Mr Speaker, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

I must honestly say that I cannot imagine any better occasion than this to move the motion. In fact, the discussion of this motion is a continuation of the debate which began during the no-confidence debate, when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made certain remarks which he later clarified at my request. Accordingly, I welcome the opportunity to continue this debate in the peaceful atmosphere of the discussion of a private member’s motion, and to discuss further a few points I made last week, as well as a few points that were made by the hon the Minister.

Last week I discussed the problem of domination in our society, and I said that this was the central political problem for which we were all seeking a solution. I added that it seemed to me as if the goal should be to achieve self-determination without domination. I also said that domination manifested itself at various levels. It is manifested in politics when one group can call a government to account, whereas another group is unable to do so. It is manifested in the economic sphere when members of one group have greater individual freedom of movement to improve their chances in life than members of another group. In the social sphere it is manifested when members of one group are benefited to a greater extent by the State than the members of a different group with regard to the provision of social services.

The most critical form of domination, of course, is political domination. It is possible for a dominant group to relinquish social and economic domination without relinquishing political domination. There are many examples of this in history. However, history, particularly recent African history, shows that it is highly unlikely that when a group has relinquished political domination it will be able to continue dominating as before in the social and economic spheres. Therefore the fundamental problem, if we are seeking self-determination without domination, is how to move away from one kind of political domination without replacing it by another kind of political domination which could be worse. That is about as far as we have progressed with the debate thus far.

It seems to me as if part of the answer may be found in the relationship between domination and racial discrimination. Political domination can be a special case of racial discrimination, but political domination need not necessarily mean social and economic discrimination. Therefore it is important that we are clear on what exactly we mean by the term “racial discrimination”. We and the Government use this concept. It is not a matter of there being inequality among individuals and groups. Throughout the world people and groups are unequal in terms of their resources, their cultural traditions, etc, and cannot really be compared with one another. The existence of social inequality as such, or race or ethnic or individual inequality, must not be confused with the existence of racial discrimination. When we speak about racial discrimination in this context, then issues of political and constitutional policy are at issue. It is chiefly a matter of the relationship between the State, its subjects and the Government of the day. When the Government of the day expects the same loyalty, the same obedience and the same co-operation of all the citizens of the State but, as a matter of policy, furthers or prejudices the interests of certain groups purely on the basis of race or ethnicity, then racial discrimination becomes an essential component of Government policy. Let me put this concretely and simply. If the Government of the Whites demands of the Black man, the Indian and the Coloured the same loyalty towards South Africa, if it expects of all those people to maintain the status quo, to promote order, not to act in a revolutionary way or in a way that seeks the violent overthrow of the existing order, but makes it clear in its policy, its actions and its constitution that it discriminates against some of those people on a racial or ethnic basis, then we are faced with the problem of racial discrimination and how to get away from it. The point is that the Government is on record as having itself recognized that so-called discrimination does exist as part of its policy in South Africa. The Government is also on record as having stated that it wants to move away from it.

On this point, as in the debate on domination and on racial discrimination, there is a point of agreement between the Government and the official Opposition. We believe that racial discrimination may by no means and in no respect form part of the official policy of the Government of the day. The Government, in contrast, is trying to draw a distinction between essential and unnecessary discrimination, or between hurtful and non-hurtful discrimination. I believe that if we could just obtain clarity in this debate on exactly what the Government understands by the concept “hurtful” and “unnecessary” discrimination, then we shall have made a great deal of progress. It is in this context that I should like to put a few proposals to the Government.

†However, before I do so, I have to anticipate a favourite kind of counter-attack that is usually launched to divert attention away from the central purpose of the debate. Whenever the PFP proposes the abolition of a specific racist or racially discriminatory measure or states that no race discrimination is justified in the policy of the State, we are accused of wanting social instability, undermining law and order and being insensitive to the traditional South African way of life. The most horrendous picture of social disintegration, permissiveness and chaos is painted as a consequence of our suggestions being adopted. Let me make it quite clear that the PFP has a vested interest in good social order and stability. We are very much concerned to see that it comes about in South Africa. However, for us it is a matter of deep conviction, born out of experience and overwhelming social evidence, that an official Government policy which contains race discrimination as an essential part, constitutes, in itself, one of the greatest threats to good social order and stability. Therefore, contrary to the puerile attacks of our opponents, our concern with racial discrimination and removing it from State and Government policy in South Africa, arises out of a deep concern and desire for social order and stability, and not because we stand indifferent to it.

Let me illustrate this with a few examples from our daily life and experience in South Africa. Nobody can object to communities voluntarily segregating for residential purposes along racial, cultural and ethnic lines. It happens all over the world. At the moment it happens in New York where you have Chinatown, Black and Spanish Harlem. There is a voluntary segregation along racial, ethnic and cultural lines. However, when you have a law such as the Group Areas Act, which systematically allocates better land to Whites and poorer land to those who are not White; which consistently forces more hardships through removals on those who are not White than on those who are—the evidence is there—and legally prevents someone from moving out of a racially demarcated area for residential purposes even if such a person has the means to do so, then you have racism and racial discrimination enshrined as a cornerstone of your residential and housing policy, no matter how eloquently one tries to deny it.

I want to give another example. Nobody can object to any Government taking action to prevent over-urbanization or unplanned and unsystematic urban migration. We have seen where this has been done right throughout the world. There are problems of overcrowding, slums, cities being burdened with populations which they cannot look after, etc. Therefore nobody can object to a Government trying to come to terms with these problems to the best of its ability. However, when you have a system of laws known as influx control which prevents Black people from moving as freely as White people in the land of their common birth to look for work, better shelter or move away from poverty, deprivation and even starvation and which on a vast, almost incomparable scale to Whites, breaks up Black family life—this is a matter which has been placed on record by the Dutch Reformed Church—then you have racism and racial discrimination lying at the heart of the policy of population movement and control.

Let me give another example. Nobody can deny that it is good and necessary to maintain decent standards and that public amenities and places of leisure should be protected against abuse, overcrowding and vandalism. This is the task of good government, whether it is at central, regional or local level. However, when a Government introduces a law called the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act which specifically states that amenities have to be segregated on racial grounds and that those reserved for people who are not White need not be of the same quality as those for Whites, then racism and racial discrimination is the guiding principle for a policy of providing public amenities for the citizens of the country.

If these laws, and others like them, are seen as indispensable for White self-determination, then, no matter how much we protest and rationalize, racism and enforced racial discrimination become preconditions for that kind of White self-determination. A Government that preaches reform and at the same time regards the retention of such laws as inevitable deludes not only itself but also the people it governs that reform and the maintenance of institutionalized racism can go hand in hand. A Government that acknowledges that all forms of hurtful and unnecessary racial discrimination must go, but which regards laws such as those I have just mentioned as necessary and not hurtful, blinds itself to the pain of others and to the cancer of racism in its own policies.

*However, to prevent us talking past one another as we have done in the past, it is imperative in this instance, too, when we discuss race discrimination, to respond to the appeal of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to try to determine what we agree on, so that we can be clear about where we differ. The Government has stated that it firmly intends to remove unnecessary and hurtful discrimination. How can we in this House and outside it know what the Government means thereby?

I propose that we identify areas of discrimination and try to determine by discussion and debate whether it is not easier to move away from discrimination in some areas than in others. I wish to state that I believe it is relatively easy for the Government and the Opposition to agree on how to move away from discrimination in the economic sphere, that it is going to be a little more difficult to agree on this in the social sphere and that it may be most difficult for us to agree on it in the political sphere. Therefore I believe that in each of these spheres—economic, social and political—the Government could come up with a limited declaration of intent. For example, the Government could say: To move away from racial discrimination in the economic sphere I can say this, in the social sphere I can say this, and in the political sphere that.

For example, the Government’s statement of intent as regards the economic sphere could read as follows: It is the Government’s firm intention to do away with all statutory and policy measures which inhibit the economic opportunities and progress of the individual on the basis of his or her racial, ethnic or cultural links. That, then, is an objective in the economic sphere. Such a declaration of intent would entail no immediate consequences for the political and social spheres. The abolition of job reservation as well as the changes in the labour sphere, for example, have helped a great deal towards improving the bargaining power and freedom of movement of Blacks, to the benefit of our economy, without necessarily jeopardizing the position of the Whites’ political domination or social self-determination. There are other statutory measures that will have to be revised or abolished. Here I have in mind, for example, the Blacks (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, Act 67 of 1952, and all the laws relating to so-called influx control. The Government is investigating this. There is the Blacks Resettlement Act, the Mines and Works Act and others of that nature. These are specific statutory measures that restrict the economic opportunities of the Blacks. We read in this morning’s Burger that the hon the Minister has received a deputation of religious leaders who approached him specifically in order to discuss these measures in the economic sphere.

A declaration of intent by the Government in the social sphere could, for example, read as follows: It is the Government’s firm intention to do away with all statutory measures that discriminate among individuals on a racial and ethnic basis with regard to the provision by the State of social services and the Government’s regulation of group relations. Once again this is a limited declaration of intent. Here, too, certain statutes and measures are less controversal than others. We have already seen that the throwing open of lifts, hotels and parks, the integration of counters at post offices and other Government bodies and of public facilities and transport facilities have not affected the Whites’ position of domination in politics. However, research has also shown that it is in the social sphere in particular that those who are not classified as White, experience measures as exceptionally hurtful and humiliating. For example, measures that come to mind at once are the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Group Areas Act, the Prevention of illegal Squatting Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act. These are measures which have been identified in one research report after another as measures which are experienced as hurtful.

When we come to a declaration of intent in the political sphere the chances are greater that we shall speak past one another. What would such a declaration have to involve? I believe it could read as follows:

That must be the objective. As I have already said, it is quite probably in this sphere that we shall speak past one another, but it is just here, in the political sphere, that the problems of racial discrimination and political domination coincide, and where it is most difficult to unravel them. Therefore I said that domination was an example of discrimination in the political sphere. If I identify a few measures to illustrate the point, one can see immediately how controversial and fundamental this is to the debate.

Will you concede that domination can still take place without a statutory definition?

Undoubtedly. The measures I referred to in this regard are the Population Registration Act, the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, the National States Citizen Act, the constitutions of National States, etc. Sri Lanka is an example of a case to which the hon the Minister has just referred. Syria, too, to which I referred last week, is an example.

The whole of Africa is an example.

Yes. The Tutsis of Burundi are another such example. They have no laws; they simply dominate with the barrel of a gun.

Of course, the new constitution of the Republic of South Africa is another such example.

I believe that if we are in earnest as regards moving away from domination and bringing about a situation of self-determination without domination, then we must have a declaration of intent in this regard as well. In this connection I want to address a word of qualification to the Government when I say that for the purposes of discussion and for the purposes of identifying spheres in which we can move away from discrimination with greater or lesser difficulty, we can distinguish among the various spheres of racial discrimination. I do just wish to say that there is considerable interdependence among all three of these areas. We must not mislead ourselves by thinking that if we have committed ourselves to the removal of domination in one sphere there is not going to be pressure for the removal of domination in other spheres. I say this specifically because the Government has committed itself to the removal of domination. Wherever the Government may do so we must bear in mind that that removal is going to give rise to pressure for the removal of domination at other levels. This is something we had better face. However, we have to make a start somewhere. I believe that the absolute minimum for such a beginning is a declaration of intent. What are the benefits of a clear declaration of intent?

In the first place, it removes uncertainty and confusion. It would immediately have helped the hon the Minister of Community Development this morning in his reply to the questions put to him. After all, we would know where the Government stood, and confusion and uncertainty would be eliminated. Some of my hon colleagues will refer to this later, but honestly, the handling of the report of the Strydom Committee is like a circus. We do not know where we stand at the moment, because conflicting statements are being made. However, I believe that the matter can be clarified.

Secondly, such a declaration of intent would lend substance to the Government’s declared objectives. People would then know in what direction the Government wanted to move. Thirdly, it would then be easier to involve others in the pursuit of the stated objectives and, fourthly, it would provide a framework within which discussions could take place and within which stumbling blocks could be identified.

†A declaration of intent is but the first step in a process of removing racism and racial discrimination from State and Government policy. It simply defines the actions that have to be taken to give effect to this intent. When considering concrete steps to remove hurtful and unnecessary discrimination, I believe the following must be kept in mind.

There is a difference between removing statutory discrimination and de facto discrimination. This I grant immediately. Once one has removed statutory discrimination, one is not going to get rid of socio-economic inequalities overnight. Wherever possible, programmes would have to be instituted to gradually get rid of those inequalities. I also concede this immediately. However, a start has to be made with the removal of statutory discrimination. We do not say that if one removed statutory discrimination those who suffered under it would suddenly experience heaven on earth, but what we say at least—if I can be forgiven the analogy—is that they will not be condemned to a discriminatory hell by law. They would at least be able to get away from it and try to pursue their interests according to their own ability.

There is also a difference between symbolic and material action in removing hurtful and unnecessary discrimination. Material action involves expenditure, for example a five-year plan to equalize wages, etc. Symbolic action costs very little but can have an enormous impact in creating a positive climate for reform. For example, to remove the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act is not going to cost the Government a cent, and I do not think that it will have any profound impact on our marriages patterns or our sexual habits. It will, however, have a very, very positive impact domestically and overseas to demonstrate that the Government is serious in wanting to move away from hurtful and unnecessary discrimination. [Interjections.]

To sum up: The prevailing rhetoric in politics in South Africa at the moment is the rhetoric of reform. We talk about consensus, about negotiation and moving away from confrontation. The Government itself has realized that this rhetoric, stripped of all its guff, means simply that we have to come to grips with the problems of domination and removing racial discrimination.

What are we, the official Opposition and the Government, agreed upon? We agree that the central problem is political domination. We agree that the goal must be to strive for self-determination without domination and that in moving towards that goal the Government must take the initiative in removing unnecessary and hurtful discrimination. In other words, we have consensus on this. However, we suggest that we must move beyond that consensus, and one way of opening that debate and moving further is for us to ask the Government to formulate a clear and unambiguous declaration of intent. We believe that in formulating it we must distinguish between areas where it is easier to move and other areas, and wherever the Government wants to move we in the official Opposition will support it in moving away from those areas of racial discrimination.

*It is clear that in the future two options will be open to the Whites in South Africa in their pursuit of self-determination, viz firstly, whether we believe that self-determination with domination is unavoidable for White survival. Due to historical circumstances we are in a dominant position; we can do nothing about that, and we must cling to it for as long as possible. In the second place we may believe that this is the only condition for our survival, and there are indeed those who believe that. Then, too, there are those who say: “You must hold on to what you have, and the conditions you set for your own self-determination, whether in the economic, political or practical sphere, simply cannot apply to the other groups, and therefore self-determination with domination is inevitable.” The other option is that we believe that self-determination with domination is fatal to White survival. Then we must begin to negotiate. We must take steps and create opportunities to move away from that. I believe that the Government is in earnest when it states that it wishes to move away from domination. However, the party that hesitates or has doubts, and which takes halfhearted action, is going to be ground fine by the forces that will be unleashed in our society, and in that grinding process lie both the fears and the hopes for the future of us all.

Mr Speaker, before I react to what the hon the Leader of the Opposition said, I do want to take this opportunity of congratulating him on his birthday. At the same time I also want to extend a word of caution to him about the fact that at our age we must be a bit careful about our activities.

The hon the leader, more than anyone else in the House, will concede that the worst forms of domination in the social, political and economic spheres take place in countries where no statutory distinction is made between people or groups. So the mere fact that there is group differentiation on the basis of statutory definitions is not the cause of domination. The hon the Leader of the Opposition will concede as much.

As a generalisation, however, I want to say the following to the hon Leader of the Opposition in pursuance of what he has just said. The recognition of the principle of diversity in any country with a heterogeneous population—and that includes our own country—primarily underlies the policy of the government of the country. The hon the Leader of the Opposition obviously agrees with that. So separate development forms the basis of our South African socio-political policy, having been given substance in the establishment of separate community structures in the respective fields. Discrimination merely on the grounds of race or colour is unacceptable to the Government. On the other hand—in all fairness—differentiating measures are essential steps for orderly coexistence in our country. The hon the Leader of the Opposition will concede as much. All other things considered, he does also say, after all, that if we want to deal with the country’s problems we must do so on the grounds of our acceptance of a group basis. If we do not do so—and I say this with respect—we cannot adopt the protective measures that are absolutely essential in the case of certain groups.

Thirdly, if we were to remove all discriminatory measures—and by that I mean measures differentiating between groups—we would unavoidably be creating a unitary state concept on the basis of one man, one vote. There is no other way in which it can be done, and again the hon the Leader of the Opposition surely knows what the results of such an approach would be.

I would very much like to participate in this debate, however, because of the obvious seriousness with which the hon the Leader of the Opposition spoke. I also want to participate in the debate because of the request he made, one which actually echoes what I have already said, and that is that we should determine what our points of agreement are, and also determine what our points of disagreement are. I think the hon the Leader of the Opposition will concede that we can only engage in such an exercise if we are prepared, firstly, to obtain clarity about our goal for the country, secondly if we obtain clarity about the policy strategy we regard as functional in the achievement of those specific goals and then, thirdly, if we obtain clarity about the applicability and acceptability of such a policy strategy in the eyes of those who have to be served by it. As I understand the matter, there is no other way we can carry out this exercise.

I also immediately want to add that we on this side of the House cannot accept the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s motion, the obvious reason for that being that in it he refers to a matter about which the Government has already adopted a standpoint. He is asking for a declaration of intent on something that has already been put on record, and I should just quickly like to refer to that in general terms. Firstly, however, I want to move the following amendment:

1. (1) point of departure in granting recognition in the plural South African society to the variety of interests of the constituent groups and peoples; and
2. (2) programme of eliminating discrimination, which statutorily and administratively makes adjustments so that differentiation measures will serve the interests of all peoples and groups positively.”.

Mr Speaker, my contention is that this declaration of intent is unnecessary because the national objectives, which must give substance to the Government’s intention, are contained in the country’s constitution. A constitution which we have all accepted and which has a fundamental bearing on every sphere of life and on participation by every member of the country’s population. Here I am referring to the furthering of the contentment and the spiritual and material welfare of all—and in a moment I shall be coming to the methods to be employed in this connection—and to respecting and protecting the human dignity, life, liberty and property of all. I am not alleging that we have succeeded in doing this; far from it. Then there is also the goal of respecting, furthering and protecting the self-determination of population groups and peoples and that of furthering private initiative and effective competition. The Government identifies itself with the declaration of intent I have just quoted from the constitution. Hon members can rightly ask me, however: What is implied by this identification, on the part of the Government, in terms of its own policy? What does it mean in practice? On behalf of the Government I should like to say what it means.

In the first place it means that it is the declared policy of the Government that groups should participate in statecraft as groups. When all is said and done, that is also what the hon the Leader of the Opposition has already said, because if he is saying that in our country we cannot have a system of one man, one vote, he is virtually saying that recognition should be granted to the existence of the various groups and their group participation in the statecraft of our country. It is also the Government’s declared policy that in order to have justice done to the interests of all groups and peoples, recognition should be given to the pluralistic nature of South African society. There is no other way. Secondly, this differentiation may not take place at the cost of certain groups or merely for the sake of one of the groups. Thirdly, when the object of differentiation is to prejudice someone, this is morally and politically unjustifiable. Fourthly, the Government is committed to the removal of differentiation at the cost of others which is fundamentally unjust and brings about more friction than it eliminates. Apart from the general definition, therefore, the Government has said, in practical terms, what the meaning behind this is.

