as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Water Amendment Bill [B. 74—’81], as follows—

R. F. VAN HEERDEN, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

25 August 1981

Proceedings to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be a good thing if I dealt with a few of the points raised in this debate now, otherwise my reply would eventually be too long.

At the outset of the debate the statement was made that a constitution would work if it was the result of negotiation between groups or parties. In that way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition actually wanted to summarize the entire concept underlying his approach, viz. a national convention. The idea is that there should be negotiation between groups and parties, everyone must be brought together, and when you eventually succeed in patching together a constitution it will work. I can refer to two examples. One of these is the geographic Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. That federation came into existence in that way and it was held up to the world as a model, a wonderful model. I still remember a frontbencher of the former official Opposition rising in this House and saying that that was the ideal we should strive for in this country.

That was Marais Steyn.

It does not matter who it was. It was a frontbencher of the then official Opposition. The fact remains that the hon. member who said that is no longer there and that the federation is no longer there either. [Interjections.] The federation is no longer there either. It was primarily a federation of Black population groups and it could not endure.

However, there is also a second example of a state which came into existence as a result of a national convention, viz. the present-day Zimbabwe. Only this afternoon it was announced in the news that the minority groups in Zimbabwe were up in arms. Why? Because a one-party state is threatening to come into existence there. Now I should like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me, when he comes up with these idealistic and idyllic solutions, the new heaven on earth he wants to create for us, where his plan has worked. Where has his plan worked? For the moment I only want him to demonstrate the practicability of his plan to us. Perhaps he can appoint the hon. member Prof. Olivier to do research for him on that project. [Interjections.]

He does his own thinking. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of self-determination and domination in constitutional development. Allow me to point out immediately that in my opinion self-determination and the right to self-determination are relative terms, not absolute terms. The USA, the strongest country in the Western world, has the right to self-determination, but it can only apply its self-determination in a relative context. Yet this does not rob it of that right. In the final instance it remains the right of that country to practice that self-determination, regardless of the consequences. Led by a balanced administration, led by a sensible Government, such a right to self-determination is carefully exercised, and in that sense it remains a relative term. It cannot therefore be explained in an absolute sense.

However, one thing is certain, and that is the right of nations to self-determination. It does not take a constitutional expert to understand this. The right of nations to self-determination is a golden thread which runs all the way through the history of civilization. People have made sacrifices for this. People have died for this. People have lived for this, and to this day people are still living and dying for this. If a nation is deprived of this, that which inspires it and spurs it on to self-realization is destroyed. Whoever does not take this into consideration is not being realistic.

Even in the UN Charter it is confirmed—even if this is sometimes mere lip service—that the right of nations to self-determination is recognized and will be pursued by that body. As a matter of fact, Africa has been built on the principle of the right to self-determination, often along completely unnatural boundaries, but it is there. And, what is more, if one considers the Soviet structure, one finds that the principle of the right to self-determination is incorporated in articles 28 and 70 of the Soviet Constitution. Two very interesting papers concerning certain facets of the Soviet constitution have been written by distinguished scholars in America and Britain. But at the same time they say that the fact that a Communist Party exists there in the form of a dictatorship overshadows that right to self-determination of some of those nations that have been combined to form the Soviet Union. The fact remains, however, that the right to self-determination is also an integral part of that constitution. And furthermore, the history of Europe was built on that principle. Europe came into existence in its present form through the acceptance, the realization and the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. And a small nation like Israel is fighting today for its right to self-determination and nothing more. It is surrounded by millions and in numbers and forces its enemies are superior, but it is prepared to face all the consequences for its right to self-determination.

If it is true that the principle of the right to self-determination is accepted and is being realized in all these respects, why is it a sin to say in South Africa that we stand for the right of the Whites to self-determination? The right of the Whites to self-determination is an intricate concept. In the first place there is the right to self-determination of the Afrikaner nation, that does not want to die. And together with this, closely connected with this, is English-speaking South Africa. Whether they speak Greek, Portuguese, English, German or whatever, they are closely bound up with this right to self-determination. It has become one major concept that these people wish to preserve, realize and perpetuate their right to self-determination. Not only I, but this side of this House, is bound to this unconditionally. As long as there is a National Party with a soul, that party and the Government which it forms will be bound to this principle.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition not only interpreted my words in this way, but went further by saying in his reply to the censure debate that White self-determination is White domination.

Under certain circumstances.

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say under certain circumstances.

Under the 1977 proposals.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that White self-determination is White domination. He said so and it is recorded in Hansard. Do not try to find other explanations for it now. That is what he said.

Under the present and under the 1977 proposals.

Do not try to rush to his assistance; I am dealing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now. But let us pause for a moment to consider that hon. member. Yesterday he let the cat out of the bag. He stood up here and tried to explain why they are following the course they have adopted. He said that we must realize that by the year 2000 the numbers will be so overwhelming that it will not be worthwhile to continue the struggle. While he was speaking I said to one of my colleagues: Do you know who he reminds me of? He reminds me of the man who thought that someone was going to murder him and so he committed suicide.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted the interjection I made here. I do not withdraw that interjection. I am going to deal with it. I said that according to our 1977 proposals the Whites would, in an electoral college for a State President, be predominant as far as numbers are concerned. Surely this is true. I have here the official document issued by my party under my predecessor’s régime in which it is stated—

In other words, we made no secret of this. This is not a secret which has only now been revealed. It has been known since 1977 that an electoral college of 88 persons would be constituted in which 50 White delegates would have representation, elected by means of the majority in Parliament. Under the present position the State President is chosen by an electoral college consisting only of Whites. In other words, in comparison to the former position this is an improvement in the sense that it allows the Coloureds and the Indians to participate in the election of a State President.

But not decisively.

I am coming to that.

He wants it to be decisive.

Yes, I am coming to that. Just give me a chance.

There is no impediment in the proposals on the basis of colour; none, but Whites will have a majority in the electoral college. In the American constitution there is no impediment on the basis of colour either, but for 200 years they have elected only White Presidents. Is that White domination?

But there are more Blacks than Whites in South Africa.

I say that this has been known since 1977. So why the commotion? Why lead the outside world to believe that I have suddenly changed my standpoint? This is being done for one purpose only, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his simple party are taking part in it. They want to launch a mud-slinging campaign. That is all, and in the vanguard of that mud-slinging campaign is the hon. member for Sea Point and others. I also say that there is no provision in those proposals which states that the voting must take place according to colour. In the proposals before the President’s Council there is no provision which states that one must vote according to colour. This is an open question. Why is this reform and the degree of reform contained in these proposals not at the same time being widely publicized and why is it being minimized while the impression is being created that I have now changed my standpoint? Surely that is nonsensical.

We had the courage to subject our proposals to investigation by a body like the President’s Council. We constituted it as it is presently constituted—representative of all the population groups, except our Black population groups, to whom I shall come in a moment. We said that we were prepared to submit our proposals in the form of a Bill to the President’s Council which would then have to assess it and give us advice which we would consider on merit.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not do that. No, he is boycotting the President’s Council. He sits here in Parliament and is prepared to enjoy all the advantages of a Parliamentarian, but he is not responsible enough to implement the consequences of parliamentary decisions.

But the President’s Council is an extra-parliamentary institution.

I am speaking to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now; not to his back-benchers.

You therefore want us to take part in extra-parliamentary activities.

I have spelled out repeatedly what I am prepared to do and how I will be prepared to act when this matter has been dealt with by the President’s Council and they have reported on it. I stand by every word I have said. Why is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still asking me nonsensical questions?

The point I want to make is that this is surely a different attitude on my part to the impression which the Opposition wishes to create and surely it is a different attitude on my part to the one their vindictive media wishes to create. There is talk of polarization—the attempt to bring about polarization is not being made by this side; the attempt to bring about polarization is being made by the people who merely wish to plunge South Africa into difficulties in future.

I now come to the Coloureds and the other nations. Allow me to spell it out clearly today that in its election manifesto and in the 12-point plan which formed part of the election manifesto the NP has unequivocally stated the following standpoint to the country––

This is stated in our election manifesto and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can read it for himself; he need not put a question to me.

Surely the genuineness of our actions is being demonstrated by our endeavours to ensure that other nations achieve their own freedoms. I intend to deal with the financial and economic facets of this later in this debate, facets which were also dealt with in a highly irresponsible way by the hon. member for Sea Point. I am coming to that.

I would be grateful if the hon. member for Houghton would keep quiet so that I can speak to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I shall talk to him whenever I feel like it.

She always reminds me of what the wise old Jewish king said: “The contentions of a wife are a continual dropping.” [Interjections.] It is an old saying but a true one, and I must say the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must be quite dazed by now from all the talking next to him. [Interjections.]

Surely we gave these people an opportunity to endeavour to achieve their own freedom. We also gave them an opportunity to express their views on their own freedom. The Ciskei had a 60% poll, and 98% of them declared themselves in favour of independence.

But the Progs know better.

The PFP says no; they know better.

Now that is what I call domination!

Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana held general elections and elected Governments which were in favour of independence. But this is being rejected. The Progs are the only people who know; only they know what is right. They are omniscient, omnipresent and …

Arrogant.

… arrogant. Our declared standpoint as we are realizing it in our negotiations with these people as equals, in our deliberations with them on matters of common interest, is being realized in the right spirit, because we are deliberating with people who have the right to self-determination, the right to decide on their own freedom and the right to tell us in which respects they differ with us. This is our approach and they know it. I reject the idea that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any of his party members can speak on behalf of those people. The Opposition cannot speak on their behalf. I do not wish to speak on behalf of those people, and even less is the Opposition able to speak on their behalf. We must leave it to the leaders concerned to speak on behalf of their people.

How do I see the Coloureds? How are the Coloureds affected by the statement I have just made? I have never, either inside or outside the NP, when I was still Minister of Coloured Affairs or afterwards, made a secret of the fact that I do not see the Coloured population group as a homogeneous group. I do not see them as a homogeneous group; I do not see them as a nation or as a nation in the making. Nor has this ever been the standpoint of the NP. Individual standpoints have been expressed, but the NP has never accepted this standpoint. The NP has never accepted it, not in its publications or election manifestos and not in its dealings with the Coloureds either, and I shall explain why not.

The leader of the NP … [Interjections.]

Wait a moment, let me talk now. The hon. member must contain himself. Apparently he cannot contain himself at all, neither when he is seated nor when he is speaking. That is the problem. He should be the last person to speak about leaders, because he is a leader who was kicked out.

A leader who was dumped.

The Coloured group consists of a diversity of communities. The one characteristic they have in common is that they have similar physical characteristics. That is all. However, they represent a wide diversity of communities. Many of these communities, especially in the Western Cape, live as Western groups with Afrikaans or English as their language medium and they uphold the same religious concepts as the Whites. Many of them maintain a standard of living which compels one to have the greatest respect for them. I have the greatest respect for many of these civilized groups and they know it.

That is why you took them off the common roll.

I have done more for them than that hon. member has done for them with all her agitations. I have done more for the Coloured community in this country than she can ever dream of doing for them. All she has done is to make a noise and stir up mischief. [Interjections.]

I, on the other hand, have helped to uplift them.

That is why they love you so much.

Yes, of course. You will be surprised at what happens between me and many of the Coloured communities.

I am sure we will be surprised.

I shall not allow myself to be dictated to any further by a lot of grumblers and gossip-mongers in the political field. [Interjections.] The time has come to expose the PFP, and the malicious and dangerous policy which it is following in South Africa. [Interjections.] I shall put paid to your nonsense now because I am sick of your policy of incitement.

And the country is also getting sick of it. [Interjections.] I am referring in particular to the hon. member for Pinelands, because he is the leader as regards Christianity and holds political meetings in cathedrals.

I was not even there.

Oh yes, you were there.

But your Security Police were there.

You were there; yes, you were there.

I was not there.

These communities …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Prime Minister allowed to accuse the hon. member for Pinelands of having been present at that meeting when the hon. member for Pine-lands has repeatedly said that he was not?

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister must accept the word of the hon. member that he was not there.

It is difficult, but I accept it. Under the National Party régime these communities have made great strides in the socio-economic sphere, so that today they constitute between 30% and 40% of their population group. They also have a high standard of living. In addition, this socio-economic progress they have made was achieved during the past 30 years under the National Party régime: Progress in the field of education, apprenticeship, land tenure and housing. It was under the National Party régime that all this progress was made. These were all opportunities which the National Party régime created in South Africa to enable them to make that progress, and it is time this was said.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said I mentioned forms of government. I say these communities have a right to obtain forms of government through which they can accept consultation and co-responsibility and through which they can make themselves heard, and the only reason why they do not have these yet, is because in South Africa there have always been attempts to place obstacles in the way of the good intentions of the National Party to help those people make progress. Every attempt made by us to create instruments for them has failed as a result of the interference of people who do not want to see us achieve success. On the other hand, they certainly also have the right to have a say over their own community life.

It is very interesting to know that the PFP is in control of the City Council of Cape Town.

Kosie van Zyl is going to become the mayor and he is an NP supporter.

I am not discussing the mayor now. In the City Council of Cape Town the PFP is in control, as I have said, and the City Council of Cape Town sent three of its most senior officials abroad to make a study of local and regional government. On their return those three officials compiled a very thorough report, a report which makes extremely interesting reading. I have a copy in my possession. However, the City Council does not want that document to be published. Why not? Why does the Progressive City Council of Cape Town not want to publish a document which three senior officials compiled objectively on local government, the idea of a Greater Cape Town and regional government? It deals amongst other things with the franchise, which must be based on certain qualifications, with finances and with certain community facilities. Why is the Progressive City Council of Cape Town suppressing this interesting document? Why will the Progressive City Council of Cape Town not allow those officials to appear before the President’s Council in order to give their objective views on local government? Why the cover-up? What is being kept secret from the public of South Africa? What is there in that document which the Coloureds or the Whites may not know? Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not tell his friends in the Cape Town City Council: “I think we must publish this report in the public interest so that everyone can see what these experts say about local and regional government?

The public’s right to know.

Of course. We are forever hearing about the public’s right to know. I shall now quote only Recommendation No. 7—

Scandalous!

I find this very strange. Recommendation No. 14 reads—

Recommendation No. 16 reads—

Then the report arrives at the question of rights of ownership and qualified franchise. However, in spite of this document, placed at their disposal by experts, the PFP City Council adopts a unilateral resolution. And then I am accused of adopting a standpoint! It is being said that I may not adopt a standpoint; I must wait for the President’s Council. But the PFP City Council can adopt a standpoint whenever it likes. It can boycott and it can adopt a standpoint. What nonsense! It is sheer hypocrisy.

Who created the President’s Council?

I wish to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in that document which was compiled by three officials, there are valuable recommendations which I think ought to be published. We could possibly build on them because they correspond to an electoral system which we have had among Cape local authorities for many years. That system has applied for generations in respect of urban local government and rural local government in the Cape. That is my reply to the hon. the Leader on his question as to what I meant. I do not think we should deviate much from that.

I wish to go further. As regards the proposed inclusion of King William’s Town in the Ciskei something interesting happened, apart from the agitation which occurred there under the leadership of the PFP and the HNP. It is interesting that the Coloured community of King William’s Town decided with a large majority that they do not wish to be included in the Ciskei. They prefer to fall under a White-controlled State. This proves a very important thing. It proves that many of the Coloured communities in South Africa prefer to be in a State in which they know that, inter alia, public safety and law and order will be maintained by the White community. From this follows, and this has nothing to do with domination but is a matter of orderly continued existence, proper human relations and also the principle of the right to self-determination.

