Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of this House for next week, I wish to point out that the Health and Welfare Vote will come up for discussion on Monday, 19 April, while the Co-operation and Development Vote will be discussed on Wednesday, 21 April, and the Transport Vote on Friday, 23 April.

Standing Committees will discuss the Manpower and Defence Votes on Monday, 19 April, and Wednesday, 21 April, respectively, in the Senate Chamber.

For the rest this House will, as it is deemed convenient, deal with legislation during the intervals between the discussions of the various Votes.

Order! The hon. member for Constantia has requested permission to take a point of personal explanation. I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.

It has been brought to my attention that Die Burger of 3 April 1982 reported that while speaking in the Second Reading debate on the Defence Amendment Bill on Friday, 2 April, my speech was interrupted by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, who, by way of an interjection, reputedly remarked as follows—

I regard this reported remark as a serious reflection on my honour, integrity and reputation, and I wish to place on record that I had absolutely no part in any alleged leak to the Press in respect of the Defence Amendment Bill. I was actually out of town during the relevant period, 17 to 21 March, and in any event I regard it as a cardinal matter of personal honour that one does not abuse confidence.

I therefore hope that the hon. member for Verwoerdburg will clarify the matter by stating whether he did make this offensive remark or not.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm that it is correct that I asked the hon. member for Constantia on Friday, 2 April, by way of an interjection: “Het jy dit na die koerante gelek?”. It was with reference to the Defence Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Verwoerdburg was reported to have said: “Jy het dit na die koerante gelek.”. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member has now changed that into a question, saying that his actual interjection was: “Het jy dit na die koerante gelek?”. In other words, he states now that the interjection was made in the form of a question.

I want to submit that the hon. member’s interjection contained an innuendo which should be ruled to be unparliamentary, and I therefore urge you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the hon. member for Verwoerdburg to withdraw that interjection. [Interjections.]

Order! I consider the matter to be closed now.

Mr. Chairman, it is inevitable that in the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, we shall necessarily give considerable attention to the splintering off, or whatever one would like to call it, of the CP from the NP. This is so because I regard this as the first proper opportunity the hon. the Prime Minister himself has of reacting to the debate which has taken place so far in this regard. However, I think it is important that we place this debate surrounding the splintering off, and its consequences in a broader perspective, otherwise we shall be caught up in the limited issues of who said what, when, etc. I think this can best be done by considering the term of office of the hon. the Minister thus far against the background of his predecessors.

Each one of the Prime Ministers since 1948 has placed a specific stamp on the political debate in South Africa. When I refer to what I regard as the distinctive stamp of the various Prime Ministers, I do not mean that no development or progress has taken place in various spheres. I merely wish to try and point out what the essential characteristics of the terms of office of these various Prime Ministers were, as I think that this was also the legacy of the present hon. Prime Minister when he took over this post.

I think we would be justified in saying that Dr. Malan and Adv. Strijdom were apartheid Prime Ministers, if one could put it that way. This was the period when the concept became an institution in South African politics, and it was also the period when measures were adopted to give effect to this political philosophy. Today the hon. the Prime Minister is experiencing a period in which, to a large extent, progress is measured by the degree to which these measures are amended or changed. This is a dilemma which creates uncertainty in the political debate. After these two, of course, there was Dr. Verwoerd himself. He came from the Department of Bantu Affairs, and when he became Prime Minister, the period which was initiated due to his Prime Ministership, was the period of a settlement between White and Black. It concerned homeland policy, homeland development, etc. We are now again experiencing a time in which the present hon. Prime Minister is being confronted with fundamental shifts in emphasis and approach with regard to that policy. I do not wish to go into this in detail, but there are changes with regard to land consolidation, with regard to White capital in the homelands, with regard to, shall we say, the economic intergration which is taking place, as well as the permanence of urban Blacks.

After this came the era of Prime Minister Vorster. He came from the Department of Justice, and his era was characterized by a pre-occupation with State security. During that period, steps were taken to reinforce State security. We are now experiencing a period in which the Government feels that those measures were not sufficient, and a fresh look is being taken at the whole question of security and stability. Therefore, if I must try to characterize the present hon. Prime Minister’s terms of office thus far, or to characterize the stamp which the hon. the Prime Minister has placed on it, then I would say that the word which immediately comes to mind, is the word “preparedness”, the word “preparedness” with which it is sought to deal with the problems, the changes, the adaptations and the onslaughts. If one carefully observes how the hon. the Minister has dealt with his term of office, then it is clear that the concept “preparedness” can be divided into two sub-concepts. The first is preparedness in the military sense—military preparedness. This is a characteristic of the term of office of this hon. Prime Minister. He came from the Department of Defence, and that is why this emphasis is strong during his Premiership. At the moment we are debating a Bill in this regard. The second leg of this concept of “preparedness”, is preparedness in the sense of reform—social, political and economic reform. I think the idea that preparedness must have not only a military basis, but also a basis of reform, is particularly characteristic of the term of office of the hon. the Prime Minister. I think it is correct to say that the concept “reform” in the political sense of the word, has become a central part of the political debate during the term of office of the hon. the Prime Minister. This is to his credit, as we are involved in a new debate concerning what constitutes reform, what constitutes effective reform, what the need for it is, etc. Therefore it is important that we take cognizance of what, according to the hon. the Prime Minister himself, he and his department regard as effective reform within the South African context. In this regard, we have the report of the Office of the Prime Minister for 1981. I particularly refer to the section which deals with constitutional planning. On pages 23 and 24 there are at least four criteria which the department, and therefore the hon. the Prime Minister himself, lay down as criteria whereby one can measure effective reform. I should like to quote these four criteria.

As far as the first is concerned, I quote from page 24. What I am quoting now, comes from the hon. the Prime Minister himself—

Therefore, point number one is that reform should take place uniformly and simultaneously, as far as possible, in the social, economic and constitutional spheres. As far as the second is concerned, I quote from page 23—–

Point No. 2, therefore, is that all moderate persons and groups be involved in the process of reform. As far as the third is concerned, I quote again from page 23—

Point No. 3 is, therefore, that successful constitutional reform depends on the consensus and contentment of the interest groups involved in such reform.

We find the final criterion in the following extract on page 23—

Point No. 4 is, therefore, that we shall have to get moving with reform if we wish to retain the initiative for evolutionary change.

It is in view of these criteria laid down by the Office of the Prime Minister himself, that I wish to engage in a debate with the hon. the Prime Minister concerning reform, and to consider the present situation in South Africa. The first remark I wish to make in this regard, is that in times of recession and economic depression, the most difficult reforms to bring about, are those which cost money. We all agree on the necessity of better housing, better school and technical training, better conditions of service and welfare conditions, better transport and community amenities, better regional and homeland consolidation as well as industrial deconcentration and decentralization. We do not argue about this. Everyone agrees that these reforms cost money and that the State just does not have sufficient money at the moment to do justice to all. I do not think this is disputed here.

In so far as these essential reforms are delayed as a result of a lack of money, this exacerbates the feeling of relative hardship among Blacks, or people of colour, and Whites in South Africa, and underlines the unsatisfactory constitutional situation in South Africa.

Nothing gives one a greater or more vivid feeling of dissatisfaction or injustice than when, in the absence of equitable economic and social change, one finds oneself a constitutional stepchild in the land of one’s birth. However, this is only one leg of the dilemma; the other is that this is even true in the case of economic prosperity, because if social and economic change take place in times of economic prosperity without equitable constitutional change, a feeling of relative hardship is developed.

Therefore we have the dilemma that in times of both prosperity and adversity in South Africa, the necessity for constitutional reform will increasingly be in the foreground, and the position of the Whites in South Africa and Africa will increasingly become a focus of attention. Therefore the central political question which South Africa has to face, is the following: Can a constitutionally entrenched and privileged White minority launch constitutional reform such that evolutionary change is stabilized, their own entrenched and privileged position disappears, and a new constitution is established which has the support of the majority and permits no domination of minorities? In fact, not many historic precedents exist to make one optimistic. Still, if White South Africa cannot reply in the affirmative to this question, I am afraid that we are heading for violence and confrontation.

It is against this background that we should evaluate the recent splintering off of the NP and its possible consequences for constitutional reform. This is, in essence, what I am going to try to do.

†However, before I do so I should like to address the hon. the Prime Minister on a matter which I regard to be of public importance, namely the position concerning the Vice State President in this debate. The Vice State President has seen fit to enter into the current political debate, a debate thus far largely between the CP and NP. The intervention of the Vice State President has created an embarrassing anomaly concerning his constitutional position, and this has to be clarified by the hon. the Prime Minister at the first available opportunity. The Vice State President’s office was legally created by the Republic of South Africa Constitution Fifth Amendment Act of 1980, which inserted a new section 10A into the substantive Constitution Act. Under this section the Vice State President is also a designated chairman of the President’s Council. The legal position of the Vice State President is very similar to that of the State President. Both are identically protected from public abuse or criticism under section 13 of the Constitution Act which provides protection for the “dignity and reputation” of the State President and the Vice State President. The courts have given a very restrictive interpretation of section 13, particularly in the case of the State vs. Beyleveld concerning the “dignity and reputation” clause. In that case it concerned a previous State President, Mr. C. R. Swart. Both the State President and Vice State President are ceremonial and titular figures, and it is therefore imperative that they remain outside current political disputes.

The question the hon. the Prime Minister must answer in this regard is quite simple: Is there a conflict of interest between the position of Vice State President and that of chairman of the President’s Council? If so, the conflict must be resolved at the first opportunity. It is intolerable that the chairman of the President’s Council can enter into the thick of the political controversy raging at the moment, whilst enjoying the protection from “abuse and criticism” that is afforded the position of Vice State President. It not only places us ordinary politicians at a gross disadvantage, but also brings the position of Vice State President into disrepute and controversy, something which the law itself prohibits. I therefore do not intend entering into a debate with the Vice State President in this regard, but I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to clarify the situation.

Let us place the split in the NP in perspective within the available constitutional alternatives. What constitutional argument lies at the basis of what is said to be responsible for the split? It concerns a difference of interpretation of the 1977 proposals involving a limited form of joint decision-making between Asians, Coloureds and Whites, which, according to the hon. the Prime Minister, contains elements of power-sharing. The NP is at pains to stress that the power-sharing is very limited, whilst the CP argues that no matter how limited, any form of power-sharing is unacceptable. This, in short, is the nub of the debate raging within the NP and between it and the CP.

Where does this debate lie in the spectrum of constitutional preferences in South Africa? These preferences have been exhaustively researched in South Africa in recent years. I refer to the research by the Bergstraesser Institute, the research of the Quail Commission, to the research of the recent Buthelezi Commission and to many other opinion surveys. What is the spectrum of constitutional preferences in South Africa? From all this research there is an invariable pattern and certain aspects can be noted. It is clear from that research that the vast majority of Blacks prefer a unitary system with “one man, one vote.” The vast majority of Whites reject this and prefer a policy of independent national States for Blacks on the basis of independent homeland development. The vast majority of Blacks reject this. A growing minority of Whites would prefer to prevent any form of power-sharing at all costs, but the majority of Whites are still prepared to seek power-sharing compromises. A growing minority of Blacks are resorting to violence as the only means to bring about change, but the majority of Blacks are still prepared to seek power-sharing compromises.

Therefore it is quite clear that if we are going to have a constitutional change that will conform to the hon. the Prime Minister’s own criteria of acceptability, namely the involvement of as many moderates as possible with a view to getting their agreement as quickly as possible to promote evolutionary change, then a power-sharing formula between Black, White, Coloured and Asian South Africans will have to be found. That is where we have to look. The facts tell us that any other venture is futile and ignores the very dangerous process of polarization that is gathering momentum at the moment. Consequently, the present debate raging between the NP and the CP on whether there is a limited form of power-sharing between Coloureds, Asians and Whites in terms of the 1977 proposals or not, is as relevant to viable and acceptable constitutional change in South Africa as a ski-boat in the Sahara Desert. The debate started off being amusing; now it is simply stale and boring. If we look at the demands facing peaceful constitutional change in South Africa, then it matters not a bent farthing who said what, where, when and how before or after the split. And yet, for two very important reasons, this split and the debate raging around it cannot be ignored.

Firstly, it affords the Government the opportunity to make its position clear to a small but growing right-wing cargo cult. What do I mean by “cargo cult”? It is a term from anthropology. It refers to indigenous groups in colonial societies that formed a cult under the oppressive colonial rule and in which they held vigil for the day that a great cargo ship or an aeroplane would arrive with a lot of good cargo, unload the cargo and then take all the Whites away. Exactly the same thing is happening here with regard to the right-wing group. There is a cargo cult developing and it has been most clearly formulated by a man named Eugene Terre’blanche. I can bore hon. members at length with what he says, for example, “AWB shock: No Jew votes … In an article in the Sunday Express he said—

Then in the same newspaper he says in banner headlines “I am not a Nazi.” But he becomes nostalgic about the possibility of having a White South Africa in which the Afrikaner alone will dominate and control. This is an example of a cargo cult. It is nothing else but dreaming of a golden past in which the majority of Blacks walked around politically lobotomized with satisfied grins on their faces and posing no threat to any of the Whites living in that society. Nevertheless he has struck a cord because the HNP talk about South Africa being “White man’s land”. They put it very bluntly. They strike a chord amongst many Whites because, over the years, Whites have been indoctrinated into believing it is possible to create a South Africa in which Whites alone can live. Then, of course, we have the CP. They do not put it as crudely as “White man’s land”; they say self-determination with no power-sharing. If one looks at the rhetoric, even although the intention may not be racist, the rhetoric is and no doubt the consequences of the policy will also be racist. We are caught up with this dream of a White cargo cult developing in South Africa, in which Whites can in fact maintain control for themselves.

This is an opportunity for the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP to state clearly how they will deal with that because there is an ambiguity there. The NP talks about self-determination, but it also talks about power-sharing. That is why these hon. gentlemen, whom I regard as being well-intentioned, could not resolve that type of intellectual trauma for themselves, that one can have self-determination as well as power-sharing. It is the responsibility of the Government to explain to us what they understand under these circumstances.

That brings me to the second reason why this debate cannot be ignored. The Whites must take the initiative for peaceful evolutionary change. Peaceful evolutionary change is only possible with a power-sharing formula between all South Africans. The split involves the concept of power-sharing, and therefore opens up the possibility of a more relevant debate on constitutional change. The Government now has the opportunity to make new initiatives on powersharing clear if it wants to do so.

*However, what has happened thus far? I have listened carefully to the debate, and three predominant impressions have been created. The first is that some hon. members on the Government side took fright, and I am not altogether certain whether the hon. the Prime Minister was not one of those who were frightened. [Interjections.] I quote from the South African Digest of 19 March 1982 where the following is reported—

†In other words, nothing has happened and nothing has changed.

*Basically, this was also the reaction of the new leader of the NP in the Transvaal. I read his speech very carefully, and I really must admit that in him we have a silver-tongued politician. He can speak rapidly and captivate this House, but if one studies his speech, one sees that it contains logical errors of reasoning, and I shall give just one example of this. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs says that the reason why there should be a separate dispensation for Coloureds and Asians, is the following (Hansard, 30 March 1982, col. 3862)—

The Theron Commission of course, points out that this is not true—

Language, religion, religious denomination. The hon. the Minister goes on to say—

You have left out the most important part.

All I omitted, was an interjection by an hon. member who said: “That is correct”. What about the Portuguese? They speak another language and many of them do not belong to the same religious denomination as the other Whites in South Africa. And what about the English-speaking South Africans? [Interjections.] This is facile politics which is being conducted, Sir. It does not concern matters of principle, but arguments of convenience to confuse the electorate at large.

A second impression one gains, is that there are indeed a few hon. members on the other side of the House who want to take this opportunity of genuinely moving forward. They want clarity. The hon. the Minister of Community Development, for instance, said: “Of course we have changed”, while the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said: “We have made mistakes, but we are rectifying them”. When the hon. member for Florida spoke in the debate on the Part Appropriation, many hon. members were shocked. He clearly stated that there was the possibility that a Coloured could sit in the Cabinet as Minister of Defence. When he said this, I could see—and this brings me to the third impression—that many of the hon. members opposite were completely confused. Their eyes went completely squint and perspiration stood out on their foreheads, because they had not known that this was possible. However, this has been contended here, and therefore we ask the hon. the Prime Minister to give us clarity on this. I challenge any hon. member of the NP to explain to me, on a policy basis, what the difference is between the NP and the CP.

Ask the members of the CP.

They have already said what it is. They say no power-sharing under any circumstances. In contrast, the NP says that there can be power-sharing as well as self-determination. What does the NP mean by power-sharing? This is what we want to know. In fact, there is only one man who can give clarity in this regard, and that is the hon. the Prime Minister himself. This is not a question of personal attacks on certain hon. members. Nor is it any use pretending that this is an insignificant splintering, as no one believes this and no one regards it as such. The hon. the Prime Minister will have to spell out clearly and unambiguously the parting of the ways between those who are seeking a formula for power-sharing, and those who are opposed to it at all costs. Thus far, the hon. the Prime Minister says that power-sharing is not “one man, one vote”, nor a common voter’s roll, nor is it proportional representation. I therefore wish to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. Does this also mean that there cannot be a common Parliament? I should be pleased if the hon. the Prime Minister would try and reply to this on occasion. Does this also mean that there will not be a Coloured or Asian Minister who will be able to accept responsiblitity over Whites? In other words, can there be a Coloured together with other Cabinet Ministers in one common Cabinet? These are questions which I put to the hon. the Prime Minister and to which I should like to have replies.

The time for woolly ambiguities is finally past. We are now confronted by the new, harsh reality that the logic of the constitutional argument does not change at all if one only speaks of Whites, Coloureds and Asians, and whether one includes the Blacks or not. The hon. the Prime Minister now has a golden opportunity to give a lead to South Africa in this regard. If he does not do this, the NP is going to be crushed between those who desire reform and those who oppose it. This is the dilemma facing the NP.

†What are the minimum requirements for a new and imaginative constitutional initiative? Let us return to the conditions for reform laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister’s own department. He himself has said that reform must take place concurrently on the social, economic and political levels. Translated into the hard realities of today, this means that one cannot give full citizenship rights to Coloureds and Asians and improve the socio-economic circumstances of Blacks at the cost of their South African citizenship. That would be to court disaster.

Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister says that constitutional reform must unite moderates rather than alienate them. Again, translated into the hard realities of today, this means that if the cost of getting Coloured and Asian moderates to co-operate is alienating Black moderates and driving them into the arms of radicals, such reform is self-defeating.

Thirdly, the hon. the Prime Minister says that successful reform will also depend on the consensus of those who are supposed to benefit from such reform. Translated again into the realities of today, this means that White, Coloured and Asian consensus must complement, not contradict, Black consensus if we are to avoid polarization and confrontation.

Finally the hon. the Prime Minister has said that reform must be speeded up if evolutionary change is to be promoted. Bluntly stated, this means that to devote one’s energies only to making Coloureds and Asians full South African citizens, and deliberately neglecting to do the same for Black South African citizens, is not only a waste of valuable time, but also a positive threat to evolutionary constitutional development in South Africa. So the hon. the Prime Minister’s options are perfectly clear in the light of the split. The hon. members who have broken away have said there must be no power-sharing. We say clearly: Yes, we must look towards devising formulas for power-sharing. The opportunity is now there for the hon. the Prime Minister to say, clearly and unequivocally, that the NP is also exploring forms of power-sharing. Then we would have a new debate going. Then we could actually explore possibilities that could lead away from confrontation. Then we could explore possibilities for uniting moderates in South Africa. [Interjections.] As long as the Government prevaricates, however, trying to placate the right wing rather than challenging it, that right wing is going to eat away at the Government on the one side, with the moderates becoming increasingly frustrated with the actions of the Government. This is the dilemma in which the NP finds itself.

*I wish to conclude by saying that a general election would make things very easy. We could go and talk in the Lowveld. Hon. members of the CP could go and talk there, I could go and talk there and any other hon. member could talk there too. We could go and speak to any farmer there. He would understand the CP and he would also understand me. He might not agree with me, and I might not agree with him, but one thing is certain, and that is that he would certainly not understand the Government. He would say to the hon. members of the Government that he did not know what they were talking about, because they were avoiding the issue. There is only one man who can rectify the matter, and that is the hon. the Prime Minister, who must now give us clarity on the nature of constitutional change in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, as is customary the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced this debate. His main theme was that the reform measures of this side of the House are supposedly of no significance, because there can be no change in this country unless the Government—particularly the hon. the Prime Minister—states quite clearly what we mean by the word power-sharing. The hon. gentleman referred to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs as a Minister with a silver tongue. However, I want to pay the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the same compliment. He, too, has a silver tongue. He has the exceptional ability to dish up a load of political nonsense in profound, high-flown academic language without heeding the realities outside. [Interjections.] Since he has become Leader of the Opposition we have had this academic approach to everything.

Today I wish to put a few questions to him. What the power-sharing he advocates, his renewal, his reform amounts to is merely that one must abolish all forms of differentiation and discrimination so that everyone must have exactly the same citizenship in South Africa. He made these statements last year at his federal congress.

[Inaudible.]

These are the requirements he lays down. He does not lay down the requirement of a separate voter’s roll. He lays down the requirement that everyone must be on common voter’s rolls.

Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not spell this out to us in this House? Why does he not spell it out to us that he wants every last person to be in South Africa on common voter’s rolls, no form of differentiation, no retention of identity in South Africa, and he wants no one to be entitled to retain his right to self-determination? After all, he, too, had a wonderful opportunity to contrast his policy with the policy of this side of the House, but he did not make use of that opportunity. However, we know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not make use of the opportunity. In South Africa his policy can only lead to there being no dividing lines, to there being a hotch-potch of people and to there being a totally enforced integrated community in South Africa. We could never go along with his “power-sharing”. [Interjections.]

Allow me to state what I want to cast in the teeth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Last year we asked him whether he was in favour of the retention of conventional separation, in other words, voluntary separation, in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to accept that in South Africa. He therefore wants totally enforced integration politics in this country.

That is absolute nonsense.

Let us consider what the hon. the Prime Minister has done thus far in his period of office in South Africa. At the start of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition compared his period of office with those of his predecessors. I want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way to achieve a number of goals in South Africa. In the first place, he went out of his way to spell out and articulate the relations policy of the NP in such a way that we could achieve the greatest degree of unanimity among all groups in South Africa, including the Whites. Surely this is the first requirement for a successful political leader of a governing party. This could only be done by spelling out the full consequences of his policy to the electorate of South Africa.

This was not only done recently; it was also done during the hon. the Prime Minister’s chairmanship of the NP committee of inquiry into a new constitutional dispensation. As early as 1976 and 1977 he addressed invitations to all interested parties to make proposals. In 1977 an invitation was issued in this House to all political parties to make proposals. The NP, and specifically the hon. the Prime Minister, was therefore seeking the greatest possible degree of consensus in South Africa. That is why there was also tremendous support by the electorate for those 1977 constitutional proposals. Thousands of people of contrasting political opinions voted for the NP in that election. The NP was supported in this regard because it took steps in the right direction. The support was not necessarily support for every subdivision or every detail. The conclusion we can therefore arrive at today is that the White voter does not want to find himself in a dead-end street as regards the Coloureds and the Asians. In this regard, too, the hon. the Prime Minister took positive action. The intention was that the Coloureds and the Asians could not remain in a political vacuum without meaningful political rights being given to them. In addition, the right to self-determination of all groups or minority groups was to remain intact. Within the scope of the concepts “negotiation” and “coresponsibility” an effort is being made to create a constitutional mechanism which will accord the highest priority to the joint interests of everyone in South Africa. The voters have already helped us to achieve this. The White voter placed his credibility on the line in 1977 and 1981, and will not want to sacrifice it now. He would not want to find himself on a byway or doing a U-turn.

In addition, the White voters have already signified their approval that the President’s Council, consisting of representatives of the various population groups, furnishes the necessary advice to the Government. The voters have accepted this, too, and bearing in mind the importance which the new constitutional proposals hold for the future and the fact that it must have an element of permanence, the creation of the President’s Council was yet another example of the willingness of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to grant to all groups a share in the drafting of the constitution. The good intentions implicit in this in themselves bode well for the future.

However, when the President’s Council had created a precedent for the exchange of ideas between Whites, Coloured and Asians, South Africa finally moved away from one-way political traffic. From now on we have two-way political traffic. It is also the desire of hon. members on this side of the House—indeed, the hon. the Prime Minister has said so repeatedly—that there be a breakthrough to the people of colour and that the intentions of the White man must not be constantly called into question. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his people regularly do. They constantly call into question the intentions of the White man in South Africa. Our policy must not constantly be held up as another form of “baasskap”. This reflects a spirit of absolute malice. The policy of the NP does not amount to White “baasskap”. [Interjections.]

South Africa finds itself on very sensitive ground at the moment, and is also entering a very difficult period. This is a stage during which welcome sounds are being heard from new quarters. We are even getting clear signs from friendly Western countries that they recognize that progress is being made towards improving the expectations of all population groups. In this regard I need only refer to the statements by Dr. Chester Crocker, David Curry, the Rev. Hendrickse and others. However, I do not want to take up the House’s time with this. I do, however, have those statements before me. They furnish clear evidence that there has been a shift in the views of the other population groups in South Africa.

However, I now want to ask what role the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party are playing under these conditions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has in the past spoken about “constructive engagement”. He must therefore put his words into action, and not place obstacles in our path. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not parrot the left-wing liberals and the left-wing radicals. He must speak on behalf of the moderates. The White people in South Africa do, after all, also have an opinion, and they, too, must have a place in the sun. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak after the hon. member for De Kuilen. The content of his speeches and his presentation is usually outstanding. Once again, therefore, I wish to congratulate him on a very good speech. [Interjections.] I sincerely want to congratulate him on his speech. The fact that hon. members of the official Opposition are now reacting so vociferously merely emphasizes their lack of discourse. [Interjections.]

