Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment yesterday evening I drew attention to the fact that although the Ministry of Internal Affairs has specific and particular responsibilities with regard to certain services that have to be rendered to the Coloured and Indian communities, the department also has a general responsibility with regard to the administration of the Constitution Act; a general responsibility therefore with regard to the other population groups that form part of the population of our country. I believe that from this it should be clear that every reform effort, every constitutional reform, may of course not only have a bearing on the Coloured or Indian population groups in our country, but must also affect the rights of other groups. I believe we must accept that constitutional reform must imply that the White sector of the population must surrender powers, which it exercises at present and which affect the lives of other population groups, to those specific population groups. It goes without saying that its powers will be affected.

Secondly, it is just as important to understand that in addition to the fact that it has to surrender powers, there will be powers it will have to share with other population groups. I believe that this is a tremendous responsibility which rests on the White sector of our country’s population. It is a tremendous responsibility for if the constitutional process in our country is to be evolutionary, if we are to find peaceful solutions to the relations problems of our country, it will have to be this population group that brings this about. I do not always get the impression that we really understand what our responsibilities in this regard are. It therefore seems to me as if our first task will have to be to persuade the White sector of the population, which to a great extent dominates the political scene in this country, of the merits of adaptation, constitutional and otherwise.

If the object of state restructuring in our country is to uphold the Christian and Western values of civilization in this country, we shall have to realize that this is going to affect the lives of Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. I believe the minimum prerequisite for upholding these values will consequently be the continued existence, security and feeling of security of the White sector of the population; not because the preservation of their rights is a goal in itself, but because the preservation of these values depend on their continued existence and security. We must have no doubts about that.

†I should like to remind hon. members of these words of Walter Lippmann—

Lippmann was a great liberal, of course!

Yes, I am not suggesting that a liberal cannot advocate views with which I am able to agree. [Interjections.]

†I should, however, like to point out that we in this country are essentially struggling with the question of government, with the problem of government. To define it more precisely and specifically, I should say that we are engaged in a process of endeavouring to evolve a system of government which would, in the first instance, guarantee the greatest measure of stability, in the second place, the greatest measure of equity, and thirdly, the greatest measure of participation by all segments of our population in the processes of government, in the interest of our society.

*If I understand this correctly it seems to me that what we as political parties in this House must discuss with one another—and what the Government itself must also do—is the determining of the aspirations of the population of the country, of the various population groups in the country. I want to assert that the governing party’s reaction—and indeed this ought to be the case with all the other political parties in this House—to the expectations and aspirations of the population and of the population groups in this country depends in the first place on the view the Government or a political party, if it is not the ruling party, has of the population structure of the country. One of the greatest and most fundamental differences which exist between hon. members of this House concerns the view which the various political parties have of the population structure of the country. In the 17th and 18th centuries the actions of governments were influenced by the general distinction between Christians and heathen. Up to the 20th century the view which governments had of the Whites, namely to see them as Europeans, was of decisive importance and consequently played a very important role. At the same time a simplistic or oversimplified view of the White/non-White position, without recognition being given to the cultural and ethnic differences, is still, in our political set-up today, one of the greatest single stumbling-blocks in the way of accommodating the aspirations of the various groups in innumerable spheres.

In my opinion there is, at this stage, one specific responsibility we cannot escape, namely that we must accept that we have reached a stage where this view must reflect the actuality of the South African situation, and I am sure hon. members will agree with me that a basic reality of this country’s population is its diversity, or if hon. member’s prefer, its plurality of structure. This has been the outstanding feature of the population of South Africa since its colonization in 1652. However, this was not only the outstanding feature, but also the most important influencing factor on the political, social and economic development of our country. Hon. members who listened to yesterday’s debate must inevitably have concluded that our politics and debates were dominated by the same factors that have applied since the colonization of South Africa began. Is it not true that the political history of this country is a long series of attempts to escape some or other form of domination? In the first place attempts were made to escape from foreign domination and afterwards from group domination, and the real issue at present is whether it is possible in this country to escape the problem of domination of one group by another. That is why I feel it is no use blaming one another for the course of history. It is no use scoring points off each other in this regard. The truth of the matter is that today we are grappling with precisely the same problem.

The population of South Africa does not consist only of Whites and Blacks. The Whites are subdivided into ethnic and language groups. In many cases the life-styes of Whites are poles apart. In their turn the Black people are divided into different nations, and the Coloured section of our population comprises a diversity of groups.

How do we react to the expectations of the people in this country, and what is the nature and origin of the aspirations we must try, if possible, to accommodate? In a multinational and multiracial community such as the one in South Africa it obviously goes without saying that the various groups will not cherish the same ideals and have the same expectations. Frequently the expectations of one group can only be satisfied at the expense of those of another group. A great number of factors influence the expectations and ideals which people cherish for themselves. I want to suggest that the churches, the media, the education system, the advertising industry and, last but not least, the setting of an example, play a role in this. I need not remind hon. members of the tremendous demonstration effect the way of life and standards of the Whites have on the expectations of other population groups. It is obvious that the example set by Whites will have a tremendous effect on other groups. The fact that other population groups are striving to achieve the standard of living of the Whites could have a stabilizing effect on our country, but it could also have a destabilizing effect. I shall tell hon. members in what way this could have a destabilizing effect. If other population groups in this country do not understand the responsibilities that these privileges entail, this could have a destabilizing effect, and I think this could happen. I am not saying this in a spirit of reproach, but if they do not realize what great inputs of hard work and discipline are required in order to maintain a higher standard of living, this might well happen. In brief, what do I mean by this? I mean that these expectations could be misused by agitators by arousing grievances among frustrated people. Is this not what we are experiencing in practice today? In these complex circumstances a potentially explosive situation could become dangerous owing to the fostering of unattainable expectations. There are left-wing political forces—I have no one in particular in mind now—who consider the Whites in this country to be expendable and who in fact begrudge the White man his right to live here. There are people who have reached the simplistic conclusion that the Whites are only here temporarily. There are people in South Africa who are trying to play the political game of a potential winner and who propagate the view that there can only be one possible winner in this country. If we do not take these circumstances into consideration when we debate matters here, Parliament will not only be failing to perform its duty but will not be able to fulfil its regulating function of development either.

Wittingly or unwittingly there are elements in the ranks of the Whites as well who propound this foolish belief. Allow me to say at once that at the opposite extreme we have the political ideas of those shortsighted people who cherish and propagate the aspirations of eternal White domination (baas-skap) over, and the permanent subservience of, other nations. These people see everything that is being done to realize and fulfil the legitimate demands and expectations of the other sectors of our population as a threat to their privileged position. They evidently do not realize that their attitude is completely irreconcilable with the Christian principles they themselves preach and that their views and attitudes are in fact a mortal danger to the peaceful co-existence of nations in our fatherland. I think it is fair to accept that an overall objective in our country is surely the preservation of the values to which I have referred, to further them and to improve the standard of living and welfare of the entire population. I want to emphasize that in the political sphere the Whites are set on maintaining the sovereignty of South Africa as an independent State and will brook no outside interference in the decisions that have to be taken here. They are also intent on ensuring that after the constitutional development process has run its course they will still retain a say over the circumstances of their own lives and their future. I submit that these are minimum expectations. Yesterday the hon. member Prof. Olivier said that any debate we conducted here on constitutional development in all spheres was to a great extent a debate which was in reality taking place in a vacuum because, as he put it, we are all tensely awaiting the recommendations of the President’s Council on constitutional development, more specifically of those groups to which I referred. I want to say at once that I differ with the hon. member. I maintain that it is important and essential that the various political parties in this House should formulate and articulate their respective standpoints clearly so that everyone may know what criteria and requirements they will use in assessing any recommendations the President’s Council may make. This does not mean that I am advocating an unbending attitude which will make negotiation impossible, but I feel that we in this House owe it to each other to spell out to one another our respective standpoints on this all-important question that will determine the future of this country.

All the parties who served on the Constitution committee resolved unanimously that all parties and groups that may be affected by the proposed constitutional dispensation must participate in the investigation into the constitutional proposals, must be able to discuss them, must be able to persuade each other to accept certain proposals and must be able to make recommendations on such proposals. None of the parties opposed this recommendation and the acceptance of this specific recommendation is of tremendous importance because it has far-reaching implications for the political parties, for the members who served on that Constitutional committee and for the country in general. Why did we unanimously accept that recommendation? We explained this at the time, namely to raise the level of acceptability of the proposals. Certain things result from this, in the first place that acceptability must, to the relevant groups, be an important element with regard to the contents of the proposals. It cannot be otherwise. There is however a second result; namely that whatever the recommendations may be, dealing with these recommendations implies negotiations between the groups affected by them. It cannot be otherwise, and unilateral standpoints cannot immediately be put. I feel the recommendations have the following important implications for our debate: Firstly the acceptance that there will be a joint decision-making in respect of the recommendations by all the groups represented on the President’s Council, because as far as the recommendations are concerned they will decide jointly what those recommendations will be, preferably on the basis of consensus or unanimity; secondly, the acceptance by all parties, including the official Opposition, of the existence of the different groups in our country and their right to be consulted on and to participate on a group basis in the deliberations on the constitution; thirdly, this is the first time in the history of this country that all the parties are agreed that a multi-racial body should participate in a process of constitutional reform. There has never been one before. Fourthly, there is the symbolic value to the communities in this country that flows from these implications and the positive message this has for relations in this country. I have said this before and I am saying it again today, because we are experiencing it in this House, that the emotional restrictions in regard to reform and adjustment in every sphere of life—socially, economically and politically—represents the greatest single stumbling-block in the way of progress in a society such as ours. We cannot close our eyes to this. I am not condoning racism, I am not condoning prejudice, I am not condoning unjust discrimination. I am appealing to others not to condone these things, but the fact remains that I cannot ignore the existence of these elements in terms of the decision-making and the progress which has to be made in these specific areas.

I agree that we must make every effort to increase the acceptability of proposals for constitutional adjustments. However, I just want to point out that the acceptability of our constitutional proposals can only be increased in this country if the acceptance of one another by people and groups can also be increased.

May I ask you a question.

Certainly.

Sir, when the hon. the Minister says that emotional restrictions are the greatest stumbling-blocks, is he referring to those aspects he has just mentioned, i.e. racism, prejudice, etc.?

Yes. Of course there are also positives, such as culture and tradition. There are many others and they all have an emotional content. I would say that we must appeal to the common sense and to the emotions of people in this country. We cannot only appeal to one of them. In this country we have people with hot heads and cold hearts, for other people, whereas we need cool heads and warm hearts. This does not only apply to one population group or to one political party, but to everyone, including me.

I am in agreement with what the hon. member for Randburg said when I say that the period we are entering are going to make tremendous demands on the leaders in this country. They are also going to make tremendous demands on the quality of leadership in this country. If every leader of every group demands the maximum for his group and they are not prepared to negotiate with one another but formulate totally irreconcilable political standpoints and if they are not prepared to appeal to their own people to scale down their demands and expectations and bring them into line with the country’s capacity, we shall not come through the test of leadership. Then we shall not be able to make progress. I can tell you now that under such circumstances a peaceful solution is not possible.

Our country simply does not have a capacity to meet all our selfish demands, whether they be financial or political.

In passing I want to make an appeal to all leaders to refrain from adopting a disapproving standpoint on reports we are still awaiting, so that people will have the opportunity to consider these reports in a climate of reasonableness.

We on this side have adopted a standpoint as far as the political aspect is concerned. Hon. members may disagree with us but they can judge us by the standpoints we have adopted. They can even try to convince us to change our standpoints in a specific respect. I have never felt it is a disgrace to be persuaded to adopt a better standpoint, because that would imply that I know everything. A political party which does not have the ability to identify the circumstances of the times, over which it frequently has no control whatsoever, and to adjust its policy in the light of those circumstances, perishes in the same way that everything else that fails to adapt does. We on this side of the House are not prepared to devote ourselves to museum politics.

Our standpoint on the Coloured people, the Asians and the Whites is that they live in the same country, but in the interests of maintaining orderly communities they live in their own areas and residential areas, not because they are in any way inferior one to another, but because the policies of the State require this maintaining of orderliness to prevent contact which leads to clashes.

Now you are spoiling a good speech.

No, not at all.

*We also adopted a second standpoint, namely that there can only be one central decision-making or government body in this country. We have already taken a stand on this matter.

In the third place, we have also adopted the standpoint that all groups are entitled to share in the decision-making processes in their own country. However, we have gone further and said that this does not imply that there must be only one government institution, but that if we take into account the reality of the population structure, we shall see that there should be a multiplicity of institutions within which people should have the right, in the first place, to decide about their own affairs, but that institutions should also be established in which people can accept responsibility together and decide together about matters of common interest. I shall come back to this in a few moments.

It has often been said that parliamentary institutions will be established on the one hand to enable people to decide about their own affairs, and, on the other hand, to decide about matters of common interest, and that the one will not have any say over the decisions of the other, but that the executive head of the country must be able to take the final decision if it is not possible to avoid conflicts between the institutions. We can be faulted on that standpoint, but no-one can quarrel with us about it.

This brings me to the hon. member for Waterberg. I am sorry he is not here.

He tenders his apologies.

