Mr. Speaker, the budget which is before us has undoubtedly been very well received, with the single exception, I think, of the Opposition parties. That support is certainly a matter for appreciation on my part. I have a number of comments here from organized industry and trade, e.g. by the Chamber of Mines, people in agriculture, a number of individual economists, leading businessmen, and others. All these, I think, add up to a very powerful commendation of the budget. Certain newspapers, in their zeal to mix politics with economics, have not fared nearly so well in their assessments. I think one outstanding example is that of The Cape Times, which appeared the next day with a screaming headline: “Siege budget”. If one thinks of it that our defence appropriation, as a proportion of the gross domestic product, is just over 4%, to talk then of this as a “siege budget” is completely ridiculous.

The Daily News said the budget was a gamble. Precisely why it is a gamble I have not yet discovered. It is certainly a budget which, I can assure the House, has been extremely carefully put together. There has been no tendency anywhere to gamble on a matter as important as this. Of course, I do think that the hon. member for Yeoville and quite a number of Opposition speakers completely missed the whole design and fabric of the budget, because, as I say, it was extremely carefully, consistently and realistically put together. They have ignored completely, for example, the state of the so-called world economy. They have ignored the fact that the world in which we live is a world of extremely high inflation and a world of extremely low economic growth. Some of the most powerful economies have until recently been struggling to have a positive growth rate at all. There are huge payments deficits on the part of the once powerful industrial countries, let alone the Third World countries, which are in a state of economic stagnation.

The gold price, although by no means as low as some people imagine, has nevertheless fallen from the very high levels of a year ago, and the world is of course also afflicted with extremely high interest rates, which are in fact unprecedentedly high, and that in the countries which are our main trading partners today. All these things have a very direct bearing on a document such as a budget.

Opposition speakers seemed to ignore completely the part appropriation of earlier this year. This budget must obviously be read in close conjunction with that part appropriation, which had to provide for at least seven months’ financing of the Government’s activities. The hon. member for Malmesbury and the hon. member for Smithfield, among others, saw these things very clearly and also mentioned them. I think the hon. member for Yeoville’s initial outburst on the afternoon of my budget speech—he perhaps became somewhat impatient having to listen for quite a long time to my speech—was a good example of a politician trying to play to the gallery and finding himself rather out of his depth.

[Inaudible.]

One should look at the incredible inconsistency of their arguments. Let us sum them up. First of all, the argument right through is that Government expenditure must be increased, that more must be spent on housing, on education, on subsidies, on Public Service salaries, on pensions, on health, etc. It runs right through all their speeches. The hon. member for Yeoville started it …

We want at least a proper rearrangement of priorities.

Hon. members opposite say Government expenditure must be increased, but at the same time taxes must be reduced. General sales tax on foodstuffs, says my hon. friend, must be abolished. [Interjections.] There must be still bigger income tax concessions, says the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. In other words, there must be lower tax rates in order to counter the so-called fiscal drag, despite what has been done in this direction during the last two years, on a scale unprecedented in our experience. That process, however, has to go further, which means a big concession in tax revenue. Then, they also say that working married women must be taxed seperately, which will mean a loss of hundreds of millions of rand in one year. And then they say that interest rates are far too high and must be brought down. After all these things, however—Government expenditure up, taxes down, and interest rates down—they maintain that we must fight inflation. Now, how does one put these things together? I suggest that a very ordinary schoolboy or a first year student of economics would make a better job of it than that.

Why do you not get him them? [Interjections.]

I repeatedly asked, as I listened to all these speeches, by how much Government spending on all these things should be increased and in what way. There was no answer. Let us take a simple exercise. Let us take the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions. By what amount must we increase our expenditure on health, welfare and pensions? Shall we say R40 million? What additional amount must be spent on housing? There has been so much talk about housing. Must it be R50 million, R80 million or R100 million? Let us say R100 million. Let us then take education. If the amount spent on housing goes up by R100 million, then the amount to be spent on education will also have to be increased by R100 million. Hon. members of the Opposition say that the increase in the price of bread should not have been allowed; so subsidies would have had to be increased by at least R70 million to R75 million. I think it will be R75 million when the calculations are finally made. Then we come to Public Service salaries and conditions of service. Already the biggest amount by far in our history has been allowed in one year, viz. R745 million. What must this amount be? Must it be another R100 million to be significant? Let us now take civil and social pensions. What shall we allow here? Say R40 million. That will bring the additional amount to R450 million, or one could make it R400 million if hon. members feel I am going too high. How do we finance it? Must we cut defence? Must we cut basic infrastructure?

Cut apartheid.

Must we cut expenditure on roads, hospitals, bridges and harbours?

Why do you not tell us what apartheid costs?

I have already pointed out that if one leaves defence spending out, then all the other Votes of this budget, taken together, show an increased expenditure of 14,5%, which is virtually exactly equal to the inflation rate as measured up to the end of June this year.

But not today.

But I cannot raise taxes because hon. members opposite say I must reduce them. Where and by how much? I suggest that if one weighs up all the extra amounts which hon. members opposite say I must increase expenditure by, that is, by some R400 million, and that the tax concessions I have set out will probably cost at least R600 million, it means I must find R1 000 million in higher expenditures and bigger tax reductions. How? There is only one way left and that is, of course, to borrow more money. Must I borrow it abroad? I have already allowed for R350 million abroad. Must I borrow it at home? I have already said that with the obligation on the Government to redeem the public debt as it falls due throughout the year, we are having to find a substantial amount. In addition, as I have already said in the budget, we are having to make extra provision for that purpose of over R200 million. Must I further increase that amount? What then will the effect be on interest rates? Interest rates will rise substantially and inflation will go through the roof.

This is the sort of untenable position one finds if one follows the official Opposition’s approach. I ask anybody to tell me what is wrong with the reasoning I have given in commenting on the Opposition’s arguments against this budget. In their haste to talk politics they have given no credit for far-reaching tax reform measures, a substantial improvement in export incentive measures, the in-built stability of the budget, unprecedented financial aid for flood and drought relief, on the biggest scale ever, unprecedented improvement in salaries, pensions and other conditions in the Public Service, and so I can go on listing all these positive elements.

They seize on the money supply and say that it has increased too much. Of course it has increased too much. It is a common disease right throughout the world. But I yet have to hear from one hon. member of the Opposition how one can satisfactorily handle a situation where in one year the revenue received from the sale of our most important export item, viz. gold, rose from R6 billion in 1979 to R10 billion in 1980, an increase of R4 billion on R6 billion in one year. It is an enormous increase in the money supply. It is unprecedented in any country, relative to its economic size, throughout the world and unprecedented in our experience. In the circumstances I suggest we have not done quite as badly as some of our critics make out. If one looks at the latest position since April and one takes into consideration the very strong measures taken by the Reserve Bank in putting up interest rates, to make more effective use of open-market operations and all the other devices they are employing, the money supply has come much more effectively under control.

As the Stabilization Account is the only reserve account we have, I put R1 240 million into that account in the course of the year. The hon. member for Yeoville says this amount was quite arbitrary, but this is not so. First of all, one has to determine what one can afford and, secondly, one has to determine what it is needed for. It was, of course, needed to finance the procurement of a whole range of fundamental strategic commodities and materials. Had we not done that, we would have had real trouble in the country today. So there was nothing arbitrary about it; it was carefully planned. Last year, when the Browne Committee report had hardly reached our desks—indeed, I believe on the day it was tabled—the hon. member for Yeoville got up and attacked and discounted it. He, as it were, swept it from his presence. [Interjections.] His views are on record, Sir. I told him that he should be more careful because this was a much better document and more thorough study than he could at that time have imagined. We have been studying this report and, in close consultation with local authorities, the United Municipal Executive and other interested parties, we have introduced extremely effective machinery that, indeed, is already operating. I should at this point like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, and his team under Mr. Croeser, the Chief Director of Finance, for the very fine work they are doing in assisting local authorities with some of their genuine financial problems. Nevertheless, in this connection I would like to say that it is not simply a question of finding extra income or revenue for the local authorities but, as the Browne Committee stressed, it is also a question of economising. I hope therefore that there will be the same close attention given to that side of the coin as has been given to the improvement in revenue opportunities. Only a few days ago I heard of a comparatively small municipality which recently had raised its salaries by 12½% and said that within a few months, at the end of the year, it would raise salaries by another 5%. In my view 17½% is excessive, and I hope that local authorities will not think that because we are now trying our utmost to put their finances on a better basis, this is the time for them to go right out of line and offer these very high salaries. I hope they will pay close attention to that aspect. However, the machinery for proper co-ordination among the different levels of government in this important field is taking shape and I am sure it will be used to good effect.

Talking about the way the budget was received, I thought the House might be interested in the views expressed by economists. I have examples here of economists enthusing on the budget. Then there is Mr. Jan Cronjé of the Consumer Council, who says that he sighed with relief when he read the budget and also had some extremely nice things to say, for instance—

I have many other favourable comments, Mr. Oppenheimer, in his chairman’s speech at the annual general meeting of Anglo American recently, said the following, as a matter of interest—

I thought this might be of interest to hon. members because we certainly do not hear those sentiments being expressed by the hon. Opposition.

I also have seen very constructive assessments by the Financial Mail, by Finance Week and a number of other authorities, but I shall leave that matter there.

*I should now like to refer more specifically to the criticism from the ranks of the Opposition on my handling of the budget, and I want to start with the attack launched on me out of the blue by the hon. member for Durban Point.

†The hon. member for some reason best known to himself, immediately tackled me for having queried something he had said in February 1980. He had said that there would be a huge bonanza of R3 billion in the budget, to which I had said that that was nonsense. I have here the Hansard of 5 February 1980. In referring to me he said (col. 134)—

Those are his words. I said that it was nonsense. [Interjections.] That hon. member was obviously referring to the financial year 1979-’80. That will become quite clear as I quote further what was said—

The budget was to be introduced at the end of March 1980, whereas this altercation took place on 5 February. When the budget was introduced at the end of March 1980, that would be the time when I would say how the financial year 1979-’80 had closed off on 31 March, the date the hon. member was referring to when he said: “We will see when the budget is introduced”. Well, what did we see? We saw, in fact, that gold-mining taxation was budgeted at a figure of R666 million and leases at a figure of R209 million, giving a total of R875 million. The actual increase was, for gold-mining taxation, a figure of R1 167 million and for leases a figure of R334 million, giving a total of R1 501 million. That gave an excess, over the budgeted figure, of R626 million.

And the R3 000 million this year?

We are not talking about this year. That hon. member said twice what he was referring to. He was talking on 5 February 1980, and what was referred to then could not have related to a bonanza occurring this year. The hon. member said very clearly: “We will see when the budget is introduced.” That was said on 5 February 1980, and the budget was introduced at the end of March of that year. How could there be anything to compare the budgeted figure in that budget with that for the year after that? I could not possibly have been referring to that, and neither was he. He should read his Hansard.

Did you get R3 800 million this year?

The hon. member must not try to confuse things. I am dealing with 5 February 1980 and the figures applicable then. That is what he tackled me on.

Did you get R3 800 million extra in the financial year 1980-’81?

That is not what the hon. member said. That is being incredibly wise after the event. That is my point. I shall, however, leave the matter at that. If the hon. member wants to introduce such an unpleasant note at the beginning of his speech, at least he should be very clear about his facts.

I should like to raise three matters which I referred to in my budget speech. The first relates to incentive allowances, which I should like to refer to for clarification. In my statement on the budget I sounded a note of warning. I quote (Hansard, August 1981, col. 672)—

I feel that it is advisable to amplify this by pointing out that the practices in question have also arisen in regard to plant and equipment sold by some financial institutions under agreements tailored to achieve similar results to those obtained in respect of leases. It is my intention to propose amendments to the Income Tax Act which will have the effect of achieving, as far as possible, neutrality as to the basis on which the amounts of the allowances are calculated, whatever the form of the transaction may be and regardless of whether the allowances are claimed by the taxpayer who purchases the plant or equipment, or by the lessor from whom the plant or equipment is hired. It is furthermore proposed that the amendments in question should take effect as from today.

As far as undistributed profits tax is concerned, I should like to state that it is the intention that the increased ploughback allowance to public companies in respect of their dividend income, i.e. the increase from 35% to 50% which I mentioned in the budget speech, should come into operation with effect from years of assessment of such companies ending on or after 1 April 1981. I just wanted to clarify that point.

*I should also like to say something about new Treasury issues, and in this connection I refer to my announcement in the budget speech about the closing of the subscription lists of the present series of Treasury and National Defence Bonds and the issuing of new series in their place. I feel it will be possible for the Treasury to begin marketing the new series at an earlier date than was initially envisaged, viz. on 15 September. For this reason it has been decided to close the present series on 31 August. The conditions applicable to the new series will differ in some respects from those of the current series. There are a few important differences. As regards interest rates provision is now made for adjustment of interest rates to changing market conditions, without closing the existing issues and opening new issue lists. This will mean that the Treasury will be able to pay a more market-related rate and that interest rates earned by investors on their subscriptions can be adjusted more frequently to other levels. I have decided that from 15 September 1981 the interest rates on subscriptions will be 8,75% on tax-free Treasury Bonds and 11% on new National Defence Bonds. The period will be indefinite with the proviso that investors have the option of redeeming their investments at any time after 12 months after the date of investment or after a change in interest rate, and that if deemed necessary, an expiry date can be set on which all investments in a series will be repayable. In respect of Treasury bonds only, i.e. those on which tax-free interest of 8,75% is paid, a new, high maximum amount is being laid down, namely R60 000 per taxpayer, including investment in any other previous series of Treasury bonds. The present maximum amount for all series of tax-free Treasury bonds is R40 000 per taxpayer, and the increase to R60 000 ought to be attractive, especially for persons in the higher income tax brackets. I trust that these adjustments, in both series, will contribute to realizing the aim of my budget speech, namely to finance increased expenditure on a non-inflationary basis as far as possible.

May I ask you a question?

Sir, I wonder if the hon. member for Yeoville can just give me a chance.

I just want you to clarify whether there is a bonus on the defence bonds.

No, the new basis as I have now given it, will apply.

Without a bonus.

A much more subtle position applies here and adjustments can therefore be made much more rapidly.

Therefore there will be no more bonuses.

I now come to the ad valorem excise duty. When I introduced the budget here on 12 August we were still considering the possible implications of the GATT agreement and whether it would be possible to exclude any items from it. That investigation was still in progress. Unfortunately therefore I could not say anything about it in my budget speech. Two days later a recommendation was made to me in the light of that investigation to the effect that the duty on items such as toothpaste, shaving cream and baby powder could be abolished without there being any infringement of the GATT agreement. I immediately accepted that recommendation and I am pleased to be able to announce that this decision has been taken. A draft notice to exempt these products from the ad valorem customs and excise duty with retrospective effect to 12 August 1981 has been approved and signed and will appear in the Government Gazette as soon as possible. It gives me pleasure to be able to announce this small concession.

I should now like to discuss other matters. I have great appreciation for the message which the President of the South African Agricultural Union, Mr. Jaap Wilkens, sent to me. He said—

and so on. I greatly appreciate this kind message.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to announce that in consequence of the drought conditions which have been experienced for a number of years in the districts of Calvinia, Carnarvon, Fraserburg, Gordonia, Pofadder, Loeriesfontein, Brandvlei, Williston and Bushman land, these areas have now been declared extreme emergency drought-stricken areas. On the recommendation of the Jacobs Committee, aid to these areas has been increased considerably. Details of this will be given today in a Press release. For this purpose a further sum of R5 million will be made available.

As regards the deciduous fruit industry, in which I know problems exist, I shall only say that for the 1980-’81 financial year a sum of R5,4 million has been given in indirect aid to the deciduous fruit industry and allied industries to help them overcome their problems. It has also been recently approved that R9 million in indirect aid, interest subsidies and a price stabilization be granted to deciduous fruit and pineapple farmers. A sum of R3 million of this amount will have to come from the additional appropriation for 1981-’82 while the remaining R6 million will come from the next budget. Details have already been worked out and fruit farmers will be notified shortly. The aid is in respect of the farmers’ forthcoming crop, part of which will only be harvested during the next financial year.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp raised the question of export subsidies for farmers. I wish to explain to him that there are two types of incentives: Those granted in terms of section 11bis and administered by the Commissioner for Revenue and those envisaged in terms of the extended export promotion scheme published in Gazette No. 7279 of 31 October 1980 and administered by the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. Farmers also have a share in the former scheme whereas the latter scheme has not yet been finalized and there are certain aspects which are still receiving further consideration. The request by the hon. member will be borne in mind when a final decision is taken, which should be in the near future.

†As far as the question of Land Bank loans against the security of Government stock is concerned—to which I referred briefly in my budget speech as “consolidation paper”—the hon. member for Mooi River raised certain aspects, inter alia, regarding the basis of valuation of Government stock for Land Bank loan purposes as envisaged in legislation to be introduced this session. The value of the Government stock will be in fact determined on a set basis through the use of genuinely accepted formulae which take account of ruling long-term interest rates and the unexpired life of such stock. Special circumstances may, however, influence the Land Bank Board to place a higher than ruling market value on stock in certain cases and it is therefore not in the interests of the applicant stockholders that the Land Bank Board should be tied down to any prescribed basis of valuation of such securities as the hon. member, I think, was suggesting. Whatever value is placed on the stock, the cedent will not suffer any capital loss as the stock will be returned to him on repayment of the debt. I felt that I should just clarify that issue.

*I come now to the question of a rebate or possible rebate in the excise duty on matured wine spirits, the so-called pot still brandy, or rebate brandy as it is frequently called. In this connection the position is that the Board of Trade and Industries submitted a report on this matter shortly before the budget in which they made certain recommendations. We in the Department of Finance were not able to study the report in depth before the budget. We are now investigating it thoroughly, however, and we have sympathy for the problems experienced in this connection. I shall make an announcement on this matter as soon as possible. [Interjections.]

As we are now discussing wine spirits and related matters I wish to refer briefly to the increase in excise duty on certain beverages, and on wine in particular. It will be remembered that as regards natural or unfortified wine there is no increase and the duty rate remains 3c per litre. Recently there were Press reports on this matter and in one of these the KWV mentioned the fact that the excise duty on brandy had been increased by 23,6%. This is true. If one looks at the excise duty one finds that this is the position. However, I wish to refer to a few figures in this connection. The maximum consumer price—that is per bottle, the bar price as it is called—was R5,67 before the increase in excise duty. The increase was 2c per tot. If one assumes there are 30 tots per bottle this means an increase of 60c per bottle. This will then give a consumer or bar price per bottle of R6,27, which is an increase of slightly over 10%. That 10% is therefore the increase per bottle on this basis. If one takes it per tot it should be noticed that the price before the increase was 45c. The increase in excise duty which amounts to 2c per tot therefore means 2c on 45c and this amounts to 4,4%. Under the circumstances this increase does not seem excessive to me. If one takes the R5,67 per bottle and one takes the excise increase of 51,6c, this amounts to an increase of 9,1%.

If I could have prevented the excise duty increase I would have done so with pleasure, but consider the position in which we find ourselves. Our position is tighter, the gold price is uncertain and the economies of the countries with which we do business are in a critical state. As I said, I cannot go too far with loans on the local capital market, because in the first place this would put tremendous pressure on the market and in the second place it would very definitely push up the interest rates even further. I must therefore be very careful. My only alternative was to find R110 million by means of an increase in customs and excise duties on certain beverages and also on cigarettes and tobacco other than pipe tobacco.

Nevertheless, I wish to refer to the price structure of brandy and wine. When I look at all this data in front of me I feel that it would perhaps be a good thing to give thorough consideration again to the price structure. Let us consider brandy, a 750 ml bottle. If one considers the price of R6,27, i.e. after the increase, the Government gets 43%, the wholesale and retail trade 46% and the farmer 11%. The excise duty is a factor, but not the only one. I think one should also consider the margins and the entire price structure. That is something I wanted to say here. Let us consider wine, and here we have just taken a random sample, using as an example Nederburg Cabernet, per 750 ml bottle. The excise duty is R2,25. The restaurant price is R5,80 and the excise duty is 0,4% of the price. The bottle store price is R2,66 and the excise duty is 0,8% of that. This is a natural wine. Let us consider fortified wine, for example Medium Cream Sherry. The excise duty on a 750 ml bottle is 19,2c. The restaurant price is R8,25 and on this the excise duty is 2,3%. The bottle store price is R2,64 and on this basis the excise duty is 7,3%. If one considers Coca-Cola the excise duty on the bottle store price is 9,2% after this increase. I therefore repeat that we should also consider the price structure.

†I should now like to refer to a tactic used by the hon. Opposition, particularly the hon. official Opposition. They had a great deal to say about this in the election campaign. There was this great cry of “fat cats”, that we apparently do not care about the lot of the ordinary person. I think that it is certainly one of the most misleading and poorest types of activities they have engaged in for some time. There is absolutely no substance in it. You must look at where these hon. members come from and where they live. Almost without exception they live in Houghton, Sea Point, Durban Musgrave and Durban Berea, in all the areas of this country where personal incomes are at their highest.

And Constantia.

Yes, Constantia as well. This is where these people live. Now, all of a sudden, with this guilty conscience of theirs, we are the people who do not care for the ordinary man.

Where do you live?

Let us look at the facts and let us look at transport and food subsidies, whereby we directly aim to improve the lot of the lower-income group. What is the position? The maize subsidy has been put up from R59 million last year to R87 million this year. The subsidy on wheat —usually referred to as the bread subsidy—has remained roughly constant at R160 million. As far as dairy products are concerned, the subsidy is about R3 million. This is the position, and if you take the two together, the subsidy on maize and on bread, it has just about doubled over the last five years. It is today just about, to a few decimal points, R250 million. What should it be? They say the bread price should not have risen at all. We did not put up the bread price. The bread price went up because we said we could not afford to subsidize bread to the extent of 100%.

It is called “self-raising” bread.

There is also maize to be eaten in this country, on a big scale. They say we must increase subsidies and Government expenditure. I have already dealt with that argument and I have shown into what an illogical and absolute cul-de-sac one gets. I dealt with that earlier in my speech.

You are still there.

Then I come to the price of brown bread. At the moment it is subsidized to the extent of 40%, and I say that that is a very substantial subsidy in any country. It is higher than that of Poland, which is one of the highest in the world.

And what is happening in Poland?

Exactly. That is my whole point.

Don’t you feel like going back to Poland, Harry? [Interjections.]

Let us consider the transport subsidies. The subsidies on bus and rail fares are deliberately applied to help the lower-income groups. From last year to this year the subsidy on bus and rail fares has gone up from R315 million to R443 million. If one takes food subsidies and transport subsidies together, the total last year was R540 million, while this year it will be no less than R694 million, which is an increase of very nearly a third in a single year.

I want to ask the Opposition to go and check up overseas and tell me in what country there is a better dispensation given. Where is it better? Those hon. members talk glibly; they talk in a vacuum and in isolation. They must tell me where people get a better deal on these basic commodities of transport and food.

Where do people have to live so far from their place of work?

The hon. member must do more research and talk less. If he gets his facts straight, we can listen to him, but he must not come here and give the House all sorts of airy-fairy statistics.

He does not want to get confused by the facts.

That is the point.

*We would do well to ask ourselves in what direction we want to move in this country. Do we want a socialist economy? While I was listening to the hon. member for Sea Point I said to him across the floor of this House: “This is pure socialism”. I repeat it today. If we carry on in this way, what is going to happen to our country? What does one ultimately solve with a subsidy? One can provide temporary relief in difficult circumstances, but in the long run one cannot solve anything. One only disrupts one’s whole price system and ultimately one reaches a position where one cannot make the essential adjustment as the gap has become too wide by that time. Then one’s economy really runs into difficulties. We have seen this in many overseas countries.

†I come to another point. As I say, they talk about us as “fat cats”. We are the so-called “fat cats”. Let us have a look at the record as far as the aged are concerned.

Would you prefer to be a polecat? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I asked the hon. the Minister whether he would prefer to be a polecat.

What is the insinuation?

Sir, he referred to Poland; so I thought … [Interjections.] I am prepared to withdraw it, Sir.

I want to say, Sir, that what the hon. member says has no effect on me whatsoever. I do not pay much attention to him when he talks like that.