What is the standpoint adopted by the NP in the same connection in respect of the Indian population? Whereas until a few years ago the Indian population in South Africa still had no franchise and the NP Government was in fact the first Government which really established governing bodies for them through which they could make themselves heard and could assert themselves, we have gone further and in the 1977 proposals we said we would not only give them co-responsibility in a council of cabinets, we would also give them co-responsibility and a joint say in the election of an executive State President. This is a tremendous step forward. Why are the merits of this not being spelled out and shown to the world? Why is it not being said that we are in fact making progress in respect of sound ethnic relations in South Africa, instead of trying to make the world believe that the Government is lapsing into racism and White domination? Surely that is not true. Surely that is a lie which is being bruited abroad. For this reason I think it can justly be said that in no country in the world is there an Indian community, living as a cultural group with its own religion, which has made better progress over the past 30 years than the South African Indian communities.

Why are they not in the Free State?

In my talks with Indian community leaders held in my office I asked them to mention a single Indian community in the world of which they were aware, including those in India, which has over the past 30 years made greater progress as a community in numerous fields than the Indian community of South Africa has done. They were silent. They did not have an example.

They are dead scared of you. That is why.

Oh, no. The Indians get very decent treatment from me. They do not get the kind of treatment non-Whites get from the hon. member in her own home.

What sort of insinuation is that?

Just what I meant.

How do you know what goes on in her house? Do you have a spy there?

The fact that the Indian community is making progress is known outside South Africa. Do hon. members know to what extent it is known? Indian communities in certain African countries would flock to the Republic of South Africa tomorrow if we gave them the slightest opportunity as far as our immigration legislation is concerned. I know because I have received delegations from them and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has also received delegations from them. We were told: “Just open your immigration channels to us and we shall flock to South Africa.” Why do they want to come here if things are so bad here?

Of course there are radicals amongst the Indians as well, just as there are amongst the Coloureds.

And amongst the Whites.

If we were to offer them and certain radical elements amongst the Whites in Natal the alternative of forming one State with kwaZulu tomorrow, what would their answer be? [Interjections.]

I am asking them now what their answer would be. As he sits there the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows—see how he is looking at me; he knows that what I am going to say now is true—that the Indian Community of Natal will say: “No thank you, we do not want that.” At the same time they, however, are loudly demanding a system of “one man, one vote.” It is just a bluff. When are we going to stop playing this game of bluff in South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? [Interjections.]

No, go back to sleep.

No, you may not. [Interjections.] Sir, I shall conclude this point by saying that under the NP regime it is possible to maintain the right of White South Africa to self-determination without doing others an injustice. All we need is the will to co-operate, the will to build and the will to work together to make this country a good country to live in. In spite of all the commotion we are in fact making South Africa a good country to live in.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me a second question. He asked me to say something about the principle of a referendum. The purpose of a referendum is to devise a test without broaching the question of confidence or lack of confidence in a Government. An example of such a referendum is to be found in the legislation of 1960. It may interest the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to know that it was my privilege to introduce that Bill here, in terms of which the first referendum was held in South Africa. It was a referendum on becoming a Republic. It was on that historic occasion that I was told to go to hell by one of the leaders of the Opposition on the opposite side. However, I have not yet arrived there. [Interjections.]

On that occasion we devised such a test. The Government of the day did not wish to turn the question of becoming a Republic into a question of confidence or lack of confidence in the Government. Nevertheless it wanted to raise the question as a test. For that reason a Bill was introduced here which made the holding of a referendum possible.

We also have a second example of this, viz. the referendum held recently in the Ciskei. I have referred to that on a previous occasion. However, I also said that under given circumstances we would hold a referendum in regard to certain constitutional matters if the President’s Council were to come forward with radical or drastic deviations from what we considered our party policy to be. I said that I would in that case not only consult the congresses of my party but I would also—because I cannot accept it as final that only the party’s congresses should decide on matters—consult the country in a referendum. I have therefore committed myself to the principle of a referendum. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know more. He must exercise a little patience. We are working on it. In due course we shall introduce a Bill here. It will not necessarily be during the present session of Parliament, but either during this session or early during the next session of Parliament we shall introduce a Bill here on the question of the holding of a referendum or referendums. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be afforded a proper opportunity to voice his opinions on this matter, if he so wishes.

The hon. member for Durban Point dealt more specifically with the question of the President’s Council. Let me at once say that I have great appreciation for the fact that the NRP has adopted the correct standpoint and is participating in the activities of the President’s Council. I think that was the correct mode of conduct and I think in this way they are doing justice to their obligations to South Africa. By this I do not wish to give the hon. member for Durban Point the impression that I am giving him the kiss of death.

Please don’t!

In any case, I do not think we should kiss one another. That would be difficult to say the least. However, in the political sphere one can at least give one’s opponent credit for having acted honourably, for having acted like a patriot and for having chosen to put South Africa’s interests first. In that sense I give him and his colleagues in those seats the necessary credit.

Ask them to join you.

Why? Those hon. members differ from us, but why may they not agree with us on certain things? Who is that hon. member to think that they may not agree with us on certain things? Who is he to prescribe to us? They are not a bunch of boycotters or obstructionists. That is why I do not wish to discuss the President’s Council with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As far as the President’s Council is concerned, there is nothing I need to explain to him. After all, he is not participating in it. What has he got to do with it? After all, he is boycotting that Council. Therefore I do not owe him any explanation about the activities of the President’s Council. I am now speaking to the hon. member for Durban Point.

As I see it the President’s Council is a creation of this Parliament, by an Act of Parliament and regulations promulgated by the executive. It is the duty of all of us, whether or not we agree with the President’s Council, to place no obstacles in its path that can unnecessarily complicate its activities. But, the hon. member must understand one thing. I am being placed in an impossible position. It is being said that the idea of a President’s Council was my creation. That may be true. I am not talking about that now. But what I do want to say is that demands are being made on me, on the one hand not to anticipate the activities of the President’s Council and on the other hand to express opinions on those things on which the President’s Council is deliberating. How can I comply with both these demands? Surely that is unfair. On the one hand I am being asked: Why are you not saying something about this or that? Why are you not telling us what your policy is in this or that regard? On the other hand I am being told I may not prejudice the President’s Council in its activities. Surely these are two contradictory requests that are being addressed to me. That is why I now find myself in a difficult position. In this connection I should also like to refer to certain reports which appeared in a morning newspaper and which created the impression that a difference of opinion had arisen between the Vice State President and myself. Let me say at once that there is no misunderstanding between the Vice State President and myself. Apart from the fact that we are personal and intimate friends—which both he and I are proud to acknowledge —we have always acted correctly towards one another in our official relations. The Vice State President has never tried to repudiate me and he will never do so either, because we discuss our problems with one another. He understands that I have specific problems and I understand that he has specific problems. We try to meet each other half way and no scavenging politics in an effort to drive us apart so as to thrive on our disunity will succeed.

The President’s Council was appointed to give advice in a process of constitutional change. How long that process is going to take I cannot say today. I hope it will take less time rather than more time, and by this I am not trying to imply that I am forcing them to do anything they do not believe is right. Yet I should still like to convey my wishes to them. The President’s Council needs time. I said this during the censure debate. I said they needed time and that I hoped they would be able to report on certain things before the end of the year. An interjection was made: “And what if they cannot?” and I replied: “Then we will give them more time.” Of course. They have been appointed for five years. The members of the President’s Council have been nominated for five years. Some of those people made tremendous sacrifices to be able to serve on the President’s Council. I wish to state here today that some of them made tremendous sacrifices, and I think we should appreciate this. There are people who gave up their careers in order to serve on the President’s Council, people who had good careers. There are big businessmen who are losing out because they are sitting there. I appreciate this. They have been appointed for five years, and we shall keep our promises to them for those five years. It is the Government’s duty and if a new Government comes into power it would be that Government’s duty to meet the obligations towards those members. But we retain the right to request them to consider submitting interim reports. We retain this right. If they reach finality on most of their terms of reference or the matters they wish to investigate for themselves in a shorter period of time than the five years allotted to them, the present members of the President’s Council will not be prejudiced by this.

That is all I have to say about the activities of the President’s Council, and I hope the hon. member is satisfied.

Sir, my request to the hon. the Prime Minister was that he give the assurance that the President’s Council will in no way be bound to the policy of the National Party or the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot bind the President’s Council to the policy of the National Party, but neither am I going to give any undertaking that anyone other than the National Party itself can prescribe to me what the policy of the National Party is going to be.

Good enough.

Good. Then we understand one another.

The hon. member also put another question to me. He returned to the question of confederation and constellation. He asked me, if the planned confederation were to materialize, how I saw its structure and what the substance of such a confederation could be. I should like to tell him once again what I said in my speech during the censure debate, and that is that the concept “constellation” is being used to describe the rationalization and the extension of co-operation with all States in the subcontinent of Southern Africa. That is constellation. We trade with many Southern African States. We have transport arrangements with them. We export commodities to a large part of Africa—up to R1 000 million’s worth of goods annually, most of which takes place in the broader Southern African context. We discuss the combating of deseases with many of these people. We discuss livestock improvement with many of these people. We discuss other facets of common interest with many of these people, but this is mainly on a bilateral basis. This is the broader concept of a constellation of Southern African States which co-operate with one another in certain fields as independent States.

Bilaterally.

Usually bilaterally. This does not mean to say that two or three of them cannot meet to discuss specific matters. I am not going to elaborate any further on this today because people from such States come to South Africa. The hon. member would be surprised to know with how many of these people we have discussions from time to time, and not only on the level of officials, but on government level as well. We welcome this.

The concept “confederation” is used in connection with the structuring of inter-State relations between the Republic of South Africa and the States which formerly formed part of the Republic of South Africa, i.e. those States that have been led by us to independence through a process of emancipation, we see in their connection with us in a confederal form. They can also form part of the greater constellation idea; of necessity they must, but they are more specifically the group of States with whom we believe we should bring about a confederal form of co-operation. For this reason we say that a confederation is an association, an association of sovereign independent States without a central government which is formed by way of treaty to realize specific goals.

I think I dealt fairly well and fairly thoroughly with this in my speech during the censure debate. I pointed out to what extent we have already made progress in numerous fields—even before I became Prime Minister —in moving in that direction. I do not take all the credit; this is a process which has evolved over the years. We have customs agreements, the rand monetary bloc, agreements on tourism and the combating of diseases, and co-operation in various other matters of common interest. I have also said that we wish to continue this close contact with these States—because to a great extent we have one economy—although we realize the reasonableness and the good sense of political independence for those States.

I also wish to point out to the hon. member that there is already an interim secretariate which at present exists between the independent States, our immediate neighbours who have gained their independence from us. That interim secretariate has certain instructions. It is working on certain facets of confederative co-operation. We meet from time to time to deal with matters arising from those activities. A proper share is given by this secretariate to every co-operating State in drawing up an agenda of the matters to be discussed at the meeting.

We have therefore made progress in that sphere. In addition there are multilateral committees and working groups which do not consist only of White South Africans, but in which working groups from those States are also involved. We are therefore co-operating and we discuss among ourselves the implementation of these matters. I admit that rapid progress has not been made, and this is one of the reasons why I was not able, in my speech during the censure debate, to throw light on the question of benefits and other facilities which would be made available as a result of decentralization and regional development. I could not do so because many of these matters must still be cleared up. If we do not do so, we could be accused of taking unilateral action. Although it takes a little time it is much better to implement this in a sensible way rather than to force the issue and cause our plans to miscarry. In this connection it remains our ideal and goal not only to maintain and promote a satisfactory growth-rate for our own country but also to help so that that growth-rate can take place as effectively as possible in and around those States, thus enabling their citizens to experience the benefits of an improved economy.

In addition greater provision of employment opportunities is also one of our aims and, in the third place, geographical distribution of economic activities as well. This also entails the distribution of wealth, not the division of wealth but the distribution of wealth, i.e. the creation of opportunities so that other people can also share in the advantages which this brings. We are also endeavouring to create general social prosperity and acceptable economic independence, but naturally within the greater whole of economic interdependence. Yesterday someone rightly remarked that there were after all fields in which every State strove for its own economic independence, bearing in mind that it must co-operate with other States in a broader spectrum.

However, this does not mean that all these things are dreams of the future. Figures show that between 1970 and 1979, as far as the national and independent States were concerned, there was an average increase of 10,2% per annum in the real gross domestic product. In manufacturing there was an increase of 19% per annum in those States. There greater employment … [Interjections.] But of course! Sir, those two members just sit there and laugh; those two redundant smilers on the left.

For heaven’s sake get on with it.

I should like to give the hon. member an example of how those States are also benefitting from decentralization. There is for example the Mondi paper and pulp factory in Richard’s Bay, which will come into operation in 1984. The investment in the first phase of that plant will total R520 million. It is expected that 1 000 Blacks will be employed in that factory alone, and 10 000 Blacks in the plantations supplying that plant. That is only one example. I do not wish to tire this House with too many examples. That process is under way. All we wish to do now is intensify and stimulate it. We wish to encourage it. For this reason I attach great importance to the co-operation which I receive from the Economic Advisory Council, and how that Advisory Council is constituted is clear from the report of the Director-General of my Office. The Economic Advisory Council is of particular value to us. Its regular meetings, its other work and the reports it publishes are of great value to the Government. We also have great appreciation for the way in which the members co-operate and consult with the Government.

I have therefore decided and have informed the Cabinet—and the Cabinet agreed with me—that I shall announce that after the Carlton Conference of a year ago we have now reached the stage where a further progress and report back meeting must be held, a meeting of the Economic Advisory Council and selected representatives from the private sector. It has also been decided that that meeting will take place in Cape Town on 12 November 1981. Invitations in this connection are already being sent out.

Mount Nelson or the Heerengracht?

On that occasion we shall discuss further Government standpoints on these matters and the progress the Government has to report, with industrial leaders and businessmen. We hope to be able to persuade the private sector to go a long way with us, because I am aware of the fact that there are already many business concerns in the private sector who are getting themselves ready, so that when new announcements are made before the end of the year they can take active steps to implement our combined efforts. For this reason 1982 must be the beginning of a further period of development for us and our neighbouring States. We foresee that what must follow must be the distribution of economic growth among the various regions, sectors, population groups and individuals.

For some time Dr Simon Brand has been associated with the Ministry of Finance. However, he recently announced that he has seen fit to accept an appointment at Unisa, and he will make further arrangements with the Department of Finance. However, it gives me pleasure to be able to make a further announcement in this connection. In spite of the fact that he has accepted that appointment he has also undertaken to remain on in the Office of the Prime Minister in a part-time capacity as economic adviser and chairman of the Economic Advisory Council.

Hear, hear!

In consultation with the Department of Finance we shall therefore make arrangements to accommodate him in this new position as soon as possible. I have no doubt that the availability of his services will make an enormous contribution in the sphere of co-ordination and advice which is so essential to ensure the success of the constellation idea and the confederation idea.

I wish to conclude with a few remarks on matters which I feel the country must understand. The fact remains that South Africa’s task is a difficult one. It is difficult because South Africa is engaged in a total struggle. We are being subjected to a total threat. Those facts are denied in various quarters, but I say South Africa is being confronted with a total threat. The country is facing a military threat. It is perhaps no more than a low-threshhold threat, but it is nevertheless a threat. It is the ultimate goal of the Soviet forces that Southern Africa must be subjugated and they are making every preparation to bring about this subjugation. South Africa is also being threatened by subversive actions, from within and from beyond its borders. The country is also being threatened by propaganda action, psychologically orchestrated to cause paralysis in order to bring about destabilization, and once this has been achieved the forces ranged against South Africa will be in a more favourable position to overpower South Africa as part of the broader global pattern of world domination.

