laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 6 February 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 6 February 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, when the hon the State President addressed the House on Wednesday he devoted a part of his speech to the Group Areas Act. What he had to say here has since been reported in various newspapers, and I noticed in the Cape Times this morning that the hon the State President had complained that he had not been reported correctly.

Quite correctly too!

“Quite correctly”, says the hon member Dr Vilonel. What the Cape Times apparently intimated is that no change is going to be made to the Group Areas Act.

They just do not apply it!

The hon the State President’s objection is based on the fact, he says, that he is indeed prepared to allow amendments, but no substantial amendments that will fundamentally affect the principle of separate residential areas.

He is leaving that for after the election!

I want to suggest that the report in the Cape Times really reflected the correct situation. But it has become the fashion by now that hon members on the Government side very much want to enjoy the advantage of the woolly statements and declarations which they make in this House; of the vague statements they make, and of their inability to lay down clear standpoints and guidelines in regard to a variety of very important matters concerning the administration of the country.

I should like to refer to a few things mentioned by the hon the State President in his speech. There are some of his arguments that will probably come as a surprise to those who have been at the receiving end of the Group Areas Act during the past 36 years while it was applied.

The first interesting argument is that the Group Areas Act:

I find this argument amazing, to put it mildly.

I want to refer the hon the State President and his colleagues who are present here to a statement made recently by a Cabinet colleague of theirs Rev Hendrickse after one of his many skirmishes with the hon the State President. When it was said that he played a part in Cabinet decisions in connection with the Group Areas Board, he said:

To a great extent I sympathise with what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives said, because the argument that the Group Areas Act simply has to do with apartheid, with the separation of groups, is not true. This is proved in practice. It is an Act that is used selfishly and discriminatingly, at the cost of people of other races in this country.

If one were to enquire in the Peninsula, one would find that, on the property market, the prices of houses in the Coloured and Indian residential areas are usually much higher than comparable dwellings in White areas. This is so for the simple reason that the availability of Coloured and Indian housing falls so hopelessly short. There are not enough declared group areas for them. While there are in fact group areas, I take it that that is the only way in which they can find a solution. Then hon members are surprised that people loathe the Group Areas Act to such an extent.

I should like to refer to the statistics in connection with this. There are not statistics which were issued by us; They are statistics that Government departments have been making available to us all these years. I have asked this question every year for many years. Let us see what the situation is today. The total surface area of declared group areas in South Africa by the end of December 1985 is as follows—let us start with the Indian group areas: Indian group areas consist of 50 776 ha; Coloured group areas consist of 96 394 ha and White group areas consist of 749 402 ha. Expressed in percentages, 83,58% of the land belongs to Whites; 10,75% to Coloureds and 5,66% to Indians.

The hon the State President told us that the Group Areas Act guarantees proprietorial rights to communities and individuals on a fairer basis than was the case before its introduction. He states this after 40 years of NP rule and 36 years of the Group Areas Act’s existence. To employ such an argument is scandalous. The situation is scandalous. The reality of the discrimination—not only the theory of the Group Areas Act, but its discriminatory enforcement—is a disgrace to this Government.

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

No, Sir.

It is beyond understanding that a senior politician like the hon the State President could dare to employ such an argument. Can he not take cognisance of his own satistics? Can he not take cognisance of how the Groups Areas Act is implemented in practice? We have reason to think that the hon the State President is apparently not capable of really approaching this matter. Let us examine the other reasons which he gave.

The second reason given by him is that the Groups Areas Act also provides the opportunity for community life and the development of community activities, and so forth. It is really tragic to hear a senior government leader in South Africa saying something like that. It indicates one thing, i.e. that the man certainly is not capable of taking note that a non-racial society is at all possible. He wants to suggest that it is only by means of the Group Areas Act that it is possible for communities to be able to develop; that communities will not develop on the basis of their exclusivity or on the basis of mutual acceptance. This suggests that senior government leaders in South Africa have become so caught up in their approach to race that they can overlook religious differences, language differences, political differences, everything excepting being able to overlook the colour of one’s skin because as soon as it comes down to the colour of one’s skin, a difference arises between people who are irreconcilable within the framework of their approach and philosophy from now until eternity.

The hon the State President referred to the chaos that existed before the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

The Minister of National Education should come and look at the chaos that has been caused by the implementation of the Group Areas Act.

In the third place, the hon the State President said that the principles of the Group Areas Act also provides an opportunity to apply pliancy and consideration based on humanitarian considerations by means of permit control.

What he is therefore saying, is that the Group Areas Act can at least be humane as well, but as an exception and not as a rule. Really, I cannot put forward a better argument why we should get rid of this Act than the one which the hon the State President gave in his own argument for the continued existence of the Group Areas Act.

The hon the State President also referred to the position of poor Whites, and said that we have a duty to protect them.

That is just for the election.

I have poor Whites in my constituency—they live in Woodstock. The hon the State President had had thought fit to make statements in connection with Woodstock at the Federal Congress of the NP. He said the following:

Woodstock is such an area he says; and he is correct. It does not have what is termed a group character in NP terminology. To the NP “groepskarakter” supposedly means that the area concerned is only White or Black or Coloured. [Interjections.] Woodstock is therefore according to him a place which does not have a group character.

The hon the State President continues with a peculiar process of logic, because he says that Woodstock should be declared a Coloured area. How one comes to such a conclusion, heaven alone knows. I just want to tell the hon the State President that the Group Areas Board has carried out its investigation and has also arranged a public hearing, and we thank the officials for this because it afforded us the opportunity of putting forward the people’s standpoint. Their standpoint has been stated unequivocally. The people of Woodstock tell the Government: Leave us alone; let us be; we live in piece and quiet with each other; do not make us the prey of your ideological fancies. This is indeed what it is about.

It is of course also clear to us why further on in the State President’s speech, there is an interest in the further declaration of group areas in a place such as Woodstock. It concerns the institution of further ethnic local governments. It concerns the institution of further racially divided local government institutions for the purpose of enabling the regional services councils of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to function. South Africa should therefore have no doubt about it; we are on the road to more apartheid.

It is only little Red Riding Hood who would believe you!

The Government has reached a stage in its process of reform where reform is starting to encroach upon its power-base, and further than that it will not go. [Interjections.] They will certainly not go further than that. That is where they have come to a standstill, and that is what we have to accept is going to be the yardstick according to which the Government is going to act in future.

They must not come along and speak of the housing needs of Coloureds, Indians or even Whites. Statistics show that such matters are low on their list of priorities. What is of priority to them, is that every community in South Africa has to fit in with the Nat grand plan. They have to fit in with a manipulated little constitutional system which has been worked out in someone’s office. If they cannot fit in with that, they are in trouble and then it does not matter what misery and suffering they have to undergo. That is their plan with a place such as Woodstock.

Racial prejudice is present in all of us as is sin, but sinfulness is something that one has to try and suppress. On the contrary those hon members of the NP have clung to racial prejudice over the years. They have handled it with kid gloves and at times they have encouraged it for the sake of short term political gain. It is therefore no wonder that they are trapped in a situation today; that they are increasingly unyielding; that they simply cannot break away from their way of thinking; and that a senior parliamentarian and political leader such as the hon the State President is simply not capable of imagining what a South Africa free of apartheid could look like.

It is a pity that this is the case, but the message must be broadcast very clearly from Parliament that the Group Areas Act cannot disappear. This also explains their approach to the hon the State President’s report. This Act cannot disappear, because it is to a great extent a central pillar of the tricameral Parliament. Moreover, it is a fundamental buttress of the system of regional services councils and because this is the Government’s most basic aim, people should understand that if they stand in its way, the Government will have very little sympathy for them.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Green Point said that he sympathized with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives regarding the Group Areas Act, but I want to tell the hon member that I greatly sympathize with him because he has not yet seen through the modus operandi of the Governing party. Does he not realize that there is an election in the offing?

The Government has already bid farewell to that Act; we know that. The proof is to be found in my constituency. In the town of Zeerust initially three families of colour were living in the White area, but since then more have moved in. Every organisation—anyone who can possibly complain—has been complaining for the last 14 or 15 months to the police, the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and everywhere else they possibly can. Thus far they have not received any assistance. The only reply they get is that the government bodies refuse to take action. That is true.

I was in Suurbekom near Westonaria 14 days ago. There are 614 small holdings which are White residential plots. People of colour, mainly Black people from Soweto, have moved onto 27 of these. A headmaster from Soweto has moved onto a plot near the school. He said he was taking that plot because once they took over the school he did not want to have to travel far to get to school. People of colour have already taken over 27 plots. The Whites had been to the police, they have been to the Department of Community Development, they have been to their MP and to other organisations to complain. Thus far there has been absolutely no reaction. The Government has bid that Act farewell. But there is an election in the offing and it must survive the election first.

The CP has had the lion’s share in the struggle to force the election which we are going to have later this year. [Interjections.] After all, the Government did not intend to hold an election yet. But because it does not have a mandate to do what it wants to do, the CP has succeeded in forcing it to hold an election. [Interjections.] Because we have right on our side, we have forced the Government to hold an election and in this way the first step in our strategy to overthrow the Government has worked out perfectly thus far. We need the election to overthrow the Government and we have succeeded in getting it. [Interjections.]

