Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a fact of life that one often reaps where one has not sown. Where I am able today to submit an interesting budget with essentially positive aspects, I am deeply conscious of this great truth. I should therefore like to commence by paying tribute to my predecessor and the staff of the Post Office generally, by whose combined efforts much has been done and achieved to improve the Post Office’s efficiency and to effect greater contentment.

For the manner in which the honourable M. Viljoen handled the portfolio over the past five years and his particular contribution to the operations of the Department, I should like to record the sincere appreciation of this House and myself and I wish him success and happiness in his new office. Later on I shall have more to say about the achievements of the staff and their task for the future.

With regard to the management of the Post Office hon. members may rightly expect of me to lay my views and policy before the House, and this I willingly do. It goes without saying that such a policy must take into consideration the circumstances under which the Post Office has to perform its task and the objectives that are pursued. We are all to a greater or lesser extent familiar with the demands of the times in which we live and the formidable challenges confronting the Republic of South Africa, and I need not elaborate on that. It must, however, be stressed that a strong and vigorous economy is a prerequisite for both social stability and military preparedness and that the Post Office is called upon to play a particular role in this regard by helping to establish a comprehensive infrastructure and performing essential public services.

Against this background, I therefore set for the Post Office three fundamental aims of my basic management philosophy:

1. (a) the provision on merit of essential services in the most economical manner for the promotion of efficiency and the development of a healthy economy, with due regard to the financial and man-power resources available to us;
2. (b) the maintenance of the lowest possible tariff structure to combat inflation in the interests of the national economy;
3. (c) the maintenance of favourable working conditions, conditions of service and training possibilities, or the provision of any of these that do not exist, in order to guarantee the happiness, security and contentment of the staff and thereby to encourage their co-operation and the highest possible productivity.

I am thankful that the foundations for this have already been laid and that I can therefore face the future with confidence.

Before indicating what is planned for the immediate future, I should like to report to the House on the progress made during the current financial year.

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. the Minister on the delivery of his first budget speech. He has been welcomed as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications by the hon. member for Wynberg in a previous debate, and I would like to associate myself with that welcome. I know that he brings wide experience to the department in certain fields. The hon. the Minister has been, for example, in charge of national monuments. It was pleasant to hear from his speech that 28 such national monuments, antiquated telephone exchanges, will have disappeared by the end of the current year. It is a good start to his ministry. I wish the hon. the Minister a pleasant ministry. I must say that if one studies the Free State stars, one can not forecast how long this ministry will last or whether there will perhaps be new fields to explore. However, whilst the hon. the Minister is in this particular position, we wish him the best of luck in his new portfolio. We also want to wish the management and staff the best of luck.

I would like to congratulate and compliment the Postmaster-General on his annual report both for its timing, which was welcome—we have had adequate time to study it—and for the contents, which were comprehensive. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with that since the first 49 pages of his budget speech were extensively a reflection of the report. I would also like to congratulate the Department of Posts and Telecommunications on their contribution to television and the transmission services they have provided. This was a mighty effort and I hear Oom Albert turning in his grave, or rather in his misery, as he contemplates the little evil black box which “his” department has so ably assisted in providing. It was a first class effort and I am sure that the Hertzog Tower will bring credit to the department in the years that lie ahead.

I would now like to return to the budget itself. I have heard all the “hear, hears.” It is a restrained budget. I think the country will from an economic point of view, welcome the restraint, the limitation of spending and, in fact, the reduction in expansion in the capital programme. Whether the telephone users are going to welcome it is another matter. It will mean that they will have to wait even longer for the service for which they have waited so long. However, this is the price South Africa has to pay for the economic mismanagement of the Government. We welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has been more responsible than his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport. He has been more responsible in the economic field, but at the cost of the user who will wait with frustration for the advances he had hoped for.

Listening to the hon. the Minister’s speech, it was a pleasure to hear of all the achievements. He mentioned a record number of new telephones, a record number of new exchanges, a record number of new lines, modernization, mechanization, productivity and training, etc. It really was a stirring account and we, South Africa, welcome it. But I am a simple soul; what I cannot understand is why I am so reluctant when I have to make a telephone call. After all, we have more telephones than we have ever had, the best equipment, the best training. Why should I have some trepidation when I want to make a telephone call? I have to set aside an unknown length of time to make a quick call, and I cannot understand why. If I want to phone Durban, I dial 031. I get engaged on 0; I get engaged on 3 and then I eventually get through the 1. Then, however, I get engaged on the next number and the next. Eventually I get through to the fourth or fifth number, without hearing the “peep, peep” sound in my ear When my finger gets sore I pick up a pencil and go on trying until eventually I get through to Durban and hear the “brrr-brrr”. I then say: “I made it! Eureka, I have made it!” But then a voice answers: “Putsonderwater hier; kan ons u help?” So you try again and get Pofadder or somewhere else. [Interjections.] I find it difficult to explain this anomaly when everything is so wonderful. I cannot be the only person who cannot make a phone call. I cannot be the only person who gets a wrong number once out of three. I cannot be the only person in South Africa whose telephone calls reflected on the account at the end of the month are way about what one believes one can possibly have made. I cannot be the only person who has suffered under the burden of this service. I cannot be the only person who finds that letters take two or three days to travel a few miles, for example, from Durban North to Durban or vice versa. We cannot all be fools. I know a lot of people who have the same problem. In order to enable us to try to find the answer to this problem of the perfect service and the stupid users who cannot make it work and in order to read the fine print of the budget, I wish to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Florida, spoke about the protection of the investors. I want to speak about the protection of the workers in these companies which are now to become domesticated. Clause 23 of this Bill which relates to the investments of the assets of pension funds, has our full support. The pension funds referred to here are, apparently domestic or the funds of locally based institutions. There are, however, also locally operated companies which are virtually branches of overseas or foreign companies. The ones I have in mind are mainly financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies and investment houses. Although they employ South African citizens amongst their staff, they register them as participants in overseas pension funds. I want to respectfully suggest to the hon. the Minister that an investigation is needed into these companies and into their pension funds. This should be done so that the employees of these companies do not lose their benefits whether they are contributory or non-contributory participants in the pension funds. These funds to the credit of local employees should be paid to and administered by a local agent.

The reason for this is that if an employee leaves the company, he then loses his investments if they are overseas. If these investments are transferred to South Africa, to an agent in the Republic, he can be credited by the payment of these amounts into a new fund, if he should go to a company with a pension fund, or they can be paid into the State. This holds good especially for the non-contributory pension funds. Many of these schemes have pension funds, but the employees do not make monthly payments into the pension funds. It is regarded as a part of their salaries and they are credited with the benefit in the particular pension fund overseas. The payment of these benefits by the overseas companies, particularly in the United Kingdom, is on a laid-down basis. Some of them say that if an employee has more than five years’ service, and is more than 26 years of age, then the benefits which accrue to him should be paid to the State so that if he changes jobs, these moneys are available and even if the firm goes insolvent, he is still covered. When he retires, he then is not a burden on the State.

