laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Immorality Amendment Bill [B 104—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).
2. (2) Law of Evidence and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill [B 105—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).
3. (3) Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill [B 106—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 9 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, before the adjournment yesterday evening I made a statement to the effect that even if we were to clear our Statute Book of all discriminatory measures—by this I mean measures which are aimed at benefiting or prejudicing a specific group—this would not be the end of the story because in the final analysis a constitution can only be maintained by specific attitudes that exist among people and groups.

I want to add at once that I have great appreciation for the seriousness with which all hon members are treating this Bill. I feel it is absolutely essential, in the times in which we are now living, for us to understand the seriousness of the subject we are now discussing, and also for us to moderate our statements and our behaviour according to the seriousness of the times in which we are living.

I want to thank hon members for their points of emphasis in this regard. I thank all hon members, with one exception, to which I shall return later. I am referring to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. If we do as I have just said, Mr Chairman, it seems to me that, in the first place, we must reflect on the role of Parliament in the process of reform; that, when we do this, we should reflect on the role of hon members in Parliament, and also assess that role.

I want to start by confirming my confidence in the ability of Parliament, as well as my confidence in the members of Parliament, to continue to regulate the process of change in our fatherland in a peaceful way.

Why are hon members in the Houses of this Parliament? I should like to reply to this question—I believe I will be doing so with the consent of all hon members—by saying that we are in Parliament because we believe that Parliament must determine the final course of politics in our country. We are in Parliament because we believe that Parliament has the final say in the regulating of society and the reconciliation of the conflicting aspirations of various groups and peoples. Indeed, Parliament controls this peaceful adjustment, but if it does its duty it also controls the revolutionaries, because it must establish the means to fight the revolutionaries too.

If we as hon members interpret and carry out its function properly, Parliament can stop the revolution, but it can also encourage the revolution. That is why we have a responsibility to reflect on this. In my opinion Parliament can stop the revolution by means of meaningful reform, but it can also, through its inability to introduce meaningful reform, encourage the revolutionary forces. Everything is going to depend on how we see Parliament, but also on how we want to use Parliament in the development process of our fatherland.

I should like to discuss this with hon members today. I maintain that Parliament’s role in the choice of the reform process is decisive—whether it will be evolutionary or whether it will be violent. Whether Parliament is going to pass the test will not depend on one political party only. It will depend on all of us as members of Parliament. This means that it is not enough if, in its policy formulation and standpoints, a political party tries only to win the support of its electorate. We are expected to adopt a standpoint in the national interest in juxta-position to the interests of our supporters. As a politician I understand how difficult this is for any political party, because ultimately our ability depends on our support. In my opinion we must therefore give some honest through to our role in Parliament.

Hon members have, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, declared themselves opposed to extremism and radicalism in our country. However, the question I want to ask is to what extent we encourage radicalism and extremism through our statements, our attitudes and our behaviour. Are we not encouraging the forces of radicalism if we adopt a standpoint which amounts to our wanting to effect large-scale removals of millions of people without their consent in order to establish a state within which there will be majority occupation by the Whites?

Secession.

I want to ask hon members to give me a chance today, because this is a serious matter I want to discuss.

Are we not encouraging radicalism when we say that if other nations do not opt for the independence we are offering them, the only way they can exist in South Africa is without rights? Are we not encouraging radicalism if we are not prepared to establish the civil rights of people in an undivided state and in the institutions on which we are negotiating? Finally—I am not saying this reproachfully—it is to a great extent the House of Assembly that controls the course of development in our country. Are we not encouraging it if our Official Opposition—again I am not saying this reproachfully—wants to take every right-wing extremist under its wing? If it is not doing so, it is at least doing so by default, because it does not repudiate them.

I come now to the hon members of the PFP. In their own way, and perhaps unconsciously or not deliberately, they are also encouraging the forces of radicalism. Let us consider what has happened. What we are concerned with here is our view of the relevance of Parliament in the processes of reform. The hon the leader of the PFP need not be nervous; I have not got round to him yet. The former leader of the PFP left Parliament. Let us analyse why he left Parliament—because he no longer believed in Parliament as an instrument for reform. However, there is only one Parliament; there is no other. For that reason the former leader of the PFP decided that change or reform had to take place outside Parliament and not inside it. It is interesting who followed him; it was Dr Boraine of Pinelands. Perhaps this is the most dangerous aspect in the set-up of the extra-parliamentary process.

I maintain that the spirit of despair, which determined the behaviour of those two members, still prevails in the PFP. That is why the hon member for Claremont left the party, but surely he will not be the last member who is going to leave.

You almost left too.

The hon members for Greytown and Durban Central participated in the Dakar safari. I concede at once that after the event, with utter remorse, the hon the leader of the PFP condoned their behaviour, although they had not asked permission to go beforehand.

I want to know whether or not those hon members encouraged radicalism by doing that. Did they try to promote peaceful negotiation by doing that?

Yes.

I want to ask what they achieved. They helped to build up the image of a terrorist organisation, at the expense of millions of Black citizens of our country who would like to participate in peaceful processes. After all, Dakar does not prevent the ANC from typifying or branding Black moderates as outcasts and sell-outs; it is encouraging this. Dakar did not lessen polarisation in our society; on the contrary, it resulted in an immediate increase in violence. Anyone studying the facts will confirm this statement. [Interjections.]

The trouble with the hon member for Sea Point is that his party is despairing of its own relevance and its ability to make a contribution, and it is projecting this on Parliament as an institution. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sea Point knows better than I that he will have to ensure that the erosion which is taking place there will not drag him into the abyss which will make him totally irrelevant.

In any case we on this side of the Committee dissociate ourselves from the half-hearted attitude of the PFP towards Parliament. [Interjections.]

I maintain that there are other organisations or elements which are also encouraging radicalism. When the Labour Party adopted a policy of confrontation and caused the dissolution of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, they were heroes in the eyes of certain English newspapers, they were the true leaders of the Coloured communities. Hon members know that what I am saying is true. When the Labour Party changed its role by exchanging its policy of confrontation for one of reconciliation and it started to cooperate to make South Africa a better place for everyone, this image suddenly changed in certain newspapers. Then they were known as the “sell-outs” of their people.

Ask their people.

Ask their people, says the hon member. He must look at the election results and the increased support they received. [Interjections.]

Then the media changed its attitude entirely. It is significant that the UDF made precisely the same attack on the Labour Party as the newspapers I referred to.

Now that it looks—I should like to say this because it is of no use for us to conceal the truth—as if the Labour Party is adopting a more aggressive attitude as regards the stating and the formulating of its policy and its behaviour, the views of these liberal groups on the party they condemned the day before yesterday as “sell-outs” have immediately changed. This is being done irrespective of the eventual progress or results which the Labour Party’s policy of participation brought for their community, or the effect which its policy of participation had and still has in increasing the credibility of the peaceful processes, and irrespective of the importance of the constitutional instrument and the experiment we are carrying out here in Parliament.

I maintain that this does not contribute to the reconciliation strategy in our country. It is irresponsible and shortsighted, because it is playing into the hands of radicalism and extremism on both sides of the political spectrum.

Let us for a moment analyse our respective positions. Let us analyse our policy trends in this House critically, without hostility. There are important points of departure on which we in the House of Assembly and in Parliament as a whole agree with one another. We agree that we recognise individual rights and want to protect them. We agree that fundamental rights must be recognised, and must not only be recognised but must also be granted. Nor do we deny the right of existence of groups, although we disagree on the definition and the means of protection.

We all accept the ideal that all the rights of all the citizens of our country must be equal in content and in value. We are all wrestling with the problem how we can accommodate this creed in which we believe in our constitutional set-up.

On what do we disagree? Why are we not able in the greater interests of our country, to place the aspects we have in common above the aspects in respect of which we differ? That is what the times require of us. We differ on our view and our perception of the reality and the problems of the South African situation, and for that reason we also disagree on how we must deal with the realities, and how we must give expression to the rights of people. This is the essence of the debate.

I now come to the Official Opposition and I want to say at once that after the election the role played by the CP changed. Whereas before the election it was merely another opposition party, it is now the Official Opposition. This is a significant change of role. Normally the Official Opposition has a twofold role, and the most important aspect is that it must lay down a workable alternative to the Government, that it must afford the opportunity, here too, for the policy which it lays down as the Official Opposition to be compared with the policy of the Government so that choices can be made.

Essentially this means that the Official Opposition forms the alternative government of the country. This means that it has an important function to perform in the existing set-up. Not only must it keep the Government on its toes by means of constructive criticism—that is its job—but its policy framework must also make it a potential alternative government in the country in which it is functioning.

The Official Opposition is not in the privileged position that it can simply sit back and criticise; it must also have a workable alternative which can be an improvement on what it is criticising. Put briefly, any political party which endeavours to create a workable policy for South Africa’s complex problems, must subject itself to a simple test. This applies to both the opposition and the governing parties in Parliament.

That party’s policy must pass a test in three parts. It must be implementable in practice; it must be acceptable to the majority of people who have to live and function within the system; and it must be financially feasible, given the limited economic and financial resources of our country.

The main element of the present Official Opposition is that they formulate their constitutional policy on the basis of partition. When I listen to their statements, it is also a policy of secession. Let us assess this policy on the basis of the three requirements I have set.

According to its policy the Official Opposition sees an absolutely divided South Africa, based on the slogan that every nation is entitled to its own state. According to this South African citizenship and the rights which are synonymous with citizenship in any country are irreconcilable and incompatible with a variety of groups and peoples. Accordingly South Africa must, by force if necessary, be divided into at least 13 new states which will have to exist entirely independently of one another. In terms of this millions of Black citizens must be moved in order to form homogeneous national states. Hon members can calculate this for themselves. According to that policy more than 1,275 million Black families will have to be moved and if they cannot be moved, they will have to live without rights in the part which is called the White national state.

On the other hand the PFP has a simplistic and absolutistic view of the problem. According to the PFP South Africa must be treated as a raceless, groupless society consisting of 30 million individuals.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Sea Point will get a chance to react to what I am saying.

According to the PFP’s policy all measures which differentiate between groups must therefore be abolished and disappear. For that reason a geographic federal system must be developed which is based on the individual instead of the group. One could ask why a unitary system should not simply be introduced. [Interjections.] According to the PFP a majority government must be established within which the so-called minorities will merely be represented as minorities, and will not participate equally as groups.

Where do you get this from? [Interjections.]

I get it from the policy documents and the speeches of the PFP. The hon member for Yeoville need only read the speech of the hon member for Houghton.

I come now to the Independents. Here we are dealing with an undefined vision—the hon member for Randburg will understand me when I say this—built on personalities and against personalities. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must please restrain himself.

The Independents have not yet formed a party and there is already a leadership battle in their ranks. In all fairness their policy is one of “don’t know what, don’t know how and don’t know when”. For that reason I maintain that they are not able to analyse the problems of our situation and deal with them. [Interjections.]

It is quite clear that the Official Opposition, the PFP and the Independents are wrestling with policies which are not in accordance with the realities, and do not address or solve the actual South African situation. I maintain that they have failed as regards their implementability and their financial feasibility, and owing to their political unacceptability.

†We have never claimed—let me say this explicitly—to have the final answer. [Interjections.] We have never claimed to have that. I do not know whether the hon member for Yeoville claims that he has the final answer. We believe, however, that South Africa is an undivided country in respect of those areas that do not wish to secede.

Because of this we believe all the citizens of this country have the right to live and stay permanently in South Africa. South Africa is a multicultural country with different peoples and ethnic groups and different lifestyles, value systems and stages of development. These realities can and must not be ignored, neither must they be overemphasised, since this heterogeneity in our society can be enriching and not necessarily a negative characteristic of South Africa. These realities must therefore be accommodated in any constitutional system, a system in which individual and group rights are not regarded as irreconcilable or mutually exclusive, but in which the group definition is utilised positively as a protecting instrument for the fulfillment of the rights of individuals and groups. This does not imply a heavyhanded approach to the concept of group, but a flexibility and an openness.

The Government’s vision for our country is one in which everybody has the vote, but in a way reflecting group interests and protecting groups from domination.

How?

I shall come to that. Our vision is indeed one of full participation by all in the decision-making processes affecting their lives and interests, but not in a way adverse to the well-being of any group. Our vision is one of equal opportunities and the elimination of inequalities and discriminatory practices and laws. We are committed to remove them. Our vision is one of economic growth, job and educational opportunities, and the uplifting and raising of living standards, regardless of race or colour. We have indeed a vision of freedom but also of security, of human dignity but also of stability. We are committed to the ideal of democracy.

Having said this, however, our responsibility as a Government demands a practical approach towards the realisation of these ideals and this vision. I believe this is probably one of the most salient distinguishing factors between the Government and the opposition parties.

I believe that duty demands of the Government, whoever that is, level-headedness and objectivity, and an uncontaminated perception of the possibilities for democracy in our particular circumstances and our country.

I believe it requires a clear view of the viability of democracy in our society—the form in which it can survive—and an understanding of the impeding factors inherent in this society and also those factors enhancing the possibility of democracy.

I believe that hon members will agree that the way in which to establish democratic structures in South Africa, as well as the form and content of those structures, differs greatly from those of Europe and the highly industrialised countries of the world. I believe that the following factors should be considered. I believe that in many cases they are often ignored.

Firstly, one must understand the concept and, I believe, the necessity of stable and effective government in a heterogeneous and developing country such as ours. It would be fatal for effective government to be sacrificed, and we know that if fully democratic institutions comparable with those of the Western World should be introduced overnight, we would forfeit that stability and effectiveness.

Why do you not speak English, Chris?

I speak English so that you can understand me.

Nobody else understands you! [Interjections.]

Order!

What an insulting remark! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I cannot believe that this idea is in any way original. It must be a very interesting exercise for the hon member for Sandton to think sometimes!

Sir, the numerous defunct democracies in developing countries in Africa is evidence that this is not a new idea. It is therefore the responsibility of the Government to maintain effective government by all the means at its disposal. It is incumbent on the Government to maintain stability while continuing to broaden the democratic processes and institutions.

Secondly, if we are to be successful, we have to reconcile the traditional with the modern in this country, and we have to do that in terms of value systems, in terms of levels of development, in terms of attitudes towards governmental processes and, very important, in terms of the exposure of communities and of people to those institutions.

*Mr Chairman, what we do not always understand is that a large number of the problems of our country involve a development problem. It is a development problem. It is a development problem in the social, economic and political spheres. Nor do we always understand that in its practical manifestation it correlates with race and colour and ethnicity.

†One cannot but take into account these realities, Sir, since discarding or ignoring these differences in the modernising process must surely lead to conflict and disaster. Allow me one single observation in this regard, Sir. The denial of the fact that those longest exposed to the democratic processes and institutions in our country must surely direct this process, would be irresponsible. It would indeed endanger democracy if we did not acknowledge this fact.

What is even more important, Sir, is an appreciation of the phases of political development, which we are apparently inclined to disregard in our discussions. That is namely that political development reflects different phases. I believe it is not wrong for us to speak in First-World terms of this as an ideal to which we should aspire. I also believe, however, that it is grossly wrong to do so when we need to be practical in respect of how we are going to get there. Therefore I believe it is necessary that we should grasp the implications of the phases of political development, also in our own country.

Let us just examine those for the moment, as they are relevant to our situation today. Let us examine them as they are applicable to Third-World countries, developing countries and partly developed countries.

In the first instance there was the colonial phase, in which foreign First-World systems were transplanted onto developing, agrarian societies, and artificially established without having grown from the people themselves. This was accompanied by the destruction of the indigenous systems of government—sadly also by the destruction of relatively stable traditional systems.

The result of this approach was that when the colonial phase came to an end, these First-World systems had no firm foothold in the Third-World countries and were for obvious reasons quickly replaced by other, usually less democratic and capable systems. South Africa cannot and did not escape this development and cannot escape the implications for the whole country in this regard.

It is true that in its colonial phase, First-World systems were in fact introduced in this country, but largely involving the First-World people of South Africa. Only they were exposed to and had the experience of these systems. Fortunately, when the colonial yoke was lifted in our country we were able, in the postcolonial period, to protect and maintain the First-World systems, and now we are in fact engaged in the process of accommodating others in these systems as circumstances and realities allow.

Do hon members, however, appreciate the fact that our Black citizens are now experiencing profound and far-reaching changes like those that shaped the modern industrial democracies in the previous century? This is to be understood. Traditional cultural patterns, long-established sources of authority like the parent-child and employee-employer relationships as well as traditional community and government structures are being torn apart—not because of what we do but because of the forces of urbanisation, industrialisation and modernisation—and replaced by new patterns of communication and authority and by new value systems.

Government cannot ignore these factors or force the pace beyond the capacity of these citizens except at its own peril and that of our South African society. We are indeed, notwithstanding the criticism, broadening democracy, but as a result of our history and as a result of the realities of this country, this can only be done in an evolutionary fashion.

We believe in First-World norms, values and constitutional systems. However, in order to ensure that they are in fact able to gain a strong foothold, in order to ensure that these institutions take hold in the hearts and minds of people and communities, we can only do this gradually and cautiously.

The third factor that we have to consider is that within the democratic process the circumstances of our country demand co-ordinated development in all spheres and all levels simultaneously. Political development alone, or economic or social development alone, would create imbalances—in fact some people argue that they have already done so—in the social fabric of our society, that would also increase tension and the potential for conflict, and would jeopardise even the developments which we have so far been able to achieve.

It is therefore our responsibility to ensure a related measure of reform and development in all spheres. This implies that economic and political development are interdependent in another sense, namely that the tempo of political development depends on our financial capabilities.

It is useless to plan elaborate First-World systems without having the means, in terms of direct costs as well as benefits to the population, to pay for them. In fact, this would impoverish the whole system and destroy stability and effectiveness.

One tends to forget that full democracy was only attained in the United Kingdom, for instance, after the industrial revolution and well into the twentieth century. Africa is the best evidence of what I am trying to say.

In this respect it is important to bear in mind the objective of democratic institutions, namely to involve the population in the fulfilment of their own needs. A political system only lasts as long as it can satisfy the reasonable needs of communities.

Fourthly, we must take into account the potential for conflict in a heterogenous society. This is no new thought; we all battle with this problem. We must understand the emotional impact of this fact. This potential is created by the fears of individuals and groups—fears of domination by others especially in a country with a history of domination, fears of losing privileges and a lowering of living standards, and, in some cases, fears for their very existence. This conflict potential is also created by aspirations and demands—aspirations to reach the living standards of other people, to bridge the gap between rich and poor without there being any increase in wealth itself, and to participate fully in Government processes. Let us not overlook this—I experience it every day in my work.

In a process of democratic development this potential for conflict tends to increase as a result of changes effected in that society. This is due mainly to the fact that the gap between those favouring the status quo and those opposed to it may easily widen during the process of adjustment and change. In this regard the emotional threshold of society cannot be disregarded by any government. Emotions of people cannot be suppressed by a government; they cannot be ignored; they can only be tempered through experience. People fear the unknown but, on the other hand, expect and demand the unattainable, and a government must accommodate these emotions. It is therefore the duty of the Government to shape perceptions, to temper emotions and fears and to regulate expectations according to the means of our country.

This can be done by successes along the road, the beacons of reform which create trust and self-confidence among our people. The difficulties in travelling the road to an ideal democracy are clear and must be obvious. Equally clear—and I am not arguing that we should flinch from this at all—is the fact that the realization of the democratic objective in accordance with the structures of Western Europe and North America is by no means guaranteed in a society such as ours.

The outcome is in doubt, not only because of the onslaught on our country by other forces, but also because of the question whether, as a result of the numerous impeding factors, this society of ours is at all capable of coping with a democratic system.

