Mr Speaker, I believe it is often said that history is only remembered as a series of dates and events. Yet I, together with other hon members, have experienced something of importance during the past two days, namely that as ordained by our Creator, history can also be made by people.

I submit that during the past two days this Parliament has experienced some of its finest moments.

Hear, hear!

Parliament—those who are acquainted with it will agree with me—is like the waves of the sea; one moment calm and peaceful and the next stormy. The past two days have done this Parliament credit. They proved that we have the inherent ability to rise above the level of petty interests to the level of our country’s interests.

I want to say at once that the Bill before us does not introduce a constitutional model. As a matter of fact, it would be wrong to assess it in this way. However, let me add at once that constitutional models as such are merely the theoretical reflection of what is in the hearts of the people. Nor can it be otherwise. The Bill does not deal with those models. However, the Bill seeks to create mechanisms which must make it possible for people to share what is in their hearts with other people, and to ascertain whether there can be a convergence of ideas which would make it possible for us to draft a constitution in this country which would meet the needs of society and of the times. For that reason I want to thank hon members for this. There is nothing in the Bill which can in any way support the charge of Black domination. Such an argument is inappropriate to this debate.

I want to emphasise one thing today. Change and adjustment are the only constant factors in our lives. No one can alter their course or put a stop to these processes. However, we must understand that the reform which we want in the country does not signify the destruction of everything which preceded it.

Essentially, reform means the adjustment of existing patterns, and for that reason, when we make changes and adjustments to the constitutional sphere from time to time, the fact that this change has been made does not imply that everything which was done in the past was wrong. It does, in fact, imply that we are able to do in our time what the times ask and require of us.

I do not want to discuss the speeches of individual hon members, but I do want to refer to certain specific aspects which were mentioned, and I should like to talk first about one highly emotional aspect.

The Government is frequently accused of selling the rights of the Whites down the river. [Interjections.] The Government is also frequently accused of destroying the rights of the Afrikaner, but I submit that the day the Afrikaner becomes an obstacle in the path to the rights of others, he will have forfeited his right to exist. [Interjections.]

In this specific regard I want to give hon members my own credo. I do not apologise for being an Afrikaner. No one can allege that I have ever denied, concealed or tried to escape from my status as an Afrikaner. [Interjections.] No one can accuse me of not being involved in the struggle for survival of my own people, but I submit that the safety of my own people’s rights depends on our ability to maintain the rights of others. [Interjections.]

No individual, no community and no people need feel guilty or be found guilty when it deliberately and purposefully endeavours to ensure its future livelihood, but the fact remains that in this country our rights are dependent on one another. In this country I am entitled to rights, but I am not entitled to these rights at the expense of other people. [Interjections.] In the final analysis, and as an objective for the country, one person does not have more rights than another.

However, I submit that it makes a difference how we give expression to our struggle for survival, and I submit that in this struggle the Afrikaner has always disciplined himself with the concept of fairness.

I submit that in his choice for survival the Afrikaner has always elected to survive in accordance with certain values and norms. This choice does not make of the Afrikaner an unpleasant, pettyminded, selfish, prejudiced person or community, as people seek to allege or as others depict them. Afrikanerhood is not a weak, exclusive thing which one must cosset in isolation. Afrikanerhood does not seek its own identity in immature and inferior terms. I submit that the Afrikaner has come of age, and that he has gained self-confidence. He has found his identity, and is not mean-spirited about it. The Afrikaner is growing and developing, and so is the country. That is why I say that the greatest moments in politics—and in the history of the Afrikaner and his political party—were when he was true to himself, put South Africa first and made his interests, like others, subordinate to the interests of South Africa.

The adage or slogan, “I have what I have given” must apply to our lives each and every day. It is only that ability which will enable us to save our country from the forces of violence which are seeking to destroy it. As the political vehicle— possibly of the Afrikaner in particular—the NP has incorporated this approach in its programme of principles from the outset. I should like to quote what is stated in the constitution of the party:

For that reason, as far as I am concerned, we are dealing with an Afrikaner people which is not merely seeking physical survival, but is also seeking to survive with a sense of justice, in so far as man can succeed in doing this. That is why this political party is not only striving to safeguard its own rights, but is also championing and striving for the realisation of the rights of other communities, taking into account the levels of development of our country and its communities. The challenge facing us in this country is not to detach ourselves and live in isolation. It is not to withdraw ourselves from the reality of this country, but to live responsibly with all the other communities.

Sir, today I want to submit that the real challenge facing us is to co-operate with people of different colours, opinions and languages and to strive for a better South Africa, without sacrificing our own language, culture or religion, without feeling superior in regard to what is different and without feeling inferior in regard to what we have in common. If we can meet this challenge in our country, we shall take this country to new heights.

Of course, hon members are right when they say that the Constitution cannot be amended without the support of the majority of Afrikaners. This makes their responsibility greater and not smaller, because if they have that power they must use it in accordance with their endeavour to put our country’s interests first.

However, it is also true that the majority of Afrikaners also decided in 1983, along with their fellow-countrymen, to give other communities the right to take a decision on the amendment of the country’s Constitution. That is why there are entrenched provisions in that Constitution which require our combined support it if it is to succeed. This is the Afrikaans-speaking community which I am proud of and to which I am glad to belong.

A second aspect I want to deal with is the question of nationhood and the totally unfounded allegation which is being bandied about that the Government is suddenly creating a new nation. One does not need to be an expert to know that there has never been a South Africa in which only Whites have lived. One does not need to be a prophet to look into the future and say that there will not be a future South Africa in which only Whites and Afrikaners live, unless we have the total eradication of the majority of our population in mind or, on the other hand, if we as a White community want to isolate ourselves on an island and create a State there.

I do not know what the envisaged Volkstaat in our country is, what piece of land they want to call a fatherland, what they want to do with it and what they are going to call it. One thing is certain; it may be Suiderland, but it cannot be South Africa. [Interjections.] It cannot be South Africa as it is, as we have come to love it and as we wish to serve it.

According to any constitutional definition all citizens residing permanently in a State form part of that State and are citizens of that State. For that reason we are all citizens of the country. This also applies to South Africa. That is why the Government is not creating new nations in the process of seeking a satisfactory solution for the population of our country and wrestling with the problem of constitutional models which must ensure the participation of all communities.

Admittedly a new nation comes into existence when specific parts of the country break away and form independent States, as the TBVC countries did. However, the point is that the citizens of South Africa remain part of that nation unless and until a specific part has become a new State.

The new constitutional dispensations we are working on do not, as an absolute model, bring new nations into being. Owing to the composition of the population of the South African nation we are still seeking constitutional solutions in terms of which all the sectors of the population or the nation can be accommodated.

There is a third very significant aspect of the debate to which I should like to refer, namely how extreme standpoints always converge when people stand in a circle.

There was something which struck me in the debate. If it had depended on the liberal opposition in the House of Assembly, hon members of the other Houses would not have been here. If it had depended on the standpoint of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, they would not have been here either. This discussion, and the spirit in which it has taken place, would not have been possible either. This would have meant that we would have stagnated politically, with all the consequences which this would have had.

There was another striking characteristic in the debate to which I should like to refer. It concerns the choice between participation and non-participation, between participation and confrontation. Hon members have heard the evidence of people who turned from the road of confrontation to the road of participation.

I heard the remark by the hon member for Toekomsrus who said that at one stage he was the guest of the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and I also heard him say that at that stage he never thought that he would ever find himself in Parliament one day. Here he is, by his own admission, because of a deliberate choice to negotiate and participate. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives can, without exception, attest to the fact that they have meant more to their communities by participating instead of seeking confrontation. Not only their communities were on the winning side; South Africa was too!

I ask a question of the people at large. What point is there in people wasting their talents in prison owing to their choice in favour of violence and acts of terrorism, while their communities need their intellect and leadership?

Hon members spoke about the participation of other leaders. They spoke about their credibility or lack of credibility. It was alleged that prominent leaders would not serve on the proposed council. This is true, but then they must also realise that they are not going to share in the creation of a new future.

It is also true that the objections of some leaders who do not want to serve on this forum, or a similar one, do not concern the content or substance of the Bill we are discussing. Hon members who served on the joint committee know that the representations which my department received were conveyed to them and that those representations and the evidence they themselves heard contained little criticism of the substance and content of this piece of legislation. There were other reasons why these leaders did not want to serve on the council.

The objections which were raised concerned the position of the State President, the question of the election of members from the Black community, an increase in their numbers and restrictions on people sentenced by competent courts. The committee then recommended that certain adjustments be made, and this was acceded to.

Other reasons are advanced for their non-participation. There are leaders who are demanding that we unconditionally release certain prisoners sentenced by competent courts. They are demanding that we unban specific violent organisations and that we summarily lift the state of emergency.

I want to say today that we, as the Government, do not want to become a part of the violent option for South Africa. We want to persuade and compel those people to become part of the peace option for South Africa. [Interjections.] If the price of participation by certain leaders is that we must become a part of a violent option for our fatherland, let me say that the answer is no, the price is too high.

It is has been a pleasure to listen to the debate thus far. With one or two exceptions I sensed the elation of people in this Parliament who feel they are involved in creative work. It was a wonderful experience. The joint debate reflected the involvement of Parliament as a unified entity, in the planning of the future of our country too, without detracting from the importance and the important responsibility of the three Houses of Parliament as decision-makers.

†Last night when I was thinking about this debate and while I was preparing for this afternoon’s debate I was reminded of the words of a poem which I should like to recite to hon members:

*If Parliament passes this legislation, we shall have built a bridge to the future. Then it is the responsibility of all leaders, in this Chamber and outside, people who so loudly proclaim themselves to be in favour of reform and negotiation and who want to support democracy, to suit their actions to their words and cross that bridge.

The debate, as I interpret it, has a message for the entire country. Let us join hands. I detect a desire to do so in most hon members. Let us decide today that we want to win. I perceive such a spirit. Let us start today, if we have not yet done so, to work with dedication. I can sense a willingness among people to do this.

The road to victory lies before us. I can see confidence in it developing here too. Let us work and win. I believe we can. Let us try. Let us do it together.

Mr Speaker, I think I can agree with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who has just spoken when he says that the debate over the past two days has by and large taken place on a good level. I think we are conscious of that fact. I think too one can agree with the hon the Minister when he says that most people realise that the one constant factor in our lives is the need for change and adaptation, particularly in this country, South Africa.

We are all conscious of the need for change and reform, particularly in the field of constitutional development in South Africa. The hon the Minister raised the question of participation versus confrontation. Certainly no thinking South African who is looking for peaceful change in South Africa will deny that it is necessary for the various peoples of this country to be involved together in negotiating their joint future. As far as the PFP is concerned, we and our predecessors, the Progressive Party, have long since pleaded for open and free negotiation in order to devise a constitution for this country which could be the product of the thinking of all the people, and which could therefore depend for its legitimacy on the loyalty of all. That must be a prerequisite. In all our attempts over 30 years to formulate and propose constitutional models, we have always been at pains to stress that no single political entity or interest group, and certainly no single race group, can produce a constitution which is viable and durable for this country.

To be viable and durable, we know that a constitution must be the product of joint deliberation and negotiation involving all those interest groups that are going to be affected by it. This is the patent and overriding defect and fault of the existing Constitution of 1983. The PFP has been consistent in its insistence on a negotiated constitution throughout. In our various in-depth attempts to give insight into constitution making, we have always pleaded for a national convention—a fully representative forum—as a prerequisite for any constitutional change. It must therefore be seen that we are deeply committed to the principle of meaningful negotiation in order to give South Africa the constitutional dispensation which it so desperately needs.

In these circumstances one would have wished that we could share with others the joy which they have expressed in connection with the measure before this assembly as an instrument of negotiation and reconciliation. However, we are unable to do that for reasons which have already been adequately and eloquently expressed by the hon Leader of the PFP, as well as the hon member Prof N J J Olivier. We believe that the defects in this measure are such as to negate the effectiveness of the proposed machinery itself and perhaps hamper future attempts at realistic negotiation. I say this more in sorrow than in anger. It would have been nice to stand on this podium today and be as lyrical as some speakers have been in their praise, both for this occasion and for the measure which is before us, but it would not have been realistic.

The reaction already from those outside this Chamber to this machinery and to the process set up by this measure, does not augur well for its future success. [Interjections.] Some speakers in their support of the measure have proclaimed that it is not prescriptive, and there has been much reference to the fact that it provides for an open agenda. While the agenda may ostensibly be open and non-prescriptive, the composition of the proposed council itself suggests prescriptiveness, because it provides for representation only to come through the existing machinery associated with the present Constitution and the tricameral Parliament. Clause 4 of the Bill before us makes it quite clear that the majority groups within the existing system will provide the representation on the council—no others.

In the Black townships and the urban areas, it will be the electoral colleges—not the people—which will make up the representatives of the urban council who will elect representatives.[Interjections.]

It will be those who are in or even partially in the system dealing with those who are in or partially in the system. That is simply not good enough.

There have been references in this debate to the common acceptance by people around the country—I want to quote the hon member for Mossel Bay who spoke yesterday and said: “Even those who are not here”—of the need for change and reform, and the belief that it must be evolutionary change and not revolutionary change.

However, I want to ask what alternative we are providing for those who are committed to seeking evolutionary change but who are excluded from the system or who reject the present tricameral system. What alternative are we providing? The hon the Minister who has just spoken, spoke about the “geweld-opsie”, the violence option in South Africa. What alternative are we providing for those who do not want the violence option? Surely it is these very people who are presently excluded from the system whom we should be seeking to lock into machinery for peaceful negotiation, rather than deliberately excluding them as we are doing in this measure.

Our fear for the proposed council is that it will end up with like-minded people talking to likeminded people—people who are themselves part of the existing system, which is largely discredited, talking to others who are part of it. In fact, the majority of the population who rejected the system, and whose rejection of and aloofness from the system pose the basis of the threat of the very revolution which we seek to avoid, are specifically excluded. So it will come about that the users and lovers of the system will be talking to their counterparts, the users and lovers of the system; no one else. [Interjections.] In that sense the process being set up here is one which will be politically incestuous and unproductive. I wish it could be otherwise.

I have talked of those who have been lyrical in their praise of this measure and eulogistic in their description of what is contained in this Bill. However, I want in the name of realism to warn against raising expectations once again in this country without being able to deliver the goods.

Let us look at the declared objects and the long title of the Bill. We find words like these, and I quote:

Nice sounding words! Then we are told that one of the objects of the Bill is to—

Let us look at these fine aims and sentiments in the light of the real situation in South Africa at the present time. There is still apartheid in South Africa; the Group Areas Act is still operating in South Africa; there is still the Population Registration Act in South Africa. [Interjections.] I hear interjections at the mention of the Group Areas Act to the effect that that is history. It is topical history; it is present history. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Berea kindly take his seat for a few moments? I want to point out to hon members that the hon member at the podium has the privilege of Parliament, according to the Constitution, to say exactly what he wants to say without undue interruption. I notice that some hon members are very brave; they are sitting very far away from the podium and are making continual interjections to the detriment of the privilege of the speaker. I want to ask hon members’ co-operation not to continue along those lines, because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It can also happen to them when they are at the podium. I request hon members to maintain the dignity of Parliament and to grant every hon member who speaks on behalf of his constituency and his party the opportunity to do so freely in terms of the Joint Rules of Parliament. The hon member may continue.