To begin with I just wish to point out that a great deal of sport is practised on Sundays in South Africa today. In this regard I should like to put a request to the hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he would give us the Government’s standpoint with regard to Sunday sport and violation of the Sabbath in general, as well as the relationship between State and Church. I should greatly appreciate this.

As regards my speech on this Vote, I want to begin by saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not fear for the future, because the policy of the NP under the leadership of this hon. Prime Minister is succeeding. He need not be afraid. When we look around us we see that Black peoples are becoming independent. We see, too, that when Black peoples have become independent, they are not like centrifugal forces that fly apart, but are centripetal forces that come together to co-operate in the interests of a greater South Africa. That is the potential for success implicit in the policy of the NP, and in this regard I just want to mention one recent example. Here I refer briefly to the White Paper concerned with the “Promotion of Industrial Development as an Element of Co-ordinated Regional Development Strategy for Southern Africa”. On page 31 one finds the following words—

and so it goes on.

†Then, on page 35 we find, inter alia, the following—

The point I am trying to make is that this important document has come into being on the basis of consultation among States, on the basis of these States assuming joint responsibility for its successful implementation. The result of the aforementioned consultation and the undertaking of joint responsibility as contained in this document is a clear intimation to the rest of Africa and to the rest of the world that these four nations are determined constructively to build an economic community pursuing the civilized norms of freedom, justice and human dignity in this part of the world. This is a success story envisaging the promotion of peace in the future as well as political stability. In fact, these leader have said so themselves in so many words. They say, and I quote from p. 32—

I want to stress the words “by promoting peace and political stability”. I want to say here that this was said on 23 July 1980. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say on 1 February 1982? I quote here from col. 37 of Hansard. He said the following—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says here that we are destroying hopes for a peaceful future. This flies in the face of what these Heads of Government said not 18 months before. It is small wonder therefore—and here I agree with Chief Minister Buthelezi—that the Black people of South Africa consider the PFP to be irrelevant when it comes to the constitutional development of the Black peoples in South Africa.

*Having said that, I also wish to say that we on this side of the House are proud that the hon. the Prime Minister of this country has had a share in drawing up this outstanding document, because by this means we are engaged, under his leadership, in establishing civilized norms of freedom, justice and human dignity here. I have said that the PFP are irrelevant as far as the Black people are concerned. I also wish to discuss the constitutional development of the Whites and the Coloureds and indicate that in this regard, too, the PFP has become irrelevant. Before doing so, however, there is something I should like to explain. I just wish to say that the policy of the NP vis-à-vis the Whites and the Coloureds is as follows. We live in the same country. It is also the Coloureds’ country. We in this country shall have to find a modus vivendi whereby to coexist with one another without affecting the right to self-determination of any group. This modus vivendi has a number of legs. The first is the question of matters that are of concern to a specific group, about which people have their own views and about which they must have the final say. Secondly, there are matters of common concern. When I speak in the idiom of the NP, I say that as far as matters of common concern are concerned, there is consultation and joint responsibility. Hon. members will recall that this also applied in the case of co-operation among the Heads of Governments referred to above.

Are you talking about power-sharing now?

I am talking about consultation and joint responsibility. I want to indicate to that hon. member where an important difference between the PFP and the NP lies.

Does it he with power-sharing?

I shall say where it lies. It lies in this: While the hon. member’s party believes, with us, that the Coloured co-exists with us in one territory, they do not believe that there are any matters that are the exclusive concern of one group. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s party maintains that it does not believe that there is any such thing as matters that are the exclusive concern of one group; to them everything is a matter of common concern because they believe in “one man, one vote” in one country. Therefore there is no common ground between the NP and the PFP. As soon as the existence of matters of exclusive concern to one group are denied, the right of self-determination of the Whites falls away, and we specifically stand for the White’s right to self-determination. [Interjections.]

I must point out that the Coloured’s right to self-determination is also at issue here, because just as in the case of the Whites, the PFP does not recognize that there are matters that are the exclusive concern of the Coloureds either. The PFP contends that there are only matters of common concern; the Coloureds do not have a right to their own affairs.

What do you mean by that?

The Coloureds are becoming increasingly aware of this, and they are increasingly rejecting what the PFP is trying to introduce for them. The policy of the PFP, which amounts to the denial of matters of exclusive concern to one group, are in conflict with the realities of South Africa’s population composition and therefore they are unacceptable. I must therefore say that the PFP has become irrelevant as regards the political development of Coloureds as well.

Then you must give back your power-sharing. [Interjections.]

I must state that I find it odd that whereas the PFP is irrelevant, the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not try to put his policy to us.

Since I am about to conclude, I do just want to say something about the CP, and put a question to the hon. leader of the CP. In article 4 of the program of principles of the NP I also read the following—

Then I read the following in a CP document—

Put differently: The politics of the CP are basically “volkspolitiek”. I ask the hon. the leader of the CP whether he is able to reconcile these two statements. I should appreciate his reacting to this.

In conclusion, I point out that the NP’s policy as regards the Coloureds is also succeeding. The NP’s policy is a tried and tested policy. It is a policy which can be relied upon. Under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister it is pure NP policy. I therefore support his leadership and I believe that under his leadership a future awaits us in which civilized norms of freedom, justice and human dignity will also apply.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Undoubtedly the discussion of the Vote of the Prime Minister is a very important occasion in the discussion of this House. Important questions have already been raised by both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on the side of the hon. the Prime Minister. I shall not discuss the questions the hon. members put to the hon. the Prime Minister, but I want to react to the last question of the hon. member for Pretoria West.

It has always been the standpoint of the NP that we are basically concerned with national politics (volkspolitiek)·, in other words, we do not merely have a crowd of people in a territory: we differentiate, also on the basis of the twelve-point plan, among various communities in the heterogeneous composition of the population of South Africa. In fact, the issue in politics is that justice must be done as regards the political self-determination of the different nations and communties in the country. As far as the country is concerned, the background is that no one coming from outside—whether from England, Germany, France or Holland—must place his country of origin above the interests of this country. That is the background of that article in the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] After all, one does not merely have a political policy for a piece of land; it is the people who occupy that land that are important, and in this case the people occupying this land do not form a homogeneous group, but consist of a number of nations and communities.

One of the crucial questions in politics—as a matter of fact it is still of crucial importance in the light of the political differences which exist—is: Who governs? Who governs South Africa and who governs the various nations in the country? It is very easy to say that this is our common fatherland. Of course it is. The Coloureds do not have any other fatherland besides South Africa and we have now accepted that the Indians are also part of our population. But this surely cannot mean that Whites, Coloureds and Indians together lay claim to every square inch of the Republic. After all, there is geographic ordering. If this is not so, the hon. the leader of the NP in the Free State must say that the Free State is as available to the Indians as to the Whites, and one must also say that the Group Areas Act must fall away. Only after this Act has fallen away can one speak of a common claim by everyone to every square inch of this country.

There are a few basic realities we must and do bear in mind. In the first place, it goes without saying that we do not have a homogeneous population. We do not have an ordinary plural society in the sense in which certain academics use this terminology. We do not merely have a plural society where a variety of professional groups and cultural organizations exist within a single nation or population. We have a plurality of communities, nations, minority groups and so forth.

In the second place, every self-respecting nation insists on exercising its own political power. If we do not take this into consideration, we cannot discuss politics in South Africa. It is in this regard that the PFP is on the wrong track completely. The PFP speaks about self-determination, but the moment the self-determination of a specific nation is involved, they wish there was rather no such nation and they speak the way the hon. member for Sea Point did when he said one should really play the national feeling on a low key …

The prejudices.

What are prejudices? Prejudices are those judgments a community made many years ago that are accepted as axioms by the present generation.

Oh, come now, Andries!

The hon. member would do well to read what the philosopher Richard Weaver wrote in his book Visions of Order. It is a very interesting article.

The third aspect I want to touch on is interdependence. The CP is not going to flinch from this. This is a truth we subscribe to along with our former colleagues, namely, the interdependence of the various States, nations and groups. We recognize this interdependence in South Africa. However, together with interdependence there are the realities in the set-up. This is not an economic or geographic reality, but a reality which exists in the hearts of people, namely vigilance against any posibility of domination or the undermining of self-determination. Here, of course, we come to the crux of the matter. The question is how one can do justice to this interdependence and the retention of political self-determination for the various nations, groups and communities. An answer must be given to this question.

I should also like to raise the matter of the speech made by the Vice State President in Pretoria on 2 April 1982. I should like to speak with the necessary respect. I think it is understandable that certain statements made by the Vice State President affect both hon. members on that side of the House and hon. members on this side of the House. I hope I am at liberty to draw attention to a few of the statements made by the Vice State President and to add to this that I do not think that what he said was factually correct. The first statement I want to refer to appears on page 14 of his speech, namely—

I do not think that is quite correct. Allow me to read what the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, said in this connection—this was as far back as 1974—as reported in Die Transvaler—

What about 1977?

Yes, I am coming to that. We have lots of time. If we do not discuss it this afternoon we can do so later. We shall still discuss this. I now come to 1977 and I shall also get to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. I am very friendly towards him. When the constitutional proposals were being explained in 1977 and he was asked whether they involved power-sharing, his answer was as follows—

It is also on record, in a discussion conducted by the Press with the present Prime Minister and Mr. M. C. Botha, regarding the question of power-sharing, that Mr. M. C. Botha said—

Mr. P. W. Botha’s answer was—

Then Mr. M. C. Botha said: “Dit is samewerking”. I am quoting this in spite of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, namely that it does not matter who said what and when. I think it is relevant because in my opinion it is necessary that we also place the historic picture in perspective. After all, history is important, unless, of course, a party wants to run away from history in this country. However, this party does not intend to run away from history.

There is another statement by the hon. the Vice State President—it appears on page 18 of his speech—where he refers to the discussion which took place regarding the draft Bill. He says the discussions took place in the study groups of the NP and he said—

With all due respect I contend that this statement is not correct. I was not in the caucus groups, but I was in the caucus when this matter was discussed and there was a discussion on the matter. There were also members who still wanted to take part in the discussion. There is no voting in the caucus, except on certain occasions when a motion is put, as happened recently. However, there is no vote on such matters in the caucus. In other words, it is not factually correct to say that it was accepted unanimously. To tell the truth, I myself still wanted to participate in that discussion, but the hon. the Prime Minister interrupted the discussion by saying that there would still be plenty of time to discuss these matters. And that put an end to the discussion. In other words, the statement that it was accepted unanimously was not correct.

The third statement that I feel is not factually correct is where the hon. the Vice State President said—

Sir, with all due respect, I did not support it; Mr. Vorster did not support it and not a single pamphlet of the NP supported it. Our present Prime Minister did not support it either, and as recently as August last year he rejected it.

That is all I have to say about those three statements.

Because we consider this a serious matter, I wish to make a request on behalf of the CP at this stage. I wish to ask that the Vice-State President withdraw from further discussions in the President’s Council regarding constitutional matters. [Interjections.]

I could have taken up more of the time of this House, but I do not think it necessary. Perhaps one should give some of the examples of occasions where power-sharing has been rejected by mouthpieces of the NP. I am not going to quote at length because I do not think it is necessary, though some members may find it interesting. I could refer, inter alia, to the publication “Bang-maakpraatjies” in a document of the NP—the title actually referred to scare-stories by the HNP—in which various allegations were also made regarding power-sharing by that side of the House. It was also said that there was no power-sharing, and then an explanation was given. I could refer to what the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said in another document, namely—

The hon. Minister went on to say—

I do not want to quote the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, but when he was asked by this side of the House on 21 March 1980 whether power-sharing societies were the policy of the NP or not, he himself said that power-sharing was not the policy of the NP. There were also similar statements by the hon. members for Benoni and Parys, which I shall not quote now. A similar standpoint also appears in the Pro-Nat publication which dealt with the constitution plan, and I shall just quote a brief extract from it—

The answer is unqualified: “Ons glo nie aan magsdeling nie”. They say—

[Interjections.] It seems as if there is now light on the subject, Sir. [Interjections.] It would seem as if hon. members on this side of the House have now seen the light. In October 1979 there additional “ammunition” was provided, because the hon. the Prime Minister stated clearly at the congresses that he did not believe in a unitary state, a federation or a Black majority government, nor in power-sharing. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Winburg can say that is correct if he wants to. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he believed in vertical development of each nation to the highest level and to the division of power among Whites, Coloureds and Indians, with consultation. However, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs gradually changed “consultation”. That is what is referred to in English as “News-peak”. He gradually changed it into joint decision-making.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister knows that I questioned the idea of joint decision-making. [Interjections.]

Where?

Elsewhere. Apparently memories are rather vague in places. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister believes in consultation where matters of common concern are involved, but not in power-sharing. Then there is the occasion when the hon. member for Pinelands asked the hon. the Prime Minister: “Glo u dan aan magsdeling?”, to which he replied: “Nee, moet nou nie onsinnighede kwytraak nie.” The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to say—

[Interjections.] What was at issue here? It was power-sharing, as Prog policy. It was a question of power-sharing. That was what was at issue. The hon. the Prime Minister said it was Prog policy and he did not intend to implement it. The elementary question was: Do you believe in power-sharing? [Interjections.] This brings me to the specific question: Just what exactly is this power-sharing which must now be believed in and which must now be accepted? The first example used is the participation of the Coloureds and the Asians in the election of the State President. However, I want to say that this is not power-sharing. [Interjections.] Let us consider the facts. In the first place, the ratio in the composition of the electoral college is 50:25:13. In other words, the Whites elected by the governing party are in the majority.

“Baas-skap.”

In the second place, the change in the composition can only take place if all three Parliaments approve it. In the third place the White Parliament will in fact elect the State President, and who says so? The hon. the Prime Minister says so. I should like to quote from Hansard of Friday, 7 August 1981. When the hon. the leader of the Opposition asked if a Coloured or an Asian could become State President, the hon. the Prime Minister replied (col. 439)—

The discussion was continued and later on the hon. the Prime Minister again stated—

Then there was a further question regarding the race of the State President which is not prescribed, the the hon. the Prime Minister said—

“Baasskap”. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then said—

They must now decide whether it is power-sharing of “baasskap”.

That hon. member must please give me a chance to complete my speech. The hon. the leader went on to say—

The hon. the Prime Minister’s reply to this was—

Surely there is no other State. Surely it is this State.

If that is the case, why did you walk out? [Interjections.]

I do not need the help of the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] If one says that an example of power-sharing is that Whites and Coloureds and Asians may elect the State President, I say that that is not power-sharing. It is merely a White majority vote, because it is simply a White majority that elects him. [Interjections.] If the non-Whites were to be in the majority in the electoral college and were for example to have 45 of the 88 votes, they would elect the State President. It is merely a majority vote by which the State President is elected. This is not an example of power-sharing. It is a simple matter, after all. The hon. the Prime Minister said so himself. [Interjections.]

The second aspect is the question of co-responsibility. The other day the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries put a question to me regarding co-responsibility. Of course co-responsibility appears in the twelve-point plan and of course we endorsed it, but in the interim we have had a specific use of certain concepts. After all, in the political arena concepts acquire specific connotations …

Power-sharing as well.

Yes, power-sharing as well. Of course! [Interjections.] After all one can have co-responsibility in various ways. One can have co-responsibility among independent sovereign States, as there is co-responsibility within the Nato organization among sovereign States as regards the defence of the Western World, without this affecting the sovereignty of a specific State. You can have co-responsibility between two farmers farming next to each other in respect of the maintenance of a boundary fence, fire-breaks and the like without their having a Minister of Mealies or a Minister of Cattle to control the mealies or cattle of both farms. [Interjections.] The hon. members had better do their homework. I shall come back to this; if not this afternoon, then a little later. I want to come to the hon. member for Florida who was protected by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that a Coloured and an Asian could become a Minister in control of matters of common concern. Surely we can talk about that.

I said that the door was not closed.

I want to tell the hon. member here and now that if he says the door is not closed, he must do his homework, because one can only be a Minister of such a department, for example the Department of Defence or the Department of Foreign Affairs, if one is a member of the White Parliament and of the White Cabinet.

Where does it say so?

The hon. member lacks a little elementary logic, because …

Where does that appear in the draft Bill?

Wait a moment. The hon. member walked into a trap. I do not know what happened to him in the caucus. I think they had to help him out of the trap, because he alleged that a non-White could be a Minister in control of affairs of common concern. When I refer to another point I shall come back to this argument.

The next point I want to make, concerns the matter raised by the hon. member for Florida. The Council of Cabinets is supposed to have the same authority as the present Cabinet. This is what is at issue. This point and its interpretation are at issue.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the hon. the Minister of Environmental Affairs tried to make a big argument out of a quotation from what Mr. Vorster said. I shall not for a moment pretend to interpret Mr. Vorster’s words correctly, but he said that if the present Cabinet—he used words to this effect—has executive powers, the Council of Cabinets will also have executive powers. Am I correct? [Interjections.] Very well.

Now, I do not want to pose as an exegete or a protector of what Mr. Vorster said, but I do want to say that the hon. members must not think they are on very solid ice in this connection. In the first place I think it would be very interesting to hear what Mr. Vorster himself said about this statement. He is still alive. It can give an indication of the background against which he made that statement. It may be that the hon. members do not agree with that background.

However, the fact remains that there are specific theories in connection with the executive powers of Cabinet members. After all, there are various theories.

One theory is that individual Cabinet members do not actually have executive powers, but that the executive power vests in the Prime Minister. This is a specific standpoint. If I am correctly informed, that was the approach of the late Dr. D. F. Malan in the Cabinet. He submitted a matter for discussion and after it had been discussed, his conclusion was: “Nou ja, dan maak ons maar soos ek gesê het.”

This is one approach. According to that approach a Cabinet member does not, therefore, really have executive power because the executive power vests in the Prime Minister. The other theory is that the State President appoints Ministers for special portfolios at the instance of the Prime Minister and that the Ministers do therefore have executive powers. This is in terms of the constitution. Now I just want to suggest that the first theory may possibly form the background for the statement by Mr. Vorster.

However, this is not my main argument. We said expressly that the Council of Cabinets was not a supreme Cabinet. Why do I emphasize this? I do so for the simple reason that if the Council of Cabinets which is to govern the country is to have the same authority as the present Cabinet, it in fact becomes the Government of the country. In terms of its composition it will consist of ten Whites and ten non-Whites.

No!

This is an elementary deduction from the facts. If the Council of Cabinets is to have the same authority as the present Cabinet and it is composed of seven Whites and seven non-Whites, or on a 50/50 basis … in a Cabinet of 20 it will therefore be 10 against 10; it is quite simple … [Interjections.]

Hon. members on the Government side are now pretending that this is the first time they hear this. When I raised this matter, both in the Cabinet and in the caucus and in the head committee, what was the reaction? The reaction was that there is in fact a non-White in the Housing Board, and a non-White in the Group Areas Board. I was not told that I was completely wrong in regard to this matter. In addition, the hon. member for Florida has confirmed that as he saw it the way was clear for a Coloured and an Asian to take over a portfolio of so-called general affairs. In other words, his point of departure was that the State President would establish a supercabinet, with general portfolios, and that it would govern the country.

That is not what I said. [Interjections.]

But that is the approach, is it not?

Rather tell us what your policy is!

Now that hon. member wants me to get to my own policy. [Interjections.] There is still plenty of time for that. However, this little point is of cardinal importance. The question their people and my people are asking is: Who is to govern me? Will my own people govern me, or will that government be composed of Whites and non-Whites? If it is to be composed of Whites and non-Whites, surely that means that non-Whites will govern with my people, not only over non-Whites, but also over Whites. This is a standpoint which I have put before. However, I am now putting it again. I state unequivocally that this is unacceptable to me. [Interjections.]

Please tell us about your Coloured policy now!

As far as this matter is concerned, we have said that the Cabinet members who are to serve in the Council of Cabinets will deliberate as representatives of the nation to which they belong. They obtain their portfolios in their own cabinets, and no portfolios are allocated to them on the basis of their membership of the Council of Cabinets. That is my reply to the hon. member for Florida. The Council of Cabinets is therefore not a supreme Cabinet. We have said this, after all. If the Council of Cabinets is not a supreme Cabinet, we must not try to make it one. We must not say that the Council of Cabinets will have the same power as the existing Cabinet. After all, one cannot say that. [Interjections.]

We also said that the Council of Cabinets would function like the former Cabinet Council. What was that Cabinet Council? It consisted of the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet, homeland leaders and, I assume certain Coloured and Indian leaders, when the occasion called for it. In any case, it was not a supergovernment. It was not a body in which specific members held specific portfolios in a joint Cabinet. That was not the case. The non-White leaders did not have executive powers over general departments.

I should just like to refer to one further aspect. We said expressly that the White Parliament’s powers and authority remain unchanged. That is what we said. If, therefore, someone is a Minister of a so-called joint department, or is to become such a Minister, he must become a Minister of the White Parliament or Cabinet. This is quite clear from that proposal. [Interjections.]

Do those powers, then, always remain the same?

If, therefore, the Council of Cabinets were to function as a Cabinet, I am tempted to ask: What monster of a cabinet would we have? We would have a Cabinet with three Prime Ministers, a Cabinet in which there could even be three Ministers of Education on occasion. There could also be three Ministers of Welfare or something of that sort. Imagine such a Cabinet! No, I believe that hon. members realize that as far as this aspect is concerned, they find themselves on a slippery slope. In this regard the impression has been created that there can be a fourth Cabinet—in addition to these group Cabinets—and that the real power will be vested in it. We reject this.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Waterberg put forward here as the realities of his party’s policy—things like interdependence and self-determination—are also the realities of the policy of the NP. However, we waited in vain for a single indication by the hon. member for Waterberg of the policy of his party. [Interjections.] One might have expected him to take the opportunity, on this first important occasion on which he, as leader of his party, has to stand against the leader of the NP, to state his party’s policy to us. His wild tirades about what power-sharing supposedly means and does not mean were brilliantly summed up in the question put to him by the hon. member for Yeoville:“Why, then, did you walk out?” In vain we waited for the hon. to say something—so much so that someone called out in despair: “At least say something, man!” That is what we had from the leader of the CP today. This morning, in the radio programme “Monitor”, I heard that the so-called iron chancellor of Germany, Bismarck, was eventually dethroned not because age and the ailments he suffered from eventually caught up with him, but due to his arrogant political conduct. Throughout his parliamentary career the hon. member for Waterberg has never practised anything but arrogant politics. That is why the English Press have branded him “Dr. No”. In two days’ time it will be precisely 10 years ago that the following appeared in the Sunday Times of 16 April 1972—

As a result of this another backbencher said the following (Hansard, 18 April 1972, col. 5177)—

I quote from column 5178—

It was I, Mr. Chairman, who said that, and apart from the respect I accorded the hon. member for Waterberg, due to the status and position with which he entered this House—it is recorded in Hansard—it was intended to warn that hon. member with perhaps just a touch of venom, not to be too presumptuous and arrogant. What you do not know, Mr. Chairman, is that the hon. member for Waterberg—at the time still editor of Hoofstad—and I were almost involved in a nomination struggle in the Odendaalsrus constituency during 1970. Coming from me as a backbencher, this warning fell on deaf ears, of course. This is quite clear from a letter written in the newspaper by Mr. Cas Greyling to Dr. Treurnicht on 2 March this year. I quote from Beeld—

Do you know what he did then, Mr. Chairman? He wept. That is what is stated here in Mr. Cas Greyling’s letter. The lion of Water-berg roared, he was crying so much. That morning the hon. member went to Mr. Cas Greyling, not so much to go and cry, but to go and intrigue, because his political frustrations had already begun. However, Oom Cas Greyling did not want to intrigue; he wanted so serve tea! [Interjections.] If there are hon. members who wish to question the facts, they must take the matter up with Mr. Cas Greyling. Even this humilation which the hon. member brought upon himself did not teach him not to be too arrogant. Sir, do you know what that implies? If he is not listened to, he weeps; if he is listened to and the matter is discussed, he walks out. [Interjections.]

In his arrogance against which I warned him 10 years ago, he has experienced for the second time that this hon. Prime Minister, too, is not a powerless and frustrated pawn in the hands of the intriguers. When it comes to matters, actions and decisions dealing with the safety and the welfare of this country and its people, this hon. Prime Minister, too, will not allow himself to be pushed around by anybody within or outside this House. [Interjections.]

After all, the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly furnished the guarantee that he will not forfeit the self-respect and the right to self-determination of his own people, but the CP negate this on their crusades throughout the country, in which they put forward nothing but NP policy, as was the case again today. Therefore I cannot argue with the CP about policy and principle, because they have not set an alternative.

Without sacrificing the right to self-determination of his own people, the hon. the Prime Minister will negotiate with all people in an honest and fair way and in accordance with our Christian outlook in the light of the economic facts of this country, in the light of the threat to South Africa, which is significant, and in the light of our ethnic situation, which is a given fact. These are the facts of South Africa. These are the facts with which someone like the hon. the Prime Minister has to deal daily, and in the light of those circumstances the hon. the Prime Minister will act in the best interests of South Africa and all its people, subject at all times to the condition that the self-respect and the right to self-determination of his own people be not sacrificed.