I want to ask hon members opposite, but actually every member in this House, whether we can say today, after a week of debating, what the Government’s plans are. Can we say that we know what the mandate is which the Government is going to ask from the voters? [Interjections.]

Order!

We cannot say that. All we know is that the hon the State President was frightened out of his wits by the CP. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think that is altogether parliamentary.

Mr Speaker, if you tell me what is parliamentary, I shall comply with it with the greatest of pleasure.

Order! The hon member need not argue with me. I said I did not think it was parliamentary. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. We are not a millimetre further than we were last year when the hon the State President made a statement at one of his congresses and I am quoting from the report:

The hon the State President then said that he was groping in the dark. It would be extremely irresponsible of anyone to expect us to get a reply during this debate. We will not get a reply.

When he announced the election, the hon the State President said that he was going to spell out to the people clearly and distinctly what his plans were. In this debate he also told us something. He said that the Black people outside the Black states who were living in White South Africa could be self-governing or independent.

Now I want to ask hon members opposite whether the Black community living in Biesiesvlei is going to be self-governing and independent. Is the Government going to enter into an Nkomati Accord with them? [Interjections.] Is that the Government’s policy now? That is ridiculous. We have heard absolutely nothing in this debate regarding what the Government’s policy is. The Government is asking the voters for a blank cheque and is telling them they must vote for reform. But it is not saying what that reform is; we only know that it includes power-sharing.

There is one little question which the Government must answer to make this matter clear. We want to know how it is going to include the Black people in the legislative and executive authority at all levels of government, particularly at the highest level. How are Black people going to become part of the Government and the highest legislative authority in the country? The self-governing Black states already exist, and the NP says that these states are going to become part of our country. The Government says that it is going to create structures for the Black people outside the self-governing states. Is it going to do so fairly?

Yes.

The hon the Minister says that they are going to do this fairly. Now I want to ask him whether the 20 million or more Black people who are now under discussion have at least a four times better chance of the State President being one of them than the five million Whites. If he wants to be fair, this will have to be the case. Will those 20 million Black people have a four times better chance of filling every post in the Government than the Whites?

That is what the left wing wants to know. That is what the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare in the Minister’s Council wants, but he is too afraid to say so. The left wing wants to know this because they do not want to go to the voters with other impressions. They want to tell the voters what their plan is. They want to tell the voters that there will be a Black government in which the ANC must be able to participate. They want to tell them that the Group Areas Act and many other things must be abolished. [Interjections.] This is the dilemma they are faced with at the moment. Of course, the right wing does not want to say so now, because the general election lies ahead.

There is a second question which the Government must answer. How are they going to protect the minority groups? They say they are going to do so, but I want to know from the hon members what constitutional mechanisms they are going to use to do so. They must tell us what they are so that we can assess them.

There is no such mechanism and none other than the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said so. He spoke at Witbank last year and I am quoting from a report on his speech:

[Interjections.] This is the leader of the “New Nats” who left his colleague, the hon member for Innesdal, in the lurch. He says that there is no such mechanism, and that is the truth. In power-sharing there is no such mechanism; on the contrary, power-sharing is precisely the mechanism to transfer power to the majority and to unleash a power struggle.

That is why we want an example of a country in the world where power-sharing could find such a mechanism to protect minorities. No such thing exists. There are many examples elsewhere in the world where power-sharing has led to a majority government. Zimbabwe is an example of this on our doorstep.

On the eve of the election we must ask ourselves who is the real voice of the NP. The more its policy becomes one of integration, the more the NP develops a split personality. It is also becoming increasingly clear that the right wing of the NP is taking over before the election while the “New Nats” are being gagged, but after the election the left wing will step in and take over, and all the election promises will be jettisoned. [Interjections.]

The clearest example of this is what happened prior to the referendum. The former Minister of Law and Order and the former Minister of Community Development went to Mayfair. They said in a forceful manner that they were going to clean up the place, no matter what. This was said in forceful language and I myself felt that it was a bit forceful for those two gentlemen, because they were not able to do that much. But they did this.

Another example was the hon member for Hercules who took up his pen and said that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act was going to be cherished by the Government. [Interjections.]

All manner of things were said. All those promises were jettisoned after the referendum, gone with the wind. Nothing came of them.

Order! May I interrupt the hon member?

Certainly, Mr Speaker.

I must say the hon member makes it very difficult for the Speaker not to interject himself. [Interjections.]

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker! [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, Sir, you are welcome to interject. [Interjections.]

Now the hon the State President comes along and says that the principles of the Group Areas Act are going to be retained and that minority rights are going to be protected. He is saying this to create a conservative image of himself among the voters. I am telling hon members today that by election day he is going to be as conservative as the CP.

But any skilled political observer can see that the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid are already deftly opening the door slightly and telling academics: “Do not worry so much. We have had fundamental reform, and matters have come to a temporary standstill, but do not worry. They are going to get into their stride again in a little while. After all, we know this is going to happen later, just after the election. Then reform will get into its stride again.

[Inaudible.]

That hon Minister knows that he has already lost. He found that out the day his party visited Mr Jaap Basson. That is when he discovered that they were going to lose after the election. Then the left wing is going to take over.

That is why I am asking who the real voice of the NP is. Is it the left wing, through the mouth of the hon member for Innesdal, that has been gagged, or is it the right wing? The left wing has ostensibly been gagged, but he does not think differently. He still believes what he believed, and he is not the only one who believes that. There are others here who also believe it. It is said that there are 37 who think like he does. [Interjections.]

But that is not all. We know who they are. We know them. But the Government’s candidate in Bryanston is still a little inexperienced. He speaks openly. He was reported as follows:

That is the conviction of the NP candidate there. Now I am asking who represents the true voice of the NP. That is why I maintain that in this case the hon the State President represents the hands of Esau which are being held out to the people, but the hon member for Innesdal is the voice of Jacob, and in the end he is going to walk off with the inheritance. [Interjections.]

The other day the hon the State President sketched the revolutionary state for us. It is an alarming state, but it is in shrill contrast to what he held out the prospect of to the people before the referendum. Then it was promised that peace would descend on South Africa like never before. [Interjections.] Where is that peace now? Now we are dealing with a revolutionary state which is getting increasingly out of control. It will continue to get out of central. Why? Because the way in which the Government is fighting the revolution, is the objective of the revolution, namely one state for all the people of South Africa. This is the objective of the revolution—to establish one state which is going to be governed by a Marxist government. The NP’s policy is also that there must be one state. Consequently their method is the objective of the revolution.

That is why I say they cannot fight the revolution, not with their method. I say this because the anarchy prevailing in the country is starting in the Cabinet. It started there when during the holidays an hon Minister of the Cabinet together with his hon Deputy Minister led a group of people to break the laws of the country. Sir, surely that is anarchy. [Interjections.] The hon the State President then told that man, after he had said that it was his conviction and he was not going to apologize, that he need not apologize. All he need do is apologize to the hon the State President personally. [Interjections.] I say the anarchy is starting in the Cabinet.

The same applies to foreign relations. Suddenly, before the election, the Government wants to quarrel with America. Every evening the great actor of the NP is in our sitting-rooms quarrelling with the Americans. Why did he not do so in America? No, there he apologized to them for the history of the past 40 years. Pres Reagan told us that the hon the State President said that he found his past abhorrent. Now that there is an election they want to quarrel. No one believes this Government any longer.

The same applies to race relations. Since the introduction of this Government’s policy of power-sharing race relations have deteriorated. I want to ask whether during the past holiday the people enjoyed their swimming more than in the past. No, Sir, the swimming-pool had to be pumped dry in order to bring about peace. Now I say that if this Government is re-elected—which I do not believe will happen—everyone who is going to vote for it is going to have to help it pump the sea dry at the end of the year in order to bring about peace on South Africa’s beaches. [Interjections.] The choice is not, as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, between reform and revolution. These two are precisely the same thing. Reform is an instrument which leads to revolution. After all the Government, the NRP, the PFP, the ANC, the UDF and the SA Communist Party all want one state in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Now I want to ask why the hon the State President, the other day when he produced the documents of the revolutionaries here and also quoted what the SA Communist Party said, did not also say that the only force which they fear, which they know can stop them, is the rise of the right wing parties and the right wing movements among the Whites of South Africa. [Interjections.] They say that in their directive, and they mention them by name: the Conservative Party, the HNP and the AWB. They are afraid of these groups. They are afraid of us because we have another choice. Our choice is partition. [Interjections.] Partition is our choice, and what we are going to offer the voters of South Africa when they go to the polls shortly is the way of life of people which has emerged over the past 300 years in this country. Our policy is the fruit of the cumulative experience of more than three centuries, which must be applied in a modernized way in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We are going to restore the sovereignty of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] We are going to enable every other people to achieve this in South Africa. [Interjections.] Will the Germans, the French, the Tswana negotiate on their sovereignty? No, Sir! But the National Party has abolished our sovereignty. Now they are negotiating to see what they can get back. And they are going to continue to negotiate until we have nothing left. The National Party says that the Blacks can become independent outside their own national states, although they already have independent countries. But the Whites may not become independent. The Conservative Party is going to make the Whites independent again, and we are going to do so inside our fatherland. [Interjections.] Yes, we are going to do so here inside our fatherland. That is why the choice does not lie between revolution and reform. The choice lies between reform with the Zimbabwe option and partition with the European option. That is the choice we have in South Africa.