I accept them. This hon. member adopted a standpoint on Wednesday. He did it in public, for, saying, among other things, what part I was supposed to have played in the interpretation of what I have just described. Therefore I should like to suggest something for the sake of the record. I am also saying this in response to what the hon. member for Rissik said about integrity in politics. He said yesterday that they would have to prove their political morality. I should like to talk about that. I should not like to talk ad hominem, except where I have no choice. The hon. member will have to regard it in that light. I should like to speak in the spirit in which the hon. member for Rissik spoke, because he did not speak in an irresponsible spirit, and I say this although I disagree with him. Since the hon. member for Waterberg decided that his political legs had grown strong enough for him to get off the NP’s back, it would have been reasonable to expect him—this is what I maintain—to explain to us in unequivocal terms, for the first time in his career in representatvie politics, his political credo, his idea, his solutions to the relations problems which are caused by this South African society. The hon. member was a member of the National Party and of the National Government for years, but because I had no access to his conscience, and had to accept that his continued membership of the party of necessity implied that he fully identified himself with the principle, the policy and the interpretation of the policy of the NP, I could never tell him that he had never really identified himself with its substance, that he had never identified himself with the 1977 proposals—and I do not necessarily mean the model, but the substance—and that he had never identified himself with the Government’s search for methods to enable population groups other than just the Whites to participate in a meaningful way in the political decision-making processes of this country. I am saying so now. My charge against the hon. member for Waterberg is not that he has changed his standpoint, because I do not believe that he has.

The morality is all on your side, isn’t it?

My charge against the hon. member is that he remained in the NP and joined the NP Government, the Cabinet, while not subscribing to NP policy. I want to allege today—and I do so with the greatest hesitation—that there is only one explanation for this, and that is the political expediency practised by the hon. member.

One would say you were the only Christian in the country.

He did this while knowing that he had never accepted the principles of the party and the policy of the party to which he formally subscribed through his presence. One need not regard this as an inference I have drawn. Hon. members have only to examine the hon. member’s speeches and remarks in which he differed fundamentally with the previous Prime Minister. Now he is turning it into an issue, as though different interpretations were now being given to these things. I shall come back to this.

Why did you keep him in the Government for so long then?

Because I accept the bona fides of any hon. member and because, as I have said, I cannot act as an hon. member’s conscience.

When it suits you.

I think the hon. members opposite must find it difficult to live with their own consciences.

Let me say that few people thought highly of the hon. member’s political judgment. Few people thought highly of his knowledge of statecraft and of the constitutional requirements of the times. However, I am not even questioning that. I simply do not like his political methods. I have said that it is reasonable to expect any hon. member of the House to formulate his standpoint. It is the responsiblity of every hon. member to do so. I think it is also the responsiblity of the hon. member for Waterberg, even if it is an unfamilar exercise for him, to state unequivocally what his standpoint is and how he intends to accommodate the legitimate demands of the other population groups in the constitutional dispensation of the country.

The hon. member for Waterberg spoke in the Second Reading debate on the budget and he was asked what his proposals in this particular connection were. He said there was plenty of time to reply to that. He said that the Prime Minister’s Vote or the Internal Affairs Vote would afford him an opportunity of doing so. But he has still not done so. However, he can no longer do so, because the hon. member for Rissik said yesterday that they would formulate their policy for accommodating these people in the months ahead.

What did “Nak” say at Mossel Bay? [Interjections.]

Meanwhile, they split the NP over things they do not know about, over things they still have to formulate. Allow me to point out in passing that we really must not violate the truth in this way.

Who is violating the truth?

You are! [Interjections.]

I am simply saying that we should not violate the truth. After all, hon. members of the CP left the NP of their own free choice. I have the letter of resignation of the hon. member for Kuruman in my pocket.

Oh, really! Shame! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterkloof can say “Oh, really!” and “Shame!” if he likes. It is typical of him, anyway.

Chris, read out the letter to us! [Interjections.]

I am saying this now because I hope that this will be the last time I have to talk about the matter. [Interjections.] No purpose is served by the bickering of the hon. member for Waterberg about who said what when. He should rather stop doing that, because he differed on fundamental policy standpoints with the man—and I say this with all due respect—who brought him into the Government, and because, furthermore, he did not agree with the man who brought him into his Cabinet either. His contribution—and if the contrary can be proved to me, I shall apologize for having said this—his only contribution to the political debate is the standpoint which he adopted in this House last Wednesday, namely—and now hon. members must listen carefully—that it does not constitute power-sharing when the Whites or members of the NP form the majority group in a constitutional institution, while the other people, the other population groups, represent minorities. This means, in other words, that I do not share power in this House with the hon. member Prof. Olivier. According to the definition of the hon. member for Waterberg, we do not share power.

Oh, no! [Interjections.]

Surely that was what the hon. member for Waterberg said. [Interjections.] Of course he said that. Therefore we do not share power with the hon. member for Waterberg. According to his definition of power-sharing, we do not share power with him. That is a fact. In the first place, this standpoint has no juridical foundation whatsoever. In the second place, it is an insult to the insight and judgment of the other population groups which we propose should participate in the process of political decision-making, because it implies in advance that in the Council of Cabinets, where decisions would be taken about matters of common interest, the Whites would adopt a particular standpoint and would have nothing in common with the other groups, who would adopt a different standpoint. What kind of statecraft is this?

However, let us suppose that this simplified view is correct, and that when it comes to adopting standpoints about specific matters, there will not be any common ground between the population groups that have a great deal in common with one another, and that the Whites would inevitably enforce a decision by virtue of their superior numbers. What then? According to the analysis of power-sharing given by the hon. member for Waterberg, therefore, we are now free to bring Coloured people, Blacks and Asians into this House, as long as they are in the minority. Then we shall not be sharing power with them. Surely that is an inevitable conclusion. [Interjections.] What nonsense are we talking, at a time when we are supposed to be examining the politics of this country seriously and realistically? [Interjections.]

I am referring to the hon. member for Waterberg because he, and every other hon. member of the CP, has failed to adopt a standpoint on the way in which Coloured people and Indians should be accommodated in the political decision-making process. That is why the hon. member is also unable to say where he disagrees with the NP. What is the result? When they appear on platforms, hon. members of the CP stay as close as possible to the NP. Surely that is a fact. But do you know, Mr. Chairman, what the actual driving force behind the hon. member for Waterberg is? The driving force behind him is White selfishness, White exclusiveness, White greed. I submit today that what the hon. members of the CP are advocating is nothing but domination over those people. They stand for only one thing, and that is the permanent reduction of those people to a position of subservience. I am an Afrikaner, and I make no apology for being one. But what is the hon. member for Waterberg doing as an Afrikaner? He wants to protect the identity and political power of the Afrikaner in a way which is prejudicial to other population groups. He does not understand that the survival of the White people and of the Afrikaners, and their identity as well, will depend on their ability to come to an agreement with other population groups, if possible, about the nature of the political dispensation in which their legitimate expectations can also be satisfied. That hon. member does not understand this, Sir.

Last Wednesday the hon. member accused me of being responsible for the fact that the word “consultation” had gradually been replaced by the concept of “joint decision-making”. Why does the hon. member tell such a lie? Would those hon. members not rather examine the statements of the previous Prime Minister? I adhere to those statements.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that another hon. member of this House has told a lie? Is that parliamentary conduct?

It is not unparliamentary. The hon. the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Allow me to say at once that I would have regarded it as an honour if I had in fact been responsible for it, but I do not want to take the credit which is actually due to others.

Like the Information scandal.

In my opinion, the publication which the CP now has is an information scandal. [Interjections.]

I want to quote only one idea expressed by Mr. Vorster, although I do not believe one should actually quote him. On 22 August 1977 Mr. Vorster said—

The hon. member for Brakpan should look up the definition of “power-sharing”. [Interjections.] If he does not want to do it, however, I shall do it for him. I am perfectly willing to do it for him, because I should like to help him; after all, he used to be a friend of mine. Here is the political definition of the word “magsdeling”—“power-sharing”—and the hon. member was trained in political science, after all, so I am now addressing him specifically, man to man. This definition says—

This is the political definition of the word “magsdeling”—“power-sharing”. Does he agree with it? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I really do not know whether we are going to succeed, but if we do not, I shall be prepared to admit that. I shall also be prepared to make my standpoint known to hon. members, even if it differs from theirs. However, if there is a solution, I believe that it should be a democratic solution in so far as we can achieve this. Furthermore, I believe that the political system in which this solution is to be embodied should meet the highest requirements of fairness and justice, as well as the requirements of effective decision-making and government. Of course justice is a high priority in the country, but it cannot be achieved without the maintenance of law and order, and therefore law and order is also one of our top priorities. Of course, we shall have to seek solutions along the road of consultation and negotiation, as the President’s Council and other bodies are in fact doing. Hoever, we must undertake to respect people, and it must not be lip service only. We must be guided by that principle in our actions. We shall have to recognize people’s claims to a voice and to a joint say in terms of the guidelines which the NP adopted under the leadership of the previous hon. Prime Minister and which have been reaffirmed by the present Prime Minister.

I come now to the hon. member for Brakpan. This hon. member asked me yesterday whether I agreed with a statement he had made, i.e. that self-determination was only relative in international law and that it was absolute in constitutional law. I want to say at once that I do not agree with the hon. member. I want to go further and to say that the hon. member has committed a fundamental error of reasoning. The hon. member will agree with me—this is not a quiz, but I would be glad if the hon. member would give me an indication of whether he agreed or not—that absolute self-determination implies exclusive and final control over all matters which affect one. Is that correct?

Yes, over that which belongs to one.

All matters which affect one. It is the policy of the Government that there should be self-determination in respect of all matters that are peculiar to a specific group. This means that as far as that decision-making is concerned, there is no power-sharing, but every group decides for itself. Therefore, as far as this aspect is concerned, there can be no question of assigning a value to self-determination.

However, the hon. member does not want to reserve self-determination for the Whites only in respect of those things which affect the Whites alone. He wants to reserve it for the Whites also in respect of those things which affect other population groups. This amounts to the domination of one group by another. Avoiding this—if I understood the hon. member correctly, he said he also wanted to avoid it—is in fact the central issue in South African politics, and that is what the present political debate in South Africa is concerned with. A policy such as the one propagated by the hon. member cannot guarantee the security of the Whites, after all. On the contrary, such a policy would destroy it. Such a policy, as interpreted by the hon. member, cannot accommodate similar demands by other population groups inhabiting the same country. Such a policy cannot accommodate these. In terms of such a policy, there is a total conflict of demands, and this will lead to oppression and violence, and in the long run to the destruction of the right to self-determination of the Whites.

I should like to take this argument further before I proceed to other matters. Surely the hon. member knows that the legal relationship between States is regulated by international law. Therefore international law recognizes the State as the subject of the legal system concerned, and as in any other legal system, the rights of the subject States of the system concerned are determined and limited by the rights of the other subject of international law. When the right to self-determination of a particular nation finds expression in statehood within a country and one could say of a State that it is the citizen of international law, it is correct to say that the rights of the State are relative, and on that I agree with the hon. member.

That is correct …

But unfortunately, the hon. member did not stop there, but went on to say that in terms of constitutional law this was absolute, and there I beg to differ. As against the position of international law, the inter-group relations within a particular State with a population such as ours, a heterogeneous population, are regulated by constitutional law. The hon. member agrees with that. If a particular constitutional dispensation tries to give effect to the right to self-determination of specific ethnic groups within the State without the creation of a multiplicity of States, that right to self-determination must necessarily be relative because other groups in the same constitutional dispensation have to exercise their right to self-determination in a similar way.

Mr. Chairman, may I just enquire of the hon. the Minister how he is going to defuse the power struggle in such a situation.

I shall be glad to answer the hon. member. The fact is that the hon. member wishes to exercise control through domination. My proposals, which are being considered by the President’s Council, are that we should create institutions where people can decide about their own affairs, and that we should then create institutions, executive and legislative, where people can decide jointly about matters of common interest, and that mechanisms should be created for resolving any conflict between those parliamentary institutions. Surely the hon. member knows that it was our proposal that it should eventually rest with the executive State President to give the final decision, with the consent of any one of the parliamentary institutions.

That is White domination.

No, it is not White domination. He could do it with the consent of the Coloured Parliament.

Theoretically, yes.

But surely we are discussing the constitutional law of the country. I have answered the hon. member’s question. But I am not arguing the point with him. I am arguing with him about his concepts of constitutional law. The hon. member wants it both ways. He says it is domination, and if it is domination, why did he leave? Then he could have exercised his domination much more easily, after all, and in much better company, too.

Do you accept that it is White domination?

Of course not. The hon. member is an intelligent member. He does not say things without a reason. One has to read what he says. The hon. member’s refusal to accept this simple truth of relativity, in constitutional law as well, in a population structure such as ours, is of enormous significance. He is concealing this because they have not yet fully formulated their policy. They are going to do so in the months ahead. If self-determination had to be granted to the various peoples in the South African body politic according to his model, as many States would have to be created as there are groups. That is what is really at issue. Do hon. members know where that would get us? Back to the homelands of the HNP! If the hon. member wishes to propagate this, he has every right to do so. But he must tell us so. Then we can conduct a reasonable debate. But why has the hon. member acquired the bad habit, during the past month or two, of concealing his thoughts behind words?

