Order! At the commencement of the proceedings of the joint meeting yesterday, 21 June, the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly raised a point of order. I undertook to give my ruling on this today.

The hon the Chief Whip referred to Rule 103 of the Standing Rules of Parliament, in terms of which the Chief Whip of Parliament decides, after consultation with interested parties, what business on general affairs will be dealt with at a joint meeting or at separate meetings of the Houses or in extended public committees.

The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly submitted that in terms of Rule 103 his party should have been consulted in connection with yesterday’s joint meeting, but that such consultation did not take place, and he requested me to declare the meeting out of order.

In terms of Rule 18 of the Standing Rules of Parliament a joint meeting of the Houses is a meeting which takes place after it has been convened as a joint meeting on the Order Papers of the Houses. There is no provision that consultation must take place in connection with the convening of the meeting as such; in practice such consultation does, of course, take place.

Yesterday’s joint meeting was convened on the Order Papers of all three Houses which appeared on Monday, 20 June (See page 415 of the Order Paper of the House of Assembly, page 334 of the Order Paper of the House of Representatives, and page 347 of the Order Paper of the House of Delegates). Of course the entry was repeated on the respective Order Papers for Tuesday, 21 June.

The joint meeting on Tuesday, 21 June, took place according to the provisions of the Standing Rules and cannot be declared out of order on the grounds of irregularity.

The decision by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill [B98—88 (GA)] would be discussed at a joint meeting of the Houses, and not at separate meetings or in an extended public committee, was in fact subject to consultation with interested parties. I cannot agree with the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that “interested parties” in Rule 103 means the representatives of all the political parties in Parliament. Those words mean interested organisations and can, for example, include the members entrusted with the relevant business, or the Whips of political parties.

If, as the hon the Chief Whip argued, the words intended only to prescribe consultation with political parties, reference would have been made in Rule 103 to the Whips of the political parties, as is customary, and as is done in Rule 53(4) and Rule 71(3). Furthermore “interested parties” does not mean specified organisations, and does not mean all or specific interested organisations either. The word “the” was omitted before the words “interested parties” in order to avoid such a meaning. The Rule gives the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament a discretion regarding whom he will consult. Without such a discretion he would not be able to perform his task from day to day.

Since the commencement of the Standing Rules of Parliament, on 9 May 1988, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has acted in terms of the said discretion in connection with every separate meeting of a House or of an extended public committee which has taken place subsequently. I am not prepared, on the basis of the point of order raised, to rule in connection with yesterday’s joint meeting that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament exercised his discretion in terms of Rule 103 incorrectly. The point of order is consequently rejected.

Mr Speaker, up to now the debate has been notable for the high quality of contributions made by those who support the Bill. Their speeches have been characterised by a very real concern for the necessity of reaching an understanding between reasonable people in this country.

On the other hand, the debate by those opposed to the Bill—I want to confine myself specifically to the CP—has been characterised by the repetition of cliches without any real argument or any attempt at profound and basic analysis of the real problems of South Africa.

What was the essence of the speech of the hon member for Ermelo? He said we would have to yield because the pressures brought to bear on us would be too great. [Interjections.] I do not find it strange that the hon member for Ermelo should say that, because he comes from the same school of thought as Professor Carel Boshoff, and not from the same school of thought the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. I do not find it strange that even now he wants to yield to pressure, because, like Professor Carel Boshoff, he is probably afraid of something. I quote from the document which was referred to in previous debates and in which Professor Boshoff and his spiritual allies wrote as follows:

That hon member is a secessionist. He has already given way under the pressure. He wants to run off into a corner somewhere. [Interjections.] He is not in step with his leader. His leader says he is going to resist the pressure.

We do not yield to pressure on this side. All of us in this House are under the pressure of radicalism from those who want to set up a one-party dictatorship and from those who want to seize power in this country through violence and at gunpoint, and we must stand together in resisting that pressure. Through the body to be established in this Bill we want to reach an understanding which will give us the strength to resist the dangerous pressures.

Hon members of the CP must realise that if ever they were to become the majority party in the House of Assembly, the pressure would not decrease. It would increase by leaps and bounds because there would no longer be any hope of a real understanding, because they do not vouchsafe equal rights to people living in the same country as they do. No, Sir, pressure is part of our future, and our survival and success in the country will be determined by our ability to find the inherent strength to align all reasonable people in support of a viable plan which will consequently be able to withstand that pressure.

I want to respond to one remark made by the hon member for Pietersburg. Referring to the Afrikaner, on two occasions he said “the people we represent here” and “the people we have been called to represent”. Sir, what arrogance for a minority party to claim that it is the mouthpiece of the Afrikaner people! [Interjections.]

We on this side also have the majority support of the Afrikaans-speaking voters in the RSA. We reject that hon member’s arrogance when he claims to be the real mouthpiece of the Afrikaner.

The CP does have a small core of voters who actually supports it. On a temporary basis the CP has also drawn into its ranks a number of persons who, because of the pressure of circumstances, have listened to its intimidating stories. [Interjections.] The CP instils fear into these people and incites them, but we shall continue to inform, talk, persuade and convince them so that the majority of CP supporters shake off their fears, fall in with us and help to build a safe South Africa.

Sir, one very clear fact has crystallised from the debate up to now, and that is that reasonable leaders in South Africa who can talk on behalf of the reasonable silent majority of each population group must urgently reach an understanding. We do know that the radicals are a small, racist minority. We also know that the country’s masses, regardless of race or colour, desire peace and understanding which will afford all of them a peaceful existence and progress in this country. Without this understanding, no matter what its precise basis may be, there can never be longterm peace and calm in our country. Without this relationship democracy and freedom can never be maintained and prosperity will not flourish.

If it is true—I doubt whether any member in this Chamber will disagree with me—that such an understanding must be reached, there is only one irrefutable logical conclusion: We are called upon urgently to seek such an understanding. There is only one way of reaching this understanding and that is through properly planned negotiation.

That is what this Bill is all about. Whoever opposes this—whether it be the CP, the PFP, Chief Minister Buthelezi or anybody else—is playing into the hands of the revolutionary movements who do not want an understanding, but who are intent on confrontation and on keeping reasonable people in this country apart. It is these very revolutionary movements which do not want to see the establishment of a new dispensation which would ultimately have the support of the majority of the population.

There are still many CP speakers who have to participate in the debate, and I want to ask them if they are prepared to submit their plans to the council which is to be established. If not, with whom will and do they want to negotiate one day, if not with the people who serve on this council? With whom else?

Or do the CP think they can implement their plan without reaching an understanding with other leaders? Do they think they can create an own Coloured homeland as a sovereign state without the support of hon members here? [Interjections.] Do they think they can create an Indian state in South Africa without the support of those hon members in this House? [Interjections.] Do they think they are going to get millions upon millions of Black people, without their consent, to leave the place of their birth, their place of work and their homes and move to another area?

They would not succeed in doing so without reaching some understanding either. The people with whom they have to reach an understanding will be the same people who will serve on this council. That is why I ask if they are prepared to table their plan here and whether they are going to do so. That is a very basic question.

I want to ask the Black leaders who are opposed to participation how else they are going to reach an understanding if they are not prepared to participate.

This Bill confronts everyone in South Africa with a choice. Do they choose the path of negotiation which can lead to a lasting understanding, or do they choose the radical path of confrontation which will lead to destruction?

†There is no room in between these two choices. A choice must be made, and time is of the essence. Obviously not everybody agrees on the details of the Bill. Obviously there are those who would prefer a different set of circumstances preceding the institution of the envisaged council. I say here today, however, that from whatever point of view one approaches this Bill, it offers an opportunity for meaningful discussion. From this beginning will flow results, and from those results a new dispensation will grow.

Those who sideline themselves will sideline themselves from having a meaningful influence on the future of South Africa.

*In response to both CP fears and PFP criticism, I briefly want to try to explain the fundamental prerequisites for a lasting understanding. Firstly, I believe that to reach an understanding in any new dispensation there must be accommodation for the diversity in the composition of our population. The realities of the situation demand this of us; it is not possible to establish a new, homogeneous people from this diversity. The so-called “melting-pot theory” of America cannot work here. At the same time such a relationship must now be built on the acknowledgment of our inter-dependence.

†No one group will ever be alone in South Africa. We will therefore have to find a way of cooperating, of sitting around the same tables and of joining hands and joining forces because we do face a common destiny.

*To succeed, any understanding must maintain the balance of this real-life situation.

Secondly, there must be security for the minority groups. Domination will have to be effectively eliminated. [Interjections.] The preservation of what is unique to one and compliance with each individual’s desire to remain what he is and cherish, preserve and maintain what is his own, must be safeguarded in reaching such an understanding.

Thirdly, in such an understanding there must be justice for all. Those without rights must be given rights on an equal footing, and this must have credibility so as to do away with even the slightest suggestion of oppression which is how the present situation is viewed. The solution—the NP states this clearly and succinctly—is not to substitute the present domination or balance of power in favour of one specific group with a new balance of power in favour of another group and at the expense of the Whites.

When the hon member for Ermelo says no understanding is possible without the support of the Afrikaner, he is not saying anything new. No understanding is possible if the majority of the White voters do not give their support. Neither is any understanding possible if this cannot gain the support of the reasonable leaders of each of the other population groups and their followers. That is the truth confronting us. That is the great challenge facing people in this country.

When we come to the end of this debate, any body established by this Bill will still only be an empty shell. Those who serve on it will have to give it substance. They will have to breathe life into it.

The NP is going to participate in this council and its proceedings in a positive spirit, a spirit of unbiassed participation, in a spirit of safeguarding its people’s interests, but not at the expense of others, in a spirit of honestly and sincerely promoting the interests of other population groups and in a spirit of establishing a lasting understanding which will bring peace to our children and their children.

We shall take the results of this to the electorate. We shall have to take them the proof and show them how wrong today’s prophets of doom have been, because we are convinced that that understanding will embody security for those who seek security, and opportunities for those who need opportunities. When we go to the voters we shall ask them to put us in a position in which we can transfer the understanding reached in this council into action, so that we can establish a new dispensation in South Africa.

Order! Before I call on the next speaker I want to point out that while the hon the Minister of National Education was speaking, I was informed that a member in that part of the House referred to him as a “hensopper”. Which hon member said that?

I said it, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member for Nigel should know better than that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask you who informed you that this interjection had been made?

Order! That has nothing to do with the hon member! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, allow me at the outset to congratulate the hon the Leader of the LP and his wife, Terry, on the occasion of their 31st wedding anniversary. I would also like to congratulate the hon member Mr Lockey and his wife, Marie-Louise, on the celebration of their third wedding anniversary.

Sir, so far much has been said in this debate about the historical event that is taking place this week, as well as the seriousness of the matter at hand. Several hon members have referred to the concepts of participation and reconciliation. I also have a few thoughts with regard to the whole question of participation which I would like to share with the several political formations in the Republic.