What the hon the Leader of the Opposition is obviously aiming at is a programme for the elimination of discrimination. He does not have a declaration of intent in mind. That is already on record.

The principles I have just referred to are contained in the constitutions of the party, and as far as the Cape is concerned, this goes back as far as 1920. Let me therefore say in all fairness that it is far-fetched of the hon the Leader of the Opposition to have wanted to imply last Thursday that what the PFP accepted in 1979 was now Government policy.

No, that is not so.

Well, that is how it looked to us. Perhaps we heard the hon the Leader of the Opposition incorrectly. I am saying, without any doubt, that in so far as the CP has been propagating an untruth of this nature, on the basis of the provisions of this party’s constitution, and also on the basis of what it has done to implement it, the CP has never agreed with the policy standpoints of this party, and it is only since February 1982 the they have ceased to do so in secret too. For the purposes of my speech, however, I want to leave the CP at that.

Let me immediately come back to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say that I greatly appreciate the fact that it would appear as if the conducting of debates across the floor of this House has made great strides and that we have come to the point where we do not have to play petty politics, the times being too serious for that. The hon the Leader of the Opposition himself said:

The hon the Leader of the Opposition also says that self-determination without domination is not only desirable, but also possible. He says that its realization in South Africa is the central question in our politics, and we also agree with that. The fact that self-determination without domination is desirable, and that there is agreement about that, requires no further comment.

The most difficult question is whether it is possible and, if it is indeed possible in future, at what time and in what manner it can happen. Here we come to the cardinal difference between the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s party and ourselves. If we did not have any disagreements about these two questions, the hon the Leader of the Opposition and his party would not have had the thrashing they had in the referendum last year. It would then have been unnecessary. I am just saying this for the sake of historical record.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition himself says:

That is where our paths diverge, because the hon the leader of the Opposition says that, but in what he is seeking and in what he is offering he does not suggest an individual solution, preferring a transplanted solution for South Africa. My problem with him is that although we agree about the nature of the problem, and even to a certain extent about the guidelines for the solution of the problem, in the light of his motion and the debate he has conducted to date, the hon the Leader of the Opposition is coming forward with a simplistic judgment that offers us nothing. What is that judgment? He is saying: Abolish compulsory group identification and then all problems will be solved. He concedes, however, that in countries where this does not exist, there is the greatest possible degree of domination—“even at gunpoint”, he says. Surely we cannot make any progress in that way.

Let us look at the progress already made in the light of the Government’s declared intention in regard to the removal of discrimination in this specific connection. It has taken place on a group basis within the population context. I am asking him in all fairness to have us test the models that have been given substance elsewhere, models which his party propagates, and see what the results have been.

Let us take the first sphere which the hon Leader identified and which is very important, ie the economic sphere. In the economic sphere the hon Leader is advocating—if I understand him correctly—the principle of individual freedom and equal opportunities for all people to participate. The Government has made progress in this connection and the hon Leader is aware of that. What progress has been made? The hon Leader referred to several facets in this connection. He referred, amongst other things, to what has happened in the labour sphere. Let me also refer him to the establishment of the Small Business Development Corporation—with what objective? To increase the bargaining strength of specifically identified groups. Let me refer him to the lifting of restrictions on trading rights in Black residential areas. Let me refer him to the acceptance, in the White Paper on the Riekert Report, of central business areas, something to which the hon the Minister of Community Development has already referred. I can also refer to the 99-year leasehold system and to the principle of free competition. There are myriad economic fields in which the Government’s declared intention has been given substance. So we do not need a declaration of intent for that.

Have you come to the end of the road as far as that is concerned?

Of course not.

Let us take a quick look at the social sphere. I think it is important and would therefore like to discuss it with the hon Leader. In the social sphere the hon Leader is requesting equal access for all groups to the services furnished by the State. In this sphere, too, the Government has made great strides. What has been done in this connection to make the very things possible that the hon Leader has advocated? There was the abolition of discriminatory Acts, a list of more than ten of them. There is progressive evidence of the fact that in terms of the declared objectives, as interpreted by the Government, it has taken steps in every sphere to achieve those objectives within the context of the country’s emotional and financial capabilities. The Government does not need to give a declaration of intent, because its record proves what it has done in this connection. Numerous discriminatory administrative measures have been abolished in many spheres of life, for example in regard to education, health services, social benefits, sport and recreation, housing, remuneration and so on. There is an upward trend to be discerned in the process of the removal of what we are committed to remove, ie people being prejudiced on the grounds of colour or race. The hon Leader will concede as much. I want to reiterate that it is not a matter of mere opportunities or voluntary group association of which the hon Leader spoke. Opportunities would be empty shells if people did not have the ability to make use of them. Is it not true that in our society, which is ethnically and otherwise divided, not only do protective measures have to be taken on a differentiated basis, but also supportive measures on a group basis? Is it not a fact that the development corporations, which are group-orientated, have made phenomenal progress in enabling people to make use of the opportunities? I seriously want to ask that we do not confuse differentiating measures that are protective in nature with measures that have a detrimental effect. Throughout the world it is accepted that if small countries were sacrificed to the power of large countries, and if countries were sacrificed internally to multinational companies, they would not have a snowball’s hope of making use of the opportunities. What is true in the international sphere is equally true within the borders of the country concerned.

Distinguishing measures are therefore necessary. There are also statutory distinguishing measures. This implies that supportive measures are necessary. I want to tell the hon Leader, in all seriousness, that in advocating the principle of voluntary association in the social sphere, he must clearly understand what this means. As I see it, what it means primarily is in conflict with the cardinal principle endorsed by the Government, ie self-development for each of the groups. A community can for ever be doomed to occupy an inferior position specifically because it scoops off the cream by having its leaders associate with other groups. The Afrikaner people have had experience of this and will not allow it to happen to other communities. The hon leader will concede that there are external restrictions that must succeed in granting other population groups access, on the same basis, to the services of the State. Neither he nor his party has ever assessed the financial implications for the State of introducing their policy overnight. Perhaps he must tell us one day what they are.

I said it could not be done overnight.

Very well, but the hon the Leader of the Opposition has never made an assessment of what the period would be. I have never heard a declaration of intent about what the period would be. As far as that is concerned, let me tell hon members that they must please give us the benefit of the preview of how we should manage that.

I have given hon members a brief sketch of how the processes have developed, and it is on record in the annals of South Africa’s history that this is the only country where the gap between the First World population and that of the Third World is narrowing in comparison with the rest of the world, where it is growing wider. When are we going to say, for a change, that our country is doing well within the context of its capabilities? Why, whenever we speak about South Africa or about these things, must we level accusations, make judgments and soft-soap people in order to promote the country in the eyes of the outside world?

I now come to the constitutional policy, and with that I shall conclude. We have accepted a constitution, and whether it is sufficient or not, is not the issue at the moment. The fact of the matter is that now, for the first time, people can participate, at the highest level, in decision-making and will be held responsible for what they do. The hon leader must surely concede as much in spite of the fact that he has opposed it.

The fact remains that it has been a dramatic event in the history of our country. In September of this year it will also be a dramatic event when this Parliament, on a group basis, allows access to other population groups. I want to say today, in all seriousness, that this would not be possible if it were not being done from the point of view of a group basis.

I want to conclude with a few other remarks. The hon the Leader of the Opposition said:

That is an important question. It is one I raise for the hon Leader to answer. He has not, however, ever answered that question. His suggestions do not answer the question either.

The White population group has a stabilizing influence on the political and socio-economic development of every other group in the country. The Whites have that influence on the country, and I am saying this in all seriousness. If the position of the Whites were to be undermined, all the other peoples would pay the price. That price would be paid in terms of political repression, economic decline and educational and social chaos. I am not saying this because of my exceptional love of the Whites, but because the survival and expertise of the Whites are essential to the preservation and stability of all the peoples living here. That is why I am asking whether the hon Leader does not want to tell me what his party’s policy of voluntary association in the political sphere means. Does it mean proportional representation and separate voters’ rolls, with a free choice to say on what roll one wants to be listed? What do we do then if everyone wants to be on the same list, and what then happens in regard to the question the hon Leader himself posed? He himself said that before we could do so, the question that had to be answered was how the Whites’ position could be assured and their fears allayed. The day the hon Leader comes to light with an acceptable solution that can be implemented, we shall have found a point of contact on which to base a discussion.

Mr Speaker, I really deemed it a privilege to listen to such a voluble debate between two well-known and important political leaders in our country. When two such people, who are from different parties, but who are so similar in their politico-philosophical outlook, participate in a debate, one must really be blessed with talent to be able to analyse the differences between those hon gentlemen. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister told us that as far as those differences are concerned, it is only a question of time. Towards the end, however, I began to think the Minister is still verkramp. [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon the Leader of the Opposition expects us to support him. I think he rather expected the Government to support him. I think it is also my responsibility to congratulate the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Later on in my contribution I should like to motivate why I wish to congratulate him. I find it inexplicable why the hon the Leader of the Opposition has asked the Government to make a declaration of intent to do certain things, as stated in his motion. It is really not necessary for the Government to support him. That is my standpoint. The Government need not make such a declaration, since the Government is already well on its way to doing in practice precisely what the hon the Leader of the Opposition is asking for in his motion. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition that it seems as though he is not aware that the NP is in fact in the process of implementing in practice all the things he is asking for in his motion.

I want to tell him that his motion links us beautifully with the strategy of the PFP, as we have observed it over the past few years, particularly from the private motions the PFP have brought before this House practically every year since 1977. I always find it very interesting to retrace the steps of political parties. It remains one of the very interesting and educational facets of our political history. I like to see how often and where a party has wandered away from its old path and how often it tries to cover its tracks. Now I can reassure the hon the Leader of the official Opposition in advance that his party’s tracks have always been clearly visible. One can see where it has been walking. That is one thing: The footsteps of a liberal are always very clear.

I cannot say the same about the National Party, however. If I look at the footsteps of the National Party, I see—and I am really sad to say this—how the tracks of the once mighty National Party are moving increasingly to the left, away from the old beaten track, lured and enticed onto the wrong path by liberal siren songs. As I have already said, I have come across the tracks of the official Opposition, and I should like to say something more about them. If one wishes to see the PFP’s tracks more clearly, if one wishes to discover how consistently they have walked in the footsteps of true liberalism, one must take cognizance of the private members’ motions they have introduced in this House over the years. I have gone to the trouble of examining the record and I want to present a few of them briefly. It is quite illuminating, since one can see their planning and strategy which has led to the NP being where it is today, painted into the liberal corner, painted in by the PFP. I shall refer briefly to a few private members’ motions.

In 1976 the hon member Prof Olivier moved a motion in which he called for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into and report on the steps required to remove all forms of statutory discrimination based on race or colour, and that the committee have power to take further evidence. In 1977 there was another motion to the effect that the House was of the opinion that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act should be repealed. The hon member for Sea Point moved that motion. One is tempted to say that it could just as well have been moved by the hon member for Randburg. In 1978 there was another motion that the House was of the opinion that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act should be repealed. The hon member for Innesdal could just as well have moved that motion. Thus there was one motion after another by the PFP. The hon the Leader of the Opposition moved such motions on three occasions. In 1980, for example, an investigation into turning South Africa into a society free of discrimination based on race or colour was called for. There were other motions as well.

If one takes a look at the sum total of these private members’ motions, it is clear to everyone that the PFP is undoubtedly striving for only one thing in South Africa, viz a completely open community. I do not think I am making an unfair inference.

Perhaps it would be as well for me to state the standpoint of the CP clearly early on in my contribution. Everything that has been said in the discussion of previous private members’ motions by the PFP, as well as everything the hon the Leader of the Opposition said today, amounts to the PFP striving for an open community in South Africa. That is its aim. I should like to quote verbatim what the hon member for Barberton said as far back as 1980. I can assure hon members that he stands by everything he said then. He said (Hansard, Vol 85, col 3237):

We are therefore living in a country with a tremendous potential for conflict. There is only one pattern for creating and putting into operation the peaceful coexistence of the various communities in South Africa, and that is the policy of separate development. That is why it ought to be the task of the Government to extend every community, and to assist every community in developing itself to its maximum potential. We do not want this to take place in a spirit of superiority. However, we acknowledge the distinction between the various communities in the South African context which we have to deal with on a daily basis.

The hon member for Barberton said that it was clear to him that the liberalist wanted to dismiss all divisive measures existing between peoples and races, and all dividing lines existing between various communities, as discrimination and racism. In the final instance the solution for South Africa lies in the extension of each one of its communities to its maximum potential. That is the CP’s standpoint in a nutshell, in respect of this debate we are conducting at present as well. [Interjections.]

I want to motivate why I said that I was grateful that the hon the Leader of the Opposition had moved this motion here today. I want to congratulate him because his party’s planning and strategy are still the same. Over the past two years in particular, the PFP has succeeded in exposing the NP with its new political direction for what it really is, viz an integrationist party in the full sense of the word. [Interjections.] With its strategy the PFP has strengthened the hand of the liberalists in the NP ranks to such an extent that they, the liberalists, have ultimately hijacked the NP. They have taken over the NP and compelled it to move in the direction the PFP has prescribed to them. [Interjections.] Therefore, one could almost say to the PFP: Heartiest congratulations on succeeding in assisting to effect a parting of the ways in the NP. Thank you very much for making the Whites in this country aware once again that they are engaged in a struggle for the retention of their identity and that that struggle will be continued as never before. Thank you very much for making a substantial contribution to the Whites in this country once again having a party like the CP which fear lessly hoists the flag of the White man and will ensure that the White man will be able to remain and preserve himself in his own country in the future.

The PFP made it clear that there is no place for an in-between party like the NP in South Africa. [Interjections.] There is no place for a party that wants to be all things to all men in this multinational country of ours. We listened with interest to the speech of the hon the Leader of the Opposition, and in a certain respect we knew what he was going to say and he in fact did so. His insistence that the Government make a declaration of intent, was worded incorrectly. After all, it is not necessary for the Government to make such a declaration of intent. As I have already said, what is really required, and what the hon the Leader of the Opposition should have asked for, is that the Government make an official declaration of surrender; a declaration of the surrender of its estate. [Interjections.] After all, it is not necessary for the Government to make another declaration of intent; that would in fact be superfluous. Surely the hon the Leader of the Opposition is aware that the NP is doing precisely what the PFP asks it to do. [Interjections.] This is a serious matter.

If it were not the case that the CP, that all conservative Whites in South Africa, were looking on in amazement how the once mighty NP is giving in to the demands of the liberals daily, we would derive considerable pleasure from seeing how the battle between the NP and the PFP progresses. Mr Speaker, please permit me to use the example of two boxers in this regard—the PFP boxer on the one hand, and the NP boxer on the other. The PFP boxer has trapped the NP boxer in a corner. [Interjections.] He sees how the knees of the NP boxer buckle and his eyes become glazed. [Interjections.] It is clear to everyone that the NP wishes for a knock-out blow. [Interjections.] It is interesting to note that the boxers of both those parties have an American instructor and coach. That is one of the remarkable things. However, the PFP has learned over the years that it is not always desirable to listen only to the American instructor. In the interim they have also obtained advice from other sources. The poor NP, however, is still listening to that American instructor, and I do not know when they will realize that that instructor is still going to leave them in the lurch. No, I think it is senseless for the official Opposition to ask the NP to make a declaration of intent in order to clarify how it is going to deal with the removal of statutory and administrative discrimination based on race or colour.

It is also extremely interesting, Mr Speaker, to retrace the steps of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. At one stage in 1978 he was extremely angry with the verligtes in the NP. He was also very unhappy about the verligte newspaper editors. He wanted to get at all of them, since he believed that these people should at least state honestly who and what they are. He wanted them to show their true colours. Amongst other things, the hon the Leader of the Opposition said the following in this House with regard to those people on Friday, 10 February 1978, and I quote (Hansard, vol 72, col 829):

The hon the Leader of the Opposition then went on to reprimand the Afrikaans-language newspaper editors, who depend on cultural exchange bursaries to countries overseas. Even though he has said all that, there are still certain questions. I therefore want to ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition today whether he is completely satisfied with the progress that has already been made.

No, they still get too many bursaries. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Opposition says they still get too many bursaries. He has not answered my question, however, Mr Speaker. In that same speech at that time the hon the Leader of the Opposition predicted in a prophetic way how the laws he was referring to would be abolished one by one. Inter alia he was speaking about the Group Areas Act. I quote once again (col 828):

At that stage the hon the Leader of the Opposition had already indicated precisely which path the NP would take since his condemnation of these things at that time. He should therefore be extremely pleased with the progress the NP has made on the road towards this open community. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate to the hon the Leader of the Opposition that although we appreciate his contribution, we are unable to support him in his motion. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr Theunissen used emotionally-charged words which he failed to define. Heaven knows what he was talking about, because he did not say what he wanted to say. [Interjections.] He did not reply to the hon the Minister at all because I think the speech of the hon the Minister was too advanced and too elevated for him.

May I please ask a question?

I do not have time for questions. What surprised me was that the hon the Leader of the Opposition stated his standpoint in this House and the hon the Minister also stated his, but the hon the leader of the CP did not state his standpoint. In this case we have a concealment of the facts. They do not really know in which direction they want to move. [Interjections.] They have now reached the stage where they have to fabricate differences with the NP. They still have to fabricate differences. I want to point out to those hon members that this debate concerns the frame of mind in which the future approach in South Africa will take place. There is general agreement that the frame of mind in which races and groups are going to be dealt with and approached is the important and decisive aspect. It is a matter of frame of mind, and not of laws.

I should like to start by quoting what Dr Verwoerd said in 1961, because I want to use this as my point of departure. He said:

That is the course we are still following. The eventual aim is to have no domination and no discrimination. However, the hon members of the CP did not say that to us. Why? They are in fact racist in their approach. [Interjections.] When the hon the leader of the CP talks, then he talks about the races in this country and he says they are not prepared to accept the result of the referendum. [Interjections.] I shall get around to that. The reason he is propagating that is that they no longer have the memory of Dr Verwoerd in their hearts. I have no problem with the fact that they are actually propagating an Indian homeland and an independent Coloured state. I have no problem with that because they are entitled to do so. However, that is basically the reason why they are not talking about their policy today. It is because they discriminate and because they in actual fact advocate a Coloured homeland and an Indian homeland. [Interjections.] This is one of the basic points on which they have to fabricate differences with the NP.

Does a homeland, then, constitute discrimination?

No, those hon members are entitled to want that but I maintain that they should not try to drag the memory of Dr Verwoerd into this. Then Prof Boshoff must not tell us that he was following Dr Verwoerd.

May I please ask a question?

No, I have already said that I do not have time for questions. If Prof Boshoff was Dr Verwoerd’s pupil at school then that pupil does not know what his teacher said to him. What did Dr Verwoerd say? I think it is high time we got around to that. Dr Verwoerd said:

Dr Verwoerd said that in 1961, and in 1965 he said the same thing:

Sir, we see here that the hon members opposite are fabricating differences with the NP. The background to this is racist. The hon the leader of the CP said:

Is that correct?

Yes.

Very well. They therefore say that they do not accept the result because it will mean the downfall of a race, and here they are of course referring to the Whites. I maintain this is racist. A second question is: Who appointed Dr Treurnicht as spokesman for the Whites? Who appointed him spokesman for Whites, particularly since two-thirds of the Whites rejected him? [Interjections.] The hon the leader of the CP is now posing as the representative of the Whites. But surely that is not true. I want to tell him that a little modesty is not out of place on the political platform.