Do not be insulting.

I am not being insulting. [Interjections.] Just wait a minute. I shall tell you why this was not the case before. The hon. member knows that what I am saying is true.

Finally, I come to the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member has come a long way in his political thinking, but what he said yesterday was a drastic, sensational departure from his party’s policy. To the hon. member Prof. Olivier I say: The people in his party are also making progress. What did the hon. member for Green Point say? I find this very interesting indeed, because we must remember that one of the reasons why the PFP rejected participation in the President’s Council was the exclusion of Blacks. However, I have never seen people look forward with such eager anticipation to the recommendations of a body which they reject.

The hon. member said yesterday that what they expected was that the Coloured people and the White people should have the same say over the future of the Black people.

No.

Yes, the hon. member should go and read his speech in Hansard.

But you must not quote it out of context.

No, I am not quoting it out of context. It is true.

I say that the hon. member for Green Point is making progress, for in saying that, he is advocating a very important departure from the convention envisaged by his party. I want to make only one further remark, as I shall reply to the points of discussion in detail at a later stage.

I come now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think that of late, the tone of the debates in this House has been far more reasonable than before. This is my honest opinion. It applies to all sides, and I believe it is to the credit of this House. Having said this, there is one thing I want to say to the hon. leader. I can understand that they have taken some malicious pleasure in the breakaway. What is very important, however, is the point which is at issue. The hon. member Prof. Olivier need not be uneasy; I am not being insulting. The point at issue is power-sharing. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows, after all, that his model cannot bring about power-sharing in the country; his model amounts to domination through force and the destruction of any freedom and rights.

That is not true.

We can debate the matter at a later stage.

Yes, certainly.

I thank him for that assurance.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that one of my colleagues will react to the speech of the hon. the Minister and deal with the points raised by him at a later stage.

The hon. the Minister devoted a good deal of his speech to the future constitutional framework and its planning. Indeed, this subject has been debated at great length. While we are discussing the constitutional dispensation and the plans that are being devised for it, we must not forget that there are people in the Coloured and Indian community who are faced with daily problems and are trying to cope with them.

In this regard I want to return in particular to educational problems in the Coloured community of Natal in general and in the Durban area specifically. Yesterday the hon. member for De Kuilen said that unique opportunities were being created for the Coloureds in the field of education. I think that his statement was a little exaggerated, for what does the picture look like when one looks at the matriculation results.

†When we look at the results of the matriculation examinations of the Coloured community, a completely different picture to the one painted by the hon. member for De Kuilen emerges. The precentage of matriculants in the Coloured community who obtained a matriculation exemption was a disastrous 15%, and 43% of the Coloured matriculation students who entered for the examinations failed. I believe that this was one of the worst results ever.

That was last year. Why don’t you give the reasons for it?

What are the reasons for this? They show that there is something inherently wrong with the system in respect of that education, and I shall try to explain why. It was necessary for the hon. the Minister to appoint a three-man committee at the beginning of this year to investigate the causes and circumstances that influenced this bad examination result. This committee examined this problem and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the committee has now concluded its deliberations. If so, I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in the interests of all the anxious Coloured parents and the students themselves he will be prepared to indicate to us in this House what the committee’s findings were and also what the Government intends doing in order to avoid similar problems in the future if they have been identified.

The parents ask themselves: Why such disastrous results? I came across an example of an English-speaking Coloured student in the Durban area who throughout his school career had passed English as a subject in every year and then, in the matriculation examination at the end of last year, obtained the symbol GG which is between 20% and 24%. How can this be explained? How is this possible? This is the type of result that was obtained in the case of numerous Coloured students in the Durban area. The findings of this committee should be made available to school principals and to school committees so that their worries can be stilled as far as possible.

We know of course that other problems exist in the education field as well and I am thinking here of the matriculation results that came out in two bursts, as it were. Firstly, the original results appeared and then, a few days later, many, many matriculation students received amended results. These were not formally amended results, but amended results in that the original symbol was simply deleted in pencil and another one substituted. This happened in many cases. How can such a matriculation student possibly approach a future employer and convince that employer that this is a genuine, bona fide matriculation certificate if alternations have been made to that certificate in pencil? This indicates the highhanded manner in which these matriculation students and their parents have been dealt with. That is the general feeling among the Coloured population. They feel that they are not being taken seriously and that they are a discarded people as far as the education system is concerned.

Another problem that I should like to raise relates to the timing of the results themselves. The examination results of the Coloured students appeared well after those of the White and Indian students had been published. Inevitably, that resulted in the Coloured students being third in fine when it came to obtaining worthwhile employment. Why in the case of a group that is comparatively small did it take so long for the examination results to appear? Can this be prevented in future? Cannot they appear at the same time as those of the other matriculation students in South Africa so that these students can compete on an equal basis? In this case, because of the late results, it was found that the few who passed, discovered that the best positions had already been taken and they had to make do with what was left. As far as the parents and the students are concerned, the leaks that occurred have also not been explained. These leaks occurred in the Cape Province and, as a result, all Coloured matriculants throughout the country had to suffer in that papers had to be re-written. What steps have been taken and will be taken to prevent future leaks?

There are further problems and questions about moderators and examiners. Questions have been asked about their qualifications and experience. Rumours that are rife amongst the parents have it that university students do the marking. I have received information from the department that this is not the case, but will the hon. the Minister again state what the qualifications of the moderators and examiners of matriculation examination papers are? Are they taken solely from the Coloured community, or do Whites and Indians also take part in the marking of matriculation papers?

I believe that the centralization of stocks and stock depots is also something that is proving to be a great handicap to schools in the Durban area, for example. I am informed that for the smallest piece of equipment lengthy correspondence has to be entered into, and the item then has to be sent from Cape Town to Natal. Last year, for example, there was the example of a big Railway truck arriving at one school with a feather-duster that had been sent from Cape Town because it was from there that it had to be requisitioned. I also believe that until recently toilet paper also had to be requisitioned from Cape Town.

That must make things very difficult. I am talking about toilet paper.

I believe that the situation in regard to toilet paper has been changed. [Interjections.] To me that does not suggest efficiency, because it results in long delays and in students and teachers suffering as a result. Is it not possible to create a depot in the Natal or Durban area where stocks of equipment that is required from time to time can be stored, rather than having one central depot in the Cape Town region?

A regional representative is situated in Durban, but one finds that whenever parents or school committees make approaches in order to obtain information, or to pass on problems, those problems or questions cannot be dealt with. It seems that the relevant address is only that of a post office box, and I wonder whether it is not possible to have someone that is more directly involved or linked with the Cape Town office so that he can be the prime source of information for the local committees, parents, etc. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat presented a long diatribe on the bad results of the Coloured matriculation pupils. He should not look for the causes on this side of the House, however. Nor should he look for them in the Government or the system. He should look for them among his own people who are fomenting the boycotts among the Coloureds, with the result that they stay away from school for three, four or five months every year.

That was a few years ago.

One cannot expect any pupil or student who misses three or four months’ schooling in any year to obtain the same results as those who diligently carry on with their studies throughout the year. [Interjections.] However, he can obtain that information from other people because I do not have time to duscuss it any further with him.

I shall tell you all about it just now.

I want to turn to the hon. member for Rissik now who tried yesterday to be so pious here by alleging that the standards of censorship had been lowered because the book Kennis van die Aand by André Brink had been unbanned. Shame, the poor hon. member for Rissik does not even have kennis van die dag (knowledge of the day). How would he have kennis van die aand (knowledge of the night)? [Interjections.] The book Kennis van die Aand never deserved the recognition it received as a result of the ban on its distribution. If the book had not been banned, far fewer people would have read it and the Connies and the Van der Merwes would not even have known about the book. Talking about censorship: We are fed-up to the gills with all the unnecessary and childish censorship in this country, which in actual fact is quite counterproductive.

Let us consider two examples. No one under the age of 17 or 18 may buy the book and the book may not be sold to such a person either. This is a ridiculous decision which could never be enforced. It will only stimulate the curiosity and the eagerness to read it among the youth. The Publications Board over-reacted and afforded the book a status and saleability which it would otherwise never have had.

The second example is Magersfontein, O Magersfontein! Why was such a good book ever banned in this country? As regards the few four-letter words in the book, 60% of our children know those words before they go to school in any case. The other 40% get to know them before they reach Standard 2. The book did in fact poke subtle fun at, and satirized the kind of person Connie and the hon. member for Rissik are, but then, are we really so pious that we could not even look into the mirror? Are we afraid of our own faces? I believe that as far as censorhsip is concerned, we should act in a more mature manner and take less notice of the immature, illiterate and sanctimonious elements among us.

When the President’s Council was constituted there was opposition and a boycott movement on the part of the Progs and certain Coloured leaders. Now, before any proposals have yet been put forward, there are once again opposition and boycott movements on the part of the CP and other right-wing elements, as well as among some Coloured and Indian leftists. However, the greatest problem is yet to come, viz. Black urbanization. The Blacks are moving to our towns and cities. It need not be a disaster if we are prepared for it, if we deal with it and channel it correctly and are geared to it in good time. I personally believe that before we shall be able to make any progress with the Blacks, it will be a prerequisite for the Whites, Coloureds and Asians to sort out their own domestic affairs and find, understand and trust one another. We first have to clarify our own future with one another. Without fear and suspicion of one another we shall together be more capable of taking meaningful and fair decisions when we negotiate with the urban Blacks on their future. We cannot solve all our problems simultaneously and no instant solutions will be found either. It will, instead be an ongoing process.

†In the latest Sunday Times it is reported that a Mr. Yellan Chinsamy, leader of the Reform party, Natal, said—

So I ask, Sir: Why should co-operation between White, Brown and Indian be interpreted as a threat to or as being at the expense of the Africans? It would be beneficial to the Black man and to the future of the country as a whole if White, Indian and Coloured could find a solution to accommodate their own aspirations. The threats are in fact coming from the other side, the threats aimed at stopping this co-operation for personal and selfish reasons. Little do those people realize that, if a just solution is not found between White, Coloured and Indian, there is no future for anyone else in the country either.

*That is why I maintain that co-operation between these three groups is a prerequisite for any further co-operation between groups and nations in this country and for solutions to the problems affecting them. The Black people should not interfere with these domestic affairs of our three groups. Indian, Coloured and White people should also not allow themselves to be intimidated into not looking after the interests of their own people.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central stood here like a windmill pumping away at a dry and empty hole—borehole that is—in an attempt to pump out a few drops of poison with regard to the NP and the Coloureds.

†So too did the hon. member for Sea Point. He said we could not whitewash our past and what we had done to the Coloureds. He became quite hysterical about the whole matter. The hon. member for Sea point, however, reminds me very much of the old-style jingo who misled the Coloureds for so long and who caused them so much misery in the past in this country.

*I do not want to cover up anything at all. I personally confess that we on this side of the House have hurt the Coloured people very badly in the past. I admit that. There were reasons for that, however. The Whites and the Coloureds in this country had no problems with one another until the English occupation of the Cape took place in 1795. Subsequently the English began to use the Coloureds against the Boers, and for selfish reasons. Surely we have to face facts as far as these matters are concerned.

Why do you not write a new history textbook?

This continued until 1948 and even after that. In that test match against England we were playing for our freedom and our survival. We were playing the game against British imperialism. If the Coloureds allowed the British Jingos to force them into the scrum, surely they should have expected to get hurt. We could not help it. We had to win in order to establish a united White nation in this country. But today that battle between Boer and Britain is over. The Coloured should not allow himself to be misused once again in this new game being played for the benefit of the Progs or certain Blacks.

As Boer and Briton did, Whites and Coloureds should also extend the hand of friendship now in this new era and forget about the past. As a matter of fact, the Coloureds must become part of our greater South African nation. There are many things in this country which will have to be remedied.

About 15 years ago there was a constable, somewhere on the Witwatersrand. Maybe that constable’s name was Koos Van der Merwe or Daan Van der Merwe. How should I know?

He was a Van der Merwe in any event. [Interjections.]

That same constable Van der Merwe once went to arrest a husband and wife, two people who had been married for years and who had children at university, because they had been living together as a married couple, although one of them was White and the other Coloured. I know that there are still people, inevitably in the CP, who would even today pat a constable like that on the shoulder saying: “Well done, Van der Merwe! You have saved South Africa’s future!”

The Coloureds will have to accept that there still are Whites like that in South Africa. We shall also have to accept that there still are certain Coloured people who are such leftists that they will have nothing to do with co-operation with the NP and the Government. I believe, however, that the majority of both population groups are prepared to co-operate and to seek solutions which will entail mutual respect, a political say, human dignity and citizenship for the Coloured group as well. The hon. the Prime Minister is sincere in his endeavours for a better future for all of us. I hope the Coloured leaders will also display the required goodwill and wisdom, and avail themselves of this opportunity to lead their people to a new and better future, through the mutual acceptance of one another’s bona fides. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to react to the speech of the hon. member for East London North. However, I should like to suggest that our party obtain a copy of that speech of his, so that we can distribute it throughout South Africa as a propaganda pamphlet for the CP.

Never mind, do not worry about that. Everything is in order. I shall place him under censorship. [Interjections.]