The first thought centres around change and the dynamics of inducing and influencing changes by means of participation. How many of the people listening to me now can remember the kind of speeches that were made in the House of Assembly some 10 years ago? Who would venture to anticipate the kind of debates that will rage in Parliament, assuming that the new council will decide to have a central Parliament, say 10 years from now? Did hon members believe five years ago that they would witness a person like myself addressing this gathering today?

Such changes do not come about spontaneously. I would aver that rather they are brought about by negotiation or, alternatively, they may be brought about by violent means. It is a thought that the value of participation may be readily seen in microcosmic form if one studies the Bill as originally introduced and compares it with the Bill which has now been tabled. It demanded input and hard work, and I daresay that the LP did its share, or more than its share. It delivered its hard work to effect the obvious modifications which are to be seen in the Bill. Yesterday the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates recognised and acknowledged the participation of the LP component in the joint committee in this respect. I should say that only the ill-informed or the malicious will minimise the dramatic changes which have been brought about to the original Bill as introduced.

The time has at last arrived for our brothers in the struggle for liberation who were simply left out of the central legislative process to recognise that their presence and input are now being sought. This is no time for them to fear having their constituencies measured. It is not the time to be afraid of self-appointed leaders with no measurable constituencies, leaders who thrive on wild, reckless statements and irresponsible moneymaking gimmickery. It is not the time to fear those people who believe in the violence of the sword or starvation. It is also not the time to don white mittens as far as this council is concerned, especially when one’s hands already bear the callouses of participation in racial government structures.

A thought which I must share with our brothers outside who are being asked, as the LP and others are being asked, to bring their blueprints and their models to the negotiating table, is that one must be wary of the motives of those in Parliament who so vehemently oppose this Bill. Ignore them, I say, because the country needs a new constitution. Avoid them, I say, because they stigmatise others who participate in the tricameral Parliament today, while Hansard bears all the evidence of their own participation in the very same Parliament. It also bears evidence of their participation in the even more exclusive forerunner of this system. Shun them, I say, because they believe that Parliament should be a White preserve. They simply do not want us here. Therefore I say, shun them.

Mr Speaker, these are people who would obviously prefer having other people’s participation in the South African system limited to the present legislative arenas of the respective self-governing territories. I would appeal to my brothers not to let the ideal become the enemy of the good. Systems are devised not to fail. The designers of a system have their own conception of how such a system should function. However, it is the actual participants who finally determine how the system will work, because of the dynamism of their participation. I think it was the hon member for Innesdal who said yesterday that the only reality is eternal change. I should like to add to that that change again is ascribable to the dynamism of participation.

The comments of respected leaders who have the opportunity to take part in the proposed constitution-making body must have been read by most people in the Press and elsewhere.

The reluctance of leaders of groups of people to commit themselves to full participation, and the distrust of such leaders towards the ruling party of this country, as well as certain of their fears, can be readily understood. The treatment meted out to the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives of late and the sand kicked in the face of the LP on several occasions as reward for their participation in the tricameral Parliament, cannot serve as an inducement for participation offered by the ruling party. That is why I say, it is understandable that people are distrustful of entering Parliament or any structure created by this Parliament.

The last thought I want to share with hon members is that as a member of the opposition in this Parliament, it is incumbent on people like myself to call upon the ruling party to give no participant in the proposed council reason to believe that we are all being led up the garden path. We see this Bill as an exciting opportunity for South Africa as a whole, and for every South African in particular. In due course, the manner in which this new body functions should give the lie to the allegation that it is merely a stalling mechanism to pass off pseudo reform for real reform. I urge the NP not to take the country for a ride on this serious occasion. We are endorsing the Bill and the council under whatever name it will operate. However, we ask the Government not to take that endorsement for granted.

Members of the committee, as well as the officials, have my sincere appreciation for the hard work they were ever ready to perform in preparing this Bill. I also want to congratulate the chairman for a fine effort.

At this stage I want to deviate slightly in case somebody at a later stage suggests that this joint meeting is taking place at their initiation. I therefore want to conclude my speech simply by saying that, due to the efforts of the LP of South Africa, we now have joint debates.

Mr Speaker, I had the privilege, together with other hon members, of listening to the hon member for Wentworth who raised a few good points in his speech.

The hon member referred, inter alia, to the hon member for Innesdal who participated in the debate yesterday and said that the mere discussion of this specific Bill was an historic occasion in itself. The hon member for Innesdal referred to a choice of ways along which we would have to reach the future and said that the essence of the debate was which was the right road.

The Bill has certainly resulted in our having gathered here to discuss the possibility for participation of all South African citizens in the planning of a new constitution which is to include all, but which also has to institute a just dispensation. I want to tell the hon member for Innesdal that I believe in the approach that there are more ways than one which can lead a person to the right point. In other words, there can be more right ways than one. If we judge the Bill, the debate should deal specifically with whether the way involved is feasible.

In the second place, I want to refer quickly to the hon the Minister of National Education’s speech earlier this afternoon. The hon the Minister said that all who supported the Bill would be reasonable leaders. By implication, therefore, all who were opposed to the Bill would be unreasonable leaders. The hon the Minister next referred to those who resisted participation and said that they were playing into the hands of revolutionaries.

I want to refer the hon the Minister to our common history. When Lord Milner attempted to introduce a National Council in 1902 and asked the Boers to take part in it, all the Afrikaner leaders of that time refused. For four years Lord Milner could only induce the “hensoppers” and the “joiners” to take part in it until he decided, at the end of that period, to introduce representative government.

I do not want to say by this—hon members should listen to this standpoint …

That is a false comparison!

I am specifically not trying to make a comparison in absolute terms. What I am trying to say is that different choices may be legitimate. Participation or non-participation may both be legitimate and lawful options. To support or not to support should both be possible. We should not be so absolute and rigid.

When the Labour Party decided, in 1984, to participate in the election which would follow in terms of the Constitution, that was a legitimate option, and it remains a legitimate option. Anyone who says that they acted incorrectly and did not have the right to participate and to seek answers by means of this mechanism is stating a falsehood. Nevertheless, it would also be false to say that people who refuse to participate do not have the right to this. [Interjections.]

We on the side of the NDM believe that the really legitimate option would be to examine politics and a process which would include both parliamentary and extraparliamentary participation and protest, which could result in a convergence of ideas and political leanings to make it possible to achieve something in the future.

†It is common cause that the original Bill created an alternative institution to existing structures in which people who have presently opted for an extraparliamentary route could participate in a process of negotiation other than by joining the existing system of electoral politics. To this end, provision was made for the election on a regional basis of those Blacks in the extraparliamentary groupings who could help to frame a future constitution. The Labour Party did indeed contribute to many positive changes to the Bill. However, one amendment, which now provides for an electoral college consisting of representatives of local authorities, excludes an alternative route for those in extraparliamentary politics to work towards negotiation and to get involved. Frankly, the argument that they could still participate through contesting elections for local authorities holds no water, because it ignores the real nature of the division between parliamentary and extraparliamentary politics. The question remains, of course, whether this was in fact intended, or whether it was by accident.

*I do not want to have the last word on this, but I want to issue the warning that the impression exists in extraparliamentary circles that it is a deliberate effort to exclude them from participation and proceedings in which a debate is being conducted, where they would possibly participate in other proceedings, including those of elections.

Whatever the case may be, the effect of the Bill is that only those who are already included within the system, in some way or other, may further participate in proceedings to see whether a new constitution is possible. These are people who are already included in institutions of the system— local government and other levels—from which people can be designated to serve on this proposed council.

This amended Bill differs from the original one in that a direct election could take place under the original Bill. I do not wish to imply that nothing positive could result from this, but the current Bill has resulted in cutting off parliamentary and extraparliamentary politics. I agree with other hon members who said that it was certainly not a struggle between Black and White. As regards those who believe in a peaceful future, it is not a struggle between violence and non-violence either. It is a struggle between parliamentary or extraparliamentary routes. Unfortunately they are excluded from choosing to participate now. The door, which opened a crack to provide them with an alternative route, has been closed again.

We would have supported the Bill with all its shortcomings—it has others too—if it had been for that possibility alone. Because it does not address the actual problem, however, we shall not support the Bill and, like the PFP, we specifically want to see that the amendment regarding clause 12, which appears on the Order Paper, is agreed to so that the Bill may be recommitted to the joint committee and specific attention may be given to clause 12.

In conclusion, it so happens that we are reasonably and calmly conducting a debate here today on a new future while a congress of the Cape Professional Teachers’ Union is in session in this very city this week, a congress which accepted the Freedom Charter with a standing ovation as the guideline according to which they would seek their answers in future. Once again, the question is not one of right or wrong, but it merely serves to emphasise how deep-seated divisions are on the choice between parliamentary channels and extraparliamentary or pressure routes.

I want to appeal to hon members to try to set about working in such a way in their involvement that the various routes approach each other more closely, so that doors may be opened which will make opportunities possible for people to become involved in one another’s politics.

Prof Carel Boshoff—the hon the Minister of National Education referred to his paper—understands more about this problem in a certain sense too. I want to advise hon members to read that whole paper. A number of very positive matters are addressed in it. He says, inter alia, that negotiations must take place among all people and also definitely says that the ultimate consequence would be a “burgerstaat” in which all would have to have equal rights. According to him this is the only reasonable and valid way. For that very reason he also chooses simultaneous negotiation on a “volkstaat” and a “burgerstaat”, but the “burgerstaat” and the “volkstaat” would have to be negotiated simultaneously with everybody. He also admits—he says this emphatically—that he will seek to reach this “volkstaat” by extraparliamentary means.

†Mr Speaker, the NDM will continue to impress upon hon members here, as well as on the public and parties operating within and outside the system, the nature of the real divide—the need to develop space and opportunity for all to get involved with each other in the political and negotiation process. We will work towards the convergence of policy of all political groupings in South Africa, in and outside of Parliament, in order to promote the process that will lead to a future of liberation and reconciliation for all, a future of lasting security for all.

Mr Speaker, I should like to start by making a few comments arising from what the hon member for Randburg has just said. Without pausing too long here, I want to tell the hon member that I think the comparison concerning Milner and the events after 1902 which he has just presented to the House is not a valid comparison. In the first place, I think it is not a correct interpretation of history. Further, I think that it would be altogether wrong—little as I love Milner—to compare Milner on the one hand and the SACP and the ANC on the other. I think the interpretation of history is equally erroneous.

I want to tell the hon member in addition—I should like to deal with this further in my speech—that I think he does not see what the SACP and the ANC are doing. I shall revert to this in a moment.