This evening I should like to quote from a speech made this week in Taiwan by Sir Walter Walker. No one can deny that he is an expert in the international and particularly the military field. He has done service in various zones in the world, he was in command of the Nato forces in Northern Europe for many years, and a few years ago he predicted the take-over of Afghanistan and warned the world about it. In this speech, of which I have received a copy, he said—

He does not see South Africa as a victim, but as a bulwark; not as a weak link, but as a bastion—

He went on to pay tribute to the South Africans who perished in the two World Wars and made a contribution to the Free World. Then he said—

I conclude with these words this afternoon. I wish to make an appeal to the country. Allow me to say that in this country there are more people who are opposed to the official Opposition than there are people who are opposed to us. It may be that the people who are anti-Opposition are divided, but taken as a whole there are many more of them than there are people who are in favour of the official Opposition.

Let us hold a referendum.

I wish to go further. The Black leaders who represent the Black States do not wish to be under the yoke of communism. They do not wish to surrender to the forces of chaos, subversion and destruction. The Government is prepared to build up one thing with these people, while they retain their right to their own standpoints, and that is that in South Africa a united front against communism must be formed.

I wish to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I do not believe that he is in collusion with the communists. Now why is he laughing?

No, but what you say is true.

Very well. I do not believe he is in collusion with them. I do not see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as such a traitor. However, he must help me to clarify a few matters. This afternoon I should like to ask him to help me. The UN during their 35th session, adopted the following resolution in paragraph 314—

That is us—

I reject this. I say it is an uncalled-for interference in South Africa’s domestic affairs. I say this is a pernicious standpoint. I wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether I can say on his behalf that he rejects it.

Yes.

Very well, Sir. I did not expect anything else. It is not a surprise to me. We both reject it. We both say to the UN : Keep your noses out of South Africa’s affairs. In this regard Parliament is united.

There are people going about in South Africa who do not accept the leadership of the Black leaders in the national States. Some of them have representation on the Council of Churches. This does not apply to everyone in that body, but to some of them. Especially one man, Mr. Tutu …

He is no gentleman.

… and listen to what he says. He had the following to say in Newsweek—

Now I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he and I are agreed that we should say to a person like Tutu: “You are wrong.” [Interjections.]

What does Boraine say?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell me this. [Interjections.] He can make it very easy for me. He need only say: “I confirm that his standpoint is unacceptable.”

He is nodding his head. He agrees.

I shall be speaking in a moment.

He must not tell me now that if I first do so and so, Tutu will do such and such. I say this is a pernicious and unacceptable standpoint. All I ask of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is to tell me that Tutu’s standpoint, like that of the UN, is unacceptable.

Look at him sighing!

I now ask whether the hon. member for Pinelands will say that. [Interjections.] Will the hon. member for Pinelands repudiate Mr. Tutu?

Never! [Interjections.]

I will be participating in this debate too.

Mr. Chairman, I say the hon. member for Pinelands will not repudiate him. [Interjections.] This is where we come to the parting of the ways. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must do one thing. After all, he now knows one thing. He knows that these hon. members on my side, the people sitting here—because these are his people too—are not a lot of racists. He knows this. In his heart he knows that the people sitting here only want to serve a nation which wants to realize its right to self-determination as every other nation does. However, this is being denied us by these forces to which I have referred. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also knows that hon. members on this side of the House, being the representatives of those whom they represent here, do not begrudge the Black nations in South Africa their right to self-determination. However, because we stand by this principle, we are being penalized. For this reason economic sanctions must be introduced and steps taken against us, as advocated by Mr. Tutu amongst others. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he must reject Mr. Tutu and tell him that he wants to have nothing to do with him. He must tell Mr. Tutu that he is not prepared to discuss matters with him. Then I will believe him. [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not as innocent as he tries to make out. He knows his people. And if they do not …

Helen, give him a little kick. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to say here this afternoon that the hon. member for Yeoville will do this. The hon. member for Yeoville will not have anything to do with such things. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville will reject the standpoint of the UN. The hon. member for Yeoville—and I accept this in advance—will also reject the standpoint of Mr. Tutu.

What do you say, Harry?

The hon. member for Yeoville will go even further. He says that we must put the terrorists beyond our borders in their place. That is the patriotic approach. That is the South African approach.

We are proud of you, Harry.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell us where he stands between these two extremes.

The hon. the Prime Minister began his speech quite calmly and proceeded calmly until, towards the end, he began to get a little worked up. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the first statement I want to make is that I have often spoken against isolation. In fact, I have done so with the hon. member for Pinelands. We have spoken together against isolation, against the withdrawal of investments from South Africa … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton has done so too. [Interjections.] It is nothing new for her either. [Interjections.] Indeed she has. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton has had more to endure abroad because of this standpoint of hers than any hon. member on the other side would be prepared to accept. [Interjections.]

I want to add that I have debated this very matter with the hon. Bishop Tutu and that I am going to debate it with him again in the future. I say this to the hon. Prime Minister. I shall debate the possibilities of peaceful changes in South Africa with him. I think it is my duty to do so. I think it is my duty to talk to as many people as possible in order to promote those possibilities.

There is something else I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. Even if Moscow were to spend R1 million a day against South Africa for a full month, they would not achieve the same propaganda effect against South Africa as was achieved by the events at Nyanga. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is aware of the enormous problems he has been faced with in this regard. In fact, I feel sorry for him. [Interjections.] That is why I say it is not good enough merely to point a finger at other people or groups. What part is the Government’s policy playing in this connection? On this point I must quite honestly say that the hon. the Prime Minister did not come back to this question of why we are confronted with situations such as the one we have been experiencing for the past two weeks. Those are the things that make us open to attack, that make us more vulnerable than any propaganda campaign, because the result is that we are internally divided in the face of all the onslaughts to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred.

The hon. the Prime Minister began by talking about the right to self-determination. I have no argument with him about that. The concept of “right to self-determination” is a relative one. That is the reason why I asked the hon. the Prime Minister to clarify it for us.

You say it is domination.

I shall come back to that point shortly. The hon. the Prime Minister says there is a right to self-determination in the American State and society. I do not deny that either. A sovereign State has a right to self-determination in terms of its position in international law, just as South Africa has a right to self-determination which is different from the right to self-determination of South West Africa, for example. There are problems. There is doubt about the right to self-determination of South West Africa in the international sphere. Then, of course, there is the right to self-determination of specific ethnic groups, peoples and nations. We can debate all these rights to self-determination. What was specifically at issue, however, was when I asked the hon. the Prime Minister what the concept of “right to self-determination” meant in terms of the 1977 proposals. I specifically said that in terms of those proposals it would appear to me that the concept of “right to self-determination” and the concept of “domination” were one and the same. I shall read the Hansard once again. In column 438 I said—

Nothing that the hon. the Prime Minister said here this afternoon has caused me to change my standpoint in this connection. In fact, the hon. the Prime Minister said himself that he was not going to withdraw that interjection of his and that he still accepted it as it stood, within the context of the 1977 proposals. That is why I asked the hon. the Prime Minister for greater clarity. It is no use telling me that the right to self-determination means the right to self-determination for the Afrikaners, the English and all the other groups. I want to know what the content is, the constitutional content that is being given to it in terms of constitutional change. The hon. the Prime Minister again explained the set-up of the 1977 proposals here this afternoon. What does it mean? The electoral college, the majority of Whites that is entrenched in that electoral college, the executive State President? It is no use telling me that this Parliament also elects a State President. After all, it is not an executive State President. In terms of the 1977 proposals, as I understand them, there is a State President with executive powers, and he is elected by an electoral college in which the Whites have an entrenched majority. It is as simple as that. I just wanted that to be clarified. Is it not true that in this particular case, the right to self-determination is the same as domination? Surely, the hon. the Prime Minister conceded that to me. The simple question was: Is there domination in terms of those proposals?

The hon. the Prime Minister has again taken a side-swipe at me and said that I am not prepared to accept creations of Parliament and that that is why I am not serving on the President’s Council. It was the old boycott story all over again. However, my point is that it is the function of the official Opposition to state its point of view on the basis of principles. I have stated the standpoint of the official Opposition in respect of the President’s Council ad nauseam in this House and outside. It is illogical to argue that because that institution was created by Parliament, we are obliged to take part in it. This would mean that I would also have to sit on the Group Areas Board, the Race Classification Board and all the other boards. It is a question of the extent to which we can reconcile our policy standpoint with the motivation given for the creation of that institution. I do not want to raise that old argument here again.

The hon. the Prime Minister also said that he did not want a situation of domination of one nation by another. I accept his good intentions. I do not deny that that is a fine way of putting it and that those are fine words, but what do they mean at the constitutional level? In this connection the hon. the Prime Minister began by talking about the Coloured and Indian population. I want to say that I welcome the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister so clearly stated in this House, namely that he does not regard the Coloured people as a homogeneous group, that he does not regard the Coloured people as a nation in the making and that he does not regard the Coloured people as a nation either, but that there is a diversity of groupings within the Coloured community. What the Coloured people actually are is a demographic category established by the Population Registration Act. That is what they are—seven categories, including the final category of “other Coloured”. That is what the Coloured community is, and within that legally defined demographic category we have the Coloured population group. It is this population group which is creating constitutional problems for the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government.

Merely in order to remove any possible misunderstanding, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister in this connection whether he believes that there can be joint decision-making with respect to the Coloured people, the Asians and the Whites. Does the hon. the Prime Minister believe that there should be joint decision-making? Does joint decision-making mean the same thing as shared decision-making, a joint say and co-responsibility? I ask this because I find it difficult to understand certain statements of the authorities in this connection. Curiously enough, I come back to the Muslim Digest, from which I quoted last night just before the House was adjourned. It contains the Prime Minister’s message. The hon. the Prime Minister’s message to the Muslim community is contained in this publication, and in it, the hon. the Prime Minister says—

The constitutional problem, to my mind, lies in this phrase—

How does one divide power in such a way that one decides jointly about matters of common interest? Is it not possible to have joint decision-making and power-sharing? This is where the question of domination arises again. Let me illustrate this in simple terms. If one has Coloured people, Whites and Asians serving together on the Council of Cabinets, for example …

That is a distortion of that sentence.

The hon. the Minister can read it. Here it is. I did not write it. My message is much shorter. It appears on the following page. The question which is so important here is this: Suppose I were a Muslim or an Indian or a Coloured person and I read this sentence, could I tell myself that here, it seemed to me, I could be involved in a political dispensation which could amount to power-sharing, where I could participate in decision-making, etc.? That is the question that is at issue. How does the hon. the Prime Minister understand the concept of “power sharing” or “division of power” and how does he relate it to shared decision-making or joint decision-making or a joint say or co-responsibility? These are concepts that are causing confusion, and they will have to be clarified, because in the final analysis, it is the interpretation we give to these concepts which determines whether or not there is domination in the ordinary sense of the word. In this respect, then, domination would mean that there was no constitutional way in which, for example, the other two groups could oppose or change decisions which they did not like and which had been taken by the majority group.

Order! I am sorry, but the time of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. Chief Whip on the other side for the courtesy of allowing me to complete my speech.

Why I emphasize these problems, Sir, is because, if we are going to have stability in South Africa—and I want to agree that stability is important—that stability will depend on one of two things. That stability can depend either on the coercion that is exercised in South Africa or it can depend on the consent of those governed. Those are the two possibilities that we are trying to work towards. If we study coercive stability anywhere in the world we find that in the final analysis coercive stability boils down to purely physical control—the actual physical control of that society. There is a simple rule which is accepted in political science and that is that the more a government has to depend on physical control to maintain stability in that society, the less it knows or can know whether those who are coerced or controlled give their consent to the system of government. That is a generalization which has been proven in many societies.

But there can be cohesion without integration.

Yes. Consent in a society can be gauged by the extent to which people freely manifest their support and commitment to the institution of government and to the laws of the country. It is against this background that we must also understand the issue of self-determination.

If White self-determination depends on coercive stability for its survival, then its very maintenance will be the source of enduring conflict and confrontation. What content does the NP give to this concept of self-determination? Let me take one simple example. If White self-determination depends on the allocation of land in South Africa according to the present formula, then the problem of domination cannot be escaped. A simple example is the following: The population density of Soweto is roughly 12 500 people per square kilometre—three times higher than that of New York—but in White Johannesburg it is 1 500 people per square kilometre. If we say we need that kind of ratio as a non-negotiable, then it means that built into the whole question of access to land for residential, business and other purposes, is the problem of domination. How do we get away from that? That is the question that we have to discuss.

Another example can be related directly to this Parliament. We know, as a matter of fact, that the allocation of the budget is the most important political annual event. We know that in terms of that allocation, the life chances of different groups and individuals are structured in South Africa, and the decision on that budget is taken by us, by Whites. If we make that a prerequisite for our own self-determination, then domination is built into our self-determination.

If this is so, then the politics of domination is an industry, an industry just like any other industry. It experiences staff shortages, efficiency breakdowns and managerial crises. The politics of domination is an industry. The high-sounding moral phrases and bits of ideological icing sugar in which we indulge have very little relation to the practical everyday chores of domination. The ideology of separate nationhoods and independent sovereign States in a voluntary federation, for example, is wrecked in the squatter shacks of Nyanga. That is where it is wrecked, and not in terms of the good intentions behind our ideology and philosophy. Eventually we end up shuttling bewildered women and children back and forth between Umtata and Cape Town in order to make an impossible ideology fit a stubborn reality. That is what we end up doing. Doing that takes time, energy and money. We are spending resources which we could otherwise use to build a society based on consent.

That is why we must understand that there is an inverse relationship between consent and coercion in society. The more coercion, the less consent and the less you can know that you have consent. That is why the question I posed to the hon. the Prime Minister, with which quite frankly he did not deal during his reply, was whether we could have self-determination and consent in the South African society.

It is ridiculous to try to present the counter-argument to me as though I cannot care two hoots about White self-determination.

*I have spent nights sitting at a braaivleis fire with a glass of red wine, wondering how my language was going to survive in South Africa. Now these hon. members tell me that I take no interest in the survival of Afrikaans as a language! [Interjections.] I have even thought that the only way of enabling it to survive is to rescue it from the hands of the NP. [Interjections.] We actually need a new language movement to save Afrikaans from the NP, because Afrikaans has become associated with the policy of that party. The point I want to make is that Afrikaans and the problems surrounding that language have a special significance for me as well, no matter what the hon. member for Rissik thinks. He may consider himself a much better Afrikaner than I am, but I can assure him that I also have feelings in respect of my language and the possibility that it may survive.