I should like to point out that with the present system it is open to abuse, because some of these overseas firms, when they wish to get rid of an employee here and get rid of their responsibility in respect of his pension fund, make life so difficult for him that he resigns and, in doing so, loses all rights in that particular pension fund. If this should happen at a late stage of his life, he becomes a burden on the State because he has no pension fund. Therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look more closely into this matter. I see that the insurance companies which have to become domesticated have two years in which to register and to lay out a plan of what they wish to do in South Africa. I was wondering whether the registrar of these insurance companies would see to it that some arrangement is made whereby pensions which are due to South African employees, are also transferred to an agent in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast discussed pension matters and he will excuse me for not following up on his argument. Last night, before the House adjourned, although he supported in general the present legislation relating to foreign control of banks, the hon. member for Johannesburg North expressed serious misgivings and objections concerning the possible intention of the Government to curtail further the 50% holding of foreign securities allowed. The hon. member said this with reference to a statement made in 1966 by the then Minister of Finance, the late Dr. T. E. Dönges. I am not going to elaborate on this further but I just want to point out briefly to the hon. member what the position is in other countries in this connection. He probably knows this, but I mention it here this afternoon. In Canada, the maximum joint foreign shareholding in any one Canadian bank is 25% as against our 50%, and this is regulated by legislation there as well. However, through various other measures the government of Canada has succeeded in recent years in reducing the number of issued commercial bank shares in the possession of foreigners to 15,8% as at 1 October 1969. Australia’s official policy is not to allow any more foreign banks in that country. Initially Switzerland followed an open door policy in this connection, but now they, too, allow no further branches of foreign-controlled banks in that country. That is what it is like elsewhere, but when we want to do something about this matter in South Africa, then the hon. member complains about it.

The hon. member for Constantia also said something to which I just want to refer briefly. He said that we were on delicate ground in wanting to regulate this matter by way of legislation. However, I have just indicated that in other countries, too, this matter is regulated by way of legislation. He said that it should rather have taken place by way of negotiations over a long period. Now it is true that the recommendations as regards this matter were made by the Franzsen Commission as far back as six years ago. If we consider what has happened since then, we see that the position has changed very little. On 30 June 1970 the commercial bank deposits under foreign control in South Africa amounted to 73,2% and yesterday we heard from the hon. the Minister that it has now dropped to 69%, a minor improvement. The banking system as a whole was 55,8% foreign-controlled in 1970, and this has now dropped to 54%. We see therefore that this has been a very small drop. I do not believe there would be any point in us waiting for something to happen. We ourselves must do something about the matter, and this is what the Government is now doing by means of this legislation.

As regards the whole issue of foreign control of banking institutions, one concedes that it is a sensitive matter and should therefore be handled with a great deal of circumspection, but I believe that one should view the matter in the right perspective. Seen in this way one can mention with gratitude the role which foreign banks have played in the development of South Africa over the years. They have contributed to a large extent and played an important role in the introduction, not only of capital to our country, but also of technical and organizatory skills in the sphere of business. We owe these banks a debt of thanks in this regard. But then, in all fairness, one should also say that South Africa has treated well those who had confidence to come and operate here with their money. In fact, I think we have treated them very well, particularly if one considers the operating results of such institutions here in South Africa. That is why today South Africa is still one of the most popular countries for people who want to turn their money to best advantage, if they want to invest it elsewhere. It is also true, and we cannot deny it, that the profits so made by foreign-controlled companies leave the country as dividends.

I therefore believe that we have now reached a stage on South Africa’s road of development at which there ought to be a greater degree of local involvement and of committal to South Africa as regards our banking industry. Now one can probably ask why we want to see this in regard to the banking industry alone. Sir, it is so that a banking institution plays a vital role in the mobilization of the population of a country’s money. But not only does a banking institution mobilize the public’s funds; they are also able—and our banking institutions do this—to channel those funds in specific directions, inter alia to achieve specific aims or to finance certain projects. Without the necessary financing one can have the best and the finest plans and projects in the world but they will simply never get off the ground. After all, sufficient funds are the lifeblood of any successful business enterprise. One can see therefore how important it is that the overall objectives of one’s banking institutions should be reconcilable with the long-term economic aims and objectives of the population of the country in which they operate. It is when the interests of one’s banking institutions coincide with the interests of the country and its people that those banking institutions are best able to serve that country and its people. But then it is necessary for them really to form part of that country and its people. If that is not the case, it is obvious that this could have a restrictive effect on the course of development of both the country and the bank concerned. That is why it is in the best interests of South Africa and its people that the local interests should obtain a greater degree of partnership in our banking industry. That is why this legislation deserves the support of all of us in this House.

That the Government does in fact fully realize the vital role of banking in the development of this country is clear from the way in which, inter alia, section 2 of the Banks Act, No. 23 of 1965, is being amended by clause 38. The existing section 2 of the Banks Act provides specifically that certain banking institutions may be exempted from the provisions of the Bank Act, inter alia the Post Office Savings Bank, the Land Bank, the IDC, etc. The amendment which is now being envisaged also gives the hon. the Minister the right to exempt certain development banks for specific areas from the provisions of the Banks Act. This is a vital concession, since efforts have already been made by the private sector in South Africa to establish such a development bank for certain territories in South Africa with the capital of private financial institutions. It is essential for the rapid development of these territories that banking institutions which are well provided with capital enter this sphere. One trusts that the concession which is now being envisaged will stimulate our financial institutions to become involved to a greater extent in the development of certain areas. Just as the banks have made their contribution over the years to assist in South Africa’s development, it is the task of our South African banks today to assist actively in the economic development of areas around us with the support of capital-rich private entrepreneurs, territories in which separate peoples will be living in the years that lie ahead.

Sir, I am convinced that the proposed amendment of the Banks Act represents a real effort to utilize the vast influence of the banking industry in the best interests of South Africa and its people.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Verwoerdburg will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech. There is a particular matter I should like to discuss and I should like to get on with it immediately. I should like to deal with the new principle contained in clause 10 of this Bill, viz. the enabling power which allows the Minister by way of regulation to prohibit or limit the consideration paid by insurers to intermediaries. I should like the House to appreciate that while I have no direct pecuniary interest in the Bill, I am an insurance broker by profession and a shareholder in an insurance broking company.

As such the operation of clause 10 could possibly result in financial loss to myself if this power were exercised by the Minister. I also want to state that I hold no brief to talk on behalf of any company, any association or any group of people. I am talking on the basis of my own knowledge and my own experience.

