In the formulas in accordance with which the statutory allocations will be determined, norms and standards will have to be used which, in the case of education matters, may for example be the number of pupils per teacher. This could serve as one of the norms. However, it is probable that norms and standards would also have to play a role in the allocation of funds for general affairs and in the determining of ad hoc transfers from year to year, viz in drawing up the Budget as such. The determining of norms and standards and the transfers to the Houses in terms of these standards will, primarily, be the process in accordance with which socio-economic reform will be brought about. By this means, effect will also have to be given to the Government’s policy of moving in the direction of greater equality in regard to standards. In so far as the statutory allocations are accordingly geared to ensuring minimum functional standards of service, the utilization of such allocations will probably have to be restricted to the broad function for which they are allocated. I hope that the hon member follows what I am saying. Therefore, if it is allocated for education, it will have to be used for education.
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister.
No, the hon member must first just give me a chance. The determining of norms and standards in regard to transfers to the various Houses cannot, however, be seen in isolation, but must form part of an overall approach in respect to priorities for Government spending.
This brings me to a very important aspect. In the new dispensation the executive, the Government, consisting of the Cabinet and the Ministers’ Councils, will accordingly regularly have to adopt a standpoint in respect of these priorities which will include the determining of norms and standards. To ensure that the Cabinet, as far as general affairs are concerned, and the Ministers’ Councils, as far as own affairs are concerned, will base their approach with regard to the availability of funds, and priorities in allocating it, on jointly held points of view, consensus will have to be sought between the Cabinet and the Ministers’ Councils as far as the norms and standards are concerned. It is to be hoped that this will bring about consensus among the relevant representatives of the three governing parties. In order to perform this consensus-seeking function, a forum will probably have to be created in which representatives of the Cabinet and of the various Ministers’ Councils will serve. It will be desirable—and the Government is at present considering this—that such a body, and representation on that body, be given statutory effect in the legislation on budgeting procedures, the Exchequer and Audit Act. As I have indicated, the Government is already considering the possibility of establishing a statutory body which may be called the State President’s Committee on Priorities, the task of which will be to subject to continuous review the economic and financial position of the country in the short, medium and long terms. However, the Cabinet will still be the body which will have the collective responsibility in the final instance. The guidelines as regards priorities, which will be formulated by the Priorities Committee of the President’s Council, will therefore have to be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration and approval. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. This has nothing to do with the budgeting programme as such. The guidelines, as approved, will, in the nature of the matter, serve as an input in the compiling of the general Budget of the Minister of Finance, and will also serve as a guideline for those bodies that are concerned with the Budget for own affairs. So much for the executive.
As far as parliamentary involvement in the budgeting process is concerned, as well as the reference by the hon member for Yeoville to a so-called “budget committee”, I immediately want to draw hon member’s attention to the fact that provision is made in the constitution itself for permanent standing committees. It is obvious, and in my opinion quite logical, that there will be a standing committee on finance that will attend to economic and financial affairs on an on-going basis and which will also give attention to an on-going basis to economic and financial matters, and which will also form part of the consensus-seeking process. We must not try to bluff ourselves. The success or failure of the constitution will depend on the distribution of resources. Secondly, we must have no illusion about the fact that the articulation of needs by all people, seen as a total sum, is greater than the country’s resources. I have no illusions on that score. In the new dispensation a standing committee on finance could play a significant role in reaching clarity, before the Budget is drawn up, as regards, firstly, the country’s resources; secondly, the country’s priorities; and, thirdly, how the resources can be distributed.
I agree with that. That is a very good idea.
But of course the hon member will agree with me in this regard.
I want to go further. The subcommittee of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders which is at present considering a set of joint rules—they will not mind my making this point—is not only giving consideration to the discussion times for the Budget, but is also proposing—I have their permission to say this—that after the delivery of the Minister’s Second Reading speech on the Budget, its discussion will in the first place be referred to a standing committee on finance.
No, as a subsequent step.
What am I proposing now? I am proposing a standing committee on finance which will be able to sit in the recess as well and which may, in terms of the Budget proposals, consider the aspects to which I referred. After the Cabinet has given an account of its decisions in this regard and these have been embodied in a Bill in which the Budget proposals have been incorporated, that committee is again afforded the opportunity of discussing various standpoints before the measure is discussed in the respective Houses. Apart from the fact that this will entail more involvement of hon members of Parliament, which in my opinion is a good thing, it will also promote far greater openness in the governing of our country. As I foresee it, and I may be wrong, the responsibility of members of Parliament will be greater in the future dispensation than it is today. I think that this will be to the good.
I have now tried to give a broad indication of the most important aspects of the dispensation within which we are going to co-operate.
You spoke about formulas that existed and said that there would be certain norms. When we discuss education, for example, is it the policy of the Government that in future we shall have to have equal education for all population groups? Will a period be specified in the formula in which equal education for all will be achieved?
Mr Chairman, the experts and the Treasury are working on the norms and standards at present, but let me give my own opinion, for what it is worth. It would be a mistake to bind us to a time schedule, because we cannot estimate in advance the economic trends in our type of economy. The fact is that the people who will ask for improvements to be effected will be not outside but inside this House, and that in itself creates a problem.
This new concept of a President’s committee to determine priorities will eventually involve the distribution of resources that may be available. Does the Government contemplate a situation where it is possible that representatives of the national states and/or such other Black regional bodies could also participate, in view of the fact that the Blacks will also have to participate in the residual redistribution?
Mr Chairman, in the nature of the matter the answer to the hon member’s question is “no”, because the proposals we are dealing with now concern the position of White, Brown and Asian.
But the Budget is for everyone.
Please just give me a chance. Surely the Black people do not function within the same executive and legislative authority, and the hon member knows that. I had intended discussing Black affairs tomorrow, but I do wish to say to the hon member that there is a multilateral Minister’s Council involving five countries which discusses every item. There are various structures and I am going to discuss them tomorrow. But I do just wish to point out that there is more than one governing body in our country today; indeed, there are various governing bodies at various levels. We all know that the 1910 constitution was a compromise constitution and that it contained federal elements as well. It implied various administrations in the country in terms of a cost structure, did it not? Surely each of those institutions had its own administration. However, I wish to say here today—and in this regard I seek the co-operation of everyone—that if we really wish to succeed we shall have to have a far greater degree of community government in this country; in other words, a system of government which is brought as close as possible to the population. This will enable us to reduce the possible points of conflict. In my opinion we must also strive—all of us, whether we agree or not—to establish a local system—hon members have also referred to this—because in my opinion this is probably one of the most important elements in any solution for the political questions of the country. We are working on that and I hope that when we come up with that legislation we shall be able to conduct a meaningful debate in that regard.
Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister please tell up whether the NP caucus will designate a Coloured or an Indian as candidate for the State Presidency? [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, do you see? That is exactly what I was referring to. I could just as well ask the hon member for Rissik what he would have done in the caucus of the NP with regard to the 1977 proposals.
Of course we should not have done so.
Well then, what is the hon member’s problem? [Interjections.] No, wait. The hon member must give me a chance to reply to his question. The hon member asked me whether the NP will nominate a Brown candidate for the Presidency. But they want to place a large number of Whites in the country under a total Brown or Asian Government.
The hon member for Pietersburg told us where yesterday. [Interjections.] The NP’s candidate for every post will be a Nationalist.
Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister concluded his speech with an appeal to which I will respond by analysing the constitutional dilemma and by trying to make a constructive suggestion to which I hope he will be able to reply tomorrow. The hon the Minister used a large brush to paint on a broad canvas, and it is obviously impossible for me to respond to all the issues raised by the hon the Minister. For example, the very important financial guidelines are matters to which I should not like to respond off the cuff. It is something to which we will nevertheless devote some attention.
There are a few issues, however, to which I can respond briefly.
I suggest that you wait with that until the Bill is introduced, which will deal with these matters.
Yes. There are, however, a few issues which the hon the Minister has raised and to which I want to respond briefly in the short time available to me. Firstly, the hon the Minister appealed to the House and to all South Africans not to judge the quality of constitutional change in terms of so-called Western standards. We do, however, have a dilemma in this respect. Our dilemma is that we see ourselves as people who are trying to maintain civilized Western standards in South Africa and to the extent to which we are trying to do that we judge ourselves by those standards and we also ask to be judged according to those standards as well. This poses a real dilemma from which we cannot escape, especially when we talk about the question of the acceptability of the constitutional changes.
What constitutes acceptability is almost universal. It has been almost universal throughout the ages when it affects constitutional changes, that is namely the degree of acceptance—and voluntary acceptance at that—on the part of those subjected to the constitution. If they accept it, it is an acceptable constitution.
The second point to which I want to refer briefly is an old one to which the hon the Minister also referred again. That is the confusion which exists in his mind—not in my mind—in relation to the difference between participation and acceptance. I am referring to participation in and acceptance of the new constitution. There is no doubt in my mind that one can participate in a constitution which one finds unacceptable, and that one can still try to make the best of it. The Government is indeed doing exactly that under the present constitution. If it was not doing so it would not have changed the present constitution. The Government found the existing constitution unacceptable but they did participate in it and also tried to find a better one. In exactly the same way we say we do not find the new constitution acceptable. We do not consider it to be the best one for South Africa, but we are prepared to participate in it as best we can while we try to work for a better one. That is exactly the difference between those two concepts.
The fourth point to which I want to reply very briefly—because it really does not deserve very serious attention—is the obvious pleasure the hon the Minister takes in saying that there is now a greater degree of interchangeability in the logic of the CP and the PFP. That is obviously not true. The point I have made is that the CP have thrown away the very justification that the Government uses for defending their homeland policy in their effort to explain their Coloured homeland policy. Exactly the same criteria are used by the CP and the NP. It is used by the one party to justify its so-called Black homeland policy, while the other party uses it to justify its Coloured homeland policy. We reject the logic in both instances. We think it is ridiculous. It is therefore not a question of the PFP moving closer to the CP. It is merely a question of the NP using the same logic as the CP in order to defend contradictory cases.