As regards his problems relating to clause 2, I want to say briefly that the hon member should definitely take the facts into account, from a practical point of view, concerning the aspect of time which would be involved in the case of a different composition of members concerned to whom there is reference in clause 12. I think, too, that the aspect of how this composition is to take place, if there is to be a direct election, is of course a practical question. The hon member is aware of the relevant discussions relating to that subject.

The important point is, however, that nobody is excluded from participating in local government elections for Black participation, ie the coming election of 26 October. Anybody would therefore be able to participate directly and in that way have a direct share in designating people, as provided for in the Bill before us.

I should like to refer to the following matters specifically as regards the Government’s constitutional initiatives, in regard to which the legislation currently before the House forms an important milestone. It is an important step to ensure that peace and prosperity, freedom and justice may be aspired to in South Africa. These initiatives are eliciting a greater response among moderates. As this momentum increases, however, it creates a threat to those who want to realise revolutionary objectives in this country.

From as early as 1984, when revolutionaries attempted to disrupt elections for the tricameral Parliament with every means at their disposal, which gave rise to the imposition of the state of emergency, it was clear that the constitutional course which the Government had embarked upon was causing the enemies of South Africa grave concern. They realised that they would become increasingly irrelevant if the debate on the future of South Africa were to continue in this way and therefore went back to the drawing board to design a new strategy which would promote their own prestige.

The result of their deliberations was, as the hon the State President referred to it a few days ago, a more sophisticated and unorthodox approach which was aimed at creating greater political acceptability for the revolutionaries—internally as well as internationally.

It is clear that the ANC’s fear, regarding the successes which the Government was achieving, compelled it to set to work more pragmatically. Recently the organisation and its fellow-travellers have indicated increasingly that they would no longer maintain their standpoints as dogmatically as previously but, for the sake of the overthrow of the existing order, would enter into alliances with anybody. In this regard I think it is important to point out that the danger attached to this is that these efforts of the ANC will be judged at face value.

It must be borne in mind continually that the ANC has not abandoned revolutionary strategy, of which violence forms an inherent component, and there is no indication either that it intends doing so. What aggravates matters, however, is the SACP’s influence permeating the ANC. Unshakeably based on its Marxist-Leninist principles, it is obvious that the SACP cannot present any right-minded South African with an acceptable vision of the future. Yet this organisation has a definitive effect on the ANC’s current plans.

Efforts by revolutionaries to present themselves as more moderate must therefore be viewed in the right perspective. To revolutionaries politics is merely a further instrument to overthrow the status quo. Involvement of groupings within the spectrum of lawful politics in South Africa is nothing but a tactical manoeuvre to realise their own objectives and to try to prevent the Government from continuing on the successful course it has adopted. In this regard various writings from radical circles have emphasised this as such, and it is therefore not a deduction on the part of the Government but a tactic which revolutionaries themselves are spelling out.

To want to suggest that the ANC is involved with this type of politicking in good faith is to be naive—as the hon the State President expressed it. It is to be expected that in future onslaughts of this nature will be launched with greater ferocity. The Government’s determination to pursue its chosen course will not be affected by this, however.

†The Government’s successful and constructive initiatives with regard to reform over the past ten years brought the ANC-SACP to realise that they were losing ground because their strategy lacked a viable political alternative to developments in South Africa. This, as I have pointed out, led them to a new tactical approach, namely to develop and put forward their own political alternative for South Africa.

These proposals of the ANC-SACP are aimed at the enhancement and furthering of their so-called good intentions for South Africa. They clearly want to try to gain credibility as a serious alternative agent for peaceful change in order to enhance their standing inside and outside South Africa. This is clearly a belated realisation that the Government’s reform initiatives are gaining momentum and, if successfully carried through, would leave them out on a limb and irrelevant with regard to political developments in this country. This new approach of the ANC should therefore be seen for what it is. It is a calculated reactionary move to try to counter the progress of successful reform in South Africa with their own tactical alternative.

Their late entry into this arena is clearly aimed at trying to woo away support for Government initiatives, especially to try to secure credibility for their ideology in the eyes of those people occupying the so-called middle ground of South African politics.

Their subtle attempt to make themselves part of the reform initiatives should therefore not be taken at face value. It is nothing but a transparent move so as to enhance their credibility with the calculated reasonableness of their constitutional proposals.

They are clearly trying to undermine support for the process of reform among all population groups while at the same time aiming at getting support in the political centre. Their prime objective is also to consolidate and/or gain control of existing extra-parliamentary organisations.

The ANC-SACP through their proposals and methods, are trying to present themselves as democrats accepting normal democratic processes and methods. We, however, know what their real aims are.

Their new strategy is therefore nothing else but a camouflaged method to realise, via a different route, their stated aim of a transfer of power to themselves and the implementation of their wellknown philosophies based on Marxist-Leninist ideology. Fundamentally they remain committed to the transformation of an ANC-dominated South Africa into a socialist one-party state.

They are trying this new approach to find a democratic entrance to power after which South Africa, under an ANC government, will be no different from other Marxist states in Africa or elsewhere. Dualistic elements in their proposals, both theoretical and practical, clearly indicate this to be the case. They liberally use popular democratic jargon but their real intentions cannot be hidden.

The political strategy of the ANC-SACP of presenting a constitutional blueprint for South Africa is obviously an attempt to move as close as possible to Government initiatives, proposals and ideals. At the same time the vagueness of many aspects of the ANC’s programme must be seen for what it is—it allows for doing what they want once they get into power.

There is a glaring gap between their rhetoric and practice. Whilst propagating so-called “settlement politics” and “democratic solutions” they, at the same time, remain committed to violent methods. They want to sit on two stools at the same time. We witness the tragedies they are causing to people, families and children with their bombs, arson, necklace murders and attacks.

If they want a political solution they should abide by the word and meaning of accepted democratic processes, drop violence as a method and genuinely come out in support of negotiation as the only method to find an acceptable solution for South Africa’s future constitutional needs and development.

They must not conveniently lean on Government initiatives and thus demonstrate their political bankruptcy. They should come clean and openly convince people of their political bona fides. The dualistic and despicable approach they are now trying, will not hoodwink South Africans. Copycatting Government initiatives and attempting to buy in on the process of reform in order falsely to impress and convince moderate peace-loving groups in South Africa of their questionable bona fides will get them nowhere.

Government reform initiatives demonstrate a credible, progressively successful and ongoing process. People realise that we are succeeding and that we will reach our goals at all levels of government and in all spheres of reform. So far, this historic debate has supplied ample evidence that we are moving forward with meaning and conviction. We made our choice years ago. We are walking the road of our choice—the road of evolutionary political change towards the full political accommodation of all South Africans in our constitutional system. We are taking flak because of our choice but we are committed and we shall proceed on that road.

The revolutionaries, the ANC-SACP must make their choice now. It will take a momentous decision between violence and peaceful democratic processes. They cannot pursue their objectives through both violence and peaceful political means—it is the one or the other. If they choose violence, they will get what they know they must expect: We will stop them. If they choose to drop violence and opt for peaceful political means only, they know full well what we have to offer.

We have made our choice and we have walked the road so far. We are prepared to make further momentous decisions on the road we have chosen.

We have implemented systems of reform at many levels—local government; regional service councils; provincial government; regional government; now this negotiating forum, and other levels. These systems which we have already introduced, are working and are democratic. We are going ahead with reform at all levels.

*Mr Speaker, we remain unshakeably committed to power-sharing and the division of power up to the highest level of government, to the maintenance of the rights of individuals and communities, to the principle of live and let live and to the promotion and development of a general South African nationalism.

On 26 October the most comprehensive local government elections in the history of this country will take place. We shall not permit the ANC-SACP alliance to prevent our people from exercising and fulfilling their civil rights and obligations at local government level. They know that their interests can best be served by peaceful participation.

Those South Africans who are caught up in the idea of non-participation, because they continue to query the seriousness of our commitment to reform, experience the reality of that reform daily. We are committed to continuing in this way until we have realised the ideals of all South Africa by means of the process of reform, to which this Bill will make an essential contribution.

Mr Speaker, I am in agreement with my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that the solution to our constitutional problems can only be resolved by peaceful means.

Some 35 years ago I came to Cape Town as a Natal-born Indian South African and, as such, an illegal in the Cape Province. I remember often walking in town and crossing the street to avoid a policeman who would perhaps require a permit of me. I address this House today as a Deputy Minister. Therefore, Mr Speaker, if one has to read progress along the road to constitutional reform and relate that to my life’s experiences, our country has indeed come a long way. There is still, however, some way to go, and I believe that the council which will be established by the Bill being discussed today and which was discussed yesterday will assist us to get to our ultimate goal of a free South Africa. It is for that reason that my fledgling party—the Peoples Party of South Africa—has decided to support this Bill. For that reason I believe that we must all accept the proposed new council. We must use it judiciously to get to where we want to be. We must regard it as an instrument of hope and growth.

I believe that, as in my case, where I was once an illegal immigrant but am now in Parliament, voicing my opinion in the decision-making processes of our country, so will our Black citizens sit alongside me one of these days, using aspirations in a peaceful and orderly manner.

Our participation in the tricameral Parliament was not without misgivings. We had our reservations but, notwithstanding these reservations, we opted to participate and hence we are today jointly debating the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill. There are important leaders in the Black community who have expressed reservations about their participation in the proposed council. This is regretted, although I have an understanding of their dilemma.

One of the reasons we have heard for not fully endorsing this tricameral Parliament was of course the exclusion of the Black South Africans from the central Government decision-making processes. Whilst this Bill in itself does not fully address this problem, if used judiciously it could well be the instrument to achieve this objective.

We are firmly of the view that for as long as our Black people are kept out of Parliament peace and stability will elude us. When we opted to participate in a system which was not of our making we promised that we would do our best to open the doors of participation to our Black brothers. The support we give to this Bill is in part a fulfilment of that promise. I say “in part” because that promise will only be fully met once our Black brothers and sisters sit jointly with us in the decision-making process.

We are using this tricameral system to the best effect in order to achieve our short-term goals of development. This Parliament was, in my opinion, the second stage in the process of reform which is taking place in our country. The first stage was the bringing in of Coloureds and Indians into the President’s Council. This of course, at that time, did not meet with universal acceptance. Then the tricameral Parliament came as the second stage. This, too, did not meet with universal acceptance.

This country, I believe, cannot walk the road of Coloured, Indian and White decision making any longer. We have to make our choices. We have to make them now.

The alternative to participation is the violent overthrow of the Government and the replacing of this Government with some other majority government. The price that will be paid for such an alternative, to my mind, is indeed too ghastly to contemplate. The pattern of violence has spiralled to such an extent that we have to live today with a reimposed state of emergency. Fortunately, on all sides the people of goodwill are in the majority, and these people want to extend the hand of friendship and jointly solve our problems in a peaceful manner.