Sir, the background to this clause, the principle being introduced in clause 10, is that for some time there has been a strong lobby by certain major insurance companies and the basis of that lobby can be put to the House in the most objective way by quoting from a letter which I have here, and which I think other members of Parliament have also received, in which the case for this measure is expressed. I should like to read it because it is important—

The other important point is that members of the public regard the broker as an impartial person to advise them, inter alia, on the choice of insurance company. The ability to give such impartial advice is the main justification for the existence of the broker compared with the agent representing one company only. However, the stage has been reached with different insurance companies paying significantly different commission rates to brokers, and there is no doubt that this influences the advice given by brokers to clients. This is a situation of misrepresentation to the public, who think that the broker is always impartial, and it seems to me that the only practical way to avoid this misrepresentation and to safeguard the public, is through legislation—legislation which either

1. (1) prohibits the insurance company from paying any commission to the broker, thus leaving the broker to charge his client a fee like any other professional adviser, or
2. (2) enables the registrar to lay down maximum levels of commission so that brokers get the same reward for their work from all insurance companies, as far as possible.

I support the proposed legislation on limiting commission, in the interests of the public. I fully agree with free enterprise as long as it does not involve significant abuse and misrepresentation; sadly this latter situation now exists.

I believe that the brokers are mounting a strong campaign to resist powers to control commission rates being given to the registrar. They are resisting that very much in their own interests, and not in the interests of the public. They are presently getting commission rates on short-term business that are significantly higher than those in the U.K. and on the Continent.

That, Sir, is in fact the lobby which the insurance companies put forward. There is no doubt that this lobby has been very successful with the Government and hence we now have this clause in the Bill that we are considering today. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister made four, allegations. Firstly he said that an unhealthy state of affairs existed in the industry with regard to unjustifiably high rates of commission being paid and that these commission rates were still escalating. He said secondly, that the industry had not been able to put their own house in order in this regard. He said thirdly, that he hoped that the mere fact that legislation was being brought into existence would prod the industry into action in this respect. He said fourthly, that commissions should not become a factor in competition amongst insurers.

I think that is a fair summing up, if I can call it the case of the prosecution, and I would now like to make what I would like to consider the case for the defence.

Two of them were hardly allegations.

Well, they were the points which the Minister made when putting his reasons forward. The era of the insurance broker is a very short one and can be traced back over the last 25 years. In this period the broking industry has grown from very small beginnings to the situation today where brokers are a considerable factor in the insurance industry. They handle the vast majority of the major industrial and commercial insurance in South Africa. This has come about because the task performed by the broker is unique. He is not the agent of the insurance company, but the agent for the client. He is in fact the insurance watch-dog of the public. He does not sell insurance; he buys it on behalf of his clients, and the service he offers to his clients is so necessary and beneficial to his clients that it is rare today to find a major concern which does not use the services of a broker. The rapid growth of the broking industry has had a dramatic effect on the insurance industry as a whole. Before brokers became a force clients had no one who could advise them professionally on their insurance. The public had no professional watch-dog and the result was that insurance companies made exorbitant profits through selling insurance which was inadequate to meet the needs of the time at premium costs which were very excessive. They made so much profit in those days, and we are only talking about 25 years ago, that commission levels paid to their chief agents and other agents often exceeded 35%. Even today some of these chief agency agreements still remain with commissions going up to anywhere near 50%.

The advent of the broker heralded an end to that age. Insurance underwriting was no longer money for jam and the insurance companies had to cut rates to realistic levels and they had to increase cover to meet the needs of the public. They had to perform more satisfactorily on matters such as claim settlements and suddenly it dawned on some of the insurance companies that an insurer had to be efficient to make money in the new environment because the watch-dog of the public on insurance was doing his job. Some companies responded well to the challenge and blossomed in the new circumstances while others found that their leadership position had been eroded because of their inability to compete. These companies became known as anti-broker companies and still to this day they resent the power of the broker. They have done all within their power to curb his influence and many, until quite recently, would not even deal with brokers although I believe that they are all doing it now, if somewhat reluctantly. It is those companies who blame the broker for their own inefficiency who are behind this lobbying. Their motive is to try again to break the power of the broking movement in South Africa. They want to try to muzzle the public watch-dog on insurance and they want to do this for their own benefit because if they do this they hope to get into a position where they can revert to the good old days where their policies were rather archaic and their premiums very lucrative and business was very fine. Obviously there is no better way to do this than to cut the commission, the remuneration of the broking force.

The broker provides a unique service which no insurance company or agent can provide. He advises the client on all the sudden and unforeseen happenings that can prejudice his business operations and he plans a total strategy to protect his client from the adverse consequences of these happenings. He does this firstly, through what is known as “risk management” in which he advises on the controls and improvements that should be introduced to reduce the likelihood of these occurrences happening and to reduce the adverse consequences of these happenings when they do occur. By providing this service he saves South Africa countless millions of rand per year in loss wastage. Secondly, he plans a whole programme of insurance protection which is highly technical and is geared to the unique demands of each individual client. It is a tailormade programme for each client; it is not off the peg. Thirdly, he negotiates the placing of this comprehensive plan on the market at the most competitive rates in the most acceptable market.

Fourthly, he then services the client, settling losses, handling adjustments and dealing with the day-to-day administration of the insurance. In addition to these services, the broker carries a financial risk as well. If a client fails to pay his premium the broker is often liable. If the client has not divulged all the relevant information to the company and the company does not pay out the claim, the broker often has to pick up the tag. If an insurance company goes bankrupt and premiums or claims moneys are lost, the broker may feel obliged to see that his client is not prejudiced. In order to provide these services the broker has to employ experts on a wide variety of subjects. He not only has to have experts in every conceivable field of insurance but he must also appoint qualified surveyors, risk managers, security experts, legal experts, financial experts, engineers, negotiators, just to mention a few. His whole business is people and people, as we all know, mean overheads. He has very little variable costs; they are mostly fixed costs. Surely the question which we should be asking ourselves is: What represents a reasonable profit margin for an industry which provides this service, which carries these financial risks and which has to employ such a vast staff of experts? The large brokers, taken on an average, earn about 5% on premium incomes that they handle as profit before tax, or 3% taxed profit on turnover. Brokers do not make big margins on small turnovers. They make small margins on big turnovers. The average large broking firm will probably earn commissions averaging about 16% on premium income, of which approximately 11% is taken up in costs while 5% is taken as profit. To achieve these figures he has to be very successful and run a highly efficient organization.

Let me deal with the actual allegations. The first allegation is that the commissions have escalated out of all justifiable proportion. The allegation is not that some of the commissions in some of the areas have increased to levels which are unacceptable. Obviously, these situations occur. The allegation is that they have escalated to such an extent that it has now become necessary to introduce legislation of the nature with which we are dealing now.