When it comes to pensions, let us have a look at social and old-age pensions. In 1976-’77 the total amount spent was R323 million. That is on all old-age homes, on children’s homes, on social pensions, on war veterans pensions, and so on. Five years ago the figure was R323 million. What was the amount allowed for in this budget—five years later?—R731 million. That is an increase of 126% over five years, far more than double the figure of five years ago. This hon. Opposition apparently has some kind of research office. Let us hear from them. There will be an opportunity for that later this session. Let us hear about the position in other countries. Let us hear who can better these figures. [Interjections.] Let us hear. Before hon. members opposite talk so much they should give us the figures. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us take the position since 1948, when the NP Government first came to power. Do hon. members know that social pensions have over that period increased twice as fast as the cost of living? I now ask hon. members opposite to tell us about other countries and what their performance is. [Interjection.]

But why can they not come out on their pensions?

And you are doing your best to let inflation catch up with them. [Interjections.]

Well, here are the facts. These are now the social pensions. There are, however, bonuses as well. There have been five successive bonus payments of R30 each to Whites, R24 each to Coloureds and Indians, and R18 each to Black people—five bonuses in succession every six months. That means that from November 1979—less than two years ago—there has been an additional amount paid in cash to White pensioners of R150, to Coloureds and Indians an amount of R120, and to Black people an amount of R90. That has to be added on to the pensions they already receive. That is not a bad performance, is it? Then they maintain that we are the fat cats. Has the hon. member for Bryanston … [Interjections.] Has the hon. member for Bryanston ever told a meeting in his constituency what people over 60, and now, in addition, people over 70, are receiving in the way of tax concessions in this country? Has he ever given people these facts? [Interjections.]

No, he would say that he was the one who had brought it about. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into all these details, but these are very significant concessions indeed. It means in fact that a man of 70 years will today not pay income tax before he earns R5 000 a year. This is not a bad performance. Have hon. members opposite looked at the tax structures of other countries? Then they have the temerity to accuse us of not caring for the aged in this country.

What is the position with the aged in Egypt, Alf?

This was hurled around during the election campaign, and when we tried to put it right, how many Prog papers were prepared to publish the facts? Not one in six. We had to take expensive advertisements to put simple facts across in order to repudiate and correct these shockingly misleading statements made by the Opposition. [Interjections.]

If things are so good, why are they so bad?

They are not so bad. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville says things are bad. He has never in his life lived the way he is living now.

You are joking.

He has never lived the way he is living today. [Interjections.]

Order!

Have you ever spoken to any of the pensioners in my constituency?

When one looks at the whole position one finds in addition that salaries and wages in this country have increased over the last year, in real terms—that is after accounting for all the increases in costs and prices—for White people right through the economy by some 3,3%, and for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians by nearly 4,5%. Now I ask hon. members opposite to let us hear about other countries. Let us hear of any better performance. In what country is it better? What other country can compare with those figures today?

The hon. member says that we have to hear of the terrible poverty in this country. But I say that the country as a whole has never been better off than it is at this moment.

Will you come with me to some of the pensioners in my constituency?

I have just given the hon. member for Durban Point the facts on pensions. He should not talk airy nothings to me. [Interjections.]

*We could have a long discussion on these matters. The facts are there.

I now wish to refer to estate duty. The hon. member for East London North made an appeal here for estate duty to be abolished. I regret to say that under the present circumstances this is just not possible. However, I wish to say that estate duty as it is levied today in South Africa is possibly the most moderate I know of in the entire world. I just wish to draw the attention of the hon. member to what the Franzsen Commission had to say in 1968. It was a particularly authoritative commission. They said—

And so they go on. Then the commission says—

This was said in 1968. From 1968 to the present considerable relief has been granted in respect of this type of duty, exceptionally great relief. I should also like to bring it to the hon. member’s attention that only 8% of all estates in South Africa are taxed. I have the statistics here.

Then I should also like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the starting point of liability for estate duty is as follows: If there is no surviving spouse or children, the amount at present stands at R50 000. In 1979 it was R25 000. If there is a surviving spouse and two children, the amount at present stands at R180 000. Two years ago it was R100 000. In the case of a surviving spouse and four children the starting point for estate duty is R260 000. Two years ago the amount was R150 000. If the net value of an estate is R150 000 no estate duty is payable if there is a surviving spouse and two children for example. In the case of an estate of R200 000 only R2 000 will be payable, namely 1%. On an estate of R500 000 the tax is R58 000. This is 11% of the total estate. On an estate of R2 million the tax is 28%. Two years ago it was 32%. I can continue in like vein to give many more examples. However I regret that under the present circumstances it is simply not possible to abolish this tax. As the figures indicate however, considerable relief has already been granted.

†Mr. Speaker, a number of hon. members raised specific issues, and I have replies here to most of them. Unfortunately time is catching up with me and I do apologize for not being able to give replies now to all the points raised. I should very much have liked in this debate to discuss some of the points, but if hon. members wish to contact me or my department, we shall be only too happy to discuss the relevant issues with them.

The hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised the matter of separate taxation for working married couples, and I want to say very briefly that it is quite impossible to abolish the present system and introduce separate taxation. We have here once again made considerable improvements in this regard, bringing about considerable relief. I should like to remind the House that in Great Britain, where it is possible to tax working women separately, fewer than 4% of the taxpayers affected have opted for this method. It is optional in that country.

I did not ask for separate taxation. I asked that the limit should be increased to R3 000.

If the hon. member wants to discuss the matter with me, he is free to do so. I am telling him that in Britain, where it is optional, hardly anybody has opted for it. Judging from my own discussions in Britain, the tax authorities view this as one of the biggest mistakes to allow this, because it has caused no end of trouble.

I did not ask for separate taxation.

What is the hon. member then asking for? [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Langlaagte raised the question as to whether sales tax could not be levied on consumers by means of an inclusive system. In commerce itself this matter still gives rise to a major difference of opinion. Right from the start we were hoping that commerce itself would come to a decision in this regard, i.e. whether this tax should be applied inclusively or exclusively, but a major difference of opinion still seems to exist. At present we are discussing the matter again, but it is a difficult issue as we should not like to enforce a system. However, we can discuss this again.

†Finally, Sir, various matters were raised about building societies by, among others, the hon. member Mr. Aronson and the hon. member for Maitland. There is at present a commission of inquiry investigating a number of important issues affecting building societies. The De Kock Commission on Monetary Policy is also looking into certain aspects of this matter. As soon as I receive the report from the J. C. du Plessis Commission, which ought to be within a matter of weeks, this matter will be thoroughly investigated and discussed. After thorough discussion with the building society movement and other institutions, certain decisions will be taken. I think if there is one inquiry that was absolutely overdue, it is this inquiry into the building society movement. I am looking forward to receiving the report. We will then be able to look at many things, including how we want to deal with interest on mortgage bonds, a matter that has been raised several times.

*Time has unfortunately caught up with me. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to reply to the debate. I should also like to thank hon. members who participated in the debate for their contributions. As far as I am concerned, I think that we, for our part, can submit this budget with every confidence and ask the House to support it.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss a matter that has been raised in this House on previous occasions but in regard to which we seem no closer to a solution. If hon. members would refer to pages 2-2 and 2-6 of the estimate of expenditure from State Revenue Account they will see that certain items are provided for there in regard to parliamentary catering services.

There has recently been a great deal of idle talk about extra-parliamentary activity and on this occasion I am pleased to be able to speak about a place which is a mere 20 paces from this Chamber. Nothing could be more intra-parliamentary than our dining-room. I wonder if hon. members realize that the fact that there is a stark rule that only certain privileged persons may invite guests who are people of colour to that dining-room is the only respect in which an old traditional custom of this House is being breached. That custom is that every single hon. member, whether he be a Minister or back-bencher or Chief Whip or what-have-you, is entitled to the same rights and privileges as every other hon. member.

I was interested to learn the other day for the first time that in the old days, for example, when the previous system was in operation, when visitors wished to be admitted to the Public Gallery, these potential visitors of members had to queue up outside the parliamentary building. To such an extent was the rule then extant—that all members have the same rights—that even the visitors of the Prime Minister of the day—I do not know who he was—had to wait in the queue with all the other ordinary members of the public. That was the extent to which the parliamentary tradition of equality was applied. However, Sir, in regard to our dining-room where one would have thought, par excellence, there should be an expression of this equality, what do we find? There we find a rule that has been in existence since 1949 and which breaches this equality principle. That rule is that only certain privileged members of this House—Mr. Speaker himself and Cabinet Ministers —are entitled to invite guests into the dining-room who happen to be persons of colour. There is, of course, one exception, although it is not at issue and that is that ordinary members can invite “Black diplomats”. However, I am now talking about South African citizens who happen to be Black people or Coloured people or Indian people. We may not invite them in at all. There is a total prohibition in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make this particular point. The dining-room is the only place in Parliament where this prohibition in regard to the admission of Black guests is operative. I may invite a Black person into my office or into the caucus room; presumably I can take such a person anywhere within the parliamentary precincts except the dining-room 20 paces away from where we are now. It looks, therefore, as if we are prepared to have relations with Black guests in every single aspect except eating with them. I think that the time has come for us to examine our consciences in this regard. Because we have had nothing but prevarication and evasion from hon. members opposite in this regard, for the first time now we intend to put this matter finally this afternoon to a vote.

On previous occasions the debate on this issue has been characterized by a total refusal on the part of hon. members opposite to discuss this issue on its merits. They will not tell us why it is that this ancient rule of 1949 should remain in all its strength and all its racial discriminatory overtones to this day, 1981. In 1979 the distinguished predecessor of the present hon. Leader of the House and last year the present incumbent both refused to discuss the merits of the case and they took resort in two face-saving devices.

In the first place they said that we had not gone through the usual channels. That is untrue, it is totally untrue. We all know the facts. We all know that the former hon. member for Orange Grove, Mr. Rupert Lorimer, raised this issue with the Catering Committee four or five years ago and then again in the next succeeding year. We know that the matter was then sent to the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements. It was there discussed, and we know that the matter was then referred to that Select Committee, to Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate. What happened was—I shall quote authorities in a moment to indicate the special position of Mr. Speaker in a matter like this—that Mr. Speaker had to ascertain the feelings of the parties in this regard. I shall deal with what he found out a little later. However, there was nothing else that we could have done procedurally than we did. I want to make that point right now: We could not have gone to any other person; we could not have raised it in any other forum.

The second aspect to which I want to refer is that the other side take the point that we are a club and they then argue, apparently, that we can make our own rules—we are accountable to nobody. We are not a club; we are a legislature. To take the club analogy so far is so much nonsense, because what we are doing here, is to accord certain members of the so-called club rights and privileges which other members do not have. What is worse, this so-called club is paid for by non-members; it is paid for by the people of South Africa. If that is the kind of club that hon. members opposite belong to, well, I should very much like to know what clubs they do belong to and there will be quite a rush for membership. This is not a club; it is a legislature which is paid for by the taxpayer.

I come immediately to an aspect that adds injury to insult. Not only is it an insult to Black citizens of this country that they are not entitled to be present in our dining-room as guests, but in fact they also have to pay for it. They have to pay for the privilege of not being allowed here. One would have understood it if in this so-called club we all paid for our luncheons, but we do not.

Do you get yours for nothing?

Let us look at the estimates. On page 2-6 there is provision for a loss in the coming year of R160 000. That is on the dining-room alone. That is not on liquor and not on cigarettes—thank goodness we pay our way there. For lunch and dinner we are in fact being subsidized by the taxpayers of South Africa to the extent now of R160 000 per year. That is a very large sum. By expecting taxpayers who are not Whites to contribute to this, is to add injury to insult.

I want to raise the question of Mr. Speaker’s position in this matter. Mr. Speaker has ruled that the matter cannot be taken further. I should like to quote from our authority in this regard and in particular that Mr. Speaker is the servant of the House, and if the House chooses to depart from its previous practice, he must carry out the will of the House.

The attitude of the official Opposition is quite plain: We want to let all hon. members have the right to have guests. I have no doubt at all that the attitude of the NRP is the same. So, the only thing that is holding us up is the NP.

I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition is indeed correct when he says that the attitude of the NRP is in accord with theirs, as we in fact also believe that our parliamentary dining-room should be open to all races. However, we deplore the fact that this is being discussed across the floor of the House, because there are two committees of this House, namely the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements and the Select Committee on Parliamentary Catering that deal with this subject. There is much that we on this side of the House disagree with, but that which we disagree with can only be changed by democratic process, and we believe that the democratic process will one day prevail on this particular issue as well. However, a decision on this cannot be reached in this forum; a decision in this regard must be reached in the committees that deal with this matter and are part and parcel of the workings of this House. If the majority carries the day in those committees, I think it is sad and unfortunate, because we, too, believe that the dining-room should be open. I serve on both these two committees, and I personally will, in those committees, be pressing for this change, but not across the floor of this House.

Mr. Chairman, time and again now we have had to discuss this subject in public. On a previous occasion our view was that we ought not to discuss this matter here. The hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition has, since the matter was raised last year until now, not made use of the available channels to take this matter further. He admitted it himself. He referred to an incident which took place five years ago. I do not want to discuss this matter at length because I do not think that we should have a long argument about it here. After all, since last year until now nothing has changed with regard to this matter. I should just like to repeat that if this matter must be discussed somewhere, a proper place for it to be discussed does exist. I agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga that that place is not this House. However much the Chief Whip of the Opposition wants to argue about it, this is not a public restaurant. The dining-room here is, to all intents and purposes, a club. It is. No one can go there unless he is a member, viz. a member of this House.

Is the President’s Council restaurant a public restaurant?

But surely that is not a Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should just like to say that no one who is not a member of this Parliament is allowed into the dining-room unless he is invited. If he is a member of this Parliament, he can go there; if not, he cannot go there. That applies to all. But it is surely also not correct to create the impression that people of colour may not go there. What has happened now? In 1968 a special place was set aside to which hon. members could take their quests.

A separate entrance.

I shall leave it at that. The fact of the matter is that it is a place which is reserved for members of that club. In any event, if the matter has to be discussed, there is a place where it can be discussed. I leave the matter at that.

The hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition moved an amendment that the amount to be voted for the catering services be reduced. I should like to tell the hon. member at once that it is not only we who are served in the dining-room. The fact of the matter is that there is a very large staff, that 600 meals per day are prepared and that a great number of staff working within the parliamentary precincts get their meals from the same kitchen at a subsidy as part of their privileges, as part of their service contract. The service officers here, who are also served by that kitchen, are part of the parliamentary set up.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is worthy of this Parliament that every year when the debate on the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill commences, it should start with an argument about the restaurant. This side of the House adheres to the view it held in the past, namely that it is of the opinion that provision has been made to accommodate everyone. We do not think that a change has taken place in this regard and that if the matter has to be discussed, there is a proper place for it to be discussed, and that the hon. member has since last year been remiss in his duty to raise the matter in the only place where it can be raised.

That is not true.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the House can argue as he likes and he can say again, as he did last year, that we should not discuss this in the House, but he leaves us no option. The actual solution to the problem is in his hands.

Why do you not boycott it?

The answer would be for the hon. the Leader of the House to raise the matter in his own caucus so that we would not have to raise it here. The hon. member for Umhlanga, on behalf of the NRP, states that it is unnecessary and almost distasteful to raise it in the House. I want to say that, where race discrimination exists, it must be shown to exist and it must be fought, and it must be fought bravely and openly.

You want to turn it into a political football.

We have raised this in the two committees that are available. The hon. the Leader of the House knows that. It is not true for him to say that we have done nothing since last year.

You have not.

A new Mr. Speaker has been appointed, or elected, and we have approached him. We have written to him officially and we have received a reply from him in which he says there is nothing more he can do. There has to be consensus before we can get a decision. The only people who are out of step are the hon. members on that side of the House. What we are witnessing here today is what I can only describe as an absurd piece of theatre or a piece of absurd theatre—or one can take it both ways if one likes. What on earth are we arguing about today? What on earth are we arguing about when we see what is happening in South Africa today? Only recently we saw the brutal removal of more than a thousand people. [Interjections.] That is worth arguing about.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the question before the House.

I am, Sir. I am asking what we are arguing about. The argument is about whether or not I, as an ordinary member of the House, can take a Black guest to lunch. That is the argument. [Interjections.]

In the dining-room.

Meanwhile, while we are arguing about these matters, bombs are exploding in South Africa and the Springboks are getting hammered across the sea because of what is happening in this country.

I would say it is time we stopped arguing about who can and who cannot go into the parliamentary dining-room. It is time we stopped fighting about whether or not I or any other member can take a guest to the normal dining-room. I am not talking about the VIP dining-room. Not all my friends are VIP’s. I do not have to make special exceptions for my friends. I and my colleagues want the right to take our normal guests to the normal dining-room in Parliament, and the only people who are making that impossible are the hon. members on the other side.

Finally I want to say that, if we want to resolve this issue so that we do not have to discuss it year after year, the solution is in the hands of the Leader of the House and, more, it is in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Why do you not organize another church service?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks me why I do not hold a church service. I should like to do that with him present, but I cannot and I do not want to be side-tracked. I want to say that the hon. the Leader of the House and the hon. the Prime Minister himself by one single decision and in one sentence could give the lead so that this distasteful discussion, this embarrassing discussion, need not take place. I call upon the hon. the Prime Minister to raise this matter and once and for all to tell us that this is a place from where race discrimination, hurtful race discrimination, is going to be removed so that we can do what we believe is right.

Boycott the club, man.

I believe that there are many hon. members on that side of the House who in their hearts agree with us. If members voted with their hearts and their heads and not under the stricture of a whip, I believe they would be voting for us today. It is high time we got our priorities right in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is high time that we got our priorities right. I put it to the hon. member for Pinelands that he is taking advantage of the discussion of this Vote. He is not interested at all in the dining-room as such. [Interjections.] The hon. member wishes to take advantage of the discussion of this Vote. He wants to use it as a facade behind which he can drag in other issues, which is exactly what he did. The hon. member is not in the least interested in the parliamentary dining-room as such. He is only interested in taking advantage of the discussion of this Vote to say things for outside consumption. That is all that is involved here. [Interjections.] He is only interested in headlines. That is all. [Interjections.] That is why he has failed to raise the matters since last year with any of the committees involved, where it can in fact be raised. When I pointed it out to him, his reply was that there is a new Speaker. However, it makes no difference at all whether there is a new Speaker. He could have discussed the matter with the new Speaker as well. [Interjections.]

That is exactly what we did and you know that. [Interjections.]

In the past there was another Speaker, but on that occasion, while we had been sitting here for months, the hon. member did not take the opportunity of raising the matter with him.

Hon. members opposite want to use the discussion of this Vote to drag politics into this matter in a disgraceful way, and they do it in a way which is not worthy of this Parliament. They are more interested in other things than in the Parliamentary dining-room. [Interjections.]

This matter was left to the Speaker to decide upon by a decision of the committee. You should know that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. If the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote still has any merit at the end of this debate, I should like to thank our heavy-weight wrestling champion, Jan Wilkens. I want to say at once that I do not know the gentleman, but I know from newspaper reports that he is certainly not a supporter of any party represented in this House. I was watching sport on television on Saturday afternoon, and there I happened to see the wrestling match between Mr. Jan Wilkens and another chap who made me feel very nervous, because he was a big man.

Vause Raw! [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point has much more hair on his head than that man. At one stage they were fighting outside the ring, and what interested me were the spectators. There were quite a lot of women present. They got very excited and threw their handbags around, shouting and carrying on. Watching them, I got the feeling that what I was seeing there was somehow familiar, and I wondered why. When I read the newspapers the next day it struck me. The reason why it had looked familiar was that it had reminded me of the atmosphere that had sometimes prevailed in this House in recent weeks. I then resolved to come to this House and to give an undertaking that that atmosphere should no longer prevail here, i.e. that we are going to make another attempt to conduct a constructive debate here. I therefore give notice that this is my intention, Sir, and I also wish to tell the hon. the Prime Minister in advance what subjects I am going to raise, so that no pitfalls are dug and we do not try to score debating points off one another. I, as well as other hon. members on this side, will speak about the problem of constitutional development and of domination. We shall also refer to referendums as a way of testing popular feeling. Another problem area we wish to discuss is the question of consolidation, as well as the geographic basis for the proposed confederation. Finally, I Should like to discuss the idea of a constellation and the economic and physical planning this would involve. I also give notice that we shall raise the planning aspects at a later stage of the discussions and that we shall first concentrate on the constitutional aspects and related problems.

In the first place, therefore, I wish to speak about domination and constitutional development. I believe it is true to say that group domination is the most important factor in our politics. Every Black group despises it and the Whites fear it, and between this contempt and fear we must find the boundaries for the possibility of peaceful constitutional development in South Africa. Furthermore it is also true to say, I believe, that if we are to have any peaceful constitutional development at all, the problem of group domination, whether it be Black, White or Brown, will have to be faced. Thirdly, it is also true to say that the initiative must come from this Parliament, and specifically from the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister, in respect of what the standpoint on domination in politics and in any constitutional development is going to be.

An interjection made by the hon. the Prime Minister during my reply to the censure debate has, I believe, given rise to considerable confusion surrounding this situation. I refer to col. 438 of this year’s Hansard, and I want to quote it so that we may be absolutely clear about it—

This created the impression that the hon. the Prime Minister regarded the question of the right of the Whites to self-determination as being equivalent to White domination in a specific context. We are concerned with this context. What exactly does the hon. the Prime Minister mean by the words: “In this state, yes”? In other words, what is the context? In my view, it may mean one of three things, and if there are any other interpretations, we should welcome them, because I believe it is important that we should clear up any confusion about this matter. However, I see three possible meanings. Firstly, it may mean that the right of the Whites to self-determination can be equated with White domination under the present constitutional dispensation in South Africa. Secondly, it may mean that the right of the Whites to self-determination can be equated with White domination, not only under the present dispensation in South Africa, but also in terms of the constitutional proposals of 1977. Thirdly, it may mean that the right of the Whites to self-determination can be equated with White domination, not only in terms of the present constitutional proposals or those of 1977, but also in terms of any proposals which the President’s Council or any other institution may make as far as the NP is concerned. These are the three possibilities I should like to spell out very briefly and which we should like the hon. the Prime Minister to clarify.

The first possibility, then, is that the right of the Whites to self-determination can be equated with White domination under the present dispensation. Here I do not think we are going to have much argument. This is the very problem we are trying to get away from. In Rapport of 16 August 1981, I think, Mr. Wessels, the editor of Nat ’80, the official party organ, wrote that from the nature of the case there was White domination in South Africa at the moment. So it would be nothing new if the hon. the Prime Minister were to say “In this State, yes”, meaning under the present dispensation. This could not have caused any confusion, because everybody knows that this is in fact the case. Then it is also said that we have to move away from a policy of paternalism and work for separate freedoms, etc.

This brings to the second meaning, i.e. the right to self-determination can be equated with White domination in terms of the constitutional proposals of 1977. Firstly, I just want to say that the Government presently considers itself committed to the 1977 proposals. I quote what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said (Hansard, 3 August 1981, col. 63)—

The hon. the Prime Minister then explained the essential features of these proposals and singled out five, which I do not wish to repeat here. They can also be found in Hansard, column 63. It is on the basis of those proposals that I wish to prove that the right of the Whites to self-determination can be equated with White domination. Hon. members will recall that I referred to a Hansard speech at the time to indicate what the previous Prime Minister’s standpoint on this had been and to point out that there was a difference between the reaction of the present hon. Prime Minister and that of the previous Prime Minister. I should now like to quote the previous Prime Minister’s standpoint on this question of the constitutional proposals and a Coloured or Asian State President. In reply to a question by me, the then Prime Minister said (Hansard, 1978, col. 4545)—

Then we find the following words—

He goes on to say (col. 4546)—

This, therefore, is the second possibility. In terms of the 1977 constitutional proposals, too, we have the problems of White domination. This is in fact conceded by Mr. Wessels in Rapport. He says—

It would appear, therefore, that in terms of the 1977 proposals we are faced with the problem of White domination. Therefore we may say that the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement, namely “In this State, yes”, may apply equally to the 1977 proposals.

What about the third possibility? The right of the Whites to self-determination can be equated with White domination in South Africa as a non-negotiable condition or precondition for any constitutional dispensation. That is the third possibility. We may therefore have the situation that the President’s Council may submit proposals indicating that there will not be domination on a constitutional basis. At the moment we have this under the present dispensation and we have it in the 1977 proposals. I now want to come back to the reply given by the hon. the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Yeoville during the censure debate. I quote (Hansard, 3 August 1981, col. 64)—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he still believes in a system of three Parliaments or whether he is prepared to consider having one Parliament for each of those three population groups.