†The question therefore is not whether self-determination is possible without domination, but how we can achieve it. I want to make six suggestions in this respect. Firstly, we must have faith in ourselves. We as Whites must have faith in ourselves. We must not rely on laws to give us an advantage in competition with other groups. And that is exactly where we do not have faith in ourselves. [Interjections.] Not only must we have faith in ourselves; we must have faith also in the other people in South Africa and believe that they want to co-operate in building a better future for South Africa. Secondly, we must commit ourselves to common goals, and there are common goals. There are common issues between all the people in South Africa despite our diversity and our cultural plurality. We have often talked about these goals, for instance the question of citizenship, of moving away from discrimination; the question of stability and of improving the quality of life, etc. In other words, what we need is to hammer out a declaration of intent. Thirdly, we must systematically and visibly move away from that which offends and discriminates, and we must do it so that it can be seen that it is being done. We must not just talk about it. Fourthly, we must use our scarce human material and physical resources as intelligently and rationally as possible to improve the well-being of all people. We must not try to realize an impossible ideological dream, because it cannot be done. We see the symptoms of its very disintegration before our eyes right now. Rather let us pool our resources, all our human material and natural resources and try to improve the quality of life for all. In the fifth place we must lock all the relevant political interest groups into the process of constitutional negotiations. This does not mean abdicating the sovereignty of Parliament.

*And here I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister. He asked: Where has any convention worked? Here in South Africa a convention was held between 1908 and 1909, seven years after the Anglo-Boer War.

I still say a convention will not work …

The various groups were involved in that convention. They made big mistakes; I concede that. One of the biggest mistakes they made was that from the start they excluded the great majority of the population from participation in the Government. [Interjections.] However, there was a convention, and a constitution was drawn up there which, for all its failings, has functioned for 70 years. This cannot be disputed. [Interjections.] The point is that we now need a second convention, a new convention, and if such a convention were to take place, we would in no way be undermining the sovereignty of Parliament. The Government would continue governing, but would hold a convention as a continuous process of negotiation, and in that process the relevant groups must be involved. Then—and this is the sixth point—the Government would still be responsible for implementing the new constitutional dispensation that has been agreed upon, in a systematic way, and in a way which will not lead to instability and subversion in South Africa. All those possibilities exist, but the question is whether the will exists to do this. That is the question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

I do not have the time now, Mr. Chairman.

The point is that to achieve consent in South Africa is going to be very difficult, and I am not denying that. It is going to be very difficult. Yet I think it is possible. But to maintain domination is going to become increasingly difficult and eventually quite impossible. These are the two options that face us.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to become involved in a dialogue with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but he has just made two statements that are totally unfounded. He puts questions to me in connection with constitutional detail, which is something which we have referred to the President’s Council to be sorted out. However, he refuses to participate in the President’s Council, and now he wants to settle these matters with me across the floor of this House. He had the opportunity to nominate people to make positive contributions in the decision-making process in the President’s Council, which would then be processed as a report and submitted for consideration by Parliament. But he refuses to participate. I am not prepared to join him in seeking a solution here. If he has a solution that he wants to put forward, he can put it to the President’s Council. This is my answer to him. If he does not wish to do so, I shall take no notice of him as far as this matter is concerned.

In the second place, he spoke about a convention. Imagine it, Sir—South Africa’s convention of 1910 is now being compared to the conventions which took place in Africa. What happened in 1910? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not even know his own history. Here was a conquered nation, one which had lost its liberty. There were four territories that had to work out a future, and the people involved were Whites. They all decided that they wanted to form a union. The convention was held purely to give effect to what the British Parliament was prepared to do, viz. to grant self-government. [Interjections.] However, there is no such necessity in South Africa. After all, we are liberating the nations that want to be liberated. Therefore, what is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition doing? Who does he think he is bluffing? He thinks he is bluffing someone, but he is only bluffing himself. After all, the circumstances prevailing now are entirely different. Oh no, really. We are not in a school debating society now. We are in the Parliament of South Africa now.

Mr. Chairman, I must react to what the hon. the Prime Minister has just said. Surely the convention of 1910 did not simply put into effect what Britain wanted. The convention covered a period of a year or two.

Now who said that?

There are works here in our library that indicate very clearly how collaboration took place behind the scenes, how fighting took place behind the scenes over matters regarding which those people differed strongly with one another at that convention. For instance, there was the position of Natal and the position of the Transvaal with its gold fields. All those things practically caused a split during the debates at the time. Therefore, how can the hon. the Prime Minister say that it was simply a case of people coming together in order to hold discussions?

I said they were all Whites. [Interjections.]

They were also Whites that fought against one another during the Boer War. It was the English against the Afrikaners. But what does it matter whether the people are White or Black when they are killing one another? After all, they are fighting with one another. In actual fact there were serious differences between them. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Prime Minister says that he does not want to anticipate the President’s Council. I can understand the hon. the Prime Minister’s dilemma. It really is a dilemma.

It is not.

But the hon. the Prime Minister himself said it is a dilemma.

Is that so?

Yes, he said it is a dilemma that the President’s Council has to consult on matters whilst at the same time he as Prime Minister is expected to make statements.

I shall not allow scavenging politics.

I grant that. However, this letter was not written to the President’s Council, but to the Moslem community, and in that letter certain statements are made about which people can ask certain questions. For instance, if the hon. the Prime Minister of the country says the following—

Surely one is entitled to ask in all sincerity: What does this mean?

That “devising” is now taking place in the President’s Council.

I have already illustrated that the hon. the Prime Minister has already anticipated certain aspects on previous occasions, aspects which one assumed the President’s Council should have decided upon first. He adopted a standpoint based on principles by saying what he can accept and what he cannot. [Interjections.] This has already been done, and I think it is the hon. the Prime Minister’s right to do so. In that respect the hon. the Prime Minister has given the President’s Council guidance by saying that the President’s Council can look at certain possibilities for constitutional development within certain limits, but that they would actually be wasting their time by seeking them beyond those limits. However, these aspects are also aspects of cardinal importance and I believe that it will facilitate the business of the President’s Council if the hon. the Prime Minister adopts a standpoint on this. However, if the President’s Council does not know what the standpoint of the ruling party is in this regard, how can the members of the President’s Council consult on it properly? Therefore, it is not a question of scavenging politics on my part. It is a question of the hon. the Prime Minister, of the Government, who have to adopt a standpoint regarding cardinal constitutional aspects, a standpoint which must form the frame of reference, as it were, for the President’s Council so that the President’s Council can come up with proposals in this regard. It is in that spirit that I put my question to the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, throughout this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been conducting an argument based on the concept of “domination”, an argument which was very obviously aimed at escaping from the realities with which the hon. the Prime Minister has just confronted the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again. Therefore, I do not intend following the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this regard, but I shall possibly come back to him again later on in my speech.

There is a refrain that has been running through the criticism by the official Opposition and their Press of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government like a tarred rope—I emphasize the words “tarred rope”. The same refrain also runs through this debate on the hon. the Prime Minister’s vote. I am referring to the accusation that is being made that the hon. the Prime Minister has supposedly created expectations with which he does not want to comply, that he has not followed up his initiatives or is not following them up and that the hon. the Prime Minister has not implemented essential changes or that he is not implementing them.

In the few moments at my disposal I should like to try to indicate what is behind these accusations against the hon. the Prime Minister. The first thing that is behind it, is the fact that there has been a deliberate, calculated misrepresentation by the PFP and its Press with regard to what the hon. the Prime Minister had held out in prospect. Hon. members of the official Opposition and their Press created expectations amongst their followers in a way which cannot be justified. They alleged that the hon. the Prime Minister held out in prospect that NP principles would be thrown overboard. They falsely alleged that the hon. the Prime Minister held out in prospect that the PFP policy would be implemented.

However, the hon. the Prime Minister has never alleged that PFP policy would be accepted or implemented. On the contrary, he stated very clearly throughout that the changes and adaptations that must be made, can be implemented only by the NP Government and within the framework of NP principles.

The problem with the hon. members of the official Opposition is, of course, that they have no understanding of party political principles. They do not realize what the difference is between principles and policy. They do not realize that the principles of a party are those things upon which a party is founded. Principles are those things which, if they should change, would change the essence of a party. Principles are the essential characteristics of a party and a party’s policy is the very method whereby the party proposes that those essential characteristics of the party, is basic principles, be implemented and applied in practice.

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to indicate that the necessary changes will take place on an evolutionary and not a revolutionary basis. The second thing that is behind the groundless accusations aimed at the Prime Minister, is the fact that evolutionary change and development does not satisfy the PFP, because the PFP is essentially a radical party. The hon. member for Yeoville—I am sorry that he is not here now, because I should have liked to have had his reaction to this—delivered a balanced, constructive speech in the House on Tuesday, 11 August, in support of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. He even went so far as to praise the hon. the Minister of Manpower for the legislation that was before the House. I watched the hon. member for Houghton while the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking and it was very clear to me that she did not agree with the style of the hon. member for Yeoville’s speech.

You have a good imagination.

The hon. member for Houghton also participated in the debate later on and she launched into an uncalled for, cutting attack upon the hon. member for Vryheid who had spoken just before her. However, it was clear that she was not actually angry with the hon. member for Vryheid, but in fact with the hon. member for Yeoville because he did not deliver a radical speech as he was expected to do.

Make your own speech and do not worry about mine.

The hon. member for Houghton can cackle as much as she likes now, but I am going to prove that I am correct. As I said, the hon. member for Houghton also participated in the debate later on and put it very clearly. Then I elicited even more from her by way of an interjection.

It was a good speech too.

She said (Hansard, 11 August, col. 579)—

After the interjection she continued—

It will do just that.

Then she goes on to compare the position in S.A. with the position in Poland.

Yes.

This is the radical language which the hon. member for Houghton uses.

A further illustration of the radicalism of the official Opposition, is the fact that not a single word of the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville was reported in their Press the following day. They kept him dead quiet. That is why I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is not here now, because he would have confirmed this. The hierarchy of the PFP did not care for the type of conciliatory speech like the one made by the hon. member for Yeoville. That is why the hon. member for Houghton entered the debate and launched into an uncalled for, sharp attach on the hon. member for Vryheid. That is why she also used the radical language that she used here.

The fact that the PFP is basically a radical party which is interested in radical revolutionary change, means that they cannot be satisfied with orderly, evolutionary change and adaptation.

Do you now what the word “radical” means?

The hon. the Prime Minister is also committed to the maintenance of law and order in the country whilst changes are being made. I wonder how long we can stand for it in this country that the maintenance of law and order are endangered by the irresponsible behaviour of the official Opposition. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the peaceful atmosphere which is prevailing in the House now I should like to come back to some of the matters raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to begin with his reference to the kiss of death. I am glad it is a political one for any other kind of kiss would be quite unacceptable! [Interjections.]

I was particularly interested in the reaction which came from hon. members to my right when the hon. the Prime Minister made that remark. I think it indicates one of the problems of politics in South Africa today—the inability to disagree fundamentally on many things and yet to agree to work together on things which are in the interest of South Africa. I think this is something which hon. members on both those sides of the House have to learn more and more if we are to find solutions to the problems of the country. There is no such thing in politics as total agreement and total disagreement. This is a hallmark of the approach of the NRP—that we accept things with which we agree as a foundation on which to argue, to debate, to build, in the hope of getting acceptance of more and more of our thinking in the administration of the country.

This is happening, but it is not happening to the extent that we can agree that the Government is taking over our policy. The Government is taking over aspects of our thinking. The perfect example of this was seen here this afternoon in regard to the question of confederation, something that had never been debated in this House until we first raised it. It was something that had not been discussed politically. It was not an issue until we made it a cardinal feature of our policy, and now, today, we are all talking confederation. That is a big step forward. The next step is to get the Government to see confederation in the light in which we see it.

Do not moan, be grateful.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for De Kuilen should not make noises here. He was one of the people who ran away from real politics. He ran away in order to find a secure nest on the lap and in the arms of the Government instead of standing firm, as we did, against left and right wings to try to work out a new future for South Africa. He was not prepared to be part of the new Republic. He was not prepared to take the hard road, the tough road. He looked for the soft and easy way, and he is welcome to those soft and easy benches. He must know, however, that he is not making a contribution. He is not making a contribution because he has now become a prisoner of a system that has to be replaced. He is now part of that system, a system which the Government itself is trying to replace. The hon. member for De Kuilen and the hon. member for Turffontein have not yet realized that they have joined a party which is about to undergo a metamorphosis. They left to join a party which, they thought, was what it used to be. But it is not going to stay that way, not for too long anyway.

I should like to deal now with some specific aspects of the issues raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. The first is that we now have absolute clarity about one thing. I have had this clarity in my own mind all along but people outside, I think, have found this to be the cause of much confusion, particularly in some of the homelands and other Black States, who saw the term “confederation” as merely a camouflage for “constellation”. I think it is important that it is now being made absolutely clear that these are two totally different concepts, two totally different ideas. The one is a loose bilateral arrangement with cither States and the other is a constitutional form for South Africa itself and the homelands. I have heard homeland leaders refer to confederation as being just a camouflage for a constellation. It is important that that is clearly understood. Now we have to start clarifying the question of the confederation itself. The one field that the hon. the Prime Minister did not deal with is the aspect of how he visualizes joint decision-making taking place. He talked about an interim secretariat, of multi-lateral committees and of working groups. I am not talking about the initial planning level. I am talking of how he sees it working as a constitutional structure in the Southern African complex of South Africa as it used to be. As an example he mentioned the Mondi paper mill at Richards Bay and how it will create 1 000 jobs. But was kwaZulu part of consultation over this? Was it in any way involved in it, or is this being handled by a White government alone as a bonsella from our Government to kwaZulu? This is what I have been coming back to time and again. In economic development and its planning, and at the second Carlton conference that will be held on 12 November, these are issues in respect of which, from the start, there should be involvement of the homelands and their leaders who are going to be part of the pattern of the future. We see a confederation going further, being adapted from the classic concept to suit the conditions and needs of South Africa. One cannot simply take a Western concept and superimpose it on South Africa.

That is for sure.

We believe that there must be adaptations to the classic confederal concept so that it can fit the pattern and the closer relationship that should exist and must exist if we in the Republic of South Africa are to live in peace and harmony with the homelands.

That brings me to the question of self-determination without domination. We believe that that is possible. We believe that there can be self-determination without domination. But, again, we believe that one must adjust and move away from the hon. the Prime Minister and his party’s rigidity of concept. We believe that one must introduce into that system of self-determination a right to vary from the pattern according to the wishes of the groups themselves.

There is one other vital aspect that the hon. the Prime Minister did not deal with. I first want to make it quite clear that I particularly did not deal with matters that are before the President’s Council, because I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister. We cannot debate and take firm decisions here when we are waiting for its recommendations. So I made it clear that we should give the President’s Council a chance, and I am not one who is pushing him for final decisions on matters that it is dealing with. Therefore I concentrated entirely on matters outside the ambit of the President’s Council.

One of those was the question of the urban Black, the grey area between the homelands and the confederation—between the White, Coloured and Asian in the Republic, and the Homelands. This is a key issue that I believe we have got to deal with. I made an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to initiate through the President’s Council an Erika Theron-type of investigation. He has not replied to that, and I appeal to him in the interests of this very progress that we want to make towards a harmonious future not to take a final decision not to commit himself, but to ask the President’s Council to initiate an investigation to identify the composition and the aspirations of those who are non-homeland Blacks. This we believe to be important for the future of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the very little time left to me, there is no point in my starting to discuss a new aspect. I should just like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister one question: Will the Bill dealing with the referendum—I am not asking for details—make provision for race groups other than the White voters of South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point put a few questions to the hon. the Prime Minister, to which he will receive replies.