Surely, if this were so, it would be obvious from looking at the figures published in the registrar’s report. For this reason I have analysed the published report for 1973, which is the latest table we have available. I would like to refer the House to the results of the analysis. I have analysed the tables referring to domestic business written by domestic insurers in the short-term market. The columns concerned are the premiums received or outstanding, and the commission paid. The figures for fire insurance are as follows: R50 407 million in premiums; R5 528 million in commission (11%). For marine insurance, there was R13 349 million in premiums and R2 224 million in commission (16,5%). In the case of motor insurance the figures are R118 792 million in premiums and R16 381 million in commission. That is less than 15%. What is interesting here, is that three companies out of 36 that actually wrote motor business, accounted for half that R16 million in brokerage, namely R8 million, and those were three companies that were not generally used by the large insurance brokers.

Personal accident insurance came to R11 459 million in premiums and R2 081 million in commission (18%). Guarantee business, if one excludes the Credit Guarantee Insurance Company—which is a special situation—was R2 411 million in premiums and R349 000 in commission (14%). Miscellaneous insurance amounted to R63 715 million in premiums and R7 337 million in commission (11,5%). Business placed at Lloyds amounted to R14 644 million in premiums and R2 458 million in commission (17%). Business placed with Fringe companies, under section 60, paragraph 2, came to R2 449 million in premiums and R176 000 in commission (7,5%). The grand total was R277 226 000 in premiums and R36 534 000 in commission (14%).

These figures do not suggest that the commission rate has escalated to unjustifiable levels. In fact, if the insurers are paying net 14% in commission accounts, after taking into account receipts from their re-insurers, it is, in my opinion, a gross misrepresentation to suggest, as this lobby does suggest, that they are being forced by unscrupulous brokers, who abuse their position of trust, to pay an average of 25% to 30% on commission account. It is just not so.

We shall have to wait for the 1974 figures to see if there has been a sizeable escalation of net commission costs. I trust the report will be tabled soon, so we can see what story these figures will tell. I believe that they will tell us quite an interesting story, but for another purpose altogether, which if I have time, I shall touch on.

The next allegation is that the industry has not put its house in order. A free market exists in our insurance industry. It is one of the most competitive broking markets in the world. I doubt whether there is a more competitive market existing anywhere else in the world outside London, than the one existing in South Africa. Nearly every large insurance broking firm which operates internationally is either directly or indirectly involved in the South African market, and a host of South African companies operate here as well. Nearly every large industrial or commercial insurance account is virtually continually under attack by one or more brokers. This is the mechanism which the industry has used to control commissions. With all due respect, I believe this has proved highly successful over all the years.

Any broker who tries to load his client with excess commission will find himself without a client within a very short space of time. It is just not practical in the kind of competitive market in which brokers operate to try to do this sort of thing. However, despite that, there have been moves to limit the commission which brokers may earn. The hon. the Minister is probably aware that the Corporation of Insurance Brokers, which is the umbrella body for the larger insurance brokers in South Africa, has imposed commission limits which all its members are very happy to abide by.

The third point made by the hon. the Minister is that he hopes that the legislation will make the industry put its house in order. The question is: How does the hon. the Minister feel the house should be put in order? Does he feel that an average of 16% commission is too high? Does he believe that a 5% profit margin before tax, or a 3% margin after tax, is too high? Does he want brokers to cut their services or to cut their profits? I submit that there is nothing that can be cut without causing severe prejudice and injury to the market.

His fourth point is that commission should not be a factor in competition. I want to assure him that it is not, and that it never has been a factor where brokers are concerned. The first reason is that commissions are not handled by the people who are actually responsible for placing the business, the placing brokers. It is usually handled by the financial directors. Commission is not negotiated on a policy basis, but is negotiated on an overall account that the broker has with the insurer. In most broking companies the executive, who is actually broking the risk, would probably not be able to tell you what commissions the various companies pay for various risks. It is simply not his task and not his responsibility. I accept that it can happen that a financial director might try to influence his placing brokers to use or to avoid this or that company because of commission rates, but in my experience he is never successful because the placing broker knows that his job and his future depend not upon commission earned, but on the satisfaction of the client and on the retention of his account, for which he is responsible.

I can assure the hon. the Minister that, if he were to investigate this aspect, he would find that it is impossible for a broker to prosper in this competitive market and at the same time play the companies who pay the best rates of commission. It is just not possible. A survey of the books of any of the large insurance brokers would prove beyond any doubt that the emphasis in placing business is firstly on financial stability, secondly on competitive cover conditions, and thirdly on economic rates of premium. In no way whatsoever does it relate to commission levels.

I want to refer to what the hon. the Minister said about companies recklessly cutting rates. He mentioned it in his Second Reading speech, and the registrar also mentioned it in this report of 1973. I would like to quote from that. He said:

Sir, this was no thoughtless or illogical happening that took place. It was a calculated attempt by the big anti-broker companies to force their smaller, but rapidly expanding, broker-conscious competitors out of the market. To a small extent they did succeed, but the exercise was so costly for them that they had to give it up, and on the overall objective they failed. If I had the time, I would elaborate in more detail on this operation, because it was quite clearly very detrimental to the market, and the whole aspect was, I believe, part of a very unseemly happening. The endeavour to break the power of the brokers failed then, and now they are trying this new gambit on commissions. In the Committee Stage I shall deal with the practical problems of this clause, because there are many. I shall then suggest amendments to the hon. the Minister, amendments which will, I hope, make the workings of this clause more acceptable and more practical.

In conclusion, I think we should accept that the insurance broking industry has played a major part in seeing that South African industry and commerce are fully protected against sudden and unforeseen mishaps, in reducing loss wastage in South Africa and in encouraging efficient and conservative underwriting practices with insurers. The insurance broking industry has also forced insurers to run efficient and cost-conscious administrations, and has provided most aspects of insurance which has made South Africa one of the most sophisticated domestic insurance markets outside London. I think that, in view of the task that the insurance broking industry has undertaken, namely to be the watchdog of the public, and in view of the fact that it has accomplished it so successfully, as the results show, it is most unfair that they should at this stage have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

Order! I want to direct the hon. member’s attention to Standing Order No. 123. I hope that in future he will observe that rule.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Second Reading debate I got the distinct impression that hon. members agreed with me in saying that this is a particularly important measure with which we are dealing here. It is also a very comprehensive measure, and, of course, it is of a highly technical nature.

I listened with interest to the various points of view that were stated here. If I counted correctly, eleven hon. members took part in this discussion. I want to begin with hon. members on this side of the House. I appreciate the support they gave to this measure. The hon. member for Ermelo made the matter very clear by giving a striking exposition of the main objects of this Bill. He said that it entailed the organizing of our whole financial structure. I agree with him; this is so. Later the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said that he felt it to be essential, expecially as far as banking was concerned, that there should be a much greater degree of commitment or involvement on the part of our own people, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The hon. member for Paarl said quite rightly that there was a consensus of satisfaction in connection with this Bill. This has been my experience as well in discussions with various persons in recent months. The hon. member for Wonderboom pointed out that these control measures were intended to regulate the financial activities of our economy. That, too, is quite correct. By the way, I think he gave an adequate reply to the misgivings expressed by the hon. member for Constantia about the degree of protection of the local policy holder in cases where the proposed measure of local control is established over insurance. I think the hon. member for Florida showed quite clearly how certain operators are able to conduct parasitic activities on the grey market. This legislation is very definitely aimed at combating that kind of activity, of course. I now want to deal in a little more detail with the points raised by hon. members of the Opposition.