Allow me, Mr Speaker, the use of a truism. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. The peaceloving people of South Africa, be they White, Coloured, Indian or Black, have paid a price and have suffered long enough at the hands of those who have imposed violence on us. The people of our country have suffered losses, materially and spiritually. They have lost loved ones. They have lost their deeply settled sense of security. They have in fact lost their dignity because fear has been their constant companion. Therefore I put it to this House that these people of goodwill will prove themselves by denouncing violence. We have made our mistakes in the past but the time has come that we must look to the future. In this context I want to quote from the preamble to the Bill before the House:

Since the proposed council may investigate and consider any matter which, in its opinion, is of national interest, including existing and proposed legislation and steps taken or contemplated by the Government, and make recommendations to the Government, it is clear that whilst this proposed council will not be creative itself it could nevertheless become the instrument in the hands of responsible people to bring about further reform.

There has in the recent past been a debate taking place within the ranks of extra-parliamentary organisations on the question of whether to participate or not. It was none other than Mr Archie Gumede, President of the UDF, who raised the possibility of participation. Dr M J Naidoo, the then President of the Natal Indian Congress, raised the issue of participating in the SA Indian Council. This was of course shot down by young radical members of the congress at that time, but if participating in the SA Indian Council was even considered, how much better cannot people do by participating in the National Council itself?

There appears to be no unanimity within the ranks of extra-parliamentary organisations in relation to participation politics. I believe, however, there is a way out of this dilemma. That is that those within the ranks who wish to participate should be allowed to do so. There are many who wish to participate. Those who wish to stay out, should by the same token be allowed to exercise their democratic right and stay out. Strategies, however, should not allow the logjam in politics to continue. I believe that participation in the council offers a valuable platform for communication and it can also constitute a second front on which the war of resistance against apartheid could be fought.

Therefore, I believe, the National Council will plan and prepare a new constitutional dispensation and afford Black South African citizens a voice in the processes of government.

It is at this point that I would like to direct a remark to the hon member for Ermelo. The CP’s euphoria is based on its recent electoral successes, and we grant them that. The fatal flaw in the CP’s approach, however, is that it believes that a White minority will be able to compel or force all groups of colour into a situation which has long failed. One does not know how serious the CP is about its policies, but a policy which failed two decades ago can never succeed in the present day and age. I ask them not to try to turn the clock back. We need to go forward, and not backwards, and their policy is nothing but a policy of retrogression.

How can a party some members of which look down upon people of colour expect such people to contribute towards their own denigration by working with it? It should be abundantly clear to all realistic South Africans who are serious about working out a secure future that the CP’s policy will lead to a civil war in this country. [Interjections.]

I want to emphasise to hon members that violence and bloodshed are exactly what all responsible citizens wish to avoid. At the root of this violence is fear and distrust among the people of our country. Let us rather reach out across the divisions of race, colour and language and unite and protect those who wish to establish a peaceful and stable country for the welfare of all. While recognising differences in race, colour and language, let us rather concentrate on the common factors, namely a loyalty to and love for our country and a commitment to peace.

I want to tell the hon member for Ermelo that I belong to a minority group myself, a community which constitutes less than 3% of the total population of South Africa. I do not agree that the Bill before us will bring about the demise of minority groups. I believe rather that if the Bill is used judiciously it will in fact have the effect of protecting and promoting the interests of minority groups. By protecting and promoting the interests of all groups in South Africa, one will unite them into a majority who have gained too much to lose it all again for nothing but senseless violence and bloodshed.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning emphasised that this Bill was proof of the Government’s sincerity, and that constitutional structures representing all South Africans and in which power would be shared in a manner preventing domination would be developed. I believe that this promise was not lightly made, and we will therefore treat it with all due respect.

However, this will only be achieved if all the participants have complete faith in one another’s goodwill and dedicate themselves to the task of finding solutions and do not use the council as a mere talking shop and a means to buy time in order to perpetuate the present system of government which denies the majority of our Black citizens a meaningful place in all forums of government.

I therefore express my trust that the Government will honour its word, and I also trust that this exciting challenge will bring about the reform that my party and I support and will strive for.

Mr Speaker, it has been said on various occasions that this is an epic moment in the history of Parliament and of our country. I wish to associate myself with this because I think it is definitely the case.

It is very clear to me that, with the possible exception of the CP, general unanimity exists on seven basic points of departure, most of which were raised in the hon the Minister’s speech.

Firstly, a different constitutional dispensation is essential; in other words, the current dispensation cannot continue. Secondly, that dispensation must provide for the participation of all South Africans. Thirdly, Blacks in particular can no longer be excluded from the process of political decision-making. Fourthly, White political domination is no longer tenable. In the fifth place, such a new constitution must be the product of a process of negotiation and cannot be imposed by force by anyone.

In the sixth place, such a new constitution, even if not in its final form, must be drawn up as soon as possible as an essential prerequisite for terminating the process of increasing polarisation in our society; for putting a stop to resistance, unrest and violence, and for creating a common loyalty among all South African citizens. In the seventh place, the institution of such a new constitutional dispensation must take place along constitutional lines.

I believe that the vast majority of South Africans endorse these seven principles. To sum up, it is the need for, the belief in and the necessity for a negotiated constitutional structure in which all may participate on a democratic basis. It seems to me that the only two groups which do not wish to endorse this principle are, firstly, left-wing revolutionaries who are not interested in the constitutional process, are not interested in a negotiated democratic constitution and are not interested in power-sharing either, but only in a take-over of power. Arising from the comments of the hon member for Randburg, I want to say at once that one should not deduce from this that I classify all extraparliamentary organisations as being part of this group.

The second group includes the so-called rightwing groups in our society which hanker after the old days of undisguised White political domination.

It is very clear that profound division exists, among the people who endorse these seven principles, on the merits of this Bill and on the composition and functions of the proposed statutory council. The division emerges clearly in Parliament and becomes particularly obvious outside.

†We would make a major error in our thinking if we were to minimise the deep reservations about and opposition to the proposed statutory council on the part of some people inside this House, and particularly on the part of many people outside this House.

*Differences which exist—I heard this time and again yesterday and today—are such that some people believe that the proposed council may have shortcomings but that it indicates a new process in South African politics which should be supported. That is a step in the right direction.

†I heard this today and I heard it yesterday. It is a step in the right direction and it indicates a new trend in South African politics and therefore it ought to be supported.

*There are other people who say, in the first place, that the proposed process will probably not serve the purpose. Secondly, they say that this process is actually counter-productive. Thirdly, it may have the unfortunate effect of further delaying the process of political accommodation and not expediting it. Fourthly, it does not have the potential to produce an acceptable constitution.

†The process envisaged by this Bill does not have the potential to produce a constitution which will be acceptable to the majority of the people in South Africa.

*I want to say immediately that I find myself among the second group of people who believe that there are serious reservations about and shortcomings in this Bill, and this results in my not being able to support this measure. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Randburg and say at once that we have to accept our mutual good faith. It is not necessary for us to become bitter toward one another; neither do we need to call one another names.

Let us accept one another’s bona fides. In other words, as I stand here saying that I cannot accept this Bill, I expect it of others who differ with me to accept my bona fides, just as I accept theirs in this regard, because we all want the best for our country.

The most important problems which I have with this Bill may be summarised in three points. Firstly, this Bill is unacceptable to a large part of our community. I shall return to this in a while. Secondly, if a constitution has to be framed, that constitution must have the necessary legitimacy. Thirdly, the twofold functions which are granted to that statutory council by this Bill create problems for me because, in addition to its power of creating a constitution, it also serves to give Blacks an interim voice in the processes of government, as expressed in clause 3.

These chiefly form my three objections. Let us examine them for a moment. It is very clear that there are large segments of our community which do not accept this Bill and the proposed statutory council.

†I believe the joint committee that dealt with this Bill did not pay proper attention and give proper heed to those many, many people out there who either did not see their way clear to make representations on the Bill because they disagreed with the Bill, or who actually opposed the Bill. Hon members of the joint committee who were present when we discussed this will know that my colleague and I tried our level best to get the committee to at least accept the advisability of getting the opinions of those people who had not made representations. In that manner the committee could at least have been in the position to give attention to what those other people feel about this statutory council before it came to a final decision. Hon members of the joint committee will also be aware of how we tried to get the committee to ask some other people to come and testify after the initial few people came to testify before the committee, and that our request was turned down.

*In other words, I repeat that in all honesty I do not believe that the joint committee which dealt with this matter actually paid proper attention to the enormously strong resistance which exists against this measure, especially outside Parliament. I think even the hon the Minister will grant me this.

[Inaudible.]

I said that the second basic reason why I found this Bill unacceptable was that any constitution which has to be created has to have the necessary legitimacy if it is to be acceptable. In other words, the acceptability of a constitution is an essential requirement for a successful constitution. In framing a constitution which has legitimacy and is acceptable, the process of creating a constitution is just as important as the product itself. If the process of creating a constitution were unsatisfactory, even if it created the best product under the sun, this would be no use because fundamental shortcomings in the process of the creation of a constitution cannot be eliminated by the constitution itself, no matter how good it may be.

†In other words, I am saying that the process of getting to the new constitution is as important as the product which results from those negotiations.

*In that negotiating process it is essential for the various population groups to be represented by leading figures from those groups in which they have confidence, and the leaders who participate in this negotiating process must be accepted as authentic mouthpieces and spokesmen by those groups. Clearly there are prominent leading figures in South Africa who have said that they did not see their way clear to participating in this proposed body. We can ignore this if we like, but it will be to our detriment.

I can deduce from the memorandum that there are five chief objections which are raised against this proposed body. The hon member for Sea Point said yesterday that the political climate was not right. We hear the Government saying that any constitution will have to be created on a racial basis. It says that any constitution will have to be based on the division between own and general affairs. [Interjections.] No, I want to say this.

There are people who ask how they can participate in a discussion if there are all kinds of discriminatory measures. It is the task of the Government to create a climate in which it will be possible for all to participate, but the Government has not carried out its task in this regard.

The second major objection is that it is impossible for other leading figures, whether this means Nelson Mandela or whoever, to participate in this process. The third objection is that there is no possibility for political mobilisation because, to determine who has the right to speak on behalf of the various population groups, the possibility for political mobilisation must exist.

†If one does not have the right of political mobilisation, there is no way in which one can determine which people will be recognised by the various groups. There is no way to determine who will have the right and the authority to talk on their behalf.

There will be elections.

That is exactly why I have proposed an amendment!

*The next objection is that we cannot use existing structures for that purpose. The hon member for Sea Point pointed this out. I have an amendment on this subject on the Order Paper. I want to tell the LP frankly that, if they had known in advance that they would only be able to participate in this system via the management committees and in no other way, in my opinion they would never have considered coming to participate in this dispensation. I do not believe they would have done so.

We were not yet in Parliament at the time!

No, do not use that argument. That is exactly what people say. Why must existing structures be used to carry out the functions of a body whose function it is to create a constitution?