I believe indisputably that if on this occasion the voters of South Africa do not exercise their option correctly and vote in favour of partition, of segregation, this will be the last time that they will be able to make a meaningful choice. This, I believe, will be their last chance if they exercise their option incorrectly.

But I also know that the right of a people to live and to exist—in a civilized manner among other peoples—is an important right. I know that right is on our side. That is why the downfall of the Government is starting now.

Mr Speaker, in reality, like all the other hon members of Opposition parties, the hon member for Lichtenburg attempted to score political points throughout this debate with a view to the coming election. Nevertheless they did not arrive at the essence, the crux of the continued existence of civilised standards for all the people of this country.

On the first day of the debate the statement was made by one of the hon members of the Official Opposition—various other hon members on the opposite side subsequently came up with a similar statement—that the Government had no vision; that it had no clear vision for the continuance of civilised, Christian norms in South Africa.

Wynand said so too!

I must say I believe the statement made was incorrect; I also believe it is an unfair one. I have to concede that perhaps we have no catchline for a vision but this Government has a clear picture for the continuance of civilised standards in South Africa. It is to turn this beautiful country into a place in which all 30 million of its people may live happily together; a dispensation which will be to the advantage of all the people in a country in which Christian principles may continue to exist and triumph and—what I find enormously important—in which communism can be totally excluded from the country. That is why I want to give you my vision for South Africa today: South Africa for all its people.

The threat of communism and its hunger for expansion have already reached all outposts of the world. It is a danger aimed at dominating and controlling the entire world. This country of ours is and will be no exception on this road of Marxist hunger. No democratic dispensation can or will deny the evil nature of communism or ignore the danger it holds. Consequently it is vital that the danger of communism be acknowledged and that the Bear be called by name.

A fortnight ago I was privileged to address a worldwide anti-communist gathering in the Republic of China where 30 countries from all continents were gathered in their mutual striving against communism. It struck me that communism was treated with kid gloves in many countries nowadays. American liberals call it a dying ideology; a myth we no longer need actually take into account. In South Africa, too, there are people, especially on that side of the House, who say it is non-U to discuss it.

It was very clear at the gathering in Taipei that there are countries with distinctive problems—South Africa is certainly one of the most important with its complex problems— which are threatened and driven by a mutual feeling and dedication against communism. The experience these countries have had of communism differs. The Taiwanese, for example, experienced it personally. Forty years ago they had to flee to escape the communist yoke. This made an indelible impression on the leaders of that country.

I should very much like to apply some of the lessons learnt by that country to South Africa. The people in their small country of the size of the Kruger National Park, with 20 million inhabitants, have little hope of survival. Nevertheless they have decided to steel themselves against communism and are doing it in two ways. Firstly, the youth are undisguisedly indoctrinated against communism and secondly—this is even more important because this is particularly applicable here— the country is being built up economically, educationally and socially so that nobody in that country would wish to exchange such a level of development and prosperity for anything else. That is the crux of the situation in South Africa too: That we should refuse to exchange our system for anything else. We experience communism in a different way. They are the masters who use other people to do their dirty work. That is not the vision we desire for South Africa.

I recently read an interesting article by a writer called Martin Baubaum. He wrote about the “Circle of Civilisation”:

That brings us back to precisely where we were.

With its First and Third World components, South Africa is exactly at two opposite poles of that circle of civilisation. The two poles are pursuing each other in a perpetual circle in a frantic chase to nowhere. My appeal today is for us to set aside our pettiness and to break out of this circle for the benefit of South Africa and all its people.

How is one to do this? How does one give substance to this vision of South Africa for all its people? I think one may give it substance by distinguishing on the one hand between the just demands of all 30 million people in South Africa, White, Black, Brown and Asian, in all spheres—constitutional, political, socioeconomic and social—and the communist danger which is also threatening this country on the other hand. We can learn from the Republic of China which has built up its country for the benefit of all its people. An economic miracle is taking place there.

I wish to conclude. [Interjections.] My vision of South Africa for all its people is fashioned on the principle that each inhabitant of South Africa will have the right to a say as well as the right to own a house, to be employed and to be proud of something he can protect. [Interjections.] This means that we shall have to go out of our way to develop South Africa in a balanced manner and cultivate less developed areas for the benefit of all our people. [Interjections.] It is wonderful that a country like China is sending its people to South Africa today to establish industries here. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman may not keep up a running commentary from his seat.

Mr Speaker, I merely want to add that we should develop this country with all its parts for the benefit of all its people. That is precisely what this Government is doing today and part of its vision of South Africa for all its people.

Mr Speaker, I think we all agree with the last point made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that is that South Africa needs to be developed for all its people. The question is how one does it and how one succeeds in that admirable aim.

I was interested in his long dissertation on aspects of communism and the threat that imposes. However, what I find particularly interesting is that an hon Deputy Minister of this Government, which has now been in power for nearly 39 years, has to be so concerned about communism in South Africa. After all, the Government has created the conditions causing this concern. If they had achieved even reasonable success during those years, there should not have been a need for concern of that sort. I want to suggest that one of the key reasons why they are concerned—and there is reason for concern— is because they have failed to establish racial harmony in our country during that period.

For South Africa to have peace and prosperity, we must have racial harmony. Without racial harmony there will be no stability, and the fabric of our society will continue to disintegrate in the way that it has done over the past few years. This disintegration in the social, economic, educational and political spheres is primarily the result of the failed policies of the Government and its inability to remedy the situation because of three outstanding characteristics which were mentioned by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition at the opening stage of this debate, namely incompetence, wastefulness and a bullying attitude.

During the course of the debate this was graphically illustrated by the hon the State President’s attack on Mr Chris Ball. First of all, it illustrated the Government’s incompetence, because he got his facts wrong.

Secondly, it was wasteful because he now plans to use the time and resources of the State to pursue what—illegality or scoring political points? If that advertisement or someone financing it had broken the law, then the State President should be handing it over to the police to investigate and prosecute if necessary. If the law was not broken there is no earthly reason why Mr Chris Ball or anybody else should be investigated as to discover where the finances came from or who had anything to do with that advertisement. That would be exactly the same as somebody getting the Judge President of one of our provinces to investigate who is financing the National Party in this election. We know, of course, that the prime financier is the taxpayer.

The third element is the bullying element. I believe that an attempt to smear somebody like Mr Chris Ball is a cowardly smear attempt and that to try to intimidate people who disagree with the Government is totally unjustified.

Order! The hon member is not entitled to say it is a “smear” or a “cowardly smear attempt”. The hon member must withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw them. It is a cowardly slander in my view to try to intimidate people who disagree with the Government.

Order! The hon member cannot put any alternatives. The hon member must withdraw the words “cowardly slander”.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on that point?

The word “cowardly” must be withdrawn.

I withdraw the word “cowardly”. I believe that if the hon the State President had any decency he would apologise to Mr Ball without delay and leave the matter at that.

He kicked the wrong Ball!

One asks why the hon the State President is so agitated about this— about some advertisements calling for the unbanning of the ANC, something which many people have done in South Africa over a number of years. I will tell hon members why. It is because of the Government’s failed policies. This is another classic illustration of it. Twenty-seven years after banning the ANC the NP is more scared of the ANC than it has ever been before. It is getting absolutely paranoiac about it. Why has this happened? It is because we have neither stability nor the racial harmony needed to secure that stability.

Unfortunately, this Government continually misrepresents relative calm brought about by coerced submission as stability. Peace in South Africa is not going to depend on guns, Casspirs and coercion but on goodwill, co-operation and job creation. Being tough may sometimes be necessary, but it is not enough and never will be.

We need far more, but this Government is incapable of providing it; on the contrary, not only have NP policies not promoted racial harmony but they have actually prevented it from coming about.

Let us look now at what some of the political ingredients are that are required to get the process of bringing about racial harmony and stability under way. I would like to suggest a few of them this afternoon.

The first one is negotiation with genuine Black leaders—not within the parameters of the apartheid ideology; not with appointed leaders or confined to leaders with limited following; and not just consultation either. I am talking about genuine negotiation.

The Government’s record in this regard is abysmal and so it has now resorted to regional services councils and “kitskonstabels” to give some illusion of progress in constitutional reform. This will not work and in most cases will simply aggravate the situation. There is probably no other factor that would give more people hope for the future of our country than if the Government were involved in serious constitutional negotiation with genuine Black leaders.

The second point is to implement the KwaNatal Indaba proposals. Few things illustrate the Government’s attitude towards negotiation better than its response to the indaba proposals. Because the Government did not set the conditions or decide on the participants or hold a veto over the final recommendations, and because it does not like the proposals, it has rejected them out of hand. It has turned out the light on one of the brightest beacons of hope over the past couple of years in this country.

The Government’s approach to negotiation is to try to find people who will help make NP policy work—and they are becoming scarcer by the day.

The third step that needs to be taken is to systematically remove all laws that discriminate on the basis of race. Laws that enforce residential and social segregation are preventing people, in particular children, from getting to know each other. If we do not learn to live together, there will be no racial harmony and no stability. The Government’s actions in respect of segregation in residential areas, education and separate amenities expose its double standards, hypocrisy and fundamentally expedient and racist approach to South Africa.

The hon the State President makes a fool of himself over Rev Allan Hendickse’s swim on a Whites’ only beach in Port Elizabeth, but turns a blind eye to tens of thousands of Black and Brown people using theoretically White beaches in the Cape Peninsula—even in the constituency of one of his other Cabinet Ministers.