Thank, you Mr Chairman. One recognises that there are grounds for robust debate on a subject of this kind.

I was saying that when one looks at the background of South Africa at the present time, one sees that most of the elements of apartheid are still in existence, such as the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the tricameral system itself which is racially based.

There is the banning of organisations such as we have seen this year, only a few months ago. There is the state of emergency which has recently been reimposed. There is detention without trial in South Africa. There are political leaders being held in detention, people who should be at the negotiating table. There are curbs on the free Press in South Africa. There is a total obsession with compulsory race groupings in every sphere in this country. This is the background and the climate against which we are going to involve ourselves in negotiating a new constitution for this country.

I listened yesterday to hon members of the Labour Party. They made interesting contributions. Some have been emotional, and I understand that fully. Some have been critical of my party, but I want to say to those …

That you do not understand.

Yes, I understand that, too.

Of course I understand that. We have to understand each other. I want to say to those people: Let us keep our eye on the ball. They and I, like so many hundreds of thousands of decent South Africans, ought to realise that the main enemy of this country is the awful policy of apartheid and race discrimination and all that it has done to South Africa. It would be far better—and I say this in all humility—if those people who are critical of me and my party directed their political energy to attacking the perpetrators of the apartheid policy, rather than criticising those who have joined so many others over decades in opposing it.

I listened to the hon the Deputy Minister yesterday afternoon. He had a couple of misconceptions which I must rectify. In the first place, my party has never sought to prescribe to others that they should not participate in the tricameral system. [Interjections.] That is not so.

You have.

In the second place, we welcome the fact that he and people like him are participating in debate with us. We would hope that all people of South Africa could participate in debate with us. We would hope that we could meet daily in Parliament, not as Afrikaners, not as members of this or that group, but as South Africans representing one common South Africa. This is what we pleaded for.

I was amazed yesterday to hear members of the Government party talking about the need for negotiation, and particularly, let me say, members of the NP in the Province of Natal, telling us how concerned they are about the situation in that province and the need for a negotiated settlement. We were told yesterday by the hon member for Umhlanga that it has never been more necessary that there be recognition of the interdependence of people in the Province of Natal.

I must say that one wonders sometimes if words have any meaning in this assembly. In Natal we have only in recent years had very meaningful and real negotiation taking place to which my party, together with members of the Labour Party, the National Peoples Party, Solidarity, the NRP and a wide range of other interest groups were party. The recommendations of that assembly which took place over a period of eight months, the Natal Indaba, were summarily rejected by the NP simply because they did not conform with NP policies. Members who participate know that to be the case. That is prescriptiveness of the worst kind if the word prescriptive has any meaning at all. The NP will not accept any solution which they themselves have not prescribed and which does not conform to the policy of that party.

That is another reason why we have doubts about the effectiveness of this machinery being set up at the present time. Because of the very nature of the mandate it is given and the composition of the council, it appears once again to be something which will simply have to conform with the racially prescriptive ideology of the NP. I believe, and we have indicated, that although our preference would be for a much broader assembly such as a national convention, we would accept a statutory body of this kind, provided it was concerned with constitution-making only and did not pretend to be anything else, and provided it could be fully representative of all sections of the South African community, not only those who work within the system. We believe that that sort of statutory body might have a positive part to play in at least the initial stages of constitutionmaking.

I believe that if the council which we are talking about at present in this legislation is to have any chance of success, certainly the amendments which have been placed on the Order Paper by the PFP ought to be accepted. If they are, it is possible the council may still make a meaningful contribution. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the measure before the House is the beginning of a new chapter in the constitutional history of South Africa. It is my privilege to be able to participate in this historical occasion together with other hon members of the House. May I at the outset remind hon members that the success or failure of the constitutional process does not depend exclusively on what occurs around the conference table? Decisions which may influence the success or failure of the constitutional process, can also be made in other walks of life.

Decisions that are made in the sphere of religion have a direct relevance to the success or failure of the constitutional process. Messrs Tutu and Boesak have a specific responsibility in this regard. Events in the sphere of labour and education and events in the sphere of security each have a direct relevance to the success or failure of the negotiation process. We have arrived at an era in South African political history in which each individual and every political party in this House will have to exercise specific options. I want to tell nonparticipants that ultimately no one will be able to remain neutral in regard to the Constitution of the RSA.

May I say to the participants that before we set foot on the difficult path to constitutional reform in South Africa, we should jointly make the most important decision which can ever be made around a conference table. That decision is that everyone who participates in the process, should choose the option of peace and reject the revolutionary option. If Whites and Blacks choose the option of peace, we should tell one another that peace has a price, but that peace also has a limit. The White man’s limit is when self-respect and civilised norms are jeopardised. The Black man’s limit is when domination and discrimination threaten to continue unabated. If we are willing to pay the price of peace and to move within the limits of peace, these negotiation processes cannot fail to be crowned with success.

The NP has chosen the option of peace. We have said that apartheid belongs to the past. Today, with this measure before the House, the process of new choices for a generation of new South Africans has begun. In the long title of this legislation the measure has been described as the participation of all South Africans in the planning and preparation of a new constitutional dispensation.

That is true, but it is also symbolic. It is the beginning of a process in which a new generation of South Africans can jointly decide under what circumstances they want to experience the following 40 years. The NP has decided that apartheid belongs to the past. What remains today is statutory discrimination based on colour, and this measure before the House is an invitation to everyone who wants to participate to come and negotiate on the elimination of statutory discrimination based on colour.

History will write the final chapter on the era of apartheid. South Africa has grown during the era of apartheid. Standards of living have improved, but there is one ideal that has eluded the Black man during this era, and that is the ideal of political participation in the decision-making process. The measure before the House invites all Black South Africans to participate and to negotiate about the political processes and rights in South Africa.

During the past decade the colour barrier in the maintenance of specific values and norms has faded, and in some instances has disappeared. During the era of apartheid distinctions were drawn on the basis of colour. Regardless of whether one was wealthy or poor, and whether one was uneducated or educated, colour was the dominant factor. Today these value systems are being shared by Whites and other population groups.

The measure before the House presents an opportunity across the colour barrier to all who share specific common values, to jointly plan a constitution which will retain the values that are included in the Preamble to our Constitution.

The Bill before the House presents all leaders with the option of either participating or not participating. I am convinced of the fact that not all the leaders in South Africa who seek peace will become a party to the process. Other leaders will appear on the scene and more processes will be set in motion whereby these leaders can become part of the great peace process.

If a Black leader were to ask me whether it would be worthwhile to participate in the process and were to ask me in which way these proposals differ from the proposals of the past, I should tell him that it is worthwhile to participate and that the difference between these and the proposals of 20 and 30 years ago is of cardinal importance. Twenty or 30 years ago we said that colour had to be protected, whereas today we want to protect common values that are shared by all. Thirty or 40 years ago we wanted to build a society around differences, whereas today we want to acknowledge the differences, but want to build a society on those things on which we agree and the common things we share.

I shall tell the Black leaders to participate. They must remember that 20 or 30 years ago we tried to develop a constitutional dispensation that was based on the idea of calling into being a diversity of South African citizenships, whereas today we are trying to develop a constitutional dispensation which will call into existence a single, common fatherland based on common South African citizenship. In the past we said that groups and group rights should be established statutorily, whereas today we are moving in the direction of acknowledging the fact that if a group is able to maintain itself under its own steam and inner convictions, it is unnecessary to have it placed on the Statute Book. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the seating in this Chamber, except for the PFP benches, is racially segregated. The White Official Opposition—from which the NP differs only in degree—sits on the Government side!

The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development, Mr Llewellyn Landers, may recall that the Labour Party boycotted the first President’s Council and vilified those who looked upon it as a tentative move for reform. It actually expelled its chairman. The PFP is non-racial while the Nationalist Party excludes the hon the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman, no government has political legitimacy unless it also has the consent of at least a majority of the governed. No matter what its military resources, the White oligarchy which rules South Africa today has only a limited time before it. The oppression of the majority by the minority, by suppression and by repression, and by the deprivation and the legalised robbery perpetrated under the Group Areas Act cannot for long be sustained by force of arms. Yet the Afrikaners are aware that in 1948, by using the vote, they pulled off a peaceful and legal coup. No wonder they fear that true democracy in South Africa will result in real justice being applied. They obviously realise that if they give up their gerrymandering of democracy, White domination will come to an end.

The vast majority of the people of South Africa have not been given a proper chance, through actual membership of political organs, to express themselves on this Bill. Consultation alone is not enough because many Black South Africans regard mere consultation as something akin to insultation. Black leaders like Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Mr Enos Mabuza, Prof Hudson Ntsanwisi and others have expressed grave reservations regarding certain aspects of this Bill. Their reasonable requests remain unheeded.

The 2 million strong Inkatha commands the support of more than 6 million South Africans. History demonstrates that it is when the moderates lose hope that revolution begins. The Government alienates the Black moderates at grave peril to the nation. Having previously pushed the moderate leaders of the ANC into the willing arms of the SACP, the Government now risks the future of all our people by not paying due heed to leaders such as Mangosuthu Buthelezi.

Success in the co-optation of some Brown South Africans does not justify the risk. In any case, what nonsense to imply that some of us are nationals of another country! Indians, in political terms, are in India. We are South Africans, and what arrogance to term millions of our fellow South Africans, fellow human beings, as “Coloureds”! They may well be the truest South Africans, for they represent every ethnic group while culturally being Western.

Speak for yourself! [Interjections.]

The present tricameral Parliament is unrepresentative. The political log-jam must be broken but the instruments used, the devices fashioned to break the log-jam, must be reasonably acceptable. The concept that led to the Bill is sound, but the mechanism falls short of that which is desirable.

The Constitution has already been seriously misinterpreted, apparently to give protection to an avid and loyal supporter of the NP.

But there are conventions, Sir. The late Dr Connie Mulder and the late Mr B J Vorster lost out very heavily because of certain statements they made in Parliament. Yet they did not seek any personal or party-political aggrandisement from what they did and what they said. One must hope that no person who has deliberately misled Parliament will be permitted to be a member of the proposed council.

When I talked about human beings an hon member said “Speak for yourself”. Indeed, Sir, I am a human being and so are all the people in South Africa for whom we plead that they ought to be given and must be given reasonable representation in the central organs of political power for there to be peace in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, a while ago the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives … [Interjections.] … reacted to a newspaperman’s suggestion … [Interjections.]

Order! I have no intention of permitting unnecessary interruptions while the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is speaking. I want to make my attitude perfectly clear to hon members at the outset. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

As I was saying, a while ago the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives reacted to a newspaperman’s suggestion that there would be revolution in this country if the CP gained a majority in the House of Assembly. His response was more or less: “No, why should there be such a revolution?” That was his view because the CP, according to him, in fact stood for nothing more that what the NP used to stand for. That response certainly deserves appreciation. In my opinion it is more intelligent than the kind of response we sometimes get from members of the NP itself.

He said that if the CP did not want to co-operate as far as the legislation under discussion was concerned, it should get out. In my opinion that was an unkind remark, and it was also based on a misconception. To regard as irrelevant or try to wish away the 609 000 White voters who favoured candidates on the right on 6 May last year is certainly no more justifiable than to regard the Coloured community, the LP or any other party in this Chamber as irrelevant. To tell the truth, the number of Whites who voted on the right was more than twice the total number of voters who participated in the election for the House of Representatives. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates said the day before yesterday that like the Afrikaners with their desire to preserve what they had built in this country, there were others whose activities, way of life and trial and tribulations and struggles in this country could be likened to those of the Afrikaners. That single sentence shows us a lot of understanding of the realities of this country. Bearing in mind also our way of life and our trials and tribulations and our struggles in this country—I am speaking now as an Afrikaner—it is easy to point out why this legislation is not acceptable to my party and to me personally.

*The CP regards the Bill under discussion as dangerous and disastrous. In our opinion it is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever to come before Parliament, and I intend to motivate this.

We maintain that it is a mirage which sets out to create the impression that it is easier to attain happiness, peace, reconciliation, unity, participation, communality and common humanity in a unitary state for distinct races and nations than it is to achieve good neighbourliness on the basis of separate freedoms. We maintain that there is no peace and reconciliation in a constitutional Tower of Babel. [Interjections.] The other day the hon Leader sitting on my left quoted here a biblical text from Jeremiah. I want to tell him that this is not, as described literally in that text, a biblical apportionment of people and nations and determination of their borders. In fact, it represents an undervaluation of and even a contempt for nations and an obliteration of borders. [Interjections.]

We can detect various peculiarities in this Bill. Clause 3 deals with the objects and functions of the council. These objects are not those of the council. The council does not exist yet. They are the directives of the Government, which must be conveyed via this Parliament to a council which has yet to be constituted. That council does not yet exist—whether it will exist remains to be seen—but this Bill already refers to its objects.

Secondly, one of the objects is to—

My comments are as follows. The new constitutional dispensation has still to be planned. The Government wants to constitute a council for that purpose. It envisages provision for Black participation in the processes of government of this country. However, precisely that principle, for which such a constitution will have to make provision, must be put into practice before the constitution has been drawn up and accepted. It looks to me like a trial marriage before a possible shotgun wedding!

The third peculiarity is the composition of the council, and I want to draw hon members’ attention to this briefly. This council will apparently consist of 59 members, of whom 30 will definitely be Black, two Coloured, two Indian and 12 probably White. The remaining 13 will be designated according to other procedures and may be either White or non-White. The possibility exists that the council may eventually include 43 nonWhites as opposed to 16 Whites.

The council might not be constituted like that, but the fact remains that the representation of Coloureds and Indians will be minimal. They can speak for themselves, but there is clearly a preponderance of Blacks in the composition of the council. Even if the members nominated by the State President are all Whites, Blacks will still predominate. [Interjections.]

In essence, the Bill’s effect will be to make Black people co-rulers over Whites, Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] I have a few comments in this regard. When we discuss the realities of South Africa, there is much upon which we can agree. Economic interdependence is a fact. Large reserves of understanding and goodwill among the different national groups are a fact. The authentic political aspirations of Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites are facts. Christian norms are facts. Mutual assistance is a fact. The existence of political parties is a fact. The standpoint of the CP in South Africa is a fact.

However, ethnic, national and racial differences, linguistic and cultural diversity, different nationalisms, the conflicting claims and aspirations of a plural set-up, the negative effect of forcing together heterogeneous elements and the restrictions to which peoples and communities are subject are also all facts and part of reality.

It would be thoroughly naive to refer to South Africa as a “nonracial society”. There are peoples here which have established themselves over centuries, which have developed a national consciousness and national character unique to them and which take pride in an identity which is their own and want to protect it, even with legislation when necessary.