The frame of mind in which we approach this motion is important. Is the attitude of mind of the hon the leader of the CP democratic? [Interjections.] If I am upsetting those hon members now then I am glad and I shall continue to do so. Does the CP accept the majority vote of the Whites? Sir, it seems to me as if they are inclined to reject the majority vote. They are displaying undemocratic radicalism. The rejection of democracy, the attitude of that party, is a radicalism representing everything which is bad in South Africa. I could take this radicalism of the CP a step further. They are establishing a new Afrikaner cultural organization with the express purpose of making it a political front for the CP. Without any mandate from anyone, these people are radicalising and they are using Prof. Boshoff as a front.

Let me take this a step further, and herein lies the danger for South Africa. The CP is building on a racist foundation, and they do not even have any scruples about using an Afrikaner youth organization. They do not even have any scruples about instilling in that youth organization the idea that the majority vote need not be accepted and that a minority can refuse to follow the majority. In this connection Dr Malan said that our nationalism was not for the Afrikaner alone. I want to emphasise this for the sake of the CP, which is beating the racist drum. Our nationalism is not for the Afrikaner alone. “We are not a racial party”, said Dr Malan. He said that we advocated the right principles, namely South Africa first, but we wanted nationalism, a republic, not only for ourselves but for the whole of South Africa. Our politics is not based on hate.

Looking at the motion, I want to point out that the CP did not make a contribution. They are totally removed from the realities of this country. They did not state this, but if one reads what they have written, one sees that they are racist and they use Afrikanerdom, Afrikaner sentiment, to promote racism in this country.

Turning to the amendment moved by the hon the Minister, I want to say that we on this side of the House are engaged in a programme aimed at the elimination of discrimination. I have not heard hon members of the CP saying that they are engaged in this programme; on the contrary. We are engaged in a programme aimed at eliminating discrimination, but in this process we shall have to be extremely careful because we have to bear in mind what Winston Churchill said:

This underlines the difference between the NP, the CP and the PFP. There is such a thing as “over-caution”, being so careful that one is not prepared to move with the policy of the NP which has been stated by its leaders over the years. Now one finds the CP fabricating differences, and the only difference thus far is a Coloured homeland and a homeland for Indians. The hon member for Lichtenburg said he agreed wholeheartedly with the NP—they have the same policy in regard to the Black people as the NP, and now they have to fabricate differences with regard to the Coloured and Indian policies. [Interjections.]

There is also the difference between us and the PFP, because they have a “precipice of over-daring”; they want to move too fast. This is precisely where we, as the hon the Minister put it, are moving in the right direction at a steady pace and as rapidly as possible. As the State President put it (Hansard, 1984, col 5):

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member address this House on matters which have absolutely nothing to do with the motion under discussion?

Order! What the hon member is saying is, in fact, relevant to the motion. The hon member for Pretoria West may proceed.

In conclusion I want to say that we are prepared to continue in the way indicated by the present hon Prime Minister when he said:

We follow the hon the Prime Minister. I therefore take pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr Speaker, I never fail to be amazed at the different interpretations that one can put on the policies of various parties, for example it would seem to me that in so far as the CP are concerned the NP are Progs; as far as the Press is concerned the NRP are Nationalists; and what the PFP have left for them I really do not know, except perhaps being Marxists. It is really quite incredible how interpretations do come from one another’s policies.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I understand the hon member to have said that as far as he was concerned, he did not know what the PFP was left with except to be Marxists.

It is a misinterpretation of what I said.

Order! Will the hon member please repeat what he said?

I went through what the NP and the NRP were and I then said that I did not know what could be left for the PFP’s interpretation and that the only possible thing I could think of was Marxists. I certainly was not implying that they are Marxists.

The hon member’s remark was an indirect allegation and the hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon member for Pretoria West will excuse me if I do not quite follow on his line, because he seemed to spend most of his time attacking the CP and not really getting on with the motion which is before us.

We in these benches are of the opinion that the declaration of intent which is called for in the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the Opposition, is not an unreasonable request. I believe that it is accepted that this does not necessarily mean or imply a firm commitment of achievement within a prescribed period of time. However, I believe that as the Government is charting a new course in the political field, it is very necessary for us to know where we are going and whether we have any reasonable prospect of getting there. In so far as the motion is concerned, I therefore consider it to be reasonable, and we in this party will accept the motion. Of course, I do not necessarily agree with the argument put forward by the hon Leader of the Opposition, because we do have a few differences in this regard. I believe that a declaration of intent could be of considerable assistance to us in coming to some sort of conclusion as to whether we are in fact likely to arrive at a destination which will be acceptable all round. The Government has put forward a new constitutional policy and we are going to follow a new procedure. It is a total plan and strategy—everything in our politics seems to be total, for example total onslaughts, etc—and I must assume that the Government does have a view of what the ultimate destination will be. It would be helpful if we knew where the Government was ultimately going. Quite obviously we have a rough idea and it is very clear to us that in respect of quite a number of old hardline apartheid policies the Government is having a rethink and is considering considerable changes. However, in the same way that one has a plan of what you ultimately propose to construct when you are erecting a building, I am sure that the Government somewhere along the line, and again not specifying a specific period of time, has an idea of how it sees South Africa at some time in the future. The NP has been the Government of the country for something like 36 years and quite frankly I foresee them remaining the governing power in this Parliament for some time in the future.

Forever.

Forever is an awfully long time, old chap! However, I do envisage the NP remaining here long enough at least to be able to go a long way along the road that they want to see South Africa following. That is why I feel it is fair and reasonable to ask what the Government sees as being the end of the line for the foreseeable future. I accept that forever is a long time. One cannot anticipate perpetuity. One can only see a certain distance into the future. This is where we feel that it would be helpful if we had some idea as to what we are striving and aiming for. We in these benches accept the reality of the fact that discrimination is built into almost all human creatures. I notice that when the PFP people have a drink in the bar, they all sit together, as all the CP people sit together. They discriminate against the rest of us because they do not want to sit next to us. [Interjections.] This is a natural sort of thing and is not really the discrimination we are talking about. We are talking about legislative discrimination, and we would like to know how far we are along the road towards removing it.

This party is a pluralist party, and we believe that a certain amount of discrimination is necessary. This is where we in fact differ from the PFP considerably. We feel that in certain areas, particularly at this stage in respect of residential, governmental and possibly sociological and cultural matters that a certain amount of discrimination is necessary because we in this country are not all of the same sociological and educational level. Until that has been achieved, it would be absolutely chaotic to remove that sort of discrimination. We believe it is not being unfair, or unkind or unchristian to say that discrimination in these matters is in fact essential. However, outside these limits almost all the other discriminatory legislation need not be kept on the Statute Book, certainly not as a policy for perpetuity. There may be certain legislation, for example in respect of amenities and facilities, which is necessary at the moment but which is purely in a transitory stage towards ensuring that those amenities and facilities are adequately provided before the discriminatory legislation is removed; to avoid fighting, friction and unpleasantness. I believe that this is the sort of information which would be useful to know. This also applies in respect of certain legislation which still remains on the Statute Book, and I refer specifically to job reservation, mixed marriages and the immorality legislation. I do not propose to talk about the mixed marriages and the immorality legislation because there is a select committee presently looking into this matter. It appears that the Government is having a look at this. Job reservation legislation is hardly used at all except in respect of mining and in respect of the Western Cape. That should surely be removed from the Statute Book. It is a blot on our Statute Book and if we were to remove that, it would have an enormous beneficial impact overseas. I am aware that there are certain people who have mining interests and possibly Western Cape interests who would like it to stay. However, is it in our best interest to retain it? In my opinion it is grossly discriminatory and insulting.

I must conclude now and would like to apologize to the hon the Leader of the Opposition because I will not be able to be here when he replies this afternoon as I have other commitments.

Mr Speaker, I want to react briefly to what the hon member for Umbilo said. He spoke about a “declaration of intent” which should be made by the Government. I feel that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning reacted very thoroughly to this statement in his speech. I therefore do not want to discuss it. The Government’s intention is already written into the preamble to the constitution.

I find it curious that the hon member for Umbilo still refers to the so-called “horror” of job reservation. I think he is aware of the fact that this disappeared from the Statute Book long ago. [Interjections.] He is therefore a little behind the times in this regard, although there are a few exceptions.

I now want to turn to the hon the Leader of the Opposition and his motion. I feel that it can be said without fear of contradiction that the politics or the policy of a political party can be distinguished from a specific view of humanity but can definitely not be separated from it. In other words, there is a connection between these two concepts. For that reason I want to state that a certain view of humanity may be deduced from the motion of the hon the Leader of the Opposition and his motivation for it.

For the sake of the debate I want to describe this view of humanity which I deduced from his motivation, as an existential view of humanity. In this view—and I think that as a person acquainted with the human sciences, the hon the Leader of the Opposition will be able to follow this—man is seen as someone who can exist without a specific definition or description and with out differentiations according to this view of humanity, man is not seen as an individual who has to develop and exist primarily within his own group. What this view of humanity actually wants to say is the man is primarily a free and unrestrained individual who can develop and exist where and as he likes. In this existential view of humanity, groups and cultures are not always directly perceived or they are not always taken into account, but reference is made only to an undefined sea of faces and free individuals. People’s similarities are emphasized at the expense of their differences.

This approach leads to the eventual establishment of an undefined and undifferentiated unitary society with all its consequences. Now I know that the hon the Leader of the Opposition and the hon member of the PFP will say that it is not their aim to establish an undefined and undifferentiated unitary society in South Africa. On the surface this may be true, but latent and hidden deep down in their political philosophy, this is in fact what would happen if their policy were to be implemented in this country. There could be no other outcome. We would eventually arrive at an undefined and undifferentiated unitary society.

This extreme left wing view of humanity is in sharp contrast to that of people from the far right. The existential view of humanity of the PFP is exactly the opposite of the essential view of humanity of the hon members of the Conservative Party. The CP is concerned with the essence of humanity. In other words a person is slavishly bound to one group and culture. By definition he is disqualified because he has a specific physical appearance, which in their case is specifically associated with colour. These close ties with a group or culture are not wrong per se. I think it is quite logical that every person wants to be associated with a group or culture. However, in this approach people are placed in watertight compartments. Contact between people, even if it is reiterated here in this House and elsewhere that this will have to take place with the retention of separate identities, is considered to be dangerous and abnormal. Here the emphasis falls heavily on the differences between people, while the similarities in regard to needs, expectations, etc, are underemphasized. Whereas in the existential view of humanity of the PFP we are dealing with philosophical humanism, in the reasoning of the CP we are dealing with political racism. Both these extreme standpoints could lead to unprecedented conflict in South Africa.

In our political thinking we shall have to move to a greater extent in the direction of the establishment of a politically dynamic realism. This dynamic realism, if one wants to define it, does not require that we should constantly try to ascertain what is left wing and what is right wing because then we shall find ourselves engaged in a fruitless, meaningless political debate. This dynamic realism does not constantly ask who is verkramp and who is verlig, who is conservative and who is liberal, it asks about the truth and the reality of a matter or a situation. It asks: What is true and that is real?

What is true and what is real in South Africa is that there are different peoples and communities or population groups living here. No one can dispute that. Consequently there is a social anthropological diversity in South Africa which will have to be taken into account. However, it is equally true and real that these different peoples and population groups have basic needs and expectations and are entitled to specific things. The dynamic realistic attitude towards people demands of us that politically, socially and economically we shall have to give content and form in a very concrete way to the differentiation, in other words to the differences and to the similarities, as I tried to define them earlier in my speech. For the sake of good order in our country this differentiation will have to be made. However, this differentiation will not be made at the expense of other people but for the sake of other people. We realize that the word “discrimination” has acquired a negative connotation, but we also recognize the positive connotation of the word when it is used to signify meaningful differentiation.

On this basis I support the amendment of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I cannot accept the motion of the hon the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just resumed his seat, expressed a few interesting and perhaps even stimulating thoughts on the question of the balance that we should maintain between recognizing the similarities on the one hand and the differences on the other, in South African society. The problem is how to maintain that balance, in a plural society, between communality on the one hand and dissimilarity on the other. This is the problem with which we are struggling.

I must tell the hon member that had he been in the House in 1959 he would have spoken like hon members of the CP. Then there was no talk of maintaining equilibrium between the two. In the days of Dr Verwoerd there was an obsession with ethnicity, with the differences which existed within this communality. In that regard there has indeed been progress in the general attitude of the Government. Whether the emphasis is being placed on similarities or differences, we must see to it that neither of these two methods of government leads to discrimination by placing too much emphasis on either one or the other. If it results in discrimination or domination, the system of government will not work.

There must be realism.

Realism is connected to a time factor. There is nothing permanent if one wants to be realistic in South Africa.

†I now wish to turn to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Whenever this Minister gets onto this subject, he displays enthusiasm. This is good. I think that a man in his position should be enthusiastic about the concept of how to get rid of discrimination and how that relates to the question of no domination. In that sense the hon the Minister, in my opinion, is making a contribution towards the thinking in South Africa and the debates in the House. However, there is also evidence of a high degree of frustration, and I do not say this disparagingly.

In you of course.

Perhaps I do not reveal it as much as the hon the Minister does. The point is that the hon the Minister is frustrated by a number of legitimate things. He is frustrated by the realities of South Africa, and these realities have to be taken into account. I think the hon the Minister is frustrated because he is living in the shadow of the past as well. He is trying to escape from something that was created by his predecessors in the NP, and there he has a problem. He also has a problem in that he still deems it politically unwise to come clean on the issue of discrimination. It is a political decision on his part. One can obscure this thing with words while we are playing White politics—that is easy. However, we are not going to play White politics much longer.

I know more about that than you do.

Well, the hon the Minister will have to come out in public; he will not be able to do it in the smoke-filled corridors of the Hendrik Verwoerd Building. He will have to say it right here. There is going to be a fundamental difference, and that is why I was disappointed when he said: “Standpunt is klaar ingeneem”. The hon Leader of the Opposition produced concrete evidence why that “standpunt” is not clear enough. The hon the Minister also said: “Groepe as groepe sal aan die staatkunde kan deelneem; dit is ’n beginsel”.

Do you not agree?

I ask the hon the Minister whether it is the objective of the Government that all groups in South Africa, including the Blacks, will participate in the central government set-up in South Africa.

I shall reply to you at a later stage.

It ought not to be necessary for me to ask that question. The reply to that should have followed from the assurances which the hon the Minister gave. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister referred to groups as groups. However, who is to determine who the groups are in this case? Should it be the Whites who not only on the national level, but on the local level as well, should determine which groups and in which capacity people will be able to participate in the constitutional set-up? Or are the Coloureds and Indians being consulted as well? Is it only the Whites who are going to decide on how these groups are going to participate in the constitutional set-up?

You know what the situation is.

We have placed a law on the Statute Book—it is a White law—which excludes certain people as far as local authorities and so on, are concerned. All I want to tell the hon the Minister is that it is no use talking in general, vague terms; the fact of the matter is, who determines which groups are going to be involved? Is it all the people or merely the White Government of South Africa? Who determines in which way the respective groups are going to participate in the constitutional set-up? Is it the people who are going to participate in it, or only the dominant minority group, ie the Whites in South Africa?

†That is just not good enough. I am not arguing about the hon the Minister’s enthusiasm. The whole object of the hon Leader of the Opposition’s motion was to get greater clarity and a clearer definition on this issue. It is not good enough, as we traditionally have done in the past, to say that in other countries too there is discrimination. They do discriminate in other countries, but that does not solve our problem. It might help the Government to sleep easier at night, but it does not solve the problem of South Africa. The fact is that the hon the Minister and the Government have to live against the background of the tragedy that happened in South Africa in the forties, the fifties and the sixties. While the rest of the world in a halting way was trying to move away from discrimination, the predecessors to the present Nationalist Government were entrenching and writing race discrimination into the formal, basic law of South Africa. That is what it was. I do not have time to quote what the late Mr Strijdom said, but he said inter alia that they believe in total apartheid, not only territorial apartheid, and he listed schools, trade unions, universities, separate industrial areas, and indicated that they were going to extend it.

The Government is trapped in this situation. The tragedy is, and I think this is the hon the Minister’s dilemma, that much of what is apartheid in the Statute Book today is the result of the legacy of apartheid as it was before. It has nothing to do with protecting the position of the White man. It has nothing to do with “ordelike gemeenskapslewe”. It is merely manifestations of the petty racial prejudices which were inherent in that society and which were stimulated by the policies of the NP.

The Government has since then made various declarations. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Prime Minister are a little more cautious than some other people when they make declarations. They have both, however, stated on various occasions—and it is invariably the same—that it is imperative that we get rid of “unnecessary and hurtful” discrimination. They do not refer only to discrimination, but to “unnecessary and hurtful” discrimination—“onnodige en kwetsende” diskriminasie. When discrimination is left on the Statute Book the justification for that is that we need that differentiation. When apartheid is to remain on the Statute Book, the argument in favour of that is that 000it is necessary because it is differentiation.

When, however, one wants to get rid of apartheid the argument is that it has now become discrimination. The use of the words “differentiation” and “discrimination”, in the terms of the Government have really no meaning, They are words used for political purposes. They are used in order to try to justify a decision which the Government is going to take in any case. It is merely a playing with words.

Mr Speaker, could the hon member for Sea Point tell me whether he does not agree that at a particular time it is possible that a particular measure that has applied until then can become redundant?

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister should then realize that differentiation or discrimination …

No, please answer my question.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister is missing the point. The argument is that the Government persists in this sort of attitude. I will identify certain areas in which, they would say, differentiation applies, and I am sure that in five years time the Government will say we were talking nonsense. Just take Black education as an example, Mr Speaker. Once it was the philosophy of the Government that Blacks had to be given a different education. It was argued that that was not discrimination but that it was necessary because they were different. It was argued that they needed different education because they were going to enjoy a different status in society. Now that we get rid of that the Government says we must stop discriminating. It is an arbitrary decision. Black education, unequal pay for equal work, etc, are all cases in point.

I can remember that the argument then was that Blacks did not need the same wages because they did not eat the same food and did not live in the same houses as the Whites. Therefore it was not looked upon as discrimination; it was looked upon as differentiation. When we want to get rid of that, however, the argument is that we have to get rid of discrimination.

I can well remember the words of the then Minister of Justice, Mr C R Swart, when he introduced the Reservation of Separate Amenities Bill here in the House. He maintained that it was fundamental to have separate amenities because if we did not have that we would no longer be a pure White nation. Let the report of the Strydom Committee now recommends that any owner of any premises should be free to decide for himself.

We have had the same arguments in respect of sport and sport clubs. Hon members should only read Hansard of February 1970, when the hon the Prime Minister, who was still Minister of Defence at the time, proudly announced in this House that he had persuaded the head committee of the NP to endorse a motion which stated that there should be no mixed sport in South Africa. That was viewed as differentiation then. Four years later, however, the now hon Minister of Foreign Affairs said at the United Nations:

What I actually want to get at, Mr Speaker, is that as long as the Government continues to play with words and with the meaning of words such as “differentiation” and “discrimination” it will continue to confuse the issue. What, I believe, is of tremendous importance in South Africa at this time in our history is that there should be no confusion whatsoever about the direction and the lead which the Government is giving to South Africa.