Today, 10 years later, I want to address another warning from this front bench to the hon. member for Waterberg. The Press totally shattered the leadership image of a former leader of the old United Party, Mr. Koos Strauss, when a cartoonist depicted him in a garment which covered his neck and flared down to above his ankles, where it was gathered with elastic. That garment lacked sleeves, and would fit in well with the “fancy footwork” which a former Prime Minister ascribed to the person of the hon. member for Waterberg. He did not mean it as a compliment, but rather as an accusation. And what is more, the hon. member for Waterberg did not wish to roll up his sleeves and work for the proposals of the President’s Council, the President’s Council which is also the result of the political actions and activities of the hon. member for Waterberg and the people who sit behind him. By way of fancy footwork he wishes to dissociate himself from the consequences of his own past political conduct and activities. By this means he prefers to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I do not know what cartoonists would do to the leadership image of the hon. weeping member for Waterberg if they were to have him dragging his big handkerchief behind him for cosmetic purposes; I think it would be a good Omo advertisement!

You must look at the cartoon in Beeld.

However, I want to say this to him: Weeping, fancy footwork, clever play on words and the performance he puts up on a platform in order to create atmosphere, does not make one a leader. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Waterberg. What I heard today from the front bench of the hon. member for Waterberg, filled me with great sorrow. We as Whites in this country must have no illusions: We in South Africa are faced with the most crucial decisions in our entire history. What we have seen happening in the NP during this session is in many respects a tragedy for us as a country and for the image of the Whites.

I want to tell the hon. member for Waterberg and his colleagues that—however tragic it may be—the deeper they plunge into the political fray in the future, the more they are going to move into the field occupied by the HNP, which they opposed together with us for a long time. To which voters are the CP going to turn? Surely it is not true that they are going to attract the NP supporters.

Oh come on, Albert!

Let us assume that the CP attract 10% of the NP supporters in every constituency, or even 20%. Even then they will still have to rely for the most part on those voters who voted for the HNP in the past election. In the nature of things they will eventually find themselves in the political dilemma that they will have to express opinions which some of them do not like themselves. The hon. member for Barberton will never be able to persuade me to conduct a political debate with them on a personal level, because I believe that we should fight these former colleagues of ours on the basis of principles.

I have respect for the hon. member for Waterberg as a person, but I say with compassion that the tragedy of his thinking, which is also reflected by some of his colleagues, is that since 1970—I did a little research in this regard—his thinking has always been within a particular ideological framework—and for this I give him credit. In the social field, in the political field, as in every other field, his political thinking can fit precisely into that narrow framework of 1970. However, the question is whether the South Africa with which we have to deal today and the problems of South Africa with which we have to struggle in 1982 can be met, dealt with and resolved according to that framework of ideas dating from 1970. This is the reality facing the NP. We are living in a changing South Africa. The factual realities with which we as the governing party have to deal, have changed. There is still a development backlog among many of our people, but besides that we have a tremendous development momentum because as a part of the NP’s policy of upliftment, people have grown educationally and in their total development. In the physical and economic spheres we are faced with the problem of urbanization, which resulted in a large mass of people being case into our midst within a very short space of time. We also have to deal with a Brown and Asiatic population that have aspirations at levels which were not yet as much of an issue in 1970. I want to ask that in the formulation of their policy and in their conversations with their voters, the CP will have the decency towards our country and towards politics to uphold the image of the Whites and take constant note of the realities with which we are faced in a changing South Africa. If those realities are ignored and we were to formulate our policy and statements in the economic and social spheres in accordance with the situation in 1970, we should be saddled with a major problem.

One of the most alarming aspects of the CP is that in fact, we have a large number of people in South Africa—16 of whom are sitting in Parliament—who overlook the military threat against South Africa in the light of which we have to formulate a policy, as well as the internal potential for revolution. If a White in South Africa and a White politician, perceives those realities and does not try to minimize those dangers in the formulation of his policy with regard to the other population groups, then we have indeed reached a dangerous point.

As we are at present discussing the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister that we should make more use of the State’s information machinery on the road ahead, not to tell the voters of South Africa about the policy of the NP, but to spell out the basic realities clearly so that people will be aware of the background against which the NP government formulates its policy. Let us have no illusions about that; the NP cannot run away, and that goes for its constitutional proposals as well. The tragedy is that the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg—whom I respect as people—forfeited their right to participate in Cabinet discussions. There are tens of thousands of people in South Africa who would give anything to be able to sit in a Cabinet where the final decisions are taken. There are no hon. members on this side of the House, and here I include myself, who would not be grateful for the privilege of deciding together, in whatever body it may be. I am not, therefore, saying anything remarkable. If one sits in such a body and does not make use of that opportunity, then I think ones people have the right to ask you, and I think the supporters of the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg have the right to ask them, what their practical solution was which they suggested in that body in which they had a place. The mass of White voters in South Africa are sick and tired of the emotions that surround words. It is true that it is part of politics that we make politics with words, as the hon. member for Waterberg rightly said. It is, therefore, also quite natural that we should make politics with regard to the word “power-sharing”. However, I want to say to hon. members that as far as the NP is concerned, we see the constitutional future not as playing with words, but as something which is to follow the proposals of the President’s Council and as practical decisions we shall have to take, where we shall have a joint say together with people, where we shall take decisions together with other people. I therefore wish to tell the hon. member for Waterberg that we can debate until we are blue in the face, but if anyone can tell me as well as the voters at large that the 1977 proposals, in the words of the then Prime Minister, namely joint consultation and joint responsibility, mean something other than that one sits down together and decides together about certain matters, on the understanding that one can still take one’s own decisions about certain matters which are one’s exclusive concern, then I say that that person is mistaken. It is simply not true. It has never been the policy of the NP to try to mislead the non-White people in this country, the Coloured population, the Asians and others in such a way. In any event, I have never understood it to be so. We must take care that all White politicians in this country do not ultimately, because we evoke so much emotion about things which we should obviate in practice, become irrelevant. What South Africa is now seeking, what the young people in South Africa are asking of us, is not the Prog idea of capitulation. Still less is it the HNP recipe and the CP recipe—with great respect to my hon. colleagues—of confrontation. They ask for the NP’s recipe of meaningful, sensible and balanced accommodation. Whether one likes the word accommodation or not, it is the simple truth of politics.

I should also like to say on this occasion that what our voters and young people in South Africa are seeking at this stage, are deeds. At this stage we have an hon. Prime Minister—however much people may differ with him and however much people may want to criticize him—who has had the courage to take practical decisions, according to his fights, in all fields—in the economic field, in the field of state administration, in the field of decentralization—which is part of the economy—in the field of race relations and in every other field. South Africa is asking for a Government of deeds. This is the basic difference between the NP and the CP. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing so unedifying as a family quarrel that spills out into the dust of the street for everybody to watch. The last 50 minutes of the debate have been devoted to that sort of family quarrel. I do not intend to get involved in it, although I intend to deal with some of the issues that were raised by the hon. member for Innesdal in particular and other speakers in the broader political context of South Africa. It was probably inevitable that in the politics of evolutionary reform and change there would be trauma, dangers and problems and I intend to deal with this. What the debate has shown thus far, has been mainly a series of questions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who, as usual, is not here made a strange “question-master” speech. I do not know whether he has been reading some of the advice given to him by his advisers, inter alia, some of the newspapers that support him, that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must go into coalition to save South Africa. I shall watch with interest because it is said that the hon. the Prime Minister is not giving leadership, while everybody is just waiting with bated breath for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give the lead. I did not hear that lead this afternoon, Sir!

He has great difficulty in his party.

Is that so?

That is also true. He has joined the hon. the Prime Minister’s club, because they both have problems in their respective parties at the moment.

And you are enjoying it!

Of course I am enjoying it. It is nice to see one’s enemies in difficulty, and the more they are in difficulty, the better I like it. Why should I not? [Interjections.] I have had my share!

You are a political sadist!

I want to refer to one serious issue that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised. He replayed the gramophone record of last year’s speech on the impossibility of having self-determination and power-sharing in the same system, ’n Mens kan nie selfbeskikking en magsdeling in dieselfde stelsel hê nie, sê hy. This is an important argument, Sir, because if it is correct—and I accept that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition puts his case sincerely; I accept that he believes that that is true, that one cannot have self-determination and power-sharing together—then he has finally talked himself right out of the political debate in South Africa. Immediately one abandons the right to self-determination of groups in South Africa, one no longer is relevant in the political scene in any shape or form.

Why not?

I shall tell the hon. member why not later. After all the other questions asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and also by the hon. the leader of the CP, the $64 000 question is: How is the hon. the Prime Minister going to react to the present situation? I do not want to play with words. The hon. member for Waterberg quoted a reaction by the hon. the Prime Minister to an interjections in which the Prime Minister said that he did not believe in power-sharing. One can easily take the hon. the Prime Minister’s answer as recorded in Hansard: “No, do not talk nonsense”, out of context and say that he rejected power-sharing less than a year ago. That is, however, too cheap a form of politics to be playing at this stage.

How expensive are you?

This year the hon. the Prime Minister and I had an exchange, and I refer hon. members to Hansard, 2 February, column 132. We were discussing the road ahead for South Africa, and in reacting to the question of change the hon. the Prime Minister said—

I then interjected—

The hon. the Prime Minister’s reply then was—

I am afraid that that is what the hon. the Prime Minister is causing to happen at the moment. Just that! Die mense loop rond en bont, soos verdwaalde skape. It is a sort of political blind-man’s buff. One only has to read, in particular, the hon. the Prime Minister’s own Press at the moment. I know the hon. the Prime Minister may resent advice, but somebody asked about my enjoying the troubles in those parties. I have been through all that, however, as I have said, but I am still going to advise the hon. the Prime Minister, because I think that the one mistake the old UP made was to have waited too long trying to reconcile irreconcilables. My only motive in now giving advice to the hon. the Prime Minister is to serve the interests of South Africa.

That is why you are sitting where you are sitting.

I want to make it very clear that I do so as a member of a party with its own identity. We, as a party, have no intention—or desire—of sacrificing that identity. We have no plans to surrender it, because when the end of the road is reached, it will be found that it was this party that pioneered the only answer out of the chaos and confusion that South Africa finds itself in at the moment. I want to repeat that this party is prepared to support every step the Government takes in the direction we have pioneered, but as members of this party, we are not prepared to throw our policy or philosophy into a whirlpool of hesitant, floundering experimentation, nor to become rubber stamps for whatever comes out of the whirlpool.

Why did you give them control of Johannesburg?

The PFP can make all the jokes and any other noises it wants to make, but it has written itself out of any relevance.

In Johannesburg as well.

There was an interjection referring to Johannesburg. Let me ask why it is that the NP controls Johannesburg? It controls Johannesburg because the PFP boycotted an opportunity for power-sharing with Whites in South Africa. [Interjection.] That is the simple fact of the matter. [Interjections.] They can talk themselves blue in the face, but they have written themselves out of politics because they will not even share power with fellow-Whites in South Africa.

Why did you not share power with us?

The die has been cast for the NP.

For you too.

It is too late for tears. It is too late to turn back.

For you too.

Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he cannot entice the CP back by dangling the 1977 plan as bait to attract them. It is too late to win them back that way because they, like the PFP, have opted out of the process of evolutionary renewal. The PFP did it in order to go flat out to commit itself to the transfer of power, and the CP in order to reject any form of renewal and power-sharing in South Africa. [Time expired.]

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

I thank the hon. Chief Whip. I was saying that the CP, like the PFP, has opted out. Now that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is back in the House, I want to ask him a question.

This is not the PFP Vote.

On 8 April, i.e. last week, he issued a statement in reply to an appeal after he was asked whether he was willing to lead Whites into the forefront of the liberation struggle. Secondly he was asked whether the PFP was capable of moving out of parliamentary debate and into the grass-roots of political society. His answer was that a wide measure of agreement had been reached in the ensuing discussion. These are two clear questions and I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell South Africa whether, in opting out of the real political debate, he has now accepted this role as part of the liberation struggle, the liberation front, or whatever it may be, and whether he has opted out of parliamentary politics in order to join the grass-roots of political society. It is important that South Africa should know this.

On the other side to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party, whom I regard as the “no-hopers” for South Africa and the boycotters, we have the “confronters” who are not prepared to enter into any form of renewal or change. Neither of those are the people to whom the hon. the Prime Minister should be looking. There is a vast mass of people in the middle who agree with neither.

When one thinks that this whole business is over the use of one term, two words, the term “power-sharing”, then it becomes necessary to look at the interpretation placed on “power-sharing” by the different parties. The NP, having used the term, now refers to it as joint responsibility.

We always have.

Oh, goody-goody!

The hon. member has reached out and found a great truth: “We always have.” They have also recently spoken of this as power-sharing. That is the issue. Whether it was a slip or not to use “power-sharing” instead of “joint responsibility” I do not know, but the fact is that it was used. It appeared in print and it was backed by the hon. the Prime Minister.

In a half-hour speech this afternoon from the side of the CP we learned nothing of their policies except that they reject powersharing. They flatly reject any form, whatever it is called, of joint participation in deciding on matters which affect all people in South Africa. The PFP believe—and I do not want to do them an injustice—in universal adult franchise on a proportional basis …

Hands up and hand over.

They believe in universal adult franchise on a proportional basis in a single federal Parliament. Is that correct? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell me if I am misrepresenting it. No one denies it. Nobody denies it, and therefore I must accept that that is correct.

A minority veto in a federal Parliament …

I am talking about the franchise. They believe in universal adult suffrage, a common voters’ roll and “one man, one vote” on a proportional basis for a single federal Parliament, with constitutional devices and protection. As I say, I am talking about the franchise. Am I misrepresenting the official Opposition? [Interjections.] You see, Mr. Chairman, there we have it! They will not even admit it! [Interjections.] How can one conduct a debate with a party … [Interjections.]

We have published our policy, and it is there for all to read! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, how can one conduct a debate with a party which denies or refuses to acknowledge its own policy?

You must be daft! You have it in your hand; why do you not read it?

I have it here, but I am not going to waste my time reading it. [Interjections.] I have battled to get this document, Mr. Chairman, but here I have it now. I refer hon. members of the official Opposition to page 23 of this document. They can read it for themselves. [Interjections.]

Read it! [Interjections.]

I do not want to be misled from my speech, Mr. Chairman. I have another policy here; the 1977 NP policy. I should like to raise a few further points in this respect. I have already dealt with the NP policy and its approach to joint responsibility. I have also dealt with the Prog approach—their policy of handing over power, and also with the CP approach—no joint responsibility and no power-sharing. Our own approach is one of participation in joint decision-making. One can use all those words; one can use all sorts of different phrases—in the end they mean nothing but power-sharing. They mean power-sharing, except the CP. The question is how one is going to do it, and not whether one is going to do it. The missing element, however, in the thinking of those parties is the accommodation of a group political power base, a power base for each group in South Africa. We are awaiting the recommendations of the President’s Council with great interest because I hope—and I believe that there is a fair chance—that those recommendations are going to come very close to the Natal plan for local government which was originally rejected by the NP … [Interjections.] … and that it will recommend community self-government. It will recommend, I hope, a metropolitan system for joint decision-making on common affairs. It will make provision for small minorities who cannot be viable on their own. Otherwise it will be a dead letter. This is the challenge for the hon. the Prime Minister, not only at local, but at national level—the accommodation of group power bases in a system with joint decisionmaking on agreed matters of common interest.

I do not have time to deal with that further. I shall come back to it, however, later in the debate. Then, I hope, I will be able to debate it rationally with the hon. the Prime Minister. One cannot debate, however, with parties that run away from their own policies and who will not even acknowledge them. [Interjections.]

I will therefore interrupt my speech at this stage to leave a thought with the hon. the Prime Minister. That is that he cannot turn back. If, however, he does not want South Africans “dwaal-ing rond” like “verlore skape” … [Interjections.] … he has to give a much firmer lead than he has done until now in order to remove the confusion and the chaos in politics.

Vause, what language is that? Is that Fanagalo?

Yes, it is my own Fanagalo. [Interjections.] I will leave the matter at that, but I shall follow it up during a later stage in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, one probably has to pardon the hon. member for Durban Point for wanting to anticipate the recommendations of the President’s Council at this early stage. It is particularly noteworthy, of course, that he did not say a single word about his party’s involvement in the proceedings of the Buthelezi Commission. Nor did he say a single word about the bloody noses his party sustained during its participation in the proceedings of that commission.

Have you been asleep again? [Interjections.]

At a later stage I shall come back to the Buthelezi Commission. At the outset I just wish to point out that I believe it is important that we have two extremely topical documents before us, documents of which we ought to take cognizance at this juncture. I am referring to the report of the Office of the Prime Minister for 1981 and the extremely important Information Document and White Paper on the promotion of industrial development at particular growth points in South Africa, and more particularly, industrial development in the national States. These two documents, together with the Small Business Development Act passed by this House last year, bear testimony to the entire world of the fact that the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister are engaged in sustained and thorough planning. I think it is fair to say, particularly after the Carlton conference and the Good Hope conference, that it is very clear that the Government views the priorities of Southern Africa in the correct perspective.

We are living in a society—and I think that this is a general concept—in which a First World situation and a Third World situation exist alongside each other. In a situation such as this the need for commercial and industrial development in the less developed sections of our community is of the utmost importance. I think it may be fitting to refer at this point to a speech made by Chief Minister Buthelezi in Newcastle on 12 March 1982. Before having made any reference whatsoever to his commission of inquiry, he said right at the beginning of his speech—

In other words, it is also clear that this Black man—of whom it cannot be said that he adopts an exceedingly friendly attitude towards the Government—agrees that the first priority in our society is that of development, of his area as well.

From this annual report and the White Paper it is evident that concrete steps are being taken, in the same way as the first steps for commercial development were taken by the Small Business Development Corporation last year, to encourage the establishment of industries as well. We saw at both these conferences that the involvement of private enterprise generated a great deal of enthusiasm in the private sector.

Consequently it is clear that the Government places the need for development above the importance of miscellaneous political solutions which can be developed in due course. Unlike the Opposition parties the Government is not intent on devising instant political solutions.

If we consult the annual report of the department, we see that active attention is being given to economic, physical and social planning over and above political planning. One sees very clearly that although the political development of the national States and of the other communities in our country is not being neglected, the Government does not allow itself to be blinded by such developments. If one wants to have an example of the very opposite being applicable in the case of the Opposition parties, one should perhaps take a very brief look at the history of the inquiry as well as the report of the Buthelezi Commission.

I do not want to go into the details of that report. The position of the NP and the Government was clear from the very beginning. At the time of the appointment of that commission we had serious objections to certain aspects of its terms of reference. We were opposed to the invitation extended to the ANC and similar groups to serve on the commission, and we objected to the approach of dealing with one part of South Africa, Natal and KwaZulu, on a fragmented basis as far as the country’s problems were concerned. In considering the participation of the two Opposition parties in the commission, we see that the NRP, on the one hand, was so concerned about the co-operation it had had with the Government of KwaZulu after their Natal indaba that it simply stormed blindly into the commission. [Interjections.] When it found, however, that it obtained no support whatsoever for its policies in the commission, it refused to present a minority report; it simply refused to sign the report.

In saying that the NRP is creating expectations among the Black leaders which it cannot satisfy, I am again able to quote the words of Chief Minister Buthelezi himself. The fact that that party controls the Provincial Administration of Natal evidently created expectations on the part of the Chief Minister that with such control as a power base it would be possible to accomplish something. He said, for example,—

It is very clear that through its participation in the proceedings of the commission, the NRP created expectations amongst people which it is unable to satisfy.

The official Opposition went even further than this. Not only did they serve on that commission in the person of the hon. member for Sea Point; they also agreed with the recommendations of the commission. We do know, however, that the policy of the PFP envisages the establishment of a national convention in the event of the PFP coming into power. They say in their policy statement that decisions at the national convention must be reached on the basis of consensus. I assume that this still is the policy of the PFP.

In the Buthelezi Commission they participated in a fragmented inquiry into a part of South Africa and they compromised their party in respect of the recommendations of the commission. Now the official Opposition must tell us whether, in the event of their coming into power, they will adopt the approach of following the recommendations made in the report of the Buthelezi Commission in respect of Natal and KwaZulu, also in respect of South Africa as a whole.

There is another question to which the PFP should give us an answer. In their policy document they make great play of a right of veto in the hands of a minority. They define that right of veto as follows—

They go on to say—

In their fragmented approach of considering Natal on its own, they went along with a commission which recommended that the size of the minority to have a right of veto should be 10%. In terms of the population figures of Natal, this means that only the Zulu and Asian populations of that province will have a right of veto. Now the PFP should tell the people of Natal whether it is in favour of the White as well as the Coloured populations of Natal having no protection whatsoever in the form of a right of veto. The PFP cannot escape from this by saying that this is the position only as far as Natal is concerned; in the country as a whole Whites will number more than 10%, but in the country as a whole the Asian population in turn numbers less than 10% and the Coloured population just barely 10%. With any population growth in future, the Coloured proportion will be less than 10%. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I usually find it most unproductive to react to anything that members of the NRP say at any time. However, through their leader they made one rather startling statement today, namely that the PFP have opted out of parliamentary politics, That may be their opinion, but I think that that party is becoming very confused because if they look at their own diminishing numbers they will find that they have opted out of parliamentary politics; they have been pushed out, and pushed out at grass-roots level.

I recalled today an old adage which was passed on to me as a child by a long deceased uncle by the name of Meyer. He said—

I must say, I feel rather like that today myself.

You look it too.

I want to place on record at least one word of gratitude to the hon. the Prime Minister, and that is for the fact that he pulled the hon. member for Parys away from his usual activity. For eight years he has been the prime Prog basher in the House. Now he is putting his inimitable style to work on the members of the CP. Long may he be kept in that job!

I should like to follow up some of the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. Not one of the hon. members of the NP who stood up to speak this afternoon have even attempted to answer any of those questions. For instance, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of the Vice State President, and so far not one single NP spokesman has reacted to this. Is this a matter too hot for ordinary Government members to have a view on at all?

The Government was also asked to spell out how it intended involving moderate Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Black South Africans in constitution-making. So far we have had absolutely no answer to this question by the Government at all. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also asked the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to spell out what they really meant by the term “power-sharing”, and yet, up to this moment, after two hours of debate, we have had not one single answer on that level from the Government. We all know that the Government has many faults, but by attempting to confuse everyone they are always seeming to make the worst of all those faults.

I want to ask a few questions myself. I have been finding it increasingly fascinating, even a little disturbing, over these last few months to note that the Government and the NP appear to be relying on the long awaited recommendations—and they are relying on it in an overly sort of manner—of the President’s Council. In the 1½ years since its appointment, except for political rhetoric, meaningful reform in South Africa has in fact been stagnant. Hon. members of the CP have been accused of leaving the NP on a difference over words and even before considering the Government’s response to the recommendations of the President’s Council. When we in the PFP ask questions about the Government’s intentions concerning powersharing—questions requiring urgent answers —we are fobbed off. We have in fact been fobbed off for weeks and months with such glib phrases as “Wait for the President’s Council”. While maintaining a masterly vagueness the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government, has in a subtle way been preparing the ground and the public for a series of referenda on issues as yet undefined. The hon. the Prime Minister obviously knows things which we do not. He exudes a confidence that the recommendations, when they come, will bolster the NP’s position, particularly vis-á-vis the CP. How can this be? After all, the President’s Council is supposedly an independent body, standing apart from the Government, its members holding themselves above party politics, and yet one senses that something not quite proper is happening.

I want to address two questions to the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard. Firstly, does the hon. the Prime Minister already know what the President’s Council will recommend? Flowing from that, if the hon. the Prime Minister does know what is to come from the President’s Council, is it in the interests of the country that he continues to play cat and mouse with the electorate of South Africa and with those who have no vote, concerning the intentions of the Government in relation to those recommendations. However, there is another question, perhaps a more important one, that I should like to ask. To what extent will the recommendations reflect what the Prime Minister or the Cabinet has indicated to the council, or more likely, to its most senior members, will be politically acceptable? Is there a National Party or a Cabinet input into the deliberations of the President’s Council? That is a direct question.

Of course!

Is there perhaps a set of guidelines or parameters setting the boundaries of what the Government would find acceptable? I think the hon. the Prime Minister should think carefully before answering, because if such guidelines or parameters do in fact exist that fact will come out. Let us be sure of that.

Secondly, if the President’s Council’s recommendations are to achieve any level of acceptability outside the White electorate, then they must be presented as recommendations of a truly independent body, free of Government or Cabinet manipulation and free of untoward influence.

However, there is another question which remains unanswered at a time when the need for answers is urgent. If we know nothing else about the President’s Council, we do know that it is unlikely to deal with the question that I should like to put now. I refer to the application of the principles set out and agreed to in the Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution. Paragraph 8(b) reads as follows, and I quote—

This principle has been accepted by the Government. Paragraphs 113 and 114 of the Report of the Office of the Prime Minister make that quite clear. Paragraph 113 of this report concludes as follows, and I quote—

I further quote from paragraph 114(e)—

While publicly accepting the principle, the hon. the Prime Minister seems to be ignoring its implications. Twenty million Black South Africans have to date virtually been excluded from participating in the constitution making, the result of which will vitally affect their lives and their political status. The doors of the President’s Council have been closed to them. The Buthelezi Commission was first boycotted and then its findings were rejected. How long does the hon. the Prime Minister think this can go on? Is the hon. the Prime Minister unaware of the growing Black disaffection? And if he is, does he really think that he can stem this Black disaffection by meeting formally with homeland leaders once or twice a year, by granting a kind of pseudo municipal status to Black urban areas, by clamping down on the Press, by perpetuating these odious bannings and detentions without trial, by invoking a massive White military call-up and by making more guns? Is that all that the hon. the Prime Minister has to offer our country? What of the real political rights to those people who are not citizens of independent homelands, of those million who do not and never will live or work in the independent homelands—those remote outposts? Whether it be the hon. the Prime Minister’s reformists face or his conservative apartheid face which is shown, South Africa, Black and White, has a right to know the Government’s mind, if that is not an exaggeration. Until the Government implements in sincerity its own principle, namely that of involving all population groups in constitution-making, our country will continue to stumble at an ever increasing pace down the slope towards escalating conflict. That will be the responsibility not only of the NP, not only of the Cabinet but of the hon. the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. Chairman, once again the hon. member for Sandton really surprized me this afternoon. In an arrogant way he had a lot to say about the work of the Vice State President, as well as the President’s Council. I think we should tell that hon. member that they should refrain completely from discussing the proceedings of the President’s Council. They are boycotting the President’s Council after all. They pretend it is not there, yet they talk about it. The hon. member for Sandton should rather not waste our time with this kind of thing and the questions he wants to put about the proceedings of the President’s Council. He should let it be; they are doing their work.