I should like to turn to the official Opposition in the House here this afternoon and I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have had the privilege of listening to no-confidence debates here in this House since 1963. I want to give the hon. the Leader credit for the fact that he analysed the problem in a masterly and incisive fashion. However, this is not the art of politics. The art of politics is to find a solution after the analysis and I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the constitutional problem in South Africa is the crucial problem of this country. After he has analysed that problem clinically, right to the bone, for a few years, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will discover that he too will struggle with the problematics of how to accommodate the people. In future, he will still discover that the germ of Black domination is inherent in his own constitutional policy. This is the problem with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will struggle in the future and it is because of that crucial point that the electorate of South Africa rejects the official Opposition.

I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. This Parliament is an image of feelings and emotions in South Africa, and I should like to make a request of him because as Leader of that party I believe he has the responsibility of tempering the emotions of the people on his side. Let us say it straight out to one another in this House, we have a potential climate for revolution in South Africa. It is not simply a revolution that deals with the overthrow of a Government; it is a potential revolution that is much more deep-seated. It deals with the awakening aspirations of people. It is a revolution centring on racial emotions which are sweeping the entire world. The hon. the Leader must not argue with the Government about this. In anthropology we talk about a revolution of cultural conflict, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself will concede that we have a tremendously complex situation in South Africa with regard to that cultural conflict that rages in the minds and hearts of people who are being introduced to a Western cultural world from a specific cultural world. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to ask the members of his party to shake off this sickly paternalism that is raging in their minds, this sickly paternalism which is radiating from their speeches, because I want to tell him that it is a danger to the country and it incites emotions. I have seen the hon. members of the Opposition displaying a paternalism over the past weeks which disturbs me a great deal as an Afrikaner. It is not simply a paternalistic feeling of White people towards Black people as the hon. the Prime Minister said—as when the hon. member for Sea Point wants to tell the Black people which political system is good for them; it is not simply the type of paternalism displayed by the hon. member for Pinelands, who wants to tell the Black people what is good for them in the social sphere, where they should walk and where they should not walk; it is not simply the economic sort of paternalism of a large group in the PFP that tells Black people how much money they should be earning. Nor is it the type of paternalism which tells us as South Africans what we should think, how we should think and where we are going wrong in our thinking. We should like to tell the Leader of the Opposition that we as members of the Government reject this with utter contempt because I believe that in this party, we have been displaying not only an independence, but a maturity in our political sentiments over these past years which is in the interest of harmony and peace in South Africa. We no longer have time for that type of petty politics that wants to prescribe to us and to try to tell the world what we should think and what we should feel and how we should do things.

The hon. members of the Opposition complained about squatters. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Pine-lands: Has he heard of the body “Labour Intensive Industries Trust”? I want to put a direct question to him. There is something that I find unbelievable. I am referring to the Labour Intensive Industries Trust. I want to suggest that the hon. member reads the chairman’s speech by Mr. Harry Oppenheimer of the Anglo American Corporation in The Star of 16 July. There Mr. Oppenheimer talks about the problem of rural development, about the problem of two economies and about the needs thereof. Mr. Oppenheimer created this trust together with the De Beers Company in order to create employment opportunities for Black people in the rural areas. In this chairman’s speech of his, he says emphatically that the objective is not to make a profit; it is to help people, and all the profits that they make in the labour intensive industries that they establish, will be ploughed back into those industries.

I now want to ask the Opposition and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition one simple question: With regard to the problematics of labour in the Transkei and the Ciskei—these squatters are at issue here—have they ever approached Mr. Oppenheimer of Anglo American and told him that there is a problem here?

Why have you not done so? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands will not do so, because if he were to do so, he would be forfeiting his own political argument of being able to use this matter for ideological purposes. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if they continue to use these realities in South Africa for their political ends, without thinking of practical solutions that are slow in coming, they are doing irreparable damage to their country. He must ask himself how far they are prepared to take this.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in no sphere in South Africa do we have a final or absolute solution—not in the constitutional sphere, the economic sphere, nor in the social sphere. What he considers to be a solution in the constitutional sphere is not a solution for some other people. What some Black leaders consider a solution in the constitutional sphere, is not a solution for the White people. We can apply this to the economic as well as the social sphere too.

Let us look at the subject of human relations and discrimination. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a person who has travelled throughout the world and he will agree with me that in America today they are still struggling with the problematics of how to let their people come into their own right in the racial sphere. There is no perfect solution. Whether one has a law that separates people, whether one has no law and whether one has a law that forces people together, the problems of discrimination and the problems of people who see that they are being discriminated against, will prevail in South Africa as it will throughout the world, from now to eternity and we must live with this and that is why we dare not incite emotions.

Now I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the NP is prepared to speak straightforwardly to its people. In the course of the censure debate he quoted an article that I wrote in Rapport. Let me point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that except for his own political connotation, I stand by every single word that I said in it.

I accept that.

What is more: I think we in South Africa have reached a point where all political leaders and all political parties must speak straightforwardly to our people regarding what is necessary. I am prepared to say across the floor of the House that we as a party have also probably made mistakes along the way in the sphere of human relations. We gave our people certain guarantees regarding matters that we will not be able to carry through and which were untenable. We, the NP, tell our people outside—we are prepared to take our people along this road together with us—that when it comes to simple human relations a person is a person; let us live in accordance with this fact and let us stand together as people, groups and nations. We are not afraid to say this. Whilst the NP is prepared to speak openly and straightforwardly to our people with regard to human relations and matters in the economic sphere, I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not to question our intentions in public in such a way that a climate is created and incited against the White people, because ultimately—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to know this—these things boomerang back at us all. I want to tell him that the trail of the PFP’s own history in the sphere of race relations is a long one. In every single sphere in South Africa I can show the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how they too have made many mistakes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, whilst I appreciate the hon. member for Innesdal’s suggestion that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should speak to hon. members in these benches, to calm us down, as it were, and ask us to moderate our language, I must point out that he in his own speech gives an example of how difficult this is when he himself accuses us of what he terms sickly paternalism. It is his right to decide whether this is so or not, but it is pretty strong language. The hon. member for Mossel Bay a few minutes ago came very, very close, as close as it is possible to come without going over the line, to unparliamentary language. There is no question about it. Again and again accusations are made from that side of the House that can be summed up as saying that we are a bunch of radicals in this House. If we are to understand by the word “radical” what it actually means—and I would ask the hon. member for Mossel Bay to consult a dictionary in this regard …

I have, that is why I used that term.

I am glad he did because then I am perfectly happy to claim the word and the title, because the word “radical” means to go to the root of the matter.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does. [Interjections.] That is your connotation. We are not prepared to deal with the fringes of the matter; we want to go the heart of the matter.

In reply to the hon. member for Innesdal, I may say that I do know about the Labour Intensive Trust. Perhaps the title is wrong, but it was formed only a few weeks ago and, yes, both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and myself have gone in a professional capacity not only to Mr. Oppenheimer and others but to every one of the territories that the hon. member mentioned, because we believe that there must be development, there must be the creation of jobs and, in particular, there must be a movement away from capital to labour intensive work in South Africa.

So you want decentralization?

Yes, of course we want decentralization.

In a remark to me across the floor of the House the hon. the Prime Minister referred to certain comments made by Bishop Desmond Tutu. Let me say immediately that Desmond Tutu is a friend of mine of long standing but that I have told him personally—and I am on record as having said this in public and in the newspapers—that I disagree with his view in terms of disinvestment and action against South Africa. There can therefore be no misunderstanding about that.

I want to speak as reasonably and as moderately as I can with the hon. the Prime Minister about his own responsibility because this is his Vote that we are discussing. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the hon. the Prime Minister enjoyed quite remarkable support after his first year in office as Prime Minister. He had shown himself to be an initiator and a tough, no-nonsense leader. He made what can only be described as a historic whistle-stop tour of the homelands, and was the very first Prime Minister ever to pay an official visit to Soweto. He called together the now equally historic Carlton conference and has undoubtedly enjoyed widespread support among business leaders. He even had the courage to raise in public the emotion-laden and controversial question of the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act. He used strong words at his own party congress when he said: “Accept the way I am going or I will not lead you”. That is a tough, no-nonsense leader, Sir. In a clash with one of his own Cabinet colleagues he took a strong stand, once again publicly, against those who apparently regard the Coloured people as lepers. In a quite remarkable speech at Upington he made his statement about “adjust or die”.

He was talking to you.

Yes, all right. I think he was talking to all of us, and now I am not talking to that member.

After acclaim from business leaders, after generating new confidence on the part of many urban Blacks, after having been proclaimed the Financial Mail’s “Man of the Year”, after having received the general approval of diplomats in South Africa and support from international communities, it is equally true—and I again speak as carefully as I can—that the same people, together with many ordinary, concerned South Africans have, in an attitude close to despair, now come close to giving up on the Prime Minister as one who will lead South Africa out of conflict into peace and security. Whether or not that side of the House agrees with that, I think it is common cause that this is so. How does one explain such a remarkable difference in so short a time?

Firstly, it may well be that some of us, including myself, were wrong in the first place; that in our search for hope we read into the hon. the Prime Minister’s performance and statements much more than was actually there. Some would even go further and suggest that the Prime Minister is actually a prisoner of his own party; that he is incapable of or not interested in spearheading that radical reform that needs to go to the heart or the root of the matter but will only initiate peripheral change and always within the framework of the grand design of separate development. Or it may be—and I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister—that he over-estimated his own power because it is one thing to be Cape leader but another thing entirely to be a Prime Minister. Perhaps, at the same time, he underestimated the deep-seated fear and prejudice of Nationalists at grassroots level. If one subscribed to that view, of course the election confirmed one’s worst fears. The swing to the right was, in fact, pronounced and the hon. the Prime Minister could well have taken fright and put his more far-reaching reforms into cold storage. Whatever the truth of the matter is, there can be no gainsaying the fact that there is a question-mark hanging over the hon. the Prime Minister’s ability to lead South Africa away from the cul-de-sac of entrenched conflict.

Hear, hear!

I have no doubt that, with few exceptions, those who sit in the Government benches recognize that they are in a very different world today to the one in which we found ourselves in 1948, and there appears to us—to me at least—to be two widely divergent responses within the ranks of Government leadership. There are those who want to cling even more strongly to the old tried ways and advocate a return to what I would term Verwoerdian purity. They feel the cold wind blowing and reach for the blanket that has served them so well in the past. On the other hand, there are those within the caucus who are convinced that …

We are not that sensitive to cold.

… a new situation calls for new thinking. This life-and-death struggle is not just a struggle taking place in the ranks of the NP but is also a struggle that I believe could affect our whole future in South Africa. The former attitude, an almost pathetic clutching at a blanket that is now thin and old and offers no protection, can only lead to stagnation and confrontation. I truly believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is among those who are committed to the view that new circumstances demand new solutions. I want to remind him of a statement he made and I want the hon. the Prime Minister to listen very carefull here because I do not want this to lead to any misunderstanding between us. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is on record as having said that the struggle is no longer among White, Black or Brown people but between Christianity and the forces of darkness.

That is right.

I am convinced …

And also those forces of darkness that act in the name of Christianity.

Yes, quite.

What does he mean by that?

Whether or not the hon. the Prime Minister succeeds in convincing his caucus to move out of the old laager will determine how far he will allow this statement to guide his decisions and actions. Let me spell it out a little more clearly. How will the hon. the Prime Minister respond to what I am now going to say? I shall put it as a question. Will the hon. the Prime Minister enlist the help of the Coloured people, who are a Christian people, in the struggle against “the forces of darkness” by stating categorically that he will share power with them in the country of their birth? When does such a man or such a community …

I dealt with the whole matter this afternoon. Were you not listening?

When does a man cease to be a leper? Is it only in sport or is it also in education and in residential and community life? What we are wrestling with here is a disturbing and demanding question. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs would please leave the hon. the Prime Minister alone because I should like a reply. What we are wrestling with here is the disturbing and demanding question of whether group loyalty is based on language, culture or race or whether it is not the Christian’s responsibility to take, as his criterion, that which transcends all these aspects but bases its actions on the Christian faith? If the latter applies, how do we deal with the Coloured people or the Black people?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands said that other speakers, including the hon. member for Innesdal, used strong language in their speeches. However, I want to remind him of the fact—I shall come back to this again in a moment—that it is not only strong language, but bitter language too, that has been used in this House. The hon. member for Pine-lands says that the hon. the Prime Minister is a captive in his party. In a moment I shall point out that the hon. member for Pine-lands is a captive within another cosmos that is more dangerous than a party.

What is that?

I shall come to it. The hon. member for Pinelands says that a question mark is hanging over the hon. the Prime Minister as leader of this party. However, a bigger question mark is hanging over the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as leader of that party. It is being reflected in the debates that we have heard here across the floor.

This dialogue, these constitutional changes, planning and sentiments can only be realized when there is order and discipline within the community in this country.

I now come to the question of order. In the Parliamentary library there are several books on communism by various experts. I have taken only one quotation from a book by prof. D. J. Kotze of the University of Stellenbosch, which summarizes the most elementary characteristics of communism. I quote from prof. Kotze’s book Kommunisme Vandag in which he says—

These, according to Dr. Kotze, are the four points of departure. When the population of a country is incited to civil disobedience, we are playing with fire, and then each party who has a share in this or prepares the climate or creates the psychosis for this, is also playing with fire. Then hon. members must not talk about strong language from this side of the House. Then hon. members must read their Hansard. The hon. member for Pinelands must page back to his Hansard of 4 August 1981, col. 190.

Recently we celebrated the. 20th anniversary of our Republic and during the celebrations certain things happened. On the campus of the University of the Witwatersrand our flag was burnt as a symbol. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is in our midst today, and I want to put a question to him and he can reply to me now across the floor of the House. He was one of the most senior, most respected members of the legal profession in the country. I want to ask him: Why do we have a flag waving above a magistrate’s court or a police station, even in the very smallest town in the platteland? What is it the symbol of? The flag represents authority and order which a community respects. I now want to ask the hon. members of the Opposition what their state of mind was and what the attitude of the hon. member for Johannesburg North was when these things took place on the campus. What did they say and what did they do?

[Inaudible.]

Those hon. members kept silent. What does that silence mean?

We rejected it clearly and unambiguously.

It means condoning what took place. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands uttered the following words during the censure debate (Hansard, 4 August 1981, col. 200)—

And then the hon. member says very specifically—

How can we expect the youth outside, students of all our population groups, to respect the laws of Parliament if these damning words come from a speech by an hon. of this House, viz. that the actions, laws and practices of the Government are an offence before God? How can we then expect the developing, searching youth to choose the right path, to keep faith and to respect the laws of the country? How can you then expect us to continue, Sir, with our activities in an orderly way and guide the people?

Surely it is the truth.

I must state these matters here. I must thrash them out completely, because in paragraph (d) of the motion of censure by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition one reads—and I hope I am interpreting him wrongly—

This is the social, economic and political pressure—

What is that “allegedly subversive opposition”, as if there were not really opposition? To what sphere did he mean this to apply? Does he mean on the Opposition side?

No, I said in my speech what I meant. Go ahead and read my Hansard.

I have read it, but as far as I am concerned it does not occur there. These lines also differ from the English text as I interpret them. If he means here that he does not see that our nation is involved in a struggle against the powers of communism, then he is making a mistake at once because then he is watering down the entire concept for which the defence force in all its facets is making our people prepared.

We must make our young people loyal citizens in the service of the country. Now I know the hon. member for Pinelands has had reason for sadness and bitterness in that respect. I can understand it, after all. Like he, I too am the father of a young son. Now I want to speak to him as one father to another and ask him what he introduces to his house as a father, because there is an old English idiom that says: “Wild masters breed wild horses.”