I do not claim to speak on behalf of any other community, nor do I claim to speak on behalf of all Afrikaans speakers, but I think I am entitled to speak on behalf of a very large and increasing percentage of Afrikaners.

When I say there must be justice for all, the question remains, in the light of the practical implications and practical situation, whether and we will in fact ultimately enjoy justice under the proposed dispensation as it is to be constituted, bearing in mind the numbers factor.

We are not prepared to disappear or be dominated under multiracialism, and this assembly provides no guarantee against domination.

I know of no political party which advocates the domination of one group over another. The CP rejects domination. The CP also says that if White domination over any non-White institutions or persons is unacceptable, Black domination or majority government over Whites is also unacceptable. [Interjections.]

Any suggestion that the CP begrudges the Black, Coloured or Asian everything is malicious and mischievous—we invite them to get to know us— but we are opposed to the superficiality and naivety of people who talk about a so-called “nonracialism” as if a whole nation can simply be rendered politically irrelevant.

We are also against the pretence of power-sharing, which promises and pretends to share political power, but in the final instance reserves the right to continue making the decisions and retain control.

We say that if one is serious about power-sharing, one will no longer be in control of the instruments with which one has to protect one’s freedom. We say that if in reality one wants to retain control and safeguard one’s own people against domination, and one retains the political power to do so, then one’s idle chatter about power-sharing is misleading and that about consensus naive.

It is a commonplace to say that the present tricameral system would be unacceptable in a unitary state. It is unacceptable to the Black people because they can see no reason why Indians, Coloureds and Whites should govern in a unitary state in which the overwhelming majority of people are Black—an attitude which this party understands fully.

It is unacceptable to the CP and an increasing number of Whites because a unitary state with a multiracial government is unacceptable to our people.

It is unacceptable to us, because we grasp the practical, logical implication of such a unitary state containing about 20 million Black people.

What is basically at issue is joint government by Blacks people over the whole of the RSA. It is really not acceptable that Black nations, who already have their exclusive territory and selfgovernment over it—we grant them that—should in addition become co-rulers over the rest of the RSA, as if they had equal claim to every square metre of land! [Interjections.]

Sir, whatever formula or model such a council produces—I do not think this is disputable in terms of logic—and if the point of departure is one undivided South Africa, with equal opportunities and equal treatment in such a unitary state, and if the vote of every individual has equal value …

That is a dream!

The hon member must not arouse himself from his slumbers now. [Interjections.]

… then there will be joint government over the whole of South Africa, and a voice in the processes of government can mean nothing less than joint decision-making, joint government and joint determination over land which historically was White land and to which the Whites are still entitled. [Interjections.] If we talk about the point at issue in politics, then this is it! [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to hon members again that leaders of parties and/or other senior members or members of the Cabinet must be treated with the necessary respect during their speeches, especially in a debate of this nature. Unnecessary comment by hon members will not be allowed.

Mr Speaker, I want to express my gratitude for the relative courtesy with which I have been treated.

If one’s approach is a unitary state with equal treatment in all respects, the participation implied in this Bill cannot merely mean consultation, the hearing of an opinion, the submission of arguments by those who are not part of the final decision, after which one still goes ahead and decides oneself!

It cannot mean the involvement of Blacks in the Government by means of co-option and the invitation of a few to participate at the pleasure of a White State President.

In such a unitary dispensation voting rights cannot be based on a dual criterion according to which a Black’s vote is worth a quarter of a White’s.

Even a confederation, if that is contemplated, is a unitary state, and one will not be able to escape the demand for one central government, an umbrella Parliament and the force of numbers. South Africa’s fate will be a Black majority government.

We say today that consensus government cannot be invoked as a magic formula to deal with a pluralistic conflict model. That is why we ask for an end to these fine-sounding recipes involving consensus government and the right of veto.

No numerical majority will allow itself to be vetoed into consensus by a minority. If consensus is not reached on a candidate for the Presidency or for the office of Speaker of Parliament—if there is no unanimity—voting takes place, and the majority determines the outcome. We issue this warning: do not think that 5 million Whites, 2,8 million Coloureds and 0,9 million Indians have a realistic chance of sharing power in a unitary state with 20 million Blacks, or that they will still be able to sing “Dat vrije volk zijn wij”.

We ask the Government to forget about tokenism. Forget about that tokenism which offers a few Black leaders a voice. We say that if the Government does not take proper cognizance of numbers in respect of representative bodies, they will not escape the weight of numbers. If proportional representation in decision-making is accepted in any way whatever, all three of these Houses will be minorities doomed to ultimate political impotence.

That is why the CP is warning the Government to steer clear of a path which will lead to Black majority rule. They should put this Bill aside and devote their attention in future to planning a dispensation of good neighbourliness on a basis of separate freedoms.

Mr Speaker, it is clear that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is a man who uses the Afrikaans language in a masterly way. Yet I find it a pity that my language is being misused, under the pretext of being criticism against the Government and an expression of Afrikaner nationalism, to make what is in fact selfishness, ethnic superiority, unfair demands and emotional politics of evasion sound better.

I too am an Afrikaner Nationalist. However, my Afrikaner nationalism is not of the selfish kind, which demands everything for itself and wants to give the other people in this country only the crumbs of what remains. My Afrikaner nationalism is not an ethnic superiority which regards it as humiliating to negotiate with or talk to people of colour. My nationalism does not make unfair demands on the country, nor does it pass off the justified claims of other people in this country as agitation. Compassion for the less privileged is to be found in my Afrikaner nationalism. I am prepared to assist those people by making financial sacrifices. I believe that in a plural community my nationalism can only survive and thrive if I do not begrudge other people what I demand for myself.

Today I want to tell hon members on this side of the House that the CP does not represent Afrikaner nationalism in this country. [Interjections.] They represent the shortsightedness and selfishness of a small group of people.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly again began to play the numbers game today. However, how does he get around the numbers game? He does so by wantin g to establish people who are South African citizens on patches of land on which they cannot live, and by taking away from them their legitimate claim to political rights in this country.

In the course of the debate—I do not think I am wide of the mark—I gained the impression that there is a good chance that all three Houses of Parliament will accept this legislation. It looks that way to me. If I am summing up the hon members of the House of Representatives correctly, it is going to be a unanimous decision. I want to congratulate them on that. I wish I could say the same about my House! When I look at the House of Delegates, it is going to be a virtually unanimous decision …

Except for the two lost sheep!

… excepting for the two hon members who have unfortunately come under the influence of the negativity of the PFP. One of these hon members served on the committee with us. At first he was full of enthusiasm about the National Council, but after he joined the PFP that was the end of it. [Interjections.]

The House of Assembly too is going to pass this piece of legislation with an overwhelming majority. In summary one could therefore say that the Parliament of the RSA is speaking loudly and clearly about our constitutional future, because it is a matter of extreme importance. The voice of Parliament cannot be ignored.

†What are we, in fact, saying with the adoption of this Bill? I believe that we are making a statement of clear intent to solve our own problems. We are saying to the outside world that we have the will to solve our own problems. We have the confidence in our own people and our own ability to solve our own problems. We have no confidence in the super powers of this world to come up with miraculous solutions to our problems, because their track record in trying to solve Africa’s problems is nothing to be proud of. We are in fact saying to the outside world: Leave us alone! Our solution will bear the label “Made in South Africa”.

*The second point on which Parliament has expressed itself very clearly is that reform has to take place through the process of negotiation. We reject violence. This Bill is not a display of arrogance by this House; on the contrary, negotiations on this have been taking place for a period of two years or more. Evidence was heard. Discussions were held. Invitations were extended to certain people. Everything humanly possible was done to create a structure for negotiation. Today we are discussing and debating the product of that. This product is by no means perfect, but it is an honest attempt by Parliament to create a structure for negotiations.

I think we have proved one thing, however, and that is that Parliament will retain the initiative in bringing about reform in this country. We as hon members of Parliament will retain that initiative. We can show that the different Houses can do this virtually unanimously. The forces that are planning to destroy our country should sit up and take note of our decisions, because the reasonable people in South Africa are winning.

Today, however, we are also talking to each other as parliamentarians. I am very sorry that we cannot accept this Bill unanimously. However, what underlies the resistance of the opposition parties? I can say in all fairness that I do not understand the opposition of the PFP to this Bill. I cannot comprehend it! Just like us they also believe in negotiation, but now they are objecting to this structure. The only reason why they are objecting to it, is because it is not being called a national convention. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Sea Point argues—and I quote him freely—that Blacks will not participate because they are afraid of being caught up in racial structures.

You are quoting me very freely!

I want to tell the hon member I think that that is an insult to the Blacks. This council is being introduced precisely so that people can come to it to put their standpoints. People who do not want to be governed in racial structures have the freedom to come to that council and to put their standpoints there. That is what the council is there for. [Interjections.]

The hon member asks us a question and demands a reply. He asks whether this council could recommend that this tricameral Parliament be abolished. The hon member has asked the question and I want to give him the reply. Of course they will be able to recommend it. The hon member should go and read the legislation.

The hon members of the PFP will not begrudge me asking them a question as well. If Parliament passes this Bill, and the PFP talks to Blacks and Black leaders, what are they going to advise them to do in connection with this council? [Interjections.] What are those hon members going to tell them? Are they going to advise them to participate in this council, or are they going to advise them not to? [Interjections.] Are they going to be positive about this council or are they going to play the old game of being negative to discourage people from coming to an agreement on South Africa? [Interjections.]

I do not want to say much about the NDM, because it is unnecessary. I am not saying this out of a feeling of superiority, but, because I know some of those hon members I find it very tragic to observe their incapacity. However, I want to refer—it cannot remain unanswered—to a remark made by the hon member for Randburg here in the House. He referred to Lord Milner and the “hendsoppers.” I want to tell the hon member—I am sorry that he is not here—that that is a petty, ill-considered remark which is unworthy of him. I take it amiss of him that he insinuates that people who will participate in this council should be regarded as “hendsoppers” and jingos. I think there are a number of people to whom he should apologise.

Whilst I do not understand the refusal of the PFP and the NDM to give their support to this, I do in fact understand why the CP refuses to support this Bill. I understand that. The point of departure is very simple. They have already thought up a plan for South Africa which is one of total partition. [Interjections.] This plan is non negotiable. They in any case do not negotiate with people of colour. As witness I want to call none other than the leader of the CP in the Cape. I quote from Die Volksblad of 20 March 1987. He was speaking in Jan Kempdorp. Listen carefully to what he said. He said that if the CP came into power and it wanted to carry out the mandate of the White Afrikaners “… en dit bots lynreg met die opdrag van die Kleurlinge, dan se die KP na die hel met konsensus”. [Interjections.] If, as the hon member for Ermelo said, the CP is also seeking a peaceful solution I want to tell him that they cannot say to hell with the rest of the people of South Africa. One cannot do that.

I do not believe that total partition could work. What is important, however, is that the moral basis of the hon member’s plan will be reinforced if they were prepared to negotiate their policy of partition. I know that my appeal to the CP to lay their plan before the proposed council will fall on deaf ears. I am aware of that.

I am nonetheless trying to understand this and I understand why they do not see their way clear to doing this, because what in effect will they have to say to those people round the negotiation table at that National Council? They will first of all have to tell the Coloureds that the location of their homeland has already been decided on— the Coloured group area and that the piece of land in the northern Cape where one merino sheep needs 20 morgen to walk around on. They would also have to tell the National Council that Coloureds may not obtain any industrial areas and that they cannot share in the mineral wealth or the economic progress of the country exceptin g as guest labourers. The same will have to be spelt out to the Indians around that negotiation table.

The CP will also have to tell the Blacks that they have already decided where their homelands are and that the Blacks would have to accept that and their independence, or else will have to remain under White control. Most of the land that will be given to the Blacks in terms of CP policy will be determined according to the quota of 1936. The approximately 1 million hectares of land that has been added on in the meantime will have to be given back to the White man.

The CP will also have to spell it out to these people that even if they were born here, they cannot be given South African citizenship because they are Black. [Interjections.] What I am saying here is the truth, because this is the way it is according to their policy. People who are of White descent and have been in the country for five years, however, may acquire White citizenship in their state.

Today I want to tell the CP that a one-sided, unnegotiated political dispensation has no chance at all of bringing peace to this country. People who feel that they have been cheated will never rest. People who feel that they have no say in determining their future will never be at peace. Today I want to lodge an appeal with everyone in South Africa for us to help each other and to try to find a solution by means of this National Council and that we do not render the council suspect.

Mr Speaker, mounting this podium seems just like mounting a pulpit. Some hon members also create the impression that one should preach only to the converted here and forget about the evangelisation which must take place outside.

I want to give the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the assurance that it is not my wish today to notch up points of a personal nature. I want to notch up points for my fatherland.

At the same time I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on bringing the LP round to an unprotesting approval of this measure. While sitting here listening to this debate, I have seen throughout how hon members of the NP relish the spectacle of hon members of the LP jeering people who also have a democratic right in this House. I want to thank the hon the Minister as well as the presiding officer for intervening and warning hon members not to act in that fashion.

I trust too that I will not be disparagingly written off as yet another person who has let a golden opportunity to make a positive contribution to reform slip through his fingers. It is precisely my intention to avail myself of this opportunity to make my contribution to reform.

Furthermore, let it not be said that I am not prepared to take political risks on behalf of the UDP. The evidence of the past and my participation speak for themselves. I have been involved in many reform structures and had to endure the abuse of people sitting here, as well as that of some outside this Parliament. However, that did not drive me into sackcloth and ashes.

In this regard I want to mention the Erika Theron Commission, the now defunct Cabinet Council, the Les du Preez Committee, the National Liaison Committee under the chairmanship of the present hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Co-ordinating Council and the Liaison Committee between the Transvaal Municipal Association and the Transvaal Association of Management Committees.

In this debate I am going to highlight the contact levels in this legislation. At the same time, I am going to raise points which are at issue; otherwise I would be failing in my duty towards South Africa.

The hon Leader of the House of Assembly says that those in this House who intend to make a stand against this measure are siding with the revolutionaries. I want to tell him that this really cannot be treated so simplistically. If there are other hon members who say that only those who are uninformed and want to be malicious …

And evil-minded!

… and want to be evil-minded will not support the measure, and those people must therefore be ignored, I say that we can no longer ignore any standpoint in this country. We will have to take it into account if we want to achieve a solution that is acceptable. When the hon member for King William’s Town said, for example: “By and large, true patriotism permeated from all three Houses,” he was saying by implication that those who did not want to agree would be acting unpatriotically. This simply cannot be true.

Participating in debate as we are during this historic session of Parliament, we want to state unequivocally that we are in perfect agreement with the hon State President on the issues raised in his speech of 20 June 1988. The UDP rejects violence; we reject economic sanctions; we reject foreign interference in the internal affairs of this country; we believe in law and order; we believe in a positive attitude; we believe in economic prosperity; we believe in negotiation. Let me emphasise that we believe in negotiation. We reject communism; however, we also reject any solution based on colour discrimination. I also want to say at the outset that the concept or principle of the establishment of the envisaged council as such a mechanism of negotiation is laudable. One cannot fault it at all. I would like to quote from an HSRC pamphlet:

However, one fact sticks out a mile. South Africa is at present a polarised society. For that reason, extra efforts must be made to create a favourable climate for such reform initiatives.