In view of this the Government and all of us in Parliament have a tremendous responsibility—notwithstanding the pressures, whatever form they may take or whatever their origin may be—to have caution written over our actions. We have to proceed cautiously, so as not to strain our political and economic capabilities and to maintain stability and effective government throughout the period of change.

We have a duty to lead our people in a responsible manner to participate responsibly in those institutions that have already been established and, by our actions and our attitudes, to try to convince people of the advantages of reform and the advantages of democracy as a way of life.

I believe that this ideal is not beyond our reach. If I did not believe this, I would not be here. I know, however, that the democratic road we have chosen is a most difficult and arduous one, and can in fact be a dangerous one.

*Against this background I should like to indicate the approach of the Government in respect of how we believe this democratic course can be adopted. I should like to discuss our approach and our choices on the means of reform with hon members. There are two reform processes in our country, both aimed at change, which are competing with one another before our very eyes. The forces of revolution are trying to replace and to change the system. That is one of the processes taking place before our eyes. Those revolutionary forces must be defeated politically, and not only physically, but they do exist. The other is the process we have chosen, which is proved by our presence in Parliament. This is the course of negotiation.

Parliament has produced a variety of experts in the field of constitutional negotiation and change. A variety of prescriptions to the Government in this regard came from the former Official Opposition. There were prescriptions regarding with whom we should negotiate. We had to talk to the ANC and every other organisation which was representative, irrespective of either their bona fides or their mala fides. Hon members need only look at what the hon member Prof N J J Olivier said (Hansard: House of Assembly 9 June 1987, col 1083). We were told what procedure to adopt. The Government must call a national convention to do this. By the way, while that convention is being held—no one knows how long it will last—nothing must happen. The status quo must be maintained. The agenda must be open. The Government must not lay down any basic principles. Hon members need only look at what is stated in column 1099 of the same Hansard. There were prescriptions on relations. Time-scales were suggested on when negotiations should start and finish. There were predictions on this.

It is strange how the hon members of the PFP even contradicted one another in their overeagerness. The hon member for Durban Central said there had to be negotiations with the ANC, and shortly thereafter he set a practical example. I can at least say of him: “He puts his money where his mouth is”. In contrast the hon member for Berea said on 9 June: “One does not negotiate with revolutionaries”. Such contradictions come from the ranks of that section of the opposition. I should like to ask whether a party which is so know-it-all about negotiations cannot even succeed in reaching a compromise with the hon member for Claremont or Mr Horace van Rensburg or Drs Van Zyl Slabbert and Boraine, or does that inherent disunity still exist?

As far as the Independents are concerned, the hon member for Randburg said the following, and I should like to quote his strategy (Hansard: House of Assembly, 9 June 1987, col 1119):

This is the Independent vision for South Africa, because I assume that the hon member and the Independents outside the House at least talk about the same thing. I concede that point to the hon member. Technically he does have a point. If the NP Government were to renounce its policy and accept the politics of the ANC, there would be absolutely nothing left to negotiate about, because the negotiations would then be over.

Technically his advice holds water, but in practice it means the surrendering of power and not to a majority but to a power clique. In practice it therefore does not mean a change to a more pragmatic system. Ideologically it means socialism. Philosophically it means the end of the existence of groups in society. Economically it means the replacement of an unequal division of income—I admit this—by an equal division of poverty.

The Official Opposition’s prescriptions to the Government on negotiation fall in the category of over-simplication to the point of actual absurdity. In the first place the Official Opposition believe in not even negotiating with the moderate leaders. I refer hon members to what the hon member for Ermelo said on 9 June of this year (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 1093). Nor do they believe in negotiating with the supporters of violence.

But neither do you.

I want to compliment the hon member for Overvaal. I have no fault to find with the fact that the Official Opposition does not want to negotiate with persons who perpetrate acts of violence, but they are battling to apply this standpoint successfully in practice if one considers the way they are courting the militant right-wing organisations which are threatening the freedom of fellow citizens with all manner of threats.

They are not only courting; they are married.

In any case, it is an unholy alliance. [Interjections.]

The Government does not distinguish between White and Black violence. It condemns both. [Interjections.] The Official Opposition has already proved that negotiation as an instrument of reconciliation is not one of its strong points. One need only refer in all fairness to their unsuccessful attempt to enter into an election agreement with another right-wing political party.

I want to refer to the three ways in which change can be brought about. In the first place there is unilateral enforcement, which the Official Opposition would seem to be propagating, judging by their policy statements. I say unilateral enforcement can only plunge the country into conflict and bloodshed, just like the forces of revolution. In the second place there is the revolutionary violent overthrow of the existing order and its replacement by a dictatorial or Marxist regime. However, there is a third possibility to which I have referred before. This is peaceful negotiation to develop a dispensation which is acceptable to the majority of South Africans. The Government, like many other hon members here, has opted for the latter method. However, I want to repeat that this is a difficult road with many pitfalls.

How is the Government approaching the process of negotiation? The Government is not prescribing a blueprint because one cannot negotiate from a position of total, absolutist, closed ideas. Those persons prescribing specific models, such as the federal, unitary or partition models, are in my opinion violating this important requirement for successful negotiation.

In the second place the Government’s points of departure in respect of self-determination, group protection and power-sharing without domination, are spelled out clearly as a guideline for our expectations of the negotiations. In general the Preamble to the Constitution lays down common denominators in terms of which, in my opinion, meaningful discussions can take place on the future. [Interjections.] I want to suggest that the hon member go and read it.

Important leaders from all the strata of our population and groups endorse this approach, but I believe that we have not yet adequately succeeded in joining together enough people by means of these fundamental points of departure. [Interjections.] I concede that as regards the practical holding of negotiations, we must accept in the first place that it is an on-going and multi-faceted process, as the hon member for Caledon, to whom I shall reply later, indicated.

The process does not take place overnight; revolution can take place overnight. It does not take place unilaterally, and initially—this is how I want to put it today—it focuses on the creating of a climate and the building up of relations of confidence and not on concrete results as such. Today I also want to say that the climate for negotiation in South Africa is better now than it has ever been at any time in our history. The largest percentage of the population has opted for negotiated solutions. Of course parties must be given the opportunity to reconsider their standpoints and adapt them. Of course new possibilities must be cleared with supporters. In my experience this is essential in Black politics.

In the second place the Government has learned from experience that negotiations must not be tested by their visibility—the hon member for Parow referred to this—but by the results as regards both the creation of a climate and progress. The fact of the matter is that successful negotiations usually do not take place on public platforms, but behind the scenes.

I can mention the practical example of what we experienced this week. If the negotiations on the exchange of prisoners had taken place in public, do you think there would have been an exchange? After all we know that when the leaders of the big powers, people like President Reagan and Mr Gorbachov, get together, there are subtle negotiations to formulate a common basis for discussion long before they get together.

In the third place a misconception has been created and encouraged, namely that the Government is not negotiating with the “real” leaders. The fact of the matter is that an on-going disinformation strategy is being launched in a calculated and planned way to create the impression that the leaders to whom we are talking do not represent the people. I reject that, because it is not true.

Furthermore a perception is being created that if discussions are not held with specific organisations or specific leaders, there is no negotiation in the real sense of the word. This near-sighted attitude results in leaders frequently not wanting to admit that they are negotiating—I respect this—and in the Government on its part not being able to tell the world whom it is negotiating with.

Today I want to say seriously that we are involved across a broad spectrum, not only in discussions—for the information of the hon member for Randburg—but in actual negotiations, in which not only a single standpoint applies. Today I want to ask here whether there is anyone in the Committee who would not like to have a homogeneous White state if this were possible. Is there anyone? Of course not! However, it is not a feasible option, and for that reason the negotiations must be aimed at other options. I want to say that those discussions and negotiations are fruitful and informative and real progress is being made.

Let me talk about myself. Every day I gain more insight and understanding. I gain an impression of the sensitivities with regard to the needs of people; I gain an impression of how other people see our standpoints. In the discussions I experience the hurt of other people whose rights are not being granted. If this leaves one indifferent, one is not a civilised person.

I have every confidence that through negotiation and through the process we have laid the foundations—and are still able to do so—on which we can build for the future. We need not agree with one another on the structures which have developed as a result of negotiation. We may have other views, but I am asking that one person should not use the method of another person to cast suspicion on the process of negotiation. I am asking that we should at least not cast suspicion on the intentions, nor on the Government regarding what it wants to negotiate on.

We must make no mistake. All that is going to matter is that the governing parties in Parliament must agree to new systems. If we can do this with the co-operation of other hon members, their acceptability will be that much greater.

For the other two Houses as well?

Yes, for the other two Houses as well. The hon member for Greytown must not talk about that; I shall inform him about that.

There was a time when the hon the State President and I were negotiating with the leaders in the Coloured and the Asian communities when the opposition said that we were drawing the curtains so that we could meet in secret.

Why?

Because negotiations are not always visible—that is why. If the hon member cannot understand that, I do not know how he can claim to be a leader. [Interjections.]

That is the usual insult. It is not an argument. [Interjections.]

No, it is not an insult. I am telling that hon member what the position is. The hon the State President and I were accused of seeing people behind drawn curtains so that nobody could see us. We were accused that these people were stooges. I want to say to the hon member for Sea Point that the role that the hon member’s party or some of its hon members play to destroy the structure of Parliament does not go by unnoticed. [Interjections.]

Absolute nonsense! No wonder that hon Minister nearly lost the Helderberg constituency. No wonder!

No, I did not lose it—but that hon member lost his party. [Interjections.]

*As a result of negotiations the Constitution was drafted in terms of which everyone functioned within this Parliament. [Interjections.] No, wait a moment. The hon member for Randburg is shaking his head. He defended this for four years.

Never on the basis of negotiation!

Yes, the hon member defended it. When did his horizons broaden so much that he is now adopting this standpoint? Having said that there were negotiations, I am not saying that all the parties agreed to the system, but I am saying that the system was established as a result of negotiations. [Interjections.] This is a fact, and the hon member for Randburg knows it. I would very much like to be friendly towards him, but if he had thought he could win Randburg, he would still have been in the NP.

Of course the other participants in the other Houses did not simply agree to the Constitution, but that is nothing out of the ordinary. Hon members on that side of the Committee do not accept it either. What is important is that the other two Houses and the opposition parties are functioning within that system. For 300 years it was not possible to have people of colour in the highest authority in the country, and it is important that they are now here.

The hon member for Mossel Bay formulated this strikingly. He said we are not at the beginning or at the end of the road to reform, but half way along it. Intensive negotiations took place in 1982 in respect of local government and provincial matters. I shall reply later to other hon members and the hon member Prof Olivier individually. The hon member for Sea Point supported the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, in glowing terms. How could it have been morally justifiable to him then if it is now morally wrong?

We laid down certain prerequisites which the Government did not comply with.

I shall quote from the speech of the hon member in a moment.

Regional services councils are a result of negotiations within the co-ordinating council in which all groups and all possible political opinion are represented. These are the facts, but no one alleged that the system was perfect. For the first time in the country’s history Blacks, Coloureds, Asians and Whites are nevertheless meeting on the same criteria basis in an institution at local government level. If this experiment succeeds—I am not suggesting that it is anything other than an experiment—we can learn important lessons from it in respect of participation at other levels of government.

What about the Indaba you rejected?

I shall talk about the Indaba and react to what the hon member asked in a moment. However, it is also a lie…

I can also give the quotes.

Order!

That is also a lie, but I should like to reply to it.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked me about the article in Leadership and inter alia about the multilateral cooperation. I shall reply to him fully, and shall also reply later to other hon members individually.

All I want to say now is that the negotiations which took place in 1982 to allow those institutions for co-operation to succeed, were preceded by months if not years of negotiation with those leaders. Today I am telling hon members that within that set-up in which no member and no country in existence need consider themselves bound by decisions which are taken there, no vote has ever been taken on a motion of common interest. This is practical proof of negotiations which succeed, and of systems which work because the public light does not shine on them, and because people sit down and assess actual national interests in terms of the interests of everyone and not only in terms of individual interests.

As regards the negotiations with self-governing states, the hon the State President said—I should like to repeat this for the record—that not one of them will deny the existence of those self-governing states. It is true that they want to accommodate the states differently in the national pattern—that is true—but not one of them says that the national states must be abolished. We are constantly negotiating with those leaders. Hon members must know that many of those leaders enjoy international recognition and have an international image. As a result of those negotiations we are going to introduce legislation for increased or greater autonomy for those self-governing regions and their governments. This is the result of negotiations which extended over two years.

What is the proposed National Council other than a proposal of the hon the State President and his Government to establish a forum of representative leaders to obviate the criticism that we do not speak to elected leaders and true leaders. Yet again no one is claiming that the forum is perfect, but what we are demanding is the acceptance that it is a bona fide endeavour to deal with the situation.

Hon members must take a look at what has happened in the social sphere. Again it is not complete and has not been finalised. Hon members must consider the laws that have been repealed, and what took place as a result of negotiations. In the labour set-up of our country, one of the most sensitive spheres in which any government can negotiate; as a matter of fact, a sphere which has broken other governments…

It is going to break this one too. [Interjections.]

Then that hon member will also suffer. Hon members must know—I am saying this in all modesty—that the Lord will have to preserve us if the present Government is no longer there. [Interjections.]

I want to ask hon members whether association between people is not easier nowadays than it was before. I am not referring to association in slums where no one could be prevented from living. It is a fact that the atmosphere in the country has changed for the better. Because it has changed for the better the powers of revolution will have to intensify their efforts. We are playing into their hands.

The final point I want to discuss is the accusation that reform is too slow or has come to a halt. I want to admit in all modesty—I want to be fair—that I think we have a communication problem rather than a content problem. It is after all quite clear, merely with reference to a few examples I have mentioned, for example the establishment of a joint executive authority for Natal, that the processes are continuing. If everything goes smoothly the first meeting will take place in November. It is an historic occasion.

I am appealing to everyone not to underestimate the steps we have taken. Let us not treat everything cynically. Let us appreciate what has taken place for a change. The hon member for Sea Point is laughing, but yesterday the hon member Prof Olivier said that very important functional, structural and also constitutional changes had taken place. In his standpoint he emphasised that they had taken place. I am not saying that he accepted their contents.

What reaction are we now getting from the hon the leader of the PFP? I must say we can move the markers of what is feasible, but the day we allow the processes of change to take place in such a way that we cannot convince people of the merits of reform, will be dangerous to the country, far more dangerous than anything else that can happen today.

I maintain that we do not always succeed in getting this message across to the masses. One of the reasons why we are not succeeding is, in my opinion, because the complexity of our problems and our society requires complex solutions, whereas people are seeking simple solutions. People do not see a simple, obvious solution—that is a fact. Their frame of reference requires simple solutions from them and that is why every other model which has achieved success in totally different circumstances, is held up as a model for our own fatherland, whereas we must actually say to one another that what must be developed in South Africa is a model which bears the label “developed in South Africa for South Africa”.

In addition the perceptions of people are an obstacle in getting the message across. Their attitudes, emotions and fears with regard to the constitutional reality, demographic realities, developmental realities and the problems and characteristics and needs of other groups, influence their views on reform.

Is that not true? Let us tell one another that a large sector of the communities outside feel threatened by the reform which has already taken place. This is a fact. They feel threatened. Other people who think the rate of change is too slow, feel threatened by this. The emotion of feeling threatened and the feeling of having been defrauded must be weighed up against one another if reform is to be a practical exercise.

We must not forget the role played by those persons who deliberately cast suspicion as regards the intentions of the Government and the intentions of all White people and all parties either. Hon members must not think that suspicion is only being cast regarding the Government’s efforts, because there are people who want to destroy the existing order, including the order advocated by the PFP. These people are not even satisfied with the PFP.

Today I want to state that violent revolution cannot succeed in South Africa. The country’s physical capacity is too strong for that, but if they destroy our will and ability to defend ourselves politically, they can succeed. If we allow them to destroy our country’s self-confidence, our trust in one another and even our trust in the Government, we have lost the fight.

Reform is also determined by people’s time perspective, ie what is feasible at a given moment. This is linked to ignorance among some people regarding the nature of reform as a process and not a non-recurrent establishment of final specific structures. It involves a process in which structures do change, but in which all hon members’ attitudes must also change. Yesterday the hon member for Overvaal remarked that this is the sermon I preach every year. That is true. Nevertheless I want to tell the hon member that I also read the Bible every day, and the truth always remains new. The truth…

Are you now comparing your speech with the Bible?

No! The hon member ought to know I am not doing that. I am comparing the truth with the truth. After all, the truth must be repeated; the more often the better, because then we may be able to receive the hon member for Overvaal in the ranks of those persons who are seeking the truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

Reform must take place over a wide front, in which development in one sphere is frequently preceded by strategies in other spheres. After all we cannot try to build Rome in a day. People are also not always ready to consider a specific reform step as a part of a comprehensive reform strategy. Successive reform steps by the Government are seen as unrelated strategies, and the public is informed accordingly, whereas they in fact form part of a larger total evolutionary process.

All these factors gave rise to the accusation that the Government did not have a blueprint, that it did not have a plan and that it was acting haphazardly and disconnectedly. I think it is clear that this accusation is not true. I have tried to spell out what the points of departure of the Government are. I have tried to explain what our methods are to achieve this. However, I also want to make another remark today. Hon members sitting opposite me—the hon members of the CP and of the PFP—are aware of this. Nor am I making any apology for what I am going to say now. Show me anyone in the history of South African politics who has taken more risks for what he believes is in the interests of South Africa than the hon the State President.

Hear, hear!

It does not matter whether or not he acted correctly by taking those risks. There is no one in the country who has taken more and greater risks than the hon the State President. He must forgive me for saying this in public. No political leader likes to take leave of his supporters. No political leader likes to take leave of his own people, except when he considers the interests of his country to be greater than those own interests.

Hear, hear!

Therefore, I also want to say that it is a privilege for every person to be a part of all the processes in South Africa under that kind of leadership. I believe South Africa is going to succeed. I really believe South Africa is going to succeed. I believe Parliament is going to succeed. I believe the people of this country are eventually going to be greater than petty political leaders.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches should like to wish the hon the Minister a speedy recovery after his recent illness.

With reference to his speech of one and a half hours I want to tell the hon the Minister that I think the newspaperman was right when he wrote the following about him: “Never a man to use few words when many will suffice.” [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister’s speech was predictable. Year after year it is the same collection of meaningless clichés and, “glittering generalities”. There was nothing new. He did not answer any questions. He did not present a plan. I am strongly tempted to move by way of an amendment that with reference to his speech the hon the Minister’s salary should be reduced to R39 per year. [Interjections.]

With reference to the hon the Minister’s remarks I just want to point out one thing to him. Amongst other things he said that never before has there been such a fine climate for negotiations than the present time. Now I ask him why has Mr Hendrickse left. In the second place he says that this system in which we now find ourselves came into being as a result of negotiation. I thought it came into being as a result of a referendum that was rejected by one third of the Whites and an election that was rejected by 80% of the Coloureds and Indians. He told us that the approach of the Government to reform was basically concerned with negotiation. He wants to negotiate and he wants to reach consensus, but he cannot even reach consensus with his own people! A “Dopper” sits next to me on this side of the House and another sits next to the hon the Minister. They do not even reach consensus with each other. They do not reach consensus with the hon member for Randburg or Rev Alan Hendrickse. So much for their talk of consensus or negotiations.

Not Riaan Eksteen either. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said that he was not going to prescribe any blueprint for these negotiations. Did he not, however, receive a mandate? Surely he received a mandate, although Rev Alan Hendrickse, who was a Cabinet member, said he did not know what it was. He received a mandate, and he must go and present his mandate there. Surely that is the blueprint that he has. Therefore if he says he does not have a mandate he must surely have asked for a blank cheque.