The fifth objection is that leaders are convinced that they would have to surrender their credibility if they were to participate in the process under these circumstances. In this struggle, which exists amongst Blacks in particular, not one of those people can afford to lose his credibility. [Interjections.]

†I said earlier that I accepted people’s good faith. The least I expect from them is to afford me the same courtesy. They may differ with me, but they have no right to dispute my good faith and my good intentions. [Interjections.]

*I have already referred to the twofold functions of the National Council. I see that time is catching up with me.

Hear, hear!

I have an amendment in this regard on the Order Paper, but I have been informed that it is unacceptable because it is contrary to the main principles of the Bill. I want to state this very clearly, however: If that function is to continue—and I do not even understand how the National Council will work—the National Council will be involved in the executive authority, obtain an equal voice in Government policy and, once that happens, that statutory council will be suspect from the start, because every member of that council will then have to accept co-responsibility for Government action. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I just want to say that it is not my intention to react to the hon member Prof Olivier. However, I noted with disappointment his attack on the LP in regard to the very responsible standpoint that they have adopted in this debate thus far. [Interjections.]

Some previous speakers such as the hon member Prof Olivier have already spoken in some detail about two of the three aims of this Bill, as formulated in the particular clause, which is clause 3. I should, however, like to focus for a moment on a third aim which, up to the present, has passed by unnoticed and which is provided for as follows in the Bill—

In the national goals that are spelt out in the preamble to our present Constitution there are also similar references to what are referred to as “the respect and protection” of human dignity and freedom as well as many fine aims in other spheres of our community life. I want to say that nobody can deny that the need to promote sound relations among all South Africans has never been as great as it is today, because the danger of polarisation has never been greater than it is now. I want to say that sound relations are the foundation upon which the achievement of the other two aims of this proposed council, namely a new constitutional dispensation with participation for all and an input for Black South Africans on an interim basis is, in the final instance, going to stand or fall.

This proposed council has as its aim, to change the pattern of our South African society—we must have no illusions about this—but to change it for the best; that is to say, to improve it and to bring all of us closer to the ideal goals which we have set ourselves. Of itself this fact boils down, in my opinion, to an acknowledgement that we have not yet arrived at where we want to be. The hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs referred to this fact. We have not yet arrived at where we want to be, but this legislation also serves as an acknowledgement and a ratification of the fact that that is where we are heading.

†In our NP election manifesto of 1987 reference was made to what was described as the ground rules for our constitutional plan. One of the goals we set ourselves, and for which we were given an overwhelming mandate, was:

That we are not yet at that point is not in dispute, but neither is the fact that the NP has been moving steadily and at an increasing rate towards that goal, and the creation of national states with autonomous self-government and the 1983 Constitution are but two examples of this movement.

I would submit, however, that if we are to move further along this road, the widely-held suspicion which still exists on many levels in our society will have to be rooted out. Other speakers in this debate have referred to it but without mutual trust there can be no meaningful negotiation or any lasting structure for power sharing, because if we lack that trust the possibility of entrusting one another with our values and beliefs is highly unlikely. Fortunately, much of what has been said in this debate thus far, I think augurs well for mutual trust on an increasing scale in the future.

*The council to be established by this Bill will, of course, be the primary and structured forum for discussing the improvement of our South African pattern of life.

The secondary discussion, as I call it, and the search for common elements at all levels must begin simultaneously throughout our country in areas where it has not yet begun. Where it already exists one must proceed with new zeal. In my opinion this is vitally necessary because the envisaged council cannot function effectively in a vacuum in the context of the communities which have to be included in it.

†If we are to be successful, the acceptance of this Bill must be the start of a renewed search Tor common ground with people of colour right across the spectrum of our community life throughout our country. Teachers, farmers, businessmen and local government leaders of all races must make the effort to discuss common problems and find solutions within the context of their own organizations and within the fields of their own disciplines. I submit that this interaction, and what I would call a search for communality on a secondary level, can make or break any efforts which will be made on the primary level, namely in the proposed council, because constitutions are only accepted when they became engraved in the hearts and minds of the people and communities involved.

*In May of this year, in reply to how he saw the prospects of the proposed National Council, the hon the State President had the following to say, and I quote:

In my opinion it is up to every member of this Parliament to nurture, strengthen and channel this goodwill to which the hon the State President referred in order to establish the community substructure for future constitutional development.

†In Natal too, where the interdependence of Natal and KwaZulu is beyond dispute and is already reflected in the formation of the Joint Executive Authority—a body unique in South Africa’s constitutional development—the need to talk to one another has never been greater. We, as Nationalists in Natal will also have to work on our relationships with the political organizations and leaders of other population groups in that province, and step up our search for common ground for co-operation, if we too are to play a part.

*In conclusion my plea is for a new patriotism, a patriotism based, not necessarily on what our country looks like today, but on what it would look like tomorrow if each of us did his share in trying to find common ground, at every level— not only in the newly proposed council, but also outside of it. We may then perhaps find ourselves in a country such as that presented to us in the preamble to our Constitution. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the previous speaker must please forgive me if I do not react to his speech, but I prepared a speech on a different topic. I want to thank the hon member for Wentworth for his good wishes on my wedding anniversary.

The Bill before this House today is the result of more than two years of negotiation and consultation. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon the Leader of the LP for the privilege I had to participate in the consultations and negotiations. I also want to thank the chairman of the standing committee, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, for the competent way in which he chaired the committee during the past two years.

I want to react briefly to the speeches of some hon members of the CP who expressed criticism and opposition to the Bill. They predicted anarchy and ruin. One of the greatest tragedies in South Africa is the fact that, unlike in the rest of the world where there have been progressive endeavours to achieve universal franchise, in South Africa we have moved in the opposite direction. In 1936 the Blacks were removed from the voters’ roll and in 1956 the Coloureds were removed from the voters’ roll by the NP.

When the NP took over power in 1948, the clock was actually turned back 110 years to 1838, when the Great Trek started. In the nineteen fifties an order was established which would actually have been more appropriate to the first half of the last century. Today we have a remarkable achievement in the House, namely that there are 23 hon members in the Official Opposition of the House of Assembly who have been asleep for 150 years. It is indeed a remarkable historic phenomenon that in these 150 years they have never been able to adapt to circumstances here and elsewhere in the world. [Interjections.]

There was also opposition from the left wing, and one of the greatest tragedies with regard to the left wing in the House of Assembly, the PFP, is the declining number of liberal thinkers in South Africa. I submit it is a tragedy that these” old English liberals” are disappearing. [Interjections.] When the historians write the history of our country one day, they will ascribe the downfall of these people to their inability really to adapt to the habitat of Africa. This inability has resulted in their developing a dilemma which has totally paralysed them, namely the idea” if we do not do anything except feel guilty at least we cannot make a mistake”. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Randburg is a very good friend of mine. He criticised clause 12 of the Bill because members of local government bodies and electoral colleges would now appoint representatives for this envisaged forum. What are the facts, however? The joint committee invited people not only to tell us whether they agreed with the idea of the National Council, but also to submit their alternatives. No one from the extraparliamentary groups indicated in any way that they would be willing to participate. The hon member for Randburg has contact with these people; he is also a member of the committee. I do not know whether he told them about this invitation.

It is impractical to expect a prospective candidate for the National Council to recruit between 1 million and 1,5 million people within a period of two years. Only those inside the system, those serving on black local authorities—these are the ones to whom he referred—gave evidence before this committee. There was even an opportunity for written representations. The hon member himself had the opportunity, on behalf of his party, to propose written amendments to clause 12. However, he preferred to go to Frankfurt where the ANC told him that they were going to disrupt the municipal elections later this year. The hon member for Sea Point went to London to drink tea with Mr Geoffrey Howe and Mrs Margaret Thatcher. [Interjections.]

The hon member Prof Olivier is also a very good friend of mine. He must not regard what I am going to say to him now as being at all vicious. He moved an amendment, namely that the Bill be referred back to the joint committee. Basically his dilemma is that he wanted to make a contribution in the joint committee, but he wanted to do so in such a way that he would not become involved in the Bill at all. However, that is simply not possible. [Interjections.]

The objective of this Bill is to make provision for the participation of all South African citizens in the planning and preparation of a new constitutional dispensation. This was one of the fundamental objectives which the Labour Party of South Africa set itself when the party decided, on Tuesday, 4 January 1983, to participate in the tricameral system. I want to quote briefly from the Eshowe Resolution:

These are the 1983 proposals—

which was changed to one man, one vote in a non-racial geographic federation at our annual congress in Kimberley in 1984. The Resolution continues as follows:

Today, five years later, we are at least on the eve of such a forum, which has the potential to negotiate on a system which will eventually give the majority of South Africans citizens a satisfactory say in the government of the day. This is a remarkable achievement.

I submit that the envisaged forum has the potential, but that its success will be determined by the quality of participants in that forum. The directive of this envisaged council requires statesmanship as never before, if we are serious about achieving a peaceful, sincere, fair, lasting, stable, acceptable and workable settlement in South Africa.

The present wave of unrest and instability in the country, Black political mobilisation, sanctions and pressure from abroad have created an irrevocable crisis in the South African political system, which can only be resolved by a fundamental change in the system. Perhaps this is the time to see constitutional evolutionary reform, where it was successful, in historic perspective. It took the United Kingdom from 1832 to 1930 to extend franchise progressively until women eventually got the vote in 1930, and universal franchise was achieved. This constitutional evolution, which took place over a period of 98 years, occurred in an era when the United Kingdom had virtually a quarter of the world under its colonial control. There was therefore no suggestion of disinvestment, sanctions, pressure from abroad and interference.

One can say without fear of contradiction that today we are on the eve of this forum because of the constitutional fluidity and the dynamism which went hand in hand with the tricameral system. We admit that the present system has many shortcomings. We were amongst the first to say so. Our Eshowe Resolution was a controversial reaction to it. This led to condemnation by short-sighted people in the Black community. However, one day history will show that it was in the confluence of the defective proposals of the Government, and the less privileged, nonenfranchised community’s reaction to it, that stalemate situations could be resolved and solutions eventually found to the many problems facing our country.

As regards the future, we are not euphoric. We know there will still be many unacceptable formulae. There will still be many unworkable innovations. However, all these steps will hopefully, if they are not successful in themselves, contribute to breaking down the rigidity of the apartheid system and steering this country in the direction of a more acceptable and workable settlement in South Africa. If this envisaged forum is to have any degree of success, this will have to come from the constant flow of reform as a result of the politics of consensus and negotiation.

I briefly want to quote something which I feel is very important to both Whites and Blacks on the eve of this forum. Dr Martin Luther King said the following, and I am quoting:

Mr Arend Lijphart said the following, and I am quoting:

This is the challenge that we are facing today. This is our appointment with destiny. There may still be people who are dreaming of an order which may have worked 150 years ago, but this is our challenge for the year 2000. I want to conclude with a quote from Lijphart. He said, and I quote:

I am appealing for us to try to make it work. This is our only solution for this country.