In South Africa one cannot touch this question unless one changes the Westminister system of Government, and one cannot change it properly unless one introduces the principle of land and property ownership, otherwise one brings in irresponsible people who will dominates one’s electoral lists and create difficulties for the proper, effective Government of this country. That is why I maintain that it is for the President’s Council to come to us with proposals. We shall consider them. With us …

—and this is the important point—

Now the crucial question is this: Can the hon. the Prime Minister give any constitutional substance to the idea of the right of Whites to self-determination which does not amount to White domination in South Africa? White domination has already been built into the first two possibilities, as I have indicated. So the third possibility is the one where the Prime Minister could say: “No, we do not want a constitutional dispensation in which there will be domination.” If this is what the hon. the Prime Minister says, he will find it very easy to reply to a few elementary questions which can be made applicable to the 1977 constitutional proposals, to use them by way of illustrations. Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared, for example, to accept in principle and in practice that in terms of the 1977 proposals, and Indian or an Asian could become the executive President if the President’s Council were to change the arrangement accordingly? It is just a question of a formula which has to be changed, then it will be possible. This is a question which can easily be answered.

A further question is whether the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to accept a purely proportional representation for the 1977 proposals which would not entrench a White majority. The hon. the Prime Minister cannot reply by saying that he does not wish to anticipate the deliberations of the President’s Council on this issue. These are matters of principle, to the case of other constitutional principles, the hon. the Prime Minister has already anticipated the President’s Council. Here I am thinking, for example, of the hon. the Prime Minister’s reaction to the possibility of a recommendation by the President’s Council that Blacks should serve on the President’s Council. The hon. the Prime Minister has ruled out that possibility. There is also the question of a common voters’ roll for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. The hon. the Prime Minister has ruled out that possibility as well, to the same way, these questions can be answered frankly even at this stage, yes or no, and this would serve to clarify the whole question of whether domination is built into the constitutional plan which the NP has in mind for South Africa. We must also remember that the right of Whites to self-determination is not just a casual expression. A lack of clarity about this lies at the root of the present constitutional confusion. If, for example, the right of Whites to self-determination can only be preserved if Whites alone decide about the creation or repeal of laws which deeply affect the lives and the opportunities of other people, Black and Brown; if Whites alone have the power to decide where and how much land will be made available to Black and Brown people for whatever purposes; and if Whites demand that their present entrenched position of economic, social and community privilege in relation to Black and Brown people must remain unchanged, then White domination and the right of Whites to self-determination are one and the same thing and then expressions such as vertical differentiation and structural entrenchment have one and the same meaning. The point is that if this in effect lies at the heart of the NP’s policy, then their attempts at constitutional development will get us nowhere; then—to be brutally frank—we are actually wasting money and time with institutions such as the President’s Council. The possibility and the duration of White domination, as I have spelt it out here, can be quite coolly and clinically calculated. It is not difficult to calculate. In fact, I would recommend hon. members to read the article which the hon. member for Yeoville wrote in The Sunday Times last Sunday. He takes a cool and clinical look at the problems in South Africa as far as our basic services are concerned. For the time being, we can still maintain domination, as we have it at the moment, but domination is hard work. Domination requires staff; domination requires certain people to keep certain services operating, to this connection, the hon. member for Yeoville gave us a very clever analysis of where there is a shortage of labour in our essential services. I just want to read one quotation from that article. It appeared in The Sunday Times of 23 August and it reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I cannot put it any better than the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions himself did. The hon. the Minister was asked the other day about the position of staff in the health service, and this is what he said, among other things, according to Die Burger of 19 August 1981—

If this is the case, and we know it is the case, surely we can make a cool and clinical calculation to determine how long it will be possible for a small White minority to try to entrench itself and to keep functioning in a situation of political domination. There is an awareness among hon. members on that side of the House that this is not possible. The hon. the Minister of Manpower piloted legislation through this House about a week ago which made it abundantly clear that the traditional position of White dominance in the field of labour in the economy is crumbling. It is disappearing. It simply cannot be maintained any longer. It is abundantly clear that in the field of education, the traditional position of White dominance is crumbling. The same applies to the social field and to so many other fields. The most dangerous thing that can happen, however, is for the Government to try to preserve the illusion—for that is all it is—that while White domination will disappear in the economic and social spheres, it can be constitutionally entrenched for all eternity. This is a practical impossibility and will prove the truth of the saying, “He who wishes to keep all will lose all.”

The question which merits the serious attention of us all is: Is the right to self-determination of any group or person in a society such as ours possible without domination? This is the constitutional problem we are discussing here. This is the issue that has to be resolved and this is the problem that confronts my party and the NP; in fact, any party in South Africa which is interested —and I underline this—in peaceful constitutional development must face this problem. If we say it cannot be done, then we are accepting that struggle and conflict are inevitable. If we say it must be and can be done, we are saying that the difficult struggle for evolutionary constitutional change must be undertaken. We are not going to win that struggle if we try to deceive ourselves or others with pseudo-consociational gimmicks which are only euphemisms for domination. I am speaking now of expressions like “vertical differentiation” and “structural entrenchment”, etc. Those expressions will get us nowhere if they are nothing more than what we call pseudo-consociational gimmicks. This word “consociational” is a favourite expression of the hon. Chairman of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council. Therefore I say that we shall have to say we are in South Africa, we are a part of Africa; we shall have to work together to find a solution because we want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

In saying this, I am not denying the existence of groups, I am not denying the importance of the plurality of our society, but I repeat that that plurality must be a voluntary plurality—it must not be a compulsory group membership—in which the various groups can compete with one another in politics.

Allow me to say this as well: There are constitutional mechanisms available which can prevent domination in such a plural Society. There are many of them and I could mention them, if hon. members would like to hear them. There is the question of proportional representation, there is the question of decentralization of power, there are federal structures, there is the question of minority vetos which may be used, there is the question of the separation of powers and so on. These are all constitutional mechanisms. The true question is not whether such mechanisms exist; the true question is: Would such a constitution work? That is what people want to know.

That question cannot be answered by falling back on the merits of constitutional mechanisms; what does the answer to that question depend on? It depends on whether the constitution is the result of negotiation between all the people in South Africa, for if that constitution does not reflect their co-operation, that constitution is sunk. This is a simple fact, because a constitution cannot inject loyalty into people; a constitution can reflect loyalty. A constitution cannot create co-operation between people if they did not already co-operate in creating that constitution.

I remember a speech made by the hon. member for Meyerton last week which I found rather moving. He spoke about the poplars which stood white and bare after the north wind had been blowing for three days, and told how they brought in the sheep then. He made an appeal to NP members who had strayed from the NP and said: “The poplars have been stripped bare by the north wind; you must come home now.” I want to agree with him …

He was not talking to you.

No, but I am talking about all of us now; do not get excited.

I say it is true—the poplars are standing white and bare. They are standing bare; the north wind is blowing. However, the north wind is not only blowing for the NP; it is blowing for us all. We must not huddle together in the kraal like a lot of sheep, keeping our heads down and hoping the storm will pass us by. When those poplars are bare, there is work to do. We must build bridges, we must set in motion constitutional mechanisms which will ensure the co-operation of the various groups and which will show that there are possibilities of development among all the people.

While I am speaking about these things, I want to point out that I am just as sharply if not more sharply attacked by the people who have strayed from the NP. Only the other night Mr. Jaap Marais invited me to appear on a platform with him and explain to the people there why I was betraying the White man in South Africa, along with the NP—he puts me in the same category as the NP. What the HNP does not understand is that the best way of betraying the White man in South Africa is by promising him something now which can never be carried out in the future, and that is perpetual constitutional White domination. That cannot be.

Therefore we should not score debating points off one another in this House, but reflect seriously on how we can bring about a constitutional dispensation in which there will be no domination and in which the various groups are going to work together in creating the constitution. This is the only real problem we are faced with. In this respect, the hon. the Prime Minister and members of that side of the House must give us very clear answers to these questions, because it is no use our speaking at cross purposes here about such a central concept. If domination, the idea of domination, is an integral part, not only of the constitution, but also of the social and economic position of the Whites, we are going to find it difficult in the future simply to maintain the mere fact of domination. However, if we can make the people aware even now of the difficult demands of constitutional development, I believe we have a chance to avoid the conflict and struggle which are inevitable if we persevere with the system of White domination. This is what I wanted to say about the problem of domination.

Another point I wish to raise now—my time is running out—is the question of what is referred to as parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activities. [Interjections.] In my opinion, this distinction is being completely misused and misinterpreted. No society can function without extra-parliamentary activities.

Of course not.

Of course not. One of the most important extra-parliamentary political pressure groups in South Africa is the Broederbond. It is an extra-parliamentary pressure group. [Interjections.] A trade union is an extra-parliamentary group. The question is not whether the activities are parliamentary or extra-parliamentary; the question is whether they are constitutional or not. Are they against the law or are they not against the law? That is the question. Let me make it quite clear to hon. members at once that there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting involved in extra-parliamentary organizations and movements, as long as they operate constitutionally and do not break the law. If this had not been so, the National Party would not even have existed today, because they made use of extra-parliamentary methods to strengthen their position in politics.

Name them.

A sinister connotation is being given to this business of extra-parliamentary activities. If the Government, or any hon. Minister, has evidence indicating that unconstitutional activities are taking place, there are simple ways of dealing with the matter. That is simple. However, this is not going to prevent us from giving our support to extra-parliamentary groups which we believe to be doing good work. There are many of them who do this, just as there are supporting organizations …

Name them.

… the Institute of Race Relations, for example. I think they do excellent work. It is an extra-parliamentary organization and I think they do excellent work.

What about the ANC?

Do hon. members on that side of the House want to tell me that they do not support an organization like Sabra? Is Sabra extra-parliamentary? [Interjections.] Of course it is extra-parliamentary. [Interjections.] Most hon. members on that side of the House would support Sabra. Therefore I want to make it quite clear that we are not going to be intimidated by a hue and cry about the question of extra-parliamentary activities. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side of the House simply do not understand the distinction that is drawn in this connection.

There are quite a number of other matters that I wish to mention. I think I may mention another one—my time is running out—and that is the question of referendums.

†The hon. the Prime Minister has stated a number of times that one of the mechanisms available to test the acceptability of constitutional proposals is a referendum, and he has explained under which circumstances he would hold a referendum. I have asked in the past whether this referendum also refers to the Coloureds, the Asians and the Blacks. There has now been Press speculation that the Government is in fact considering introducing legislation which will make it possible to hold referendums which will involve the other population groups as well. I welcome this move, but I want to warn that one must not confuse a referendum with negotiation. Negotiation is one thing. Effective political negotiation is one thing. A referendum is another matter. I welcome the fact that referendums can be held to include all the other population groups. However, I want to know, and the hon. the Prime Minister can tell us, whether this is going to be the case. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about domination. I think the first and most important point we have to focus on when we refer to the White right of self-determination and domination, is that those two concepts are in the first place not synonymous. When we refer to White self-determination, we do not use it as another word for White domination. In the second place, it also does not mean that the right of self-determination of Whites, the implementation of that right, necessarily goes hand in hand with White domination. This, then, is the question about which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to argue, and this is the question which I think we should dwell on for a few moments.

The first point we should bear in mind when looking at South Africa is that the Government, the National Party, is not in favour of the maintenance of the status quo in all respects. The NP has a programme of principles and a manifesto which embodies a programme of action which has to be implemented. The NP—we can say this today—is not in favour of the status quo of the existing constitutional dispensation in South Africa. Nor is the NP in favour of the status quo of the existing economic dispensation or in the social sphere. The NP is irrevocably committed to the status quo of law and order, of sound government and of economic progress.

It is so nice to be National!

We must examine this specific problem against that background.

I think it is important that we should begin by drawing a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the Black peoples of South Africa and the discussion of the right of self-determination and domination with regard to them, and on the other, the situation of the Coloured and the Asian. When looking at the Black peoples of South Africa, we have to examine the NP policy. We ask one another whether it is possible for the NP to implement its policy, to realize its principles and to achieve its ideals without at the same time confirming domination or confirming it constitutionally, as the hon. member implied. The first fact we have to accept with regard to the Black peoples is that they are ethnically divided into various peoples. Each of those peoples has its own culture, background, history and ideals. Now the situation is—we must emphasize this point once again here—that it is the intention with the policy of independence for the various Black peoples, not only to give constitutional effect to the constitutional ideals of every person in South Africa, but to give every people a separate homogeneous power base. Hence the policy of independence which goes hand in hand with the right of self-determination of every one of those peoples.

When a people becomes independent, it cannot, from the nature of the practical situation in South Africa become independent of South Africa as India is independent of America, or Russia of Libya. We have a different type of situation here. The effect of the policy of independence is that it eliminates the power struggle which exists between nations and people in South Africa. It eliminates the power struggle and reduces it to the sphere in which it can be dealt with within the framework of the democratic means of our time. The Government has achieved great success on this path. The independence of Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana—this cannot be denied—has had the effect of effectively ending the power struggle between those peoples and ourselves. We are not-fighting about whether we should govern the Tswanas or whether they should be governing us as Whites. That power struggle has been disposed of. A complex relationship remains, but the effect of this policy is that it has brought the power struggle from the political level down to the level of the businessmen, to the level where one has a relationship based on the common interests of peoples.

The question is whether White domination is necessarily inherent in this. I want to ask: If the Government can succeed in developing this policy to its final consequences, where does the domination lie?

In Nyanga!

The hon. member who is referring to Nyanga should really keep his mouth shut. Surely there is no domination in that. However, there is one thing which is essential to make a success of this and to have sound relations between White and Black. There are people within this House and outside it who, so it seems to me, have vested interests in there being bad relations between White and Black and who are trying in all kinds of ways to cause poor relations. In fact, we saw this in the reaction of hon. members of the PFP to the events in Nyanga.

However, if we turn from the Black people of South Africa for a moment and consider the Coloureds and Asians, and ask the question whether the right of self-determination of the Whites amounts to domination in this instance as well, this brings us to the question put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He wanted to know whether we could give constitutional effect to the right of self-determination of Whites, without at the same time having domination. Indeed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition answered his question himself. The reply to that question is “yes”. We can indeed do so. However, we must remember that in this specific case of the Coloureds and the Asians, it is undoubtedly true that this matter was referred to the President’s Council for advice. The President’s Council will advise the Government in this respect. We are now awaiting that advice. In the meantime, however, there is absolute impatience on the part of the official Opposition and its Press. It seems as though they are afraid that success may be achieved in that sphere. [Interjections.] That is why they are now trying to exert pressure on the Government in every possible and impossible way to adopt standpoints which, I believe, ought to be restricted to the minimum.

But you have already adopted a standpoint.

If we look at our relations with the Coloureds and the Asians we note that the situation is still such that we cannot say that we have reached finality on this matter. We have not reached finality, but the NP’s ideal is not the ideal of domination of other people. The policy of the NP is a policy of liberation, not oppression. The NP has in fact already demonstrated this with regard to several million Black people. The ideal is to liberate and to develop, not to oppress.

I now want to appeal to the hon. members of the Opposition—and I believe it is a fair request—to give this Government, a Government which was lawfully elected, the opportunity to take the constitutional course which is the appropriate one in this regard. We must await a final answer, on the advice from the President’s Council, in the light of which the Government will take further decisions. Now I simply cannot understand the absurdity of the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition argues that in the first place, it would not be possible to achieve the right of self-determination for Whites and not to have domination at the same time. On the other hand, he says that it is indeed possible to deal with the matter constitutionally. However, I shall tell hon. members where the problem lies today. The problem today lies with the PFP, which has in fact by virtue of its whole point of departure surrendered the idea of the right of self-determination of Whites. [Interjections.] The question we on this side of the House want to put to hon. members opposite is whether they believe in the right of self-determination of the various peoples of South Africa. Do they believe that every people, every group in South Africa, is entitled to exercise its right of self-determination as a group? Or do they believe that there must be a process of joint decision-making, with everything this entails?

At the end of his speech, which dealt with the right of self-determination and domination, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we should have a constitution which everyone had had a hand in negotiating. He said this as though hon. members on this side of the House did not believe in negotiation. How did the constitution of the Xhosas, for example, come into being? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition hates domination. In fact, it is very clear from his speech that he wants domination destroyed. However, the hon. member for Pretoria Central has already pointed out that the right of the Whites to self-determination and domination are not synonymous. This is precisely where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes astray, for he makes domination synonymous with the right of the Whites to self-determination of the Whites. [Interjections.] I want to quote this to the hon. the leader in his own words (Hansard, 7 August 1981, col. 440)—

It is, therefore, the greatest error of all times to make the right of the Whites to self-determination analogous to domination.

The right to National Party self-determination. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the right of the Whites to self-determination. It is irrelevant now whether this is the right of the Whites to self-determination or the right to national self-determination. The right to self-determination of the Whites can be equated or is synonymous with domination, and this must be destroyed. With that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is destroying one of the cardinal cornerstones on which White civilization in South Africa was built and in accordance with which this nation created certain norms of life for itself. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this nation is not prepared to surrender its norms of life. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the norms which this nation created for itself have to be destroyed as a result of its own right to self-determination, for, he says, it is domination, and domination must be destroyed. He said in Hansard, 7 August 1981, col. 441—

This, according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is synonymous with the right to self-determination—

Therefore, all we have to negotiate about is how we have to surrender our right to self-determination in order to avoid this “siege”. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that once we have reached that point, then we have passed the point of “siege”, then we have come to the point of the destruction of the White himself. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be known in history as the Leader of the Opposition who wanted to see domination rejected and destroyed, but who made it synonymous with the rights of Whites to self-determination which consequently had to be destroyed. That is the monument which that hon. the Leader of the Opposition will leave the nation and posterity will not honour him for it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he attended or observed a certain situation which resembled riotousness, where handbags were wielded, etc., and that it reminded him of situations in this House. This does not surprise me, for if one takes note of the speeches, the questions and even the hysterical outbursts of hon. members of the Opposition, their undertone and the effects for South Africa are ominous. They even sound so dangerous that I think that the security of the State could be endangered. Taunting words and phrases such as “terrorism under the law” were repeatedly shouted out by the hon. member for Bryanston whenever reference was made to the maintenance of law and order. Terms such as “barbaric conduct towards the defenceless” and that “revolution is unavoidable” were freely and enthusiastically used by those hon. members. I say this is the language of instigators, this is the language of people who want to destroy their country.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May that hon. member refer to us as people who use the language of instigators?

Order! The hon. member for Parys may proceed.

Just allow me to put it in another way. The vein of what the official Opposition and the English Press have to say is aggressive and revolutionary, and this could result in the destruction of law and order in this country. It would also result in the undermining of the Government’s authority, and in revolution finding its foundations in that.

A former Minister of Police and subsequent President of the Senate, Mr. Jimmy Kruger, made certain revelations from a police dossier on 21 June 1977 in this House on the participation by the hon. member for Pinelands in the activities of subversive and revolutionary organizations. The hon. member for Pinelands must not think that we have forgotten this. A leopard cannot change its spots.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to suggest that the former Minister of Police read in this House a list of subversive organizations with which I was supposed to be involved?

Order! Did the hon. member intimate that the hon. member for Pinelands was also involved in organizations which wished to undermine the State?

I merely said that I was quoting what the Minister of Police had quoted from a dossier. I can furnish the Hansard references. They are stated in columns 10963-5 of the 1977 House of Assembly debates, Volume 69. The hon. the Minister then said—

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member has not answered the question. In his original statement he said that the former hon. Minister of Police linked me with subversive organizations, and this is just not true.

The hon. member referred to a speech as recorded in Hansard of a former Minister of Police but he did not insinuate that the hon. member for Pine-lands is involved in acts undermining the State.

Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw it, but I should like to ask the hon. members who were present in this House as well as those who were not here, to go and read the Hansard I quoted once again, for it is a formidable record for any person, and it is the record of the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Pinelands has a wide interest in everything which smells of subversion. [Interjections.] However, I wonder whether he has in the meantime lost his sense of smell and consequently his interest as well. I wonder what the connection is between the events at Nyanga and the protest march which took place last Friday from the church to Parliament and the special interest of the hon. member for Pinelands. In my opinion the time has arrived for every hon. member, just as he has to take the oath of loyalty in this House, to concur voluntarily in the Police being able to monitor his activities in the interests of State security. Would the hon. member for Pinelands voluntarily agree that the Police may watch his activities?

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. I trust the hon. the Minister of Police has taken cognizance of that so that it will not again be necessary to ask in this House whether police records are being kept of certain hon. members.

They do it all the time.

Because such questions have been asked in this House. The hon. member has now given his consent and I hope the hon. Minister of Police has taken note of that.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member is on a line … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Groote Schuur an opportunity to motivate his point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is taking the line, and has done so for the last few minutes, that the hon. member for Pinelands needs some kind of investigation … [Interjections.]

No!

Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about a specific phrase or word; I am suggesting that the hon. member has created the atmosphere …

The hon. member is wasting my time.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I do not want a shaking of the head from you; I want a ruling.

Who are you …

Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the second half-hour?

I welcome the way in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is not here at the moment, started this debate in an attempt to defuse the atmosphere to which we have become accustomed during recent debates. The last two major debates of this session have been, to put it mildly, unedifying and destructive of not only the parties and hon. members who took part in these debates, but also destructive of the image of Parliament itself in the eyes of the people of South Africa. I believe it has damaged the institution of Parliament, and the respect in which people have held Parliament, to have had to listen to the egg-dancing, the evasions, the vituperation, the insinuations and the mud-slinging that marked the major political debates we have listened to. Millions of South Africans looked to the first session of the seventh Parliament with feelings varying from expectation to hope to doubt. [Interjections.] So this was all the more sad a let-down. In the atmosphere of confrontation that has been built up, and after the Nyanga debacle, I believe that a tremendous responsibility rests on the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate. Whatever anybody may say—including the Government, there is no doubt that the first three weeks of this session of this Parliament have set back the clock on South Africa’s journey along the road of progress, and the responsibility rests with the hon. the Prime Minister—he is the only man who can accept that responsibility—to turn the clock forward again in South Africa’s advance into the future. I believe that he must do it urgently, because what started with expectations and hope has turned into disillusionment. The hon. the Prime Minister therefore has to act before that disillusionment turns to despair, before it turns into more and more extra-parliamentary confrontation which the hon. the Prime Minister and his party rightly condemn.

It has not been the Government alone that has been responsible. The official Opposition has to take its share of the responsibility, but this is the opportunity for the hon. the Prime Minister to give the lead to South Africa which he has so far failed to do, the lead which the people have been looking for and which has thus far only been given in vague generalizations. Let me just briefly refer to one of the hon. the Prime Minister’s own candidates in the last election, more specifically the candidate who opposed me, one of the hon. the Minister of Finance’s blue-eyed boys. He said it was necessary to destroy the NRP so that the Government could take over the ground that we occupy. [Interjections.] That was McCrystal, my opponent. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether that is, in fact, the direction in which he is moving. If so, we can have an interesting debate.

He is looking into his crystal ball.

Is it the Government’s intention to move onto the ground we currently occupy? [Interjections.] I hear some confused and differing reactions.

He is lighting the courting-candle now.

What has been created—especially by the media—has been an atmosphere of polarization, which leaves a vacuum. I do not know what the intention or the objective is. If one creates a vacuum by polarizing to the left and right, however, something has to fill that vacuum. Either the Government has to move further to the centre to fill the vacuum, or the official Opposition has to move further to the centre to fill it. There has, however, been no indication of either party doing that during this session of Parliament. That being so, a heavier duty rests with this party to try to keep alive the spirit of moderation on our political scene.

Are you the centre party?

The Government’s second responsibility—and perhaps this is the most vital one—is to create an atmosphere for reform in South Africa. It is not enough just to talk about it; it is not enough just to have the mechanism of investigation and inquiry. It is necessary to create an atmosphere for reform. I had hoped that we would get something from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but he spent 26 of his 30 minutes saying that one could not have self-determination without domination. [Interjections.] That was the gravamen of his speech for 26 out of his 30 minutes. But we still do not have his alternative to domination. I believe the first step is to create an atmosphere for reform by removing unnecessary and hurtful discrimination, as the Government so often promises and so often pledges. However, except in sport, in labour and in some social fields, we do not see that happening, and therefore a real atmosphere for reform is not being created. We do not see the laws which discriminate and which create hurt being amended. Even what we see happening is being done by exemption, by permit; by keeping the law but allowing it to be broken by administrative action. What is perhaps even worse is that, except for a few hon. Ministers in the Government, we do not see it in the attitudes of Government members. We do not see them through their actions and their administration and through the lead they give their departments creating an atmosphere which gives people confidence that they are determined to move, and move at an adequate pace, on the road of reform. Here I exclude specifically the hon. the Minister of Manpower. He is the only Minister in the Government who has translated his promises into firm legislation and put them before the House. He is the only Minister who has shown that it is possible to move forward without endangering the right of self-determination or the future of the White people in South Africa. Some of his hon. colleagues may have been a little scared of it, but this is the one field in which the Government has acted. For the rest, however, I am sorry to say that the signs of action as opposed to words are conspicuous by their absence.