The reform of the Government is in a dead-end street. That is precisely what we predicted. It is because the reform started off without a plan and it is still without a plan. I want to quote what was said by the hon the State President according to Beeld of 23 May 1980, and this is how reform began:

Groping in the dark without a torch! That is how they began with reform, and what is happening now is that at present we are still saddled with Government that is groping in the dark and does not have a plan.

This is a very serious situation, because the NP now has a new policy which is based on two things. The first is that there is self-determination on own affairs. All I have to say about this is that the concept of own affairs has in practice been shown to be a failure. It was falsely portrayed to the voters as self-determination. It is false. Own affairs has no philosophical basis. The Government tried to associate their own affairs concept with full self-determination—the sovereignty that a people such as the Australians have over their country. It is a farce—own affairs has been proven to be a farce. [Interjection.]

The second aspect of the NP policy is power-sharing in general affairs without domination. The position now, however, is that because in effect there are no own affairs, their policy in reality means power-sharing in all matters without domination.

I should like to say a few words about this power-sharing. Previously the NP has consistently and unconditionally rejected power-sharing. The NP also gave a guarantee. I quote from Skietgoed of 11 May 1976:

That is the value of an NP guarantee. The NP said that that was a guarantee. No power-sharing would take place. [Interjections.]

The NP also stated what was wrong with power-sharing and I want to quote from a second issue of Skietgoed—we do not have to say who wrote it—it is No 10 of 1977. The subject is what is wrong with power-sharing:

And then he gives the reasons—

And where is it now?

It will result in the destruction of identity—that is what is wrong with power-sharing! Yet now it is their policy.

In 1977 you joined us in changing that policy. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is talking nonsense, Sir. In his own publication, Bangmaakpraatjies, he said that power-sharing was out of the question. He should keep his mouth shut or I shall quote more of what he said in this publication. [Interjections.]

I want to say a few words about the protection of minorities. Here the hon the Minister had the opportunity to tell us how he wants to protect minorities. Today I now ask for the fifteenth time in this Parliament how he is going to protect minorities. He does not answer us. The hon the State President does not answer us; no one answers us. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that no government could guarantee minority rights.

The NP is therefore saddled with very serious problems now. Its first problem with regard to domination is that its present model is in reality a model of domination. That party ostensibly wants to move away from domination but its present model is based on domination. That party dominates the Indians and Coloureds. A Minister may not even go and swim where he wants to or he is driven out. Mr Eksteen may not do what he wants to, but he is prescribed to. I have never before in my life seen a better example of domination.

The Leaders of the NP and the President’s Council do not know how to protect minorities. Out of desperation the hon the State President has now referred the matter to the Law Commission. He himself has no plans.

Practice shows that Whites are present not being protected in terms of the present model. Let me read to hon members what is written in Rapport about Mayfair. According to this newspaper Whites in Mayfair—where the Group Areas Act is not being applied by the NP—have to organise neighbourhood watches to prevent people of colour from moving in there, because the Government does not stop them. The Coloureds are now saying that this is going to lead to a bloodbath and it will be the hon the State President’s fault. It will be the hon the State President’s fault if there is a bloodbath, because he is doing nothing about the situation. [Interjections.]

There are 1,3 million squatters in this country who are settling wherever they wish. What is going to become of the Whites in this country? [Interjections.] The Government is helpless against the extortionists. In Ennerdale more than 100 Coloureds simply highjacked a lot of houses and moved in. They were arrested and taken to court, but Government officials quickly went to negotiate. Guess what happened then? All the charges against them were withdrawn, they immediately received housing and R2 million was immediately made available to them. One only has to use extortion and the Government gives one everything one wants. [Interjections.] House prices in Soweto have now dropped to such an extent that a Black can buy a house for R153. Do hon members know what is behind that? The inability of the Government to escape the problem that it is unable to get the Blacks to pay rent. [Interjections.]

Consensus politics has failed. It has failed, because the leader of the Labour Party complains that for three years he has been lonely in Parliament. He demands that the Groups Areas Act be abolished and that Mandela should be freed. I now want to know what the Government is going to do about that.

There is division in the NP. Rev Hendrickse says that there are members of the Cabinet who agree with him about the behaviour of the hon the State President. Who are they? [Interjections.] I wonder who is on the other side.

Dawie is one.

Practice has shown that the NP does not have a plan today. The hon the Minister spoke for an hour and a half without arriving at a plan. The NP does not have a plan but the CP does have a plan, because we are spurred on by nationalism. [Interjections.] The hon the State President who came to this place through nationalism, now has to fight against nationalism. He should remember what Mr N C Havenga said: To fight against nationalism is as difficult as biting into a rock. The hon the State President must now bite into that rock and fight against 600 000 of his own people who are inspired by nationalism. We are going to beat that party, because next year we are going to thrash them and annihilate them in the municipal elections. The Whites will restore their sovereignty and the hon the State President, like Genl Smuts, will come to sit on this side of the House, shattered, while we shall go and sit on that side.

Mr Chairman, I just want to make a few remarks in reaction to the hon member for Overvaal. One thing is certain: Those hon members cannot talk us out of our national feeling nor can they shout us out of it. [Interjections.] The difference between us and that side of the House is that we do not belong to a frightened people; we do not believe that our identity has to be entrenched and protected by laws. Identity is something that we carry in our hearts. We are not afraid to be seen at the same table as a Black man when his future political rights also have to be discussed there. We are not afraid either to extend the hand of friendship to all people of colour in this country. We do not want to wish them away, because we know that we cannot think them out of this country.

I want to make another three points in reaction to the hon member for Overvaal’s speech. The hon member said reform and consensus were in a dead-end street. What the hon member does not realise is that reform and consensus is going to be sought and practised in this country as long as people live in South Africa. The composition of the population of South Africa demands this of us. We have come a long way with reform, but we still have an extremely long way to take it. When it comes to searching for agreement without one group having to dominate the other in this country we are only at the beginning of the South African consensus-seeking politics.

When the hon member refers to statements on power-sharing made by us in 1976 he conveniently prefers to ignore the fact that under those circumstances we were speaking of a constitutional dispensation under the Westminster system. We are as opposed to that now as we were then. The point is that those hon members want to return to a Westminster system. They want to return to a nation state (volkstaat) government. They do not grasp the essentials of the dramatic change which has taken place here at all.

When the hon member says “own affairs are stillborn” and then says we equate own affairs with self-determination he forgets for convenience’s sake one cardinal element of the concept “self-determination”. It is very clear that self-determination does not only have to be realised in a model of partition or segregation or in a nation state. It is very clear that self-determination appears in different forms. When we say that nation-states belong to the past, we are not forgetting the concept “self-determination”. We are seeking self-determination in another constitutional model, and in my opinion those hon members are conveniently ignoring that.

I think it is a falsehood, an absolute falsehood, to say this Government is stumbling around without a plan. It is certainly justified to ask “What does the constitutional model to which you people adhere and in which you want to share the power look like?” That is correct. We do not have a constitutional model that we could debate now. However, we have very clearly outlined the framework that we want to use as a forum for negotiation. However, it seems to me as if hon members with this attitude flatly refuse to take note of the content of the speeches made by the hon the State President on 15 May 1985 in the President’s Council and on 31 January 1986 in the House of Assembly in which he clearly pinpointed certain beacons which we saw as elements that have to be built into such a negotiating structure. Along with those hon members, however, I look forward to the day when we shall no longer talk about points of departure here, but about the results of negotiation.

It is in fact ironic that hon members in the CP and we on this side of the Committee had exactly the same facts available to us when we decided that our paths had to separate on the question of the realisation of our future constitutional model.

The facts concerning urbanisation were available to them. They closed their eyes to the fact that urbanisation has during the past 30 years taken place at a rate of almost 170%. Those hon members closed their eyes to the reality that Blacks were not interested in pursuing independence by surrendering South African citizenship.

These are the facts, the collective facts that were available to us. Hon members on this side followed the road of partition and separation under a rainbow coalition, together with people who support an Afrikaner nation state (Boerevolkstaat), people of the AWB, of the “Blanke Boerestaat” and so forth. That is the way that they have chosen.

To be fair I can say that the CP wants five things. The CP states that we have come to the end of the 1936 land quota and further land will therefore have to be bought or exchanged. They will strive for majority occupation and they say that within 10 or 15 years after they have come into power they will succeed in their goal to the extent that 70% of Blacks will be living in those states.

Thirdly, in their publications such as the one titled Ontmoet die KP they state that it is not their policy to uproot and relocate Black people. The hon member for Barberton said they will not send in the bulldozers. Bearing in mind that approximately 10 million to 15 million people will have to be moved they believe it is a feasible proposition!

Fourthly, they say Blacks in urban areas will as far as possible receive local government powers. This will be limited and influx control will be introduced again. Fifthly, Blacks in White areas will have to exercise their political rights by means of the linking policy.

The CP is living a lie. The CP does not have to wait before they come into power before they can realise their policy. They are now able to pay attention to at least three of these five elements that I have mentioned. If the CP states that its policy is not going to be carried out with force, but with persuasion they can begin to respond to three of these elements straight away.

Firstly I want to mention that I believe that the CP encourages its supporters to consolidate their land where this is necessary. I have no complaint about that. I believe that they encourage their supporters when it comes to participation in the decentralisation approach of the Government, but members of the CP should stand up and tell their supporters that forced removals is not their policy. When their members demand that Blacks have to be moved with bulldozers, sjamboks and guns those hon members should stand up and say that this is not their policy, and they should contradict their supporters. [Interjections.]

They will not do that.

If Whites let rooms in their backyards at a more expensive price than they pay the owners for the front rooms, the CP should tell its members that that is not their policy and discourage them from doing it.

If members of the CP house Coloureds and Indians in their blocks of flats in Hillbrow and plead with representatives on this side of the Committee that the Government should not kick out those Coloureds and Indians because it would jeopardise their creditstanding at the bank, those members must stand up and tell their supporters that that is not their policy. Hon members have a solemn duty to reprimand those who live so closely to them and who in their hearts believe that the problems of South Africa can be solved through the barrel of a gun. [Interjections.] I hear a groan. Was it not Prof Carel Boshoff himself who said that Afrikaners in this country would have to resort to terror like the Basques in Spain? Was it not Prof Carel Boshoff himself who said that the time would come when we would have to see whether participation in this Parliament was relevant?

That Professor moves much closer to members of the CP than he does to hon members on this side of the Committee, and I think it is their bounden duty to reprimand him.

Mr Chairman, this is not the time to involve myself in a verbal battle with the hon member for Krugersdorp. Personally I have a very high regard for his sincerity and his political zeal. I still hope that in the proper circumstances, he will play an important part in South African politics in future.

And the PFP?

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the speech of the hon the Minister. He started with an earnest appeal about the seriousness of the situation. Every year he starts with an earnest appeal about the situation. Having made this earnest appeal, a good part of his hour and a half’s address was devoted to trying to score petty party-political points off other political parties. He showed a pettiness which ill befits the person who heads the important portfolio of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Let us debate the merit of our policies. Why does the hon the Minister who knows PFP policy inside out and has read and studied it, come and misrepresent it here? He knows that what he said today was not PFP policy. We may disagree as to whether it is going to be effective or not. We shall disagree as to whether his policy is going to be effective. However, he knows that we do take the multi-ethnic, multiracial, plural nature of the South African society into account. We deal with it in our particular way, but to say that we ignore it is wrong.

It is the essence of our federal system, proportional representation, the bill of rights, the constitutional entrenchments and the protection for minorities and for cultural heritages. Let us disagree on the method, but if the hon the Minister wants a serious debate on the future of South Africa he must at least have the common courtesy to present the policies of the other parties as they really are.

His second accusation against us was that we are undermining the stature of Parliament. Can you believe it, Sir! If there has been any government in South Africa over the past 40 years that has reduced the lustre of Parliament in the eyes of the population, it is the NP Government of today. [Interjections.] Does the hon the Minister think that the tricameral Parliament has added lustre to the concept of parliamentary democracy in South Africa? It has been the inability or the unwillingness of the NP to find a formula or to admit the principle that all South Africans—that must include Black South Africans—must be an integral part of the central sovereign legislature of South Africa that has in fact this Parliament into discredit in the eyes of millions of people in our country.

Does the hon the Minister think that Dr Verwoerd’s action of removing the last few Black representatives from this place and his statement that Blacks were no longer going to be South Africans but were all going to lose their citizenship, added lustre to the Parliament of South Africa?

I am a parliamentarian. I believe in the parliamentary process and ballot-box democracy in principle. However, those things are only going to be accepted as legitimate in the eyes of the majority of people in South Africa when all of the people of South Africa can participate in those processes and in this Parliament.

I believe the hon the Minister understands this, but he is trying to score cheap party-political debating points here this afternoon.

He waxed lyrical about the whole question of negotiation. I know and accept that he has been talking a lot to other people. I think there is a far greater degree of pragmatism in the new hon Deputy Minister’s approach—I hope he is going to reinforce it—than in the hon the Minister’s approach. I hope that the two will synthesize into something more effective than it has been in the past.

I believe it has been the Government’s style of negotiation that has led to the hiatus in the constitutional structures in South Africa today. These structures should be sources of stability and unity, but the structures of today are a cause of dispute and division. They should be a part of the solution, but they have become a part of a problem. This is very much as a result of the style of negotiation which the Government adopts. I want to talk very seriously to the hon the Minister about this.

I want to refer to a speech that his colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, made in this House last week in which he spoke about “onderhandeling”.

*He said:

The structures they decided on must be planned now.

That is not all I said.

That is all the hon the Minister said about this particular question of negotiation. [Interjections.] That is all he said about negotiation. [Interjections.] The position is that the NP decided what the principle was. The NP decided there would be separate power bases for Blacks.

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

No, I do not have the time for that.

The only thing the NP is prepared to do is to determine how they can give effect to the structures they have decided on. [Interjections.] Once again they are forcing political structures onto people in terms of race, just as they forced the tricameral parliamentary system onto the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] And enforcement is not negotiation. Negotiation is compromise and seeing eye to eye with one another. Negotiation is not saying that we have stated our policy and must now give effect to the structures we have decided upon.

[Inaudible.]

That hon Minister can explain it later. I quoted him from Hansard.

†That is the problem. The “onderhandeling” combined with the quick fix has led us to the problematic situation in which we find ourselves today.

I want to deal with one or two important matters raised by the hon State President in the debate on his Vote, because I believe they have a serious bearing on the general debate. I believe that, if we can analyse what he has said and can reach agreement in that regard, it could help to start to narrow the focus of the debate on constitutional matters rather than to expand the generalities of that debate.

First of all he started talking about the use of the expressions “non-racial” and a “nonracial society”. This phrase has been used generally, and we have certainly explained that when we and people other than members of the NP use that phrase, it does not assume that there is a neutral, colourless, grey community. [Interjections.] The American society could be called “non-racial” in a sense but it is a multiracial society. This society is multi-ethnic, multicultural and pluralistic. In my opinion there is hardly a society in the world which is ethnically homogeneous. “Non-racial” therefore does not mean that one forgets the differences which may exist on a variety of grounds, but what one does say is that one does not have a state, a set of laws and a constitutional system which tries to regulate the society on the basis of race. That is what “non-racial” means. That is the essence of a non-racial society or a non-racial system.

The hon the State President, in dealing with the whole question, not of political rights but of language, religious and cultural rights, said:

This is a situation of voluntary protection to which he refers. He goes on to say:

These are not my words, although they could have been—this is the State President of South Africa speaking.

Taken at face value, that is a very important statement, because he has said culture, language and religion, as far as the Government is concerned, must now be handled on a non-racial basis. This is fundamental, because when one reads once again the speech of the hon the Minister of National Education at the NP Congress, one finds that he said that culture, education and religion were an integral part of group structures, and they were the rationalisation of the tricameral system and of the apartheid structures which had been created in South Africa on the basis of race.

If the hon State President is correct in what he said about culture, language and religion, then there is no justification for having a tricameral system or own affairs. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this afternoon we saw the hon member for Sea Point rushing into this debate like someone who is in a tight corner and wants to get out of it. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke so rapidly that it was almost impossible even to make an interjection.

You just don’t think fast enough!

The hon member rushed at us with a shotgun and hoped to score a hit somewhere. [Interjections.] He reached a pinnacle when he referred to a speech which was made recently by the hon the Minister of National Education on the process of negotiation with a view to reform. Surely we have by now debated that matter frequently here. No one will persuade the general public any more that when it comes to negotiations we are not acting in a prescriptive way towards them.

Surely that is what he said.

That is not possible.

That is what he said.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central should just give me a chance. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of National Education once said—and I have also mentioned it here—that we have a ground plan. It was drawn up on the basis of certain guidelines pertaining to the realities of our country. We want to go to the negotiation table with that ground plan and when we go there it is going to be in a spirit of give and take. How on earth can one have an attitude of give and take and also be prescriptive at the same time?

After the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning finished speaking this afternoon the hon leader of the PFP sat here as though he were wounded, and that is why we saw him react here in the way he did. He is apparently trying to give the impression here this afternoon that their policy is not going to lead directly to Black majority rule in this country. Who are they trying to bluff? They have a frontbencher on their side who is not here this afternoon, the hon member for Houghton. She has already stated it categorically as the approach of that party and as the final outcome of the policy that they are trying to apply in South Africa. Who are they trying to bluff?

If there is a party that wants to bring about change in this country, that stands for development, it is the NP. It is that process of development that I want to discuss this afternoon and then I shall return to the hon member for Sea Point. The process of development I want to discuss is the development with regard to constitutional law, social life and the economy. This is a process that has become known worldwide as reform. It is a pity that this is so because the concept “reform” is not entirely in line with what is happening and what still has to happen. The word reform underemphasises the positive development aspect of the process and on the other hand it overemphasises the negative, unacceptable aspect that has to be changed. The impression is created that we are dealing with a defective situation that can only be put right by corrective intervention. It is not as simple as that.

What we are in fact doing involves a complex process of broadening democracy. It also involves the creation of an environment in which there will be room for such a democracy. The democracy we are striving for is a system which has grown and developed together with and out of specific communities in Europe to the extent where today we have a more or less suitable and acceptable system of government for sophisticated, wealthy, highly industrialised industrial countries with mainly homogeneous populations. There is a tendency for this not to work so readily in poor, heterogeneous and underdeveloped countries. That is why there are more examples of where democracy has failed than of where it has been successful.

In our own set-up there are quite a number of stumbling-blocks for the development of democracy, and if the process of development is not managed carefully it will run aground on these obstructions. Therefore reform in South Africa should be approached realistically and it must be multidimensional, evolutionary and development oriented.

I merely mention one example to demonstrate the requirement of realism. [Interjections.] The hon member would do well to listen now. We are a multiracial country. A concept of race is at present still a real phenomenon throughout the world even across national borders. How much more is this not the case within the borders of a single country or even within one region such as Southern Africa? A system of government that wishes to accommodate all South Africans of all race groups must take note of this. This is realism. What is not realism is to strive for a so-called post-apartheid era which then has to be a non-racial democracy. No constitutional system will make the South African population non-racial. We are in fact striving for a non-racist South Africa and to achieve just that will be difficult enough. Those who dream about a non-racial South Africa, like the hon member for Durban Central, do not want to remodel or reform.

You did not listen to what he was saying.

They want to transform the country, change its appearance. They want to intervene in the fundamental existence and in the very essence of our population and to transform it. Their approach is in truth revolutionary and not evolutionary. This is extremely dangerous. Democracy cannot be broadened in that way; that is how it will be destroyed.

Let us see whether what I say is true because we can test it after all. This is surely the policy of the PFP and the vision of the Independents. In their post-apartheid South Africa they want to negotiate protection for us as Whites and other minority groups with regard to our language, religion and cultural rights. It is necessary that this be negotiated, because we shall not have the kind of political rights with which to protect ourselves and to further our own interests. We shall certainly have a franchise, but that will be meaningless. It will not have enough substance to consolidate our own interests and own rights let alone further them.