Moreover, what about Rev Hendrickse’s place of residence in a White group area? I should like to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether that Cabinet Minister colleague of his has a permit to live there. I should like to ask the hon the Minister that; I am sure he can hear me. [Interjections.] My guess, Sir, is that he will not answer me. I would like the Government to tell us whether this is just another case of double standards.

The PFP believes that everyone should be allowed to live where they can afford to live, and the Rev Allan Hendrickse or anyone else should be welcome to live in Rondebosch or wherever else they choose to live. [Interjections.]

Even the Cabinet does a political egg-dance when confronted with these issues. Contrast the equivocation of the hon the Minister of Finance with the statements of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have a cutting here from the San Francisco Chronicle of August, 1985, in which the Rev Jerry Fallwell—he is a great friend of this Government—is reported to have said that—

He is quoted here, as I have mentioned, as having said that the NP’s commitment is to the abolition of apartheid. Yet on Monday, when the hon the Minister of Finance was asked directly by the hon member for Yeoville whether he was in favour of the abolition of apartheid, he immediately started an egg-dance and began to equivocate on the subject.

It is election time.

Yes.

People must be granted the freedom to choose for themselves; but this of course runs counter to the authoritarian attitude of this Government.

The fourth step that I believe needs to be taken is the bringing about of a genuine devolution of power so that people can have more say over matters of immediate concern to them. Devolution of power has the potential to defuse many issues, to help cope with diversity and to promote partnerships and understandings at grassroots level. Here again, the Government has failed abysmally. It has not succeeded in establishing credible local government structures because its motivation is for them to be mere building blocks within the apartheid constitutional edifice. It has not worked, and it will not work.

The hon the State President says he believes in the devolution of power. Yet the Government has been decentralizing some administrative functions while the public at large have less and less say in choosing who governs over them.

More than 40 years ago, a manifesto was published in Die Transvaler, then under the editorship of Dr Verwoerd. It is very interesting to look at today. It set out a plan for the future. This plan included: establishing a republic with an executive president; having the administrators appointed by the president; and having the mayors, or “burgemee-sters” as it was referred to, appointed by the administrators. If, in this document, one exchanges chairmen of regional services councils for mayors then that is what we have today. We do not have the devolution of power but rather a dangerous and undemocratic concentration of power.

These are some of the steps that can and should be taken without delay. We need racial harmony in South Africa in order to achieve stability and prosperity. The Government is not achieving and will not achieve any one of those three goals if it continues in the way it has in the past.

We need a new government in South Africa.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

We need to build bridges and work with partners to establish a better future for everyone. Without trust and hope we will achieve little. It is essential that a climate of goodwill be created before it is too late.

The PFP believes that a start should be made immediately to change the political climate in South Africa and we believe that some of the preconditions for this are the following: Firstly, starting negotiations with genuine Black leaders; secondly, allowing the people of Natal to implement the indaba proposals if they wish to do so; thirdly, systematically removing all laws that discriminate on the basis of race, such as the Group Areas Act, and measures that forcibly segregate schools and hospitals; and fourthly, bringing about a genuine devolution of power so that more people are involved in the decision-making processes. Once this process is under way, we will have a real possibility of working toward a prosperous, stable, non-racial democracy in South Africa.

We have no confidence in the Government to do any of these things. We know that there are millions of South Africans who are sick and tired of the NP and its incompetence, wastefulness, bullying attitudes and failed policies, and, despite all its patronage and abuse of power, this Government will suffer a massive setback on 6 May. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr Speaker, as the NRP foreign affairs spokesman, permit me at the outset to express this party’s enthusiastic support for the appointment and endorsement of Mr Rae Killen as Ambassador to the Court of St James.

Hear, hear!

I want to say that both Mr Killen and his good lady take with them the very best wishes of all of us in these benches, and that we sincerely believe that he is most deserving of his appointment to this high office. We are confident that he will render this country a great service in Great Britain.

Having followed this debate closely for the past four days, I must confess that I have heard nothing that would in any way dissuade me from my sincere belief that the Government is more deserving of a vote of no confidence today than ever before. [Interjections.] No less a person than the hon the State President himself emphasised this to me when he suggested to my colleague, the hon member for Durban Point, the other day that he had missed the bus after the referendum. I think I may safely infer from that remark that the hon the State President was referring to all my party colleagues in this House as well as all those members of the NRP outside this House who supported the “yes” vote. I can only presume that we were all included in his suggestion and I want to tell him that if we did miss the bus, we did so intentionally because from that day to this, the bus which he—that is the hon the State President—both drives and conducts, has lost direction. At this very moment his bus is careering downhill. It is freewheeling in neutral and gathering momentum at an alarming rate, and I want to say that we have no desire to catch it. However, we do have a desperate and urgent desire to check it. We would like to convince the driver that he should once again engage gear and move in the direction and at the pace which he suggested he would during the 1981 referendum.

Eighty per cent of your voters are on board. [Interjections.]

The boot is in fact on the other foot. We in this party, together with many other realistically-minded South Africans from other parties, gave the hon the State President the tickets for his bus ride. I want to say, however, that we do not regret doing so, although certain others are suddenly seeking popularity by saying that they do. They are suddenly finding it popular and getting a lot of publicity from it—to say that they wish they had not voted as they did. However, none of those gentleman who are seeking this popularity have any alternatives to suggest. As I say we do not regret having done it. We want to say, however, that the hon the State President has followed neither the route nor the timetable that he indicated he would at the start of the journey.

I submit that the Government has lost direction. This submission was amply borne out by the arguments presented by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in the Network programme last night. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister demonstrated how the Government has completely missed the point, let alone the bus. They have missed the point of the indaba, the principle of which is the inclusion of Blacks with Whites, Indians and Coloureds in one legislative body. The method of arriving at the principle is negotiation, but the hon the Minister is trying to suggest that negotiation is the principle, and here he makes his cardinal error. He suggested in last night’s programme that negotiation was what it was all about, but it goes much further than that.

The forthcoming election is about reform, and reform means one thing, namely the inclusion of Blacks in this Parliament. That is the principle upon which the NRP stands, and that is the point which Government speakers have consistently rejected throughout this debate.

Political and economic arguments have been spelled out during the course of this debate in great detail and with a greater or lesser measure of conviction, but I would now like to add another argument which I believe is relevant to the situation and times in which we find ourselves. I think we should agree that each and every man is granted certain qualities in greater or smaller measure. Each and every one of us has been granted a measure of arrogance and a measure of humility. I submit that if one wants to lose direction in this life, one of the quickest ways to do so is to allow the former to supersede the latter. One of the reasons why I will record my vote for the motion before the House as amended by the hon member for Durban Point is because I sincerely believe that the hon members of the governing party need to rediscover their God-given sense of humility. I would suggest that those who manage to do this will fare a lot better in the hustings that lie ahead than will those who pursue an attitude of arrogance.

Whom are you going to vote for in Umhlanga? [Interjections.]

I express these sentiments with a far greater degree of sorrow than of anger. It is an inarguable fact that good government has always been achieved by men who are able to display a little humility before both their Maker and their fellow men. History and the books that are written about it record ample proof of that statement.

I should like to touch on another point about which I feel very deeply. I wish to place on record in Hansard my sincere regret that the captains of industry and commerce, who have been so vociferous over the past few years in their denigration of politicians, do not appear to be coming forward in order to offer themselves for election to this House. I have said before and I say again that it is time that those gentlemen put their mouths where their money is. There is still time for them to do so. They can offer themselves for election to whatever party they wish to support wherever it may be in the political spectrum, and heaven knows that we have in this House a sufficient range of parties for them to choose from. If they do not do so in the nomination courts that lie ahead, they must, in future, measure the volume of their criticism in proportion to their actions. [Interjections.]

Finally, 1987 is my thirtieth anniversary in an elected public office, and I have stated that I am not available for re-election. I am proud of the fact that I celebrate my thirtieth anniversary.

I also readily acknowledge that on every step of the way there have been innumerable people to whom I shall always feel a sense of gratitude for their encouragement and friendship. There are members of Parliament of all political persuasions, there are members of the staff of Parliament from those holding the most elevated position right down to the most humble and most junior whom I would like to thank most sincerely this afternoon for their contribution towards what has been the most enriching and rewarding experience of my life.

I came to this place in 1974 on a United Party ticket. In 1977 I enthusiastically followed Sir De Villiers Graaff into the New Republic Party. I stand by the policies and principles of this party as enunciated in this document that I have here which was printed and is still dated 1977. I have been re-elected to this House twice on this policy and this set of principles. I sincerely believe that until 6 May I have obligations to meet. I must meet my obligations to my constituency and to those who elected me. I must also meet my obligations to the principles on which I was elected. For that reason until that date I can and will support no other party.

Finally, and most important of all, I must meet my obligations to myself and to my conscience and then, knowing that I have been true to myself I can claim to subscribe to the unforgettable words of the immortal bard who said:

Mr Speaker, I shall reply to the hon member for Umhlanga presently. Meanwhile, in reaction to the proposals of no confidence by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Waterberg and others, I take pleasure in moving the following amendments without notice:

1. (1) endorses the guidelines laid down by the Government for future constitutional development;
2. (2) endorses the steps that have been and are still being taken by the Government to neutralize the anarchistic objectives of radical elements, ie to destroy the State and its institutions;
3. (3) endorses the standpoint of the Government as applied in practice that the Republic of South Africa should find solutions to its domestic problems without any interference from outside.
4. (4) expresses its appreciation to officials of the State and members of the security forces, who are serving South Africa with distinction; and
5. (5) in the light of the above reaffirms its confidence in the future of the Republic of South Africa.”