There is another field in which clearer guidance is necessary. The hon. the Prime Minister has talked of self-determination, and so have other hon. members on the Government side. They have talked of self-determination as though it were the right only of the White community and of the homeland States. But we believe it is the right of every group, and if one accepts the right of every group to self-determination, one has to give those groups an option in making their own decisions. One cannot say to them: “You have the right to self-determination, but you will only determine within these parameters.” One must say to them: “Here you have an option. Where you live in your neighbourhood you have an option to determine the character of that neighbourhood and to control it and to control its amenities.” If one does not do that, one is not giving self-determination to that community. As the Government tries to dictate to the community, so the official Opposition rejects, except in a voluntary form, the existence of community group rights as groups. This is where the hon. Opposition and the Government are talking past each other, because the one is absolutely obsessed with the group and says: “This is how it must be,” while the other says: “There are no groups; you will determine your future—your self-determination—as individuals.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it must be on a voluntary basis. He mentioned a “voluntary pluralism”.

That is correct.

Voluntary pluralism includes the right of a person to seek to determine what he wants but it also includes the right of a group to accept or reject the wishes of that person. To my mind it is as wrong to force a person’s acceptance or rejection by a community as it is to deny it a choice. The Government denies the right to a community to determine its own character and the official Opposition denies a community the right to accept or reject anyone as part of its group. This is the question that is bedevilling our whole constitutional debate. One half of South Africa is saying: You are narrowly and compulsorily tied to group A and you have no choice other than to be there while the other half of South Africa is saying: There is no such thing as group rights; there are only individual rights. They say that those individual rights can then be brought together in voluntary association as communities or groups but not have any legal rights as communities or groups themselves. The task and the challenge to South Africa is to accommodate the facts of pluralism in the constitutional structure. I do not intend to take that point any further in this debate, Sir.

We in this party have said—and we stand by it—that we believe the President’s Council must have a fair opportunity to prove itself and to make recommendations on this particular issue. However, we also believe that unless these recommendations make provision for the accommodation of pluralism as an entity, as a feature of the future constitutional structure, then they are not going to work. For that reason we reject the other alternative which says that groups may not be accommodated politically or constitutionally, only individuals.

That is not correct.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville says it is not correct. I want to ask him whether he disputes the fact that during this session of Parliament the PFP has accepted without reservation that in terms of its policy no group will have a legal right to determine the character of its own community and who should live in its own neighbourhood. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member deny that his party’s policy is that anyone in South Africa may live anywhere in South Africa and own land anywhere in South Africa?

That is a different thing altogether.

The hon. member accepts that. If the hon. member accepts the fact that anyone can live anywhere and own land anywhere, including the Black homelands and the reserves, that anyone may live anywhere and own land anywhere—the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition agrees and the hon. member for Yeoville agrees …

Do you believe in ghettos?

… then he denies the right of a community to an exclusive neighbourhood for their own people. [Interjections.] You cannot have it both ways. If you say that anyone can live anywhere then you deny the right to any community to have an exclusive area of their own. It all comes back to the question of local option. We say—and this is where we differ from the Government—that a group should have the right to decide whom it will accept in its neighbourhood. The Government says it must be done by the group areas law. The official Opposition says it must not be done at all. This is the simple issue that has to be settled. The Government says “group areas are compulsory” and the official Opposition says “no right to an exclusive area to a group or community”.

What do you say?

Local option; the right of the community to determine whom they will accept …

In the rural areas as well?

In the rural areas as well. We have said quite openly that we believe that any person of any colour who has the ability to farm, the training and the money to buy a farm should be entitled, again by local option as happens now, to buy land anywhere in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is happening now, it is happening under this Government that a Coloured or an Indian, if the local farmers’ association agrees, is allowed to purchase farming land. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs will confirm if that is correct.

Yes, it is correct.

It is happening now and we agree with it, that provided the local community, in this case the farmers’ association agrees, this should be allowed.

As far as the official Opposition is concerned, this does not happen by option. The PFP says they must accept any one irrespective of any local choice. Whether he can farm or not, anybody who wants to buy land must be accepted if there is any one who is prepared to sell it to him.

In other words, you want the Group Areas Act.

I want local option, and if that hon. member is so dim that he cannot understand, then it is no use my trying to argue with him.

It seems to me you want a referendum in every suburb. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister, I believe, went a long way towards harming his own creation, the President’s Council. In his remarks earlier in this session he came dangerously close to undermining its independence. I want to make an appeal to him today. When the President’s Council was created he made it clear—it was clear in the debate—that this was an independent body which would come to independent decisions and make independent recommendations. Across the floor of the House I asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether he would give the assurance that they would not be tied to NP policy. He gave the assurance that they would not be tied to any party policy; they would be free to make any recommendations they want to.

In the censure debate which we had earlier this session, the hon. the Prime Minister tended to imply that he was limiting what he would consider from the President’s Council to NP policy. I want to ask him two things. I take my hat off to the Vice State President who made it very clear that the President’s Council would not allow itself to be stampeded into making hasty decisions or recommendations and that it would not be limited in its deliberations or its recommendations. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to confirm in this debate that he accepts that they are an independent body and that they are not limited in any way in their deliberations and in what they recommend to the Government and to South Africa. I want to ask him also to state, in the spirit in which the Vice State President accepted it, that he was not trying to dictate to them and lay down a time table but, as the Vice State President and Chairman of the President’s Council called it, it was a friendly request. It would be unfortunate, and I believe that it would destroy any hope of an effective acceptance of the recommendations, if it were thought that that council was an arm of Government. I believe it is not. We do not, as the official Opposition has done, prejudge the President’s Council. I now want to ask the Leader of the Opposition, who has repeatedly promised his co-operation in seeking a new constitutional future, whether his party will co-operate by giving evidence and by putting its policy to the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council.

What policy?

Is the official Opposition prepared to testify before the council or before its Constitutional Committee thereby making a contribution to the future planning of South Africa? It is a simple request and a simple test of the Leader of the Opposition’s undertaking that he will co-operate in trying to create a new future for South Africa.

If the Government allows Blacks to sit on the President’s Council.

My other question is that if the President’s Council should recommend a plural solution in terms of which groups were accommodated, including provision for the non-homeland Blacks, would he then consider that recommendation on merit or would he reject it because it incorporated political pluralism and group political rights.

If the President’s Council represents all South Africans and if they are elected to serve thereon.

I am not asking the hon. member for Bryanston. The last time I heard him talking on the future of South Africa he said there would be Black rule in South Africa within 10 years.

That is a lie and you are a liar.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Bryanston allowed to refer to what the hon. member said as a lie?

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw that remark.

I did not only say that it was a he, but also that the hon. member was a liar.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that too.

I withdraw those remarks, Sir.

It was published in The Natal Mercury on the front page in the left-hand column. I think it was round about the 1974 election. The hon. member says he did not say it. If he denies it, I take his word. He asked me where I got it, and that is where I got it. I have asked the official Opposition two questions. Now I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister if his party, as a political party, will testify before the President’s Council. It has not done so but has put a draft Bill before that council. It has not testified. I believe that any political party which says that it is making a contribution to political and constitutional progress and planning in South Africa, should give evidence and testify before the body that was created by the Government to make recommendations to come before this Parliament.

That body was created by this Parliament.

It will come back to this Parliament, and I am asking whether the NP will make that contribution so that we will get a recommendation here which has had the benefit of the thinking of all parties.

I do not want to go on to a new field other than to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he will give clear answers on three things which he did not deal with when I asked him earlier. Dealing with a confederation and our concept of it, I asked him whether there would be joint decision-making in a structured formal body where everyone would get together and on agreed matters of common concern take decisions together. I ask him whether the common citizenship for travel documents, to which he referred, will in fact apply to the internal movement of people between member States.

I also want to ask him—and I shall come back to this if I get a chance—to deal in greater detail with the question of a common economy in South Africa, because we believe that to have one economy, which the Government accepts as essential, requires more than simply consultation: It is going to require imaginative planning by all the member States of the confederation together. They must not do so individually or bilaterally, but they must sit together and plan together so that all will have a part in the final picture that evolves. I believe that for this one is going to have to have a confederation which is far more developed and has far more content than we have heard so far from the hon. the Prime Minister. Finally, I want to ask him whether he will spell out in this House loudly and clearly the difference between what he referred to as a constellation and what the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and others are now more and more referring to as a confederation. Are these the same thing? It does not sound like it. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development dealt with it again on Thursday night at a function at which I was present. I want to get absolute clarity on the point that the confederation applies to South Africa as we knew it and that the constellation is a far broader and looser form of agreement.

I shall leave it there so that in the limited time available to this party I can later follow up other issues raised.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point obviously finds himself in a very, very difficult position in the South African political context. In the House he tries to project the image of a statesman. He says the Government does not tell the people where we are going. He accuses the hon. the Prime Minister of failing to give a lead and he accuses this side of the House of vague generalization. Then he attacks the Opposition for not coming forward with the answers. But he apparently has the big answers. What has he said today? He has said that polarization is taking place in South Africa between the left and the right and that his party is the only party that can solve the situation in South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that the NP is not a middle-of-the-road party, but that the NP has its own philosophy, its own way of doing things, its own policy and its own manifesto and that it sits here on the authority of the White electorate of South Africa to solve the problems in this country.

What does the hon. member do, however? I want to accuse him and his party of paying lip service to so-called ethnicity in South Africa while, when it comes to the consequences and to organizing things in a decent manner in this country, they are not prepared to stand by ethnicity.

Like where? Go and have a look in Natal.

Then they start talking about local option. Their difficulty is that there were two parties formed on the Kowie Marais principles, of which their party is one. The one reads one set of principles into that and the other another set of principles. Sometimes the hon. member for Durban Point has to talk like a Prog and on other days he has to talk like a Nationalist, because otherwise the people do not believe him.

At least I do not run away like you. [Interjections.]

I am not running away.

Like a rabbit.

I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he knows a gentleman by the name of Alex Anderson. He is the Transvaal chairman of that party. Is that true?

He is the Transvaal leader.

So it is true.

They also have another gentleman in the Transvaal, by the name of councillor J. F. Oberholzer. I am not sure whether he is still a member of the hon. member for Durban Point’s party. Perhaps the hon. member can tell us. Here I have a pamphlet issued by Mr. Alex Anderson which says—

I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he agrees with this statement. I want to state, with all due respect, that this is a blatant political lie. He then goes further and says—

He concludes by saying—

Not a word is said, however …

What about the confederation? Read what he says about the confederation. [Interjections.]

Not a single word is said in this pamphlet about a confederation. I am sending the hon. member for Durban Point a copy of this pamphlet. I want him to have a look at it and to state then what the policy of his party is—he, the big statesman of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I do not want, however, to waste my time with the hon. member for Durban Point. He is irrelevant. His party is irrelevant in the South African party-political arena. [Interjections.]

*I want to point out that it has become clear that the official Opposition and their spiritual associates, such as The Cape Times and The Sunday Times and others, are engaged in a deliberate attempt to cast suspicion on the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister. It is a deliberate attempt to sow suspicion. There is unfair denigration, and uncertainty and doubt are created about the direction in which the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated he wishes to lead South Africa. I want to quote from The Cape Times in this connection. A report in The Cape Times reads as follows—

But South Africa has just made a choice. 29 April is still fresh in the memories of all hon. members of this House, and of the people outside. Whom did the people choose? They did not choose the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

They chose a bigger Opposition.

They chose Mr. P. W. Botha to govern South Africa. We must make no mistake about that. What else did South Africa do? South Africa clearly and unequivocally rejected all forms of extremism. They rejected the hatred and the scandal-mongering and the vituperative politics of the HNP on the one hand, and the irresponsible, radical liberalism of the PFP on the other. The people outside chose the principle of reconciliation in South Africa. This hon. Prime Minister has placed South Africa on the road of reconciliation. So they can be as negative and as noisy as they like; they will not sway us from our course. The hon. the Prime Minister is proceeding fearlessly with his initiatives and with orderly changes in an evolutionary process. That is the premise on which this Government is founded.

What do we find in The Sunday Times, however? It is very strange, but I feel I must refer to it. I read the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in reply to the censure debate very carefully. It is almost word for word what is said in this report. Now one wonders who is writing the speeches and who is writing the articles. The heading of this report is: “Is South Africa fated to become a siege society?” Surely that is exactly what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in this House.

Now I wish to quote what The Sunday Times had to say. I quote—

He went on to say—

These are quotations of statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Do he and other hon. members on the Opposition side wish to suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister would not repeat here the sentiments which The Sunday Times attributed to him in that report? Surely the hon. the Prime Minister is not afraid of what he has said in the past. Here we have another deliberate attempt on the part of the Opposition to make mischief and sow suspicion in the public mind.

What else has South Africa proved? The people of South Africa have proved that they are prepared to accept responsible, orderly and evolutionary adaptation and change in South Africa. And this is the way it is spelt out. Here is the report of the hon. the Prime Minister. Here it is for everyone in this country to read. Here the objectives and principles of this party are set out. Here the manifesto of this party is set out. Surely there is no doubt about what this side of the House stands for and what it does not stand for. The people have chosen and the people have chosen the NP. What South Africa also knows, however, is that this hon. Leader of the Opposition is caught in the spider’s web of the Houghton clique. He cannot move. Mother spider is sitting there, waiting for him to make a wrong move. He has fallen prey to liberal, radical liberalism in South Africa. Hon. members can go and read the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the censure debate to see the approach of abdication and capitulation which he displayed throughout. He dismissed decentralization in South Africa and said it could not be achieved. He said there must be a new policy in South Africa; there must be a policy of urbanization, and he maintained that this could solve our problems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Turffontein, I cannot help but agree with what he said about the NRP. Coming from Natal, I want to give them advice, sincere advice. If they want to do South Africa the greatest favour, they must disband. By doing that they would jettison the artificial language barriers in South African politics and they would be doing South Africa the greatest favour that they could do.

*I should like to refer to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition described in his speech today as “voluntary pluralism”. He also referred to it in his reply to the censure debate when he referred to what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that a Zulu would vote for a Zulu and a Xhosa for a Xhosa, irrespective of whether there were laws enforcing this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then asked: If that is so, why should there be laws? He also made the statement that as long as the Government did not give the people of this country the choice to decide with which group they wish to exercise their political decision-making process, we in this country would not have White self-determination, but White domination. It is surely obvious that when the Government affords every group in this country the opportunity to declare itself a separate group and to exercise its right to political self-determination in a separate group, that other group is deprived of its right and choice of exercising that right in its own group. If we afford the Zulus the opportunity to exercise their right of self-determination as a Swazi, where would the Swazis go then? What choice would they have? They would then no longer have the choice of exercising their right of self-determination in their own national context. They would then be deprived of that choice. The same applies to the Whites. If the Zulus have the right to exercise their political rights within the White group, how do the Whites have a choice to decide where they wish to exercise their right to self-determination?

My problem is that to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, there is nothing to be discussed apart from White domination. The fact that a Zulu will vote for a Zulu and a Xhosa for a Xhosa does not mean that the legislation which makes this possible should be declared invalid; on the contrary, because when those people vote for their own leadership group and are in the majority, the minority groups are overwhelmed, and this would cause severe friction and that we cannot allow here.

When the Government wishes to carry out its policy of leading Black peoples to independence and eventually to a confederation, it is accused of implementing an ideology, an alien, far-fetched, impracticable idea, something which is unnatural, unreasonable and, as we have heard during this session, something which is un-Christian.

I maintain the contrary, and I say that the Government’s ethnic policy is not an ideology or an extraordinary policy, and does not run counter to all acceptable norms, but that it is a proven, normal, natural answer to our problems. If the Government does not carry it out, history will do so, but with this important difference, that in that case it will be accompanied by tremendous disruption and bloodshed. What this Government envisages in this country is largely similar to what happened 140 years ago in Europe and what is at present happening under the same circumstances in Europe. Europe is approximately as large as Southern Africa and there are about as many nations there as here, except that there are not such major differences in tradition and civilization as is the case here. 140 years ago Europe had unification movements by means of which the various national Governments came into being, but this process was accompanied by bitter wars and bloodshed. This Government is trying to bring this about without bloodshed and by means of negotiation. Recently the European nations realized that they had common economic interests and consequently they established the EEC. This Government wants to do something similar by way of negotiation and with mutual respect. If the unification movement in Europe in the previous century was acceptable and Christian, was it so because they achieved by way of bloodshed what we have in mind here? Or is the recognition and the full self-realization of the various groups in this country un-Christian because we do not wish to enforce it violently? I hesitate to say this, but I do want to maintain that it is rather un-Christian to disparage or deny the national ties of another man.

Who does that?

It is also contended that the implementation of the Government’s ethnic policy is uneconomic and expensive and that the expenditure thereon is unproductive, but usually the structure, the economic potential which this policy creates, is not taken into account. It is against this criterion that the Government’s actions must be tested. The Government itself need not be productive. If this were to be the case, we would have been a communist or a socialist State. The Government has to ensure a productive system, and it is against that criterion that the Government’s actions must be tested. And if that is the test, we can only say that far more enthusiasm for economic prosperity is generated under this policy than under a unitary State. One need only look at the newspapers every day to see with how much enthusiasm every Black leader is strengthening his nation economically. This enthusiasm has been generated by the autonomy and freedom afforded to those nations and their leaders by the policy of this Government. In his well-known book, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said that when individuals were given freedom to promote their own interests, there was an invisible hand which ensured that this would be not only to the benefit of the individual, but also to the benefit of the community. I also believe that when we give every nation on this subcontinent the freedom to promote its own economic interests, then that is in the interests of the entire sub-continent.

Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that this debate should focus its attention primarily on the question of political power in South Africa and the extent to which the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister, as he has adumbrated them in the past, are going to lead to a resolution of the political power struggle, or the extent to which there is going to be a continuation of the domination of one group over another.

Hon. members on the other side have dealt with the matter, some in a down-to-earth, matter-of-fact way and others in a slightly more emotional way.

*The hon. member for Pretoria Central said the objective of Government policy was to give every people an homogeneous power base. He also said that the power struggle must be limited to an area where it could be controlled.

†Those are fine sentiments, as are those about self-determination. We have to see, however, whether in fact they are fine in reality or whether, in the implementation of these policies along the lines suggested by the hon. the Prime Minister, one does not end up with crude White “baasskap” or White domination.

I want to focus the attention of this House in particular on the confederal scheme proposed by the hon. the Prime Minister because that is not one in which he has referred to the President’s Council. In the report of the Prime Minister’s office he says that he is irrevocably committed to leading South Africa in the direction of a confederation. There is one point I must make at the outset. When one starts talking about self-determination, can one elevate it to an absolute principle in South Africa? Is it, in fact, possible to have separate self-determination for the various elements of the South African society, whether they are the separate nations of Blacks or in Coloured, White and Indian groups? During previous debates we put questions across the floor involving such areas as labour, manpower and trade unions, issues such as transport and communications, matters such as economic affairs and consumer relationships, taxation and fiscal policy and foreign affairs, defence and national security. I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to keep before him his vision, that confederal plan he put to us. Then bearing those fields of government in mind, on what basis will decisions be taken in that confederation? On these matters of common concern and vital interest to everybody, inter-related matters, on what basis are decisions going to be taken? Are they going to be taken on the basis of self-determination? If they are not going to be taken on the basis of self-determination, surely they are then going to be taken on the basis of power-sharing. The hon. the Prime Minister must tell us. Is it going to be self-determination in labour matters or power-sharing in labour matters? Is it going to be self-determination in foreign affairs or power-sharing in foreign affairs? That is the method of decision in the legislative field.

Let me put another question to the hon. the Prime Minister. What about the implementation of the decisions made in this new confederal set-up? Will they be implemented by separate executives or will there be joint executive responsibility? Are the decisions going to be implemented separately or is there going to be joint implementation? I see the hon. the Minister of Manpower is present in the House. Does he envisage the separate executive implementation of common decisions relating to labour in South Africa? I believe that there would be chaos in South Africa if, with its highly integrated economy and highly integrated transport system, it is to be regulated in future by a number of multi-lateral agreements or separate bilateral agreements. Decentralization of power on matters of regional concern is a good thing but the total dilution of a central authority on such matters of vital common concern cannot be anything but a recipe for chaos in Southern Africa.

As I mentioned across the floor of the House in an earlier debate, I do not believe that this is the hon. the Prime Minister’s intention. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister’s intention is to devise a system in which, on the one hand, it will be said that self-determination is being given to various peoples, whilst on the other hand this Government is going to keep its hands on the real levers of power in South Africa. This is the analysis which we make of the hon. the Prime Minister’s confederal plan. The hon. the Prime Minister gave us an indication of what that confederation meant. We have no objection to his definition; we agree with it. It involves a number of self-governing, sovereign independent States coming to agreement, always with the right to withdraw from either the institution of the confederation or from a specific agreement and then each to go its own way, either by way of new bi-lateral agreements or new multi-lateral agreements. The hon. the Prime Minister reacted sharply when I told him I believed that in South Africa this would in effect mean de jure sovereignty for the independent States but de facto White political control over the whole of South Africa. But in a particular instance the hon. the Prime Minister’s exercise in political self-determination in fact results in White “baasskap” and White political control over the whole of South Africa.

Let us look at the origins of these new sovereign States. In order to become an independent State in South Africa, what do these individual elements have to do? They have to renounce their South African citizenship, they have to relinguish their claims, be they moral or legal, to share in the wealth, resources or opportunities in South Africa and they have to accept independence on conditions laid down by this Government and by this Parliament in respect of land, citizenship and resources. Having renounced their previous claims to these things, they can only have them reinstated by the goodwill of and as a handout from the Government. They have no right in respect of more land or an on-going share in the total wealth of South Africa. Neither do they have any rights to claim opportunities outside their borders. Therefore as a result of the history these people are hemmed in by their borders and, whatever they get which is not available within their borders, they get subject to the power of the White Parliament and subject to the discretion of White South Africa. In other words, White South Africa is in a position to determine what rights they will have as a part of the whole South African confederation.

Let us then look not at history but at the realities of today. Let us look at those Blacks who are nominally citizens of these separate States and see where they live. Today the majority of them live in so-called White South Africa, and all the projections into the future indicate that these people are going to continue to live and to work here in White, Coloured and Asian South Africa—call it what you will—in the future. They will live in the South Africa dominated and controlled by the White Government of South Africa. Therefore the majority of the citizens of those States will, in practice, be living under White political domination. They are going to live and die in these areas. They are going to live under the Urban Areas Act, the Group Areas Act, the Police Act, the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the labour laws and the education laws of White South Africa. These laws will, for practical purposes, determine the way in which the majority of the citizens of those independent States are going to live. Let us take a very practical illustration: Was there any White domination, White “baasskap” over the Black people who squatted at Nyanga? We said they were citizens of another country but it did not take two weeks before they were rounded up, put into trucks and taken along and dumped on the borders of Transkei. This is a practical illustration of “baasskap”, of domination, in practice.

It was done after discussions with the Transkei.

Those people were dumped on the borders and I believe the Government acted unlawfully in dumping them there. The Status of Transkei Act provided that except in respect of citizenship, people who lived in South Africa at the time that Transkei became independent would lose no rights. Research has been done and it has been ascertained that a considerable number of those people who were deported from South Africa and dumped in Transkei had, in fact, been resident here at the time that the Transkei became independent. So powerful is the position of the White South African Government, even in respect of its first independent State, that it can take the citizens of that State illegally from South Africa and dump them across the borders. [Interjections.] It was done in defiance of the Status of Transkei Act, 1976. [Interjections.] I mention this, Mr. Chairman, to illustrate the fact that this is the power which this Government wields in respect of an independent State. That is the reality of the situation.

Let us look now, Sir, at the other levers of power. There is the urge for more land. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we listened to two leaders of the PFP. We have just been listening to the former leader and earlier today we listened to the present leader.

