Mr. Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) condemns the Government for its policies and actions which have resulted in—
   1. (i) the aggravation of race tensions;
   2. (ii) the escalation of violence;
   3. (iii) the increase in authoritarian and repressive measures;
   4. (iv) the recession in the country’s economy; and
   5. (v) the deterioration in South Africa’s relations with the nations of the free world,

and which consequently threaten the security and stability of our South African society;

1. (b) calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to request the State President to appoint a comprehensive Constitutional Commission to investigate and report upon a new and just constitutional system for consideration by a National Convention representative of all sections of the South African community.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the substance of the motion, I want to refer briefly to a few aspects concerning the composition of this House since we were last assembled here. In the first place, of course, there is a new official opposition—perhaps this is one outcome of the election which was not envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister. We on this side of the House are aware of the task which lies ahead for us. We accept the responsibility resting upon us to act in the interests of South Africa as a whole at all times, according to our view and our convictions. When the interests of the country require us to criticize or attack the Government, we shall do so. When we have to support the Government, that support will be given. When it becomes necessary to indicate alternatives, we shall not hesitate to do so.

Why then is Harry sitting at the back there? [Interjections.]

Order!

In a country with a parliamentary system of government, the opposition forms part of the totality of government, for without an efficient opposition there will never be a proper government.

We on this side of the House are totally committed to the parliamentary system of government. We shall do everything in our power, not only to protect it, but also to strengthen and develop it. We accept that there are two prerequisites for the parliamentary system to function efficiently.

The first is that there must be an open debate about national affairs in the community as a whole. This in turn requires the right of freedom of speech, the freedom of the Press and an impartial radio and television service. As a part of our contribution to the protection of the parliamentary system of government, therefore, we shall fight for these things.

The second prerequisite is that there must be an orderly and law-abiding community. The parliamentary system is at its weakest when anarchy and revolution prevail. Parliament itself has a duty to contribute to the existence of an orderly and law-abiding society. On the one hand, Parliament must act against terrorists and perpetrators of violent acts, against anarchists and nihilists, and even against selfish power-seekers who make violent attempts to force their ideology upon the country as a whole. On the other hand, Parliament must make its contribution by changing the social, economic and political dispensation where necessary in order that all citizens of South Africa, irrespective of their language, religion, race or colour, will gladly give their loyalty to South Africa and will be prepared to defend the dispensation. We on this side of the House will always be prepared to make a positive contribution in these two spheres.

Another change which has taken place in this House since we broke up last year is one of a more personal nature. After almost 30 years’ service to this House, 21 of them as Leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff is no longer here. I believe that political friends as well as enemies would like to wish Sir de Villiers Graaff everything of the best on the occasion of his retirement. The part he has played in our South African politics will be debated in the future. There will be differences of opinion concerning the contribution he has made. However, there will be unanimity about one matter concerning Sir de Villiers Graaff. This is his feeling for and his maintenance of the dignity of this Parliament.

Every leader leaves his own personal stamp on the office he holds. Although as Leader of the Opposition I shall differ profoundly from my predecessor about many matters, I undertake to continue upholding the dignity of Parliament as an important feature of Opposition leadership.

† Then, Mr. Speaker, there have been changes in the Cabinet as well. One must congratulate those who have been promoted or appointed for the first time. Clearly, for the country’s sake, we hope that theirs will be a constructive term of office. I believe, however, that the country is justified in being disappointed with the changes that have been made. They were not bold enough. They give the impression that the hon. the Prime Minister is more concerned with reconciling the tensions within his own party than he is with dealing with the needs of the country. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh, but this, for instance, can be the only reason for the new Minister of Bantu Administration and Development retaining the portfolio of Information. Surely that portfolio belongs more properly with Foreign Affairs. In any case, moving Information away from Bantu Administration towards Foreign Affairs would have helped to eliminate some of the tension which exists between these two departments and which has been so obvious in recent times. My colleagues will deal more specifically with individual Ministers during the course of this debate. Let me say, though, that there must be one hon. Minister at least who, after all that he did and all that he said over the past few months, must be thanking his lucky stars that he was not stripped of at least one of his portfolios. But perhaps the Prime Minister is just waiting for a vacancy to occur before appointing him as an ambassador either to Greece or to Israel.

Mr. Speaker, the motion which stands in my name is blunt and to the point. My charge against the Government is direct. The deterioration in South Africa’s overall position over the last two years and especially over the last few months is a matter of serious concern to all of us. It calls for frank talking. It requires a constructive analysis of our situation and where we are heading, and what we must do if we in South Africa are going to avoid disaster. I have no doubt that hon. members opposite will advance various reasons for the situation in which South Africa finds itself today; and correctly, for the South African problem is a many-faceted one. But we in these benches believe that the root of our present serious problems is the policies of the Government, aggravated not infrequently by the ineptitude and arrogance on the part of certain Cabinet Ministers.

The Government will no doubt claim that in the light of its election victory it does not deserve the condemnation expressed in this motion and that it has been vindicated by the support that it received at the polls on 30 November last year. There is no point in us in these benches gainsaying the size of the Nationalist Party’s win. But, being able to win an election is one thing; being able to govern a country properly is quite another. As we enter what is perhaps the most critical phase of our country’s political history the election results should in no way be allowed to conceal the failure of Government policy and the danger that this holds for all of us. The fact is that after nearly 30 years of successive National Party Governments—I think 26 May this year will be the 30th year—Government policies lie everywhere in ruins. [Interjections.] As I and other members on this side of the House will show, it is the stubborn persistence of the Government with these policies that has resulted in the dangerous situation in which we find ourselves today.

Secondly, the Government will no doubt claim that it has received, from the electorate, a mandate for its policies. Of course, this is simply not so, because all of us know that Government policies played a very small part in the general election campaign. From the outset the hon. the Prime Minister decided to contest the election primarily on the strategy of calling on the voters to vote for the NP as a demonstration of their unity in opposing interference from outside. This was the main thrust of the general election campaign, but while this proved to be a highly successful election strategy, it was not a matter of contention as far as the parties participating in the election were concerned. Because South Africans of all parties resent being dictated to from outside. To claim, therefore, that votes for the NP were votes against outside interference is, of course, simply nonsense.

Why did they not vote for you then?

There is an important factor which this Government should bear in mind when claiming that it has received a mandate or mandates, and that is that while we are the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, and while we have full statutory authority in terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, this Government is a sectional Government representing only a minority of the citizens of the Republic of South Africa. So while we have a statutory responsibility to govern all the citizens, the Government receives its mandate to govern from, and is accountable for its actions too, only one section of the citizens whom it governs.

There is a potential danger in this sectional mandate and accountability. In South Africa, with its heterogeneous society, which is undergoing dramatic socio-economic evolution, pressures for change build up in pressure points and pressure areas throughout the society. Pressures come not only from those who have the vote, but also from those who do not have the vote.

For Parliament to function at its best as the regulator of change, the pressures within the total society should be reflected in the electoral pressure operating on Parliament through the ballot box. Because this does not happen in our case, however, we run the risk of being insensitive to the pressures building up amongst the disenfranchised sections of our people. Worse: We run the risk of responding negatively to these pressures, because the section to whom we look for mandates and votes sees these pressures as dangerous, or at the very least as evidence of competition and conflict.

In these circumstances it is possible for this Government, with the aid of State-controlled television, and by exploiting the prejudices, loyalties and the fears of the enfranchised section of our community, to pile up huge electoral majorities from amongst the White voters.

That is one side of the coin, and unless the Government starts responding in a positive and constructive way to the natural pressures from the other citizens, the disenfranchised citizens, they who seek the opportunities and responsibilities that normally go with citizenship, race tensions, violence, international pressures and economic problems will continue to pile up. But the Government, as it has demonstrated in the past, will no doubt continue to react to this situation by resorting to more authoritarian and repressive measures.

The hon. the Prime Minister with his substantial majority should, I believe, be less sensitive to electoral pressures which come from the right amongst the White electorate. He must be more sensitive to the pressures of the whole society. After all, the HNP has been virtually destroyed, and it looks as though some of the more vociferous verkramptes in his party’s ranks have been brought into line. Let me say to the hon. the Prime Minister: For every verkrampte in his party who quits because he does not have the stomach for fundamental enlightened change away from race discrimination, the hon. the Prime Minister can count on the support of the 17 members of the official Opposition.

The irony, and the reality, of the situation is that while the hon. the Prime Minister was piling up his biggest ever White electoral majority, South Africa was experiencing its blackest months in 30 years. That is the reality of the last six months. Let us look at some of the actions and reactions of the last few months which have brought South Africa, both internally and externally, to a new low point.

Firstly, there is the question of squatter camps demolition, the callous and inhuman bulldozing of the homes of some 20 000 squatters at Modderdam and Werkgenot during the heart of a Cape winter and without any provision having been made for alternative accommodation for the majority of families whose homes were destroyed. I believe this sent a new wave of anger and despair through the Brown and Black communities of the Cape Peninsula and sent a sense of shame through the whites. On this occasion, thank God, the shame was to a greater or lesser extent shared by members of all political parties. According to a report in The Cape Times—

A prominent Nationalist wrote at the same time—

After I saw the hon. the Prime Minister last year I went and saw the wrecking work that was being done at Modderdam. I saw the wretched families there. I felt ashamed, especially as I knew that the Government could have declared Modderdam an emergency squatter camp while alternative accommodation was being found for the families concerned. What I saw frankly worried me, and has worried me to this day, and causes me to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. It is something that has worried me ever since I saw the front-end loaders at work. The question is: Does the Government, this Administration, consider Black people to be human beings in the same way as it considers White people to be human beings?

Shame!

It is a blunt question, I know, and I hope we shall get a frank answer to it, because on that will depend whether in fact we are really going to get rid of discrimination. Now the Government has demolished the homes in Unibell and another 10 000 people are homeless. Again the ideology of apartheid has dominated over humanity. On this occasion it has introduced a new factor symptomatic of the times: a new conflict between the Transkei and South Africa. If Prof. Njisane is correct, the Transkei says unequivocally that it has never agreed to the demolitions but suggested resettlement as the key issue. If this is so, the Department of Bantu Affairs has treated the Transkei in a cavalier and unworthy way.

Let me go from that to the events in Pretoria on 12 and 13 September.

I refer to the death of Mr. Stephen Biko in Pretoria on the 12th while in detention. I also refer to the events at the Transvaal congress of the National Party the following day, the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Justice and his reference to a hunger strike and the ripples of laughter which echoed around that congress hall and in due course also echoed around the world. I refer to the insensitive words of the hon. Minister while referring to the death of a man being detained under his authority. The key words were: “He leaves me cold.” I also refer to his subsequent explanation that he meant that he was not emotionally involved and that it was as if one would say: “Your aunt died yesterday. Well, simply, I am sorry.”

Mr. Speaker, I was in Dakar in Senegal when the news of Mr. Biko’s death was received. There was a sense of shock. A couple of days later I was in Switzerland and then in Germany and then in Israel. What I heard people express in those three countries—and this added to the shock of Mr. Biko’s death—was revulsion at the attitude of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister has at least said that Mr. Biko’s death was very unfortunate. However, the damage was done by the hon. the Minister and it was done by the ripples of laughter at the congress of the NP in the Transvaal. If the damage had not been done then, it was done by the hon. member for Hercules who quite disgracefully in a public utterance said “I would have killed Steve Biko”. The hon. the Minister then carried on with contradictory comments and the final gem was “I’ve often felt like banging my head against the wall too.”

On 19 October there was the repressive clampdown when 17 Black organizations, the multiracial Christian Institute, the World and the Weekend World were banned. There was also the banning and restrictions of Black community leaders, religious leaders like Dr. Beyers Naudá, the Rev. Theo Kotzá and the Rev. David Russell and a newspaper editor, Mr. Donald Woods. There also followed the detention of editor Percy Quboza. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I might have expected some interjections! There is an element of tragedy in the case of Mr. Donald Woods and that tragedy was because of the punitive and vindictive treatment of Mr. Woods. Then there is also the detention of Percy Quboza and others by the hon. the Minister of Justice. There is also tragedy in the number of people, then approximately 714, detained without a trial. Some were youngsters and were detained for many months. And then, as one could expect, the fortieth person died in detention. He was an 18 year old youngster, the twenty-first in 21 months.

More and more authoritarian and repressive measures were the Government’s response to Black frustration and Black anger. It was a vicious spiral, and we should not argue where it started. It is on the go now, a vicious spiral of action and reaction. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Where is it going to end? Have things reached a stage where the Government is admitting that with its present policy it cannot govern without resorting to authoritarian measures of this kind?

I want to refer briefly to the inquest into the death of Mr. Steve Biko. It was not the findings of the Chief Magistrate, nor the probings of the chief counsel of the family, but the admissions of the hon. the Minister’s own officials and the grissly facts that emerged that were a damning indictment of the system of detention without trial and all those responsible for it. It showed that the Security Police believed that they operated outside of any statute and it showed that they virtually disregarded the Minister to whom they were responsible.

Nonsense!

The hon. the Minister said earlier: “Heads may roll.” But no heads have rolled and there has been a continued silence on the part of the hon. the Minister. The result is that in the world friend and foe alike have been left with the impression that the Government is indifferent to the inhuman and degrading treatment of people it detains. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister very pertinently: Based on the evidence which he has seen and has read of the inquest, does he approve of the treatment Biko received at the hands of the Security Police? He was once Minister of Police. He then gave assurances of this kind of treatment. Does he approve of the treatment Biko received? If not, what is he going to do about it? Does he approve of the handling of the whole issue and of the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Justice? If not, what is he going to do about it?

Then there was also foreign reaction to the Biko death, to the hon. the Minister’s statement and to the clamp-down that took place on 19 October. Not only our enemies, but also our traditional friends and our trading partners reacted. As we all know, especially the hon. member for Pretoria Central, there was hostile reaction in the Press and the media throughout Africa, which one can understand, and also in Israel and the Western World. The governments of the United States, West Germany, Britain, Belgium and France recalled their ambassadors for consultation. The nine countries of the European Economic Council delivered a formal dámarche to the South African Government. The UN Security Council imposed a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. France, the major supplier of our weapons, blocked the delivery of four South African warships. Canada withdrew her commercial consuls in Johannesburg.