You must reply to the questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party again sat here taking delight in our embarrassment. They must enjoy it, because I think that their joy is going to be short-lived. Under the moth-eaten PFP blanket they are really covering children who do not belong together. In that party there are a few wild men, men who are just lying in wait and who would not hesitate for one moment to hijack that party and to push it further to the left on a road which is dangerous for South Africa. We saw them in action again last week and the week before we adjourned. It would pay the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to watch the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Houghton carefully.

I am not doing the hon. members of the PFP an injustice when I tell them that we have heard nothing today to indicate that the future of this country and of its people may with confidence be left in the hands of the official Opposition. On the contrary, I think that if the PFP should govern this country, we would be setting foot on a road leading to chaos and misery.

I should also like to address myself to the CP of the hon. member for Waterberg. I think the hon. member for Waterberg will agree with me if I tell him that up till now we have had very little else in this debate except a further play on fine-sounding words. To this day, we on this side of the House still do not know what the CP means by “fair geographic dispensation for Coloureds and Indians”. We also do not know what is meant by “meaningful liaison” and how it will be applied.

What do you mean by “healthy power-sharing”?

These are serious times, but speakers of the CP talk about these cardinal questions in woolly and vague terms. In the meantime they chase all over the country, inciting people and creating expectations among people as if they now have the great White hope, the great White hope who will save the Whites of this country. The Rhodesians also had a great White hope. Mr. Ian Smith was the White hope who would fight for a thousand years for the Rhodesians. Look where they are today. This is dangerous politics, which only makes it more difficult to find solutions. The hon. member for Waterberg and his party, in their efforts to stir up emotions, did not scruple either to hijack a former State President and Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, and to involve him in a doubtful way in the political dispute. Then they criticized the Vice State President.

During the budget debate and again today the hon. member for Waterberg said, inter alia, that we would be well advised to go and ask Mr. Vorster what he meant when he spoke in Parliament on 12 April 1978. I do not think that we need ask Mr. Vorster. We need only read what he said here on that day. Just as he had done on another occasion, he spelled out certain things clearly and succintly. In politics certain people have but a short memory. However, what happened now, also happened on a smaller scale 13 to 14 years ago. Most of us have already forgotten it. On Friday, 16 August 1968, the former Prime Minister said, inter alia, the following at a public meeting at Heilbron—

Just look at how we are again playing with words now over the number of angels. [Interjections.] Yes, now there are 16 little angels. Mr. Vorster went on to say—

The NP knows where we stand with our leader. Mr. Vorster continued—

We still have them in South Africa—

Three of them are sitting over there! Those were prophetic words, for on that day there were already two Van der Merwes as MPs in the NP. There is, therefore, really nothing new under the sun! On the same occasion Mr. Vorster also said—

I now want to ask whether any responsible, right-minded person can find fault with this standpoint. The answer is no, because this is a sensible and correct view, and it still applies today. All that has changed since 1968, is that times in South Africa have become infinitely more dangerous and more difficult. Therefore, if Mr. Vorster, 14 years ago, as surely as his predecessors had also done, could claim and have recourse to this right of every Prime Minister, how much more right does the present Prime Minister not have to do so as well?

Why are there still people who occupy prestigious posts in South Africa, people who still occupy a special position in the hearts of many South Africans, who apparently begrudge our present Prime Minister this right? We ordinary people cannot understand why somebody who has played out his full innings and who then retired voluntarily, now seems to be participating vigorously in efforts to make the already difficult task of our present Prime Minister even more difficult. One says this with hesitation and reverence, yet with absolute conviction, that actions of this nature which are in conflict with the clear earlier standpoint to which I have referred, only contribute to the creation of unnecessary confusion and distrust among our people.

South Africa wants to pay tribute to and honour its great leaders, the tribute and honour which is their due and which they have deserved because of their great sacrifices, but then we must all realize that it can be irrevocably harmed and ultimately destroyed by encouraging people to commit acts of disloyalty against the properly elected leader of this nation and of South Africa.

On the same occasion Mr. Vorster went further in discussing his problems and said—

Is this not precisely what is happening now? The hon. the Prime Minister is toiling to keep our country free of communism. He is trying to accomplish this by enlisting the co-operation of people of colour. He is serving the interests of the Whites, while the heroes rise screaming to their feet in the Skilpad Hall! About this type of person Mr. Vorster also had, inter alia, the following to say on 26 September 1968—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg quoted extensively from speeches made by Mr. Vorster. However, he did not get round to quoting the latest statements of Mr. Vorster as well, and they are really the central issue, because Mr. Vorster’s very latest statement was that he rejected power-sharing in toto. [Interjections.] This is a standpoint which he maintained in 1968 and 1977, and still maintains to this very day. [Interjections.] That is really the central issue. I am sorry I do not have the time to react to the hon. member for Parys, but I just want to tell him that it is a very great pity that he attaches any credence to the gossip …

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

I am sorry, but I do not have time to reply to questions. I just wish to tell the hon. the member for Parys that he should please not attach any credence to the deplorable gossip emanating from Dr. De Klerk and from the information service of the NP, gossip about the hon. the leader of the CP who allegedly danced a little jig in front of a microphone. It is objectionable, and it is unworthy of him. [Interjections.]

That is simply the De Klerk level.

I should like to support the hon. the leader of the CP when he respectfully submits that the Vice State President ought to recuse himself from any further deliberations of the President’s Council concerning the constitutional dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and South African Asiatics. The reason for this request is that it is clearly apparent, from the conduct and statements of the Vice State President, that he is so completely prejudiced in favour of the standpoints which are being adopted in this connection by the hon. the Prime Minister that he is no longer reasonably able to maintain a scientific and objective legal assessment of the issue. [Interjections.] In the first place, I wish to refer to his telegram to the hon. the Prime Minister, a telegram in which he promised to back the hon. Prime Minister and in which he supported him. For a jurist …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I just wish to point out the rules of debate to the hon. member for Brakpan. I am referring specifically to rule 124 which reads—

I place particular emphasis on the last section of this rule.

With all due respect, Sir, I am simply using the precedents which exist in case law that a person may ask an hon. judge to recuse himself from a case because, according to the advocate, he is allegedly prejudiced, because he has perhaps heard evidence given by one of the parties or because he is perhaps involved in a case in some way or other. That is why I think that I am entitled to do this, with all due respect, and my intention in doing so is by no means to impugn the honour of the Vice State President or to insult him. I am saying that he is …

Mr. Chairman …

… under the circumstances not in common justice able to pass an unprejudiced judgment on this matter, owing to the fact that he has ventured into the political arena.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I am grateful for your ruling, because it related in part to the point of order I wanted to put. However, the hon. member also said that the Vice State President was not reasonably able to adopt a certain standpoint. I would like you please to rule whether or not that was an irreverent reference to the Vice State President.

Then he must not meddle in politics.

Order! That is what I meant when I pointed out to the hon. member for Brakpan that he was not entitled to use the State President’s name irreverently, or for the purpose of influencing this House in its deliberations. I shall allow the hon. member for Brakpan to proceed, but I wish to refer him once again to this rule, and I should like him to contain his language just a little.

Mr. Chairman, I defer to your ruling, but I just wish to say that I did what I did with the greatest respect. However, I think that it is absolutely essential that we refer to this matter, because I think it is correct that the Vice State President may be criticized for the fact that he sent the hon. the Prime Minister a telegram giving him his support in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member is making the factual statement that the Vice State President may be criticized. This is, with all due respect, criticism of the Vice State President and I wish to ask you for a ruling in this connection. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I also wish to refer to the speech which the Vice State President made on 2 April before the Junior Rapportryers conference. That is where he ventured into what is the most momentous aspect of the current political debate. There he not only entered the political scrum, but also recalled certain facts completely erroneously. Inter alia, he alleged that he had gone out of his way, as far as a joint meeting of the Interior Groups was …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: If the hon. member for Brakpan says that the Vice State President did something erroneously, I wish to submit with all due respect that that statement contains criticism which is intended to influence this House. I do not think he is entitled to do that.

The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I hope I am going to be given injury time. I have correspondence here which I conducted with the former Minister of the Interior in regard to this very matter. I think I must deal with that before my time expires. The Vice State President alleged, inter alia, that there was unanimity in the groups. Here I have a letter which I addressed to the then Minister of the Interior, in which I told him that there were certain matters in the draft Bill on which I had grave misgivings. I shall quote from this letter—

To this the former Minister of the Interior replied—

His letter was dated 5 April 1979, and mine was dated 26 March 1979—

Does that sound like unanimity to hon. members? On 30 March the House of Assembly resolved that a Select Committee would be appointed to examine the Constitution. The hon. member for Mossel Bay will agree with me that there was no unanimity. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs will also agree with me. At the time he was chairman of the Coloured Affairs group. The hon. member for Klip River will also agree that this was the case. There was no unanimity.

Thirdly, while the Vice State President alleged that all Ministers, Deputy Ministers and MP’s who were here between 1977 and 1979 accepted power-sharing, I wish to contend that by saying this he is even repudiating the hon. the Prime Minister as well as the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Law and Order.

Mr. Chairman, as a point of order: With reference to rule 124, I really have to ask you whether the hon. member is not in fact using the name of the Vice State President to influence this House in its deliberations. [Interjections.] That is precisely what is prohibited.

Order! I wish to point out to hon. members that the Vice State President also occupies the position of chairman of the President’s Council. Consequently the functions in a dual capacity. It is not always clear to me when his statements were made as Vice State President and when they were made as chairman of the President’s Council.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for a very clear ruling, something which the hon. the Minister of Law and Order ought to have known. [Interjections.] I wish to say that the Vice State President repudiated the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, as well as the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, the congresses of the National Party and the contents of all the NP information documents between 1979 and 1982.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Chief Whip of the NP for his friendly gesture.

The true state of affairs has been pointed out from these benches time and again. During this period the NP inexorably rejected power-sharing. We must also remember that the Vice State President is speaking of power-sharing pure and simple, and not of healthy forms of power-sharing or any power-sharing formulas. I therefore ask why the Vice State President has not, since 1977, repudiated the former Prime Minister, the present hon. the Prime Minister and all other authoritative spokesmen of the NP.

You are playing with words now, Frank.

The Vice State President also ridiculed certain Sabra statements before the Junior Rapportryers conference. Sabra’s evidence is before the President’s Council, and this body has to pass an unbiased judgment on that evidence. How can that be done? That is why I am suggesting with all due respect that the Vice State President should, for the sake of justice, recuse himself from further participation in the deliberation and decisions of the President’s Council on this very delicate matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan must pardon me for saying that when one is fighting against a snake, one does not mess about with its tail or its body, but bashes it on its head. I want to talk to the hon. the leader of the CP. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member Mr. Van Staden insinuate that the hon. the leader of the CP is a snake? [Interjections.]

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden may proceed.

Today, for the umpteenth time, the hon. the leader of the CP has bitterly disappointed me. During the Second Reading debate he undertook to make the Coloured policy of his party clear to us when the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister came up for discussion. [Interjections.] However, he never got round to that. He merely played with words. All we had from him was words, words and more words! [Interjections.] Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Waterberg reminded me of today? He reminded me of the occasion on which Advocate Strauss made his first speech in this House as Leader of the Opposition. Immediately afterwards I was walking in the lobby with the then Prime Minister, Dr. D. F. Malan, and I asked him what he thought of the Leader of the Opposition. His reply was: “No, I do not think a tortoise grows any larger than its shell”. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon. the leader of the CP a little anecdote today.

Tell him the anecdote about the tortoise and the hare.

No, after all the hon. member for Kuruman is a lion. [Interjections.] He is supposed to be the lion of the South, but I think he is a sea-lion. He is tame. [Interjections.]

A sea-lion in a “kappie” (bonnet)! [Interjections.]

Years ago the late Oom Paul Sauer called me out of the House and invited me to have a cup of coffee with him. That was in 1969, with all the storms which were raging at the time. It was the time when the brothers of the hon. members of the CP left the party. Some of them should in fact have accompanied those who left at that stage already. I do not know how their consciences allowed them to remain sitting here as members of the NP. Oom Paul and I had a conversation. Inter alia, we discussed Cape people and Transvalers. In his great wisdom he said to me: “Now, look, I know the Transvalers; I know the Cape people too. As people the Transvalers are just as good as we Cape people, and vice versa”. He said: “There is no difference, but do you know what I have found? I have found that those Cape people who move to the Transvaal are the people who cause all the ructions”. He said: “They arrive there and then profess to be better Transvalers than the Transvalers themselves”. [Interjections.] There he sits, as large as life! [Interjections.] I want to lay this charge against him today. At the time when the HNP co-opted him to their central body …

May I ask a question?

I would have allowed the hon. member to put a question to me if I had not known that it would be a silly question. In any case, I do not have time for that. [Interjections.]

What about Mr. Vorster?

He will be able to reply to that himself. Let him reply to that himself. Today I wish to accuse the hon. member for Waterberg of not having led the Transvaal. He tore the Transvaal asunder. He led little groups. [Interjections.] He formed groups and convened secret meetings.

The Transvaal did not lose one constituency. [Interjections.]

We are being told that we should resign. I want to ask those hon. members to choose a seat for themselves, any of them. Then we can test them in a by-election. [Interjections.] Let us put it to a test. Those hon. members won their seats under the banner of the NP and the protection of the hon. the Prime Minister. I say again: Let us put it to the test. [Interjections.]

I now wish to come to the hon. the Leader of that party. In 1969 when the HNP coopted him, he remained silent and said nothing and made no reply. They then said that he was sitting on the fence. However, I did not consider him to be a person who was sitting on the fence. He is definitely not such a person. He is, however, a man who has fallen between stools. That is what I found him to be. He is a man who plays with words, and he is not a team man. He does not pull his weight in a team. He is a headstrong and wilful man. He is a disciple who is not wielding the sceptre of peace; he is wielding the sceptre of unrest. I maintain that I did not find him to be a man who was sitting on the fence, but rather a man who was pulling the strings. [Interjections.] That hon. member is constantly pulling strings in his own interest. He sat next to me here, and after that secret meeting on 6 October he convened a meeting in his office on the eighth floor at which all those hon. members were present.

You are fabricating!

I say that all of them were there, with the exception of the hon. members for Kuruman, Meyerton, Rissik and Germiston District.

But surely that is the whole party!

However, they were absent with leave. [Interjections.] As I have said, the hon. member for Waterberg sat next to me here and, after that secret meeting, I wondered what he was doing here and why he was writing letters so assiduously. Later on I saw how the service officers came to fetch the letters from the hon. member. Those letters were taken to members of his little group. He did not negotiate with his province or his Ministers; he negotiated with only one Transvaal Minister, and in addition he has only one fellow-traveller. I could go very far, but I just want to tell him this. He is inconsistent in his actions. After they had broken with us, we had two pieces of legislation before us. The one piece of legislation was the Group Areas Amendment Bill, dealing with sport matters. Their first action in this House was to vote against it. I know why they voted against it. They did it to curry favour with their kindred spirits, the HNP, because the HNP broke away from the NP in 1969 on the very issue of sport. They did it to please their political fathers. That is why they did it.

Then other legislation was also brought before us for consideration, the legislation in terms of which the SABC Board was to be expanded so that people of colour might be appointed to the board.

Then they were absent.

As I see it, that is healthy power-sharing or joint responsibility, call it what you will. That is as I see it.

Yes, but you are very wild.

That is as I see it. This is the healthy power-sharing of the NP. Non-Whites are also being appointed now to the SABC Board, which consisted solely of Whites. What did I notice then? The hon. member for Waterberg was almost late for the bells. He rushed in here, at a jackal trot, to take his place and vote in favour of the measure. Today I submit that that is healthy power-sharing. It is a statutory board, a board established by this Parliament, and that is healthy power-sharing or joint responsibility. The hon. members may as well call it joint responsiblity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the relevant legislation it was stated as object that there would be nominated members to provide this House with special expertise. It would seem that the special expertise of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is concerned with snakes and tortoises and the pulling of strings—I almost used the wrong word, but I shall leave it at that for the moment. [Interjections.]

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to discuss something with the hon. the Prime Minister. This is an opportunity which one does not receive every day. The headline in today’s Beeld was “Alle oë gerig op die Eerste Minister”. All eyes are focussed on the hon. the Prime Minister because South Africa has been waiting, ever since he accepted that position, for replies, specific, unambiguous replies to the pressing problems in South African politics. Up to now, however, the hon. the Prime Minister has failed to furnish those replies.

Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister is wondering what went wrong with his image, the image of reform. What has become of the praise and plaudits which he received? What became of the image of the “man of action” as he was styled by the Sunday Times? What became of the “darling” of the businessmen? The hon. the Prime Minister is perhaps wondering why the businessmen are today disillusioned with his achievements as measured against the reforms that have been implemented. They are wondering why he is experiencing a split in his party. Why has he suddenly become so unpopular with such a large group of voters in South Africa? Why are his actions and statements being increasingly questioned by academics and newspaper editors in South Africa?

I wish to furnish the hon. the Prime Minister with a piece of useful advice … [Interjections.] … in order to find replies to these questions. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is listening at the moment, but I should like to have his attention, if that is at all possible. Do his problems not arise from the fact that he has, over the years, boasted of so-called reforms and changes that have to be made, while his boasting was not converted into deeds? Is it not because the rhetoric which was found acceptable by South Africa and which established a measure of hope for change in South Africa, has not led to any action being taken? Is it not because the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister is lacking in courage, daring, perseverance and steadfastness? South Africa today needs leadership in the government of this country, a leadership that will display the courage and the daring to take decisions and carry them through at all costs and come what may, even the “Brentwood roller”. The hon. the Prime Minister must be prepared to take action, to put his words into action. Is it not true that double-talk, vagueness, evasion and vacillation have become characteristic of the NP under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister? One need only think of the debates in this House during the past few weeks. I am thinking in this connection of the hon. member for Bellville, who said that the Group Areas Act had been amended in certain respects to restore the character of that Act. The hon. the Prime Minister must encourage his party, when mention is made of change and reform, to do so clearly and with courage and daring and not prevaricate and conceal things from the voters. Is this not the case because the hon. the Prime Minister is constantly on the defensive? The entire NP is on the defensive here. They should, instead, learn to brag a little about their changes and intentions. The NP should brag about such changes rather than offer excuses; they should not offer explanations and shrink from what they have done. This defensiveness, these explanations and appeasement, are simply going to cause the NP to end up with even graver problems.

The hon. the Prime Minister used the words “do not worry”. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said in America that South Africa was going to abolish all forms of discrimination. At the NP congress, however, the hon. the Prime Minister said “Do not worry; we are only going to abolish hurtful and unnecessary discrimination”. People have to be appeased, and it is necessary to beat about the bush. South Africa wants to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what he means by hurtful discrimination. What does he mean by unnecessary discrimination? Please define “necessary discrimination” to us, so that South Africa can know.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said that apartheid was dead. Immediately afterwards the hon. the Prime Minister said that we should not worry, because it was merely the caricature of apartheid which was being presented, that was dead. Apartheid was alive and well, brimful of vitamins and living, just as powersharing was doing, healthy power-sharing, that is, in the National Party. To this very day no explanation or elucidation of healthy power-sharing has been given. The NP has not split. Do not worry. It was merely a splintering off.

To those of us who were members of the UP, the hon. the Prime Minister is beginning to sound more and more like Sir De Villiers Graaff. To tell the truth, if we could provide him with a droopy black moustache under his nose and with a sir on top and a sir below, he would sound just like Sir De Villiers Graaff.

You seem to have something else under your nose.

The language, the style, the excuses and the explanations are precisely the same as those of Sir De Villiers Graaff. Is it not perhaps a case of the credibility of the hon. the Prime Minister being in jeopardy because there is a gap between his words and his deeds?

The hon. the Prime Minister complains endlessly about the position of the Coloureds in South Africa and the injustice which is being done to them. At the time of the Craven Week incident, the hon. the Prime Minister complained about the fact that Coloureds were expected to perform military service while our friends here did not want Coloured schoolboys to play rugby against White schoolboys. The hon. the Prime Minister then asked whether the Coloureds were lepers. At a recent information conference in Pretoria the hon. the Prime Minister complained endlessly about the fact that the Coloureds had no representation in Parliament or on provincial councils and were not able to serve on city councils either. He said that they were not even able to take care of their own pavements. Where was the hon. the Prime Minister when all these injustices were committed against the Coloureds? Was he not a member of this House? Was he not a member of the NP? Was he not a leading member of this House and of the NP when those injustices to the Coloureds were being committed? Was he not one of the violators of the South African constitution when the Coloureds were removed from this House?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member asked whether the hon. the Prime Minister had not been one of the violators of the constitution. Is that permissible?

The constitution was violated, and I think the hon. the Prime Minister was a member of this House when it happened, but if my question is not permissible, I withdraw it, Sir. What I want to know is, where was the hon. the Prime Minister when the Group Areas Act was passed in this House, and where was he when the entire District Six community was devastated as a result of the application of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. Yes, Mr. Chairman, whole communities were devastated and enormous suffering was caused as far as those people were concerned. The resistance of the Coloureds to South Africa was caused by the application of this Act. The injustice smoulders on, and to this day the hon. the Prime Minister has done nothing to rectify and put a stop to that injustice. The Government is a government which governs out of fear. When it was afraid of the Opposition, it removed the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll. Now it is afraid of the Black people in South Africa, and wishes to involve the Coloureds again now, in order to get them on its side, against the Black people. The Government is afraid of sports isolation, and has consequently thrown sport open too.

If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to save South Africa and if he wants to bring about stability, peace and prosperity in South Africa, he must in this debate today tell South Africa precisely, in clear and unambiguous terms, where he wants to go with South Africa and precisely what the reforms are which he as leader wishes to present to South Africa, and he must be a leader, and not sit still, there on the opposite side of the House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am really not prepared to reply to a speech which was the height of arrogance. I do not think that the hon. member even succeeded in entertaining this House today. In fact, he only succeeded, if that was in any way possible, of making himself appear more ridiculous than ever before.

I want to help the hon. the Prime Minister, not entertain this House.

I should like to refer briefly to the arguments of the hon. member for Brakpan concerning the Vice State President. He indicated that he had wanted specific aspects of the draft Bill clarified, and then saw fit to quote from correspondence to indicate that there had been no unanimity on the matter. But surely that is not true or logical. The argument is that I can question a specific matter and, having subsequently obtained the reply, can then agree with it. I now wish to leave this argument at that.

We never met again. Surely you know that.

I want to go further.

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

No, I have very little time. I should like to attempt to establish what we are dealing with today. We are engaged in a serious debate. I think there are specific realities which are all valid, regardless of which government is in power or who is sitting in this House.

One reality is briefly that South Africa accommodates various population groups, with varying interrelationships.

The second reality is that our way of living and our way of working entails separatism on the one hand and collectivism on the other. I now wish to reply at once to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s question as to whether it is in fact possible to maintain self-determination within a form of power-sharing. As far as the modes of living and working in this country are concerned, there is separatism in the sense of separate residential areas and schools, but on the other hand there is also collectivism in respect of the work situation as a result of economic demands. That is the reply to that question. This is a reality and this has been the historical development in our country, as we know it today.

However, it is another reality that in this country we have Black peoples who have their own historic territories in which—and this is important—they are able to realize their political aspirations satisfactorily. This is in contrast to what we found in the case of the former Rhodesia which was also a common geographic area, but where the political aspirations of the Black peoples were not recognized to that extent, with the consequences we had. In addition we have another reality in this country, which is that we have Coloureds and Asiatics. Historically they share the same territory with the Whites. This is a reality. Their political aspirations, in contrast to those of the Blacks, still have to be satisfied. This is the main current problem and that is what we are concerned with here.

What are the alternatives? How are we to resolve that problem? On the one hand we have the PFP which is trying to find a solution to this problem. Briefly, as far as I am concerned, it is a policy of capitulation. If you cannot beat them, join them. This is power-sharing in its fullest and widest meaning, “one man, one vote”, a common voter’s roll in a unitary State, a mixed Parliament, integrated schools—complete integration. That is the concept of power-sharing as the PFP sees it.

Then we have the HNP which is not represented in this House, but which, according to their statements, stand for absolute White domination, for absolute glorification of the concept of what is one’s own, at the expense of the human dignity, rights and responsibilities of other peoples. This must lead to confrontation, this must lead to revolution and so ultimately, there is no winner. It makes no difference which nation it is.

Then, too, we have the new CP and we have received a programme of principles from them. And what do we find in it? 99% of it is NP policy. I almost want to say that they have hijacked 99% of the NP’s policy, but that 1% which I do not find there, is obscure. This afternoon we had another example when we asked the hon. the leader of the CP to spell out his policy. He told us what the crux of the current problem was. Then he added that there was still plenty of time. I do not know how long that “plenty of time” is, but one thing is certain to me and that is that the general public are waiting for the CP to come forward and tell them what their solution to the problem is. Furthermore, I do not find in that programme of principles the word “joint responsibility”, which does in fact appear in the twelve-point plan and which all those hon. members of the CP endorsed. I am referring now to those who participated in the election. They endorsed it. What is more, it also appeared in the election manifesto in which the hon. leader of the CP also had a hand, and will accept responsibility for.