I do feel I should add that the speech of the hon. member for East London North was more of an embarrassment to the hon. the Minister than it was to us.

But I said I would censor him. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister launched a furious attack on the hon. the leader of the CP. In particular, he questioned the political morality of the hon. member for Waterberg. He alleged, inter alia, that the hon. member for Waterberg had remained in the NP only as long as it suited him. In particular, he tried to give us in this party a lesson in morality. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister alleged that we were supporters of perpetual White dominance. I therefore assume that hon. members of the NP are not.

As we are all becoming relatively honest all of a sudden, I just want to refer to one matter in particular. When the 1977 proposals were drawn up—and here I am referring specifically to the proposals for the election of the State President—we proposed that the State President be chosen by an electoral college in which the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians are represented, with the specific proviso that the majority party in each case would designate the representatives in that electoral college. After all, that proviso was specifically designed—and I challenge anyone to deny this—to prevent the Opposition parties in this House, the PFP in particular, from being in a position to make common cause with the other two colour groups, and in particular to ensure that a White would at all times, be the State President of South Africa. [Interjections.] What I have just said, was confirmed last year by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House. When the charge was levelled at the hon. the Prime Minister, by way of an interjection from the Opposition, that this would amount to White domination he said: “In this State, yes.”

However, this hon. Minister went even further and questioned the political morality of the CP by saying that we had only remained in the NP as long as it suited us. When the draft Bill was put before the study groups by the then Minister of Internal Affairs, did all the hon. members on that side of the House—and I am not going to mention names now—accept those draft proposals? Are those hon. members who did not accept them, who questioned them, but who are still in the NP, remaining in the NP under false pretences? [Interjections.] Are those hon. members remaining in the NP while differing radically from the draft Bill which was put before the President’s Council for consideration as a Government proposal?

After five years, you became frightened of the HNP.

No, I was not frightened by the HNP. Let us be honest with one another this afternoon. When that draft Bill was submitted, not only I, but also hon. members who are still in the NP today, objected to them and said that it signified a drastic deviation from the 1977 proposals.

That hon. member was not there. He therefore does not understand these matters.

I was there.

Have those hon. members changed their minds in the meantime, or are they remaining in the NP under false pretences? So much for political morality.

In a letter which the hon. member for Brits addressed to the hon. member for Waterberg at that time, he had the following to say in a footnote—

Whose idea is that?

It is the idea of the hon. member for Brits, i.e. that of the chief information officer of the NP. [Interjections.]

What are we dealing with here, Sir? We are dealing with a revival of the idea of the defunct Democratic Party of Mr. Theo Gerdener, which at that time championed the standpoint that Whites, Coloureds and Asians should be joined together in one bloc. That was the policy of the Democratic Party, and at that time hon. members of the NP who are pleading the same standpoint today, whispered aloud, as we did, that Mr. Gerdener had sustained a blow to the head. We maintained that it would be extremely dangerous if we were to establish power blocs against the Black man in this country. As I understood it, it had always been the standpoint that every nation in this country would be given what belonged to it, including its own political institutions. There was no question of the formation of power blocs by certain peoples or groups against others.

The hon. member for Randburg wanted to know whether I regarded the Coloureds as a people. I am not going to decide for the Coloured what he is. However, I have the right to decide about who my people are. The Coloured is not part of my people.

It is now being said—the hon. the Prime Minister has also said this—that the Whites, Coloureds and Asians in South Africa are, relatively speaking, one people, or one nation. [Interjections.]

You are relatively confused.

Hon. members are apparently enthusiastic about this concept. The hon. member for East London North came back to this point this afternoon, viz. that we should form one nation, because we inhabit the same territory. However, my question is: What about the 10 million Blacks? This afternoon the hon. member who spoke just before me was paving the way for the concept that Blacks will have to be accepted as part of this one nation, as newspapers which support the NP are also doing.

Oh no, that is not true.

The hon. member did not hear what the hon. member for East London North said earlier. He said that the Whites, Coloureds and Asians should first sort out their domestic problems before the Blacks could also be accommodated. This is indeed what he said this afternoon, and no other conclusion can be drawn from this.

You are being ridiculous, and you know it.

The hon. member for Parys says I am being ridiculous. However, what I do know, is that it has always been the standpoint of the NP that the political control of the Whites should remain in its own hands at all costs.

That is still NP policy.

The hon. member says that this is still the case. However, the NP has now accepted as policy that matters of common concern, which constitute the overwhelming majority of matters which may be decided on in a State, will not be under the control of the Whites alone.

Who, then, will control them?

The hon. member must not come and tell me now that the Whites are going to retain the right of self-determination over themselves. Do not tell me either that there is still a chance of the right of self-determination the moment one decides to share with others one’s right to decide in respect of certain matters. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to refer at such length this afternoon to the speech of the hon. member for Barberton, as is his custom when referring to previous speeches of mine. Nevertheless, I believe that the hon. member will agree with me that the constitutional dilemma of seeing to it that justice is done to all population groups in this country, without one dominating the others or promoting its own interests at the expense of the others, is an exceptionally difficult situation which as yet has by no means been finally resolved. Whatever the proposals of the President’s Council are going to be they can surely only be regarded as yet another forward step on a difficult and lengthy constitutional path which we have been following for many years in South Africa.

†Some hon. members will recall Dr. Verwoerd’s response to the “winds of change”-speech by Mr. Harold Macmillan in a joint sitting of Parliament about a quarter of a century ago. Among the points made by Dr. Verwoerd were that White South Africans were neither European nor transitory or temporary migrants. They were White Africans, he said. Secondly, he pointed out that Whites did not consider non-Whites to be inferior. They were equal, but different, he said. This lead to the coining by the NP of the phrase “separate but equal” which was in vogue during the period in which the concept of self-governing and ultimately independent Black homelands, or national states, was conceived. During this period Dr. Verwoerd also made another important speech in which he said that initially there would be periods of discrimination against Whites in the non-White areas and against non-Whites in the White areas. But, Dr. Verwoerd emphasized, these could be passing periods. “Dit is verbygaande periodes,” he said. Thus a very clear goal was set. Certainly there would be degrees of separateness, but also equality of opportunity, political, constitutional and otherwise. Discrimination entailing the domination of one group over others would diminish, in accordance with the Christian national principles of this party and in accordance with the Biblical injunction of “do unto others as you would be done by”. This, as I said, is the goal, but we still have a long way to go before achieving it.

In this context I find the reaction of the Opposition parties most interesting. The more we progress towards achieving this goal, the more the parties on the left of us say that our policy is failing and disintegrating, and the more the parties on the right of us say that we are deviating from our policies, principles and goals. In both cases their perceptions are not focused on the present or on the future but are riveted on the past, and the question arises, which of them, the PFP or the CP, are the most rigid, obsolescent or “verkramp” in this particular context? In any event, that kind of obsolescent perception has little to do with the present or the future, with accuracy, reality or the truth, and is not in any way helpful or conducive to finding solutions.

*Whatever those parties wish to pretend, and at whatever stage of the past they wish to get stuck, it remains a fact that considerable progress has already been made. Of course there is still separateness, and there will always be come measure of separateness as long as the NP is in power, because this party considers it indispensable for the self-determination of peoples and population groups. On the other hand, however, a great deal of progress has also been made with the objective of developing constitutional and political equality for the various population groups. The four Black nations which have acquired independence have in every respect achieved constitutional and political parity with the Whites. The others are all self-governing and could achieve the same parity. As regards the Black people outside the national States who have moved to what is called White South Africa—although that term is not accurate—fairly recently in our history, considerable progress has already been made with the introduction of the largest possible measure of local autonomy in their own residential areas. As far as their wider political aspirations are concerned, however, we have to be honest and admit that we still have a very long way to go. Since most of them have strong family, culture and language ties with their traditional areas, some meaningful link and interaction with the Governments of their national States within the framework of a confederation of States, remains a meaningful and logical possibility. However, in any event that is a matter of negotiation between their representatives and the representatives of the respective Governments, something which is going to require very extensive deliberation.

As far as the Whites, Coloureds and Asians are concerned, we are at this stage equally far, perhaps even further, from a solution. Since these groups have always shared and occupied the same traditional territories, the solution for this constitutional problem is all the more difficult. This probably explains why, in their case, there has been the least progress. The fact is, however, that at the moment the Coloureds have no political or constitutional rights whatsoever, while those of the Asians are extremely limited. I believe everyone in the House must agree that this is a totally unacceptable and untenable state of affairs. It is just not tenable. A solution has to be found, therefore, however difficult it may be, in order to comply with our approach based on the principle of separateness and self-determination on the one hand and equality on the other. We cannot merely profess year after year to be striving after justice, without doing anything to give effect to it.

This is exactly where I have a problem with hon. members of the CP. The question which they continually ask in this House, is: who governs whom. In my opinion, that question implies that it is in order to use fine words about “justice, fairness and equal opportunities” as long as they do not have to be implemented and the Whites, in fact, continue to rule over all three groups, however it may be concealed. According to them, apparently, anything else or anything less than that is not acceptable to the Whites. That it is equally unacceptable to the Coloureds and the Asians to be ruled over in perpetuo by the Whites, is apparently of lesser importance.

If we are in earnest, however, with our approach based on the principle of constitutional equality, the question should not be who governs whom, but who governs alongside whom, and how. Surely that is the question to which we should be giving our earnest attention: Who governs alongside whom, and how? This, in fact is the question with which my party concerns itself.

Conservatism is all very well as long as one remembers that it means “to preserve and to build” and not merely “to preserve”. If one refuses to build, one could make of conservatism something ugly, a farce. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni will forgive me if I do not react to his speech other than to make the observation that it was amusing to hear him pronouncing views which we have advanced as the truth in this House for many years.

We have said those things all the time.

I want to congratulate the hon. member on discovering the truth which we already discovered.

I should like to focus on what the hon. member for Klip River had to say in his comments to the House yesterday. There are two points on which I should like to react. In the beginning of his first speech he said that if ever there was an indictment against the likes of the PFP, he only need refer the hon. member for Green Point to the television interview some months ago in which Coloured leaders of the Cape Town community made some very telling remarks about the PFP. I should like to focus on that incident because I believe the House should be aware of the background. I believe there are some lessons to be learnt from this incident, lessons which are going to be important in the constitution making which lies ahead of us, particularly at the local level.

For background purposes, the SABC produced a programme which lasted for some 16 minutes on Sunday 13th December, in which they featured representatives of some of the management committees in the Cape Town area who had launched an attack on the attitudes of the Cape Town City Council. I want to say for the benefit of the hon. member for Klip River that this was not associated with the PFP although some of the remarks were directed by implication towards the PFP. Out of the 16 minutes that were allocated to this programme, the City Council had the right to reply to the extent of just under two minutes by the Town Clerk. It is apparently true that the programme was prepared well in advance although the Town Clerk was only approached on the Friday just before the Sunday for his comments. None of the councillors were asked to comment but the Town Clerk was asked and he gave his comments which lasted about six minutes although slightly less than two minutes were eventually screened. On the principle of audi alteram partem, I think the programme was unbalanced, to say the least.

However, let us look now at the case that was made. These representatives made a number of accusations which the council subsequently characterized—in this I am quoting Mr. Heugh—as—

This attack was focused on the council apparently on the basis that the management committee representatives had not received fair treatment at the hands of the council. After taking away the bluster, that I think was the substance. Since the Town Clerk was not given adequate time by the SABC, he subsequently made a statement to the Press, a full statement which was substantiated by facts, so he claimed, in which he made a number of points which I think restored the balance somewhat. I should like to have these facts on the record. He said that the Cape Town City Council as a fundamental matter of principle opposed the management committees as such. The history of the Cape Town City Council was that a common roll had been in operation until 1971. At that time, they had six Coloured city councillors and other cities in the Cape had such councillors as well. However, in spite of this history, in spite of this commitment to the principle of a common citizenship in Cape Town in respect of all the ratepayers of Cape Town, they were prepared to try to work within the system as laid down by the NP. The claim is made that they took the following steps: They recruited the secretaries to the management committees into the Town Clerk’s department and trained these people in administrative processes and in the practice of official committee work; secondly, they gave them office accommodation in their buildings and also gave them access to assistance from officials, the use of office equipment and so forth; thirdly, the management committee members were given the same privileges and facilities as were city councillors such as moving around the building, attending meetings and so forth; fourthly, that all items specifically relevant to the areas of concern of the management committees were referred to them and their comments and recommendations sought; fifthly, that copies of all the agenda of the council and committees were sent to the management committees as a matter of routine except, obviously, items on green paper; and sixthly, that the representatives of these management committees were completely at liberty to raise any matter and to deal directly with the executive committee. They also say that in the preparation of the annual budget representatives of the management committees sat on the discussions in each standing committtee. They also sat in on the discussions during which the budget was collated, when the main budget was being prepared. On these occasions they were given full and equal rights such as those enjoyed by any other city councillor to air their views and make their claims. One final point that the Town Clerk mentions which I think is worth noting was that although 13% of the rates were levied, in the so-called Coloured areas, 20% of the expenditure was spent on those areas. He pointed out, however, that this was a fallacious analysis, because most of the facilities provided by the city council are, in any case, common facilities such as streets, cleansing, health services, refuse collection services, etc.