The hon member for Aliwal referred to this yesterday. He asked whether the climate was right. As long ago as 18 September 1987, we of the UDP, who at the time operated under the banner of the DP, issued a press statement expressing our doubts about the proposed legislation. I am thoroughly aware, and the hon the Minister has also made this clear here, that this legislation has been in the offing since as long ago as 1986.

That some positive action has to be taken is a fact. However, this must be done with the greatest caution and at the most appropriate moment. The clarion call from the community, in particular from the Black community, is that the Government must take certain steps to make participation more acceptable or to afford the participants legitimacy. This cry is heard from the people repeatedly, and we want to bring it to the Government’s attention again. Heeding it would not solve all the problems around the acceptability of the council at one fell swoop, but would do much to save us from being saddled with a stillborn baby. As long as the present situation prevails, negotiations will remain problematic, if not out of the question. The Government must take it upon itself to listen seriously to this clarion call from the people.

Hon members of the CP have already noted that banned organisations which renounce violence will have to be unbanned, but I want to deal with this too. Their members in exile must be allowed to return so that they can take part. The state of emergency must be lifted and offenders brought to book through the courts. Those imprisoned and those restricted under emergency regulations must have their restrictions lifted and be released. Similarly, prisoners convicted for political reasons must be released. It is going to be virtually impossible to proceed with the establishment of the council while the masses—and I am referring not to the revolutionary masses, but the masses of ordinary people—say repeatedly that their rightful and authentic leaders are sitting behind bars, while the Government is deliberatin g on their future with no-one but its lackeys. There must be freedom of movement, speech and association. The Government must undertake to repeal the Population Registration Act—in particular the part which applies to race classification—the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the land ownership legislation of 1913 and 1936.

In view of the current political polarisation and the prevailing deep-rooted suspicion, exhaustive discussions between Government representatives and Blacks—including extra-parliamentary groups—will be imperative if co-operation is to become at all possible.

Another dilemma confronting us is that this council must deliberate on a constitutional dispensation and advise the Government in that regard. I would like to know from the hon the Minister whether the President’s Council is not also in the process of looking at an alternative constitution. Why this duplication of investigations into a constitution? Or is it the intention that what the President’s Council produces will serve as a model for discussion by the proposed council which is to be established? We must have clarity on this.

There are so many currents and undercurrents in politics. On one hand, one has the AWB/CP volkstaat. I want to tell the AWB and the CP clearly this afternoon that I reject that idea outright. I do not believe in a Coloured homeland, even if it is called a Brown homeland.

The hon member for Ermelo conveyed to us the information that the hon members of the CP are not racists. I do not know what he means by that, because at virtually every public meeting of the CP they say with hands raised high that they will not be governed by the pandours, Moors and sons of Ham.

That is not true!

If those are not insinuations of racism, then I as a former teacher of Afrikaans really do not understand the meaning of racism.

You are mistaken!

That hon member can say I am mistaken, but I read and I listen to the tape recordings which they dish out so lavishly to the public.

Hon members of the CP in the joint committees do not even have the courtesy to shake their colleagues of other colours by the hand, but walk away when this has to be done. If that is not racism, somebody will simply have to help me by rewriting the dictionary so that I too can understand what racism means. They joke among themselves that after this council is established and produces its new constitutional proposals, a fourth chamber will be created in this Parliament. The other Chambers already have their names, but the new one for the Blacks will be known as the “Kaffirteria”. [Interjections.] If that is not racism, I do not know what is.

On the other hand we have another concept, the Stigting Afrikanervryheid’s idea of a sovereign volkstaat. On this subject of Afrikaner nationalism, why is there such disarray about the concepts among these Nationalist? There are also the NP’s concepts of own and general affairs, which are not immediately acceptable to us. Then we also find diverse standpoints in the Black community. Some are in favour of a nonracial democracy, others of a Black majority government. The following is also said:

This is the sort of situation which we must address in this country.

The evidence before us leads me to conclude, as far as Blacks are concerned and in particular with regard to the exclusion of the opposition groups within Parliament, that we have reason to be greatly concerned about the composition of the council in terms of this legislation unless, as far as the opposition groups are concerned, the eight whom the State President will appoint in terms of clause 4(f) will include members of the opposition. One cannot leap to the support of the measure if the opposition in Parliament is not to be represented as well. A further irony and yet another shortcoming is the fact that the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils, who after all are also the respective leaders of the majority groups in the three Houses of Parliament, will sit there and make recommendations and then come back to our Houses and also perform the role of arbiter in respect of the acceptance of those recommendations.

Furthermore there will be 15 Blacks—this excludes their alternate members—as opposed to 21 members of other groups. Moreover, in terms of clause 12 only certain Blacks can form part of the electoral college. Yet there are still people who stand on this podium and say the measure is not prescriptive! We are told that anyone can take part, but this is not reflected in the Bill. It states specifically that only Blacks who are involved in local authorities can participate.

Clause 12 determines exactly who can be included in an electoral college and who is entitled to vote. [Interjections.] If hon members have not read it, they will not understand what I am about to say. Those entitled voters consist of members of local government bodies.

We were told earlier today that anyone could seek election to these bodies which will form part of the electoral college. I want to submit that the members of the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba were more representative of that particular province and even of the whole country than the representation this measure provides for.

For this reason I will make the following declaration of vote in the House of Representatives:

1. (a) as opposed to the provisions of clause 12 of the Bill, an open electoral college be constituted to elect 30 members, besides the alternate members, from the Black community to serve on the envisaged council; and
2. (b) an electoral college in each area will elect as many representatives as are specified by way of proclamation with proper consideration of geographic, demographic and other factors as detailed in section 49 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Clause 13 of the original Bill, the National Council Bill, was a much better measure, except as far as the number of members was concerned. I quote:

1. (a) is a South African citizen;
2. (b) is of or over the age of 18 years;
3. (c) has his ordinary place of residence within the limits of the Republic, excluding the self-governing territories;
4. (d) has not been convicted of any corrupt or illegal practice in terms of the regulations contemplated in section 15 and has not been declared incapable of voting in the election of members of the council; and
5. (e) is not subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in section 4(1) (a) and (2) of the Electoral Act, 1979 (Act No 45 of 1979),

shall, on compliance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to vote at the election of a member of the council referred to in section 4 (c) in the region in which his ordinary place of residence is situated.

I do not fully understand why this measure was replaced by clause 12 of the Bill before us. It is my considered opinion, in view of the numerical strength of the Blacks who live outside the national states, that the number of elected members should be increased to 30.

A further hindrance was apparent from the testimony of Mr Sam Mabe. I quote:

I want to make it very clear that I do not go along with all of this, but the Government certainly has to take note of what he says so that it can be dealt with.

It seems completely unfair that approximately 9 million people are to elect no more than nine representatives. Hence the request that the number be increased to 30, and I gather that the possibility of such a number of elected members was contemplated originally.

Furthermore, the election be an open one, so that the majority can identify their representatives and so that people with diverse standpoints can participate. In that way the legitimacy of the council will be enhanced. It is quite common to hear expressed in ordinary conversations from day to day the feeling that no constitutional model, however democratic, will be acceptable unless Blacks are convinced that they are participating through their representatives in the negotiation of a new constitutional model. All political opponents must be offered the opportunity to be able to participate. If they refuse to participate, that is their business!

It is therefore imperative that free democratic elections be held, because then it can be established without a shadow of doubt which organisations enjoy significant political support. I know the hon member will say “aanhoudend” about that, but I also interpret what goes on around me. I want to emphasise that the council and its recommendations will be much more difficult to sell to Blacks than to Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

The salesman who does this will have to be particularly talented. This Parliament must therefore give him an outstanding product to sell. The legislation must remove any suspicion that the proposed mechanism will be nothing more than a toy telephone, as some people say. What is more, it must not be seen as being prescriptive and having the sole purpose of protecting the political and economic privilege of the Whites. These are the kind of statements which are being made outside, and we must pay attention to them.

When one has another look at the composition of the council and the entitled voters, one’s doubt regarding the legitimacy of the representatives increases. Leaders of national states were not initially chosen to participate in such a council; still less members of local authority bodies. Such elections are problematic and will not be fully representative of the wishes of Blacks. Such representation may have several side-effects, or may be totally counter-productive.

If the representation is going to be as proposed in the Bill, I am afraid that the third aim of the Bill as formulated in clause 3 (c) cannot be achieved. It reads—

For us this consideration is of the greatest importance.

In the ninth place it appears that clause 3 (a) and (b) stand in contrast to each other. According to one, the council is to advise on the Constitution; according to the other, it affords a voice in processes of government. How is this going to work? Will this not create further confusion among Blacks?

Up till now support from the ranks of those whom Blacks regard as acceptable leaders has been discouraging. We do not have to quibble about whom they regard as acceptable; we simply have to give them the opportunity to participate. Their aloofness in this regard arouses our concern. The Bill has not induced even Chief Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi to lend it his unconditional support. This in particular arouses concern.

Another shortcoming is the fact that the joint committee—the hon the Minister pointed this out, and it is the case—did hear evidence, but not sufficient oral evidence from those Blacks who declared themselves willing to give oral evidence. Prof A C Nkabende, among others, could have been invited. He addressed written representations to this joint committee. Mr Sam Mabe could also have come to talk about it, and also Mr John Gogotar. The impression has been created that legislation is being created here for Blacks and not together with them, because only the systempeople came to give evidence, as the hon member Mr Lockey said yesterday.

It is my conviction that they could have been involved more directly, and that the degree of acceptance would then probably have been higher. We might then been able to have elections of members outside the existing structures of Government.

Furthermore, what can be said in favour of the envisaged council—with this I want to conclude—is that it is an admission that the Blacks are excluded and that they must now be brought into the decision-making processes, and that this difficult matter must be addressed very urgently. However, it is my considered opinion that the joint committee should look again at the composition of the council and the election of members, after which we would give the measure our unconditional support.

It is an excellent thing that the State President is no longer specified as the chairman of the council. This has largely removed an inhibiting element in the Bill.

In the Bill the status of the members is not outlined vis-á-vis the status of parliamentarians. This might sound unimportant to us, but there are people who say that it is very important to them.

Mr Speaker, when this year’s session began, we started off on an unproductive note insofar as joint debate was concerned. That is why I am particularly grateful that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives has seized the opportunity to participate today with so much enthusiasm, particularly as it was, in fact, his party in that House which earlier this year opposed the Rules which make this debate possible. It seems to me—he says other people have been converted—that he has also been converted.

What is happening here this week, is a triumph for negotiation, for agreement, but above all a triumph for common sense. Because it is of such great personal significance to me, and because it was such a great privilege for me to be able to be intimately involved in the development of the process, I should also like to participate in it today by way of a few isolated ideas rather than by delivering a constitutional argument here.

The 1983 Constitution created certain institutions for us, but it was the people within those institutions who, in accordance with the rules of the game, had to make living organisms of those institutions. If we could not succeed in making the rules work, the institution could not succeed either. Today it is to the credit of all three Houses, and of those people who made the system work within those Houses, that this institution, Parliament, is such a huge success. I want to pay tribute to hon members for that, because it also gives us hope for the future.

Today I recall the 1983 debate on the Constitution, and how the wrath and the rejection of our own people, the Afrikaners, were heaped upon us, and how it was accepted as being obvious that our own people would destroy the NP in the process. We were told it would be the end of the road if the Coloureds and the Indians were to come and take their rightful place in Parliament. How many times were we not confronted with prophecies of doom that effective government of the country would be forced to a halt? The institution succeeded, however, because the majority of the people working within the system strove positively to enable it to succeed.

Naturally, we do not always like one another’s opinions, but then again, we need not do so. The fact is, each one of us represents the wishes, prayers and fears of our own people and we ought to have a mutual respect for them. That is why this first debate in which we are talking to one another can succeed.

Now, however, the debate must be broadened to include other people, who are not represented in this institution, in a forum or institution which can ensure our further constitutional development. If we cannot succeed in doing that, it will do us Whites, Coloureds and Indians no good to sit together and debate in the cool atmosphere of this debating Chamber.

What will the contribution of each of us be towards the solution to this challenge? Those parties which support this legislation have an obligation to work from the basis of this legislation towards greater unity and solidarity among all moderate people in South Africa.

I have the feeling that the Progs, with their negative attitude and their spirit of surrender, cannot make a contribution, and that they have become irrelevant.

I want to appeal to the CP today—I want to associate myself with the brilliant speech which my Cape leader, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, made in this regard—to allow my people to join us in the search for solutions. They are entangling my people in a web of selfishness, fear and narrowmindedness. They are creating a caricature of the Afrikaner which he does not deserve. They and their kindred spirits are attempting to delude our people with slogans of partition and own White homelands, which are pleasant-sounding to the ear, but what they are offering the Afrikaner and the White man is the freedom which a goldfish in a glass bowl enjoys.

Those people whom I represent, those people among whom I live and among whom I work daily—I am not ashamed to say that a large percentage of them are poor people—expect me as their representative to assist in negotiating a dispensation for them in which they may be assured of peace, safety and civilised norms, and I shall do so with the support of this legislation under the leadership of my hon State President.

Mr Speaker, if the process of negotiation is to resolve the present conflict in South Africa, such negotiation will have to take place between this Government and the truly representative leaders of the oppressed people. The mere presence of Black faces in Parliament and on the proposed National Council and the reaching of consensus with such Black people are useless and will not lead to an end to the present conflict unless they are truly representative and have a mandate from the people to negotiate on their behalf.

Because the real leadership is not represented in this House and because it is also not to be represented in the proposed National Council, neither of these two bodies will make any contribution towards resolving and ending the neverending conflict. This is evident when we look at the increase in conflict since the introduction of the tricameral Parliament. Until negotiation takes place with the real leaders, negotiation will be a waste of time and useless.

One aspect of the debate of these few days will stay with me for a long time. At a stage at which this Government is enforcing a reign of terror in our townships …

Order! Did the hon member say that the Government was enforcing a reign of terror?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

At a stage at which the State is brutally repressing the authentic voice of the people of this country, we have had to witness in this House the spectacle of the LP of all things attacking the PFP—to which I no longer belong—a party which for many decades kept alive the flame of universal franchise while the Government was trying to quench it. [Interjections.] I find such attacks rather despicable, coming from the LP. [Interjections.]

In doing so and in joining the Nationalist regime in its repression of the majority, as witnessed by their vendetta against Franklyn Sonn’s teacher association, Jake Gerwels’s University of the Western Cape and the Tutu’s and the Boesak’s, they have proved themselves to be nothing less than the NP regime’s partner in oppression. [Interjections.] There can be very little more despicable than to witness the oppressed becoming the administrators of their own oppression.