Mr Speaker, I want to start by saying that if a person made comments which implied that the Whites did not obtain political sovereignty lawfully in South Africa, and which would be inclined to indicate that the Whites had stolen South Africa from one group or another, he would be deceiving himself. [Interjections]

We stand here as people with a lawful claim to the land we inhabit. We do not stand here as another minority group which merely has to negotiate by chance for a political say in this country. [Interjections.]

I want to go further and tell the NP that if its members think the Whites will permit them to alienate their constitutional sovereignty within their own territory, they are wide of the mark. Signs of resistance are already visible. I should like to refer to a few examples of this. I can cite the Roodepoort constituency as the first example. For almost 34 years this constituency was represented continuously in Parliament by the NP. Over the years prior to 1987 the NP increased their majority in Roodepoort almost as regularly as clockwork. In 1953 it was only 479. In 1958 it was 1 964, which was four times more. In 1961, the year of the Republic, it doubled to 4 248. In 1966 it increased by nearly a thousand to 5 228. In 1974 it was pushed up to 5 852 and in 1977 to 7 468. In 1981 it was an uncontested NP seat. And then what happened in 1987? The same voters who had carried the NP, who had toiled and sweated for that party, rejected the NP and sent a CP MP to Parliament. [Interjections.] The same voters who had earlier revered the NP, owing to its former policy of separate development, left it because of its new policy of power-sharing.

This is indicative of the widespread rejection of the NP’s power-sharing policy by Whites, who are personally experiencing the radical threat which power-sharing poses to the Whites’ right to self-determination, in contrast with the protection which the policy known as separate development or partition offers.

This tendency was reaffirmed by the bubbling enthusiasm of our people in Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein in the brilliant CP victories there. This is also in keeping with the results of certain scientific surveys conducted by the HSRC in October of last year when it was found that 56% of all Whites in South Africa— this includes NPs—already say that Whites and Blacks do not have enough common values and principles to design a democratic constitution for South Africa jointly. Among Afrikaans-speaking Whites the percentage was 71% at the time. During the same period the HSRC found that 41% of all urban Whites were opposed to the so-called reform and 28% in favour of it. Within the NP the percentage opposed to reform was 36%, as against 24% in favour of reform. In spite of this, the NP still forges ahead with its powersharing and integration policy. It even boasts, in the words of the hon member for Turffontein in this debate, of the fact that it is losing supporters as a result of its new policy.

Against this background I want to say today that at this crucial time it is a privilege for me and my hon colleagues in the CP to rise in this Parliament as a new political people’s front of all conservative Whites who are being left in the lurch by the NP. At the same time I want to assure the NP that no one will deprive the Whites of his right to self-determination permanently by any political strategy without digging his own political grave in the process. [Interjections.]

The Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill provides many illuminating indications of the schools of thought and work-methods of the NP and others who are in agreement with it. In the first place, in the long title in the original text, and throughout the rest, there is reference to the proposed council as the National Council. In the amended text it is said that it will be left to the council itself to determine the name. In the light of the guidance which the State President provided in this respect, we accept that the name will probably now be the “Great Indaba”. We deduce from this that this is the way in which the NP is seeking a suitable name for acceptance by Black people and, more particularly, by the Zulus.

In the second place, in the original text in clauses 1(iv), 4(c), 13, 14, and 15, without reference to race or ethnic context, provision is made for nine directly elected representatives for all Black people outside the self-governing states. Still without reference to race or ethnic context, the new text now makes provision for nine representatives for all these Black people plus nine alternate representatives who have to be indirectly elected by members of Black local authorities. The State President may impose his will as regards the method and procedure of this election by prescribing a penalty not exceeding a fine of R10 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years for any contravention of these prescriptions.

This portion of the representation has therefore been extended to 18 and, in terms of the new clausee 4(2), all have the right to attend sittings in any meeting of the council, which will probably be called the “Great Indaba”, and may take part in its proceedings. The inevitable deduction we have to make from these provisions on the method of election of these members is that pressure is being exerted on Black people through this to vote for local bodies in the October election.

In addition, it opens the door to the designation of representatives from any race or ethnic background by such local management bodies, and to the designation of those representatives from the ranks of organisations which do not participate in the municipal elections on 26 October. In this regard the name of the UDF emerges very strongly.

The interesting consequence of the provisions on the constitution of the council and the regulatory powers of the State President is that Black local management bodies will be obliged to designate the 18 representatives, even if some of them are opposed to this. This also has to take place in accordance with the State President’s prescriptions on form and procedure, or else they incur the penalty of a fine not exceeding R10 000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years. This very mandatory nature of the Bill also strikes one in other respects.

Chief Minister Buthelezi of KwaZulu has already indicated that the Bill is unacceptable to him. Surely it is the case that the standpoints of the majority of the KwaZulu government will be the same. Nevertheless clause 4(1)(a) lays down that the Chief Minister of each self-governing territory and a member of the legislative assembly of such territory designated by the Chief Minister concerned as his empowered alternate member shall form part of the council. Chief Minister Buthelezi therefore has no choice but to form part of the council when it is initially constituted. Neither does he have any choice but to designate a member of the legislative assembly of KwaZulu as his empowered alternate member. That member has no choice but to form part of the council when it is initially constituted. This applies equally to all the other chief ministers of selfgoverning areas and representatives from the various legislative assemblies. If they do not wish to remain part of the council or “Great Indaba”, they will have to resign in writing in accordance with clause 6(1)(b).

In this regard I also want to remark that it is a slap in the face to White South Africans that the representatives of the self-governing Black states are given a co-determining position by this Bill in respect of the new, more mixed constitution which will apply to the Whites of South Africa if the CP does not come to power in time. [Interjections.] These Black self-governing national states can request and obtain their independence from the South African Government at any time, but the Whites in South Africa are denied this right. They are forced to accept that these six Black peoples, an Indian community, a Coloured community and an NP component of the White population are to determine their constitutional future. This is a future in which the NP has already accepted, according to its own statements of policy, that Whites will merely be a minority group.

In the fourth place, clause 5(e) contains what must be one of the most dramatic changes to the original text. There are very strong indications that hon members wanted to make provision through this for long-term prisoners like Nelson Mandela to be more easily included in the council. A portion in the original text provided that such a prisoner could not become a member before the expiry of five years from the end of his term of imprisonment. This has now been amended so that a prisoner may become a member of the council immediately upon his discharge or release from jail, provided he has already served at least five years of his term of imprisonment.

The words “discharged or released” in the present text even make it possible for a prisoner like Mandela to be released on parole now and to take a seat on the council. [Interjections.] This relaxation in the qualifications for admission is understandable. The activities of the council may, according to Ambassador Piet Koornhof’s newsletter of 1 August 1987, include inter alia “the negotiation of such questions as the release of Mr Nelson Mandela, the legalisation of the African National Congress”, etc. Further, according to the hon member for Innesdal, most NP members regard it as a myth “that a lasting solution for Black political participation could be attained without also having involved the ANC in the process” and “… without the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners”. It would appear that this view of the left wing of the NP, and of others on the standing committee who associate themselves with this view, has been given substance in this Bill. In the light of all the preceding reasons, the CP will resist the passing of this Bill most vigorously.

Mr Speaker, one can only shake one’s head at the contribution of the hon member for Roodepoort and of his colleagues who spoke before him. The hon member for Roodepoort said that it was a privilege to take the floor here and, as a representative of a new people’s front, guarantee the self-determination of the Afrikaner and other Whites in this country. I now want to tell this hon member that his policy and that of his party is a guarantee of one thing, the total collapse of South Africa, and of the Whites with it. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon member for Pietersburg made a contribution here as a self-appointed representative of the Afrikaner people. I want to tell this hon member today that I am also an Afrikaner who wishes to dissociate myself from the selfportrait of the Afrikaner which he and his party flaunt. This exhibits a vanity, a pre-emptory arrogance and a conceit about the Afrikaner character which pushes people apart like a cream separator, and that at a time in which we need people to be drawn closer together in South Africa …

Hear, hear!

… at a time in which we need to decrease the centrifugal forces of conflict among peoples in South Africa and not to increase them. As Afrikaners we must think beyond our own interests and be proud of the heritage we share with other groups in this country. We as Afrikaners require self-confidence. We do not need the pathetic evidence of frightened people about their nationhood. We as Afrikaners must take the lead in South Africa in a way which gives people confidence. If Afrikaners want to continue in the style of the CP and the AWB, they are the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time in South Africa.

Parties and groups and people in South Africa differ on the mechanisms, procedures, priorities and participants connected with the process of constitutional development in South Africa. There is no uncertainty on two matters, however. One of these matters—and this emerged in this debate in the words of various speakers of all three Houses—is that the political future of South Africa will be determined at the negotiating table.

The second matter about which there is absolute certainty is that the political future of South Africa is no longer a “Whites only affair”. [Interjections.]

In this connection the legislation before us is an event which gives South African citizens a new prospect of hope. The hon the Minister who introduced the Bill said it was a signal of hope. It is a signal of hope that the dreams and the good intentions of political and other leaders will be offered the opportunity of being transformed into reality. The time has come for leadership and leaders in South Africa to accept that the politics of the country do not begin and end in the streets of our cities and towns; will not end in the congress venues of societies and organisations to which the hon member for Randburg referred earlier in the debate.

Leaders will have to accept that they can no longer surrender their responsibility for political participation to the masses in the streets or to delegates in congress venues or elsewhere. Leaders will be expected to perform in the shape of concrete proposals and substantive participation, because leadership is not founded on hope, dreams and good intentions, but on the ability to transform that hope, those dreams and those good intentions into reality. It would be a tragedy for South Africa, at this turning point in the political history of our country which we have now reached, if our leaders—White, Brown and Black—were to exhibit no greater skill and ability than to create a storm of thousands of words in conference halls here or in London, Frankfurt or Lusaka. After all, the course of affairs in South Africa is not determined there.

Leaders who, for reasons of popularity, continually want to surrender their responsibility to people and groups who, like parasites, insist on so-called rights without the attendant responsibility, will be co-architects of the situation when in time South Africa gives confirmation of the regular succession of disorder and economic bankruptcy as in the rest of the continent. If the tempo of constitutional development is unsatisfactory, leaders and newspapers which accuse Parliament of tokenism, as the Cape Times did again this morning, should ask themselves to what degree they have inhibited progress, instead of pointing an accusing finger at others.

It is a fact that the history of community relations in our country over the past 350 years has conditioned groups and leaders to recognise the view of their own group’s interests in isolation. Demands and expectations and non-negotiables have been based on a large measure of group conditioning, within which the negotiating skills of many leaders have been limited to the formulation of demands and expectations and bottom lines.