To many of our friends abroad who wish us well, South Africa had passed the point of no return. This was their assessment; to them conflict was inevitable and there was no longer the prospect of a peaceful solution. Added to this there is the gross ineptitude of certain Cabinet Ministers. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs brought an unwelcome touch of earthiness to his office by describing the British Foreign Minister as a “whining little dog”. The Minister of Finance, in a “fighting” speech in Natal, put his foot in it in regard to the question of South Africa’s right to make nuclear weapons, and then made a remark about the new French Foreign Minister which caused our Minister of Foreign Affairs to go and apologize. The Minister of Justice, in statements and recorded interviews, succeeded first of all in offending South African Greeks, then in offending English-speaking South Africans, and then in offending Jews in a way which put a further strain on South African-Israeli relations. One might ask: “With friends like these, who need enemies?”

We should look at this canvas, because there is no point in Parliament being complacent about the situation. Inside South Africa the warning lights were flashing amongst the various Black and Brown communities, as the hon. the Prime Minister knows. Both the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the South African Indian Council had rejected the Cabinet’s new proposals for constitutional reform. The Coloured Labour Party, the Indian Reform Party and the Zulu Inkatha movement had formed an alliance to fight apartheid. The Urban Bantu Council system had collapsed and in a major city like Soweto there is very little prospect or sign of anything acceptable being put in its place. Bantu education was in a state of chaos with thousands and thousands of youngsters out of school and hundreds of teachers resigning in protest against the system. Protest and violence spluttered on in the Black townships.

We all know the situation in regard to the economy. Foreign capital inflow (long term), was down to R168 million for the first nine months compared with R921 million in 1976. There was an outflow of foreign capital (short term) of almost R1 000 million for the first nine months of 1977 as opposed to only R266 million for the whole of 1977. There were, however, other pointers. The retail sales index was down 8,7%in real terms; the manufacturing output was down 5,4% in real terms; building plans passed were down 25%; registered unemployment amongst Whites was up by nearly 100%; the number of Black unemployed—unregistered of course—was estimated at a million in the cities and 2 million in the country as a whole. The immigration figures were down and a loss was shown for the first time in many years. There were more emigrants than immigrants to South Africa. The final disturbing feature to which I want to draw the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention—one of the most disturbing features of the South African scene— is the increase in urban violence in the form of political terrorism. Some of this terrorism, for example the bomb blasts at the Carlton Centre, in Germiston and Benoni, apparently have the hallmark of organized foreign-based terrorism. Some of it, for example the shooting of Detective-Sergeant Nkosi and the State witness Stephen Mtshali, appears to be directed against State witnesses and State agents. Much of the urban violence that is taking place at the present time is, however, directed at ordinary opponents of the Government. Tear-gas cannisters are thrown at political meetings; the homes of individuals who oppose the Government have been petrol-bombed; there have been constant telephone calls, threatening the lives of people who oppose the Government; there has been damage to their cars and property; shots have been fired through windows. Whatever the motive, Mr. Speaker, it is a sickening symptom of the mood that prevails in this country and it is made even more disturbing by the Government’s apparent inability to counter it or to track down the criminals responsible.

This is the South African scene that we have had over the past few months. This is what was happening to South Africa while the Government was piling up its White majority.

It may well be that the hon. the Prime Minister will point to the fact that other countries also experience violence, conflict and recessions. This is correct. No country is immune to influences from outside. Few countries succeed in reconciling continuously and satisfactorily all the conflicting and competing forces operating within their societies. South Africa is no exception. With its diverse community, rapid industrialization, uneven distribution of wealth and uneven development of its people, it is subject to many pressures which, if not properly handled, could be disruptive. However, in South Africa pressures from these socio-economic sources fade into insignificance when compared with the pressures resulting from the persistent failure of the Government to remove discrimination based on race and colour, and the ongoing failure of the Government to find a constitutional system through which all the citizens of our country can share in the making of decisions which affect their lives and well-being.

Of course, one would be wrong if one said that the Government had done nothing towards the removal of race discrimination. Of course it has. It has removed some apartheid signs, for which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not want to die in any case. The Government has also withdrawn certain provisions of job reservation and it has relaxed apartheid in hotels and certain theatres. These are, of course, steps in the right direction. However, what the hon. members on the other side must realize, is that the basic structure of discrimination still stands in South Africa. Coloureds and Indians are still second class citizens. Blacks—to use the phrase of the hon. the Minister of Justice—“are only here on sufferance”. This is the situation and when we in these benches talk of race discrimination we refer not only to the old visible enforced separation—bad as that is—but we talk about a denial of basic rights, i.e. the right to own one’s home, to lead a family life, to have a decent education, to freely seek and take up employment, to access to the Civil Service, to the protection of the courts, to the security of one’s person, to a real say in the Government of the country to which you belong. It is the Government’s persistent denial of these basic rights on the grounds of race and colour that has built up our internal conflict and has resulted in our country being branded as a racist amongst the countries of the Free World.

We all know that there was a time when discrimination was seen as a form of protection for the White people of this country. Whatever the past may be, the continued existence of the basic structure of discrimination in our country has now become the greatest single danger which threatens the security and the future of White South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, while no two situations are entirely analogous, the Government should and must be willing to learn lessons from the progress which is, for instance, being made in the Territory of South West Africa. For in South West Africa, in spite of terrorist incursions across the border, there is evidence of real progress being made away from discrimination and race conflict towards race co-operation. In South West Africa the Government has adopted an approach which it, strangely enough, refuses to adopt in South Africa. There it initiated a multiracial, multi-ethnic, national conference which not only agreed on a definition of common intent, but which actually achieved mutual trust and cooperation in a common national cause. Secondly, through the machinery of an Administrator-General, the Government has proceeded to dismantle discrimination in a determined and meaningful way. Instead of starting from the Foreign Minister’s stated premise that the United States of America was a greater danger to South Africa than the Soviet Union, it sought the active co-operation of the West in attempting to find an internationally acceptable settlement of the South West Africa issue. This is a delicate subject.

The negotiations in which the five Western nations are functioning as a contact group will reach a critical stage when the Minister of Foreign Affairs meets the Foreign Ministers of the five Western nations for proximity talks in New York within 14 days.

It is clear that considerable progress has been made towards reconciling the differing points of view on how and under what circumstances the people of South West Africa should decide on their independence. We hope that the remaining differences on the question of the conditions for holding free elections as a prelude to independence will be resolved. We realize that there is growing impatience inside South West Africa for the South West Africa independence issue to be resolved without any undue delay. We can understand this, but given the quasi-international status of South West Africa, we must say that we have the most serious misgivings about any unilateral declaration of independence which may take place without international recognition. In this connection I must remind the House of the words of the Administrator-General, Judge M. T. Steyn, only a few days ago.

*According to Die Burger of 21 January 1978 he said—

† Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister did say that there was one issue on which he was going to seek a new mandate from the people. That was his new constitutional plan for the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. Before considering some of the details of this plan I want to say that it is almost unbelievable that the hon. the Prime Minister could have presented a plan for the future constitutional development of South Africa which excludes any provision for the Black citizens who make up 70% of our population.

The issue of the political rights for Black South Africans—and especially those Black South Africans living in our urban areas—is the most critical one we have to deal with. It is the Government’s denial of meaningful rights to these people that is a prime cause of the conflict situation in our urban areas. It is no use we in these benches or the Government on the other side of the House wishing away the claims of these South Africans for a say in the political process by assuming that in due course they will cease to be citizens of South Africa. The Government knows and we all know that there will always be millions of Blacks who will be an integral and an indispensable part of what it calls “White South Africa”, and that they will have to be accommodated within the political structure of that South Africa. To ignore this, as the hon. the Prime Minister is ignoring it, is to court conflict for all in South Africa.

Very briefly I want to discuss the hon. the Prime Minister’s constitutional plan for Coloureds and Whites. I want to test whether in fact this plan is going to remove discrimination or not. By putting a few questions I want to see whether this plan has the prospect of reducing conflict, because if it turns out to be just another form of baasskap, or another form of White leadership with justice, the hon. the Prime Minister must realize it will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

At this early stage I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister three questions so that we can make an assessment of whether it is baasskap or not. The first question I want to put, is where sovereign power is going to lie in this proposed system. Will it lie in an independent constitution interpreted by an independent court? Will it lie with more than one Parliament? The hon. the Prime Minister has already denied that. Will it lie with the three Parliaments acting jointly? That would be power sharing in a very extreme form. I presume not. Will it lie with the Council of Cabinets? That would also be power sharing in an extreme form. Will it lie with the State President? At first I thought it would not until I read what the hon. the Minister of Justice said. Addressing a Jeugbond meeting he said—

That was a definition of the hon. the Minister of Justice. However, he has been repudiated and contradicted.

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that the White Parliament would keep the powers it has at present. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that this new dispensation as far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned, which he asked the electorate to endorse, does not mean that we are taking away the role that Parliament has played up till now. Parliament is the supreme body in South Africa, and will remain the supreme body in South Africa. I take it that that is a formal definition coming from the hon. the Prime Minister, and if that is so, can that Parliament then change the Constitution on its own? Will it be able to grant or repeal authority of the Coloured and Indian Parliaments? Will it be able to regulate the funds? And if it is the sovereign body, if sovereign power reposes in this Parliament, then the hon. the Prime Minister must accept that this is a form of baasskap over the other parliaments in South Africa.

The next question which I wish to pose is: What effective say will the Coloureds and Indians have in the election, the control over and the decision-making by the State President? It is conceded that the State President is going to be a political figure and that he is going to play an important role. At this stage I do not wish to tabulate the formal roles which he will play. But when it comes to the election as we understand it, he will be elected by an electoral college of 50 Whites, all drawn from the governing party, the majority party, and 38 people of the other groups. In other words, the Coloured and Indian vote can never be decisive. When it comes to control over the State President it will be by an electoral college consisting of 88 members, 50 Whites from the governing party and 38 Coloureds and Indians. Once again, their vote will never be decisive. The question is whether the State President could be a Coloured or an Indian. At a meeting which was held recently the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations is reported to have said—

Then, the hon. the Minister of Defence put forward a most ludicrous argument during the course of the election. When the National Party were asked whether under their scheme a Coloured man could become State President, they said: “Yes, because at present he can become State President of South Africa.”

When did I say that?

I think it was at Hartswater or in the Kimberley area.

That is nonsense!

It was nonsense. Basically they argued that one could change the Constitution with a majority of one and therefore a Coloured could become the State President of South Africa It is the same as saying in South Africa that one can have sex across the colour line, because one can change the law. Surely we are talking about the situation now. But the hon. the Prime Minister is reported to have said—and this does disturb me—under the heading of “White-only President for South Africa” that—

This is how the Press understood him and how the PFP understood him. The hon. the Prime Minister said: Yes, technically a Coloured man could become President of South Africa, but the National Party will not allow this to happen and this is why you should vote for the National Party. If this is so, and I think it is a definition, I want to say that it is out and out racism. It is out and out racism to create a political structure in which Coloureds and Indians can take part and then for the majority party to say that they will never allow it to happen.

Finally, what executive will administer the departments dealing with matters of common interest and to what parliament will this executive be responsible? Who will run the departments of common concern? In this respect I can lean on the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who said quite clearly that the White Cabinet, with its 17 members, would continue controlling these portfolios. “This therefore means that White Ministers will only handle the administration of matters of common interest after matters pertaining to them have been transferred to the Indian and Coloured Cabinets. There will also not be a common civil service to deal with these matters, but it will remain White.” If the hon. the Minister is correct, this, once again, is a form of baasskap. This is discrimination of the worst kind. This is why we say that these plans are inadequate to the point of being shabby. They have been handled by the Government with an incredible lack of sensitivity towards the Coloured and Indian people. Having said this, let me add that these plans are not without importance. As I analyse them, they represent an important departure from the basic philosophy of Dr. Verwoerd which, after all, is the foundation upon which the National Party’s race policy has rested in the past.

*It is an important deviation from the basic philosophy of Dr. Verwoerd. But in this scheme Whites, Coloureds and Indians are brought together in a single constitutional structure in which there will, on matters of common interest, be an elementary form of both power-sharing and joint decision-making. With the election of the State President—who will be the cornerstone in this new power structure—by an electoral college consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, the principle of power-sharing has been accepted. By the establishment of a Council of Cabinets which will play a key role in matters of common interest, the principle of joint decision-making has been accepted.

In these two very important philosophical spheres, the NP has crossed its Rubicon, and now that the hon. members have tasted the hitherto forbidden fruits of power-sharing and joint decision-making, the politics of the NP can never be the same again. We on this side of the House hope, of course, that this philosophical border-crossing by the NP will lead to a healthier and more constructive national debate. The debate is no longer so much about whether we can avoid power-sharing and joint decision-making, but rather about the manner in which we share power and responsibility and decision-making in order to ensure peaceful co-existence in and one common loyalty to South Africa.

† Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister has stated that no legislation in relation to these three proposals will be introduced during this session of Parliament. I believe this is just as well, for constitutional experts who have examined this scheme have expressed grave reservations on whether, as it is at present formulated, it will ever be capable of functioning in practice at all. But apart from these substantive objections there would be no sense in having a Coloured or an Indian Parliament which was either ignored or boycotted by the representatives of the very communities supposed to benefit by these proposals.

We must warn the Government—and it has already set out on the path of joint decision-making—that if it proceeds with its plans, based on the mandate it uses from the White electorate, but which are against the wishes of the Coloured and the Indian people, it will compound the conflict which already exists as a result of the general thrust of Government policy, and thus further weaken the security and the stability of the South African society.

There is one cardinal lesson which, I believe, this Government in particular must learn. That is that no constitutional system is going to work unless it has been negotiated and agreed to by all sections of the population affected by it.