You have a cheek! Why do you not sit down if you cannot speak properly?

I want to say that we must broadcast it for the sake of our youth …

How dare you say that to me? You have got a cheek! Sit down!

… that the Republic is not looking for people to be victims, but people who by means of their ability, the skill of their hands, clarity of understanding, by means of the love in their hearts, want to live and work for the country. These are the people—White, Coloured and Black—that the country is looking for.

Calm down.

In that disposition I want to ask the Opposition to arrange their affairs in such a way that we will have obedient citizens in the country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton started his speech by saying that constitutional change in South Africa could only take place if law and order and stability were maintained. I would add that it can only take place if a certain degree of calmness of mind and attitude is maintained. I regret to say that towards the end of his speech he tended to lose his calmness. I should just like to leave that thought with him.

I am pleased to note—and I think all hon. members noted it—that it appears to be common cause amongst all the hon. members in Parliament that there has got to be constitutional change. I think it is generally accepted that our present constitution, which is resulting in Whites dominating other groups, has got to change. The problems we are presently facing have got to be overcome. That is a fact of political life in South Africa. It is for this reason that we in these benches are extremely pleased that the President’s Council has been formed and is now under way with its deliberations. We sincerely hope that in due course the council will make recommendations to Parliament, recommendations which will be accepted by Parliament and which will eventually result in changes being brought about in South Africa in such a way that these problems will be overcome. We in these benches were very pleased to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister, in his reply earlier this afternoon, that he was not dictating to the President’s Council. The hon. the Prime Minister put it very clearly when he said that the President’s Council was now free to come forward with any proposal. Those were the hon. the Prime Minister’s words, and we are very pleased to have heard him say so.

That is what I said.

Yes, I am only re-emphasizing the point. We realize of course that this does not necessarily mean that the Government or this Parliament will accept those proposals. The fact, however, was made very clear by the hon. the Prime Minister, and I want him to know that we are very pleased that he made that very clear that the President’s Council can come forward with its proposals. The thought I should like to leave with the hon. the Prime Minister, however, is that of the danger of this Parliament’s rejecting the proposals which come from the President’s Council. I believe that if the President’s Council should come forward at some time in the future …

Do you mean to tell me that I must accept each and every proposal put forward by the President’s Council? That would be a nonsensical argument.

I am not saying that. I say there will be dangers in the rejection by Parliament of any recommendations by the President’s Council. After all, as someone said earlier on, this is the first time in the history of South Africa that people representing three race groups have sat down around a table to try to evolve and develop a new constitution for South Africa.

Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Durban Point said that there could be self-determination without domination. The big argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that the reverse was the case, that there could not be self-determination without domination. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point. In fact, I will go so far as to ask the question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether there can be peace in South Africa, whether there can in fact be freedom from domination in South Africa, without a con stitution which does provide for our various race groups a large measure of self-determination. I believe this is a legitimate question, and I ask hon. members of the PFP to consider it. We find, for instance, in the NP benches, a major concern about White self-determination. What is the reason for this concern? As far as the Afrikaner Nationalists are concerned—and the hon. the Prime Minister reiterated that earlier today—I should say they are determined to make sure that the Afrikaner-volk, the Afrikaner people, are not going to be trodden under, that they are not going to be destroyed.

That goes for all Whites.

Are you prepared to be trodden down?

No, Sir. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister, and if he listens to me and allows me to complete my argument, I believe that he will see that we agree with him in this particular respect.

The fear of domination by one group of another is basic in a plural society such as we have in South Africa today. It is for this reason that the NP—and for that matter we in these benches too—reject the constitutional proposals of the PFP, because if they study the consequences of their proposals, they will find that it must lead to Black majority rule at every level of government.

Nonsense.

The hon. member for Greytown says that is nonsense. [Interjections.] It must lead to Black majority rule, and once political power has been put into the hands of the Black majority they will have the power to control our economy, they will have control of our military and our defence force, and they will also have the power to exert upon South Africa reverse discrimination.

That means you are pleading for baasskap.

No, we do not believe in baasskap. We believe in a plural constitution which will give to every group a political power base from which they can look after their own intimate affairs.

I should like to ask of the hon. member for Berea, who comes from Natal, and who is the leader of his party in that province—and here I agree again with the hon. the Prime Minister—whether the Indians in Natal will go along with a constitution which will place all political power in Natal in the hands of the Zulus.

Of course not. I can tell him that.

We who come from Natal realize that the Indians will not accept such a thing. Taking into consideration the Ciskei and the Transkei, one might also ask whether the people of the Ciskei will go along with a constitution which will at some time in the future give to the Xhosas in the Transkei political rule over the people of the Ciskei. This too will be totally rejected. On the other hand we have, in the PFP benches, members whose major concern is the domination of or discrimination against Blacks that we all concede today is a result of the present-day political system which limits political power to Whites only. These are legitimate concerns and that is why we do not sit in the NP benches at this time. It is because we are against the statutory discrimination which that party has had placed on our statute books from time to time. [Interjections.]

I do believe that the members of the NP must answer a number of questions. Firstly, is it really feasible or possible to have total self-determination for all groups in South Africa without a certain measure of joint decision-making? That is the question that the Government has to face. This is their dilemma. They fear the slightest amount of joint decision-making because they feel that it may lead to another group dominating the Whites in South Africa.

The hon. member for Bryanston mentioned what South Africa would be like in 20 years’ time. I am prepared to concede to the hon. the Prime Minister that the members of the PFP have already, in their minds, capitulated to Black majority rule. I am prepared to concede that point but the hon. the Prime Minister cannot escape the reality of what is happening, not necessarily way into the future but here in South Africa today, and that is that there are forces at work, especially in the economy, which are bringing Black, White and Brown together, shoulder to shoulder, day by day, into what I would not say is a common living area but certainly into a common metropolitan area, and as such my colleagues and I cannot see a future for South Africa without some degree of joint decision-making. This is the reality that we must face, and not only within the urban areas. I believe this must also apply when we come to the so-called future confederation in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the confederation will consist of sovereign States, that there will be no common political arena where matters of common concern can be sorted out together and that there cannot be a degree of common political decision-making. We in these benches believe that this is totally unrealistic, bearing in mind the realities of South Africa as they exist today.

Mr. Chairman, I first wish to give some background information before I proceed to develop my argument. Last Saturday morning a reporter from The Cape Times reported that I had said at a meeting at Stellenbosch that I have been hurt by the hon. the Prime Minister’s action and by certain things he said. The reporter went on to imply at the end that I was uncertain about the extent of my support for the hon. the Prime Minister. It so happens that I was not talking about politics at all at that meeting; I was talking about the principles of meaningful communication in every discussion. I did not mention politics, but in reply to a question by Mr. Gibson Tula of Inkatha concerning the interpretation of what had happened here during the censure debate that Friday, I explained to him that Opposition newspapers had raised a hue and cry about an interpretation which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition newspapers had given to the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister, as he clearly indicated here this afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not going to get away with that so easily. He explicitly said—and I refer him to Friday’s Hansard, 7 August, col. 438—that he wanted to prove that the Government’s concept of self-determination was the same as domination. Then he went on to say that he would do so on the basis of the 1977 proposals. He is not going to get away by saying that he was only referring to the 1977 proposals. I explained the precise circumstances to Mr. Tula.

I went on to tell him that there was absolutely no reason for him or for the other communities to feel anxious about the integrity of the Prime Minister. I said that he was a man for whom I had the greatest respect, a man whom I was fond of and who had my unqualified support. Immediately afterwards I was taken to task by one of the Black people attending the seminar, who told me: But it is rather a sweeping statement to say that someone has your unqualified support. Does that mean that you would do anything he said? Would you simply follow meekly? I explained that that was not how it worked; that what mattered was a man’s record, what mattered were the things he stood for, and that I did not doubt for a moment that the hon. the Prime Minister would never take any action which would make it impossible for me to follow him. What did the report say? Basically, the report said that I had been hurt by the Prime Minister’s action, as he himself had also been, and that I nevertheless believed I would be able to follow the Prime Minister. I must also say, to the credit of the newspaper, perhaps another reporter there, Mr. Mike Acott, that after I had delivered a letter and their correspondence column had already closed, they published the correction in the form of a report. On Sunday, however, a report appeared in The Sunday Times—not really a report, but rather a column in the form of a report—saying that the Prime Minister’s leadership was being questioned. In addition, there were a lot of quotations which I know nothing about and which I personally believe to be rubbish, but by means of which I was arbitrarily implicated by way of an excerpt from that first report in Saturday morning’s Cape Times.

What is it all about? What I am trying to say is that I was expressing my unqualified support for the Prime Minister, and after a few twists and turns, QED—I am in revolt against the Prime Minister!

I also wish to deal with the official Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used my name twice during the censure debate. The first time he quoted me from The Rand Daily Mail in an attempt to show that I was making statements which contradicted the Prime Minister. He referred to the Group Areas Act and the free market. However, the hon. the Prime Minister answered these specific questions which were put to him by a supporter of that party at a public meeting in Randburg and gave an unequivocal reply in exactly the same terms as I did.

My second point is this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was taken to task by the hon. the Prime Minister because he was not in this country on Republic Day. I want to refer him to Hansard again, col. 446, also of Friday, 7 August, where the hon. leader says—

He was referring to the document in the Bonn action and went on to say—

What are the facts? To save his own skin, the hon. member drags me into it again by saying that I was also absent on Republic Day. The fact is, however, that I attended the local celebrations of my constituency and in fact made a public appearance there, that I subsequently went abroad for a short while and returned two days before Republic Day. The hon. leader also dragged another member in this House into this matter.

The hon. member for Sandton spoke here during the censure debate. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—I did not hear him, but he asked me in the lobby why I had not been present, because he had spoken to me, and he told me to go and read his Hansard. He spoke here about certain statements that certain people allegedly made over cocktails and at golf clubs in order to be invited to visit places overseas. What is the hon. member implying? What is his innuendo? If he is under the impression that I say things over cocktails or at golf clubs or elsewhere which I would not say in this House, I ask him—I give him my permission—to mention those things in this House. I do not have two different standpoints in two different places.

But I am not important; I am a small fish that can be thrown out with the water and the bowl, but a considered attempt is being made in this country—it is coming from certain hon. members of the official Opposition and certain newspapers, or perhaps certain reporters of certain newspapers who actually regard themselves as the official Opposition—to make the country totally ungovernable.

The newspapers know they cannot sit in this House as institutions. The official Opposition, every single hon. member among them, knows that it does not have the slightest chance of ever taking over in this country. In fact, they know that they have no chance of ever being part of any Government which this country may have in the future. They are now resorting to a strategy of trying to cast suspicion on the Government, not in a way one would consider fitting for an Opposition, but by trying to project the idea that the country is indeed ungovernable and that the Government cannot govern the country.

To the extent to which ultra-rightwing groups in South Africa are projecting the idea that one can actually maintain order in this country only by means of a demonstration of power, that one can only govern through violence, the official Opposition is projecting exactly the same message. The earth is round—when one moves too far left, one ends up on the right, and vice versa. Goodness knows, this country is difficult enough to govern in its diversity, it is difficult enough to find a dispensation under the most favourable circumstances—they know that—so it is not necessary to create additional obstacles. It is not necessary to make it more difficult for the hon. the Prime Minister to govern; that would be fatal. History will not record that these people were gifted with second sight, nor will it record that they served the interests of other people; it will merely record that they were responsible for the chaos which will result here if they are successful, some of them possibly in ignorance, but others knew what they were doing, or at least should have known.

I appeal to them to examine their own consciences and not to raise a hue and cry about a level of debate, as though it were not possible to walk around a mud-hole which had opened up in front of one. What is more, they deliberately dig those mud-holes. They jump into them and splash around in them.

Mr. Chairman, one gains the distinct impression that the hon. member for Randburg has been rapped over the knuckles and therefore has taken this opportunity to try to re-establish his credibility with the Government.

That is a dirty remark, and you know it!

As has happened with every other Nationalist, he uses us as the scapegoat in order to try to placate whichever forces of wrath within the Government were apparently hauling him over the coals. It is not necessary for him to do that; he can do it privately by writing a letter to the hon. the Prime Minister. We really do not want to hear his confessions. This House is not a confessional. [Interjections.] Of course, following the policy which the Government does, it cannot blame us for its troubles when it finds itself in a mess. That, however, is exactly what hon. members on the other side have been doing over the past two days in this debate and, indeed, over the past two weeks because of the unspeakable mess into which they have got themselves over the squatter problem. This problem was hopelessly misjudged and hopelessly mishandled with people being shuttled back and forth between Transkei and here.

Who is bringing them back?

Even the hon. the Prime Minister’s favourite Black leader, Chief Sebe, has now had something unpleasant to say about the Government’s handling of the situation. Prime Minister Matanzima, of course, has had some very unpleasant things indeed to say about the Government in this connection. The Government, of course, tries to blame us. [Interjections.] Never mind what he says about us. We are not the government in power. That is the Government in power and that is the Government that is messing everything up in no uncertain terms. Now we are told that we created the climate for everything. We created the climate for the manner in which the squatters defied the Government. That is all so much nonsense because they quite forget the original evictions and the manner in which they handled the subsequent situation. I want to tell the Government here and now that nobody is going to dictate to this side of the House in regard to what we do inside or outside Parliament.

Hear, hear!

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that our extra-parliamentary activities are completely lawful …

And I am telling you that if you try to break the law you will see what happens.

But we are not talking about breaking the law, you nitwit. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Prime Minister has been trying to bully me for 28 years and he has not succeeded yet. [Interjections.]

Order!

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister as a “nitwit”?

The hon. member must withdraw that word immediately. [Interjections.]

I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member for Houghton entitled to say to the hon. member for Turffontein …

That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Houghton may proceed.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that our activities are completely lawful, unlike the activities in which certain people were involved during World War II …

You try to break the law and you will see what happens to you.

I am not frightened of you. I never have been and I never will be. I think nothing of you.

You don’t scare us one little bit.

The hon. the Prime Minister has the nerve to call the hon. member for Sea Point the chief leader of a campaign to “beswadder” South Africa abroad.

It is true.

Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister that when that hon. member, as a young man of sixteen, was fighting up North for his country in World War II, the hon. the Prime Minister was organizing gangs to break up meetings of servicemen in this country.

I say that is a nasty untruth and you know it.

I do not know that. [Interjections.]

What did your old Kowie do during the war?

I do not care about that, Sir. He has seen the light, unlike the hon. the Prime Minister.

Like the hon. member for Randburg, I and my colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. member for Pinelands, have been subjected to what I would call an incorrect Press report. [Interjections.] Can we have law and order in this House, Sir?

Order!

Thank you. This is a report that appeared in Die Burger stating that the three of us were seen among the demonstrators who took part in the march from the cathedral to the House of Assembly.

Were you not there?

Mr. Chairman, I have said that I am not about to be dictated to about my extra-parliamentary activities.

If you break the law you will see what happens.

I also want to put the record straight in Hansard. I could not care less about what those hon. members think, particularly the hon. member for Benoni.

The facts are that we heard that there was to be a service in the cathedral in sympathy with the squatters. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and I went to the cathedral—not the hon. member for Pine-lands, as it happens—and there were two other PFP members of Parliament there, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Walmer, but they left before the end of the service.

Do you call it a service?

At the end of the service the clergyman announced that he intended to deliver a petition to Parliament …

Do you call it a service?