To be able to negotiate requires a specific skill and attitude, which cannot be acquired in lunchhour seminars and from circulars, but only by exposure to the standpoints and arguments of other leaders. This legislation makes provision for every faction of a protesting community out there to know that its case will be heard, that its case will be considered, and discussed, that what is right will be presented correctly and that what is wrong will be proved to be wrong by wellfounded arguments weighed up against other arguments. This legislation makes provision for this to be made possible.

The question is whether the climate in the country is sufficiently positive to promote the possibility of meaningful negotiations. In this respect we must tell one another at once that radical rhetoric, unrealistic demands, implacable attitudes—as we have seen among the CP and the AWB—and acts of violence on the part of leftwing Blacks and right-wing Whites have a destructive effect on a spirit conducive to political goodwill and a climate of positive negotiation.

Such action, aspirations and statements of the AWB create and intensify the fears among people and groups, and unfortunately they promote a return to original positions of traditional confrontation from which no future whatsoever is possible for this country. What is required is a scaling down of demands and views.

†Even this is no more a “Whites only” affair.

*What is required is the groundwork for negotiation, and that is not only the responsibility of the Government. I admit that the success of this process depends largely on Government initiatives, but the process will follow an unproductive course and ultimately fail if it is not supported by leaders from all groups in the overall Southern African community.

This legislation provides a prospect of hope, and this hope must be the incentive to action aimed at uniting people and groups in a South Africa, one in which the absolutised partition of right-wing groups is just as impossible as the so-called “non-racial common society” prospect of so many others.

Every South African voter and citizen at large has the right to hope for the future. Let us, as White, Black and Brown citizens and voters, insist that our leaders give us cause for hope.

It is important that critics of participants in the system realise that the evolutionary transition from one dispensation to another demands that many existing concepts, approaches and structures be dismantled to make room for a new South Africa.

In most Western countries this process takes place after a change of government. In South Africa this cannot be foreseen at present. This is why we and our critics must appreciate that constitutional development cannot take place in South Africa through a single event. Permanent stability can only be achieved when the parliamentary system—not the extraparliamentary system—succeeds in neutralising the objectives of radicals by means of the opposing attraction of really fundamental social, economic and political justice for all in the country.

I believe that this legislation paves the way for this, and I therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin this afternoon by quoting the hon the Minister of National Education. His utterances this afternoon are based on a new vision for South Africa.

Let us remember that South Africa is a country on which the attention of the entire international community is focused. If we cannot understand the importance of a new vision, therefore, we must naturally be prepared to accept the perils of our decisions from time to time.

The hon the Minister also said that time was of the essence. One appreciates that we cannot survive on the luxury of rhetoric and debate, and that that time has come. As is well-known, the darkest hour comes before the dawn, and those who have been away from this Parliament and from these rostrums, those who have been part and parcel of South Africa and those who understand the pangs and pains of South Africa will understand what I mean when I say that. It is therefore the responsibility of every South African to make use of this opportunity.

I also want to refer to what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives said. He mentioned that while we cannot remain where we are now, participation politics should be the order of the day. Those words of wisdom must be taken into account. As a South African who knows and understands the present trials and tribulations of this country, I am satisfied that we have a role to play, and we have chosen this path of participation politics in order to enable us to play our rightful and a meaningful role.

This is the second day on which we have entered this historic parliamentary edifice together to participate in a debate on one of the most important Bills ever to come before Parliament. This Bill, I would add, is a milestone on South Africa’s road of political change and constitutional reform.

We can also cast our minds back to when the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan, spoke in Cape Town about the winds of change. As a result of the winds of change we find ourselves, after some time, debating the setting up of a mechanism as proposed in the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill that will ensure the broadest possible representation of South African society at central government level.

While this giant step is being taken in the South African political sphere, certain political aspirants, such as US presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and the Rev Jesse Jackson, are continuing their onslaught on South Africa, and even attempting to have this country declared a terrorist state. This afternoon I want to warn these political aspirants in various parts of the world that they must not use South Africa as a political springboard.

I believe that there are well-meaning people in South Africa who are searching for solutions. I am therefore convinced that the international community should leave South Africa to the South Africans. South Africa has been embroiled in a frantic search for an effective panacea to what many international communities have come to regard as one of the most vicious and morally indefensible political systems.

So much has been said about the apartheid philosophy of the Government in power, but one should go back to the passing of a law in 1660, only a few years after the Whites arrived at the Cape, when Van Riebeeck planted the hedge of bitter almonds to keep the Hottentots and the Vryburgers apart, and to the establishment of separate schools for Blacks as early as 1663. For all these years the non-White community has weathered the turbulence of the unjust laws of the land. They have worked side by side on the factory floors and in the fields to build this country into what it is today.

What I am trying to point out is that I do not want to lay the blame for the sins of apartheid at the door of the present Government alone, as apart heid has been in existence for many years, but I do want the present Government, together with all of us, to shoulder the burden of responsibility for the future, so that the wrongs of hundreds of years may be righted.

World attention is focused on political change in South Africa, and yet political parties such as the CP and the PFP tend not to support this measure. Another politician, Dr Denis Worrall stated in the Cape Times of 21 June 1988 that the NP is a real threat to the country because it is paralysed and has lost its sense of direction.

I understand and concede, however, that Parliament has been lily-white for many years, but let us accept a factual situation that those days of it being lily-white are behind us. I am also aware of the comments the CP have made on various occasions that there should be a heartland for the various racial groups in South Africa. I must remind them, however, that South Africa belongs to South Africans, and there are men of calibre who have the ability to negotiate and find solutions best suited not only to them but to South Africa as a whole.

I want to appeal to the international community to leave South Africa alone; we will look after South Africa. We also call upon the left and the right wings to recognize the fact that this Parliament cannot remain lily-white any longer and that our collective survival is going to depend on our ability to face stark realities and adapt ourselves according to changing circumstances. Remember, we may be the last generation of moderate negotiators. Our future is dependent on our attitudes in the future. It must also be remembered that there are no instant answers to or ready-made prescriptions for the situation, and that nowhere in the developed democracies has a final constitution been produced overnight. As eager as we are to have our Black brethren participating, it rests on our shoulders to apply our minds to and expedite this exercise. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the darkest hour comes before the dawn.

From what my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, it should be clear that the council is not a goal in itself, but an instrument through which a new structure can be brought about. He asked that all peace loving South Africans should seize the opportunity to prove their commitments to negotiation. This measure, born out of the honest intentions of the Government, can become a powerful vehicle for building a new and equitable political dispensation. We can no longer afford the luxury of being in isolation. We cannot live in isolation in this country as a result of our colour. Neither can South Africa afford to live in isolation.

We all understand the era in which we live, and at times it appears to be a case of White fear versus non-White aspirations. I want to remind hon members of the statement made by the hon the State President on 31 January 1986 at the opening of Parliament. We believe he said that the human dignity, life, liberty and property of all must be protected regardless of race, creed or religion. He stressed that the Government was committed to one citizenship for all South Africans within a undivided country and to a democratic form of government. He emphasized that there would be equality before the law and individual minority rights. When the Head of State makes these statements, it is our responsibility to lend a helping hand in pursuance of that honest intention.

At this juncture I want to thank the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and his department together with all the hon members of the joint committee who were involved in this important, historic measure. I am sure that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will go down in history for his honest attempts to build a new highway in South Africa.

I want to conclude by saying that coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; and working together is success. Let us hereafter, irrespective of colour, caste or creed, work together towards a brighter future for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I have listened intently to the speeches here today, and the one thing that strikes me very forcibly is the fact that the two sectors that are so diametrically opposed in their philosophies and policies are the ones who are opposing this Bill.

Having listened to the criticisms with interest— and I must emphasise that it is easy to criticise— there is no doubt that there are aspects of the Bill which could be improved. However, in all fairness, one must appreciate the circumstances that have led to the final draft of this piece of legislation. I find considerable gratification in being able to participate in this debate today. It is indeed an historical occasion, and it is of particular significance for those of us who have supported the tricameral system in the context that it was in 1983. It was a step in the right direction. It was a starting point in the process of constitutional reform in South Africa.

I think it is appropriate too that this first joint debate in this Chamber should have to deal with such a complex and controversial piece of legislation as the Bill before us. It will be recalled that when the NRP decided to support the yes-vote in the referendum, it readily admitted that the tricameral system contained certain flaws and deficiencies. It is a well-known fact that we saw the greatest deficiency as being that it contained no provision for the inclusion of Blacks in the parliamentary structure.

One realised too at the time that the complexities that exist in Black politics in this country, are such that it would take time and effort to unravel the political structures that have been created over the years. I recall aspects of the statement made by the hon the State President outside the Union Buildings when the results of the referendum were announced. He indicated that his next move would be to find a means of bringing the Blacks into the decision-making processes of government. I would say that this is the point that we have reached here today.

Approval is now being sought for the passing of legislation to enable the establishment of a council to seek ways and means of finding a formula of bringing Blacks into this decision-making process. Anybody with a realistic approach to the future political requirements of this country, cannot get away from the fact that this is yet a further vital step in the right direction of constitutional reform. If I were to criticise the legislation before us, it would be in the context that the Government has taken so long to bring it before this House. In the meantime we are faced with a situation where internal pressures have built up and this will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the functioning of the council initially.

I was pleased to note from the hon the Minister’s speech yesterday that the council will have an open agenda. I think this bodes well for the future. It is essential if the council itself is to have relevance and credibility in the eyes of the public that this be the case. However, at the same time I must emphasise that recognition of the need to protect minority group rights must remain an enshrined principle. For this reason I can only express the hope that the Government fully appreciates the significance of this legislation and the implications that it carries with it.

In the first instance, the Government will have to prove that it is genuine and sincere in its attempts to find a solution to the inclusion of Blacks in the decision-making process of government.

Thereafter it must ensure that it does not turn its back on assurances that may be made in the course of deliberation. In this exercise the Government’s credibility will be tested as never before, and it will be this factor that will ultimately determine the success or failure of the council.

We must also not lose sight of the fact that the Bill before us brings the country to the political crossroads. This is an inevitable yet natural sequence of events when taking into consideration the great development that has taken place in this country since the Second World War.

No South African need fear the future, provided he has the courage and conviction to meet the political challenges that lie ahead. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives, who I thought made an extremely good speech yesterday, laid stress on the enormous amount of goodwill that exists among the various race groups. I agree and I am satisfied that as long as this resource is sustained the door will remain wide open in the search for a solution to the political problems of this country. What we must ensure, however, is that when the door opens it must not be allowed to close until the process of negotiation has been completed. One hopes that responsible leaders will react to the message that the Government is conveying and that they will be encouraged as far as possible to participate in this new venture.