We in these benches believe that South Africa is entering a critical phase of its history. The hon. the Prime Minister and we know that we cannot afford to continue on the present course of escalating conflict and repression. He and we know that we must fulfil our commitment to get rid of discrimination based on race or colour not because we promised it, but because our future depends on it. He and we know that our present constitutional dispensation is totally inadequate to meet the problems we have to solve. We in these benches believe that the time has come—indeed, the time is overdue—for an in-depth examination of our whole constitutional system. It is not good enough to make pragmatic and piece-meal adjustments to systems that have failed. It is not good enough for it to be enforced by one section of our population on the other.

The Government’s decision to appoint an all-White Nationalist Cabinet Committee to draft the new constitutional proposals was in fact a fatal flaw in the whole scheme. Its decision to follow the same procedure in respect of the urban Blacks simply courts disaster. I wonder whether the new hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is going to be the chairman, should not say to the hon. the Prime Minister “Let us scrap this Cabinet Committee on the Urban Blacks. Let us get a multiracial committee to go into it in a proper way.” The motion before us calls for a comprehensive commission to be appointed by the State President to undertake this investigation. To be effective it certainly should be multiracial. It should be multi-party and it should be under the chairmanship of someone who enjoys the confidence of all the representatives involved. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I find this interesting. I know these are all members of the National Party, but it is interesting that in South West Africa a man named Dirk Mudge turned up and was accepted. The people did have confidence in him. Do these people not believe that there is a single person in South Africa who can enjoy the confidence of the multiracial community?

The motion calls for the report to be considered by a national convention. I have moved this because of the conviction of the members in these benches, born out of the tortuous experience of Namibia South West Africa, that sooner or later the leaders of all sections of our South African people are going to have to sit down around a table and agree upon a constitutional system in which all South Africans can believe. I know that the Prime Minister has on previous occasions rejected the concept of a national convention, but I believe that his objections have been spurious and that they have lacked conviction. On a matter as fundamental as a new constitutional system, surely the Prime Minister must concede that the days of White decision-making are over and that the maximum degree of negotiated concensus is a precondition for success. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves it is not sufficient to tinker with existing arrangements that have demonstrated their inadequacies.

I believe that there are three basic factors which the Prime Minister and we are going to have to accept. The first is that with all its diversity and pluralism, South African society is essentially a shared society. In spite of the barriers of apartheid, in spite of the degree of separation that exists and will continue to exist in a natural way, South Africa in substance is a shared society and is becoming more shared every day. One needs only to look at our economy, at commerce and industry, at labour and supervision and even management, at sport and religion and cultural life. When one looks at all these elements of our society, one finds that we are becoming a more shared society day by day, under the impact of evolution. The shared decision-making that is taking place outside of politics is going to have to be transferred and translated into political structures as well.

Secondly, South Africa will not be able to withstand the pressures from outside nor survive as an orderly society unless we can create the conditions which will make it possible for all the citizens of this country to give their loyalty to this country. The need for this common loyalty was dramatized the other day by the call from General Malan, the Chief of the Defence Force, for Black and Brown South Africans to be recruited for the Commandos. Surely a condition for achieving a common loyalty is that people must have the ordinary rights of citizenship and the right to lead a life free from discrimination. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must face up to the fact that the members of the various groups which make up our South African society will not co-operate within a political system in which their religious, language and cultural heritages are not secure, and that they will not willingly accept a political system in which they run the risk of domination and oppression by others.

Of course there will be differences of opinion between us and the hon. members opposite as to how one can deal with this in practice, but these differences do not wipe away this reality of the South African situation. A constitutional system based on these facts is, we believe, a matter of overriding priority. I believe that with all the resources and expertise available amongst our people it can be achieved, but it will not be achieved if the Government goes ahead with its own racially exclusive national Cabinets.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. After nearly 30 years in office, the leadership of the NP has, despite its electoral gains, failed to come to grips with the realities of a dynamically changing South Africa in the world of the 1980s. Somehow or another it has been trapped by the attitudes and the prejudices of the past. We recognize that the NP is well versed in getting White votes and in manipulating the fears and anxieties of the electorate, but in the next few years, during the life of this Parliament, the stakes are going to be higher than White votes. They could be White lives, they could be Black lives and they could be Brown lives. We in these benches are aware of the dangers ahead. We do not suggest that there is an easy way out of the dilemma in which circumstances and Government policy have combined to bring us. I am not unaware of the awesome responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, but I put it to the Prime Minister that he stand back for a moment and have a look at the policies of his Government in a critical way. It is our belief, a very sincerely held belief, that these policies are threatening the security and stability of our South African society. They are forcing the Government to adopt authoritarian and repressive measures. If the Government continues along the way in which it has been continuing, especially over the last two years, it will ruin this country and all South Africans will be the losers. We for our part will direct our efforts to exposing the weaknesses and the dangers in Government policies. We will point to alternatives. We are determined, as the official Opposition in South Africa, to play our part to see that this country is not ruined, but survives as a free and prospering community.

Mr. Speaker, a new Parliament has been elected and many new members have come to this Parliament for the first time; new members representative of all the parties in this House. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome the newcomers very cordially and to express the hope that no matter what his particular party affiliations may be, every one of them will at all times be of service to South Africa through the medium of this Chamber. Indeed I do not have the slightest doubt that all of them have come here with that aim and desire and that they, together with our older members, will at all times uphold and appreciate this institution and the dignity of Parliament. As I have said, many newcomers have joined us and it will take them a little while to adjust, but I do not have the slightest doubt that every one of them will make his contribution in years to come.

The election has also produced a new official Opposition. That does not surprise me. I predicted its appearance as long as 15 years ago and now it has come about.

You have contributed largely to it.

The hon. member says that I have contributed largely to it. No, the hon. member is mistaken. The stupid things the NRP did have cost it this election. The stupid things the old UP did, have cost it this election. May I say that if they had called in the hon. member for Durban Point earlier, it is possible that less damage would have been done. [Interjections.]

We listened to the hon. member for Sea Point. I must honestly say that the speech he made this afternoon did not surprise or disappoint me. He gave what I expected him to give. His future in his new capacity is not going to depend on what I think of him. His future will depend on what his “Establishment” thinks about it and I am not doing him an injustice in saying that. Nor am I saying it in a derogatory spirit. I am saying it as a person who has become familiar over the years with the political climate both inside and outside this House. I want to warn him that the “Establishment” is going to look around in time to come.

Look who has got an Establishment.

I do not believe it will easily overlook the hon. member for Parktown in that regard. I do not know how long I shall remain in this House, but if those hon. members who now make up the official Opposition continue to do so, then I foresee some changes in regard to this matter.

Hon. members probably noticed that I did not make many notes while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. It was not out of discourtesy. On the contrary, I should like to congratulate him on the distinction which he has now attained. So it was not out of discourtesy that I did not make any notes. It was just that I had read the gist of his speech before I came to Parliament, and I did so in the directive which was given to the hon. member in the Financial Mail on 27 January 1978. Word for word they gave him his directive. It pained me that the Financial Mail did not offer suggestions or ideas, but that the whole tone of the article, was that of a master giving his servant instructions as to how to act. I never believed that that day would dawn and I hope that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party will oppose it with everything in their power. After all, it shakes the worthiness of a political party in this House to its foundations when a publication like the Financial Mail can issue such instructions to a leader and a political party.

Allow me to give a few examples of the language they used. Permit me, Sir, to refer to a few of the things they mentioned. Then you can see whether I was justified in speaking as I did. They told him—

That is the only instruction he has not carried out today. But one cannot, after all, define something one does not have! Surely that goes without saying. They went on to tell him that he should not make the same mistake as the one Sir de Villiers Graaff made. I should like to associate myself with the compliment which the hon. Leader paid Sir de Villiers Graaff. I am already missing him this afternoon. They told the hon. Leader he should not make the same mistakes and then they said—

I say they are nil. They also gave him advice but he paid no heed to it. They will rebuke him for that in due course. What they said was—

Then, a little further on, they gave him this interesting piece of advice—

I shall come back to that later. I have had reason before now to argue this matter with the hon. member. They went on to say—

That is an ultimatum to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They went on to say, and this was really the essence of the hon. member’s speech—

The hon. member did not get round to that today. Apparently his courage failed him or he did not have the time. But during the election he did get round to it.

The hon. member is of course disappointed with the changes I have made in the Cabinet and I can well understand it.

† However, he went out of his way to make disparaging remarks about the hon. the Minister of Justice and of Police. The hon. the Minister of Justice can speak for himself. It is not necessary for me, now or at any time, to defend him in this House. But having made these very disparaging remarks about the hon. the Minister of Justice and of Police in this House, the hon. Leader went further and insulted two very good friends of South Africa, to wit Greece and Israel.

Who insulted them?

You; just now!

Having said that the hon. the Minister is unfit to serve in this Cabinet and that I must get rid of him as soon as possible because, in his opinion, he is good for nothing, he suggested that I send this good-for-nothing to either Greece or Israel. On behalf of South Africa I sincerely apologize to these very good friends of South Africa for the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the South African Parliament insulted them the way he did. [Interjections.]

Order!

In spite of their laughter—this is not a laughing matter—I sincerely hope that the hon. Leader of the Opposition will seek out the first opportunity that presents itself to make suitable apologies to the ambassadors concerned. It is interesting to me why he used Greece and Israel. That was the question which immediately presented itself to me. Then I remembered that the hon. the Minister had a talk with Chief Gatsha Buthelezi during the course of last year. I asked him to get me the minutes of that meeting and I have looked through it. It was not the hon. Minister who raised the question of Jews and Greeks during that conversation. It was Chief Gatsha Buthelezi who raised it. The hon. Minister merely replied and in no way in a derogatory sense.

What did he say?

It is a coincidence that those were the two countries that Mr. Gatsha Buthelezi mentioned and that the hon. member comes to this House today and mentions the same two countries. It is a coincidence if it is so.

*I listened with surprise to the hon. Leader’s reference to Mr. Woods, who is not only a member of the PFP, but who was also one of the leaders of that party and an exponent of its policy. It is that same Mr. Woods who is now calling upon the world to take action against South Africa—not against the Government, but against South Africa. He is a member of the hon. Leader’s party and has been one of his chief propagandists over the years. No condemnation has been forthcoming from the hon. Leader however.

I want to predict today that just as surely as Swapo exists both within the country and abroad, one is in due course going to encounter the PFP both at home and abroad … [Interjections.] … and the PFP abroad will be speaking a different language to that of the PFP at home. The internal PFP will repudiate its external wing ever so slightly; so slightly as not to make any real difference. I want to express my deep regret that the hon. Leader did not make use of the very first parliamentary opportunity, on behalf of this fatherland which he has so much to say about and which he wishes to serve as we all do, to crush the head of the little serpent which his party has nurtured in its bosom over the years, and to repudiate him absolutely so that at least he would not have been speaking on their behalf overseas. That repudiation was not forthcoming from him, however. His repudiation was even more skimpy than that of The Argus, The Cape Times and those to whom he had been a hero in the past.

However, let us get back to the election and to South Africa. Both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Parktown owe South Africa an explanation of what they meant when they smeared South Africa last year in the eyes of foreign investors. The hon. member for Parktown was quoted as saying the following—

Surely it is not necessary to say such a thing about one’s own country, particularly in view of the present situation, seen against the background of world economic conditions and other aspects. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went just as far by implication. I read here—

The alternative is very clear. Foreign companies have that alternative. He went on to say—

In other words, there is no doubt as to what the hon. member is saying here, in the same edition as the one in which the hon. member for Parktown had such ugly things to say.

The following question arises after the last election: How do we see the future? There is a certain matter which one first has to consider in general. It concerns the basis of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s entire argument—not only in this House, but outside as well—viz. the holding of a national convention. What do they wish to achieve by holding a national convention? Naturally they have never spelt it out to us. However, there have at least been certain indications. Such an indication came from the hon. member for Bryanston, for example. Referring to such a national convention, the hon. member said, according to the Rand Daily Mail of 29 August 1977—

Sir, do you see in this the unspoken threat to the White man in South Africa? Do you see as well, Sir, that despite what they would have us believe, there are only Whites and Blacks in South Africa as far as they are concerned? For them the Coloureds and the Indians do not exist, because nowhere in this reported speech by the hon. member are these population groups referred to. I shall return presently to this tendency which is becoming more and more prevalent. The hon. member’s speech conforms very closely to the leading article of The Weekend World of 19 June 1977. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. member for Bryanston was intimidated by it. In this leading article the editor wrote—

He is referring here to the Whites—

The Whites are being threatened with “certain destruction” here. A month or two later the hon. member for Bryanston said that if the Whites were not prepared to participate in a national convention, they would lose everything. So you see, Sir, how these matters do indeed go hand in hand.

Let us first ask ourselves, however, how the new hon. Leader of the Opposition sees his task and function. He has already told a newspaper about it and he also referred to it in passing today. I quote from The Star of 24 January 1978—

The hon. member sees it as his task and as his creed to break the National Party. The hon. member grew up at Hobhouse. I say to him in plain language, as he heard it in his young days at Hobhouse, that he does not have it in him. [Interjections.]

The hon. member is not the only person who would like to do this, however. His “Establishment” is trying to do it as well. Gerald Shaw wrote very clearly in The Cape Times of 5 March 1977—

The hon. member merely elaborated on that. Just for the record, and because we now have a new Parliament here, I want to know what it is that the hon. member has to crow about. He went into the election with 18 members and came out with 17. What is more, seven of those 17 members won by fewer than 500 votes. One of them won by only 50 votes. [Interjections.] That is something to cry about and some tears have indeed been shed over it …

You once lost by two votes.

I lost by two votes as a new, inexperienced young man in politics. The hon. member has represented a constituency since 1961. Towards the end he had to ask Prof. Joubert and Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and others to recommend him to the constituency so that the electorate would vote for him again. No one has ever offered himself a greater insult.