What does the hon. member for Waterberg say? By way of an interjection, if I understood him correctly, he rejected a homeland for Coloureds. I think I understood the hon. member correctly. The hon. member must tell me if that is not the case. Did he reject a homeland for the Coloureds? I think he did. He is not replying to me. So let me accept it then. As I understood him, her rejected it, but now it remains strange to me how he can bring Aksie Eie Toekoms in under the same banner, for Aksie Eie Toekoms stands for a homeland for Whites. A homeland for the Whites also implies a homeland for the Coloureds—which the leader of the CP rejects! Now I do not know how they wish to reconcile these two conflicting elements.

On the other hand the hon. the leader of the CP also accepts common territories. If I am wrong, the hon. leader of the CP must tell me. He also gave me to understand that he accepts common territories. If, on the one hand, the hon. the leader of the CP accepts that there should not be a homeland for Coloureds and, on the other, accepts that there should be a common territory, how is he going to reconcile these two things? What more is he going to offer the Coloureds in respect of this common territory than mere consultation? I now wish to debate this point. Whatever the hon. member is going to offer, whether he calls it joint responsibility or joint decision-making or a joint say—I do not know what he is going to call it—but whatever he is going to call it, it is going to be a form of power-sharing. In any event there is no doubt about that.

On the other hand we have the NP, which is trying to find a solution to this problem. The policy and the striving of the NP to achieve a solution is based on fairness, equilibrium, the recognition of an ethnic diversity which runs like a golden thread through our history, the recognition of the right of self-determination which has to follow logically from our policy, the recognition of human dignity and a future built on co-operation and collective responsibility. We cannot get away from that if we take cognizance of the information we have before us. When I have to apply this policy in respect of the Black people, I must point out that these people have developed to sovereign independence in their own States, while those in the White areas receive the maximum rights within their own residential areas by means of community councils. As for a further say for Black people in the White area in connection with matters of common interest, it is probably possible to argue a great deal still about this matter, but in the mean time the Black people have their own homelands where they may possible receive the necessary say in government. In addition there are still the Coloureds and the Asiatics, and we are already trying, by means of the constitution plan, to accommodate these groups in respect of the realization of their political aspirations. It is based on joint deliberation, a joint say, joint decision-making and joint responsibility. These are concepts which were used by the former Prime Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, some of the speeches that have been made this afternoon were very interesting, while others were very amusing. But quite frankly, for the best part I cannot see what progress we have achieved as a consequence, because so much of it seems to be recrimination, one side against the other, and criticism to the effect that this, that and the other thing has been done by the respective parties. I am afraid that for those of us who are not in the inner circle, it does not mean a great deal. So, as I have said, some of the speeches may have been very interesting but they have not been very constructive.

I feel that at this stage we are entering one of those political watersheds that come in a country from time to time. For South Africa, 1910, when Union was created, was a major watershed. The year 1948, when the NP came into power, was a watershed, and I believe that today constitutes another watershed in the history of our country. In 1910 the Union of South Africa was created, which subsequently became the Republic of South Africa. It came into being after a hard war and years of discussions, and it produced something which, I believe, we can all be very proud of—our country. It was not the Anglo-Boer War that led to the Union of South Africa. In fact, if anything it could have stopped such a union for ever. It was the result of wise men who sat together around a table and thrashed out the future of our country, because in those days the primary interest was considered to be the Afrikaan and the English-speaking people getting together. As I say, these men sat around a table and thrashed out a future for our country.

Even in those days there appear to have been jingoes and “bittereinders” who, if they had had their own way, would have had nothing to do with any union. Fortunately, however, there were a majority of people who were neither jingoes nor “bittereinders” and, as a consequence, our country came into being. As I have said, that was a watershed, and I look upon the present situation as another watershed in the history of our country.

We have a situation at the moment where the White man has virtually ruled this country untrammelled and unhindered since Union up to the present time. Now it is the intention of the Government to bring the other communities into participation in government. This constitutes a massive change of thinking on the part of the National Party Government of this country, a Government which has been on the scene since 1948. We in these benches are in support of this concept. What is at issue is merely the way this must be brought about. So to spend so much time arguing about whether there should be power-sharing or a division of power seems to me quite extraordinary. I appreciate the nuance of difference, but it does seem to me to be quite a ridiculous waste of time. [Interjections.] The position, as I have said, is that the Government brought the President’s Council into being to assist the Government and used the 1977 draft Constitution Bill as a starting point or guideline. That is how I read the picture. I feel that anybody who felt that the 1977 Bill was supposed to be the end of the story was, in fact, being rather fatuous. I am saying that it is fatuous to suggest that the President’s Council was created to devise a constitutional future, whilst at the same time sticking blindly to the 1977 constitutional proposals. It just does not make any sense. I have always accepted that it was the intention that the 1977 constitutional proposals should form the basis from which the President’s Council was to work.

The President’s Council, as I have said, was created by this Government, and the Government is to be congratulated for its creation. We in these benches, however, believe that although the concept was a good one, the Government did not go far enough in its creation of the President’s Council, because although it is quite obvious that a large number of the Blacks in the homelands are not averse to self-government, there are many Blacks who are not in the homelands, have no association with the homelands and are never likely to have any association with the homelands.

Try to sell Natal to them.

I did not try to sell Natal to them. [Interjections.] As far as this is concerned, we in these benches do have a problem, because somehow or other the future of these non-homeland Blacks has to be resolved. I am quite sure that in the creation of the constitution of South Africa, if the English people, who virtually had all the power in those days, had sat down and worked out a future for Afrikanerdom, the Afrikaners would have said: “Get lost. We do not want it!” I am sure they would have said that they wanted to participate in their own future. That is what Afrikanerdom would have said, and as a Christian people they believe in doing unto others as they would have done unto them. I certainly do believe that that is the honest thinking of the majority of Afrikaans-speaking people and I therefore also believe that it is the general thinking of the members of the NP. I am convinced that they would like to do unto others as they would have done unto them. That being so, what is to happen to these Black people who do not belong to any homeland? There is no proper discussion with them. I believe that if the President’s Council had been used to the optimum, there should also have been discussions about the future of the non-homeland Blacks. The Progressive Federal Party, for example, is forever saying we are pseudo-Nats, the media keep on trying to push us into the National Party and many of our NP friends keep asking why we do not join them, but that is not likely to happen unless and until one of the more important factors in South African political life is taken into account, and that is the future of the non-homeland Blacks. They are with us. One cannot write them off. One cannot lose them by saying they are not there, because they are. All of the people who are trying to wish our party somewhere else must accept that there is no possibility of our being involved with any other party that does not accept the fact that there are non-homeland Blacks, that there have to be discussions with them and that one has to think in terms of the future for them. We appreciate the creation of the President’s Council, we have participated in the deliberations as fully as it was possible for us to do so and we are not people like the PFP who have boycotted it. We believe that it is doing a good job, but we should also like to see the President’s Council carrying on with the situation in respect of the non-homeland Blacks when it has finished its present work if it is not able to incorporate that issue at this stage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Umbilo and I must say that although he frequently makes a reasonable contribution in this House, I am sorry that he belongs to a party which is no longer relevant. In an attempt to make it relevant he has made the far-fetched allegation that the NP is continually trying to win them over. This is the greatest untruth imaginable. It is a figment of their imaginations. [Interjections.] It has frequently been clearly stated that anyone who subscribes to the principles of the NP is welcome in this party. However, we shall not beg anyone to join the NP.

For the purpose of debate I should like to refer to the remark in paragraph 115 of the annual report to the effect that the constitutional development of the Coloureds and Asians has not progressed satisfactorily. One asks oneself: Why not? I want to reply to this by saying, in the first place, that while Dr. Verwoerd was still Prime Minister it was already clear that the Coloureds in this country do not have their own national homeland as the Black nations do, and must therefore obtain a political dispensation in the same territory as the Whites. In the second place, as is also mentioned in the annual report, in the South African political community there is resistance to evolutionary development and reform. It is a result of this inability to accept reform that we have the ideology of the CP on which we must now pass judgement.

I feel that the 1977 proposals, with a limited degree of power-sharing or co-responsibility in the Council of Cabinets, with retention of White self-determination and with the umbrella authority of the State President, represent an honest attempt to bring about evolutionary constitutional change. The CP has now seized on the word power sharing as a slogan for hoped-for political gain. The hon. member for Lichtenburg spoke about this at some length in the Second Reading debate of the budget. He made the important confession that the NP’s concept of power-sharing is not the same as the Prog concept, which amounts to a system of one man, one vote in a unitary State. Strangely enough the failures of power-sharing, with which the hon. member for Lichtenburg has frightened himself, are in any case also examples of a dispensation of one man, one vote in a unitary state. This is not the policy of the NP, and the hon. member has acknowledged this himself. Why then should we be afraid of it?

The hon. member for Lichtenburg also said that the best example he could give was South West Africa. However, these two situations cannot be compared. South West Africa is and was the political football of the old League of Nations, the UN and the World Court. It is a territory with a dependent economy, a dependent Defence Force and no political autonomy. In contrast, the Republic of South Africa is a sovereign independent world state with a strong economy, a strong Defence Force and full political autonomy. There is therefore a difference, a significant difference. In effect therefore, the CP, is now rejecting the 1977 proposals. In a party document I came across in Kuruman, the hon. the leader of the CP says expressly—

In this statement, therefore, he rejects the overall authority of an executive State President as regards Whites, Coloureds and Asians. What he is rejecting here, then, is the most important element of the 1977 proposals. In its place the CP is therefore setting up three top political structures in the same country. This is also in direct conflict with the statement the hon. the leader of the CP made on 24 February this year in the caucus, when he admitted that there could not be more than one central Government in the same country.

I should therefore like to know whether hon. members of the CP admit that their hon. leader made that statement. I want them to say so now.

Do you also admit that your leader said that the 1977 proposals were unacceptable to the Coloureds? [Interjections.]

No, reply to the question I put. [Interjections.]

As regards the solution of the constitutional position of the Coloureds, the hon. the Leader of the CP makes vague statements such as “spatial ordering” and “geographic independence”. However, as soon as it begins to take on the appearance of a homeland, he says that a consolidated territory is not necessary. Now, I should like to know from the CP, and its hon. leader in particular, whether this in effect means a national State, based on 559 Coloured group areas. If it does not amount to this, I want to know what the hon. member for Lichtenburg meant when he referred in Kuruman to a “chequerboard country” for Coloureds. Just imagine! A national homeland consisting of almost 600 separate parts, without any links of their own and with virtually no agricultural potential, whereas the vast majority of those communities are not even suitable for ordinary local government, much less the institutions responsible for maintaining law and order. [Interjections.]

As far as the Whites are concerned, this means that there will be almost 600 separate areas in the Republic of South Africa in which the White Government will have no jurisdiction or say. One cannot envisage a better recipe for conflict and friction. Neither the Coloureds nor the Whites will accept this. As a result the status quo is maintained, which is the starting point of the dead-end street that leads to violence and revolution. No one will deny that the NP has a difficult constitutional path ahead of it. However, with the strong leadership available to us I am prepared to tread that path, if it will help us to avoid treading a more difficult and far more dangerous path.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow in detail the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Namaqualand, except to say that once again he has fallen into a trap where he tries to seek a solution for the Coloureds and Indians and then suggests that that solution must be entirely different from any solution in respect of the relationship between the Black population and the White population of South Africa. I also found it difficult to understand his logic in dealing with the question of SWA and what was happening in SWA where he seemed to indicate that the Afrikaner in SWA was of less value than an Afrikaner in South Africa, and therefore different solutions could obtain. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with the hon. the Prime Minister on a specific issue. I want to deal in general terms with the future of non-independent self-governing States and in particular with the situation in relation to Natal and KwaZulu in regard to the Government’s constitutional proposals. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister is listening because I want to test what degree of flexibility there is in respect of the Government’s constitutional proposals as they affect different regional and provincial needs in South Africa.

Up and till now the Government’s attitude has been one of a rigid commitment to the ideology of separate development in so far as the Black people of South Africa are concerned and perhaps a policy which is somewhat less rigid in so far as the Coloured and Asian people are concerned. It has said to the Black groups in South Africa for two decades and more that it recognizes their right—the hon. the Prime Minister said this again at the time of the Good Hope conference—to enjoy self-determination as regards their own interests; in other words, that it will assist them and encourage them to achieve full sovereign independence if they desire it.

It was also said, however, on numerous occasions that it will not in respect of groups, Black areas, Black ethnic groups, call them what one likes, force independenc upon any group. They can voluntarily ask for independence and accept independence, but they will not be forced to take independence. I assume that by those statements, which have been made by this hon. Prime Minister and his predecessors, the Government, in saying that, also means that they will not either overtly or covertly force that sort of independence upon Black groups. If they are serious and sincere that independence is to be left to the free choice of the Black people, then of course it is important also that they should not close all other options for those communities in regard to their future constitutional development and in regard to meeting the future aspirations of their people. Those options should be open; it is not fair to say that one is not forcing them, but one would not give them any other alternative except the alternative of the status quo.

Against those assurances that this sort of independence will not be forced, but will be their free choice, there is in fact at the present time—over the years this has been the case—alarming evidence that independence for all Black groups is regarded by the Government as a fait accompli and that there is no other option open to them except, as I say, the status quo.

On these indications there are four examples which I should like to cite this afternoon. Firstly, I think of the Government’s reasons for excluding Black people from membership of the President’s Council. Those reasons basically boiled down that it was not necessary for Blacks to be included in the deliberations of the President’s Council or to be included in its membership because their future has already been determined along the lines of separate independence. That was the main reason given by the Government for excluding Blacks from the President’s Council.

Secondly, I think also of the Government’s 1977 constitutional proposals which are now, as we have again seen this afternoon, very much back in the political debate in South Africa, and they are there because also of the proposals expected from the President’s Council. In fact, the whole current debate on power-sharing revolves again only around the question of Coloureds and Asians and nowhere has there in the current debate been any meaningful reference to sharing of power with the major group in South Africa, the Black group. So again we get the indication that that option is not even open to them.

When one talks about the Government’s 1977 constitutional proposals, one finds that it is quite clear that in those proposals the Government was dealing specifically with Coloureds and Asians and excluded the Black people. I want to quote from a pamphlet which I have used before and which I think is again appropriate at this stage. The pamphlet was issued by the NP before the 1977 elections and contains questions and replies in connection with the constitutional plan. Here is one of them—

In other words, in 1977 they were saying to the Blacks: Take it or leave it; we offer you independence and if you do not take it you will stay exactly where you are, left with the status quo.

On the question of whether any other options other than independence or the status quo are open to the self-governing States, I also think of the increasing trend in legislation—I address myself also to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development on this particular point—to take for granted or to assume that non-independent self-governing States are in fact independent. We have before the House at the present time the Nursing Amendment Bill, which actually deems, in those very words, a self-governing State to be …

Mr. Chairman on a point of order: May the hon. member for Berea refer to a Bill on the Order Paper which has already been read a Second Time and discuss it under this Vote?

Mr. Chairman, I leave the matter there. There is, however, an assumption in legislation that self-governing States are not part of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development will know of this particular issue, as the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare by his very sensitivity this afternoon certainly knows. That is one of the trends which I find very dangerous and which is against the Government’s views that they will not force independence upon Black States.

The fourth reason which I think of is the Government’s attitude towards the Buthelezi Commission and its recommendations. It has rejected the commission—we again heard this from the hon. member for Umlazi this afternoon—because it did not confine itself to KwaZulu in isolation from the Republic. The Government has also rejected its recommendations because they do not conform to NP policy. I find this sort of attitude in sharp contrast with the spirit of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech at the Good Hope Conference last year. He used fairly hopeful words at the time, words which certainly indicated a degree of flexibility. I want to quote from the report on the Good Hope plan for South Africa, on page 14—

It says further—

Certainly, it was very welcome that the hon. the Prime Minister at least indicated that he was prepared to see to it that there were some rethinking on vital matters. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister where the evidence is of that rethinking in regard to the future of the so-called self-governing States which have indicated that they do not want independence? What is the hon. the Prime Minister’s plan for these self-governing States? Is it still the take-it-or-leave-it attitude as indicated in the party pamphlets prior to the 1977 elections? How does the hon. the Prime Minister reconcile his commitment to rethinking on these vital issues with his outright rejection of the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission, which comprised many of the people and many of the organizations who were represented at the Good Hope Conference. The Buthelezi Commission came forward with serious recommendations for Natal and KwaZulu, recommendations which, I believe, certainly deserve real consideration in the light of the very special circumstances which obtain in Natal. These circumstances are, amongst others—the hon. the Prime Minister cannot ignore them—firstly, that KwaZulu and the Zulu nation have consistently rejected the motion of separate independence from the Republic. Secondly, Natal and KwaZulu are totally interdependent, socially, economically and politically. Thirdly, consolidation of KwaZulu in any meaningful way is totally impossible and is rejected by all White groups in Natal and also by the KwaZulu Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on the speech made by the hon. member for Berea. It is not the policy of this Government to force independence on Black States.

You could have fooled me.

It is not our policy to enforce independence, but those people set great store by their independence. One of the Black people who gave evidence before a sub-committee of the American Congress said that the Blacks in the Transkei, specifically President Matanzima, value the independence and status of their country so highly, that if anyone were to attempt to deprive them of it or were to propagate that idea, he would be skinned alive. This testifies to the feelings of those people.

What do you plan to do about KwaZulu?

We are still in the process of formulating plans for these people. This matter cannot be cleared up haphazardly. The hon. member for Berea quoted from a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister at the Good Hope Conference. There are many speeches we could quote from here and many reasons we could give here. The hon. member should not seize on a single concept and wrest it out of context. We shall return to this idea later.

Recently a Zulu choir gave a performance abroad and a Black man, a Negro, said to them: “You are the puppets of the White Government in South Africa”. The person to whom he spoke replied that that might be true, but that he sang in a language that that person would never be able to speak. He sang in his own language, Zulu, and that person sang in the language of his conqueror. However, I wish to leave the matter at that. [Interjections.] I have very little time and shall discuss matters with those hon. members some other time.

What I now have to say I shall say as mildly as possible. I cannot remove the reproach, but I can speak without rancour when I tell the hon. the leader of the Conservative Party that I once had occasion in this House to compare him to a tamboti tree. Those hon. members who cannot understand this need not pay any further attention. The wood of a tamboti tree has an exceptionally fine texture. I omitted to say that one should be very careful when assessing a tamboti tree. The tree may appear to be perfectly healthy, but turn out to have black heart disease. Biologists will tell you that this is caused by inherent tension in the wood-fibres.

I want to tell the hon. the leader of the Conservative Party that in his ranks there are people who are courting the vote and support of English-speaking South Africans. This has been stated in their newspaper. I also want to tell him that in his ranks there is someone who totally rejects the English-speaking people. Let us be quite honest with one another.

Who is that?

We once had occasion—hon. members must exercise a little patience until I reply to the question—to celebrate the Battle of Amajuba. The hon. member for Umbilo made a fine gesture on behalf of Natal and donated money to the Festival Committee for presenting the festival. When I asked the hon. member for Rissik whether he was going to participate because his forefathers had also been part of that battle, he replied: “Certainly not. I shall celebrate my own festival a week or even two weeks later. I am not going to celebrate with the English on that mountain.” He missed a function at which the State President appeared. He missed a function where two population groups with two different languages became reconciled after a bitter struggle for the sake of and in the interests of the survival of the Whites, in this country. He said vindictively that he would celebrate his own festival and that he would not share that occasion with English-speaking people.

The hon. the leader of the CP has already problems with his blood brothers of the AWB, whom he welcomed, because they have already picked a quarrel with the Jewish sector of the population. However, the hon. leader rejected this in the Press. They are the motor-cycle brigade. Remember, the hon. member for Lichtenburg said that the AWB and the Terre’blanches existed because the NP was governing the country. However, the PFP say the same thing. They say the ANC and the Mandelas exist because the NP is governing the country. They said: “Free Mandela”. There is the hon. member for Pinelands who said so. The hon. member for Pinelands said: “Free him, free him, because you were the cause of all this”. The PFP wish to fold them to their bosom. The CP want to embrace the AWB, the motorcycle brigade. Leading that motor-cycle brigade is the Rhino group. The Rhino group arranges those rallies. They roar, the AWB roars and then the lion roars, and someone is afraid.

The CP’s newspaper writes what a wonderful future it has. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Waterberg that his party does not really have a future. I gave the hon. member for Waterberg, as my former leader in the Transvaal, my absolute loyalty. However, I could not rely on his loyalty. I say the same thing to the people in my constituency for whom I am responsible. I could not rely on it, because there were moles burrowing below the surface behind the hon. member. The hon. member for Koedoespoort—I am referring to him by name—came to this House under the banner of the NP, not to work, but to begin organizing. Right from the start this was one of his tasks. I do not think it befits his status. I do not think it befits his task in this House. I think he should serve his voters in the full sense of the word. The hon. member must please repudiate this in the newspapers if it is not true. If those moves are under way in that party, it is a weak party. It is not they who have been wronged, as they keep on telling the public. By no means. I relied as much on your loyalty as leader as you relied on me to as a supporter. I shall let that suffice.

The NP and the hon. the Prime Minister received a mandate from the voters. To do what? In the first place to govern the country. And in terms of what? In terms of NP policy.

What is your policy?

In terms of the NP policy as we are applying it day by day.

Yes, from day to day.

Those hon. members should use their brains and consider how our policy is being implemented. That hon. member makes nonsensical interjections here. The hon. member for Berea at least referred meaningfully to the Carlton and Good Hope Conferences. Did those hon. members not consider them to be a break through? Show me a country in the Western World where a Prime Minister has managed to rectify the economy, in such a difficult position as the one we are in—a Third World with a first-class economy—to such an extent that private enterprise and the public sector are able to work hand in hand for the welfare of everyone in the country. Just read what one of those leaders said at the Good Hope Conference. What comment did Mr. Stuart-Reckling, the chairman of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, make? He told the hon. the Prime Minister: “I am asking you please to make use of us”. Are those not wonderful words? One can also read what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and others had to say. Did hon. members not read the proposals in the White Paper? Or did they not receive it? Are hon. members unable to read it? Are they unable to interpret it? It testifies to the regional development where nations develop together and are not left to stagnate and become empoverished; they have a share in the development and in the wealth of this country. They have a meaningful share. This is part of the implementation of our policy and it is a practical policy. Every day we try our utmost to get something into those hon. members’ heads, but without success. However, we do succeed as far as those people are concerned.

Yes, but it is merely White domination.

Why should we implement our NP policy? The Government is governing because, in the first place, this policy is fair.

No, it certainly is not.

The policy is fair because we afford every good citizen a full right in his own affairs and in his own community. This policy is practicable. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not spend much time on what the hon. member for Standerton had to say, except to tell him that as far as the AWB is concerned, he has the assurance of my leader and other members of this party in the Press and elsewhere that this party has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the AWB. [Interjections.] This is a political party and, like the NP, this party has its rules on how people may join the party, etc. I leave the matter at that. [Interjections.] However, I want to tell him that he probably noticed what little reaction there was from his colleagues when he mentioned how the NP is implementing its policy. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. Minister concerned what has become of influx control or the replacing instrument of influx control, where Whites in their own residential areas are increasingly being …

But you know. You were there and therefore heard …

What has become of consolidation? What has become of the removal of Matoks and Sinthemula? What is happening in regard to the crowding out of Whites? [Interjections.] I see the hon. the Prime Minister is laughing about that. However, replies must be given to these questions in respect of NP policy. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Innesdal cannot understand why my leader and the hon. member for Lichtenburg walked out of the Cabinet. They walked out because they have specific convictions and specific principles.

[Inaudible.]

He wondered how their voters reacted to that action of theirs. He should ask the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs how the voters reacted, and the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, too. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Law and Order was present when the hon. member for Lichtenburg said to him: “FW, if you carry on like this, you will eventually only have Louis to lead”.

Now you are lying! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Parys wondered what a cartoonist would make of my hon. leader. I want to show him what Beeld’s cartoonist made of my hon. leader on 3 April, in which there was a cartoon of two rugby captains. The one represented the hon. the Prime Minister and the other my leader. It appeared on the morning of Saturday, 3 April, in other words just before the Jaguars beat the Springboks. It was therefore a very prophetic cartoon! [Interjections.] One of the members of my party was saying to him: “Andries, now I know how the Jaguars feel before they take the field against the Springboks”. That is what cartoonists make of my leader. [Interjections.]

However, I should like to turn to the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister was the first chairman of the Cabinet Committee, if I remember correctly, that formulated the 1977 proposals. Then, by means of a draft Bill, a certain constitutional concept was submitted to the Select Committee which was to consider the constitutional proposals. Now I am asking the hon. the Prime Minister whether the NP or the Government still stands by the proposals contained in that draft Bill as proposals for the constitutional dispensation which was submitted. If so, I just want to ask him: How must I understand the hon. member for Pretoria Central who said here that the 1977 proposals were dead? He admitted this here, not to me, but to someone else. [Interjections.] If not … [Interjections.] It appears in Hansard, but I do not want to waste my time by having to quote it. However, he said in Hansard: “Yes of course it is true”. That was when the hon. member for Meyerton asked him whether he had had occasion to say that the 1977 proposals were a failure. He said that was why the President’s Council was seeking other ways and means. He was asked whether he admitted this. The hon. member for Pretoria Central then said: “Yes, of course it is true”. [Interjections.] He said so elsewhere as well, but we are not referring to that now. The question is when and to what extent the Government departed from the 1977 proposals.