Clearly, Mr Speaker, nobody who is objective will argue that in a plural society the concept of differentiation is not an acceptable one. Around the world, whenever one talks of the protection of a minority group, it also involves differentiation. Whenever one has a bill of rights it also involves differentiation. [Interjections.] Of course a bill of rights deals with the protection of minorities. It deals with the protection of individuals who happen to be members of minority groups. It also allows people to protect their cultural heritages and their cultural identities. Nobody denies that. The hon the Leader of the Opposition even made that point here today. When, however, differentiation becomes crude unacceptable discrimination then it results into inequality before the law. Then, Mr Speaker, it ceases to be differentiation; it becomes crude, unacceptable discrimination.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch I was dealing with the first leg of my argument and that is that whatever declarations of intent the Government has given, they have been unclear in relation to the meaning that the Government attaches to the word “discrimination”, and the way the Government has played the game of using differentiation on the one hand and discrimination on the other. I say the Government must be quite precise in regard to the discrimination that it says it wants to get rid of. I say that differentiation becomes discrimination if that differentiation results in an inequality under the law. I want to know whether the Government is going to get rid of any inequality under the law.

Secondly, differentiation can lead to compulsory segregation and that compulsory segregation becomes discriminatory if it results in unequal facilities or services or when that compulsory segregation is an offence against the dignity of the people against whom it is applied. When that happens, it is discrimination. In these particular fields, the removal of any inequality under the law and, even if differentiation is applied in the form of segregation, seeing to it that this does not lead to unequal facilities or services or is an offence against the dignity of any individual, form a critical part of any definition that the Government must give. So far the Government has refused to give that definition. We say that the Government must make a declaration of intent from which there will be no doubt as to the meaning or thrust of that declaration.

The second point I want to make is that the Government must stop debasing the currency of its commitments by actions that are grossly discriminatory. It is no use claiming getting rid of discrimination and then adopting policies or resorting to actions that are manifestly discriminatory by any standard. Therefore, it is absolute nonsense to say that one is going to get rid of discrimination and then tell foreigners that apartheid is dead. When that is said, doubt is raised as to the intention of the Government to get rid of discrimination. It is no use saying apartheid is dead when apartheid in many of its horrific forms still exists in South Africa today.

Let me give another illustration in this regard. I do not have time to make the full quote but I am sure hon members will remember the history of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s speech at Palm Springs. He said we believe in equal opportunities, we believe in equal rights, we believe in equal human dignity. It is no use making professions of this nature as being the policy of the Government while at the same time that same hon Minister’s department is responsible for harassing and bullying the squatters at KTC. It is no use making profound claims of this nature while at the same time driving the Fingoes off the land they have owned for over a century. There is no point in making these declarations when one is involved in the forced removal of the Magopa or, as a Government, in the thousands of arrests that take place under the pass laws. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of those arrests at this stage. I am saying is that this sort of thing debases any commitment to get rid of discrimination while one is manifestly still applying discriminatory policies in South Africa.

A typical example of this was the action of the other day of the hon the Minister of Community Development in his statement surrounding the report of the Strydom Working Committee. In the same week that he said there were going to be reforms in regard to the Group Areas Act he announced the final decision that 51 Coloured families had to be removed from Lansdowne. That is grossly discriminatory. Even the Whites in Lansdowne have now submitted a petition to the effect that those people should not be removed. These people have lived there for such a long time that this can only be discrimination. The hon the Minister cannot say that he wants to even out the numbers because, as he knows, something like 60 times the number of Coloured families have been removed under the Group Areas Act as White families. There can therefore be no justification for arguing that one wants to get rid of discrimination while still kicking those 51 Coloured families out of their homes. That is discrimination and the Government is persisting with discrimination. As long as it does these things it will cause people to doubt its bona fides and the declarations it makes. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister is running away from the issue and the very week that he announced that they were going to get rid of discrimination his colleague applied one of the grossest forms of discrimination to 51 established Coloured families in an area.

I want to say this to the hon the Minister. When I came to office on Monday I met a young lady who herself had been evicted from District 6 about three years ago. She said to me: “Mr Eglin, when I read about what the Government was doing to those people in Lansdowne on Friday night I was really upset.” She asked me: “Haven’t those people up there in Parliament got any self-respect?” Then she said: “Even if they haven’t got self-respect, haven’t they got any respect for the feelings of others?”

What community life are you giving them?

This is the impact that this sort of thing has on other people. She said to me: “These people are not young people like I am. When I was kicked out of District 6 I was young enough to adapt to a new environment. These are old people who have lived there for 20 or 30 or 40.” She asked again: “Have they got no self-respect? I ask the hon the Minister how one can possibly on the one hand declare an intention to get rid of discrimination in South Africa and still discriminate in the most hurtful, the most arrogant way towards 51 families who have been settled in an area for the last 25 or 30 years.

The same thing surrounded the whole issue of the central business districts, the confusion which surrounds the issue of “die oopstelling van die sentrale sakebuurte”. That is the case because the Government does not know where it stands; it is playing it all ways. The Government must come clean. Either it is going to get rid of discrimination in the meaningful sense of the word or it is going to carry on with a charade of words so that it can play it both ways.

We are moving into a new political era in which the new constitution is going to survive or fail and in which we can achieve consensus or not, but if we cannot develop consensus in that new constitutional system, that new constitutional system is going to be destroyed. The hon the Minister might obscure his objectives but if one day we are going to have Coloureds, Indians and Whites in a single political system, he will no longer be able to evade the challenge of what he means exactly with “getting rid of discrimination”.

The more vague the Government becomes on this issue, the more confused its own supporters will be. I know there is confusion already in the Government’s own ranks as to what is meant with “getting rid of discrimination”. The Government is playing into the hands of the CP and the HNP because within this state of ideological confusion these right-wingers are going to exploit traditional prejudice in South Africa to their own political advantage.

It is not easy to get rid of discrimination; we concede that. It is certainly not easy to get rid of discrimination where there is an inequality in the power structure within any one country. There is inequality in the power structure of South Africa, and this makes it more and more difficult for us to do this. But, because it is difficult, because there is inequality in the power structure, we have a unique task in South Africa and that is to get rid of discrimination while there still is minority domination. The real unique challenge is: How do we get rid of discrimination in spite of the fact that today there is minority domination?

I want to tell the hon the Minister and the hon the Prime Minister that this places a tremendous responsibility on the leadership of that dominant minority. That leadership is in a critically important position. We say that if they want to lead in this direction, they should not repeat what has been done in the past. Do not try to do it by stealth. Do not do it by a welter of confusing statements. Do not ever try to reconcile non-discrimination on the one hand with apartheid on the other. We believe that if the Government gave an unambiguous stand, the people of South Africa, in spite of their different party political affiliations, would follow.

Mr Speaker, before business was suspended for lunch, the hon member for Sea Point accused the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning of being frustrated by the realities of South Africa. No, this side of the House is not frustrated by the realities of South Africa; as a matter of fact, it takes them into consideration. We do in fact, take the realities of South Africa into consideration. It is, after all, that hon member who should feel frustrated because he and his party advised their supporters to vote “no” to a system which does take those realities into consideration and does make provision for the accommodation of conflicting group interests. They themselves have admitted that 30% of their supporters did not take that advice. Arising from the attitude towards people which the hon member and his party have adopted, an aspect to which the hon member for Potgietersrus referred very effectively, the hon member for Sea Point said that we should throw open the beaches of Sea Point and Clifton to everyone. He said that was his standpoint but what happened only last year? His own voters rejected that standpoint. Then the hon member talks about frustration! The hon member for Sea Point said: “Discrimination is our problem in South Africa”, as if to say that if all the measures he and his party consider discriminatory, were to disappear, we would immediately have, in this country, all the peace in the world. No, Sir, our problem is not discrimination but, in the first place, the existence of a large diversity of peoples and population groups, each with its own interests. The gist of our problem is how to give substance to the rights and privileges of each without destroying existing rights, at the same time retaining an orderly State set-up. This is after all the problem facing South African politics.

We have had both the hon member for Sea Point and the hon the Leader of the Opposition playing verbal games with the concepts “discrimination” and “differentiation”. The hon the Leader of the Opposition said that we should try to identify areas of unanimity in South Africa, and I assume this should particularly be done here in this House between the different political parties. If we want to debate this matter meaningfully in the future, we should at least agree on what we are discussing. We should at least attach the same meaning to the concepts we use in this debate; otherwise we shall get nowhere. As an example of how we are talking at cross-purposes, I want to refer to the statement of the hon the Leader of the Opposition that the NP draws a distinction between discrimination on the one hand, which we supposedly want to retain, and hurtful and unnecessary discrimination on the other, which we supposedly want to do away with. However, this is not a valid distinction. This side of the House draws the following distinction: On the one hand we have discrimination, which we have for a long time now said is essentially unjustified as such, and we have already said that we shall move away from this in an orderly manner by means of carefully considered reforms in the process of establishing a more just dispensation and, on the other hand, differentiation which is after all essentially positive and vital when it comes to serving the large diversity of interests of the various groups.

What is the difference between differentiation and discrimination?

We shall never make any progress until we are in agreement about what these concepts mean. It would seem to be impossible to reach unanimity with the hon member for Rissik in this regard.

In his speech the hon the Leader of the Opposition referred to two consequences which the declaration of intent, which he advocated in his motion, would have for us in South Africa. In the first place he said that it would do away with uncertainty and confusion and, in the second place, that it would give substance to the declared aims of the Government. What is interesting, however, is that the hon the Leader did not say where this alleged uncertainty and confusion existed. It is therefore only right to remind him that two-thirds of the voters in the country, including 30% of his own voters—these are his own figures—said in no uncertain terms that there was no uncertainty or doubt in their minds regarding the policy of the NP in this connection. The constitution, which we accepted last year and which will be implemented this year, does in fact pre-eminently express the intention of the Government.

This brings me to the four national objectives which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning identified, to which I want to add one more namely that of maintaining law and order. What exactly do these objectives involve and what do they reveal to us? In the first place they reveal that we intend to maintain an orderly system of government and, in the second place, that we want to allow people and groups to develop and to have a greater degree of human dignity. What do these national objectives give recognition to? In the first place to the multinational nature of South African society; in the second place to the existence of minorities in our country and in the third place that each of these minorities …

There are a number of tortoises on that side of the House who have not yet stuck their necks out.

If the hon member for Langlaagte would just listen for a moment, perhaps he would learn something. [Interjections.] The national objectives in the preamble to our constitution also recognize the fact that each of the minorities in this country have rights and duties which should not only be emphasized but should also be protected. And, finally, where inherent inequality exists between groups, that inequality should be reduced.

What do these objectives reject? They reject racial discrimination. What is racial discrimination? It is a beneficial or prejudicial distinction between people and nations on the basis of skin colour. It is, after all, the declared policy of this Government to do away with such discrimination, and there is no doubt about that. In this connection I want to mention two examples. The day before yesterday we amended the Income Tax Act in this House specifically in order to eliminate a discriminatory practice in our legislative programme by taxing everyone on an equal basis in the future. This year we also had an example of just the opposite. I am now referring to the new health regulations in Randburg relating to nursery schools and crêches. The hon member for Soutpansberg misrepresented and exploited this in his constituency in a scandalous manner.

I want to put it to hon members that the amendment moved by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the motion of the hon the Leader of the Opposition makes it absolutely clear where this Government is headed, and for that reason I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Ermelo will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his speech, except to say that he actually confused me with the distinction he himself drew between differentiation and discrimination. If I understood him correctly, he said that discrimination was a distinction based on race and colour. Did I understand him correctly?

A distinction which is beneficial or prejudicial.

Very well. We can argue at greater length about that. I want to tell him, however, that his own constitution, which he approved, actually represents a form of discrimination. I shall, however, leave it at that.

Let me tell the hon member for Potgietersrus that the general discussion about a unitary or other kind of community has not helped us very much. I now want to come to the point touched upon by both that hon member and the hon member for Ermelo, ie the political realities of the country. I want to do so on the basis of certain viewpoints I have about the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I think that what this debate has brought to the fore is that we in the PFP and the Government have actually entered upon a new era as far as the quality of debating is concerned. I am very grateful for that fact. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that one appreciates the level at which he conducts this kind of debate and the level he wants to maintain. I also want to add that in the field we are now venturing into can be found that distinction between a party politician and a statesman, because the party politician looks merely at the ephemeral benefits he or his party can derive from something, whilst the statesman looks beyond such things at the future of the country and the people.

It is in regard to that specific point that I should like to give a further analysis of the hon the Minister’s speech. I immediately want to tell both the hon member for Ermelo and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that we cannot use the preamble to the constitution as a touchstone of the Government’s intentions in connection with the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s motion. If I were to ask the hon the Minister how he would fit section 16 of the Immorality Act, the prohibition of mixed marriages and all those other things, which the hon the Leader of the Opposition touched upon, into this framework, he would immediately concede that we could not, on the basis of the vague principles in the preamble, find answers to the specific problems put forward by the hon the Leader of the Opposition.

We on this side appreciate the steps the Government has taken. The hon the Leader of the Opposition said as much, and I want to emphasize and endorse it. What I find problematic, however, are some of the viewpoints put forward by the hon the Minister, and here I am also referring to his amendment. He speaks, for example, of the point of departure in granting recognition, in the plural South African society, to the variety of interests of the constituent groups and peoples. Since mention is made here of “groups and peoples”, let me ask the hon the Minister what we mean by those terms.

Do you not understand them yet?

No. What we actually mean by that is race or colour. That is what it is. A distinction is not, in point of fact, being drawn between groups. We are not differentiating between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking individuals. We have the same political set-up. Nor are we differentiating between Cape Coloureds and Malays in the political set-up. We are not differentiating between Hindus and Moslems either. So what significance is there in our use of the term “groups”? It is just another name for race groups or colour groups. That is what it is. Let me say that as long as we hold to that standpoint, we shall not be able to conduct a really meaningful debate about it in this House. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about. Then the hon the Minister must answer my questions.

I shall.

Then he must tell me why we differentiate between groups …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether the Whites are a people or not?

I have said, on more than one occasion, that the Whites are not a people.

But what are the Whites then?

The Afrikaners are a people.

But what are the Whites? Are they not a group?

The Whites are a population group. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon the Minister is endorsing my very point, because as soon as he uses the word “Whites”, this means that he is introducing race or colour into this debate. The hon the Minister will concede as much.

The second point in the hon the Minister’s amendment speaks of the variety of interests of the constituent groups and peoples. So where does the communality of interests come in? Why is it necessary to differentiate solely as far as the variety of interests is concerned? Why must the variety of interests be considered and not the communality of interest that bind us all together in this country?

In his amendment the hon the Minister also speaks about the programme for eliminating discrimination. The hon the Leader of the Opposition’s whole motion is aimed at asking the Government to give us a programme. There is a big difference between such a programme and any goal the Government may envisage for the elimination of discrimination. Here, however, the hon the Minister speaks of a programme for the elimination of discrimination. The hon the Leader of the Opposition asked the Government to give us clarity about that programme. Neither the hon the Minister nor any of the other Government members did so. He said that the Government had done certain things. Very well. We appreciate that. Then, however, he speaks of statutory and administrative adjustments that must be made so that differentiating measures can promote the interests of all peoples and groups. Now we are back at the problem put, forward by the hon members for Ermelo, which I touched upon earlier, ie what are differentiating measures and what are discriminatory measures. If we adopt as our standpoint—whatever our definition of differentiating measures may be—that the interest of all peoples and groups are promoted by differentiating measures, let me tell the hon the Minister that we cannot do that alone. We can only do it in co-operation with the other groups. We are not in a position to say what the others regard as promoting their interests or otherwise.

Although I appreciate what the hon the Minister said, in his reaction to the speech of the hon the Leader of the Opposition he left quite a few gaps. I do, however, want to come back to one specific point with regard to the question of groups, ie group differentiation. I gained the impression that time and again the hon the Minister was trying to pin the hon the Leader of the Opposition down to an admission that he was in favour of our organizing our political system on a group basis. I have no reason to believe that that was what the hon the Leader of the Opposition said. Perhaps I understood the hon the Minister incorrectly, but what is basic to this party’s policy is the principle of free association. As soon as it is said that our political system should be organized on a group basis, there is no provision made in that system for voluntary association. We therefore reject it. [Interjections.] We recognize groups. We acknowledge, for example, the existence of an Afrikaans-speaking and an English-speaking group in South Africa. We do, however, reject the view that groups must form the basis of a political dispensation in South Africa. We believe that communality of interests, viewpoints and ideals are the things that bind people in political parties and in a political context together, and not mere race or colour. Race or colour cannot serve as a basis for a sound political dispensation in South Africa.

I want to acknowledge to the hon the Minister and the Government that no generation has the wisdom to predict what any situation will look like in 20 years’ time, 30 years’ time or 50 years’ time. What we can do, however, is to lay the foundations, in the times in which we are living, so that future generations can be in a position to take positive action within the framework that we are creating. We must do everything possible to eliminate the possibility of conflict. That is where the difference between a statesman and a politician lies. It is not clear to me that what we are now doing, however, will indeed place future generations in that position.

In this connection I want to mention two factors. Firstly, the speed at which things have moved in the past 20 or 30 years—and not only in the technological field—is something we are all familiar with. What is of particular importance, however, is the speed at which human expectations have moved. What we regarded as normal 20, 30 or 40 years ago, for example the expectations of Blacks and others, simply do not apply any longer today. We would be completely unrealistic if we did not bear in mind now what the expectations are that the unavoidable processes in South Africa are going to engender in regard to the other sections of our population.

The second point I want to emphasize in this connection is that we must remember that there is something called the collective memory of a groups or of a people, just as there is, in the case of the Afrikaner, a collective memory of what has happened to him over a certain period. What we therefore do today, as far as other groups are concerned, will of necessity form the collective memories of those groups 10, 20, 30 or 50 years into the future. It is particularly in this connection that we must look at the realities of the situation.

A few weeks ago we had a discussion about what the process of urbanization was going to entail. The sober facts of the matter are that in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years’ time there is going to be an overall preponderance of non-Whites, more specifically Blacks, in our urban areas. If we were to look at what is going to happen in the metropolitan areas, we would simply find that within the next few decades there will be a preponderance of Black people. If we were also to look at what this was going to lead to, we would realize that it is going to create an ever-larger middle class amongst the Black people. That ever-larger middle class will also be reflected in the growth in education. In the year 1990, which is right on the doorstep, the number of economically active Black people in our urban population having matriculation or higher qualifications will have increased from 92 000 to 288 000, ie within ten years. So to say that the political and economic needs and demands of that ever-increasing middle class are not going to escalate too would be completely unrealistic. Allow me to quote what Prof Swart said on the basis of the example of the situation in the USA. He said:

There is consequently not the least bit of doubt that as a result of the urbanization process, the owing to the ever-larger middle class amongst the Black people; as well as the increase of educational opportunities, we can no longer think in terms of a situation in which we can maintain peace in South Africa whilst at the same time excluding the Black people from participation in the central political system. That is the gist of the problem that the hon the Leader of the Opposition put forward here this morning.