*The final aspect I briefly want to come back to is the fact that the hon the Minister said that under the government of the NP more forums had been created for Black participation and negotiation than ever before. This is, in fact, true in a certain respect. However, the question is what that negotiation is about. I believe that the forums that have been created thus far are forums in which those groups can negotiate with a view to improving circumstances in constitutional institutions which are aimed at segregating them constitutionally from the rest of the Republic’s territory. However, that is not where the problem lies, and I think the hon the Minister is aware of that. [Interjections.] Where the real problem lies, is that despite those forums—national states, independent states and Black community councils—and despite the philosophy underlying them, we are still saddled with a real constitutional problem as far as the Blacks are concerned, and it is this problem I want to discuss.
The new constitution we have now, and all the problems the hon the Minister told us about this afternoon are going to take their own course. Within that framework we can try to see how best we are going to get it to work. However, when the hon the Minister speaks of the necessity for evolutionary participation and that we should all play a role in it, I think that one of the deficiencies to which the hon member for Sea Point also referred, one of the dead-ends and stumbling blocks, is related to the constitutional development of Blacks.
I want to look at this problem with reference to page 22 of the report of the hon the Minister’s department. Reference is made on that page to the role of the Cabinet Committee which has to go into the whole question of the constitutional development of Blacks. When we look at paragraph 144, we are struck by the following: We are given the purpose of the Cabinet Committee, its modus operandi and what its attitude and guidelines should be. Its purpose is to look at “the future constitutional development of Blacks”. It does not say that the future constitutional development of urban Blacks or rural Blacks is going to be looked at. It simply states that the future constitutional development of Black people will be investigated. The method that must be considered is negotiation with those involved, wherever they might find themselves. Whether they are in the national states or outside the national states, their position must be looked at by way of negotiation.
The third piece of information we are given with regard to the Cabinet Committee is what the Government’s guidelines and attitude are in respect of this task that exists in respect of the future constitutional development of the Black people. The attitude is:
It is against this background that certain guidelines are spelt out. I briefly want to mention what those guidelines are, since I want them to be placed on record. The six guidelines are as follows:
As far as I am concerned, many of these premises overlap logically with one another, but that does not matter. There is a selective emphasis of some aspect or another which is, in fact, important.
One could easily single out the cardinal problems from each of these guidelines, and I should like to give a brief outline of each of those problems in turn.
The first guideline is an effective say in decision-making processes by the individual and in his group context. What does that mean? What are the decision-making processes that affect the Blacks? The hon member for Sea Point has just referred to this. The Budget which is passed by this Parliament directly affects the opportunities of the Black people. Is there going to be effective participation of some sort in this decision-making process? This is the problem that arises. There is also the question of laws passed by this Parliament. There are the executive measures that have to be taken. This affects these people directly. How is this guideline going to come into its own in the search for new constitutional measures that affect the Blacks?
Secondly, domination must be eliminated; rights and rightful aspirations have to be protected and satisfied. The first question we could ask, is: What is domination in this context? The hon the Minister and I have already debated this quite extensively and we agree that domination takes place when one group makes decisions which directly affect the opportunities of the other group without that group being able to call the dominant group to account. However, when it comes to rightful aspirations, how does one reconcile the rightful aspirations of two competing or dominating groups? This is a constitutional measure which we will have to look at closely with regard to the Blacks as well. This can be done either by way of domination or by way of consensus. How are we going to implement consensus in respect of the Black man?
Thirdly, self-determination must be protected. What is the nature of this self-determination? The hon the Minister says it is a relative concept, and I agree with him. Is it political self-determination? Is it economic self-determination? Is it social self-determination? Is it cultural self-determination? If we do not have clarity about this, the one group’s self-determination really becomes anathema to the other as far as the different groups are concerned. We must obtain clarity about this, and not only between Asian …
That is a problem which is inherent in society in any case.
Correct, but it is no use just spelling out these guidelines if we are not going to say what we are going to do with them.
The fourth guideline—this is an important one—is that there should be co-operation concerning common matters or matters of common interest. To me this is an important guideline, since the implication here is really that there are common interests between White and Black in South Africa, just as there are common interests between Coloureds, Asians and Whites in South Africa. What are the common interests between Black and White that are different from the common interests between Asians, Coloureds and Blacks, and how are they different from the common interests between Coloureds, Asians and Whites? If there is a difference, we must know what the nature of the difference is which justifies different constitutional patterns, and that is a responsibility the hon the Minister will have to spell out for us.
Order and stability are the fifth guideline to which reference is made. Of course there has to be order and stability, but it is a well-known fact that order and stability in every society depend either on consensus or on coercion. One can expect the same degree of co-operation from the people who, for example, are subordinate to that order and stability as the degree to which order and stability are dependent on coercion. How do these guidelines apply to the Blacks?
In the sixth place, the hon the Minister says that further action must then take place by constant consultation and negotiation— consultation and negotiation by whom and with whom? With whom are the hon the Minister and the Government going to negotiate?
These are the questions one could ask within the context of the guidelines the hon the Minister spelt out there. There are two of these guidelines I want to single out briefly and then make a constructive suggestion on the basis of those guidelines.
The two guidelines or premises are the following: That firstly there must be co-operation concerning common matters or matters of common interest, and secondly, that it must take place on the basis of constant negotiation and consultation. If this is the case, the question which immediately arises is what structure exists to do justice to this, since at present there are separate structures for Blacks to negotiate with the Government on how to get their separate structures to work better.
However, there are no structures between Black and White by means of which they can negotiate and consult with one another concerning matters which are of common interest to them. The Government nevertheless admits that such matters of common interest exist. It is also a fact that the Blacks have been affectively excluded from the existing structures for constitutional negotiation. They are excluded from the new Parliament. They are excluded from the Cabinet Committee. They are excluded from the new Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Yet, the Coloureds and the Asians can sit in all three those joint structures for constitutional negotiation. One has the absurd situation that Coloureds and Asians, together with the Whites, can negotiate on the future constitutional development of Blacks, but Blacks cannot serve in any of these structures. Surely this is an untenable situation.
What can the Government do to eliminate this deficiency? I believe that a new statutory body should be created. Of course, if I had to state the PFP’s standpoint, I would still spell out the merits and the logic of a national convention, but the Government is not going to give ear to that now. It uses the logic underlying, and the rhetoric of, reform, but I am not going to deal with that now. I want to propose an intermediary statutory body. Let us call it a constitutional advisory council. It must be a constitutional advisory council that can be created outside the existing constitutional legal structures and in terms of which one can look at the constitutional development of the Blacks impartially and with a new vision. This constitutional advisory council must meet on a regular basis, it must be possible to give evidence before it and it must be possible to submit proposals to it. It must consist of experts, as well as of White and Black community leaders, and particularly in the latter case, they must be acceptable community leaders. It must be able to advise the Government on constitutional initiatives. This constitutional advisory council must not be a separate Black advisory council. I want to say that at the outset. It has no chance at all of working if it is going to be a separate advisory council. I am not saying this because I do not want it to work, but because experience has shown that something of this nature will not work. It must be a constitutional advisory council on which experts, Black and White leaders, serve. I do not mind if Coloureds and Indians serve on it, since their future also depends equally as much on that constitutional development.
What about the President’s Council?
That hon member does not even understand what I am speaking about. Nor must this council be appointed unilaterally, and the Government must not decide unilaterally who the members of the council should be. What is even more important, is that the people who serve on it must not be compromised beforehand with regard to constitutional premises. It must be a true forum for negotiation and bargaining. The Government knows from experience that it will fail in the degree to which the members of the council are compromised beforehand.
The premises I mentioned which are contained in the report are precisely the same premises the Government adopted with regard to the new constitutional dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. We can go and read all the debates we have already had. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning used precisely the same premises in justifying the tricamerai system. These premises are now being written into the report itself with regard to the future constitutional development of Blacks. I therefore want to address a request to the Government, and to the hon the Minister in particular, viz that if such a body is created, it should not be seen as a body that is trying to negotiate something separate. It should not be seen as wanting to solve a separate problem. It must be clear from the outset that it is seeking a solution to a common problem. When I make this proposal—and I am doing so in a constructive spirit—I am doing so because I truly believe that we failed in the past precisely because we did not pay attention to this problem.
Why am I raising this point so strongly now that we find ourselves on the eve of a new constitutional dispensation? It is very simple. One of the consequences of the new dispensation—whether we like it or not—has been, and is, an increasing process of polarization between Black and non-Black. Research shows that this is the case. The only way in which I believe we can obviate and counteract this process, is to give simultaneous attention to this tremendous deficiency whilst we are engaged in implementing the new constitution. I think that creating such a forum would be a conservative, small step. I think there are Black leaders in the urban areas and in the rural areas who are prepared to give their co-operation in this regard. I can think of quite a number of them.
I have said that; I confirm that.
The main problem is that they do not have a suitable forum in which they can negotiate and consult with the Government on a continuous basis. It is not a forum where they can promote their separate interests by asking the Government for more money for homelands, for example, but it must serve as a forum where common interests can be looked at.
I wish to conclude with the point made by the hon member for Sea Point. The new constitution has enough problems of its own, as does its implementation. The hon the Minister knows that. At the commencement of his speech he asked what our attitude and feelings were in respect of the new dispensation. My party and I make no secret of how we fought the new constitution in the referendum. We stated our objections—objections about which we felt deeply and strongly—and I think that many of those deficiencies are still entrapped in the constitution. However, after we had stated our standpoint and were presented with the inevitable fact that the constitution is going to be implemented, we said that we would participate in it as constructively as possible, and that means that we will consider how to get it to work—despite the shortcomings— even if we work ourselves to death in getting it to work, and the hon the Minister must concede that we are not working on the new constitution with a negative attitude in the select committee, but that we are approaching it constructively. However, I want to conclude with the warning issued by the hon member for Sea Point.
Is it your standpoint that the new constitution is an improvement on the old constitution?