Meaningful power-sharing is excluded in their non-racial democratic South Africa. Such an approach is only realistic in the eyes of those who want to hand political power over to the so-called Black majority in the unrealistic expectation that that will bring peace, prosperity and progress. The champions of that approach have all taken the mental leap taken by the hon member for Randburg, Dr Denis Worrall and all the hon PFP members who are sitting here and that they want us to have to take as well. We have to leap and hope for the best.

There is only one point of departure for democratic development with a view to stability and that is South Africa as it is. This is the foundation on which we have to build and it is also the building material. [Interjections.] The false perceptions of reality existing in the minds of the naïve liberals can never be the basis for realistic solutions in our country. In any case realistic reform will also see to it that the process is multidimensional.

I have already said that it is a proven desirability, if not an absolute requirement for the successful functioning of the democracy that it has to be established within a developed, prosperous and industrialised environment. South Africa does not come close to meeting any of these requirements fully. However, the Whites do meet the requirements and therefore democracy could in fact succeed reasonably well amongst them when it was practised to the exclusion of other groups.

The section of the community that now has to be involved for the first time in the broadened constitutional framework, however, is to a great extent poor and illiterate participants in a Third World subsistence economy in the rural areas, and in the cities they are either blue collar workers or operators in the informal sector. If they were the only population component of the country, democracy as an option would have held nothing for them, but would have been a dead letter. It is therefore absolutely essential that this large undeveloped component of the community must, as part of the reform and development process, be uplifted socially, economically and educationally to the level where democracy will in fact have meaning for them.

This is exactly what the NP is doing. That is why we have an education and training strategy for example, to which the largest portion of the budget of this country is allocated. Education and training is the most fundamental requirement for successful reform, because if we cannot help the masses out of their illiteracy, ignorance and consequent poverty, the values in which we believe have no future in this country, even if we were to negotiate the most wonderful political model possible.

That is why we also have job creation programmes. That is why we are introducing deregulation and advancing the development of small businesses and the informal sector, because the undeveloped masses have to become participants in the free economic system. It must become worth something to them and they should benefit by it. If that does not happen, they will choose an economic system that cannot be a foundation for a democracy. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stellenbosch philosophised here this afternoon about the broadening of democracy in a new constitutional dispensation which this Government advocates.

I do not want to follow the same tack, because I should like to come to something else that the hon the Minister is responsible for. If there was one event that precipitated disillusionment, antipathy and alarm among the people I represent in this House, it was the conspicuous and wilful superficialisation of the ethical and moral measures that was brought about by the Government party in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. They cannot say they were not warned. The CP issued an explicit warning against the acceptance of the 1985 draft ordinance on licences and specifically against the inclusion of clause 13 of that draft ordinance, which made the licensing of escort agencies possible.

It is shocking to read the debates and experience once again how members of the Government supported the measure in a lighthearted and even jovial way at the time.

What are you talking about?

The 1985 Draft Ordinance on Licences.

He was not listening, because he was talking to other people.

In contrast, the then leader of the CP in the Provincial Council, Dr Latsky, took part in the debate just after the hon member for Rosettenville. The hon member is in this Committee today and she will remember that debate very well. I quote from the Provincial debate, page 104, where Dr Latsky said:

Later Dr Latsky said:

Later in the same debate, following great provocation and many interjections made by Government members, the former MPC for Pietersburg, Mr Piet Niemand, said:

What happened then was precisely what had been predicted by CP members. The licensing of escort agencies did in fact lead to these businesses being legitimised, which is in direct conflict with the Christian moral values of the local community.

They are even found in Potchefstroom nowadays.

The following then happened. Against the wishes of the local licencing board of Pietersburg, against the wishes of the town council and contrary to the evidence of individuals and the view of churches, the Transvaal’s Licence Appeal Board returned a verdict in favour of the applicant on the basis of the amendment of that provincial ordinance in May 1985. In returning his verdict the chairman of the appeal board said inter alia:

He went on to say:

After a long statement made by the chairman of the appeal board, the last paragraph reads as follows:

The licence is then granted on a number of conditions. I cannot mention all of them, because there is not sufficient time to do so. I shall mention four, however. In the first place a register, containing details of every escort and visitor, must be kept. Secondly:

In the third place there is the condition that:

In the fourth place:

Surely it is obvious that the opportunity was being created here for a number of malpractices to take place, and this is what is happening. From the point of view of the permanence of the institution of marriage in the community, this amounts to contempt for marriage as an institution and runs counter to the basic principles of a sound national character.

When I put a question to the hon the Minister in this connection earlier this year he said there were two ways in which one could rectify this matter. The first was that the Administrator could repeal or amend this ordinance. Another way of repealing the ordinance under discussion is by legislation of this Parliament. I now want to ask the hon the Minister what the Government intends doing in this connection. I want to make an appeal for that legislation to be changed or measures to be amended in order to prohibit this malpractice.

Is he going to give in once again to the decadence of liberalism, or is he going to be prepared to govern this country according to Christian values and norms? In the meantime the escort agency in Pietersburg has started to operate, and at this stage the intention of the Government in this connection is not yet known. When I last asked the hon the Minister on 9 June, arising from his reply, whether it was true that no chairman of an appeal council could refuse an appeal, the hon the Minister indicated that that was a legal question which he could not reply to at the time. I hope he will be able to reply to me this afternoon.

There has been a great deal of commotion about this matter, particularly among the religious communities. I think we should pay attention to this. Petitions are being circulated in Pietersburg. At the moment one petition has 1 400 signatures—I do not know whether or not it has reached the hon the Minister yet, but if not, he will receive it—and I quote a section of this petition:

Op grond van Bybelse uitsprake verset die ondergetekendes, inwoners van Pietersburg, ons ten sterkste teen so ’n bedryf in Pietersburg en versoek ons die betrokkenes om nie met dié planne voort te gaan nie en die metgeselagentskap heeltemal te laat vaar.

Ons onderskryf die besware wat in 1986 hieroor voor die Lisensieraad van Pietersburg gelê is.

Ons versoek die owerheid in die persoon van die betrokke Minister…

This refers to the hon the Minister whom we are addressing in this debate this afternoon—

I also received a letter from the NG Church of Renosterpoort in which the Government is requested to take positive action. I quote only one paragraph:

The Presbytery of the NG Church in Pietersburg met recently and took a decision in this connection. I quote from a report in Die Noord-Transvaler of 21 August:

We on this side of the Committee associate ourselves fully with the standpoints stated here, and we request the Government and the hon the Minister not only to consider taking drastic action in this connection, but to do so, and to ensure that legislation is passed so that this evil can be eradicated. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg broached a very specific matter in all seriousness, a matter which does not fall within my sphere of expertise, I should be very happy, therefore, to leave it to the hon the Minister to reply to that matter. [Interjections.]

I also want to broach a serious matter this afternoon, but before we get to that, we must talk a bit of politics at this stage of the afternoon. When the election was announced, I told myself that one of the probable advantages of the election was that after the election there would be a lot of new faces in the CP. Before the election the situation was such that if an hon CP member rose, one knew one was going to hear one of three speeches, which everyone knew in any case. With some new faces, one might have thought there would be some new ideas as well.

Like those of the hon the Minister?

The hon member for Roodepoort—geographically he is my neighbour, although not spiritually—rose yesterday and addressed the NP on power-sharing, saying that despite the fact that an NP pamphlet published in 1975 had stated that we rejected power-sharing, the NP had in the meantime accepted power-sharing.

I want to tell the hon member that that is an old theme. Maybe he thought it was a new one. I cannot even really reply to that theme; the only thing I can do is to refer him back to the House of Assembly Hansards from 1982 to 1986. He will find all the answers there. If he does not, I can tell him that we have summarised everything in a neat little brochure which explains the whole matter.

Will you send us one?

Just to tell the hon member what it is all about, if one encounters a term such as power-sharing, it is one’s interpretation of that word that matters. Power-sharing was seen earlier as “one man, one vote” on one voters’ roll. If one group is in the majority, one has domination and not power-sharing. This is the domination in which the minority group is denied any power whatsoever. If, however, there could be a different system in which power could in fact be shared, in that each group would retain power, it would be a completely different matter. Briefly that is what it is all about.

There was something else that struck me in the election. Approximately 18 months after the CP had been established, we held a referendum on the constitutional dispensation. Directly after that referendum the hon the Leader of the CP, who is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now, said—this was recorded in Hansard—that the CP was claiming 600 000 of those no-votes. That was immense progress from the theoretic zero they had had 18 months before to 600 000, but three and a half years later, after telling us hundreds of times that people had naively voted “yes” in the referendum, but had joined the CP in the meantime, they polled about 600 000 votes in the election. This was three and a half years later. [Interjections.]

It is very clear, therefore, what happened. During that first period they attracted a large group of supporters, but there was no growth in the period between the referendum and the election. [Interjections.] The CP came here after the election…

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon the Deputy Minister does not want to reply to a question.

The CP reminds one of a scorpion which walks with its tail held high. The only difference, when one turns up stones in the veld, is that one often finds other kinds of insects which walk in the same way, so that they can frighten one by their scorpion-like appearance. [Interjections.] When one takes a good look at those insects, however, they are really quite harmless.

Yours was a Goggomobile.

That hon member must take a look at that Goggomobile business and not simply accept the distorted version given here in the House by the hon member for Soutpansberg. There was never any question of a Goggomobile. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, I would like to turn to a more serious subject, namely the whole question of the ANC and violence.

And surrender!

Order! I am not going to permit any more interjections which have no relevance to the debate. [Interjections.] The hon member for Overvaal need not look so concerned when I look his way. I did not mean that he was guilty of making irrelevant interjections. [Interjections.] Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

After having been banned in 1960, the ANC decided to resort to a policy of violence as a political tool for the overthrow of the South African Government. It motivated its decision basically in three ways.

The first reason it provided was that the Government had adopted a policy which was in their view totally unacceptable to the Black people of South Africa. That was the policy of separate development or the policy which has ever since been called the policy of apartheid.

The second reason was that the Government had through that policy completely excluded Black people from participation in the central political process in South Africa.

The third reason was that the Government, according to them, was totally intransigent in the sense that it was not open to any talks or negotiation, and that in fact it had completely ignored calls made by Black leaders for negotiation.

Mr Chairman, these three allegations were cited as the grounds on which the ANC had opted for a policy of violence. One could sum it up by saying that they alleged that all other peaceful avenues had been exhausted or closed to them.

Whether it was justifiable for the ANC to draw such a conclusion from the circumstances or not, is a question we can leave to the historians to decide but those were the reasons which were put forward by the ANC. Since then, however, circumstances have changed dramatically in South Africa. Owing to a variety of factors, the policy of the creation of separate states for all the Black people in South Africa has proved to be impossible to achieve—an impossible dream. It has therefore been abandoned. It is not the idea of separate states for Black people that has been abandoned but the idea that all Black people should eventually be accommodated, physically and/or politically, in those Black states. We had to abandon that policy because it was simply not practical. The permanence of Black people outside of what was previously called the homelands was recognised through this in the sense that if one knows that one cannot accommodate them either physically or politically in those homelands, then they are permanently in what we previously called White South Africa. This was a very fundamental decision that was taken. Flowing from this was the political participation of Black people in the central process in South Africa. That was the next step. The Government has recognised the need for this.

Furthermore, the South African citizenship of Black people had to be recognised, and the South African Government has done so. A further implication is that a new political dispensation has to be created in South Africa, a dispensation in which all people, including Black people, should participate at all levels of the political process. This has also been explicitly recognised by the Government.

A further point is that one knows that one cannot create such a new political dispensation for other people. It has to be created together with those people, and with their co-operation. That leads one to the point where one has to create such a new dispensation by way of a policy of negotiation.

Furthermore the Government has adopted a totally different attitude towards the issue of discrimination. During the years when the ideal existed of separate states for Black people a policy of discrimination was justifiable as a means to an end. That was so in the sense that if one had created Black states in which there was no discrimination and if one was working on the premise that Black people should be enticed to move to those states, then the discrimination in so-called White South Africa was functional in the sense that through that people were encouraged to escape from discrimination and domination by moving to their own separate states. Once the permanence of Black people in South Africa had been recognised, however…

A big mistake!

… there was no possible way in which one could continue to justify a policy of discrimination. Therefore the Government officially divorced itself from what had become known as apartheid. The Government has since indeed removed a host of discriminatory measures, for example, job reservation. It has recognised Black trade unions. It is eliminating discrimination in remuneration. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act have since been repealed. Influx control has also been abolished.

*Mr Chairman, I concede that there are many more grounds on which one can criticize South Africa and the circumstances in this country. Nevertheless, the Government has made known its intention to create a just society, and more reform has been effected in this country under the leadership of the hon the State President during the past few years than by any preceding government during any preceding period.

Malformation!

What is more, Mr Chairman, the conditions in which this reform was effected were more difficult than the conditions under any preceding government—after the Second World War, at any rate.

Because the Government waited for so long!

That may be so. I am not talking about the reasons involved, however. I am simply making a statement. The point that illustrates this is that the Government not only talks about reform…

But does nothing about it!

It implements reform measures too. The Government has done more than any previous government in similar circumstances. It is clear, therefore, that the Government has a policy for the inclusion of Blacks, by means of a process of negotiation, in the central democratic processes of South Africa.

What does that mean?

Mr Chairman, one can go in many directions from this point. What I want to say is that if this policy had been the policy in 1960, there would have been no reason at that stage for the ANC to adopt a policy of violence.

That is the point!

One can say, therefore, that the original reasons for the ANC’s adopting violence no longer exist.

That is correct!

Those reasons have been eliminated. [Interjections.]

But the Blacks do not have representation in Parliament yet!

But the process has been created. The ANC did not adopt a policy of violence in 1960 because they were not represented in Parliament. They adopted a policy of violence because, so they said, there was no future.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

In addition, the Blacks do not have representation in Parliament yet!

Unfortunately I cannot at this stage conduct a dialogue here, Sir.

Order! I cannot permit a dialogue to be conducted across the floor of the House.

This, then, implies that the present violence which is preached and practised by the ANC has become illegitimate. The fact is, however, that the ANC has not stopped its policy of violence in response to the changes that have taken place. In fact, all its actions and pronouncements in recent times point the other way. It is therefore imperative to look at the reasons currently being advanced by the ANC for its continuation of a policy of violence. One can perhaps summarise them in the following six or seven points.

Firstly, they come up with a repetition of the original motivations. Secondly, they say the reforms are only cosmetic rather than substantial, and that the position has not changed. Thirdly, they make the claim that the reforms are in fact intended only to make oppression more palatable; in other words, to avoid the revolution by making life slightly more palatable, but with no intention whatsoever of introducing power-sharing. They argue, too, that the reforms in fact amount to a subtle policy of co-optation, the ultimate aim being to divide and rule, without getting rid of oppression. They also contend that the prison system is dependent upon violence.

Order! Hon members are talking too loudly in the Committee. I must ask them to lower their voices.

They say that the present system is dependent upon violence, whether it be actual violence or institutional violence. They also say that apartheid cannot be reformed—it must be destroyed. They also say that one cannot expect them to throw away the most valuable bargaining chip they have—which means their capacity to commit violence—while the State still retains its capacity to, as they say, commit violence through its control over the SAP and the SADF.

If one just takes a brief look at these statements, the first statement—that nothing has changed—is obviously not the type of argument that one needs give attention to, since even the ANC cannot be as badly informed as that. Similarly, the dismissal of the reform of recent years as purely cosmetic wears extremely thin. No one can seriously claim that legal prohibitions still exist that restrict access to jobs on the basis of colour. No one can discount the power which trade unions have gained over the past number of years. No one can claim that the equal pay in his pocket is not real money, or that his mixed marriage is not legal…

But where do they live?

… or that he has been prosecuted for an immorality offence or a pass offence. These reforms are real. They are not cosmetic. They have legal consequences.

It is true, as I have stated before, that many injustices still exist. Reform still has a long way to go. That is not the point. Against this, however, stands the clear and firm commitment of the Government to the elimination of injustice and discrimination and its record of action in this regard over the past number of years. The argument that reforms are, in fact, intended to make oppression more palatable is cynical in the extreme. Any politician or political scientist who knows anything about reform knows that reform actually whets the appetite for more reform; that once begun, it is folly to try to stop the reform process. Therefore, if a government embarks upon a serious programme of reform as this Government has done, that government had better carry it through because stopping half way through a reform process is the surest recipe for revolution.

The accusations that it amounts only to co-optation, the ultimate aim being to divide and rule, are devoid of any truth and have no foundation in fact. The Government has clearly committed itself to an eventual ideal—not to a present reality, but to an ideal of real and effective power-sharing. The Government has committed itself to that.

The argument that the ANC’s violence is purely a response in self-defence against the actual or institutional violence of the State is similarly a cheap argument. The State and the Government have a declared policy of using the minimum of force needed to maintain law and order—similar to all civilised states all over the world—whereas the ANC has an explicit, determined policy of pro-active violence. They use violence consciously as a tool with the explicit aim of overthrowing the State by violent means. It is therefore an aggressive, undermining kind of violence whereas the Government uses minimum force.

I am not going to enter into the whole argument of institutional violence because I dealt with it more than a year ago when this Vote was discussed, and I can refer hon members to Hansard: Assembly, 1986, col 5231. It amounts to the fact that the argument about institutional violence is actually a very weak one.

The last of the statements I mentioned is the one that one cannot expect the ANC to forgo its only available bargaining chip ie its capacity to commit violence, otherwise they come to the negotiating table without any bargaining power. This statement really shows the so-called struggle up for what it really is. It is not a valiant effort to bring justice to the people of South Africa and neither is it a last resort against an intransigent Government. It is, in fact, nothing other than a naked power struggle for a complete take-over. The ANC do not want reform. They do not care two hoots about a more just dispensation for South Africa. All they want is power—power from the barrel of a gun, power to establish and maintain an ANC dictatorship. If it is a power struggle they want, it is a power struggle they will get. If they want to make war, we can make war too! [Interjections.]

If that is the case they cannot claim legitimacy for their side and illegality or illegitimacy for our side. They cannot then expect us to remain within the rules and bounds of a peaceful democratic struggle while they avail themselves of the rules of the power struggle. They cannot lay claim to the rules of the freedom of the Press, the rule of law and the sanctity of the individual while they scorn those very things by their own actions.

Today the so-called struggle of the ANC stands unmasked for what it is—a naked lust for power by a band of rebels who do not have enough confidence in their own cause to submit it to the glare of an ordinary and peaceful democratic contest. They are scared. They are not prepared to take part in the ordinary democratic process because, as the hon the State President has stated, anybody who abides by the rules of democracy is free to participate in the process of determining the future of South Africa. We are adamant that a real democracy must be created in South Africa, a democracy of which the essence is a peaceful settlement of political disputes, and that cannot be created by the use of violence. This has been tried time and time again in other societies—to create a peaceful system through the use of violence—but it does not work. A system created by violence has to live by violence. That is the exact opposite of the democracy that we envisage.

In conclusion I want to reiterate that the original grounds advanced by the ANC for their decision to opt for violence—whether they were valid at the time or not—are definitely not valid today. No other reason advanced by them for the continuation of violence can bear the scrutiny of logic. The inevitable conclusion is that there is no valid reason for the ANC to continue with a policy of violence. Therefore, the violence committed by them today is totally unjustifiable, totally inexcusable and totally illegitimate. The only honourable option for them is to accept the peaceful rules of a democratic contest and then to come home and assist other peaceful South Africans in building a peaceful, democratic society for all our peoples.