The interesting aspect of South African politics is not that one simply examines the superficial argumentation of a specific debate such as we have had here this afternoon. If one really wants to understand politics today, just like the politics in any other country, then to do so one must have a specific depth. It has become customary that the PFP, which is representative of a specific philosophy in South Africa, in fact seeks to a great extent to avoid the growth of specific circumstances within Southern Africa. We had an election recently, and subsequently the hon. the Leader of the PFP came forward with certain points. In Deurbraak under the name of Prof. Marinus Wiegers, we read, inter alia, the following—

I just want to say today that it has now become customary in certain Afrikaans academic circles in particular to single out certain persons in South Africa, to single out certain political leaders in South Africa, particularly if they are Afrikaans-speaking or are Afrikaners. They are then held up to the public as the great leaders of the day. I am now referring specifically to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Do not blame me; it is not my fault.

No, Sir, I am only saying that this is the pattern we are experiencing in South Africa today. If you are an Afrikaner and you defect, or if you find a home in another party, you are suddenly a very strong and very great leader. It is with that sort of pattern that we are today trying to get the Whites in South Africa to move away from the fundamental principles on the basis of which they have grown.

To analyse the Opposition as it sits there today, there are a few interesting things one has to bring into focus. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition broached this crucial point here today with regard to the problem we are experiencing in Southern Africa. He said that one has a certain diversity of cultural groups and that one wants to establish a peaceful existence for these different groups. They also realized this in the report of the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission. They said—

I agree with that too. This is the whole point of contention in South African politics as well as in the rest of Africa. However, my dilemma with the hon. member is this: I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I was following his career perhaps long before he even knew me. What is interesting is that we have a few things in common. One of them is a forefather, Floris Slabbert. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is perhaps aware of that.

I am not aware of it, but now I understand a great many things!

I have said this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition before and I want to repeat it today. I think that if one takes two serious students of politics today—and here I want to include the hon. leader, and count myself as one too—the one fundamental difference between the two of us is this: I believe that in the continued existence of my people and of my nation and of the civilization from which they derive, a European civilization, the continued existence of those people is really important to me, whereas to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition it is not. For various reasons one cannot have it. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I heard him say in a radio or television interview that when we became a Republic he was not yet attached to a political party. Am I right?

I said that I had voted for a republic.

He voted for a republic, but he was unattached as far as his political views within party context were concerned. This is the fundamental difference, viz. that the hon. the Leader is one of that group within our national community who neither has nor wishes to have any historical ties. In that case we can conduct a debate in this House for half an hour or for years …

Were you not originally a “Sap”?

No, I have never in my life been a “Sap”; I do not know where the hon. leader gets that from. What is true, is that I come from a home in which my father was a member of the United Party and my mother a member of the NP. Since we are now talking about our family, the hon. the Leader will recall that in 1965 his grandfather, whose name he bears, wrote in Die Transvaler why he was leaving the old United Party and becoming a member of the NP. Is he aware of that?

Yes, I remember it well.

I think the hon. member ought to go and reread that letter of his grandfather’s; it contains a great deal of sense. I think the hon. member—I say this to him in a serious vein—would learn a great deal from that letter of his grandfather’s. I think that at a late stage of his life his grandfather rediscovered in love what he may have lacked at a specific stage of his life.

So there is hope for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

This is our dilemma in South Africa, and the dilemma in which this side of the House finds itself. We want a White nation or group with its specific constitution which has control over its own affairs and governs itself. On the other hand we want to escape from the fact that there are non-White groups who had control when we came into power in 1948. The struggle and the endeavour of the Afrikaner has not been an imperialist struggle; we did not go and conquer other peoples. When we came into power in 1948—that was when the hon. the Prime Minister became a member of this House—we came into power under the rules and regulations which an imperialist Government had created in South Africa. For the past 30 years and longer we have been escaping that specific heritage. That is what we are engaged in.

Since this southern country has a geographic territory in which there have for centuries been ethnic groups which were established under the domination of a foreign power, it is not easy to escape from these things overnight. The hon. the Leader and I were members of the Constitutional Committee, in which it was said that these are things which grow, but from which one has to escape. If we were a homogeneous community, this would be quite easy. I want to point out to the hon. the Leader—this is where he and I are diametrically opposed—that whereas we are struggling with the same problems, the survival of the White man is really inherent in the solution of the NP. It really forms part of it.

The hon. the Leader’s party also contains a variety of groups. I want to drag the hon. member for Bryanston into the debate for a moment. The hon. member will recall that he was my opponent in Rissik in 1966. What did he tell the voters at that time? He said—

We have come from 1966 to today. I now want to quote the hon. member for Houghton and ask whether the hon. member for Bryanston says the same thing—

Between 1966 and today—a lapse of 15 years—the hon. member has jumped from White domination of the whole of South Africa to Black domination of the whole of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is finding that the Whites do not believe him—he will only have a small minority that believes him. His party returned to this House with a few more seats, not because all the people really believed in what the eventual outcome of his standpoint would be, but he cannot escape the fact that when one reads in the PFP’s programme that the party stands for full citizenship etc. there must eventually be one common voters’ roll of which the majority will be Black people, and the Black people will then, because they are the majority, put a Black political party into power here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at this political juncture at which we find ourselves at present—after the election and as the situation has evolved during the first few weeks in this House—it is very clear that we are moving along a course and have reached a point at which, as the Minister of Finance said last week, we have now come to a parting of the ways. The PFP is heading in a political direction which is completely alien to the entire course of political development which we have followed up to now. The discussion which has taken place in this House today also indicates very clearly that the PFP has adopted a course which seeks, as they put it, to get rid of White domination and to replace it with Black domination. They are completely obsessed with a single political unitary structure in South Africa. Whether it is a federal Parliament or whether it is a unitary state, is of lesser significance. Under the concept of single political structure for Southern Africa we cannot follow a peaceful course in a multinational subcontinent while there are still such fundamental differences in the basic levels of development and the basic emotions among the various ethnic groups which constitute this country. This situation is not unique to South Africa. South Africa is only one of the countries where the population consists of a diversity of peoples and cultures or a diversity of religions. For the sake of our political future we must now decide whether we can, in the present set-up, go forward to meet the future with a joint parliamentary structure on a unitary basis, on a federal basis, or a unitary Parliament. I am reminded of what happened here last week when hon. members of the PFP were directly involved in a service which was held in a church directly adjoining the Parliamentary Buildings, and how they participated in the march which moved towards the Parliamentary Buildings. Whether they tried to ameliorate it by turning it into a procession and not a march, is not relevant. However, they did play a part in the holding of a service in St. George’s Cathedral, and they did play a part in a subsequent procession to this Parliament. Since the cathedral was used for the service, I should very much … [Interjections.] … like to refer to the fact that the text of the sermon in all the Lutheran churches throughout the world yesterday dealt with the cleansing of the temple. You will recall, Sir, that according to Mark chapter 11, verse 17, the Lord said—

The question concerning St. George’s Cathedral is this: Is it intended to be a house of the Lord for prayer, or have they made it into a place for extra-parliamentary political action to stoke revolution under the mask of prayer? It is very clear to me that a church is being misused here. Nor is it only the church adjoining this building. In Soweto there is also a church which is constantly being used for revolutionary politics. However, I should like to know from the hon. member for Houghton whether she went in Christian solidarity with the other people who were in St. George’s Cathedral to worship there or whether she went there to further political ends.

You want Helen to have been there in Christian solidarity?

It is a fair question. [Interjections.] After all, it is a Christian church.

So what?

I should like to know from the hon. member for Pinelands …

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

No, Sir.

Can a clergyman be a Broederbonder?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. member for Pinelands whether he, as an ordained minister and a former president of the Methodist Church, believes that the theology of revolution, Black theology, the University Christian Movement and similar expressions of protest theology have anything in common with the teachings of St. Paul and the teachings of the Gospel. I should like to know from him whether he believes that the theology of revolution has anything in common with the teachings of the Gospel. I am quite convinced that in his heart of hearts he, as an ordained minister, if he still believes in what he was taught, knows that the theology of revolution and what he is now participating in have nothing in common. It is for that reason that I should also like to know from those in charge of St. George’s Cathedral whether they believe that they are serving the Gospel by letting their church be misused for the purposes for which it is obviously being misused at the moment. The same applies to the Catholic Church in Soweto.

That is disgraceful impertinence. [Interjections.]

I should like to know whether they believe that that is the purpose for which that church was built.

That is disgraceful.

Last week we dealt with the squatter problem in Nyanga, and the hon. member for Houghton offered what I think was a rather simplistic solution in the way she offered it. She said that the obvious solution was to provide site-and-service housing. To a certain extent it can provide a solution but not in the simplistic way in which she advanced it because there is much more involved than merely to providing housing. [Interjections.] It may sound plausible enough to say that one must merely provide housing but the cost of a proper site-and-service scheme includes the cost of, among others, the provision of water-borne sewage, clean running water to each site …

That is what “service” means.

… neat fencing of each site, reasonable streets, clinics, schools, trading facilities, transport, refuse removal etc. The cost of properly planned site-and-service facilities is in fact greater per site than the cost of building a house of bricks or concrete blocks. So, merely to offer site-and-service schemes as a simplistic solution is no solution whatsoever. [Interjections.] There is far more involved than merely the provision of housing.

Then there is the question of the availability of employment opportunities. If one merely provides site-and-service housing to people who move in here in large numbers without having employment, consider the effect this will have on the people who have the right of residence here. In fact, after the happenings of last week, a Black minister indicated that what had happened was being welcomed by the Blacks who were legally present in the Western Cape because now their employment facilities were again being placed on a stable footing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I feel it was quite unnecessary for the hon. member for Klip River to sow suspicion against the hon. member for Houghton. I wonder if he realizes what problems he is causing this hon. lady by accusing her of participating in a movement of Christian solidarity. Already certain of the Jewish members of our caucus are looking askance at the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.] Therefore I think this is one of the things we should avoid becoming involved in in this House.

The debate which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition hoped would take place this afternoon as a result of his introductory speech would have been a debate about domination, domination in the political field in South Africa, particularly since we are now in a position of examining and bringing about new constitutional dispensations in our country. So far, I am afraid, there has been very little in the way of an answer to the questions posed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his address to the House this afternoon.

What are the characteristics of domination in South Africa, the characteristics of the domination by Whites over the Blacks of South Africa? In the first place we in the PFP see all people born and living in South Africa as South African citizens, first and foremost, and therefore entitled to equal citizenship and equal rights as citizens of one country. Domination by Whites over Blacks in South Africa—and vice versa as well, if that should come to pass—is characterized by the following things. Firstly it is characterized by the fact that one group, because it is White, denies the other group, because it is Black, equal education. The one group, because it is White, denies the other group, because it is Black, the right to freedom of movement. The one group, because it is White, denies the other group, because it is Black, the freedom of choice, of where to study, of where to five, of where to work, of where to enjoy itself, of where to participate in recreation …

It is not just as simple as that.

One group, because it is White, denies the other group, because it is Black, the right to participate in the political institutions of the country in which they live.

You know that that is not so.

They pay taxes to this institution. They are subject to all the laws of this institution, but they cannot participate in any way in the activities of the institution. That is domination. What is terribly important is to establish where a citizen wants his political rights, because it is so easily said that the Blacks of South Africa will be allowed to exercise their political rights in their own homelands. Those homelands, however, have no ability whatsoever to influence the circumstances under which the Black people of South Africa live in this country.

That is the whole point.

Therefore, we must accept and understand that a person wants political rights in the institutions—the political institutions—which will control his rights, his interests, his security, his safety, where he lives, where he works, where his children go to school, where he goes to church, where he participates in social and recreational activities. That is where a person wants to exercise his political rights. That is where a person wants political representation. In a society such as we have in South Africa today, however, that is not the case. The Whites—a minority group of South Africans—deny the Blacks—a majority group of South Africans—the fundamental rights to which they aspire in the country in which they live and work.

Why then, if this is such an untenable and unacceptable system, has it succeeded to this day? It has succeeded for a very simple reason. That is the fact that the Whites have also total control of the military and the police in South Africa. It is a system that is not accepted by all the population groups in South Africa. It is not a system of which they have been part of the design, not a system that they approve of but a system that has been imposed upon them and maintained by the force that the Whites have at their disposal. If one is designing a new constitution and dispensation it is no use testing it against the circumstances of 1981, 1983 or 1985. One must be realistic and test it against the circumstances of, let us say, the year 2000 when these things will come to fruition.

If one looks at the circumstances of the year 2000, I want to ask to what extent the Government will then be able to impose their system of White domination on the Black community of South Africa. Let us look at what the circumstances will be then. When one talks about constitutions and plans, one talks about constitutions and plans for people and therefore one has to look at the composition of South Africa, the peoples of South Africa, what their levels of education will be and what their socioeconomic activities will be. The fact of the matter is that it has been found that in the year 2000 the urban Black population of South Africa—let us leave the Coloured and the Indian population out of the discussion for this moment—will have increased by 21 million people. That means that the urban Black population of South Africa will be approximately 30 million people by the year 2000. Yet it has also been found that the White population will not be much more than 4½ million people then. For argument’s sake, however, let us accept that it will be five million. This means that by the year 2000 there will be 30 million permanently urbanized, sophisticated Black people in the urban areas of South Africa and only five million White people.

Come now!

In other words, they will be outnumbered by six to one.

And you propose “one man, one vote”?

That is fact No. 1. Fact No. 2 is that by the year 2000 four out of every five matriculants will be Black in so-called White South Africa. By the year 2000 four out of five of all skilled workers will be Black and 19 out of 20 of all unskilled workers will be Black. Not only that but the workers throughout South Africa by that stage, if the legislation of the hon. the Minister of Manpower is a success, will be effectively organized throughout industry in South Africa. What it really means is simply that the Black workers in South Africa, if by the year 2000 they have not been equipped with effective means of achieving their legitimate political aspirations, will use in a devastating way the means placed at their disposal by labour organizations in South Africa to achieve those ends. Nothing the Government can do can possibly avoid that from happening. What it simply means is that the Black man will be in this position through the fact that he will exercise total control by that stage over the economy of this country and he will be in a position to achieve the ends that he wishes to achieve, either by political means or through the use of the labour means that have been put at his disposal.

Another fact is that by the year 2000 the Blacks as a community in South Africa will probably be earning more than the Whites as a community in terms of individual income. That is a calculation that some economists have made. By the year 2000 they may even be paying more tax in terms of individual taxation. It is difficult to calculate the tax on the mines, companies and industries, but they may be paying even more tax than the Whites in terms of tax on individual earnings.

What is your point?

The point I am trying to make is that under those circumstances the Blacks will constitute the vast majority of the population, they will be providing the biggest input into the country’s economy—perhaps 90% of the input into the country’s economy—and they will in fact be providing a large share of the country’s income.

Tell us what you are asking for.

I am asking the Government simply to tell me whether under those circumstances, they visualize that they will still be able to exercise White political domination over the Black people of this community. If the answer is “yes” then this country is in incredibly serious trouble. If the Government believes that under those circumstances they will still be able to exercise White political domination in South Africa, then this country is in very serious trouble. It means in effect that this Government is living in a fantasy world. They will be taking South Africa over a precipice—they will be taking all of us with them over that precipice. It means that nothing that has been said to them, that none of the pleadings of the academics, of all the learned people in this country, all the evidence that has been made available to them, has had any effect whatsoever on their thinking processes and they are going ahead willy-nilly. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when listening to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, one realizes that the Opposition is living in a world of illusion. One cannot look at the problems and the circumstances prevailing in this country without looking at all the important impacts and forces at work in and outside our society. To hear that hon. member speak, one would not think that our country and, for that matter, the world is threatened by a gathering crisis. One would not think that we have an army on constant alert on our borders, that we have young men dying each day in an effort to maintain the freedoms existing in our society. Listening to those hon. members one comes to the conclusion that this country is threatened because it is a backward society that fails to respond and move into the 20th century.

The fact is that this country is being threatened because it is a modern, efficient and effective society. It is an efficient society within the whole Western milieu and that is why it is the object of attack by the enemies of this country. Those forces that wish to destroy us have no wish to civilize or improve this country; they want to barbarize it and destroy all the freedoms, including religious freedom, which exist in our society.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members on that side of the House are always referring to the underdogs in our society. However, it is about time that they realized that in international terms this country is the underdog. It is also about time that hon. members on that side of the House began to participate in real terms in the protection and the defence of this society. The arguments raised by that side of the House are based not only upon illusion but also upon humbug, and I want to give a very good example of that.

The hon. member for Constantia in a very fine maiden speech quoted Benjamin Azkin when he said: “The most trivial interests of the in-group take precedence over the most pressing needs of others.” That, he said, was something that we should avoid. But when it came closer to home, over whose pressing needs did that hon. member ride roughshod at Groot Constantia when it came to providing houses for the Coloured personnel? Which “trivial interests” of which “in-group” was that hon. member then defending?

Whilst we are trying to maintain basic and important standards on the Cape Flats and in all of the urban concentrations in our country, we are attacked on various grounds. I remember our being attacked for allowing squatters to be removed from Modder Dam and Unibel. Those squatters were removed at the time because there was a conflict between the high standards of the Coloured people who lived at Belhar and the low standards that existed at Modder Dam. However, we were attacked on that issue because it was maintained that it was not only wrong but it was also evil to remove the squatters. When, however, the best interests of the “in-group” of High Constantia are involved then suddenly a different norm applies.

We were not building a squatter camp or a site-and-service scheme and neither were we merely allowing thousands of people to camp there. The Board of Groot Constantia was simply building 16 Cape Dutch cottages, at a cost of R30 000 each, in order to conform to the highest standards of that farm, and this was being done after having prepared a general plan of the whole area, after having employed a top firm of architects to draw up the plans, after having referred those plans to the National Monuments Council for approval and having gained its approval and after having consulted the local authority—which it did not have to do but which it did nevertheless—and allowing four months to elapse for comment before building operations were actually begun. As soon as the first foundation was laid, however, the nearest Prog began to squeal, and do hon. members know what he said? He said “he feared for the safety of his family” because we were building 16 cottages of a high calibre for the senior personnel on that farm! [Interjections.] This was no site-and-service scheme with cute little houses that people built themselves. This was a solid development, solidly built houses for senior personnel. [Interjections.] I think it was then the hon. member for Constantia saw a Groote Schuur in his future.

You said 50 houses are planned.

There were 16 houses. [Interjections.] That hon. member knows that because I told him on the telephone, and that was over and above what he saw on the plans themselves. As I said, that hon. member saw a Groote Schuur in his future. I do not think it was so much a Groote Schuur, however, as a Waterloo. That hon. member then said one could not build those houses “cheek by jowl” with the high-class development at High Constantia. The Constantia Property Association also said, and I quote—

[Interjections.] That hon. gentleman then began to issue Press statements in which he said: “This was not a logical place to build outbuildings.” We were not, however, building outbuildings. We were building homes for people. It is not a question of “outbuilding sweet outbuilding” but rather a question of “home sweet home”. [Interjections.] We were building homes. Then the nearest Prog neighbour asked how we could build houses like that “virtually on his stoep”. [Interjections.] That is what he said. Let me just tell hon. members how much truth there was in the statement that those houses were right on his stoep. Let me show how close too close for comfort is for the Progs. There is a five-metre building line from the house for senior personnel, then there is a five-metre road reserve, then a six-metre road, then another five-metre road reserve and then a 4½-metre set-back to a house that faces the other way with a fence and then an avenue of oak trees in between. That, however, was too close for comfort, being “virtually on his stoep”! [Interjections.]

What does Helen say about it?

My telephone kept buzzing with phone calls from the liberalists and they said things about the Coloured community which were in very bad taste indeed. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not try to ask questions now, because I have little time.

†These integrationists then asked me why we did not “bus them in every day from the Cape Flats”.

What, bus!

That was the question put to me. [Interjections.]

*The Coloured community, especially Mr. Solly Essop, the chairman of the Farm Workers’ Union, then attacked those hon. members. He appealed to the hon. member for Parktown and said that they could not understand the view of the PFP. He said that he would have expected such a response from Mr. Jaap Marais, but not from the people of the PFP, who professed to be in favour of the abolition of apartheid and group areas. The hon. member for Parktown did, to his credit, repudiate his colleague, and he agreed that it was a good development taking place there. My point is just that it is a ridiculous situation.

†We live in a testing time; things are difficult. The problems are difficult, almost impossible, to resolve. It is, however, preposterous that we should stand here in the dock and be criticized in the terms in which we are criticized by people whose whole philosophy is based upon humbug and hypocrisy. The hon. the Prime Minister is going around the country from town to town, city to city, homeland to homeland—and also every day in his office—creating a climate for constructive development in the country and is bringing about great institutions and great instruments to strike at the very root of our problems. Therefore I say it is absolutely preposterous that we on this side of the House should listen to this kind of nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, if one has listened to the debates during the past few days and particularly to this debate,

I think the only point of consensus is that South Africa is indeed a country beset by many problems. That is a fact. Any child can identify these problems and the Opposition excels at it. What is, however, far more difficult, is to deal with these problems. It is in this area that the hon. Opposition fails the country so very miserably. It is true that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does from time to time say that he will support any constructive steps taken by the Government. It is, however, very seldom that the deeds match the words. If the constructive steps taken by the Government do not match exactly the details of that party’s policy, they reject them even though they have no real argument against the principle involved.

A typical case in point is the President’s Council. Because Blacks are not represented on the council but were to have their own separate council, the hon. Opposition rejects the principle of negotiation because it does not accord with their policy of a national convention. It is this kind of inconsistency which renders the hon. Opposition so irrelevant. However, it does more than that because if the President’s Council is to be boycotted because the Blacks are not represented on it, this raises a very serious question mark against the presence of the hon. Opposition in the House. Indians are not represented in this House and Coloureds are not represented in this House, let alone any Blacks.

If the hon. Opposition want to make a contribution towards solving these complex problems in the country, they will have to abandon their negative attitude and their Utopian concepts. This simply means pitting policy against policy and not principles against policy as they are so wont to do. That is a futile and spurious exercise because we do not differ so much on matters of principle as on policies and their implementation. The PFP, for example, believe in universal adult suffrage. So do we for that matter; so do the communists and so do the African socialists.

Why did you not say that during the election?

However, we believe it should be exercised in a confederation of several ethnically based sovereign states, while the PFP believes it should be exercised in a single sovereign state, albeit a federal one; the communists believe it should be exercised within a single party and African socialists believe it should be exercised once. Bills of rights, Utopian ideals and constitutional pipedreams may look good on paper but they are simply not sufficient in the hard, real world in which we live.

They have a Bill of Rights in America.

The position is a little more difficult than that. I am coming to America. The present American ambassador to the United Nations, Mrs. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, told a meeting in Washington last month—

She went on to say—

I would suggest that there is a parallel in South Africa too but not if one listens to the hon. Opposition. “Cut apartheid”, the hon. member for Yeoville said this afternoon, and hey presto!, everything will be solved. Suddenly there will be enough teachers, there will be enough jobs, there will be enough houses, suddenly everything will be hunky-dory in the country; there will be enough schools etc. Cut apartheid and one will solve the problems.

I could not have put it better!

That is not, however, the way in which to do it. Mrs. Kirkpatrick went on to say—

I could not agree with her more. It is this new complicated challenge that we on this side of the House are trying to meet. We are trying to do so by trying to govern South Africa and its complex fabric of different peoples and disparate cultures as it is and not as it ought to be—in some kind of mirage or pipedream that the hon. Opposition seems to think it is.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned for supper, I was saying that if the official Opposition wishes to play a constructive role in South Africa, it should abandon its negative attitude and its pipe dreams and come down to earth. I think we shall start coming down to earth right now by dealing further with certain questions which have remained unanswered since the debate in this House on Thursday afternoon. Before doing so, however, I deem it my duty to bring certain facts to the attention of this hon. House.

A female political reporter of a Johannesburg morning newspaper, which supports the PFP, was also observed among the demonstrators on Thursday when they began to sing their revolutionary songs. At least one member of this hon. House and at least one member of the Cape Provincial Council saw her joining the demonstrators in the singing of “We shall overcome”. This happened after the hon. member for Houghton had warned the demonstrators that their proposed course of action would be a violation of at least two laws. This woman enjoys free access to Parliament and the Press Gallery under the protection of Mr. Speaker, and under the circumstances I wonder, Sir, whether this behaviour can be allowed to go unnoticed.

In the meantime the hon. member for Houghton has stated to the Press that she would probably have been able to institute a libel action against me if I had had the courage to repeat outside the House what I had said here on Thursday. Well, Sir, I shall do so gladly and in fact I have already done so, viz. to say that the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens were observed among the demonstrators and were among them, nothing more and nothing less, Sir. This is an irrefutable fact which the hon. member for Houghton herself admitted. However, that simple fact evoked an absolutely hysterical reaction on that side of the House. The hon. member for Sandton shouted that I was lying and even wrote letters to the hon. the Prime Minister.