†The hon. member for Constantia asked me whether it was the intention to dispense with nominee shareholders. The answer is “no”. If he looks at the proposed new section 28(2) he will see that provision is indeed made for the registration of shares in the names of nominees where such registration is necessary. It is however necessary for the shares of a bank to be registered in the names of the beneficial shareholders, because compliance with the various proposed new requirements, for example the new maximum limits now prescribed for certain shareholders and their associates, and investments by the bank in members of its affiliated group, and so on, can only be ensured if the beneficial shareholders are indeed known. That is the object of the relevant section. He also referred to associates of shareholders. The limiting of shareholdings in banks, without joining the holdings of associates, would in my opinion be a quite fruitless endeavour. We do want to make the administration here as simple as possible for the banks. They can indeed assume that all small shareholders—i.e. those holding shares of a nominal value of less than R25 000 or representing not more than 1% of the nominal value of all the issued shares of the bank, whichever is the smaller—are not associates of other shareholders. It is only in respect of the comparatively small number of large shareholders that it is necessary for banks to obtain information in terms of the proposed new section 20A in order to determine whether the shareholder is an associate of any other shareholder of the bank.

The hon. member for Constantia also referred to undesirable practices and has, in this connection, put forward an amendment on the Order Paper. In terms of section 3 of the Banks Act, the registrar must perform the functions assigned to him, under the control of and subject to appeal to the Minister. I have the relevant section here and it makes this perfectly clear. I also have a copy of the regulations issued under the Act in Government Gazette No. 3683 dated 20 October 1972. Those regulations set out the procedure for appeals to the Minister. The bank is therefore afforded an opportunity of laying before the Minister a fully argued case with the aid of law advisers or anyone else if it so desires, if it feels it has been jeopardized by any decision of the registrar. That means, obviously, that the registrar must act with due responsibility when declaring a practice or method of conducting business as either irregular or undesirable. I would like to point out further that as the Act now stands, it is the function of the registrar to decide whether a practice or method of conducting business is irregular or undesirable. The proposed section 1(7) merely clarifies the position by indicating when such practices or methods shall constitute an offence. I dare say the hon. member may wish to argue his case more closely in the Committee Stage, in which case we can come back to that.

I now want to refer to the reduction of foreign shareholdings to 50%. Obviously this will be handled in a most responsible manner and with due patience, as the hon. member suggested. I think the hon. member also made the point that the fixing of commission ought to provide for different kinds of intermediaries, if I understood him correctly. We feel this is a matter for arrangement between insurers and brokers within the limits of the maximum commission laid down. However, it will not be impossible to differentiate between different categories of intermediaries, as far as commissions are concerned, should that be found necessary. That is not ruled out. I think these are some of the more important points the hon. member for Constantia raised. Obviously I cannot go into every single point raised.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised quite a number of points and I shall try to deal briefly with some of them. He spoke about investments by financial institutions outside the Republic. Provision is made for the approval of other territories in order that financial institutions may invest, for the purposes of prescribed investment, in stocks of the Governments and public bodies in such territories. That has become necessary to give effect to certain provisions of the monetary agreements concluded recently between South Africa and the other territories in the rand monetary area. It is a matter which, I think, in practice will obviously be of very limited effect.

The other point he raised, was the question of a guarantee of participation bonds by insurance companies and the transferability of participation. Guarantees by insurance companies, other than short-term business, are clearly prohibited by the Insurance Act, unless specifically approved by the registrar.

Approval of guarantees can only be granted in exceptional circumstances; for example, where they are necessary in connection with an insurer’s insurance business. Insurers cannot therefore guarantee participation bonds freely. However, other collateral security for participation bonds is possible and is welcomed in principle. For sound reasons, monetary and other, I believe a clear distinction is necessary between banking business and participation bond business. To achieve this and also because, traditionally, investments in mortgage bonds are fairly long term, a term of five years has been fixed during which period an investor may not transfer a participation. After that, of course, he is free to transfer it to another holder.

The hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question of the desirablility of allowing large shareholders in banks. I think that the hon. member for Johannesburg North also mentioned that point. Obviously, this is a matter which can be debated at some length. The proposed maximum shareholdings have only been arrived at after very careful consideration over quite a long period of time. We had to be mindful all the time of the undesirability of captive banks. I trust it is common cause in this House that we should not allow a large commercial or industrial company to have its own captive bank. Considering also that banking business is a matter in which the public have an interest and that it is in a very real sense a strategic business, I ask the question whether it would be right to allow an individual, for instance, to own a bank. In view of all the circumstances we have decided on a limit of 10% for individual shareholders—some figure had to be decided on—30% for an approved financial company, and 100% for another controlling bank and for an approved bank controlling company, which is of course subject to the same rules which would apply to a bank. If one looks at the actual shareholdings in the large banks in this country as well as overseas, the proposed arrangement, in my view, is not at all unreasonable. Obviously, we do not wish to disturb or disrupt the prevailing position unduly; this matter will be dealt with great care.

The hon. member also raised the question of reciprocity with other countries. In terms of the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, we sill have the flexibility to allow new foreign banks to participate in local banks on what I believe to be a very reasonable basis. When such participants are permitted, we shall naturally look at the reverse position, viz. whether it will be possible for our institutions to enter the banking field in the country concerned on at least as favourable terms.

As regards credit cards, those which are issued by banks will obviously be dealt with under the Banks Act, but credit cards issued by other parties will have to be dealt with elsewhere. There is the necessary machinery in another department to deal with these. Concerning the issuing of debentures by non-banking finance houses, I think that if the legislation were to permit the issuing of debentures by such institutions, for the purpose of conducting what is considered to be banking business, it can be foreseen that such debenture issues will become indistinguishable from the taking of deposits, particularly as regards its effect in the financial markets and the influence it may have on the exercising of monetary policy. It is accordingly considered that banking business should not be conducted with the proceeds of debenture issues.

The final point I picked up from the hon. member for Yeoville concerns the recent institution of the credit ceiling. The hon. member queried that and asked why we do not use the mechanism of the liquid asset requirement to exercise control over the issuing of credit by the commercial banks. Well, Sir, in this regard we have an extraordinary position. Last year, in the first half of August I think it was, we raised the liquid asset requirements of banks quite substantially, we thought. However, it had virtually no effect on the issuing of credit. At the time when we devalued we again raised the liquid asset requirements, and again we thought we had raised them quite substantially, but again, if one looks at the issuing of credit in the last quarter of last year, one finds it differed very little from the credit that was issued in the third quarter; so much so, that if one looks at the January figures, one finds that in the month of January the rate went up by 6%. The position became so bad that it was obviously necessary to act quickly. It is true that the Reserve Bank did not have all the returns from the various banks before it, but it was necessary to act. Both I myself and the Treasury were consulted and we agreed that in the circumstances it was necessary to act. The Reserve Bank then brought in this measure, a purely temporary measure, which set a ceiling to the credit issued. When all the returns were to hand and representations from a number of banks were received, the Reserve Bank did give some respite up to the end of March, but after that the provisions as originally announced will have to obtain.