*Those hon members are the “new Nats”, and the NP will show no respect for those who grovel before them. One day the NP will talk with the real leaders. They know those hon members do not represent the people at large. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to react at all to the negative words that we have just heard. It is, however, pleasant indeed for me to react to the previous speaker, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, and to pay tribute to him. He was one of the co-builders of this joint meeting. I do not think there is a single hon member in this meeting who does not have great appreciation for the work that he has done.

†Right at the outset I should like to respond briefly to the misrepresentation in regard to the KwaZulu/Natal Indaba that was made by the hon member for Berea. I have repeatedly stated that my Natal colleagues and I fully support the principle of the Indaba—discussion and negotiation in order to reach a political settlement. What happened in Natal, however? Useful discussions did take place. Many of these discussions—formal and informal—took place between representatives of the NP, Inkatha and the KwaZulu government. Then, unexpectedly and without notice, all negotiations came to an abrupt end. The various issues, many of them not properly researched or not researched at all, were put to the vote.

Why was this course followed? An objective observer of the Indaba will tell hon members the following. Firstly, in the end the constitutional committee of the Indaba consisted mainly of PFP supporters. Secondly, the constitutional proposals adopted by the majority at the Indaba showed a remarkable resemblance to the policy of the PFP. [Interjections.] Thirdly, an election was in the air and the PFP considered it expedient to use the Indaba proposals as a political platform. The PFP openly conducted its election campaign on the majority Indaba proposals. [Interjections.] In the end good sense prevailed; the voters saw through the duplicity and rejected the PFP and, for the first time in Natal’s history, the NP became the majority party.

White party!

I agree with the hon member— White party.

A most valuable negotiation forum was unscrupulously and shamelessly misused by the PFP. When I rejected that particular set of proposals, I also expressed regret that the Indaba had been brought to a premature end. Those are the facts, Mr Speaker, and they speak for themselves.

*It is also a great privilege for me to participate in this debate. This measure gives recognition to one irrefutable truth of our South African society and that is that no matter what constitutional solution one may support and wish to implement in South Africa, it can only be carried through successfully after negotiation and with the cooperation and agreement of all the groups involved in the country.

This holds good for all political groupings, including the CP.

There is undeniably a requirement in South Africa today for an institution where moderates from all groups who wish to work together peacefully and promote progress can co-operate with one another. The aims of this council are also wide enough to meet this requirement. The Bill before us will afford the necessary forum for participatory deliberation, as well as for the promotion of good relationships and respect for the rights and freedoms of individuals and communities.

Communities differ from one another but no community exists in a vacuum. General interests must therefore be served on the basis of consensus politics by means of a broad forum such as this one. Consensus lies somewhere along the line between the all or nothing concept. It does not embody a predetermined attitude that everything has to be forfeited or that everything has to be retained. Neither revolution which will lead to Marxism nor total partition is in any way tenable. Consensus on a fair, peaceful and negotiated constitutional dispensation will be the result of hard and honest work by those who are prepared to enter the future with an open mind.

The opposite of this is to seek solutions by continuously looking into rearview mirrors, or continually finding new reasons as to why the next step should not be taken. We all know that representation in the highest decision-making bodies is a basic striving in every society. Throughout history such representation has often been achieved with great loss of life. We know today that there are other ways.

I do want to issue the warning, however, that we must expect every party and person participating in this proposed council to be denigrated from various quarters, and that efforts will also be made to drive a wedge between us. The differences in policy that exists among us will be accentuated by these malicious people.

The standpoint of the NP is in fact that the group reality of South Africa is a fact which has to be taken into account in the search for a just constitutional dispensation. The NP states that it makes no sense to seek constitutional solutions by pretending that groups do not exist in our country or to ignore the reality of groups.

At the same time I know that other hon members of this Parliament differ profoundly with me in this connection. I am nevertheless overjoyed that in spite of these differences, the vast majority in this House are prepared to accept the responsibility to deliberate on those differences and to seek solutions. Let us continue to explain and to sell this process enthusiastically to all the people in South Africa.

†The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development was most unfair yesterday and obviously ill-informed when he attacked the hon member for Umhlatuzana. I suggest that the hon the Deputy Minister read the maiden speech of the other hon member which was delivered last year—column 1406 of Hansard—and I think he will come to a conclusion other than the one he arrived at yesterday. I invite him to do so.

In essence, the hon member for Umhlatuzana’s speech addressed the challenges facing us in the process of power-sharing. He argued that in order to get power-sharing on mutual affairs off the ground, the self-determination of population groups over affairs concerning them as a group should receive due recognition. It is indeed our party’s belief that one cannot ignore the one and save the other. The hon member’s reference to Inkatha and the differences of approach between it and the NP served to illustrate the challenges facing us all in this regard.

It was not meant as an attack on Inkatha. It was, in fact, not an attack on Inkatha. It was merely an analysis of certain facts.

This council and its deliberations will function as a magnifying glass of the constitutional requirements of South Africa. In the process present shortcomings will be highlighted and various solutions will start to crystallise out. Such solutions could conceivably also address problems at levels of government other than the first tier. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to submit than any change forward, especially when it is embodied in legislation, is not going to please every party in Parliament, let alone parties outside Parliament. The reason for this is wellknown, and the Bill before us is no exception.

This Bill is not the final solution to our political problems in South Africa. On Tuesday the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made that admission, and I wish to quote as follows from the unrevised copy of this Hansard:

That presents a dilemma of tremendous proportions to those of us who have come here in support of reform. Do we support the measure because, with all its flaws, it makes substantial progress on the status quo, or do we reject it because it falls far short of what we think is desirable for South Africa?

The one widening gap, which is a dangerous one in South Africa’s constitutional progress, is the absence of Black South Africans in the decisionmaking processes. It is now imperative that we get on with the task of making progress in this direction. I want to ask those people who are against Black participation and some of the hon colleagues in this House of Delegates whether they are serious. Are they accepting the reality? Each year that is lost because of hardened political positions is a year longer in reading the ultimate goal of seeing all South Africans under the constitutional umbrella of a just, democratic and equal society and a future unknown. Is this what hon members want by opposing Black participation?

In this regard the Bill takes one small step towards the planning and preparation of a new constitution. If it succeeds in no other respect than the restoration of human dignity, rights and liberty to all as enunciated in the preamble to the Bill, it will set in motion a constitutional reform which at some date in the not too distant future will involve all South Africans across the full spectrum in the difficult task of fashioning the ultimate constitution.

What is important in reform measures of this nature, is that they bring home to White South Africans the reality of the absence of the participation of people of colour in the decisionmaking mechanisms, the exclusion of Blacks, their fellow-South Africans, who are a relevant force. They are not foreigners. They are South Africans by birth. Demographics show that by the end of the century Blacks will make up 90% of the population. This fact cannot be ignored, despite all the arguments put forward in this House. No one community can survive alone without the other.

For that reason a bold step was taken by the hon the State President when he told White South Africans to change and embark on a road to political reform. Now that we are on that road to reform, some people still prefer to remain in the old South Africa prior to 1984, which would not have survived.

This Bill is historical. It marks the statutory recognition of the end of three centuries of White domination in South Africa.

Here I quote the hon the Minister who has been very frank in admitting that—

This means that this is a constitutional dispensation in which all South Africans can be represented and can participate without domination. The proposed council must be an instrument which will make it possible for every South African, irrespective of the colour of his skin, to realise his rightful political aspirations. It is an acknowledgement that unless we all share, we have nothing to share. We have to accept that changes have to be made to ensure security, stability and economic growth in this country and to ensure that future generations are protected.

This Bill is therefore of the greatest significance as a statement of principle and direction, rather than as a measure of power sharing in itself. It certainly moves in the direction of reconciliation which can only bring peace and security for all. There should be no turning around because time is not on our side. We must protect this country, and it can be done by all South Africans. The Whites need the people of colour because they cannot survive alone.

Let me give some advice to hon members in this House. The future we get is the future we make. Let not the future judge us on our actions of today. It will be too late to regret. Let us stand together to build that future. I earnestly appeal to those opposed to Black participation to forget the past. The future needs those people. Their attitude and fear must not contribute to the destruction of this progress, and in the process contribute towards destroying this country and all its peace-loving people.

We therefore see this measure as a sign of hope to changing permanently the question from one of, whether, to how, to involve Black South Africans in the parliamentary processes of this country. Therefore we have no right to deny any community the right to be recognised as equals. We need one another. Many of us have made great sacrifices to be in Parliament, and we will not allow the future to be destroyed by irresponsible actions. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Red Hill that this is a historic occasion and that this Bill is a move in the right direction.

*In order to understand the object of the legislation, we must look to the threefold objectives that are being set for the council that is to be established. These are that provision must be made for the participation of all South African citizens in the process of government, for affording Black citizens a voice in the interim, and for promoting healthy relations between South African citizens.

If these three objectives can be attained, it will be one of the greatest moments in our history because they concern the crux of the South African problem. The achievement of consensus places very high demands on the participants, however. The search for compromise demands not only patience, but also an understanding of the realities of the situation. It demands an awareness of the reasonable aspirations of others, and above all, a style, a code of conduct and a disposition in life which does not slam doors shut, but rather opens them.

The Bill as such is merely an instrument in the process of reform. It is a vehicle to be used to lead to a result which is envisaged by the legislation. How well or how poorly it is applied, will depend on the abilities of the respective people who have a role to play.

To refuse to participate, will serve no purpose. The reason for this is either that such a person does not regard the council as the perfect instrument, or that he is setting preconditions which cannot be complied with, or that those people who have a role to play are not the ones he himself would have chosen to be there.

Such an attitude in itself attests to an inability to adequately comprehend the search for consensus or the achievement of a compromise. Those hon members who served on the joint committee pointed out that the Bill was the result of a search for consensus. The setting of preconditions for participation is not the right way of going about things. It attests to a lack of confidence in those who, together with oneself, have a role to play or in one’s own powers of persuasion with regard to others.

I want to address the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. They say their policy is one of territorial separation and of self-determination in those areas of jurisdiction. Such a policy must, of necessity, affect the fates of thousands of people. The CP also says its policy is one of negotiation, but it is neglecting its duty as Official Opposition—or what it calls alternative government—by failing to avail itself of the opportunity to say with whom it is going to negotiate and how it is going to structure that negotiation. Simply to invite people to come and visit, is not good enough. How does the CP hope to bring about prosperity, peace and justice for all in the implementation of its policy? If the CP does not spell that out, but allows the opportunity which this debate affords it to do so to slip away, it will be committing an injustice against those voters who have placed their trust in the CP and its policy. The hon the Minister of National Education has asked the CP whether it is prepared to lay its policy on the table, and if not, then with whom else does it intend to negotiate?

The hon member for Randburg said there could be several legitimate choices. Both participation and non-participation could be legitimate. The hon member said he was sympathetic towards the option not to participate. I want to tell him, however, that that sympathy must not be extended to the point where it could undermine the legitimacy of the role of the participants. Excuses for non-participation could indeed undermine the legitimacy of participants.

†To the hon member for Berea, I want to say that change will come through this Parliament only. Those who did not participate in this Parliament have only themselves to blame for their exclusion.

*The council has the power to decide on its own agenda. It can make its own recommendations to the Government about its own composition. It is precisely this—as the hon member calls it—dual function and interim voice of the council to which the hon member prof Olivier objects. The council is not obliged to perform this function. The Government cannot issue directives to this council, as in the case of the President’s Council. It is precisely this interim power of the council which, if it is applied correctly, will enhance the stature of the council and will contribute towards a more universal acceptance of its recommendations.

I have already referred to the obligations of the participants. They also have certain rights, however. They can insist on being permitted to complete their task peacefully and calmly. The hon the State President made it very clear on Monday that the development and broadening of democracy cannot take place in a state of disorderliness, subversion and violence. The object thereof is precisely to impede the peaceful process that is envisaged by the Bill, and for that reason it cannot be tolerated.

I am pleased to support the Bill because I believe that if it is handled correctly by the various people who have a role to play, and if they are afforded the necessary opportunity, it will open doors to a new constitutional dispensation which will succeed in the goal of ensuring a voice and representation for everyone in the process of government, without failing to acknowledge the rights of individuals and groups. I have sufficient faith in those who have a role to play to afford them a proper opportunity to do this.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to take my place on this podium and make my maiden speech in this Chamber on this epoch-making occasion.

In my opinion the Bill under discussion is one of the best products of this tricameral Parliament. I am grateful and proud that the Labour Party’s contribution cannot be underestimated, because this party’s representatives were directly responsible for the amendment of 14 of the 15 clauses. The steps preceding the Bill undoubtedly made history. Who could have dreamed that so much could have been achieved by making use only of consensus and negotiation techniques? It is significant that, with the exception of a few little parties, the other parties support the Bill. It cannot be otherwise, because the Bill makes provision, inter alia, for the participation of all South African citizens in the planning and preparation of a new constitutional dispensation. This is very important.

†There was a time when we used to say: “When you are White, you are right; when you are Brown, you stick around; and if you are Black, you stay back.” [Interjections.]

*I think of the Tomlinson Commission, which consisted of White members only. The Theron Commission had 14 White members and 5 Coloured members. The Schlebusch Commission consisted of 17 White members. However, if I include the alternative members, this new Council will consist of 34 people who are not White and 33 people who are White.

Hurrah!

No, I do not say hurrah; I am grateful that the NP has lost the fear it had for the Black people. [Interjections.]

Secondly, this Bill makes provision for the grantin g of a say in the Government processes to Black South African citizens; I repeat, Black South African citizens. This has never happened before, and we must give the NP credit for agreeing to this happening. Thirdly, the Bill makes provision for the promotion of sound relations between all South African citizens and respect for each other’s human dignity, rights and freedom.

These objectives and goals correspond with the objectives and principles of the Labour Party. The Labour Party’s Constitution reads:

When did you become a member?

It is of no concern to that hon member when I became a member; I am a member of the party, and that hon member came to this place in the name of that party. [Interjections.]

The Labour Party says in its Constitution that it is committed to opposing all forms of racial discrimination which undermine the civil freedom and social rights of the individual.

Those are fine words!

Hon members can say that these are fine words. We will implement this. This party is committed to the belief that the right of the individual is all-important and that the State is there to serve the individual. The Labour Party is not in this dispensation merely to look after the interests of the Coloured component of the population. No, since it came into existence in 1965 the Labour Party has proclaimed everywhere, and it reconfirmed this in Eshowe in 1983, that it was prepared to sit around the negotiating table and negotiate with the NP Government as equals in the interests of all South Africans. The Labour Party has not deviated from this, and it will not deviate from this, until all South Africans form part of a process in which the future of this country will be discussed and planned.

The acceptance of this Bill is the culmination of the first phase. Tomorrow will be a happy day and a blessed time for the Labour Party when this Bill becomes legislation. Then the second phase begins. The members of this elite negotiating structure or forum will have to work out a new political model for South Africa together, and will also have to formulate a new constitution. I expect this of them. Then this will be submitted to the Government for acceptance.

I want to say the following to the hon member for Randburg. He says that we must also afford the extraparliamentary organisations an opportunity. We shall have to do so by way of Parliament. We shall have to submit our reports and recommendations to this Parliament. It is this Parliament which will decide what is and what is not acceptable. I believe that the matters regarding which everyone in this country is generally in agreement must form the foundation to work out a joint future for the country.