Mr Chairman, I just wish to say to hon members that I shall reply to their speeches individually tomorrow. However I want to take this opportunity to reply to the speech by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

I should like to start by saying that the hon member for Sea Point may need to make an appointment with his colleague with reference to what he did in this House yesterday. The reason I rise at this juncture is that I would like to react to his statements now in order to make the request that those media that gave him prominence, be prepared to accord the same prominence tomorrow to my reply to him.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has great difficulty consorting with the truth. That is a fact, because his speech contains a number of palpable untruths. The hon member will therefore understand why I say that he used Parliament in reprehensible fashion to proclaim untruths—the facts concerning which he was able to ascertain—under the protection of the rules of Parliament.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I do believe that in what he has just said, the hon the Minister is suggesting that this hon member is guilty of a deliberate untruth.

No, I did not say that.

That is his insinuation. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by replying to the allegations relating to a question the hon member put to me, and I wish to make the following statements.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I asked that you give a ruling on what the hon the Minister said.

Order! Yes, I did give a ruling. I said the hon the Minister may proceed.

Did you not hear what he said, Sir?

Order! The Chair has already given a ruling.

I thought that perhaps you had not heard what the hon the Minister had said.

Order! I listened to the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister may proceed.

In his speech yesterday the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central contended that in reply to a question asked by him I had provided incorrect information. The hon member went on to contend that I knew that I had provided incorrect information.

I said you should have known.

No, the hon member said that I did know, because he said that an official of my department had informed me in that regard. That is the statement the hon member made.

Quote me.

The hon member had better go and read his own Hansard, but I shall quote him in a moment. I just wish to ask whether the hon member denies that.

I said you should have known.

No, the hon member said the Minister knew and if he did not know, he should have known. Those were the hon member’s words.

*In other words, the hon member contended that I was aware of it. He went on to refer to examples of who the official in my department might have been who told me that. Is that not correct?

†Question 43 to which I replied on 10 June refers to the payment of housing benefits and loans to councillors. Although the answer to this was in the negative, he claims that an unidentified person furnished information which indicated that my reply was incorrect. The hon member concurs. He also intimated that I had been informed of the fact that job-creation money had been used for providing nine houses and that I had knowingly misinformed the House.

No.

Yes, sir. The hon member can have another chance to reply to this in the debate. He has just confirmed the fact that he had said I should have known about it—that I knew, and if I did not, I should have known about it. This reaction of his is therefore purely semantic.

In the light of the facts, the reliability of this source of information must be questioned very seriously. What is more important, however, is that the actions adopted by the hon member be questioned to the same degree. He should be censured for what he did.

The answer I gave to the question was correct in that housing benefits do not form part of the remuneration paid to members of town councils. In the case of the Ibhayi Town Council, the circumstances are as follows. As a result of the unrest situation in Port Elizabeth which resulted in attacks on Black town councillors, including the destruction of their homes, the Ibhayi Town Council decided—I should like to stress that it was their decision—to erect nine houses for council members at a cost of R33 000 each. Job-creation funds were used for this purpose in terms of the prescribed formula according to which the funds may also be used for upgrading projects such as community facilities and creating fixed assets for the councils.

The council is at present, in accordance with Government policy, in the process of selling the houses. Funds thus generated will be used to finance further job-creation projects in that area.

I was not informed at any time either that the houses were to be built or that job-creation money was to be used for their erection. The local authority took the decision and acted accordingly.

The hon member also referred to alleged malpractices in the functioning and administration of the Ibhayi Town Council which had been reported to a member—this is exactly what the hon member said—of my staff, and that apparently nothing had been done by me. That was the implication.

Firstly, the official to whom the hon member referred is not an official of my staff.

The Directorate of Local Government.

He is not in my department.

Whose department, then? [Interjections.]

I did not interrupt the hon member. [Interjections.]

Semantics! [Interjections.]

The hon member could easily have checked the accuracy of his statement. He did not, but instead grossly and unfairly accused me firstly of wilfully giving wrong information and secondly of a dereliction of my duty.

Disgraceful! [Interjections.]

No matter how one views this, it was contemptible action. The fact is that the official to whom the hon member referred is the Chief Director of Local Government in the service of the Provincial Administration of the Cape of Good Hope.

That is your responsibility.

The matter is therefore in the first instance one that lies within the responsibility of the Administrator of the Cape. I concede immediately that I have overall responsibility for these institutions, but it is untrue that I was informed of the allegations.

I accept that.

I say it is untrue that an official of my department was informed of this.

Semantics!

However, an allegation has been made in this House, and I believe we should address it. The hon member implied that despite the serious nature of the allegations concerning that town council, no attempt had been made to take any action in this regard. I take the hon member’s nod as an acknowledgement that he said that. This, too, is not true, and reference to me or to the provincial administration would have clearly indicated to the hon member that it was not true.

The facts are that the matter was reported to the Chief Director of Local Government who asked for written statements to be provided by those persons alleging the irregularities. The statements were provided by the attorneys acting for the parties concerned, and the matter was immediately referred to the Assistant Auditor-General for the Cape Province. With the assistance of the council’s own private auditors a report was drawn up highlighting shortcomings in the Ibhayi Town Council’s administration.

As a result of this report a senior local government official who had previously been town clerk of Uitenhage was appointed to investigate these shortcomings with a view to determining the cause of the problems and to taking whatever steps might be necessary to remedy the situation.

May I ask when that happened?

I do not have the date, but I shall provide it for the hon member.

If the investigation should reveal any evidence to show that there has been negligence or malpractice on the part of any official or individual, appropriate action will be taken accordingly.

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

The hon member must just give me one minute to complete my remarks.

The hon member indicated that he had referred certain documents which had come into his possession to the Advocate-General, and I have no quarrel at all with that. I find it strange, however, that the hon member did not see fit to raise the matter either with me—he will concede that he has raised many matters with me—or the Administrator simply in order to ascertain the true facts before making these allegations in this House.

He went further than this. He implied not only that I had given wrong information or that I knew that I was giving the wrong information, but also that I had done so to cover up a situation. [Interjections.]

I believe that we have a duty to one another as members of Parliament. That duty does not imply that we should not criticise, but it does imply that we have a duty to establish the facts. It does imply that one does not come into the House of Assembly or any other House of Parliament without one’s facts and then impute actions that are not substantiated by the facts to hon members of this House. In this particular regard I suggest that in terms of parliamentary practice the hon member should consider offering an apology to a man whom he has slandered in this House.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has said that houses were provided because councillors had had their houses burnt down. May I ask in the first place if nine councillors’ houses were burnt down? The hon the Minister also said that arrangements were being made to repay the money which would go back into job creation. May I ask in the second place over how long a period of time this money is to be repaid?

Once again the hon member did not listen, because I did not say what he has just said I did. I did not say that these are loans that are going to be repaid. The council decided to build these houses and they are council property. There were no loans to anybody in this particular regard.

They were for job creation.

Yes, that is right, but they were not loans. I have explained that of their own accord the council took the decision to build nine houses that cost R33 000 a piece. They took the decision in terms of the formula provided for the using of the funds for job creation. I also said that they had decided to sell these houses to councillors and then to use the proceeds of these sales for further upgrading and expenditure.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to what the hon the Deputy Minister had to say. Naturally I have enormous problems with his logic, because right at the beginning of his speech he said he was pleased about the general election of 6 May, since it meant that, for all practical purposes, the CP had begun at zero and its progress could be monitored by the election. In addition he said the CP had received almost 600 000 votes on 6 May. The hon the Deputy Minister’s conclusion from these two statements was that in three and a half years, the CP had shown no growth.

He was talking about seats. [Interjections.]

In the second place I want to invite the hon the Deputy Minister to make this brochure on power-sharing, the one he referred to, available to us, because after his speech and, with all due respect, after the speech of the hon the Minister in this connection, we on this side of the Committee have no clarity at all on what is really meant by power-sharing.

I say that because I should like to present hon members with three different definitions given to power-sharing by the NP. Let us look in the first place at the definition given by the hon the Deputy Minister—before he occupied that position—in a document issued by the NP before the 1983 referendum. In it the hon the Deputy Minister said:

[Interjections.] We on this side of the Committee almost feel like cheering because we do not believe it has a positive emotional value either. The hon the Deputy Minister went on to say:

This is the system implemented by the NP after the 1983 referendum—

But now we can consider definition of power-sharing given by the hon the Deputy Minister in this Committee tonight. It is no longer an emotional term, as he characterised it a few years ago. It no longer has a negative emotional value only. He said power-sharing should be implemented in such a way that power was retained. Surely that is a contradiction in terms, because then one has to share power without really sharing power.

Typically NP! [Interjections.]

Let us look at a third definition. I am not surprised that that side of the Committee is so sensitive when this side of the Committee refers to definitions and policy standpoints of the past. I am referring to a document published for the NP by former Minister Hennie Smit.

After Paul Kruger.

After Jan van Riebeeck. [Interjections.]

The former Minister who is such a quick thinker.

I think it is significant that that side of the Committee mentioned Paul Kruger with reference to policy statements made by former Minister Hennie Smit.

Jan van Riebeeck.

We know they have problems in respect of time when they consider the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] In this document…

What is the date of the document?

It is an undated document, but I can give it to the hon member. [Interjections.] I shall quote from it verbatim. The NP said:

[Interjections.] Does that side of the Committee realise what this is saying about the Committee? It is the most dangerous policy. What they are really saying is: “Our policy today is the most dangerous policy a political party can present to this country.” [Interjections.] It is no wonder that this dangerous policy was rejected to such an extent that, after taking part in its first general election, a political party such as the CP was able to occupy the Official Opposition benches. [Interjections.]

That is an achievement! [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to debate the question of whether power-sharing and self-determination are reconcilable and can coexist in a unitary state. Power-sharing can be defined as the sharing of political power among various peoples or groups by means of joint decision-making or joint authorities in the territory of the same state.

Self-determination, on the other hand, is the right of a people to determine its own political, cultural, economic and social order, and to decide its own affairs, to take its own decisions without interference from other peoples or directives from higher authorities to apply and enforce such decisions within its own area of jurisdiction.

If we consider whether the right of self-determination and power-sharing can coexist in a unitary state from the point of view of these two definitions, it is my considered standpoint that power-sharing has a natural tendency to encroach upon self-determination. The greater the extent of power-sharing, the smaller the right of self-determination becomes until a point is reached at which power-sharing supplants self-determination completely. Of course the opposite is just as true.

One must accept that the Coloureds and the Indians would not want or continue to accept a form of power-sharing which, from their point of view, was meaningless or ineffective. We can see that in the constitutional crisis the NP has brought upon itself, and in which—with reference to Mr Hendrickse—they have painted themselves into a corner.

If we consider that this Government, and specifically the hon the Minister, said the following in a document published by the hon the Minister’s department—

—then surely nothing is left in that framework of the Afrikaner’s right of self-determination. This proves that the greater the extent of adjustments, the greater the extent of reforms that have to take place to satisfy the other population groups participating in this constitutional dispensation, and the less self-determination there will be, until there is nothing left of it. I need only refer to the single example with reference to the Group Areas Act. That is proof of how the integration process is being applied step by step in South Africa. Initially ad hoc exceptions to a specific Act are permitted.

In the second phase, influx is permitted on a de facto basis without action being taken to stop it.

In the third phase that de facto situation becomes a de jure situation; it is legalised.

At the NP’s federal congress in 1986 the then hon Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning argued that a form of integration was permissible in a block of flats, and should be legalised.

They went a step further at the Free State congress, advocating grey areas very cautiously. This is going to be discussed in the President’s Council. We do not know about it, because that is the great secret this Government has kept hidden from the electorate. That is also why they did not want to make it known before the election on 6 May. We expect the President’s Council to legalise grey areas. [Interjections.] We are not the only ones who want to know where the Government stands in respect of the right of self-determination in connection with own residential areas. The electorate wants an answer too, and they want the answer before 1989. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, apparently the hon member for Losberg had a prepared speech that he wanted to deliver at any cost. [Interjections.] If that was not the case, I cannot understand why the hon member introduced his speech as he did by quoting from the period before 1983. After all, the hon member for Krugersdorp indicated very clearly earlier tonight that statements from that period should be seen against the background of the Westminster system which applied at the time. Anyone with a grain of understanding or feeling for politics would have realised that the hon member for Krugersdorp had reacted decisively to any similar quotations. [Interjections.] It comes as a surprise when someone like the hon member for Losberg tries to rake up clichés from the past. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Losberg said another amazing thing.

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

No, Mr Chairman, my time is too limited.

The hon member for Losberg said another amazing thing. He spoke about the Afrikaner’s right of self-determination which, according to him, was being jeopardised. I want to ask the hon member or any other hon member of that party when the Afrikaner’s right of self-determination was ever constitutionally protected or entrenched in this country?

I shall answer you. Go and look at Dr Malan’s…

Never in the politics of South Africa has the Afrikaner’s self-determination been specifically accommodated, because a voters’ list has never distinguished between White Afrikaner and non-Afrikaner voters. [Interjections.] What the hon member said was absolutely absurd, and I did not expect it of him. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to permit this general conversation to continue in this Committee. I must request hon members to lower their voices immediately, and if they want to continue to converse aloud… The hon member for Houghton as well! I shall have to request hon members to continue their conversations outside the Committee if they want to talk loudly. The hon member for Mossel Bay may proceed.

During my speech yesterday, I put four questions to the advocates of partition as the only answer to the constitutional challenges that are facing us. If those questions can be answered in the affirmative, at least their partition policy will be given a morally acceptable basis.

The hon member for Ermelo has reacted to my speech, but he did not refer to the mentioned four questions at all; nor did any other hon CP member react to my questions. The justifiable deduction, therefore, is that the hon CP members are not prepared to give a positive reply to these questions. Their partition policy therefore has no morally acceptable basis.

Whose Vote is being discussed?

The hon member for Ermelo did say the following inter alia in his reaction to my speech, and I quote him (Hansard: House of Assembly, 8 September 1987):

He then added:

Since he is a lawyer, the hon member for Ermelo should know that the concept of nationhood or nationality is a constitutional concept which is related to citizenship of a particular state. This is in contrast with the concept of ethnicity, which is a culture-historical concept. Ethnicity and nationhood (volkskap en nasieskap) are two completely different concepts, therefore. [Interjections.]

There is no question of the Government’s wanting to create a new nation or wanting to jeopardise the continued existence of the various nations the South African community is made up of. However, the fact of the matter, whether the hon member for Ermelo likes it or not, is that the South African nation consists of all South Africans, irrespective of their race, ethnic context or ethnic grouping. That has always been the case, also when the hon member for Ermelo and I were studying constitutional law at the University of Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] The constitutional challenge facing us is how to accommodate the political rights of all South Africans in an acceptable and attainable way.

Yes, attainable.

Yes, the aspect of attainability is important, because it immediately eliminates the whole partition idea of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

It is not clear on which basis the hon member for Ermelo presumes to speak on behalf of the Afrikaner people when he says that they will not be assimilated into the alleged new nation, unless his point of departure is similar to that of a member of his party who argued that the Afrikaner character was synonymous with supporting the CP.

If the hon member maintains, however, that the Afrikaner people will not be assimilated into the so-called “new nation”, this can mean only one thing—not partition, but secession. That is secession from the Republic of South Africa by the Afrikaner people. It is clear that this is in fact what the hon member meant from his subsequent reference to Israel and his statement:

That is the language of those on the far right, the AWB, the Oranjewerkers, the Morgenzonners and others.

Did you never speak in that way?

This gives rise involuntarily to the following questions: To which part of this country does the Afrikaner people have a God-given right in terms of this point of view? [Interjections.] How is the Afrikaner people going to occupy this part of the country in a different way to the way it does so now? After all, the Afrikaner people occupies the whole of the Republic of South Africa already, although they do not occupy it alone. If the hon member means, however, that the Afrikaner people is going to occupy part of the country, with the exclusion of the other population groups, I want to know how they are going to do this. Is this occupation going to be peaceful or violent? This question is even more relevant if one keeps the hon member’s reference to Israel in mind…

You must come and make that speech in Standerton!

… and in view of the fact that the origin and the existence of the state of Israel has been and is characterised by bloody conflict.

I want to know from the hon member for Ermelo and the other hon members of the CP whether this is what the CP envisages for the Afrikaner people. If that is the case, they must have the courage of their convictions and say so. If not, they must refrain from making such emotionally inflammatory statements. Another question that arises in this connection is whether the possible role envisaged for the AWB is to effect the violent occupation of part of the Republic of South Africa.

I do not like to attach labels to hon members in respect of their links with other organisations, and I have never believed that there are hon members in the House who belong to certain organisations…

Such as the Broederbond!

… and that they want to project the standpoints of those organisations here. When the hon member for Ermelo speaks in this way, however, I begin to wonder whether I was not a little naïve to have adopted that standpoint in favour of hon members of the CP. [Interjections.]

This language is not the kind of language we heard from the CP in the past. This is something new. As the hon member for Sasolburg said yesterday, there has been a shift in emphasis. We no longer hear the word “partition” from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, but we hear “secession”. I wonder where these new noises and this new emphasis in the ranks of the CP has come from. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to speak after the hon member for Mossel Bay. He is also chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and as usual, he made a substantial contribution tonight, in glaring contrast with the feeble attempts we heard from the hon members of the CP and the PFP earlier today. He put a number of very important questions which require answers, particularly from the CP.

I want to concern myself with a different subject which is slightly more positive. It concerns a very important event in our constitutional development, an event which took place on 7 August this year, viz the proclamation in the Gazette of the Joint Executive Authority of KwaZulu-Natal. The hon the Minister also referred to this in his speech earlier tonight.

The vast majority of the people in our country hailed this as a positive step and the beginning of an exciting new era. As usual, however, the Official Opposition were negative and simplistic in their criticism. I should like to refer to only aspects which were raised repeatedly by their propagandists. The first was that in the case of this authority, the Government was guilty of what they called “stealthy reform”. They say that this new system was introduced stealthily. I am amazed that the hon member for Overvaal is not shouting out his usual “Hear, hear!”.

You are not important enough. [Interjections.]

Run! Run! (Hol)

The second allegation is that the voters…

You lot can run (hol) up your own backsides (hol)! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must withdraw those words immediately!

Mr Chairman, I should like to address you on that.

The hon member for Overvaal must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them. Mr Chairman, on a point of order: On a prior occasion I told you that the presiding officer had ruled that no senseless interjections should be made. [Interjections.] But hon members keep on calling out to me, “Run! Run! Run!”. I want to know whether you are going to regard that as a senseless interjection and are going to protect me against it.

Order! These remarks in respect of hon members must come to an end immediately. It is senseless to shout out things of that kind to an hon member. The hon member for Umhlanga may proceed.

Mr Chairman, some of my time has been wasted now, but I should like to react briefly to the statements I have just referred to. The first point I want to make is that this legislation was debated at length on 20 June and again on 18 August 1986. Six members of the CP and the only member of the HNP, the former member for Sasolburg, took part. At that stage the AWB did not have its representatives here yet. [Interjections.] More than one hundred Press reports on this authority appeared during 1986 and 1987, and reference was often made to it on radio and TV. In my opinion, therefore, the assertion that it was implemented “stealthily” is preposterous and absurd.

With regard to the second statement—that the voters did not have an opportunity to express themselves with regard to this matter—I merely want to remind hon members of what hon members of the right-wing parties said here shortly before the by election in Klip River on 17 September 1986. They promised to make the question of the Joint Executive Authority an issue in that by-election.

I should like to quote what the former member for Sasolburg, Mr Louis Stofberg, said at the time:

He then added, theatrically as usual: “We shall go to the voters with the slogan, ‘Don’t surrender Natal; vote HNP!’”. Then the hon member for Barberton, with as much bravado, said the following on behalf of the CP:

I want to tell this Committee that the voters then gave their verdict unequivocally. The NP candidate in that constituency won with a majority of more than 3 000 votes. He polled 5 863 votes whereas the right-wing candidate, the HNP candidate, polled 2 830, because the CP did not even see their way clear to contesting that seat.

