Mr. Speaker, after disposing of the Prime Minister’s Vote the House will proceed for the remainder of the week with the discussion of legislation as it appears on the Order Paper. On Monday the Defence Vote will be considered, while the Transport Vote will come up for discussion on Tuesday and the National Education and Sport and Recreation Votes on Wednesday.

Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to participate in the discussions, but only to discharge a duty. Hon. members have taken cognizance of the fact that Mr. Louis Botha, who acted as Secretary to my department for the past eight years and who was attached to that department for the past 19 years, retired at the end of last month. Over a period of almost 40 years, Mr. Botha rendered exceptional service to the State and to the Department of the Prime Minister. In the latter department he held the posts of Deputy Secretary as well as Secretary.

My department is very small, but precisely because it is a small department and because it deals with very sensitive matters, it is a department in which one must constantly be on one’s toes. To tell the truth, if I were to compare my department with other Government departments, I would say that in size it is as small as one’s conscience, yet at the same time it is as important as one’s conscience. I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation for the exceptional services which Mr. Botha has rendered all these years. I trust that he will enjoy a very pleasant retirement.

Mr. Wessels Meyer has been appointed in his place, a person who formerly was attached for many years to the department of Justice. Subsequently he became my private secretary. During the past few years he was Deputy Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister. Mr. Meyer is also an exceptional official. He has also rendered exceptional services, and I have no doubt that he will continue for many years to render exceptional services to the Public Service and to South Africa.

Furthermore, another official who is attached to my department will retire during August of this year. He is Dr. P. J. Riekert, my Economic Adviser. Dr. Riekert will then have reached retirement age and will retire from the service on pension. Since 1961 he has been attached to the Office of the Economic Adviser, first as deputy to the late Dr. Hennie Steyn, who was only in part-time service. During the past 13 years Dr. Riekert has been my Economic Adviser. Hon. members are aware of the exceptional work which is done by the Economic Advisory Council. Dr. Riekert was the backbone of that organization. Not only did he render exceptional services in regard to the activities of the Economic Advisory Council, but he was also, as economist, as adviser and as a person with exceptional insight, of very great value to me as well as to other hon. Ministers with whom he was in frequent contact In general he also made an exceptional contribution to the science of economics in South Africa.

He was a professional official of the highest calibre, and it is a pity that such people also have to grow old. As in the case of Mr. Botha, who was replaced by Mr. Meyer, I can inform hon. members that Dr. Riekert’s successor will be Dr. Simon Brand. He is a young official, yet a person possessed of an exceptionally sound grounding and of all the necessary qualifications to step into the shoes of Dr. Riekert, even under the most difficult of circumstances. I am convinced that the great work so soundly done by Dr. Riekert will be taken further by Dr. Brand.

I should like to express my thanks to the two officials on their retirement and address a word of sincere welcome, in their new capacities, to the two who will take their place.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches should like to be associated with the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister in relation to Mr. Botha of the Prime Minister’s Department, a gentleman who for many years has been in the corridors of power. We want to pay tribute to the work he has done. Dr. Riekert’s value as an economic adviser is well known, not only in this House, but also in commerce and industry and in financial circles around South Africa. We hope that in the case of Dr. Riekert his expertise and wisdom will not be totally lost to either the community or the Government because of his retirement. We would, however, wish both of these gentlemen well in their retirement as we would also wish the two new encumbents of their posts well on the assumption of their new duties.

We enter the second day of a debate which has so far gone largely over key aspects of the Government’s race or intercommunity policy, a debate which really started during the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill following comments made by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. We intend continuing the debate on this issue because we believe the issue of relationships between the groups and communities under the Government’s policy is the critical issue affecting not only race relations, but also economic affairs and our whole international situation.

We have arrived at a time when, in our assessment, the average South African is concerned—to an extent he is confused— because he sees a Government strong in electoral power and he sees what he knows is a tough Prime Minister. What the man in the street in South Africa wants, however, is a reassurance from this House, and more particularly from the hon. the Prime Minister— because of his power and his position—that he has policies which can work in practice. The hon. the Prime Minister must satisfy this House and the people that he has policies that can work in practice. We believe the average South African is a tough, resilient and individualistic individual. He is being asked to put up with inflation, unemployment and the inconvenience of military service, and he is prepared to do these things. He wants to defend his country at a time of need. He must, however, be reinforced, he must be backed up by the belief that there is a Government in power in South Africa and a Prime Minister at the head of that Government who can show him some light at the end of the tunnel, who can tell him there are better times ahead and that the sacrifices and the inconveniences with which he is putting up today, are not going to be in vain, but worthwhile when it comes to the future. There is no doubt that the average South African has doubts; he has concern. As a matter of fact, I believe that some of that doubt is mirrored on the faces of the hon. members on the other side of the House. [Interjections.] The people know and see the Government’s policies collapsing on a wide front and they want to know from the Government what it is going to put in the place of those policies.

At this stage of the debate we shall deal with just one or two of these aspects of the collapse of the Government’s policies, of the reversal of the Government’s policies, and we want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he is going to put in their place. First of all, the average South African sees apartheid, in its old-fashioned sense, as it was practised by this Government over the last 30 years, falling apart at the seams. We are not reproaching the Government for this. It is something for which we have asked time and time again. The average South African sees the same Government which was putting up the apartheid signs in the post offices, the railway stations and the public buildings, now taking those signs down. He sees the same Government, which closed the universities, the theatres, the libraries, the schools and the hotels, now opening up those institutions and getting rid of apartheid as we have known it over the years. He* sees a reversal in Government policy, and he asks himself: “Why have we had to endure this? Why have we, in the words of the editor of Die Burger, had to endure being the polecat of the world because of these policies when the Government now in fact admits they were wrong all along?” He hears the Government and members on the other side attacking what is called the open society.

He sees them attacking a society without apartheid, and yet they are moving in the direction of a society without apartheid. He sees and hears hon. members opposite talking of the need to have separation in order to maintain identity on the one hand and in order to avoid friction on the other. Mr. Chairman, South Africans also take note of statements such as the one made in a letter written by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. In that letter he wrote as follows—

That is quite unequivocal. There is no restriction and no limitation upon a player wishing to join any club. South Africans, who have been hearing about this question of national identity and multinationalism in South Africa, then read this statement by the hon. the Minister, signed “P. G. J. Koornhof ’. In that letter he went on to say—

Sir, we have no objection to that, but it knocks on the head all the arguments which hon. members on the other side have raised in order to demonstrate the need to have separation with a view to maintaining identity or avoiding friction. The members of the public see apartheid collapsing. They say: “If it is going to collapse, well and good but, Mr. Prime Minister, tell us where you are taking us and spell out for us the kind of society that you have in mind when apartheid has disappeared from South Africa.” Sir, we call on the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us of this society in which it is appropriate for sport, for one thing, to be practised on a non-racial basis, without any restrictions. He must tell us of the kind of society he would like to have in South Africa, and where he is taking us.

The average White voter recognizes the need for Black people to have an effective political say. I think the time has gone when White voters said that it did not matter whether Black people participated or not. I think there is a genuine acceptance that in some way or another Black South Africans have got to be accommodated in a political structure where they can have an effective say. We in this House might argue about how that should take place, but I believe the man in the street has accepted that something must be done to give the Black man an effective political say.

Let us look at what the voter sees. There is confusion and doubt, and this is where he sees a collapsing of the Government’s race policy. He is told of homeland policies, of independent States, of separate freedoms and of separate nations. This is after all what the argument has been about Yesterday we heard again from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and from the hon. member for Johannesburg West about the whole concept of separate nations, separate freedoms and independent States. Yet, when the ordinary South African looks at the map of South Africa, he sees scattered fragments of land. He knows that this concept cannot work in practice. He looks at the budget and at the estimates, as we have done, and he says: “How long is it going to take, not to get additional land, but merely to consolidate the land already proposed to be given to the Bantu Trust?” I put this to the Prime Minister, on behalf of the average voter: How long is the Government’s consolidation programme going to take to complete? The average South African heard the hon. the Prime Minister speaking in this House yesterday.

*He said (Hansard, 11 April)—

The common sense of the average South African tells him that that is nonsense. The common sense of the average South African tells him that one cannot have political sovereignty without territorial sovereignty. The common sense of the average South African tells him that one cannot enjoy political freedom without a country in which one can realize that political freedom.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Prime Minister for his gesture. Now the people hear a sound which is in conflict with the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister. This sound comes from the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. This Minister who has been absent from this House for the past week or so, touched on two different concepts in a television interview two days ago. The first was—

It has nothing to do with nations.

†It has to do with the subdivision of the subcontinent of South Africa into its component parts. I quote further—

That is a complete departure from what the hon. the Prime Minister said. He talks of a territorial subdivision of South Africa into its component parts, and he goes on to say—

*The hon. the Prime Minister says, on the other hand, that it is not only territories, but also peoples, that are being liberated.

In the same television interview the Minister concerned also introduced a new concept into our politics. He said, to be specific, that he foresaw—

I think we are entitled to ask whether the creation of a new fatherland in South Africa is the official policy of the NP and of the Government I thought we were proud of our patriotism and proud to be South Africans. [Interjections.] Now, however, we hear that a new fatherland is to be created, a new fatherland with a new name. I want to know from the Prime Minister whether it is true that a new State will be created which will not be called “South Africa” but will have a new name, and that all of us will be citizens of that new State.

There is a second question I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. In the statement of the Minister no reference was made to the Coloureds or the Asians. As far as the redivision is concerned, the Minister referred to Whites and Blacks only. Where, in this case, do the Coloureds and the Asians fit in? Will they form part of the State of the Whites, i.e. the new South Africa or the new “Suiderland”, the name the hon. the Minister used? Will they, too, be citizens of the new White State and, if so, will they share equal rights with the Whites on all levels in that new State?

†The man in the street hears that one day there will be no Black citizen. I do not want to develop this any further, but I must say that, of all the statements that have come from the NP, this statement, which was endorsed by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, is the one which the man in the street finds totally unacceptable. He does not believe that, in a situation in which there are Blacks running our industries, Blacks in our essential services and Blacks in our Defence Force, none of those Blacks will be citizens of South Africa.

He looks once again at this grand design of the National Party and he hears the Chief Minister of Gazankulu and Qwaqwa projecting independence. He hears the Chief Minister of Lebowa saying the other day after a successful election that he would not have independence as it would mean suicide for Lebowa. The man in the street notes the overwhelming rejection of this whole concept by the kwaZulu citizens through their support of the Inkatha movement. He hears hon. members on the other side saying the matter is urgent and saying that we have a policy of separate freedoms, but he notes that Inkatha, the Coloured Labour Party and the Indian Reformed Party are getting together to form a new Black alliance which rejects the concept of separate freedoms, an alliance which is working for common citizenship for all the people of South Africa. They watch and note that the first independent State which was created as a direct result of NP policy …

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

They note that the first State created as a result of NP policy with the man now at the helm ally of the NP in the implementation of the policy of separate development, has now severed diplomatic relations and wants to join the so-called liberation movements. The hon. the Prime Minister said in this House yesterday in regard to the land question (Hansard, 11 April 1978)—

The land issue was therefore an issue and he says it is going to continue to be an issue. The man in the street says: If this happened in respect of Transkei, why should it not happen in respect of other homelands where the problem of consolidation is ever so much more difficult?

They look and see the collapse of the Government policy. They see in this aspect of policy no hope for the future. They see the Government, as far as this policy is concerned, standing naked before them.

There are a few pertinent events which arise out of the events and the statements of yesterday. First of all, the Prime Minister of Transkei said amongst other things—and I quoted him yesterday—that his Government or his country intended to join the liberation movements. I said in the House yesterday I believed that statement was provocative, and it certainly is provocative. However, I believe that the Government of Transkei must, at the earliest opportunity, make it quite clear in unambiguous terms, that it will not allow its country to be used as a terrorist base against South Africa or against any other State in Southern Africa. This is the attitude of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. We believe that it is certainly in the interests of South Africa, and also in the interests of the Transkei, that it should be made clear beyond any doubt that whatever sabre-rattling it may indulge in, it will not allow its country to be used as a base for hostile or terrorist activity against South Africa. I think that that matter should be cleared up without delay.

Secondly, I believe the hon. the Prime Minister should tell us in unambiguous terms what the position is in regard to the apparent disputes, the bone of contention, between Bophuthatswana and the South African Government on the land issue. We raise this matter because we do not want to have a situation where the Government may say within a year: “Well, it was always a ‘knelpunt’; it was always a point of difficulty, but we did nothing about it.” The hon. the Prime Minister indicated at the time of the commencement of independence of Transkei, that the question of land was not really an issue, that the land issue had been satisfactorily resolved although it remained a latent problem for the future. Mr. Chairman, I think we should take note of the very tough words used by President Mangope when he accepted independence for Bophuthatswana only five months ago. He said it was essential to raise the land issue. If he failed to do so, he said, he would go down in history as a coward and a hypocrite. He refused to describe his own country as a sovereign, independent State and referred to it merely as “greater independence”. He went on and said—

These are the words used by President Mangope. He also said—

Those were the tough words spoken by the President of Bophuthatswana at the time he was accepting independence. We want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether here, as in the case of Transkei, he also thought that the matter was resolved or whether this matter is going to be a festering sore in the years to come. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion it is a cliché to say that any statements made by any leader of a country, and consequently also by hon. members of this House, outside or inside Parliament should, particularly in these times, be considered with utmost circumspection, before any statements are made about the leaders of other countries or before matters, which in the past have taken South Africa to a major crisis in its existence, are clouded even further. In my opinion it would be foolish not to believe, especially after the occurrences of the past few days, that South Africa is going through very difficult times. I, too, want to refrain from making any remarks which would in any way give offence to the heads of state and leaders of other countries, particularly in the light of the major issue that has evolved round the head of the Prime Minister of Transkei.

It is certainly necessary that here where we are acting in a responsible manner, as Government and as Opposition, which together make up the Parliament of South Africa, that we should at least be able to talk frankly to one another so that we may know where we stand with one another and so that the public outside—not only at home, but abroad as well—may know what the viewpoint of the alternative Government of South Africa is. When I think of Mozambique and Angola and of Rhodesia as well, where events follow one another in such rapid succession—we cannot take a cursory interest in the events in Rhodesia, because the destiny of that country and its people is linked to our people and our country—it becomes more and more important to me that we should act in the most responsible manner, even if we are members of the Opposition who are trying to advance political arguments against the Government. The situation becomes even more serious where South Africa is historically involved in a country like South West Africa. Whatever we say or do, South Africa will partly be blamed for whatever goes wrong. We can also expect from the world in which we are living possibly to disapprove of what happens to the good in South West Africa for the very reason that South Africa has a hand in everything progressing so successfully. As far as I am concerned the last few days have proved this. As far as I am concerned.

These events are becoming of more intimate concern to us when one considers the events of the past few days in the Transkei. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the other hon. members on that side of the House as well as the Leader of the NRP, remarked quite correctly that events in the next few weeks inside the country as well as abroad, could affect South Africa very intensely.

I have already stated that this calls for responsibility not only from the Government, but also from every hon. member of this House, the Press, the public and from everyone who believes that there should be peace in White South Africa and in Black South Africa and that all the people of South Africa should be made happy.

Yesterday we listened to a debate in which the hon. the Prime Minister gave us a factual résumé of the developments in which all of us inevitably take an interest. One cannot help but feel obliged to draw comparisons between the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister and that made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, and to some extent, the one he made today. I want to put it as kindly as possible. I have not perused the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I do not intend to quote from it extensively.

†However, if ever there was a shining example of muddled thinking and of contradictory arguments, then it is to be found in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech yesterday. [Interjections.] Before the hon. members on the other side become too voluble, I want to quote one example so that they can judge for themselves. The question of how we should negotiate with Bophuthatswana about the question of land was also mentioned this afternoon. I am going to quote to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party what he said about this matter yesterday, and hon. members are free to compare this with what he said today when he insisted that we should know where we stand with Bophuthatswana as soon as possible and that we should also clear this matter up in regard to other homelands which are to become independent. Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was reported as saying in regard to independence (Hansard, 11 April 1978)—

Look what happened!

If I am not interrupted, I will, in all fairness, read it out in full. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says here that two people must be able to negotiate on equal footing. However, in his second speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

To negotiate before independence, he says, when—also according to him—the negotiations will not be between equals! Even this afternoon he repeatedly wanted to know where we stand with Bophuthatswana. I repeat; if ever there was an example of muddled thinking and contradictary arguments, it is to be found here. [Interjections.] I do not want to quarrel with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for too long. I think times are much too serious to enter into arguments which can best be left alone.

However, I do want to say in passing that I was very happy to note yesterday a new note creeping into the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, a speech which was in direct contrast to that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was trying to determine the causes for the action taken by Transkei and in doing so he diagnosed the illness in a different way than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout I should like to quote what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. He warned his party and the world by saying (Hansard, 11 April 1978)—

However, what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He diagnosed the reasons completely differently. Here I have what was said by the hon. Prime Minister of Transkei. It was not only provocative—I am withholding remarks because he is the head of a State and I want to be as kind as possible— but he goes back as far as 1913 to pick an argument with the Republic of South Africa and the Government. He calls this a most cruel act of a Government that has no regard for human dignity and for those who have different skins. He calls us a people who have callously slaughtered and butchered millions of Blacks. Has that been done since independence, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said?

I did not say that.

I do not want to be unfair.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation: The hon. the Deputy Minister said that I had said that since independence there had been a butchering of millions of people. I did not say that and the hon. member must accept this. [Interjections.]

I am saying that the hon. Leader of the Opposition never said it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I stand up to allow the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition put a question to me which I could not get exactly. However, I want to quote from his speech (Hansard, 11 April 1978)—

Then followed these words—

What a nonsensical thing to say! [Interjections.] Has there been a build-up of antagonism since Transkei became independent? The Prime Minister of Transkei, however, says it has happened since 1913 and since this area was annexed in colonial times. I do not know how one can reason with people who do not want to see the bona fides of other people too.

Tell us about the failure of your policies.

I shall tell you, but I am first going to ask a question.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must please not interrupt me any more. When the land issue was raised, he asked four questions. If ever I have a lost cause, I shall ask him to defend me because he will pick out arguments where no arguments exist. I am going to refer to them but I shall be even more lost after that In defence of the action of the Prime Minister of Transkei he said yesterday that there had been a build-up of antagonism and he quoted some examples. He said it was merely triggered off by the land issue but that there were some other causes for which he accused the Government. He, the Leader of the Opposition, and not Kaiser Matanzima, said that the issue of citizenship was a reason for the breaking-off of diplomatic relations.

[Inaudible.]

That is what he said. Anybody can go and read his Hansard. He said that in the second place discriminatory practices had led to a breaking down of diplomatic relations. He said, too, of all things, that the demolition of squatter camps had led to the breaking-off of relations. That is what he said. Does his party accept responsibility for this? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members will have a chance to speak.

He said that we were using these areas as dumping grounds for Black people and that we should allow them to stay all over South Africa. I want to put a question to him. Must Cape Town or Pretoria become the dumping grounds for extra citizens coming from all over the country? However, whenever we clear up the squatter camps in which people come to stay they do not call them dumping grounds, but say that we are the cruel people.

What about land? May I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition how he would divide South Africa if he had to divide the country for the different race groups?

*Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realize that there are land disputes between Botswana and Vendaland and between Gazankulu and Vendaland? Does he realize that there are disputes between kwaZulu, Lesotho and the Xhosas about this very land which is under discussion? Does he realize that the Whites of South Africa have brought peace among Black people fighting over land? Does he realize that we are still doing that today? Are White policemen to sacrifice their lives and then be attacked in this House as if they were a bunch of murderers? One does not want to become excited, not about people outside South Africa, because I appreciate their point of view, but when the hoa the Leader of the Opposition comes here and says in the censure debate (Hansard, 30 January 1978, col. 30-

†All that type of thing is said in this country by people who enjoy the freedoms of this country. I believe it has become a disastrous day for the Opposition. I can understand President Carter’s point of view. I can at times understand what many of these people, even those with activist tendencies and who belong to the Black people, are thinking. However, what I cannot understand is that a Leader of the Opposition in this House, which has for so many years governed the country for the well-being of all the Blacks in South Africa, the Blacks in the Protectorates and the Blacks in Mozambique and elsewhere, says these things about this country and about the Government of his country and about the Government of his country. Apart from all the dangers with which we are confronted, I think it is a sad, sad day that we have to listen to speeches such as his.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister declared his intention of refraining from becoming excited, and to a very large extent he succeeded. I want to do the same. However, there are one or two things which he said which I will not allow to go unanswered. Very rhetorically the hon. the Deputy Minister addressed the question to these benches and asked whether this party accepted responsibility for what the Leader of the Opposition had said in this debate. The simple reply is: “Yes, for every word.”

Where is Harry?

Referring to the Prime Minister of Transkei the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had spoken in defence of that Prime Minister. I want to deny this categorically, and I want to place it on record that it has never happened, neither in this debate nor—to the best of my knowledge—in this House, that any member of this party has acted in that way. This matter has absolutely nothing to do with us. It is a matter between the South African Government and the Government of Transkei. If anyone wants to look up the record, he will see that over the years there has never been any great admiration on our part for the Prime Minister of Transkei, or on his part for us. In fact there was considerable disagreement over the years. In that sense we therefore remain a little detached and neutral as far as that gentleman is concerned. I realize, however, that the same does not apply to the governing party opposite. As the hon. the Prime Minister rightly said yesterday, he personally, and also his Government have over the years gone out of their way to act fairly, to act cautiously towards the Prime Minister of Transkei, and it is quite understandable that there should now be considerable indignation on that side of the House at the behaviour of that Prime Minister during the past few days. We understand it, but anyone who says we are acting in defence of that Prime Minister, is simply talking nonsense.

One’s indignation at the behaviour of some person or other should not, however, be allowed to distract attention from the important matters of policy at which the spotlight is now being directed, and should in any event be directed at, particularly in view of the latest events.

In particular I want to say a few words about the comment of the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, a comment to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred. The hon. the Prime Minister averred that it was his policy not only to make territories independent, but nations as well. I want to ask in all seriousness whether it is possible to make a nation possible without that nation having a territory of its own. [Interjections.] Let us take the simple example of the Xhosa-speaking people within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. If it is possible to make them independent, the question arises what independence means. If they are independent, surely they must be able to decide their own destiny. In other words, they must be able to decide for themselves whether they want to carry a pass. They must be able to decide for themselves whether they want to go to the cinema on a Sunday. They must be able to decide for themselves to what beaches they want to go for a swim, during what hours they want to work, etc. Surely that cannot happen. [Interjections.] I want to concede at once that it is equally impossible for this to happen in the case of people who are members of a French, or a British or a Japanese minority group within the borders of South Africa. They simply have to abide by the laws of this country. The difference between the Xhosas on the one hand and the British, the French or the Japanese on the other, is simply that the apartheid laws also affect the one group and not the other. However, this has no bearing on the hypothesis I am putting forward.

Therefore, to speak of independence for that portion of the Xhosa-speaking people within the borders of South Africa is an impossibility. Let us test this against what happens in practice. How independent do the Xhosa in the Cape Peninsula feel when they have to evacuate their squatter huts? Is that the independence they are enjoying? How independent is a Tswana in Johannesburg when he has to queue for hours, even days, to get permission to be in Johannesburg? The fact of the matter is that they are completely—as it ought to be—under the authority of the South African Government. One is truly unable to say that those people, as individuals or as a nation, are independent. The fact that there are people who speak their language and might be blood relations of theirs and who are independent, simply does not affect their position. They are completely under the domination of our Government.

Independence—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago—is and must be a territorially-orientated concept. One cannot isolate political rights from economic realities. I think it was the hon. member for Durban Point who said in this debate that these people should at least be given a choice as to where they wish to live and work. I want to associate myself with that. It is economic realities which determine where a person finds himself because he goes there to find work. Even if one is able to hope—and this hope is rapidly dwindling—that the homeland policy is truly able to offer a solution to the political problems of those who live in the homelands—that is at least theoretically possible—it is impossible to believe that it can offer a solution to those who do not find themselves within that territory.

