There is a Rule about unnecessary points of order as well. What did the PFP do? Did they support the End Conscription Campaign? Some individuals did, but as a party the answer is no. In fact, how many current white male members of the DA here in this House who are over 40 served in the apartheid defence force? [Interjections.] I know that the hon Maynier, their shadow Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, did, starting his military service in 1987 when the SA Defence Force was doing horrendous things in the frontline states, in occupied Namibia and within South Africa itself. [Interjections.] How many more? How many conscientious objectors were there? [Interjections.] None!
What about democracy? Did the PFP support the one-person, one-vote system? No! Mrs Suzman's party, the Progressive Party, wanted a qualified franchise. You could vote if you had a certain particular minimum education level or income or owned a certain amount of property. In other words, you could only vote if you were rich or educated. [Interjections.] This actually was not dissimilar to the qualified franchise for African voters on the voters' roll of the Cape Colony in the late 19th century - so not exactly progressive of the Progressive Party.
I have a document entitled The Constitutional Policy of the PFP dated November 1978. It says that the PFP rejects majority-rule government. They wanted consensus. They say:
The PFP therefore believes that in both the legislature and the executive ...
Because they wanted everybody in.
... a minority veto should apply in all matters. The size of the minority veto in the legislature should be negotiable, but it should be in the order of 10% to 15%.
Then they wanted cultural councils, stating:
A cultural group may establish a cultural council to assist in maintaining and promoting its cultural interests.
Each recognised cultural council was to be represented in the Senate, and no legislation affecting cultural interests of a particular cultural group may be passed by the Senate unless it had first been referred to and approved by the cultural council concerned. So, basically, it was minority vetoes, minority rights. [Interjections.] That is the untold story of the DA, which you should maybe be telling people. [Applause.]
The DA may now be belatedly supporting the Freedom Charter, but they only did so when it was convenient. They could not before 1994, because of the clause in the preamble of the Freedom Charter:
... that only a democratic state, based on the will of all the people, can secure to all their birth-right without distinction of colour, race, sex or belief.
That was not something the PFP supported. So, the PFP may have voted against apartheid legislation, but did they want a nonracial South Africa? The answer, based on historical facts, is a resounding No. [Interjections.]
Let us recognise the DA for what it is, a wolf in sheep's clothing ... [Interjections.] ... a right-wing party of privilege trying desperately to pretend to do something for the poor and the working class, but in reality wanting to maintain things as much as possible for their core membership, the advantaged elite. [Interjections.]
I would like to respond to some other issues that were raised. The issue of the motion of no confidence has come up. Now, just to put that in context, the DA wanted a motion of no confidence. The ANC argued that it was late in the year, that there wasn't time in the programme. [Interjections.] The DA wanted that motion discussed before the end of the year, even if it meant us coming back. They went to court. The court refused to support them on that. Now, what the ANC said was that the motion of no confidence should be debated on the first available date in the new term, this term. The first available date was, I think, 28 February. We provisionally put it in the programme. When it came to the discussion in the programming committee, the DA said that they didn't want to discuss it anymore. [Interjections.] Hon Mazibuko says that they were already in court, but you were given the option of having it.