The hon. member for Ermelo pointed out that The Financial Mail, had accused the Governor of the Reserve Bank of blundering because he made that adjustment. I think that that was a very irresponsible criticism on the part of The Financial Mail. I cannot refrain from saying that, if only The Financial Mail would stick to being a financial paper and would carry out its functions in that respect, I think it would be a very much more authoritative paper than it is for constantly indulging in cheap party politics, as it has clearly done in this case. For The Financial Mail to accuse the Governor of the S.A. Reserve Bank, who is held in the greatest esteem throughout the world—I have seen that at first hand—of blundering is in my view sheer impertinence. I see that the hon. member for Johannesburg North thinks that that is extremely funny. I think that that hon. member has shown in the last few months that he has an entirely alien feeling for the affairs of this country. I am very sorry to have to say that, but it was again apparent in the speech he made yesterday. What are we trying to do here? We have grown up as a country. We are an independent country today. We started as a dependent dominion and colony. Obviously we had a strong European influence in our affairs, and many institutions were in fact started by overseas concerns. That went for our banks, our insurance companies and other institutions. However, we have developed, we have grown up and we have achieved majority. As with all self-respecting countries worldwide, we have come to the point where we and our people have said: “We think it is high time that we have our own institutions; we do not want to be dominated, either actually or potentially, by overseas concerns, however well-meaning they may be. ” There is nothing sinister in this. Canada, Australia and other countries have gone further. I am very glad that an hon. member, I think it was the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, gave us some information in that regard. I think it was a timely thing to do. It has nothing to do with discouraging foreign investment in South Africa, nor is it seen in that light by the banks concerned because they have never raised that point with us. I would say that the hon. member for Johannesburg North has very seriously mis-interpreted the sentiments of this country in this respect. I think we are being as reasonable as any of the countries of which I have information in this respect when we say, simply, that it is high time that the highly strategic industry of banking …

He is no patriot.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it proper for the hon. member for Paarl to say of the hon. member for Johannesburg North: “He is no patriot?”

It is true.

He does not understand it.

That is another point.

Order! It is my view that that expression does not cast a reflection on the loyalty of the hon. member to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to pursue that particular point. I hope I have made my point. [Interjections.] I think it is high time …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it proper for the hon. member who sits to my left to say of the hon. member for Johannesburg North that he is not loyal, meaning that he is not loyal to this country? [Interjections.] These are the words he used.

Order! Which hon. member used those words?

I used the words, Mr. Speaker.

What did the hon. member say?

That he is not loyal, that he is not genuine.

What were the exact words which the hon. member used?

“He is not loyal to South Africa,” because he is a Prog. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: The remarks now made by the hon. member I think are even more serious. I therefore ask that those also be withdrawn.

I shall consider the point of order and I shall give my ruling erstwhile. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to discount houses and to the maximum shareholding in that regard. He seemed to suggest that there must be some other consideration involved. In fact, he asked whether there was some other consideration involved. I should like to assure him that there is absolutely nothing sinister involved; it is purely a practical consideration. After all, the whole life of a discount house is to operate in the money market. It must reflect the rates in the market and it must be as free and unencumbered as possible to do so. That is the whole point.

They have to do that anyway.

There are two points which the hon. member raised in regard to the foreign holding. He queried that as if this was an attack on foreign investment in South Africa. However, it is nothing of the kind. This Government has a long and honourable record in regard to the whole question of the obtaining and the use of foreign capital in the development of this country. There is no doubt on that point; the Government’s record is there. The other point concerns the concentration of economic power. I think he used the word “concentration”. If we can avoid it, we do not in this important field want monopolistic ownership or potential monopolistic ownership. I think this principle is recognized throughout the world. If the hon. member will look carefully at the banking legislation in the Western world, he will find precisely the same jealous regard for that.

You cannot have a monopoly of this kind.

Of course, we are trying to preclude it. The hon. member says that we cannot have it. I want to point out, however, that we could have had it, because there could, for example, have been an 80% holding.

It makes no difference.

In regard to the hon. member for Umbilo I should like to say that I always listen with keen interest to his views, especially when he speaks on matters regarding pensions and pension funds, because he has clearly made a very careful study of the whole issue. He raised the important question of the preservation of pension rights. I say at once that it is a very important issue and I have much sympathy with the way in which he brought it up. However, it is a matter where all the implications must be carefully studied before any definite steps can be taken. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is now conducting an investigation into the feasibility or desirability of a national contributory pension scheme. Since the preservation of pension rights can best be considered in that context, that department is also giving careful consideration to the issue.

There is the question of hedging against inflation for the protection of pension funds, a point which the hon. member also raised. Again I have the fullest awareness of the importance of this issue and the problems which inflation causes pension funds. The Association of Pension Funds indeed recently made representations to me in this connection and we are giving very careful consideration to the whole question of what possible relief can be afforded, in what form and to what extent. This matter is having our urgent attention. However, the hon. member will understand that it is a fairly complicated issue; it has fairly far-reaching implications. But we certainly hope to be able to do something in this respect. Indeed, I shall be only too pleased to discuss this issue further with the hon. member any time he cares to do so.

The other question he raised was the period for the tracing of dependants of deceased members of pension funds. In clause 24, which seeks to introduce a new section 37C, it is proposed to allow a period of six months for the tracing of dependants of deceased members before the benefits are paid into the estate. It is true that six months can be regarded as an arbitrary period, but we have to stipulate some period. We believe six months to be a pretty practical and reasonable period, but if the hon. member feels very strongly that it ought to be somewhat longer and if he would care to discuss the matter with me in the interval before we come to the Committee Stage or if he would like to raise it at the Committee Stage himself, we can consider the matter further.

*I trust that I have now dealt with most of the arguments and the points raised in this interesting debate.

Order! Before I put the question, I want to give my ruling on the point of order taken by the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to point out that if the hon. member for Welkom had used the word “disloyal”, I would have had no hesitation in calling him to order at once, since that would have been an active accusation of disloyalty. The hon. member for Welkom used the words “not loyal”. Those are words which I may decide upon differently according to the circumstances, but in the light of the interjections which were made today, I must equate those words of the hon. member with the word “disloyal”. I therefore request him to withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words.

It still remains true.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Witwatersberg said in reply to your ruling: “It still remains true.” I submit that it is a matter of contempt of the Chair and therefore ask you to take the most stringent action against the hon. member.