†Mr. Chairman, this question of independence or sovereignty is one about which we have heard a lot during recent weeks from hon. members opposite. We have heard a lot from them about separate sovereignty. This question of independence or sovereignty extends also to our Brown people. It is not confined to the question of the Africans in our country. Here there is no territorial base available. They cannot, even partially, be placed in a territory. So, the Government—or more correctly, the NP—is offering us a plan for separate Parliaments. Although in a different form, it is again the broad question that arises, the question of whether one can have an independence of people without there being a territory for them. The whole problem arises of how conflicts among the three Parliaments are to be resolved. Let me remind hon. members that a constitution is primarily an instrument for the resolution of conflict. That is its first necessary function. As far as we can see there will then be discussions in the Council of Cabinets and if there is no resolution of conflict in the Council of Cabinets, then the State President will decide what the Council of Cabinets has decided. The State President is to be elected on the 4:2:1 proportional basis by an electoral college which thus consists of a guaranteed majority of members of the NP caucus. Therefore, the resolution of conflict is by deciding that the NP will have its way. Whether it be the Coloured or the Indian people in terms of the proposed plans for constitutional development or whether it be the Black people who are inside South Africa although the Government chooses to regard them as citizens of somewhere else, there is in effect no question of independence or of sovereignty for them at all. There will not be, save in a situation where you have a territory over which they can exercise that sovereignty and over which their laws can run.

Therefore, as I have said in this House before—I shall say it again until I get some satisfactory answer to it—if you want to separate politically the destinies of various biological groups within the South African population, you will have to have to tie it entirely—that means economically as well as politically—to territory. This, after all, is what the three Dutch Reformed Churches said at the famous conference they held all those years ago in 1950. I am not saying that it ever has been the policy of the Government; there are practical reasons why it could not be. Unless, it is, then this talk of independence for peoples, independence for biological groups, is not worth the paper it is written on.

*When one looks at life within South Africa, the life of the members of the peoples who live partially within a homeland, and one compares it to the life of other people within South Africa, the matter is of course far worse. One cannot expect it to be any different. I am not referring directly to the Transkei or to any specific homeland now, but I merely remind hon. members that a person who comes to South Africa from Japan or France does not, it is true, receive citizenship, but he receives free access to any place to which he wants to go. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow the arguments of the hon. member for Parktown, except to say that I can find no difference of view between the hon. member for Parktown and myself if I should accept the basic philosophy of the hon. member for Parktown and his party that they stand for one fully politically and economically integrated society in South Africa as one mother country. The end result, of course, will be that numbers will rule. Therefore, according to this logic of the hon. member, I can find no argument. Where I differ fundamentally from him is that I am not prepared to share political rights in any respect with any other races in South Africa other than on the condition that I retain the identity of my own White nationality.

I share with hon. members of this House, and in particular with members of my party, a deep respect and regard for the parliamentary system. I believe, like other hon. members, that the parliamentary system of government is the essence of a democratic society. In the parliamentary system of government it is an accepted principle that the Official Opposition carries an equal responsibility. After all, in our democratic society it is normally considered the alternative Government, and because of this the Leader of the Opposition enjoys a specially privileged position which would normally entitle him to enjoy the confidence of the Government where South Africa’s vital interests are concerned. He would enjoy such confidence for the simple reason that the Official Opposition is expected to stand with the Government in the protection of those interests and in safeguarding South Africa wherever it may be threatened, no matter from what sources that threat may be made. This, I happen to know, has been the commonly accepted parliamentary practice over the years in our Parliament. Now I hope that The Argus, and those newspapers associated with it, will report what I now have to say. I want to refer to a report which appeared at the end of the budget debate and which has subsequently appeared in other papers belonging to that group. That report, written by one of their political reporters, stated that Parliament was losing out because the Prime Minister and other Ministers were not in the House when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition chose to discuss certain matters here. I want to say outright that if there had been any weight to the views expressed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or if he had displayed any sense of responsibility in his attitude towards South Africa’s vital interests in this House, I could have understood the necessity for the presence of the hon. the Prime Minister. You see, Sir, a wrong impression is created with the public outside because, as we in this House know, whenever the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stands up here, one gets the impression of a pygmy firing a bow from an arrow at a giant. These reports, which appeared after the budget debate, like all the other reports that have been appearing lately in certain sections of the English Press, attempt to convey to the public that there is a highly effective Opposition and a powerful Opposition. We in this House know that the opposite is true, and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has even in the course of this session had to apologize to the hon. the Prime Minister for statements he has made here across the floor of the House.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

I want to say from these front benches that he certainly enjoys no such admiration, as Leader of the Opposition, which would normally be accorded a person in the position he holds. Having listened yesterday to the Leader of the Official Opposition, I want to say from this front bench—and I believe I express the views of other hon. members on this side of the House—that serious consideration should be given to whether the customary parliamentary practice, as I have outlined it, can continue in his case.

What are you suggesting?

The risks are too great for South Africa because this Leader of the Opposition and the members of his party go along without question with the thinking and the expressions of opinion of people whom one cannot trust as far as South Africa’s vital interests are concerned …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

… and, let me add, who can hardly be called friends of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that my hon. leader and members in these benches go along with people whom he cannot trust as regards South Africa’s vital interests? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat what I said. With regard to the performance of the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the House yesterday in this debate, I want to say that it would have been expected that for the sake of his own self-respect and as a South African he would have defended his country when it was unjustly accused. He has, however, aligned himself with the accusers and attempted to improve on the indictment that has been made publicly …

That is absolute nonsense.

… and which, in the light of the evidence that has been submitted in the course of this debate, he well knows to be absolutely untrue and false. For this I hold the hon. member—and I am sorry to say it from these front benches—in contempt.

You keep talking about your front bench. You seem to have a thing about it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just made an interjection is the last one to talk about front benches. He has been delegated to the back! How can it ever be expected in terms of our traditional Parliamentary practice that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can be trusted with South Africa’s vital interests. It is perhaps a matter of regret…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted with the interests of South Africa? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Von Brandis may continue.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I have asked for your ruling, but you have not given it yet.

Order! I do not think it is a point of order. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that the hon. the Prime Minister was leading this country to disaster. It is the same political argument.

That is true.

(Time expired.)

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown saw fit to question the proposed constitutional dispensation. He did this once again by hawking the concept of sovereignty. We debated that concept in this hon. House last year and I appeal to the hon. member for Constantia, benchmate of the hon. member for Parktown, to enlighten him as to the dangers which attach to hawking inaccurate concepts such as sovereignty in connection with this issue. I think the hon. member for Constantia knows all too well what I am referring to.

The hon. member for Parktown also questioned the concept of multinationalism as a basis for the Government’s policy of international relations. I say quite categorically that there are two essential prerequisites for any meaningful debate in this hon. House. The first is that there must be a clear statement of viewpoint, especially regarding basic concepts and principles. Secondly, it is necessary that there should be acceptance of the necessary implications and consequences of the viewpoint held.

As far as the compositions of the South African society, or population, as a whole, is concerned, hon. members of the Official Opposition admit on occasion, when it suits them, that they are aware of the fact that we are a multinational society in South Africa. So, for example, during the speech here yesterday of the hon. member for Johannesburg West, they intimidated by way of interjection that they accepted the multinational character of the South African population. This is consistent with the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville in an article which appeared in the Sunday Times of 7 August last year in which he stated categorically—

The hon. member for Yeoville accepts the multinational nature of our society. But what has been the attitude of other hon. members of the PFP on various occasions? I refer to an interview which the hon. member for Musgrave had with The Citizen on 23 November last year. During that interview he said, inter alia, the following—

In other words, group consciousness, national consciousness and the diversity of nations is regarded by this hon. member as being highly dangerous. In reply to the question: “How do you see the future of Coloureds and Indians and of urban and rural Blacks?” he said the following—

I want to refer further to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said previously on 4 November 1977 in an interview with America’s ABC television—

This is not consistent with multinationalism. It is also not consistent with the viewpoint, as quoted, of the hon. member for Yeoville. Before we can conduct a meaningful debate on this subject, it is necessary for hon. members of the Official Opposition first to have clarity within their own ranks as to their attitude in relation to multinationalism. They should put it clearly to this hon. House, otherwise the whole debate will be meaningless.

In regard to the implications of their policy, the Official Opposition have no unanimity within their own ranks. One of their basic points of policy is that a national convention, representative of all the people of South Africa, must be convened at which a new constitutional dispensation has to be worked out. In this regard the following pertinent questions must be asked: Firstly, who will take the initiative for the convening of such a national convention, and on what authority will this take place? This they have still not told us. Secondly, who will be invited to such a national convention?

The elected leaders of all the nations.

I do not even know if the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition will be invited. I wonder, instead of inviting that hon. member, if preference will not be given to Mandela. The view put by the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House could probably be stated far more effectively by Mandela. He may also be able to claim far greater support than the hon. member for Sea Point.

Stop talking nonsense; remember you are a Van Rensburg. [Interjections.]

My next question is: In what capacity will people be invited to the proposed national convention? Will they be invited in their personal capacity or will they be invited as the leaders of different nations or national groups? If they are to be invited in the former capacity, i.e. their personal capacity, will their attitudes be representative of the broad South African society which, according to a leading article in The Cape Times, consists of 25 million people without national ties? On the other hand, if the representatives of nations are invited, how does this tie up with the quoted viewpoints of the hon. members for Musgrave and Johannesburg North, who do not want anything to do with multinationalism?

A more important question is: What will the viewpoint of the Official Opposition be at such a national convention? Are they going to work towards a system of one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll or will they accept it? I want to refer to what hon. members have said about this. The hon. member for Musgrave said the following in this regard to The Citizen. When he was asked—

his reply was—

The same attitude was also adopted by the hon. member for Groote Schuur, according to a report that appeared in The Citizen of 1 November. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, statements recently made by a member of the Executive Committee in Natal, Mr. Watterson, were referred to by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Third Reading of the budget debate. I repeat certain portions from the provincial Hansard purely for the record. Mr. Watterson is quoted as having said—

He went on to say—

These remarks by a member of the Executive Committee of Natal are wholly and absolutely unacceptable to South Africa. They can neither be explained, nor can they be ignored. This attitude, although it is no longer as widespread as it was at one time, nevertheless does persist in certain circles in South Africa both in and out of Parliament. For example, his words could equally easily have been used by certain members of the Official Opposition sitting to my right [Interjections.] Such statements coming from a man in his position, i.e. a member of the Executive Committee of Natal, cannot be forgiven. His was a lapse which no one in public life, and certainly no one in public office, can afford to make and get away with it. His words actually result in a discouragement to young South Africans to do military service and are calculated to create animosity between English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, something which we can ill afford at this time.

Why do you not read his subsequent Press statement?

If these words had been used outside of the provincial council, Mr. Watterson could well have been prosecuted under the Defence Act. The fact that he used them on a privileged occasion, in my opinion makes things even worse. I believe this man has shown himself utterly unfit to hold public office in the Republic. I believe he should resign in the public interest and if he will not do so, then there are those who surely have the position and the courage to see that he does so. South Africa cannot at this stage afford the Wattersons of whatever language group to be let loose in public life in South Africa.

Why do you not read his public statement? His words are totally out of context.

Yesterday we dealt with the question of the Transkei. I want to say immediately that we in these benches regret the attitude of the Transkeian Government. Clearly, as to the facts, the hon. the Prime Minister made out an acceptable case in the House yesterday. All reasonable South Africans will resent the tenor of the Transkeian leader’s remarks and will object strongly to the demonstrable inaccuracies and the unnecessary insults that it contains. However, other South Africans, like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, have of course used the occasion to seek justification for the attitudes of the leader of the Transkei.

Nonsense!

This is typical, because when Western leaders state what they intend as a future for South Africa, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition explains to the world what they are supposed really to have said. When any unjustifiable attack is made on our country he is always the first to find justification for it. Some of the hon. members of the PFP even admire Donald Woods! I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to say to the House where he stands on the land issue raised by the Prime Minister of Transkei. Does he want Griqualand East to be administered by Natal, does he want it to be given to Chief Buthelezi or does he want it to be given to the Transkeian Prime Minister? [Interjections.] I would say that either he or the hon. member for Houghton—since she is never afraid to say what she really means—must tell the House where they stand on this issue and for that matter I would be most interested, and I am sure other hon. members of the House would be interested as well, to hear where they stand in relation to their colleagues in Inkatha. [Interjections.]

We in these benches feel that land demands are a common ailment in Africa. My own view is that the Transkei is one of the most fertile agricultural portions of Southern Africa. Those people who have built up magnificent farms and homes, not only in the Transkei, but also in Griqualand East, have utilized the soil well, and, before others lay claim to more land, they should be able to prove that the land they already have is properly and beneficially used for the benefit of all their subjects. I think it is common knowledge that there is too much good agricultural land throughout the continent of Africa which is today an unproductive desert through improper use by incompetent people.

As regards Botswana, I referred in the budget debate to the death of two young South Africans in Botswana and to the apparently contradictory and, in my opinion, unsatisfactory statement issued by the Botswana Government. The people of South Africa are indeed angry at the number of incidents involving not only South Africans, but also Rhodesians, which have taken place recently in Botswana and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to make a statement on this issue and to outline the steps which have so far been taken and the steps he proposes to take in this connection.

*I regard this debate as probably the most important discussion we have ever had on the Prime Minister’s Vote since Union. Never before has a greater responsibility rested on the shoulders of a South African Prime Minister.

Let me at once express my appreciation for the singular way in which the hon. the Prime Minister devotes himself to his task. There can and will be differences of opinion between us in regard to policy. We may differ in respect of certain principles and we may even differ in regard to the application of those things on which we actually agree. All reasonable South Africans, however, are proud of the way in which the Prime Minister of the Republic and his wife, Mrs. Vorster, are fulfilling this responsible and demanding task.

In view of the recent important happenings, it is essential that we take a very close look at the dangers facing South Africa as well as at the particular possibilities of our actual position. I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Prime Minister to make a serious, honest and objective assessment of the present position. We on these benches expect that of him.

As we see the position, Sir, the communist powers of the world have during the past decade continued to improve and strengthen their position on all fronts. As against this the West have had to deal with an economic recession, inflation, a shaky dollar, strikes, urban terrorism, the hi-jacking of aeroplanes and the abduction of people, moral and spiritual decline, and particularly, incompetent leadership at all levels. In Africa there has been communist intrusion in Mozambique, Angola and the Horn of Africa. I hold out little hope that the efforts on the part of Western powers to save the position in Southern Africa will succeed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member for Simonstown an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Chief Whip. In the case of Rhodesia, America and Britain have only interfered further since an internal settlement was reached by the people of Rhodesia.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, I am afraid we have to accept the fact that there is little hope of the negotiations between ourselves and the five Western powers being brought to a successful conclusion. I want to give my reasons for saying this. In the first instance, most of the information they have about Southern Africa is incorrect and based on wrong conclusions and data. Consequently I think the West are misleading themselves. They hang on to the words of exiles, the doubting Thomases, those who have thrown in the towel and the worst elements of every society in the Republic. Their chief advisers are the most un-South African elements in the Progressive Party and their Press.

The result is that the West is mistaken not only in respect of our military power and the inherent strength of our economy but—and this is the most important of all—also in respect of the character, the moral courage, determination and tenacity of the entire South African nation. In the second place, the Carter administration has completely lost the will to take a stand and to give guidance. How did they react to the communist intrusion in the Horn of Africa? All they said was that they deplored it. I do not think Carter will support any settlement, irrespective of how just and democratic it may be, if he has possibly to defend it. Only that which satisfies the Patriotic Front, Swapo and the communists in general, will apparently be acceptable to him. Surely we South Africans cannot be expected to negotiate successfully with people who continually criticize, belittle and threaten us while closing their eyes to the crimes of our common enemies? The weakness and prejudice on the part of the Carter administration make it impossible for the five Western powers to be impartial negotiators. How can we negotiate successfully and have confidence in their impartiality while they are boycotting us and threatening us with general sanctions?

In the third place, I think the Carter administration have thrown all their priorities overboard. Every action of theirs is directed at what they believe will gain them votes at the next election, not here in Africa but in America. I say without fear of contradiction that the Americans are today completely ignoring real international stability and world peace. America wants to be a party to discussing world politics without honouring her own international obligations. Who can really attach any value to America’s concern about human rights and world peace? America closes her eyes to Cuba which is on her doorstep and constitutes the greatest threat to world peace. Cuba is the smallest country where human rights are almost totally ignored, which creates most trouble on most fronts, and what does Carter do about it? He says he deplores it and Andy Young says that they are a stabilizing influence in Angola.

Are we discussing Carter’s Vote?

The hypocrisy of the Carter Administration is only equalled by the sanctimony of Dr. Owen. I think it is childish to go beserk about human rights and then to follow a policy in Africa that will result in millions of people losing completely the few rights they are still enjoying at the moment. Does the Carter Administration really believe that it will retain the Negro vote in America by handling their brothers in Africa over to the communists? With due deference, I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that South Africa should be careful and not attach too much value to the undertakings, promises and word of the Carter Administration. One saw, in the case of Israel, what value could be attached to the word of President Carter. We know what happened in Rhodesia. What has happened to the proposals of Dr. Kissinger? What is more important, President Carter has broken America’s word of honour in respect of the entire free world by totally ignoring the Truman doctrine. I think the time is overdue for us to remind President Carter and the American people of the most important declaration of foreign policy of this century. On 12 March 1947 when President Harry S. Truman decided to oppose communist terrorism that was threatening Greece, he said the following. I think these words should be repeated at this appropriate time in South Africa. President Truman said—

With the words “we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation” he was referring to the great United States of America at the time.

It is a tragedy for the entire free world and for the USA that they are today ignoring these important, wise and prophetic words of President Truman. South Africa’s salvation will ultimately depend on what we can do for ourselves because we are absolutely on our own. To the extent that we are economically sound, to that extent shall we be free, safe and independent.

The fact that the hon. the Prime Minister enjoys greater support than the Government he is leading places not only a heavier responsibility on his shoulders but also a golden opportunity within his reach. It is unfortunate that the Government has inherited supporters who are still the apostles of yesteryear. These ultra-conservatives of the past can and must now be ignored. No party or Government, particularly in present-day circumstances, can feel bound in these present-day changed circumstances by the statements and slogans of decades ago. This is a country of extremes. It is a land of extremes for those who believe as the Progs do, that our salvation lies abroad. As little as can those who believe that the outside world no longer exists so they too cannot make any positive contribution to our South African society. The survival of our country will depend largely on the extent to which the hon. the Prime Minister can bring about greater national unity, a national unity which will rise above the bounds of party politics or of language or racial background; a national unity which is based only on a South African patriotism. Only then will the total strategy spoken of by the hon. the Minister of Defence become a reality.

Discriminatory measures which no longer serve any purpose and which do more harm than good will fearlessly and zealously have to be swept aside. Everything that stands in the way of closer co-operation and greater understanding among the various races in South Africa must be swept aside. It must be possible for more people to acquire a greater share in the economic prosperity of our country sooner. It is true that certain hon. Ministers have recently made encouraging, albeit vague, statements indicating that the Government is in fact considering certain positive steps. That, however, is not enough.

In conclusion, I just want to say that the speed at which we can improve race relations, the quality of the national unity we can establish and the quality of the patriotism we can engender here in South Africa—naturally among all the people—are the things which will safeguard our future. I believe the most important task of the Government, as it is the most important task of every individual South African, is to build a society in which every responsible citizen will feel that his own welfare and prosperity depends on the maintenance of law and order and the safety of the State. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reply to a few questions put to me by hon. members yesterday and today. Then I should also like to discuss a matter which I believe to be very relevant with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party.

In the first place, I should like to refer to a report which appeared in The Argus a day or two ago.

†In the report it was intimated that I had snubbed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by not being present when he spoke in this House. It is true that I was not in the House. I was busy elsewhere, occupied with very important State business at the time when the hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke. Accordingly I could not be here. Furthermore, I was not aware of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was going to speak. Now, according to this newspaper report, one of the hon. members of the PFP cried on the shoulder of The Argus reporter because that had happened.

In the past we have dealt in this House with politicians who were able to take it Apparently we have a few prima donnas in this House at the moment. If that is so, I want to say in all sincerity to hon. members of the Official Opposition, in the famous words of Harry Truman: “If you find it too hot in the kitchen, then it is time to get out” Hon. members, have, however, developed the habit of talking to the Press immediately after debates have taken place in the House and even before debates have taken place. I candidly feel that such habits are derogatory to the House.

You do not do it at all?

What do you know about it?

They have developed that habit, but I do wish they would stop. Hon. members on the other side have put certain questions to me, but before I deal with them, you, Sir, will allow me to say thank you to the hon. member for Simonstown, not for what he has said about me, but for what he has said about my wife. In all the years I have been in public life—it is a difficult life not only for the men, but more especially for the women—that is one of the kindest things that have been said in this House and I thank the hon. member for having said it.

Hon. members of the PFP give out at all times that they are the only people who can save South Africa and who can solve all South Africa’s problems. Even this afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition addressed me and said that he wanted an assurance from me that I have policies that can work in practice. Fancy putting such a question to me immediately after a general election! After all, the electorate judged me not only on my policy on paper …

One-sided propaganda on TV. [Interjections.]

I wish that hon. member would keep quiet. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. members ask such a question immediately after a general election but now, judging by their interruptions, they squeal about the result in spite of the fact that for every one newspaper in South Africa which propagated the cause of the NP, there were two and a quarter who propagated the cause of the PFP. In spite of all the propaganda media they had, the result is seen before us.

Explain the drop by 3 000 votes in Springs! [Interjections.]

Order!

Now they blame our TV service. In a sense they can perhaps do so because, in all sincerity, after the voters had seen hon. members in action on TV, could one have expected the voters to vote for them? [Interjections.] Let us be candid about it.

If you were so sure, why did you not allow us on TV?

The hon. member has, however, asked me that question and I now give him that assurance, and in addition I want to say that I know of no other policy that can be followed in South Africa. Let us assume, for the purposes of our argument, that the hon. member is right when he says he has the wisdom and he has the policy to govern South Africa. [Interjections.] Must I assume that he does not say that?

It is true, but we did not say that. [Interjections.]

All I can say to the hon. member for Musgrave—and I do so with a smile, Sir—is that I would like to remind him of what was said by a well-known man by the name of Fuller. He said many years ago that if you make as ass of yourself you must expect people to ride on you. [Interjections.] The hon. member now says that it is true; but, Sir, they are so bashful that they do not say it. Let me then say it on their behalf. They say they have the best policy. They see the solution in South Africa in the holding of a national convention.

As in South West Africa.

We have it on record that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that the first thing he would do if he were elected to power would be to ’phone Gatsha Buthelezi. I suppose the reason for ’phoning him …

That is a TV distortion.

… would be to arrange a national convention. Does the hon. member now deny that he said that, or is he too bashful to admit that as well? [Interjections.] Let us come back to the national convention. For years now, from morning till night, we have heard about the national convention. I take it that since the hon. gentleman tells us that he is very worried about the future of South Africa and that he badly wants to see matters settled in South Africa, he has given this a great deal of thought. Therefore I take it that the time is now opportune—unless the hon. member is too bashful about that too—to take us into his confidence and tell us all about this national convention. At the same time he can tell us something about the policy of the Progressive Reform Party.

Progressive Federal Party.

I am sorry; I cannot keep track of the changes. [Interjections.] Let the hon. member get up in this House now. This is the time, during the Committee Stage of this Bill, and this Vote …

It is the Prime Minister’s Vote, not the Leader of the Opposition’s Vote.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition assures me that he will discuss it, I shall do my level best to persuade my Chief Whip to give him some of my time to discuss it. I think the time has come for that to be done. We want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now who will take the initiative in the calling of this national convention. I assume that if he is elected, he will take the initiative. Because he will then take the initiative, he will not only discuss, but will also invite. I want him to tell us here and now—obviously he must have given this a great deal of thought—whom he will invite to take part in this national convention. Will it be the elected leaders of the Blacks of South Africa; will it be the elected leaders of the Coloureds and of the Indians—or not? We know that so-called world opinion does not recognize Dr. Phatudi as a leader in South Africa, that it does not recognize Prime Minister Matanzima or any of the other homeland leaders, including Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, as the real leaders of the Blacks of South Africa. I have come across and talked in Africa and elsewhere with leaders of peoples who see as the real leader of the Blacks of South Africa Nelson Mandela, and the hon. member knows it. He has had discussions with people with whom I have had discussion and who have said openly and frankly that Nelson Mandela is the leader of the Blacks in South Africa. My immediate reply was that he was not I took up the attitude that he was neither and elected nor a natural leader of Black peoples in South Africa, but just the leader of an organization, the African National Congress, an organization with a limited membership. I want to know from the hon. member whether he will tell us—I am sure he will not be bashful about that—what his reply was, because I know the same question was put to him.