However, I should like to refer to the leading article in this morning’s Cape Times. The following appears in it—

In the same directive which he received and to which I referred earlier, he was also told very clearly—

Who gives the hon. member’s newspapers the right to speak on behalf of the Blacks, the Brown people and the Indians in South Africa? In an arrogant manner, as they did in the last century, they are again arrogating to themselves the right in the year 1978 to speak on behalf of the “voiceless masses” in South Africa. I want to deny categorically and in the strongest terms that there is a single “voiceless” person in South Africa. The fact is that under this Government everyone has the franchise. The hon. member may argue with me across the floor of this House if he so wishes, and he may tell me that that franchise is inadequate. He may say that we should alter that franchise, but surely it is a public lie to say that there are “voiceless masses” which have no franchise whatsoever. And that lie is going out into the world. Time and again, whenever I speak to strangers, …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not clear from the hon. the Prime Minister’s words that he is imputing a lie to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister was quoting from certain writings.

Let me tell the hon. Whip right now that he has a lot to learn about me. The day I feel like telling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is telling a lie, I shall not beat around the bush; I shall tell him so in his face. Then he may object if he so wishes. I say that that lie is going out into the world and I expect every member of Parliament—he has this responsibility—to tell the world that these people do have the franchise, that the Blacks all have the franchise and the right to elect a Black Parliament, and that they have Cabinets and Prime Ministers.

As citizens of South Africa?

Yes, as citizens of South Africa. I shall come presently to what the hon. leader wants them to have. I shall come to that in a moment That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is implying and that is the curse of South African politics. People are asking why relations in South Africa are deteriorating. It is because of the kind of speech which is being made, inter alia, by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. For example, he said the following—and I could quote many other examples—in the Rand Daily Mail of 2 August 1976—

Surely that is not true. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s assertions are absolutely untrue. The hon. Whip may raise an objection now if he wishes.

Not yet!

I say that what is being asserted here, is absolutely untrue, and whose interests is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition serving by so doing? But apart from the fact that these words have been disseminated abroad, what influence do they have on the Blacks here in South Africa, on certain groups among the Coloured population and on the Indians? It is alleged that the Whites have all the wealth and that the Blacks have nothing. Not all people have the same understanding of things. Not all people are equally developed. Surely this is an open invitation to those people to agitate for their part of the wealth which the Whites now have. I said this during the election and I want to repeat it here in this House today. What the Whites possess today—whether it be Harry Oppenheimer with his millions, or any other White man in South Africa—they did not steal. They worked for it That is why, as long as this Government is in power, wealth will not be taken from anyone and given to others. I shall make a further reference later to how an incitement of Black and Coloured people is taking place as a result of this type of speech by members on the opposite side of the House.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to hold a national convention.

† I read somewhere that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, when asked what the first thing was he would do upon winning the election, replied—so it is reported—that he would phone Gatsha Buthelezi. [Interjections.] I presume he would do so not necessarily to receive orders. [Interjections.] I take it he would do so in order to arrange with Gatsha Buthelezi for a national convention. I know that Buthelezi has certain ideas about this. According to The Star of 3 November 1977 Gatsha Buthelezi believes in majority rule. He is quoted here as saying—

It is interesting to note that they do not only want majority rule, but, when listening to the speeches of his underlings as of late, it becomes clearer that they also do not recognize the duly elected leaders of the Black people of South Africa as the true leaders of the Black people. It becomes gradually clearer that they still look upon Mandela and Sobukwe as the real leaders of the Blacks in South Africa. At one of these conferences the other day this was said when reference was made to the ANC. It is often said. When talking to foreign politicians and others I often find they have an idea that Mandela and Sobukwe are the actual leaders of the Black people in South Africa.

This is not the first time that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has spoken about a national convention. He has been talking about it for years. Therefore I must assume that he has given this a great deal of thought and that there is nothing about how he wants to do it that he cannot tell us. Then, of course, the question which immediately arises is why he does not tell us now, here in the House, in his new position and with his new responsibilities, whom he will invite to his national convention. He does not tell us who will be asked to attend. The question arises why he keeps this a secret.

Just as a matter of interest I want to point out that the hon. Leader of the Opposition ridicules the homelands. He ridicules their independence. So does Gatsha Buthelezi. This is what Gatsha Buthelezi had to say—

He has the audacity, and not only he himself, but also the Establishment that supports him, to say that they speak on behalf of the Black people of South Africa and they, and they alone, can speak on behalf of the Black people in South Africa, while I, as leader of the Government, can only speak on behalf of 10%.

The fact remains that the Transkei has become independent, that Bophuthatswana has followed and, as that as sure as we are sitting here in this House now, within the next five years other Black nations will follow. I can very well foresee that within the next five years perhaps every one of them, with the exception of KwaZulu, will have become independent. In other words, these Black people think for themselves and act according to their own interests. They will keep on thinking for themselves and they will always act in their own interests. Time was when the hon. Leader could call them together at will at the Holiday Inn at Jan Smuts Airport. Time was when they were at the beck and call of the PFP, but no longer. He cannot get them together today and he knows it. He knows he cannot get them together. Those days are over.

*I must warn him in that regard that he need not even try again. Nevertheless he and the newspapers which support him say that they are the only people who can speak on behalf of the Blacks. I do not for one moment wish to say that there are no differences between the Government and the Black leaders. I do not for one moment wish to say that they agree with everything I do or say or that they agree with the policy of the Government. On the contrary. There are many aspects of the policy of the Government with which they do not agree, and they do not hesitate to say it in front of me when we are in conference. They have every right to do so—something which I have always conceded. However, I want to tell the hon. the leader that nothing that he and his cohorts can do will prevent the Blacks from becoming independent. It is inherent in every individual that he wants to become independent. I would go so far as to say that in spite of the attitude of the chief of the Zulus, the time will come when the Zulu nation itself will proudly wish to become independent in its own right, and will in fact do so.

While I am dealing with this point, I should just like to say the following: Hon. members have recently seen how we have been attacked by them, and today by the hon. Leader as well, because we detain people for 90 days or however many days it may be. Inter alia, we are also being attacked by members of the Inkatha of the Zulus. It is ironic, however, that since 19 April 1973 a proclamation (No. R103) has been in force in the Msinga area of Zululand which reads, inter alia, as follows—

Do you know, Sir, that this proclamation was promulgated at the urgent request of the Chief Minister of KwaZulu and his government? It was their request that it be promulgated, and I have never heard the Shadow Minister of Justice of the Opposition—that is the hon. member for Houghton if the newspapers are correct—say a word about it. It is astonishing, with all the jurists, new and old, that hon. member has appropriated this portfolio to herself.

How many deaths have there been under that detention?

It seems to me it is going to be something of a “people’s court” that we are going to experience if the Progressive Party comes into power. It astonishes me that no attacks have ever been made in respect of this regulation, but it astonishes me even more that we are now being attacked on detentions in that regard. It is true that there were people who unfortunately died in detention. People were already dying in detention in the days when I was still Minister of Justice.

Ten.

They also died in detention in the days when hon. members opposite comprised the Government. In fact, people are dying in detention throughout the entire world. However, we need only see how the cases which occur in South Africa are blown up out of all proportion. If it were to happen here, as it did in West Germany, that six people committed suicide on one day as it were, what would happen to South Africa then?

In Germany the Minister resigned immediately.

No, his resignation occurred on completely different grounds, but if the hon. member wants to be so over-sensitive about that case, I should like to know from the American Press why no Ministers resigned—to mention only one example out of hundreds—in the case of the student, Curtis Hoston, in America. He was so severely assaulted that the court’s finding was as follows—

It was nevertheless found—

In Britain itself the British Press has plenty to say about what happens and what does not happen in South Africa. Why did they not create an uproar about the things which did in fact happen there? I need only refer to this case to which the Sunday Mirror referred, viz. the “Liddle Towers” case, in which a prisoner was killed by a whole lot of policemen, and point out that no investigation took place. It is to be regretted—and this has always been my standpoint ever since I was Minister of Justice—that incidents of this kind occur. The fact of the matter is, however, that in South Africa every one of those incidents has been very thoroughly investigated. Who can now deny or dispute the fact that with the help of American money from abroad the most highly-paid advocates are retained when these cases are investigated and that consequently the most thorough cross-examination and investigation of these cases occur?

There were cases—the hon. member for Houghton is aware of this—where, arising out of such investigations, people were charged, inter alia, in Natal, and where those people were found not guilty by the courts. Therefore, it is not only a question of these incidents unfortunately occurring. If the matter had simply ended there, hon. members could have had a great deal more to say about it But the fact is that each case is thoroughly investigated and that no Attorney-General or any other person charged with its prosecution has ever refused to prosecute a police officer or any other person if here was any case whatsoever against such an individual.

Does the hon. Leader not also, as I do, have a duty to South Africa? He discussed these matters and he has a great deal of time; he has unlimited time. Surely he knows that propaganda is being made against South Africa in this regard. Surely he knows that in certain circles in the world at least, notice is taken of what he says? I do not wish to deny him the right to attack the Government because these things happened. But, considering the attacks which have been made on our courts and on our administration, was it not his duty to take up the cudgels for South Africa in that regard? Surely it is not the Government he would be defending, but the system in his fatherland. It is the courts of our country which he should join me in protecting.

That was not the purport of my attack.

Surely the hon. Leader is talking nonsense now! He is talking nonsense if he says that the courts were not attacked. They were not only attacked; they were trampled into the mire. So much so that even the Bar Council of Johannesburg had to issue a statement in which it expressed its displeasure at this. If the Bar Council of Johannesburg reacts in this way, you must know how serious it actually was! Then the hon. the leader makes the nonsensical statement that our courts were not attacked! Let him speak to the back-benchers in his party. They will give him the necessary information in this regard.

Ask Harry!

Yes, that is good advice. The hon. Leader should ask the hon. member for Yeoville. I am pleased that the hon. member for Yeoville is well seated. Since the hon. member is under discussion now, I want to tell you, Sir, that I became quite apprehensive when I saw how uncomfortably the hon. member was seated opposite, while the only open space is the one next to me.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what his purpose with a national convention is. Is his purpose with a national convention to introduce Black majority rule— one man, one vote—in South Africa? Although the hon. member does not say so, I want to accuse him of having as his policy the introduction of Black majority rule in South Africa. If the hon. member now tells me that it is untrue—he need not even tell me this—I quickly want to call upon three witnesses. The first witness I am going to call upon is the former member for Edenvale.

Where is he now?

I hope that the rumours I hear that the hon. member for Orange Grove must make way for him are not true, for that cannot be allowed to happen. This former hon. member spoke in this House on 27 February 1976, and he is a member of that hon. member’s party.

† According to col. 2142 of Hansard …

What date?

27 February 1976. I take it your policy has not changed since then and that you still have the same policy today.

It is a different party. [Interjections.]

That makes it extremely interesting. Does the hon. Whip now want to tell me that since changing from the PRP to the PFP, they have changed their policy? Did they change their policy when they changed the party’s name from tire PRP to the PFP or is it still the same?

Read the documents.

That hon.

member can save me the time by just telling me whether this policy has changed or not. [Interjections.] It is a very fair question. Did you, in fact, change your policy or not?

[Inaudible.]

Let me ask the hon. member for Yeoville.

Nic Olivier was not in this party in 1976. He was in the UP.

Yes, I know.

He was then speaking for the UP.

For the UP? And was he speaking the truth? [Interjections.]

He was in the UP.

That is the whole point.

[Inaudible.]

Let us not haggle about that, Mr. Speaker. Let me put it in another way. There was a time when it for sure was the policy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to bring about Black majority rule in South Africa.

It is not the policy of this party.

I will come to that now. I will come to that immediately. I have said to Mondale—and that is the truth— that no political party in South Africa has it written into its programme of principles to bring about that situation in South Africa.

*I was therefore protecting the hon. member because I refuse to hand even him over to the enemies of South Africa.

† Be that as it may, in their heart of hearts that was the position because in this very House Mr. Nic Olivier said the following about that hon. member and his party in 1976 (Hansard, col. 2142)—

On 28 January 1976 the hon. member for Houghton admitted, when she was questioned about this by the hon. member for Worcester, that it was their policy to eventually bring about “one man, one vote” in South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton will not deny that today. Is that so?

Your policy is “one man, one vote”.

I am not talking about my policy now. I shall come to that in a minute. For heaven’s sake talk about your own policy for a change. On 3 December 1975 the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who then rarely spoke about the Progressives, said the following about the PRP—

Just read a little further. [Interjections.]

I shall read it to him. The report continues—

That is how the report continues. It does not say anything further about the hon. member. He was, after all, not so very important. [Interjections.]

*Here we have three members of the PFP, two in this House and one outside, who said that the policy of the party …

What party?

The Progressive Party, to call it by all its maiden names, now the PFP, formerly the PRP, before that the PP.

That is not this party.

The hon. member for Yeoville will have to decide for himself which of the various parties it is. We know that the hon. member is now in this House, that he has his seat and until such time as I refer to him again, we may as well proceed. What does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wish to achieve with a national convention and what standpoint is he going to adopt at such a national convention? We need not speculate about this, for just as I disclosed my attitude in full during the last election, so that hon. member and his party disclosed their attitudes. Questions were put to the hon. member and to me, and we replied to the questions. The first question put to both of us, dealt with “voting qualifications for Blacks and Whites”.

† My reply was—

The PFP’s reply was—

Is that the question put to you and to me or not?

That is your reply. Please, for heaven’s sake, do not confuse your reply with mine. [Interjections.] This is your answer to the question.

Is it my answer?

Yes. [Interjections.] I will read it to you again. I am quoting from The Star of 18 November 1977. The PFP’s answer was—

Who said that!

The Progressive Party. [Interjections.] Now The Star is being accused …

I think you said that.

I will read the side note. It states—

[Interjections.] It is a very serious matter. The PFP does not stand father for this statement and, in fact, suggests that it never gave it to The Star. Therefore The Star, to say the least, is guilty of not only gross distortion, but also of gross dishonesty. What is more, it is unbelievable that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members of his party did not see this when it appeared in The Star. If they saw it, why did they not do anything about it? To say at this stage that they did not give it to The Star and to suggest that The Star of its own accord stated this on their account is something that must be looked into.

The Press Council!