That is true.

The hon. member for Bryanston reacted in the same way. The question which now occurs to me is this: If those hon. members were women, then I would say: Methinks they protesteth too much! The question also arises why those members were so eager to wear the shoe even before it had been properly offered to them. Where there is smoke, Sir, there is usually a fire. It is an irrefutable fact that certain hon. members of the official Opposition were among the demonstrators and were seen mingling with them. It is in the public interest to establish how those hon. members found themselves there. Moreover it was and still is in the public interest to know whether they identified themselves with such demonstrations or not. If I were in their place and the question had been put to me, I would have said: “But of course I dissociate myself from it. I even warned them and helped to ensure that they disperse.” However, that is not the reply which we received from hon. members opposite. When the hon. the Minister of Finance subsequently repeated the question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he said: “I think you are actually quite disgusting.”

If the hon. members of the Opposition do not dissociate themselves from such demonstrations, I also want to know this: What is extra-parliamentary action? Or, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition prefers, what is legal action or illegal action? The reply to these questions is absolutely cardinal and if we do not receive it then I must say that we have indeed come to the parting of the ways. I am saying this because if we do not receive the answers, then it means at the very least that hon. members of the official Opposition are tacitly associating themselves with illegality. And not entirely tacitly either, Sir. During the past week those hon. members have constantly leaped into the breach for illegal action. The illegal squatting at Nyanga must be condoned, despite the fact that only six of the more than thousand people who were arrested had employment opportunities, despite the fact that they were offered employment elsewhere, despite the fact that they refused the offer and despite the fact that there is no work for them here.

Even in the debate on the manpower legislation, which accords equal treatment to everyone, illegal strikes had to be condoned; trade unions had to be allowed to provide illegal strikers and their families with money and commodities; unregistered trade unions had to enjoy the same privileges as registered trade unions. Only the hon. member for Yeoville refused to join them in this negative and destructive chorus.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am simply rising to afford the hon. member for Benoni an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip of the official Opposition for his friendly gesture. I ask: Why were these matters broached? Was it to destabilize the country through courses of action from within and outside this House?

Don’t you thank him?

I have. You see, Sir, the trouble with the Opposition is that they are always ready to accuse and to protest, but never to listen. [Interjections.]

*I want to ask what the difference is between this negative process and the methods advocated by Marcuse and Lenin. This House and this country wants to know what that difference is.

I think we should also look further into the so-called church service in the cathedral. It had a purpose, and that purpose was revealed in the Press. Die Burger said that the service was held to object to the Government’s actions against the squatters at Nyanga, in other words, to protest. And how was it done? I am quoting from the Rand Daily Mail and The Cape Times—

The Cape Times and Die Burger reported that it was then unanimously decided to march on Parliament. Hon. members on that side of the House may call it a church service if they wish. As far as I am concerned, it was nothing but a political protest meeting. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I wish to state it as a fact that other hon. members on this side of the House and I knew even before the start of that protest meeting that certain elements intended to assemble at the cathedral and then march on Parliament and demand to see the hon. the Minister, which is precisely what happened. There was an organized protest of almost a thousand people, complete with inflammatory placards. Are the hon. members for Houghton and for Cape Town Gardens, who were forever visiting Nyanga and who have known ties with certain of the priests involved, really trying to make out that they did not know what the nature and the purpose of the so-called service was and did not know that it would probably degenerate into a protest? Yet the hon. members attended the so-called service. Why? To achieve what? However one wants to regard the matter, the hon. members for Houghton and Cape Town Gardens at the very least helped, through their actions in and outside this House, to create the climate which led to Thursday’s events. [Interjections.] I put it to the hon. member for Houghton that she only decided to play a conciliatory role when she realized that things were getting out of hand. Indeed, it is stated in The Argus—

[Interjections.] I now wish to quote from the Rand Daily Mail—

These people could not be persuaded to disperse, not by the colonel, not by the dogs, nor by the threatening truncheons. [Interjections.] Would they have listened to me?

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

Order! Does the hon. member wish to reply to a question?

No, Sir. My time has expired. I am sorry. Now I ask myself whether those people would have listened to me, to the hon. the leader of the NRP or even to the hon. the Minister of Police. I quote again from the Rand Daily Mail—

[Interjections.] Now I ask myself to whom such people would then have listened if not to the people whom they recognize as their leaders?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni will forgive me if I do not respond to his allegations about the hon. members on this side of the House. I am sure that those hon. members will relish the opportunity to defend themselves when their turn comes to speak.

It seems to me that, if we were to distil the entire constitutional debate we have had, we would be left at the end with just one hard-core question, and our answer to that question would determine whether we would be sitting on that side of the House or *his side. The question is simply the following: Are we, or are we not, going to share power with the Blacks? Yes or no? If we answer “Yes, we can and we must share power”, then we shall be sitting on this side; if we answer “No, we cannot and we must not”, then we shall be sitting on that side. Those of us who see the necessity for sharing power—and this includes the hon. members of the NRP—will then ask themselves a second question, and that is: How is power to be shared without the domination of one group over another?

That is it.

That is where the NRP and the PFP part company. We believe in different systems of power sharing, but nonetheless we do both believe in power sharing.

Do not tell us what is wrong with our system. Tell us about yours.

The hon. members on the other side of the House, who adopt the attitude that it is impossible to formulate a system of power sharing, are in my opinion simply arguing the case for the inevitability of violent conflict. We have heard that in less than 20 years from now there will be more than 30 million Black people in so-called White South Africa, and that as opposed to fewer than five million Whites. If we believe that those 30 million are going to be content with a homeland franchise, which is another way of saying that they will be living under White domination in perpetuity, then we delude ourselves, and it is the most dangerous delusion we can have.

What is your answer to it?

Those who argue that Blacks will accept the PFP’s constitutional proposals—which safeguard the rights of Whites—only because they intend to dishonour that constitution by tearing it up and replacing it with a system of Black domination, tend to forget that the same argument holds good for any constitutional proposals, whether they be by the PFP, the NRP or the NP. If Blacks are hell-bent on seizing power and on domination, no constitutional proposals whatever will be honoured. What we do accept is that the longer we persist with White domination, the more likely it is that Black Power will grow in stature and that the numbers of those preaching violence as being the only means of bringing about change will also grow. When the majority of Blacks in South Africa believe that the only way to bring about change is through violence and through belonging to groups which advocate violence and Black Power, then we are in serious trouble indeed.

It is seldom that the spotlight of publicity has been focused as relentlessly on apartheid as it has been over the past few weeks in the Cape Peninsula, and seldom have the shortcomings of the system been as ruthlessly exposed. The thousands of men, women and children who were returned to the Transkei were living proof of the fact that the apartheid structure is in the process of collapse, that the only way it can be maintained is by means of mass arrests, imprisonment and deportations. Those unfortunate people exposed to the eyes of the world the failure of the great apartheid dream, the dream of a White South Africa, with the Black man meekly and subserviently enclosed in his own homeland, out of sight and out of mind, except, of course, when his labour was required. Then he would be allowed to emerge in well ordered ranks. When the work was done he would be sent back again, his usefulness expended. This dream has been shattered because the homelands are too small, too poor, too under-developed, too isolated even to begin to look like viable States.

Because the people there are poor and poverty-stricken and hungry they will continue to stream out of the homelands. Nothing short of a Berlin-type wall will stop them.

What else these people were exposed to was the selfishness of a policy which reserves the cities for a privileged group, a group whose fortunes can be steadily improved, while the rest have to fend for themselves as best they can. It is a policy of “I am all right, Jack.” What makes it worse is the fact that we know that those people cannot fend for themselves. It is not perversity which makes them come to the towns and cities, nor is it wilfulness, nor civil disobedience. It is hunger, no more, no less, and yet we send them back home regardless, knowing what awaits them upon their return. Why is it that when people are refugees from floods, from droughts and other disasters, we call a state of emergency in order to feed, clothe and house them, but when people are refugees from hunger and poverty we treat them as criminals, harass them and persecute them and arrest them? We round them up and we ship them off back to the economic disaster areas from which they have fled. This will always be a mystery to me. Why is it that instead of placing the burden of providing work and wages fairly and squarely on the cities and towns whose affluence is derived in large measure from these people, either as workers or as consumers, we shunt the responsibility off onto the homelands, which are economic nightmares and unable to cope with these people?

In its pursuance of this policy the Government has, over the past 20 years, been responsible for uprooting and resettling over one million people. In 1980 alone more than 150 000 people were arrested for pass law offences. Compared to these figures the arrests at Nyanga were but a drop in the ocean. What they do is to highlight the apparent inability of this Government to deal with one of the most pressing socioeconomic problems which is facing us in this country today—the problem of Black urbanization.

The Government has given, as its answer to urbanization, a policy of decentralization. Apart from the fact, however, that vast sums of money have been spent on providing economic infrastructure in parts of the homelands, this policy has met with little success. If we look at what has happened in parts of the homelands where these sums of money have been spent, we see that there has been little or no development of the kind which has been envisaged. The homelands are not working out the way they were planned, and the sooner we stop seeing them as the panacea which is going to solve all our political ills, the better it will be for all of us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member for Albany not also be afforded the opportunity to complete his speech? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the budget of the hon. the Prime Minister. This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried, and to some extent succeeded, in giving us an explanation of the constitutional and political problem facing South Africa. He dealt with it in his reply to the censure debate when he said that the real discussion in South Africa concerned whether one can have White self-determination in South Africa without White domination. This is the question the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put in that debate and to which he devoted the major part of his speech today. If I understood him correctly, and I think I did, his conclusion was that in terms of NP policy, self-determination means nothing but White domination.

I left the question open.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he left the question open, or did he? I want to come to that. This was precisely the problem I had with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during the previous debate and this afternoon as well. He stated a number of hypotheses and said that if by then we understood this or that, this meant White domination. The answer I should have liked from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I think he owes it, not only to us, but to the whole of South Africa—after all, it is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who puts questions and asks whether White self-determination is anything but White domination in terms of NP Party policy—is whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of the right to self-determination for every separate nation in South Africa. But we do not receive an answer to that; neither from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, nor from any of the members of his party on that side of this House. What have we had up to now from the official Opposition during this session? They have only told us—and one cannot find much fault with that—that the ideal solution for South Africa is that all the groups in South Africa must achieve consensus on a future constitutional dispensation in South Africa. This is the ideal situation, and no one can find fault with that, but we are living this side of heaven and we are dealing with realities. We are now entitled to ask the Opposition, and in particular the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, what proposals the official Opposition would submit to a possible conference, however hypothetical it may be, in order to achieve consensus among all the population groups and populations of South Africa? We have had only one real standpoint up to now, in previous debates as well as in this debate, from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That was when he said that a common South African citizenship was not negotiable. In other words, the official Opposition is telling us in advance that it is not in favour of a solution which does not make provision for common citizenship for all the inhabitants of South Africa, or, if possible, for Southern Africa. Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana are today no longer part of South Africa in the political sense. They are independent. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to tell me now that in an effort to solve the problems of our subcontinent he would not be prepared to participate if Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana were not prepared to surrender their separate citizenship? He is saying that by implication. What more did we hear? Only that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us that there would be protection for minority groups. Now I want to put a question to him. After all, he is a sensible person. If one affords minority groups protection, something which does, after all, have to be done by way of legislation, how is one to do so without defining those minority groups by way of legislation? The official Opposition repeatedly tells us that all references to either race or to population differences in legislation in South Africa, and then probably in any proposed constitution for South Africa as well, will be eliminated. There will be no reference whatsoever to that. Accordingly I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If one wants to afford minority groups constitutional protection in terms of a “Bill of Rights”, call it what you will, how is one to do so in practice without a legal definition of that minority group? How is it possible to afford protection to the Swazis in my part of the world if “Swazi” is not defined. How is it possible to afford protection to the Ndebele minority group if they are not defined in terms of legislation?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

No, I am sorry. My time is limited. How—and in my opinion this is an important question—is one going to afford the Whites protection if there is not a legal definition in the constitution of South Africa or in other legislation of what is understood by Whites and the White group in South Africa?

Sir, what we have here is a colossal bluff on the part of the official Opposition. Their assurances that protective measures for minorities in South Africa will be built in, are worthless.

What about the Germans and the Portuguese?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition over-simplified the matter by saying that the Black people of South Africa, the Black peoples, despised domination and the Whites feared it. Those were his words this afternoon. However, what is the reality? The Black peoples of South Africa, too, fear domination. Is this not a fact? Have we not already had an example of this in the rest of Africa? I do not know whether the Ibos of Nigeria despised domination. Nor do I know whether they feared it, but they paid a high price. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a few words to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He made a fairly low-key speech this afternoon. In the no-confidence debate he ended on a note which left me with the impression that he was almost hysterical. Today, on the other hand, he adopted a low profile. He complained that we on this side of the House did not want hon. members on the Opposition side to liaise with extra-parliamentary bodies. The question is—and this is an important question—whom do the Opposition liaise with? Do they liaise with the ANC? Do they liaise with the Black Sash? Do they liaise with the banned Communist Party? I ask this because before that party was banned, they had close links with the party. If they want proof, I shall put it before them. [Interjections.] We are dealing with constitutional change in the country, but the Opposition has made “change” a swearword. They are virtually swearing at the hon. the Prime Minister, because they say he must change, but he is going too slowly. It is not a question of how the change is to take place, it is merely a question of change for the sake of change. I have been into the whole matter indepth—I went back as far as 1910. The most radical constitutional change since 1910, came at the beginning of the ’eighties with the institution of the President’s Council and the abolition of the Senate. The President’s Council was established for the sake of dialogue or discussion. This was a radical change, because for the first time in the history of this country a body was established by way of legislation of this Parliament in which three different population groups are represented to conduct discussions. However, what is the official Opposition doing? Those hon. members are refusing to participate in those discussions. They refuse to participate in lawful discussions, but they seek all manner of organizations outside this Parliament with which to conduct discussions. However, there is only one body in this country which can offer evolutionary or peaceful constitutional change, and that is this Parliament. It is impossible outside this Parliament. Why, then, do they seek to discuss matters with those people, whereas they refuse to conduct discussions in the President’s Council? Is it not a question of the old saying “birds of a feather flock together”? How do they want to effect the change, which they call for so stridently, in South Africa other than through this Parliament? What are they seeking from extra-parliamentary organizations? Surely by doing that they will end up where they ended up last Friday, in the street among a group of demonstrators. That is where they end up with their extra-parliamentary search for a solution.

This evening I want to accuse the Opposition and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of neglecting their duty. I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is neglecting his duty in disgraceful fashion by refusing to participate in the discussions in the President’s Council. There was another historic change. The constitution was changed in 1946 as well, and that, too, was a radical change. Act No. 26 of 1946 singled out the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa for a higher salary. He was elevated above the ordinary member, for before 1946—in fact, since 1910—the Leader of the Opposition received the same remuneration as ordinary members. In 1946 the Leader of the Opposition was singled out by legislation of this Parliament. Apart from his ordinary salary of £1 000, which all members received, he was also given a further allowance of £1 000 per annum. [Interjections.] I can understand why this was done. We are a democratic State and the Opposition is part of our system. The Government granted the Leader of the Opposition a higher salary at that time because it was recognized that the Leader of the Opposition had work to do in this democratic State. Since this is the case, since the Leader of the Opposition has since those years been given a higher salary in recognition for his work, I accuse the present Leader of the Opposition of neglecting his duty. By way of legislation this House established a council to conduct discussions with a view to effecting sound constitutional change in South Africa. But in his great wisdom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is boycotting that council. Consequently I accuse the hon. the leader this evening of neglecting his duty.

Reduce his salary.

However, I found yet another radical change since 1910. I spent some time examining the events since 1910; I myself experienced many of them. One of the most radical changes took place in 1936 with the introduction of separate representation for Native voters, as they were then called. Now the Opposition is levelling the accusation at us that apartheid is costing a great deal of money; everything is being laid at the door of apartheid. The hon. the Opposition can call it what they like; it is part of our way of life in South Africa. It is a norm, and the Opposition have accepted that norm over the years. They cannot say it is the fault of their fathers. Hon. members must take a look at the frontbenchers of both Opposition parties. With the exception of the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition, every hon. member sitting there was elected to this House under the banner of the United Party. Consequently they must accept responsibility for these things and must not accuse their fathers. We are being accused of apartheid; we are being accused of having placed people on separate voter’s rolls … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. member Mr. Van Staden, it is interesting to see that he has concentrated on those aspects of politics in South Africa which represents a threat to South African stability. Irrespective of the origin of those threats to stability, it will be well recognized by hon. members that South Africa finds itself in an extremely vulnerable position. If we look at the onslaught from the North, at the communist intrusion into South Africa, and if we look at the function of many organizations which go under the cloak of morality and at the justification of violence, it will certainly be appreciated by hon. members that South Africa finds itself the target area for instability in the Western world. One of the greatest contributory factors to instability in South Africa within the next few years will be whether polarization of the population increases in tempo or whether we will be able to successfully counteract the forces for polarization.

By polarization we mean the separation of the total population of South Africa, of all population groups into those who prefer to stay in the intransigent camps, who are unable to move with the times and accommodate the aspirations of all members of the population, and those who believe, on the other side of the spectrum, that, irrespective of the means used, the end justifies them. By that we mean, Sir, that the very creation of instability justifies a transition or a change in the order in South Africa. I should like to say to the hon. the Prime Minister, particularly, Mr. Chairman, that I believe it would be folly to assume that one can employ a strategy of constitution-making in South Africa that excludes any particular population group. The reason for this is very simple. All members of all population groups in South Africa aspire to participation in the constitution-making process in South Africa. A contributory factor to the polarization of the population of South Africa is to be found in the selective strategy employed by the governing party. It is well known, Sir, that if one arrives at a settlement—and the word “if’ is underlined—which is acceptable to the homeland areas and which may be acceptable to the Indians, the Coloureds and the Whites of South Africa, but which excludes from the negotiating table the non-homeland Blacks then, I believe, the radicalization process will be enhanced. I say this for the very simple reason that one then positions the urban Blacks in a situation where they are acutely aware of the deprivation that they will suffer in terms of a political dispensation. To attempt to settle selectively the matrix of political aspirations in South Africa, we believe contributes significantly towards the polarization not only of the White electorate but also of the other population groups. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that every attempt must be made from that side of the House to include in the negotiating process members of every population group because, if we do not do so, Sir, then I believe that the confrontation mechanism propagated by the radicals in South Africa and overseas will be perpetuated and enhanced in South Africa. In my particular view, Sir, following upon the words of my leader, the hon. member for Durban Point, to the hon. the Prime Minister and that side of the House, when a political dispensation is negotiated in South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister must ensure to the maximum of his capability that all members of all population groups are included in the negotiating situation. Without that, Mr. Chairman, we shall not find an acceptable solution in South Africa.

I should also like to say to the hon. Leader of the official Opposition that he must re-examine the strategy of his party and the role it has to play in constitution-making in South Africa. I say this because the official Opposition is probably the senior partner in the polarization process in South Africa. We have noticed particularly since the PFP became the official Opposition party in 1977 that they have adopted a strategic position, they are employing a strategy that can ultimately destroy the very objectives they have set for themselves in South Africa. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the greatest danger in promoting polarization in South Africa for party political interests only is in respect of a strategy that could place the PFP in a position where they could well lose control of such a strategy that they have initiated.

Tell us about that strategy.

I should like to tell the hon. member who has just interjected that that strategy is the classical strategy of radical opposition and politicking in the world. That radical process, that strategy, is dependent upon a three-phase aspect and if we condone one aspect we shall inevitably be drawn into the vortex where we will lose control of the strategy and find ourselves unable to stop the very process we have started.

The first phase in that type of political strategy—one of three—is to start the boycotting process. Once one condones boycotting, particularly of parliamentary institutions such as the President’s Council, then one will find it impossible to censure any other body that participates in boycotting, irrespective of where the boycotting process starts.

The second phase—and we have seen recently that this phase has shown itself in South Africa—is in fact to justify civil disorder. The one interaction leads to the other. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition he must be careful that he does not lose control of the process which his own party is advocating because once you have condoned or rationalized or moralized civil disorder you will find it an impossible situation. You will find it impossible to stop those elements who support you from propagating that type of strategy.

In the third instance—I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will take particular note of this—the classical model leads from boycotting to civil disorder to association with acts of violence. The reason is very simple and very easy to define. The process of boycotting institutions, the process of moralizing, or rationalizing civil disobedience inevitably leads to the raising of expectations which cannot be fulfilled. Therein lies the danger of the radical political strategy. Once you have condoned boycotts, once you have condoned civil disorder, you will find it impossible to stop the association with civil violence. I would like to see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition exploring the possibility, as he said himself earlier today, of bringing the PFP back from that possible strategy to the more acceptable strategy of collective bargaining and negotiating as a political system.

But whose Vote is this? Is it the Prime Minister’s Vote or my Vote?

Mr. Chairman, I am responding to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] He offered today to play a constructive role in constitution making in South Africa. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his party that they will have to stop propagating boycott policies, the enhancement of civil disobedience and the possible incitement which will lead to civil violence. That requires a very considerable change in strategy on the part of the official Opposition.

You are hurting them, carry on.

We will take the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at his word that he is sincere when he says they want to make a constructive contribution to constitution making in South Africa. I should like to make a particular appeal to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition and say to him that I believe that it is going to be impossible for him to stop the dissidents in his party unless he takes a very strong stand on the first two strategy aspects that I mentioned, i.e. boycotting and the support of civil disobedience. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, …

Ask them when they are going to split. After all, they are going to split.

Yes, when are you going to split? After all, you are going to split.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban North that I agree with certain aspects of his speech. It is true that there is a radical strategy to take over the country. One thing is certain, and that is that this side of the House is all too aware of this. If we consider what the Office of the Prime Minister is occupied with, we see there is planning over a wide spectrum, for the very reason that the radical strategy must be combated over a wide spectrum. In this process we are involved in consultation and normalizing of relations among people and among nations. The planning action of the Office of the Prime Minister under the guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister is in actual fact a Magna Charta for us, a framework within which there can be prosperity and development for all the people and all the nations in Southern Africa. We would be blind if we did not consider the background against which this planning is taking place, the scenario that has been created. It is a fact that the Marxists are engaged in a tremendous radical onslaught against the country. One thing we in this country must do is to believe what the communists tell us. In 1977 Nicolai Podgorny had the following to say while concluding agreements with, inter alia, Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique—he was speaking about agreements—

I very much want us and the nation to believe what the communists say, namely that they want to take South Africa by military force. This is becoming a threatening and grave danger because the time scale is very small. We know they intend to take over this country by about 1986.

In this connection we must not be complacent, because there is a certain orchestration of events I should like to bring to the attention of this House. Let us consider only the month of August. In August our blind bowls players encountered problems in Britain. In New Zealand our rugby players have had problems. In July and August we had the Nyanga incidents, and we had four American visitors from their House of Representatives, and they left South Africa on 11 August. On 12 August rockets exploded in Voortrekkerhoogte in my constituency. I note from newspaper reports that the spirit of Steve Biko has risen again. I note that there was a march from the church to Parliament. Are these events not food for thought? Are these not events that should unite our nation behind our leader, the hon. the Prime Minister?

Now I wish to turn to the church. Is it so surprising that the march began at a church? I should like to quote what Lenin had to say—

†As a confessing Christian, I must say that this makes my heart tremble, because this does mean that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing amongst the flock. How will we be able to identify them?

Broederbonders.

In this Chamber I have heard the following sanctimonious, self-righteous words ringing concerning the Government—

Again religion is brought into the House. The hon. member for Sandton said the following—

We must realize what is going on and we must be alert. There are outside Parliament extra-parliamentary groupings and movements, amongst others the ANC, the S.A. Communist Party, the PAC and many others and their sole aim is to overthrow the social, political and economic system of this country and to replace it with equivalent Marxist doctrines. We should be aware of this and every South African citizen should oppose this. Would any voter wittingly vote for a party which creates the machinery to have contact with extra-parliamentary movements and to co-operate with them?

Like the Broederbond.

That hon. member quite correctly raises objections at this stage, because to my utter amazement I find on page 16 of the report of the constitutional committee of the PFP the following words—

They will create machinery, and secondly—

Nowhere—and I will be honest about this—is it stipulated that these extra-parliamentary movements will include the ANC or the PAC. Nowhere is that stated. Nowhere do they state that they will have contact with them. On the other hand, it is stated nowhere that they will not have contact with them. [Interjections.] Nowhere do they say they will not have contact with them.