Who are these people you are talking about?

I am talking about the Liberians in the first instance.

I have never met the Liberians.

I am talking about other people in Africa where the hon. member visited.

Such as?

You know! I am talking about Botswana; I am talking about the talks members of your party had with people in Zambia; I am talking about talks you had in other parts of Africa.

Zambians have told you?

I am coming to that. Whoever he talked to—and he boasted that he talked to ever so many Black peoples …

More than you!

Yes, more than I have talked to. Fine. The more the merrier! Let him then tell us …

You tell us about your policies.

… whether, in fact, this argument was raised and, if so, what his reply was.

Secondly, I think he must tell us whom he is going to invite. Is he going to invite Inkatha? Is he going to invite Chief Buthelezi? Chief Buthelezi has his own ideas about a national convention. He has said that he subscribes to the idea of a national convention. The Star had an interview with him on 3 November 1977 and this is what The Star had to report—

So they quote him—

So I assume that at this national convention there will at least be Buthelezi, and he will put the point of view that there must be Black majority rule in South Africa, because he says that is what he believes in. I think it is time the hon. member tells us if that issue is raised and he gets that reply, what he will do at the national convention. I think it is also time that he tells us whether they will vote at the national convention …

Your portfolio is under discussion here today.

Does the hon. member not appreciate that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have accused me that my policies have failed …

Yes, they have.

… and that I must now look around for alternative policies? Well, I am now investigating one of the alternatives.

You mean you are considering it.

I am investigating it. We are not considering it, because if I were to consider it … The hon. member probably does not know the following lines that appear in a hymn that we sing in our Church:

*This also applies to the policy of hon. members on the other side. I think the hon. member should also tell us now what the procedure will be at that national convention, apart from who will participate.

Mr. Chairman, I am actually interested in the period before the national convention arrives at a decision because—and the hon. member will concede this—that national convention is not going to arrive at a decision for many months—or for many years, the way things are now—and in the meanwhile the country has to be governed. Therefore I want to know from him how the country will be governed in the meantime. One cannot govern the country with the 14 points. [Interjections.] The country has to be governed in the meantime, and it is about that interim government that I now want to cross swords with the hon. member. I want him to tell us whether it is still his policy, when they come into power, to pass an Act in this House providing that all schools are to be mixed. He must tell us this, for if that is their policy, there can be no doubt whatsoever about it.

[Inaudible.]

There cannot be any doubt about that, for during the election, questions were asked about this matter. The hon. member for Green Point held a meeting, and according to The Argus, he was asked a question about the matter of schools, and his reply was that all schools had to be mixed and that those people who did not want to accept this would have to send their children to private schools.

That is correct.

The hon. member says it is correct. He said that where the State footed the Bill, the schools had to be mixed. Is that correct? I now want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, since a back-bencher of his party was honest enough during the election to say on behalf of his party that if they were to come into power, there would be a compulsory opening of all schools to all races and that the parents who did not want to accept this would have to send their children to private schools, whether he agrees with that, in the light of the fact that the hon. member said on another occasion that this was not their policy, but that their policy was one of “local option”. When did this change come about, that the local people will no longer have the opportunity to express their opinion on the matter, but that Parliament will be able to make a law which will make it compulsory for all schools to be mixed, and that those parents who do not want to accept this will have to send their children to private schools? I should also like to know whether all hon. members on that side of the House agree with that explanation given by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member must also tell me, since we shall have separate residential areas during the interim period and since it is written into the deeds of various townships—this is the way it is registered at the Deeds Office—that those townships have been laid out subject to the express condition that the area is specifically reserved for occupation by Whites or Coloureds, as the case may be, whether Parliament will then pass legislation under his Government to make all those things illegal, to make mixed residential areas compulsory for all, whether they want it or not. Their standpoint used to be that they would leave this decision to the local authorities. Does the hon. member now realize how ridiculous it is to follow such a policy? If there is a municipal election in a town and this hon. member votes in favour of opening up the town, and at the next election he loses and the other party votes in favour of closing the town, can the hon. member imagine how much chaos such a policy could create in South Africa? [Interjections.] So one either has that open-and-closed policy …

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

Yes. With pleasure.

Is that not exactly what the Government did under the Group Areas Act when they started removing people from mixed residential areas?

Mr. Chairman, what has that got to do with the matter I am discussing? Unless I am completely stupid, I have not the faintest idea of what this hon. member wants. But since the hon. member is so kind as to speak to me, let me speak to her as well. After all, I am phrasing my questions so clearly that she can understand them. Is their policy an open-and-close policy or is it a policy which will be there permanently? [Interjections.]

It is our policy to repeal the Group Areas Act.

It is their policy to repeal the Group Areas Act. That is all very well; it sounds marvellous when you say it like that. However, there was a time when hon. members said in this House that if there were local communities which wanted to be separate and which did not want other race groups to live in their areas, they had every right to decide that.

It is not our policy. [Interjections.]

Zac de Beer says it is. [Interjections.]

Maybe I am being unfair. I shall rather repeat the question after the meeting of the PFP’s caucus. We may then get a reply.

*I now want to come to the final aspect regarding the interim period before the national convention has arrived at a decision.

†Will the policy in that period be that set out on 18 November 1977 in The Star under the heading “Issues and Answers” …

Back on the old subject!

Yes, I want to come back to it After all, I promised to do it According to the article the PFP’s policy is—

May I ask the hon. member whether that is still the policy of the PFP?

It is your Vote we are discussing now. [Interjections.]

It is certainly my Vote which is under discussion, but does the hon. member not want to take the time to enlighten us on this issue? This is her opportunity to enlighten me.

No …

If the hon. member wants to speak, I shall give her the opportunity to do so. Is it the PFP’s policy that voting rights will be extended to all citizens on a common roll which would have attainment of an educational standard as the regulator?

It is up to you to tell us what has happened to your independent homeland policy.

I will tell you. Why I am raising this matter …

Please do not play games … [Interjections.]

When I raised this issue last …

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Should I be ashamed of myself for trying to find out what the PFP’s policy is? Should I be ashamed of myself for trying to find out what the hon. members are thinking? Should I be ashamed of myself because the hon. members dare to call themselves an alternative Government and I want to know what that alternative is?

Is the country in trouble or not?

You are in big trouble!

This country has its problems, but if the PFP was in power … [Interjections.] … this country would not have problems to deal with; it will have civil war; it would be in its death throes. There is no doubt about that. [Interjections.] I promise the hon. members I shall come back to it, and they must not get jittery now that we come back to their policy. [Interjections.] When we discussed this article in The Star the last time, the hon. Leader of the Opposition sort of let it hang in the air and gave the impression that it was an individual who gave the information to The Star, and that it was not PFP policy. I think that was what all hon. members understood. I took the trouble to write to The Star about the matter. I told them that I wanted to use the information and that I am asking it officially. I asked them where they got the information from. This is what The Star wrote to me—

Let us now compare this reply with the reply the hon. gentleman gave to this very question. It is in Hansard.

What worries me is that you want to win a debating point while you cannot save the country.

The hon. member has only just turned up here. He should have been here yesterday.

I had reasons for not being able to be here yesterday.

It is a good thing you were not here yesterday, for I would not have wanted you to be ashamed. [Interjections.]

I want to reply to the question which was put to me. The hon. member for Parktown— to begin with the last speaker—crossed swords with me because I am not only making territories independent, but people as well. We discussed this matter at great length with President Mangope and his law advisers. We did not devote an hour to the problem, but days. I want to point out just a few of the problems to the hon. member for Parktown. It was argued, inter alia, that it was not fair to deprive these people of their South African citizenship and that they should have an option to remain South African citizens. This looks wonderful on paper, but has the hon. member ever considered that if a territory becomes independent—and this was actually proposed by some people—and the people all prefer to retain South African citizenship, one would have a State without a single citizen? Surely that is an untenable situation. When Lesotho and Malawi became independent, there were Lesothos and Malawians who had been in South Africa for generations, but they became Lesotho and Malawian citizens when their countries became independent and no one took any exception whatsoever to that.

Were those Lesothos and Malawians ever South Africans?

They came to live and work in South Africa exactly like other Black people. [Interjections.] I want to go further now. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must now give the hon. the Prime Minister a chance to state his case.

I want to argue this matter to its logical conclusion with the hon. member, as we argued it at the time. What are the facts? Since Roman days it has been said: Ex Africa semper aliquid novi. The hon. member knows what that means. What has the position of the Black man in South Africa been all these years? He was an inhabitant of South Africa. But he was never a citizen of South Africa in the sense in which the hon. member and I are. Those are the facts.

There has always been discrimination.

He did not have the franchise. He was deprived of that. For reasons of expediency—and the hon. member is aware of this—certain male Coloureds and certain male Blacks in the Cape only were given the franchise by the colonial regime. It was done for reasons of expediency only. For the rest he was never regarded as a citizen in the sense in which the hon. member’s ancestors and my ancestors were. That is the practice in Africa. It is with that practice and that reality that we are dealing here.

What about votes for women? Things change.

If that hon. member continues to make such nonsensical interjections, I shall feel myself compelled to use unparliamentary language and it will then be on his conscience.

Try it.

These are the realities with which we were dealing and it is no use our trying to hide them or telling the world that this was never the case. It was the case, and everyone knows it. That is why one can understand this problem cropping up in the way it did. We said from the outset, when this policy of separate development and eventual independence of homelands emerged, that we were not merely making territories independent, but people as well. The hon. member is at liberty to have another policy. But this happens to be the policy of my party, and it is on the basis of this policy that we are negotiating with the Black people, and it is on the basis of this policy that they accepted independence and will accept independence in future.

While I am talking about homelands now, it is terribly easy—it happened again in this debate—to speak, with reference to Bophuthatswana, of a fragmented homeland. That is correct. There is not one of us who would not like to see a contiguously consolidated homeland. I hope and trust that in the many years which lie ahead it will be possible for this to happen, for there are ways and means which make it possible for this to happen. Let us now, as adults, consider a few of the practical problems which we had with Bophuthatswana for example.

Hon. members know that Thaba Nchu has existed since the days of the Voortrekkers, and Taba Nchu is a territory belonging to the Tswanas, but it is situated near Bloemfontein in the Free State. It is a physical impossibility to consolidate Thaba Nchu with the Bophuthatswana homeland. So what did we do? I told Chief Mangope: “There is the map; let us look at the situation. You realize just as well as I do that it is impossible. We cannot consolidate this land with Bophuthatswana. I submit it to you for your consideration. Discuss it with your Cabinet. Give up that land and the Government will then give you compensatory land, either in the Northern Cape or in the Western Transvaal, wherever you want it, so that we can achieve a better consolidation of Bophuthatswana.” Hon. members need only look at the map to see what one could do with the equivalent of that land. The Chief Minister said to me: “Thank you very much, my Cabinet and I shall discuss it.” He subsequently returned and said: “My Cabinet and I have discussed it. We are sorry, but we do not want to give up that land. We would rather be fragmented than give up Thaba Nchu.”

However, there is a second case as well. In the far eastern part of the Tswana territory lies a piece of land which is claimed by the Ndebele as their territory. We have been discussing land claims here today. There are quite a few pieces of land in South Africa which are claimed by two, three or four Black nations as their territory. The hon. member knows this just as well as I do. In the east of Bophuthatswana there is a piece of land which, according to the Ndebele, is traditionally their territory. They maintain that the Tswanas took it from them. Owing to this dispute I asked the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana whether he was not prepared to cede that piece of land to the Ndebele. I offered to give him, in exchange for it, compensatory territory in the Western Transvaal or the Northern Cape—wherever he wanted it—in order to achieve a maximum consolidation. He considered it, returned and said that he was not prepared to give up that piece of land.

Hon. members will now realize that, if one had had those two pieces of land and had been able to use it, Bophuthatswana would surely have presented a completely different appearance. When hon. members look at Bophuthatswana now, and it looks the way it does, they must not blame me only. Nor must they blame only the Minister concerned for that. They must take into consideration the problems to which I have now referred.

How many people would have had to be moved?

It is not a question of how many people would have been moved.

How many people would have had to be moved?

There are many people involved. In the case of Thaba Nchu— if the hon. member for Groote Schuur knows anything about the matter—it is true that a tremendous number of members of the South Sotho tribe are living in Thaba Nchu, and that the South Sotho tribe would have taken over that area if the Tswanas had left it. [Interjections.] If anyone has a contribution to make, let him make it. However, we do not need this kind of nonsense.

Those were the practical problems confronting us. Surely I have said before that consolidation has not then been disposed of. It is always possible—because there are Black spots here and White enclaves there— for the Black Government concerned and the White Government to arrive at an agreement, on the level of negotiation between governments, on the exchange of land in order to bring about a better consolidation. Therefore, this is not the end. In the same way as land is and will be in dispute today and for all times, so land will always change hands here in South Africa.

As long as you continue with your homeland policy.

It is a matter which has to take its course and which will have to be reviewed from time to time. Now, I have heard hon. members level the reproach at me that I should not allow people to become independent unless their land has been fully consolidated. Surely it is not I who am forcing them to become independent. Surely they decide for themselves. [Interjections.]

This matter is becoming interesting now, Mr. Chairman. When an hon. member insinuates here … and if you tell me that I must withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, I want to say in advance that, with the greatest respect to the Chair, I cannot see my way clear to doing it. When an hon. member insinuates that we have forced people to become independent, I say it is a lie, and he knows it is a lie.

What is the alternative that you offer them?

What political alternative are they being offered?

And when the hon. Whip wants to insinuate the same thing, I say he knows it is a lie. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is the alternative?

Mr. Chairman, various questions were put to me, questions to which I have to reply. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to “scattered fragments” of land. I told him what problems I was experiencing in that regard.

The hon. the Leader referred to the fact that whereas we had at first closed universities to the non-Whites we were now opening them again. However, we have never closed universities to the Blacks for there have constantly been Blacks, Coloureds and Indians at those White universities that wanted to accept them. It is true that they had to obtain a permit from the Ministers concerned to be able to go there, but those universities were never in any way closed to them.

Hundreds were turned away.

Yes, Sir. Let me mention a few examples. I happen to know what I am talking about now; I know that I can speak with authority about this, because I spoke to the parents concerned. I am going to mention the person’s name here. I am sick and tired of the 19th century liberalists to whom the hon. member for Durban Point referred the other day and who profess that they wanted to do everything for the non-Whites. What was the position before the Government came into power? When Tshabalala applied for his child to be enrolled at a university, the university was full, but when De Villiers applied for his child to be enrolled, there was room. Those are the facts. Go and ask Dr. Van der Ross, the present rector of the University of the Western Cape. Ask him whether he did not apply three times for a position as lecturer in education at the University of Cape Town. Ask him whether his application was not the best application on merit. Ask him, too, whether he received the post.

At what stage was that?

But go and ask him.

You can phone him tomorrow if you like.

It was at a stage when he was able to accept such a post, and if the hon. member does not want to believe me, surely he can discuss this matter with Dr. Van der Ross himself. That was the kind of attitude when hon. members opposite were in office. It was so bad that when the first Black applied to the University of the Witwatersrand, they refused to accept him. However, when he threatened them with a court interdict, they enrolled him. Those are the people who profess that they have the sole right to mean something to the Black people.

I had to satisfy myself, and I therefore spoke to the Black leaders and the Indian leaders. Today there are thousands of Black, Coloured and Indian students, thanks to the separate universities established by this Government. What would have happened if we had not done this? Quite recently I asked an Indian leader: How many Indians would have been at university if the University of Durban-Westville had not been there? He told me that he doubted whether a tenth of the present number of students would have been at university. One could put the same question to the Coloureds and the Blacks and they would give the same reply.

What are the other facts? Can hon. members opposite still remember what their arguments were when those universities were being established? They said that they would be inferior universities, that they would be “bush colleges”. They made those universities so suspect that the Blacks and the Coloureds did not want to touch them with a barge pole.

They did not want to accept my undertaking—and I was involved in this matter at the time—that they would be as academically well-founded as any White university and that the standards would be precisely the same. They did not want to accept that. However, owing to the fact that we honoured the undertaking we had given, the standard of that university is there for all to see today. I make no apology for the fact that it is our policy to grant permits only to those students who want to go to the open universities when no provision is made at their own universities. Considering the standards which were established, the universities felt—and I agree with this—that they wanted to enroll postgraduate students, and they receive a permit to do so. Instead of hon. members criticizing the Government for that now, I would have thought that they ought to have been very grateful for this logical development, for I am convinced that if they had been in office, these things would not have come about.

The hon. member referred to hotels. Surely this problem has always been there, even when hon. members opposite were in office. However, they did not see their way clear to doing anything about it. What was the problem?

I am not reproaching you for it Why do you not give us your policy? [Interjections.]

But the hon. member is attacking me on this point, and now that I am giving him the reply, he says he does not want to hear it. [Interjections.] I shall leave the matter at that.

Order!

One had the argument from the hon. member that the policy of separate development was dead. I want to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It does not often happen that I quote with approbation what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. However, I must tell him that it was with gratitude that I took cognizance yesterday afternoon of the fact that he said what his Leader should have said. It did not go unnoticed by me, and I am pleased that it is recorded in Hansard.

All is forgiven.

Give the devil his due!

*The hon. member for Sea Point, just as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did, said that the policy of separate development was dead. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in a previous debate that we were standing at the deathbed of apartheid. But that is strange. Two hon. members opposite say apartheid is dead, separate development is dead. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was the mourner at the deathbed, for he helped to make it. That is why he came to mourn. [Interjections.] No, he came to mourn his creation. What I also found interesting was the whole theme of the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown, namely that all the problems we have in South Africa today are due to the hail and hearty apartheid policy which exists in South Africa. That was his entire argument. Am I correct?

No.

Of course I am correct.

He did not say it. He thought it! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban Point raised the question of Soweto, and also that of the other homelands, and referred to what their powers are and should be. I asked by way of an interjection: “But what about Mamelodi?” He had in mind that Soweto should become a kind of city state.

A territorial authority!

Yes, there are many people who entertain this city state idea. But surely if one has various city states throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, no good will come of it. Why do we not begin at the beginning and do what I believe is the right thing, namely to establish an elected council which will administer the city and which will in every respect take full responsibility for the city administration? Even greater responsibilities could be given to it. For example, one could entrust the responsibility for law and order to it, which it could then proceed to carry out in our way as well as in the traditional way. T2he hon. member knows that we should not despise the traditional way.

At this stage of development there is a great deal to be said for the traditional way of doing many things. We could also give them rights, more than a city council has, for example in respect of their educational affairs. Why should we force the pace? Why do we not first lay the foundations? Why do we not first give these people the potential, so that they can grow, and then allow matters to take their course.

Are the two snags not citizenship and home ownership?

As far as home ownership is concerned, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member, and for that reason legislation in that regard will be introduced in this House. Lengthy discussions on this matter were held with the building societies, financial institutions, etc., and I hope that hon. members will support the legislation. The time has come for the Black man to be able to produce a certificate which confirms his home ownership and rights of proprietorship so that he may inherit, lease, hypothecate or sell the property. This has to come, and it will come because it is the policy of the Government.

And the land?

The land belongs to the city council, and to other bodies. Hon. members say this is merely ideological. But have they ever considered—and those hon. members do not think about things like this—that if one decides that the Black people should also be able to own land, it would mean that one would have to resurvey all the Black areas in South Africa? One would have to peg out each piece of land. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has some knowledge of this. He would therefore be able to tell us how many millions of rand it would cost even before one had reached that stage.

Is that the main reason why it is not being done?

No, that is only one reason. Surely hon. members know the standpoint of this party. Why is he asking me now? Surely he knows that our standpoint over the years has been that Whites are not allowed to own land in the Black areas and that Black people similarly do not receive ownership of land in the White area.

Can I get a leasehold house in a Black area?

What is more, is the hon. member not aware that it even goes against the grain for the Black man to grant ownership of land to Black people even in Black areas? Individual ownership of land to Black people even in Black areas? Individual ownership of land is still not an established fact among them today in their own areas. Must one still play the teacher in this regard as well?

What about the policy in regard to kwaZulu?

The hon. member must not be so hasty. He was the second to speak; I still have a long way to go before I come to him. However, if it will satisfy him, I shall reply to that now. The hon. member wants to know: If kwaZulu does not want to become independent, what then? Just ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; he put that question to me seven years ago. It is recorded in Hansard that he asked me what would happen if they do not want to become independent. My reply is this: Then they do not become independent; that is how simple it is. We do not force people to become independent. It is the voluntary choice of each nation whether it is going to become independent or not. This Government, in terms of its policy, can take it as far as the basis of self-government. Further than that we cannot take it. The further logical step, viz. independence, it has to take itself. That is my reply to the hon. member.

Well, here I come now to the hon. member for Musgrave! This hon. member made the following point: “South African policies play into the hands of the Marxists”, i.e. the policies of this Government. Is he aware—he can go and examine the police reports—that the communist organizations flourished and expanded in the ’thirties, when the United Party was in office. That was the time when the communists organized in South Africa. Then the war broke out, and when Russians entered the war on the side of the Allies, they were the ringleaders in the war. I know what I am talking about now. If the war had not broken out, the then Government would have been forced, early in the ’forties, to take stronger steps against the communist than this Government ever took.

I know what I am talking about because I dealt with these things. As if South Africa was the only country that has a communist problem! For what reason does France have a communist problem? For what reason does Italy have a communist problem? Is it their policy? Heaven knows it has nothing to do with us. In any event, it is in strident contrast to ours. The same applies to every other country in the world that has a communist problem. This is not even a proper debating point because the argument is so old it is hoary. It is not an argument which one uses today, in 1978. No one pays any heed to it.

A great fuss is now being kicked up about what the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development said on television. Unfortunately I did not see the television programme, but to judge from what I read about it—except for one aspect which the hon. member mentioned and which I shall come to in a moment—the hon. the Minister said nothing which has not been said before. Absolutely nothing. Inter alia, he came forward with a theory— and this is the one thing which I said I shall refer to—with which he has come forward before, namely that South Africa’s name should be changed. My friend next to me here, the hon. the Minister of Transport, came forward with the idea that the name of the Railways should be changed. People get ideas such as these, and the hon. the Minister has the right to speculate on such a idea. [Interjections.] This is not something that has ever been discussed by a party congress or by the Cabinet. As far as I am concerned, I am most certainly too old to think of such things. For me the name South Africa is quite good enough. It is not a question of policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with policy. However, the hon. the Minister has the right to propagate a new name if he so wishes. In fact, any person has the right to propagate a new name if he so wishes. What is wrong with that? However, the hon. member is now implying that it is matter of policy and that there is going to be rift in the NP. There was indeed a rift which almost occurred over a name, but it was when they removed the “Reform” portion from the name of the Progressive Reform Party. The hon. member for Yeoville knows that; he is still sulky about it. Is that not correct?

I agree.

Yes. He agrees with that. The hon. member is still fed-up about it. One can clearly see it.

Unless hon. members draw my attention to specific questions which they put to me, I have now, I think, replied to most of the questions which were put to me. I shall go through my notes again to see whether there are any other questions I still have to reply to.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister is still going to discuss the question of confederation as a binding factor.

That is in fact the note I was looking for. Somewhere the hon. member for Bezuidenhout accused me of having referred to a commonwealth. I can give the hon. member every speech— I have them all together—that I ever made in Parliament since I came here in 1953. If the hon. member can point out the word “commonwealth” in any one of my speeches, I shall apologize to him here in public, in the House, in this connection. I have never adopted a commonwealth as the basis of my standpoint.

Did you differ then from your own party?

From whom?

From Dr. Verwoerd.

The policy of the NP has never been that there should be a commonwealth in South Africa. What happened, however, was that Dr. Verwoerd argued that the situation had the potential of developing into a commonwealth. However, it was never the policy of the NP that a commonwealth should develop from it, or that the NP would work to establish it. The hon. member for Durban Point has now requested me to adopt a standpoint on a confederation and federation. I do not like either of the two and as far as I am concerned, I am not a federation man, nor am I a confederation man. I adhere to the old standpoint that each country should regulate its own affairs and should govern itself. There should be no interference by other countries in its affairs. Whether one has a federation or a confederation, there is always interference in one another’s affairs. We can do whatever one likes; it will always be the case. In these “busy-body” times in which we are living, this is the last situation which one would want. It would be a self-inflicted tribulation to create something like this when one does not have it.