Against that background, I believe it is a fair-minded judgment to say that there was goodwill on the part of the Cape Town city council towards these representatives, in spite of the fact that they were opposed, in principle, to the management committee system. The question that remains to be asked, is: Why in Cape Town of all places, with its history of goodwill towards the Coloured community, for Cape Town has a history of goodwill towards that community, if any place in South Africa does? Why should it have reached the stage in Cape Town where representatives of the management committees lauched such an intemperate attack on the city council of Cape Town? One might have expected it in other places where they were perhaps not consulted to the degree they were here, but why Cape Town? I believe that the answer to the ill will that was obvious in that television programme—and this is important from the point of view of the making of constitutions, from now on, in respect of local authorities—lies in the system. The actual system is faulty. The system itself is the cause of the tensions that arose. One cannot have divided authority, based on racial voters’ rolls, and thereby achieve a formula for peaceful and effective local government.

Hear, hear!

I believe that a system of racial voters’ rolls contains within it the formula for a racial tug of war, whatever the level of government one is talking about. I want to quote from what Mr. Heugh had to say—I think he put his finger on it—and then I want to quote what the hon. member for Klip River had to say, because I think that he unwittingly also put his finger on the key problem. Mr. Heugh says—

They had to seek a power base in an increasingly radical environment and therefore sought conflict. The hon. member for Klip River also put his finger on this when he said (Unrevised Hansard, 26 April)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia, who has just resumed his seat, dealt mainly with the position of the Coloureds vis-à-vis the Cape Town City Council, a local matter about which I have insufficient knowledge. However, he sought to blame everything on a faulty system. This is, however, an over-simplification of the whole problem. The hon. member for Benoni conceded just now that the NP has never said that it has a monopoly of wisdom enabling it to solve everything and that we, too, have made mistakes, even within our system. However, I wonder what system that hon. member can endorse. Even today it is still a mystery to me how he can remain in that party, with its democratic principles. I find it amazing after all he has done. I respectfully suggest that that hon. member should have been thrown out of that party altogether. [Interjections.]

Last night I attended a meeting of the divisional executive in my constituency. The hon. members of the CP had been at work in my constituency, too and they also invited the members of my executive to attend one of their meetings or discussions. The interesting question which arose, was: “Very well, what is your policy? Can you tell us what your alternatives are as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned?” Their reply was: “No, we do not know what the CP’s policy is, but if you wait until October, we shall tell you what our policy is going to be.”

All they forgot was to mention the year.

Is it really the position that the broad electorate of South Africa is being taken in tow by those hon. members on a basis of no single positive aspect to their policy? Is this really possible? I wonder whether the public at large is aware that those hon. members can offer them no alternative at the moment. I wish to state very clearly that if no proper alternative is offered to the policy of the NP, which is the best policy available in South Africa, those hon. members will get nowhere.

The hon. member for Barberton said that there had not been general satisfaction with the 1977 proposals. Is this really the test for any party’s policy? Because I am a member of the NP, should I say that I agree with every single thing the NP does or says? I am a member of the NP because that party represents to the highest degree that which I can agree with for the future of South Africa. Unless another party can offer one something more, one would be crazy to leave a party like the NP. Over and above that, this party is a democratic one. The hon. members opposite did not leave the NP because of the 1977 proposals. They left it for other reasons. Now they are pretending that that was the reason. Nor is this the test with regard to this whole matter.

Let us take this whole affair a little further. If some of those hon. members cannot agree 100% with the 1977 proposals—and they lived with them right from 1977 until recently—then the position is still, as the hon. the Prime Minister, too, spelt it out, that when the President’s Council makes its recommendations, this matter will be fully discussed at caucus level. If one is still unhappy, then one can state one’s position as a Nationalist at the federal congress. If one is still unhappy, one can state one’s position at the provincial congress. If one still does not see one’s way clear to going along with those principles accepted by the democratic majority, then one can leave. But it is absolute nonsense that at this stage, these people have a basis for withdrawing from the NP for those reasons. That is merely a pretext.

The Vote being discussed at present, deals in general with the aim of gathering reliable information as a basis for the administration of the country in respect of the population, as well as the personal details of every citizen; secondly, to arrange elections; thirdly, to take the lead regarding the basic constitutional development of the Coloureds, Asians and Whites; and, fourthly, to order and regulate the to and fro movement of the population and of foreigners across our borders, as well as to provide and arrange certain other services to the population groups. I should like to express a few ideas with regard to the department’s task of taking the lead in respect of the constitutional development of Coloureds, Asians and Whites.

In addition, in the limited time at my disposal I wish to refer briefly to the position of the Black peoples in this country. In 1931, when the Union of South Africa was 21 years old, Mr. Jan Hofmeyr expressed himself as follows with regard to some of South Africa’s problems—

He also realized that it was the task of the Government to reconcile the interests of that part of the community which is in conflict, and in addition, to remove the causes of that conflict so that the advancement of the general interests of the members of that country’s population is not further impaired.

Furthermore, I wish to refer to what Mr. Hofmeyr said at that stage with reference to the position of the Black man. This was in 1931. He said—

He then proceeds to expound on the problems in this regard, and also mentions that an election was conducted, inter alia, on the basis of the “Swart gevaar”, as well as that everyone is afraid of the phenomenon of social equality, racial mixing, and all that it involves. However, Mr. Hofmeyr was trapped in the ideological position in which he did not see his way clear, as he put it himself, to solving the problem by means of representation according to tribes, with the object of promoting and developing democratic institutions. He saw the solution as being a unitary State and an open society, something which hon. members of the official Opposition still support today. However, this is something which we cannot agree with.

Mr. Jan Hofmeyr also dealt, inter alia, with the question of the possibility of a qualified franchise. However, it was the NP that came forward with its policy of separate development, thereby seeking to channel the political and other rights of the Black nation into separate political institutions, and in addition, to link these to their own territories. This resulted in the development of constitutional concepts for adaptation to our own specific circumstances.

We need only look at W. A. Joubert’s book, Introduction to the Law of South Africa, in which mention is made of the systematic development which took place after the adoption of the Transkei Constitution Act (Act No. 48 of 1963) and … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the annual report of the department of Internal Affairs, and I quote briefly from paragraph 3.1, on page 12 of the report, under the heading “Group Areas”, as follows—

I should like the hon. the Minister to make use of the opportunity during the debate on this Vote of giving hon. members an idea of the feelings of his department in connection with the decision made in respect of District Six.

In the new climate that prevails in the House, and with the freeness of the opinion that is being expressed, it appears that all is not lost in this respect. In view of the very sincere attempts on the part of the hon. the Minister to improve relations between the Coloureds and the Whites in South Africa, he would indeed be doing the country a very big service in reviewing the whole situation in connection with District Six. It would be appreciated if, in fact, the hon. the Minister could indicate in his reply whether the Coloured leaders were questioned about this matter, and to what extent their opinion coincided with that contained in the President’s Council’s report. The President’s Council’s report makes clear and unequivocal recommendations in respect of the questions relating to relations between the Coloureds and the Whites and, right throughout the report in regard to District Six, there appears to be not the slightest doubt as to the correctness of its decision after having taken all the factors into consideration. In fact, the final report is signed by no fewer than 20 out of the 21 members of the President’s Council who were involved on this particular committee. For instance, a paragraph on page 6 reads—

The committee goes on to indicate that it has taken into account the question of the advanced stage of planning of the Technikon and the fact that other parts of Salt River, Woodstock and Walmer Estate have been proclaimed Coloured group areas, and finally comes to the conclusion on page 9 of the recommendations that—

1. (a) the increasingly important role which the Coloured community fulfils in the economic and social development of the Cape metropolitan area and therefore also of the central core of that city;
2. (b) the strong historical, social and emotional attachment of the Coloured population group with the Cape central area as symbolized over the years by their occupation and use of the former District Six;
3. (c) the increasing desire for the acknowledgment of the reasonable claims of the Coloured population of South Africa;

There is absolutely no conflict whatsoever in these recommendations, and the entire matter points towards a very strong recommendation that the Government should consider the returning of a large part of District Six to the Coloureds.

We have long ago.

On page 12 of the report there is a clear indication that the 51 proposals were referred for comment and recommendation. For the hon. the Minister’s enthusiasm in regard to good relations between Whites and Coloureds and for all the optimistic and enthusiastic things that he said to make any sense, I would say that it is extremely important for this House to know how his department faced this problem, what in fact the recommendations were, exactly whom they conferred with and whether the Coloured leaders were taken into the hon. the Minister’s confidence in this matter or even reckoned with at all. There is no question that there is still sufficient time for this matter to be far more profitably brought to fruition. The question of there being a change of decision really does not come into it. I think it is merely an on-going resolving of conflict, and the Government’s own credibility in relation to the President’s Council’s proposals will be greatly affected by its earnestly reconsidering this matter. I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister give serious thought to this question, particularly in the light of the new direction and particularly in the light of the fact that the President’s Council’s proposals which are soon to be submitted are going to usher in a new era—which was debated so freely in the House again today—in which the Coloureds will have joint decision-making. Just for the want of a few weeks in time the opportunity of taking joint decisions in relation to an area which means so much to the Coloured people is going to be lost and the Government is going to miss a great opportunity of undoing some of the wrongs which have been admitted and referred to by hon. members on the Government benches, particularly the hon. member for East London North. It seems such a pointless exercise for the want of a few weeks not to bring to bear that which we know is going to be brought about by changes in the Constitution. I believe the Government will get nothing but credit if they act now. The Government is strong and a magnanimous attitude towards reviewing decisions is not a sign of weakness; a sign of weakness is using a rubber stamp of authority because one is frightened to take a decision and to break new ground.

Don’t worry Pat, we shall deal with it.

But the NP need some help. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to seriously consider this matter, even if it is necessary to put the matter in limbo pending the President’s Council’s report.

Mr. Chairman, I am certain the hon. Minister will answer the queries of the hon. member for King William’s Town, and I am not going to refer to him at this stage. I do wish, however, to turn my attention to the hon. member of the CP.

They are to me like the proverbial three little monkeys who hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.

*In the CP context I should like to rephrase that as follows: “Hear no Coloured, see no Coloured and speak to no Coloured”. This must be the position, because if it is not, why do they make such ridiculous statements—they may deny this if they want to—as the statement about the concentration of Brown people on the Cape Flats. There the Brown people will not be seen, there they will not be heard, and there they will not be spoken to. In other words, they will be in a kind of Coloured reserve residential area, similar to those in which the Americans put the Red Indians years ago. Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as that, nor will a solution as simple as that be found. Moreover, that kind of statement is not going to get them anywhere. The CP is living in a dream world if they are of the opinion that people of colour will accept a system of that nature.

People of colour will not allow themselves to be bluffed in that way. Is the CP truly of the opinion that the approximately 3,5 million people of colour are going to be satisfied with statements such as those recently made by their leader? I quote from Beeld—

What was at issue here was statements made by Mr. Vorster, the former Prime Minister. I quote further—

Here again we are dealing with that past master at playing on words. Because of his fancy footwork. I think one should, in fact, refer to the hon. the leader of the CP as Dr. T., “Dr. Twinkletoes”. The hon. the leader of the CP said—

Those hon. members should pay close attention now. He went on to say—

In other words, decisions on matters of common interest are taken by the White Parliament alone. This statement of his is very clear, viz. that the Whites will say what belongs to whom. The White master will say what part the others may have. The White master will say: “This is yours; now you must hold your tongue and be satisfied with what the master has given you.”. There will be no discussions on matters of common interest. This is very clear from the statement of the CP. There will be no joint endeavour to solve common problems. On the part of the Coloureds there will be no joint responsibility for the country as a whole.

Again I want to quote very briefly from Die Vaderland of 25 March 1982, and I want those hon. members to pay close attention. The relevant passage reads as follows—

The reader went on to say the following about NP policy—

Listen very closely, hon. members of the CP. The report continues—

Do those hon. members know who made such responsible statements? Do hon. members know who the person is who is so sensitive to these issues? That person is not an adult who has been in politics for many years. No, these are the words of a girl who is still at school, of a country girl from my constituency. This is a young person who thinks. I should like to tell hon. members of the CP this: Pay close attention, because never before has the proverb “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings” been truer.

Now I want to proceed and touch on a matter concerning a section of our population about whom very little has been said. I am referring to the Chinese.

There is only a small number of them in this country; approximately 12 000. According to the preliminary results of the 1980 population census, there is a total of nearly 15 000—to be precise, 14 953—who may be classified as “Other Asians”, and the indications are that the vast majority of that group of 15 000 people are of Chinese descent. There is probably no need for me to say for record purposes that virtually all the Chinese in the RSA are to be found without exception in our urban complexes. We all know that. In general, they are reasonably well-to-do, they are well educated and they have relatively few links with their country of origin. Moreover, the Christian faith has been fairly widely adopted by the Chinese living in this country of ours.