[Interjections.] I remember very clearly how one hon. member on this side asked of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he would have contact with the ANC. That question was put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here in this House, and yet, to this very moment, we have been waiting for him to reply, but in vain. Will they be included in or excluded from the group within which this contact will be taking place? I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes this House and the country an explanation in this regard. [Interjections.]

*Against the background of the scenario to which I referred earlier, we must realize that the hon. the Prime Minister, in his policy and in his planning, is calling upon all of us to join ranks and fight this enemy. In this case it really is a question of: Those who are not with me are against me. All nations-in this country must realize this.

I note in the Estimate of Expenditure that the office of the hon. the Prime Minister is also carrying out security planning. I want to dwell on this briefly. This aspect of security planning in the office of the hon. the Prime Minister is aimed at co-ordinating and launching strategies to preserve this society which expresses our value systems and also to interpret information we receive. It is my honest opinion that in the onslaught we are now facing, this aspect of security planning will play an ever increasing role. It will therefore have to be extended further. Our entire security apparatus as a whole will have to be extended, because the threat is veiled and sometimes also hypocritical. We cannot afford to be caught napping. Therefore, to us on this side of the House it is a fight to the death against communism, against Marxism, in whatever form; a fight to the death to preserve the values we believe in.

In this regard our perspective differs from that of the hon. members opposite. We believe that every individual is entitled to his freedom, but that he is only entitled to it within his national context. Indeed, the freedom of a nation guarantees the right of every member of that particular nation. We also believe that every nation is entitled to its sovereignty. Every nation is also entitled to its own identity and its own freedom. For this reason the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister and his planning is aimed—as I see it—at bringing about consultation and normalizing the relations between people and nations. This has now been planned, and all that must now happen is that the nation must implement this plan. All we must do now is to proceed on the basis of this planning. We are also going to make a success of the President’s Council, in spite of what hon. members opposite say. We are going to have a constellation of States. We are also going to have a confederation of States. We are going to achieve peace and prosperity in this country, provided only that every citizen does his duty and believes that the communist danger is a real one for this country.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pretoria West said. While he was discussing the official Opposition, it reminded me of what someone said the other day, namely that the attitude and the contribution we have had from the official Opposition will result in their continuing to protest about the increase in the price of bread without realizing that we are already paying for that bread in roubles.

A recent newspaper report was entitled: “P. W. Botha’s first thousand days.” I should like to complete that headline myself by adding: “A thousand deeds in a thousand days.”

Since the hon. the Prime Minister took office he has given direction, through his immediate and positive action, not only in the political sphere but also in a comprehensive and co-ordinated planning action, covering the entire spectrum of a broad framework of integrated collective decision-making, including security planning, economic progress and also social upliftment. I refer of course to the annual report of the office of the hon. the Prime Minister. It is a masterpiece, not only as regards presentation but also, and particularly, as regards content, something which I believe deserves the unanimous congratulations of this House.

In the political field I think we are on the threshold of powerful changes and adjustments. I also think that we stand on the threshold of tremendous progress and prosperity for all, within the framework of the aforementioned constellation of Southern African States. However, when one considers the tremendous range of the vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, one wonders sometimes what accusations can still be levelled at him. Amongst other things, the accusation is already being levelled at him—and specifically against him as Prime Minister—that the Government treats the question of displacement superficially and is lukewarm about it, or even ignores it. I wish to deny this, but tonight I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to deal with this question of displacement and the superficiality with which it is supposedly treated or its being ignored, and to give his standpoint and opinion on this so that the nation and all of us can know what his standpoint and that of his Government is.

If one considers all that the hon. the Prime Minister has achieved, it is a remarkable effort, especially if one considers the co-operation which the hon. the Prime Minister has received from the ranks of the Opposition. If one were to draw up a balance sheet one would see that one could mention the thousand deeds in a thousand days on the credit side, one by one. On the other hand, if one were to consider the contribution of the official Opposition, one would find it only on the debit side. There it can be classified in the following sequence: Negativism, boycotts, defeatism and now, finally, the irresponsible breaking down of the parliamentary system.

I should like to refer to a few achievements. Last year, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition took office, he promised co-operation. This year in the censure debate he did so again, and this afternoon yet again. These were empty words, and I shall try to illustrate this. In 1977 the then hon. member for Parktown propagated the withdrawal of investments in South Africa. He then apologized, but only after the harm had already been done. I ask: Is that co-operation? Is that what the appeal by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition achieves?

The hon. member for Sandton tried to torpedo the Springbok tour to New Zealand, while everyone in South Africa desired it. He later withdrew this statement half-heartedly, but on a different occasion he confirmed it again. Is this the co-operation which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to bring about?

Last week Cardinal McCann predicted that revolution would come if unemployment increased, but on the other hand he neglected to point out to the World Council of Churches, where he has great influence, and which propagates the withdrawal of investments in South Africa, that this would be a mistake.

In addition, we have in this House the hon. member for Pinelands, who has most access to that area, but do we hear anything from him? No. On the contrary, he prefers to waste his time on the “Free Mandela” campaign. Is this the co-operation the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to promise us?

Then, too, we still had the boycott of the President’s Council. Is this the co-operation we get?

In addition, where does the foreign policy of that party come from? The hon. member for Sea Point prefers to make telephone calls to America to his friend Mr. McHenry to obtain the policy from there, rather than to seek co-operation in this country. Is this the co-operation the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to offer us?

We now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, with his contribution of promises of co-operation. In 1980 he accepted an invitation to be absent from South Africa in order to make a speech in Germany during the Republic festivities in May 1981. His excuse was that in 1980 he did not know about the Republic festival in 1981. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expect us to be so naïve as to accept this, whereas we all know that it was decided in 1966 that Republic Day festivities would be held every five years? Is this the co-operation which he offered or is it merely a naïve excuse? In the second place, there is the question put by the hon. the Prime Minister to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. On Monday, 3 August (Hansard, col. 75), he quoted the following statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet furnished the hon. the Prime Minister with a reply to this, but I hope he will do so in this debate. All he said was “I do not know what you are talking about”, but he has not yet come up with a “yes” or “no”. South Africa demands an answer. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dissociate himself from this or does he agree that pressure on South Africa must be propagated in the interests of what they wish to achieve?

In this way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also rejects the right to self-determination of the Whites, but, as the hon. the Minister of Finance has said, the parting of the ways is in view.

Criticism was levelled in this and in previous debates by all ranks of the Opposition at all steps taken by the Government, but will they not tell us more about how their national convention is to be constituted? Whom are they going to invite? How will the chairman be elected? Will there be voting? Will representation be granted proportionally according to population groups, or in some other way?

Today I wish to allege that the problem of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and also of the other hon. members of that party is that he is not really the leader of the Opposition. He only fills the position of a PRO and the real leader of the Opposition is the iron lady sitting next to him. That woman, and the Houghton clique, control not only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but also the recalcitrant and opportunistic member for Yeoville sitting next to her. Neither of them can say anything. She has only to look at the hon. member for Yeoville, and if she says “jump” he does not ask “where to?” but only “how high?” [Interjections.] Her problem is that she is leading that party astray, because her inspiration springs from an absolute hatred for everything Afrikaans and South African. She is prepared to create chaos in her endeavour to achieve her own purpose. If one considers all these activities of the Opposition, one sometimes wonders whether the enemies of South Africa could have chosen a better ally than the one they have found in that party. No matter how well-meaning the Opposition is one has to tell them that they must remember the old saying that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. It is pointless having good intentions and making fine promises. They should rather ascertain what the realities are and what South Africa wants. The path they are following will lead them to disaster.

Under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister I stand here tonight with my credo of an Afrikaner. I reject racism. I believe in an equal dispensation for everyone and equal opportunities for everyone in South Africa according to their abilities. I believe in the protection and preservation of every person’s cultural possessions, way of life and identity. I believe in a great future for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Vasco and for Pretoria West will appreciate that we on this side of the House have no intention of being side-tracked by red herrings. This debate, initiated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is directed towards the hon. the Prime Minister and deals essentially with the question of whether, in fact, his policy is one of domination or not. That is the central theme and we intend returning to it.

On the previous occasion when I spoke, I attempted to look at the confederation to see whether the relationship between South Africa with its White government and the so-called independent Black states was one of equality or one of domination. I argued that in fact in practice, whatever the de jure situation was, de factor it was one of domination. I think the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me that, in fact, as far as the practical position is concerned, he has his foot on the economic windpipe of those states, and from time to time he is going to use that power.

What about Lesotho?

I sketched the historical background in this regard and I also said let us look at the people from Transkei who live in White South Africa. I said that I believe the recent actions of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government in deporting those people and dumping them back in Transkei …

You cannot use the word “dumping”.

I will use it again … dumping those people back in Transkei is tangible, living evidence of the “baasskap” relationship between this hon. Prime Minister and the Government of Transkei.

You are a dumped leader.

I also alleged that the action initiated by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and his assistant was illegal. [Interjections.]

Ring, telephone, ring.

I believe … [Interjections.] The law is quite clear. Section 6(3) of the Status of the Transkei Act states—

But what rights and privileges did they have here?

Any Transkeian had the right and privilege of entering South Africa. [Interjections.] There was nothing in the law at that time which prevented a Transkeian from entering South Africa.

Of their free will.

Yes, of their free will, but that was nevertheless a right.

Are they not subject to our laws now?

The Status of the Transkei Act is a law of this Parliament and the laws of this Parliament are sacrosanct.

Are they not subject to our laws now?

That hon. Deputy Minister is putting himself above the law.

No, I am not. I am asking you a question.

Does he endorse the Status of the Transkei Act? [Interjections.] Someone has examined 319 of the cases of people who were deported and found that 10,4% had only been here for two years and 28,2% for between two and five years, whilst over 51% had been in the Peninsula or outside Transkei for from five to 15 years.

But where did they live all the time?

In other words, they were outside Transkei at the time and, if this Government deported them, it deported them in conflict with a law of this Parliament. There is not, however, only the legal situation to consider. I also believe that the arrogance with which this Government has treated Transkei is to be deplored. [Interjections.] There is a report in a newspaper today of how the Transkeian Prime Minister reacted, and the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs must reply to this. I quote—

So you criticize our Government and applaud that Government?

Rightly or wrongly, it is because this Government is in a position to apply a policy of “baasskap” as far as those independent States are concerned. [Interjections.] What else did the Prime Minister of Transkei say in his statement today? I quote—

That is, of course, exactly what has happened. [Interjections.] They have used it as a dumping ground. I quote further—

Whether that gentleman is right or wrong, what we want to try to emphasize is that the relationship of this Government toward the Governments of independent States is a master-servant relationship. [Interjections.] In law the sovereignty exists but in practice it is possible for this Government, in conflict with the law and the spirit of the law, to dump people in the Transkei who were formerly citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is a disgrace. But that one single action at Nyanga is very revealing. In the Government’s reaction to those simple squatter people, those wretched people looking for shelter, is reflected not only its attitude towards squatters—ordinary human beings—but also its attitude towards the independent States around South Africa. [Interjections.] Read the article. Many of those people were not Transkeians but nevertheless they were dumped there by this Government. [Interjections.] What is quite clear, however, is what we said in an earlier debate. There is de jure sovereignty but de facto “baasskap” of this Government over all of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, that is the reality of the situation. Look at the economic position of the people in the homelands or the independent States. As far as their incomes are concerned, what do all the statistics indicate? The statistics indicate that something approaching 20% of the GDP of those people is earned inside the homelands and 80% is earned outside the homelands. Is this a basis for independence? Is this a basis for equality, equal sovereignty, equality in co-operation?

Is it for you to decide or for them?

The Government can talk about economic co-operation schemes, about “ekonomiese samewerking projekte”; they can talk about a physical guide plan for South Africa. The reality is that once these States have taken independence, they are at the complete mercy of this Government as far as their economic development is concerned. Look at trade, for instance. I want to ask hon. members on the other side of the House what kind of facilities there are for trading on the basis of sovereign independence and equality with the master State next door with the map of South Africa as it is today? Look at the road systems. Can those States trade internationally?

You do not know what you are talking about; why do you not get your facts straight? You are talking nonsense.

Look at the rail system. Is there any railway line which will allow foreign trade with these States? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether there is any railway line that will permit them to have foreign trade on an international basis. [Interjections.] There is not one. There is no rail system; there is not a road that will permit this. Look at the harbours. Is there a single harbour which will provide them with a deep-sea port in order to trade internationally? [Interjections.] Of course there is not. The hon. members know there is not. As far as development is concerned, as far as trade is concerned, the Government holds them by their economic windpipe. Look at their Government services. The Government knows that if it were not for the large ex gratia payments which these States and the national States within South Africa are receiving by way of a gratuity from the South African Government—not by way of a right as a sovereign independent State—their civil services would, in fact, collapse. The Government knows that. In this year’s budget R910 million is available for these States. That is far more than all the revenue that is available from within those States.

But that is not true. How can there only be R9 million available for all those States?

The civil services of those States, the on-going Governments of those States, depend upon ex gratia payments by Big White Brother in South Africa.

That is not the only money they receive.

In terms of what they receive, the ex gratia contribution from South Africa is the difference between going under or managing to keep alive.

That is not all. The South African Government knows that it can regulate the pace of the economic development of those territories. The Government should know that while urbanization, which is one of our problems, is a world-wide one, the process of urbanization is being exacerbated and made worse by the policies of the Government. Did the people of Transkei have any say in regard to a Coloured labour preference area in the Cape? Of course they did not. Government policy has contributed directly to the lack of development in the homeland areas. The Government knows that in those States there is a growing population which the hon. the Minister has now conceded have no right of access to the rest of South Africa. Those people are locked into the homeland States in a situation where they do not have access to the wealth and resources of South Africa. This will eventually result in a collapse of those economies and a massive migration of these people to the squatter camps of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Sea Point. I am not one of the younger members in this House, and it is a long time since I have had to üsten to as much rubbish as I heard here tonight. I have no objection to the criticism voiced by the hon. member; on occasion I myself have voiced criticism concerning the position and the economic development of the Black States, both the independent and the national States. However, there is such a thing as responsibility, and one must at least be certain of one’s facts. However, what did the hon. member for Sea Point do? This evening he let rip without submitting anything by way of supporting evidence with regard to the situation. Let us concede that there are many deficiencies. However, the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have already made announcements with a view to overcoming these deficiencies. Let us now consider a few very simple aspects which the hon. member could so easily have verified.

They are not interested in the truth.

Let us consider a single aspect. We are supposedly doing absolutely nothing about the situation. More than half of Escom’s high tension powerlines cross Black South Africa. The South African Railways has no difficulty operating the railways throughout the Black States, both the independent and the national States. As a matter of fact, for that hon. member’s information, we even operate the railways as far afield as Zaïre. Is it not significant that as far as railways, roads and electrical power are concerned, we have never flinched? That is the measure of the cordial atmosphere and the co-operation we enjoy with these independent States and with the national States as we are developing them. And now he comes and tells me the national States are absolute puppets! The hon. member said South Africa has “baas-skap” over the national States, but I ask him now: Has South Africa “baasskap” over Lesotho? …

I was speaking about the national States.

… Swaziland, Botswana, Zaire, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and Angola? The answer the hon. member must give me is very simple. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and in any case the hon. member for Yeoville, will concede that this sort of irresponsible behaviour is by no means in the interests of South Africa, because even in terms of the policy of the official Opposition it is essential that we maintain the best relations with these States, whether they be States which obtained their independence from South Africa or States which obtained their independence at an earlier date from any other power.

When we consider what we are trying to do, when we think what an uphill struggle we have to make a reality of the constellation of States which, in terms of the humanitarian approach of the official Opposition must surely be one of the foundations on which to base economic prosperity for these people, those hon. members can say whatever they like—they can say they reject Black States, they reject independent States and they reject homelands—but one thing remains a fact, and that is that those areas are Black living areas as far as they are concerned. Within those Black living areas not one of those hon. members will tell me there must not be development. Of course there must be development within those areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head and the hon. member for Sea Point is almost jerking his head off. [Interjections.] I ask those hon. members—I am standing here tonight and I have fallen in with the Cabinet decision—what their party has done is just as scandalous as the party of the hon. member for Durban Point, these political squatters in South African political history …

Hey, Hennie!

What is it now? The hon. member must not look at me so strangely. [Interjections.] What did those hon. members do when we wanted to achieve viability for the Transkei? I repeat, I find no fault with the Cabinet decision. They took a decision. However, those hon. members took the opportunity to join with the HNP in trying to cause all hell to break loose in this country by stirring up emotions about a situation like this. Then those people come and sit here tonight in this House and say they stand for the development of those areas. I think it is a disgrace. I think the hon. member for Yeoville must ask his party to spell out to us what the PFP policy is as regards the development of what we on the National Party side today regard as national States, independent States, but what they in terms of their party’s policy regard as labour reservoirs. What is that party’s policy as regards that development?

Now I wish to address a few words to the hon. member for Sea Point concerning this entire situation of the squatters. It is a tragic day when we seize on a situation like this—as those hon. members are doing—and use it as a political football. In South Africa we surely know …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Pinelands must not talk to me now. Surely those hon. members realize that irrespective of whether their policy or the National Party policy was being implemented today, we should still have unemployment in South Africa—it is irrelevant which party’s policy is being implemented. Irrespective of whether this party or that party is in power, we shall still have a housing shortage in South Africa. Regardless of whether that party or the National Party is in power we should still have a problem with regard to training. These are facts. There is no getting away from them. If these, then, are common problems—if that party has the same problem as we do—why must they use these unfortunate circumstances in an effort to score political points? [Interjections.] I cannot understand how anyone can use something which is an embarrassment to him to cause someone else embarrassment. We can say Mr. Sebe used the wrong words as regards the visit of the hon. members to the Ciskei. Personally I think Mr. Sebe was a little hasty. However, I shall not say he was completely wrong. Nonetheless I appreciate the fact that the hon. members are now beginning to take an interest in the situation in the Ciskei …

They went to snoop!

… but I want to ask the hon. members: Why now? Is it only because the Ciskei is on the brink of independence, or have they always been interested in the 300 000 unemployed in the Ciskei? Have they raised a finger to help this party to try to stimulate the declining economy in the entire border area? No, Mr. Chairman. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was a great pleasure for me to listen to the positive speech made by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. The hon. member knows exactly what he wants to say about this subject and he says it clearly and unambiguously. I should like to complement him on this.

I should like to touch on a less contentious matter.

Not too uncontentious. [Interjections.]

Whether it will be contentious or not will depend on the hon. members of the Opposition.

I wish to begin by asking what the purpose is of the development and unfolding of what the hon. the Prime Minister refers to as the total strategy in this multinational country. The answer to this is very simple. It is to prevent revolution and racial conflict in the Republic of South Africa. The basic philosophy underlying such a strategy is not predominantly military, but is largely based on the effect of a dispensation which will lead in an evolutionary fashion to the recognition of the human dignity of people in all fields. It makes high demands and requires the self-control of all our people, irrespective of race or colour, because anyone living in this country and thinking he will never experience racial irritation or even racial frustration, is out of contact with reality.

The final test for the effect of such a dispensation will not be: What do we like and what do we not like? It will be: What can society live with? Once again this applies to all people, irrespective of race or colour. There are many White workers who do not like the abolition of job reservation, but the White man who does his work can easily live with it. That is important. Therein lies the key to equal economic opportunities, which is an extremely important element in the strategy against revolution.

I have said this question does not affect White, Brown or Black. There are also many non-Whites who do not like the Group Areas Act, but this specific Act has eliminated more racial friction than any other Act in the Statute-Book. A non-White man said on the South African television service that it was ironic that it should be this Act which is so vociferously criticized which affords the non-Whites the opportunity to develop economically.

If this is so then I say one can surely live with such an Act, even if one does not like it. I want to say that I myself, and the people I represent, are prepared to live with all the measures the Government has taken thus far in the field of sport, hotels, restaurants, theatres, education, post offices, labour and other fields, because I think this is an easy way to tell the other man in practice that you are prepared to recognize his human dignity.

The question is just whether this is integration, because the NP rejects integration as a solution to our multinational population structure. I wish to say that not all forms of coexistence constitute integration which robs me of my ethnicity. In any case, there are two fields in which we can never avoid a common destiny in this country, even if we wanted to, namely, to keep this country prosperous and to keep it safe. However, I shall tell you, Mr. Chairman, what sort of togetherness I cannot accept. That is the sort of togetherness aimed at, or having the effect of, robbing me of my control over my own cultural possessions. When I speak of cultural possessions here, I mean cultural possessions in the wider sense of the word: my politics, my economy, my sport, my education, my church and my social life.

The next question is what the norm must be for the effect of a dispensation based on human dignity. The answer to that is merit. Merit regulates economic life effectively, because the hard economic reality allows merit always to rise to the top, otherwise one has no economy, as Africa has in fact proved. Although the economy is not divisible, there are still groupings within the economy based on ethnic identity. The application of merit in the political field is much more complex because merit in the political field is not identified by way of objective reality, but by a majority vote, which can be an incited or even an intimidated mass. In the search for solutions we have identified two directions in which our solution does not lie. It does not lie in the direction of “one man, one vote” in a unitary State. This is the logical conclusion of the policy of the official Opposition. It also does not lie in the direction of domination, with the trigger-happy mentality of the HNP. I do not know of any political dispensation in the history of the world which has been set to rights by the barrel of a gun. The English did not set us to rights by using force. Nor did they do so with regard to the Americans or the Irish. The Americans did not set the Vietnamese to rights by using force, nor have the Russians succeeded with these tactics against the Poles or the people of Afghanistan. Portugal did not set Angola or Mozambique to rights by using force. In a political dispensation violence can only be used in one way. That is, to maintain order so that a dispensation can be worked out in which it is not necessary to shoot. This is what this Government is doing by way of the Black States and the President’s Council. Moreover, we should also have got a lot further if we had not had to contend with a lot of inciters and boycotters. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I wish to add that in the process of total strategy, the economic dispensation must precede the political dispensation, because this brings responsibility. For this reason I am concerned that we are proceeding so slowly with ownership, whereas it is within our power to make people property-owners on a massive scale.

In my first speech in this House I made a plea for sub-economic scheme housing to be made available for ownership in terms of an amended system of ownership, based on sectional title to save costs. I know that this aspect of ownership is also a matter that is close to the heart of the hon. the Prime Minister. For this reason I make another plea in this regard tonight. The hon. the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that the easiest way to lose everything is to demand everything for oneself. However, he also said that the rights of minorities must be protected, because self-determination is not negotiable. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, raised two matters to which I should like to refer. The first was the development of the homelands, of the national States. The other one which he raised towards the end of his speech was the squatting problem. I want to come back to both of them.

†During the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill I referred briefly to what we in the NRP saw as the essential elements of planned economic development of the national States or homelands, and also of the independent States. I said then that we believed that this could not be done by way of pure economic links and economic aid, that it needed a more structured system, a more structured form of co-operation, and a more structured planning. If we are to build an economy over the next 20 years which will be able to provide for 50 million people and not for 5 million or even 28 million, then we are going to have to ensure that every region of South Africa plays its part in providing the infrastructure and the economic strength that will make this possible. This demands dramatic and imaginative development which was hinted at by the hon. the Prime Minister at the Carlton conference and in other speeches. I want to list some of the more obvious essentials that we believe must be part of any planning that is going to make this effective.

Firstly, there is the monetary aspect, a monetary union such as we have today by treaty but which will have to expand to bring in the rest of the States that are becoming independent. Then we have the issue of transport and we think in terms of South Africa planning and determining the transport infrastructure to serve the whole of the region. But surely more than that is needed? We must involve those who are to be served, we must involve them in the planning process, the planning not only of where the services are to be but also participation in the planning, as it affects tariffs, subsidies etc. for developing areas and everything else that is needed for an effective transport infrastructure. Then we have the economic infrastructure that has often been referred to together with regional planning and the regional interaction that goes with it. Once again one cannot do this unilaterally; it must be done together so that everyone who is affected, all the areas in which the interaction will take place, will themselves participate in the planning. Hence we come to the whole question of regional planning and development, the central planning of investment and export incentives and the financial needs and assistance that are to go with it. All this has been tied to the Development Bank of Southern Africa that was announced and for which R17 million has been appropriated in the budget. We believe, however, that it is going to need more than only a bank giving assistance. It is going to need a structured co-operation, consultation and joint decision-making to make it work. I raise this matter because I hope that when the hon. the Prime Minister deals with his confederation he will bring into his reply the specific methods that he envisages to provide just this co-operation, just this joint decision-making and tell us how all the elements will be involved together in the planning.