This CP-HNP propaganda against this new executive authority was also conveyed to the voters in the general election campaign. The result of the general election was equally unequivocal, and almost 120 000 voters in Natal voted for the NP and 25 000 for the radical right-wing parties.

What were they voting for?

It amounted to a rejection of this suspicion-mongering.

There are a number of very positive aspects in connection with this new joint authority. The one is that it is the product of negotiation between the executive committee of Natal and the KwaZulu Cabinet and there will be co-operation in a variety of spheres. The second positive fact is that savings can be effected because of the better utilisation of manpower and resources; in the first place, for example, there will be savings of almost R4 million per annum in only one sphere, viz the provision of medical services.

In the third place the two administrations are receiving equal representation, and the existing administrations cannot be stripped of their own powers; their authority is being devolved to the new joint authority according to their own discretion.

Run!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, is it fair for that hon member to tell me to run! [Interjections.]

Order! I did not hear the remark. Can the hon member identify who made it?

No, Sir, how would I be able to? I simply heard a whole lot of them saying it.

Order! I appeal to hon members again not to make remarks of that nature.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I suggest that you ask who made that remark, because it apparently gives these hon members endless pleasure to make this kind of interjection. I suggest that you ask who made the remark.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I do not know of any ruling that it is unparliamentary to make an interjection of that nature. Although I respect your right and authority, when interjections become disorderly, to rule that interjections to that effect should not be made, I do not think it is a valid point of order when someone says something that is not unparliamentary.

Order! I want to give a ruling on this point of order. The intention is not to prevent the word “run” (hol) from being used here. What is at issue is the senseless and inane interjections hon members are making. The ruling is that interjections of that nature will not be made.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: You have given a ruling and said that this kind of senseless interjection must come to an end. The hon the Leader of the House has in fact questioned your ruling. I want to ask you now to identify the hon member who made that senseless remark so that he can withdraw it.

Order! No, I did not rule the word out of order.

No, I know you did not.

Order! The hon member for Umhlanga may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid the…

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr Chairman, I suspect that if the hon member for Umhlanga had been allowed to complete his speech he would have given us a more lyrical account of the operation of the joint executive authority which operates between Natal and KwaZulu. I think that this element in Natal, as evidenced by this joint executive authority, is certainly encouraging. I think it must be seen at this stage as an administrative accord between the two authorities in Natal—between the KwaZulu Government and what is left of the provincial administration. I think that the House and the hon member for Umhlanga should concede that when that was first conceived, it was conceived on the basis that there would be an elected authority for White Natal which would operate this accord with the KwaZulu Government. It should certainly also be conceded that this was never expected to be anything but a first step, and that unless it was accompanied by a joint legislative authority, it would not have any long-lasting significant meaning. It was, however, a step in the right direction, and in that sense it is a useful operation.

I want to return now to what I think has been the central theme of this debate. The hon the Minister spent a great deal of time this afternoon talking about the Government’s commitment to the process of negotiation in South Africa. He gave us a sort of homily as to how he thought Parliament should operate in this sort of situation—that we should at all times be guided by what is in the national interest and that we should not always be guided merely by party-political interests. I think that was part of the theme of the introductory remarks by the hon the Minister this afternoon.

When one deals with the question of negotiation—and we are all aware or should be aware that if we are to resolve problems in South Africa they must be resolved by way of negotiation—I want to say, and I say so unequivocally, that I think the negotiation process in South Africa is being bedevilled, not so much by the reluctance of various interest groups to participate in the negotiating process or by the actions or the influences of hostile elements to prevent negotiation getting off the ground, but rather by the very widely held perception that this Government will only negotiate on its own terms in respect of an agenda of its own making and in respect of guidelines prescribed by it. [Interjections.] I believe that is bedevilling negotiation in South Africa perhaps more than anything else.

That is what F W De Klerk said.

The Government’s commitment to negotiation I believe falls on deaf ears, because few people believe that the NP is willing or able to enter into the spirit of real negotiation which involves an open mind, a willingness on the part of all concerned to make concessions to others and to compromise in a genuine attempt to find consensus.

The NP on its record simply does not qualify in this particular field because it is hidebound by its own totally inflexible philosophy of rigid racial groupings as being the basis of constitutional and political development in South Africa. We have had so much support in recent weeks for the contention that the NP remains committed to this philosophy. The hon the Minister of National Education, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning this afternoon again provided evidence of a total commitment to group thinking as the basis of political and constitutional development in South Africa. While the NP remains so committed it can never be the vehicle for an effective negotiated settlement in South Africa. Rather, it will instead remain the obstacle to real negotiation. This is the perception opposite…

What is your perception?

Our perception is real negotiation? I shall come to that.

This is the perception which exists, and I must say it is a well-founded perception because it is in fact a reality. This Government, in its quest for change, has through the years paid lip service to negotiation, but when changes have come about in the constitutional field—just look at recent history—they have complied strictly with the rigid racial philosophy of the NP. I must say, Sir, this is totally consistent with the image which the NP has enjoyed over nearly 40 years of uninterrupted power in South Africa.

This is an image, Sir, which has been carefully fostered by the NP through the years. It is an image which they want, an image that they are a tough, uncompromising Government, totally and absolutely obsessed with the infallibility of their own thinking in respect of the pre-eminence of compulsory race groupings as the basis of future development in South Africa. That is their image. It is a well-earned image. They have worked hard for it, and it may give them comfort in the immediate power struggle in South Africa. I concede that readily, Sir.

I must tell them, however, that it is this image which is the very ingredient which is counterproductive to any attempt at successful negotiated settlement in South Africa, because whatever majority the NP represents among the White electorate, the NP must realise that they are a minority Government in South Africa. They represent in fact less than 10% of the population of this country. [Interjections.] In these circumstances, Sir, they can set up one negotiating body after another, as they have done in recent years, each of which has been hopelessly abortive. They can do this, but unless they can convince those whom they invite to the negotiating table that there is at least a chance of a solution being accepted at the end of the day which does not conform with the preconceptions of the NP, they will receive no enthusiasm and very little support for their efforts. That, I believe, Mr Chairman, is a reality.

In recent years we have seen a variety of attempts made at negotiation. The whole concept of a constellation of states has failed. Then there were the proposed Black component of the President’s Council, the announcement of the setting up of a national forum, the Cabinet Committee, and now there is discussion about the so-called National Statutory Council. We await sight of the new legislation in respect of the National Council, and I hope it will provide machinery which will hold out the hope of greater effectiveness than did its predecessors.

I must say, however, that that alone will not be enough unless there is a drastic change of attitude, a change of heart, on the part of the Government in respect of the whole process of negotiation. If the Government is not prepared to break out of the constitutional straitjacket of a commitment to rigid racial groupings, then I believe we are heading for a situation of confrontation and conflict in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, there is still a chance that we can avoid this. The Government should show that even at regional level it is prepared to accept initiatives which differ from the initiatives to which the Government has committed itself through the years. That could be done in respect of the Natal Indaba, but what has happened is that so far the Government has rejected the indaba because it does not conform with the basic policies of the NP. This is the point I have been trying to make. [Interjections.]

In the very limited time at my disposal, however, I want to lodge the following appeal with the hon the Minister. Formal representations have been made to the Government in respect of the indaba proposals. The Government has not given a formal response to those representations, although there have been rejections by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and also by some of his lackeys. There has not, however, been an official rejection of the indaba by the Government. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to use the opportunity of this debate to tell us what the Government is going to do in relation to the formal presentation of the indaba proposals. Until now, Sir, the Government has said it is waiting for the reaction of the KwaZulu Government and the Inkatha movement. That reaction has been given in principle. The KwaZulu Government has indicated that in principle it accepts the proposals of the Natal Indaba, and the Government is aware of this.

I want the hon the Minister to take us into his confidence and to tell us what the Government’s attitude to the indaba proposals is. In the meantime I would ask the hon the Minister to try to use his influence on some of his backbenchers and other members of his party to stop their campaign of trying to belittle the people who are involved in the indaba process and the people who are involved in trying to sell the indaba proposals to the people of Natal. One has this from the young backbencher, the new hon member for Umhlanga, who spends his time trying to denigrate people who are involved in the indaba process. I believe this is counterproductive to reform. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

May I address you on a point of order, Sir? During the speech of the hon member for Berea, there was a constant background hum of conversation emanating predominantly from the NP benches. [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe that for the most part, while the hon the Minister was speaking, we on this side of the House gave him a hearing, and there was not a constant noise of conversation. I would therefore appeal to you, Sir, to afford our frontbenchers in particular, protection from this constant hum of conversation.

Order! I appeal to hon members not to converse so loudly.

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with the political strategies of the PFP. The hon member for Berea indicated that the strategies of his party are much better than those of the NP. I shall prove my point by referring to some incidents which took place during the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. I think it is most appropriate to deal with that, since the hon member raised that point. However, in order to interpret these incidents in their proper perspective, it is necessary briefly to outline the gist of the indaba constitution.

In terms of that constitution, the legislature consists of two chambers. The first chamber is constituted of 100 members elected on a one man, one vote basis by all Natalians. [Interjections.] The second chamber consists of 50 members: 10 Zulus, 10 Afrikaners, 10 English-speakers, 10 Indians and, of course, 10 people not wanting to belong to any of these groups.

The first point of interest here is that the Coloureds in Natal get no seats in the second chamber, whereas the Afrikaners, who are hardly more prevalent in Natal than the Coloureds, get 10 seats. What is more, the Afrikaners did not ask for those 10 seats. They were foisted upon us by the Prog-dominated constitutional committee. The hon member for Durban Central, who is sitting over there, knows what I am talking about. The question is why this is so. Is it because they love us so? Hardly!

Are you talking on behalf of the Cabinet?

The Prog reasoning was obvious. If there were only Black, White and Indian groups, they would have exposed their flanks to accusations of racism. Hence, split the Whites into Afrikaners and English-speaking Natalians!

All you need do is… [Interjections.]

They pretended that cultural differences were the criteria, irrespective of the fact that between the Zulus and the Pondo’s there are great cultural differences, as there are within the Indian community. What was needed here, then, was merely a loophole, and the few Afrikaners in Natal were accorded the privilege of saving the Progs from racism, as it were. Can you imagine that, Sir? [Interjections.] In order to understand the implications of this proposed legislature, let us not speculate, but rather look at the result of scientific study. I refer hon members to a thesis on power-sharing in South Africa by Prof Lijphart. This well-known expert concluded as follows, and I quote:

I quote further:

When one considers that in Natal the Zulus comprise 80% of the population, the implications begin to crystallise out. Since this model would therefore undermine the existing self-determination of Indians, Whites and Coloureds in Natal, we proposed that since the second chamber does nothing effectively to prevent that, the second chamber be scrapped.

Something very interesting happened then. This proposal was greeted with acclamation by the PFP. As a matter of fact, the hon member for Berea, the PFP leader in Natal, endorsed it by reiterating that the PFP was dead against group recognition and believed only in individual rights. At least he was honest in this regard. Even the hon member for Greytown was delighted by this proposal of mine and was almost ready to welcome me into his party. The two of us would have travelled—albeit it in different directions! [Interjections.]

This proposal was discussed and it was winning the day and this development demanded some neat footwork from the Progs on the constitutional committee. They were forced to explain—rather red-faced—that scrapping the group provision would ruin the chance of selling this model to White Natalians in particular. That caused even more red faces.

Therefore, although the Progs do not believe in group rights, they ended up pleading for some sort of group representation, at least symbolically, at the indaba—ineffective as that may be. Why? Because they needed it as a smokescreen to bluff the uninformed and the gullible. [Interjections.]

I submit that these escapades by the Progs at the indaba illustrated one thing very clearly, viz that even they were forced to admit the existence and the strength of group sentiments in South African politics. I find T S Eliot’s words very applicable to the PFP’s experience at the indaba:

[Interjections.]

This, however, was not the end of the disinformation launched by the indaba clique. It was only the start of an insidious campaign. I am sorry to say this but let us face up to the facts. At present the indaba movement has a director whose responsibility it is to try to sell the indaba plan to somebody or to anybody, even to members of this Parliament and to members of the President’s Council.

The indaba documentation submitted to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning contains a very objective and well-balanced—if I may say so—minority report. The indaba director, Prof Van Wyk, assured me personally that this documentation would be sent to each and every participant in the indaba. Sir, this has not been done. Why not? Let me tell you, Sir. The indaba protagonists want to suppress the rather revealing minority report. [Interjections.] It is an eye-opener and spells out the implications and unmasks the indaba constitution for what it is, viz a Prog-like domination model. [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Durban Central must be patient, I have not finished yet.

In a recent spate of indaba advertisements the indaba director and his cronies claim, and I quote:

This is untrue—and I submit that Prof Van Wyk knows it. The constitution allows for the Zulus alone to use their voting power in order to pass all financial legislation without the concurrence of any other group.

Nonsense!

This is true; it is in the constitution. I will explain it to the hon member for Durban Central if he has a problem with it. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, the constitution itself can be changed without the consent of all the groups involved. To say that this model does not involve domination attests to ignorance or dishonesty. I therefore challenge the indaba director here tonight to include the minority report in the pamphlets they so fervently distribute. I challenge him to stop misleading the public but to give them the full picture so that they can make up their own minds.

White voters did that on 6 May. [Interjections.] Let me explain. On 1 December 1986 the PFP leader in Natal said the following:

The election results in Natal in particular spoke louder than words! [Interjections.] I want to advise public figures not to allow their names to be used in misleading indaba propaganda. They should rather acquaint themselves with the facts lest they end up with egg on their faces. I urge them as well as hon members of Parliament and of the President’s Council to study the minority report. It is a revealing document. It might save them the embarrassment of being led up the garden path.

*The point of departure of the NP, the governing party, in relation to constitutional development, is clear. It has been expressed very clearly by, inter alia, the hon the Minister of National Education, whom I quote as follows (Hansard: Assembly, 22 May 1987, col 316):

Furthermore, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the following (Hansard: Assembly, 3 February 1987, col 139):

There the hon member for Berea has his answer. The hon the Minister of National Education further clarified our standpoint as follows (Hansard: Assembly, 22 May 1987, col 309):

He that hath ears to hear, let him finally hear—I am addressing these words to the hon member for Berea. Furthermore, let he that can read, study the minority report. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman,… [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

Order! I have called upon the hon member for Potgietersrus to speak, not the other hon members who are shouting “Hear, hear!”.

The hon members for Lawaaikamp.

Sir, I find it somewhat ironic that the hon member for Umhlatuzana is so…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order, in terms of the ruling you gave earlier, for hon members on that side of the House to refer to hon members on this side of the House as “the hon members for Lawaaikamp”? Do you regard that as a relevant remark?

Order! It is a remark which I would prefer not to hear in this House. It is unnecessary to make such remarks. The hon member for Potgietersrus may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I find it somewhat ironic that the hon member for Umhlatuzana should become involved in a dispute with the hon member for Berea, because in fact they are birds of a feather. Just as the PFP cannot protect the rights of groups in this country to be self-governing in regard to every aspect of their lives, so the NP, too, cannot provide any guarantee for the protection of minorities, as it calls them. This is an academic discussion between the hon member for Umhlatuzana and the hon member for Berea, and it leaves us cold. The solutions are in the same category. They are solutions that are doomed to failure.

Under the Department of Development Planning I should have liked to refer to the pressure exerted by the Government on district development associations and regional development associations to include non-Whites, people of colour, Indians, Coloureds and Blacks as members of those associations. I want to refer to that briefly and say that the Bushvelders will not be satisfied with forced integration into district development associations or regional development associations. [Interjections.] It smells—when one hears about the planted representations for Black township development adjoining every White Bushveld town—like the old Boland double-town system, and the Bushvelders will not be satisfied with that either. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is a transparent attempt. The Black township development adjoining every White town in the Bushveld is a transparent effort to disrupt the existing realities and to attempt to create a new reality which is in accordance with the integration policy of the NP. [Interjections.]

While we are talking about deliberate efforts on the part of the NP to make existing White rural areas Black by way of township development, I should like to refer… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Swellendam must not make one more interjection.

The hon member for Swellendam need not be concerned. I was on the point of referring to him.

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, while we are referring to the efforts to make existing White rural areas predominantly Black by establishing Black towns, whether he is in agreement with the following statement made recently by the hon member for Swellendam in this House. His actual words were:

I think it is reasonable to ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with this statement and if so, whether the statement may also be made applicable to other constituencies in the country and, if so, which constituencies. [Interjections.]

I should also like to discuss the constitutional future of our country. I want to begin by saying that there is no middle course between self-determination for each population group in this country on the one hand, and power-sharing—by definition, Black majority rule—on the other. [Interjections.]

In this regard I should like to quote someone, and I know that this may be painful. Hon members will complain about this again because they do not wish to be reminded of their own history, but in this regard I want to quote the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, who is not in the Committee this evening. [Interjections.] He said the following, and he said it to me as a young student and at the time I associated myself with what he said, but I do so even more tonight. Tonight he adopts a different stance. He said:

I think the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may appreciate the value of the following words—

But somewhere along the road a Trojan horse crept into the NP, and today we have standpoints that are basically and in principle irreconcilable with this standpoint. We now have a situation whereby the NP propaganda is issuing training pamphlets to its workers, and I quote brief extracts from such a document:

That is the White voter—

Defeatist propaganda throughout, and this defeatism, this despair, this obsession to settle with whoever wishes to take away existing White rights, has taken the NP so far that I wish to refer to certain moments on this slippery slope to Black domination, and here I refer to the hon the Minister of National Education who said earlier in this session:

That is how far the NP has progressed. The hon the Minister of National Education, who is a lawyer by profession, no longer speaks about the positive exercise of a right. He no longer speaks about rights and the positive exercise of those rights. He is now at the level at which he speaks about the right not to be an oppressed people dominated by others. That is the truth about the NP. [Interjections.]

I therefore think it is fair to say that that particular hon Minister has abandoned the ideal of freedom which I used to share with him. [Interjections.] He has already snapped under the violence of the onslaught on existing White rights to sovereign self-government in an own White sovereign state.

He can no longer say, with me and with other young Whites, that he devotes himself to the ideal that I held up in my maiden speech, namely to develop, on a Christian National basis, the freedom, autonomy and own identity of the Afrikaner people and the Whites that associate themselves with it, in every sphere of life.

Equally the hon member for Rissik can no longer associate himself with such a standpoint, because his obsession to reach a settlement has progressed so far that in the election campaign, when he was asked whether he was in favour of a Black president, he said that that was a racist question. The logical consequences of such an attitude are that it could also be a racist question to ask whether he would be content with a government the vast majority of members of which are Black. Surely it would then also be racist to ask whether this House will in future always be White, in terms of his view of the future. [Interjections.]

I am also astonished when the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, speaking as such in this House, expresses his approval of a group-defined character for a future constitutional dispensation, because in terms of the spirit currently prevalent in the NP, that is a racist issue. It does not matter to which group the most powerful person at the head of the political dispensation in this country belongs; it is racist to ask to which group he belongs. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there is only one aspect of the speech by the hon member for Potgietersrus that I want to react to, and I do so by repeating to the hon member and the CP that since the inception of the new Constitution a different NP policy and political idiom has developed. It is pointless the CP trying to cast in our faces what we said five to ten years ago. That belongs to the past.

Are you ashamed of history?

Order! The hon member for Potgietersrus has just completed his speech, and he is not going to resume it now.

The NP has irrevocably chosen a new path, whereby a future will be worked out for all moderate South Africans, irrespective of colour. [Interjections.] It is on this path that the future of the Whites is assured, and not that of an unreal dream world of partition. I shall refer to this aspect presently, during the course of my speech.

I should like to associate myself with the statement made by the hon member Prof Olivier. Hon members know that we conduct debates and in doing so forget that in South Africa the potential for revolution slumbers under the surface. Every hon member in this House knows the reasons for that. It is a potential which, if not handled correctly, could cause this country to go up in smoke.