How do you then link the Whites, the Coloureds and Indians together?

I shall tell the hon. member. I believe—hon. members may, if they so wish, say that I am old-fashioned—that every country should be completely independent politically, that it should formulate its own political policy and take its own political decisions. But because no one can be self-sufficient in this world in which we are living, particularly not Southern Africa, there must be the closest economic ties between those countries. The hon. member knows as well as I do that when people talk politics, they fight and when they talk finance, they cooperate. That is a fact. That is why cooperation in the economic sphere is possible while no political ties whatsoever exists.

Dr. Verwoerd did not say that.

Let me give a practical example in this regard. For example we have no political ties whatsoever with Mozambique. On the contrary. They call us every name under the sun, but in the economic sphere we co-operate very closely with one another in regard to the harbour at Maputo, the railway line up to there, the electricity of Cabora Bassa and mine labour. In the economic sphere one can co-operate with people who have a completely different policy to one’s own. However, one would surely be looking for trouble if one were to try to forge political ties with one another when they are not necessary. What would one do with such political ties? Goodness knows one cannot eat them, one cannot put them in the bank and one cannot leave them to one’s children in one’s will. This is that trouble with the neighbours which Langenhoven spoke about. Why, then, should one cut a rod for one’s own back by saying that one wants to establish a commonwealth, a confederation or a federation? What inherent benefit is there in it for one? After all, one could conclude non-aggression pacts and all kinds of other treaties. The concept of a federation is the last relic of the old “empire” concept.

No.

Yes, it is true.

What happens if a population group does not have any territory? How are you going to accommodate the Coloureds, Indians and Whites?

Surely I have already told the hon. member how we are going to do it. They do not have a territory of their own and that is why one cannot establish a federation or a confederation with them. One must find a modus vivendi with them within one and the same territory, and for that reason, and that reason alone, we have come forward with our plan. If they had had a territory, we would have pursued a completely different policy. If that is still not clear to hon. members, I cannot help it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? I am quite prepared to accept the word of the hon. the Prime Minister if he says that a newspaper report is wrong. I want to refer to a report which appeared on 1 August 1971 in Rapport, and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether it is correct or incorrect. The report quoted a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister, and read—

Where did I make that speech?

It is a speech you made in the Eastern Transvaal. I am prepared to send it across to the hon. the Prime Minister.

I would be pleased if the hon. member would let me have it, and because I have the verbatim version of all the speeches that I have ever made in my possession, I shall be able to tell the hon. member precisely what I said in that regard.

I shall accept that.

Mr. Chairman, this is a most interesting time to enter this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister has been busy trying to extract from the Official Opposition exactly what the alternative is to the policy which they claim has failed. I can understand the hon. the Prime Minister’s problem in this respect. If there is a failure on his part, then it is clearly necessary that the country as a whole should know if there is something else. The Official Opposition on their part has been urging the hon. the Prime Minister to tell them what his policy is. I must confess that we have not had a great deal of that from the hon. the Prime Minister during the course of the fairly long speech which he has just made.

However, yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister said something which interests me. He said: “Ons maak ook volkere onafhanklik. ” We have had a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister in the House that he does not regard the Coloured and the Indian communities as being “volkere” in that sense of the word. He does not see them as being independent or as having any separate ground area of their own and that they will therefore be held in some kind of a relationship with the White community in South Africa. What we would like to know is exactly how he sees that this thing is going to function and what he is going to call it. We want information beyond the sketch that we have had of the Cabinet Council and other indications which we have been given earlier in this respect. I want to ask him: Is it really possible to make “volkere onafhanklik”? I think the whole of this debate should be about that particular point. Is what the hon. the Prime Minister is talking about a real serious possibility in terms of political thinking? Is it enough, in the context of the situation in which we find ourselves, that we as a White sovereign Parliament should make people independent? Is it enough simply to send them off into orbit? Is that the end of the road?

This will be in terms of an Act of Parliament.

That is precisely the point I am making. The hon. the Prime Minister states that that is his intention. I am asking him what are the logical conclusions of that particular road. The other night, when I was unfortunately not here, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations made a most interesting statement, a statement which, to my mind, results into nothing else than a state of dissolution. The whole South Africa as we know it is in a state of dissolution. It is being phased out and is passing out of existence, as we understand it. That is the hon. the Minister’s private vision. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us he does not agree with it However, we have had interesting situations in the past in which private solutions and private ideas of Government members have become the policy of the party. If there is change in the leadership in the party—the hon. the Minister may eventually become the Prime Minister—his idea could very well become the official policy of the Government. So I think we are entitled to know a bit more about it. In a country in which there are different groups of people associated together in the situation in which we find ourselves, in this Parliament, and somebody proposes that this should now dissolve itself, that people should be sent off to independent areas and that the people who are now citizens of South Africa, even the Whites, belong to a situation which is disappearing, reminds one very much of the curious bird, the okkie-ollie bird …

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member reminds me of that bird, which flies backwards in ever-diminishing circles until it disappears up the drain-pipe.

How interesting!

I think that is precisely what is happening to the whole concept of the policy of the NP, and the whole State as we understand it. The whole concept is disappearing. It is another spectacular example of what we have been accusing the Government of, namely this advance in reverse we are seeing continually. Every time something happens in this country on the part of the Government it is another advance in reverse.

South Africa is in a state of flux. Everything we knew and understood about South Africa, is changing. The Government itself is changing it. They are the agents of change in what is happening here in South Africa. We have discussed change agents before. That hon. member is party to it.

We are the biggest change agents in South Africa.

Yes, the Government is the biggest change agent in South Africa. All around us we hear rumours of war. The first child of the Government, namely Transkei, is making the most alarming noises. Threats and all kinds of statements are being made. Our concern is where is this ultimately going to end. I can quote the hon. member for Johannesburg West and the hon. member for Benoni, who have spoken of the impossibility of sharing power between the different groups of people within one geographical area, and the “bobaas van broederskap”, Robin Hood. Yesterday he had a few words to say about it when he was talking about the new situation. He mentioned the word “pluralism”, the current in-word in politics. His party is seeing pluralism as being the reality. It is on the minds of the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and other hon. members in this House. The concept of pluralism is becoming to be the accepted situation.

We have been talking about that for years. You have only just discovered it. [Interjections.]

That hon. member says: “We have been talking about it for years”. He never even heard of the word until we mentioned it. When Twinkle Toes wakes up and realizes what is going on he will notice … [Interjections.] Hon. members say that there will be no sharing of power in one geographical area. What is happening is that the concept of the State is changing, and we accept, together with hon. members on the other side, that the concept of the nation State, which was the pattern in Europe and then projected across the world, is outdated. It is no longer adequate or competent to deal with the situation. Not only do we find ourselves in that situation, but the nations of Europe find themselves in that situation. Even Africa in the tracks of imperialism, as the hon. member for Johannesburg West said, find themselves in that situation. Groups of people, tribes, are locked together in a political situation in which they cannot find a means to work together. What is needed is a new concept which will give structural reality to the concept of pluralism. The trouble is that there is not enough statesmanship in africa to resolve these problems. We have a model which we would like to set before hon. members, a model to reconcile differences, to create the sort of unity which we must have in the diverse situation in which we live. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations talked about circles within circles. However, the prerequisite of the system is that it should be recognized that pluralism applies equally within the Black population of South Africa as it does between Black and White. That is a concept which is accepted by 68% of the people who voted for the Government party in the last election. There was a survey to establish the extent of the victory which the Government was going to win, but it carried the rider in the form of the question: Do you agree that the people, for instance in Soweto, are part and parcel of the political context in which the White man lives? It has been established that of the people who live there 39% of the people in the Black urban area do not associate themselves with White South Africa at all. They are “tuislandgebonde”. 16% count themselves as part of our system. 45% are in a state of flux, and they are the people of the future, the one who we have to get hold of and get hold of their minds somehow or other. This is something which the Government ignores at its peril. I want to introduce a model, I want to introduce a concept …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

May I just finish the point which I am making? I shall then give the hon. the Prime Minister a chance. I want to introduce a structure which I think can reconcile the problems of creating a state of dynamic equilibrium between the self-consciously distinct groups which are in South Africa.

Mr. Chair man, if the hon. member’s argument is acceptable and correct, why does he not then accept that that particular Black man whom he has in mind cannot be on the same voter’s roll as he himself and vote for this Parliament, stand for this Parliament and come and sit in this Parliament?

Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to that question is: Because that Black man himself will not want to do so. He has an association with a group of people who are his own people. It is a matter of choice. He is a person who is emerging from a totally distinct culture. Those are the Government’s own words. It is not necessary for me to tell the hon. the Prime Minister.

I am arguing from your argument.

I would accept the argument that the Prime Minister would put forward in answer to the same question. The Black population in the urban areas are emerging from a different culture …

But you say my policy is wrong. [Interjections.]

If the hon. the Prime Minister will listen, I shall tell him where his policy is wrong. I took the liberty of sending a note to the Secretary to Parliament asking whether I could introduce a model into this Committee which would explain … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, let us try to understand the situation in the light of the hon. the Prime Minister’s own policy. Today Parliament is sovereign, but it is not working as it cannot govern South Africa as it is today. What is happening is that the Government themselves are proposing to move the White Parliament to the periphery and to introduce into this equation Coloured and Indian Parliaments. A State President will run the whole show. We say to the hon. the Prime Minister that where his policy is not accepting in reality is in respect of the factor of a Black urban permanent population who inhabit a common geographic area with the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians and are part and parcel of that whole set-up. They are important, because they are emerging from a different civilization. They are coming into our civilization. The point which I am trying to make is that the hon. the Prime Minister, at his peril, ignores those people. They are part and parcel of what is a common geographical element, and this is the new thing that we need here in South Africa. I want to put it to hon. members that this is in the shape of a nucleus, a nuclear concept of the State. The whole basis of nature is the question of the nuclear structure. The very basis of the matter that we see and touch here is a nucleus with particles that revolve around it. Here in our country, with a nucleus which we would call a federal council, it is quite possible for the elements to revolve around it in an orbit, in a predetermined pattern held together by forces of attraction, and held in their own powers by forces of rejection. This is the real situation, because …

I do not think even Einstein would accept that! [Interjections.]

Whether Einstein would accept it or not, this is a real situation. It is a common geographical area and the hon. the Prime Minister is going to have to meet the situation some time or other. [Interjections.] He has an additional complication which I want to illustrate by way of this second model which I have here. [Interjections.] We also have, within the context of Southern Africa, independent countries, for example Swaziland, Transkei, Botswana, kwaZulu and the Ciskei. These are all autonomous geographical areas inhabited by a common people who need some kind of a coordinating factor in order to enable them to do the sort of things that were done in Europe, e.g. the creation of the EEC and other governmental bodies that co-ordinate their interests. I am thinking, of things like defence, railways, etc.

What are those little moons you have there?

The little moons can be explained. A Swazi homeland, for example, could associate itself, in the scheme of things, with Swaziland. It is possible for a confederal relationship to hold together the interests of all those people. It is also possible to include with them the White, Coloured, Indian and Black urban people into what is a diatomic molecule. [Interjections.]

Can’t my grandson have that model to play with? [Interjections.]

We are playing with toys. These are toys, but I want the hon. member for Parow to understand one thing. This is a perfectly serious political concept. We have to find a new concept of the State to replace that which has failed. The nation’s State has failed entirely to meet the needs of Africa as it is today. What we are going to have to find is something like this model, something which is in a state of equilibrium, something that allows the continual inter-relation between the different sections of the population of Southern Africa and which allows us to work together while making it possible for a continuous programme of change, of evolution, development, etc., things that we so badly need. The question of sovereignty and power is this. Where does power go? Where does sovereignty reside? For the White man it is desperately important that he should have a place, a bastion of power of his own, where power flows from that bastion to a federal council where power can be delegated. The hon. the Prime Minister says what will happen is that the federal council will swallow up the White council. That is not necessarily so. If one delegates power to that body and to the others, so that they can work together on delegated power, one still has one’s sovereign body from which one cannot be shifted and where one cannot be affected. If one, from that body, proceeds to a confederal body, one can then tie on those other bodies as well.

I would like to know whether you will be able to make the same speech again tomorrow. [Interjections.]

Why only tomorrow? [Interjections.] I can make this speech many times. I have been thinking about it for some time. I repeat: What we are trying to do is to say that the old concept of the nation State is something which is not adequate. What is important, however, is that the White man should have a bastion of power, because into that bastion of power can flow what should be the energizing and the helping forces that come from Western Europe, investment forces and that kind of thing, which will maintain the impetus that this model ought to have in Africa as a whole. There has to be protection, there has to be some form of interaction. For the hon. the Prime Minister to say, as he does, that there shall be no interaction, that everybody will simply be independent, is not in order. They have to rotate around something. There must be some form of attraction which holds the people together. The hon. the Prime Minister, however, says that they should be held together by an economic interest. Where do they meet? How does one identify the economic interest? One thing I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister is that money is power. If one talks about economic interest, one is really talking about power. If one starts talking about politics, one gets back to the situation where one finds a lot of groups floating around in limbo without some kind of formalized structure …

But we have the customs agreement at present.

We have it with Lesotho, Botswana and other areas, but if we want to hold Southern Africa together against the threat that is coming and which the hon. the Prime Minister knows is coming, one will have to acquire a closer relationship which clearly identifies the forces of attraction that hold these people together. One will not escape that particular problem however one tries to get around it.

What I want to say about this model is that it allows for the one thing which emerged from the political conference which we attended in Pietermaritzburg the other day. The one point that emerged was simply that what we want now in South Africa, is not a solution, but a settlement of outstanding differences. We want something which will allow all the people to work together towards a solution in an ordered fashion so that we do not fritter away the chances of co-operation. We, in our party, have said many times that we have a policy which we say is a federal/confederal policy. The flow of power is on a delegated line from the sovereign group to a federation and from there to a confederation which brings in the other people.

What is important is that it allows one to do certain things to identify sovereignty. It allows one to evade altogether the question of consolidation. Why does one need to consolidate bodies who are part of an overall system like this? In Natal I believe consolidation is not something which is physically possible. Why can we not have a model like that which would allow us to continue with kwaZulu as it is? The issue is not to make them economically viable; they can be a member of an organization like this and it will cost them nothing at all. They can continue to be as they are, part and parcel of the organization like any other group.

What we want is a vehicle for real change, a political vehicle. We have not had from the Government or from that party here any indication of what the vehicle is going to be which is going to include the Black man in the urban areas who is an emerging force or the Black man in the rural areas. The Black man in the rural areas is becoming a potential—I put it no higher than that—threat, but let me immediately add that I do not believe the threat to this country will come from the rural areas. However, the rural Black man can become a potential threat to South Africa as a whole. We say that we should have a policy like this because it will allow us to include people and to bring hope to those people. The last thing they want is to be cast out. They say to the hon. the Prime Minister that they will not accept independence because they say that if they do accept independence, the hon. the Prime Minister is casting them out into the outer darkness. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River with his visual aids has raised some very important issues. At the beginning of his speech he raised the question: What constitutes the South African nation? He also asked how, in fact, nations are defined. It is a fact that one of the most difficult concepts in political science and constitutional law is the definition of “nation”. Nations change their character and nations grow. The fact is that a very important element in the definition of “nation” is the question of perception, the perception of the nation or of a people of itself and the perception of a particular people by others. Thus, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi in relation to the Zulu people perceives the Zulus as a nation. He speaks with Zulu national pride, he speaks of Zulu nationalism and he speaks of the Zulu nation. Whether, in fact, leaders of the Coloured community or, for that matter, leaders of the Asian community regard themselves as a nation, is another matter. What is important, however, is that however they perceive themselves in getting at the Government’s constitutional proposals with respect to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians, it is not necessary to resort to pejorative language as the hon. member for Parktown did. The hon. member for Parktown refers to the Coloureds and the Asians as biological groups. Apart from the fact that that is not a correct definition of the Coloureds and the Asians, that particular reference has racist overtones, and the reason the hon. member for Parktown uses it is, in fact, to undermine the Government’s constitutional proposals with respect to those two communities. The suggestion that they are essentially or simply biological groups has racist overtones. The fact is that the Indians have a distinctive culture, have a distinctive language and have a distinctive religion, and one of the reasons why the University of Durban-Westville has been the enormous success that it has been, is precisely because the Indian community has a distinctive and clearly perceivable culture and identity of which that community is particularly proud.

The hon. member for Mooi River made another statement of interest. He said that the nation State concept as such cannot really carry the political problems of our time, and that is a statement with which I would agree. The fact is that given the ethnic revolution in the world, given the fact that even old-established countries like the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal, and the newer countries like Canada and the developing countries throughout the Third World are experiencing enormous internal tensions as a result of ethnic conflict and ethnic rivalry, there are very reputable scholars, statesmen and others who recognize that the concept of the nation State as such is something that needs to be looked at.

This brings us, indeed, to the very fundamental issue which faces us in South Africa, because the fact is that the concept of South African nationhood, as it has come down from 1910, and as it was perceived even before 1910, was a concept of nationhood which was, for all practical purposes, limited to White South Africans. When the politicians of the twenties, the thirties and the forties talked about national unity and building a nation, they were speaking essentially of relations between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. They were speaking essentially of White unity. The fact is that given the age in which we live, the times in which we live, the demands which are made upon us and the pressures that are being exerted, we must, in fact, come to grips with the task of achieving a situation in South Africa such that there is democracy for all South Africa’s peoples. In this respect the concept of a nation State, as defined in terms of the old concept of a nation State incorporating everybody within a particular geographical area is, as the hon. member for Mooi River correctly said, something of a misnomer. This is the fundamental issue: How, in a society like this, where one has an enormous potential for conflict between the various communities, one in fact reduces the competition for power and political position in that community to within manageable limits. That is the fundamental problem in our society. One may well ask how this is to be done. There are people who know about these things. There are people who have studied these matters, I could quote South African political scientists. I could, for example, quote Dr. Schrirer of the University of Cape Town or Professor Ben Vosloo of the University of Stellenbosch. There are also internationally known political scientists whom one could quote in this regard, people who say that the classical model of democracy, the majoritarian system, simply does not work in our kind of situation, given the heterogeneity of the society.

What will work then? What is the answer that is suggested for our sort of situation? It is first of all the acknowledgement of the ethnicity of the society. When one considers the European situation, there is one country which stands out among all the other countries for the extent of its diversity, and that is Switzerland. In Switzerland the ethnicity is cultural, linguistic and religious, and it is acknowledged and recognized.

And everybody there has equal rights and free movement.

The second important principle, after one has acknowledged ethnicity, is to decentralize or devolve political power to the maximum. That, in fact, is the answer. That particular formula is embodied in the constitutional proposals which the Government put before the electorate on 30 November, which the Government canvassed before the electorate in the weeks preceding that election, which the Government is committed to and which the Government believes will bring about a system of political order …

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

Mr. Chairman, my time is limited and I am reluctant to answer questions because I am developing a line of thought.

I am not concerned on this occasion with frivolous party-political criticisms of the kind that were made particularly by members of the Official Opposition during the election. In an article in The Cape Times, for instance, these proposals were referred to as a new edition of White baasskap. The fact is that that is nonsense. However, in the time available to me, I want to deal very briefly with certain of the more serious criticisms that were directed at these proposals. It is said that these proposals perpetuate—I quote from a newspaper editorial—“an apartheid mentality”, because the three communities, viz. the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians, are represented as communities in these three systems. First of all, I want to refer to the question of ethnicity in this respect, to the question whether the Coloureds in fact regard themselves in a pejorative light because one refers to them in ethnic terms. I want to refer in this regard to a speech delivered by Dr. Van der Ross. The speech was reported in The Argus of 12 November 1977 and the article was headed “Rector supports ethnicity”. The opening paragraph reads as follows—

He then went on to express certain reservations about separate fiscal powers. However, the concept of ethnicity as such is acceptable to these people and the idea that this is a case of perpetuating a so-called apartheid mentality is nonsense.

In the second instance, the criticism against these proposals is that they establish a form of White baasskap. The reason for this is the built-in principle of proportional representation. The ratio of 4 to 1 is built into the Constitution at various levels. However, let us consider for example the Asian community, which is the smallest community of the three involved in these constitutional proposals: Given opposition thinking and the majoritarian approach with its “winner take all” consequences and in terms of which all the positions and all the power is up for grabe by the majority, the fact is that the Asians would not have any representation whatever, whereas in terms of these constitutional proposals they in fact acquire meaningful power. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the challenge which the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition issued to the hon. the Prime Minister. He challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to say whether he could see the light at the end of the tunnel. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in fact accused the hon. the Prime Minister of holding out no idealism for South Africa, of holding out no prospects for the country. What he really implied was that the Official Opposition does have idealism for the country and does hold out prospects for the country. This accords with their notion that they are a dynamic Opposition and stand for change. “Change” is their watchword. If one removed that word from their vocabulary there would really be nothing left for them to say.

This is also in line with the ideas they propounded during the last election. They said then that that party was the party of the youth and was therefore the party of the future. I want to state categorically in this House that nothing is further removed from the truth than the assertion that the PFP has the youth of this country behind them. The youth of this country, in fact, are steadfastly behind the NP, and that in spite of the fact that this party has been in power for almost 30 years. I, as the youngest member on this side of the House, can make this statement, but if hon. members do not believe me, they need only look at the results of the last election. They can look at results in constituencies such as Stellenbosch, Rissik, Johannesburg West and even Albany.

One might well ask how it is possible that the youth are so estranged from that party when that party holds itself out to be the party of the youth and what the youth aspire to be, viz., dynamic, idealistic and academic. It is a fact that any young man worth his salt is idealistic. It is his privilege even to be dauntlessly idealistic. He seeks action, he seeks prospects, he seeks challenges, even those which call for sacrifice. He is also seeking a better future and wants to build a better society.

I could refer to a television interview which was conducted recently with ex-chancellor Willy Brandt of West Germany. He was questioned about the reasons for the involvement of the young people in terrorism in his country. He said it was because society’s demands on youth were not high enough. One might have added that society has no ideals to transplant into their youth. That is the last accusation that can be made against this Government, viz. that it is not idealistic, that it holds out no prospects for young people and that it does not make high demands of its young people.

No, Mr. Chairman, this Government follows a dynamic policy which does not accept State borders just because they are historical remnants. It wants to realign those State borders to accommodate nations and thereby form true democracies. It also offers realization to the individual in group and national identity. That is why it is also the complete realization of the individual. This policy offers idealism to the youth through a forceful and planned development—not just simply “change”—to reshape our society into a better society. So how could it be otherwise than that the youth stand steadfastly behind the Government and our hon. Prime Minister?

Against this the policy of the Progressives is a hidebound policy which postulates that simply because South Africa’s borders were historically defined they must remain so ad infinitum. When one asks them why this is so, one hears the old hackneyed refrain that we have heard again in the House these past few days that because we are economically inter-dependent we must also be politically inter-dependent. This we are told despite the fact that nowhere in the world has a state been founded purely for economic considerations and without taking account of national and indigenous considerations. The Opposition’s argument is not even logical, because if the nations of South Africa have to be welded together in one political dispensation because they are economically inter-dependent, what about states such as Lesotho, Botswana, South West Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique, and even Rhodesia, Malawi and Zambia? These States are all economically interdependent together with South Africa. I have not as yet heard the PFP insisting that these States should be combined with us in one political dispensation. In this connection I think too of the States of the Third World that were members of the British Commonwealth. They were economically inter-dependent with their mother country and yet politically they were independent. Does the Official Opposition suggest now that the independence after the Second World War was wrong? Surely not.

Why then should the Whites of South Africa, and those people it can take with it, not become independent of the Black nations of the sub-continent? It just does not follow. That party follows a policy which is good for one group but not for another.

In this connection one is further entitled, in the light of the argument that we are economically intertwined, to ask: To what extent must one be economically interdependent to be bound politically? To a certain extent all countries are dependent upon and inter-dependent economically with one another. All countries are not equally endowed with raw materials and that is why they are dependent upon one another, economically speaking, through the medium of international trade. Do those hon. members contend now that as a result of the inter-dependence of states in the world, those states should be merged in a world government? They have never said it but that is the consequence of their argument.