I wish the Government well in the initiative it has taken, and I cannot emphasise sufficiently that it has an enormous task on its hands which will require patience, tact and the understanding of all participants. It is on that basis that I have great pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Chairman, what a privilege it is this afternoon to take part in this historic joint debate! What a great experience it is to feel the warmth of true South African patriotism emanatin g from all three Houses of this Parliament!

On the occasion of the opening of Parliament on 19 May 1987, the hon the State President declared: “In any land constitutional change is a serious matter. In the light of the demands and challenges which the realities of South Africa pose, this is even more so in the case of South Africa. Such change must be effected in a constitutional manner”. The Bill before us creates, in a constitutional manner, a new vision of hope for all the people in South Africa. The people of this land, I would venture to say, are tired of naked racialism, the sort preached and practised by the CP. I have the feeling that we in this joint meeting are tired of hatred, of mistrust and of violence. The overwhelming feeling of all South Africans is a desire for a secure future, for fairness and justice, for peace, for a country which allows for all its citizens to have a say in its decision making process, a say in a new constitutional framework labelled, “made in South Africa”, made by South Africans, Black, White and Brown, made to suit the heterogenous society that lives in this southern part of Africa.

What the world must realise is that we in South Africa are Africans, even if we are not Black. Africa is our home. We have no other. Africa is our continent, and the solutions to our challenges must be forged in Africa, not in the capitals of the Western World or in the halls of the Kremlin.

This Bill seeks to begin the process of correcting a constitutional and political deficiency, an injustice, created at the time of Union when the British Parliament passed the South Africa Act.

Section 44 of that Act provided that a member of the House of Assembly qualified only if he was “of European descent”. Hon members should read the Hansard of the events in the House of Commons from 16 to 19 August 1909 and what the Undersecretary of State for the colonies, Col Seely had to say.

While the Cape had a qualified franchise for Blacks, the House of Commons assented without objection to the exclusion of Blacks from the South African Parliament and did so in a highly paternalistic and patronising fashion. For 78 years South African Blacks have had no direct representation in the decisionmaking process of this country—and that continued under various governments. What South Africa must realise, and what the world must realise, is that Black participation is now made possible by this legislation.

The hon the State President and the Government are firmly committed on this course. We have a steady resolve in the interests of South Africa to bring about a new dispensation in a new constitution which will accommodate and be acceptable to all South Africans—Black, White and Brown.

This Bill is a small mustard seed which we believe will grow into a mighty tree, providing constitutional shelter for all. The seed has been planted by negotiation—by consensus in the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It must be cultivated and nurtured as something of great value. It must germinate with full participation by those who must pioneer the road ahead.

The proposed council will not only be a bridge over the existing stream of mistrust, frustration and lack of understanding among our peoples but will also be the golden key, the catalyst which can lead us to a completely new appreciation of our mutual South African citizenship. Reform involves every facet of life—the economic, the social, the constitutional and the political. Abraham Lincoln, that great reformer who abolished slavery, established his economic reforms in 1865. He said, and I quote a few extracts from his credo:

This Government does not wish to be, and will not be prescriptive. This Bill is not prescriptive. It is an open-ended instrument designed by the consensus of all three Houses to give South Africans of all races an opportunity to devise a new and acceptable constitutional home for us all. The Bill is an offer of reconciliation by the White and Brown communities to the Black communities of our country. We believe there is a moral duty on every South African moderate desiring peaceful change, no matter what his colour, to join hands in a joint effort. This is where I find the PFP attitude to this Bill totally incomprehensible. They have shown no statesmanship. They have missed the boat again. They missed it with the referendum. Now, when South African Blacks need their practical support, they have missed the boat again.

Finally, what is at stake? For each one of us in this Chamber and for our families and for the millions of South Africans outside, everything is at stake. For Black South Africans, outside the Constitution since 1910, this Bill is a tremendous opportunity filled with a vision of hope. It will need Black men of vision to rise to the challenge. The earnestness and seriousness of the NP’s intentions on this occasion must not be doubted. We bear the overwhelming mandate of the Whites of this country to bring about reform and we will not fail to honour that mandate.

At its core this Bill seeks the improvement of sound relations among all South Africans—respect for human dignity, rights and liberty for every citizen.

For those who oppose this Bill, I have a message. It comes from Sir Winston Churchill in May 1941 during the stormy period England was experiencing. He said, and I quote:

For those fellow Black South Africans we have another message, especially for the leaders of the national states: If you want a new South Africa, if you want peace and prosperity, if you want a voice and full participation in the process of government in South Africa, the door is open. Accept the risks, because we are also accepting the risks. Put aside your mistrust, for we are putting aside ours. Join us around the indaba table. Our beautiful land, South Africa, is worthy of nothing less.

Mr Chairman, at the very outset, I want to congratulate the hon member for Innesdal on what I believe was an excellent speech. In paying tribute to him, I want to accord to him the affectionate terms used in our townships, and we say to him: You are a brother and a true son of Africa! [Interjections.] At the same time we call upon other hon members of the NP, CP and PFP to take note of his attitude. Many of them would do well to follow his lead and example. We also echo his sentiments when he said that there was no shame in apologising for the wrongs and hurts of the past, for this truly is the stuff of which reconciliation is made. I say this, because the hon member’s statements and attitude are in striking contrast to those of one of his colleagues, namely the hon member for Umhlatuzana.

In a speech and in subsequent statements on NP thinking regarding the tricameral system, the proposed national council and South African politics in general, the hon member for Umhlatuzana displayed an attitude of arrogant “baasskap” and “kragdadigheid”, which is not conducive to the whole process of reconciliation and negotiation. We must also bear in mind that until these statements were made, there still remained a real possibility that the likes of Chief Minister Buthelezi would choose to serve on the proposed council. The hon member for Umhlatuzana’s speech and subsequent statements effectively put paid to any hopes we may have had in that regard. This begs the question whether this was done deliberately.

Oh, yes!

Senior hon members of the NP have not yet refuted the statements made by the hon member for Umhlatuzana, which means that until they do, this can only be regarded as condonation. We therefore want a clear reply from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in this regard before the end of this debate. [Interjections.]

In participating in this debate I am reminded of several things. When I listened to the hon leader of the PFP, I was reminded that it was that same PFP which in 1983-84 decided that I should not stand where I am standing today. [Interjections.] It was that same PFP which decided that I should not participate in the parliamentary process until that day of liberation and freedom had been achieved.

The message, or the signal, emanating from the PFP to us, was one of “You upstarts must wait your turn until we say you are wanted here”. Again, this is in stark contrast to the message sent out to Black South Africans by the Labour Party in this debate when my deputy leader said: “I say to my Black brothers out there: Come and walk the road with me.”

We are further reminded that it was young PFP supporters and/or members who came into our townships in 1984 and actively promoted the ‘don’t vote’ campaign. We remember so clearly on that other historic day when we first walked into these hallowed halls an incident which has remained indelibly in my mind. The hon member for Sea Point came down from the gallery with his hand outstretched and said to the hon member for Southern Cape: “Carter, welcome to the club.” The reply of the hon member for Southern Cape was significant. He asked: “Do you really mean that?” Shortly after that … [Interjections.]

Where has it got you? Are you allowed on the beaches now? [Interjections.]

I am allowed on the beaches, because I fought for that. Nobody said to me: “You wait until I decide you can go onto the beaches.” I fought for it.

Shortly after that historic occasion, we in the House of Representatives made an analysis of the situation and predicted the demise of the PFP. That prediction—and I say this with sadness— unfortunately is coming true. The hon member for Sea Point … [Interjections.] I speak like a Labourite. [Interjections.] I warned the hon member for Parktown that the day would arrive when he and I would debate across the table. That day has arrived and those hon members can no longer hide behind the seats of the House of Assembly. We stand here as equals.

Can you unseat the Government? [Interjections.]

The PFP tried for many years and they failed.

Order! These uncontrolled interruptions must now cease, unless an hon member wishes to have the dubious honour of being the first one called by name in this august Chamber. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Sea Point spoke of a national convention.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are you then ruling that interjections are not permitted … ?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Well then, on a point of clarification …

Order! The hon member must take his seat. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

The hon member for Sea Point spoke of a national convention as being the appropriate body for initiating a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa. We in the Labour Party of South Africa have also, for many years, propagated the concept of just such a national convention, an idea which was incidentally first mooted by one Clements Kadalie, a Black trade unionist. However, actively propagating a particular concept is not always enough. It could also be argued that the proposed council has elements of such a national convention and distinct possibilities in that regard.

While on the subject of a national convention, it is important to note—and I think someone else has also made this point—that the national convention of 1908 was firstly a misnomer in that it was not representative of the total South African community. In reality it was a convention of White South Africans.

I now wish to address the CP, because they, like the PFP, decided that I should not be standing where I am today. The CP has to face certain harsh realities which till now they have been able to avoid in the cocoon which is the House of Assembly.

We would like to know, for example, how they intend to move me, a born and bred Natalian, and the members of my family away from that province to their so-called homeland, wherever that may be. [Interjections.] If the members of that party truly believe that their plans and policies for the future South Africa will succeed, then I say to them that they are living in Lewis Carroll’s wonderland.

In dealing with the Bill itself, there are just two points I wish to make. The first is that the opportunity to give evidence to the joint committee was made available to all South Africans— political and business organisations as well as leaders. In order to remove the misconception that nobody came forward to give evidence, or in fact was interested in doing so, I wish to place on record the names of those who submitted evidence to that joint committee. The list reads as follows: Those who gave written evidence were: The South African Federated Chamber of Industries, Professor Nic Olivier, J D Versfeld, D Rose, C A Hyatt, Deacon J C Chokoe, J W Skosana of Ucasa, the organisation Ucasa itself, the City of Durban, Dr C R W Campbell, the Institute of Foreign and Comparative Law, S G Abrahams, the Centre for Intergroup Studies, the Department of Political Science of the University of Stellenbosch, Johan Oosthuizen, the South African Institute of Race Relations, Messrs P C and A Terblanche … [Time expired.]

Own Affairs:

1. Petition from J I van Aarde, in his capacity as Chairman of the Ritchie Irrigation Board, praying for a write-off of the balance of the Board’s irrigation loan and the arrear interest thereon—(Presented by Mr J A Jooste).

Bills:

General Affairs:

1. (1) Constitution Second Amendment Bill [B 100— 88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).
2. (2) Constitution Third Amendment Bill [B 101— 88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).
3. (3) Slums Bill [B 102—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Environment Affairs).
4. (4) South African Reserve Bank, Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Bill [B 103—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Finance).

Committee Report:

General Affairs:

1. Report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development on the Local Government Training Amendment Bill [B 91—88 (GA)], dated 22 June 1988, as follows:

The Joint Committee on Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Local Government Training Amendment Bill [B 91—88 (GA)], referred to it, begs to report the Bill without amendment.