Yes, a service. There was a lot of praying going on, the hon. the Prime Minister might like to know. He invited the crowd to accompany him, but I immediately informed the clergyman that there were at least two Acts of Parliament that would make such a procedure unlawful and that the people ought to be told. He told the crowd, and they then marched, or wandered off, between the cathedral and Parliament. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and I walked through the library gardens, through the side entrance, and finally landed up in the gardens of Parliament where I saw the hon. the Minister of Police and, if he were half a man, he would confirm what I am saying.

Why half a man? I have not denied it.

He has never denied it but he has never confirmed it either. [Interjections.] I therefore ask him now to confirm what I am saying. [Interjections.] I went up to him and told him that if he wanted to avoid a very ugly incident he would accept the petition which the clergyman wanted to present to him. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister, to his credit, saw the point immediately and said he would do so in his office. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens then conveyed that to the clergyman who was trying to come into the grounds to present the petition to the hon. the Minister but was stopped by Gen. Geldenhuys. I then approached Gen. Geldenhuys and informed him that the hon. the Minister was prepared to receive the petition. He then joined the hon. the Minister inside the grounds of Parliament and accompanied him to the gate where the clergyman presented the petition. Then—as I think both those hon. gentlemen will confirm—we assisted in dispersing the crowd before the police could set about them with dogs or could start arresting people. [Interjections.]

She should get a medal.

I do not want any medals, thanks. I just want the truth on record. That is all.

She will get a medal from the enemies of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Police will, I am quite sure, confirm what I am saying. The crowd then followed the clergyman back into the cathedral. We then dispersed the remaining members of the public who were still standing around. I then went back into the cathedral and asked the people there finally to leave the cathedral in twos and threes.

Plus the hon. member for Pinelands.

The hon. member for Pinelands joined us at that stage, together with several other members of Parliament. There were several hon. members there including the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those hon. members joined us at that stage but by then the crisis was over and the crowd was dispersing. The hon. member for Pinelands had no part in this whatsoever. There were several other hon. members there, however, including the hon. member for Sandton, I think. [Interjections.] Several NP members were also there but they, I might add, were crouching very cautiously behind the railings of Parliament. They were not going to risk their lives among that crowd of perfectly peaceful people!

That was your crowd.

It was your gang.

It was not my crowd. I have no idea who they were. They were the concerned citizens of Cape Town. To their credit, they turned out in their hundreds to protest against the disgusting actions of this Government towards the squatters of Nyanga. I have the petition here and am perfectly prepared to hand it in if anybody is interested.

Nobody is interested.

It simply states—

We in these benches completely agree with the sentiments expressed in that petition. I now ask the hon. the Minister of Police to confirm what I have just said.

Mr. Chairman, I find it strange that the hon. member for Houghton is protesting so much simply because she attended a church service.

Yes.

If she went to listen to a church service, where a sermon was delivered, surely she does not have to apologize for that here.

Of course, there was a political connotation.

It is really amazing that she is protesting so much.

Of course, it was a political gathering.

It probably was! The hon. member for Houghton seems to be extremely nervous about her presence at that service. In the few minutes at my disposal, however, I am also going to refer to another clerical conference which another hon. member attended a few years ago.

The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to their extra-Parliamentary action. I should like to know what a member of their party, the hon. member for Pinetown, meant at the time—in 1976—when he said, according to a report in the PRP newspaper, that he foresaw that action would be taken against the Government on an extra-Parliamentary basis. The newspaper quoted him as follows—

Yes, “Sal werk,” not “moet werk”.

Does the hon. member for Greytown not understand what was said? I shall be very pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can explain to us what the member of his party meant by this type of extra-Parliamentary action. Is it the type of action that took place at the church service? We shall be very pleased if we can have an answer to that. [Interjections.]

This afternoon the hon. member for Pine-lands started talking about the hon. the Prime Minister, inter alia, using very fine, pleasant words. He even praised the hon. the Prime Minister, and we simply knew that there was more to come, because there is a sting in the tail when the hon. member for Pinelands behaves in this way. I shall come back to that again in a moment. As the hon. member also said this afternoon, in a discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, it is right for us to apply a test in order to see how the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP Government are managing in governing South Africa. I think it is fair that we should see how the hon. the Prime Minister is dealing with the tremendous problems that are facing South Africa. Let us take a factual, objective look at his deeds, his action in the face of the problems. In the light of the attack by the Opposition, we shall also then take a look at the solutions that the PFP is suggesting.

It is true that anyone who listens objectively to the hon. the Minister, realizes that in the midst of a world in which tremendous confusion prevails, he has a clear vision of the future for South Africa. In addition, the hon. the Prime Minister has also indicated that he is determined to do everything in his power to implement that vision in practice. The hon. the Prime Minister has proved that he is also prepared to do things that are unpopular. We need people like this in South Africa today, people who take action, who do things. We have enough talkers; we need doers, and this is what our people want. There are, of course, people who do not like this. There is the PFP, that says that the hon. the Prime Minister is doing too little, but we cannot satisfy them. Today we heard that, as far as self-determination is concerned, they have already overtaken the UN! The UN still advocates self-determination of nations, but the PFP has already done away with it!

Nor can the NP satisfy the HNP, because they have stuck fast at the beginning of this century. South Africa is looking for balanced, sensible and responsible leadership, and the hon. the Prime Minister is proving this by the way in which he is prepared to face South Africa’s problems. In order to assist him with these problems and solving them in practice, he has given our country a system of management which is unique in our history. It is a living monument to him today. This year, for the first time since Union, we have also had an annual report submitted by a Prime Minister. It is a fine piece of work and the authors are to be congratulated.

We can now identify the problems facing South Africa in four spheres. We can do this in the social sphere, the security sphere, the political sphere as well as in the economic sphere.

Sound social conditions are the declared objective of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the Government. There is a definite striving towards the social progress of all people and nations. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government resist the social disorder which is threatening to break loose, which was clearly on its way at the squatters’ camp at Nyanga, where thousands of people moved in uncontrolled. Surely this would have created conditions of confusion which we could not have permitted. We have a tremendous housing shortage in S.A.—hundreds of thousands of houses are needed, but they cannot be built overnight. Our means are limited, but as much as possible is being done in order to comply with the objective of adequate housing so that more people can live happily. What are the hon. members of the Opposition now solving by their behaviour in this regard? They are doing nothing to solve the problems; they are simply aggravating it. They are whipping up emotions. Like the hon. member for Pinelands who addresses us in an arrogant way and with priestly piousness when he tells us (Hansard, 4 August 1981, col. 201)—

We reject that accusation with contempt, because the Afrikaner is not a racist. However, when it suited the hon. member at the time, he used this so-called “horror” to keep Black people out of Pinelands. He wrote to the town council as follows (Hansard, No. 56, col. 3921)—

What type of morality is this? He comes here and quotes piously to us that it is a horror, but when it suited him, he used it himself. Am I not entitled then to ask that hon. member to read again in the Bible where it teaches us about whited sepulchres?

Yesterday the hon. member for Pinelands also took strong exception when the hon. member for Parys referred him to certain allegations which the then Minister of Justice made. He raised a serious objection to them.

However, I think he is the last man who can object to them.

Why?

As I have already said, he tells us with priestly piousness that the underlying principle of the National Party is also a sin in the eyes of God. However, I should now like to refresh the hon. member’s memory for a moment. Does he still recall the so-called “Happening ’69” which was arranged by the University Christian Movement on a farm in Natal? He should remember it because he was there. The Schlebusch Commission at the time questioned a witness regarding that “happening” and obtained the following evidence, inter alia. One finds it on page 51, paragraph 5.11, of the Sixth Interim Report …

Are you reading about Judas Iscariot now?

… if the hon. member perhaps wants to read it there—

And then—

And so it goes on. On page 53 of the report, paragraph 5.15, one reads—

That is the movement to which he belonged.

Yes, let me read the reference—

Then follows a number of names, amongst which the following appears—

Now is this the hon. member who is addressing us from on high? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the pardon of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg for not responding to his speech.

I find myself in the position where an awful lot of one subject has been covered, and I must say that to me, as a backbencher, it appears that as a result much of the debates in the House is going to be concerned with what one party thinks of another, instead of containing a message of hope, as it were, for the people outside the House. I should like to say that it is the considered opinion of this party that there are in fact areas concerning which the nation could move and matters which could be dealt with at present, instead of all of us marking time, as it were, awaiting constitutional developments. I am quite certain that if this were done in the areas in which it can be done, it would in fact communicate to the people of the country a feeling of hope and of actuality about reform and the creation of a climate in which reform will be more easily put across and will more readily take root. I refer here to legislation such as the Mixed Marriages Act, section 16 of the Immorality Act and matters which in fact could be dealt with in order to bring about the sort of climate or sign from the Government that the nation is going to stand together as a whole and is willing to face the total onslaught that the country is in fact facing. It is said, Sir, that a nation’s power is represented by its human resources, its material resources multiplied by the will of the people. If the will of the people is a small factor in the final sum, there must necessarily be a small result. The bigger the will of the people in any multiplication sum the larger the total of that final sum will be. I think that this is an area which, pending the findings of the constitutional committee of the President’s Council, pending the outcome of reforms in this direction, must be given urgent consideration in maintaining better contact and enabling the people of the country to gain the sort of impression that will cancel the negative aspects that do creep in when one is playing, as it were, a waiting game, waiting for results. As my colleague the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has so rightly said, the possibility of the recommendations of the President’s Council not being accepted is one that we hesitate to consider because that would be very, very bad for this country. It is, obviously, not a question of their having carte blanche as far as the acceptance of all their recommendations is concerned. However, I believe that these are areas in which we should be on our guard.

Coming as I do from an area that is very much involved in the question of homeland consolidation I want once again to refer to the confederation aspect of our policy. In this regard I should like to quote from Hansard of Monday, 26 January 1981, at col. 96 where the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development had this to say—

The hon. the Minister went on to say—

We have, Sir, particularly in our part of the world, a situation that is not going to be solved by the rigid application of the finalization of boundaries and of the homeland concept. This is going to require a broader and more magnanimous type of approach. It is going to require something along the lines of the confederal concept giving to these people a confederal citizenship which allows free passage across boundaries and which will bring people to realize that we as a nation are going to work together to face the future.

These are the sort of things that I believe need not be kept in abeyance, that need not be left waiting until the final proposals come from the President’s Council. If one looks at the demographic projections that have been made over the past few weeks in this House, one can see that many of our Black and Brown people are going to be in areas outside the homelands, and the national physical development of this country is, in the main, planned to take place outside the homelands. We can already see where the urbanization is going to take place. It is a fact that 70% of the world’s population live within 40 km of the sea. 95% of all world trade is carried out by means of sea-routes. We know this is going to happen and we know that economic boundaries cannot be made final. One can have a political boundary within which one can exercise political rights but economically this is not possible. We in these benches would therefore like an on-going effort to be made to maintain the thrust of the hon. the Prime Minister’s reform outside this House in every possible manner whilst awaiting further President’s Council recommendations. I am quite certain that there are areas in which this can be done, but unfortunately the censure debate was conducted along negative lines. An effort in this regard is therefore required. On behalf of this party I consequently ask that, whilst waiting for the constitutional recommendations, every effort in this regard be made.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fact that South Africa is not taking its rightful place in the comity of nations today. There are various reasons for this state of affairs. I think it is a fact that we have made mistakes in our country which have contributed towards people having a peg on which they can hang their criticism of us. It is also true that there are double standards in the world which means that our mistakes are being focussed upon whilst a blind eye is being turned to worse things in other countries which are then condoned. Then it is also true that South Africa is a sought-after prize in the international power struggle and that therefore we have become a political football. As South Africans, we on this side of the House are sick and tired of being reviled by the world and we are also sick and tired of the fact that there are people inside South Africa who are participating in the creation of an atmosphere in which South Africa is being reviled. When I open the book Verwoerd aan die Woord and read on page 356 what Dr. Verwoerd said in Meyerton on 26 March 1960, it seems as if 21 years fade into nothingness. I want to quote briefly what he said—

Then the following important piece follows—

Since Dr. Verwoerd said this in the midst of a heavy onslaught by radical leftists, we align ourselves with our present Prime Minister today, who is in the midst of the heaviest possible onslaught from the radical left and from the radical right.

I want to give hon. members a few examples. With regard to the radical leftists, there is one important example of in what respect they revile us as racists. The fact is that our premise in South Africa, if we mean well by the country, we have no choice but to base our politics and the entire structure of our civilization on the foundation of our multinational character. Anyone, for instance the PFP, who tries to defuse the potential for conflict between White and Black, but fails to create formulae to defuse the potential for conflict that exists between Black and Black, is living in a dream world. Therefore, it is true that if one seeks a solution to the problems of South Africa,

one must take into account that ethnicity also exists within the Black groups in South Africa. Because radicals come from the left and accuse us of being racists, we who base our politics on this foundation, they are destroying the basis that we have at our disposal of debating with people abroad in an attempt to bring them so far as to understand why we in South Africa are doing what we do. By doing this, they are causing untold damage to South Africa and they are succeeding in having us reviled as racists, as the hon. member for Pinelands did for instance, and which was quite clear from the attack from which the hon. member for Verwoerdburg quoted a moment ago. They accuse us of suppression. They accuse us of the domination of other population groups.

However, whilst on the subject of domination, I must also point out that in his constitutional model, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is surely faced with the problem of domination too. Surely in a multinational country one is obliged to deal with the situation in which one must defuse the tremendous potential for conflict, which can arise between the various population groups. What is his answer to this? His answer to this is a minority veto. The inevitable consequences of such a minority veto are that minority groups can cripple the entire constitutional process, the entire process of government. It is an absolute truth that this veto can be abused by a minority group and that matters can then give rise to the utmost frustration, conflict and violence in this country.

The hon. member for Randburg is very au fait with this matter. He can undoubtedly speak at length about it.

However, there is also another very drastic factor which makes it difficult for the hon. the Prime Minister and for the Government to do their work in South Africa. In addition, it is a factor which bedevils our cause abroad as well, and which also bedevils the atmosphere in which our present relations politics have to take place, a process which should actually be conducted in an atmosphere of confidence and of mutual respect. The factor to which I am referring here, is the rightist radical movement. We must grasp those people by the throats today because they are sketching a chimera of the White people to the rest of the world, and in particular a chimera of the Afrikaner.

This same principle of ethnicity, which is the basis of the NP’s policy, this same principle of racial diversity, of national diversity, is being used by the rightist radicals in their allegations that the Government is already departing from this principle, that the NP has turned its back on multinationality and is now heading towards integration. This is the straw doll that they are erecting and then trying to shoot down themselves, and in the entire process they tend towards the most absolutely radical racism, towards the greatest racial hatred that we have ever encountered in the history of South Africa. Indeed, it is not difficult to detect examples of this. It is clear in the Press every day how these rightist radicals are mobilizing themselves and what lies they are telling the voters of South Africa, lies in which they allege that the Government of South Africa is heading for integration. Nothing good can ever come from this radical racism, which is being spread by these people. If they should ever come into power, their government would be established on a sinful basis, on a basis which I believe would be an abomination unto the Lord. As I stand here today as a White man, I did not have the opportunity of negotiating with God as to the colour of my skin. However, I stand here in gratitude. I bear my white skin with gratitude, without self-exultation, evidence of the fact that I come from a background, from a value system, which as best equipped me to deal with life as I know it today.