The PFP policy is not even moral. A good example I could quote in this connection is that of the Zulu king. If we were to be merged with these nations permanently in one political dispensation, the Zulu king has either to become my king, which is not acceptable, or must not be king, which is not fair. Therefore I have no alternative but to say to the Official Opposition: You have no chance with the young people of this country. Your policy offers no prospects. It is not rational, it is not moral and it is not even logical. The policy of the Official Opposition in South Africa is founded only on the greed of the big money powers because the policy of the Government so often requires sacrifices and restricts the freedom of the big money powers for the very reason that we want to offer development possibilities to the population groups.

Mr. Chairman, here we have just had the astonishing phenomenon of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens trying to take the debate in a new direction by referring to the Government’s constitutional proposals—if I remember correctly, this is one of the rare occasions since the beginning of the session that this has happened—and of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North speaking immediately after him and evading the subject. He does not want to discuss those proposals and he does not want to take the debate in that direction. [Interjections.] It is my contention that the hon. members on that side of the House find the constitutional proposals an embarrassment. They are ashamed of them. They do not want to say precisely what is in them and what they are about, and I am going to prove it. First I want to refer briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in this regard.

†I do not agree with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens that because Dr. Van der Ross accepts the principle of ethnicity, he necessarily agrees that the Coloureds are an ethnic group. In fact, he has said many times to the contrary that this is not the case. In the second place I do not agree with the hon. member that these proposals are anti-majoritarian in principle. In fact, there is a built-in White majority in them. In the third place I do not agree with the hon. member that the principle of proportionality forms part of it, simply because it does not contain the principle of proportionality, but a fixed racial representation. That is, however, not the point.

*The real point in this regard is the obscurities in the policy itself which are responsible for the fact that hon. members on that side of the House do not want to discuss the proposals. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is the best proof of that. He said in Pietermaritzburg that there was no clarity with regard to the following aspects of the policy: Fiscal and budgetary aspects; the division of functions between the Council of Cabinets and the various Parliaments; the amending procedure to change the Constitution; the nature of the legislating procedure at the various institutions and the accountability of the new State President. About these matters, there is no clarity in the proposals as they stand. I assume that the Government will elucidate these obscurities in its own good time …

Mr. Chairman, …

Unfortunately I have as little time as the hon. member had.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal explanation …

Order! The hon. member can give the explanation after the hon. member for Rondebosch has completed his speech.

These obscurities will probably be cleared away in due course. I find it surprising, of course, that the Government asked for a mandate for these proposals … [Interjections.] … at a time when these cardinal aspects of the policy had not yet been spelled out. But the obscurities are not the only point at issue. There is also real confusion in the ranks of the hon. members on Government side as to precisely what these proposals contain. Something can be done about this confusion, and the hon. the Prime Minister has the ideal opportunity to do something about it in the course of this debate. There are many aspects about which I feel confused in consequence of statements made by people on that side of the House.

Let us hear what they are.

I just want to bring two aspects to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister and get his reaction to them. The first question I want to put is this: Who can become State President in terms of these proposals? The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said in this regard—

The Cape Times of 23 January 1978 reported the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs as follows in this regard—

In other words, the intention and the possibility are left open that the State President may be White, Indian or Coloured.

On the other hand, we have had the following pronouncements: The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development is quoted as follows in the Rand Daily Mail of 11 November 1977—

So here we have a contradiction of what was said by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. With reference to the hon. the Prime Minister The Cape Times of 25 October 1977 reported the following—

Here we have a clear contradiction once again. It is not merely a rhetorical question which I am putting. It is important to obtain clarity on this matter, because in terms of the new constitutional proposals, the powers of the State President are fairly extensive. Depending upon whether he is White, Indian or Coloured, there can be different consequences. Therefore the question I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister is how he sees the situation in terms of the proposals. Does he hold the view that in principle it may be possible for an Indian or a Coloured to become State President, but that for as long as the NP rules, this will never happen in practice? If so, it must be clearly stated to the people of South Africa that that is the standpoint of the NP. It must also be stated clearly in their negotiations with the Indians and the Coloureds in this connection.

The second question I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister, is this: Will the existing White Parliament lose a fair amount of its functions and powers, or not? What is involved here is the relationship between the Council of Cabinets which decides on matters of common interest, on the one hand, and the three community parliaments on the other hand. What is also involved here is exactly what will be included in matters of a common nature. In this regard the hon. the Minister of Defence stated in the Rand Daily Mail of 22 September 1977—

The hon. the Prime Minister was quoted as follows in The Argus of 9 September 1977—

In this regard hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said the following in Pietermaritzburg—

This is the Cabinet Council level—

In other words, from these pronouncements it is very clear that the existing powers and functions of the White Parliament are going to be radically changed by these constitutional proposals, because, if these matters of common interest, as defined by the people whom I have just quoted, are referred to the Council of Cabinets, that must inevitably have an influence on the nature and functions of the White Parliament. As opposed to these, there are some other pronouncements. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development was quoted as follows in The Cape Times of 22 November 1977—

According to the Rand Daily Mail of 11 November 1977, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development said—

This confusion does not concern a minor detail of the plan, but a cardinal difference in principle. It determines to what extent one is able to elucidate these constitutional proposals and explain them to the Indian and Coloured populations, as well as to the Whites and to foreign visitors. If one cannot obtain clarity on this cardinal aspect at this stage, one cannot expect the possibilities of these proposals to be viewed with enthusiasm, because—if I may put it in this way to the hon. the Prime Minister—unless a clear pronouncement can be made on these aspects, there will simply be increasing confusion and suspicion. I think the hon. the Prime Minister can clear this up. [Time expired.]

Order! I give the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens the opportunity to speak on a point of personal explanation.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the reference made by the hon. member for Rondebosch to my speech in Pietermaritzburg, I wish to explain that when I said that certain aspects of the Constitution are not clear, I meant and said that they were not clear to me. At that stage I was not aware of all the aspects.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rondebosch raised various questions. In order to leave no doubts about the matter, I want to reply immediately. After that, hon. members can argue the matter further to their hearts’ content. The hon. member for Rondebosch says there is confusion and lack of clarity. I do not know what confusion and lack of clarity can exist in his mind, because in respect of the matters which he raised, the position is very clear. He asked who could become State President. The reply to that is very clear, and has already been given. The Bill before Parliament will contain no provision to the effect that the State President shall be a White, a Coloured or an Indian. Colour will play no role at all. Although this Parliament has the power to change the law, a Coloured person or a Black man may under the present circumstances be elected if Parliament so decides. There can be nothing against that if Parliament so decides.

An electoral college elects the State President.

Yes, but I am merely pointing out the alternatives. Legislation will in due course be introduced in this Parliament which will provide that a State President shall be elected. Because the Black people are not part of this, it stands to reason that it cannot be a Black President. For the rest, as far as the Coloureds, Whites and Indians are concerned, it will not be said that he must be any of them. An electoral college will be constituted. If the hon. member were to ask me now for whom I, as a member of that electoral college, would vote, I would say that I would vote for the candidate who is supported by my party. It goes without saying that, in practice as well, apart from the theory, my party will propose a White Nationalist as State President. That is its inherent right and nobody can take that right away from it If the hon. member thinks that the same does not apply to the Coloureds and the Indians, then he is making a mistake. That is how it was put to them. We are all adults, and so we talk frankly to one another about these things. I said in public—and I accept full responsibility for it—that as long as this Government is in power, I know who the State President will be. I have no problems in that connection. But the hon. member will not know if his party is in power. He will not know, and he realizes it.

It will go to the best candidate.

The hon. member also asked whether the existing Parliament was going to lose any of its functions and powers. This Parliament is a sovereign Parliament; that was a decision by the Appeal Court. This Parliament may therefore part with some of its powers if it chooses to do so. In that hon. member’s party there are people who say, especially when they have problems in respect of certain Whites who have misgivings about their position if a Prog Party were to come to power, that they would entrench their rights. Such an undertaking is not worth the paper on which it is written. One cannot entrench anyone’s rights …

What about the United States of America? Have you ever heard of the powers of the Supreme Court there?

Yes, there one can do it, but one cannot entrench the rights under our Constitution Act For example, one cannot have a law passed by this Parliament now enabling the NP to govern forever, unless there is a two-thirds majority in this Parliament that does not belong to the NP and that will support such a law.

We are in fact talking about a new Constitution.

How can that new constitution come into operation? It can only come into operation by way of a law of this Parliament, and just as a sovereign Parliament may part with powers, so it can take those powers back again.

What is the intention with the new proposals?

I shall explain in a moment. One is bluffing people when one says that one will entrench their rights. There is only one entrenchment in our Constitution Act, namely the language rights.

Well, if there is one, there can be ten.

A second entrenchment cannot be introduced, even if one wants to.

Why not?

Because one cannot bind a sovereign Parliament. The Appeal Court has repeatedly ruled to that effect.

If there is one entrenchment, there can be ten.

Therefore, what is the reply to the hon. member’s question? This Parliament can part with some of its powers, and it will part with some of its powers. It will relinquish some of its powers to the Coloured Parliament and it will transfer some of its powers to the Indian Parliament. It will also determine that in respect of those matters which will be defined in legislation which will still come before this Parliament the Coloured Parliament and the Indian Parliament will have sole control over those matters which intimately affect them and which are peculiar to them. It will therefore transfer to the Indian and the Coloured Parliaments those powers which it now has to pass legislation pertaining to Indians and Coloureds. That is very clear. That is the reply to the hon. member’s question. But the hon. member is seemingly under the impression that the Council of Cabinets will perform a legislative function.

That is what is stated here.

No, the Council of Cabinets will have no legislative function of any kind. It will have no legislative function whatsoever. The Council of Cabinets will perform the same function that our Cabinet performs at present. The hon. member is reading it incorrectly. When he reads that the Council of Cabinets will initiate matters, he interprets that as meaning that the Council of Cabinets will also pass legislation. The Council of Cabinets will initiate legislation which has to be adopted just as the Cabinet now initiates legislation that has to be adopted by this Parliament. But the Council of Cabinets itself will have no legislative authority whatsoever.

Will that be the executive Cabinet? [Interjections.]

The Council of Cabinets will function in the same manner in which our Cabinet functions at the moment, and if the present Cabinet is an executive Cabinet, the Council of Cabinets will also be of an executive nature. It will function on the same principles as those on which the present Cabinet functions. But it appears to me as though the hon. member for Rondebosch has another problem. He can put a question to me on the matter if he wants to.

I thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the opportunity. I just want to ask him whether he is aware of the fact that in Pro-Nat of September 1977 the following explanation was given of the constitutional proposals—

[Interjections.]

The Council of Cabinets will draft legislation in the same way as our Cabinet now drafts legislation which must come before this Parliament. That is surely not done by Father Christmas and the little angels. It is this Cabinet. [Interjections.] In exactly the same way as our Cabinet now drafts the legislation, so the Council of Cabinets will have the responsibility of drafting legislation. But when legislation has been drafted, it has not yet been passed.

Who decides if a conflict arises?

It has to be debated in this House. When conflict arises, we must describe in what way such conflict can be resolved. The House must go into Committee and the Committee must attempt to resolve the conflict. If the Committee or Parliament cannot resolve the conflict, it is referred back to the Council of Cabinets and it is again discussed there. Ultimately someone must cut the knot If the conflict cannot otherwise be resolved, the State President has to arrive at a decision. He does that in terms of an Act of Parliament. After all, that is also the case at present.

To which Parliament does it go after the State President has decided?

That is for the Council of Cabinets to decide.

In other words, the White man.

No, the Council of Cabinets, in which Coloureds and Indians will also have representation. Surely that is as clear as daylight.

Mr. Chairman, I gather that the hon. the Prime Minister said that when there was a conflict and it was impossible to “cut the knot”, it would go to the State President who would then decide … [Interjections.] When the Council of Cabinets cannot resolve the problem, it will be dealt with by the State President. Will he then send it to a Parliament? What I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister is this: If there is a difference of opinion and the Council of Cabinets cannot decide which Parliament, the matter will be referred to the State President, who will then decide on the matter. Is that correct?

Now surely that is quite clear. Let me tell the story to the hon. member as well, right from the beginning. The Council of Cabinets decides. Let me point out an example. Let us suppose that legislation must be introduced in connection with compulsory motor vehicle insurance. Something like that affects everyone. Theoretically, the Council of Cabinets may decide that the legislation should be passed by the Indian Parliament, the Coloured Parliament and the White Parliament because it affects them all. The Council of Cabinets drafts the Bill, as I have already told the hon. member for Rondebosch. After they have drafted the Bill, it is submitted to the different Parliaments. They must then give effect to the legislation which their people, the Coloured leaders and the Indian leaders together with the White leaders, have drafted. They can now do one of two things: They can pass the Bill just as it is, or, as often happens, they can adopt amendments. The Parliaments have that right. Then there must be co-ordination between the three Parliaments, and if they adopt amendments, they must adopt the same amendments. It can happen— although one will seldom encounter this in practice, one must make provision for it— that one Parliament will say that the fees payable should be R20, while the next one will say R30 and the last one, R40. If that happens, our proposals provide that a committee shall investigate that matter. The committee must then come to an agreement as to whether it will be R20, R30 or R40. If they cannot come to an agreement, it goes back to the Council of Cabinets and the State President then gives finality on the question of whether it will be R20, R30 or R40. That is what the position will be when a conflict situation presents itself.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister has illustrated a relatively small area of difference which may crop up during the Committee Stage of a Bill being considered separately by the three Parliaments. I want to put another case. Let us assume the Minister of Defence, who is a member of the White Parliament and a member of the Joint Cabinet Council, finds it essential in his opinion to pass certain legislation. He believes he has the support of the majority of his party or the White Parliament. At the Cabinet Council, however, there is a difference of opinion and the Cabinet Council does not give their authority because its members cannot reach concensus on the particular piece of legislation. Let us assume that while the Minister of Defence considers the legislation vital, the representatives of the Coloured or the Indian community say that they will not touch it and refuse to accept it. How does the State President act in such circumstances?

The problem lies in the fact—and I do not blame the hon. members—that they do not know how Cabinet government works. Let me say in passing that the reason for this is that the oldest non-Nationalist who voted a United Party Government into power, is already 57 years old. What happens in practice at the moment? This is Cabinet government, and this is not only the case in South Africa, but also in Britain, West Germany and wherever this system applies. If the Minister of Defence were at this moment to feel that he has to introduce certain legislation in this Parliament, he does not simply come and introduce it here. He must first approach the Cabinet with his legislation. The Cabinet must first say “yes” or “no”, and only if the Cabinet says “yes” is his legislation introduced here. But if the Cabinet says “no”, it is not introduced. Now, how does the Cabinet say “yes” or “no”? There is no voting in a Cabinet. There is no counting of heads in the Cabinet. What happens in practice, is that the Minister involved arrives there with his memorandum. He then tells his colleagues that he wants to introduce a Bill and that these are the principles involved. The Cabinet then discusses it, and at the end of the discussion it is the responsibility—and it is a very great responsibility which rests on the Prime Minister—of the Prime Minister in accordance with the principle of Cabinet government to say “yes”, the legislation will be introduced, or to say “no”, the legislation will not be introduced, and even if the majority of the Cabinet feels that the legislation should be introduced, the Prime Minister can still say in practice that it shall not be introduced. That is how Cabinet government operates. If one were to count votes in a Cabinet, or if one were to argue in a Cabinet until one has reached consensus on every detail, there would be no governing. It simply does not work that way in practice. Of course one tries one’s best, and if, as chairman, one is not a fool, one will try to obtain the maximum consensus, and one will at all times make one’s decision that one on which there is consensus in the Cabinet, or which enjoys the overwhelming support of the majority. The fact remains however, in theory and in practice, that in the last resort, it is the Prime Minister who decides. All that will happen in this case, is that in the place of the Prime Minister there will be a State President, a person who will for the most part be vested with the same powers which the Prime Minister now has, except in those exceptional cases which I have already explained to the hon. member for Rondebosch.

Mr. Chairman, …

Does the hon. member want to ask a question?

Yes, Sir, a question arising out of what I consider to be a very critical point. So, may I just put this to the hon. the Prime Minister? He refers to this as operating as a Cabinet. But are there not certain very important differences? In the first place, surely, they do not have collective responsibility to the extent that they are not responsible to the same Parliament. The Cabinet Council will consist of three groups of people, each responsible to a different Parliament. They will belong to different parties and also be elected by different voters. The principle of collective responsibility to a Parliament comes in here. A Prime Minister makes his decisions in the realization that he can be called to account by his Parliament. The State President, however, is not to be called to account by any Parliament. I suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister should look at this. There is a fundamental difference. There cannot be collective responsibility, they do not come from the same Parliament and they are not elected by the same voters …

You are making a speech now.

… nor do they hold Cabinet responsibility in the sense of being Ministers of portfolios … [Interjections.]

Order!

They do not hold Cabinet portfolios as members of the Joint Cabint Council. They hold these portfolios as members …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asking a question or making a speech?

Whichever the Chairman rules.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked permission to put a question.

He is making a speech now.

I would think of this as a critical area, and I think one wants to find the difference between this Cabinet Council as a manifestation of joint responsibility, and the ordinary Cabinet in which all the members hold portfolios and are all responsible to the same Parliament.

Surely the answer is very clear: People who do not belong to the same party, can be members of a Cabinet. In Holland, West Germany, and in many other countries in the world, there are people who do not belong to the same parties serving in the Cabinets. They do not, therefore, have to belong to the same party. It is true that, as the hon. member has said, they sit in different Parliaments. But there is Cabinet responsibility, because the legislation which will come before the different Parliaments—except of course the legislation on which they alone may decide; about that the Cabinet Council has nothing to say—the legislation on which they must decide jointly will, after discussions concerning it have taken place, will emerge as legislation of the Council of Cabinets if the State President so decides, in the same way as the Prime Minister now decides. That is why there is Cabinet responsibility. The principle of Cabinet responsibility is that, although one may be opposed to certain legislation, one can still remain in the Cabinet, unless it is against one’s conscience. In that case one has every right to request the Prime Minister to be excused and then one resigns from the Cabinet, as has already happened in the past. But as long as one remains in the Cabinet, one bears responsibility along with the other members of the Cabinet. Now I do not know what problem the hon. member has in connection with the matter.

May I just ask: If one Parliament accepts the legislation and the other two reject it, does it still become law?

If the Council of Cabinets adopts the legislation, it means …

We are referring to the case where they cannot reach a decision.

Wait a minute. Let us now reason this out. If the Council of Cabinets lets the legislation go forward, it means that that legislation has been passed by the Council. In that case, we say this expressly, that legislation must be passed by at least one Parliament before it can become law. If the Council of Cabinets decides that the legislation should be submitted to the Parliaments and one Parliament—or even two—were to get it into its head not to discuss that legislation, one cannot undo the consensus emanating from Cabinet government and which is presumed in Cabinet government, simply because one Parliament is recalcitrant. That is why we say that if one Parliament passes it, it becomes law …

Even if the other two were to vote against it?

One Parliament can therefore make laws for the other two?

… provided that legislation has been approved by the Council of Cabinets. [Interjections.] That is the sine qua non: It must have been approved by the Council of Cabinets.

Then the whole thing is a fraud.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister? In view of what the hon. the Prime Minister has just said, how would he reply to my original question, namely: Having regard to the Votes of this Parliament, what does he see as matters which will probably be of common interest and which will therefore come before the Council of Cabinets when the future dispensation becomes a reality?

Could the hon. member perhaps put it more clearly?

In this Parliament the Justice, the Defence, the Economic Affairs Vote, etc., are discussed, and they are dealt with by White Ministers. Can the hon. the Prime Minister give an indication which of these matters would possibly be regarded as matters of common interest about which the Council of Cabinets would then have to decided.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this debate has to degenerate into a question and answer session, but I am willing to answer the question put to me by the hon. member. As I see it—in fact, we say it in our pamphlet—defence is a matter of general interest. I just want to repeat that, except for private legislation introduced by a member of this House, the Government cannot introduce legislation on defence unless it originates with the Council of Cabinets. The same applies in respect of Justice, because everyone has an interest in that.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one final question of the hon. the Prime Minister? [Interjections.] Let me take as an example the situation where there has been a dispute concerning whether the compulsory insurance fees should be R20, R30 or R40. The hon. the Prime Minister said that, if this could not be solved on an inter-Parliamentary level, as it were, it would go to the Council of Cabinets. If it cannot be resolved there—I am talking about the very last stage in a conflict situation—the State President would decide. My question then is: Does his mere decision that the fee will be either R20, R30 or R40, make it law?

Mr. Chairman, no. The position simply is that there is now a dispute in the various Parliaments. The matter then goes to the Cabinet Council. The Coloureds come there and say: Our Parliament wants R20. The Indians come there and say: Our Parliament wants R30. The Whites come there and they say: Our Parliament wants R40. Then, obviously, there is a deadlock. In that case, if the Council of Cabinets cannot resolve the question, the State President is empowered to say: “It will be R30,” and a Bill will then go to the various Parliaments with the amount of R30 appearing in it. Then the various Parliaments will either have to throw out the Bill altogether or adopt the figure of R30. It is as easy as all that.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who made certain allegations about the NP this afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the electorate was confused because the NP had allegedly failed to state its policy. I feel that the election, as the hon. the Prime Minister also said this afternoon, proved this standpoint of his to be wrong. However, I want to go further and say that if there is one party in this House that is guilty of failing to state its policy, then that party is the PFP.

The PFP is the Official Opposition for the first time this year, and in order to prove its credibility as a party that is able to form the official alternative Government, we expected this party to avail itself of the opportunity to state its policy. To our amazement, and I make bold to say, to the amazement of the supporters of that party as well, this was not the case. The Official Opposition eagerly launched an attack, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did here once again this afternoon. They criticized with a will, but up to now we have heard precious little about their policy. The bits and pieces we have heard about their policy up to now, were the same vague statements which bored the majority of the electorate last year during the election. Empty concepts, such as divided communities, power sharing, breaking down of barriers, as the hon. member for Musgrave said, and joint future decisions by a multiracial national convention, are the only things we have heard from them up to now. These have been stated with such weak enthusiasm that one can hardly believe it.

This afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the PFP had committed itself, if it came into power, to calling a multiracial national convention to draw up a new Constitution for South Africa. The reason why they subscribe to this policy is obvious of course. Behind this standpoint is the one fact that the PFP is beginning to realize that it will never obtain enough support from the Whites of South Africa to assume the reins of government and that is why members of other peoples must be called in to fulfil this dream of theirs. However, there are still many things which are unclear about the idea of a national convention, things about which they have not yet adopted a clear standpoint. I feel that it is their duty as the Official Opposition to tell the voters of South Africa what they mean by this. Many statements revolving around the idea of a national convention have been made.

Prof. John Dogart said at a PFP congress that such a convention could take place inside or outside South Africa. If this is so, it gives rise to many problems for us. If this convention is held outside South Africa, the following question arises: Is the PFP going to use Africa’s traditional leaders to preside over this convention, are they going to preside over this convention themselves, or is it going to be a mere conglomeration of these?

The PFP must also tell this House what its motives are with a national convention of this kind. Is it their objective to establish a Western democratic system or do they want to establish a form of African socialism in South Africa? It is no use their saying that the convention will decide this, because, after all, the PFP itself is going to participate actively in that convention. Surely the PFP itself must have a standpoint which it is going to state at the convention.

We can also ask them whether their motivation is to protect their own minority interests with this convention, or are they going to force the minority interest of the various Black peoples in South Africa into a Westminster democracy. Are they going to ignore the reality of the different ethnicities of South Africa’s Black peoples in this way? Why does this party want a national convention? Are they acting out of fear or are they acting out of a sincere desire to ensure the minority interests of all the ethnic groups within a Euro-African system?

Another question which we want to ask, is whether the Progressives consider order a prerequisite for government, so that the largest number of people may enjoy the largest degree of peace and happiness. If they do consider order a prerequisite, are they going to allow the people who have received terrorist training in Russia and are therefore schooled in the creation of disorder through violence, to take the lead at or to participate in the decision-making process during such a national convention? After all, the hon. member for Houghton has admitted in this House that if the PFP were to come into power, the Communist Party would enjoy total political freedom of movement. The electorate of South Africa wants answers to these questions. The fact is that we have not received these answers in this House up to now, and I am beginning to think that we are not going to receive the answers to these questions either.