Order! The hon. member for Witwatersberg must withdraw those words. As a senior member of this House he should set an example.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Report adopted.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted we had already had contributions from the hon. the Minister, from the hon. member for Middelland and from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I do not want to react to the contribution made by each of them at the start of my speech but will deal with them in the course of my speech. Sir, I had a great deal of difficulty in obtaining background information about this legislation, and in this connection I want to convey my sincere thanks to the department and its officials for their accessibility and for their frank replies to all my inquiries.

Sir, why should one take trouble about a Bill such as this? Firstly because it concerns and applies to a population group of South West Africa; secondly because South Africa is in a political crucible at the moment, the outcome of which is going to affect all of us here at the southern end of Africa and, thirdly because South Africa and specifically the Government of South Africa has a special responsibility towards South West Africa. Although this legislation concerns the population of only about 19 000 people between Mariental and Windhoek, it is important to us, as it always is when Bills are introduced which affect any population group of South West Africa, and that is why we should give these Bills very serious consideration. This specific Bill concerns self-government for Rehoboth. With all respect, I must differ from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in that he sees the principle of this Bill as one of decentralization or of a greater degree of local management. Surely the principle is clear. The principle of this Bill is to me that of self-government. In fact, looking at the clauses in the Bill it is clear that they concern a flag, citizenship and government, and surely these are the principles which are most intimately bound up with self-government. Although one could say that perhaps it may be one of the consequences of the Bill that there will be a greater degree of local management for the Rehoboth Basters or that one of the consequences may be that there will be a greater degree of decentralization, this is not the central principle of this Bill. In this connection, with all respect, I must differ from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in that he regards this as the central principle of this Bill, because then one could just as well describe it as a Bill for the decentralization of local management for the Rehoboth Basters of South West Africa.

Within South West Africa.

The acceptability of this Bill must be judged on the basis of three essential questions, and these must be answered if one is to consider the acceptability of this Bill responsibly. These three questions are: How does this affect the relationship between South Africa and South West Africa? What is the intrinsic nature of self-government as envisaged in the Bill, and what degree of acceptance does this Bill enjoy, firstly, among the Rehoboth people themselves, and secondly, among all the other population groups of South West Africa? It is against the background of these questions that one should judge this Bill, and I regret that when I put these questions and attempt to answer them—as I shall now do—I am forced to the conclusion that we cannot support this Bill at its Second Reading. I shall therefore move an amendment in this regard at the end of my speech.

If, firstly, we consider how this Bill affects the relationship between South Africa and South West Africa, I want to refer specifically—without going into detail in this regard—to official policy statements by the South African Government, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and also by the hon. the Prime Minister, and then I just want to state a few points which define for us the most important policy standpoints of the Government of the Republic with regard to South West Africa. I refer here to the yearbook of 1975. Unfortunately I have only the English edition here. On page 949 the following is stated—

What I am now going to quote is what the hon. the Minister said—

The first point I want to make is that …

Order! Before the hon. member goes any further, I just want to say that the Bill before the House deals with a specific territory, the Rehoboth Gebiet, and with a specific group of people, the Basters, and that there is nothing in the Bill, unless the hon. member can show me otherwise, which changes the international and constitutional position of South West Africa and its people in any way. Consequently, I want to ask the hon. member to bear this fact in mind at all times otherwise I shall perhaps have to call him to order from time to time.

Sir, I accept your ruling and await your guidance if I should transgress what you have just said. But what I am trying to indicate is just that the situation is not as you have stated it. What I want to say specifically concerns this legislation and I can only do this by placing this legislation within the context of the South African Government’s official standpoint in regard to the various population groups of South West Africa. But I want to assure you, Sir, that I am not going to elaborate on it in detail. I just want to state one or two points in this concection.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member not refer to the whole question of South West Africa on the grounds that the question under discussion, Rehoboth, is part and parcel of South West Africa? Surely it is impossible to discuss the one without some reference to the other?

I am not going to allow a discussion of South West Africa in general. The Bill before the House does not deal with the international status of South West Africa, nor does it deal with the constitutional position of South West Africa or of its people. It deals with an area and with a specified group of people who happen to be part of South West Africa.

I accept that, Sir. I do not wish to discuss South West Africa as a whole. I want to discuss the Government’s standpoint in regard to population groups in South West Africa. In this connection I just want to quote briefly from a statement relating specifically to this matter, one again a statement by the hon. the Minister in April 1973, in which he says—

I accept that as a standpoint of policy. In this connection I am somewhat confused in that the hon. member for Middelland said exactly the opposite in his speech. I specifically asked the hon. member whether this Parliament could give independence to a specific population group in South West Africa, and he replied (Hansard, 15 March 1976)—

I do not want to go into this further. The only point I want to make is that if I accept the statements of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as being the official standpoint of the Government, then the introduction of this Bill contradicts it, in that the official standpoint is that the entire population of South West Africa will be taken into account and that it is not foreseen that a specific population group in South West Africa will become independent. In that respect alone there is a contradiction in this. However, if I were to adopt the standpoint of the hon. member for Middelland, then it would not be a contradiction; it would then be entirely consistent. In this connection I must allow myself to be guided in this debate by the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In this connection I should like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister. In 1975 the hon. the Prime Minister said (Hansard, Vol. 36, col. 4384)—

Consequently the first objection I want to raise is that whereas it is the policy of the Government to assist South West Africa in the acquisition of self-determination or independence, in such a way that all the population groups should discuss with each other the constitutional framework in which all options are open, we have here an instance of the Government negotiating with a single population group and introducing legislation to guide this population group towards self-government in terms of a specific constitutional framework. In this regard I just want to say that in my opinion this will disturb relations in South West Africa, and that it is untimely because it reflects on the status and aims of the constitutional conference taking place at the moment. With the hon. member for Middelland, I, too, say that we are all extremely interested in the conference, for the simple reason that it is a political laboratory in microcosm in which experiments are being carried out, and we are all waiting and hoping that they will provide a solution to the problems of South West Africa. We must have no illusions about this. The success of the conference could give us an indication of an entirely new direction as regards co-operation in Southern Africa. This is the first objection I want to raise and also the first question to which I want to reply.

The second question is: What is the intrinsic nature of the self-government that is being granted? The hon. the Minister has already stated in his Second Reading speech that the specific form of self-government may perhaps appear to be old-fashioned, since it refers back to the so-called “Paternal Laws” of the Rehoboth Basters, laws to which they are attached, and furthermore, that they themselves realize that these laws may be obsolete, in view of the demands of modem political administration and the problems with which a modem government has to deal. In this regard I do think that one has to accept certain responsibilities when one serves as a kind of political midwife at the birth of self-government. One should then accept the political responsibility not to allow a structure to be established which will be unsuited to meeting the demands that will be made on them. In fact the hon. the Minister said this himself.