Fortunately, on the other side of the scale, there is another potential present in South Africa. It is the potential of mutual understanding between moderate Black South Africans and South Africans across the colour bar. There is potential in the grasp of the aspirations and fears of South Africans across the colour bar. It is this potential for mutual understanding among moderate South Africans that holds out the only hope for the survival of the Whites and of all peace-loving, peace-seeking South Africans. It is this potential of a common destination that forms the basis of a negotiated settlement in which peace, prosperity and progress for everyone in South Africa will be achieved. The greatest tragedy in the political history of South Africa is that we are saddled with an Official Opposition which denies the potential of a common basis on which moderate South Africans can come together because they realise that they must decide on a common destination.

In place of that the Official Opposition puts forward an idea, that of partition. In terms of that idea there is no communality in South Africa; only separateness. Just listen to the fine way the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition articulates this “praiseworthy” idea:

[Interjections.] I wish to discuss this idea. I wish to take a brief look at this “praiseworthy” idea. We must forget for the time being that this idea is in conflict with the economic and demographic reality of South Africa as well as the internationally recognised idea of citizenship and the norms in that regard. [Interjections.] I say now that this idea of a free White people under an own government in an own fatherland is a myth. It is a political chimera which arouses expectations among the Whites that cannot be realised. However, what is even more dangerous is the fact that this idea is causing frustration among 20 million Black people in South Africa and driving them to the brink of revolution.

Now I ask the CP whether that is how they want to protect the interests of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] I have before me a map drawn up by At van Dyk, and I wish to refer to a plan in accordance with which there will be majority occupation by Whites in South Africa. This is the so-called heartland of the White sovereign state.

Does the CP reject this map I have before me? As it happens, the Free State is the province in which there is a bigger majority of Blacks than in any other province in South Africa, but according to this map the Free State, Transvaal and the Vryheid district are included in the so-called heartland. They also forget that the tribal authority of Chief Buthelezi is situated in the Vryheid district. Does this map represent the CP’s idea of where there will be White majority occupation, yes or no? [Interjections.]

We get no reply, Sir, and I am not surprised. This map tells us nothing about the Coloureds and the Indians. We must therefore appeal to higher authority to hear what the CP has to say about the position of the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.]

In the Sunday Tribune of 3 May 1987 the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had the following to say about the issue of an Indian homeland, and now hon members must listen:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, owing to the limited time at my disposal the hon member for Bellville will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his speech. [Interjections.]

Truly meaningful constitutional reform—reform that would defuse the current situation of conflict—can only be achieved through a process of true negotiation. However, such a process of negotiation can only be successful, and can only begin, when the right climate for it is created.

It is my honest conviction that in view of the way it has reacted and is acting in the current crisis situation, the Government is actively obstructing the creation of such a climate and therefore the possibility of negotiation.

†I want to focus on some of these actions by the Government which are counterproductive to the process of negotiation. Firstly, it has banned the ANC, which is by far the most popular political organisation in South Africa, and it has no intention of unbanning it. No negotiations can succeed unless the ANC takes part.

Secondly, this Government is continuously harassing extra-parliamentary opposition groups such as the UDF and others, and uses mass repression such as the state of emergency to destroy the right of the oppressed to organise and to mobilise their opposition to the present regime openly.

This Government has virtually eliminated, and continues to repress, the true leadership among the oppressed people of this country by means of detentions, restrictions, and intimidation.

I do not know why you are not… [Interjections.]

I am an exception.

Having created this leadership vacuum among the oppressed people this Government has quickly pushed into this vacuum leaders of its own choice.

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

Mr Chairman, I do not have the time.

†It has pushed into this leadership vacuum leaders of its own choice, people I call modern-day Uncle Toms.

This Government has also unilaterally created apartheid-based constitutional bodies which, because of their unacceptability, can never be forums for genuine negotiation among representative leaders.

In its mass repression of the facts about South Africa—I think this is important to our voters—and its harsh realities by censoring the media, this Government has created a poorly informed electorate which will become less and less responsive to the demands for real change and the need for negotiation.

This Government is also ruthlessly enforcing apartheid laws such as presently in my constituency of Claremont and in my city council ward in Lansdowne by hounding decent, peace-loving South Africans, people of colour, out of their homes in this White group area. They are also encouraging their White NP supporters in these areas to become peeping toms, peeping into people’s windows at night to check whether the occupants are White or Coloured or whatever the colour may be, and then reporting them to the police. By doing all these things this Government is killing any chance of real negotiation.

*The most important factor obstructing the process of negotiation is the fact that the Government knows that true negotiation will mean that the Government will have to abandon its position of power and its sole control of power. Negotiation is impossible if one does not abandon one’s total control of power.

At this stage the Government is involving leadership and establishing bodies whereby a multiracial image is being created, but power is not being shared. Thus the tricameral Parliament has in no way changed the Government’s position of power. It has not affected it in the least.

If there were to be true negotiation with the true representatives of the population of South Africa, the Government would no longer be sitting where it is. It is the biggest obstacle on the path of negotiation.

Mr Chairman, when one listens to the hon member for Claremont, it is clear that he has not yet participated in the structures created by the Government for the conducting of talks on even a multilateral level. He has never had the privilege of sitting around a conference table in the Ciskei or the Transkei to negotiate in the interests of a whole region. I can appreciate why we in South Africa have a problem in the NP Government to progress with our policy, because there are people of the same stature as the hon member who are in fact fuelling revolution and saying we must have talks with the ANC.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member referred to me as someone who was fuelling revolution in my speech. I think that is unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Cradock must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. I should like to make the point, however, that the hon member’s point of departure on talks with the ANC is clear proof to me that revolutionaries may participate in talks about furthering this country’s political future. [Interjections.]

I now want to confine myself to the more positive aspects of the part the Government can play in the development of the people of this country. There was very little recognition in the hon member’s speech for the part played by the Government in reform and in the progress of the people in this country.

The hon member for Stellenbosch told us very clearly tonight that constitutional reform could not take place without economic reform. For that reason all population groups in the country should have a share in economic reform, and we should consider a better distribution of the economic activities. It is clear that we should have broader participation and entrepreneurship in which the consumers can play a greater part, in which new markets will be created and a greater tax contribution will be rendered by this entrepreneurship.

The Government has a strategy for regional development, but we must not see this development strategy in isolation, because our education and training strategy is closely linked to it. The hon member for Stellenbosch referred to this. This strategy is vocationally oriented and is directed at in-service training. Accompanying that there is an urbanisation policy, a regional development policy and a population development programme. Ultimately there is a deregulation and privatisation programme, which can be effected only in a secure South Africa.

What does regional development decentralisation stand for in this country? Clearly it is a physical distribution of economic activities, a distribution of income and a utilisation of the infrastructure. The distribution of income should take place by means of employment creation, and not as stated by the hon members of the opposition. The infrastructure must be utilised as it exists in each of these regions in our country.

There is an enormous misconception as far as urbanisation is concerned. When the urbanisation policy was accepted, it was from the standpoint that the regional development strategy could now fall away. Urbanisation does not take place only in the metropolitan areas, however, but also in the rural areas. Every Black town that is established in another town is an example of urbanisation. It is essential, therefore, that the employment opportunities in those towns be exploited as well. Let us tell the hon member for Potgietersrus why a Black town comes into existence. It is because the Whites create employment opportunities and because the Whites need Blacks to work for them. That is why the people are there.

It is also important to consider the attack launched on the regional development strategy by opposition members. They want to know why there should be any restriction on industrial development points, and say that money is being spent on this unnecessarily. In my opinion, however, it is necessary to restrict the number of industrial development points because there are agglomeration benefits in those areas. Self-generating economic activities should be stimulated in these areas. Industries are instrumental in the processing of products produced there, and this creates the opportunity for people to use and exploit employment opportunities, within the family context, in the areas in which they live. I want to come back to my remark at the beginning of my speech, that the regional development advisory committee and the National Regional Development Advisory Council are the very instruments that provide an opportunity for interest groups to cross political dividing lines and be given the opportunity of addressing the region’s problems and the development of this country. The colour of the people there no longer matters, because it is the interests of South Africa and its people, and the creation of a peaceful co-existence for people here, that is important.

South Africa has its distinctive problems. In certain areas, particularly the PWV area, there is a concentration of raw materials, manpower and infrastructure which is exceptionally well developed. The logical result is that there are markets there and that further industrial development will take place there. We maintain, therefore, that it is logical and fair for the Government to spend large amounts of money in this country to bring about the distribution of economic activities so that an influx of manpower to central areas in this country does not take place. Criticism is obviated by a liaison between sectors which we have already pointed out: Exchange earnings, a broader tax base, greater entrepreneurship, the beneficiation of raw materials, markets that are created, and the eventual greater tax that is levied on these economic activities. Should we extend the metropolitan areas, surely we should have to establish more extensive subsidised services, such as the subsidising of commuters, in the end? I think it is justified, therefore, to have a meaningful regional development strategy.

The Government of this country does not have a narrow-minded point of view, and it has appointed an independent commission of enquiry, consisting of academics and members of the private sector, to examine these incentives, investigate them thoroughly and make recommendations, particularly in respect of their cost effectiveness and the effective utilisation of these funds. The Government’s willingness to apply self-examination is a feather in its cap.

Let us look at the results, because at the end of the day that is what matters. During the past five years, 2 153 projects have been approved and established. This has provided almost 130 000 employment opportunities, and because of these employment opportunities, approximately a million people are part of a happy economy. It appears that the amount of R504 million spent during the past year was money well spent by the Government.

Since I come from an area which complained a great deal, I want to tell hon members that the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area has topped the list during the past year with regard to applications for decentralisation aid. These people have begun to enter a positive period, leaving their negative period behind. They have made 85 applications for decentralisation aid. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the hon member for Cradock because the topics he touched on I think were in their own way classic illustrations of how much in South Africa has been distorted and bedevilled by apartheid ideology. It was interesting, for example, to note his inability to understand the whole concept of genuine negotiation. When he talked about regional development what he did not mention was how that process, which in itself has merits, has been distorted and how billions of rand of taxpayers’ money, of scarce resources, have been wasted because of the ideological objectives and not because of the economic and social objectives of that development.

In recent weeks I have noticed with interest that more and more Government speakers, both inside this House and outside, have suddenly cottoned on to this idea that economic reform must go hand in hand with political reform. [Interjections.] They are quite correct in that respect; I have no argument with that and it is something that we have been saying over many years.

It is nothing new from our side either. We have been saying that for years and years too. [Interjections.]

Yes, that may perhaps be so, but what is interesting is the increasing prominence this is getting in speeches by many people within the NP, from the hon the State President downwards. I will tell hon members why this is the case. The reason why it is getting this prominence is that the Government is trying to buy off political reform. It has run out of political reform that it can manage and so it is talking more and more about economic reform, which in itself is also important, in the hope that it will be able to delay the day when it will have to bring about the necessary political reforms in this country.

What happened to your turbo-charge? [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow this discourse across the floor of the House!

Mr Chairman, I wish first of all to talk about the plight of Black pensioners in this country and in the Western Cape in particular. In answer to questions I was told that the number of Black people in this country—this is in the Republic and not in the national states—of pensionable age is estimated now to be something of the order of 650 000 people. The number receiving pensions as at July this year was 289 119—that is considerably less than half of the people who are of pensionable age. At the present moment—the situation of both groups will change on 1 October—the Blacks receive R194 every two months in comparison to the White old age pensioners who get R198 each month.

What I particularly want to draw attention to is the fact that no serious effort is being made to advise Black old age pensioners of what they are entitled to. I am talking about the 360 000 odd Blacks who are of pensionable age, the vast majority of whom who would qualify even in terms of the means test…

Are Whites being advised?

The conditions of the Whites are very different to those of the Blacks. I will come to that in a moment. [Interjections.]

That means that more than R400 million per year due to old people, most of whom desperately need the money, is not being paid out by the State because it is not being claimed at present. I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that people know what they are entitled to,…

If those White people are not being advised, you are a racist. [Interjections.]

… especially old people who may be illiterate, and, at any rate, likely to baffled by bureaucracy.

If that hon member has ears to hear, I can tell him I am very happy to help White people. Quite a lot of the work that I am involved in, is in helping White people who are entitled to a pension to get them as well. I can assure him that a lot more than 50% of White people who qualify for old-age pensions are getting them in contrast to Black people. What is also interesting… [Interjections.] Yes, of course. Ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and Mr Japie Basson who lost in Cape Town Gardens, and then he will discover why.

This Government had plenty of money—talking about informing people of their rights—to spend on a White voter registration campaign in the latter half of last year, and I should like to call on the Government and this hon Minister to mount a campaign to inform elderly Black people of their pension rights, and to make a real effort to assist them.

What about elderly White people?

They do not fall under this Vote. Does the hon member not understand? This is the Vote that includes Black people; the other one own affairs. [Interjections.] Rather go and take your empty bottles back!

The second point is the question of accommodation for aged Blacks in the Cape Town area. Here the total accommodation provided in old age homes and so on is sufficient for 75 people. Whites make up only about 50% of the total number of Blacks—I do not know the number for pensioners as such—yet in 1986, 670 places were built with State assistance for Whites alone in the Cape Town area. In June last year funds were approved to build a Black old age home in Guguletu for 125 people, but we have been told by the hon the Deputy Minister that funds for that purpose are unlikely to be made available during this financial year. I believe it is a disgrace that elderly, indigent Black people are treated in this cavalier way; it would certainly not happen if they had the vote or if they were White.

Thirdly, there is the question of problems concerning identity documents that relate to both this hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs. There are often long delays in the processing of identity document applications, even after all the supporting documents are in. I am not talking about the more than a million people who have not actually collected their documents, but there are people who have been waiting for more than a year for their identity documents. The department of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is refusing to pay their pensions until they have these documents. This is iniquitous! Some of these include people who had section 10 (1) (b) residential rights prior to the… [Interjections.] I beg your pardon?

Ask the hon member for Durban North: He will tell you that you are wrong.

I have lists of names, and I know of people, and not just one or two. There are many who have them but also many who do not have them.

I believe one of the major problems appears to be an indecision on the part of the Government in some cases about who or exactly what category of persons they are prepared to give an identity document to. I should like to call on this hon Minister to give us clarity, because some of these pensioners are suffering very badly, as they have been waiting for a year, they are getting no pensions, and there is nothing further they can do about getting identity documents.

He is laughing!

Of course, he does not mind; he already has a fat pension, even if he has a thin majority! [Interjections.]

The Group Areas Act is the other matter to which I should like to refer. This has left a legacy of bitterness and mistrust that in itself is enough of a problem. However, I should like to point out the further the effects on both Black and Coloured communities. It is destroying the emergence of a really stable middle class and the possibility of racial reconciliation in this country.

One can be sure that every communist or Marxist extremist rubs his hands with glee every time the hon the State President reaffirms his commitment to group areas. The Government is preventing the most talented and industrious Black and Coloured people from fully enjoying the fruits of their labour. Can one be surprised that their children are rejecting free enterprise on an increasing scale, and looking to Marxism and socialism as more equitable economic systems?

I call on this Government to repeal the Group Areas Act in toto.

Hear, hear!

The Government’s manipulation of the President’s Council and its reports will fool only its sycophantic supporters—so do not hide behind the President’s Council. The Government has lost its nerve, frozen with its fear of the CP and its own lack of policy or vision.

I call on the hon the Minister to have enough courage to take decisive action and to scrap the Group Areas Act now. It has a shameful history. [Interjections.] The longer it stays on the Statute Book, the greater the threat it will be to the security of Whites in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I must say I was absolutely amazed to hear the hon member for Cape Town Gardens using the words “distorted” and “bedevilling” in respect of the very constructive speech of the hon member for Cradock. All that I can say is that I think that hon member must be the expert in this House when it comes to distortion and bedevilment.

Secondly, for him actually to go so far as to describe the recognition of the need for economic reform as an attempt to buy off political reform is really quite ludicrous. If he has only become aware of it now, then he has probably been in some form of deep political sleep. In fact he reminds me a bit of a political Rip Van Winkel. Listening to some of the other unconvincing arguments he put forward towards the end, I think that is probably the explanation.

Before I had to conclude my earlier contribution, I had been dealing with the joint executive authority in Natal. I wanted to make the point that the challenge we face there in Natal is to prove the sceptics wrong and to make that exciting new body work and work well. As a Natalian I would like to say that I am proud that we could provide this country with this example of interracial co-operation and a consensus style instrument of Government. [Interjections.] It is interesting that the hon member for Durban Central gets so agitated. He is in fact saying that he hopes it will not work. I hope that the people of Natal will take careful note of the implications of what he is saying.

Because you rejected the indaba I hope it does not work.

He should hope that it works because it is an example of interracial co-operation and a consensus style instrument of Government as it presently exists, and he should be big enough to acknowledge that. I would say this is a golden opportunity to build confidence, also in that province, through practical co-operation and not through all kinds of theories on paper, something which the hon member for Durban Central is such an expert on.

The indaba is not a theory.

I agree with Dr Oscar Dhlomo of KwaZulu that we do not need confrontation politics or increased race polarization in our country. There is not the slightest doubt that we as a Government should be utilizing negotiation politics to the utmost in an attempt to define and constitutionally accommodate our various communities.

Against this background, I would like to deal briefly with developments concerning another important regional political issue which my hon friend has referred to by way of interjection. I am referring to the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba, more specifically the expensive propaganda campaign it has embarked upon. I would just like to say to the hon member for Berea in his absence that he should not dismiss what I am going to say now, as he tried to do just now, simply as denigration. He must deal with the points raised on their merits.

I sincerely believe that this massive marketing campaign which this ever-expanding indaba office is engaging in is not in fact in the interests of negotiation politics in our region.

You people are becoming worried.

It has been described as a programme of winning the hearts and minds of people, but in fact it has all the characteristics of what I would call a preemptive strike, and its target market is the populace of Natal.

You people are becoming worried, not so?

The question which must arise—a very salient question—is: Why now? An important Natal newspaper, the Daily News commented as follows in a leading article a few months ago—23 June of this year, to be precise:

I should like to add immediately, Sir, that one can only agree—and I agree strongly—with the sentiment expressed and with the urgent need to accomplish such an accommodation. As the Daily News goes on to say, however:

Interestingly enough, Sir, the Natal NP leader, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, said the following in an important speech here in Parliament on 3 February this year:

Again, on 22 April, at Eshowe, he said:

The question arises as to what the logic is to try to sell the indaba proposals which are on the table as the final product at this particular time. I make the submission that they are in fact endlessly confusing the entire issue. I have said it before, and I repeat it now, that I do not believe we need this attempt at negotiation by public relations and by gimmickry. This is exactly what is happening.

You want no negotiations at all!

This is precisely one of the lessons of the indaba, and the sooner everyone who wants to talk about the indaba accepts this fact the better for them.

It is one of the lessons of the indaba that only the central Government and other governmental institutions, as well as political parties, should in the final analysis be the negotiating parties on constitutional matters at regional or central level. I would say that anything else is essentially peripheral, and at best little more than a diversionary sideshow in which an hon member like the hon member for Durban Central is a very willing, active and enthusiastic participant, if I may say so.

The point is that sophisticated sales techniques are not and cannot ever be a substitute for real negotiation on the basis I have mentioned. We need less “public rostrum activity” and more “negotiating table activity” if we are to make any progress. I fervently hope that this will in fact take place sooner rather than later in the interests of all who live in Natal and in our country.

In conclusion I should also like to pay tribute to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for what I think one can describe as the incredible effort and dedication he is putting into his job.

*We all know that the hon the Minister does not spare himself nor his Deputy Ministers and staff. I believe we owe all of them a word of gratitude, and on the occasion of discussing this Vote I wish to thank them.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon member for Umhlanga. He is a very good debater and I wish to associate myself with him as well as the hon member for Umhlatuzana as regards the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba.