I believe this is the case because we have in the PFP a manifestation of the traditional liberalism in South Africa. This is the liberalism of which N. P. van Wyk Louw wrote in his work Liberate Nasionalisme as long ago as 1958, that it had failed because it had not reconsidered its abstract principles in the light of our real, concrete situation. The result of this defective view of the South African ethnic reality, according to Van Wyk Louw, is that South African liberalism has doomed itself to sterility by simply claiming “full democracy” in a country in which uniform equality can be obtained only over the dead body of a nation. If this statement is true of South African liberalism—and I believe it is—then it is also true of the PFP’s policy for the solution of South Africa’s problems. They are doomed to sterility. [Interjections.]

The fact is that if the traditional, democratic model were to be applied to South Africa, we would probably have had a Zulu Government of 4 million people governing 21 million people today. This would indeed have passed as being democratic in the world, and the world would probably have welcomed it, but it would in fact have been a minority Government.

The Westminster model was originally designed for a relatively homogeneous community, a community which was predominantly White, English-speaking, Christian and culturally strongly monolithic. This was a community in which democracy was guaranteed in that the principal groups could obtain participation in the Government fairly regularly. In a deeply divided, heterogeneous community, however, there cannot be a regular change of government, because, whoever governs has to protect its interests at all costs in order to guarantee its group’s interests against those of the other minority groups.

It is this very simple truth which the PFP cannot understand. Proceeding from a simplistic view of homogeneity in communities, they see democracy and majority rule as synonymous. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Geduld has followed the pattern set by the hon. the Prime Minister and that is not to deal with the Prime Minister’s Vote, but to try to divert attention and to get involved in details of Opposition party policy at a stage when the Government which is in power with 134 votes against 17 in the House and bears an awesome responsibility, sees its policy falling apart around it. I would have expected the events of yesterday to cause hon. members on that side of the House to try to justify the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. We are not going to be diverted. We are going to use the time available to us to deal with the hon. the Prime Minister and his policy. A number of questions were put to me by the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not know what he has to smile about regarding his policy. Perhaps he is happy it is collapsing because he knows it does not work. As far as half the questions he put to me are concerned, he will see that those have been adequately dealt with if he reads the last two pages of the non-confidence debate in Hansard. What the hon. member must realize …

What do you think of that Vause?

Mr. Chairman, what has of course been happening in this House, is that a cosy relationship has developed between the NRP and the Government. I am frankly getting a little bit tired of this “Vause” business across the floor of the House. [Interjections.] The fact is that the hon. the Prime Minister must realize that in terms of the statements made by our South African Ambassador to the United Nations, we are committed to getting rid of discrimination. To us in the PFP this means removing statutory apartheid from the lawbooks of South Africa. We mean this and this is proved by all answers we have given to questions put to us in this regard. Of course there may have to be a transition. One has to talk to communities and convince them to accept this. However, we believe that all the parties have a duty to remove discrimination. In the context of South Africa this means that statutory, legalized and enforced apartheid is part of what has to be removed. That is our attitude. From that the hon. the Prime Minister can make his deductions in all fields of political, social and economic life. He must accept that.

When we make a deduction Japie says that is not your policy.

Who is “we”, your or the hon. the Prime Minister? The hon. the Prime Minister gave a number of replies to issues which were raised. However, there were two issues I raised to which he did not reply. Firstly, I raised very pertinently the comments made by Pres. Mangope at the time his State became independent. It appeared from the statement he made there that the land issue was not resolved. He was extremely unhappy. He believed that this was an act of bad faith and that the credibility of his State was involved. The hon. the Prime Minister explained what had happened prior to that. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he believes that this matter has now been resolved, or whether we are going to experience difficulties in 18 months’ time. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the pre-independence situation. We want to know whether it is his judgment that the matter has been resolved, or can we anticipate that as in the case of Transkei there could be further developments and tensions between us and Bophuthatswana over the question of land? We believe we are entitled to ask that in the light of the President of Bophuthatswana’s own statement.

Regarding the question I raised in relation to his social policy, namely the question of apartheid, there was an obvious evasion by the hon. the Prime Minister. I raised the question of universities and a few other matters in specific terms. The hon. the Prime Minister has always said that apartheid, separation, is necessary where it is required to maintain identity or to prevent friction. I read out the statement by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation who said that in fact his policy was no longer multinational, but non-racial sport. “Non-racial” was the word he used. He made it quite clear that there was no restriction whatsoever—whether or not one takes friction or identity or anything into account—on any sportsmen to play on any field and to join any club. All I ask is that the hon. the Prime Minister should define where he is leading South Africa in the field of inter-personal, social relationships on the basis of the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. We see his statement as the one crisp, clear-cut definitive statement.

You are misquoting the Minister.

I read the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation’s statement in detail.

You do not know what you are talking about.

The problem is that the hon. the Prime Minister compares, and persists in comparing, the claim of Black South Africans to citizenship … [Interjections.] Why is the hon. the Minister “bromming” in that way? He did say that this was a non-racial sports policy. Why is he running away from it? The hon. the Prime Minister must explain how in the rest of our social relationships we are also going to get away from apartheid in the way the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has done. The hon. the Prime Minister keeps on comparing citizens of foreign States like Lesotho and Malawi with citizens of South Africa. He compares Zulus, Xhosas, Vendas and others with citizens of foreign States. But the essential difference is that they are South African citizens. It is not a question of whether the hon. the Prime Minister likes it or not; they are citizens of South Africa. They have been discriminated against, they may have had lesser political rights, but they are in essence citizens of South Africa, and that is the fundamental difference between them and the citizens of other States.

He then gave a lengthy explanation of the problems that he had in consolidating Bophuthatswana prior to independence. We listened with a degree of sympathy, and zet us say that the hon. the Prime Minister tried hard to resolve this problem. However, all he was saying to us, was that in spite of his well-meant efforts, in spite of the efforts of Chief Lucas Mangope at that time, it was not possible to achieve this. What he is really putting on record for us, is that the concept of independent homelands as he sees it in South Africa, is not a practical proposition in South Africa. That is what he is saying. Here was an admission from the hon. the Prime Minister that in spite of the mutual, co-operative efforts of himself and the chief, it was impossible to create a viable independent State of Bophuthatswana. What I find most interesting is that when he cannot create a viable State of Bophuthatswana, he nevertheless proceeds with independence.

Surely Bophuthatswana is a viable State?

When he cannot create a viable State of QwaQwa—and I do not assume that there is a single hon. member on the other side of the House who believes that QwaQwa can be a viable State for the North Sotho or South Sotho people—he nevertheless says that our goal is independence. When it comes to the Coloured community, however, he says that because there is no viable homeland for them they will have to be accepted in the rest of South Africa.

I never used the words “viable homeland”. They have no homeland.

I would say that in terms of concentrations of people there is a greater proportion of people concentrated in the Cape Flats amongst the Coloureds than there is amongst the South Sotho in QwaQwa. Of course this is so. The Government says that when it comes to the Coloured people, when it is not practical to give them a territory of their own, a State of their own, they have to be accepted as part of the rest of South Africa. But when it comes to the Blacks, and even when it comes to the South Sotho, the people of QwaQwa, the people of Bophuthatswana, where it is not possible to create a viable homeland, they nevertheless say their goal is independence and self-determination for these people.

The last point to which I wish to refer is the question of universities. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister was running away today from the very philosophy for the policy which he argued about in this House way back in the 1960s. I think the hon. the Prime Minister was then the Deputy Minister of Education. Other hon. members here were also present. We sat through the night arguing a fundamental principle postulated by the late Dr. Verwoerd, namely that it was philosophically, sociologically and for every other reason necessary to separate the races at university level. This was the whole thrust of the policy and now the hon. the Prime Minister says that really all the time there were integrated universities, but it was taking place under permit. There were exceptions, but he knows that the philosophy underlined in those Bills, the extension of university apartheid Bill and the Fort Hare Bill, was separation between the races at university level. Why does he not accept it? He has changed his mind. He has changed his mind on the sport policy. Remember the discussion of the Vote of the Prime Minister in 1967. There he said he wanted to make one thing quite clear. That was that we would accept international teams, but when any people came to South Africa they would have to conform to South Africa’s policy of separation. He said we would not have any mixing of races on the sportfield. He has changed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, once again the hon. Leader of the Opposition had a great deal to say about apartheid and doing away with apartheid. However, he is not prepared to discuss the policy of the PFP in this Committee. One would think that, in a debate of this kind, an Opposition Party would avail itself of the opportunity to hone its policy against that of the Government; that the Opposition would say: “This is your policy; here is our alternative policy. It is a better policy, for this and that reason.”

Those hon. members have been in opposition for so long, but they do not realize and that they have no conception of how the Government works. It seems to me as if they have no conception of how an Opposition works either. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do well to take a look at what Hansard looked like in the days when the late Dr. D. F. Malan was still the Leader of the Opposition. When he reads Hansard, he will see how, in those days, the NP stated its policy as against that of the UP, which was the governing party at the time. Dr. Malan made specific mention of the reasons he advanced as to why the policy of the NP was more acceptable than the policy of the Government. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is too afraid to do so. [Interjections.] It is no use the hon. the Leader of the Opposition waving his hand at me. He knows that what I am saying, is correct. That gesture of his is childish. [Interjections.]

However, before I say anything more about the question of apartheid, I just want to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again to what was published in Die Burger this morning in connection with the talk which the SABC had with Dr. Matanzima. According to the report in Die Burger, Dr. Matanzima said that it was only the dispute about the land which moved him to break off diplomatic relations with South Africa.

Do you believe that?

It was only the dispute about the land. Dr. Matanzima emphasizes this. One would think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—after having heard this and having had time to think about his arguments—would at least still have the self-respect to stand up in the House and say: “I was wrong. I am sorry. It is only the question of the land.” That story of his about discrimination, about the squatter camps and all the other things to which he referred, was sent out into the world. This is the problem with which we are faced. These are things which were said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the South African Parliament, whereas Dr. Matanzima specifically says that it is only the question of the land.

Do you believe what Dr. Matanzima says?

Who is asking over there whether I believe what Dr. Matanzima says? [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes on to say that apartheid has collapsed in ruins. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also says that apartheid has collapsed. Hon. members are sounding a note I have heard as far back as 1960. We heard the same note after Sharpeville. Hon. members actually took pleasure in the fact that Sharpeville took place because it was supposedly a sign of apartheid having collapsed. In 1976, they said the same things during the riots in Soweto. However, every time they say it, another homeland asks for independence. This is what happens in terms of the policy of the NP Government.

What I cannot understand, is that the PFP does not actually attack apartheid as such; they attack what they have made of apartheid. This is what they really direct their attacks at. In fact the policy of separate development was direct also given concrete form when Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland were established. The establishment of those three countries is nothing but an aspect of separate development. Or is it perhaps the case that when Great Britain grants independence to a country, the PFP accepts that country as an independent, viable State, while when South Africa grants independence to a country, they reject it out of mere prejudice and due to their limited vision, because it is the NP which has done so? This policy of separate development is part of the historical policy of South Africa. Sir, what a favour they would have done South Africa if they had said that they accepted the concept of separate development. What a contribution they would have been able to make to South African political history if they had accepted that concept. Some of their own advisers told them this at one stage. If time allows, I shall come to that. The concept of separate development has been the basis of negotiation from the time of our earliest contact with the Black man. It was the case in McCartney’s time and it was the case in Lord Charles Somerset’s time. It was also the case in Sir Theophilus Shepstone’s time. Before Union it was the case in Lord Milner’s time too. Hon. members need not laugh. This is what Sir Henry Cotton, President of the Indian National Congress, said—

The first South African Native Affairs Commission of 1903 to 1905, which consisted of representatives of the Colonies and Southern Rhodesia and the territories of the High Commissioner, and which consisted entirely of Englishmen, advised against doing away with the colour bar. Gen. Smuts was in favour of separate development. Just take another look at his Savoy Hotel speech.

Yes, but after all that was in 1917.

It does not matter. Let us look at 1953, at Mr. Strauss’s time. Mr. Strauss accepted it. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member want the relevant reference? I shall give it to him. Let us look at 1966 too. In 1966 none other than Mr. Joel Mervis said the following—

Let us talk about today.

I think even the hon. member for Bryanston will take note of what Mr. Joel Mervis, who is the MPC for Orange Grove at the moment, had to say. Sir, the point which I want to make in this regard, is the following: What a favour they would have done South Africa if they had accepted the policy of separate development, as it was accepted even before 1948? If they had done this, they would have been able to take the question out of politics, in terms of the offer which Dr. Malan made to them at the time. Then they would have been able to make a real contribution, even at this time. However, now they come along with ridiculous questions like those which they asked the hon. the Prime Minister between six o’clock and half past six tonight. This proves that they have not yet even studied those proposals yet.

Sir, they say apartheid is the reason why we have landed in this difficulty. They do not take note of the international onslaught which is being made on South Africa. They do not take note of the fact that it is that group of people that helped support the Russian revolution in 1917, which has resulted in the world being in the condition it is in today. That is why a man like Mr. Douglas Reed of Insanity Fair and Disgrace Abounding fame said in 1973—

This is exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister said in his New Year message last year, viz. “Fasten the seat belts”, because this is what awaits us in the new dispensation in this world under the Carter administration.

It has been said on occasion that a Government which fails to prevent the overthrow of its country, is an unjust Government. I say: An Opposition which, even without meaning to, helps to bring about the overthrow of its country, is an evil Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan, I want to refer to an extract from the speech by the hon. member for Parktown. He put the following questions to our hon. Prime Minister in connection with the independence of members of other nations in our country.

A good question.

I quote—

I now just want to pose this counter-question. How free were three people in Botswana, messrs. De Beer, Arden and Love? How free would he be in any other country if he were to infringe the laws of that country? That is how simple it is. How free is any person who infringes the laws of a country? Those people are absolutely free in our country—and it is a free, independent State—as long as they act within the framework of the Government’s laws of the land. That is a reasonable arrangement. These people want to join the chorus of liberalism which seeks to convert the diversity of our peoples and the diversity of our colourful landscape to a drab, grey uniformity. We know that in their view they still favour the idea that White is superior and that non-White is inferior. That is fundamental to their cause.

However, the peoples within this country have awakened. They are striving to achieve their own maturity and their own political system whatever the pattern or the tempo may be. That is the truth. Among their youth there is a fervent striving for a higher standard of living, but that does not apply to the non-Whites alone. That also applies to the Whites of this country. It is the rhythm and resilience of our own White youth. The leaders of these peoples at the various levels of life are moving forward. We could refer to the other peoples. At the academic level there are today rectors of universities. We could refer to today’s leaders in the field of sport. Then, too, there are innumerable other spheres to which we could refer, but I shall not go any further. The Government of this country wants these peoples to develop independently and separately towards the highest possible political level. This is being done openly, sincerely and honestly. It is the making-over to them of the most noble and sacred heritage of a people.

However let us state the following position. In the interior, within the borders of this homeland, the economy, industry and commerce will always remain interdependent for successful development. That was said by Chief Lucas Mangope as long ago as 1974 according to this publication (Africa Institute Bulletin, Vol. 17, Nos. 9 and 10, 1977) and I quote—

of Black and White—

And again in 1974—

This is an old and well-known saying, and it is the truth. Among these States, labour, capital and skills will always remain fluid and mobile across the geographical borders. It is a fact that people will co-exist in close contact with each other and will live in contact with each other, will speak to each other and will also come into conflict with each other. That is a fact of life. Prejudices among people and nations will have to disappear and mutual respect and regard and meaningful accommodation will have to be found among these people. White, Brown and Black will have to work together shoulder to shoulder and fight together shoulder to shoulder, and they will also have to help in situations of emergency. I refer to the award by the Chamber of Mines, the highest order for bravery, awarded to a White man who hastened to the aid of a Black man and in doing so, lost his own life. The youth among these people will have to accept, in the process of becoming mature, that there are other peoples living alongside of them. The Black and Brown youth, too, will have to accept that there are other peoples in the country. They will have to accept as a point of departure that the Whites want to remain unashamedly White in this country and that the Zulu wants to remain indisputably Zulu, that neither the White man, the Black man, nor the Brown man expects of the other a servile attitude when conversation is entered into; that to hate the present White Government as some hon. members of this House have said they do in this House with the words “Yes, I hate the Government”, means that they hate order and maintenance of sound discipline in the country. When those concepts exist, we need have no hesitation in conducting dialogue with other peoples to retain their confidence. Our young people, our coming generation, must recognize that integration of the races has never been a success anywhere in the world, but has led to conflicts in Africa, in Europe and in the USA, that it is essential that mutual contact and understanding be developed. Mrs. Jansen of the Representative Coloured Council herself expressed it as follows—

These people must accept that a frantic and uncontrolled scramble for contact in the sporting and social spheres will lead to chaos and bitterness; that here, too, order would be a good watchword. In all these spheres, side by side with the spheres of work, there are bodies and/or organizations and persons with the skill to provide the right leadership. There are outstanding people in the ranks of all the nations, leaders who can enter this corps of leaders and furnish guidance to the various peoples in order to achieve solid success at these levels. Then too, there are our different ministries and departments and secretariats which could be involved in this regard and could furnish assistance. We can therefore say here this evening that the Education Department of the Transvaal was probably quite correct in the sense that it cautioned its heads to act with circumspection, rather than precipitately, when contact with other peoples was being sought. There is perhaps a need for more public relations committees such as those which the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations has already introduced. These committees, on which members of the various population groups serve, are able to identify spheres and opportunities in which the various population groups, the youth and adults, can come into contact at the sporting, cultural and other levels. Goodwill, respect and understanding can be developed and skills can be communicated. One of our most stimulating thinkers and authors set this requirement for the planning of our future, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Standerton will pardon me, I should like to address myself to the hon. the Prime Minister immediately. I want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister will realize later on that what he did here today was very shortsighted. Perhaps it is just as shortsighted as the statement which was made in the past that the question of the Coloureds and their future should be left to our children.

That was never said.

We can refer to the debates. It was stated that it should be left to our descendants. The hon. the Prime Minister has summarily rejected the idea of a federation and a confederation. In this respect he has done something which is very shortsighted. “Confederation” is a concept which is internationally known and the hon. Prime Minister’s own plan contains elements of the concatenation and inclusion of other groups, Governments and Parliaments. In the end he will be forced to find a new word and then the temptation will be there again to pass it off as some apartheid term. That is why I am saying that the Prime Minister should not have rejected the idea of a confederation.

Secondly, the Prime Minister gave us an idea of his constitutional plans before dinner. I wish to state immediately that it is very clearly an imperfect step towards power sharing in some respects and to that extent I believe that perhaps he does not have the support of all his people. Whatever the hon. the Prime Minister says, it is to a certain extent an acceptance of certain elements of the race federation of the old UP.

The whole of Southern Africa is engaged in constitutional development at the moment. In Rhodesia and South West Africa it is taking place against a background of terrorism. We in South Africa have been spared that as such, but we should all realize that we are not always going to get a second chance in that respect. I believe that the debate on this Vote which is now taking place affords us the last proper opportunity to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to accept a different modus operandi with regard to the proposed constitutional changes.

[Inaudible.]

I also believe, however, that it is for the sake of the future peace and prosperity of South Africa that we must make the hon. the Prime Minister change his mind. When the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister comes up for discussion next year …

Is it not better to try the electorate?

We on this side in the NRP have already stated our model to you and the hon. Prime Minister will have to consider it if he really wants to act responsibly and in the best interests of South Africa.

Why do you not try to sell it to the electorate instead of to me?

Mr. Chairman, I think we have passed that stage. The hon. the Prime Minister has received the vote of South Africa time and again because the people believed that if one gave independence to the Transkei, all one’s problems would be solved. And what now? Was that a solution simply because the people voted for it? We have a problem. We do not want the hon. Prime Minister to come here next year and to be so committed to his plan that he would not be prepared to bring about any changes. Then the die would be cast.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister should realize that the method of constitutional making is perhaps as important as the actual constitutional proposals themselves. As far as the method of constitutional making is concerned, South Africa will not have a second chance. I believe that the method that the hon. the Prime Minister has adopted so far stands no chance of success. When I consider the mistakes that have already been made, I can appreciate the truth in the statement of Solzhenitsyn a year or two ago when he said that no people and no nation learned by example; they only learn through experience. To a certain extent I can see how we are learning as far as Transkei is concerned; not by example, but through experience. We are all from Africa. We as White South Africans should know and appreciate the mind of Africa better than anybody else. However, it appears to me that hon. members opposite have failed to learn and appreciate one of the basic lessons of Africa: In Africa one colonial power after the other worked out fine and detailed constitutional proposals for their colonies. However, because those intricate constitutional formulas made no provision for the people to have a part in the decisionmaking process, the people owned no loyalty towards them. We know the history of Africa: They failed one after the other. To them these were merely symbols of colonialism. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants his specific plans to be a success, then something more should be offered to the Coloureds and Indians than the hon. the Prime Minister’s proposals, the NP proposals, the constitutional proposals of the Whites. I am singling these two groups out, because they are the only ones who stand to benefit from these plans. Somehow these people must be placed in a position—and that is the responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister as the elected leader of the Whites— to regard the plans, if not as their own, then at least as plans to which they owe some loyalty. In this respect the hon. the Prime Minister has failed us and I am afraid he will continue to fail us. Thus far he cannot lay claim to any specific success. He can quote a few meetings he has had with the elected leaders of the Coloureds and the Indians and he can say that they sounded enthusiastic about it, but the fact remains and the reality is that they have rejected the proposals so far. The hon. the Prime Minister knows, as well as any other hon. member in the House, that if there is to be a future for him, for me and for any other White man in South Africa, then somehow there must be an agreement with those people who will also share South Africa with us, i.e. that part which forms a common area. The hon. member for Mooi River said today that there should be a settlement or some form of agreement amongst those who will continue to share South Africa, because we have been sharing South Africa for some 300 years in that respect.

I would now like to refer briefly to some of the details and some of the fundamental weaknesses in the hon. the Prime Minister’s constitutional plans as enunciated at present. I am concerned at the obvious lack of understanding on the part of even the hon. the Prime Minister to appreciate the difficulty a Coloured man or, for instance, a Coloured leader, has to identify himself enthusiastically with the proposed plans as they stand at the moment. It is not only for the hon. the Prime Minister, as a White man and as a leader of his community, to be satisfied, but also for a man such as Mr. Sonny Leon, who happens to be the elected leader, in terms of the Government’s own policy, of the Coloured people, to be satisfied that he can safeguard his future and the future of his people in the best way by retaining a specific dispensation in South Africa which will then continue to keep the urban Black in a political vacuum. I can appreciate that it is something which it is easy for some Whites, who perhaps live with their heads in the clouds and who live far away from the urban Blacks, to accept, but a Coloured who lives next to Langa or Guguletu must be convinced that the hon. the Prime Minister’s plan is going to provide a future for him as well. Such a man has to rub shoulders with the Blacks more often than we as Whites have to. In terms of the hon. the Prime Minister’s plan the Coloureds and Indians must also accept the fact that in future they will be cast in the role of a perpetual opposition. I listened to the explanation the hon. the Prime Minister gave just before dinner tonight and according to that the top of the ladder for the Coloureds will be the Council of Cabinets and the presidential electoral college. The White majority party will be the only other party represented there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell on the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Central, except to tell him that this new constitutional plan is the greatest and most informative proposal any Government has ever made in the history of South Africa to the Coloured and Asian peoples of South Africa. Here the White man has declared himself willing to share the structure of the highest sovereign legislative authority in South Africa, Parliament, with the Coloureds and the Asians. They are therefore being accommodated in a new constitutional dispensation. However, the Whites of South Africa have gone even further and decided to abandon the oldest political form of government in the Western world, the Westminster system, in order to establish a new dispensation in which the Coloureds and the Asians can be accommodated. The NP Government has decided to share the political structure, the executive, legislative and administrative structure in South Africa in all its facets with the Coloureds and the Asians, separately and jointly.