That brings me to what the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt had to say. If all this happens, then I believe South Africa can plan for and possibly cope with the urbanization that will still take place, the urbanization that is absolutely inevitable in South Africa. I do not speak as an expert, but there are the experts such as Dr. Flip Smit of the Human Sciences Research Council, co-author of the book Swart Verstedeliking, who said “die saak kan nie vermy word nie”. Then there is Prof. Nico Smith, a respected D.R. Church theologian. He says—

These are not my views. These are the views of known NP-supporters. Therefore I say that if everything to which I have referred is done in planning and building up the infrastructure, the job opportunities and the development in the national States and in the homelands, one will still have urbanization. One will still have to plan for it, and I believe, as do these experts, that the Government does not have the plans or the policy to cope. I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to tell us that the Government does have plans and that it will be able to cope with this phenomenon that is prevalent all over the world and with which we ourselves will also have to deal.

Something else concerns me in connection with this question of the influx into the Western Cape. In The Argus of today we have large headlines “Black jobless may flood Cape”, and a speculative article forecasting a flood of Black jobless into the Peninsula. However, there are very strong rumours—and it has nothing to do with the foregoing—that bus-loads of Transkeians have been seen returning to the Peninsula and have been prevented from entering the area.

Who financed that?

I do not know. Probably the hon. member for Klip River knows something about the rumours. I was, however, told that seven bus-loads of people were seen returning to the Peninsula.

A third unrelated factor is that yesterday, I believe, people representing a certain organization called Women for Peaceful Change Now, approached ministers of churches here in the Peninsula and asked them to collect food and other necessities for an expected inflow of new squatters to the Peninsula. They went to a certain church, which is not a member, and said the South African Council of Churches was behind an appeal to build up supplies of food and other necessities for a new squatter inflow. What is the connection between these three reports, namely that there is a potential flood to the Cape, that bus-loads of people have been found returning, that churches have been asked to prepare for another influx of squatters into the Peninsula, and mention of the possibility of protest demonstrations and marches in this connection? I believe that if this is happening then it is no longer simply a question of hunger and joblessness but rather something that we in South Africa will have to look at very seriously.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point raised a few matters in connection with economic affairs and asked the hon. the Prime Minister to spell out more clearly the plans that the NP has in that regard. All that I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point with regard to this matter, is that if he were to read Hansard once again, he would find many of the answers that he was looking for tonight, because the hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with those matters during the censure debate and previously too.

I have read it several times …

Particular mention is made in those speeches of the collateral bank etc.

However, I want to come back to one of the main issues which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, to which the hon. member for Bryanston referred as well. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—the hon. member for Barberton has already referred to this—asked whether the right to self-determination is possible under White domination. I am of the opinion that we differ as to the basic premise and quite possibly also to the concept of the right to self-determination and “baasskap”. It has already been pointed out that these two concepts are not synonymous. I want to say at once that if this question is in the mind of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and probably in the minds of many other hon. members too, then we must look at the alternative at once. If it is true that the policy of the NP must lead to White domination, in contrast to the right to self-determination, I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether the policy that the PFP is proposing, will not then inevitably lead to Black domination.

No.

Then we must take note of the misconception surrounding the concept of the right to self-determination. If it is true that the right to self-determination can only find expression if there is no domination, I should like to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Will the policy of “one man, one vote” which must inevitably lead to Black majority rule—according to the opinion of other hon. members of that party too—will this not result in the domination of a minority group, for instance the Whites? Surely then we are back to the matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised. [Interjections.] What would the solution be then? [Interjections.]

I should like to react to what the hon. member for Bryanston said. That hon. member gave us a projection of the numbers by the end of this century. But these are well-known numbers. Of course, the increase in the numbers of Blacks, Coloureds and Asians in comparison with that of the Whites will give one cause for reflection, because it will inevitably cause certain problems. However, when the hon. member for Bryanston speaks about these matters and says, “If you cannot beat them, join them”, I get the idea that he is simply speaking within the framework of their policy, because it seems to me that he is alleging that since we are going to have these specific problems with those numbers by the end of the century, we should implement the policy of the PFP in order to obtain the co-operation of those people. As far as I am concerned, however, this would be to the detriment of the maintenance of the right to self-determination, as I have already indicated in reply to the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

At the very outset I said that I think we have a problem regarding the concept of self-determination. Every person and every nation has a need to remain themselves, to overcome and to survive, and in order to succeed in doing so, they must be able to maintain themselves. I could quote various experts in their fields with regard to this matter. History has also proved that every nation is prepared to fight for its right to self-determination. In political terms the right to self-determination is a question of the maintenance of identity, the maintenance of culture and the maintenance of traditions. The question is, however: Self-determination with regard to what?

That is correct.

My answer is: Self-determination to work out your own salvation and to remain yourself. This lives in the hearts of any nation and can only take place by means of maintaining one’s culture, by determining one’s own education, one’s own position on this continent and one’s way of life within that and by means of one’s own political dispensation, within which one can govern according to one’s own convictions in such a way that one achieves one’s ideals. This is my premise; this is what I consider self-determination to be. If this is what I claim for myself and also grant it to every other nation, the question arises: In a multinational dispensation, within one geographical territory, must this lead to discrimination or domination? This is what is at issue.

Yes, exactly.

My reply to this is: Not necessarily, and according to the policy of the NP, definitely not.

That is what I want to know.

I should also like to try to motivate that point. Discrimination occurs only if one of the minority groups in our multinational dispensation exercizes its right to self-determination in such a way that it is to the detriment of the right to self-determination of another group. Then such a group is demanding something that it does not grant to another group. This must inevitably lead to polarization, confrontation and ultimately, most probably to revolution. However, what is the solution of this side of the House? In other words, what is the NP’s policy with regard to this problem? The policy of the NP has already been built upon the premise, as I said in the beginning, that each nation strives to maintain those things that belong to it—this is what I called it—but that we grant to other nations in our multinational dispensation those things that we demand for ourselves. The 12-point plan is evidence of this, and so are the speeches which the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with once again at the beginning of the session and during the no-confidence debate. We find those cornerstones, inter alia, in the President’s Council which has been given the terms of reference to work out a constitutional dispensation which will offer the opportunity to the Whites, Coloureds and Asians to exercize their right to self-determination now and ultimately to govern themselves, to determine their own educational policy and implement it and to lead their own way of life within their own residential areas. Of course, there will be matters of communal interest and various population groups must be given the opportunity within a specific structure to communicate and to reach consensus on such community affairs. This is very clearly spelled out in point 4 of the 12-point plan.

Now I allege that there are certain realities in our situation that all groups will have to accept. Due to a lack of time I just want to point out one of them. This is that we are being faced with a common threat—it applies to all groups in this geographic territory—which will culminate in a total Marxist onslaught against everyone in the Republic of South Africa. In order to be able to combat this, we must join hands in order to ensure a strong economy. We make no secret of the fact that we are grateful for the labour which is provided by the people of colour in the interests of all the different population groups in the country. The strong economy that will arise in this way, will ensure that we will be able to build up a strong Defence Force, that we can guarantee the necessary training which is so essential for all the various population groups, that unemployment will be combated and that all the várious groups will ultimately be able to live a healthy social life. To do this, however, does not detract from the right to self-determination of each minority group. In fact, it enables those groups to exercise it and in the process to survive and to overcome by means of a process of vertical differentiation which has also been spelled out in the 12 point plan.

Now my question is: Is that domination? Then I allege that this is definitely not domination because these specific groups can communicate with one another in specific spheres and regarding community affairs, can join hands to work out a dispensation in which one can maintain the characteristic identity and the right to self-determination of each separate group, but nevertheless muster them together against a joint Marxist threat. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at this fairly late hour we are still waiting to find out how it is possible for self-determination to exist in South Africa with out domination. The hon. member for Virginia has done his best and he has indicated that there can be a place for every group in South Africa to strive towards self-determination. He has told us with some feeling that it is the right of every group to do so and it is the right of every group to recognize that other groups can do so as well. In the end, however, one still comes back to the situation that he is not facing up to the realities, that we are operating in South Africa in a plural society and one cannot just wrap these things up quite as neatly as the hon. gentleman has tried to do this evening.

He talked about the need for us to combine and resist the Marxist threat to South Africa. He gave reasons and said that we needed a strong economy; we needed a strong Army; we needed education and we needed employment opportunities. He felt this could be done while every group still preserved its right to self-determination. I believe it is totally illogical to suggest that that can be done in a society like we have in South Africa which is after all a plural society.

Other hon. members have followed the same sort of course during the debate in their attempts to give an answer to the situation and the question as to how one can reconcile a striving towards self-determination with a movement away from domination. I believe the Government members have failed to do so.

The hon. member for Pretoria West earlier this evening talked about a communist threat to South Africa and all these things as, one would expect them to do. I want to say it is the Government’s blindness to the real issues in South Africa, it is the Government’s policy which in many ways compounds the communist threat to South Africa. I want to say that very definitely indeed. More and more as one sees the operation of Government policy, it plays right into the hands of the communist ideology. It compounds the threat of communism to South Africa.

In the short time at my disposal I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to deal for a moment with the concept of a constellation of States for Southern Africa. It is after all more than 18 months since the hon. the Prime Minister held his conference in the Carlton Hotel. I believe it is appropriate that he should use this occasion to give us an account of the progress made and elaborate further on the general guidelines which he enunciated at the Carlton Hotel in November 1979. On that occasion the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about a constellation in the context of Southern Africa—Southern Africa, not South Africa. He spoke in the context of Southern Africa as a socio-economic region and not merely in the context of existing or past political boundaries of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke, for example, about the diversity of cultures, ideologies and value systems which exist in Southern Africa and which he said derived from the history and needs of each nation. He said that because of this, the concept of a constellation of States does not primarily denote a formal organization but rather a grouping of States with common interests and developing mutual relationships. He also said that membership of the constellation of Southern African States can include any country on the subcontinent which identifies the need to expand relationships and to co-operate in a regional context. The hon. the Prime Minister then gave us examples of existing reciprocal arrangements in South Africa, such as membership of the Rand Monetary Area, the Customs Union, the Soil Conservation and Utilization Council, and the hon. the Prime Minister indicated the need to expand these relationships as far as possible. He said—

That was the background. On this occasion I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: What were his hopes and expectations in 1979 when he talked about a constellation of Southern African States and how far have these hopes and expectations been realized when he looks at them after a period of 18 months? For example, which countries did he have in mind as the potential partners in the constellation concept? As I said, the hon. the Prime Minister talked consistently then of a constellation of Southern African States and he said the national States within our borders would come to mind first, but also those countries, to put it in his own words, “with which a measure of co-operation and economic exchange already exists.” The hon. the Prime Minister clearly did not only have in mind Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana, but he must also surely have had in mind, as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said earlier this evening, the other countries which are our neighbouring states, for instance, Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Surely his horizons then were much wider than simply the three independent States. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether his expectations in this regard have been realized when he looks back over the past 18 months.

In his speech at the Carlton Hotel, the hon. the Prime Minister also said that there had to be on-going consultation to build up on areas of agreement which have been reached. What consultation has in fact taken place with these other countries I have mentioned? What has been the result of that consultation? In other words, has the term “Southern Africa” used by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1979, not now perhaps been reduced to “South Africa”, represented by our present or past political boundaries? This is important when one analyses the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech then and what has happened now. If this is so, the hon. the Prime Minister’s horizons have shrunk considerably over a period of 18 months. Under the grand name of “constellation of Southern African States” we are now simply dealing with the so-called national States of our own creation, which in any case are nothing more than independent dependencies of the Republic of South Africa, as the hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members have said during this debate. Therefore we want to know whether that constellation idea has now shrunk simply to contain those States which were formerly part of South Africa. If we are dealing with Venda, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and possibly in the future with States like the government’s new creature, kwaNdebele, where apparently 93% of its working citizens have jobs outside the homeland, if this is the sort of constellation we are dealing with, the hon. the Prime Minister should tell us. Is that the practical extent of his present idea of a constellation of Southern African States?

Leaving the concept of the hon. the Prime Minister’s constellation idea for the moment, I want to ask him what his attitude is towards the non-independent Black States, the so-called self-governing States, which seems to be the popular terminology used in this House at the present time? The hon. the Prime Minister and his predecessor are on record as saying on numerous occasions that no group in South Africa will be forced to accept independence but that it is a voluntary option which they can exercise. This was said by the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor and it has also been said by the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to ask him whether that is still the situation. If it is the situation that it is optional, that there is no forced independence, what is the alternative future for these areas and these groups in South Africa? This is again also linked with the question of domination. What is the future of non-independent homeland areas in South Africa in terms of the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy? It is one thing to say: “We shall not force you to take independence but we shall allow you to take it if you ask for it in a truly democratic fashion” but it is quite another thing if at the same time one takes covert steps to push them further and further away from membership of the Republic which they choose to belong to and if one penalizes them for not accepting independence. I want to say that I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will give us some sort of assurance that there will be no attempt to penalize States which do not want independence, that they will still be free to choose independence if they want it but that no undue influence will be exerted upon them if they do not want it. I believe that presently an insidious move is taking place to the extent that it is almost taken for granted that the so-called self-governing States are already independent. We see it so often in publications designed for overseas publication. We see maps prepared and exhibited which reflect boundaries, almost as if consolidation and independence is a fait accompli. We see it again and again in this House in the attitude of hon. members on the Government benches and in the attitude of hon. Ministers. During the past few weeks we have had two classic examples of this. During the discussion of the Labour Relations Bill in the week before last, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, on the question of the siting of the headquarters of trade unions and employers’ organization movements, indicated that he had a totally confused version of what a self-governing State was. When the hon. member for Pinelands asked him what was to prevent these organizations from establishing their headquarters in Lebowa or areas of this kind, he replied that they would have to be within the Republic of South Africa. When the hon. member for Pinelands questioned that, the hon. the Minister of Manpower said that they might as well be in Mozambique. He was trying to associate a self-governing State in South Africa with a sovereign independent State beyond South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in a month and four day’s time it will be exactly three years since the hon. the Prime Minister accepted his position as head of the Government in South Africa. I do not think there is anyone who will repudiate it when I say that in the past three years he has given an excellent, competent account of his stewardship. The hon. the Prime Minister has always put the interests of South Africa first, faithful to the cry of the late General Hertzog “South Africa first!”. When he went to the voting public of South Africa for a mandate in the last election, he received an unambiguous “yes” to continue along the road and in the direction that he has adopted and we are pleased that he can be in power in the years that lie ahead, years of turbulence in South Africa.

I find it amazing and, in fact disturbing, that we have an Opposition that has adopted such a negative attitude towards the solution of the problems in South Africa. If we want to display true patriotism towards our country and our nation, there are certain principles that are fundamental and that we must defend with all the power at our command in order to ensure the continued existence of our nation and our country. The first of these is the right to self-determination. We must keep political control over matters affecting our group interests, our national interests and our White interests in South-Africa at least. I would like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—he said tonight in reply to the hon. member for Barberton that he left the question open—to tell us where he stands with regard to the right to self-determination of nations in South Africa and in particular of the Whites in South Africa.

He is opposed to it. He talks about one nation and one community.

In the no-confidence debate he renounced this. What is his view of the future solution in this regard, or does he want us to be satisfied with all sorts of ambiguities as far as his standpoint in this regard is concerned?

The second point that is important to me, is that we as a South African nation must continue to be motivated to govern in South Africa in a way which will definitely not be detrimental to our culture and tradition but, on the contrary, will display loyalty towards it. As far as I am concerned, this entails the right of our nation to be a nation that maintains its own traditions and cultural life, which like other nations is entitled to separate residential areas and school facilities, and which is also entitled to separate facilities if they can in fact be put at our disposal. Our own identity must be maintained at all costs. The NP has committed itself to this. We have gone to the voting public of South Africa with this concept time and again over the past 33 years and have received an unambiguous “yes” from them to continue along that path that we have taken.

The Opposition must not expect us to do their work for them. If South Africa has rejected their policy in no uncertain terms, they must not want to rely on our absorbing those principles in our policy. Here I am referring in particular to the interjections which the hon. member for Bryanston made regarding the hon. the Minister of State Administration during the no-confidence debate. I see the hon. member for Bryanston is not even in the House tonight. On two occasions while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking, that hon. member said “Andries, you have won”, and “Andries, you have won again”. He merely said this because what the hon. the Prime Minister was saying at that stage, did not suit him. He wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to speak his language at that stage, but surely the hon. the Prime Minister will not speak his language. That is why he said it. It was not a question of the one philosophy in the NP beating another philosophy. The NP stands united and the wishful thinking on the part of hon. members opposite that the NP is becoming divided, will be of no use whatsoever. However, it was a victory of the NP over the weak Opposition on the other side.

Let the hon. members of the Opposition take a careful look at the election manifesto of the NP and also at what our hon. leader said at Upington. When they have done this, they will gain a realization of the development of the policy of the NP over the years. They must not expect the hon. the Prime Minister to lead South Africa according to their policies. They must not expect him to bring about changes merely because such changes will suit the hon. Opposition. The policy of the NP is formulated by its congresses, and that policy is given expression and fulfilled by the hon. the Prime Minister in the guidance that he gives South Africa. The evolution of that policy may sometimes require certain changes to be made. However, then I want to put it to the hon. Opposition tonight that we will not allow ourselves to be hurried in the process of making changes. We shall continue to act in a responsible manner towards our country and towards the voting public which has put this party at the helm. Furthermore—and this is important—we shall ensure that law and order is always maintained in South Africa in the process.

We shall not allow ourselves to be forced into circumstances that suit them, merely because the hon. Opposition wants us to take a certain direction and follow certain policies. We shall choose our battle field ourselves and we shall know when to do so.

That is right. Tell them, Johan.

As regards the direction in which South Africa is moving, the NP stands united, and if hon. members opposite are looking for division, they must not look for it here, but in their own ranks.

Especially Harry.

After all, it is no secret that the hon. member for Yeoville does not feel very much at home with the policies that are being adopted by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.]

I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is satisfied with the direction that is being taken by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pine-lands. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville tonight whether he knows that in Biblical times Jerusalem was the most beautiful city in the world. I wonder whether the hon. member knows why this was so. It was because every Jew swept in front of his own doorstep. We know how the hon. member for Yeoville reacts. We have already seen him react in this House. I want to tell him tonight that I think there is sweeping to be done. He is the one who can do the sweeping in that party, the party whose actions he does not agree with and with which he is not always satisfied. [Interjections.]

Begin with Helen and Horace while you are about it, Harry. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman …

I shall buy you a little broom tomorrow, Harry.

I should now like to raise another matter, which may be of a more peaceful nature. I should like to do it in this discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote because it means a great deal to me. This is that I realized during the past election that one of the points which is very often raised by the voters of South Africa, is the question of the increasing cost of living in South Africa. I want to address a request to the hon. the Prime Minister tonight. I was extremely concerned about this, and I was even more amazed about it when I heard on the radio and television that the cost of living in South Africa has increased by approximately 20% over the past 12 months. My time has almost expired. Therefore, I must put this aspect very briefly. I am putting this request to the hon. the Prime Minister now because I know that there will in fact be more requests for salary adjustments next year. My request is that the principle of a percentage adjustment of salaries should be departed from, in the sense that when percentages are to be determined, a smaller percentage should be laid down with regard to the top structure in the public service, whilst a larger percentage should be laid down for the lower structures in the public service. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively and with circumspection to the speech of the hon. member for Aliwal. Initially the hon. member earnestly scrutinized the central constitutional problem which I broached here this afternoon. This was also the case with several other speakers on the Government side. I am thinking for example of the hon. member for Virginia, the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I do not wish to omit the names of certain people or ignore them. However, all of them returned to the problem which I broached and discussed. I must say that the conclusion I have arrived at at this stage is that the question which I posed is simply being thrown back at me, and therefore we are all waiting for the hon. the Minister to provide the reply of that side of the House to this question. I am quite prepared to give the reply of my side of the House to that question as well. Then we can see what possibilities there are for further discussions. At the end of his speech the hon. member put me in mind of what my grandfather always used to say: You should just hear how loudly a person begins to whistle when he walks past a cemetery in the dark.

Was that your Nationalist grandfather?

The hon. member was beating the drum and saying how they were going to demonstrate what they were, etc. This does not impress me. I am only interested in the facts and the logic of the argument.

†At this late hour I want to raise one or two questions that the hon. the Prime Minister can perhaps devote his attention to tomorrow when he enters the debate. These are questions that usually get tucked away in the normal course of the debate, and one often forgets about them. The one to which I have already referred is the question of referendums. The hon. the Prime Minister has already taken note of that, but I just wanted to add a second word of warning. The first warning was that a referendum should not be confused with or substituted for genuine negotiation and, secondly, a referendum can often present people with false options simply because of the way in which the options are presented to the people, particularly if those options are not the result of representative negotiations. Having spoken these words of warning, I must say that I welcome the fact that there is healthy speculation that we might have referendums for the different population groups, including Blacks, and I should like to hear the hon. the Prime Minister on this matter.

Then there was a statement that the hon. the Prime Minister made that puzzled me. It is something that one would not in the normal course of events devote a great deal of attention to, because it was actually just an aside. This concerns the qualification for participation in the new constitutional setup.

*I just want to repeat. On 3 August 1981 (Hansard, col. 64) the hon. member for Yeoville put the following question to the hon. the Prime Minister—

To that the hon. the Prime Minister replied as follows—

That, to me, was a fascinating point. When the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned it, I said to myself that that was an interesting point. When I arrived in the Progressive Party, I heard about qualified franchise.

And then you abandoned it.

I thought that it would not work. And then I abandoned it.

†Therefore I pricked up my ears the moment the hon. the Prime Minister said that. I now want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he has some idea about a qualifying vote, a qualified participation in mind for people in the new constitutional dispensation. But not only that. Is it only for Coloureds and Asians, or does it apply to Whites as well? In other words, will Whites who are 18 years old also have to conform to the “grond-en eiendomskwalifikasie”? That is one question I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister.

The second question is one to which I have already referred, and it concerns the whole question of participatory democracy. I am sorry to come back to this, but I addressed the hon. the Prime Minister on this previously. Initially, in the censure debate, he referred to participatory democracies, i.e. in the plural. Then, in my reply to the debate, I said that I was confused. I said that the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about democracies while the NP pamphlet during the election spoke about democracy. Obviously there is a great difference between democracies and democracy. If you have a participatory democracy, it means that you have one state in which people participate in a common democracy. When you have participatory democracies, e.g. the European Common Market, then you have different sovereign states participating in a confederal body.

The hon. the Prime Minister said to me: “Those were not the words that I used.” When I referred the hon. the Prime Minister to this election pamphlet, he said the following (Hansard, col. 433)—

Somehow that had a familiar ring to me because I do not think that the hon. the Prime Minister would have used those words. I consulted “The New Language of Politics—a Dictionary of Catchwords, Slogans and Political Usage”—a book that I can recommend to all hon. members on the other side to find out what “participatory democracy” means, and I found the following—

[Interjections.] I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister is a member of the new left! [Interjections.] The definition states further—

Now, I do not, see the hon. the Prime Minister as a new radical either!—

The expression “participatory democracy” is, of course, one that became fashionable during the 1968 student riots in Paris in France; it caught on then. That is why it has always amazed me that the NP used those words. When the hon. the Prime Minister told me that he had not in effect used these words himself, I accepted it. However, then quite by chance—and I honestly mean this—I sat reading in my office the other day. This is a South African publication and in it I noticed that the hon. the Prime Minister had written a goodwill message to the Muslims. I too had written a message of goodwill so I am not saying that this is something that he had done that I would not have done.

However, I read the message and there, lo and behold, the hon. the Prime Minister says—

[Interjections.] Now, I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what exactly the situation is. Are we involved with a participatory democracy or democracies? I can understand that Mr. Wessels may have written this in a moment of enthusiasm or exuberance during a general election, to use a new catch phrase. But this is an important message that goes out to people. When one says to the Coloureds and Asians: “You are going to become part of a participatory democracy,” they have a tendency to associate their dreams, their hopes and aspirations with that kind of constitutional future. I think it is important, particularly in view of the gravity of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, that we should avoid whatever constitutional confusion can be avoided. In this respect I would really appreciate it, and I think everybody would, if the hon. the Prime Minister could give us his views on the concept of participatory democracies on the one hand and a participatory democracy on the other hand.

Oh, he’s just an old leftist!

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—