The present situation, as far as both Black people and White people are concerned, is very clearly based on domination. So if we speak of political realities, there is no way we can get away from the fact that within the next few years there is going to be a preponderance of Black people in our urban areas. Nor can we escape the fact that if we want to be political realists, and if we want to display statesmanship, we must even now begin working on a system which gives the Black people some hope of being able to participate in the political system in the course of time. If we do not do so, however, there is no doubt in my mind that conflict is what we can expect in South Africa in future. What I missed in the speeches of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon members for Pretoria West, Potgietersrus and Ermelo, was an acceptance of an unavoidable dilemma and conflict, inherent in the realities of our situation if we do not take steps now to meet the Black people’s expectations and demands in the political sphere, at least to some extent. I associate myself with the amendment of the hon the Leader of the Opposition.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In the debate that has just been held, there was a certain degree of overlapping with the ideas which could be expressed in connection with the motion which I have just moved. The overwhelming mandate which the Government received from the electorate in the referendum on 2 November last year, and the enthusiasm for a new dispensation of group security through group control of own affairs, which was clearly apparent from the referendum result, demonstrates beyond the slightest doubt the willingness to broaden participation in the democratic decision-making process, as well as the desire in South Africa to replace confrontation-orientated politics by consensus-seeking politics.

Therefore we appeal to all parties to display a positive approach to the new constitutional dispensation, and to make a positive contribution to its successful implementation.

As far as this motion is concerned, we must be absolutely certain about one thing, and that is that on 2 November 1983 the White electorate of South Africa gave a clear mandate …

For mixed government. [Interjections.]

… a clear mandate in which the Whites electorate expressed itself in favour of the retention of group security through group decision-making; that the White electorate of South Africa expressed itself in favour of a broadening of the political say in the decision-making process; that the White electorate of South Africa expressed itself in favour of a new style of government, ie by giving the other population groups in South Africa a fair share in the participation in decision-making processes over those matters that affected their lives. This was a clear mandate, and just as that mandate was provided by the White electorate, so we must also realize now that it is a mandate that was given to the Government to implement this new dispensation. Consequently the new dispensation is now going to be implemented. There is no doubt any more that the White electorate is confident that this new style of government will be implemented.

†Mr Speaker, it was Abraham Lincoln who defined democracy as government of the people by the people for the people. In this sense there is no state anywhere in the world where absolute democracy is practised. In many states delegated democracy in various forms is practised. The bigger the unit or the state becomes the less pure the principle of government by the people becomes, especially if the state is multi-ethnic or multi-national. The ideal would be to involve the largest number of group, ethnic or national community leaders in the process of decision-making on matters that effect them and their future in one way or another.

If, however—and this is important—there are conflicting or potentially conflicting group interests it would become increasingly complex to govern in such a way that everybody’s needs can by satisfied within a central government structure. That is why, for the sake of practical and efficient government, it is necessary to decentralize the process of decision-making as far as possible without detracting from efficiency and stability.

*It has been stated repeatedly that the NP does not believe in White domination, but that neither does the NP believe in a single system under which domination will be established over the Whites, even if it is under the pretext of democracy. It is generally said that a minority regime over a majority entails a certain measure of cruelty. However, it is equally true that a majority regime over a permanent minority contains all the elements of cruelty and the entrenchment of cruelty. That is why we are not in favour of a political system or a system of government in which the interests of the Whites would or could be prejudiced in any way.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made it very clear today that if the interests of the Whites in South Africa were jeopardized, the interests of freedom and the standards of life of the other population groups in South Africa would to that extent be directly prejudiced.

With the referendum the mandate was given that a new constitutional dispensation shall be implemented. One thing must be very clearly understood, however, particularly by the official Opposition, and that is that it is not a mandate to implement the policy of the PFP. It is not a mandate to move in the direction of a melting-pot society—a policy of a singly community. It is not a mandate for a policy of a geographic federation or of integration in the sense in which the PFP understands the concept. Now, it is true that the other day, and today again, the hon the Leader of the Opposition presented an image of reasonableness to us. We must remember, however, that the PFP also has another image, and that is the image to which the hon member for Yeoville, who is not here today, referred when he spoke about the power clique within the PFP. That image has not disappeared.

†This power clique is ever present in the PFP even though it might suit them at this moment strategically to lie low. They lie low so as to hold up to the public an image of sweet reasonableness, a vote-catching image which is designed to attract the major portion of the voters who could become orphaned by the retrogression of the NRP.

I should like to draw attention to the difference in presentation between the hon the Leader of the Opposition on the one hand and the hon member for Sea Point on the other. There was a fundamental difference between the presentation of the hon the Leader of the Opposition and that of the hon member for Sea Point. However, I do not wish to elaborate in this regard.

*I want to come now to the other main Opposition party, namely the CP, and its opposition to the implementation of the constitution. The CP has developed the practice of misrepresenting the image of the NP and I want to attempt to analyse the possible reasons for this.

Internationally there are the so-called leftists who believe in a one-world society, in an open society and in melting-pot development. There are people like that who find themselves at home in the PFP. It is also true that over the years the PFP has built up an image of ostensibly being the only party to endeavour to improve the interests of the non-Whites in Southern Africa. The impression now exists that because the PFP have expressed themselves in favour of improving the interests of the underprivileged and the non-Whites, other attempts to uplift the underprivileged inevitably amount to liberalism and a left-wing disposition. That is definitely not the case.

In South Africa there is also confusion on a very wide scale over the concept of “liberal” and its meaning. “Liberal” is not necessarily, in the sense we generally use it, “liberalistic”. In politics in South Africa today, “liberalistic” has virtually become a dirty word. I want to tell the hon member for Rissik in particular …

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

No, unfortunately I do not have much time. However, I should like to have a discussion with the hon member for Rissik; I look forward to that very much.

What is overlooked and what is not always acknowledged is that one of the best-known liberals who made her mark on South African history is today held in the highest esteem in Afrikaner circles. To this day she is still revered. I am referring to the well-known and well-loved liberal, Emily Hob-house, who in essence was a liberal, but who was not liberalistic in the sense of the dirty word which has come into currency in South African political parlance.

If the NP is today endeavouring to give non-White communities in South Africa a political say by means of a fair system in a way which is practical, in a way which gives them participation in decision-making processes, then it is perhaps liberal in the sense of Emily Hobhouse because it is concerned with the interests of people who did not have the say which, and could lead to the upliftment of that community. However, it is not liberalistic in the left-wing meaning in that it would lead to one society or an open society or to the destruction of group identity and interests in South Africa.

The NP is endeavouring to achieve a fair dispensation for the Coloureds, the Indians and the respective Black peoples. The NP believes in ethnic identity and in group identity. The NP believes in a political dispensation which will make unfettered ethnic and group identity constitutionally possible. However, the NP is not leftist in its approach. The confusion which so frequently arises in CP ranks, is that reference is made to certain Ministers or other members of the NP as being leftists, gives rise to a totally false image. It is essential for them to realize that this is not a valid reference.

I must now try to establish why the hon members of the CP carry on as they are doing about the new dispensation. I find it in a statement made recently by one of the people who play a key role in their politics. They refer here to an uncertainty which is present among the Whites and particularly the Afrikaners as to where we are going and what the culminating point of the new dispensation will be.

There is uncertainty and fear, and I wonder whether this uncertainty and fear cannot perhaps be compared with the fear which certain Natal jingo’s had in 1960-61 when South Africa was on its way to becoming a republic. They felt that the world was coming to an end, and that we had no certainty about where we were going. That fear was not a justified fear.

The NP of today, as it did 10, 20 or 30 years ago, believes in group identity, believes in a dispensation of fairness and justice, and that the other ethnic communities and ethnic groups in South Africa must have a right to and a share in decision-making processes on matters affecting them.

South Africa maintains a standard of life for all its people, Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, which in practice may readily be compared with the standard of life maintained in many Western countries. There are areas in which we compare unfavourably, but the one problem we have is the false impression which has been created that the NP stands for the exclusion of the other groups in South Africa from fair decision-making over their future. That is a false image. The NP does not stand for the exclusion of other groups. It stands for the recognition of the group identity of the peoples and population groups in South Africa. However, we do not believe that there should be an absolutization into a system of absolute separation.

We believe that, just as more and more systems of deliberation and consultation are being developed in Europe, for example the EEC, the European Parliament, Nato and other organizations, where there is co-ordination of decision-making over matters of common concern without sacrificing the right to decision-making in regard to oneself, so, too, a fair system must be found in South Africa in this dispensation among the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites, and this must also be done on another level and sphere, namely a system of fair deliberation with the Blacks in South Africa, where justice and equity towards them can occur in their sphere.

What sphere?

I do not want to go into detail now, because this is not an appropriate time to do so. The NP believes in fairness to all the ethnic groups, peoples, language groups and races in South Africa. That is why we believe that NP policy is a policy which can lead to success in a multinational and multi-ethnic South Africa. We believe that this policy should be given an opportunity to be implemented.

I want to conclude with a well-known prayer, which perhaps contains a message for us all.

†It is a prayer that has often been seen on posters, and reads as follows:

Mr Speaker, when I read the motion of the hon member for Klip River the first time, I gained the impression that it was tendentious, polemical and somewhat mischievous. I came and listened this afternoon with great interest to hear whether my first impression was justified. I fear that to a great extent it was. Apart from that, it also struck me, while listening to the hon member for Klip River, that he was not really speaking to the motion. He was not speaking about the constructive contribution that had to be made to implement the new dispensation. If I understood the hon member correctly—and I do not wish to do violence to what he said—he merely restated old standpoints that have been stated repeatedly in previous speeches in this House. They are standpoints we have often heard and that we can discuss on a later occasion. However, I do not believe that they are really relevant to the motion we are discussing.

When I examined it for the first time, I found the motion tendentious. One reason for this impression was that it sought to give a one-sided and somewhat prejudiced interpretation of the outcome of the referendum. It was undoubtedly a resounding mandate for the Government, but to say that it was a clear decision is, in my opinion, going a little far. Various standpoints were adopted, and one could certainly attach various interpretations to the yes vote and to the no vote as well. Therefore it is a factual statement that it is tendentious.

The hon member also says that it is clearly an indication of enthusiasm for group security and a group say. It is the hon member’s right to interpret the result in this way, but I think that one could with equal justice argue that whatever the people voted for, those who voted yes, and even a large group of those who voted no, hoped that this constitution could lead to some form of reform in the country, whatever might be understood thereby. I think that one could with equal justice advance an argument along those lines. Therefore I say that in that respect it is tendentious.

It is polemical in that it does not really seek the possibility of dialogue. This is an important point of difference from the debate we had this morning. However we attacked one another, we at least tried to keep to the possibility of dialogue. This motion does not really seek the possibility of dialogue. In fact it tries to cut it off. Listening to the hon member for Klip River it was clear from his attitude that he was implying that if one did not wish to discuss this motion on ground of his choosing, then that was that, and there was nothing more to say. I cannot see the sense of such a debate if that is the hon member’s attitude.

I also think that the motion was, in the third instance, mischievous. It is mischievous in the sense that through his interpretation and his statement of this motion, the hon member tried to drive his opponents into a corner and tried to compel persons to speak only on his grounds. However, it is not only that; in the way in which he referred to the PFP and the CP, he questioned the bona fides of these people. He said that one should not consider or listen to what they said; they had sinister motives, and what they said was only a façade.

If that attitude is adopted then it really does not matter what I or any hon member on this side of the House may say, because apparently the hon member for Klip River has already decided what our motives are before we have had anything to say on the matter.

In the short time at my disposal I shall try to come back to the motion. We spoke this morning about the urgent need for systematic reform, the removal of racial discrimination, moving away from domination etc. There is no question about the fact that we are a divided country. We are a country loaded with potential for conflict. We may argue, when we consider the future, that the powers of confrontation and violence are equally heavy on the scale as those against. The new constitution, whatever its deficiencies—and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has said this repeatedly—is the Government’s effort and contribution towards defusing and dealing with this conflict. A platform is being created on the basis of which we must consider how these possibilities of confrontation may be avoided in South Africa. Therefore we must judge this instrument against the background of the tremendous problems facing us. We discussed that at length this morning.

I do not think I am doing violence to the new instrument, the constitution, when I say that, like all man-made instruments, it is a brittle and fallible instrument. That is the first thing to which I want to refer. In a certain sense it is true that this instrument was born out of White division and it will quite probably be implemented in the midst of still greater division among, say, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians.

Conceived and born in sin.

That is also true, but everything is conceived and born in sin. That is one thing that the hon member and I have in common.

It is just that the sin is greater in respect of some.

It is not for me to have the final say in that regard.

We fought this constitution tooth and nail in the referendum. We fought it with conviction and we stated our standpoint. There is no point in the hon member for Klip River introducing a fawning or sanctimonious motion of this nature, as if we did not fight one another during the referendum. We did fight one another, and we lost the fight. No-one can disregard, begrudge or deny the Government’s victory. According to the rules of the political game the Government has a mandate which it can interpret and implement as it sees fit. Let me say, too, that we have decided to participate in the new constitution. Some hon members have found this strange.

†I have never been able to understand the logic of why this is so surprising. Die Burger talks about it and the NRP spoke a great deal about it during the recent Pinetown campaign. If one looks back in the history of South African politics, one sees that this is not a strange phenomenon. In 1918 General Hertzog led a deputation to Paris to talk to Lloyd George. That was eight years after the implementation of the 1910 Constitution. He went to plead with Lloyd George to dismantle that constitution. He said the constitution was no good, that it in fact led to the subjugation of the Afrikaner. He said they should revert back to the status quo ante and that one should have the two Boer Republics and the two colonies re-established. Of course, Lloyd George being the imperialist he was, at that time refused to accede to that and told Gen Hertzog to go back where he came from. He did, and he in fact became Prime Minister under the very constitution he asked Lloyd George to reject. So, that has happened before. He did not go and sit on the sidelines.

In fact, the old United Party fought the referendum for a republic with tooth and nail. [Interjections.] I voted in favour of the Republic, but they voted against it. However, once the victory was won for the Government, they fell in love with that Republic to such an extent that they changed the name of the United Party, calling themselves the New Republic Party. So, it has been done before. Even the present Government is using an inadequate constitution to try and create a better one according to its own lights. So, there is no crisis of integrity or conscience in adopting that approach.

*However, the hon the Minister and the hon members of this House will concede that when this constitution is implemented—and I hoped that that was what the hon member for Klip River was going to speak about—we shall be faced with a vacuum as far as conventions are concerned. Conventions will have to develop on the basis of which we shall understand one another and co-operate in the new constitution. I was waiting for the hon member for Klip River to give us some guidelines. In all the different chambers we shall have to feel our way, adjust and test in order to find out how we are going to operate under the new constitution. What is more, we shall have to do so under the public gaze. The people are going to be watching us. We shall not have an opportunity to work out this matter in secret first and then say that we have now rehearsed and are going to hold a concert. We are not even going to be able to do that. We are going to have to negotiate and bargain with one another under the public gaze and see how the new constitution is going to work.

Then we must bear in mind what the other people who have to participate in this Parliament together with us have gone through and will go through. I think the hon the Minister appreciates that. If we think that we as Whites are divided, I want to say to him that that is nothing in comparison with the division in the ranks of the Coloureds and the Asians. They are coming through that division. If we think that an onus rests upon us as Whites to prove that this new constitution is going to be an instrument of reform, how much more will that onus not rest on those people? What those people need now is not bragging or one-sided self-glorification in the White Parliament, but a sign of hope, a sign that we in this Parliament are in earnest, in spite of all the deficiencies of the new dispensation, in seeking to combine our forces in striving for reform.

†Section 64 of the new constitution makes provision for the creation of permanent joint standing committees in the new Parliament. It has been argued that these joint standing committees will be the engine-room, as it were, of the new constitution, that this is where the real hard bargaining and negotiation will take place. What could be a better demonstration of bona fides? What could be a more positive and constructive contribution to the successful implementation of the new constitution than for this Government now to give notice, before the Coloured and Indian elections, before the election of the new State President and before the first full session of the new Parliament, that it intends to move at the first available opportunity in the first session of the new Parliament that the terms of reference of one of the permanent joint standing committees should be—

*The hon the Minister himself referred this morning to the whole issue of moving away from discrimination, to the whole issue of how we are going to move away from domination. This cannot be done on a onesided basis. The policies we are going to establish, the laws that are to be formulated and submitted—this will have to be done in co-operation with others. The success of those measures will depend on the acceptance and co-operation of the other groups. What are we going to do here? We are going to create a Parliament in which other population groups will be involved, in whatever capacity. It is the declared policy of the Government, with reference to this morning’s debate, and in the words of the hon the Minister himself, that it is necessary to move away from such discriminatory measures. We are all aware that it is not only Whites who can say what they regard as discriminatory on a racial basis. The other population groups have very clear ideas on that. We know full well that when those people come to this Parliament they are going to talk about racial discrimination. How are we going to talk about it? Are we going to stand and hurl abuse at one another as the Whites, who have only now begun to come to their senses, have done for the past 30 years, or are we going to try to discuss matters in a responsible way, to negotiate and to argue about ways in which we can move away from discrimination? If we are going to adopt the latter method then surely it makes sense to use the instruments of that Parliament, to create the forums in which we can speak to one another. How better could we do this than by using one of the so-called “engine-rooms” of the new Parliament, a standing committee, for that very purpose, so that all parties can discuss the matter, if that is the Government’s intention and if it is in earnest in this regard? That is what I was waiting for in the speech of the hon member for Klip River. This is not my party’s constitution. These are not my party’s proposals. They are the Government’s, and they are now becoming the country’s. Therefore we must participate. Sir, if you were to ask me now how we could participate in this in a constructive way, then it seems to me that this is the one possibility on the basis of which we could conduct the debate on racial discrimination and domination at a decent level. Therefore, in view of what the hon the Minister and other hon members said this morning, I really cannot see why my amendment is not in order. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept it. I shall move my amendment in a moment. The amendment at least relates to the motion before this House. I at least tried to motivate it in accordance with the content of the motion. That is more than one can say for what the hon member for Klip River did. Therefore, if the Government is in earnest and intends doing this—we do not want to do this one-sidedly or haphazardly, but in a responsible fashion—why, then, can this amendment not be accepted? Therefore I move as an amendment to the motion of the hon member for Klip River:

I think that in a certain sense this amendment of mine summarizes the debate we have conducted today on the motion of the hon member for Klip River.

Mr Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon the Leader of the Opposition and I must openly admit that there was a great deal he said to which I could reconcile myself. I found it a pity, though, that he was rather sharp with the hon member for Klip River who introduced the motion. I am convinced that the hon member for Klip River moved and argued this motion by virtue of his own convictions.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition that the motion is basically concerned with a clear mandate which this Government had received—the hon member for Klip River also referred to this—and there is no doubt about that. Indeed, the hon the Leader of the Opposition conceded that the mandate was concerned with the question which was also put in the referendum, namely whether the voters voted “yes” or “no” to the implementation of the Constitution Act, 1983. The need to govern this country, with retention of the right of self-determination of the separate population groups and to maintain group identity, is covered in the 1983 constitution.

On the other hand there is also the realization that there are matters of common concern in regard to which consensus must be found. In that respect I agree with the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Of course the success of the implementation of this constitution depends on whether it will be conducive to peace in this country, and for that reason it is essential that we should converse with one another and should recognise specific realities. In addition we must allow one another to uphold what is our own, but at the same time we must converse collectively with one another about problems which affect all of us.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition said inter alia that the Constitution Act, 1983, was defective owing to problems and shortcomings—because it was a human creation. No one will deny this, however, because there are shortcomings in any constitution. Even the constitution of the Opposition will in fact be defective for precisely the same reason, namely that it is a human creation—if I have to carry those arguments of the hon the Leader of the Opposition further. Let us therefore accept that there is much in this constitution on which we can agree; with which the Opposition, too, can agree. However, that there are differences in respect of the specific political views of the various parties is indeed also true. Yet I believe that there is a possibility that with the implementation of the constitution we will in fact be afforded an opportunity to discuss with one another the differences which may possibly exist.