In today’s world, in which democracy holds good, in which a free market economy exists, and in which education must be aimed at equipping people to maintain themselves in an industrial environment, in an industrialized State, I bear a white skin which proves that I come from a background which best equips me to maintain myself under all these circumstances. However, without my having been instrumental in it, this skin of mine could just as well have been black, and I could have been living in the same world today but struggling to make up a leeway. That is why I say that we must eradicate the last trace of these rightist radicals who base themselves upon racism in this country. Who, as leader of a political party and as leader of a Government, has done more to remove the sting of racism from legislation and the sting of racism from our constitutional programme of negotiation than the hon. the Prime Minister? Is he not the one who has spoken to his own people and told them that they must bear in mind that the Immorality Act is not a cornerstone for White identity?

Then change it.

Furthermore, he told them that they must bear in mind that it is a practical arrangement that it is necessary to implement.

I think the hon. member who is so rowdy, should read what is applicable before he becomes so rowdy in this House.

The hon. the Prime Minister has also said that the Mixed Marriages Act is an essential practical arrangement in a multinational country, but there is no racial sting in it. [Interjections.] He said there is no racial sting in it—the hon. members may do well to read that, because it is on record—because basically it is not a sin for a White and a Coloured person to love one another and even to marry one another. However, how does one deal with something like this in South Africa, in a multinational country? Where does that little child fit in? Does he fit into the White culture or does he fit into the Black culture? If he is born in the Northern Transvaal, must we put him on a train and send him to the Western Cape? Is he obliged to fit in with the Coloureds because his physical appearance may resemble theirs?

In South Africa today we are dealing with a rightist radiscalism and it is the responsibility of every balanced Nationalist to eradicate it. I want to refer to an example of this. I have in my hand a newspaper in which a quotation is made from a statement by the radical rightist movement, the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging. I am ashamed that the word “Afrikaner” appears in the name of that movement. I think it is a disgrace. Reference is made in the statement to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in which he pointed out to our people that on the occasion of that turning point in the history of the Afrikaner and the White man at Blood River, there were Coloured people present in the laager. The fact to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred, is an undeniable historical fact, but after the hon. the Prime Minister had brought it to our attention, this man says that the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that fact to the detriment of the White Afrikaner. I quote—

To fight and to argue in order to withhold historical facts from our people? Is this what the rightist radicals are going in for?

That is why I say that, on the basis of equal separateness which exists between the population groups of South Africa and according to the bona fides which they expressed in their Christian religion, the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP are in a position to lead us to peace in this country and to lead us in such a way that we will once again be able to take our place in the comity of nations, provided that we can obtain the co-operation of everyone who calls himself a responsible South African. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment too much on what the hon. member for Florida has said. Most of his speech deals with the HNP and the far right, and I do not think he would ever suggest for a moment that I am to be found in that camp.

Stop calling us racists.

One comment, however, I should like to make about the hon. member’s speech is that right throughout there was detectable the tension which I believe is in the country and particularly within the NP itself. On the one hand there is the accusation that the HNP is racist, but the next moment the hon. member says that they are going to remove racist legislation from the Statute Book. That is all we have said and I am not to be found to withdraw it.

I want to continue addressing the hon. the Prime Minister along a line which I started in an earlier speech. I do not have any time to deal with the hon. member for Verwoerdburg—that kind of smear does not deserve a reply. To the hon. member for Standerton I want to say that he will do me a personal service if he would refrain from bandying my son’s name across the floor of this House. If he suggests for a moment that I am the cause of what my son has done, I want to tell him …

I was talking to you as one father to another.

I am talking to you now, and I want to tell you …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell that hon. member that I am very proud of my son and I do not have to see if I have gone wrong because I do not believe he has gone wrong. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the words which he quoted—and stressed—I believe are about the most important words he has said in his entire career as Prime Minister, namely that the struggle is no longer between White and Black or Brown people but between Christianity and the forces of darkness. I stated earlier that it is my view that whether or not the hon. the Prime Minister succeeds in convincing his own caucus to move out of the laager, will determine how far he will allow this statement to guide his own decisions and actions. I want to try to spell this out a little more clearly, and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to give me his attention for a moment. The Coloured community are Christians, and the hon. the Prime Minister has said, time and time again, that he has a special feeling for them. Coming from the Cape as he does, and in view of his relationship with the Coloured people, I have no doubt that there is a special relationship between them, and I do not mean to undermine that at all. However, would the hon. the Prime Minister not agree with me that the Coloured person, as an individual, is a Christian, part of a Christian community and therefore part of the struggle against the powers of darkness? Will the hon. the Prime Minister enlist the Coloured community, in fact the total Christian com munity whether they be Black, Coloured, Indian or White, in that struggle against the forces of darkness by stating quite categorically that when decisions are taken, this will not be done on the grounds of race or colour but in terms of one’s own commitments? What I am wrestling with here is the disturbing and demanding question that I have to ask myself—and I believe the hon. the Prime Minister and all of us in this House have to ask ourselves—namely, the question of group loyalty.

In the final analysis, is that based on language, on culture or race as the ultimate criterion? Is it not the belief of a Christian that Pentecost is God’s answer to the tower of Babel? In other words, should not the Christians’ group loyalty be determined by the common bonds of Christian faith which transcend language, culture, race and class? If this is so, can the hon. the Prime Minister and his party really draw the line to prevent Coloured and Black Christians from living where they wish to live and sending their children to schools of their own choice? [Interjections.] I directly refer to this because the hon. the Prime Minister said that he had drawn the line and that his people had the right to retain, for themselves, their schools and their residential areas. If I am quoting him correctly, then I believe that there must be a new realignment in South Africa which is not finally based on a “volk” but rather on the support of those who are willing to work against the forces of darkness. [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to summon all Christians to his side in order to combat these forces of darkness? Should this not be his guiding principle when he decides on political, social and economic rights? I want to quote a writer who said something which, I believe, is so true of South Africa, and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he agrees. The writer said—

We know enough about morbid symptoms. They are there in abundance. What we need is compassionate and courageous leadership, and if the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to say again to those whom he seeks to lead “Accept the way that I am going or I will not lead you”, and if he is prepared to interpret the way forward against the background of his own statement that the struggle is no longer between White,

Black or Brown people but rather between Christianity and the forces of darkness, he will find the official Opposition ready and willing to support him.

Mr. Chairman, for a long time now—indeed, ever since he became a member of this House—the hon. member for Pinelands has constantly been wanting to teach this side of the House a lesson on how Christian principles must be upheld. The hon. member did so again this afternoon. However, the hon. the Prime Minister put a question to the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members on the other side of this House this afternoon. He asked what their attitude was towards Bishop Tutu.

I answered him earlier in the debate.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that we totally rejected Bishop Tutu’s conduct in going overseas to create an anti-South African atmosphere there by saying that investments had to be withdrawn from this country. Bishop Tutu harped on this same string throughout the world. However, when the hon. the Prime Minister said during the election campaign that he was of the opinion that Bishop Tutu’s passport had to be withdrawn, what was the immediate attitude of the hon. member for Pinelands—and we must remember that a vast number of our Black people in South Africa could be affected by something of this nature? I shall presently quote what a man like Mr. Thebehali, the chairman of Soweto, said about this matter. Bishop Tutu travelled throughout the world to create an anti-South African atmosphere by saying that investment should be withdrawn from South Africa. However, what was the attitude of that hon. member when the hon. the Prime Minister said that his passport had to be withdrawn, something which was subsequently done? He definitely did not agree with the hon. the Prime Minister, neither he nor his Leader. I am not saying that he approved of Bishop Tutu’s viewpoint, but what did the hon. member have to say? I quote—

This is a headline in The Cape Times of April this year. I go on to quote—

That man, who is so full of Christianity, sympathy and goodwill towards other people is however, prepared to look on while a Black bishop travels the world causing, through his actions, more inconvenience, harm and poverty among the vast majority of Black people in South Africa. He is prepared to approve of that. However, he is not prepared to say that the hon. the Prime Minister is correct, because such a man is not entitled to be given a passport in order to create an atmosphere throughout the world which would be to the detriment of the vast majority of the Black people in this country. In this House, however, he constantly wants to show us with what sympathy, goodwill and Christianity we must act towards all peoples in this country. [Interjections.]

In that case every Nationalist’s passport must be withdrawn.

For a considerable time now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Press mouthpieces have been strenuously engaged in casting suspicion upon the NP’s relations policy. They say that there is no real reform. They say that it is not taking place. They say that it is merely the old policy of White domination and “baasskap”. Even the idea of a constellation of States, they say, is merely an effort to divide and rule. They say that self-government and independence, to effect equal citizenship for all South Africans, is being forgotten for the sake of convenience. Otherwise, they say, it is proposed that 70% of this country’s inhabitants have to make a living on 13% to 14% of the land. They usually say that they had no part in determining their fate. This is the story we are constantly hearing from that side of the House. It does not suit those hon. members that Black national leaders in South Africa are asking for independence. They want the relations policy to collapse in ruins. Black leaders who adopt a positive attitude in respect of the changes which are taking place in South Africa are being ignored by those hon. members. The criticism of the Buthelezi’s, the Tutu’s and the Motlana’s is accepted, but the positive note sounded by the Mangope’s, the Thebehali’s and the Lucy Mvubelo’s are cast aside. The warning must again be issued that the Opposition is playing an extremely dangerous game, for it has been the democratic decision of the White voters for more than a generation now that what they want done in South Africa is interpreted by the NP Government. Consequently if the Whites impose the views of militant Black spokesmen on White politics, this could create great unrest and friction in South Africa. Those hon. members say they are the opponents of revolution and of hatred, but by means of this very attitude of theirs they could instigate hatred and revolution in South Africa. That is why it is gratifying that according to a report in The Argus dated 16 October 1979, a person like Miss Mvubelo, for example, said the following—

This is what a responsible Black woman says is happening in South Africa. However, the hon. members on that side of the House say that no change is taking place in South Africa.

Oh please, man. After all, we did praise the Minister for what he had done.

Take, for example, a person like Mr. Thebehali, who, on his return to South Africa, said that it was very clear that those who wish to plunge the South African economy into chaos were seeking violent confrontation, but he told the foreigners that he wanted a choice as to whether or not he wanted his blood to be shed. Furthermore he said that he welcomed foreign investment in South Africa and emphasized that change was taking place in South Africa. However, hon. members on that side of the House say that it is simply the old apartheid; there is no new dispensation, change or renewal in this country. These Black leaders with these positive views are today of far greater value to us in this country than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his henchmen, with the attitude they are adopting in South Africa. The Black leaders want peace and progress, and want to create the ideal background for the necessary changes which are aimed at improvement, because they want an improvement in what people can expect in life.

I must say that even the hon. member for Houghton said at one stage that changes were taking place in South Africa. She said: “But there has been significant change, change that goes further than mere cosmetics, and more change is on the way.”

I was wrong: There is no change on the way.

Mr. Chairman, I was born at Koppies in the Free State. My father and his brothers boasted of having their “boerematriek”. I only found out what a “boerematriek” was when, as a pupil in standard one, I asked my father to help me with my arithmetic. When I fell ill, my mother doctored me with “boere” remedies. In Koppies, home remedy number one was castor oil. After the first time, one never fell ill again and one’s mother could carry on baking bread, boiling soap and preserving a little fruit. However, what I particularly remember about that time, are the political discussions of those “boerematriekers”. They bore a certain stamp, and bore it to their graves, a stamp of Afrikaner-hood. They were purebred Afrikaners of the first water. They were proud of their identity, those “boerematriekers”.

I learnt a language from them. If one goes to France and wants to understand the French, one must be able to speak French, and the Chinese, one must be able to speak Chinese, when one goes to China and wants to understand the Chinese. Sir, I shall tell you what language my “boerematriek” father taught me. It was a language that enabled one to understand South Africa’s ethnic diversity. It is the same language that is understood by other purebred people in this country. This language which only the purebred understand, is my heritage, a heritage about which the hon. the Prime Minister recently said the following: “If one cannot appreciate what belongs to one, how can one appreciate what belongs to another?”

The NP speaks a language which the PFP cannot understand. They do not speak our language. They do not understand us; and we do not understand them, for they do not speak the language of the purebred. You know, Sir, a mule is a strange thing. It is neither a donkey nor a horse. The PFP reminds me of a mule. One characteristic of a mule is that it cannot procreate, for it is nothing; it is not purebred.

Horace is a mule. [Interjections.]

The PFP does not understand the language of self-determination. However, there is a language they understand, a language understood by all the mules, and that is a language of surrender and boycott.

This brings me specifically to the issue of self-determination. The principle of self-determination did not originate overnight. That principle was known even in the time of the old Greeks. If one looks at the League of Nations, one notes that the principle of self-determination was a golden rule in the League of Nations. In the objectives of the UN one finds in chapter 1, paragraph 1.2—

The point is that South Africa’s policy of self-determination is fully in accordance with international usage. However, the PFP does not understand that language. This also brings me to the pertinent question for them to answer: What does the PFP expect of the White man in South Africa? We must examine rather more closely this talk of self-determination and domination. Let us try to get to its real essence. Let us analyse it incisively. What does the PFP expect of the White man in South Africa?

To effect a fair dispensation for everyone here.

The PFP expects only one thing from the White man, and that is to capitulate.

Absolute nonsense.

You do not know what you are talking about.

It is not self-determination they expect but capitulation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall also motivate why I am making this statement. I say the PFP expects capitulation. Indeed, the PFP has already capitulated. In private discussions prominent members of the PFP make it clear that the White man in this country is done for in any event, and that it is merely a case of our having to try to make the transition period a little more tolerable.

Horace was done for long ago in any event.

That is the difference between the PFP and ourselves. The basic difference between the NP and the PFP is that the NP believes that there is still a meaningful place in the sun for the White man in this country, whereas the PFP has already capitulated.

A further demonstration of this is the fact that the PFP is pursuing a boycott policy. In the third place, the PFP is creating the appearance of association with the political enemies of South Africa. For example, when we note the interjections which emanated from the benches of the PFP during the censure debate, from the hon. member for Bryanston among others, surely this is all too clear. The hon. member for Bryanston, for example, plainly states that the NP’s policy is synonymous with that of the communists.

I am now referring to the hon. member for Bryanston, but he is not even showing the decency to listen to what I am saying. [Interjections.] The difference between South Africa and the rest of the world, as far as the principle of self-determination is concerned, is to be found in the intermingling of the various peoples in South Africa. There is no textbook which can be prescribed to South Africa. However, there is one ray of light. It is to be found in the famous words of the historian-philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee, who said that great spiritual pioneering work was expected from the White people in South Africa with its complex problems. The White man is playing an essential role as stabilizer in this country, as the bridge across which the processes can be effected. The other difference is that our real enemies are the ANC, supported by communism. Furthermore we know that the ANC will only be satisfied with the total capitulation of the White man. Nothing else will satisfy them.

I can recall that the previous Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Sea Point in this House whether he thought that the communists would draw a distinction between any groups of people in South Africa, whether he thought that because he was a member of the PFP, the communists would make an exception of him. My view is that the White man is entitled to his meaningful presence in the country of his birth. The White man is entitled to security in his country. He is entitled to protection against crowding out as a result of civil disobedience. The White man is entitled to protection against the “siege and surrender” attitude of the PFP in South Africa.

There is no outbidding the NP when it is a matter of looking after the interests of these different population groups in South Africa, and in particular that of the White man. The reason is that the NP speaks the language of the purebred.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.