I shall confine myself chiefly to the second point of my amendment as so many other hon members on our side have dealt with its other points. It deals in the main with Government steps to neutralize the anarchistic objectives of radical elements in this country.

It cannot be argued away that fundamental differences exist between different parties in this House and ourselves especially on the handling of the security situation and its importance at this period in our history.

As regards dealing with the security situation, the standpoints of the various Opposition Parties varied considerably. From the PFP side came a statement that it was a red herring and, in listening to them, one would believe the occurrences of the past month existed only in the imagination of hon members on this side of the House.

On the other hand the CP even wishes to profess that we are fabricating the seriousness of the situation and the debate on it. They say security problems are the consequence of our actions and according to them the guidelines we are laying down for the future are also merely a sham with which we want to go to the voters to avoid other matters in this way. By means of such an attitude they do so much damage to the importance of this matter at this stage of our history that voters will repudiate them for that reason alone.

The run-up to the problems which arose regarding our security situation are overfamiliar. Approximately 75% of Black people of South Africa have started ranging themselves under a system in which self-determination is a central characteristic. Whites, Coloureds and Asians have seen eye to eye under a system that works. There was promise of development on at least the third tier of Government for the remaining approximately 25% of Black people of South Africa. Further successes beckoned on the horizon and order and stability were watchword to attain these. Nevertheless our enemies were keeping a close watch and, as predicted by the hon the State President, they struck when the prospect of success was within our grasp. They had to cast everything into the struggle to prevent the RSA from developing final constitutional models which could ensure peace and stability for us in this country over the next two or three centuries—not decades.

When the enemy struck, it was not at the NP but at the essence of the State and all its institutions; that was their target. Battle was joined through disinvestment and sanctions toward our economy. Mines and bombs kept the security forces busy on our borders and in the interior while an attempt was made to debilitate the civic population’s moral fibre with necklaces and shamboks to make them join in the weeping or rechoicing. Our security forces were challenged and provoked in an underhand manner to create an emotional climate, not against the Government or a particular party, but against the survival of the State. Third-tier government has been eliminated by murder and necklaces and hon members know that charge-sheets and recent court cases confirms that intimidation and murder were carried out with the object of making the country ungovernable. This is a strategy which was and is indubitably directed at the ultimate overthrow of the State as soon as the country has been made sufficiently ungovernable and existing State institutions replaced.

Arising from this, it is also obvious that the possibility could then be created for anarchistic organizations to claim that they were in control of significant portions and areas of South Africa. They could assert they were in control of significant numbers of people in the country. It is universally acknowledged that such a claim is of exceptional significance in international law and statecraft. These anarchistic organizations would then declare a government in exile and one would be able to expect a clammer to emanate from specific countries for recognition of such a “government”. This is that the Government had to face in the interest of the whole of South Africa. We took strong action because we had to.

†How did the opposition parties react to this state of affairs? The PFP calls this threat to our security a “red herring” and the CP wants to ignore the seriousness of the situation.

I want now to place something on record which must be read by all those people who believe that everything our courts say is correct and true. This is especially true for security because as far back as 1972 the Appellate Division found in the ffrench-Beytagh case that it agreed with the findings of a lower court that a plan to overthrow the state did exist. In this case—which I will refer to as the Beytagh case, the Chief Justice, Mr Ogilvie Thompson said:

What did the indictment say? Paragraph 1(a) states:

The indictment stated further:

Have we now reached that stage? It states furthermore:

This plan to overthrow the State, was found to be in existence in 1972—and it is still alive. Fortunately it is not all that healthy due to the alertness of the hon the State President and our Security Forces.

Proof of this is to be found in the fact that very recently two judges in the Eastern Province said that the judiciary of that division—

The hon member for Rissik is trying to make fun of the situation.

*The hon member for Lichtenburg made a fuss and tried to distract our attention from it but they cannot succeed as they are part of the system. The NP is not the only target but also the State. Hon members are aware that the State acquired specific powers in terms of specific findings of the Appeal Court to assume extraordinary powers in times of emergency such as these. If we had not done this, we should have neglected to do our duty.

We now wish to ask the people whether they agree with our strong action. [Interjections.] The hon members for Lichtenburg and Kuruman are trying in vain to shy away from the fact that in these days before the election we shall speak very seriously on the matter of security and ask where the people stand. [Interjections.]

We shall have to give serious consideration to the freedom of organisations and individuals if they affect the security of the State. We are entitled to do this and the public expects it of us. We shall go to the public for an endorsement of this standpoint.

I further wish to make the point that the powers and authority to act in a state of emergency should be exercised according to definite civilized measures and standards. Anyone clothed in power and authority has to act accordingly. We have numerous cases in which such improper actions were rectified.

†The hon member for Houghton preferred to devote most of her time to the issue of children. I do not want to belittle this issue but she avoided the main issues very carefully. Why are children there? Are they abused, and by whom? Yes, we do treat them very well, thank you. Why should they be there, however? The hon member for Houghton is completely out of the mainstream of thinking, even of the Black people. In The Sowetan of 5 February a leading article appeared in which the following was said:

Why does the hon member for Houghton not perhaps check her own political direction and discover that she is completely out of line?

[Inaudible.]

The hon member asked me whether parole is available for criminals who have been sentenced for being involved one way or the other in incidents of unrest. No, Sir, remission and parole are not available to them. [Interjections.] We cannot ignore the possible deterrent effect on other arsonists and perpetrators of violence. Yet we have in the past shown that we have compassion, especially for first offenders, but this will be exercised sparingly, and only if it will serve a beneficial purpose by perhaps directing it towards the termination of the emergency situation.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to answer a question.

The hon member for Sandton also discussed the issue of Press freedom. I agree with him completely when it comes to a responsible free Press. What he actually did, however, was not to promote the case of a free Press. What he actually set out to promote was the cause of what we perhaps call the “informal Press”. They are people without discipline and who perhaps have only one objective and that is to increase their readership, to put it very mildly. However, it may perhaps also be their objective to promote revolution.

The hon member for Sandton wanted all the restrictions to be lifted. Those were his words. Let us see what the hon member for Sandton wanted to be lifted. Among other things he wanted regulation 5 to be scrapped. What does that regulation say? It says:

What is a subversive statement? If this regulation is scrapped, what will people be able to say? By “subversive statement” is meant:

Is that what the hon member wants? A “subversive statement” is also defined as one encouraging the following:

Is that what he wants to be lifted? Such a statement will also encourage people to do the following:

Is that what the hon member is promoting? Perhaps the hon member cannot explain his words now, but I believe he should actually be much ashamed for bluntly and patently promoting in this House the cause of the people who may be associated with revolution.

Who decides whether something is subversive or not?

It is not the hon member for Sandton! He has already decided that nothing is subversive.

Who decides then? Not the judges? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister allowed to say that I am guilty of promoting the causes of revolution in this House?

Order! Did the hon the Minister say that the hon member for Sandton was promoting the causes of revolution? [Interjections.] I did not hear the exact words that the hon the Minister used.

I deny that I used those words, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! Then the hon the Minister may continue.

What did he say? We’ll check his Hansard.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition also reacted to a point made by the hon the State President during his speech in this no-confidence debate. The hon the State President said that, like the Government, he believed election campaigns should be characterised by the greatest possible degree of freedom, open and responsible discussion of the standpoints and the statements made by individuals and by representatives of participating parties.

The hon member for Sandton would do well to listen to this. The hon the State President continued that leaders of the policitical parties participating in the election— we in the NP are included in this—who held the view that their just political activities would be inhibited in consequence of the regulations, would be given the opportunity of discussing it with a committee of ministers.

This already includes an indication from the hon the State President that in principle he would be disposed to amend the regulations. If he and the committee of ministers should be adivsed in this way after the NP leaders or the leaders of whatever party had put their case, for instance, this includes the possibility that those regulations may then be considered to provide for the possibility of an even freer open election. Surely it is patently obvious that this includes that possibility. [Interjections.]

Order! There is too much noise in the House. The hon the Minister cannot make his speech under these circumstances. Hon members must lower their voices, if they have to converse at all. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I now wish to put it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we once again have an example here of a refusal to function on his side. Here we have an essential set of regulations and his arguments can have an effect on them if he can prove its validity. Nevertheless the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition immediately rejected an offer by the hon the State President without in any way considering the possibility in included that specific steps would in any case be possible in this respect. He assumed that they were once again been left in the cold.

While we were establishing the safety of the country, the hon member for Houghton was paying visits abroad and collecting doctorates. The hon member for Waterberg and Mr Jaap Marais were writing letters to each other and Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche marched on Paardeberg on his scrupulous horse. [Interjections.]

The speeches of both the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Waterberg were characterised especially by their omissions. Apart from the fact that no statements on policy came from their side, they both omitted to announce their shadow cabinets. [Interjections.] This was a very serious oversight. The hon member for Lichtenburg argued a short while back that this Government would be brought to a fall. [Interjections.] The hon member for Green Point agreed. Does this foreshadow a coalition government? The fact is that they omitted to announce their cabinets. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall not permit the hon the Minister to be shouted down from CP benches. The hon the Minister may proceed.