Here we are dealing with a group of people who are highly developed, a group of people who aspire to the highest moral standards, a group of people who, because they are so quiet and soft-natured, are often overlooked when we speak of political rights for others. They do not make demands and they have always been prepared to wait. They have never put harsh demands round a conference table. This group of people has done a great deal for our country. And I think they will continue to mean a great deal to us in the future. Not a single person is able to say today that they are not doing their share and are not pulling their weight. It is true that they are living here and are earning their livelihood here, but because of their way of life and the services they render to their fellow-men they are repaying and ploughing back in more than ample measure what they are taking from our country. And for this group of people, too, a just political dispensation has to be established. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I trust the hon. member for Stilfontein will pardon me if I do not follow on what he has said. In the short time at my disposal I should like to deal with one or two matters raised by the hon. the Minister and to set out some points of view in relation to them on behalf of the PFP.

Let me say immediately that the speech of the hon. the Minister was an important one in the sense that he laid the ground for further debate. I think that he made certain admissions on behalf of the Government which edged away from the hard line which the Government had adopted in respect of certain constitutional matters and, in a sense edged towards or made certain concessions towards the PFP and its attitude. I want to identify these because I think it is important that where shifts in thinking are taking place we should identify them in order to see just where they are leading us.

The hon. the Minister started off his speech by dealing with the limiting factors in regard to reform. The hon. the Minister said that “emosionele beperking op hervorming is die grootste enkele belemmering”.

*The hon. the Minister also said that he was not in favour of racism, but that we could not ignore it as an inhibiting factor. I accept that. I consider it important that, on the Government side as well as the Opposition side of this House, we should weigh our words so that we steer this country in the direction of reform and not allow the country to flinch from the implications of such reform. While the Opposition does have a responsibility, the Government has an enormous responsibility. They are the leading party in this House. They have to provide the leadership. They also have access to the means of disseminating information, such as the SABC, for example.

I did not deny that.

No, I was merely saying it. I submit, therefore, that those attacks which the Government launches upon us for petty political gain, have a tremendous effect on the ability of the Government itself to …

What did you do yesterday?

I just want to point out to hon. members that the attacks launched upon us by the Government in respect of our policy, mitigate against reform, even against something which the Government itself wants to carry through. [Interjections.] I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the attacks launched upon the hon. member for Houghton because she advocated mixed sport in South Africa were an example of this. She was accused and told that her advocating of mixed sport would be the thin end of the wedge. Ultimately there would be total social integration. This was the kind of debate that was conducted. The attack on the hon. member in so far as it related to sport, created a tremendously inhibiting climate in South Africa for the removal of social discrimination. The same goes for the attack on our policy on the right of Blacks to have full trade union rights. Because they attacked those policies of ours, it became all the more difficult for members opposite to bring about reforms in that direction.

Furthermore, there was the attack made on us during the past few months on the principle of power-sharing. That attack makes it even more difficult for the Government to move in the direction of power-sharing. The fruits of that attack are not only the impediments which are being imposed on the Government; they are also the establishment of the CP and the HNP. This is the outcome of years of injudicious attacks made on an Opposition party for short-term political gain.

I want to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that there are three spheres in respect of which they should be very careful when they attack us. I wish to focus the attention of the hon. Minister on these three spheres in particular. The first sphere involves the Group Areas Act, and the question of open areas or mixed residential areas in South Africa. They should not turn this into a sacred cow in their policy. They should not attack us on that question either, for one of these days they will find it even more difficult to move in that direction. I am now giving them notice of this in advance.

The second sphere involves the question of education. Hon. members of the Government should not attack us for saying that there should be one common educational system in South Africa, because the more they attack us on that issue, the more difficult it will become for them to move in that direction one of these days, and the stronger the CP will become.

The third sphere involves the inclusion of urban Blacks in the constitutional dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. On that issue, too, hon. members of the Government should not attack us. They should be very cautious in the way they launch an attack on us in this regard, for one of these days they will have a problem in this regard which they will have created themselves. Precisely because of these attacks which the Government launched upon us, they made it more difficult for themselves to move away from certain fundamental principles in their policy which they will undoubtedly have to discard one of these days.

†I say this not with a view to scoring points. I accept the serious warnings of the hon. the Minister to us not to create emotional obstacles to reform. With that in mind I have identified three areas of reform on which we feel strongly, and I suggest to the hon. members there to be careful not to create an emotional climate against reform in those directions because one day they may find that it is very difficult for them and easy for the CP. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister went back a lot on “selfbeskikking”. I must say that when I listened to him today, it came to my mind that I had never listened to a more diluted or watered down interpretation, coming from the NP, of “selfbeskikking”. I must say the interpretation rings quite differently when the hon. the Prime Minister says “mits Blanke selfbeskikkingsreg nie aangetas word nie, want dit is ’n grondbeginsel.” First we heard “dit is relatief”. Later we were told “dit is ’n bietjie relatief”; then “dit is meer relatief” and ultimately “dit is baie relatief”.

*What we heard then, was that the only sphere in which one would have to have the power to exercise self-determination, is that which was one’s own, or which belonged to one intrinsically. I asked the hon. the Minister to indicate the spheres in the government of our country which, in the opinion of the hon. the Minister, belonged intrinsically to the Whites and in regard to which they should have the right of self-determination. The standpoint of the Government is, after all, that those things which are not peculiar to the Whites, which do not belong intrinsically to them, will have to be shared with other population groups, In regard to the things that will have to be shared, there will be no right of self-determination. We should like to see how that which belongs intrinsically to the Whites, in regard to which there is self-determination, weighs up against the non-intrinsic matters or matters of common interest, in regard to which there should be power-sharing or joint decision making.

When the hon. the Minister spoke about the new constitutional dispensation, he was moving rapidly in the direction of the PFP way of thinking. Then the hon. member for Brakpan wanted to know what the position would be if there were to be a conflict, on a matter of common concern, between the Coloureds and Indians on the one hand and the Whites on the other. He wanted to know how the impasse would be broken in such an event. The hon. the Minister then replied that the CP wanted to do that by means of domination. When asked how it would be done by the Government, he said that institutions would be created. What is implied by that, however, is that if it could not be resolved by means of apartheid or domination, it would inevitably have to be cleared up by means of consensus, for what else are those institutions there for? They will be there to enable the groups participating in the power-sharing process to govern the country by means of consensus. In that sense that party—I am saying this on the strength of the hon. the Minister’s statement—finds itself in the same camp, if I may put it like that, as the PFP as regards the achievement of consensus between various people who, inevitably, have to participate in the power-sharing process in South Africa. [Interjections.] I should like to elaborate further on power-sharing. There was a cardinal mistake in the hon. the Minister’s speech, for every argument which he advanced in regard to the Coloureds, the White people and the Indians in South Africa, was equally applicable to the permanently urbanized Black people of South Africa as well.

†We can argue about cultural differences, language differences, national or “volk” differences. These are all factors that complicate the problem. They all make power-sharing more difficult, but they do not allow one to escape from the necessity of power-sharing.

Let us, for example, take the statement of the Cabinet released to the Beeld on 27 February. It said that all those people who live in one land must have a part in the decisionmaking process in that land. We can debate whether the Zulu people are Zulus or South Africans, the fact remains that the urbanized Blacks, just as much as the Coloureds, Indians and Whites, live in one land with us. I am not arguing that there are no cultural differences or that there are no historical associations with other places or other people, but every argument the hon. the Minister used in favour of sharing power between Coloureds, Indians and Whites, applies equally to Blacks permanently settled in the urban areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if I do not react directly to the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point at this point, he must not be under the impression that I do not want to make an attack on his party. The hon. member made a very moving plea that we should not launch attacks, but this is something that happens in politics, and one simply has to endure the attacks.

What did he do yesterday?

Yes, yesterday he made a violent attack on us, but we on this side of the House simply endured it. The hon. member touched on certain matters arising out of the speech of the hon. the Minister, and I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to him in due course. I think hon. members would welcome an interlude in this debate. I think they would welcome it if we were to turn away for a moment from self-determination, co-responsibility, power-sharing and all those things.

During the next 20 to 25 minutes, I should like to discuss publications control. In the course of this debate three Opposition speakers have dealt with the subject. I refer to the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Germiston District and the hon. member for Koedoespoort. On the Government side, the hon. members for Mossel Bay and Namaqualand reacted to arguments from that side. The hon. member for East London North also gave his personal opinion about this matter. When the hon. member for East London North discussed publications control—or “censorship”, as he calls it—it reminded me of the fact that if one submits a publication to a group of people or if one has that group of people watch a film, one gets divergent opinions about that publication or film.

I should like to refer to the speeches made by hon. members on the Opposition side. I believe that those hon. members made responsible speeches, as one would expect in regard to this very difficult subject. The hon. member for Rissik discussed the strong trend he detects today, viz. the movement towards decadence, if I am not mistaken. Then, too, there was the speech by the hon. member for Germiston District, who made mention of the fact that the female body was being abused nowadays. Then there was also the speech by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. It was a very good speech, a well-balanced speech. He quite rightly referred to the atmosphere of tension in which control has to be implemented. He indicated how outside influences have an effect and how there are influences within the country, too, that have an effect on this matter. The hon. member also indicated that there were movements afoot to lower standards and that we were dealing with moral liberals who wanted to allow everything. The hon. member went on to say that within this atmosphere of tension, this problem area, control had to be implemented and decisions taken. He said that it was the task of the State, too, to help in this regard.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort also conveyed his thanks to the Directorate for the good work being done. I wish to accept that thanks on behalf of the directorate. It is true that they have a very difficult task. It is by no means an easy task. I think they are deserving of high praise and of thanks and appreciation for this very difficult task that they perform. The real aim of publications control in South Africa is to prevent soft and hard pornography from being presented in South Africa in the forms of books, films and theatre. To achieve the aim of preventing this, we in South Africa do not work with the concept of hard or soft pornography, but with the concept of undesirableness. Clearly this is a far stricter criterion than merely the concept of hard or soft pornography. Our other aim in this country as far as publications control is concerned, is to protect the religion of sections of the population or religion as it is practised, to achieve racial peace and protect the security of the State.

Looking at publications control in South Africa, and comparing it with the position in the rest of the world, we see that South Africa has the most conservative system within the Western democratic system. It is true that Ireland is a relatively conservative country. However, in Ireland there is a magazine entitled Executive. Now, we in South Africa also have a periodical which we are always looking at, the periodical by the name of Scope. I do not know which of the hon. members read or look at the photographs in Scope.

Colin Eglin.

However, if we look at the periodical Executive in conservative Ireland, we see that Scope in South Africa can only use 15% of the material used by Executive. Therefore we in South Africa have a conservative system.

The system we have designed in South Africa, in which many hon. members played a part as members of the former commission of inquiry—moreover, I think they did very good work—came into being after the legislation in question had been piloted through this House. Since then it has only been changed once. We in South Africa make use of an administrative/legal process. This means that in the first place, the publications committees decide at the administrative level in the absence of any hearings. Personally, I have great appreciation for the work done by the publications committees in our country. The Publications Act, however, also provides that a full hearing may take place. The full hearing, which is just like legal proceedings before the Supreme Court, but which is nevertheless informal, is dealt with by the Publications Appeal Board.

This is the system which we have designed for South Africa. One has to add immediately that as the hon. member for Koedoespoort said, control is no easy task. The point is that in this field, everything is not marked out clearly in black and white. Therefore no one can say that a specific object should be prohibited and something else allowed. Often extremely difficult decisions have to be taken. I concede at once that mistakes are undoubtedly made, too. However, we must bear in mind that this work is done by people who are also fallible. Therefore, if we were to choose a group at random and submit a publication to them, we would most probably have divergent opinions on it, as I have already indicated. However, I believe that a grasp of the scope and importance of this task—and I believe that all hon. members understand this—must necessarily lead to a re-evaluation of its results.

Then, too, I should like to point out that in the period under review, 55,3% of the publications submitted were found undesirable, that 129 films were conditionally approved, while 26 films were turned down in their entirety. We therefore have publications control that really works protectively, which does not simply let everything through and permit everything.

However, we must also bear in mind that the Republic of South Africa is virtually being flooded by undesirable literature, films and other objects, most of which enter the country illegally. I believe hon. members would be amazed if they realized how much of this illegal materials enter the country. That was why, in the good old days when the hon. member for Rissik was still with us, we decided to approach the Director of Publications and request him to organize such a visit for us. Our Director of Publications has now come back from abroad, and I therefore announce that we are going to organize such a visit. It will be a visit during which instruction will be provided and during which we shall also examine certain objects; objects which are examples of those things which must be controlled. We shall invite the hon. the Minister of Community Development, too, to accompany us. I hear him groaning in front of me. We shall invite him to accompany us.

Is he groaning already?

We shall take hon. members of all parties in this House wish us on that visit. I think it would be as well for us to have an opportunity to examine the work performed by the Publications Board and also to realize what we in South Africa are really faced with.

Piet, you should rather go to Sun City!

No, the hon. member for Bryanston can go to Sun City himself. He will be far more at home there than I.

I want to point out specifically that a mammoth task is being performed to protect the inhabitants of the Republic—including, of course, the hon. member for Bryanston. I believe that there ought to be tremendous appreciation for that.

This brings me to another matter to which I should like to refer. On Monday a week ago, the Ministry received approximately 1 500 telegrams in connection with an article which was to appear in a certain periodical. This was an organized effort, because those telegrams were sent before the periodical had appeared and before the article had been read. Those 1 500 telegrams reached us last Monday. The periodical in question only appeared on the street in Durban that same Monday afternoon, and was only available in Johannesburg and Cape Town much later. In the mean time, the Director of Publications had already been aware since the previous Friday that such an article was to appear in that periodical, the committee had been appointed, the article investigated and the periodical in question prohibited.