I said during the referendum that that was not my standpoint. I said that problems would arise as a result of the structure of this new constitution. Just as we are participating in the existing constitution, we will also participate constructively in the new constitution despite its shortcomings, to see whether we cannot negotiate a better situation. We shall have to spend a tremendous amount of time and energy on launching the new constitution, and this has to be done. A tremendous amount of energy will be spent on this matter by Whites, Coloureds and Asians. When at the end of the day we have gone to all that trouble and we have not looked at the old problem of common interests between Black and White and the creation of structures to give it attention, this whole experiment will blow up in our faces. This is what I am trying to avert and prevent with my plea, and I hope that tomorrow the hon the Minister will give attention to the proposal I have made. He must tell me what its shortcomings are and why it cannot be implemented.
Mr Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to speak after the hon the Leader of the Opposition today. He really had a constructive approach today and one can therefore communicate with him. I agree with some of his standpoints, whilst I disagree with him somewhat on other points. I want to reply to some of the questions he asked.
The first matter to which I want to refer is that the question of Black political rights is indeed a major problem. I wish to elaborate on this. Any policy is a function of ideals and circumstances. It is the path from one’s present circumstances to the realization of those ideals. If cognizance is taken of the origin of the main pillar of our policy on Blacks, viz the homeland policy, as well as the perception of the circumstances that existed at the time when that policy was conceived and born, one finds that the then Minister of Native Affairs in 1956, when he reacted to the Tomlinson report, was working on the projection that there would be 19 million Black people in Greater South Africa in the year 2000. However, the 19 million mark was exceeded in 1984, and today we are working on a projection of between 32 million and 36 million Black people in Greater South Africa in the year 2000. In other words, the problem has altered quantitatively to such an extent from the time when that policy was designed, that it has in fact become a whole new problem, and a whole new problem has to be addressed today with regard to Black political rights. We have to consider the matter fundamentally once again. [Interjections.] For this reason I find the report of the department a true breath of fresh air with regard to this whole matter. The statements made in paragraphs 144 and 145 of the report are not new statements, since this can all be traced back to statements the hon the Prime Minister, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and other hon Ministers have made. However, these paragraphs are a particularly good summary. If we use them as a premise for addressing this new problem, I think we will go a long way.
I now want to come specifically to the matters which the hon the Leader of the Opposition addressed. On the one hand, the appointment of the Cabinet Committee at the beginning of last year, even before the new constitution had been finalized, is an indication that the Government is continuously addressing the problem of Black development as well. It is therefore not a question of our pushing that problem aside and focusing all the attention on the new constitutional dispensation for the Coloureds and Indians. The problem of Black development is therefore being worked on a continuous basis. All that has happened, is that the part of the problem pertaining to Coloureds and Indians ripened at a particular time and that one then had to reap those fruits.
Now the hon the Leader of the Opposition said that there were common interests between White and Black, just as there were common interests between Whites, Coloureds and Indians. He then wanted to know why we were not using the same recipe for the Blacks. At this point I want to address him as a social scientist. The problem one is faced with is that when political decisions are taken, the issue is priorities and values. When one has homogeneity in a culture, it is relatively easy to have the relative decisions made in a democratic Westminster system. However, as the culture and the system of values begin to differ, it becomes more difficult to get agreement on values in that kind of open structure.
Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member what the common values are between, for example, an Indian Hindu, a Malay and a White?
I would not like to reply to that question of the hon the Leader of the Opposition at this stage, simply because it would sidetrack us and prevent us from addressing the real problem. I should like to reply to it at a later stage.
The point I want to make is that whilst there are historical and cultural differences between the Whites and the Coloureds, both are part of the Western cultural system. That is why it is possible to include them in the same Parliament, but in separate chambers. However, the cultural differences between Whites on the one hand, and Blacks on the other, are greater, and that is why a greater distance, as it were, must be kept between the decision-making institutions. A higher level must first be reached before there can be a coming together. It is for that reason that it is being structured into various ethnic groups with a point of convergence at a higher level than the level at which the Whites and the Coloureds come together. There is no doubt that a decision will have to be taken on matters of common interest. The point I want to make, briefly, is that the structures that have to be created between White, Coloured and Indian on the one hand, and Blacks on the other, will have to be structured in a different way. Decision-making will have to be structured in a different way. Hence the search in regard to the idea of confederation. However, we can still discuss that. There are therefore sound reasons, or rather, reasons we regard as sound, as to why the structures are being made different basically to get at a problem which may look the same.
I should now like to deal for a moment with the specific proposal of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that the hon the Minister will react to it in more detail. He also has more time in which to do so. I want to thank the hon the Leader of the Opposition once again for his constructive proposal. However, I do not think it is quite so simple. He would concede that this constitutional advisory council of his differs marginally from the concept of a national convention. [Interjections.] I concede that it is a considerable movement away from the idea of a national convention, and for that reason we can begin to talk about it. However, I want to look at the principle behind it once again, viz the principle of consultation, in other words, to involve the true leaders of the Black communities in a process of consultation as well. Whether it is done specifically in the body being visualized by the hon the Leader of the Opposition at present, or whether it is done in a somewhat different manner, the idea remains the same. For that reason I therefore accept his idea of that process that has to be set in motion, although we can talk about the composition of such a body. It is obvious that whatever structures are created to achieve the ideal of an effective say for everyone in the decision-making processes that affect their lives, one must not only obtain the consent, but preferably also the acceptance of the people involved. I agree with the hon the Leader of the Opposition in that respect. In that way we can, in fact, engage in constructive discussions about this kind of thing.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Helderkruin emphasized a few very important matters. Firstly, the hon member said that after the report on the Tomlinson Commission had appeared in 1956, the then Minister thought that there would be 19 million Black people by the end of the century and that that homeland policy would therefore solve the problem. However, we know now that there will not be 19 million Black people, but probably 34 million or more, and now the homeland policy is no longer good enough. [Interjections.] If that Minister were still alive today, he would say that the greater the number of Black people—or Whites, or whoever—the more essential it becomes to have separate states for the various population groups.
A second aspect which has become very clear today, from the hon the Minister’s speech as well, is that the Government and the official Opposition are beginning to understand one another. The hon the Minister is beginning to understand what they are talking about when the official Opposition states its problems or ideals. [Interjections.] That hon member also understood very well what the hon the Leader of the Opposition was speaking about.
Did you understand it?
I am not interested in their stories. I know precisely what they are speaking about, but I am not prepared to argue about it.
I want to tell the hon the Minister that when a state for the Coloureds is spoken of, the hon the Minister understands nothing. He then grabs at figures which the hon member for Pietersburg mentioned. The hon the Minister must also add the number of Black people living in each of the towns he mentioned. According to the NP’s policy for Black people surely this does not mean that those Whites are being placed under a Black government, despite the fact that there are more Black people living in any of those towns, for example, Worcester. [Interjections.] Today the Government is precisely where the UP was earlier. They no longer understand when one speaks of different peoples having their own states.
The hon the Prime Minister gave us an estimation. We asked him to give us the figures. My hon colleague was in fact given them, but they are extremely disappointing. We were given a series of figures, but there is no indication of how the investigation was carried out, and according to which norms or on which research they were based. It is worth nothing as a scientific document. One can pursue two methods in estimating the cost of such an undertaking, or any other undertaking. Firstly, one can have a theoretical estimation done, as the hon the Prime Minister did. If a person has 10 factories and he wants to erect another two, he can ask a professor to estimate the cost of the two factories. Or he can take the results and figures of the 10 factories he already has over a certain period and ascertain from that what it will cost him to erect another two factories.
At present there are 10 Black states functioning in South Africa, and we need not make a theoretical estimation as far as they are concerned, but need only look at the Budget to see what these 10 states are costing South Africa. We can also ascertain from the Budget what the Government’s Coloured policy is costing us at present. There are identifiable amounts which are voted for the Coloured community under the Internal Affairs Vote and that of Community Development. Apart from that, there are services that are rendered by the SATS and Posts and Telecommunications. These are services one cannot easily identify, but the Coloureds also benefit from them. R1 100 million was voted for the Coloureds. R637 million is voted for the four independent states under Vote No 3—Foreign Affairs. It is therefore an average of R160 million per state, as opposed to R1 100 million for the Coloured population, which is administered in terms of the concept of one Government, one nation, one state and one country. In the case of the Black man, R160 million per state is voted for the four independent states. R1 508 million is voted for the self-governing states under the Co-operation and Development Vote, under Programmes 5, 6 and 7, in order to lead them to self-determination. That is R250 million per state. This points to a very important trend. The states that are independent obtain an average of R160 million per state. The contributions of the South African Government to the funds of the independent states are less than 50%; for the self-governing states they are 70%, but R1 100 million is voted for the Coloured population which is administered in accordance with the Government’s policy of integration.
I want to ask the hon the Minister what is the easiest—to establish 10 states for 25 million people, or to establish two states for 3,5 million people? Before the referendum a debate took place at the University of Pretoria, and on that occasion the Minister of Internal Affairs said that a state for the Indian population and a state for the Coloured population were the ideal, but that this was no longer possible.
When the NP was still the NP, and when it still endorsed nationalism, that party established 10 states for 25 million people. However, that party no longer has the strength or the conviction to establish two states for 3,5 million people. Then the hon the Minister still says that he does not know how our policy of a Coloured state is going to work, and he speaks of Worcester and of all the people that have to be removed, or who will fall under a Coloured government.
The CP’s constitutional policy for the Coloureds and the Indians is precisely the same as our constitutional policy for the Black people—precisely the same. There is no difference whatsoever. The hon members of the NP no longer understand that the idea of a particular people having its own father-land is the basis of sound, healthy relations between peoples in South Africa. They are no longer on that wavelength. They are now on the same wavelength as our friends here, the PFP.
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?
No, not now. I have little time left.