Under this motion, however, the hon the Leader of the Opposition wants us to discuss only the method of implementation, and what we are going to do in future. He will concede, though, that the motion covers a far wider field than that. If the hon the Minister feels that he wants to discuss matters with the hon the Leader of the Opposition on that level, he has every right to do so, but I am not going to argue with him on that level.

It is indeed true, as is stated in the motion, that a resounding victory was achieved on 2 November, not only in respect of the outcome of the referendum in the sense that 66,34% of the votes polled were yes votes, but also owing to the fact that it was a majority in respect of all registered votes, namely 50;13%. Consequently there is no doubt that there was a clear mandate on a simple question which was asked. Although simple, that question was comprehensive because it covered the entire constitution. What was most important of all—and we need not debate this—was that the possibility was created in the constitution of our affording a specific group the opportunity to decide about its own self-determination on the basis of what was contained in section 14(1) of the constitution. I believe that any person who thinks in a well-balanced way and who desires justice, ought to be satisfied with section 14(1) which affords every group the opportunity to have the sole right to decide about what is its own, about the retention of its own identity, about the preservation and the promotion of its own way of life, its own culture, traditions and customs.

It is also true, however, that what one claims for oneself one should also grant to other population groups. That is in fact what the new constitution makes provision for. Furthermore, it is also true of course …

What about section 16 of the constitution?

There the hon member for Rissik is now referring to section 16. Of course it is also true that provision is being made in the new constitution for general affairs. [Interjections.] As far as those of us on this side of the House are concerned, surely it is very clear that we accept that there are also specific matters in which we have common interests, and which we shall therefore have to discuss. However, I do not think it is necessary for us to debate them now. There is no doubt that it is the right of every population group in this particular geographic area to be able to deliberate on these things, for owing to the particular historical course of events, all these respective population groups have developed—Whites, Coloureds, Indians, Blacks and so on. All of those who now find themselves in this particular geographic area have the right to express their opinions on these matters, which do after all, affect all of us.

I also know that it is the standpoint of the hon the Leader of the Opposition that we are not affording the Black people this opportunity. However, it is also true that we should very much like—and the Government is at present engaged in doing this—to try to find ways and means of giving the Black people the necessary say, precisely because we also realize that what happens in the territory of the Republic of South Africa also affects the Black people who find themselves here.

Moreover, it was also made very clear that in the present constitutional dispensation, as it exists at present, there is no room to give the Black that say by means of a fourth Chamber. That has already been repeatedly made clear in this House. That the Government is at present engaged, with the co-operation of some of the Black people, in deliberating on the question of whether these people …

What about an outside chamber? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, that is just about the only place in which the hon member for Bryanston will feel at home. [Interjections.]

Owing to lack of time, I should like to devote the last minute or two at my disposal to a matter which causes me grave concern. It is true that in regard to the new constitution we have differences of opinion, not only among the Whites, but also among the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black population groups in this country. One thing that is also true, however, is that there is also a difference of opinion about this matter among the Whites. I can define it even more specifically by pointing out that we also have a difference of opinion in the ranks of the Afrikaans-speaking Whites. Since an appeal is being made to us, in the motion now before this House, to make a positive attempt to implement the new constitution and to display a positive attitude to the new constitutional dispensation, it is, I think, a pity that we do not find that unanimity, not even in the ranks of the Afrikaans-speaking people.

In this respect I am referring now to a cultural organization which is about to be established, which now has to take shape. It is true that many hon members in this House place a high premium on the importance of their culture. The question which immediately arises is whether there is in fact a need for such an additional cultural organization. [Interjections.] I want to point out at once that Prof Carel Boshoff indicated that such a need did exist, particularly in regard to the family. I have newspaper cuttings and other quotes at my disposal, which unfortunately I cannot read out now owing to a lack of time. From these it is very clear, however, that Prof Carel Boshoff, too, initially put the cultural needs first, but subsequently made it clear that this cultural organization that was about to be established would not be able to divorce itself from politics. [Interjections.]

What is more, Mr Speaker, Mr Jaap Marais issued a warning to Prof Carel Boshoff at the first meeting, the so-called foundation meeting, in which he pointed out that many cultural organizations that had concerned themselves with politics in the past had died an early death. [Interjections.] However what did we subsequently find? [Interjections.]

Order!

Only three weeks later the same Mr Jaap Marais said that this new organization would not be able to divorce itself from politics. [Interjections.] I want to make it clear that I have no doubt in my mind—and this is what I am worried about—that this future cultural organization, under the cloak of culture and while exploiting Afrikaner sentiment, is going to do nothing but engage in politics. I find this a pity and I want to make a serious appeal to all members of the public to try to do everything possible to dissociate themselves from an organization which in reality will merely be engaging in political activities. I say this because education and culture is concerned with more things than politics alone.

Mr Speaker, in reply to the last statement which the hon member for Virginia made, I want to tell him that I think that there is a need for a conservative Afrikaner cultural organization. I also believe that all conservative Afrikaners ought to support it and that they should also see to it that that organization remains a cultural organization and does not venture into the political arena. [Interjections.] The hon member for Virginia said that he felt concerned and distressed at the fact that Afrikanerdom had been torn by strife, and so, too, had the Whites. Does he not still remember, though, that his party issued a pamphlet in 1974 in which it stated, with reference to the old United Party policy, that that party which advocated political integration and power-sharing in South Africa would split the Whites in two? The hon member must not complain now, if it was his party that split the Whites in two. [Interjections.] It was they who caused the split among the Whites. I also want to tell the hon member this: It is true that a very important Afrikaner cultural organization ventured onto the political platform just before the referendum and also caused a rift. [Interjections.] Of course it did, Sir. [Interjections.] Go and read the newspapers. I think that this is the lesson we could learn so as not to allow any future cultural organization to make the same mistake.

The motion of the hon member for Klip River mentions in the first place the clear majority which was achieved on 2 November. I want to say that personally I do not think it was a clear majority. It was a remarkable majority. It was a large majority. It was, however, a remarkable majority because it is not going to last. It was remarkable because the yes-vote majority represents a conglomerate of the most divergent political opinions one could imagine in South Africa. [Interjections.] Who was it now who all voted yes?

Who is the conglomerate?

I shall tell that hon member who they are. He is a member of that conglomerate, although just one small particle of it. [Interjections.] Who was it who all voted “yes”? Among them were conservative members of the Government party who still believe that what the hon the Prime Minister said when he stated that the Whites in the new dispensation would continue to be governed by the same people as those who are governing them now, was true. There are people who believe that. There are also people who believed what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said last year, namely that the right of self-determination of the Whites would not be affected. Those people also voted “yes”. You also know that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said last year that a Coloured or an Indian person would not become a Minister in the new dispensation. There are people in the NP who believe that, and they voted “yes”. However, there are also liberals in the NP who have gone beyond the right wing of the PFP. They also voted “yes”. [Interjections.] They are sitting over there.

Who else voted “yes”? It was the NRP. The bulk of the PFP also voted “yes”. [Interjections.] All those people voted “yes”. I say that the evidence is there, and the evidence is beginning to prove quite clearly that that conglomerate cannot be held together.

What about you people and the HNP?

The hon member need not concern himself about us and the HNP; we shall take care of the NP.

In a region in which the yes vote attained one of the largest majorities, those yes votes lost less than three months later. The NP’s ally there lost on a tremendous scale in a by-election. In a region where the no votes attained the majority, the NP lost in a by-election despite the fact that nine months before they had retained the same seat in a by-election under even more unfavourable circumstances than those now obtaining. Consequently they are losing support to the left and to the right and are falling apart.

I want to tell the hon member for Virginia that at this stage his party no longer has the support of the majority of Afrikaners in South Africa.

On what grounds do you say that?

I say it because it is a fact and the hon member knows that as far as the Whites are concerned, it is true that when one loses the support of the Afrikaners, one has little chance of governing.

What about support among the English-speaking people?

We are making very good progress among the English-speaking people. In Soutpansberg a substantial percentage of English-speaking people voted for us, and we are very proud and grateful because of that.

In the motion the word “enthusiasm” is also mentioned. Apparently there was tremendous enthusiasm for the constitution. Sir, what did you think about that enthusiasm when the hon members for Klip River and Virginia were speaking? It almost overwhelmed me; that enthusiasm which we experienced in this House was awe-inspiring, and that has been the case since last year, and still is. The hon members no longer know what is happening outside this House. They must come to a CP meeting if they want to know what enthusiasm is. They must come to a CP meeting where this constitution is being opposed and rejected and ways and means of undoing the constitution are being considered. There they will see enthusiasm. Tangible proof of this was the enthusiasm which prevailed on the morning after the referendum when the hon the Prime Minister came to the Union Buildings to celebrate his victory in contrast to the enthusiasm which prevailed in Louis Trichardt on the morning of 16th February this year. That is a wonderful comparison to establish where the enthusiasm is situated.

The motion goes on to say that in future consensus politics will replace confrontation politics. I want to ask the hon member for Klip River whether he still persists in the policy of Black states for the Black people for if he does, he is also persisting in confrontation politics as far as the Black people are concerned. Is his policy confrontation politics in respect of the Blacks, but consensus politics in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians? I want to know from the hon member whether that is his policy.

What does the acceptance of this constitution mean? In the first place it means that in respect of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians nothing is left today of the NRP policy which the governing party does not accept. They have accepted the whole of that party’s policy.

No, there is still quite a lot of our policy left.

Last week they accepted the question of local option as well, as far as the establishment of central business districts was concerned. They have accepted consociation. They have accepted the race federation. They have also accepted local option. I want to tell the NRP that the NP has taken their policy, all of it, has used them up and has now thrown the NRP onto the scrap-heap.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition that I feel sorry for him, because the NP has taken much of his policy as well. The NP is on its way to him, and he is the next victim. His party will be the NP’s next victim.

What a way to go!

That is the problem: Where is the PFP going? [Interjections.] The PFP will have to learn from the NRP where to go. I shall tell the PFP where to go. The NP has already accepted power-sharing, as well as the veto right, but I do not know whether that is still PFP policy; however, it was at one stage, and the NP is a little way behind the PFP. The NP is swallowing up the policy of the PFP and in the end they are going to throw the PFP onto the scrap-heap as well.

We are feeding them the policy.

Yes, you are feeding it to them, and they are gulping it down. The NP is gulping it down, and the PFP is also going to end up on the scrap-heap. The final outcome of the whole story is that the former UP, to which hon members of the PFP as well as hon members of the NRP belonged, is going to be resurrected in the NP. [Interjections.]

The new constitution represents consociation and race federation, and I just want to read out quickly what the founder of the concept of “consociation”, Lijphart, had to say. He defined consociational democracy in terms of four essential features. The first was government by a major coalition of all the important political leaders in a plural society. Are all the important political leaders, as far as the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned, going to serve in the government?

Are you going to be in it?

No, not at first, but later on we shall take over. [Interjections.] We are going to take over unless the Government has the courage to hold an election before the new system is put into operation. [Interjections.] As we understand the matter, however, the Government is not going to hold an election and is going to implement the new system. We shall participate in it, but we are not going to form the government. Leaders of the White parties, the Coloured parties and the Indian parties are going to serve in the Cabinet of South Africa—the super-Cabinet or the macro-Cabinet. This will be a major coalition of the majority parties of each population group. This constitution therefore complies with the first requirement for consociation.

In the second place there is the mutual or reciprocal veto rule. That will be there. In the third place, the principle of proportionality must be applied. We have the 4:2:1 ratio. In the fourth place there must be a large measure of autonomy for each segment in a plural society with regard to the management of its internal affairs. The autonomy is there, only it is not a high degree of autonomy. There is virtually no autonomy, because autonomy requires in the first place that one should be able to devise one’s own policy and control one’s own finances. In this case the segments are not able to do so. [Interjections.]

Here we therefore have a perfect example of consociation. It is also known that there are many scientists who say that consociation cannot resolve these conflicts; on the contrary, in a situation such as the one we have in South Africa it is conflict-creating, and therefore cannot cope with a conflict. I am not going to mention all the relevant scientists now because the hon the Prime Minister once—I assume that it was after he had studied the works of these scientists—addressed the House on this subject. On 6 February 1980 he said (Hansard, 1980, col 248):

The hon the Prime Minister went on to say, and I quote—

The hon member for Durban Point then asked by way of an interjection whether it was not even possible between Coloureds and Indians, to which the hon the Prime Minister reacted as follows:

What we have here, therefore, is a consociation, which is also a race federation, and which is going to lead to impaired decision-making, to the undermining of group security—not the protection of group identity, as is implied in the motion before this House—and to the destruction of the self-determination of the Whites and of every other population group. The principle of a right of veto, which must protect the minority groups, is built into this constitution. How is this right of veto being dealt with, however? With regard to a cardinal matter, namely when a decision has to be made about what is an own affair and what is a general affair, the right of veto does not apply.

In that case it has been thrown away.

Thrown away, yes. One of the mechanisms which according to Lijphart must be introduced to protect group security is not there. The President alone decides, and he may be a White, a Coloured or an Indian; in other words none of the groups have any security of group rights. That is not assured in any way in this constitution.

Furthermore, when there is a conflict of opinion between the Houses which does not affect an entrenched clause, the veto right does not apply either because then the President’s Council and the President decide who is right. The President who, in other words, is appointed by the Electoral College, is a powerful factor, and is going to become a decisive factor in South Africa. What is more, in a system such as this, in which there is no security and in which there is one common system in which everyone has to negotiate to maintain their security, there is no place for moderate leaders. One of the conditions for successful consociation is moderation. Here a pattern is being created in which there is no room for moderates. The person making the highest bid—because he has to fight for his people since there is no security—is the leader who is going to be elected.

What does one see in the Coloured community? Today the radicals are finding a fertile breeding ground in Coloured politics. In this way the governing party is creating a fertile breeding ground for the radicals in South Africa.

Like the CP.

No, if that hon member says that the CP is radical, I want to tell him that the CP believes in one thing, namely partition. There are scientists who say that if consociation does not work, the only remaining model which will be able to work is partition, and that is what we believe in. [Interjections.]

We as Whites believe that the Whites have a right to their own fatherland, and have the right to elect their own Government, consisting only of Whites and elected only by Whites. If the hon member considers that to be radical, then most of the nations of the world are radical. If the hon member also considers that to be confrontation, most of the nations in the world are seeking confrontation, and if it means confrontation, then we are not afraid of that confrontation. [Interjections.]

That is our standpoint, and we realize that because we lay claim to that, the Coloured and Indian population have the same right. [Interjections.] We shall also enable them to realize those aspirations. [Interjections.] Hon members on the opposite side of this House are asking whether or not the Coloureds are a people. This is a semantic way of evading the issue.

According to the report of the Erika Theron Commission 72% of the urban Coloureds identified themselves more readily with their own people than with any other group. In other words they are already a people. [Interjections.] The report of the commission stated further that 50% of the Coloured leaders are already at the point where they identify more readily with their own people than with any other people or group. One of the present Coloured leaders, Mr Arthur Booysen, one of the present parties which is going to participate in their election, said the following last Sunday in Rapport Ekstra:

Wonderful. I understand that person completely—

The Government has decided to satisfy the integrationists and the liberalists in the White population, and to support them in the Coloured and Indian population, and we have decided that we are the champions of true Nationalists in the White ranks. [Interjections.] We shall also take the hand of the truly pure Nationalists among the Coloureds and Indians, and in future this will form the foundation on which the new and great South Africa will be built. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it was very difficult to follow the hon member for Lichtenburg. It was difficult in the sense that one wonders how many times we still have to conduct this old debate. Do we have to conduct the same debate week after week and month after month? Do we have to continue to advance the same arguments and try to motivate them? That debate is past. [Interjections.] I just want to remind the hon members of the CP that they lost the referendum. I can tell them that whatever role they are going to play in the future of South Africa, it will not be the same role as those hon members have played over the past few years, both within and without that party. The circumstances have changed totally. Whether, in their opinion, this is right or wrong, and whether they like it or not, nevertheless this is the factual situation. That party will have to decide for itself what role it can play in the future of our country. In fact, that is the main reason for this motion. I agree with the hon the Leader of the Opposition in the sense that this is a motion in which we must to a large extent concentrate on that role of the Opposition. [Interjections.] While we are doing so I just wish to put a question to the hon member for Rissik. The hon member for Lichtenburg said here that so many English-speaking people supported that party and that many English-speaking people voted for them in Soutpansberg. I do not mind. If people believe in their policy then, whoever they may be, they had better join the party they believe in. That is the democratic process. However, there is a question I want to ask. Those hon members know full well that over the years, at the time of their breakaway and repeatedly thereafter, the HNP …

We are the Conservative Party.

Yes, but I am still coming to the Conservative Party. I want to say that at the time of union the parity between the language groups was confirmed, and it was re-emphasized when we became a Republic, and this happened again last year at the time of the referendum on the constitution. Now, in the years when it was being formed, since it broke away from the NP and repeatedly after that, the HNP stated as its standpoint—I can produce evidence for this—that Afrikaans should weigh more heavily in South Africa than English.

That is not our standpoint.

Just wait. [Interjections.] I want to put a question to the hon member. I am coming to that. During the past year or so those hon members have been holding discussions with the HNP. [Interjections.] I am discussing a serious matter, and I mean this very sincerely. While the CP has been negotiating with the HNP I have not once heard that that party has said to South Africa that parity between the language groups in our country is regarded as non-negotiable by them in their discussions as regards future co-operation with the HNP.

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

The hon member need not ask questions. I am asking the questions. The English-speaking people in South Africa know full well what the policy of the HNP is, and the hon members of the CP have never once in their discussions with the HNP …

How do you know that?

Then, can the hon members tell us unambiguously that in their discussions with the HNP in the future this will be non-negotiable? [Interjections.] Can the hon member reply to that in the affirmative across the floor of this House?

Yes.

Can they also say that they will not enter the future with the HNP if that is not accepted by the HNP?

Yes.

Very well, Sir.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member? [Interjections.]

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to give the hon member for Maitland the opportunity to deliver his speech.

I was reading Benjamin Disraeli’s Coningsby the other night and of the opposition of the time—that was the 1830s when the Reform Bill was before Parliament in the United Kingdom—he said:

Whatever else we may say and whatever political posture we may have towards each other in the House, the outcome of the referendum at the end of last year signified a milestone in the history of this country. The fact is that any South African who knows anything of the history of this country, who in any way knows the circumstances that led to the referendum and has any perception at all about the political future of our country, knows in his heart that we are standing at an enormous political watershed period in our history. History is not a continuum. It is not a graph which proceeds upward or downward in a fixed direction. There are major shifts of history. That happened throughout history, including the ancient period. We know that. One can think of the birth of Christ, the birth of Aristotle, Prince Henry the Navigator and a great many other events, either circumstances or people, that have changed events. Just as we had in 1910, just as we had at the time of becoming a republic, this referendum is a beacon on the road to a different South Africa. At times of great change, whether it be good or bad or whether one likes it or dislikes it, there are great opportunities for people. There are great opportunities to direct the course of history in the direction that one would like it to go. However, if one fails at those turning points in history, if one fails to lead events, then events will carry one along. We in this House need to forget all of these old arguments that add nothing to the sum total of human knowledge. It is no good our chewing the cud over and over on arguments, on battles which have been lost or won. We must bury those hatchets and those debates and we must concentrate on the real issues. [Interjections.] I am not saying that one must leave one’s principles behind one or that one must not carry into the future those things that one holds dear. Of course not. However, the debate has moved. We stand in a new dimension of history and we will have to respond to that. If we do not respond to it then I am afraid things will not go well with South Africa.