I am doing so because since the Indaba drew to a close at the end of November 1986 a faceless movement has come to the fore which spared no effort or expense in selling the so-called Indaba proposals to the general public. This extra-Parliamentary action, under a so-called Indaba Director, has now taken such proportions that it has become essential to put this matter into its correct perspective once again.

The Indaba, as a unique negotiation forum, captured people’s imaginations. For me personally it was a very stimulating experience to have been able to take part in it. The concept of “negotiation” must, however, be separated from the ability and the legitimacy of a body such as the indaba in its capacity to truly come forward with a regional constitutional solution. As far as the abovementioned is concerned, it has become necessary that the so-called “Indaba initiative” be examined with a greater degree of realism, and I want to ask what the realities are.

Firstly, the various participants had no mandate to develop a new constitution for the region. I ask what mandate the representative of Durban City Council, for example, had to support the proposals. As far as I know that city council has to this very day not taken a decision on the Indaba proposals.

That applies to most of the participants in the Indaba. I have for example a letter here with me from one of the most important participants in that Indaba, an organisation which signed the proposals. What did they write to me on 16 June this year? They said: “I support your stance at the Indaba.” In other words, he signed a majority report, but he supports the minority report.

Who is he?

Another reality is the fact that most of the participants in the Indaba were completely out of their depth. They did not have specialised or expert knowledge in order to make meaningful contributions. The whole exercise fell outside their field of experience. When I say this I do not mean it in an offensive way.

In the eight months I got to know those people there and I greatly appreciate the task which they tried to perform there.

With many of them I built up bonds of friendship which still exist today. The fact is, however, that it is really naïve to expect such a small group of people to conjure up a new constitutional solution without any knowledge and without a mandate and within the short period of eight months, a solution which is now being presented as the solution for our entire country’s problems. It is naïve.

What were the consequences? The Indaba was hijacked by the PFP and their sympathisers. The pressure group dominated every committee within the Indaba. From the committees they manipulated the entire Indaba.

Obviously this pressure group was also a useful instrument in the hands of Inkatha. I also do not blame my good friends in KwaZulu for having used the small group of liberals to their own advantage. I would have done the same had I been in their position because it is simply a question of astute politics.

What happened then? The announcement of a general election caught the pressure group completely offside. They forced the Indaba in an unnatural way to arrive at a final vote—even before the Indaba’s specialised committees could publish their reports. In this way for example the report of the economic committee of the Indaba was only presented to the Indaba after the final proposal had already been brought to the vote. Those are the facts and are never considered. It is an indication of the degree of contempt with which that pressure group treated the Indaba participants.

The result was a half-baked regional constitutional model which showed no significant difference from PFP policy. [Interjections.] Besides that it was a model which from an economic point of view was not at all practicable. The hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning summarised it in Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 141:

The Indaba, especially in its present faceless form has absolutely no power base nor any public responsibility.

I want to ask hon members to examine the Indaba proposals using the guidelines which were laid down by the hon the State President on this very matter. I should like to refer hon members to Hansard, 30 January, col 19:

The Indaba proposals do not meet these requirements. In fact, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and Communication summarised it quite correctly when he expressed the following opinion on the proposals. I quote:

That summarises the Indaba as follows and again I want to quote the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and Communication:

Surely these proposals were already put to the test and unequivocally rejected in the general election on 6 May. I want to ask the hon member for Berea whether he agrees with me that the Indaba was rejected in the election. What does the hon member for Durban Central say? Does he agree? [Interjections.]

There was consensus on the Indaba. Let the hon the Minister decide.

Was the election only for Whites? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member should rather not provoke other hon members to reply to any questions he puts. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon members are asking for a referendum. I merely want to refresh their memories. I want to go back to 2 January, when the Daily News said the following under the heading “Polling the Indaba”:

For the White people, but there were other people involved in the Indaba as well.

Exactly, but the White people in Natal rejected the Indaba.

Out of hand! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the voters clearly indicated that they did not trust the PFP or their sympathisers as far as reform was concerned. This trust resides with the NP and we shall proceed along the path of reform with daring but also in a very responsible way, in accordance with the guidelines as laid down by the hon the State President.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to reply to the hon member Mr Hattingh. In due course other members on this side of the House will reply specifically with respect to the indaba.

The hon member for Mossel Bay did me the honour of dedicating an entire speech to the view which I ostensibly advocate. This evening I have no time for that, but I want to assure the hon member that he will hear the replies to his questions in due course.

We are discussing the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and it is the task of that hon member and this Government, who have the power in their hands, to convince us and the general public that they do in fact have the answers with their policy and the path of reform they have indicated.

We are all in a state of complete doubt and uncertainty about the direction which he is taking because neither he nor any hon member on the other side has ever told us with any measure of clarity by way of example, written or spoken word, how they are going to implement that reform policy, how far they are going to take it and how they are going to achieve what they have in mind.

The best which has been presented to us this evening and on previous occasions is that we shall have to undergo a change of attitude. It is not merely concerned with the removal of discriminatory laws or the application of them. The prerequisite for the policy in order for it to succeed is a total change of attitude on the part of all people in this country. [Interjections.]

It is an expectation which they are trying to base on something which will not succeed. It presupposes that something bigger will have to be brought about, something up there, the new concept of a nation. There must be something which is bigger than what we in the CP can imagine for ourselves, yet we cannot imagine a broader set-up above our Afrikanerdom (Afrikanervolkskap). We cannot imagine ourselves in a situation in which anything is going to be more sacred and of greater value. We cannot allow ourselves to lose our identity in that way.

We are not, however, unique in this regard; the NP will also have to take cognisance of other nationalisms. They will have to take cognisance of a nationalism such as represented by a moderate Black, whom I want to quote. Here he says:

It was Gatsha Buthelezi who said that. His view of the road ahead can be directly contrasted with our view. We shall not nor are we prepared to place anything higher above that. We are in conflict with these concepts. We acknowledge Gatsha Buthelezi’s struggle for his own nationalism within his own borders for his own people, but never as far as it concerns us. We shall never bow down to a Black majority government under which we relinquish our identity. It is a change of attitude which the NP will not nor will be able to create. These are two totally conflicting concepts and it will never be possible to reconcile them. [Interjections.] Only to the Whites in this country is revolution presented as an inevitable outcome unless they reform. Never has the Black man in this country been told exactly where he is going to find himself. The NP is experiencing difficulties in bringing the Blacks to the negotiating table. The problem lies in their very inability to present something to the Blacks with certainty. The NP said they want to protect the minority rights of all groups. Why do they not tell the Blacks how they are going to protect their minority rights? In that way they might get them to come to the conference table, but not if they, just like the Whites, live in uncertainty about the path along which they are going to be taken. [Interjections.]

The Government said that they were reforming. It is true that they have reformed many things. We merely have to take a look at a list of them.

Transformation.

Yes, it is a transformation or whatever one might like to call it. Sport has already become mixed, certain provisions of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Political Interference Act have been abolished, there are no more forced removals, influx control has been abolished, South African citizenship has been restored to everyone, there are multiracial regional services councils and mixed executive provincial councils. [Interjections.] What good have all these things brought us?

Stop yapping over there!

I am not speaking to you.

I am referring to the yapping hon member for Bethlehem.

Mr Chairman, on a point or order: I did not hear what the hon member for Potgietersrus said, but I am of the opinion that within the framework of the remark he made earlier he has now made a totally untoward interjection about the hon member for Bethlehem. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Ermelo may proceed.

All these reforms have not brought any change to our situation.

At present a state of emergency exists in our country and we are in a situation which can quite correctly be considered to be serious. This evening I want to make the statement that we blame the Government for it. It is in fact the constitutional reform policy of this Government which is the cause of the critical situation in which we find ourselves. We do not say this without motivation. We warned that it was erroneous in principle to share power, because it would lead to certain things. We warned the Government not to relinquish the proven way, because in the rest of Africa there were numerous examples to be seen of the way to power-sharing that had failed. We say they need not even try it, because we know it is going to fail. [Interjections.]

That is not all. We also warned that if the Government involved the Coloureds and Indians, they would be creating unrest in this country. We issued that warning because we realised that the Blacks considered it to be unfair as far as they were concerned. It has been confirmed, and I shall quote to hon members an expert’s standpoint on this…

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

No, Mr Chairman.

I quote the expert:

So says an authoritative researcher of the HSRC.

If that is not enough, I shall give hon members further evidence from another expert as proof of the fact that the unrest comes from another source, namely the initiatives on the part of the Government. I shall quote to hon members the words of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid:

[Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon member for Ermelo. He put two very specific and prominent questions to the hon the Minister. On the one hand he wanted to know where we were taking South Africa. Surely the answer is very clear because we are on our way to a South Africa in which everyone, regardless of race, colour or creed will have equal rights and opportunities and in which domination of one group by another will not exist. [Interjections.]

Secondly, he asked us how the reform policy was going to be implemented. The answer—this has a bearing on my theme and my speech for the evening—is very simple. We are going to do it by means of negotiation.

I should like to refer in this regard to a statement which F A van Jaarsveld made. I think it very much typifies the debate this evening inasmuch that there are two kinds of Afrikaners, an orthodox, traditionalist Afrikaner who fears the present and the future, and an Afrikaner who has come of age, who wants to carry out reform in the knowledge that apartheid was a utopia, that the old days are gone forever and that the future of the Afrikaner can only be built if he is prepared to accept South African society in its totality. This means that group identity is preserved by means of each group having autonomy and own affairs, but that joint participation and general affairs are assured for all groups so that South Africa can eventually speak with one voice.

My theme for the evening concerns the politics of negotiation on the one hand and politics of confrontation on the other. It is important that if we want a broadening of democracy in South Africa we must commit ourselves to the politics of negotiation. Allow me to spell out certain guidelines in this regard to hon members, which, I believe, are of fundamental importance to the politics of negotiation.

Firstly, it is of cardinal importance that regardless of the form the constitution will take in future, it will have to be a product of the people who live under that constitution. In other words, neither Whites nor Blacks have the right to force a plan on South Africa.

It must happen through joint consultation and negotiation.

A second facet is that we should accept all participants as equals, in other words as fellow-citizens. There are no first-class and second-class citizens.

Thirdly, it is of fundamental importance that everyone be included in the negotiating process, however difficult it may be. It is better to include people than to exclude them, because when people are excluded they seek other methods, and those methods are often violent.

Fourthly, it is important that all parties participating must reject violence as a means of change.

†Fifthly, it is important that the community leaders break with radical tradition and accept that the content of negotiation is more important than the context. They will have to sit around a conference table with other political figures who have chosen collaboration as a political strategy to achieve change.

*That brings us to the fundamental difference between the NP and the Official Opposition. The NP says plans should not be drawn up for each other but with each other. The CP says: “Here is our plan, you must help us to make it work. Our plan is partition, whether you like it or not”. The NP says that they accept the fact that each one living in this country is a South African citizen. The CP says that the solution for the problem is very simple—only the Whites are citizens. The NP says on the one hand that regardless of the difficulty, let us include everyone who advocates peaceful co-existence, who wants to participate in a constitutional process, and the CP on the other hand says that our problem is very simple—we exclude from the constitution process everyone who is not White.

That is the fundamental difference. The Official Opposition believes in consultation, and we believe in negotiation. Negotiation means that plans are not drawn up for one another but in conjunction with one another. The Official Opposition believes that they will work out the plan, and that they will go to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians and say: “Here is our plan, whether you like it or not”.

I want to ask what the Official Opposition is going to do if the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians in South Africa do not buy their partition model?

Shoot!

They owe us a reply to that question.

I want to proceed. It is a lonely and difficult road for the negotiator in South Africa because he has to move between the revolutionaries and the reactionaries—those who on the one hand say segregate or die, and those who on the other side say shooting and violence are the only alternative for South Africa.

Obviously there are certain obstacles for the negotiator in the politics of give and take. I should like to mention two of these. Firstly, there are the unrealistic demands. Popular slogans such as those of one man, one vote, here and now, to inspire majority government does not contribute to the solution of the problem but rather brings about greater alienation.

Secondly I should like to associate myself with a friend of ours in Stellenbosch, Dr Herman Giliomee,…

No wait, he is not in Stellenbosch! [Interjections.]

Yes, I believe he is now at the University of Cape Town. He said:

I believe in all honesty and with all due respect to Dr Giliomee that we have resolved this dilemma.

That brings me to another part of my speech, namely that part concerning the politics of confrontation. I believe the main actor in this regard is the ANC. The fact that the system first has to be destroyed before the ANC will enter into negotiations with the Government is not only daydreaming but completely unrealistic. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. For the benefit of hon members who were not paying attention, I want to say that I am dealing with the politics of confrontation and discussing the role of the ANC. [Interjections.] I said the ANC’s request that the system first be destroyed before they will enter into negotiations with the Government is not only daydreaming but also completely unrealistic because the present system is built upon the cornerstone of devolution of power in order to give every population group the opportunity to decide as far as it is possible in regard to own affairs, and in order to be neither discriminatory nor unjust.

The ANC remains a violent revolutionary force which prefers sabotage and violence as a political strategy. The ANC’s declared policy is one of taking power by force and establishing an autocratic dictatorship through a reign of terror. That will happen according to the rules of the ANC.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon the Minister whether we might not perhaps consider getting the negotiation process under way so that we can come forward with a declaration of intent. I believe a declaration of intent could serve as a framework of principles which would give sufficient credibility to the politics of negotiation, and which would give all South Africans no choice but to become part of and participate in the negotiating process. Such a declaration must therefore be directed more generally rather than deal with specific details. In this regard I should like to associate myself with what Prof Venter said in his work The need for a declaration of intent:

Another friend of ours in Stellenbosch said the following, and I believe it is a great truth.

Who was he?

It was Prof Willie Esterhuyse, who has also, or so it seems to me, lost his way. [Interjections.] Before he lost his way, however, he said:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I start with my own subject, I would very much like to refer with some amusement to remarks made by the hon member for Pietersburg earlier today. The hon member referred to an escort agency in Pietersburg with high disdain. I do not want to steal any of the hon the Minister’s thunder, but I have it on good authority that a certain Mr Marais and a Mr Kleynhans—who are very fine supporters of the Official Opposition—are the owners of that escort agency! [Interjections.] That is not the only amusement I have had today while listening to the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? Is the hon member implying that this is the CP Hillbrow of the north? [Interjections.]

While on the subject of the AWB and the CP may I also refer to a remark made earlier in this debate that Afrikaner nationalism is going to assert itself on the side of the CP and, I take it, on the side of the AWB. There have been many statements made during this session in which the AWB was attacked, at which all the hon members of the Official Opposition shouted in unison: What about the Broederbond? Well, as an English-speaking person I would like to say something about that. One factor that the CP has totally ignored about South Africa’s constitutional future is the English-speaking voter. As one of them I can say that I am totally comfortable with the Afrikaner nationalism in my party and that the members of the Broederbond in my constituency supported me and worked so that we could win together.

Hear! Hear!

I do not think that can be said for the CP. I heard two violent speeches this afternoon about the Afrikaner being the only one of importance in this country. Both times I wondered what would happen to us English-speaking people.

The AWB has a secret organisation that also worries me as an English speaker. I think the organisation is called Toekomsgesprek. We English-speakers can read about the Broederbond and we respect its openmindedness.

I for one, as a South African born in this country, know that it is desperately important to protect the culture of the Afrikaner, but hon members of the Official Opposition pretend they know nothing about its cause and what it is there for. They pretend that it is a secret organisation. We English-speakers suspect that Toekomsgesprek is the mainspring of the CP racialist policies. We do not know what will happen to us within the Boerestaat if we do not subscribe to that racialism. Are we to be removed to some other place as well if we do not subscribe? As there are 600 000 potential English-speaking voters I would not dream of gaining power if I were the CP. We English-speaking South Africans would not like to go into the future that Toekomsgesprek can determine for us.

I believe the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can open the door to South Africa’s future, and I believe that the key to that door lies in Black housing. The very fact that in both of the two by-elections held for the House of Representatives this week there was a higher percentage poll than we had in a White election in Hospital Hill last week makes me think that our system is working. The fact that during this session the House of Representatives has been flexing its political muscles against us convinces me that the system that we have created is working. [Interjections.] It is amazing that whenever we talk and plan about Blacks coming into our constitutional future everyone who talks about Blacks and our future has to come down to the bottom line, which is housing for the Blacks.

One of our Deputy Ministers was recently called to his constituency to examine a squatter camp on a farm. When he arrived there he found that the scene more or less had been set up, and that the AWBs were there in force. With a threatening attitude they said to him, “Yes, Nationalist, this is what you have done to us. You have lifted influx control and the result is that there are hundreds of thousands of squatters right along the Reef.” They were wrong because those squatters were not there because of the relaxation of influx control. [Interjections.] They were there because they live in basically a Third-World country. They live in Africa and right throughout Africa, not just here, squatters are leaving the farms where there is no work and they are coming to the towns where there is work.

I do not think we can deny that fact anywhere in Africa.

The real problem of Black housing has never changed. In colonial times the Blacks moved towards the towns where they could find work, as they do today too. The colonial authorities by and large allowed Black workers to live on their employers’ premises, and then allowed those who could not find accommodation inside the town, to form areas outside the town that took up the worst ground, usually near the rubbish dump. For instance, Governor Shepstone in 1874 made a rule in Natal that the “togtwerkers”, the immigrant workers, could spend five days inside a town looking for work, but then had to move outside to work.

The first time a town in this country was absolutely inundated by a tidal wave of workers was when we discovered gold on the Reef. Mixed living conditions sprung up in Marshalltown, Ferreirastown, Sophiatown, and other places at first. But then the plague broke out in 1904 because of the unhygienic conditions, and the first Black township, Klipspruit, was formed to house the Blacks outside the city.

From the start the Orange Free State always had segregated towns with the Blacks living outside, and the Whites inside the town. Before, during and after the war against the British Black housing was totally ignored, but the unhygienic conditions forced themselves into the consciousness of the Government. Firstly, tuberculosis reached alarming proportions, and the TB commission of 1914 placed part of the blame on the terrible living conditions.

A fact that is very rarely appreciated by anyone in South Africa is that half a million Blacks died of ’flu in 1918 because of their living conditions, and these were not NP living conditions that had been imposed on them either! Over the next 30 years the authorities did not really deviate from this course; in fits and starts they tried to solve the problem of Blacks streaming into the cities and beginning to bring their wives as well. The Second World War created a wealth of work opportunities as did the industrial boom that took place. The authorities carried on in the belief that the Blacks were only there temporarily and for the convenience of the Whites.

A definite political line was drawn in 1948. There was a rigid dispensation keeping the Blacks on one side and the Whites on the other side. We tried influx control and very many other things; we also created work opportunities in homelands to keep the people on the land and to stop them from streaming into the towns. The administration boards were appointed, and they too tried to carry out this harsh discipline of separating the nations, but they, too, failed as the Soweto riots showed.

The breakthrough came with the present hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The 99-year leasehold system arrived, and that changed the whole picture. I quote Dr Connie Mulder (Morris, D. A History of Black Housing in South Africa, page 109):

Therefore I want to know why the Official Opposition is fighting us so hard on the systems we have now.

Once the Blacks had a registered, surveyed piece of ground, the building societies could help solve the problems of Black housing. The Government has recently appointed two commissions to look into Black housing, and they have come up with some very surprisingly positive ideas. The two commissions are the Louw Commission and the Viljoen Committee. Broadly their recommendations are that we should not apply First-World solutions to a Third-World problem. We should not demand brick houses and cross ventilation and 80% lighting in Black houses; we should, however, allow—and we do—wood-frames to be filled with mud and clay. [Time expired.]

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.