The hon the Minister made a strong point of the fact that it has never been the NP’s policy that the Coloureds should have their own state. I concede that that is the case. It was not the NP’s policy. However, there is one thing the hon the Minister cannot explain away. Political representation for the Coloureds and the Indians in the same Parliament in which the Whites are represented, was even further removed from the Government’s policy. The hon the Minister claims that he is continuing what his predecessors started. I want to put it to him that that is not correct. He knows that a similar attempt was made in 1960. The Federal Council of the NP took a certain decision then, however. That was when the hon the Minister’s friends here in Cape Town—the people from Keerom Street—wanted the Coloureds to be represented in this Parliament by their own people. However, the Federal Council of the NP decided unequivocally at that time that that was definitely out of the question. I want to read that decision to hon members now so that they can realize the finality of it. It reads as follows:
That standpoint that Coloureds be represented in this Parliament, whether by way of a separate Chamber or in whatever other manner, was rejected unequivocally at that time. The Federal Council of the NP said as far back as that time that it was out of the question for all time.
When certain backbenchers of the governing party pleaded for a homeland for Coloureds year ago, Mr Vorster himself said that it was a good thing that they were speaking and thinking about it. He said that it was a good thing to speak and think about it. He did not repudiate those people or have a drastic decision formulated against them by the Federal Council of the party. Integration, or presentation in the same Parliament, as well as a Coloured homeland, were not in accordance with the policy of the NP. We have changed. We have accepted the policy of a homeland or an own state. However, the NP cannot get away from the fact that they have accepted integration. What the Federal Council of the NP rejected unequivocally in 1960, the NP has now made its policy. That is why the NP and the PFP understand one another so well nowadays.
Mr Chairman, I want to come to another point.
Order! I regret that the hon member will not have the time to come to another point. Unfortunately his time has expired.
Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House are looking forward, with great expectation, to the challenges that will confront us when the new constitutional dispensation finally comes into effect. I think that we should make it quite clear that people who are endeavouring to rehash the whole debate on the new dispensation and the referendum, people who want to wage the struggle anew, should rather take the old proverb to heart: “Events have overtaken them”.
I want to put it to the hon member for Lichtenburg that this specific proverb also applies to his policy in regard to a Coloured homeland. The closer we come to the new constitutional dispensation coming into operation, the more irrelevant are the Coloureds going to find the CP’s homeland policy. The hon member for Lichtenburg alleges that Coloured homelands can be brought into being in the same way in which Black homelands were brought into being in South Africa. Surely the hon member knows that we did not bring Black homelands into being in South Africa. They have been in existence for as long as this country has existed. But there has never been any idea of the Coloureds and the Indians being separated from the Whites en route to the eventual destiny towards which South Africa is moving.
I also want to put it to the hon member for Lichtenburg that the NP’s point of departure continues to have, as its underlying element, an ethnic approach. The NP’s policy of national states remain the basic point of departure of those of us on this side of the House. The problem of the Black people outside the national states in South Africa, however, is crying out for a solution. That is who I specifically want to point out to the hon the Minister that South Africa is once again having recourse to the initiatives of the NP. That is why I want to advocate today that we tackle the following outstanding problems with eagerness and enthusiasm, and not be deterred by right-wing and left-wing radicals. I therefore want to advocate that we quickly give palpable substance to the concept of a confederation in South Africa.
The reason why I think this has become important, in fact essential, is because by giving palpable substance to the idea of a confederation I think we would largely be resolving the problem of the political rights of Black people outside the national states.
The hon the leader of the Opposition conveniently ignored the fact that in South Africa there is already a multilateral Minister’s Council including five countries. He has also conveniently ignored the fact that there is already a development bank in South Africa, that in South Africa there are already separate political structures, some of which are independent, whilst others are not yet independent. We can therefore constructively begin moving forward.
When we begin debating a possible confederation, however, we shall have to obtain clarity about the terminology we are going to employ in this context. Before the CP reaches its own conclusions, I think they should once again, with an open mind, have a look at the statements of NP leaders, and in particular of the Cabinet under the hon the Prime Minister. I should like to quote the following definition drawn up by the Cabinet as far back as 1981 when those hon members were still members of the NP. It reads as follows:
That is the definition drawn up by the then Cabinet
We must very clearly distinguish between a few definite points of departure. We must distinguish between the confederal concept and a geographic federal concept. For the purposes of my argument I want to present two German concepts, ie that of a “Staatenbund” as against that of a “Bundesstaat”; in other words, a federation of states as against a federal state. [Interjections.] The NP’s point of departure remains an ethnic approach, ie that of an individual, separate national state for each of the respective peoples, and particularly in regard to the Black man in South Africa. That is why it is not a “Bundesstaat”, not a federal state, not a geographic federation, but a “Staatenbund”, either a federation of states or, as defined by the Cabinet, a confederation.
The reason why I believe that the confederal idea should be given palpable substance is specifically to resolve the question of the political rights of the Black man outside the national states. The hon leader of the CP was fishing for the NP’s standpoint on how the Black man outside the national states would link up with the homelands. The Black man outside the national states tying in with his particular political rights, as far as those national states are concerned, remains the NP’s basic point of departure. It is NP policy that a fourth Chamber is not the answer as far as South Africa is concerned. It is NP policy that for his national political rights the Black people should link up with their respective national states. We know however—and we must accept this with great compassion and understanding—that if the Black man outside the national states only develops ties with his national state, without developing a feeling that he forms part of an overall picture, that of a confederation, I hardly think we shall have any success in South Africa.
This overall picture is not a new idea, and I want to present it to hon members. Hon members of the CP can have another look at what Dr Verwoerd said. He spoke of a commonwealth of politically independent and economically interdependent states. So even then he had in mind an overall picture for South Africa larger than mere homelands on the one hand and the rest of South Africa on the other. Mr John Vorster spoke of an association of states. So he also saw a larger overall picture for South Africa than mere homelands on the one hand and the rest of South Africa on the other. The hon the Prime Minister, with his idea of “confederation”, presented his vision for the future, his vision of closer co-operation between South Africa and its own national states, even the non-independent national states. That is a process of evolution that no one, particularly not the CP, will put a stop to in South Africa.
This brings one to the concept of “citizenship”. I do not even want to express any opinion about that concept; I think it is a matter that should be left in the hands of the Cabinet Committee. I shall be using the concept “citizenship” in parenthesis in any further argument I put forward. The loose association, in other words the informal association, of the European Common Market, for example, can serve as a particularly good example. Each of those countries, the four major states, Britain, France, Germany and Italy, the intermediate states, the Netherlands, Greece and Belgium, and three smaller countries, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg, are all politically independent of one another, but there is very clearly discernible economic co-operation, there is very clearly discernible military co-operation, there is a very clearly discernible interchange of technological development and the knowledge surrounding technological development by way of a formally elected Parliament, without any political decisions binding any of the member countries. There is even co-operation, there are even groupings transcending national boundaries between the communists, the socialists, the Christian democrats, the conservatives and the liberals in the various units within the European Common Market. That is indeed a stimulating thought to give palpable substance to our complex problem on the road towards confederation in South Africa.
Both the PFP and the NRP also have a federal element in their respective policies. I want to remark, however, that they both have the idea that there should be a supreme authority with federal units, a type of federation unacceptable to this side of the House. It is unacceptable because those hon members have, with their approach concerning an overlapping federal council, can approach more closely approximating the conventional federal concept rather than the actual content, as I have defined it—a confederation for South Africa. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I can understand why the hon member for Turffontein often has problems. He clearly does not understand, in fact he does not even show a glimmering of understanding, the policy of this party. We stand for a corporate federation of the White, Coloured and Asian groups and an element of the urban or the non-homeland Blacks. That is a corporate federation similar to the Parliament of the new constitution where one has own affairs and joint affairs. Then we stand for a confederation between that and the homelands. Therefore it is totally different to what he tried to explain.
Will there be a super-parliament?
Not in the confederation, of course not.
I want to deal firstly with what the hon the Leader of the Opposition said. I welcome the fact that he made a positive suggestion. His suggestion of a constitutional advisory committee was not exactly a new idea. It sounded to me very like what I proposed when I opened a NRP congress in the Royal Hotel in Durban in 1979 where I referred to a council of state which would be a body where one could negotiate the future with Black leaders.
There is something which I should like to clarify. Does he have in mind a body for discussion and negotiation between Government and Black leaders or a body which includes all four groups, Coloured, Indian, White and Black?
They are part of the Government.
In other words, the hon the Leader of the Opposition would regard them as part of the Government, and the purpose of the body would be to deal with the Blacks.
Well, then it is what I suggested four years ago. I welcome the suggestion as one which I can support because it is one which this party unanimously supported at that congress. I also welcome the enthusiasm with which the hon the Leader of the Opposition spoke of consultation and negotiation with Blacks. I would have welcomed it much more in 1981, when I was pressing and trying to persuade Black leaders to accept the Black council which was provided for as a parallel body with the President’s Council with a joint constitutional committee. That was a base from which to start negotiations. However, that hon member did not support our effort to get it accepted. The PFP shot it down in flames. They ridiculed it, they called it inferior and untouchable, and they were a major influence in getting the Black council rejected by the Press and ultimately rejected by the Blacks themselves. I believe that if we had stood together then and tried to get that Black council off the ground, the hon the Leader of the Opposition would not have had to come with a new concept like a constitutional advisory council because there would have been one. What is more, there would have been three years of negotiation and consultation under the belt already and we would probably have seen the results of it by now. I only point this out, because memories are short.
This is completely different, and you know it.
It was a body which would provide for consultation and constitutional negotiation between Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the President’s Council—the hon member sees them in government now—and Black leaders with a joint committee. They would have formed a joint constitutional committee which would have negotiated with each other. One of the things I have often criticized the PFP for, was their attacks against that council and the way in which they destroyed its credibility by their attitude to it and the violence with which they labelled it a symbol of inferiority and an insult to the Black people. [Interjections.] The hon member for Berea was one of those who played a major part in destroying its credibility.
I welcome the fact now that after three years they have realized that we must start somewhere and have now come forward with the idea of an advisory council. Apart from that, I did not hear a single positive word about the new constitution which starts operating in September. We heard once again all the things we heard in the referendum campaign. We heard all the things that are wrong with the new Constitution, but what we should be looking at now, are ideas to make it work, and not repeating what we think is wrong with it.
Do you serve on the Subcommittee dealing with the Standing Orders?