I make haste to come to the Official Opposition. I find it extraordinary that they can say here in this House that the Government’s policy has collapsed. Surely it is the number one basic requirement for an Official Opposition at least to know what the policy of the governing party is. How can one oppose if one does not even meet the basic requirement, i.e. that one should know the policy of the governing party? Surely that is a policy which has not changed over the years. Surely we are still dealing with the same policy of separate development. We are, however, now dealing with a new party, the PFP. Do we not have the right, then, to ask the new Official Opposition party what its policy is? Surely the PFP had the opportunity to spell out their policy during the censure debate. Did they do that? Their own newspaper, the Sunday Times, said on 12 March 1978 that the PFP had no idea whatsoever of what was going on. The same newspaper said on 5 February 1978—

Is it not the job and duty of the Official Opposition to spell out their policy here in this House?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made three statements in this House yesterday. The first was that we have to prevent unrest. I agree with him, but I want to put a question to him which I want him to answer in this House tonight. I want to know whether he is prepared to assist the Government in all measures which are necessary to prevent unrest in South Africa. Is that not the crucial question that should be asked?

The second statement of the hon. Leader was that we have to do away with discrimination and apartheid. Arising from that, however, I want to ask that party another crucial question which I want them to reply to here in this House, and that is whether they regard the White man’s right to self-determination as inalienable—yes or no. That is what it is all about.

The third statement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that we should bring the people of South Africa together. Of course we can agree with that, but the question that party has to answer is whether we should bring them together under a Black majority Government—yes or no. May we not insist on an answer? What have we heard, in fact, about their policy? During the election campaign there was only one little piece about their policy, and that was this full-page advertisement about the allegation that the PFP was in favour of a Black majority Government, of which they said: “It is a lie …” The hon. members know what the opinions of the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Groote Schuur are in this connection. It is in Hansard, and therefore it is a lie to say that that allegation was a lie. That is all we have heard about the PFP’s policy.

What did the PFP do in Durbanville? The PFP saw fit to announce their policy before 30 November 1977 in the constituency of Durbanville. They published this pamphlet which I have with me. The upper half is in broken Afrikaans. One has, in fact, to read the English part to be able to understand the Afrikaans. [Interjections.] The part which deals with the morality and practicability of the PFP’s policy is found in the last part of the pamphlet. Sir, can you believe that the last part consists of Bible texts from the Gospel of St Matthew? This borders on the grossest form of blasphemy I have ever come across in my short political career. The morality and practicability of the PFP’s policy is founded in the pamphlet on Matthew 7, verses 24 to 27. I quote—

That is the PFP. The pamphlet reads further—

The “rock” is the PFP policy. This borders on blasphemy of the worst kind. It reads further—

In other words, this includes everyone who voted against the PFP: The Government, the NRP and the SAP. I quote verse 27—

Is that not scandalous and blasphemous? The pamphlet continues—and these are the PFP people talking—

Is it not blasphemous to say that? That party refuses to spell out its policy here. That party is a bitter party because the Government has announced that with the independence of homelands people are also becoming independent. Now that side of the House realizes that the ethnical Black nations of South Africa are going to become fewer. They realize that the Black South Africans on whom they depended for their Black majority Government are going to become fewer. They realize that they are going to be deprived of the opportunity to establish a Black majority Government soon. They realize that they are deprived of the opportunity to subject the Whites of South Africa to Black majority rule against their will. The same applies in the case of the political dispensation. The members on that side of the House know that they dare not allow that dispensation to be accepted, because if that happens, they will be deprived of the opportunity to form a united front with the Coloureds and Blacks of South Africa against the National Government. That is what it is all about.

I ask with whom that party associates itself. Last year the hon. member for Pinelands said here in this House that he was a sympathizer of the “Black People’s Association”. I shall leave it at that. A few weeks ago we also heard that he respected Donald Woods. Now we know that Donald Woods was the editor of one of their most important newspapers. I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he will repudiate the hon. member for Pinelands. Does that party respect someone, who, in Hollywood style, told the greatest lies about South Africa, someone who left the country like a coward, who was received with open arms by the enemies of South Africa and who went to speak on the platforms of the world to throw mud at South Africa and to try to get economical boycotts applied against South Africa, thereby committing treason against South Africa? I ask—and I make haste to do so: Does that party, which said that we had to prevent unrest, associate itself with the Inkatha movement, a Black polarization power which unites Black militants in the interest of Black solidarity, or does it associate itself with the Black militants who attended the funeral of Sobukwe? What was the hon. member for Houghton doing at that funeral? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the year 1978 one thing has become more clear than ever before to me and I believe to every hon. member of this House, to the public outside and the mass media, and that is that the present Official Opposition are no longer relevant to South African politics because their policy is completely impotent. That is a very serious accusation to make against anybody, particularly against a man. Impotency implies that one is no longer capable of functioning effectively. A political party is functionally ineffective if it is no longer capable of governing a country because surely the primary purpose of any political party is to govern a country. I am now going to prove that these people are impotent. They are impotent in spite of their party’s youth as a party which has only recently had the letter F added to its name. However, even adolescents can be impotent if there are any irregularities in the system, and I want to mention a few of them. The first is that these people do not have any policy. They admit that themselves, but I shall return to that in a moment. The second is that nobody in the political history of South Africa has ever been more confused than these people, including their voters outside. The only comparable analogy was the Tower of Babel referred to in the Bible.

Their lack of leadership is another irregularity in the system that is making them impotent. Having listened to the debate, especially to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I want to say that the fourth irregularity in the system that this party suffers from is an argument which I with great responsibility want to call a criminal disloyalty towards South Africa. I have said that these people are not functionally effective and that they are incapable of governing the country. The hon. the Prime Minister quite rightly asked these people who was going to govern during the period, until Buthelezi and Mandela told them how to govern South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to suggest that hon. members on these benches are disloyal to South Africa?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

No! not “thank you”! The hon. member must withdraw the remark that hon. members of the PFP are criminally disloyal to South Africa.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. I shall for the moment leave the question of loyalty at that. It is not only this side of the House that says that these people have no policy. I want to quote from a column written by a lovely lady who sometimes graces the Press Gallery, and I want to apologize to her for mentioning her name. This lady, Fleur de Villiers, a columnist of the Sunday Times, who played a not inconsiderable part in writing-off the former UP in favour of the PFP, wrote an article on 12 March 1978 from which I want to quote fairly fully in order to prove that she too has her doubts, and she is a person who has access to the inner circles of the PFP and ought to know what happens in those inner circles where policy has to be forged—if that is what is forged there. She has this to say—

Those are condemnatory words, Sir. She goes on—

She says that loud and clear. Eventually she draws the conclusion that if they do not succeed in doing so, these men will go down in the history of Parliament as a bunch of “nice guys”. She says—

In conclusion as far as this is concerned. I just want to say that I cannot imagine that the entire PFP can be called a bunch of “nice guys”. I think, for example, of the hon. member for Bryanston, let alone the hon. member for Groote Schuur. [Interjections.] I think there are people who will endorse my statement [Interjections.]

The PFP are faced with another problem as well. The problem of this party is that its very being as well as its policy do not reflect the dedication and enthusiasm of its supporters. This party does not draw the real essence of its policy from the support of its followers. After all, this party is in essence financially motivated. It is common knowledge that they are merely political window-dressing for the powerful financial forces in South Africa. Why is that the position? It is because these powerful financial forces are using them to tell the world and Africa that there is a political party in South Africa—a White political party—that is in favour of an eventual Black majority government. Surely we know that that is the case? Why are they doing this? They are doing it in order to pacify those African countries in which these financial forces have extensive business interests so that they can continue to promote those business interests there.

Another problem of the PFP to which I have already referred, is its lack of leadership. As a backbencher that is a serious thing for me to say about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Which leader?

However, I wish to call, inter alia, as my witnesses people who are closer to them than I am. I quote again from the Sunday Times of 5 February 1978. This is the very same notorious article in which these words appear: “Mr. Eglin will surely want to forget it.” I quote—

It states further—

And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the temerity to say today that the hon. the Prime Minister was running away. I think that ever since the powerful financial forces, took over the PFP—in 1974 or even prior to that—they have always made sure that they have an observer in this House to look after their interests. After 1974 it was the former member for Johannesburg North. After three and a half years he was apparently weighed and found wanting. Then they sent a more prominent political figure to this House, someone with something of a political background, a very prominent member of the most powerful financial institution in South Africa—the hon. member for Parktown. When one considers the position, it is very clear that the Press and the news media which support the PFP and which are also controlled by those powerful financial forces, have already written off the Official Opposition and its hon. Leader. Surely that is very clear from this? They are not trying to defend him or to justify his actions. Why is that? It is because I believe the hon. member for Parktown has been destined by this organization eventually to take over the leadership of the PFP.

My time has unfortunately nearly expired, Sir, but I just want to say one other thing. When one listens to what the hon. member for Parktown has to say—the person whom I accept will eventually become the leader of the PFP—one despairs for that party and its future. The problem the PFP has always had namely that it has no idea of what the political ideals and aspirations of its supporters in South Africa are, is borne out by the most recent statements made by that hon. member in this House. I want in conclusion to refer to only one of those statements, namely that foreign investors are shocked because the Black people in South Africa will never have the franchise. After all, that is not true and the hon. member knows it. It has, however, been characteristic of his predecessors—and the hon. member is obviously making the same mistake—to negate, belittle and despise the national pride and nationhood of the Black man in South Africa. He regards the vote which the Black man has in his own area in South Africa as an inferior vote. I am very sure, however, that as far as this matter is concerned the Black man in South Africa does not sympathize with him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that speakers on the other side of the House are as afraid of the Government’s new constitutional proposals as the devil is of holy water. It is equally obvious that members on that side of the House have decided that these new proposals are a monstrosity of the Prime Minister and that he will have to see whether he cannot provide the answers himself. The hon. the Prime Minister has now been left alone to explain these new proposals to the House and to defend them all on his own. I must of course thank him for the dialogue that took place earlier today because it did give us clarity.

We fought an election on it. Are you a Rip van Winkle?

That dialogue strengthened our reservations in regard to some of these proposals. It also showed us how much embarrassment is caused when the Prime Minister says that he wants right and justice to be done for all the national groups in South Africa and simultaneously tries to do so by the practical implementation of the policy of apartheid. The Prime Minister is tremendously embarrassed when he tries to do that because those two objectives can obviously never go together.

The whole history of these proposals results from the fact that the Government decided initially, when they were thinking in terms of a policy for the Coloureds and Indians, that these groups should be regarded as separate nations, and that complete segregation should be brought about in regard to both the territorial and political aspects. This failed because the Government could not find homelands for these groups. They also had to accept complete economic inter-dependence between these groups and the Whites. Then the Government decided that they would only implement political segregation, and that separate political structures would be set up to comply with the needs of their policy. But that also was not enough because the Government realized that this would not satisfy the requirements of full citizenship, and the Government had promised full citizenship to the Coloureds and the Indians. The Government also realized that this did not comply with the requirement of participation in the decision-making processes in regard to communal issues in South Africa. Therefore the Government decided on this new dispensation. Then the Government was faced with the enormously difficult and challenging basic issue, namely: Would this new dispensation be based on the sharing of power or co-partnership between White, Coloured and Indian, or would this new set-up be based on White domination? That was the fundamental question, the most important question that had to be answered. From what the Prime Minister has said today and from his replies to questions on these proposals, it is obvious and irrefutable that the Government has decided that this system will rest exclusively on White domination, with a measure of consultation. It will not be White domination with a measure of negotiation neither will it be White domination with actual consensus, but exclusively White domination with simply a measure of consultation between Whites, Coloureds and Indians. This becomes apparent from the composition of the electoral college to be appointed by the State President, and from the composition of the Council of Cabinets. The composition of those two bodies will be on the basis of a ratio of four Whites to two Coloureds to one Indian. This is a fixed, permanent ratio that cannot be changed. The Minister of Justice told the Jeugbond that that ratio was now being fixed. He said it was in the interests of the Whites to do it now while the Whites were in the majority.

You were not at that meeting, and you do not know what you are talking about.

If that is not true the hon. the Minister must deny it. It appeared in the Press and the Minister has not denied it. So we must accept that that is so … [Interjections.] … and I think it is obvious that that is the line of thought of the NP Government.

Order!

Then the hon. the Prime Minister explained that legislation would be initiated in the Council of Cabinets. It would then go to the Parliaments and, if no agreement could be reached, it would go back to the Council of Cabinets. Even if these Councils and Parliaments sat 24 hours a day and 365 days a year I do not think they would not get through one-tenth of their work. But it goes back to the Council of Cabinets. If they still cannot come to a decision, what happens then? Then the State President decides. What does this in fact mean? The hon. the Prime Minister has denied that he will be a dictator if he becomes State President, and in terms of this set-up I expect that he will become the first State President. Do hon. members know what this will mean? It will mean we will have exactly the same system as we have in South Africa at present, namely that the White NP of South Africa will have the sole right to decide on the destiny, the rights and the future of the whole of South Africa, and that that sole right of decision of the White Nationalists of South Africa will be exercised by the White NP President of South Africa who in turn will be responsible to a White NP majority in the Council of Cabinets. Let us not deceive ourselves because I think the hon. Prime Minister has shown today that he is not prepared to mince matters. Let us admit then that it is no improvement. There will be no partnership or sharing of power here. There will simply be a new system which will be founded on the same basis as the present system. In other words, it is a system which will mean that the White NP of South Africa will exercise dictatorial powers over South Africa as such. [Interjections.]

However, there are other provisions we have heard about today. I refer for instance to the representation in the Council of Cabinets. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that if the representatives of the Coloureds and the Indians—and we must remember that they are the elected representatives of their parliaments—are not prepared to accept the decision of the White NP President and are also not prepared to look with favour on the viewpoint of the White State President, they will have to resign. How on earth can the hon. the Prime Minister say then that the aim of this set-up is to give democratic rights to the other national groups in South Africa, to give them a say and to involve them in a democratic way in the running of South Africa, if at the same time he says that if those people are not prepared to accept his decisions they will have to resign, regardless of the fact that they represent their parties and their parliaments in that Council of Cabinets? The hon. the Prime Minister tries to explain this by asking us whether we know how a Cabinet works. He asks us if we know what system is applied in a Cabinet. But this is not a Cabinet. It is a Council of Cabinets, a Council consisting of delegations from three different parliaments, delegations which come from three different political parties. It will be the place where the most contentious matters are discussed, and the very place one expects conflict and confrontation to arise. It is the very place one will expect the Coloured and Indian members not blindly to accept a decision of the State President, and it is the very place where it will be necessary for the State President to disregard all ideas of democracy and partnership and to exercise his dictatorial powers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston accused us of being afraid to discuss our policy, but one challenge after another has been issued from this side of the House to that party to discuss the national convention. One question after another has been put to them, and up to now they have not reacted to them. I just want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston one question and he need only reply by saying yes or no. My question is this: If they come into power, will they put the Coloured people on a common voters’ roll? Will there be a policy of one man, one vote in respect of the Coloured people?

Within a federal system, all citizens of South Africa will be put on a common … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave the hon. member at that. If he wants to accuse us of being afraid to discuss our policy, I want to tell him that his party has such a vague policy that he does not even understand it himself, and they are not able to discuss it either.

I think we have witnessed something special in the South African Parliament this afternoon, in that the hon. the Prime Minister had to devote half an hour to giving the Official Opposition a lesson in statesmanship. We got to know another characteristic of that party this afternoon, namely that they are completely ignorant of statesmanship and have no conception of it. The hon. member for Rondebosch said this afternoon that we on this side of the House were embarrassed and for that reason we were not talking about the new dispensation. The hon. member for Bryanston said that we were afraid. I want to ask those two hon. members whether the 135 members who are sitting here were borne here by angels. Did we materialize out of nowhere? After all, we had an election campaign, and when the hon. the Prime Minister announced the election, the new dispensation became one of the issues on which the election was fought. Every member on this side of the House held one meeting after another and put it to the voters. Are we embarrassed by it, then? Are we afraid? I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that although they have just had the opportunity, during the by-election in Springs, they were afraid to put their policy in writing or to discuss it. That is the fact of the matter.

And your majority was reduced by 3 000 votes.

Order!

The hon. member for Rondebosch went further this afternoon and said that because there were so many obscurities in the new dispensation, the Coloured people and the Indians would not accept it. I want to allege that it is that party which is telling the Brown people and the Indians in South Africa that there are obscurities in it. After all, talks are held with the Brown people and the Indians. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations said only yesterday here in Cape Town that his door was open. Discussions do take place.

Like a refrain, the Opposition members have been asking in all the debates in recent years: What about the Coloured people? The Opposition members have tried to create the impression that the Government is doing absolutely nothing for the Brown people, the Coloured population. I want to allege tonight that any impartial observer of South African politics would have to admit that the Government has not been static in its policy in respect of the Coloured people and that the Government has not been without a policy either in respect of that population group. They would have to admit that there has been political development in respect of this population group. Where did this population group stand in 1948? These people have developed systematically. Who created the leaders they have today? Who gave them a platform? It was the Government. I want to allege that there has been development in all spheres in respect of the Coloured people. There has been development in the economic sphere and in the educational sphere. If one wants to be honest and impartial, one has to admit that there has been development and there has been progress in all spheres.

I concede that the progress has not been what it ought to have been. There are many reasons for this. It was the Government, too, which saw this, recognized it and appointed a commission to go into the matter. Then we got a report from the commission and a White Paper from the Government. Subsequently a Cabinet Committee was appointed, and today we have the new dispensation before us. When we look at all these things, we see that opportunities have been created for the Coloured people which they should utilize. If we leave these people alone, if we do not tell them what to say, if we do not whisper things in their ears, I want to allege that they will use these opportunities in their own interests, for their own development, and in the interests of South Africa as well. This new dispensation has one message. This is that White and Brown will co-exist here in South Africa, that each group will have the opportunity to look after its own interests, but that there will also be an opportunity for both these population groups to reflect and decide about matters of common interest. This new dispensation removes the problem areas which used to exist. Let us take the question of local government. In the new dispensation opportunities are being created for separate municipalities, in terms of which these population groups will have the opportunity to reflect and decide about their own local affairs. Surely this is fair and reasonable and surely it is an opportunity for these people which they want to utilize.

However, this new dispensation goes further than that. It is the creation of a Parliament of their own for this population group. Allow me to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a new idea. It is not something which this Government has snatched out of thin air. When the Union Council for Coloured Affairs was opened in 1961, the late Dr. Verwoerd envisaged the development of that council into a Parliament. This Government has been working on this over the years, so that we have now come to that stage where we can tell these people: Now you will have your own Parliament where you will be able to discuss and take decisions about your own affairs and your own interests. However, this new dispensation goes even further. It offers the Coloured people, as well as the Indians, the opportunity to participate in the election of a State President. We have always been aware of the fact that this is a problem area in our policy. However, the Government is now prepared to remove that problem area.

Now, however, hon. members make all kinds of accusations. The hon. member for Bryanston said that the State President was going to be a dictator under the new dispensation. I am very sorry to have to say that the hon. member paid very little attention to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. I want to give that hon. member some good advice: I think that hon. member should go and study the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech again. If that hon. member had to sit for an examination in political science at this stage, I think he would fail. He has no idea of these things. The hon. the Prime Minister explained to that hon. member this afternoon that when legislation is before the Cabinet, the final word, the final say, rests with the hon. the Prime Minister. This is the way things are at the moment, after all. If that hon. member now alleges that the State President is going to be a dictator under the new dispensation, surely he is alleging that—under the present dispensation—the hon. the Prime Minister is also a dictator. These are the powers which are being transferred to the State President. That hon. member cannot understand this and I ask myself how one can bring it home to him. That hon. member shows himself to be hopelessly stubborn and obstreperous and absolutely indifferent to the interests of South Africa, his fatherland.

I think it is time that he—I am referring to the hon. member for Bryanston—did some very hard thinking about his role in South African politics. He should ask himself the question: Am I making a contribution? Am I making a contribution in respect of the future of this country? Am I doing something constructive? I am sorry to have to say tonight that that hon. member is breaking things down and destroying them. He will have to decide for himself what the consequences will be.

Under this new dispensation we shall have to deal with matters of common interest. This, too, we have been developing over the years. The present hon. Prime Minister created the opportunities. He frequently described in this House how he had told the Coloured leaders that we should meet to discuss these matters. They agreed to do so on one basis and this was extended to a subsequent basis. Under this new dispensation we shall have the Council of Cabinets. Hon. members now say that they are surprised because this is something they have never heard of. They cannot understand it, but I want to tell them that they do not want to understand it. They do not want to understand it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the Coloureds will have to decide for themselves whether they accept the proposals or not. That is our attitude. We do not believe that they will allow themselves to be dictated to by any party—and not by the Whites either.

Nor by you.

Nor by us. Our attitude is that they have to decide about that themselves.

Then why are you trying to sow distrust?

We have a duty too. Our duty on this side of the House is to see to what extent the proposals are fair and practical for everybody. We have to fulfil that duty.

We had a very useful discussion in this House about the Government’s proposals this afternoon. It is right and fitting that the hon. the Prime Minister took a major part in this. However, a few questions of vital importance are still unanswered. Before we can give a proper judgment about whether the new dispensation will be fair and just for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, we have to know in the first place where exactly the distinction is going to lie between the “affairs of each individual group” and “national affairs of general importance”. Therefore, my first question to the Prime Minister is whether he will tell us which matters his Government regards as exclusively White matters, exclusively Coloured matters and exclusively Indian matters. That is the basic question, because if we know what the so-called intimate matters are which affect only the White population group, for instance, and not the interests of the Coloureds or the Indians, we will know at once what the matters of national importance comprise. Once that question has been answered, we shall arrive at those matters which are of national importance.

In the budget book before the House there are 41 Votes administered by 18 Ministers. The hon. the Prime Minister will have his own answers, but as far as I can see, there is virtually nothing here which only affects one population group to the absolute exclusion of the others. I mention a few Votes, i.e. Foreign Affairs, Defence—which was mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister himself—Railways, Airways, Posts and Telecommunications, Economic Affairs, the country’s finances, its trade relations, immigration, radio and television, Water Affairs, etc. One can go down the list in this way and one will find—and I believe hon. members of the Government will concede this—that all these matters are of general interest and that very little remains which is intimate and exclusive to one or other of the population groups. The concept of “government” comprises not only legislation, but three fundamental aspects, i.e. legislation, administration, and administration of justice. That is why we have three capital cities. The country is governed for seven months of the year without Parliament being in session and very often more happens in those seven months than in the five months Parliament is in session. The question now arises: According to the proposals of the Government, who is going to take care of the day-to-day administration of the Government in connection with matters of general importance? Will all the hon. Ministers in charge of matters of general importance be only Whites, as the position is now, or will there also be Coloured and Indian Ministers in charge of national matters of general importance right from the outset when the new constitution comes into operation? To my mind that is a very important question and we will be interested to hear the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply in this regard, because it is of cardinal importance. Therefore, we want to know what provision has been made for national affairs to be handled by Coloured and Indian Ministers as well. Will it also be possible to have Coloured or Asian Cabinet members for the important portfolios such as Foreign Affairs, Defence, Transport, Labour, Economic Affairs, etc.? If the hon. the Prime Minister says that that is not possible in terms of the proposals, I know that he will be honest enough to admit that in that case Whites, Coloureds and Indians will not have equal political status.

There is a final question which I should like to put to the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard: During the last election two of his Cabinet members delivered speeches on the basis of the proposals. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development said—

We see here the resurrection of the old homeland idea. [Interjections.] He spoke of a geo-political solution.

But he explained that here in Parliament.

The hon. the Minister of Defence can reply himself in a little while. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training said—

Therefore the group areas are going to form the basis of the whole plan. But we know that there is not another law on the Statute Book which the Coloureds and the Indians resent as strongly as this very Group Areas Act. That is the legislation about which they are the bitterest. [Interjections.] Hon. members can go and look at the writings of Prof. Erika Theron, who examined the matter. In all her writings she confirms that there is nothing which has caused so much bitterness, that there is nothing which is rejected as strongly by the Coloured people and the Asians as that very Group Areas Act.

If the Coloureds and the Indians want to accept the new dispensation that is their business and not ours, but does the Government really expect them to accept the group areas? They regard the Group Areas Act as the Act which tells them: You and your descendants have to live in a demarcated area for the rest of your lives just because you are Coloured. [Interjections.] That is being entrenched; that is the cornerstone of the proposals. According to the new proposed dispensation these provisions will be built into the constitution, which is not the case at the moment. It actually boils down to a tattered homeland. Does the hon. the Prime Minister think that the Coloureds and the Indians are going to accept the new dispensation on this basis? As I have said, it is important to us to hear what the replies of the Government are.