I do not think the hon. Leader of the Opposition can leave it there. I will not take it further, because it is none of my business, but I will certainly find out what the hon. Leader of the Opposition has done about it I also think The Star must take note of it that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is accusing it of conduct which no newspaper in South Africa will, I think, ever be guilty of. [Interjections.]

The Star put further questions. This happened outside the House and when I have to choose between the word of the PFP and The Star concerning the wording in this tabulation, I accept The Star’s version of the matter. I say so outright. [Interjections.] The Star put a further question to me and the PFP concerning residential rights and areas for Blacks and Whites. I put my case as follows—

This was his reply—

Is that the policy of the Progressive Federal Party? [Interjections.] Has The Star reported the Progressive Federal Party correctly, or has it in this case also distorted their policy?

Reply!

The hon. leader must give us an answer.

It is not funny at all!

Do not only say “It is not funny at all”. Here we have a newspaper which, before the election, prints something in black and white as coming from the official Opposition. Now I want to know whether in fact it had the authority of the official Opposition to print it. The hon. member says nothing. What sort of Leader of the Opposition and of a party is he?

However, we were asked further questions about open or segregated schools. On behalf of the NP I said—

What about Church schools?

If the hon. member cares to debate that aspect with me when my Vote comes up for consideration he can do so.

Will you then give us your answer?

Here is the reply of the PFP—

Is that in fact the policy of the PFP? [Interjections.] He gives me no answer. Here again it is a matter of The Star saying it is the answer you gave. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now cast a doubt on it, because he has not only insinuated, but has definitely said that The Star had no right to say that that is the policy of the PFP. In other words, The Star must have sucked this out of its thumb. Did the PFP in fact give this answer to The Star or not? [Interjections.]

*Far be it from me to take up the cudgels for the Opposition newspapers. I have very serious bones to pick with them. However, in all fairness to The Star, a reflection is now being cast on its integrity as has never been cast by any of us on the integrity of a journalist, and it is being done, what is more, by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We have now seen his reaction. We see that he does not wish to take action in that regard.

Why do you not answer some of the vital questions put to you? [Interjections.]

The hon. member must not become excited now. She and I have been in this House too long to need to become excited. We have now reached the years of discretion in our lives where we can sit back a little and leave it to the younger people to make interjections of that kind.

However, I want to return to the request of the hon. Leader, i.e. that I should now call a national convention. I have no intention of doing so now or in the future. I have said this before.

As far as the Blacks are concerned, I want to say that their parliamentary future has been outlined. They are all going to follow that course. It is not necessary for us to enter into a debate on that matter now. All that is necessary is that we clarify and discuss the details of the matter with the Black leaders themselves. This I have been doing for eleven years now, and I shall continue to do so.

Let me now tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and certain newspapers that the National Party won the election, and won it well, better than I had expected. I am very grateful for that, and at the same time I realize that it places a tremendous responsibility on my shoulders. But if they now expect me, now that I have won, to implement policies which were expressly rejected by the electorate of South Africa, surely it would be absurd. Surely I will not do it, nor have I any intention of doing it.

Why did you not tell that to Jan Marais?

Yes, as a matter of fact I did tell Jan Marais that. As a matter of fact, I told every member of my party that. That is the policy of our party. If the hon. member now thinks that she can drive in a wedge between me and Jan Marais or between Jan Marais and anybody else, she has another guess coming. She does not know the NP. There is a loyalty in the NP which has never been present in her party where dog eats dog. If the hon. member has any doubt about it let her ask the hon. member for Yeoville.

*I say that I am not prepared to call a national convention. As far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned, I announced a new dispensation which was approved by my congresses and on which the voting public of South Africa has set its seal. This is to give substantial political rights to the Coloureds and the Indians. We shall continue to do so. We shall continue to hold consultations on this matter with the Coloureds and the Indians, and we shall, so I believe, come to this House with the necessary legislation next year.

The hon. member put quite a number of questions to me, some of which are not relevant to the purposes of this debate. It is being envisaged that an electoral college consisting of a certain number of people will be established. That electoral college may elect whomsoever it wishes. Surely that goes without saying. We have eliminated the obstacle which previously existed in respect of Coloureds and Asiatics. Does the hon. member now wish me to go further and say that a Coloured person, or an Asiatic person, must be elected? Surely that is nonsense. That electoral college will do the electing, and if it elects a White, it elects a White, just as everyone has the right to vote as his conscience dictates. We have tried to apportion it as we thought was fit and proper. Does the hon. member now wish to tell me that we should have appointed more Coloureds and Indians to that electoral college? Should they have outnumbered the Whites? And on what grounds does he say we should do that? Why is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition annoyed with me in that regard? He is annoyed with me because that electoral college has been constituted in such a way that he will not have the opportunity to conduct intrigues against me with the coloured groups. That is the truth of the matter. That is the only reason why he can be annoyed with me. Gerald Shaw said that that was the way to get rid of the NP.

The hon. the leader put other questions to me in this regard. He asked me: What about Parliament. Parliament functions as it has done all these years, in all its splendour and glory, and with its full status. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not yet grasped the essence of the proposed council of cabinets and its function? Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not yet grasped that its elementary function will be to determine what legislation should be introduced? Today, surely, it is not only this Cabinet which determines what legislation is introduced on behalf of the Government. Under the new dispensation the council of cabinets determines what legislation should be introduced. Parliament, however, still has to ratify it, just as before. After all, the council of cabinets will not have the right to make laws. The State President will not have the right to make laws either. The State President comes into the picture when the various cabinets are unable to reach agreement. Then the State President settles the issue. However, he does not make the laws. Not for a single moment does he make laws for anyone. All laws are made by Parliament.

No one is arguing about that.

Then what is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition droning on about here? Why is he asking what will become of Parliament under the new dispensation? The same applies to the ministries. The ministries proceed with their work. Only after the council of cabinets has in the course of years decided that certain powers should be ceded, are the powers in question ceded. That is the way in which it will be done.

Oh well, I cannot blame the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The youngest man who ever voted for a United Party Government is almost 60 years old now. [Interjections.] They no longer know how these things should be done and what should take place. So I do not know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is at loggerheads with me about this now.

I am referring to the question of sovereignty.

When he refers to the question of sovereignty there is, as far as I am concerned, nothing in the new dispensation which detracts from the sovereignty of Parliament.

Will the Coloured Parliament also enjoy sovereignty?

Yes. Within the confines of the legislation and in regard to its own affairs it is the only body which enjoys sovereignty.

What about matters of common interest?

There it has joint responsibility.

[Inaudible.]

I am now replying to all the questions which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put to me here. However, when I put questions to him, he does not want to give me an answer. What kind of leader is that? [Interjections.] However, let him put his questions. By enlightening him, I am after all fulfilling a useful function on this day. Let him put more questions to me if he wishes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the time of this House unnecessarily. There are many things I still wish to say. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to do so. However, you will allow me to say a few words about the future. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to certain matters. I think it is fitting that I should on this occasion say a few words in regard to what is happening in Rhodesia and in South West Africa. Parliament will share with me the realization that there are very important talks in progress in Salisbury, talks which naturally are being followed with close attention by both the South African Government as well as each one of us. I do not, on this occasion, wish to say anything which could influence or prejudice the talks in any aspect. I only wish to say that I believe that those talks have the potential of contributing to, if they do not in fact lead to, a settlement in Rhodesia. However, it is a very delicate matter which has a history going back many years. Therefore, on behalf of the sub-continent of Southern Africa, I wish to ask outsiders to limit their intervention in this regard to the minimum. Intervention by outsiders can do far more harm than good.

I hesitate to comment on newspaper reports, but because I shall not have another turn to speak in this debate, I must get this off my chest now.

I read in this afternoon’s Argus that there are rumours concerning the possible bringing of, inter alia, Nigerian and Indian troops into Mozambique. I sincerely hope that the British Government will not perpetrate such folly. I want to believe and accept that the British Government will not perpetrate such folly, for to my mind it is unthinkable that a Government can do that, since I can conceive of very few things which have the potential for sowing greater tension, discord and unrest than this has, and could lead to endless chaos and misery. Over the years South Africa has taken an interest in this matter and done everything in its power to try to bring about peace in our part of the world. We did not prescribe or interfere. I want to give hon. members the assurance again now that we did not do so in this case either. Peace is important to us. All that we did was to support all efforts in that direction to the best of our ability. I believe that at present that is also the spirit which is emanating from most of the Whites and Blacks in Rhodesia. I want to join hon. members in trusting that we shall tangibly experience the coming of peace in Southern Africa.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, I have no doubt at all in saying to this House that as far as the various political elements are concerned, there is nothing on the part of South Africa which is still outstanding and which still has to be done. Over the years we have adopted the standpoint that the people of South West Africa will decide their own future, and that we shall accept decisions on their part even though they are contrary to our own views or policy. Over the years they have assembled and adopted a standpoint; we in our turn have accepted those standpoints as they decided on them. Over the years it has been demanded from South Africa that the territory should become independent as a whole. The territory will become dependent as a whole. It has been demanded from us that the territory should become independent on the basis of “one man, one vote”. The people of South West Africa have decided that this should be done. As far as South Africa is concerned, therefore, we do not stand in the way of a single decision. But I do want to make it very clear that South Africa is not prepared to negotiate with Swapo in this regard, and is not prepared either, in accordance with the resolutions of the General Assembly—not of the Security Council—to hand South West Africa over to the adventurer Nujoma with his Marxist Swapo organization. The Financial Mail and I are not friends, and the hon. the Leader would therefore be doing me a favour if he would tell that man who wrote to him, “Dear Eglin”, that I will not do what he told him to ask me to do in that regard.

Recently, as from last year, we have been holding talks with the five Western countries that are members of the Security Council. I want to state candidly here that we could have made further progress than we have done with those talks. It is not South Africa’s fault that we did not make further progress. It is true that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will hold talks within the foreseeable future with the Foreign Ministers of the five Western countries that are members of the Security Council. These are talks on a very high level, and we are going to participate in those talks in the hope and trust that we shall now reach finality and settle the issue, because South West Africa will and must become independent this year, and if South West Africa is to become independent this year, the proclamation of the first election which has to lead to that independence can no longer be delayed for too long. In fact, that date should already have been announced. It has only been held in abeyance for the sake of these talks and because we went out of our way last year already, with the knowledge and co-operation of the people of South West Africa, to obtain international recognition for their independence. We shall attempt once again with these talks to obtain that international recognition for the people of South West Africa. There is a need for haste in regard to this matter, and I can quite understand that resentment is already beginning to be felt in South West Africa in regard to this matter. I can also understand—for there are various political organizations in South West Africa—that there is resentment among those organizations at the fact that the Western world is going out of its way to hold talks with Swapo and Nujoma and not with the other organizations in South West Africa as well. It is a pity that there still seem to be certain representatives even today who are being prohibited by their Governments from going to South West Africa. If that is so, it can only serve a good purpose if that attitude is changed.

Certain demands are being made on us by Swapo. We are not prepared to comply with those demands, for not only are we responsible for law and order in South West Africa but also for the protection of the lives and property of the people and the protection of the country itself. Our security forces are there at the invitation of the existing Governments there and in accordance with the injunction which we have to protect the territory, an injunction which is inherently contained in the mandate itself. If you ask me: “What about South West Africa finally?” then I say: We are in honour bound to the people of South West Africa to make them independent this year and we shall discharge our obligations in that regard in consultation with the people of South West Africa.

The outside world will exert pressure on us. There will be times when certain people will feel that they should rather leave South Africa because it is becoming too dangerous here. People are beginning to have doubts about their children’s future and consequently decide to go elsewhere. On 14 November last year I received a letter from which I wish to quote two short passages—

We have found ourselves, and we shall during the course of this session again have an opportunity to discuss that threat. We shall hear a great deal more about it. We did not hide that threat and all its consequences from the voting public of South Africa, but presented the threat and its possible consequences to them in its full nakedness. It did not deter the voters. On the contrary. It compelled them to a greater extent to give their support to the Government. The Government is consequently conscious of the mandate which it has and it will carry out that mandate as it received it in the spirit of its duty to South Africa and as it has been called upon to do by God Almighty.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the remarks made by the hon. the Prime Minister towards the end of his speech, which were not on a party political level, he will excuse me if I say that in all the years I have been in this House, I have never once heard so many far-fetched arguments coming from a Prime Minister as I have today. He began by mentioning the so-called instructions given to the Leader of the Opposition by the Financial Mail. Let me say that if every opinion expressed by a newspaper were to be regarded as an instruction to a political leader, and if I were to take into account every opinion these newspapers put to him, he would be subject to more instructions than any political leader in the House.

You have not read the article.

I have read it. He referred to the constituency of Bezuidenhout. I do not think I need stand here and apologize for having won. All I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister is that the NP has now tried four times to capture the constituency of Bezuidenhout. This time the NP made an all-out effort. The hon. the Prime Minister even held a special meeting there attended by 4 500 people. I want to thank him for that because it really helped me. Apart from that, he also had the assistance of a third party. As far as the NP and the constituency of Bezuidenhout are concerned, I just want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister—rather wait until after my death if you hope to take it. [Interjections.]

He also discussed Donald Woods. I have no evidence that Donald Woods joined the PFP. We shall find out, however. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister has any evidence, or whether he is simply saying things. If that is the case, we shall have to accuse him of not having any grounds for his statement. What proof has he that Mr. Woods is a member of the PFP? According to my information he is not a member of the party.

Do you deny it?

I say to the hon. member in all honesty that I do not know. The hon. the Prime Minister made the statement and therefore he must furnish the evidence. [Interjections.] In any event, if Donald Woods joined the PFP, he would have had to endorse the policy of the party. What he is now saying overseas, he is not saying on behalf of the PFP. What he is saying there does not constitute PFP policy. He would have no right to speak on behalf of our party, and what he has been saying is not in accordance with PFP policy. All that we stand for and always will stand for in this House is that we object—and it is an objection on principle—to the fact that any person, whoever he may be or whatever position he may occupy, may be arbitrarily banned by a politician without having the right to defend himself before a court. If people are arbitrarily prosecuted and then act against the Government, the blame for that action lies with the Government and not with him.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that everyone had the vote under this Government. What meaning does he attach to the words “the vote”? The general meaning of the term “the vote” is a say in national affairs. If a person has a municipal vote, then one does not speak, in that sense, about a vote in national affairs. Does he say that the Black man has the vote in national affairs in South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister may say that he envisages this, if that is so, but to come here and say that the Black man has the vote in a generally accepted sense of the word will not be accepted by anyone who attaches the true meaning to the word.