However, what is most important here is that 1 500 telegrams reached us, telegrams from people who complained. However, after that periodical had been prohibited, not a single telegram of thanks or appreciation reached the Ministry. Well, in fact the Ministry had nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, the Director of Publications is entitled to some degree of gratitude. There are people in South Africa who organize these things. I want to request them today, when they consider the effect of their requests, please to convey some small message of thanks.

What, then are the norms and standards applied in publications control in South Africa? I want to give hon. members the assurance that we are in earnest in seeking to ensure a uniform and universal approach on the part of those who are entrusted with the function of deciding. We make it our business to ensure that action is not simply taken arbitrarily, that the feelings of the person who has to decide on this matter will not be paramount. This kind of thing is not easy, of course. It is a difficult task, because although an effort is made at all times to achieve objectivity, absolute objectivity is only an ideal which, I believe, can never be achieved.

Another norm we apply is to provide each member with the rulings of the Publications Appeal Board. This contributes towards providing a basis for decision-making of firm guidelines and several precedents. I repeat: Publications control is not an arbitrary matter, nor can it be determined by the taste or viewpoint of a single person or group.

The guidelines are being worked on all the time. Therefore they are not guidelines which were drawn up a decade ago and now remain static. After all, we live in a changing world. The chairman of the Appeal Board regularly reviews these guidelines in consultation with the Director. In fact, he is engaged in this task at the moment, and as soon as it is finalized, it will be discussed with the chairman of committees in Cape Town and Johannesburg. Accordingly I wish to give hon. members the assurance that we do not simply appoint committees or simply tell people to give a ruling or make a decision about a publication or film. There are definite guidelines that are followed.

I also wish to point out that publications control cannot be normative or perform a directive function, because in terms of the provisions of the Publications Act, a heterogeneous community and a wide spectrum of interests and convictions must be served. It is not the idea that this should apply only to select groups and philosophies.

What, then is our point of departure in South Africa. It is one which has been specified and is being followed, viz. that in the implementation of the Act, and the decisions taken as to the question whether something is undersirable or not, the question is always: What is the normal, average, balanced member for the community prepared to tolerate, and what is he not prepared to tolerate? We therefore operate on the basis of the opinion of the normal, average, balanced member of ohe community, because the hon. member for Koedoespoort rightly pointed out that there are those who are inclined to be more liberal and wish to undermine all moral standards, while on the other hand there are those people who want to maintain fixed, strict norms. They do not even tolerate a photo on which a woman shows a nice leg. [Interjections.] It is certainly clear that hon. members are not asleep when something nice is referred to, Sir. The man who makes a decision must also, then, constantly be gauging the opinion—in my opinion this is of the utmost importance—of this fictional member of the community. He must determine what the average, normal, balanced member of the community wants, and that opinion must be followed by the publications control body; it must not be in advance of that opinion and attempt to dictate and in that way mould opinion. The task of the Publications Control Board is not, therefore, to provide that something can be permitted and then to exceed those bounds nor, on the other hand, to withhold publication if the normal member desires publication. Therefore the task of the Publications Control Board is not to mould opinion but to follow and not precede it.

I believe, and I think hon. members will agree with me that the machinery of control can only strive to stabilize and further the educational task that is already being carried out in the home, the school and the churches. It cannot, therefore, be expected of publications control to redeem failures. When a failure has been made of a child’s education in the family, the system of publications control cannot be expected to redeem that failure. The sphere of the positive combating of that evil lies elsewhere, not in legislation. We could probably make our legislation more stringent or tough, but I believe that legislation is not the means whereby to counteract this in a positive way.

I want to draw hon. member’s attention to what the former Minister of Internal Affairs, Dr. Connie Mulder, said in this House on 12 August 1974, and I agree wholeheartedly with this opinion. (Hansard, 12 August 1974, col. 487)—

I want to give this House the assurance that as far as our system of publications control is concerned, we shall do everything in our power to combat what is undesirable and seeks to undermine the moral will.

The hon. member for Germiston District referred to the misuse of the female body. On the one hand I tend to agree with her, but on the other—and here she will probably agree with me—the question arises: Why do women lend themselves to the taking of such photos? I think we must make an earnest appeal to the female sex not to allow their bodies to be used for this purpose. I strongly condemn the photographs that sometimes appear. I am not a kill-joy, but in some respects they go too far. I can give the assurance that as far as periodicals appearing in South Africa are concerned, the position is being watched very carefully.

As far as films are concerned, a few films have been permitted in recent times which have not been to our taste. I went to see one of them, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and I must say that I really did not like it. I cannot understand why bedroom scenes have to be predominant and why people are so fond of going to see them. However, what people forget when films are allowed is that stringent conditions are laid down as regards age limits and cuts that have to be effected. The film to which I have just referred was originally allowed with only four cuts. Subsequently, on appeal, a further 17 cuts were effected. Therefore, in comparison with what was shown abroad, in South Africa the film was displayed with 21 cuts. I want to assure hon. members that as far as films are concerned, a laissez-faire policy is not followed. When we have this kind of film in South Africa we try to lay down an age restriction which must serve as a warning to parents that this is a film which may be harmful to a young person. As far as films are concerned, there is also the opinion survey of the HSRC which brought to light that the decisions made by the committees are approved by the vast majority of the public. As far as video cassettes are concerned, we are experiencing an upswing in the video industry. This upswing is still in progress. However, we are encountering considerable difficulties in exercising due control. We are aware of malpractices on the part of individuals and unscrupulous firms in this field. However, there is an interdepartmental committee that is giving full attention to this matter and I believe that we shall soon be coming forward with amendments that will adapt the Publications Act to the new circumstances. We in the Ministry receive many complaints and there are also organizations that concern themselves with this matter—and I appreciate that—and accordingly I wish to give hon. members the assurance this afternoon that we have a good system in South Africa and that we must not revert to the old system in terms of which the full responsibility rested on the department. I also wish to give the hon. member the assurance that the State keeps a watchful eye on the institutions it has created and that we shall continue to keep a watchful eye over the moral norms of our people.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister now. We all know that the principle of censorship is not a problem. The problem lies in its application, and that is a minefield into which I do not want to venture now.

†In two days’ time we shall be commemorating the first anniversary of the last election. In fact this time a year ago we were all busy reading our election day organization. I believe that history will show that in White politics the election of a year ago had a certain historical significance, both because of the fact that Mr. Jaap Marais’s party received so many votes and because our party came back stronger than ever before despite the taunts and challenges of the hon. the Prime Minister. Since then, however, we have had another interesting election in South Africa. The Indian Council election, which is the most recent election, was a tightly contested election. It was tightly contested particularly by those people who campaigned for boycotting the election. In fact they did not boycott the election; they participated by calling on people to abstain. Mr. Chairman, if you had visited the polling stations in my constituency in Natal on the day of that election, as I did it would have been an amazing experience for you. In that one constituency alone there were over 8 000 registered Indian voters. I went there at 18h00 and I was welcomed by all the election officials who a few months before had been helping to run the election which I won for my party in Pietermaritzburg North. They all gave me broad smiles. They were sitting around in a large hall anticipating a great rush of voters and when I asked them at 18h00 how many of those over 8 000 voters had voted, they replied 249. There may have been a few more. If ever the Indian people gave a message to this Government, it is that they do not want an apartheid institution for their political expression. In fact, it was a fantastic electoral success for the anti-apartheid Indians in that whole election process. They did not boycott that election; they participated by getting their people to abstain. A few months before that there was also a White election in Natal, and what happened in that White election? The Nationalists in Natal were routed. And that was in the face of a heavy “Swart gevaar” campaign. If I were to tell hon. members the type of literature that was distributed in my constituency in regard to residential areas, schools and so forth, they would be surprised, to say the least. This was obviously an attempt to persuade the White voters that if they voted for the PFP and even for the NRP, Natal would be dominated by Indians and Blacks and that the Whites would have no future there at all. Despite that, however, the White voters of Natal rejected the NP. Both the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development and the hon. member for Umlazi know just how close they came to losing their seats.

You couldn’t win yours without the support of the NRP.

The point is that in Natal there was a clear message from the Indian and White voters and, a few years beforehand, from the Black voters when, despite the efforts of the then Minister, Dr. Connie Mulder, as well as General Van den Bergh who was head of the Bureau for State Security at the time to try to organize parties to undermine Chief Gatsha Buthelezi’s party, Inkatha won an election which showed quite clearly what the wishes of the Black people in Natal were. The interesting thing, however, is that Natal has now quite clearly through the medium of democratic institutions which all of us accept as being democratic in the sense that people have had the opportunity to register as voters and to exercise a choice, rejected apartheid as a solution.

Tell us how many people voted for your party.

I think I should switch to Afrikaans, because what I want to say now I can express better in Afrikaans. [Interjections.] In Natal there are three ancient ethnic groups that are much older than the Afrikaner people. These are the English people, the Indian people and the Zulu people. The Zulu were a people before the Afrikaans language was ever spoken. The Indians were a people before the English were, and the English are already an ancient people. [Interjections.] Since 1948 those peoples have had no right of self-determination whatsoever. [Interjections.] Yes, that is another point. The hon. member for Klip River has never had any right of self-determination. The hon. member for Klip River is a good example of a people that preserved its language, its religion and its culture through four generations. That hon. member is still proud of his religion and his children are being raised through the medium of German.

What about the hon. member for Durban Central?

Yes, he is also an example, but not for four generations. The point I want to make, is that we have peoples here who have had no right of self-determination. Since 1948 we have had Afrikaner majority rule in this country, and that right of self-determination has disappeared. When one talks about the right of self-determination, what is one really talking about? In this regard I should like to associate myself immediately with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. What is really of so much importance when it comes to the right of self-determination? Is it “baas-skap”? Is it political sovereignty? What are the things that really constitute the heritage of a people? Surely they are its language, its church and its cultural institutions. Those things are not necessarily dependent upon political power in the sense of sovereignty. I think this is a very important fact. If we want to survive in this country, the issue, to my way of thinking, is not “baasskap”. One does not have to be a politician to forecast the future of this country; all you have to be is a mathematician and to know a little about statistics. We are faced with a terrible problem. It is a problem of survival as White Africans in this subcontinent of Africa. The question is really how we are going to guarantee that survival. [Interjections.] I think we are making a big mistake if we believe that self-determination can only be acquired through political sovereignty, because that is not the case at all. For this there is the good example of three ancient peoples that have strong cultural institutions, are full of life and have no self-determination at all, yet still survive. There are many young persons who would like to build a future in this country even if they do not have that political power which seems to be so important to certain hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat devoted his speech mainly to two aspects. The second part of his speech dealt with three ancient peoples, but I do not wish to elaborate on that, because I do not believe I have sufficient knowledge to do so.

The first part of his speech dealt with the election of the Indian Council. As far as this is concerned, I draw his attention to the fact that the representative of the Laudium constituency in the Indian Council, Mr. Boetie Abrahamjee, lives in my constituency. His election as the member for that constituency was unopposed. Therefore we did not see very much activity in Pretoria concerning the election for the Indian Council as such. For this reason, I cannot enter into a debate with the hon. member about that part of his speech, as I have nothing to debate with him.

The hon. member began by remarking that almost a year had elapsed since the last general election, and this reminded one of 29 April 1981 and all the events leading up to and preceded that day. The first thought that occurs to one is whether the department should not consider streamlining our entire system for holding elections.

On 29 April last year, the hon. member for Sunnyside had a number of visitors from Japan in his constituency who had come to this country to see how elections were conducted in South Africa. Their comment was: If we had to conduct elections in the same way in Japan, the Japanese would vote for two weeks.

I believe that in the first place, we shall have to consider completely modernizing the system of registration of voters. In this connection I endorse the remarks made by the hon. members for Durban Point and Klip River, who spoke about the identity document and the drawing up of the voters’ roll on the basis of the identity document. I believe that it would be possible to draw up a voters’ roll on the basis of the population register if the problems with regard to voters who had moved to other areas could be eliminated. These problems concern voters who move from the constituencies in which they are registered to other constituencies without giving notice of their change of address. If they are not required to give notice of their change of address, a system in terms of which the voters’ roll is drawn up on the basis of the population register could hardly succeed.

Arising from this, I want to suggest that the local authorities are the bodies that are best informed about who is living at what address at a given moment. I think the local authorities could be very productively involved in the drawing up of voters’ rolls. Many hon. members will agree with me when I say that the last election was probably one of the most unpleasant ever held in our country. Especially in constituencies where we had to deal with a party which is not represented in this House, politics was conducted at a level I would not have thought possible. In addition, we experienced a few practical problems in connection with the election on 29 April.-The election cost the State more than R2 million. However, I do not think one could calculate what it cost the parties, for how does one calculate the cost of all the man-hours that were worked? In the light of our relatively small number of voters, I want to allege, therefore, that the cost of the election is out of proportion to the number of votes that are cast.