*The hon the Leader of the Opposition made a very interesting speech. I do not support his amendment but I do find it interesting.

†As far as I can remember, this was the first time that the hon the Leader of the Opposition even haltingly referred to the new structure of our country in the sense that he wanted to participate. That was what his amendment said. [Interjections.] Quite honestly, I am grateful for that. I do not agree with the particular standing committee that he has proposed, but the fact that he has for the first time acknowledged that he is going to have to participate in the new dispensation and is beginning to think about how he can participate, augurs well for our country. I think the hon the Leader of the Opposition must accept that the future of our country, for better or for worse, is in the hands, primarily, of the Government over the next two years. While we have the mandate the future is predominantly and primarily in our hands. However, the Opposition also has a role to play. The hon the Leader of the Opposition must then not come to us, as he did in the no-confidence debate, and ask us what his role must be. I think he owes it to South Africa to think through what his role should be. He should tell us what role the Opposition can play. I can only ask him that that role be constructive, that it help our country not hinder it and that that role that he things out de novo for himself and his party will, as we have had to do, take cognizance of the many profound problems of our time.

With that I should like to say that I support the motion and that it was a privilege to take part in this historic debate.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Klip River gave me a very pleasant surprise. I did not realize that he had made such a study of NRP philosophy, our aims, objectives and principles. However, I welcome the motion he has introduced because it clearly shows that he has made such a study.

When analysing the motion, one finds that the hon member first of all refers to the referendum, the result of which is a fact. Only the CP, which does not recognize facts in politics, tries to dispute the fact that a two-thirds majority is a clear message, a clear mandate for reform. I agree therefore with the hon member for Klip River on that point.

He speaks of group security through group control of their own intimate affairs. This is a fundamental feature of NRP policy. The hon member further refers to broadening the base of participation in the democratic decision-making process. Again this is part of our basic philosophy, and I have no quarrel with him on that score.

The hon member also speaks of putting an end to confrontation politics and moving into consensus politics. I agree with him 100%. He speaks of a positive approach by and a constructive contribution from all parties. Once again this shows that he has been studying the record of constitutional development. This party called for a joint select committee of both Houses of Parliament in March 1977. We participated in the Schlebusch Commission, in the President’s Council and in the constitutional select committee. We moved positive amendments, we participated positively and constructively in the debate itself, and we participated in the referendum.

And after all that the Nats dropped you. That is thanklessness!

I am trying to deal with the serious issue of the constitutional future of South Africa. The hon clown for Bryanston just cannot seem to get himself above his own level of politics.

It is gratifying that the hon member for Klip River should have formulated this in the form of a motion. Clearly therefore he was not speaking to us. I do not think that he was appealing to the PFP or the CP because that would have been, I believe, a waste of time. However, whoever he was addressing the motion to, I can assure him that he has our full support, and we will help him to try to persuade them to be constructive and positive, even if it has a bearing on some of his own colleagues.

Obviously, there was a price to pay for this participation, and that price is the blurring of one’s identity as a party; the danger of being misrepresented and twisted and exploited. However, this party’s determination to contribute positively has not and will not be blunted. We will continue to make a positive contribution to making the constitution work.

I am glad that the hon the Leader of the Opposition has committed himself to constructive participation. He referred to the previous referendum on becoming a republic. There were two differences, of course, one being that the leader of the then UP which worked for a no vote, did not in a paid advertisement place his political future at stake on achieving a no vote. The other difference was that before the outcome, the UP had said it would accept the will of the people, and it came in from the start with a positive contribution to the new Republic. So, one cannot compare the two situations. What the PFP has to do is to get one foot out of one or the other camp. The hon the Leader of the Opposition has said they are now in the camp of participation. Therefore they must get their other foot out of the camp which is bordering on the Black Alliance, the UDF and the other organizations that reject any form of participation and even accuse the PFP of stabbing them in the back and of dumping them, as the hon member for Bryanston said himself.

Implicit in this motion is that in seeking a successful implementation of the new constitution one has to create a climate for reform. That is essential. That also requires conviction and determination, not hesitation or an apologetic and defensive attitude such as we have seen here again in this debate on the part of hon members on the Government side. We need conviction and determination. One example of creating that climate was the debate we had here last Friday in connection with the opening of central business districts. That was a welcome new approach involving community option—a major break-through for a new South Africa. That sort of initiative will, however, be stillborn if it is discredited before it can even begin through being described as being merely the use of other terminology which will not change anything.

If this new constitutional dispensation is to succeed it must be seen to be for real, and not to be merely a camouflage, a facade created by words. This is a danger which we should avoid.

I spoke earlier of positive contributions. I too have a suggestion, Mr Speaker, and I submit that it is interesting to note the difference between the approach of the hon the Leader of the Opposition and my own proposal, which I intend to make. We both have in mind a standing committee. The hon the Leader of the Opposition has suggested the establishment of a standing committee to investigate the removal of discrimination. He wants it to destroy something. What I propose, Mr Speaker, is a standing committee on community relations for the building up of community relationships. This shows the philosophic difference between the NRP and the PFP. The PFP wants to destroy something; the NRP wants to create and to build up something. We see this as part of the process of creating and building up healthy and harmonious community relations. The removal of discrimination is only one part of it. That is only the destruction of something. It is no use simply removing something. That is the weakness of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. He is always prepared to say what he wants to destroy, but he never tells us what he wants to put in its place. [Interjections.]

We suggest the establishment of a standing committee on community relations, which will investigate the removal of unnecessary and hurtful discrimination, but which, at the same time, will seek ways and means by which communities and groups can live together in peace and harmony. We did exactly the same when we proposed a standing committee for the President’s Council not only to investigate the abolition of discrimination but also to formulate and to supply the means and the methods by which communities and groups could live together in peace and harmony. The PFP rejects the incorporation of groups as groups in the constitutional structure. Therefore it cannot participate in a positive fashion …

Mr Speaker, could I put a question to the hon member for Durban Point?

No, I have only one minute left. I cannot answer any questions now.

The PFP cannot participate in a constructive manner because it rejects, as a fundamental political principle, the incorporation of groups as groups in the constitutional structure. The hon member Prof Olivier repeated that here this morning, when he said the PFP totally rejected the accommodation of groups as entities in the political structure. That is the difference between what I propose and what the hon the Leader of the Opposition suggests. We accept that there are groups that should be accommodated. We seek to find a relationship between them as groups. This is where the key to the future lies—the creation of harmonious relationships among groups. This will test the mettle of the moderates in South Africa of all races and across party and colour lines. This will ultimately be the key to whether the new constitution succeeds or not, and this party will do everything in its power to try to make it succeed.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Durban Point. The hon member said that he thought we were interpreting the motion incorrectly if the PFP and the CP were making a fuss because one cannot appeal to them and because we do not expect them to cooperate in a positive way in any case. He then said that the NRP were co-operating in a positive way in any case, and that that was why the appeal had not been addressed to them. I interpret this motion as being the direct opposite. I think it is in fact meant to be an appeal to all parties in this House to make a positive contribution to the successful implementation of the new dispensation. Nor does this only mean a date of coming into effect. What it is really saying to us is: Let us all co-operate in making the new dispensation succeed. Let us all enter this new dispensation in order to achieve what will be best for everyone. I want to ask the hon member for Durban Point rather to try in this spirit to make an appeal to the parties which he claims are acting in a negative way—all three the other parties in this House, according to him—to act positively in this regard.

I should like to put forward a few ideas concerning what I think we can expect from the parties in this House. When I refer to “we” I am speaking about the House as a whole, and not merely on a majority basis. I am also speaking about the public at large.

In the first instance, I want to refer to the CP. I honestly think we can expect them to refrain from basing their activities on opposition to a system about which a decision has already been made. I think we can expect them to accept, even if it is only for the present, that that is the framework within which they will have to work in the future. I think we can expect them to co-operate and to formulate their goals within the given framework. We can expect them to retain all their ideals for a new constitution but that they will try to attain them through the constitution which will be put into operation in the future, if they can convince other parties—that is the next thing to emphasize—to accept their model within the framework of the new constitution. I think we can expect them to dispense with this inflexibility of theirs, and even if the goal they are striving for is one of seeking their own interests—perhaps this is interpreted by the public as a kind of selfishness—that they will do so within the framework of the model on the table and that they will aim for the negotiation and consensus required even if it is an aggressive course and even if it is a course requiring everything they have to get what they want.

I now wish to refer briefly to the PFP. The hon the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech that we were all conceived and born in sin, but he almost presented himself and his party as being a lot of little angels who were conceived and born in sin. I think that in this regard he behaved improperly towards the person who proposed this motion. I am grateful that hon members intimated by their statements that they accept the result and that they have already intimated that they will co-operate in a positive way. However, this all depends on interpretation, and they are also entitled to bring in their interpretation. However, I think we are also entitled, when they want to make a positive contribution, to expect them not to do so on the basis of what their traditional view of, and attitude towards, an Opposition was in putting a blatant alternative which by no means had a philosophical link, but that they will state their opposition on the basis of a critical analysis of whatever the standpoint is of the government of the day, and will try to adapt and flex and mould it to their ideals. I think that is the attitude we can expect of them, rather than this exact, rigid, almost ideoligical approach we still hear too often from many hon members on that side of the House.

I have already referred to the hon member for Durban Point. I must say I find the NRP a very difficult party to understand. I gain the impression that they are really an alliance of a number of detached philosophies, but I must concede that they project the image of patriotism, and I think we can expect them at least to try to make positive contributions, as was the undertaking of the hon member here.

A very interesting approach was the idea of building relations between communities through a committee, but the hon member must tell me to what extent this is attainable. Is it not the function on a government firstly to guide and initiate that aspect and carry it through in the legislation concerned, and should the Opposition not assist the Government with that? I do not think a select or standing committee is able to deal with such a comprehensive matter which in fact covers the entire political spectrum about which we conduct debates daily. I do not mean that I support the amendment of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. It is an extremely wide instruction to a single committee. I do not wish to react to that any further, however.

We can also expect the NP to follow a certain approach in this House. The motion also appeals directly to the NP. I think we can expect the NP to realize that it will continue to serve as the major section of the power base of a future government. I think we can also expect it to admit that it has disposed of a section of its body that based itself on selfishness and is now sitting in the CP benches.

I think we can also expect the NP not to balk at the challenges or the opportunities that come its way in order to capitalize on selfishness. The NP must not follow a response to emotion, the surge of emotions amongst the electorate, merely for the sake of political support and the political vote. I think we can expect the NP not to balk at that opportunity. I think it is very easy to do so. In fact, the hon member for Lichtenburg said that the party who makes the highest bid will be the party to be chosen. It is, in fact, the CP who put in the highest bid, and they would concede that. The hon member even went further and said that the highest bid approach—he was not thinking of the Whites, since he was speaking about people of colour—is the breeding ground for radicalism. He must analyse what he said, and other hon members must also consider that.

I think we can also expect the NP to carry the realization through to the entire electorate that there is a greater division between party and government than there has been. They must realize that the NP will also be just a party that does indeed have the strongest constitutional power base to put the Executive Authority in power, but it will have to be accepted that the Government is going to govern in the general interest, in the interests of all the people in this country. It is a challenge to the NP to carry that message and not to give in to this easy capitalization on emotions.

One question remains, and that is what we can expect from the public at large. I wish to make a brief remark about this in conclusion. To think merely in terms of equal opportunity will not work. It is a myth that equal opportunity is in any way an answer and that it makes people happy. A second part to the myth is that equal opportunity yields positive results of its own accord. If we are to assume that we can follow such a laissez-faire approach in the future, we are going to have problems. The general challenge resting on everyone in the country, therefore, is to go out and choose positively what is in the best interests of everyone. This includes all the subjects of this country, and within that framework we shall have to evaluate our own interests and we shall have to make those own interests fit in with the picture that embodies the general interest. In this process we shall also have to be prepared to kick off our own shoes and stand in another person’s shoes and look back. From time to time we shall have to exchange shoes until such time as we see the picture in more or less the same way. In general, this is the appeal I wish to make to the public and the appeal I want all the parties in this House to issue. I take pleasure in supporting this motion.

Mr Speaker, I hope that during the course of what I have to say I will reply to most of the points raised by the hon member for Randburg.

I would like to digress briefly at the start and refer to a remark made by the hon member for Lichtenburg a little earlier on today when he said he felt that the National Party was gradually taking over the policy of the PFP. When that day comes, I will be one of the first people to apply for membership of the NP, unlike my colleagues in the NRP, whose leader concedes that their policy has become so blurred that people do not know where they stand.

That is not true.

He said so himself. When that day comes, I hope I will have the common sense not to continue sitting on the fence. [Interjections.] The hon leader of the NRP also indicated that the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment was destructive in the sense that it called for a standing committee of Parliament to look at the removal of statutory discrimination. I hardly regard that as breaking down; I regard that as building up. That hon member has not realized yet that the root cause of the problems in South African politics is discrimination. Any move away from that in fact represents building up.

Much of the debate today has centred around a problem which we in Opposition benches experience, namely getting clarity from the Government and hon Ministers about what they mean in regard to certain terms. I see that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is shaking his head, but hopefully I will be able to illustrate what I mean as I go along. The hon member for Sea Point spoke about the “charade of words” that we are bombarded with. Of course, these words often sound good to the uncritical listener.

I would like to start off by analysing the motion of the hon member for Klip River, because I think it is necessary that when we debate with one another that we remove any misunderstanding, in regard to what is meant by different words and terms we use.

The motion of the hon member starts by saying “mindful of the clear decision given by the White electorate of South Africa on 2 November 1983 and the enthusiasm prevailing for a new dispensation”. Of course, one can immediately ask: “A clear decision on what?” If it is a clear decision that they won the referendum, as the hon member for Virginia has pointed out, we have already conceded that point. We believe it is a clear decision for reform, and I think most members in the House will agree that there has been a clear decision for reform. Opinion polls have shown for many years that the electorate is ahead of the Government on the question of accepting reform. Reform in the South African context means moving away from racial discrimination. My hon leader spoke at some length on that today. He spoke about racial discrimination in various spheres of activity, and we yet have to get a clear indication of what this Government intends doing and which laws it will consider amending.

We discussed that motion this morning.

I know, but it ties in very closely with this motion. Is the Government, for example, prepared to make a symbolic gesture, as my hon leader mentioned? Perhaps the hon the Minister will answer this question clearly in this debate seeing that this was not done during the earlier one.

The motion goes on to say “and the enthusiasm prevailing for a new dispensation of group security through group control of own affairs”. Here, of course we get back to the old argument which the hon member Prof Olivier dealt with this morning, namely what constitutes a group. While I am on this point, I would like to raise one point with the hon member for Klip River in response to a remark which he made earlier. This party has never arrogated the right to speak for other groups. We speak for our own electorates but we are sensible enough to realize that our future and security are tied up inextricably with the future of other groups. Therefore, what is in our interests is also in the interests of other groups.

When it comes to the new constitution, it is very clear that colour determines what a group is; in other words, who participates in the White, Coloured and Indian Chambers. Of course the new constitution cannot work without the race classification legislation which classifies people according to colour. When it comes to Black people, however, a group becomes something different and other factors come into play in determining what constitutes a group, such as language, ethnicity etc. As we have said repeatedly, we in this party believe that membership of any group should be voluntary. We have never seen any evidence anywhere that group rights or identities have been threatened because we operate within a common system. For example, many of the White groups in this country have retained their own identities without any problem at all. The hon member for Klip River will concede—I think he comes from a German background—that the German group has never been threatened in this country. Its identity has never been threatened and it has always been able to maintain that identity in spite of a unitary system as far as Whites are concerned.

I come now to the interesting part of this resolution where it says: “… broadening of participation in the democratic decision-taking processes …” In the first place 70% of the population is excluded from the new constitution so we need not even argue further that it broadens the participation of Blacks at all. I would imagine that to participate in a democratic process means that one’s vote has some say in shaping one’s future. Let my give hon members an example. I would hope that if I could persuade enough people to vote like I do to change the Government, we could then elect one which would apply PFP principles. As far as I and every other White in South Africa is concerned, that is possible. However, it is patently impossible when it comes to an Indian or Coloured because under the new constitution whoever they elect with whatever majority does not matter at all. That is because the Chambers of Parliament in which they have their say will always be subservient to the will of the White Chamber. I hardly think that that is a broadening of the democratic base in the true sense and meaning of the word “democracy”.

The hon member’s motion goes on to say: “… the replacement of confrontation-orientated politics by consensus-seeking politics …” Here again, I believe it is necessary that we define what we mean by consensus politics. The general meaning attached to the term is that groups of different persuasions get together and while they do not necessarily reach a decision with which they are all happy, they nevertheless do not reach a decision until all agree, which may involve a certain amount of compromise in the decision-making process. The point I want to make here is that it is not possible to practise consensus at all unless the basic rules and the framework of the system have been agreed to by everybody. I want to give the hon members an example. I think it is common cause that the Coloureds and Indians are coming into the new despensation but they are pledged to remove discriminatory measures such as, for example, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act. How can one expect to reach consensus in the new system when one has these two particular Acts on which one has to try to reach some agreement? It is impossible when anything which relates to those Acts comes up for discussion.

The PFP agrees with many of the sentiments expressed in the hon member’s motion. For example, we have always been in favour of broadening the democratic base. Secondly, it has always been our policy to participate in consensus politics. In fact, I think the Government learnt the word “consensus” from us and have now made it part of their jargon without giving any substance to it. Thirdly, we do not deny the existence of groups. I think my leader put this very clearly this morning. We do not deny that groups may have very legitimate fears of one group being dominated by another.

Although the motion moved by the hon member for Klip River incorporates some of these sentiments, I believe it is totally impossible for National Party policy to give effect to these particular sentiments. On the other hand, I should like to argue that the type of policy advocated by this party has more chance of giving effect to those sentiments than the policies put forward by the Government. As a starting point to give effect to these sentiments, I believe there is one very simple point from which nobody in this country can get away. That is that we must accept the concept of full and equal citizenship rights for everybody. This must be goal towards which one can work. If one does not accept this goal and says to others that one has something else in mind for non-White South Africans, one will find that one simply cannot sell that alternative. So, right from the start it is hopeless trying to sell something to others which they find totally unacceptable. As I have said, that proposal is a saleable, long term goal which everyone would accept. Once one has accepted that as a goal, the only problem is—this is a problem on which we were all agreed in the House throughout this morning’s and this afternoon’s debate—how one gets away from one group dominating another and how one is to construct a system by means of which one can arrive at that ideal. Again, I believe there are constitutional mechanisms to deal with this. Our party has those mechanisms as a part of its policy. I do not think it is necessary for me this afternoon to go through them in any detail. I can say, however, that none of them is discriminatory.

[Inaudible.]

I can tell that the hon member that a federation is not discriminatory. It is generally acceptable and one can sell it to other people. Proportional representation of parties is not discriminatory either. One can sell that to other people. So one can go on. There is the idea of a sovereign constitution and a Bill of Rights which is not discriminatory. In fact, the hon member’s party last year debated against that because, once one has a Bill of Rights, it is impossible to carry on with the implementation of the policy of that hon member’s party. On the other hand, one can sell all the concepts contained in our policy because they are not discriminatory. [Interjections.] As I have said, there are numerous constitutional mechanisms which can be included to achieve the goal on which we are all agreed, namely to get away from the possibility of one group dominating another. Only when we have this sort of framework accepted will it be possible to practise any form of consensus politics. One cannot practise consensus politics when one is discriminating against others or when one is offering a deal which is not the same as one’s own, but which treats others differently. Once that point is reached, consensus politics is impossible.