There is a further question I should like to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. In the present set-up Parliament is sovereign. I accept that there are no problems with this and that the hon. the Minister agrees with me. In the original proposal of the Cabinet Committee, of which he was chairman, that sovereignty was retained. That was also how it was explained to us in the Synod Hall. However, I want to suggest that the Bill, which was submitted as a proposal of the Government, in fact tampered with the sovereignty of the Parliament and that the sovereignty of Parliament was being eroded or watered down. If I am wrong, I should very much like to know what the facts are in this regard, but I should like to tell him on what basis I say this. I say this on the basis of clause 16 of that draft legislation which stated that the legislative authority of the Republic vests in the House of Assembly. There are then certain provisos, and the third proviso states that the Council of Cabinets may refer specific envisaged legislation on any matter to the House of Representatives or the Chamber of Deputies to be disposed of.

And when did you discover that?

I discovered that long ago. I wanted to discuss it with the present hon. chairman of the President’s Council when he was still Minister of the Interior, but we only had one short meeting and never got round to it. [Interjections.] After that there were many promises of opportunities to discuss it, but these never materialized. [Interjections.] It does not matter. I am merely asking a question.

You were fast asleep, man!

Irrespective of what the President’s Council is going to propose—I am putting this question to the hon. the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa—what is the position of this Parliament as far as its sovereignty is concerned? I also want to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to guard against any erosion of the sovereignty of Parliament as Prime Minister, except of course in as far as this arises from the transfer of specific powers to any body which may be established for the Coloureds or the Indians, although … [Interjections.] I am asking these questions because I am worried about the sovereignty of Parliament. I should therefore very much like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what his standpoint in this connection is, irrespective of what the President’s Council may recommend.

I should now like to put a second question to the hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to refer to the Vice State President’s definition of power-sharing, as reported in Beeld of 3 April. In this report the Vice State President said the following—

This is the definition the Vice State President, the chairman of the President’s Council, gave of power-sharing. Does the hon. the Prime Minister agree with this, because I want to tell him what it really means.

Do you agree with it?

Yes, that is what power-sharing means. I think it is a very good definition. Of course it only means one thing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof, who has just resumed his seat, will excuse me if I do not react to what he said this afternoon. I was not in this House when the 1977 proposals were discussed here. At the time, however, the hon. member was a frontbencher on this side of the House and he therefore knows that those proposals are contained in a draft Bill …

That is what I was referring to.

Yes, but then it was referred to the President’s Council. Since an hon. member has stood up in this House this afternoon and asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether there has not been a departure from what was decided on in this House, which has served as a framework within which the President’s Council should make recommendations, I wish to leave the matter aside.

The NP came into power on 28 May 1948.

26 May.

Very well, 26 May. I think that we should raise somewhat the level to which the discussion of the Vote of the Prime Minister has descended.

Do that.

Therefore I wish to say that when Dr. Malan was welcomed in the amphitheatre in the Transvaal on 4 June 1948 he said—hon. members who were present there, will remember this—in his message to the nation which was broadcast on the radio that evening, that many people in the country had been praying for deliverance, as the country, which had been governed by the UP, was heading for disaster. I want to say that there are many people who thank the Lord for a leader such as the hon. Prime Minister P. W. Botha who governs the country in difficult times like these, to ensure that we can live here in safety.

I should like to turn to the official Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is the alternative Government in this country, took part in the debate this afternoon, and I wish to say that I am disappointed in his contribution. He sees the split in the NP as an opportunity to drive the wedge in deeper, so as to divide people.

That is not possible.

However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition finds himself in the same position that a predecessor of his, Sir De Villiers Graaff, found himself in. He knows this. He knows that the direction he takes is determined by members in the back benches on his side. He is aware of this.

I wish to continue this debate on a more positive note. The then leader of the NP, Dr. Malan, followed the path of apartheid, as it was called at that time. Separate residential areas were created. Some of the members of the official Opposition, as well as members of the NRP, were previously members of the United Party which governed this country. They know what a bankrupt estate the NP took over in 1948. Under the leaders of the NP, we ensured that there are separate residential areas for each race group in the country today, and we must thank the NP for this. As we have paved the way in creating separate residential areas for the people, we are now moving towards giving them self-government, and allowing them to decide themselves on matters that are their exclusive concern in their own areas. Do the hon. members not think that this is an achievement of the NP?

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the NP has led the Black nations in this country to independence, and in the process, the representation of Blacks by Whites in this House has been abolished. Some hon. members who are still here in this House tonight, will remember that the death knell tolled for the parliamentary career of Mrs. Margaret Ballinger in 1959, since that was when the era in which Whites represented Black people in this House, finally came to an end. The hon. member for Houghton—who, by the way, is not in the House at present—will also remember the when the end of the road for the representation of Coloureds by Whites was reached in this House, that same hon. member for Houghton though it was the end of the world. This was not true. The NP is moving in a particular direction. We in South Africa should take cognizance of this. We should take cognizance of the fact that the NP is leading those people to independence, so that they themselves can take decisions concerning matters which affect them.

I think it is important just to pause for a moment to view the position of the Republic of South Africa, assessed against the background of occurrences in the rest of Africa. Hon. members will recall that in African countries—I refer specifically to Tanzania, Kenya and the Congo, as well as to what is happening in Zimbabwe nowadays—the Whites have been kicked out. We have in the Republic of South Africa the only country in Africa where a White government is still in power. This is something which must be retained for all time. This is important not only for the Whites in this country, but also for the other race groups that live here.

In this country a small nation—in the midst of large nations throughout the world—has undertaken its task with faiths and courage. This is a task for which we have all accepted responsibility. We have accepted the responsibility to govern with faith, wisdom and sacrifice. In this way, this small nation will continue to govern this country, however difficult times may be.

The hon. the Prime Minister, together with the party which governs this country, is faced with certain choices.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Barberton will certainly not unnerve me this evening, try as he may. He can have his own turn to speak, if he is so eager to say something. As I have said, South Africa is being faced with certain choices. On the one hand, we have the option of peace, as opposed to that of an increase in violence. On the one hand, we have the option of co-operation, and on the other the diametrical opposite, viz. confrontation. We also have a choice between progress on the one hand, and destruction and decline on the other; the choice of development on the one hand and stagnation on the other.

I maintain that the hon. the leader of the NP, the hon. the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa, has chosen the path of peace, of co-operation, of progress and of development. We should all take cognizance of this. With particular reference to the official Opposition in this House, which is attuned to one thing only, viz. a process of complete integration, I wish to point out that this could only give rise to confrontation in South Africa. Therefore, should a confrontation take place in South Africa, I believe that there are hon. members on the other side of this House who will no longer be with us. [Interjections.] They propagate division, and they will go the way of division. It is important to take note of this. [Interjections.]

Order!

We in Africa do not need guns. In Africa we need food. This is important. We need job opportunities for our people. However, we should note that we cannot speak lightly of these matters. After all, we know that when our neighbour goes hungry, we in South Africa sleep restlessly. We should take cognizance of this.

The NP has led the Black nations in South Africa to independence. Nevertheless we still recognize our mutual interdependence. This has all been brought about by the hon. the Prime Minister. However, nothing positive is forthcoming from the other side of this House. In this regard, I refer to all the Opposition parties in this House. Nothing positive comes from any of them on the other side. [Interjections.] I wish to maintain this evening that we can with confidence leave the Government of the Republic of South Africa in the hands of the NP. This is important. The NP is the only party that can govern this country. We should take cognizance of this. This is important.

As far as the road ahead is concerned, we have the important idea of the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to regional development. The hon. member for Pretoria West has already referred to the policy of the Government as contained in the White Paper. Once again, this is evidence of the fact that we wish to follow the path of co-operation, that we wish to reach out to one another, regardless of differences. A small nation in this country has chosen the path of sacrifice. This is important. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the emphasis of this debate this afternoon—and I am not referring here to the family squabble—was placed primarily on the position of the Whites, Coloureds and Asians, the question of power-sharing and expectations in regard to the report of the President’s Council and what would follow upon that. I want to conclude my previous remarks with an epitaph in respect of the 1977 constitutional proposals of the Government. In this I do not quote our feelings or our thinking. This can be confirmed by all of us who served on the Schlebusch Commission. Not one single witness who gave evidence before the Schlebusch Commission on the constitution made any attempt to defend or hold up the 1977 draft constitution, the Bill which was before the commission, as an answer to the problems for the future. I challenge any hon. member in this House to deny that.

You are not quite right.

Well, I should like to be reminded of one witness of standing …

Prof. Booysen.

Yes, to some extent but with qualifications.

Yes, and there were others too.

To an extent. However, nobody will deny it when I say that 80% of the evidence given before the Schlebusch Commission overwhelmingly rejected the 1977 constitutional proposals as being totally inadequate for the needs of South Africa.

No, Vause.

Very well then, let me turn to the present. I want to quote from Die Beeld of 2 April. This report was by Ton Vosloo of Die Beeld. This is the epitaph that he writes. He says—

I mention this merely to emphasize …

Does that include all the proposals?

No, I am referring to the three parliaments.

The hon. member must count his words.

The point that I want to make at this stage is that there has been a change in thinking in regard to the fundamental aspect of the 1977 constitutional proposals of three separate parliaments within one sovereignty. Once one has accepted the fact that there has been this change of attitude then all the other things that are happening fall into place.

I now want to move away from the question of the White/Coloured/Asian constitutional accommodation into the field of the accommodation of the Black peoples of South Africa in the constitutional structure. In this regard there are two clear and specific aspects that must be considered. In the time at my disposal I want to deal with only one of these and that is with the question of the homeland Blacks. At a later stage in this debate I shall deal with the other aspect which is that of the non-homeland Blacks. In this regard I want once again to quote from the same newspaper which on 6 April, only a few days ago, in referring to present thinking in respect of the non-homeland Blacks, said—

This is the NP policy—

He also says the present proposals are no answer and cannot be accepted. I will deal with this later.

I now want to deal with the homeland Blacks. Last year we had major debates under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote and on the Status of Ciskei Bill on the issue of confederation. I do not have time to quote at length but three issues were raised which were the crux of the debates. The first was free and equal access to a common economy; the second was a common citizenship of the confederation and the third was a formal instrument or body which would be engaged in joint decision-making on agreed matters of common and mutual interest. In respect of all those issues the Government rejected the thinking, proposals and the pleas of this party. I want to refer only to what the hon. the Prime Minister said on 3 August 1981 in an exchange across the floor of the House after I had questioned him three times on the possible setting up of a confederal Assembly. I quote from Hansard, col. 87—

Three times I challenged the hon. the Prime Minister and three times he evaded it. He came back to say that at that stage there would be an interim Secretariat and that people were already talking together.

On the question of common access to a common economy there were limitations, viz. the maintenance of controls which would not be handled mutually but handled by the South African Government.

The biggest stumbling-block, however, was the question of common citizenship. Over the eight month period from August 1981 up till now there has been a shift in respect of all three of those fundamental aspects of a confederal policy for South Africa. Apart from other matters, which I will not have time to deal with, there is the question of joint decision-making. I want to quote the hon. the Prime Minister himself in this regard. I have with me the official release of his speech delivered at the opening of the Gazankulu Legislative Assembly on 12 March 1982, a month ago. I quote from the speech—

This represents a fundamental shift from the concept of consultation to a body where there will be joint decision-making on ideas of common interest. [Interjections.] Let the hon. the Prime Minister explain how one can have a body to which governmental powers are to be assigned, if there is not going to be joint decision-making.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt spoke of preparing the table—he used the words “ons dek die tafel”—for a citizenship “in konfederale verband”.

Go and read the Hansard again.

This is in other words a shift away from the rejection of a confederal citizenship and a movement towards preparing for a citizenship in a confederal context. [Interjections.] We have the new development plan which will overlap the Republic and independent States to make up one economic development programme. On the three fundamental issues of confederation the Government has been forced to move towards what my party has advocated. If it had done it five years ago, you could have had acceptance—you would not have needed a Buthelezi Commission—by the homelands of this new concept of confederation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point will excuse me if I do not react specifically to what he has said, but in the course of my speech I will also deal with his party’s policy.

*Mr. Chairman, South Africa is a country of challenges in every conceivable sphere of life. The Republic of South Africa, of which we are privileged to be citizens today, is the result of the way in which previous generations have responded to the challenges presented by this country. The future of the Republic of South Africa will in its turn be the result of the way in which we respond to the challenges of this country today. This forces me to ask myself the question: How are we in fact responding to the challenges of South Africa today—individually and as political parties, as we are present in this House?

In the short time available to me tonight, I want to confine myself to the political challenges. Firstly I turn to the official Opposition, the PFP. I come to the conclusion that the PFP’s response to the challenges of South Africa is to hoist the white flag in advance. The PFP proceeds from the standpoint that the Whites in South Africa have no future, except by the grace of the Blacks. That is why they also proceed from the assumption that the Whites must make themselves acceptable to the Blacks. That is why the official Opposition also proceeds from the standpoint that we should always be guided in our conduct by the views of the Blacks. They are not concerned with what the White electorate of South Africa is prepared to accept, but with what the bottom line is which the Black man is prepared to accept.

Furthermore, the hon. members of the official Opposition fail to appreciate the effect of ethnicity in the political field in South Africa. They also pay lip service to the existence of a plural society in South Africa, but when they come to the political sphere, their argument is that politically, ethnicity should play no part. It is their standpoint that politically speaking, we have a common society in South Africa in which there should be a system of one man, one vote.

That is your policy.

Then they produce the additional argument of a federal dispensation or a federal structure—a one man, one vote dispensation within a federal structure. However, they neglect to spell out what the components of that federal structure would be. They neglect to say that there is not a single geographic area in South Africa, no matter how the country is subdivided, in which there would not be a majority of Black people.

What about Mossel Bay?

For this reason, the inevitable consequence of their policy is that we must eventually have government by Black people in South Africa, or at least a Government controlled by Black people. This is not a response to the challenges of South Africa which is acceptable to the White electorate of South Africa. That is why the PFP is rejected by the White electorate of South Africa.

This brings me tot the NRP. The NRP tries to evade the challenges of South Africa. They advocate a policy which they describe as a federal confederal policy. When one analyses that policy, one comes to the conclusion that this is only a high-sounding name for a policy of local option, and local option stripped of all the rhetoric is nothing more than a Natal Stand. The realities and the challenges of South Africa cannot be evaded. A political party which does not have any answers to the challenges of the South African situation is irrelevant in South African politics.

Now I come to the CP. As I understand conservatism, it embodies the desire to preserve and not the desire to destroy. Therefore the conduct of the CP is not in line with the name they have chosen for themselves, for since its inception, the CP has not distinguished itself for its preservation of things, but for its destruction of things.

Such as?

Such as the unity which existed in the NP in the past and which has been destroyed by those hon. members. [Interjections.]

Order!

They have gone even further. In the Waterberg constituency, which was a National constituency for many years, that tradition has also been destroyed. They have weakened the NP in the face of the enemies of South Africa, at a time when we need national unity as never before. [Interjections.] Under these circumstances they have destroyed national unity.

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Brakpan must contain themselves.

The CP, which, in terms of its name, is intent on preservation, has gone further and has associated with radical elements that wish to respond to the challenges that face us with crisis behaviour. This is bound to lead to polarization, confrontation and conflict, and in this way they are threatening to destroy the very things which we want to preserve in South Africa.

I cannot help concluding that there are only three motivations or reasons for the existence of the CP. The first is a dispute about leadership. The fact is that those hon. members sitting over there did not vote for the present hon. Prime Minister to become Prime Minister in 1978. [Interjections.] And since then, not one of them has ever accepted him. That is the basic reason for the formation of that party. The second reason for their existence is the fact that they appeal to emotions rather than to reason in their response to the challenges of South Africa. The third reason is that their standpoint is based on fictions, on hypotheses, on assumptions and on fears: assumptions about what the Government is up to and fears about the recommendations of the President’s Council and the Government’s reaction to these. Now I want to ask the hon. members a pertinent question: If their fears and assumptions prove to have been unfounded, will they have the courage to rise in this House and to say that the reason for the existence of their party has fallen away? [Time expired.]

Order! Hon. members are conversing much too loudly in this hon. House. If hon. members have something to say to one another, they should do so quietly. The debate is of far too serious a nature for us to make light of it. Nevertheless hon. members are conversing so loudly that a speaker sometimes cannot hear himself talking.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has asked: “How are we responding to the challenges facing South Africa?” The only reply one can give to that is: Quite ineffectually.

†There is one contention that has been bandied about loosely and irresponsibly by hon. members on the opposite side of the House, but most flagrantly by the hon. the Prime Minister. In the no-confidence debate he declared that the Smith regime was a Prog regime. This contention is simply nonsense. Let us examine it, however, because we might learn from the Rhodesian experience.

Firstly, was the Rhodesian situation comparable to ours? Both countries were undeveloped and occupied by peoples whose first contact with Western civilization was with those people who streamed in to settle. These people established farms, they discovered and developed the natural resources and employed Black labour, but failed to educate and train them, and also failed to create opportunities for this labour force.

The most significant difference between Rhodesia and South Africa would appear to be the fact that 17% of the South African population is White, whereas, when Smith came into power, only 6% of the Rhodesian population was White. For us there is, however, scant comfort in this. In 18 years’ time the Whites will represent only 9% to 11% of the total population of South Africa. Eighteen years after that, it will be 6% similar to the position in Rhodesia—and we must not forget that one in ten White South Africans is not a South African citizen.

A more valid difference between the two countries lies in the strength, sophistication and diversity of our economy. This country’s enemies will spare no effort to have trade sanctions applied against South Africa because they know that this is where our strength lies.

The characteristics of the Rhodesian regime under Smith are similar to those of the NP regime in South Africa, and become frighteningly more similar because of the type of adjustments that we believe the Government intends making to the political system in this country, adjustments which fall short of reform.

Let us compare the characteristics of the two régimes. The Nationalist régime is based on racial discrimination, and so was Ian Smith’s. When he came to power in 1964, he inherited the 1961 constitution, and that, through its Bill of Rights, expressly did not affect discriminatory legislation that was in force. The Nationalist régime, motivated by natural fears, sought safety in separation. That Smith was motivated by the same fears is obvious from such remarks as “I am not prepared to see majority rule in my lifetime, or in my children’s lifetime.” His response to this fear was identical. He said that separate development and racial discrimination were essential ingredients of the Rhodesian society. [Interjections.] The Nat. régime is against genuine power-sharing. Power is to remain in a White-dominated Parliament. The provisions of Smith’s own 1969 constitution meant that it would take 460 years for Blacks even to increase their representation, and 980 years, it was estimated, before they reached parity. We maintain control by way of measures such as the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, the Immorality Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the General Laws Amendment Act. In Rhodesia the Land Apportionment Act, the Public Order Act, the Unlawful Organizations Act, the Preventative Detentions Act, the Law and Order Maintenance Act and the Emergency Power Act enabled that Government to censor the Press, limit freedom of speech, movement, assembly and association, to arrest and detain without trial and decide, on racial criteria, …

Just as Mugabe is doing now.

… where people could own or occupy property.

There was, however, another aspect of Rhodesian policy which is a blueprint for the type of reform unveiled by this Government from time to time. They had “gesonde magsdeling”, spurious power-sharing. 16 out of 66 parliamentary representatives were Black. Petty discrimination was relaxed in post offices, parks, private schools. Job reservation-type legislation had been removed and job opportunities increased, as in the case of the steps taken on the basis of the Wiehahn-proposals. The pass laws were modified, as was done on the basis of the Riekert recommendations, and multiracial sport was encouraged, as was done in terms of the Viljoen-recommendations. Measures were also taken to promote a class of privileged Blacks, locked into the economy.

There are more parallels, and they are compelling ones. The whole futile Government attempt to choose Black leaders amenable to White requirements, for example, is something this Government does all the time. There is also the belief that tactical military achievement and periods of economic prosperity represent success in dealing with the national problem, something this Government does all the time. The failure to appreciate the opportunities missed meant that those opportunities were gone for ever. When Smith talked reform, most Whites were not disturbed because they did not believe him, and correctly, but as with our hon. Prime Minister, there were those on his extreme right flank who regarded him as a dangerous liberal. Like this Government, blind to all evidence, Smith’s Government continued to believe: “We have the happiest Africans in the world”. He believed that his problems were caused by a handful of communist agitators.

Same as here.

As the strain began to tell, firstly Dad’s Army was mobilized—that appears to be the stage we have reached now—and then the Rhodesian Front reluctantly called up Coloureds and Indians, although it had just approved new measures to restrict their residence in White areas. The parallel is absolutely complete.

It sounds very familiar.

They, too, had the reflex response that White opponents were traitors and Black opponents always communists, and finally Smith’s recrimination that it was not only Rhodesia, but also the effete West, that he was saving from the communist onslaught, has a very familiar ring about it.

It sounds like Wiley.

In Rhodesia there was a White minority Government determined to monopolize all power indefinitely. It saw security for itself in the exclusion of Blacks from all real power, when its one opportunity of participating in the future of the country lay in sharing power and creating a just society. We are making precisely the same mistake. Our constitutional jiggery-pokery fools nobody but ourselves.

There are lessons to be learned from the Rhodesian situation, but one of them is not that Smith ran a Prog régime. Unlike PFP proposals, Smith’s was not a constitution drawn up, negotiated and agreed upon by all sections of the people. It did not provide for full and equal citizenship rights without discrimination, or for the sharing of political rights by all citizens, or for an open society free from discrimination, or for equality of opportunity for all citizens in the economy.

The lesson to be learnt from the Rhodesian experience is that, if security lies anywhere, it lies in sharing, sharing the economy and sharing power, with safeguards that apply equally to all.

Who is sharing in Zimbabwe today?

Safety does not lie in clinging to what you have regardless of the claims of others.

I should like to conclude by reminding the hon. the Prime Minister of an interview the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information gave on TV on 1 March. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, tonight I do not propose to comment directly or to react directly to the speech by the hon. member for Walmer, firstly because I think that the comparison that he drew between the former Rhodesian Government and South Africa was so wide of the mark that it hardly merits comment and, secondly, because the PFP is not generally in the habit of paying me the compliment of quoting from ancient speeches I made in the House as a very junior back-bencher, in my political adolescence as it were, whereas the hon. leader of the CP and the hon. member for Lichtenburg are in the habit of doing that, apparently in an attempt to damn me with faint praise. I should like to tell them that in that they will not succeed.

You will frighten the daylights out of them.

Nor will they draw me any closer to their party by doing that, because I have believed since my childhood that the well-being of South Africa is synonymous with the well-being of the NP. I still believe this today. Now more than ever. Secondly, it will avail them nothing to quote ancient speeches, because I would regard it as a personal tragedy if I had been sitting in this House for five years without outgrowing my political or parliamentary adolescence or without broadening my political thinking.

In the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Lichtenburg quoted at length from one of my old speeches. He did not only quote me; he said other things as well, and I should like to quote him now. He said—

Surely that is precisely the point. When I spoke in this House in 1978 about forms of power-sharing which had failed all over the world, I was referring, of course, to all those old, well-known, stereotyped forms of power-sharing which had proved to be failures overseas and elsewhere …

All the unhealthy forms of power-sharing.

… and which the PFP and the NRP wish to transplant to this country intact, in spite of the fact that they have failed and have been seen to have failed. Surely the principle which the NP adopted in 1977, the concept of self-determination with regard to one’s own affairs and a joint say and consultation with regard to matters of common interest, is a unique concept which has never been tried anywhere in the world and which therefore has not yet failed anywhere in the world. Indeed, it presents the opportunity for the unique solution which so inspired the hon. member for Lichtenburg. Shakespeare said centuries ago that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. Therefore I now want to tell those hon. members that the NP still has the same rose, even though it may suddenly have decided to call it garlic.

And you are the thorn! [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Brakpan. When I read in the Press that the hon. the leader of the CP had danced a jig on the stage in time to rhythmic clapping, I also told myself: “No, surely that is hardly possible. Surely it is just a story.”

Were you there?

No, I was not there. I have said that I thought it was hardly possible. However, the CP has now published a pamphlet which really makes them look like the Beatles of South African politics. [Interjections.] A headline reads—

Arising from this one could say—

[Interjections.]

I often used to tell my former hon. colleague and benchmate, the hon. member for Jeppe, who drew up this pamphlet, that hero-worship was an adolescent phenomenon. In fact, the Beatles proved that over and over again. One can inflame the emotions of teenagers, adolescents, and even immature adults, one can take them on an hysterical trip, one can offer them a temporary escape by pumping them full of opium, but as soon as the fit of emotion has passed, as soon as reality comes back, as soon as the withdrawal symptoms appear, the group falls apart in disillusionment and those ephemeral heroes sink into oblivion. Then their ultimate contribution to the enrichment, progress and prosperity of humanity is not worth a straw.

You sound like someone suffering from a political hangover! [Interjections.]

My observation is that the majority of the South African voters have long since left behind their political childhood, their teens, their adolescence. They are no longer looking for emotional arousal. They are no longer looking for escapist emotional trips. They are looking for the truth. What they are looking for are solutions. Of course, we shall always have our political teenagers, our political adolescents, among us. They are the ones, for example, who race around on motor-cycles like real Hell’s Angels, dressed in black shirts and mutilated swastikas, who appear in the streets in Voortrekker dress, just like little girls who have put on their grandmothers’ clothes and are saying: “Let us play at being grown-ups”. Among them are also those people who flock to political pop festivals in the Skilpad Hall and who, in a surge of senseless emotion, shout “Yes, yes, yes” to the political placebos that are administered to them, while saying “No, no, no” in their hearts to the responsibilities of modern politics, to the realities of today, to the demands of the future.