I now want to touch on a question which arises from this. In the censure debate the hon. the Prime Minister reacted quite vehemently to the accusation that everyone in South Africa does not have the vote. I do not want to argue about franchise now. If one uses the word “franchise” on its own, it does not mean local, regional, provincial or municipal franchise; it means the right to vote in national affairs. I do not want to argue about that now, however.

Why not?

That would require a debate of its own. In any case I have already said that the word “franchise” means franchise in national affairs if one uses it on its own. However, that is not the point I want to raise.

The Government will concede that there is one group in South Africa which has no franchise anywhere at all. That is the small group of South Africans of Chinese descent. They live in White residential areas, they go to White schools and they are being absorbed and integrated into the White sphere of life, without any resultant loss of “identity” on the part of anyone, least of all the Whites. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister pertinently what his intention is with this peaceful group of citizens in South Africa. Where, when and in what context is their South African citizenship going to be acknowledged and franchise extended to them as well?

While we are discussing the new constitutional plans, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the time has not come for us to stop talking of “White South Africa” in an exclusive sense in political life. This concept boils down to a denial of the place of the Coloureds and the Asians in South Africa. It has always been wrong of anyone to talk of “White South Africa” in a political sense, because there is no such thing. The people of colour see that as an insult and a relic of baasskap. I want to ask if we cannot stop using this concept. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked the hon. the Prime Minister a number of questions, questions to which he will receive answers in due course. I just want to tell the hon. member that the Government is working out a just dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Blacks in this country and he therefore does not have to be very concerned. The hon. member asked many questions tonight, questions to which he will receive replies, but I want to tell the hon. member, and I hope he will pass this on to his hon. leader, that they would do well to start replying now to the many questions which have come their way during this session. A considerable number of questions were put to them by this side of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister put questions to them and the hon. the Minister of Labour put questions to them in a previous debate. So many questions have been asked in this debate that we are actually unable to keep up with all of them any longer. However, we do not get any replies to them, and we are completely in the dark as regards the policy of the Official Opposition. If there is still anyone who has doubts after the Transkei’s step of breaking off diplomatic relations with South Africa, I want to tell them that South Africa has been placed irrevocably on the road to multinational development and separate Black States. There will be no deviation from that road. There is no turning back on that road and we will continue even if it is a thorn in the flesh of the Official Opposition, the Carters, the Youngs and the liberals in this country who pin their hope on a unitary state. The world will not come to an end because Prime Minister Matanzima has made an error of judgment.

Like a bird which has fallen out of its nest too soon, Prime Minister Matanzima will find that his wings are not yet strong enough to manage without that nest out of which he fell.

I want to tell the Official Opposition that they are flogging a dead horse if they have pinned their hopes on the Government’s policy of independent States having now suffered a blow. I want to tell him that other Black States will also become independent like the Transkei and Bophuthatswana, and that the NP’s great concept of self-governing Black States in South Africa will become reality. We will continue with this, because this is where a peaceful future for Whites, Coloureds and Blacks lies in this country. Without it, we are faced with a path fraught with revolution and bloodshed.

However, what we have been hearing from the Opposition in this House yesterday and today, has been the height of incapacity and lamentable failure. We saw an immature Opposition which is too small for great occasions such as we have had here; an Opposition which has been found wanting, leader and all, in a serious situation like this.

This Opposition is in the process of letting Parliament down. They are letting down democratic government in this country because good democracy needs a good opposition in its system, but the Opposition which we have, is not, however, of that calibre. There are people in the Press gallery who tell us that this is the leanest time they have ever experienced in Parliament, because nothing is happening. They say that this is due to the fact that the Opposition is not doing its job and opposing the Government, because it lacks imagination. The Pressmen ask us whether the NP would not prefer to hold the debates which it holds in its caucus chambers or at its group meetings, here in the House, so that they may have something to write about. This means that the Press is writing off this Opposition as part of the parliamentary machine. It is shocking that the situation should have reached this pass. One would be entitled to ask why the Opposition is acting like this. Firstly, they are acting like this because they are without a leader, divided, and crippled by in-fighting. However, there is apparently also a great deal of petulance and a preconceived set-up on their side. Their weakness and slackness is not quite as innocent as it seems. They have already decided that their salvation does not lie in this Parliament, but outside it. The heart of the Official Opposition is not in Parliament. They want to take extra-parliamentary action in order to force the Government in a specific direction. They are more and more intent on forming an extra-parliamentary Opposition. They are wagging their battle outside parliament to an increasing extent. That is why they are so ineffective here in Parliament.

The hon. member for Houghton told us as long ago as 1973, when she told the Sunday Express—

They know that they will get nowhere with their policy, which can only lead to eventual Black Government and Black dictatorship, because that policy is totally unacceptable. Their hope lies outside Parliament, by way of a national convention by means of which they hope to achieve their goals on the backs of the non-Whites.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the following question: If we take it that Black opinion triumphs at that national convention and that that Black opinion would mean majority rule, what would his attitude be then? Any other hon. member of the Official Opposition can give me the answer; perhaps the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. If Black opinion triumphs at that national convention, which means Black majority rule, what will those hon. members then tell those Black people? After all, they will not be able to oppose that Black opinion, because they have already said that all options will be open at that national convention. The Official Opposition is going to ring the death knell of the White man in this country if they are going to make the right to self-determination of the White man negotiable at that convention. I repeat: If they are going to make the White man’s right to self-determination negotiable at that national convention, they are going to ring the death knell of the Whites. We know that nothing but the right to self-determination of the Whites will be negotiated at that convention. We know they are prepared to crucify the Whites in this country, because to them, just as to the Carters, for the Whites in Southern Africa the time is up. They just do not have the courage to say it here. This is what is going to happen at that national convention of theirs: The Whites will be crucified there.

Mr. Chairman, an election was held in South Africa a few months ago and I do not want to elaborate on it too much; it’s outcome is well known. The voting public at large was asked very specifically to give clear expression to their feelings as to which party’s relations policy and which constitutional formulae are acceptable for South Africa. This was a very clear question. The outcome of the 1977 election, which, by the way, was one of the NP’s greatest triumphs, which was a personal achievement for the hon. the Prime Minister, and the NP’s greatest success since 1948, proved without question that the PFP’s plea for a unitary community was unrealistic and that it was rejected. One thing became very clear. This is that the population of South Africa was not prepared to give up their right to self-determination. Before I come back to the hon. Opposition, I just want to refer briefly to the matter which was replied to very fully by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. This is the question in connection with the new constitutional development and dispensation for Whites and Coloureds and for the Asians as well. One important aspect which this new viewpoint of the NP emphasizes, is that we are seeking orderly co-operation among the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians. And I want to emphasize that it is orderly co-operation which we are seeking. It is very clear to us that what the hon. Opposition is involved in, will ultimately create a paradise in South Africa—should their plans be fulfilled—a paradise in which there will be only snakes and no apples; a paradise of chaos and problems. [Interjections.]

During the debate on the effect of constitutional changes on Parliament, the hon. the Minister of Defence said what the Government envisages for its policy over the next 12 months as regards a new constitutional dispensation for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians. The hon. the Minister said, inter alia, that the Government envisaged further discussions with the majority party, opposition parties and independent members of the CRC.

The Government therefore envisages discussions with all the relevant bodies in the Coloured community, as well as with the S.A. Indian Council. The hon. the Minister of Defence went on to say that the Government decided to appoint a joint select committee of the Senate and the House of Assembly as soon as measures were ready to be investigated.

In conclusion, the hon. the Minister of Defence said in connection with this matter that the Cabinet had decided to appoint two committees to work out more particulars as regards the implementation of the new plan, financial aspects and internal affairs.

These things were stated very clearly. However, if one wants to be stubborn and stupid, one will continue to ask questions, and I am sure that the PFP could keep us busy for days with stupid questions. They will be provided with good answers, but they will ask the same stupid questions again tomorrow or next month, only in an even more stupid way.

I must say that the first impression I had of the PFP is that they, more than anyone else, sell stability and order in South Africa down the river. [Interjections.] I say once again that the PFP, more than anyone else, sell stability and order in our country down the river. Furthermore, I want to say that the PFP either imitate the World Council of Churches, or they put words in their mouth.

You are talking the biggest lot of nonsense I have ever heard!

I just want to quote one or two things which, to us of course, contain well-known statements by these people. I have wondered whether the PFP puts words in the mouth of the World Council of Churches or whether they are echoing their views. I shall just read one or two examples of well-known pronouncements.

You are in any case talking the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, let me quote one example—

Forcibly removed? The Government used persuasion, and every time a Black man has been resettled, he has gone to live in better conditions than before; every time, without exception. The World Council of Churches goes on to say—and I think the PFP says so too—

The PFP has already used this expression.

That is maliciously untrue!

[Inaudible.]

The PFP sell of stability and peace in South Africa down the river. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the policy of the Official Opposition misleads people. The PFP is misleading the Whites. The PFP has two pronouncements as regards the future of the Whites. On one occasion the hon. member for Yeoville wrote an article in the Sunday Times. He said he believed in “partition”. “Partition” is his solution. He wrote a long article about it and said that he supported the idea of “partition” as a result of circumstances in South Africa. I quote what he said—

You are the people who are dividing up South Africa.

Wait a minute. I am talking about the hon. member for Yeoville. Just give me a chance to finish the sentence. I quote further—

Then the hon. member for Yeoville says the following—

Then the newspapers, the Financial Gazette, entered the scene. A statement was made by Mrs. Suzman on 19.8.77, and I quote—

Hon. members will remember that after Mr. Schwarz had written this article, the top management of his party took him to task and that is why Harry Schwarz has not spoken about this matter again. The Financial Gazette now asks Mrs. Suzman—

The letters “H.S.” appear next to the reply. This stands for “Helen Suzman”. I quote her reply—

This is very clear language. Just after that, on 31.8.77, The Argus came on the scheme. The hon. Opposition makes so many statements. After every speech they make a statement in every newspaper. This is how we know them. Mrs. Suzman says the following in The Argus—

I say that they are lying to the Whites here.

Yes, that’s it, Piet! Now you are telling the truth.

Order! The hon. member must please withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, which words?

The words “lying to”. You said they were lying to the Whites.

Mr. Chairman, they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the Whites.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “lying to”.

I withdraw them and say that they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the Whites.

Go back to your ballet school!

What is the hon. member for Groote Schuur saying? I wonder if he is repudiating Mr. Harry Schwarz.

Just you go back to your ballet school!

I wonder whether he will say that Mr. Harry Schwarz spoke incorrectly. While I am thinking of that, I want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet answered my question, and it is an important question to me. They talk about an “open society”. Who is going to swim in the Sea Point swimming bath with him?

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Groote Schuur must contain himself.

I want to agree with a colleague on my side who said that so many questions are asked, but that the Opposition does not come up with the answers. However, when they speak about an “open society” and “full citizenship”, they owe us two answers. In an “open society”, who can swim in the hon. member for Sea Point’s swimming bath? Does he agree with what the hon. Chief Whip said, when he said that the Sea Point swimming bath is going to be open to all races if they are in power?

All swimming baths.

All swimming baths. Thank you. Secondly: What do they understand by “full citizenship”? What I understand by it, is that all people above a certain age, irrespective of race or colour, can have the franchise in a unitary State. Is this so? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there are certain members who spoke on that side of the House. Firstly there was the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. In a very pertinent phrase he indicated the mood of members on that side of the House by saying that, despite what has been happening in Southern Africa in the last couple of days, “daar sal geen omdraai wees nie” on the part of that hon. Government—therefore no change, business as usual, despite the fact that all the evidence is there for us to see that the Government and its policies have been declared bankrupt from a number of sources. [Interjections.]

By whom?

By Transkei, by the urban Blacks and by the Coloureds. Even the White people in this country themselves are beginning to wonder whether they can trust the Government with their own security.

Who are the White people who say that?

I will explain in the course of my speech. The hon. member for Worcester also gave a demonstration of what has been going on here most of today and yesterday. In a typical egg-dance, if he will forgive the phrase, the hon. member for Worcester told us about the great election victory of November last year, forgetting of course that the Government has less than 10% of the mandate in South Africa. [Interjections.] There is one point I wish to dismiss immediately which the hon. member made. He referred to the World Council of Churches and suggested that this party was following in their footsteps or siding with them. I want to deny that emphatically.

Then the hon. member also referred to partition.

Watch out! Harry has just entered the House.

If one reads the history of South Africa, one will find that in the early ’twenties—1922 to be specific—a number of Black writers warned South Africa and the Government of the day …

Is this a history lesson?

Yes, because you will never learn unless you listen to what history has to teach us.

I know history, thank you.

At that time a distinguished writer and Black leader said that if the White South Africans continued to talk about “South Africa for the European”, as it then went, we should not be surprised if the Black man or African, which was the term he used, begins to talk about “South Africa for the African”. He went on to say …

You had better give the reference too.

… that either the Whites and Blacks found themselves in the country or there would have to be partition. Those were his words as long ago as that. However, the Whites of South Africa refused to move in that direction and decided to talk about a so-called White South Africa, pushing as many Black people as possible outside of that particular area socially, economically and politically.

One of the truths the Government has got to accept is that there is no such thing as a White South Africa. Let me ask the hon. the Minister of Transport a question: If over the Easter weekend one travelled between Cape Town and Ceres and Prince Alfred Hamlet, was it White South Africa one saw? The streets were thronged with Coloured people. Coloured South Africans walk down the streets of Cape Town and Johannesburg.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with it at all, except …

Then why are you crying?

… the perception of South Africa by that side of the House, which suggests that the only solution can be based on the fact that there is a so-called White South Africa. As long as we believe that, we shall never find a solution to this conflict which is inherent in our society right now.

Despite the fact that the child of this Government, Transkei, has turned around and said that it wants nothing to do with this country and breaks diplomatic relations with it, in speech after speech the hon. members in the benches opposite go on as if nothing has happened. However, what has happened in Transkei has incredible and enormous implications for every one of us in this country. The developments that could take place there and the consequences that could flow from that could put in jeopardy every one of us in the House and every person in South Africa. That is how serious it is. There seems to be very little understanding, awareness or sense of urgency on that side of the House concerning the situation facing South Africa on every side. They will say I am a prophet of doom. There is only one thing worse than being a prophet of doom and that is being a false prophet, the prophet who goes around saying “peace, peace” where there is no peace—and there is no peace in South Africa right now. Until such time as we have a viable solution which involves all the people of this land, there will be no peace, no matter how hard we try and no matter how good our intentions are. [Interjections.] I recall sitting in this House listening to speeches from that side of the House when we were debating the Bill which provided for the independence of the Transkei. I remember speaker after speaker on the Government benches describing the birth of the nation of Transkei in the most lyrical terms. This was the first fruit of Nationalist policy. This was going to demonstrate to the world that this policy had succeeded at last. Look what is happening now. [Interjections.]

They are still free and independent.

Of course they are, but it does not solve our problems.

We must not solve it. They must solve their own problems.

Any Government has a policy which seeks to solve its problems and the fact of the matter is that this is no answer. Independence has proved to be no answer to the basic problems of South Africa. That is what it is all about.

Do you not want them to act independently?

Of course I want them to. The fact remains, however, that I also want security in my own land. The Nationalist policies show no signs of security for anyone. If one looks at the homelands policy and if one looks at leader after leader one sees here too—not only in the independent Transkei and perhaps in Bophuthatswana, but also in homeland after homeland—evidence that there is direct rejection of that Government’s policy.

One can also look at the Coloured and Indian proposals. I must state that I appreciated the hon. the Prime Minister’s willingness and readiness to answer and to be in debate with us earlier tonight.

Why do you not for a change answer our questions?

They will be … [Interjections.] However, I must make the point that I appreciated his response. When the hon. the Prime Minister replied to one particular question, he used an illustration. I want to ask across the floor of the House if he would respond in like manner when he wants to. The question is the following: If, for example, the Coloured, the White and the Indian representatives are sitting together in the Cabinet Council and a decision is taken by the Coloured and Indian or Asian people of South Africa that they are going to move away from the Immorality Act, what happens then?

Now you are asking a stupid question.

No, it is a very good question; make no mistake. Not only are there people on that side of the House who want to do exactly the same thing, but are not allowed to, but the Coloured and Asian people of South Africa have said so again and again. I have just mentioned one example. What is going to happen if they want to repeal that Act?

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that his policies and the new constitutional proposals are entrenching and enshrining conflict rather than resolving conflict I believe they are actually going to heighten conflict. When people come together and they are told that they are going to have an opportunity to have jurisdiction over their own areas, whatever that may mean, and then, when they actually want to introduce legislation or want to repeal legislation which directly affects them, they find that they cannot, I believe, conflict will be heightened. If one looks at the proposals, one word can sum them up and that is “dictatorship”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands has told us that they accept as a policy that there is no longer such a tiling as a White South Africa. This is their whole philosophy of life. They accept that South Africa consists of numerous peoples and that all those peoples should be equal. We fought them on that aspect during the last election and this is now continuing here during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. The PFP finds itself in an intolerable position at the moment. The nation outside, and we here in the House, ask them what their policy is, but they simply sit there looking dumbfounded when we put this question to them. They are absolutely dumbstruck and we receive no answer or policy statement from them. There the great Agitofel of the PFP is sitting, the one who framed their policy for them. He is sitting in their party today because they gave him a safe seat, that of Johannesburg North. The hon. member for Johannesburg North framed the policy of the PFP and one expected him to take an opportunity such as this to give a clear exposition of PFP policy in this House. After all, he is the great philosopher amongst them. But he is sitting there, not saying a word. He has not yet participated in the debate, and we are waiting for his participation so that he can put the policy of the PFP.

We are waiting for your policy.

During the past election we as the National Party made our policy clear to the voting public. The new dispensation was presented to the voters and explained to them. However, we had no explanation from the PFP about their policy. When we raised this matter, they said that we should bear in mind that they are still a young party and that they still have to work at a policy. Why do they not work out that policy and tell us what it entails? During the past election the PFP made so many statements that we cannot quite understand everything. We had a policy statement from the PFP which stated that they advocate full civil rights for all South Africans without discrimination based on race and colour in South Africa. The only conclusion which anyone could draw from that is that when one grants full civil rights to anyone in South Africa, it must be accompanied by equal franchise in South Africa. In other words, it must mean only one thing, and that is “one man, one vote”. At a meeting in Pretoria Sir De Villiers Graaff proved the statement that this policy of the PFP can result in only one thing, viz. “one man, one vote”. He said, inter alia: “The PFP stands for full integration and Black majority rule at all levels.” The exleader of the Official Opposition went on to say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and seven of his supporters had joined the PFP. I quote his words: “Ek kan aan u sê dat Japie en sy trawante die Progressiewe beleid hoek, lyn, lood, sinker en aas—die lot—ingesluit het.” We have to accept that Sir de Villiers Graaff knows very well which type of bait the hon. member for Bezuidenhout likes and would therefore gladly swallow. We conclude and accept that the bait which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout swallowed is the policy of that party, the policy of “one man, one vote” in South Africa.

We have also heard from others in that party that this is their policy. We heard this from the hon. member for Groote Schuur, someone whom we got to know in the Other Place. In the Other Place we conducted a debate on the same matter, i.e. that the policy of the PFP is headed for a general policy of “one man, one vote”. In that debate the hon. member for Groote Schuur said quite frankly that the eventual result of their policy would be “one man, one vote” …

I never said that.

… and majority rule in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member did say that. He also said that in an interview with the Citizen. In that interview he said—

That is right.

Yes, but the report goes on to say—

In other words, the hon. member admitted that the policy of the PFP would eventually, according to the system of “one man, one vote”, result in a Black majority government in South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton has also been quoted frequently as far as her remarks with regard to this matter are concerned, especially what she said in Australia. One of the candidates of the PFP also said this during the past election. Mr. Johan Buys, the PFP candidate in Umhlanga, said during the past election—

I now want to know from the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Groote Schuur whether they stand by their statement that the policy of the PFP will eventually result in “one man, one vote”. If the hon. member for Groote Schuur has any conviction in this regard, he can rise in the House and say so. I think he has the courage of his convictions, for in the Other Place he did have the courage to tell us that he admits that the policy of the PFP would lead to “one man, one vote”. He also said that he has no objection to the White man moving in that direction. He went on to say that he advocated an open society and would have no objection if a non-White bought property in a White area and lived there. I want to know whether the hon. member still stands by that statement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to prove in the course of my speech that the Official Opposition and the rightist Opposition in South Africa are birds of a feather. I want to begin by saying that if one analyses the results of the recent election, one can, although it is not always easy, regard it with a degree of objectivity. For a practical politician however, it is certainly possible to glean certain irrefutable facts from it, facts which cannot be argued away.

The Official Opposition emerged from the election weaker than they were before the election. They are sitting in this House this year with 17 members while they had 18 seats before the election. That might sound, and be, insignificant, but they are sitting here proudly in this House because they are the Official Opposition. I believe it is merely a question of luck and a bit of grace which have put them in this position. It has been said on occasion—I should like to repeat it— that the PFP as well as the HNP have become so lost in South African politics that they have already met each other. The Progs have moved so far to the left and the HNP so far to the right that by now they have met. The hon. member for Bryanston once again illustrated this very clearly tonight when he used exactly the same words the Herstigtes use when they talk about this new dispensation, and links sharing of power and dictatorship. They want to pair these two concepts. Jaap Marais and the hon. member for Bryanston effectively succeed in doing this.

There are certain ways in which this can be done. I believe the Official Opposition has the right, as the Opposition, to put their case within and outside this House and to criticize the Government. There are, however, certain ways in which this should be done. Even in politics there is one very important aspects which may not be lost sight of in the process, and that is that in one’s effort to destroy the Government one may never harm South Africa. South Africa, our fatherland and our only home, must remain intact in this process. For that reason one may not use confrontation politics and neither may one, in one’s political search for sticks with which to beat the Government, confront oneself and one’s party with wichedness to such an extent that South Africa is harmed.

In this whole effort to determine strategy, especially during an election campaign, all justified moves are possible and bitter attacks can be launched on the Government. If however, one deliberately tries to harm one’s country and to bring about its downfall, one should ask oneself whether, as a politician and a political party, one is putting South Africa first, above all else. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition showed us yesterday that he is unable to do that.

The hon. member for Parktown was an excellent example of that when he said, in his capacity as one of the chief executives of his powerful empire, that if he were a foreigner, he would not have invested in South Africa at this stage. He succeeded in trampling South Africa, which is also his and his party’s fatherland, in the mud. His pathetic excuse did not undo the harm. South Africa will reap the bitter fruits of this statement of his for a long time to come.

In the second place, we have to determine whether the PFP is honest towards the electorate of South Africa. It is a fact that they were elected to this House by Whites. If we had to indicate the seats which they represent here on the map, we should find it very difficult to do, because it will only be two small spots and a dot. One small spot in Cape Town, one in Johannesburg and a small dot in Durban. We should also look at the position with regard to the majorities by which they have been sent to this House. Of the 17 hon. members of the PFP, there are seven of them sitting in this House who have been elected to this House with a majority of fewer than 500 votes.

You represent 8% of South Africa.

What do you represent? Absolutely nothing.

41% of them are here with a majority of fewer than 500 votes. Then one has to ask oneself: What is the position? They have written off the Whites as their voters; to them the Whites in South Africa have become secondary. In fact, statements made in the past by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Groote Schuur have already proved this. I refer to just one comment the hon. member for Houghton made during a television interview, when she said—

That is what they offer the White voters of South Africa.

The HNP, too, follows this same strategy, except that they aim their vendetta at the person of the hon. the Prime Minister. This is the same type of politics used by the PFP and the greater part of the English language Press, namely to attack the Afrikaner and thereby to harm the NP. I want to demonstrate this briefly by mentioning two examples of what has happened recently. On 10 October last year a Kruger festival was celebrated in Pretoria. This is officially celebrated every year, but last year there were posters in the streets of Pretoria beforehand which also advertised a Kruger festival as follows—

I would not have argued about that. They are free to have their Kruger festivals on their own if they wish, but what happened on that day? On that same day, at the same time, the Gen. Hertzog monument was unveiled by the hon. the Prime Minister. They decided to have a separate Kruger festival. I do not want to fight about that either, but I want to ask them whether White nationalisms …

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.