The hon member for Klip River concluded his motion by appealing to all parties to display a positive approach to the new constitutional dispensation. We are already on record as saying that we will work within the constitution. We have indicated that we do not believe that that in any way constitutes an about face in the light of our attitude during the referendum. All the parties today in the House are operating within a system which they do not believe to be correct. So there is no difference when we go over to the new system. I can assure the hon member for Klip River that any move away from discrimination will get our fullest support. However, that hon member must not expect us to go along and meekly play the game the way they want us to play it. They must not expect us to support any kind of racial discrimination or go along with anything along those lines. We say this very simply because we have a conviction that it is only by getting away from discrimination that we can in any way be sure of having a safe future for ourselves in this country. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment to the motion as proposed by my hon leader.

Mr Speaker, let me say at once that this debate has had some interesting features. One of the important features has been the various interpretations given to the result of the referendum by various parties. However, this has not been the most interesting feature. The most interesting feature has been the various interpretations given to the result of the referendum by the same party on different occasions.

In this connection I want to address the hon the Leader of the Opposition, because there has been an interesting change in his interpretation of the result of the referendum, and one on which I want to compliment him. He seems to be doing it in the spirit of the discussion we are conducting. He will recall that when we were debating the technical aspects of the constitution in this House, one of the principal objections to the constitution raised by him and his party was that it would entrench domination and discrimination in the constitution itself.

That is true.

Thank you very much. The hon the Leader of the Opposition has given me some further assistance. It is very interesting to note what he says in his amendment. He asks the House to urge the Government to see the result of the referendum on the constitution—this is the constitution in respect of which he now admits that he advised people that it meant a perpetuation and an entrenchment of domination and discrimination—as a mandate for reform away from racial domination and discrimination. [Interjections.] However, this is not all that is interesting. After the referendum, during the debate on the motion of no confidence, he gave yet another interpretation. What did he say then? What did he say then about the constitution on which we had voted, and about the result of the vote which we are being asked to interpret as a mandate to move away from discrimination and domination? He said that we had had repressive domination before and that we now had consociational domination.

I said co-optive.

Yes, co-optive domination. But surely this is an anomaly. However, there is yet another curious phenomenon. I am referring to the hon member Prof Olivier, whose standpoint has been in total conflict with the entire debate which the hon the Leader of the Opposition and I have been conducting with each other. What is the debate we have been conducting with each other? Last Thursday, this morning and this afternoon it has been to the effect that we agree on certain basic problems. The fundamental basic problem on which we agree with each other is the danger of group domination. We also agree on the desirability and the need for the establishment of a just system for the self-determination of groups without domination. In other words, if our objective is self-determination for groups without domination, surely the hon member Prof Olivier cannot say that according to his party’s policy, the existence of groups is not recognized in its proposed constitution. [Interjections.] That is what the hon member said. I wrote it down. With all due respect, that is what the hon member said. Let us define our terminology in arguing a matter, otherwise we shall get nowhere. After all, the hon member Prof Olivier and his party know that we all recognize the fact that there are different peoples living in this country, in terms of the normally acceptable definition of what a people is. However, we also know that there are a number of minority groups in the country who cannot be described as peoples. The hon member is also aware of that, so I cannot understand how he could have made such a statement.

I come now to the hon member for Lichtenburg, who was responsible for another peculiarity today. I should like to give this hon member some friendly advice, and that is that he should stick to animal genetics and stay away from constitutional law and political science. What did this hon member do? He began by saying that we had taken over the NRP’s policy. If that is his interpretation, he has the right to say so. Moments later, however, he said that we had also taken over a large part of the policy of the hon the Leader of the Opposition, and then he made a third statement, namely that we had actually followed Lijphart’s philosophy. Immediately afterwards, however, he went on to indicate where we had not done so, and Lijphart agrees with the hon member’s final statement that we did not do it.

However, there is yet another peculiarity. The hon member for Lichtenburg said he believed there was a need for a cultural movement among the Afrikaners which would not concern itself with politics. In saying that, is he suggesting that there is or has been a cultural association which has concerned itself with politics?

Yes, you know it.

Sir, I am now dealing with the hon member for Lichtenburg. I assume that the hon member for Lichtenburg derives his knowledge from his membership of the movement.

From an English newspaper. [Interjections.]

No, from his membership of the movement. The hon member should indicate whether this is not true.

You can say so if you like.

The hon member says I can say so. He says that his knowledge of the fact that this cultural movement concerned itself with politics and was drawn into controversy for that reason was gained by virtue of his own membership of that movement. Now I want to ask the hon member who led that movement, according to his knowledge, and he must also tell me under whose leadership that movement got involved in politics.

You tell us. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, that is too easy.

You can tell us.

No, the hon member really should tell me who it was. [Interjections.] Now he will not tell us. He says I must read the newspaper. Very well, I shall the newspaper.

You have read the Sunday Express.

No, I do not read the Sunday Express. Surely it was Prof Boshoff.

He did not lead the society into politics.

Did he not? [Interjections.] I thought Prof Boshoff had retired because of the fact—I read this in the newspaper which he cites as his authority—that the society had concerned itself with politics during his time, but when they subscribed to NP standpoints, it was actually a mistake. That hon member really should not argue-with me in that way. [Interjections.] I do not wish to address the hon the leader of the CP, but perhaps he could speak with more intimate knowledge of what happened in the movement under his leadership.

I welcome this debate, just as I welcomed the debate we conducted this morning, because it concerns the essence of politics in this country. It also concerns the crucial question of whether we can establish a democracy, limited or unlimited, in this country. Before I come to the substantive part of the motion moved by the hon member for Klip River, I want to make a few remarks arising from the debates which have taken place in this House about the concepts of group identity and group participation. The hon member Prof Olivier will readily concede that if we do this, it immediately brings us to the concept of group definitions and to the method of defining these. In addition, it immediately brings us to the concepts of discrimination or differentiation. I am afraid that we are not quite clear in our own minds yet about exactly what we mean by these terms. That is why it is essential that I should say a few things about the Government’s standpoint. Although the word “discrimination” originally had a neutral and often positive meaning, it also remains a fact that through the use of the word in a specific context, the meaning of the word “discrimination” has changed into one with a mainly negative connotation. Surely this is true. The hon the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he agrees with me.

The concept of discrimination in the sense of “distinction between” has disappeared and has been replaced by another meaning, ie “discrimination against or at the expense of”, which has a negative connotation.

The first statement I want to make is that discrimination in the negative sense of the word—as I have just defined it—is unacceptable, while differentiation—that is to say, the drawing of a distinction, not “against or at the expense of", but “between”—is indispensable in our society, I believe, if we want to achieve the objectives which the hon the Leader of the Opposition says that he and I have in common. It amounts to self-determination and the removal of or getting away from domination. Again the hon the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he agrees with me.

The second statement I want to make in this connection is that the drawing of distinctions as such and the allocation of separate dispensations to the separate groups—disregarding for the moment the definition of “groups”—is often a condition for progress towards justice.

This bring me to the third statement I wish to make. I am going to do so very briefly. We can debate the matter in full on a later occasion. This is that the norms concerning the acceptability of differentiation and the resultant differences in treatment are continually changing. The position of women and their development towards emancipation furnish very clear proof of this.

In the fourth place, I want to point out at once that the norms are not the only things that change; the circumstances of the country also change. This, too, leads to a difference in interpretation. My fourth statement, therefore, is that in a changing society, it is not possible to change the complex structures—including the constitutional ones—overnight. It is not possible. In fact, this is a dangerous course to take.

Reform can be stabilizing, but it can also be destabilizing, and if the very close connection in this respect, a connection which is delicately balanced, is not maintained, it is possible that we may achieve exactly the opposite of what we intend to achieve.

In the fifth place, it is inevitable in the South African circumstances that the political process, and every political change and development, must continue to take place within a group context. In this respect, too, the hon the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me if he wishes to be fair.

It depends on what we mean by that.

Well, I have just tried to define it.

Yes, very well.

The acceptance of the new constitution by the White electorate on 2 November 1983 confirmed this very principle, I believe, namely that the groups in South Africa have been formed by a multiplicity of historic, ethnic, social, economic and political factors, and that these factors cannot be ignored or wished away, but must necessarily be taken into account if we wish to achieve the ideal of coexistence without domination for our country. This is undoubtedly true. None of us likes it. However, none of us in this House created this situation in this country. The question is whether we are humanly capable of living with the creation. Most other countries which have been placed in comparable situations have not managed to do so. Special endeavours, special efforts and special attitudes will be required to do so in South Africa. One does not often see evidence of these in our debates in this country. I am not trying to score political points. If we have to accept the principle of voluntary association, it will lead to chaos, as it has done elsewhere. On that we may differ. In the no-confidence debate, the hon the Leader of the Opposition summed up South African society in a way which I found striking and which caused me to hope that his view of society might force him to change his standpoint with regard to political solutions. I want to quote him in this connection. He said:

The one which does not exist, according to the hon member Prof Olivier:

Not individuals, but groups of people:

I cannot disagree with the hon the Leader of the Opposition. How one can suddenly allow voluntary association in such a society and how one can continue to believe that this can be done in an orderly way and that it is not bound to lead to chaos is something which I cannot understand. There is no example anywhere of such a process or view being successfully implemented under any comparable circumstances. Even in more developed societies, where the dividing factors are not so deep and intense, this has not succeeded. Instead of eliminating domination, in our opinion, it would create so much friction that the elimination of domination would become impossible.

Let me say this today, and I say it in all seriousness: I have no objection to anyone participating in the decision-making process, but I have a fundamental objection to the destruction of values, standards, norms and levels of civilization. I have a fundamental objection to this. It does not matter who wrote the Bible, it remains true.

During the debate on the Constitution in this House in 1983 and outside the House during the referendum, we discussed its technical aspects. I want to see whether we cannot go a little further in the spirit which the hon member for Randburg showed today. He did not adopt an arrogant attitude like the Pharisee who says that he is righteous and everyone else is a sinner. He said something which I should like to repeat. His appeal in this connection was directed towards every hon member of this House, every member who will come to this Parliament and everyone outside. Shall we agree with one another if I say this: The result can be interpreted—and the hon the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me—as approval for a course of reform? The hon Leader says yes. Secondly, do we agree that we must make a serious attempt to avoid confrontation and to seek consensus? The hon the Leader of the Opposition nods his head, so he agrees with that.

The result has indeed created a climate in which these two processes may grow and develop. It has also increased the reciprocal acceptability of groups. It is very interesting that as a result of White options, standpoints and statements, Coloured and Asian leaders decided not to have referendums. Why not? Because they were interpreting a spirit which they believed to exist among Whites in this country. Even before its commencement, the constitution has led to a dramatic change in people’s view of one another, and I say that this is one of the most optimistic events in many years in domestic politics.

It has been apparent since the beginning of the parliamentary session this year that these implications have also been felt in our debates, in our deliberations in this House. It seems to me that we have already changed the substance, the nuances and the style of our debating. I attribute this to the fact that we know that the process of seeking consensus is going to be more difficult after September this year than it is today and that we should school ourselves for that process before we get there, because if we cannot succeed in doing so in this House—in saying this, I am not pleading for deathly unanimity between political parties, but I am pleading that we should give a different meaning to our responsibility as members of Parliament—it will be much more difficult in future.

It is a fact that apart from other reasons, White politics has always been divided about the way in which the problem of the relationships between the various peoples and groups living in this country should be dealt with, constitutionally and otherwise. Whether it was between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people or between White and Coloured, Asian and Black peoples, this has been the basis and it remains the basis to this day. With the acceptance of the constitution, imperfect though it is alleged to be, we have at least removed that part of the disagreement. I have evidence for what I am saying, because there is not a single party in this House which has not agreed to work within the system, and in saying that, I am not implying that hon members of the parties as they are represented here agree with every detail of the constitution. The fact is that we have decided to work within this system, some of us to change it retrogressively if they can and others to accelerate and widen reform if they can, but everyone accepts this measure as the instrument which we have available to us now.

It seems to me that this question is very clearly relevant: What is meant in the motion when we talk about the constructive contribution or positive approach which hon members are being asked to display? The essence of the demands and the challenges which are going to be inherent in the new dispensation is contained in the motion moved by the hon member for Klip River, namely that confrontation-orientated politics should be replaced by consensus-seeking politics at all levels and in all spheres. No one could disagree with this sentiment. Whether we want to do so within these structures or whether we have proposals for other structures, this remains the principal endeavour of the country in the interests of peace and stability. It is making enormous emotional demands and enormous institutional demands on us.

The decision-making process which is being provided in the constitution by means of the structures created by it will have to be supported by a certain attitude and an approach which will have to find practical expression before we can expect any success. None of us think that we can go back to the pre-referendum era.

The Tortoises think so.

No, not even they. None of us want to go back to the pre-referendum era and that status quo; we all want it changed. If this is so, then I ask what the practical significance is of the consensus-seeking politics which is advocated in the motion which is before the House. It means a real change of style on our part. Consensus politics means, in the first place, recognition of the fact that the three groups are going to be dependent on one another in the new system.

This is so because the constitution provides for participation by the three groups in the decision-making process. No longer will the White voters go to the polls alone; the Coloured voters and the Indian voters will go there too. Parliament will not be constituted by the White voters alone; it will be done by all three groups. After September this year, it will no longer be the White representatives alone who will participate in the decision-making process in this House; the representatives of the Coloured people and the Asians will participate too.

The fact that this is so has certain implications for us. The first implication is that in order to ensure an effective process of decision-making, co-operation and a sustained and continuing attempt to co-operate will be indispensable. In order to achieve success, the emphasis will have to fall not on our differences, but on those aspects on which we do agree. That is the basis on which we shall have to seek co-operation. Furthermore, we shall all have to develop and, of course, to show a greater ability to listen to the other man’s standpoint. Indeed, the hon member for Randburg said so. In a conflict situation this is unnecessary, of course. When consensus is sought, however, it is essential. To be able to listen, there must be effective communication, and the communication between the participants must not be blocked, in order to avoid tension and misunderstanding.

We shall also have to cultivate a greater knowledge and understanding on one another’s standpoints, as well as a greater knowledge of one another’s circumstances. I believe that this is the only way in which prejudices and emotional barriers can be broken down; not in order to destroy the existence of the groups, of course, but in ordet to achieve a successful modus vivendi in the co-existence of the groups. In the process, I believe, the codes of conduct which are based on superiority, and often on a lack of mutual respect on the part of the various groups—and even more often, of course, on the fact that they ignore one another—will have to change. There are many people who practised these codes of conduct in the past; there are many who think that they can continue to do so today. If we do not succeed in this respect, the new constitution will become an instrument of destruction.

Underlying the motion which is before the House is, in the third place, the fact that the participants must be able to accept one another and to work together as a team. We must be able—and I believe that we are able—to rise, not only above party-political differences, but above the pursuit of petty political gain. We must do this in the interests of this country. The Government—imperfect as it is, according to some people—was prepared to risk its position in the referendum. The Government was the one which could not really have survived a defeat, while the other parties could have survived it. Hon members know that this is true. I advocate a scaling down of conflicting and unrealistic demands which lead to conflict and which may stimulate confrontation.

In a multinational society, it is a fact that promoting one’s own group interests, without recognizing and taking into consideration those of another group, cannot ensure peaceful co-existence, nor can consensus be achieved in this way. We must understand the fact that in future, these demands will not only be made on the State President or on the President’s Council, which has to resolve conflict. Nor can they be made only on members of the Cabinet or the Ministers’ Council. It is the responsibility of every person who says that he represents a community outside. I want to quote someone who said:

If we do not enter the new dispensation in this spirit and with this attitude, then it does not require a prophet to make a prediction about the future. We must understand the fact that even though Parliament consists of three Houses, it must be symbolized by the conduct of each person and even by the physical facilities which we provide.

Even in the handling of own affairs, demands are going to be made on our style of political debate and on the administration of the country. For the first time, formal provision is now being made for Whites, Coloureds and Asians to have self-determination with regard to their own affairs at the highest level. The way in which the groups are going to handle their own affairs is going to have a significant effect on whether or not we shall achieve consensus with regard to general affairs. If each group wishes to inflate its own affairs without taking into consideration those of the other groups, that consensus, which is a vital element, will not be achieved. We shall have to allow one another to handle our own affairs without interference from the other groups, without being dictated to.

It is essential that we should realize that although self-determination is a cornerstone of the new dispensation—and an important cornerstone—it is not the only component, and that it must not be used as an instrument for obstructing the joint handling of general affairs. Institutionally, the three Houses will take their decisions separately with regards to their own affairs, but they will also take decisions together with regard to general affairs. It is not a system in which own and general affairs will be dealt with by different legislators. The same people who are dealing with own affairs today will have to deal with general affairs tomorrow, and the sooner we understand that, the better. [Interjections.]

It is no use trying to get away from the motion, and it is no use reverting to prehistoric politics. The fact is that up to 1982, the hon members who are interrupting me now accepted this very philosophy which I am advocating here. If they did not, they were lying about it. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I want to say that the success of the new system will also depend on White support. I wonder whether we fully realize that under the new dispensation, two population groups will be represented in the highest legislative authority and in the executive authority, without having been exposed to these systems as we have been, without the knowledge of public administration acquired over years of experience which we take for granted. As Whites, we shall have to be supportive without being paternalistic; we shall have to do it without being disparaging, but with understanding, patience and goodwill.

The Coloured people and Asians coming to this Parliament have a great responsibility. I want to say that it will also depend on whether we enable them to accept that responsibility. We shall not be able to do that if we adopt a negative attitude towards people who are different from us. This opportunity which the Coloured people and the Indians are getting is imposing the responsibility on them to utilize it with enthusiasm and dedication. There is a responsibility resting on them to school themselves in the task of political decision-making and public administration.

It is clear already that we are entering a period in which Coloured people and Asians will not be allowed to participate in the democratic processes freely and without hindrance. I ask my colleagues in this House whether we shall all be prepared to rise and condemn those who seek to prevent Coloured and Asians from participating in a progress that we have created, from participating in institutions which we have created. Although some of us did not agree with this, I say that we believe in democracy, after all, and we believe in abiding by the majority decision. If we want to act in the spirit which is advocated in the motion of the hon member for Klip River, we shall be prepared, in spite of our political differences, to take a stand against the intimidators of other people.

This constitution gives greater bargaining power, but at the same time, it means greater responsibility, not only in respect of the handling of own affairs, but also in respect of the general will-being of South Africa.

I want to conclude. The responsibility does not rest only on those who are directly involved at the first level of government. It rests with every institution and with every person who participates in it. Communities and groups aspire to some form of political participation. They seek to maintain and promote their social and economic interests. After all, the purpose of the creation of constitutional structures is to provide a framework for orderly conduct which will promote the welfare and well-being of all, and which will preserve our security. However, it is also a part of the everyday reality in which we live that the acquisition of power for the sake of power, to the exclusion of others, is a natural political motive in our lives. We shall have to take congnizance of that. Any constitutional structure can be abused for this purpose; that of the USA, of England, of our country, and also the structures that are being created here. We must guard against that. Then we shall be acting in the spirit of the motion, and then we who call ourselves Whites will be showing ourselves ready to serve our country and its people.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.