What has happened in Zimbabwe could so easily happen in South Africa as well. When Mr. Ian Smith put down his foot with his unilateral declaration of independence and said: “Thus far and no further”, that may have been a good thing. What was not so good, however, was the fact that after that, he could not or would not take any steps forward. The result was that Fearless came and went, Tiger came and went, Kissinger came and went, and with every opportunity missed, the options of the Whites grew more limited, until after Lancaster nothing remained to them. However, this has not happened to South Africa, and in this respect South Africa is a fortunate country, because we have always had Prime Ministers who have been able, like good convervatives, to put down their foot at the right moment, but who, on the other hand, have also had the vision to move forward when it became necessary. Dr. Malan created order in the post-war morass that we had inherited, and laid the foundations for a healthy patriotism. Mr. Strijdom took the process further and laid the foundations for the Republic. Dr. Verwoerd made the Republic a reality and laid the foundations for independent Black States. Mr. Vorster led Transkei and Bophuthatswana to independence and laid the foundations for a new constitutional dispensation. Now we have the present Prime Minister, who has the courage, the vision and the will to implement this new constitutional dispensation and, in fact, to create and at the same time to lay the foundations for our proposed constellation of States. This hon. Prime Minister has achieved a great deal in the short time he has been in power, and if my time had not almost been up, I could have quoted further examples in this connection. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do so now. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the speech the hon. member for Benoni had just made was intended to entertain this House a little. Unfortunately, he did not quite succeed because in four years he has not only outgrown his adolescence; he seems to be getting a little senile. [Interjections.] Looking at the governing party from this side of the House one cannot but realize that that party, that was once a mighty party in South Africa, that fired the imagination and carried people along with it, is now in the same position as Samson when his hair was shorn and he lost his power. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Benoni and other hon. members on that side are simply making little shows of strength and pretending they are strong. However, they are no longer strong. They no longer have power. That party lost its power the moment it accepted political power-sharing or political integration. [Interjections.] At that moment it lost its power.

You are speaking nonsense and you know it.

The fact of the matter is that those hon. members and all of us who were in that party, went from platform to platform between 1977 and 22 February this year and told the people: “Political power-sharing or political integration is political arsenic. Do not drink it because it is poisonous. It will kill you. It will be suicide if you drink it. Avoid it.” Suddenly, however, on 22 February we went to the people and we said: “This political arsenic is healthy. Drink it.” [Interjections.] Now the hon. members opposite are telling us: “No, when we told the people in 1977 that it was poisonous we actually meant that it was healthy and you should drink it.” [Interjections.] That is what they announced and it was accepted.

I have here an editorial from Die Vaderland of 24 February and that newspaper appeared on the streets of South Africa at the same moment that we were kicked out of the caucus of the NP. [Interjections.] We were kicked out. If anyone wants to know whether we were kicked out or whether we walked out, one only needs to ask two simple questions. The first is: Who proposed the motion which gave rise to the whole mess? [Interjections.] Are you suggesting that Daan and Willie proposed the motion? Is that what you are saying? [Interjections.] While South Africa watches, those two hon. members are saying that Daan and Willie proposed that motion. [Interjections.] The motion was not proposed by Daan and Willie. The motion was proposed by that side of the House. In the second place I ask: Who tried to divide the motion into two parts so that a split would not be necessary? It was not hon. members on that side, but we on this side. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the NP say they accepted power-sharing as long ago as 1977, but let us see what Die Vaderland wrote in an editorial the same day we were kicked out of the caucus—

This is not our newspaper that says so. This is a newspaper which over the years the Government has urged to accept power sharing. I quote further—

[Interjections.] I quote further—

The reason we do not agree with hon. members of the NP, lies in the fact that we do not believe in political power-sharing and political integration, because we know it cannot work. We know it cannot work in South Africa.

You have a chequerboard policy.

Yes, and we shall give hon. members an alternative by means of chequerboard policy.

Give it now.

However, let us begin by concentrating on the basics. We do not agree with NP policy because the NP has become obsolete and because they favour integration in the Government, at regional level and at local management level.

You do not know what you are talking about.

The hon. the Minister does not know what he is talking about either. I assume that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to spell out his aims for us tomorrow and is going to tell us that he wants peace in South Africa among the various population groups and that he wants progress, development and stability.

What do you want?

We want those things too, of course. The hon. the Prime Minister wants to put the country in the strongest possible position to ward off attacks.

Why do you not help us to do so, then?

Because the NP is following the wrong path. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries must allow the hon. member to complete his speech.

I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries should rather concern himself with the farmers and forget about me, because he is going to have a hard time.

You are a “droster” (deserter).

The hon. the Minister should rather begin to worry about the farmers.

You are a political “droster”.

Order! The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries must withdraw his allegation that the hon. member is a “droster”.

Sir, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] However, I just want to place on record the fact that I called the hon. member a political “droster”.

The meaning remains the same. The hon. the Minister must withdraw that, too.

I withdraw that too. [Interjections.]

It behoves the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to worry about the farmers, because then he will have fewer problems.

I shall take care of the farmers, but then you must just stand by the Government.

The Government will not achieve those noble aims because it is following the wrong policy, and I want to tell hon. members why this is so. In the world in which scientists are today carrying out research, the fact is that to control South Africa successfully, one must be able to manage conflict successfully. What are the causes of conflict? Scientists tell us that the causes of conflict lie in the differences between cultures, between ethnic groups, between races and so on. [Interjections.] Scientists also say that we must make provision for this. The NP now wants to combine these different groups within one Government at different levels. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I react to the speech of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, there is something I want to mention.

†In a front-page report on 11 April 1982 it is reported in the Sunday Express as follows—

I regard this remark as a most scandalous anti-Semitic statement. I am deeply shocked and disturbed as a South African, and particularly as an Afrikaner, at the attitude of Mr. Terre’blanche and I reject it with absolute contempt. I would like to invite the hon. member for Waterberg to do the same. [Interjections.] The Jewish community have indeed played their part to the fullest in the defence of South Africa and Jewish blood has been sacrificed in the interests of South Africa. I do hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will also react to this statement of Mr. Terre’blanche.

*The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that the NP had lost its strength. I challenge him to test the strength of the NP in Lichtenburg. [Interjections.] He must hold a by election in Lichtenburg and then we can test the strength of the NP.

Why not in Pretoria Central as well?

That is not necessary because I have not run away from my principles.

We have witnessed an absolute misrepresentation being made in this House today with regard to the policy of the NP. The impression is being created that the NP’s policy for Coloured people and Asians is no different from its policy for Black people. Our policies in respect of Blacks and of Coloureds have always been different in the past, are different at the moment and will be different in future. This is the result of historic principles and of constitutional reasons. I want to tell the hon. members on that side that they are engaged in making a deliberate misrepresentation which will not succeed in the long run.

When we examine the principles of the CP, as published in their programme, we see that in paragraph 7 of this programme—this probably refers to Coloureds and Asians—mention is made of co-operation and consultation. They add that this should not take place at the expense of each group’s own political power or power base. We accept that the Coloured people and the Asians do not have a separate homeland in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the CP also accepts this. We have his signature on the NP manifesto to prove this. We accept that there are matters of common interest between us, the Coloureds and the Asians, and the hon. the leader of the CP accepts it too. We have his signature on the manifesto to confirm this. We and the Coloured people have the same fatherland, and when we examine the principles of this party, we must ask ourselves how they compare with paragraph 1 of their programme of principles. In paragraph 1 it says, among other things: “Ons aanvaar die Bybel as norm en rigsnoer vir alle dinge van ons volkslewe.” When people belonging to different population groups share the same fatherland, can we say that we accept the Bible as the guiding principle for all expressions of our national life when we refuse to give those people any final say in determining their own destiny?

These people take their stand on moral grounds in paragraph 1 of their programme of principles. Now I ask: Is it possible for them to give a moral content to their policy? Is it possible, considering what their principles are, to give them a moral content? As a Christian, and I am a Christian, I judge them in the light of the principles which I adhere to. If one’s policy does not allow people to have a final say in their own destiny, one cannot give that policy a moral content. They say that they will only consult with the Coloured people, but then the final decision will be that of the White man. I say this is White supremacy, White supremacy which they try to sweeten and to dignify by using words such as “co-operation” and “consultation”, but it remains White supremacy. Now I want to tell the hon. members on that side of the House that I reject their policy on the grounds that it has no moral content. I reject that policy because it does not comply with my Christian principles. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterkloof is laughing.

Bols!

Let him laugh. The hon. member talks about bols, but what the hon. member has between his ears is coming out of his mouth.

We on this side of the House cannot accept a policy when one lays down principles, so-called principles as contained in paragraph 7, which impose a ceiling on the morality which one can apply and to which one cannot give any content. Every one of those hon. members knows, just as surely as they are sitting there, that no Coloured leader will consult with that party and then leave it to the White man to decide unilaterally after the consultations, as they require. Why are they doing this? I say with all due respect that they are doing it because they are trying to exploit the prejudices of the White man in an opportunistic manner in order to obtain political power in South Africa. The White man will condemn the CP for that very reason.

There is a second reason why we reject the CP’s programme of action. The CP must take cognizance of the fact that there are enemies of South Africa who wish to destroy the White man. They wish to do this by means of a strategy of revolution, and the strategy for the revolution is that White and Black must be polarized. I want to say at once that the White man does not want to form an alliance with the Coloured people against the Black people.

That is what Jan Grobler says.

No, that is not what the hon. member for Brits says. Our argument is that we as Whites do not wish to drive Coloured people into the arms of Black Power. That is a different matter altogether. We do not wish to aid the strategy of the enemy. In terms of the policy of that party, as they wish to implement it and as it is advocated from platform to platform, they are playing directly into the hands of the enemies of South Africa. We reject their policy as not being in the interests of the White man. On behalf of the fathers and the mothers of this country, I say that the Afrikaner people will reject their policy because it is not in the interests of the White people of South Africa.

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

No, the hon. member may not.

The behaviour of hon. members on the other side has the effect of activating, motivating, uniting and inspiring the enemies of South Africa. The behaviour of those people and of their friends in the HNP has the effect of providing a moral basis for a reaction against the White people of South Africa. That is why we are able to tell them explicitly as Christians today that we reject their policy. We want to make it clear that a people who have the interests and the future of the White people of South Africa at heart, we reject their policy with the contempt which it deserves. We also want to say that the people of South Africa will get the message, loud and clear. There must be no doubt about the fact that this party, under the leadership which we have … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must please contain himself.

… will implement a policy which we are not only able to accept and defend on a moral basis and as Christians, but which will provide a secure future for every White child in South Africa as well as for the other population groups of South Africa, for what is in the interests of us as White people is also in the interests of the other population groups in South Africa. This is the course we shall take. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it nauseating to be told about the moral principles of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. However, I should like to come back to the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made in the no-confidence debate, viz. that the Smith régime in what was formerly Rhodesia was a Prog regime. To my mind this is an important issue. I believe that the experience of the Rhodesians holds vital lessons for us. To put it frankly, I must say that the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister is untrue. The truth is that the Smith regime was not a Prog regime but in fact a Nat regime. [Interjections.]

†There are overwhelming parallels with the NP. I can think of five key parallels between what the Smith régime did in Rhodesia and what this Government is doing in South Africa. Firstly, there is the underlying commitment on the part of both régimes to the doctrine of White supremacy in central government. Secondly, there is the commitment to racial segregation in political institutions, and also in social institutions to a large degree. [Interjections.] Thirdly, there is the commitment to land segregation. Fourthly, there is the commitment to a homelands policy in respect of blacks and, fifthly, there is the heavy reliance on security legislation.

And a mixed parliament.

That hon. Minister says a mixed parliament, but the Rhodesian Front did away with the common roll. [Interjections.]

I should like to examine these parallels, Sir. Firstly, the heavy reliance on security legislation is there for all to see. The hon. member for Walmer spelt it out. It is interesting that that same legislation has now been bequeathed to the Mugabe government. Secondly, there is the question of the homelands policy. In Rhodesia they called it something else, but it was similar. There they called it the policy of provincialization, and it envisaged the development of tribal trust lands, of political rights for Blacks in those lands and the stemming of the Black flow to the cities. The parallels to say the least, are far-reaching. Thirdly, there was the question of land segregation. The Rhodesian Front inherited the 1931 Land Apportionment Act which gave 51% of the land to the Whites, who were outnumbered sixteen to one by the Blacks and later by twenty to one, and only 30% to the Blacks. This was, however, not enough for the Rhodesian Front. They went further and replaced that Act with the more draconian Land Tenure Act which, historians claim, was the Magna Carta of Rhodesian racialism. That was a key element of the Rhodesian Front’s policy. It made Blacks temporary sojourners in White areas and was central to the policy of provincialization. A measure of the Rhodesian Front’s commitment to this policy of land segregation and the Land Tenure Act, was that this Act was finally repealed in January 1979, only weeks before Muzorewa became Prime Minister after they had had an interim government under Sithole, Muzorewa and Chirau and years after the 1976 Quenet Commission had identified that Act as the chief source of race conflict in that society.

In terms of the final two parallels, which are the strongest, the most revealing exposure of Rhodesian Front thinking was in the so-called 1969 constitution which was supposed to solve all Rhodesia’s problems. After the morass of UDI, the Tiger talks, the H.M.S. Fearless rejection and sanctions, all those problems were supposed to have been solved, but with a flourish of extraordinary stupidity Mr. Smith said the constitution was “a world-beater”.

What are you trying to tell us?

You will get the message in a moment. [Interjections.] He said the constitution was a world-beater and was going to “sound the death-knell to the notion of majority rule” for all time. [Interjections.] The so-called world-beater constitution introduced the concept of eventual parity between the races. The starting point was 50 White seats on a separate racial roll, plus eight Black seats on a secondary Black roll and eight seats to be nominated indirectly by a college of chiefs, headmen and rural councillors.

Since when has that been NP-policy?

Those 16 Black seats were going to be fixed until such time as the Black contribution to taxes was more than 24% of direct income tax. It was calculated that it would take 460 years to get one more seat and 980 years for parity to be reached. To say the least, that constitution was intended to entrench total political power in the hands of the Whites for all time, without any curb from Blacks. What I now want to say is important. The adoption of that constitution in 1970 in Rhodesia was regarded as one of the major triggers of the Black rage of the nationalists who said that if that was the attitude, they would go to war, and in December 1972 that war started in earnest.

I perceive a parallel between Ian Smith’s 1969 constitution and its intentions and the 1977 constitutional proposals of the NP and its intentions. [Interjections.] Those hon. members must listen to what Chief Gatsha Buthelezi has to say, because he said that if one adopted such a measure in this Parliament it would trigger a Black rage that we would not be able to control.

If there is any room left for doubt about the overall parallel with that side of the House, a further decisive revelation of Rhodesian Front thinking was its response to the Quenet Commission. The former High Court judge, Sir Vincent Quenet, reported on 23 April 1976, at a time when the border war had spread right across the country like a cancer, when there were 1 200 fighters in Rhodesia and 20 000 men were needed to hold them down, with 6 000 more in training, whilst many more thousands had moved out of the country to be trained. At that advanced stage one would think that the Rhodesian Front would have been ready to do away with race discrimination, but no! Even though the Quenet Commission said that the Land Tenure Act was a key problem and the major cause of racial friction, it called for a common voters’ roll; and for a justifiable Bill of rights and some petty reforms—and it was regarded as a mild report—in his usual pig-headed way Ian Smith rejected those key proposals, although he did adopt some minor ones. Minor reforms later lead to a breakaway—interestingly enough. 12 right-wing MPs broke away, similar to the case of the party opposite, and formed the Rhodesian Action Party. It all sounds so familiar, disturbingly so. We even had Mr. Ian Smith saying what could well have been said by Mr. P. W. Botha arguing his twelve-point plan …

The hon. the Prime Minister.

Yes, the hon. the Prime Minister. Mr. Smith said—

The House knows how the Rhodesian saga ended. Mr. Smith continued to walk down the road of diminishing options until he had no more bargaining power left. [Interjections.] When the security situation in Rhodesia had gone completely out of control. When his and Muzorewa’s Government was on its knees, he was forced into signing what can only be called a treaty of surrender at Lancaster House which offered less for Whites than any previous British package deal had offered. That is how stupid he was, and that is the road that this Government is walking. This Government was walking that road when it said the other day that it rejected the Buthelezi Commission, in fact in this very debate.

What should Smith have done?

Time does not allow me to enumerate the mileposts along this road … [Interjections.] … of diminishing options. I can say, however, that unless we take genuine power-sharing seriously we shall be going down that same road.

I want to conclude by saying that we must take account of the fact that the powerful force of Black nationalism is coming at us like an express train out of the night. If one puts one’s ear to the ground, one can hear the rumble, just as one could have heard that same rumble in Rhodesia in the early seventies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not really want to react to what the hon. member for Constantia had to say, except to ask him whether he is aware that he is in the South African Parliament and not in the Parliament of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe. The point he wanted to make was that we in South Africa, specifically because we are following NP policy, are treading the same path they did. It is interesting to remember that at one stage the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North held up that country to us as the ideal we should follow. The Opposition dances to every tune that is played. If it seems to them that the Rhodesian solution will succeed, it is held up to us as an example and when it fails, it is also held up to us as an example. We want to ask them please to be consistent for a change. Let them speak in the interests of South Africa for once. Let them make a sacrifice for once. Let them suggest an idea which is in the interests of our fatherland. Then we shall also listen to what they have to say.

We do so regularly. We tell you to resign.

In a country like South Africa with its multiple and complex problems it is only natural that at the beginning of each year one should ask oneself what lies ahead. The year 1981-’82 was no exception. Now that it has come to an end we can rightly say that it was an important year, particularly as regards the spectacular progress made in the various aspects of planning undertaken by the Office of the Prime Minister. The Good Hope Conference on 12 November 1981 led to fruitful discussions between the private sector and the Government and was held in a climate of positive goodwill, which will have a positive effect on the realization of our national economic goals, namely, a satisfactory real income per capita of the population, adequate employment and acceptable division of personal income, an acceptable geographic distribution of economic activities, the provision of adequate goods and services for the community, the greatest possible measure of protection of the economy against external economic, political and security competition, and economic co-operation and development in South Africa. The realization of these aims is the key to material prosperity and contentment in our country and must be promoted at all costs. However important this matter may be, however important the stabilization of material prosperity may be, it is equally important that we have contentment among all the population groups in the constitutional sphere. Bearing in mind that multinationalism and the existence of minority groups is a reality in South Africa, that the constitutional expectations of every population group are aimed at the preservation their own way of life, their continued existence and their own politics, structures must be created within which each separate group can look after its own interests independently, structures which at the same time will form the basis on which the separate groups can work together as equals in respect of matters of common interests. In the light of all these aspects it is of cardinal importance that ongoing discussions and negotiations take place among the population groups concerned, so that these aims can succeed. We have made a great deal of progress in this respect in the fact of the unceasing opposition of Opposition parties over the years. In the process many verdicts and explanations have been given, electoral mandates have been requested and received. Through all this there has been a profound understanding of the gravity of the matter, of the necessity of solutions to be found for the political set-up of South Africa. The value of unity to guarantee success has also been frequently emphasized, as is evident from a report in Beeld of 7 March 1981, from which I quote as follows—

The report goes on—

If the congresses of the National Party were to decide that there had to be one Parliament, the National Party would stand by that principle.

Would you accept that?

Mr. Chairman, the man who said these things was the hon. member for Waterberg. He said this at a political meeting at Randfontein shortly before the last election.

Now you are in trouble, Andries!

Now the following serious question arises. We in South Africa know that we are facing tremendous problems. We understand, we realize and we acknowledge to one another that we must be united to give us the strength we need to save South Africa, and also the Afrikaner nation here in South Africa. We also confirm this in public, as I have just quoted here. However, we did not succeed in upholding those principles. We did not succeed in this, due to a single argument, viz. that we supposedly differ in principle as far as power sharing is concerned.

Then, too, the hon. member for Waterberg said in a previous debate in this House that although the NP must still spell out its policy, it is demanding that the CP spell out its own policy clearly. If I understand this correctly, we split in principle because of the policy of the NP. However, the hon. member for Waterberg says that he will not state his policy on the Coloureds because the NP has not yet stated its policy. If one wants to be logical, one must ask the hon. member why he split from the NP. He is supposed to be waiting for the NP to spell out its policy clearly. Therefore, the so-called principle on the basis of which the hon. member split from the NP does not yet exist. It is not I who says this, it is the hon. member for Waterberg who says it. That is what he and the hon. member for Lichtenburg are saying. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no comment to make on what was said by the hon. member for Swellendam other than perhaps that this continual preoccupation with the “volk” is something in regard to which the NP has now to start looking a little further than its immediate confines and start including in its definition of the “volk” everybody who lives in South Africa. I want to say that the sooner those hon. members start opening their arms and their hearts to all the inhabitants of this country and bringing about a constitutional dispensation that is going to include all those people, the better. Until such time, we shall be continually at loggerheads in regard to who inhabits this country and what actually their rights are.

I want to deal particularly with a point that was raised by my hon. leader as well as by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, in regard to the urban Blacks. There is no doubt whatsoever about it that what we are headed for, in respect of the current direction in which we are going, namely, a solution in respect of only the Indians and the Coloureds, is an extremely dangerous and escalating situation in regard to the Blacks as a whole in this country and particularly the urban Blacks, a situation which may in fact develop to a point where so much damage has been done that a great deal of discredit will be accorded to possible future solutions that the NP may possibly develop. I say this because I feel that up to the present there has been no clear pronouncement by the NP as to its real intentions concerning the urban Black population. Many years ago it was the NP’s avowed policy that all Blacks would in fact belong to the homelands and that at a particular given stage there would only be migratory labourers coming into the various urban areas to work there but that their political lives would be lived out in the homelands. Although this is a dream that is receding, I think that today still there are some hon. members opposite who cling to it simply because they have no other positive solution although there has been considerable discussion and much speculation particularly in the NP Press in regard to the possible inclusion of urban Blacks in some or other confederal arrangement. I wish to issue a warning that if consideration is given to such a proposal and if such a confederation does not in fact have any real teeth, if it has no real ability to confer and decide in regard to those aspects in the lives of these Blacks which are so bound up in the joint economy of South Africa, and if in fact those Blacks have no say, then such a confederal arrangement will in effect be discredited before it can even get off the ground. As far as this matter is concerned, we on these benches have very strong feelings in regard to the position of the urban Blacks in the scheme of things in South Africa because there is no question about it that it is in fact in the urban areas of South Africa where there is the greatest discontent. It is in these areas where the great differences between population groups are brought right to the surface, where there is no equality of opportunity and where the spotlight is focused brightly on the differences in living standards. The ultimate constitutional arrangement for South Africa will, I am sure, have to be one which will bring about far more togetherness than was envisaged by the NP policy of years ago. The policy then was in fact a separation of people into their own areas where they were to develop their own economic futures with as little interrelationship as possible, whereas now the reverse is the trend. People have now realized that we are an economic entity and that we are going to have more and more to do with one another.

Apart from the fact that the NP Government has accepted the phenomenon of urbanization and has appointed a commission to investigate the matter, and apart from the gradual and very slow acknowledgment that the urban Black is here to stay and that he has to be accommodated, we believe it is vitally urgent that the concept of a confederal arrangement and the accommodation of Black people in the country should be advanced together with any other constitutional arrangement involving Coloureds and Indians. With that in mind, I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to spell out to us clearly the NP’s current view on the urban Blacks and their political future.

Very recently we debated the Second Reading of the Defence Amendment Bill in this House. I think the thing that was least said but which was uppermost in everybody’s mind, was that the real solution to the manpower problem in our Defence Force does not lie in all the mental gymnastics that have gone into the Bill in order to make do with very limited resources but lies rather in making use of the far greater manpower resource that is available in South Africa. I am quite certain that the hon. the Prime Minister, who many years ago took over the Defence portfolio from oom Jim Fouché, is as much aware of this as anybody in the House. The real solution to the defence problems of this country must relate to drawing our forces from the total population. Obviously this can only be done when the constitutional arrangement in the country brings about a situation which makes it legitimate or correct for the Government to use people in that role.

The content of the debate in the House today has so far been of such a nature that it will not thrill listeners outside. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will have the opportunity of changing the tack from the differences of opinion between the CP and the NP and spelling out very clearly to all South Africans the real direction in which the NP will move, its real intent in relation to reform and its acknowledgment of the necessity to contain conflict. The whole concept of a political solution in South Africa must not be seen in terms of a final magic one which will find exactly the right solution. There is an ongoing conflict which has to be resolved and each constitutional development which is put forward must contain an element of the elimination of conflict. I think this is a phenomenon which is going to continue in the country as a result of our plural society. I do not think that one can hope for a final solution and I believe that the ongoing development of politics in our country is going to require a stable, very measured look at exactly what sort of conflict-resolving steps can be taken from year to year.[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town devoted a large part of his speech to the concept of “urban Blacks”. He tried to imply that urban Blacks, because they now live in cities, are no longer part of the ethnic group to which they belong. When I look at my colleagues next to me, it is clear that there is no fundamental difference between the hon. member for Durban Point, who is an urban White, and the hon. member for Mooi River, who is a rural White. This is something which apparently has not yet penetrated to those who are harping on the concept that, because a Black has become urbanized, he is now a different kind of person, he belongs to a different nation, and other constitutional provisions have to be made for him.