Another practical problem that is being experienced, as a result of the way in which elections are held and the lifestyle of our people in South Africa, relates to the voting pattern itself. The polling booths are open from 07h00 to 21h00, but by 16h00, fewer than 10% of the voters have cast their votes. The great rush occurs between 17h00 and, interestingly enough, 20h00. No-one turns up at the polling booths after 20h00. As a result of our system, the pressure on the polling booths between 17h00 and 20h00 is becoming unmanageable. It was possible to accommodate this in the days when there were between 8 000 and 10 000 voters per constituency, but in an urban constituency which is divided into two or three electoral districts and which has 16 000, 17 000 or 18 000 voters—even 22 000, as we have had on occasion—this problem becomes unmanageable.

There is a further problem which is being experienced, and I think attention should be given to this. I am referring to the fact that the procedure for postal and special votes could be streamlined merely by simplifying the forms that are used, i.e. by simplifying the system as such. In saying this, I am not criticizing the department.

Why not?

I only want to bring the problems to the attention of the department. I want to help the department to devise a new system. [Interjections.] I do not know what happened elsewhere, but in Pretoria, the 1981 election was for the first time conducted by officials of the Department of Internal Affairs. As far as I know, as long as I have been involved in politics, it had previously been arranged and conducted in Pretoria by officials of the Department of Justice. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department on their handling of their first election. My electoral officer was a Mr. Piet Hartzenberg, and he was an officer to be proud of.

If you had not had a Hartzenberg on your side, you would not have made it.

He is not the brother of the man whom that hon. member is boasting with about having on his side; only a distant cousin. However, he certainly did excellent work. I have simply been expressing a few thoughts about the problems experienced in the 1981 election, and I also convey my sincere thanks to the officials of that department for the excellent work they did for us.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer very briefly to a matter which the hon. member for Sea Point dealt with earlier this afternoon, namely the way in which the Opposition is sometimes attacked in this House and outside, the type of politics which is engaged in and the effect this has on the willingness of the electorate to accept change. The importance of this matter must never be under-estimated. I am convinced that the type of propaganda that was used during the Johannesburg municipal elections earlier this year, for example, caused enormous damage in that area. I have no doubt about the fact that the propaganda which emanated from NP quarters during that election is grist to the mill of the CP and the HNP. Nor will it do anything to help the Government to sell constitutional reform to the electorate in this country. We hope that the Government will take this to heart and that the hon. the Minister will try to use his influence to see to it that that type of language and that kind of political exploitation of prejudices are avoided in the future.

Then I should like to come back to the matter which I dealt with in the debate yesterday and to which the hon. the Minister has reacted briefly today. I want to say at once that the reaction of the hon. the Minister and of the hon. member for Randburg greatly surprised me. I want to say that we can conduct a fruitful debate about this matter, but that it will serve no purpose for us to read more into one another’s words or speeches than is contained in them or was meant by them. By doing this, in fact, the hon. the Minister and other hon. members who have referred to this are only creating a degree of misunderstanding, to their own disadvantage. It is possible to play with words in this connection, but as the hon. the Minister himself has said, clarity concerning the standpoints of the various parties on this matter is extremely important at this stage and misunderstanding will not get us anywhere. As far as the question of malicious pleasure is concerned, the hon. member for Randburg and the hon. the Minister said that I had moved very quickly and that we had now adopted a realistic approach. The hon. the Minister even implied that I had departed from the party standpoint. All I can say is that they have got hold of the wrong person; I am afraid I am not one of those hypersensitive political prima donnas who can easily be played off against his colleagues in his own party.

For the sake of clarity and in order to remove all doubt, I just want to make a few remarks in this connection again. Firstly, the PFP remains just as committed as before to Black participation in the creation of a constitution in South Africa. Neither I nor any of my colleagues in the party will ever be prepared to accept any constitutional adjustment which cannot in our opinion promote the inclusion of Black people, and of all other groups in South Africa, of course, in an eventual system of government.

In a referendum as well?

I am not quite sure what the hon. member is referring to.

Also when a referendum is held about this matter?

Yes, that was what I was talking about yesterday. I said that when various parties had to take a stand on this matter, this was the kind of consideration which might influence us and which was of importance to us.

The hon. the Minister also said that my speech yesterday implied a departure from the idea of a national convention. I just want to assure the hon. the Minister that his interpretation of my speech in this respect was definitely not correct.

I also want to deal briefly with the substance of the reaction of the hon. member for Randburg to what I said. I must say that the hon. member actually showed some enthusiasm for it. I actually accepted that the hon. member himself would be amenable to a formula of that nature; that he would find such a test acceptable. Therefore I should like to examine the matter further. However, I want to point out again that as I have already indicated, it could be an important consideration, in deciding whether to support a particular constitutional change, whether such a constitutional change would promote the inclusion of Black people in the system of government.

The Government is obviously approaching constitutional reform in a piecemeal fashion. The whole idea of negotiation with Coloureds and Indians, and of a different approach to Blacks, or of negotiating with them at a later stage, indicates that constitutional change is being approached in a piecemeal fashion. It is clear to all that the PFP does not support that approach. We believe it would be much better to call a national convention, a national convention of all parties, and to draw up a new constitution in that way. The strong standpoint adopted by the PFP in this connection is evident from the fact that we did not consider it worth while to participate in the activities of the President’s Council, precisely because the composition of the President’s Council had already influenced the possible recommendations of that council, which makes it clear that certain lines will be drawn and that Blacks will not be welcome in a new constitutional dispensation.

The reason why I was surprised at the reaction of the hon. member for Randburg was that if the test I am suggesting were to be accepted, if the Coloureds were indeed to be given equal status to such an extent in a central system of government, I do not believe there is any doubt about the fact—and I believe hon. members will agree with me on this—that the lobby for the inclusion of Black people in a central system of government in South Africa would be immeasurably strengthened. There is no doubt about this. Indeed, I believe that it is already clear at this stage that the vast majority of Coloured people and Indians in South Africa are in favour of including Black people in the process. If they had the same political say as Whites in South Africa, therefore, that lobby would inevitably be strengthened. In my opinion, this would then create a much better opportunity for the eventual inclusion of Black people in the central system of government. Therefore I should very much like the hon. the Minister, or some other hon. member on the Government side, to react specifically to that possibility and to tell us whether they consider it to be an acceptable possibility. If this is not done, if the Coloured people and the Indians are not given that measure of political equality, I believe, as I said last night, that we should not talk about political equality, indeed, we should not even talk about self-determination. Even co-responsibility and power-sharing should not be mentioned then, because these concepts would not be applicable; it would be a situation in which the Coloured people and the Indians would still be forced into a position of political inferiority by constitutional means. To us this would be unacceptable, of course, and therefore I am convinced that it would also be unacceptable to the vast majority of the Coloured and Indian populations.

But where did we misunderstand you?

No, I am not sure whether the hon. member for Randburg misunderstood me. I should be very glad if he did not misunderstand me. However, if the hon. member understood me correctly, and he is still enthusiastic about the idea, I should like the hon. member or the hon. the Minister to discuss the matter in somewhat greater detail, and to debate with me the possible consequences of such a step, especially with regard to the eventual inclusion of Blacks in the central political system. The impression I gained, however, was that this has been unacceptable to them up to now. If they are now taking a step, therefore, which makes this a very definite possibility, I believe they should tell us whether such a step would be acceptable to them if the majority of the Coloured people and the Indians were to request it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point apologized for not being able to be here at this juncture. I accept his apology and will therefore not reply to his speech in detail, except to refer to one observation he made. The hon. member made the allegation that to a large extent the way in which the Government attacks the official Opposition is counter-productive to the reform the Government says it wishes to bring about. I find this holier than thou attitude reprehensible. [Interjections.] Sir, I did not interrupt those hon. members when they spoke. What did the hon. member for Sea Point do last night in his attack on this side of the House? He suggested that we were humiliating people of colour. He spoke about the manner in which we humiliated the Indian people.

Hon. members on your side said the same. [Interjections.]

I should like to reiterate that it ill behoves hon. members of the PFP to speak in these terms about anybody else. What are the facts?

Only they are allowed to.

Yes, only they are allowed to. The hon. member referred to the Coloured vote, but who exploited the Coloured vote? [Interjections.]

The NP.

Who abused the Coloured vote to divide White people in this country among themselves? [Interjections.] It is no good shouting, Sir. When one addresses one’s opposition in the abusive way in which the hon. member for Sea Point spoke last night, one has no right whatsoever to speak about other people.

He was dealing factually with the historical background.

The hon. member for Berea must just bear in mind that the Indian population never had a worse deal than when they fell under the province of Natal. You are welcome to go and ask the Indians. [Interjections.]

†There are some of the Indian leaders present in this House, and hon. members now have the opportunity to ask them what the deal was that they had under the Provincial Administration of Natal.

It is not the PFP’s fault.

I now come to the PFP. When did they originate? Who are the spiritual forefathers of the PFP? Hon. members must not talk such nonsense now.

†I should now like to come to the hon. member for Green Point. I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member’s explanation, but he has no right to accuse me of incorrectly interpreting what he said. What did the hon. member say, Sir? He was speaking about the President’s Council, its establishment and its recommendations, and said—(Hansard, 26 April, 1982)—

I presume that he had intended to say that the President’s Council had been produced by the Government.

No.

What then was the hon. member trying to say?

I meant something that is produced by either the President’s Council or the Government.

Very well. The hon. member went on to say …

I accept that. He then said—

That is factually not true. It was not produced by one but by three parties.

Are you going to accept the proposals? [Interjections.]

I am not talking to that hon. member now. I am talking to the hon. member for Green Point. [Interjections.]

I am trying to get clarity.

Ask the hon. member for Green Point for clarity.

I am asking you.

This statement made by the hon. member for Green Point is obviously not true. Why create the impression that the President’s Council was the creation of one party only? This is very important because I would have thought that the hon. member would have dealt with the facts.

He does not need that help.

The hon. member is a lawyer. He is trained to use words selectively, I would imagine. Talking about the recommendations the hon. member said—

So far so good. I quote further—

If words have meaning, what does this mean? It means that the test which the hon. member suggest should be applied is that the Coloured people should first be included in the constitutional dispensation and that the question of Black participation should then be discussed. No other conclusion can be drawn from these words. I will, however, accept that the hon. member may have expressed himself badly.

No, I did not express myself badly.

In that case I have to stick to the words the hon. member used.

The hon. the Minister is so desperate to find something to say that… [Interjections.]

No, that is not the case.

Tell us rather where you stand.

I have told the hon. member where I stand.

I want now to come to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North who has also excused himself. The hon. member discussed three elections in his speech, one of which was the election for the South African Indian Council. He gloated over the success which opponents of the South African Indian Council achieved, but he does not understand that to a large extent that success was attributable to the actions of the ANC and the Black Alliance. The efforts of these two organizations are directed not towards reform in the country but towards suppression.

Why do you think they were successful?

I will tell the hon. member now. The hon. member should know better. He should know what happened to the Indian people in 1947 before this Government came into power.

Do you think that was the only reason?

No, I am not suggesting that that was the only reason. They had all the funds and expertise as well as a lot of White people at their command, and the hon. member knows that. The hon. member is well aware Of that and I wonder what role some other people played in trying to prove a point against the Indian Council. That the hon. member must decide for himself.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must give me a chance; I will come to that point. The hon. member knows that the Indian people—this is not my observation; I am merely repeating their own view—do not have the experience of political parties that we have. Everything before and after that election underscores this. Therefore, where this institution, ineffective as hon. members may think it is, is doing everything in its power to improve conditions for the Indian people, I take the strongest exception to the fact that it should be so designated. I take it even further than that. The hon. member knows of the intimidation of voters at that election. I need not remind him of it. Does he think that the position is going to improve under his system? Does he think that the agitators will be less vehement in destroying instruments of peaceful reform under his system?

But you have been trying all the time.

Of course!

I should like to make a further point in this regard. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also discussed the White election in Natal which is very important. However, the one thing he failed to tell us about was what happened in regard to the Provincial Council election in Natal. He did not tell the House that the votes for the NRP in the Provincial Council had been reversed in relation to those cast for the NRP in Parliament. There is an obvious reason for that.

Let us have it then.

Nobody believed that the PFP would ever come into power in Parliament, and they still do not believe it.

Is that why they do not vote for the NRP?

However, when they had to take the risk of putting the PFP into power in the Provincial Council, they voted against them. [Interjections.] That is true. Therefore I say again that I do not think that the hon. members of the Opposition, particularly the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, have any reason to gloat over the results of either the provincial or the parliamentary election in Natal.

Just wait for the next election!

The hon. member for Durban Central … [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban Central wants to listen to my reply to his questions. It seems to me he is far more interested in the “side show” than in the debate. He asked me a question with regard to the matriculation results. In the first place, the hon. member is aware that the Director of Education ordered an immediate investigation, headed by a non-departmental officer, into the possible reasons for the situation. I think the hon. member ought to praise the Director of Education for being prepared to request an impartial investigation.

The second point I wish to make in this particular connection is that this investigating team produced divergent findings with regard to the causes and contributory causes of the low pass rate among matriculants. The most important cause identified by the investigating team was the boycotts and the riots at the schools. There were pupils who had not attended their classes for five months. So here we have tangible evidence of how children become the victims of adults who misuse children for political purposes, and the hon. member knows it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.