They omitted to do so. If they claim they have a reasonable prospect of taking over the government of the country, and such a mischance befalls, the country has to know what the Cabinet will look like. [Interjections.] There was a deadly hush about their policy but it is imperative that a shadow cabinet be announced. It should be done before the end of the session.

Come and spread that nonsense in Kuruman.

As regards the PFP, there is only one member who qualifies on merit and that is the hon member for Yeoville. I believe all are agreed he would qualify for a Cabinet post. Regarding the rest, that side is in trouble.

Similarly the Conservative Party is in dreadful trouble. Fortunately there are a few hon members who elect themselves; the hon member for Sunnyside is the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.]

You are now engaging in petty politics!

The hon member for Jeppe is the Minister of Defence.

He would do better than you in any case! [Interjections.]

Sir, this is a serious matter. What will the hon member for Water-berg do with Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche? [Interjections.] Will he make him the Minister of Law and Order? [Interjections.] Will he make Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche his Minister of Law and Order? We have to know. After all, Mr Terre’Blanche has already appeared in court. [Interjections.] Surely the people are entitled to know. People are entitled to know what the hon member for Waterberg will do with Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche.

What about old Bessie? What will Andries do with her?

I ask the eloquent hon deputy leader, the almost former hon member for Lichtenburg, what they are going to do with Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche.

Ask the Speaker’s permission to allow me to shout at you!

What will they do with him? Are they ashamed to tell us? Are they ashamed of him?

I am not ashamed of him! [Interjections.]

Why does the hon member not tell us then? Are they going to include him in their Cabinet?

I am ashamed of you. [Interjections.]

Are they going to include Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche in their Cabinet? [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, this is an absolutely substantive and important matter. Nevertheless the hon members refuse … [Interjections.] And now they are laughing about it. Are they ashamed of Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche? [Interjections.]

They are laughing because they are nervous! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, before the end of this session we shall have to know whether Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche will form part of the shadow cabinet of the Conservative Party which is now about to enter the election. We have to know this. [Interjections.] Of course, we know Jaap Marais does not stand a chance; we know Jaap Marais will be dropped. This is clear to us; we are in no doubt about this.

What Black man are you appointing to the Cabinet? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, our security action in this country must be seen as a breastplate, a phalanx we have to don to protect the State so that we may proceed with other activities such as constitutional development, socioeconomic rebuilding and essential aid for instance to drought-stricken farming communities. Sir, those are matters which must receive our attention but those hon members refuse to give us their full support as regards the handling of security matters. [Interjections.]

Now you are talking absolute rubbish! [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense! [Interjections.]

Order!

It so happens that the constitutional models they wish to destroy are the same models the ANC want to demolish.

The ANC is your partner!

Sir, why is that so? What will the voters say about this? [Interjections.] Not one of those hon members has dealt with this matter. Not one of them has told us why the ANC wishes to wreck these constitutional models.

Because the ANC thinks it can take you on!

Among questions to which hon members of the Conservative Party will have to reply in future are the following among others. How did it come about that the objectives of the Conservative Party and those of the ANC co-incide?

But that is not true! [Interjections.]

Please explain clearly what you mean by that! [Interjections.]

Is there perhaps …

You are lying, man! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is that hon Minister permitted to say that the objectives of the Conservative Party and those of the ANC are the same?

Order! Did the hon Minister put it like that?

Mr Speaker, I said they would have to explain why it was so—and I

used the word “coincidentally” as well—that their objectives coincided with those of the ANC.

Order! I do not believe the hon the Minister should express it like that. He should not allege that the objectives of the Conservative Party and those of the ANC coincide. The Conservative Party is a party in this House whereas the ANC is a banned organisation. I do not believe the hon the Minister should express it so directly. I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister would withdraw that statement.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: An hon CP member made an interjection: “You are a partner of the ANC.”

Order! Give me a chance to deal with one point of order, then I shall pay attention to this one.

Mr Speaker, perhaps I did not express my point clearly and will consider how to do it. Meanwhile, I withdraw the statement.

Thank you for your co-operation. Which hon member made the comment referred to by the hon the Minister of National Education?

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Lichtenburg said to the hon the Minister: “You lie!”

Order! Did the hon member for Lichtenburg say that?

I did say so and, as he withdrew his statement, I shall withdraw mine too.

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

In view of the alacrity with which the hon member for Lichtenburg withdraws his statements, I wish to tell the hon member with equal alacrity that he challenged us to hold meetings in the Free State. We thereupon held those meetings.

Then you hid behind the women at Heilbron! [Interjections.]

It is no fault of mine that so many women came to listen to me. That is merely one of the facts of life with which one is sometimes burdened. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I say to the hon the Minister of Justice that I am disappointed in his speech this afternoon. I have come to know him as a serious-minded person and he is responsible for the very important portfolio of Justice relating to the whole question of security. Yet there was a superficiality in his approach towards the state of emergency and what should be done about it. He was trying to score petty party-political debating points instead of realising his responsibility towards the nation.

He criticizes the hon member for Sandton for wanting the emergency regulations relating to the Press withdrawn. He almost sounded as though he enjoyed having regulation 5. I thought that the hon the State President said that they would like to withdraw the state of emergency as soon as possible. I think that the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs said that it was not unlikely. Yet the hon the Minister of Justice seems intent on making it a permanent part of the statute. His implication is that if you do not have a regulation preventing subversive statements being reported, they will be reported. Does he want those regulations removed as soon as possible?

[Inaudible.]

That is just the point.

That includes the regulations.

So he does not like these regulations? Does he like these regulations?

I referred to it several times.

He likes the regulations. He is different from the hon the Deputy Minister of Information who does not like them.

He then said that the hon members on this side of the House do not take the situation in South Africa seriously. Right throughout the course of our address we mentioned the seriousness of the situation. However, the point of difference between us and the hon members on the other side of the House, is that we do not see eye to eye on the basic causes of the situation in this country and how we should put them right.

We have said that we accept that there are all kinds of complicating factors. There is an external factor. There are people who want to promote revolution. However, when one looks at the root causes of the present situation in South Africa, one finds that they are to be found in the Nationalist Party Government and its policies. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about. I do not think that we should be flippant about it. Yes, we will concede all the external factors. I think that we understand them as well as they do. However, let us talk for a moment about the internal factors. Do the hon members on the other side of the House believe that the policy of apartheid has contributed in any way over the years towards the quasi-revolutionary situation that exists in South Africa today? Do they believe it has been irrelevant? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister quoted from a judgment given in 1961 when he says, the ANC turned to violence. Let us assume that that is correct. That may well have been possible if one looks at the history of the ANC. That was a time in which they switched to violence. We must ask ourselves why. Why did people who were non-violent switch to violence?

[Inaudible.]

I am putting this question because the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has an answer. In an address at the University of Pretoria he made this very thoughtful statement:

So, he is not condoning it, but he is understanding it. He adds:

What he is saying, is that he has “begrip vir die besluit van die ANC in die jare sestig”. He says he could understand why they did it when Dr Verwoerd was there. He could understand it in the time when the hon the State President was a member of Dr Verwoerd’s Cabinet. He could understand it in the time before he came to Parliament. He could understand why, under the NP, the ANC opted for violence. That is what he says, but he also says things have changed. [Interjections.]

I accept that, but let us be careful then. The hon the Minister was thoughtful, and I am not trying to score points off him, but I think we ought to come to terms with ourselves. It is not good enough to look beyond the borders of South Africa only. We must look at ourselves and our attitudes. We must look at our policies and our behaviour towards other people.

The hon the Minister and other hon Ministers say things have changed. He read from a judgment given in 1961, but I want to read from a judgment given on 3 November 1986 by Mr Justice P J van der Walt who was the judge in the Marian Sparg case. This is what the judge said, and hon members must listen to this very carefully. Firstly he tells the accused that she is a member of a terrorist organisation, etc. He says:

Then the judge goes on to say:

This is not a random politician. This is a judge, appointed by the hon the Minister in the Supreme Court of South Africa, and in 1986 this judge said:

That is his personal opinion.

It is a personal opinion, but I believe …

What was the sentence in that case? Was the accused not convicted and sent to gaol?

It was something like 15 years, but that is not the point. What I am trying to get at here is that, surely, at this stage in our history we are prepared to look at ourselves, instead of always looking across the border and blaming everybody else for everything that is happening in South Africa. I leave it at that because I will come back to it in due course.

I want to thank all of those who have participated in this debate, whether we agree or not. I think this debate and the hon members who participated in it have, in fact, reflected the kaleidoscope of White politics at the present time. The independent members, the agreements, pacts or alliances which have existed and the divisions within the ranks of the NP have all reflected the kaleidoscope of White politics in South Africa. However, it was clear to us from the outset— one only had to listen to the speech of the hon the Minister of Finance when he entered the debate—that the Government was quite incapable of meeting the charges which the Official Opposition had brought against them. They were quite incapable of meeting those charges. Indeed, as the debate proceeded, our charge—forget electioneering for the moment—that South Africa is saddled with an incompetent, wasteful, bullying Government was reinforced. [Interjections.] We saw this emerging even during the course of this debate. Its policies have failed and its ability to lead this country back to stability and harmony is utterly discredited. We have a discredited Government ruling in South Africa today.