He said, correctly, that the White people have worked for what is theirs. I think, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister is not informed as to what is going on, not even among the Black and Brown people in South West Africa, nor among the Black and Brown leaders either. This has nothing to do with what we as a party are saying. Black and Brown leaders there adopt the premise that over the years land, bus concessions and diamond concessions have been handed out by the State. This is not what I say; it occurs in speeches made by men like Kloppers and Kapuuo. It is said in speeches made by them that those concessions went to the Whites alone. No one can dispute this. That is why there is a movement to do something about it as soon as a new Government comes into being there. Facts that are being discussed here—not an issue of policy. This is the point of view of Black and Brown, not only in South Africa but in South West Africa as well. This must be taken into account and we must consider how to deal with the situation. It does not constitute incitement when notice is taken of what leaders of other population groups have to say.

The hon. the Prime Minister said, inter alia, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopted the attitude that “he ridicules the independence of the homelands” and that we do not support them. Where is the evidence for this? The hon. the Prime Minister would do well to furnish us with the evidence. It is stated in the principles of the PFP that if any homeland wants to become independent and there is proof that a majority of the voters in that territory want it, then we shall not oppose it. The hon. the Prime Minister states that the PFP maintains that they are the only people who speak on behalf of the Blacks. Where have the PFP ever maintained that we are the only people who speak on behalf of the Blacks? We have just as little right to speak on behalf of the Black people, the Brown people, or the Indians as hon. members on that side of the House. However, when we discuss Black people, Brown people and Indians, we discuss them because it is a matter affecting the life and future of the White man. When we make a plea for co-operation and for a common loyalty in the difficult situation which South Africa is facing, we do so from the point of view of the Whites on whose behalf we may speak. The hon. the Prime Minister states that the PFP stands for a policy of “one man, one vote”. The hon. the Prime Minister maintained that he had three witnesses whom he wanted to call and one of them was me. It is the easiest thing in the world to spend hours on quotations here.

For example, I could quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said about the NP when he was a member of the Ossewa Brandwag and I wish him luck, because in spite of it he became leader of the party. However, where does all this get us? I could quote my hon. friend, the Minister of Community Development, as saying: “This is the most rotten Government that Almighty God has ever created in this world.” In spite of this, the hon. the Prime Minister put him in the Cabinet.

Did you say that about the Progs?

I shall state what I said, because I am quite prepared to discuss it. On a previous occasion the hon. the Prime Minister quoted me as saying: “The PRP could not become an effective Opposition, because its policy of Black majority rule will never be acceptable to the Whites.” I did say that. When the hon. the Prime Minister quoted this last year, the hon. member for Yeoville said: “That, of course, is not our policy.” When the hon. member for Yeoville was still a member of the PRP, I made that statement at the Carlton in the course of a debate. The hon. member immediately denied it and established a different point of view. That does not erase the words I used, but what the hon. the Prime Minister is failing to bear in mind is that there were extensive discussions and negotiations among the opposition parties last year to bring about opposition unity …

And you convinced them.

No, I do not say I convinced them. Why should I maintain that? The facts which the hon. the Prime Minister is omitting are that the issue here is not the Progs or the PRP, because what did in fact happen was that negotiations took place with the aim of achieving unity among the various parties. After discussions had taken place, we—and the UP too—unanimously accepted 14 points of principle as a basis for unity. I do not want to get involved with other parties; all I want to say is that those 14 points of principle were accepted as a whole as the principles of the PFP as a new party, without one comma being changed. Anyone who joins the party has to stand by those principles. They read very clearly—I have the English version before me—

These are the facts of the matter and that is where the party stands, irrespective of what anyone may have said earlier. I wish I had the time to read them all to you. We reject the policy of “one man, one vote”, but the hon. the Prime Minister is still advancing this argument. In the course of the election, however, we have stated clearly that this is not so.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, unfortunately my time is limited. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he says one thing here, but tells Mr. Mondale another. Does he appreciate the implications of that? What are foreign representatives going to think about the statements he makes to them in future if he says one thing abroad but precisely the opposite in South Africa? [Interjections.]

I was stunned at the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude. He quoted at length from The Star. However, he never quoted from official standpoints of the PFP. [Interjections.] After all, I know; indeed, I was present when it was drafted.

The hon. the Prime Minister concluded his speech by referring to the issue of the mandate he has received from the voters. I want to discuss this issue of a mandate briefly, because from the moment that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced his motion, hon. members on the Government side have been adopting the attitude that there was, after all, an election in which the voters gave their verdict and gave the Government a mandate, and because what the Opposition has to offer is in conflict with the mandate of the voters, the Opposition is excluded from the debate. Mr. Speaker, no one disputes that the NP has achieved a clear majority and has, therefore, been given a mandate. We ought to take an honest look at this mandate and we are prepared to do so. However, before we can look at the mandate with an open mind, we are entitled to ask of the Government exactly what that mandate is and how the Government itself sees the mandate. If the hon. the Prime Minister had used his time today to spell out to us unambiguously how he saw this mandate and how and when he was going to carry it out, there would be no reason why this should not become one of the most fruitful sessions in our existence. The reason for my asking what exactly is entailed by the mandate is that one of the characteristics of the hon. the Prime Minister’s administration is that he has never once caused a Parliament to continue to sit for the full five years for which the constitution makes provision. He became Prime Minister in September 1966.

In September last year, therefore, he had already been in office for 11 years. In that period we have had three general elections and each one was called between a year and a year and a half before the appointed time. There are hon. members who will say that this is good party political tactics and I do not want to dispute that. However, a Prime Minister has a duty embracing more than mere party political tactics.

Mr. Speaker, I looked up the election manifestos issued every three and a half years; the so-called mandates which the NP has received. When one looks at the mandates of the three elections held under this Prime Minister since 1970, one finds that the record of the Government is anything but a good one. If I had had the time, I should have shown, giving chapter and verse, how the mandates have never been carried out. In 1974 the hon. the Prime Minister asked to be given five years and said that he wanted his hands free to deal, unhindered, with the questions facing the country. If one regards the election manifesto of that time as a mandate, the country gave him a mandate then, too. However, it is interesting to see what is stated in the manifesto concerning the consolidation of Bantu areas and the issue of non-interference in the affairs of other countries and then to consider what happened subsequently in Angola. One should do some reading about the standpoint of separate self-determination for each of the peoples in South West Africa. This has now become joint self-determination for the various peoples. One should read what appears there in respect of sport. It was an undertaking that the policy of the NP will remain unchanged. The hon. the Prime Minister received a mandate for that and three and a half years later he felt he had to go to the voters again and request mandate again. When the hon. the Prime Minister called the election, he furnished three reasons for holding an election yet again. In the first place he apparently wanted a verdict opposing foreign interference. In the second place he wanted approval of his new constitution. Thirdly, he said that all the hon. members of the Opposition had been elected under different colours. He wanted the country to give a verdict on that. The final reason was a frivolous one and I shall therefore ignore it. There have been very major shifts in parties involving the NP in the past. That has never been a reason for the holding of early elections.

As far as the new constitution is concerned, I want to say that a decision on that score could just as well, and perhaps even much better, have been reached by way of a referendum. In any event, there has been so much doubletalk concerning the significance of the constitutional proposals that we are entitled to know how the Government explains its mandate on the matter. We have heard next to nothing on the subject today. The hon. the Prime Minister was not able to answer the question as to where eventual sovereignty lay. Do the limited powers which the Coloureds now possess, constitute sovereignty? Does the Cape Town City Council have political sovereignty? It seems that the word “sovereignty” is now being given a new meaning.

Various spokesmen on that side of the House have regarded the constitutional proposals as acceptance of the principle of power-sharing. They see it in a unique form, but undoubtedly power-sharing as far as the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned. Others have solemnly sworn that it by no means constitutes sharing of power and that the Whites will retain a total say— “full sovereignty” is the expression—and political sovereignty in respect of their own affairs. Is that true? However, what the Government has again carefully avoided doing today is stating clearly what those matters are which are peculiar to each group, which can be separated politically. Up to now, no one has explained today what those matters are which are exclusive to Coloureds, exclusive to Whites and exclusive to Indians, because they know just as well as we do that outside the cultural level there are few areas which one can isolate and by so doing differentiate between purely White, purely Indian and purely Coloured interests. The Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds have an equal interest in what goes on in the field of foreign affairs, defence, transport and financial management. [Interjections.] Virtually everything that one could mention and that we discuss in this House are matters of general interest. One of two things is true. Fortunately the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations has answered the question, but he is the only one. Either the Coloureds and the Indians acquire a real joint say in interests which are also White interests, or else there is pure White supremacy. That matter will have to be thrashed out here. Where does the sovereignty lie?

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations said that Brown members of the Cabinet would have a say in matters which would also affect the Whites. Does that not constitute political partnership? We have here a play on words. We Can only conduct a fruitful debate here if the Government tells us clearly what it regards as its mandate and how it wants to carry it out.

I want to state one more thing. In terms of the Government’s stated policy of separate rights of self-determination for peoples within the same country, the Government has no mandate to rule over other peoples without their consensus, because if it does so it is guilty of the same double standards and hypocrisy which it is so quick to ascribe to other countries and governments. If the Government wants to be honest, then in terms of its own policy it must have the consensus of all the peoples concerning that which affects those peoples—and it must not merely consult with them. Logically, this can only lead to one political conclusion, namely that it will have to hold a representative national conference of all the peoples, a conference such as that which we advocate, in order to give each an agreed and accepted place in the political framework of common affairs. The hon. the Prime Minister expressed opposition to a national convention. He ought to know that there are strong feelings on his own side, too, in favour of a national convention. Allow me just to quote to hon. members what Die Transvaler of 31 May 1977 had to say about the issue of a national convention. It reads (Rapport 23.1.1977)—

I am pleased that Dr. Wimpie de Klerk went on under his own name to say—

There is strong support for that in his own party. He should take a look behind him. In his own party there are many people who consider that it is in the interests of South Africa that there should be co-operation among White, Black, Brown and Indian in this country. If the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the Bantu territories is carried out—but even now, if South West and Rhodesia should become independent at the end of this year—South Africa will already have eight independent States on its borders, eight Black-controlled independent States on its borders. We know about the insidious advance of communism. We know what is going on in Africa. Again this afternoon we have heard from the hon. the Prime Minister what is being planned against South Africa. In those circumstances, is there anyone who can soberly say that we as Whites can survive with an “island” solution?

Nowadays there are Black people, Brown people and Indians in the Defence Force. Is it to be expected of them that they should fight there for the future of the whole of South Africa, but when they come back, that they should enjoy the status of mercenaries or of second-class or third-class citizens? If these people fight on our side and guard this country with us, we have a duty to sit together with them and work things out together. A convention ought to be open. All the options are open. Hon. members can even submit their plan of partition. Any plan can be submitted to a national convention. The fact is that we must display the willingness to work out a joint system which will enable everyone to share in the affairs of South Africa without domination of one by the other.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried most vociferously to imply that there were no matters which were, for instance, peculiar only to the Coloureds or Indians, apart from those matters which were of communal interest to all of us in this country. I do not want to debate this with him, because one can list a variety of matters and I think the hon. member is surely brilliant enough to make out a case for this himself if he wants to be honest.

To return to his request for a national convention in which all nations, in line with the example of South West Africa, will participate here in South Africa as well, I want to say to the hon. member that the real difference between ourselves and South West Africa is that South West Africa is a mandated territory on the point of gaining independence while South Africa is the guardian. We are not a territory on the point of becoming independent. Our future has already been decided and arranged by a constitution. For what reason should we now, in pursuance of the example of South West Africa—which is a mandated territory—have the same sort of Turnhalle conference here with nations which have themselves already decided on their future? An occasion such as this no-confidence debate does not only provide the Opposition with an opportunity to criticize the Government and to move a motion of no confidence in it; it also gives us the opportunity to place the Opposition and its activities under a magnifying glass and in this way to show constructively who is opposing the Government in this House. I believe that the public also have an interest in this, and it is precisely this that I wish to do today. Because of the unpleasant escapades of the old UP—now the NRP—when its then leader, Sir de Villiers Graaff, came up with his “Save South Africa” plan, we had reached the stage where the PFP has become the Official Opposition. What a sight! In its new role the PFP looks like an uncertain, nervous youth—as has again been demonstrated today by its hon. leader—sitting there huddled in a corner knowing that he has suddenly reached the stage of puberty. He is totally unsure of himself. He is no longer a child, but he is still not an adult. That too has been demonstrated here today by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

In contrast, the NRP is a worn out old man who has been hit so hard that he is still suffering from concussion. Bereft of its leaders in the past election, the party is lying on its deathbed waiting for its last hour to come. I shall show it the respect due to a dying man and not refer to it again in my speech.

The whole Opposition is a picture of defeat and confusion. We only have to look at them. Against this the NP stands as a bastion of the confidence of the people of South Africa, and in its life and growth it is the instrument of a nation in its march towards unity, as evidenced by the 135 seats which the NP won in the past election as opposed to the paltry 30 seats of the total opposition. This past election has brought the Opposition much adversity, the PFP in particular. The PFP went into the election with 18 seats. The hon. the Prime Minister has already referred to this. Now they have only 17 seats here, and that after they put up more than 60 candidates in the election! They were eliminated by the voters themselves. The election showed that neither the mighty influence of the combined English press nor the colossal financial might of Mr. Oppenheimer could impart any political dignity and credibility to that party.