In the search for solutions we must accept each other’s goodwill and bona fides. We will have to face up squarely to the realities of the South African situation, and build the future on that reality. The success of a country’s political organisation is, in the final analysis, not found in political models, but in the hearts and minds of people who must make the models succeed. For this reason I am grateful that attention is also being given today to the promotion of sound relations between all South African citizens.

In 1980 I was privileged to visit the USA at the invitation of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the USA. In eight cities large “home hospitalities”, as they call them, were arranged for me.

There I had to tell them about South Africa. We spoke inter alia about politics here in South Africa, too. I made mention everywhere of their Constitution and their Bill of Rights and of the absence of discriminatory legislation, but to my great surprise Black Americans said what amounted to the following.

†They said that this was true, but that they were more frustrated now than they were 15 years ago. They said that they do have a wonderful Constitution, a Bill of Rights and no discriminatory legislation on their Statute Books, but they are more frustrated now than they were 15 years ago. They said the reason for their frustration is that, while the discriminatory legislation in the country has been scrapped, the hearts and the minds of their people have not undergone a change. Notwithstanding the scrapping of discriminatory legislation discrimination, polarisation, bitterness, racism and hatred still exists.

This was once again my experience in 1986 when I visited the deep South. There a Black bishop of one of the biggest Black pentecostal churches referred to Whites as “honkies”.

*I am also concerned about the mutual relations and attitudes here in South Africa.

When are you going to America again?

It is no concern of that hon member when I am going there again. On the one hand we have suspicion, mistrust, frustration, scepticism, bitterness and even hatred. On the other hand we have selfishness, ignorance, fear, prejudice, insensitivity and a lack of acceptance of one’s fellow-man. This has been demonstrated very well here in this Chamber during the past three days. The attitude of prejudice, confrontation, negativism, pessimism and fear prevailing in our population groups will have to make way for an attitude of acceptance, mutual trust, peaceful co-existence, positivism, love of one’s neighbour and faith. This is the challenge facing the people who want to move forward. We must promote good and sound relations by making contact with people across the colour bar and communicating with one another. Contact and communication promote knowledge and understanding of one another.

For too long now the ideology of apartheid has kept us apart. For too long now we have been separated from one another. For too long we found ourselves in isolation and even insulation. We were strangers to each another in our own fatherland. I am looking forward to a large-scale change in attitude here in South Africa. I see this change in attitude everywhere. I remember the change in attitude which took place in the first President’s Council. I see this change in attitude on our Afrikaans university campuses. I see it at our schools. I want to give hon members the assurance that when we meet together in this Chamber more frequently, we will not notice another’s colour, but will regard one another as fellow South Africans.

In conclusion I want to refer briefly to two aspects of the Bill. In the first place I find it significant that the term of office of the proposed council has been set at two years. This is a gratifying indication that the council will not drag its feet, but will have to start work at once and tackle its job with a vengeance. We cannot, as was the case in Britain, wait for 90 years, and as was the case in America, for 100 years.

The council’s directive is not limited; as a matter of fact, it can go far farther and even deal with other matters as it sees fit. The agenda is therefore open and there can consequently be no suggestion that the council must operate within predetermined parameters. We welcome this modus operandi.

In addition the council can of course give particular attention to existing legislation, and specifically outdated and hurtful provisions which are still the order of the day.

This Bill has indisputably proved that we can tackle negotiations with confidence and that we now have the necessary mechanism to think peacefully and purposefully about the future of South Africa and find the best possible solutions for an acceptable constitutional dispensation.

Mr Speaker, hon members could say that it is a bit much to have to listen to two clergymen in a row, but they will have to go and fight with the hon Whips about that. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives said he was delivering his maiden speech here. If I remember correctly, a certain portion of his speech sounded a great deal like an induction sermon to me. I particularly wish topointout the vital need for good relations. Without good relations we in South Africa cannot go forward to meet the future.

This Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill is not merely yet another milestone on the path of constitutional development in South Africa. In my view, the importance of this Bill lies in the fact that it destroys the moral basis on which the armed struggle is being waged against the established order. I want to repeat that in my view, the importance of this Bill lies in the fact that it destroys the moral basis on which the armed struggle is being waged against the established order. After all, it is common knowledge that those who opt for violence as a means towards bringing about change, justify this on the basis of the fact that Blacks do not have a share in the decision making processes in the RSA. It is common knowledge that this violence is justified on the strength of the fact that the door to peaceful change has ostensibly finally closed. However, the provisions of this Bill confirm the fact that the Government intends to give Blacks a fully fledged voice and full participation at all levels of government. Surely this Bill confirms the fact that the door to peaceful change is wide open.

What is at issue here is not simply the crumbs which fall from the political table. What we are dealing with here is an invitation to participate in the planning of a new constitution for South Africa. A refusal to participate in the planning of this new constitutional dispensation merely confirms a suspicion which has long existed, and that is that an organisation such as the ANC is not really interested in Black participation in the decision making processes, but that it is interested in the destruction of the existing order in order to replace it with a Marxist one-party state.

A refusal to participate merely confirms a suspicion which has long existed, namely that the so-called political liberation struggle is simply being used as a means to an end, that end being to establish a “people’s democracy”, which in essence is nothing other than a communist dictatorship. In this regard we must take cognisance of what a Russian ideologist said in the 20s, with reference to this issue with which we are grappling today. Bukharin said:

The Russians are once again adhering to this standpoint. Given the fact, therefore, that this Bill is also, in essence, nothing other than an effective counter-revolutionary measure, we must expect that the SACP and the ANC will go out of their way to prevent this Bill from coming into force. A predictable method will be to discredit the recommendations of this council by saying that these recommendations do not possess legitimacy, given the composition of the council. After all, the authentic leaders are in gaol or are sojourning abroad. Those people who remain in gaol or continue to sojourn abroad after the invitation given by the hon the State President in a speech in this Parliament, remain in gaol or abroad because they are deliberately refusing to turn their backs on a system of godless Marxism, as the hon the State President put it, because they are deliberately refusing to turn their backs on radical destruction and because they are deliberately refusing to turn their backs on terrorism.

Apart from that, it is a mistaken view to assert that only those leaders who favour violence may lay claim to legitimacy. Those leaders who are working within the system to bring about peaceful change, and who are of value to their people, have just as strong a claim to legitimacy, and the majority of the Blacks who will take their place on this council have been elected, a fact which confirms their legitimacy. If the recommendations of this council are not legitimate, then the time has arrived to ask what legitimacy a document such as the Freedom Charter possesses. An interesting article appeared in the July/August edition of the journal Problems of Communism. The article is entitled: “The African National Congress. Cadres and credo”, and was written by Michael Radu. He asserts that this document came into being in an extremely undemocratic and biased manner.

At the stage when this document was approved, Luthuli, the leader of the ANC, was not even aware of its contents. In fact, he did not even know that it existed. Furthermore, when his lieutenant presided at Kliptown, he was not aware of what was contained in this document before it was tabled either. When this document was approved at Kliptown, there was no debate on its contents, and what is more, there was no voting in regard to its contents either. When this document was revised a year later, the hall was jam-packed with people who were not members of the ANC, and what is more, they all unlawfully had voting rights. I want to say that this document, given its background, does not possess any so-called legitimacy either. No wonder this person writing about the ANC comes to the following conclusion:

Aside from this, we must also ask what legitimacy those leaders possess who simply enforce their authority by way of intimidation. One of the reasons why the revolution cannot get off the ground in South Africa is because the overwhelming majority of Blacks cannot be mobilised for the revolution. The vast majority of Blacks do not choose violence as a method of bringing about change. If we lose these people in the process, we in South Africa are going to miss the boat.

It was my privilege towards the end of last year to take part in a radio programme, together with the member of the Cape Executive Committee, Mr Nyati, in which the previous Bill on the national council was explained to Blacks, and in which they were given an opportunity to ’phone in. The response was astonishing. The people said that what they were now hearing about this proposed council and what their media were telling them about it, were not the same thing. The reaction throughout was: “We agree with the contents of the Bill, but we cannot understand why you are having so much trouble getting it off the ground. Why do you not implement it so that it can commence its activities?”

I hope that this council will be able to commence its activities, that it will get off the ground, and that its activities will ensure that peaceful coexistence is assured in our country.

Mr Speaker, in this Chamber the NP are calling in the Indian and the Coloured to act as referee between fellow Afrikaners, fellow Whites in the NP and the CP. [Interjections.] In this place the CP bears witness to Afrikaner nationalism and White patriotism for an own, free fatherland—White South Africa. The CP acknowledges the same right of self-determination for each of the other population groups in its own area. [Interjections.] The separation of political power and territories has been proven historically to be the best basis for good neighbourliness between the various peoples. The NP rejects this standpoint and is attacking us on account of it. For that it is being applauded by the hon Coloured and Indian members. [Interjections.] The NP sits still when unbridled attacks are launched on our Afrikanerdom and our White identity. The NP remains silent when cynical, mocking and derisive laughter reverberate around us. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

This is how it is attempting to build a new post-apartheid South Africa. That is why the NP and this multiracial Parliament must be destroyed. The CP is determined to do just that.

In terms of the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill, which is being enthusiastically supported by the NP, the Coloured parties and the Indian parties, and opposed by the CP, a council is to be established, inter alia, to draw up a new constitution for South Africa in terms of which the overwhelming Black majority will be able to serve in the Government and in Parliament.

What does the NP expect this new constitution to look like? How will the council which is to draw it up, be composed? My hon leader pointed out earlier this afternoon that the majority of the members of the council which will have to formulate the new constitution will be Black. Then, in addition, there are the Coloureds and the Indians. The Whites will be in the minority.

If that is how the NP is putting together the council on the new constitution, can there be any doubt about how the new constitution will look? [Interjections.] The overwhelming majority of Blacks are not simply demanding that they be included in a new government and Parliament; in fact, they are demanding that the political power in South Africa be handed over by the so-called “White minority” to the so-called “Black majority”. Common sense tells one that the NP will not be able to satisfy the Black majority with a few minority members in a new government and Parliament.

Black majority rule is the logical consequence of NP policy. The council in terms of this Bill is merely the vehicle through which to arrive at the Black majority constitution. Did the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning not say at the beginning of the debate that this was only the beginning of his so-called reform?

Against this background, it was priceless to receive an assurance from the hon Chairman of the White Ministers’ Council that the White man will not become oppressed in the land of his birth.

Ian Smith also said that. He went even further: “Not in a thousand years will there be Black majority rule in Rhodesia”. The hon the Minister of National Education, however, accepts a government the majority of whose members will be Black, but issues a guarantee against the oppression of the Whites. At the Transvaal chief executive meeting of the NP last year, just after the election, he put it like this:

That is the height of naivety! The fact is that these guarantees by the NP are totally worthless because through its acceptance of the principle of an undivided South Africa with equal rights for all its inhabitants, the overwhelming majority of whom are Black, the NP has already relinquished control over the process, the rate and the direction of change. [Interjections.] Do hon members not see how every attempt by this weakling of a Government to win favour by making concessions to Black radicalism is repeatedly being rejected by the Blacks and answered with fresh demands and new obstacles on the path of socalled negotiation? [Interjections.]

The NP no longer has any valid reason to halt the take-over of the Government and Parliament by the Black majority. It has already begun to undermine the authority of the Black ethnic or national governments in the six self-governing territories by admitting nine Black representatives from outside those territories to the constituent council. [Interjections.] The initiative is now in the hands of the multi-ethnic, or so-called moderate Blacks, from the Sowetos of South Africa.

In addition, the NP has already repeatedly committed itself to negotiation under an open agenda—with no exclusions and without any conditions, preconditions or reservations. The NP has already unconditionally released a hardened communist, Govan Mbeki, who is still a dedicated Marxist, from prison in the hope that more radical Blacks will also be prepared to come to the negotiating table and to serve on this constituent council. Naturally, it was a failure, and the hon the Minister of Law and Order complained afterwards that Mbeki’s release had brought only pain. Despite the pain and suffering, the Government placed certain newspaper advertisements in Britain which amounted to supplications that Nelson Mandela should just renounce violence so that he too could be released. [Interjections.]

The NP has become so desperate that the hon the State President held his protective hand over the hon member for Innesdal when the latter asserted that a lasting political solution for South Africa would not be found unless the ANC was involved and Nelson Mandela, among others, was released. Afterwards the feeble explanation was given that violence would, of course, first have to be renounced.

Involve the ANC? That front for Moscow which one moment is a murdering machine and the next moment poses as an apostle of peace, with but one objective, namely to smash each and every one of us with the iron fist of communism?

The NP’s guarantees to the Whites are totally worthless. The second reason for this is that the NP has become untrustworthy and unreliable. It simply does not keep its word to the Whites. On the first day of this debate the hon the Minister of National Education once again admitted to the hon member for Pietersburg by way of an interjection that the NP had radically altered its policy with regard to certain cardinal points. There is no reason to expect that the NP will not do so again.

The third reason why the NP’s guarantee of protection of so-called White minority rights is totally worthless, is simply irrefutable logic. Why would the NP want to guarantee the rights of a White minority? Why would the NP want to guarantee the Whites that they will not become oppressed if the NP did not, in fact, intend to hand over the political power to a majority that is not White, but Black?

After all, if the NP were to adhere to the policy of the CP, such a guarantee would not be necessary. A free, self-determining society of Whites in an independent White South Africa does not, after all, require such a guarantee, but a White society that has been stripped of its self-determination, and which must live under a new government and parliament, the majority of whose members are Black, does require such false words of reassurance. [Interjections.]

The fourth reason why the NP’s guarantees are totally worthless, is that the NP will no longer be in power in South Africa when those guarantees regarding the protection of minority rights must be kept. Once the new government and parliament—the majority of whose members would be Black, and which could also even include the ANC, having renounced violence—are in power in South Africa, the NP will no longer have the power of government and it will simply not be in a position to honour its guarantees, just as Ian Smith was not in a position to honour his guarantees.

The fifth reason why we dare not trust the NP and its guarantee of the protection of minority rights is that the NP has to this very day refused and/or neglected to say how it will put its guarantee into effect. [Interjections.] The reasonable inference which may be made from this is that the NP does not know itself how its guarantee is to be put into effect because, objectively speaking, no such method or plan exists, apart from the policy of the CP … [Interjections.] … as the hon the State President himself put it in 1980 during certain moments of political clarity: the only protection for minority groups lies in separate development. That was a mere eight years ago.

The sixth reason why the NP must be halted on its dangerous path is because it has not indicated any escape route whatsoever which the Whites and the other groups will be able to follow when this new constitution fails, just as the present Constitution has failed. Nothing is said about a way out of the mess—the restoration of basic White rights and liberties and the exercise of self-determination. [Interjections.] There is no contingency planning because it is a cul de sac, and everyone knows it, including the NP. [Interjections.] For those Black peoples who enjoy majority occupation of their own demarcated territories, escape is possible if they can escape oppression by a numerically stronger Black group. For the Whites, Coloureds and Indians the escape route from failure is dusky. For the Whites it is jet black, pitch dark, because at this stage traditionally White South African territory and the Coloured labour areas are already being swamped by enormous numbers of Blacks, and this is happening even now, whilst the new territory has not yet come into being. [Interjections.]