What did become clear during the course of this debate was that the Government was swinging into its election campaign. As I indicated, the decision to fight the election was taken about June last year. Be that as it may, two things emerged as far as the Government’s election strategy was concerned.

The first thing was that whatever else the election was about, it was not going to be about a mandate for reform. I do not know about any new reform proposals that this Government has laid on the Table. What new reform proposals has the Government come forward with since last year and the year before? What new proposals are there? As far as the constitutional proposals are concerned, here I must give some credit to the hon Minister of National Education. He was the only one who showed any enthusiasm whatsoever for his party’s policy. At least he tried to be enthusiastic. Perhaps it was the succession stakes—he thought he had to do better than his nearest rival. To that extent, he showed the kind of spirit which we hope he will continue to show during the course of this election.

However, apart from his enthusiasm what did he tell us? We had to hear that the Blacks could not be accommodated in the homelands and also that the linkage system between urban Blacks or non-homeland Blacks and homeland Blacks had to be changed in some way.

He then spoke about local authorities. The Black Local Authorities Act was passed in 1982. He spoke about elevating that. Then one gets to the regional services councils. However, I think the Regional Services Councils Bill was passed in 1984.

Then he mentioned the provincial executive committees. However, we already have provincial executive committees. That is where we stopped. All the rest is not before us. There are possibilities that there can be national councils or city states. There are possibilities of councils of state. But nothing has been presented to the voters. These are a range of alternatives which are just pie in the sky.

It has become quite clear that this election is not being held to get a mandate for reform. It is being held solely because the hon the State President believes he can get party political advantage of the current situation in South Africa. It is a tactical decision.

You wanted an election. Why are you running away from it now?

This is a silly Minister! We will see him in Helderberg and we will see who is running away. The election is being held for tactical reasons. At a meeting at Ruyterwacht the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was fairly frank about it. He said there what this election was all about. The Government believes that it can exploit the security situation in South Africa, together with the manipulation of the Press and the news, to take the attention of the voters away from the defects and failures of the Government’s policies. That is what it is about but it will not work. It would have worked if the Government had not been discredited. The public does not trust the Government any more. The public does not believe the Government’s policies any more. The public will not be fooled and I believe that this Government is in for the shock of its life when the polls close on 6 May.

I cannot deal with individual members. I will deal with members in a collective sense, although I will respond to one or two specific issues. I want to deal firstly with the CP and their soulmates—although not their party-mates—the HNP. If the NP was predictable so too were the CP and the HNP. There was no doubt about what they were going to say and do. In spite of all the noise and aggression, they are a group of yesterday’s men. Their mission is not to lead South Africa into the future.

After the election you will be yesterday’s men.

Their mission is to try to turn South Africa back to the past.

In order to do this, they are using the old-time tactics of racist politics to squeeze a few votes out of a divided and confused National Party. That is what they are doing: They are squeezing a few votes, using racist tactics, out of a divided and confused National Party. [Interjections.] I believe they will not succeed in that either because while they may leave a few battle scars on the body politic of the South African people, they will simply find that the history of this country is passing them by and sending them back into oblivion and irrelevance. So let them make as much noise as they like until 6 May.

The hon the Minister of Justice referred to the apparent offer of the hon the State President to relax the emergency regulations in respect of candidates and parties.

Big deal!

I must be frank about this. If the hon the State President wants to do that, he must do it by way of his dealing with other members of the executive. This action of the hon the State President shows that he does not have any idea of what parliamentary democracy or fair and free elections are all about. What about the dignity of members of Parliament? What about the status of this Parliament? Is this Parliament now subject to the whim of the executive? [Interjections.] Can one hold elections on that basis? I want to say that the PFP has no intention whatsoever of going along to NP Cabinet Ministers—all of whom are party candidates in the coming election—in order to obtain relief from the emergency regulations. [Interjections.] Can you imagine, Sir, our going along to, for instance, the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and asking him to vet our election pamphlets because we want to oust him from Simonstown? [Interjections.] Not only is it nonsense, it also totally contradicts the whole concept of a sovereign Parliament. We are supposed to have a sovereign Parliament and yet at election time candidates must go along to rival candidates and ask them for relief from the emergency regulations. [Interjections.]

As far as the PFP is concerned, Sir, the rights of political parties and the rights of members of Parliament—if they are going to have any rights!—should be written into the law in South Africa and not be granted by way of concessions by Cabinet Ministers. After all, embodying rights in law is what Parliament is all about.

What is happening under this hon State President, however, is the creeping dominance of the authority of the executive over this Parliament, and it is happening all the time.

Hear, hear!

That is what is happening—the executive is becoming more and more dominant, and this Parliament, which should be sovereign and be proud of itself, is having to crawl along to the executive for favours.

You are now making politics out of a bona fide gesture. [Interjections.]

I do not want to be a member of Parliament by accepting gestures; I want to be here because I have a right to be here. [Interjections.] This hon Minister also does not know what it is about.

I want to go further and say that even if the Government were to relax all the emergency regulations so that they are not binding on members of Parliament and candidates for the election, it still will not solve the problem. One cannot fight an election unless one is dealing with an informed public. The public must obtain information from a variety of sources over a period of time, and only in those circumstances can one have a free or fair election. To ensure, therefore, that the Press is muzzled and that the dissemination of information is restricted by causing it to be fed through the Bureau for Information, and still think after that that one can hold a free and fair election, is completely farcical.

Furthermore, Sir, when I pointed out to the hon the State President that if he really wanted a mandate in terms of the present Constitution of South Africa, he should actually have received a mandate from all the voters, and not only from the White voters. This resulted, I must say, in one of the most ridiculous challenges that have ever been thrown across the floor of this House. The hon the State President says he wants a mandate, yet he challenges me to go and ask the hon members of the Coloured and Indian Houses to ask for their Houses to be resolved. [Interjections.] What is he talking about? He wants the mandate! He has the power, in terms of section 39(2)(a) of the Constitution, to dissolve those two Houses. Yet he says he challenges me, the Leader of the Official Opposition, to help him to get the mandate! [Interjections.] It is not the hon members of the Indian and Coloured Houses who are asking for the mandate; it is the hon the State President who is asking for the mandate.

What is more, if the hon members in the Indian and Coloured Houses do get a mandate, will the hon the State President take note of it? You see, Sir, they do have a mandate. Their mandate, above anything else, is to get rid of apartheid, to scrap the Group Areas Act, and to bring Blacks into this Parliament. [Interjections.] In fact, they are so determined to do this, that they say unless they can achieve it, they may not participate in this Parliament in future. That is the mandate that they have, and yet the hon the State President says that there are two things that he will not do—he will not scrap the principle of the Group Areas Act, and he will not allow Blacks into this Parliament. Then he still talks about mandates!

He did not say that. [Interjections.]

Well, we will ask him later on whether or not he said that.

My third point in relation to the hon the State President’s speech, is that he was very critical of a report which the hon member for Yeoville read out to us concerning Mr Gerhard de Kock’s speech. He went so far as to say: “You cannot trust The Star”. I have a verbatim copy of Mr Gerhard de Kock’s speech here and apart from the headlines which read “Somebody has blundered” and “Boom is squandered” every other aspect of the text from which the hon member for Yeoville quoted, is ipsissima verba what appears in the article under the name and signature of Dr Gerhard de Kock. I believe the hon the State President owes the newspaper an apology for what he said, and I also think he owes an apology to the hon member for Yeoville.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

We will send him these documents for his perusal and if he finds that he was wrong, I hope that he will have the good grace to admit that he was wrong.

He is always making everyone else apologise to him. [Interjections.]

I know that the hon the State President is under all sorts of pressures, but I wonder whether he has thought for a while about his utterances and his behaviour in respect of Mr Ball. I wonder whether, in retrospect, he is proud of what he did. He referred to Mr Bloom in an unrelated way. No mention was made of him other than the dropping of his name. He made use of parliamentary privilege, his status as State President and hearsay rumours attributed to unknown people to wreak his vengeance on a prominent businessman who dares to oppose his political policies. I say that is disgraceful!

It is disgusting! [Interjections.]

I listened to that part of his speech and thought to myself that Senator Joe McCarthy would be proud. From the general tenor of that speech, I can see that South Africa is entering an era of McCarthyism. [Interjections.] That is what it is, because it is an era when innuendo and rumour and selective quotations made from a position of privilege, are used to denigrate political opponents. When this happens—when that kind of abuse is made of the executive powers of a country—we know how far we are down the slippery slope away from real democracy. [Interjections.]

The next aspect I want to touch on, is one that has been dealt with by a number of hon members on both sides of the House in different ways, namely the question of the indaba and its significance for all of us. In listening to hon members on the opposite side of the House, I found that most of their efforts constituted an attempt to undo the damage done by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs who within 24 hours of the publication of the findings of that indaba, rejected those findings in public on behalf of the NP. I believe that he did tremendous harm not only to the indaba but also to the whole concept of negotiation in South Africa. Heaven knows, it was difficult enough to get it off the ground, and when it did get off the ground it was slapped down in that summary fashion by a thoughtless Minister.