No, not on that one. I say that what we heard from the hon the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon was entirely critical of the constitution. I would like to see him, as we have done, pleading with Coloured and Indian voters to register, pleading with their employers to help them, pleading for participation to make it work, instead of highlighting weaknesses which we all highlighted and which we all pointed out during the referendum campaign.
In the few minutes I have left, I want to say that I welcome the clear statement on provincial councils by the hon the Minister when he said that they would remain until the end of their natural period. However, flowing from that statement, I want to say to the hon the Minister that he is going to need the experience and the expertise of those provincial councils with the introduction and implementation of the new local authority systems. They have the knowhow and the experience. They also have the staff, which the hon the Minister can use. The councils as such have one thing that nothing else will have which may replace them if they are removed. That is the credibility of having been elected by an electorate. If that credibility, flowing from having an elected basis, is removed, the value of those councils will largely disappear because whatever replaces them will be seen as instruments of central government. The whole concept of devolution from the top down will be reversed. Instead of devolution from the highest to the lowest, it will be taking away and pushing upwards— centralizing a power which I believe can best be carried out through a system which incorporates elected provincial councils with mechanisms to bring in the other two race groups.
Another aspect which I want to emphasize very strongly because here again I fear that this is a field where the Government is going wrong, is the need for a flexible system of local government. When one looks at the recommendations of the President’s Council—I do not have time to quote them—one sees reference after reference to flexibility and to the fact that systems need not necessarily all be the same and that one need not have exactly the same system operating in, for example, Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg. The fact is that one must be able to adjust the methods and system used to suit the needs of the varying circumstances of various places and areas. I cannot overemphasize the fact that if we go for a rigid system—a blueprint which must fit everyone—it will destroy the essential need for local government to meet the differing needs of people at the lowest level. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I do not want to comment on the hon member for Durban Point’s speech. As usual, it contained many positive aspects. The hon member for Lichtenburg spoke earlier of the realities of South Africa. I think it fitting for me to link up with what the hon member for Helderkruin said and just briefly refer hon members to the Tomlinson report which appeared in 1955 and in which certain realities in regard to the problems involving the Blacks were presented. In the light of the figures I want to contend—this is also what is reflected in the department’s report—that today, in 1984, we are dealing with a completely different problem to the one we all envisaged in 1955. In paragraph 30, recommendation A of the report, a maximum number of 16 373 000 Black people are predicted for the year 2000. In terms of the next projection, which they call “extra polarization”, projection B, the maximum projection for the number of Blacks, there will be 21 361 000 in the year 2000. In 1984, in South Africa, this projection is vital to us.
Last week I obtained the latest statistics on the number of Blacks from the hon the Minister. It is interesting to note that the total number of Black people in South Africa, including those in the TBVC countries, the national states, Black people in White areas, Black urban areas and rural areas, is 20 139 000 at present, ie in 1984. Hence 16 years prior to the year 2000 we have already reached the Tomlinson Commission’s maximum projection. This figure has tremendous implication for us in South Africa, particularly if one looks at the distribution of Black people. The latest statistics indicate that there are 4 700 000 Blacks in the TBVC countries; in the national states there are 5 300 000; in the White rural areas there are 4 700 000, and in the White urban area there are 5 300 000. There are consequently approximately 5 300 000 Black people in our White urban areas, thus constituting a major problem and a major challenge for us in the future. That is why I am grateful to see, in the report of the hon the Minister’s department, that these realities are being acknowledged. Today I want to make the point—and I am directing this at the hon members of the CP—that if we as Whites, together with our children, want to face a future of absolute doom, we must close our eyes in 1984 and speak about the constitutional problems in South Africa the way the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about them today, completely ignoring the reality of numbers.
Speaking about numbers, there is just one point I should like to put to the hon the Minister. I should like to ask the hon the Minister, in regard to statistics in South Africa, whether we cannot, in future, find some uniform basis so that we know exactly what we are dealing with. If one looks at the department’s statistical bulletins, at the figures used in departmental reports, one sees certain contradictions in regard to the figures. Or else, in projections, we use figures that have no bearing on 1984 figures. I should, for example, like to focus the hon the Minister’s attention on his department’s 1984 guideplan for Pretoria, for which we, as residents of Pretoria, are very grateful to the hon the Minister. I should just like to point out that one pages 7, 15, 17, 23, 31 and 51 of that guideplan use is made of statistics which are, in a certain sense, outdated. I believe that when we make projections, in particular when we are working with guideplans, it is absolutely essential for us to obtain a fixed basis for the figures we are working with. Otherwise in future, even in regard to projections we now make in 1984, we shall perhaps find ourselves in the same position in which the Tomlinson Commission found itself in 1955 with its figures which are now, in 1984, quite clearly very wide of the mark, in spite of the fact that it was demographers of some stature who worked on them.
Today I should like to use the report on the greater Pretoria area as a basis for indicating that in future we shall be saddled with a problem that we cannot simply resolve by way of any past formula. No matter how idealistic we happen to be on the road ahead, the constitutional problem involving Black people in our urban areas will necessitate a great deal of thought involving ourselves and Black leaders from all sectors, as the hon the Minister has rightly said. Let me just, for example, highlight the problem of Mamelodi. If one looks at the ethnic distribution of people in the Black town of Mamelodi adjacent to Pretoria, one sees that 1,9% are Xhosa; 8,6% are Zulus; 9,8% are Swazis; 11,6% are Southern Ndebele; 7,5% are Northern Ndebele; 34,2% are North Sothos; 1,7% are South Sothos; 6,1% are Tswanas—and the Tswana homeland borders on Pretoria—and 15,1% are Tsongas. The point I should like to make is that in spite of our wildest dreams and ideals, in particular urban complexes we are saddled with a constitutional problem that only the NP, with its initiative, dynamism and intellectual approach to constitutions, can tackle.
On the basis of the guideplan for the Pretoria area, I should like to ask the hon the Minister to have his department give renewed attention to the eventual constitutional position of Black people in the Mamelodi complex and the Atteridgeville complex. In this guide-plan report of the department, reference is made to the settlement of large numbers of Black people in Soshangwe. Reference is also made to the Rietgat complex, which will resolve a large part of the practical problem. Once everything has been done, what remains of this ethnic reality in Mamelodi, and the fact that people have been living there for a long time now, is still the constitutional problem. It is with gratitude that I see, in this guide-plan report, that it is our desire to resolve the political aspect in the future.
I should also like to say thank you for the very positive statements, in this guide-plan report, on the future of Pretoria. Mention is made of the special position in which Pretoria finds itself as the administrative capital of the Republic, as the political focus of Southern Africa, and of the large premium the Government places on the functionality and urban status of the city. We, as residents of Pretoria, say thank you very much for the attention the Government is giving to Pretoria. We say thank you for the positive decision of the Cabinet in connection with the Western façade of Church Square. That decision, as far as we are concerned, reflects the position that Pretoria and its people occupies in the present Government’s planning hierarchy. We, as residents of Pretoria, are very grateful for what has been done to elevate our city to the position of administrative capital of South Africa. We are also very grateful for many positive things that have been done, for example the gigantic contribution already spent on the Mabopane rail project. We also greatly appreciate the fact that Pretoria is South Africa’s administrative capital. Sir, 10,8% of South Africa’s White voters live in Pretoria, including your own constituency, Verwoerdburg. It is only right that we should, on behalf of all those people, say thank you on this occasion for this guide-plan report and for the positive aspects contained in it. We also say thank you, in anticipation, for what is going to be done in that region to improve the quality of life of the Whites and all other population groups in that complex. We thank the hon the Minister for that.
Mr Chairman, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon member for Innesdal. I find nothing in his speech with which I disagree. I also listened with great interest to the speech of the hon member for Helderkruin. I appreciate his endorsement of the proposal the hon the Leader of the Opposition made, as did the hon member for Durban Point.
†What I cannot understand is that the hon member for Durban Point failed to see the fundamental difference between the proposal put forward by the hon Leader of the Opposition and the Black Advisory Council for which the original proposal provided. The hon member for Durban Point ought to know that the Blacks themselves rejected that council from the outset. Nothing that he could have done or that we could have done would have changed the opinion of the Blacks. Very simply, they rejected it out of anger because of their exclusion from all the constitutional machinery that was created in terms of those proposals. [Interjections.] They were excluded from both proposals. I will come back to that.
Secondly, the President’s Council itself was merely an advisory body to the Government. The Government itself was not represented on that council. The President’s Council was advisory to the Government. As a matter of fact, nobody here can claim that the members of that council were really representative of the people of South Africa because they were all appointed by the Government. The fundamental difference is that the proposal by the hon the Leader of the Opposition is one which will have the affect that the Government itself will be involved in the process of negotiation and discussion with Black people. It is a totally different body to the one that was originally envisaged. I cannot understand that the hon member for Durban Point fails to see that difference.
*I listened tranquilly to the hon member for Turffontein’s argument about the idea of a confederation, the hon the Prime Minister told me himself, on occasion, that I ought to know the difference between a constellation and a confederation. I almost know what the difference is. I want to tell the hon the Prime Minister that earlier on, at the beginning, there was a very long period in which he spoke about a constellation. If he has in any way forgotten that, I can give him many sources in which the concept of a constellation is used.
We still use it now.
I listened patiently to the hon member for Turffontein. He began by saying that the political problems of the Black man outside the national states were crying out for a solution. Subsequently he presented the idea of a confederation, and I still want him to explain how the political aspirations of the Black people outside the national states are going to be satisfied within the framework of a confederation, because his definition of a confederation is an alliance of sovereign independent states without the sovereignty of the individual states being relinquished. In that alliance of sovereign states there is consequently no place for the Blacks in the national states. So how are they going to participate politically in that confederation? The hon member may have the answer, but he certainly did not provide it in his speech.
The hon the Leader of the Opposition referred to the basic points of departure spelt out in the report, and I only want to concentrate on one of them, ie that of having an effective say, which was mentioned here with the Blacks as the point of departure. According to the report the Black man will obtain an effective say in decision-making processes affecting his interests. That, so it would appear to me, is the key to this question.