Sir, is it not bitterly ironic that good relations and a high degree of mutual understanding exist, as between reasonable people, with the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and the Ciskei—countries which have followed the CP course of separate development, and with which there is cooperation in many fields—something to which the hon the Minister of National Education referred yesterday—and that they are not showing any need to participate in this council, which is to draw up a constitution for the remaining portion of South Africa?

They are standing outside, as it were, and they do not want to come in because they have freedom, they have land and they know the power and the meaning of true nationalism. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in full support of this legislation, which I believe, at the end of the day, will receive the support of the majority of hon members in this Chamber.

*Mr Speaker, it is a particular honour for me to be able to participate in this historic debate. This historic first joint meeting of Parliament in order to debate such an important piece of legislation is without doubt one of the most important milestones in the history of our country. I want right at the outset to make use of this opportunity to pay tribute to and to thank the hon the State President for his guidance, his contributions and his support which have led to the fact not only that we are able to sit jointly here today but also to debate jointly. All credit to him that this has been able to take place during his lifetime and under his leadership. I must also pay tribute to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives—the leader of the second largest party in this Parliament—for their positive contributions. After this week Parliament will never be the same again. We have proved to the country and its opponents—within and beyond our borders— that we are prepared to continue to expand the policy of reform in the interests of the whole country and its people.

I am sure that with this new dispensation we will move ahead on the road of reform. We must move away from the crossroads at which we are presently standing. Let us not turn to the right because the road to the right leads to a political desert. I believe that the road to the left is strewn with murder, arson, violence, explosions, boycott actions, hatred and destruction. The road ahead for us is together with those who are prepared to co-operate and to negotiate with us.

†To those who advocate and support divestment, I especially wish to say that they are supporting an action which will not succeed in improving the lives of people of colour in this country. I believe that only those who are not serious about finding a peaceful solution to our problems and who are not prepared to meet and negotiate with Black South Africans, will oppose this Bill. Someone once said “the dignity of man arises from his ability to think”. Let us therefore strive towards improving our thinking.

In recent years tremendous improvements have taken place in South Africa, especially since the inception of the tricameral system. Proof that change has taken place in the thinking of many people is the fact that a lot of deliberations have taken place, especially in the ranks of the ruling party in this Parliament. The decision to establish a forum which will include Blacks to work out a new political dispensation for South Africa is, I believe, a morally correct one. It is also ethically correct, as well as politically correct—in line with the policy of reform politics—in reaching consensus through negotiation.

We must accept and believe that Black South Africans are part and parcel of South Africa. They are willing and prepared to work in our homes—they are already in our homes and our communities—they work in our mines and industries, we play with them on the sports fields, and they are already fighting and dying with us on the border. Black people in South Africa make a tremendous contribution towards our economy.

When we speak of Black South Africans, we are not speaking of aliens. We are not speaking of extraterrestrial people. We are not speaking of a large migrant labour force or a nomadic people in our country. These Black people, whom we want to include in our Parliament, are bona fide citizens of South Africa.

I believe we have reached a stage in our political history where we can no longer justifiably keep them out of the decision-making process and outside of Parliament. They cannot and will not forever remain an extra parliamentary entity. I want to stress that Blacks cannot and will not forever remain an extra-parliamentary entity in South Africa!

I believe that in the very near future the Berlinlike walls of apartheid will disappear. These walls or partitions which have over the years inflicted on us people of colour so much suffering, fears, tears, frustration, mistrust, division and hatred and which have kept and are keeping us apart, must go. I believe that South Africa is ready for vital change. I do believe that there are enough South Africans to achieve this. There is enough goodwill, love and willingness on the part of so many people of all colours, creeds and political persuasions who will come forward to support this new, long-awaited vehicle of reform.

In closing I want to quote from a document by Dr R Tusenius:

I believe this Parliament will never be the same again after this historic week. I look forward to that day when Blacks will take up their rightful position in this Chamber. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, we want on this occasion to express our heartfelt gratitude to hon members of the House of Delegates and of the House of Representatives for their participation with us in this dispensation. We also want to thank them on this occasion for the responsible way in which they have participated in this debate.

We as hon members of the House of Assembly held a general election last year during which we were given a mandate to negotiate with Black people in regard to a political dispensation. In that election we obtained an overwhelming majority. Our heartfelt gratitude to the majority parties of the other two Houses for their support of this measure. We have all to assist in making a success of the negotiations that lie ahead. This measure gives us an instrument by means of which we will be able to give effect to the striving of everyone for peace in this country. By means of this instrument solutions can be obtained for peaceful co-existence in South Africa in the future.

Everyone who appreciates the seriousness of the situation will agree with me that effect has now to be given to the mandate which the electorate gave us. I have no doubt at all that the decision that this Parliament is going to take is going to be practically unanimous. However, we will need time for the negotiations. Therefore, it is a pity that this Parliament does not have a full term ahead of it in order to give attention to this matter.

Any solution that is found will have to provide for the safe and proud survival of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people in our country. That solution will have to carry the approval of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people. It has therefore to be worked out in the closest co-operation with all groups. Peace and good order in our society must not be placed in jeopardy. The Western norms and standards which we have obtained in the political, economic and social sphere must not be placed in jeopardy. The solution must also contribute towards greater security and prosperity for all groups and individuals.

All those who have so much to say about their own rights will only be able to retain them if they do not begrudge others what they claim for themselves.

Certain basic changes have come about recently in the policy of the present Government in regard to Black communities. The reality of the situation has shown that the so-called linking policy in terms of which all Blacks, irrespective of where they live, are linked to a specific self-governing national state on an ethnic basis cannot satisfy the political aspirations of the Black population groups.

Self-governing states will continue to be led to accept independence, but the Government has stated clearly that self-governing states which do not wish to become independent will remain part of the Republic. Furthermore, Blacks will be able to obtain title rights in their own residential areas, and South African citizenship has been restored to Blacks living permanently in South Africa but who, on the grounds of ethnic descent, became citizens of the TBVC countries when those states became independent.

The policy of making provision for the representation of all communities at the second and third levels of government has already been implemented. Black local authorities will be represented in the proposed regional services councils, and Blacks also serve in the new provincial administrations. Provision has also been made for joint executive authorities consisting of representatives of the provinces and self-governing national states to administer matters of common interest.

The most important question now remaining, therefore, is how to give Blacks a say at the central Government level.

†Our present Constitution makes provision for the following: Self-determination and co-responsibility over matters of common concern; the right of self-governing territories to independence; the rights of all other territories to share in the future dispensation as a part of South Africa; individual freedom without racial discrimination and the right of groups to self-determination; representation for all in democratic institutions and the preservation of group security.

Reform will remain aimed at power sharing and will not result in surrender, as demanded from us by outside forces.

In order to bring about reform we must promote the highest possible growth rate, create as many job opportunities as possible, maintain price stability and achieve equilibrium in our balance of payments. In order to achieve the political and economic objectives the onslaught of international communism must be resisted resolutely. In order to avoid friction, to protect minority rights and to prevent the domination of one group over another, powers must be decentralised as far as possible so that the various communities can exercise maximum authority over their own affairs. In a community of minorities there are inevitably matters which are of interest to everybody. In respect of these matters it stands to reason that there must be joint decision making and a sharing of power in such a way that it will not result in the domination of any group by another.

South Africa’s population composition and requirements are unique. No single existing constitutional model as it stands can therefore be applied to South Africa. That is why it is necessary for the formulation of a unique model, especially designed for this country. Such a model may include elements of known systems. However, it will have to include certain features which are tailor-made for South African conditions. We can and we will resolve our problems by peaceful means. Despite the disturbances and the intimidation there is more than enough goodwill among Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Asians to ensure that we shall jointly find solutions acceptable to all of us.

In conclusion, let us all pray that Almighty God will grant us all the wisdom and the determination to seek to fulfil His will in this beloved country of ours.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Umfolozi. When I think back to 20 years ago, I realise that the thinking of the NP north of the Umfolozi River at that time was very different from what it is today.

I have some mixed feelings about the various speeches I have heard since the beginning of this debate. The NP of South Africa are today recognised as saints because of their attitudinal changes. These changes are, I must add, for the better. It is against this background that I say we certainly live in interesting, challenging and difficult times.

One often realises that to find an answer to the complex problems and events in our country is no easy task. This cliche is an escapism from reality, and those people who can take the lead and contribute towards reform, must not shy away from their responsibilities. There are also those who, despite their recognition of their duty to assist, are making use of red herrings simply because of their selfish ideals and unacceptable philosophical policies. In this regard I want to refer specifically to a young man, namely the hon member for Potgietersrus. If ever a venomous speech was delivered in the Parliament of South Africa, it was the speech delivered by that hon member here this afternoon. I want the hon member for Potgietersrus to know that these are times of reform and not the dark ages of the past. That hon member is a very young man, but his tutor needs to tutor him in such a way that he finds accommodation amongst all the population groups of South Africa. It is the young people of this country who will have to find accord with one another, so that there can be a bright future for South Africa.

I am one of those who say there is no one answer, because our problems are many-faceted. One has to be very careful of oversimplification and the perception that people in this country simply need to find multiple solutions, because our interests and investments are very conflicting. In the end different events, different interests and common alliances and understanding will find historical settlement. We all hope for the best and I want to believe that our national interests should not deter us within and outside Parliament from lending our support unflinchingly to whatever means and methods are necessary to contribute towards an amicable solution. No one settlement and no one course of political, economic or social action will be wholly acceptable in the interests of all. Therefore we must strive to do our best for our country.

It is always an illusion to imagine that one can have one’s cake and eat it. As we try to decide where and when to give our support, I think we must ask ourselves whether the time has not arrived when we should be at home, in our priorities to bring peace and harmony to South Africa. Bargaining for a settlement among people of all political persuasions is at hand, and settlement can be arrived at by and through men and women acting as honest brokers for the parties directly involved. Only in this way will we be able to create conditions in which we must hope our interests will come closer together.

Nationally, this is our only hope, and I think we must reconcile ourselves to this fact. To my mind, cognisance must of necessity be taken of the events of the past 40 years and more. I cannot forget in this moment of history the Buthelezi Commission proposals, the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba, the Natal Joint Executive Authority, and other important manifestations.

I consider the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill as an instrument which is peculiarly appropriate to our country, a country where, in the words of the hon the State President, we are all minorities. If I were to think along simplistic racial or colour lines, then I could say there is a huge Black majority and a small White minority. I said this was an assumption. In fact, in this country there are a wide variety of minorities—groups distinguished from one another by racial origin, tribe, language, colour, religion and economic status. God Almighty has blessed our country with this diversity, and therefore God has given us this opportunity to show the world that we can live with one another in peace, respect and harmony. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we find a common bond enabling all South Africans to be treated equally, sharing the same opportunities and interests and in this way demonstrating to the outside world that we are a nation living our own lives according to an accepted model of constitutional development in our constitutional dispensation. Anybody who really wishes to protect superior rights for members of one group and protect their privileges, is far removed from the present reality of the South African situation. This will not endure in the future, and I want to say without mincing words that such a person should stop living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

I believe we have reached such a serious stage in our national affairs that we can no longer squander time. Anyone who does not contribute what he can to the national debate will have himself to blame if we eventually succumb to ideologies which are both internally selfish and of foreign design. The moment of truth has come. Let us not foul up this opportunity when we can, by our unselfish endeavours, help South Africa on the road to peace and harmony.

It is historic indeed that we debate this Bill, and from the tone of the speeches that we have heard since the beginning of the debate, it seems likely that this Bill will be passed. I believe history will be given even greater momentum when those participants in the proposed council are playing a meaningful and rightful role so that their actions, their deliberations and their contributions in the council will lead, perhaps not altogether to the ideal South Africa, but at least to an attempt to accommodate all political aspirations and persuasions in this country.

Born out of my own experience and participation, I want to say that however much I hate and abhor the kind of avenues and channels which were available to us as people of colour, whenever an opportunity was given to us, as a medium through which to work for the ideal, I grasped the opportunity.

I can quote Verulam, which was the first place in the Republic of South Africa where people of colour were given the opportunity to control the municipality. They rose to the occasion and Verulam is unique in the sense that the whole of the municipal area is under the control of people of colour. The point I am making is that when an opportunity is given, one should grasp it and not be despondent, but look to the future because that is what pays dividends.

I recall with some measure of pride that I participated in the South African Indian Council. It was simply an advisory body, but leading from that, we went into what was then the interCabinet committee of Prime Minister Vorster. In those days Labour Party members were not participants in that inter-Cabinet Committee. Selected members of the Coloured community, for instance the hon member for Reigerpark who sits here and the Chairman of the House of Representatives participated in the inter-Cabinet committee of the Prime Minister at the time. There were results.

We are now participating in the new tricameral system, however much it may be shot down in flames. We are participating to contribute towards finding answers for all peoples of South Africa. Therefore, my appeal to people like hon members of the CP is not ever to be despondent about South Africa. Do not live in a past era. The future needs to be looked at. I want to warn the CP of South Africa that what they are doing today, they will pay for in the future, because South Africa can never live as an island on its own. There is an international community in which one has to find a place for oneself. Please do not do things which will aggravate and escalate sanctions and boycotts against South Africa. We cannot live as a nation by ourselves, because we are dependent on the Western countries to help South Africa in case of need.

While inside this House hon members are my colleagues, and outside this House they should be my friends. My appeal to them is: Let us talk to one another, across the artificial bar that they have created, for we are all humans, and as God’s people we share concern for one another. It is indeed a pleasure for all of us to be participating here.

I also want to take a little time to deal with the PFP. I appreciate the points that are being made by the PFP, but I cannot accept the negativeness of their policy. If their going onto the platforms of the Republic of South Africa during the time of the referendum, saying “don’t vote”, had been successful, we would still have been waiting for the opportunity to come to this platform. I say this with conviction, because they do not have the real interests of people at heart. Today we are grumbling and fighting about people who are not in the system. I say with conviction that if they continue with their standpoint, the result will be that not a single Black will participate in the council. [Interjections.] My voice may be loud, but it is very friendly. I say to them: “Change your attitudes. Change your perceptions of what the people of colour want in this country.” [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon the Minister, the hon member for Verulam. It is very clear that he directs his mind to the future of our country and I think that is the least that everybody in this House should do.

*Mr Chairman, the great political challenge in South Africa today is to accommodate representatives of the different population groups in a specific single constitutional model. However, the postulation of the problem of constitutional involvement is not unique to South Africa. Being part of Africa, it is surely appropriate for us to look very critically at a few similar cases elsewhere on the continent.

Owing to the time factor I shall confine myself to Portugal, France and England. I should like to come to England. I see that the hon “dapper muis” (brave mouse) member for Potgietersrus has now got cold feet. I wanted to settle his hash with regard to one or two points.