But the real reason became apparent here in this very House when on 21 June last year the hon. the Minister of Justice revealed the nature and character of that party. That was when he sketched the connection and co-operation of the hon. member for Pinelands with organizations and elements which seek our downfall by violent means by that speech the hon. Minister of Justice made a great contribution towards revealing the nature and character of the PFP and demonstrating that it is in fact a party which holds great dangers for South Africa. The South African public proved at the election that they have a very clear and thorough grasp of the security situation. This is proved by the 17 seats which the PFP won. I shall come back later to the hon. member for Pinelands and his role in that party, because I want to say quite frankly that it worries me greatly. I am very worried when people under the protection of this House do the sort of things to which the hon. Minister of Justice referred last year. I am also very worried about the continued spontaneous association with law and order by all sections of the population which in fact existed before that party became prominent. It is very true that the opinions and policy statements of individual members of that party are clear proof that there is close liaison and apparently also co-operation with organizations and elements which seek the downfall of our country and its people by violent means.

Before I elaborate on that—I am definitely of a mind to do so—I want to refer first, however, to another disaster which overtook that party during the election: The fact that the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Yeoville are together again in the same party. They will not stay together for very long, because even now they are giving one another black looks. Jointly, they have the power in their hands to destroy that party, and I want to predict that eventually the two of them will do so.

That will be the only good thing they will have done for South Africa.

If there is one person who eagerly watched the initial dispute between the NP and the PFP in regard to the 50 vote majority of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in the election, it is assuredly the hon. member for Yeoville. I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment. I wonder who was most disappointed …

Mine! [Interjections.]

… that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is Mr. Japie Basson and not Mr. Hoppenstein! I read the following in regard to the 50 vote majority of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in the election, in the Sunday Times of 18 December 1977—

“Consummate survivor” my foot, Mr. Speaker! The hon. member has the doubtful distinction of being the man who has represented most political parties in this House, not because of his particular talents and ability but as a result of the fact that he is a crafty political chameleon who can change his colour with a great sense of timing. The only thing the hon. member has still to do is to turn red, so that he can ensure complete compatibility with the hon. member for Pinelands.

Leave me out of it!

That brings me back to the hon. member for Pinelands and the speech of the hon. the Minister of Justice on 21 June last year in the House concerning the hon. member. The Citizen of 23 June had this to say about that speech—

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he knew of these activities of the hon. member for Pinelands, which show that he is in fact a very dangerous person. If the hon. leader was aware of this and connived at it, the PRP cannot be absolved from participating in those activities, and it too in fact is a dangerous party. I want to tell the hon. leader that a party leader who cannot hold his followers in check is a bad leader with a bad party. But bad people like this move a motion of censure in the Government today! It is actually a motion of no confidence which they have camouflaged. If the hon. leader was not aware of it, the revelation of the hon. Minister of Justice must have been as big a shock to him as it was to us on this side of the House. If he did not want to associate himself and his party with it, he should have publicly repudiated the hon. member for Pinelands and dissociated himself and his party from his activities. But the hon. leader did not do that. So he agrees with the activities of the hon. member for Pinelands.

What did the voters say?

The spirit motivating his party is therefore extremely dangerous for South Africa and all its people, because the association of the hon. member for Pinelands, apparently on the instructions of the PFP, with each and everyone seeking South Africa’s downfall by violent means, shows how dangerous that party and its people are for South Africa. And it is these dangerous people who have moved a motion of no confidence in the Government today.

I want now to put a pertinent question to the hon. member for Yeoville, who has still not returned to the House, as to his position regarding this obscure and suspicious association of his party with the most powerful champions of violence in South Africa. After all, he is the one who insists that there should be no suspicion in regard to his own loyalty and that of his party to South Africa. But can anyone take it amiss of me if I question this most seriously and if I express grave doubts as to the bona fides of the hon. member for Yeoville in this connection? If the hon. member for Yeoville does not associate himself with the connection which the hon. member for Pinelands has with subversive elements in South Africa …

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it and say that the hon. member does not stay aloof from such elements. If the hon. member for Yeoville dissociates himself from such elements, he does not belong in that party, and if he does not do so it is false to insist that his own actions and those of his party are proof of their loyalty and patriotism to South Africa. That party and its members engage in all sorts of activities outside, and then they sit here so piously, in their white robes, and move a motion of no confidence in this Government. The association of the PFP with elements seeking the downfall of South Africa make it extremely difficult for the Government to maintain law and order with the velvet glove, because the sort of unrest which the communist liberalists create in South Africa, namely rioting, bloodshed and arson, unfortunately demand that violence be met with violence, even though one deplores it.

We read the following in Die Volksblad of 5 August last year—

According to the PFP and its compatriot, the English Press, they are however the unfortunates, the wronged people, who have been driven to the limits of endurance by Government policy, as a result of which they are guilty of aggression and are forced into this vicious circle by the Security Police and driven to further frenzy, so that they initiate riots and chaos as an escape from the ostensibly miserable lives they are forced to lead in South Africa. According to them riots and chaos are preferable to the existing order. That is the illusion fostered by the PFP and its compatriot, the English Press, in respect of our so-called “unjust society”, to one aspect of which reference has also been made here today in the debate. This is bruited abroad, and in this way the violent elements achieve their evil purpose in collaboration with so-called loyal patriots, of whom apparently there are quite a number in this House. That revolts me. We have far too long allowed agitators, in co-operation with White groups, to organize the masses into gangs of looters and arsonists. We have far too long allowed damage to be done amounting to millions of rand. We have far too long allowed a gruesome picture of ruthless suppression in respect of police action to be painted abroad, police action which was aimed at protecting human lives after dozens had already been murdered, police action aimed at combating arson after it had already been committed, and preventing the destruction of property after damage to the tune of millions of rand had already been done. We have allowed all that for far too long. The time has arrived for these perpetrators of violence to feel the iron fist so that every one of them will have to atone for his own actions without shielding behind someone else.

That brings me to the accusations made by the PFP and their ally, the English-language press, in regard to the restrictions placed on certain people and the banning, inter alia, of The World, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also referred today. That action on the part-of the Government was aimed at ensuring the safety of South Africa and all its people—action aimed at preventing unrest, rioting and revolution. I take strong exception to the spirit and manner in which the PRP and its ally, the English-language Press, have handled this whole matter, as has again been evident in this House today. One reads the following in the Sunday Times of 18 December—

Such an insinuation is scandalous! Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether this attitude is conducive to promoting the good race and human relationships in South Africa to which he has referred in his motion or whether it is specifically aimed at provoking unrest, dissatisfaction and revolt? I think the latter is what is aimed at by means of this sort of statement. The newspaper states further—

I think it is scandalous that in a country such as ours with its diverse population groups and its own peculiar relations problems, statements and insinuations of this nature should be blazoned abroad. For this reason I want to ask the PFP and its ally, the English-language Press, a direct question: What role do you play in South Africa and on whose side are you? Are they in favour of law and order and the progress and prosperity that that implies for everyone in South Africa, or are they in favour of violence and do they advocate it, violence that will destroy this country and its people? The PFP and its ally, the English-language Press, must take care lest they be directly accused of being solely responsible for every drop of blood shed during every incident of rioting since 6 June 1976. Instead of ensuring that such an accusation is not levelled at them, they move a motion of censure in the very Government which maintains law and order in South Africa for the benefit of all, including that party; because had it not been for the steps taken by the Government, that party would not have had the privilege of moving the motion it has done in this House today.

If they do not want to be accused of being directly responsible for this bloodshed, the PFP should begin, by word and deed, promoting good human relationships, as envisaged in this motion, and basing their policy on good human relationships instead of polarizing White and Black and instead of prompting and advising Black activists and racists. They should also recognize the right of the White people to govern themselves through a White Parliament in their own area instead of insisting, as did the previous speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, on one parliament in which all population groups will sit together. I want to tell the hon. member that inherent in that idea is the very element that will destroy the entire South African composition and structure. If by adopting that attitude they cannot and will not follow a positive programme and if they persist in following their old course of action, they will be co-responsible for having begun a process of polarization, something which the extremists want to force on South Africa. To continue to polarize White and Black and then to present that as promoting good political relationships, or to initiate unacceptable Black demands—because that is what they are doing—presenting them as a basis for a good political relationship, is not patriotic. Nor can it promote the maintenance of law and order. In the long run it undermines confidence in the country’s stability to the detriment of everyone living in South Africa. I would like to tell the PFP that it is not only unethical but it is dishonest to suggest that all the unrest is due to Government policy and not to emphasize strongly that there are elements which seek deliberately to disrupt law and order so that they can overthrow the Government and violate the existing order. This is also done without emphasizing the fact that every White Government, irrespective of its policy, whether it be National, PFP, NRP or whatever it may be, will in the end be the victim of those violent elements. May I ask the PFP why they have never yet attacked the real enemies of South Africa in the same way as they have attacked everyone who has had to maintain law and order? Why have neither they nor their ally, the English-languages Press, ever appealed to the public to take a stand against those people who are really undermining our society, just as they continually encourage everyone to take a stand against those vested with authority in this country? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the last mentioned have been made the object of hatred in South Africa. Surely the PFP and its ally, the English-language Press, cannot be blind to the fact that the hundreds of subverters in South Africa are often active under the guise of doing good. They watch the actions of every policeman with an eagle eye and they investigate many things. According to them, however, there are no extremists, subversive elements and protagonists of violence in South Africa. All we have here are security police and ordinary policemen whose actions threaten our day-to-day orderly existence! Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard anything more ridiculous? The PFP and the English-language Press of this country are just as ridiculous, irresponsible, demoniacal and contemptible because that is the picture of South Africa they paint to the outside world.

I quote from Die Volksblad of 5 August last year—

Unfortunately Die Volksblad is not read overseas nor do visitors from abroad read it. The PFP never takes a stand against these subversive elements and neither does the English-language Press expose them. We have a situation where only the poision which appears in the English-language newspapers reaches the outside world. Over and above that we have reached the position where the PFP has become the official Opposition. Alongside them they have their powerful ally the English-language Press, and consequently I feel constrained to say: Pity South Africa in her efforts to continue to survive in an orderly manner! A very great task rests on the shoulders of the Government to persevere with these efforts.

I am expected to laud the patriotism and loyalty of someone like the hon. member for Yeoville in this House; to give those qualities the semblance of integrity and sincerity in the eyes of the public. I refuse to do so; I prefer to remain silent. It is a pity that the hon. member is not in the House this afternoon because I want to put this question to him: Why is the hon. member so insistent that his loyalty and patriotism be recognized? Why does the hon. member not publicly condemn the extremists whether they be White or Black? Why does the hon. member not get up in this House and tell the outside world what these subversive elements are doing in South Africa? It would serve a good purpose if the outside world could for once hear from the Opposition and read in the English-language Press precisely what these subverters are doing in South Africa. I want to put this further question to the hon. member: Why does he not flay the English-language Press for having hitherto played only a hostile role in South Africa, something which only bodes ill for the future? However, the hon. member for Yeoville, his fellow hon. members and his party do not do so. They come along with trivialities, as they have done once again this afternoon, to try to prove their loyalty and patriotism to and ensure the continued orderly survival of South Africa. By so doing, they are playing a dual role for the benefit of both the loyal, patriotic South Africans and the extremists and subverters who are active in South Africa.

In the life of every person there comes a final hour when for the sake of his self-respect, he has to reveal to the world that which lies hidden in the deepest recesses of his soul, even if it is contrary to what the world demands from him. If the PFP still has some interest in the welfare of the Whites in South Africa, if it still has some interest in maintaining stability in South Africa, if it still has a modecum of interest in her future orderly existence, if it still has some interest in the future of our children, the time has arrived for it to tell the world outside precisely what the intentions of these subversive elements in South Africa are, those people with whom the hon. member for Pinelands has so often liaised in the past. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, a long time ago I learned that one should keep out of the way of cross-fire, but I must admit that this last salvo would not even have made me duck. Therefore I am going to spend no time in replying to the hon. member’s argument which he was having with another party. I think my speech will answer his only reference to the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the opportunity, very briefly, to join in the tributes that have been paid to the man who graced this bench in which I sit for 21 years as Leader of the Opposition, and this House for 30 years, bringing lustre to the office he held and placing an indelible stamp on that office in the post-war era—the era following that of the generals, to one of whom he was a godchild. He brought to this House the best of that age and I believe his integrity, sincerity, intellect and courtesy will stand unchallenged. If he had a fault, it was that he assumed from other people the same loyalty and integrity which he gave, sometimes to his cost. Time does not permit the tribute I would like to pay, but I simply would like to say: Thank you, Div. for what you are and what you have done to serve South Africa and this Parliament.

We shall also miss in this House the incisive brilliance in debate of my predecessor, the former hon. member for Umhlatuzana, Mr. Cadman. I feel very humble in trying to walk in their footsteps. I shall make no attempt to emulate them. I can only pledge myself to aim at the same high standards of dedication and integrity. The hon. the Prime Minister will recall that once I spoke of the Bar, the Side Bar and the Stanley Bar. However, this is the first time this party, its predecessor and the predecessor before that, since 1919, has not had a man who is an advocate as parliamentary leader.

You know the bar too! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if I deal with matters rather as a bush lawyer it will be because—in the words of a former member for Durban North—“I am what I am”. I have no illusions—either about myself or my task, but I accept the challenge which it offers and I believe we in this party have a part to play.

Do you not pay tribute to Hendrik van Eck and Lionel Murray? [Interjections.]

Yes.

*Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to refer briefly to the election itself. I want to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on his re-election as Prime Minister, as well as on the majority achieved by his party. I just want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister that when the jubilation is over and the self-congratulations have come to an end, only his massive, unwieldy majority will remain; a majority which carries the germ of self-destruction in itself. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that. I realize that it will not happen, but I am looking forward to the day when the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training will get up and pose 50 questions in the House and then proceed to answer them himself.