I now want to come to one of the main themes of this debate, a theme which has been touched on by the PFP, the CP, the NP, as well as the NRP, viz. the concept of power-sharing. The concept of “self-determination” has also been introduced into the debate as part of this. I think it was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who asked whether it was possible to have power-sharing and self-determination at the same time. I am of the opinion that it is possible. I wish to state this in conjunction with the fact that power-sharing has apparently become a concept with which spectres are being conjured up, a concept which is being toyed with. I maintain that if one, with sincerity and responsibility, becomes involved in a discussion pertaining to matters of common interest, where differrent communities are involved in responsible discussions and joint decision-making, a measure of power-sharing exists. I wish to cite the example of the European Common Market. At present there are ten member countries, each of which has sovereign independence, but which have reached an agreement on economic matters in particular but for other reasons as well. Each one has independent sovereignty, but they have decided to create a permanent body, which will deliberate jointly and take joint decisions, for the sake of common development, consultation and decision-making concerning certain matters. The European Parliament and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are similar bodies. There are other bodies like this as well. There are joint decision-making, and there is power-sharing to the extent to which joint decision-making takes place. At the same time, however, self-determination, sovereignty and independence are not sacrificed.

The system of confederation has also been referred to.

There is a particularly interesting article in the January edition of “Ontwikkelingstudies oor Suider-Afrika”, which is published by BERBD. In the article on confederations which was written by Dr. W. J. Breyten-bach, there is a very interesting historical review of a number of confederations. Most formal confederations existed up to and including the previous century. The last one ceased to exist in 1871, and that was the North German Confederation. There was the Swiss Confederacy which existed until 1798 and which was later followed by the Confederation of Helvitia from 1815-1848. Then there was the Republic of the United Netherlands and the Confederated States of the North American Alliance, and the Confederated States of America. Then there was also the German Confederation of the Rhineland and the North German Confederation. There were a number of confederations which existed on a formal basis, However, they ceased to exist.

In the present day set-up, I can state that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is probably a sound model according to which a South African Confederation of States might be established. It is an interesting situation that similar organizations exist today. There is, for instance, the Organization of American States which includes South American and North American States, with 16 full members and a number of members which have observer status. There is the Organization of Arab Leagues which has also concluded an agreement on certain cardinal principles. All these organizations have certain common interests on a regional basis. They all have either a development bank, or some or other financial institution which will operate jointly to the advantage of all member countries.

We here in South Africa are in the unique position that we were transformed into an artificial political unity during the previous century and at the beginning of this century. The people of Southern Africa, the Zulus, the Tswanas, Sotho’s, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, were transformed into a uniform political unity without regard for the diversity of populations as a result of the then acceptable political system, viz. British colonialism. At the end of the first world war, Great Austria, which consisted of Hungary and the German-Austrians, split up. However, we in South Africa have developed to such an extent, that we have developed an interdependent economy, that a common political need has arisen in certain areas, so that at the least a permanent body should be created in which political deliberation and political decision-making should be able to take place, but always on the basis of the retention of self-determination for the identifiable groups in this country, for without those identifiable groups or nations, it is impossible to create trust among all these nations.

Does this exclude the Coloureds?

As far as I am concerned, the Coloureds and Indians are on a different level to the Blacks, yet are still within this concept. I would also adopt the premise that there should be a different approach to joint decision-making, not in a Parliament elected on the basis of a single voter’s roll, but there should be provision for these various bodies to be able to deliberate in a responsible manner on matters of common interest without harming those common interests. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there are few hon. members in this House who have the ability to reduce a debate to such total absurdity as has just been done by the hon. member for Klip River. He began by attacking the hon. member for King William’s Town for having referred to the urban Blacks, and he said that these people’s ethnic ties with their rural countrymen were being disregarded. Then he used the comparison of the hon. members for Durban Point and for Mooi River. However, this is not a comparable situation at all. The hon. member for Mooi River is not forced by any law to vote in an urban area for an English party; he can vote for any party he chooses. However, the hon. member for Klip River used this facile argument to evade the issue raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town, namely that we are faced with a political reality in the urban areas, to which attention has to be given. However, the way in which the hon. member approached this argument was typical of the debate up to now. The debate between the NP and the CP in particular has been characterized by irrelevance.

No one in South Africa talks about the threat posed to the Whites by the Coloured people or by the Asians. Wherever anyone of those hon. members goes in South Africa or abroad, he will find that the crucial question is not what is to become of the Coloured people or the Asians, but how we are going to bring about co-existence between the Whites and the Blacks. While this is the question which concerns us all, and to which we should all give attention, Parliament has been devoting its attention since the beginning of this session to an argument between the CP and the NP about a limited form of power-sharing between the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites. I have never encountered such foolishness. [Interjections.] After all, this is not what is at issue in South Africa! When we waste our time in arguing about this, we are being isolated from the mainstream of history, which is taking its course outside this House. That is what I am pleading for. I am pleading with the hon. the Prime Minister that we should forget about this silly debate, and that we should return to the real problems of constitutional change in South Africa.

†I notice that the hon. the Prime Minister’s Office itself, through the gentleman who is in charge of constitutional matters, laid down criteria for constitutional change, and those criteria have no bearing on this irrelevant debate about limited power-sharing in terms of the 1977 proposals. Those criteria deal with the real question of constitutional change, viz. how can we find accommodation between Black and White in South Africa? That is what it is all about. Those criteria lay down minimum conditions for reasonable constitutional change in South Africa. What are those minimum conditions? I say advisedly “minimum conditions” because we have already anticipated those conditions in our policy. We in the PFP have said that we accept that negotiating a new constitution must involve all South Africans, White, Coloured, Asian and Black. We have said so. We do not argue whether this is so or not, we accept it. Furthermore, we accept that South African citizenship should be available to all. That is a non-negotiable. We accept that adult universal suffrage or the vote cannot be ignored, falsified or disguised in a new constitution. We must not try to bluff anybody about the vote; we must talk about it honestly and openly. [Interjections.]

We also accept that minorities have to be protected, and that domination must be prevented in a new constitution. It is on the basis of these points of departure that we have established our policy. The hon. leader of the NRP flashes our policy about in the House, but he knows what it entails.

One man, one vote on a common roll!

We are not trying to disguise it.

One man, one vote!

A vote for every South African citizen! [Interjections.]

What I am really saying to the hon. the Prime Minister is that I am not going to try to impose our policy on the Government. [Interjections.] Obviously that would serve no purpose. [Interjections.] In terms of what the hon. the Prime Minister’s own office has laid down as reasonable criteria, and in terms of what the hon. the Prime Minister’s own office has spelled out in terms of its own institutions, I want to make a few suggestions to him about what I regard as the barest minimum conditions for constitutional development that could possibly be viable in South Africa, and I am saying “could possibly be viable”. [Interjections.]

For one, it is an elementary fact that the Government must declare that Blacks are also entitled to the rights of citizenship in South Africa. [Interjections.] If we do not start there, we start nowhere. [Interjections.] That is something the hon. the Prime Minister, as leader of this Government, must declare. Secondly the Government must make it clear that the Government, as well as Coloureds, Blacks and Asians, must be involved in negotiating a new constitution. I know the hon. the Prime Minister will say that he gave his answer to that in the no-confidence debate, but that was before we had this breakaway. Now we have a new situation which presents the hon. the Prime Minister with the opportunity of really taking a new initiative and saying that we have now reached a situation in which we can pull in all the moderate groups—a criterion laid down by his own office—into the process of constitutional negotiation. If he were to do that, that would surely create conditions that could lead to uniting moderates against radicals on both the White and the Black side.

I do, however, also want to mention a third condition. He might sneer at me, the Government as a whole might sneer at me, but let us take up the offer of someone like Buthelezi to negotiate a new constitution, and I am not referring only to Buthelezi, but also to other moderate Black leaders. Bring them in on the same constitutional committee with the Asians and the Coloureds and let us start negotiating a new constitution. It does not threaten the sovereignty of the NP, nor does it threaten the sovereignty of Parliament, but it would really grip the imagination, not only of South Africa, the Blacks of South Africa, but also of the world. We would then genuinely be moving into a new constitutional debate.

*If we fail to do this, however, if we get bogged down in this absurd debate between the CP and the NP about limited forms of power-sharing in terms of the 1977 proposals, we are going to let the time run out in which we can make peaceful evolutionary political progress. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

It is … [Interjections.]

You are irrelevant now, hey?

Whether we are voted out of this House and whether the NRP or anybody else is voted out of this House does not matter, because it will mean that the White people have lost the initiative for peaceful change. That is where the real dangers lie. In saying this to the hon. the Prime Minister, I am not just trying to be difficult or to raise arguments. I say this because it is based on factual information obtained from research that has been conducted in South Africa, research which clearly and irrefutably proves to us that if we do not seek constitutional alternatives aimed at involving the moderates—Black, White, Coloured and Asian—in a process of constitutional negotiation, we are actually going to contribute to the process of polarization. Therefore it makes absolutely no difference in the long run whether the CP is right or wrong about the interpretation which the hon. the Prime Minister gives to the 1977 proposals. What is much more important is the interpretation which the hon. the Prime Minister gives to the need for active constitutional development at this important time in our history. That is what is important, not the 1977 proposals, not whether there are three Parliaments, two Parliaments or one Parliament with three Chambers or one Cabinet with one Coloured Minister. That is totally irrelevant in the context of the real requirements for peaceful constitutional development, and that is why this breakaway—or splintering off or split, whatever one likes to call it—presents the hon. the Prime Minister with a golden opportunity to take a new intitiative, an intitiative in terms of which it can be said that the NP is now entering a period in which it is actively going to seek new formulas for power-sharing which can involve all the moderates in South Africa, for if it fails to do this, and if it attempts to work out a separate dispensation with Coloureds and Asians—perhaps with a minority of Coloureds and Asians—it is going to alienate the majority of the moderate Blacks. Then we shall eventually find ourselves in a situation where no peaceful and responsible constitutional or political debate can take place. This is the real danger which faces us, and we all know this when we consider the matter logically. The CP tells us “under no circumstances”, and to the right of them are the HNP and the AWB, which also say “under no circumstances”. On the other hand, there are those who say that if we do not seek a solution in terms of the formula of power-sharing, our fate will be sealed and we shall have lost the opportunities we had in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I can only say that what we have heard and seen this afternoon in this House, brings to mind what Milton wrote about one of the archdevils, Belial, in Paradise Lost. This refers in particular to the leader of the CP’s argumentation and presentation, and, it seems to me, to that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well. Milton writes of Belial—

During the past month or longer, it has been brought home to us that a phase of intense involvement of the world in the affairs of Southern Africa is at hand. If there is one favour which the breaking-away of the Treurnicht group has done Southern Africa, then it is that it has caused a re-evaluation of the role which the present Government has to play in the subcontinent. Allow me to quote what The Economist has to say in this regard—

This is the favour which these people have done Southern Africa. It has again drawn attention to the realities of this subcontinent. Fortunately, we can leave it to the authority of history to show that the purification in our ranks could contribute towards a greater wholesomeness, rather than to disaster for Southern Africa. Indeed, thus far history has, in any case, proved that a group whose basic thinking is founded on an opposing perception of the realities of the subcontinent, has, in any case, no contribution to make to the real responsibilities of the day. We on this side of the House believe that it is pointless to be pessimistic about something which one must live with. In fact, in the midst of the undeniable dangers in Africa, we see considerable possibilities in the new intensive mutual attention, interest, and even feeling which has developed between the West and the Republic of South Africa. If Africa is to be saved from sinking into a horrifying combination of starvation, political chaos and decline under the heel of Moscow’s local commissars, then greater and more intelligent Western involvement in Africa is needed, rather than the “handouts” of the past. The world has to begin somewhere, and it cannot act as teacher and moralist concerning the complexities of Africa if, in the process, it does not at least acquire a little knowledge and experience itself, which its own, different, past could not offer. In this regard the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government will very probably have to ask many blunt questions concerning past Western policy in Africa. However, we believe it will be possible to put these questions in a constructive spirit, questions concerning, for instance, a political morality such as that which has been applied to the White Government of the Republic of South Africa, but which has been conveniently ignored in the case of dictatorships in the remainder of the continent of Africa. South Africa has a tremendous potential as regards conveying knowledge about Africa to the rest of the world. It is just that we shall not always be able to guarantee that the learning process will be painless. One of the most important truths underlying the constellation concept is that the economic needs and the plight of the people cannot always be ignored in determining policies and inter-state relations. That is why we find that while the OAU is trying to impose a full-scale boycott against South Africa on its member countries, almost 50 of them are trading with South Africa to the tune of almost R5 billion per annum.

During the past two decades, 80% of the food production of independent Africa has decreased, while their population has increased by 66,6%. During the same period, the farmers of South Africa have doubled their food production, thereby being able to provide an important African country with 33,3% of its maize requirements in 1979. That same African country was still selfsufficient as far as this staple food is concerned three years previously. That same important African country’s gross domestic product has dropped by 46% in real terms, and its capital programme by 65%, while its one-man-one-vote population has lapsed into a situation of political chaos. According to a report which appeared in a publication of the International Labour Organization in November 1980, their decline began during the first six years of independence, “when resources were still plentiful”.

However, all the signs show that there is large-scale disillusionment in Africa. At the first economic conference which the Organization for African Unity held in its seventeenth year in 1980, the Secretary-General of that organization said—

There is hope, and in this regard the Republic of South Africa has the greatest role to perform. Although we do not wish to pretend that we have all the knowledge and all the means to save Africa, it is true that the people of the Republic of South Africa are better equipped to help overcome the obstacles in the way of development in Africa more effectively than any stranger on this continent. We have a wider understanding of the fundamental obstacles, of which I should like to mention only three here. The first is the communication problem. According to my information, there is no single African language with a vocabulary of more than 4 000 words.

The second obstacle is the traditional African system of communal land ownership. It appears that we in South Africa have already been able to deal with this problem in part in that we have succeeded in applying this system to profitable agriculture on a small scale with signal success.

The third and probably the greatest obstacle in the way of development in Africa, is the basic cultural differences between the white-faced and black-faced people. The black-faced people organize their existence in accordance with the “big family concept”, which they regard as the source of, and a point of departure for, the creation of wealth and status, while the white-faced people organize their development in accordance with a “personal achievement concept”. We know that these two concepts are not reconcilable. However, if there is a nation on the Continent of Africa which can assist in this regard—people who can furnish the best assistance—it is the people of the Republic of South Africa. It is necessary for us to realize that we in Africa, together with the West, are exposed to an enemy that lacks morality. In this atmosphere, and in these circumstances in the Southern African subcontinent, it is essential that each sympathetic South African assist the hon. the Prime Minister to carry the burden of his efforts to defuse tensions in Southern Africa. The overall image of the future is certainly not one of a country that will rest on its laurels and cling to old and obsolete practices; on the contrary, it is the image of a dynamic country which will tackle innovative tasks energetically and with an idealism that will inspire not only people within its own borders, but also people far beyond the borders of this country.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening the hon. member for Benoni, when he addressed the Committee—unfortunately he is not present here at the moment—said that the hon. member for Lichtenburg had referred to statements which he had made in this House during 1978. The hon. member also said that at the time when he made those statements he had not yet reached political maturity. I now wish to refer briefly to the statements of the same hon. member for Benoni in 1980. According to Hansard of Friday, 21 March 1980, col. 3252, the hon. member had the following to say—

Not in this Parliament.

The hon. member for Benoni went on to say, in the same column—

In 1980, therefore, the hon. member for Benoni told us that we had a simple choice—either power-sharing as the official Opposition proposed or division of power, as the NP proposed …

At the time.

… or a mixture of both, as the NRP proposed.

Was he referring to Black people or to Coloureds and Asiatics?

To Coloureds and Asiatics.

Was he referring there to Coloureds and Asiatics?

Now we have reached the stage where the NP accepts that same mixture of both, and I take it that that is the engagement ring which the NP is offering the NRP.

He was not referring to Asiatics and Coloureds there. He was referring to Black people.

What is more …

Was he referring to Black people or not? I challenge you. Show us where he referred to Coloureds and Asiatics.

… the hon. member for Benoni went on to say that the official Opposition had asked for a Select Committee to inquire into how discrimination in South Africa could be eliminated in all spheres, and the hon. member for Benoni said that they had the habit of demanding a plethora of Select Committees on any subject under the sun. He said that they were trying to introduce power-sharing by stealth. He accused the official Opposition of trying to introduce power-sharing in South Africa in an underhand way.

To whom was he referring? Was it to Black people or to Coloureds? [Interjections.]

We were accused of playing with words, but what is going on here? The standpoint has always been—and I think I am correct when I say this—…

And I say you are telling an untruth.

… that the President’s Council was established to give consideration to a new constitutional dispensation among Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics in South Africa; not to formulate policy but to make proposals. At the same time I have always accepted that every party in this House, including the party of which I was until very recently a member, had its own standpoint in this connection. The terms of reference of the President’s Council—this is how I understood the standpoint of the NP—were not to work out a policy for the National Party. [Interjections.] However, when I listen to my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House, I cannot but conclude that they are in fact waiting for the President’s Council to work out their policy for them.

Where is your policy?

What is more, we and the country have been told to wait for the proposals of the President’s Council. I wish to quote from a front page report in Beeld of Saturday, 27 February 1982, which referred to a so-called Cabinet minute. Apparently the minute was quoted verbatim in the report. I quote—

(2) Die Minister van Binnelandse Aangeleenthede kan voortgaan om in sy onderhandelinge met die Vise-staats-president die volgende beginselspunte van die Regering voor te hou …

[Interjections.] I do not know whether there was such a Cabinet resolution, but I should like to know from the hon. Minister of Internal Affairs whether he received an instruction to enter into negotiations with the Vice-State President on what would be acceptable to the Government as recommendations from the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

Just say “yes” or “no”.

According to Beeld the hon. the Minister did receive such an instruction. If one puts two and two together, surely it is clear why this struggle and the eventual rift occurred. They occurred because the ground was being prepared, in the ranks of the NP, for, and it was expected of us, in contrast to what we professed and in contrast to the mandate which we had on two occasions asked for and received from the people of South Africa—in regard to which we had told the voters that we rejected power-sharing—to accept power-sharing now—whether it was healthy or otherwise—as the policy of the NP. What is involved here is not a play on words; this is the reality of the situation. My friends on the opposite side …

You no longer have any friends.

Apparently I no longer have any friends on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] That would not surprise me. In 1977, as well as in 1981, the voters of South Africa went to the polls on the express understanding that the NP of the time rejected power-sharing as a standpoint. The NP has now deviated from that stance.

Mr. Chairman, one could elaborate at length on what the hon. member for Barberton said. In the 10 minutes at my disposal I just wish to say that I think that we should wait, within the National Party, until the proposals eventually come from the President’s Council. When we have them before us, we can discuss them with one another far more clearly.

It cost me a great deal to realize at last that at the moment there is nothing else to do and that these social reforms can be brought about within the framework of the NP. The Government committed itself to a thorough and expert enquiry into statutory reforms. For that purpose there was a special Cabinet Committee which has since August 1976 been obtaining advice and from extra parliamentary experts as well. Ministers Connie Mulder, Owen Horwood, Johan van der Spuy and M. C. Botha the four provincial leaders at that juncture and S. J. Steyn, with Hennie Smit as Secretary, and the hon. the Prime Minister as Chairman, were members of that Cabinet Committee.

I feel that at the present stage we should wait until political experts, people who honestly and earnestly have the interests of the Whites at heart, come forward. I feel, together with these hon. members with whom I have sat for a very long time, and that although I displayed great loyalty to the Transvaal leader as well, I should at this stage pledge my loyalty primarily to the National Party. It was not an easy decision. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that it was at the cost of many pangs of conscience, but I believe that I have made peace with my conscience because I have all my life had a tremendous loyalty and respect for the National Party.

I worked with many Prime Ministers. The Lord has been very good to me. I was correspondent for Die Burger at Stellenbosch where I received interesting statements from Dr. Malan, when he ultimately became leader of the Opposition. For many years I worked with the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd on the editorial staff of Die Transvaler. Finally I also accompanied Adv. Strijdom on many trips in the Transvaal, still as member of the editorial staff of Die Transvaler. I also worked with Minister Vorster for many years.

I can assure hon. members that personally it was not easy for me that day in the caucus to turn against the present Prime Minister. However, I felt that under the circumstances I would have liked to have had more of an opportunity to speak. I wanted to discuss this entire matter further. However, it was never a personal issue. I know the hon. the Prime Minister very well. When I was still a schoolboy, I helped him to establish branches of the Junior National Party in the Little Karroo. In the first place the issue for me today is not one of personalties, but of the interests of the National Party and the future of this nation. It was a struggle which each one of us had with our conscience, whether we should ultimately use the National Party and see whether the party could not eventually find a solution to this important matter. Then we could argue the issue with one another again.

Surely we are adult people, surely we are Afrikaners. I do not want to see this nation fragmented. I do not wish to see this nation eventually destroyed. Together with hon. members I wish to struggle in order to ensure that we become a model state in the world. In addition I hope that wisdom and insight may ultimately come to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and these hon. members so that we can make this nation and this country the most wonderful nation and country in the world.

That is why this Vote is very important to me this evening, because the National Party also has a Prime Minister. The party has always had a Prime Minister who tried to exercise leadership in the light of the circumstances and in the light of the wisdom and insight which God gave him. Since 1910 all the Prime Ministers we have had have been involved foreign affairs. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Information has developed to such an extent that it is a very important department today. It is under these circumstances that I want to tell hon. members tonight why I am so loyal to and so fond of the National Party.

It has been the National Party which has since 1924 been confronted by great challenges. It was the National Party which, in a confused world, began to lend its support to every major project. I am thinking of how the mining industry, the manufacturing industry and agriculture, reached great heights under the National Party régime. I know about the struggle which the Afrikaners also had in the cities. Although I was never a member of the Ossewabrandwag, I grew a beard in order to achieve the ultimate ideal of a republic. If I had wanted to be, I could easily have been embittered this evening, but I thrust out the hand of friendship. When a group of soldiers assaulted me in Johannesburg and almost beat me to death, that evening when they attacked Die Transvaler and Die Vaderland, I bore no bitter grudge.

For me it was the time to bring Afrikaners closer together. That is why I love the National Party. The National Party elevated Afrikaans to an official language. It brought the people a wonderful national anthem, and I believe that, in view of the challenges which the racial problem presents to us, it is still going to bring us solutions to the problems.

However, we must argue in a meaningful way, we must know that we have a task and a future in this country. We must not drive our people apart. We have a cause which is necessary to South Africa. It is the motto which says: “South Africa first” and “before the whole world free”. We emerged victorious in the struggle over constitutional issues. In the time of the British monarchy a question arose as to whether the crown could be spared. Eventually we had to decide about the abolition of the governor-generalship. There was also the appeal to the Privy Council, the question of British citizenship and eventually the creation of homelands and then the Republic, a long-cherished ideal which we achieved.

However, because we are part of Africa, we now have a need such as we have never had before. What the hon. member for Caledon said here this evening was very true. In another 18 years’ time we will have arrived at the year 2000, and according to calculations the Republic will then have to accommodate 40 million people. The population of Africa will then number 828 million.

That is why the hon. the Prime Minister has come forward, with wisdom and insight, and has tried hard, together with the private sector, to usher in a new era in our national life. One need only examine the new plans which originated at the Good Hope Conference. Just as Mr. Vorster, in his time, moved outwards into Africa to enter into relations with Africa, for example with Liberia, and with President Kaunda at the Bridge Conference, so I too believe that the present hon. Prime Minister will eventually use those diplomatic channels as well to bring home to Africa the idea that there is a message for darkest Africa, because the picture there is dark and sombre.

As the hon. member for Caledon said, the prospects are very very sombre. There is a downward trend, and if Africa loses, the Republic of South Africa also loses. The Third World cannot get any more money for development. It is the Third World which will eventually go under. Even the $1 800 million from Russia and from the Eastern Soviet Block can no longer save the Third World. Even France and the Scandinavian countries will no longer be able to save the Third World. The West and principally the USA, will not be able to save them. The great course is that we must sell ourselves to Africa. That is what is so important. The income of millions of people in Africa does not exceed $75 per year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what the last two speakers on the Government side, the hon. members for Caledon and Rosettenville said, was true. We are indeed living in times in which this House can never treat its responsibilities too seriously. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced the debate by pointing out that every Prime Minister in our history had stood for a good idea, regardless of whether that idea was successful, only partially successful, or did not succeed at all. Without looking for sympathy for myself this evening, I wish to say that never before at any stage in the history of South Africa since 1910 has a greater burden rested on the shoulders of the leader of the Government. [Interjections.]

That is absolutely true.

I listened with great interest this afternoon to the contributions from the ranks of the Opposition, and I do not wish to be reproachful because that is not the spirit in which I wish to reply to this debate. However, the tone of debates in this House will have to change if the task which rests on my shoulders at present is to be made at all lighter. One negative contribution after another was made here. In a certain sense, however, I have to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having at least opened the debate on a high level. I want to thank him for doing so. There are many things on which I do not agree with him, and he knows it. As far as our political views are concerned, we are diametrically opposed to one another. However, I want to thank him for having at least started off on a high level. But I cannot say the same about the contributions which were made by many hon. members on the Opposition side. It is clearly apparent that they display no understanding of the juncture in which South Africa finds itself at present. It is as if these things have passed them by, as if the practice of politics may simply be continued on a low level, as if we may prance unhindered through the woods like fairies, while world powers are combining in an attempt to decide South Africa’s future position in the world. It is therefore to be deplored that members of the Opposition Parties do not act with a greater sense of responsibility, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself started off on a high note.

It is also true that every leader, under the democratic system, must follow a path of disparagement. Unfortunately it is true that democracy has the inherent ability to destroy itself. This is true. Although it still remains the best form of government known to mankind, it bears in itself the seeds of a desire to destroy itself, because that which bears authority and responsibility, in a democracy, as we know it today, has to be destroyed, it has to be disparaged and belittled. I am not pleading for mercy from a single hon. member of the Opposition, regardless of which Opposition party he belongs to. However, I am asking that in a time such as this, greater responsibility should be displayed to our fatherland and to the truly important problems confronting us.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.