He is afraid of you!

Is he afraid of me? I am very glad to hear it. We shall get around to that.

You are a rat!

As regards Portugal and France, assimilation of the inhabitants and association with the mother country was the order of the day. [Interjections.]

However, I want to come to Britain. Britain adopted a crown colony system of traditional authorative figures without specific fixed policy directions. Their policy directions varied from assimilation, “indirect rule”, paramountcy” …

Order! Did the hon member for Bloemfontein North refer to another hon member as a “dapper muis”?

I did, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! Did the hon member for Overvaal say that the hon member who is speaking at the moment was a rat?

Mr Chairman, in consequence of the statement by the hon member for Bloemfontein North that my hon colleague was a “dapper muis”, I said that he …

Order! Did the hon member say that the hon member for Bloemfontein North was a rat?

I retaliated by saying that he was a rat. Under the circumstances I take pleasure in withdrawing the word.

Order! The hon member for Bloemfontein North may proceed.

The hon member for Potgietersrus is not a mouse, and he is not brave either. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please afford the hon member for Bloemfontein North the opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

The European powers in Africa made two errors in judgment. In the first place they ignored the minority perspective. In the second place—I think this is particularly important—they wanted either to control or to lead the masses of the Third World to independence by means of mechanisms of the First World. The entire process of the utilisation of First World mechanisms in respect of Third World masses gave rise to the emphasising of numbers. At the same time Africa also made an error in judgment in the sense that their political liberation gave rise to economic enslavement. South Africa must and has taken these historic errors in judgment into account.

As early as the beginning of this century Gen Hertzog very expressly said that one could not prevent the Black man from acquiring political rights. In order to prevent his acquiring political rights in White areas Gen Hertzog said that one should not take the entire country for oneself but should surrender part of it to the “Naturelle”, as he called them. However, there was a proviso, namely that if they could not succeed in doing this the next thing had to be done. In a speech which Gen Hertzog made 75 years ago, he said that eventually we would have to give the “Native” part of the population living with us franchise in the management of general affairs. Seventy five years after Gen Hertzog made this statement this is precisely what the NP is doing in this joint meeting.

I want to come back to the Official Opposition. Let us take a look at their model.

The Official Opposition in which House?

I am referring to the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. According to them the following applies. I am quoting from a document of the hon member for Losberg of last year in which he said:

I want to put a question regarding this. If a non-White or a Coloured or anyone else were to associate himself with this political ideal, would this mean that he would get political rights? I should like a reply to this from the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] I should like to try to reply myself and say that my submission is correct. I am quoting from a speech made by the hon member for Ermelo. He said:

According to the policy of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly it is therefore possible in theory for a Black man to become the State President.

What does the CP’s state of justice look like? I must again quote from the hon member for Ermelo’ speech in respect of justice. I want hon members to listen to what the CP’S concept of justice sounds like. I am quoting:

He went on to say:

That is what the CP’s justice looks like. It has an absolutely racist character.

I am in a hurry to come to the hon member for Potgietersrus who, as is typical of the CP, made the historic blunder of alleging that Mr Ian Smith was ostensibly a left-winger. Mr Ian Smith was absolutely right wing when he took over the country and owing to a lack of time I am going to prove this to hon members by quoting from only one document. The document was written by a fellow traveller of the CP who is one of their most fervent supporters. This document still gives the CP cold shivers and will continue to do so for a very long time. I am quoting from the so-called Stigting Afrikaner-Eenheid:

In 1962 Sir Edgar Whitehead adjusted the Constitution of the then Rhodesia moderately by way of A and B voters’ rolls and the idea of including one Black in the Cabinet. What happened then? The right-wing group under the leadership of Mr Ian Smith, inter alia, seceded, formed the Rhodesian Front Party and eventually came into power on the basis of their policy of White domination. It was only at that stage—this is where the CP’s historic perspective left them in the lurch—that Mr Ian Smith moved to the left. He was forced to do so on the one hand by the fact that the radical Blacks took over in Rhodesia and the moderates became totally irrelevant and on the other hand by the fact that foreign economic pressure was brought to bear on them.

The hon member for Potgietersrus spoke about a Black majority government. I want to state here without fear of contradiction that the quickest way to a Black majority government would be to put the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly in power. There is more than enough proof that their policy would lead to chaos and a take-over by radical Blacks.

I therefore greatly appreciate the support for this Bill, which has been pledged by the reasonable elements in this Parliament.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Claremont had the audacity to attack the Labour Party for not conforming to his way of thinking. He reminds me of a political wallflower waiting for someone to ask him to dance. I believe he should fulfil his moral obligation by resigning his seat, won on the backs of the PFP, and come back under his own steam.

I stand here today as someone who was also the guest of the hon the Minister of Justice in 1976. I too had to sleep on a mat on a cement floor while being kept in solitary confinement and having to survive on a daily ration of three pieces of bread and two cans of black coffee. May I say that the hon member for Bethelsdorp, the Chief Whip of the Labour Party, followed me and drank out of the same can. For two weeks I had no water to wash with or to drink. I too was chased by the police, teargassed and harassed by roadblocks on my way to party rallies.

I saw no alternatives, and even violence appeared to be acceptable, suicidal as I knew it to be. And here I stand today, Sir, a direct result of my belief in seeking a peaceful solution and as a Christian who cannot give up hope.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has been working for a long time to get this Bill through the House. By tomorrow he will have achieved it. While I am obviously not one hundred per cent happy with this Bill—and I do not believe any one of us is— I support its objective of working on a new constitution to accommodate all South Africans, Black and White. I believe that that provision in clause 3 that “the Council may investigate and consider any matter which in its opinion is of national interest” is a very important one, one that could possibly be used to discuss the state of emergency and the release of Dr Mandela—one continues to hope that he will have been released by such time—or the structure of a future national convention.

I believe that we should not be carried away by the euphoria of the moment. There are certain stark realities that cannot be wished away. One sees that while the CP still believes in the outmoded and outdated concepts of apartheid, the NP believes in a new mode updated and sophisticated apartheid. One can call it what one likes but own affairs is apartheid, and apartheid is racism. While the LP believes that the right of the individual is paramount, the Government’s plans for the future are still based on the group concept, and this was reaffirmed yesterday by the hon the Minister of National Education and Transvaal leader of the NP, a contender for the throne. The NP bases its group on non-voluntary characteristics such as the colour of one’s skin and the texture of one’s hair. This is why their party membership is restricted to Whites only, be they Afrikaner, English, Portuguese, Greek, Jew, Catholic or Protestant. The only requirement is that one must have a so-called White skin. Only if those groups were based on voluntary characteristics such as language, culture and religion could one be prepared to look at it and could there be room for possible consensus. I wish to repeat a question I put to the hon the State President last year and to which to date I have not yet received a reply. The question was: Given a choice, who would you vote for—Dr Buthelezi who is a Christian, a capitalist and Black, or Joe Slovo, who is an atheist, a communist and White? This, I believe, is the fundamental point that will determine our future. Are we going to vote for a person’s politics or his skin colour?

Sir, I wish to appeal to the Government not to resort to semantics. They must not play with words such as universal suffrage if by that they mean that different people will vote for the House of Representatives, the House of Delegates, the House of Assembly, the KwaZulu legislature, the Transkei Government or a Black local authority. The Government must not say to us that the Group Areas Act is not a holy cow and can be amended when they insist that the principle of separate residential areas will remain, an Act which has caused so much hurt, degradation, dispossession, pain and death. This is the type of semantics that can only lead to increased frustrations. It was T S Eliot who, in Murder in the Cathedral, said:

The Government will have its national council but they must please not abuse this opportunity for they cannot ignore the realities of the Buthelezi’s, the Mabuza’s and other realist leaders who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as anarchists or people who are not interested in finding solutions.

The onus is now on the Government to create a climate for participation. They will be closely watched to see what they do with the Group Areas Act, the Moutse issue and the longawaited official reaction to the KwaZulu/Natal Indaba. One way of bringing their bona fides into question is their reaction to the Supreme Court decision on the King’s Beach issue as a case in point. The Government alleges that they are moving away from apartheid but when a court rules that the Port Elizabeth beaches have not properly been demarcated and are therefore open beaches, the Government appeals against this decision. What is the message they are sending us and the rest of Black South Africa? The Government must always remember that their actions will continue to speak louder than their words. Please do not take us for granted. Do not throw away this opportunity, flawed as it is.

To my brothers and sisters out there—comrades in the struggle for freedom, justice and peace—I say: Accept this challenge. Amandla!

Mr Speaker, the speech by the hon member for Addo indeed proved how great the sphere was with regard to which consensus has to be reached.

The acceptance of this Bill by Parliament is not merely another milestone in the road to constitutional reform for South Africa; it will irrevocably take the process past the crossroads and follow the course of peaceful negotiation.

As greater ripeness for adjustment developed, the Constitution of the Republic came under increasing pressure to make provision for a meaningful broadening of the democracy. It was the NP which yet again did not dodge its responsibility, but seized the opportunity to commit itself to further development.

When this Bill is accepted it will no longer simply be the Government’s declaration of intent to accommodate our Black communities in the dispensation politically too. This Parliament, as the competent legislative body of our country, asks that the council to be established must advise the Government of the day on a constitutional dispensation which makes provision for participation by all South Africans. It will be the function and the responsibility of this envisaged council to work out the particulars, and for this reason the directive is unrestricted.

The envisaged council affords the opportunity to those persons who believe that they can rightfully lay claim to eventual participation in all the government processes in South Africa, to make a contribution in the council in this regard in order to ensure that these aspirations are realised.

The success of the council will depend on the sincere desire to negotiate a generally acceptable dispensation for all the people of South Africa as well as the enthusiasm with which this is pursued. Those persons who are participating will go down in the annals of history as the true leaders who were magnanimous, inspired with the matters which were of importance to their fellow-man, and who did not succumb to intimidation or bad advice, but steadfastly continued to believe in the cause—leaders who put the interests of South Africa and its people first.

It would be political suicide if those persons who allege that there is a need and desire among our Black people to be a real and meaningful part of the dispensation, are not themselves prepared, or motivate others, to participate in this all-important guiding phase.

Participation is open to all. Those persons who in the past were in favour of violence to achieve political change now have a choice. The choice is between discussion on the one hand and violence on the other as a way of bringing about change.

However, there is also a third choice, namely that of the political spectator who simply awaits the opportunity to criticise. Those persons who prefer violence must know that by doing so they are incurring the displeasure of moderate, humane and peace-loving people, because by doing so they would be proving that they did not have the interests of the majority of Black people at heart. Through the establishment of this body there is now a visible alternative for those people who where initially politically frustrated, impatient and also perhaps inclined to violence. Those persons who through their callousness and inexorable attitude persist in not participating in the council, will eventually have no one but themselves to blame for allowing this golden opportunity to slip through their fingers. They will not have had a part in the determining of the direction in which South African politics develops.

The sympathy which may have existed for those persons who did not want to renounce violence because there was no alternative way in which to achieve constitutional adjustments in South Africa, will cease to exist after the acceptance of this Bill.

The emphasis will shift, and in future the spotlight will fall on the activities of this body. This should capture the imagination of the world as a method of political emancipation of communities and their incorporation in the dispensation with the retention of the Western value system.

I trust that the outside world will also take cognisance of these options which the Black communities have. If the outside world really has peace for this part of the world in mind, it will dissociate itself from the advocates of violence.

The incorporation of this Bill as a law in the Statute Book of South Africa will also face the outside world with a choice, which it will not be able to sidestep. If they want to see South Africa find its own constitutional solutions in a peaceful manner, they will encourage all interested parties over whom they have up to now exercised a certain influence, to serve on the council and honestly try to make a success of it. If they side with the advocates of violence, they will contribute to the failure of the process, and then they do not have the welfare of South Africa and its people at heart. The last option will be the easiest for our enemies.

Perhaps it is optimistic to believe that well-meaning countries will now set aside their prejudices against South Africa. Now more than ever magnanimity is required of our friends. How wellmeaning they are will be tested by their ability to ensure that no obstacles are placed in our path as regards our search for a peaceful solution.

It should not be presumptuous to expect recognition for the constitutional process conceived this week. Along with us the well-meaning countries should look forward to the birth of a constitutional dispensation in which peaceful co-existence of all South African communities, without domination by one over the other, can be shown to the world.

I do want to issue a warning that the excited expectation being created by this Bill must not leave the impression that well-considered solutions will be submitted overnight. My motivation lies in the fact that it took the existing components of the present Parliament two years to reach consensus on this Bill. It is for this reason that Black South African citizens should get a say in the governing processes through this council on an interim basis. It is against different backgrounds and from different perspectives that consensus must eventually be reached.

It is my considered opinion that the establishment of the council will bring order to the debate which is taking place on our constitutional future. The council will be the new forum for discussion and negotiation in which all interested parties will be able to submit their proposals and in this way make a constructive contribution to the development of various options which can be considered to satisfy our needs.

In contrast with the random basis on which constitutional debates take place, this will now be structured to embody the aspirations which can give rise to structures which will accommodate this. No one will be able to say that there was no opportunity created for a say. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the forthcoming municipal elections are used to the maximum to elect the right community leaders.

It is regrettable that the critics of this Bill want to anticipate the results of the activities of the council which is to be established and prematurely want to pass judgment on the acceptability or otherwise of the proposals which the council will submit to the Government. After a constitution has been accepted and everyone has participated within the structures, in the decisionmaking process, there will always be room for adjustment and improvement, because no constitution can be so rigid that it cannot satisfy changed needs.

General Affairs:

1. Constitutional Laws Second Amendment Bill [B105—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).

Committee Reports:

General Affairs:

1. 1. Mr SPEAKER laid upon the Table the Report of the Joint Committee on Provincial Affairs: Cape Province, dated 22 June 1988, as follows:
   The Joint Committee on Provincial Affairs: Cape Province, having considered draft Proclamations seeking to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1966 (Ordinance 21 of 1966), the Municipal Ordinance, 1974 (Ordinance 20 of 1974), the Divisional Councils Ordinance, 1976 (Ordinance 18 of 1976), the Walvis Bay Municipal Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance 26 of 1978), the Dog Tax Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance 19 of 1978), and the Horse Racing and Betting Ordinance, 1968 (Ordinance 34 of 1968), referred to it on 13 and 20 June 1988 in terms of Rule 195, begs to report that it has approved the Proclamations.
2. 2. Report of the Joint Committee on Finance on the Land Bank Amendment Bill [B 129—87 (GA)], dated 22 June 1988, as follows:
   The Joint Committee on Finance, having considered amendments to the Land Bank Amendment Bill[B 129—87 (GA)], recommitted to it, begs to report the amendments agreed to [B 104A—88 (GA)].
   Report to be considered.
3. 3. Report of the Joint Committee on Finance on the Finance Bill [B 90—88 (GA)], dated 22 June 1988, as follows:
   The Joint Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Finance Bill [B 90—88 (GA)], referred to it, begs to report the Bill with an amendment [B 90A—88 (GA)].