The other result of the election is of course that we have an official Opposition which is smaller than the Cabinet itself. [Interjections.] I am afraid that what we may expect from the Government is a more arrogant and contemptuous attitude towards the everyday problems, rights and needs of the man in the street. [Interjections.] The reason for this is that the Government will think that because it has this large mandate, it no longer has to take notice of the problems of the man in the street. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the Government has proved nothing except that South Africans reject foreign intervention in our affairs. Nothing has changed. Our problems have only been aggravated by two months. The NP has received a constitutional mandate but now we are told that there will still be consultation about that Why was the mandate necessary if the consultations may bring about changes? Such consultation should have taken place originally.

But we are still in the process of consulting.

Mr. Speaker, this House has not yet been consulted. The Whites have not yet been consulted. A vague plan was put to the electorate of the country and now the NP thinks it has a mandate. Now, however, this mandate is being changed by the Government. I think that is contempt of the electorate of the country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister put aside his statesmanship for party-political gain. [Interjections.] He saw there was confusion in the Opposition …

Was there?

There was. I admit it. The hon. the Prime Minister saw that a new party with growth potential was coming into existence and he decided to destroy it at birth. He made a mistake, however. He has not destroyed us. We have a base in this House, as well as a base which is in control of the administration of Natal and we shall build on that.

Parliament, Mr. Speaker, is entitled to know where the NRP stands with regard to certain matters. I want to deal with those matters in four respects in particular. They comprise our attitude with regard to our role in Parliament, in relation to the Government itself, in relation to the official Opposition and in relation to our own political philosophy and policy.

† Let me deal, firstly, with our role in Parliament. At this stage, if one is realistic, the only real role that we can play is to try to influence political thinking in and outside this House towards our philosophy and our objectives, to state clearly in the House what we stand for, and thereby to establish our identity. We shall judge issues on their merits and if we disagree with both the Government and the official Opposition and the technicality of procedure makes it necessary, I want to state clearly that we will demonstrate that dissent with both by abstention if need be. We shall use it as a positive instrument of our disagreement with both the Government and the official Opposition. In criticism we will seek positive alternatives and if the Government acts correctly we will support it. That does not mean that we support its policies or philosophy. Furthermore we shall remind the Government constantly of the day to day needs of the ordinary people of South Africa, Whites as well as other races. This is perhaps something that is too often forgotten.

The hon. the Prime Minister and the Government may not be so happy when I state our attitude towards the Government. The official Opposition’s motion has pinpointed five problem areas, problem areas which the Government—perhaps with one exception—admits exist, although the Government denies both responsibility and blame for those problem areas. I have not got time to go through them, but they are set out in the motion.

To those problem areas I would like to add one aspect, and to state clearly that the NRP acknowledges—this is something which is not acknowledged in the motion—the foreign origin of some of our problems. I am thinking of the exploitation, and in the case of terrorism and subversion including urban subversion the origin. We do not charge the Government with having created it, but we believe—and I think it is fair to say it—that Government policies and actions have weakened our ability to resist and to neutralize those attacks against South Africa. They have weakened it by producing in South Africa the most dangerous weapon to fight; the weapon of discontented masses, particularly in our urban townships.

On the other issues pinpointed our attitude is clear. We hold the Government responsible for the economic problems—I would call it the economic disaster—the unemployment and the cost of living in South Africa. [Interjections.] Like the hon. the Prime Minister I make no pretence at being an economist, but I have one advantage over the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not have the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs advising me and so, although we are in the same boat in that neither of us pretend to understand economics, I think I have advisers who are helping me more than the hon. the Prime Minister’s advisers help him.

I do not think so.

I also want specifically to state that we in this party abhor any indication or evidence of brutality and inhumanity wherever and in whatever form it may appear. I want to express my shock that where evidence was brought forward in an inquest of what I think everybody in South Africa considered to be inhumanity and brutality, the hon. the Prime Minister does not appear to have acted. He has said that there was an inquest. He has defended the hon. the Minister of Justice. However, I believe all South Africa, the supporters of the hon. the Prime Minister as well as our own, have been shocked. We would have expected that the hon. the Prime Minister would have either acted or instructed that action be taken to show that the Government itself too would not tolerate and would act in a situation such as has developed.

We reject detention without judicial process. We condemn the abrasive attitudes and actions of the Government which create friction and conflict. We are basically opposed to an outmoded and dead-end philosophy of compulsive and compulsory separatism in every field and at every level of life.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have made it clear that we are basically an opposition party. However, we will recognize too and acknowledge the positive achievements of the Government It has, after all, taken over some of the policies of our predecessor, the old UP. Where it acts in the interests of South Africa, we shall support it.

During the election we argued about all these things. We fought them out at our meetings and in the Press, and the Government still obtained a massive mandate.

Why?

Therefore, in the short time at my disposal, I see no mileage in simply rehashing the old arguments like “brakkies” baying at the moon. What I believe is needed now—and this answers the hon. the Prime Minister’s question—is a new debate seeking new alternatives and new ideas, moving away from the sterile confrontation we have had this afternoon.

That brings me to our attitude towards the official Opposition. The motion before the House has no positive alternative and direction in its content. It is the same old theme, calling for a commission, an investigation and a national convention. I would have expected that in this important first debate they, as the parliamentary official Opposition, would have presented their model constitution, the basis of their marriage contract. Obviously, we have no objection to an investigation and consultation, but we believe their motion runs away from giving a clear alternative. We believe it runs away from the responsibility of being an official Opposition by avoiding placing their philosophy and policy on record. This is, of course, understandable. I can understand their reluctance because theirs is a marriage of convenience with no common philosophy.

That is why they did not marry; they are living in sin! [Interjections.]

They held some sort of ceremony. I have it here. They, however, like the Government, achieved their objectives in this election by avoiding and denying policy rather than by presenting it clearly to the public. For the official Opposition the moment of truth has come. They can no longer simply talk vague generalities and platitudes, like “mother love is good”, something everybody agrees with. They now have to say where they stand. For the purpose of meaningful debate I want to simply put on record three aspects of their model constitution. Here I have the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s “keynote” speech to the delegates at the founding congress of this particular party, the PFP.

Was that B.C., before Basson?

No, that was actually B.S. At that congress three specific aspects of a model constitution were approved. One aspect concerned a central Parliament, elected on a common roll by an individual vote, partly proportional and partly by individual count. [Interjections.] It may be news to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but it appears in a booklet with his photo on the front. That proves it loudly and clearly. In this booklet it tells one that Std. 8 gives one two votes and Std. 2 one vote, counted individually—with the latter calculated on a proportionate basis. Therefore each person votes on a common roll for a central Parliament. It further tells one that all residential areas and services are compulsorily open to all. That is clearly their specific policy. In this model constitution there is no constitutional accommodation for race groups or identities.

In passing I want to remind the partitionists, the race federationists and Bantustanists that they are married into this party in community of property. This is as much their policy as those who have had it before they joined.

I now want to place on record, clearly and specifically, that this policy is irreconcilable and incompatible with NRP philosophy. I also believe it is unacceptable to many who voted for the PFP. I therefore foresee no possibility whatsoever of any form of formal fusion or alliance between my party and the official Opposition. I see no possibility of any form of alliance with what I regard as the Anglo-Houghton controlled PFP. [Interjections.] Let there be no doubt about that.

What about the SAP?

The SAP will have to show where they stand. I want to wait and see. Their ex-wives are now consorting in another bed.

I now want to come to where we, the NRP, stand, and firstly to explode certain misconceptions. Firstly, we are not simply the “UP under another name” and neither are we “semi-Nat Republicans”, depending on who was spreading the story. We are a new party, the synthesis of the old UP and the Democratic Party, but with a policy modernized and adapted to the needs of modern South Africa. I want to destroy any idea that we are a middle of the road, watered down, compromise party. This misconception is partly our own fault because we emphasized centrism in the election. This is, however, not our basic philosophy, but is consequential to it. We have our own clear, positive and distinctive philosophy with its own character and identity, which I shall outline. This is fundamentally different from both the other parties, namely the Government and the official Opposition. I acknowledge that we failed to get our message across. If I have time, I shall also deal with the misappropriation of terminology which helped to create confusion and uncertainty.

The NRP philosophy has three clear, interacting and complementary elements which, together, comprise the way we think and the sort of South Africa we visualize.

The first of these is pluralism in its institutionalized political context. [Interjections.] I want to know whether the hon. member for Houghton stands for pluralism in its institutionalized political context. That is the problem; one never gets an answer when one asks them a question. One just gets a “cheep-cheep” and a squeak and a complaint. Secondly, our policy incorporates federal and confederal linking mechanisms. Thirdly, it incorporates community option or choice at community level. All three of these are definitive descriptions of where we stand, clearly different from the compulsory separatism of the Government, where everything is decided in Pretoria. The Government will decide where you live, with whom you associate, what you think, what you do. It will decide it for you in Pretoria. It is the philosophy of compulsive separatism of the Government. Under the official Opposition’s policy there will be compulsory integration because there can be no recognition and no right for any community to retain its own closed community.

Rubbish!

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says “rubbish”. The leader of the PFP in Natal, when asked whether any community—White, Black or Coloured— would have the right to retain it’s area for its use exclusively, said: “Never; no, definitely not. That would be enforced segregation. Under the PFP no laws based purely on race will be allowed.” If their hon. leader will repudiate his Natal leader then we can start a debate. Does the hon. leader repudiate this? I see he does not repudiate it. Therefore we can assume that that remains their policy.

Our policy is based on identifiable and identity-conscious ethno-cultural communities. If I can detect any uneasiness, these words come straight from the Broederbond, out of a paper which was delivered in the “vesting” of liberalism only two weeks ago. “Ethno-cultural communities seeking communal protection”—of their identity and protection against domination. Our federal confederal links give that security. It is the only safeguard. Our policy of option gives the choice which alone can eliminate the friction of compulsion and remove the fear of loss of identity under either of the other alternatives.

If two communities opt differently for the same territory, what does one do then?

Please be brief and sit down please. I shall not allow the hon. Minister to waste my time. The first option is to retain your own territory, which you have, as closed. If others wish to live in an open society, open areas must be created for them. I am sorry, but I am not going to allow myself to be diverted, because I want to get to my amendment.

All these elements in our policy are rejected by both the Government and the PFP. Outside this House, however, the core of the debate which is raging amongst political scientists, editors, academics and within the ranks of Nationalists themselves, is not about apartheid or about integration. Both are regarded as irrelevant. The debate outside this House is about pluralism, federalism and confederalism. We see it as our aim to bring that debate from outside into this House where the destiny of South Africa is decided and to get away from the futile, unproductive situation where the Government and the official Opposition are in perpetual different orbits with no contact or crossing point We have tried to turn the academic debate outside into practical politics by removing its element of radicalism, of dogma, and of dogmatic detail. In order to bring it into the realm of practical politics and to bring the debate into this House I am going to do something unusual in the amendment which I now move.

I move—

I do so in the hope that we shall move from this amendment into a constructive and realistic debate. I do so because we in this party stand for a new Republic of South Africa, a new approach, and we believe that these are the essential elements, i.e. pluralism, a federal/confederal approach and local option. These are the three elements which alone can ensure peaceful coexistence of our various peoples in South Africa. To make the debate meaningful we must remove—and I do not have the time to do so fully—some of the red herrings. The use of “plural democracy”, is, I believe, a fraudulent description of separate independent states. If there are separate independent states then those states are not plural; they are in themselves separate states. It is separatism or partition. Even the three parliaments envisaged do not constitute pluralism unless they have federal links for power sharing.

Let me immediately deal with this term “power sharing”. I prefer the term used by Prof. Nic Rhoodie, “power deployment”, the sharing, the dividing and the devolving of power within one political entity. In our proposals all three elements are there— sharing, dividing and devolution—the whole picture being one of the deployment of power rather than the simplistic sharing of power. These are positive issues which we can debate. They are issues which can be debated with meaning because they have in them the core, the spark of a solution which we in these benches believe is the only one. But whether we agree or not on this matter, we can debate it realistically. I hope that that is what we are going to do. There are some who say, some of the “hopefuls” in the Government ranks, that we are wasting our time, because in any case the Government is going to take over our policy. The hon. the Prime Minister does not seem to be worried about that. In fact, he smiles. I agree it is not true. I wish I could believe that the hon. the Prime Minister was going to take over our policy, because then my mission would have been completed. I would have achieved what I am in politics for—to see the sort of South Africa in which I want to live. It would be a new Republic of South Africa in which I can walk tall, proud and with my head up, because I am proud to be a South African, here or anywhere else in the world. Therefore if the Government were to take over our policy, if it were to take it over and carry it out properly, my task would be finished. I could retire happily to my family. But I believe that that is impossible. All we shall see in this session will be cosmetic changes, lipstick and powder. The core issues will remain unchanged. They will have different shades of lipstick and thicker layers of powder, but underneath the core will remain unchanged. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training agrees with me. I see him looking happy and contented in that knowledge.

We shall act as far as we can as a catalyst for this new thinking. In Natal, in our administration of that province, we shall prove that this works in practice, because it is working there. We shall show to South Africa that this concept of pluralism which I have outlined in such a brief time does really work. So we shall demonstrate it there and we shall debate it here. We shall strive to avert the ultimate tragedy that our children should have to die with F.N.s in their hands, because of the political paralysis of thought in the politics of South Africa. Until then, we shall oppose this Government and seek to persuade this House and South Africa to move in the new direction of pluralism.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point is known as a good patriot. I must say, in view of the fact that he has just informed us that he is looking forward to the day when he will be able to retire on pension, that I want to give him the assurance that if he maintains the progress he has made here this afternoon—I mean the progress he has made since the election—he will find himself in extremely good company even before he retires on pension. [Interjections.]

Have I convinced you? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the Government’s large majority and added that the Government was going to concern itself with that alone and was not going to promote the interests of the ordinary man and woman. In his amendment to the motion before this House, the hon. member acknowledges what the ordinary man and woman want, viz. stability. They want to see their pensions safeguarded. They want to see their salaries and income safeguarded. They want to see their family life safeguarded. And it is that ordinary man and woman who returned the Government to power in the last election. That is what happened. It happened because they saw in this Government stability and security for the future. That is why we are sitting here and that is why the Opposition is where it is today.

In view of the lateness of the hour I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—