Whilst I was listening to hon Government members speaking, however, I realised that the error made by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs was not that he had rejected the recommendations but that he had got his timing wrong. He should have waited until after the election before rejecting them instead of doing so before the election. That was what he did wrong. It was not that he should not have rejected them, but that he actually got his timing wrong. [Interjections.]

Your logic is wrong.

The hon the Minister says that my logic is wrong, but just wait! [Interjections.] It is quite clear from the statement made by the hon the State President and the speech made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that the Government differs fundamentally in principle with the recommendations made by the indaba. It is not just a question of the gobbledegook which the hon the Minister spoke on TV last night in talking about such considerations as time and the status of delegates and mandates. Yes, he does have all those things to consider but he knows—and hon members can read his speech again—that he mentioned four criteria that would be acceptable to the Government, and that two of those criteria were at variance with the findings. The hon the State President gave three criteria and two of those are at variance with the findings.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon Leader of the Official Opposition whether it is not true that the Chief Minister of kwaZulu has not endorsed or rejected those proposals and has requested that they be considered after they have given their own point of view on them. [Interjections.]

Yes, the legislative authority of kwaZulu had not considered them but why then did the hon the Minister of Home Affairs slap them down?

I was there as an observer. [Interjections.]

He was the person who slapped them down. The cat is now out of the bag. All the other Ministers were also going to reject the proposals because they violate their principles. They are upset and angry, however, because that hon the Minister got his timing wrong.

I want to ask the hon the State President whether, quite apart from the principle of negotiation with which I think we all agree, the principles which are contained in the indaba recommendations are acceptable to the Government. I think it was the hon member for Umhlanga who pointed out that one of the principles was—I do not want to go through them all— that there should be one territory for kwaZulu-Natal. There should not be a homeland state and a White state but it should be one territory. There should be one executive, not co-operation between executives. There should be one bicameral legislature. There should be a oneness of that society, and I want to add that there should be a bill of rights preventing discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. Those are the basic principles and if I read the hon the State President’s speech correctly those principles are unacceptable to him. I believe he should state that clearly.

I believe the rejection of the indaba proposals has wider implications. How can one get leaders to negotiate at national level if one rejects any product of negotiation at regional level unless it conforms with the principles and philosophy of the NP? That is not negotiation. That is just coercion and bullying. Let us consider the reaction of Chief Minister Buthelezi the other day when he said:

That is the angry reaction of a man who really puts himself out on a limb and took serious risks in his own community. He went on to say:

Chief Buthelezi said he made his remarks—

How much time is still left before this Government destroys the goodwill on which reform politics is based?

We in these benches believe that the vast majority of our people want to live in peace. We believe the vast majority of them would prefer negotiation to violence. However, let us face it, they are sceptical, frustrated and mistrusting. People of all sectors of the community but in particular the Black people of this country are desperately looking for a sign of hope from this Government. They want some practical demonstration from this Government that they need not turn to violence because negotiation is an option. However, when they succeed in finding a negotiated option, thus Government slaps it down. I say it will be a tragedy if by the rejection of these indaba recommendations the Government allows the opportunity for negotiation to slip through their fingers. It may not come a second time. The rejection—if there is to be a rejection—will be a setback for peace not only in Natal-kwaZulu but in the whole of South Africa.

During this debate we have heard a great deal from both sides of the House—and this is understandable—about the severity of the revolutionary onslaught. We have heard of the counteraction being taken by the Government through emergency regulations and of the Government’s determination to fight terrorism. We understand this. Governments do have a responsibility to keep the peace in their countries. We did not hear from the Government, however, of any political plans to extricate South Africa from the mess in which it finds itself today. We have heard a great deal about law and order and security forces but we have not heard of the political plan that will extricate South Africa from the present situation.

Unless security action is accompanied by fundamental political reform as well as imaginative programmes in the social and economic fields the situation in South Africa will not improve in spite of the emergency regulations. Indeed, unless we introduce fundamental political reform in this country we will stumble along from one state of emergency to the other with declining standards of democracy and a declining quality of life for all the people of this country.

I must come back to this point. Clearly the Government sees the present conflict and instability as something that is stimulated and manipulated from outside. We concede that is a component. However, we argue that what is happening outside the country is primarily a spillover from what is happening inside. This is where the seed-bed for revolution has been created by this Government over the past 39 years.

The conduct of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is symptomatic in his own field in that he blames everybody else but does not look at himself. Decisions are made overseas on sanctions. We agree that there is selective morality, vindictiveness and so forth but their decisions are made against the background of public opinion in those countries. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs should know that the quality of public opinion has deteriorated. It is also true that the lobbyists have helped it to deteriorate. However, the hon the Minister should also know— he must receive reports from his foreign service offices—that it is because of the politics and actions of this Government. That is what has caused the public opinion overseas to turn sour.

Distorted views!

The hon the Minister says “distorted views” but they are considerably true. [Interjections.] I can recall the hon the Minister saying two or three years ago that we should be careful what we say or do here as it does have an effect on overseas opinion.

What I want to say to the hon the Minister is that instead of his saying it is only an external factor …

You must be careful too!

Of course we must be careful— everybody should be careful. We are prepared to look at ourselves. We do not whitewash ourselves and blame everyone else.

I want to ask the hon the Minister if he thinks the Rubicon speech helped? Did reprimanding him for suggesting the possibility of a Black State President help? Did the hon the State President’s tough stand on the Group Areas Act help? Did his failure to follow through the political reform help? No, there has been a long chain of events in South Africa that have aggravated the internal and external situation. The internal situation reflects years of frustration with economic conditions, anger with apartheid and resentment at the lack of basic political rights. Until the Government gets this act together and until it faces up to the consequences of real political rights for Blacks the situation will not improve.

I want to come back to the hon the State President. It is no use talking at all levels about pie in the sky. We want to know from him whether he says that under no circumstances will Black people be members of this Parliament? We must realise that this is the sovereign legislative Parliament of South Africa. Can Blacks become members of this Parliament? Is the hon State President prepared to abandon the principles involved in the Group Areas Act of compulsory residential separation on which he bases his constitutional structures?

In a much more sophisticated way than Dr Verwoerd did 30 years ago the hon the State President is making the concept of race a cornerstone of his constitutional proposals. He uses different phraseology and talks about cultural differentiation, language and ethnicity.

A simple illustration is the case of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, the Rev Hendrickse, walking out of the sea. He is Afrikaans-and English-speaking, belongs to a Christian church, is a member of Parliament and a Cabinet member. What was the only difference between him and the White people on the beach?

His colour!

Of course! It is race and colour. That is what it is. [Interjections.] One cannot run away from the fact that it is race and colour.

Until we in South africa move away from that as a basic concept for our constitutional structures there is no hope of getting negotiations under way and drawing up a constitution acceptable to all the people of South Africa.

We in the PFP have a different vision. We do not see a constitution regulated by race in this society. We have a different vision of the future of South Africa. We see a South Africa where South Africanism and not race will be the basis of our constitutional structures. We see a South Africa in which all South Africans will be able to participate at all levels of government including the Parliament of South Africa.

We foresee the possibility that in those circumstances there could be a Black, Brown, Coloured or White State President. We see a South Africa in which all South Africans without restrictions on the grounds of race can use the opportunities which are provided by South Africa’s economic potential to the full.

We do not foresee a grey, neutral and dull South African society. We see a society that is rich in cultural and religious diversity. Yes, we see many races and many colours. We foresee a society of different languages. However, in spite of all the differences that society will consist of people with a common loyalty and a common commitment to this country. That is what we see.

Hon members on the other side believe that the only way one can achieve or maintain racial identity is by apartheid laws. We believe that the things which are of real value to communities can best be maintained in an open society with freedom of association and the right of people to maintain their own conscience and religious heritage.

We have set out our model for a constitution. We see a new federation of South Africa with decentralisation of powers to regional governments providing for a number of sites, not just a central site, in which power may be exercised. [Interjections.] We believe that the best way of including minorities in this process is by also taking into account and bringing in proportionality so that minorities can in fact also have direct access not only to Parliament but also to the executive of the country.

How do you define minorities?

Minorities are those who manifest themselves by the free mobilisation of political views. [Interjections.] Some people will do so in one respect and others in another, but that is what it is. That hon Minister, however, when the chips are down, defines them on a race and colour basis. That is his criterion. [Interjections.] We believe there should be a bill of rights.

In conclusion I want to raise two points, having defined our model: However good each one of our models may be, they will not work and they will not become the constitution of South Africa unless they are in the end the product of negotiation by the recognised leaders of all sections of our community. Secondly, while constitutions can provide a way in which government can take place and in which people are able to live in an orderly way, and while they can provide a degree of protection, in the final analysis the stability of the society and the protection of the rights and freedom of the people who live in that society depend on the nature and the spirit of the society itself.

We believe that the constitutional model of this Government is going to be divisive in our society. It is going to set race against race and community against community. We believe that our constitutional model will bring people together in a new spirit of oneness in South Africa. This is why we believe that we have to drop the dogma of race from which this Government seems incapable of escaping. All of us must be treated as South Africans. The only thing that matters is that we are South Africans. Let us be Afrikaans, English, Black or whatever. That is not the key factor. The key factor is that we are South Africans.

For this reason not only do I move this motion of no confidence today but I am also confident that this Government is in for the shock of its life. The people of South Africa are basically South Africans. They are not racists. They do want to live together and to co-operate. We are going to give them the opportunity of doing so. [Interjections.]

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.