One of the essential aspects in this connection is the question of citizenship. Yesterday the hon member for Bryanston quoted here what the hon the Prime Minister had said in this connection. On that occasion, however, the hon the Prime Minister left a number of questions churning around in my mind. In Hansard of this year, col 5236, the hon the Prime Minister said, amongst other things:
I leave it at that. Then the hon the Prime Minister said:
The hon the Leader of the Opposition reacted to that (Hansard, col 5302) by saying that he wanted to put a few questions to the hon the Prime Minister, amongst others:
Mr Chairman, the situation is very clear. In terms of the status laws passed by this Parliament, all those citizens who, by definition, were citizens of the TBVC countries, were automatically deprived of their South African citizenship; and not only they, but also their descendants. Legally, therefore, those people are not citizens of South Africa, and that is why I cannot understand the hon the Prime Minister. When he refers to our ordinary citizenship laws, in terms of which an immigrant can obtain citizenship in South Africa, he is correct. It is certainly not, however, applicable to the Blacks, because in terms of the status laws it does not matter how long the descendants of those people who were citizens of those areas prior to independence, have lived in South Africa. They still remain foreigners. So when we speak of effective particpation, we must start there, because we cannot speak of effective participation and then, in this way, exclude people living permanently in the country, people who have lived here from generation to generation and still live here.
I want to take this question of effectiveness further. Time and time again the hon the Minister has spoken of effective participation. There are a large number of passages I can quote to him on this. The hon member for Bryanston mentioned some of them, specifically because there was a consistent thread running through what the hon the Minister said. He said, amongst other things, that Blacks must have effective participation in the constitutional dispensation. I therefore now ask that …
Is that all I said?
No, that was not what I was alleging. I do believe, however, that the hon the Minister owes it to us, even if it is via the Cabinet Committee, to tell us how he hopes to give substance to these statements he made. That is why I think that he certainly ought to react to the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s recommendation in terms of which the possibilities are created …
I thought you wanted me to negotiate about that.
No, I shall explain what I mean. The hon the Minister must not try to be clever. He made a large number of statements, and I take it that he would not, as a thinking individual, have made the statements if he had not at least had something in mind. He must have had something in mind in regard to how it should be realized; how it should be articulated.
Mr Chairman, allow me therefore to quote the hon the Minister several of his statements. In the no confidence debate on 1 February of this year he said, for example:
Unfortunately I lack the time to quote all the relevant passages I have brought along with me. Hon members, however, may look them up for themselves. In this regard let me refer, amongst other things, to column 200, column 1265, column 1267, column 4500 and column 4501—all in this year’s Hansard. In all those statements by the hon the Prime Minister he adheres to the same standpoints.
If we are now saying that that participation must be effective, it is surely quite clear that effectiveness can only be achieved by those bodies that can effectively determine the living conditions of those people. The hon the Minister will agree with me that there is no way in which we can say that the governments of the national states and of the independent states can effectively determine and control the living conditions of the people outside those states. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I regret that I do not have the time to react to what the hon member Prof Olivier said. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to say a few things about planning; specifically about planning in the Northern Cape with reference to the National Physical Development Programme.
This programme was introduced in 1975. It entailed that the Republic would be divided up into separate regions; geographical areas having basically the same problems and characteristics and the main object of the programme was to help identify and reduce to manageable units the various resources and development patterns in South Africa. Today there are 38 of these small regions, which are known as regional development associations. Then, too, there are a number of metropolitan areas. These 38 regions were in turn grouped together into larger units, ie the regional development advisory councils, the so-called RDACs. Today there are eight such regions.
The object of these regional councils is to get the local communities involved in the activities of the private sector as far as the formulation and implementation of development policy is concerned. This is in the interests of a specific region and also in the interests of South Africa as a whole. It is also important to point out that this approach implies that thinking and planning is not done for, but in conjunction with regions. When we take note of the functions and the object of these regional councils, it appears that these regional councils provide the Government with advice and that they collect and collate information and in that way identity any problems that may exist. They then proceed to devise regional development programmes. Furthermore the regional councils also act as an effective channel through which all these activities can be taken further.
This approach has been in operation for a year or more, and I can say without any reservation that this approach and these programmes have brought about a new interest in the rural areas, that they have been of great help in giving people renewed courage for the future and that they have brought new life throughout the country. That is true. Today I want to say thank you for this programme and also to the people who are involved in implementing the programme. There are many people who are playing a part in this programme.
In the rural areas this has resulted in a tremendous involvement, and has also created great expectations. Sometimes the expectations are almost too great. In the Northern Cape—this area falls under region B—various small development associations have been zoned. However, there are also a few problems that I wish to point out. These problems should not be regarded as criticism, but rather as an attempt to make the system more flexible and to cause it to function better. I am not trying to run the system down. Instead, I am putting what I want to say to the hon the Minister as positive ideas, while I am confident that he will investigate and evaluate them.
At present there are five regional development associations in area B—that is the Northern Cape—and virtually the whole of Bophuthatswana is also included in this area. On the one side this area adjoins the Pretoria-Witwatersrand area, and on the other side the Kalahari Desert near Upington. Consequently it extends from Postmasburg in the west to Klerksdorp and Potchefstroom in the east, and from Vryburg in the north to Koffiefontein in the south. The problem in my opinion is that the eastern and western parts of area B do not really have any common interests. The eastern part of the region includes such districts as Klerksdorp, Potchefstroom, Ventersdorp, Koster and Rustenburg. This area—that is, development area 23—is related to a greater extent to the development of the Pretoria/Witwatersrand metropolitan area. It serves as a source of supply for that area, and the development pattern in that area also has more in common with what is happening in the adjoining metropolitan areas. The development of the rest of the area, namely the Postmasburg, Kimberley and Vryburg region, has no connection with the Pretoria/Witwatersrand area. This development has more in common with the development in other areas, such as Prieska, Upington and De Aar. However, these areas fall into another region, namely region A. The development in these areas does not evolve of its own accord either. It must, as it were, be self-generated and must in fact be drawn from the metropolitan areas with the help of decentralization benefits.
In addition there are a few other anomalies. My own constituency, for example, is cut in two by the classification of this regional planning. The one half falls into the Northern Cape region, region B, with Kimberley or Klerksdorp as the main centre, and the other falls into the Southern Cape, or region A, with Cape Town as the main centre. This means that in my constituency Postmasburg and Griekwastad have to devise plans in conjunction with Klerksdorp and Potchefstroom on the one hand, while on the other, Prieska, Carnarvon and Kenhardt have to discuss regional planning with areas adjoining the Cape metropolitan area. I really do not know what Upington and Cape Town have in common. Upington, Bredasdorp, Knysna, Beaufort West and George, in turn, all fall into the same region.
One of the requirements for extensive regional classification is surely that the areas that are grouped together should have more or less similar problems, and that those areas should be relatively homogeneous areas. As a result of the anomalies which exist, the system is not functioning quite as smoothly as one would have wanted it to do. The question is simply whether this classification of regions cannot be revised so that finer adjustments may be made to it. My request is therefore that the hon the Minister and the planning Division should take another look at the basic classification of these regions. What I am asking for is that the original objectives should be looked at again and that the existence of each region should be re-assessed in the light of these original objectives. I have done so and I find sufficient evidence for the creation of a ninth main region which will solve this problem, a region which will include the areas around Kimberley, Upington, De Aar, Kuruman, Vryburg, in other words the central areas of the Cape.
There is another aspect which I should also like to mention in respect of the Northern Cape, In this connection there is a matter I want to settle with the CP. As I understand their policy—the hon member for Lichtenburg also mentioned this—the basis for the Coloured homeland is precisely the same as that for the Black homelands. How is this policy going to be implemented in practice? How is expression going to be given to this policy in practice? As I understand the CP policy and as matters stand at present in the Black homelands, previous possession and occupation are a basic prerequisite. If these criteria are going to be applied in the case of the Coloureds in order to determine the boundaries of Coloured homelands on that basis, what are they going to look like? If they are consistently applied, as we understand them, then previous possession and occupation by the Coloureds should also form the basis in this case for the areas which are to be allocated to the Coloureds as homelands.
My question now is this: If that is true, what is to become of the area called Griqualand which is situated in my constituency? In the past it belonged to the Griquas, but it now belongs to the Whites. Is it or is it not going to become a Griqua homeland under a CP regime? If the CP is consistent in regard to the other homelands, then that must be the case.
Now there is something interesting happening in my constituency. The hon member for Kuruman once asked me what we wanted to do with that area. The rumours which have arisen in the wake of that hon member wherever he has gone in the constituency is that the NP wishes to return the Griqua lands to the Griquas and that what the NP actually envisages is to establish a Coloured homeland in that area. In this way the CP is making Nationalists afraid of CP policy. The hon members of the CP are afraid to accept responsibility for their own policy, but now they want to blame the NP for the poor constitutional planning for which they themselves are not able to accept responsibility.
In point of fact, the CP gives itself out to be a consistent party. They are consistent in their actions—they are consistent in not replying to questions. When questions are put, they do not reply to them. They are consistent in acting inconsistently. The CP is only really consistent in the sense that they merely criticize and never come forward with an alternative which can withstand the test of logical analysis.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Prieska made certain statements and alleged that the CP was afraid to state its policy. I invite the hon member to debate this matter with me from any platform in Griqualand West, for this is a matter which covers quite a wide area. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kimberley South will dissuade him from doing so, because he got quite a sound drubbing when he was on the same platform with me in Kimberley.
That is what you think.
I am issuing this invitation in a good spirit, and I am saying that all we need discuss is this subject. I should like to debate the matter with the hon member because that is a portion which previously formed part of the Kuruman constituency.
I want to point out to the hon member that I proposed in Parliament that the area between the Schmidtsdrif-Kimberley tarred road and the Vaal River, which for the most part consists of land belonging to Anglo-American, and of which a very large section also forms part of Pniel Estates that are already beign utilized for Colourds, be investigated as a rural area for Coloureds. At the time my proposal was accepted by the hon the Minister and the area was consequently investigated with such an object in mind. Money was also made available in order to make it a possibility, because we said that an alternative home should be created for the Coloureds living in the Khosis area, at present Defence Force land, and that that would be the ideal place.
I also want to point out to the hon member that I prevented the establishment of a large Coloured town at Campbell—this is an area which now falls in his constituency—because we said that such a Griqua settlement should be established within this rural area. That was also investigated. I want to ask the hon member whether he can give the people of Campbell the assurance today that Campbell will not become a Griqua settlement under NP policy.
What do you say?
I am saying what our standpoint is. Our standpoint is that the area between the Vaal River and the Schmidtsdrif-Kimberley tarred road should be utilized as a rural area for the Coloureds, which will then be contiguous with the Coloured town in Kimberley where a large concentration of Coloureds in the Northern Cape are living. That is the standpoint of the CP. I also want to point out that the hon the Minister, without consulting anyone in our part of the world, said that the area might as well become a kudu reserve.
That is not true. [Interjections.]
I do not want to waste my time on the hon member for Prieska now. I should like to meet up with him there.
Earlier this afternoon the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning furnished certain figures in regard to the numbers of Coloureds and Whites in certain magisterial districts in the Cape. He did so with refernence to what the hon member for Pietersburg had said. In all the districts mentioned by the hon the Minister the Whites are in the minority to a frightening extent, and the hon the Minister did not even furnish the number of Blacks who are already living there and who are streaming into these areas every day. When we consider the Cape, we see that there are far more Coloureds than Whites, while there are also far more Indians living in Natal than Whites. The Cape has 56 White members of Parliament in the House of Assembly, but will have 60 Coloured members of Parliament in the House of Representatives.
The hon the Minister said today that the second tier of government would be concentrated on general affairs. The representation on the first tier of government occurs on the basis of a 4:2:1 ratio. This is based on the numerical ration of 4,5 million Whites, 2,5 million Coloureds and 1 million Indians respectively. It is said that this is fair, Christian and just. I now want to ask the Hon the Minister whether representation on the second tier of government on general affairs is also going to occur in accordance with the numerical ratio? The hon the Minister must tell us. Are the institutions on the second tier of government, which are going to take the place of provincial councils, be constituted according to the numerical ratio? If the Government wishes to apply the principle of fairness consistently to the second tier of government, the Coloureds in the Cape are in a position of power. The same applies to the Indians in Natal. If this ration is also applied consistently to the third tier of government, again according to the principle of fairness, Christianity and justice, the Coloureds are in a position of power in every local government area in the Cape.
Apart from the Cape, the hon the Minister and the Government are giving the Coloureds a political say over the whole of South Africa. The Minister is giving the Indians a say over the whole of South Africa. He is also giving the Coloureds and the Indians a say over the future of Black peoples. After all, it is Parliament that has to decide whether the Black peoples are going to become independent. It is Parliament that has to decide about the influx of Blacks to White areas, and it is Parliament, in which the Coloureds and Indians are going to be represented, that also has to decide about the political say and the political participation of Blacks.
The hon member for Bloemfontein North waxed lyrical about consensus. He said that it had to work, and that we would achieve consensus. I now wish to put a question to the hon the Minister. In principle the PFP and the NRP are both in favour of admitting Black people to the new constitutional dispensation. The political parties of the Coloureds and the Indians are all in favour of admitting Black people to this Parliament. One hundred and sixty six members of the new Parliament are in favour of the admission of Black people. They are all members of the Parliament that has to arrive at consensus on all legislation affecting Black people. The hon member for Bloemfontein North is here now, I want to ask him whether he thinks that they are going to arrive at consensus on this matter as well.
Under the leadership of the hon the Prime Minister, Afrikaners in the same political party were not even able to arrive at consensus in his caucus on the future of Coloureds and Indians. I want to ask the hon the Minister how the NP expects, under the leadership of the hon the Prime Minister, to arrive at consensus with the Coloureds and the Indians and the PFP on the future of Black people.
Conflict and conflicting group interest are being built into this multiracial tricameral Parliament, or do hon members believe that groups will not adopt standpoints of interest in multiracial standing committees. I want to ask hon members whether they are going to keep quiet and sacrifice the interests of the Whites for the sake of consensus if Coloureds adopt a standpoint reflecting their own interests on a standing committee, a standpoint which clashes with the interests of the Whites? I want to ask the hon member for Bloemfontein North if he is going to keep quiet if the interest of the Whites are in conflict with those of the Coloureds? Is he going to sacrifice the interests of the Whites?
I want to state today that the CP is not prepared to place the interests of the Whites on the altar of consensus. We shall be present on the standing committees to guard over the interests of the Whites. If the NP representatives are worth their salt they will also take up the cudgels for the interests of the Whites on the standing committees. If they do that, we shall have conflicting group interests, and that is not a recipe for consensus, but the best recipe for conflict.
Conflict is not only being borne into Parliament by the reform plans and initiatives of the Government; it is also being conveyed to the public. Let me refer to an example. Mr Franklin Sonn and Prof Willie Esterhuyse— who have taken leave of apartheid—and the Rev Mossie van den Berg participated in a debate at the Rand Afrikaanse University. After the Rev van den Berg had put his standpoint, the following was said, and I am quoting from Die Burger:
And then Whites applauded him. Conflicts between Whites and Coloureds are also being borne into the campuses of our universities where Whites are already applauding a Coloured man if he strikes an Afrikaner in the face. This is the best recipe one could find for conflict in this country. At an ASB congress in Stellenbosch the hon member for Rissik, the hon member Prof Olivier, Mr Percy Qoboza and the hon member for Innesdal were speakers. Mr Qoboza said inter alia:
People clapped their hands, and the hon member for Innesdal smiled. [Interjections.] A Black man berated Whites and said that members of the Conservative Party were heathens for six days of the week and Christians on the seventh day. Though its initiatives the National Party is therefore transferring conflict into public life. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, it is interesting to note that whenever the hon member for Kuruman makes a speech in this House, he invites someone on our side of the House to hold meetings with him as if he did not have enough self-confidence to hold his own meetings in his own constituency. I do not want to argue with the hon member about his party’s homeland policy today, but I do want to discuss another aspect with him and the hon member for Waterberg. This is another element of their conduct, an element with which they identify themselves and which we really cannot afford.
In this regard I want to associate myself with paragraph 142 of the excellent annual report of the department, and I quote:
I quote further from paragraph 154:
With reference to these statements, I should like to discuss something with the hon member for Kuruman and his leader.
No one in this country can underestimate the role of the Afrikaner in the attainment of these aspirations to which the Director-General referred in his report. The role of the Afrikaner as the holder of political power for the moment is of fundamental importance to this process. I am certain that no group in this country has any doubt about that. However, there is in those among us— by “among us” I mean among the Afrikaners—a tendency from which we as Afrikaners shall have to dissociate ourselves. This is a tendency among Afrikaners towards separation and to consider themselves to be a chosen people that we find on the part of the CP and its right-wing spiritual allies. Recently these people have arrogated to themselves the right to be the sole spokesmen for Afrikanerdom and everything that it entails. Coupled to that, the hon member for Waterberg has a considerable ability to lend respectability to that tendency. After all, the hon member for Waterberg did in the past occupy important positions in Afrikaner ranks.
Consultation, co-operation, negotiation, ways of co-existence and the regulation of conflict are things that are not easily digestible to people such as the hon member for Waterberg and his spiritual allies who wish to reduce Afrikanerdom to the narrow confines of a clique with a kind of mystical “we are-different” syndrome.
If we as Afrikaners wish to play our fundamental role in this new dispensation, if we wish to play our role in the planning, in the creation of procedures and in particular the determination of the political style of the future, then we shall have to dissociate ourselves from this image of self-exaltation and offensiveness with which hon members on that side are prepared to identify themselves.
Now, the hon the leader of the CP said, for example, that he was merely invited to make a speech at the founding of the Afrika-nervolkswag and that he did not necessarily agree with everything that happened there. But against the background of that hon member’s attachment to the Afrikanerdom of the past, he lends a degree of respectability to these elements of which he should, in fact, be ashamed. [Interjections.] Recently the CP, the HNP and their spiritual allies have arrogated to themselves the right to personify the Afrikaner. [Interjections.]
Order! I would be glad if the hon members would listen to the hon member for Caledon, who is now addressing this House, and not to the dialogue between the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Kimberley South.
The CP and their spiritual allies are the people who have recently arrogated to themselves a kind of sole say over Afrikaner culture and Afrikaner politics. It is necessary for us to dissociate ourselves from that untrue image which they are creating. The “we-are-different” dogma of the Afrikaner with which the CP is identifying itself, contains elements of offensiveness and arrogance which will not bring people and groups in this country closer to one another, but which will, like a milk separator, cause people and groups to be whirled apart.
Of course we as Afrikaners have given our culture and Afrikanerdom a separate personality with our own traditions which we give expression to in our own way. It is of course the right of every people and every group of people with their own identity to apply it on their own. In the times we are now approaching, self-confidence will have to play a major part among Afrikaners, because we shall have to take the initiative, and there are many extraneous forces marshalling against us. We shall therefore require a great deal of self-confidence. However, we shall not find this self-confidence in the high fever of exclusivity and in the “we-are-different” syndrome which the hon member for Waterberg and his spiritual allies are trying to proclaim for the Afrikaners in this country. The Afrikaner element on which the CP wishes to construct its foundations has not in constitutional terms consulted, reached an agreement or even negotiated in any way with any group in this country meaningfully. They are following their own lesser light. I should like the attention of the hon member for Waterberg for a moment.
You are not worth taking the trouble to listen to.
That hon member is not worth taking the trouble to listen to either. I want to refer the hon member for Waterberg to the famous General Omar Bradley who, in the Second World War, had received orders to go and occupy a certain area. His orders were to proceed by ship to that place as quickly as possible to prevent the Russians from taking over. He had determined his course, and when they had been under way for a while, one of his junior officers came to him and said that he saw that there was another route along which many ships were sailing. He referred to the lights of the other ships, because this happened at night. However, the general knew precisely where he was going. His reply to the officer was: “I steer my ship according to the permanent fight of the stars and not according to the light of every other ship that passes by”. That is what the hon member for Waterberg and his spiritual allies are doing. They are steering their ship according to the letter fights of every other small ship that passes by. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, it is always interesting to listen to a speech by the hon member for Caledon.
Yes, praise him!
His was a well-argued speech which contained much food for thought. What was important in his speech were his remarks on the dynamics of the struggle for survival of the Afrikaner in this country as well as the tensions within that group. Without those tensions and without that self-confidence there will, of course, never be any development. The question is only whether those with the right principles or those with the wrong principles are going to triumph. [Interjections.] Judging by the policies of the NP and the CP there is no question as to which party is ultimately going to triumph. [Interjections.] The result was given on the 2nd November last year. The result is crystal clear for everyone to see. [Interjections.]
†Sir, I am not going to fight with the hon member for Rissik today. I think he and I can reserve that for some other opportunity. Perhaps he would like to come down and address a meeting in Durban some time. [Interjections.]
First of all I should like to tell the hon the Minister that I listened very carefully to his speech today. As my hon leader said, we listened particularly carefully to what he has predicted will be the future pattern for provincial government structures. May I just confirm that the attitude of this party always has been that we recognize that second tier government will have to change structurally and functionally as there is change at the top level and at the third tier. We recognize that. We recognize also that the hon the Minister has honoured his undertaking to this party to negotiate with it and to see that it remains in its present structural form until such time as its natural fife expires in 1986.
Like you say, it does not imply that their functions will remain the same.
I said the structures will remain the same until 1986. We recognize that as there is evolutionary change the functions will change. I should like to reconfirm that what my hon leader said today is a very important principle, not only for Natal but for all the people of South Africa, namely that there must be tangible evidence of devolution of power at second tier level. This can best be expressed by having directly elected members in whatever new form of structure there will be at regional government level. We recognize that it may not be possible for all members to be directly elected, but at least there must be sufficient such members to give legitimacy to devolution of powers. We will always be ready to negotiate, as the hon the Minister knows, with the Government to find an equitable and positive solution to the vexed problem of second-tier government.
I agree entirely with the hon the Minister when he says that 22 and 28 August will be dates as important for South Africa as 2 November was, perhaps even more important, because if the majority of Coloureds and Indians either boycott or reject participation in the new constitutional dispensation, then I believe it will set back the rights of Coloureds and Indians and the extension of democracy to them a very long way. I believe the Coloured and Indian leaders must take note of the fact that the extension of democratic and political rights to them will lie in their own hands on 22 and 28 August.
I want to say to the hon member for Sea Point, indeed to all the hon members of the PFP, that we listened very carefully to what the hon Leader of the Opposition said today. I believe I am correct in saying that if we interpret what he said in respect of acceptance and participation, it means that that party, the official Opposition, is now advising the Coloureds and Indians not to vote positively for candidates who want to participate in the new dispensation. [Interjections.] The hon Leader of the Opposition made it very clear that they, the PFP, do not accept the new dispensation but that they will participate in it. [Interjections.] That being so, will they advocate to Coloured and Indian voters that they should accept it and participate?
You will always be wrong. [Interjections.]
I trust I am wrong but I want the hon member for Sea Point to put on record here today that they are advocating that the Coloured and Indian voters should both accept and participate in the new dispensation. [Interjections.]
Order! Hon members cannot all answer questions which the hon member asks. The hon member for Durban North put a question specifically to the hon member for Sea Point, and the hon member for Greytown must not try to answer it because it will only lead to interjections being bandied about.
I should like the hon member for Sea Point to tell us whether their attitude is that they are advocating that Coloured and Indian voters should both accept and participate in the new dispensation. [Interjections.] I certainly hope so, but my understanding of what the hon Leader of the Opposition said was that he advises them to boycott the election.
We welcome the hon the Minister’s departmental report. In our opinion it contains a great deal of useful information. I also believe that all parties appreciate the fact that the hon the Minister was yesterday prepared to table the proposed timetable for the implementation of the new dispensation.
To the PFP and particularly to the hon member for Sea Point I want to say that during the referendum campaign they made great play of the fact that the new constitution was going to cost the taxpayer a lot of money and that they should because of that vote “no”. I want to ask the hon member for Sea Point, because I am sure he will speak again, whether they have ever calculated the cost of the implementation of PFP policy for South Africa. [Interjections.] We would like an answer.
They signed the Buthelezi Commission’s report which recommended that it should be one component part of a federal state for South Africa. We understand also on very reliable authority that the PFP proposes to have eleven such regional states in a federation for South Africa according to their policy. If the Buthelezi Commission is a model to go by, each assembly will have at least 100 representatives and from each assembly members will be sent to a central Parliament in South Africa. That means that there will be eleven regional Parliaments and one central Parliament. What is that going to cost the taxpayer of South Africa? So I wonder whether hon members have ever calculated the cost of their policy.
I was very disappointed in the hon member for Sea Point because here we stand on the threshold of the new constitutional dispensation in which they are going to participate, and what does the hon member ask the House? Where the telephones are going to be for communication with the chamber down at the Foreshore. Of course we can understand why the hon member wants to know whether our messages will get down there. The second thing he asked was where the dining-rooms are going to be. For once and for all we should have clarity on what the cost factor is in relation to any new dispensation. First of all, let us calculate what the cost will be for the implementation of a “one man, one vote” federal system as advocated by the PFP. Look at Zimbabwe, Mr Chairman, where they have implemented it. The result has been a failure of the economic system. That is the result of a system of one man, one vote, which must lead to a one party state. That price is too high to pay for any country in the world, let alone South Africa. A calculation will show hon members that the cost of this present Parliament—the current cost of running this Parliament in South Africa—is 60 cents per head of the population per year, which is five cents per month. It is costing the members of the population of South Africa five cents per head per month to run this Parliament. If we should double that cost—which I doubt we will—it will cost every member of the South African population 10 cents per month to run the new Parliament. I believe that is not too high a price to pay for the extension of democratic rights to Coloured and Indian voters in South Africa.
Hon members should look at what is happening in other countries. Let us take for instance the USA, which has ten times the population of South Africa. However, it has 38% more representatives in its Government than we will have in our new Government. It has a budget which is bigger, and it has thousands of members in the regional state governments. Even if we look at Australia and Canada it appears that those governments are considerably bigger and more expensive than the South African Government. For the edification of hon members I should just want to point out that in Australia alone, which is a country with a population of 15 million people, and a budget of R51 billion … [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I just want to take this opportunity, along with hon members, of placing on record my gratitude and appreciation to the officials of my department for their exceptional efforts and dedication in regard to their work. I think that we as outsiders have only a vague impression of the volume of work that is disposed of by those officials. I therefore wish to convey to them my personal thanks and appreciation for what they are doing.
Furthermore, I should also like to make brief mention of two of the most senior officials of this department, one of whom has been promoted and the other of whom will shortly be retiring from the service. I am referring to the Director-General of the department, Dr Du Plessis, who is shortly being promoted to the rank of commissioner on the Commission for Administration, and Mr A J Louw, head of the Central Statistical Service, who after a long and colourful career in the Public Service is retiring from the service on pension.
I can say many excellent things about Dr du Plessis, with whom I have, in the nature of things, had a very close connection during the past two years—and I wish to add at once that to me personally it was a very enriching connection. He is an excellent official with a very wide-ranging experience who, in the midst of his work, completed his studies up to doctorate level. His experience in the Public Service goes back as far as 1948, when he began to work for the Cape Provincial Administration, and he was subsequently attached in various capacities to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the Transvaal Provincial Administration and the then Public Service Commission.
In the ’sixties he was also of assistance to the Government of the Transkei in the establishment of their Government Commission. To a great extent Dr du Plessis is the personification of a generation of administrative experts in the Public Service on whom increasingly heavier demands are being made in various spheres. With his proven administrative skill and planning ability he was a logical choice for doing pioneering work in the newly rationalized government service. Four years ago he was entrusted with the task of converting the former Department of the Prime Minister into a new Office of the Prime Minister, and two years later, in August 1982, he was the obvious candidate for further pioneering work by playing a leading role in the establishment of the new Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, with its task of overall planning in regard to a diversity of professional disciplines. He carried out both of these major tasks with great distinction. For that I wish to convey my sincere thanks to him. My department’s loss is in reality a gain for the Commission for Administration, to which he is being promoted.
When I wish him and his family success and everything of the best for the future, I know in advance that it will not merely remain a wish, but that success will, in fact, follow naturally in the footsteps of this pleasant, dedicated, hard-working and competent man and friend.
Then, too, I wish to pay tribute to Mr A J Louw, who is retiring soon after a long and impressive career in the Public Service. Since reliable statistics form such an integral and important component of the planning processes of both the State and the private sector, there are today many eminent people in this country who can testify personally to the dignified, helpful and charming personality of At Louw, first in his capacity of Secretary to the then Department of Statistics and during the past two years as chief of the Central Statistical Service of my department.
His career began 46 years ago when, having just matriculated, he began to work for the former Bureau of Census and Statistics, which was then a subdivision of the Department of the Interior. By means of extramural studies he obtained a B Comm degree at the University of Pretoria in 1941, after which he also completed certain postgraduate courses in mathematics and statistics. He is one of the pioneers who, since the establishment of the Department of Statistics in 1969, have formed part of this country’s statistical team. Over the years he has worked in all the various divisions of the department, and the wide spectrum of knowledge which he acquired in this way, provided him with a firm foundation when he took over the reins as Secretary for Statistics in 1980.
His knowledge of statistical matters made him an acquisition for my department when the Central Statistical Service was incorporated into this department in 1982. He is a man who himself admits that figures communicate with him, and this dedication to his work has consequently been a feature of his Public Service career.
Although I am sorry that he is retiring, it is a pleasure for me to wish him and his family a happy retirement.
Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.
Mr Speaker, I move:
The House adjourned at