Looking at the Bill, it is clear that it contains aspects which are not traceable back to their Paternal Laws, and that modifications have in fact taken place. For example, in a memorandum which the hon. the Minister made available, it is stated that they request a legislative council consisting of three members. However, in the Bill the Minister provides a legislative council consisting of six members. They asked that certain functions be transferred to them, but the hon. the Minister transferred more functions to them than they asked for. There is an indication, therefore, that the hon. the Minister has in fact accepted the responsibility of introducing certain amendments which are not entirely consistent with the Paternal Laws of the Rehoboth Basters. If that is the case, it surely means that the hon. the Minister could just as well have taken matters further in the negotiations and established a more modem structure. In terms of the legislation, the Kaptein has vast powers. He is, as it were, the legislative authority. If the Legislative Council and the Kaptein’s Council reach a deadlock with regard to a piece of legislation, then the Kaptein can call an election in which his vote will comprise one-tenth of the votes cast. This puts him in a position of enormous power. I do not want to express an opinion on the Paternal Laws and the attachment of the Rehobothers to these laws as such. The point I am trying to make is that a government which acts as a foster mother for a potentially self-governing group, has the responsibility of seeing to the effectiveness of the constitutional structure it is establishing.

When one looks at the relationship between the self-governing set-up of the Rehoboth people and the South African Parliament, then one sees that at a time when one would have expected a greater degree of emancipation to take place in terms of the legal situation, there is in fact a greater degree of inter-dependence between the South African Parliament and the Rehoboth group in South West Africa in terms of the legislation. Under clause 10(7) the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, may call elections. He may decide when elections should take place if the people themselves do not hold elections. That does not form part of the Paternal Laws. Under clause 17 the Minister and the State President decide whether Acts are acceptable or not. In the final instance they are the authority which determines whether Acts are acceptable or not. In terms of clause 40, the decision in regard to any amendment of the constitution does not rest with any umbrella body in South West Africa, nor with any administrative authority in South West Africa. The approval of any amendment to the constitution of Rehoboth is for the Parliament of South Africa to decide. This indicates to me that there is a greater degree of integration, rather than emancipation. What is really happening de facto is that the old Kaptein—who was really the magistrate—is being replaced by a Kaptein elected from among the Rehoboth people themselves.

As was the case before.

Yes, as was the case before. The authority which used to be vested in the magistrate is now being given back to the Parliament of South Africa. That is why the second objection I want to raise here is that it is doubtful whether this form of self-government is suitable in view of the demands of modem times. Furthermore, it increases the constitutional and legal dependence of a population group in South West Africa, on the South African Government.

The third question I put, concerned the degree of acceptance which the Bill enjoyed among the Rehoboth people themselves and also among the other population groups of South West Africa. I should like to quote what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech—

The one instrument of negotiation about the acceptablity of the legislation was the Advisory Council of Rehoboth itself; the other was the people of Rehoboth. Because initially there were objections to the Bill and because the Advisory Council resigned, an election was called. That is why the hon. the Minister states …

May I put you straight? There were no objections as regards the Bill, but only as regards the question whether the people had been adequately consulted.

Precisely. The question was whether the people had been adequately consulted. An election was then called. I quote what the hon. the Minister said—

The election was held last year. It should be mentioned that in April 1975 there were 3 646 registered voters in Rehoboth. When the election was held, three parties fought the election, viz. the so-called Rehoboth Baster Association, the Volksparty and the Rehoboth Bevrydingsbeweging, which in fact broke away from the Rehoboth Volksparty. The outcome of the election was as follows: The Rehoboth Baster Association led by Dr. Africa was largely in favour of this Bill. The Volksparty, led by Dr. Stellemager, was opposed to the Bill. The Rehoboth Bevrydingsparty led by Mr. Diergaardt broke away from Dr. Stellemager’s party. The distribution of votes, in percentages, was as follows: Dr. Africa’s Rehoboth Baster Party received 37,4% of the votes, the Volksparty received 34% of the votes and the Rehoboth Bevrydingsbeweging 28,4% of the votes. The difference between the parties of Dr. Africa and Dr. Stellemager, if divided by five, was 70 people. This was an ordinary election for the Advisory Council. It was not a referendum in which the people of Rehoboth were asked: “Do you vote for this form of independence or do you not vote for it?” It was an election for representatives, and parties fought the election. Usually in a referendum one has a “yes or no” situation. Here however, the result of the election was a one-third division between the fighting parties. What kind of mandate have we here? I know that the hon. the Minister had a great deal of difficulty with this Bill.

Those figures are quite wrong. Your studies were not sufficiently thorough.

I shall listen with pleasure when the hon. the Minister reacts to this. I am now merely furnishing the information I obtained with the assistance of his department and through my own inquiries. I am merely trying to say what my own conclusions are, but I shall listen with pleasure to what the hon. the Minister has to say. In any event, I am aware that there is a degree of dissatisfaction and ambiguity, and on the basis of that I argue that there is insufficient evidence that the people of Rehoboth are entirely satisfied and happy about this Bill. I do not doubt for a moment that they are satisfied as regards the issue of independence. In fact, there is a group among the Rehoboth people that wants to be totally autonomous. They want to establish their own republic and be quite independent. I doubt whether there is any Rehobother who does not want independence as such, but in my opinion there is doubt as to whether all the Rehobothers are satisfied with this Bill. [Interjections.] No, it is very easy. There are only 3 000 voters. I have three times as many voters in my constituency. In the course of an afternoon one can go and ask the voters whether that is what they want. Then one can know. It has been stated by the hon. the Minister that the conference gave its approval …

No …

I know exactly what is stated there. Not the approval of the Bill; that is the important point I want to make.

Do not spread rumours which are also being spread by other people.

No, I shall not do that. I shall quote the following to the House—

That is quite in order. The other question is whether the conference examined this legislation and whether all the people who had representation there are satisfied with this legislation. I know of at least one person belonging to another group who was not satisfied with it and who said so in public. The issue is not the principle of the right of self-determination of these people, it concerns who accepts the responsibility for it and what roles they play.

†Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I have considered all these questions and I have tried to do so as soberly and as dispassionately as possible, without introducing heat into the argument. On the basis of my analysis of the situation, we in these benches feel that we cannot accept the Second Reading of this Bill. In the circumstances, I wish to move as an amendment—

1. (1) its introduction in the South African Parliament contradicts the stated policy that all the inhabitants of South West Africa must decide their own future;
2. (2) there is insufficient evidence that the Bill is acceptable to both the Rehoboth Baster community and all the other population groups of South West Africa. ”

*To conclude, I just want to say that I can understand that South West Africa has entered a stage of transition. I can understand that there are vast internal problems and that there are various population groups with an urge towards self-determination, independence. I can understand that the South African Government has a particular responsibility to assist those groups to negotiate with each other in order to decide on a constitutional framework for South West Africa. However, I do not think it is fitting at this time, in view of the problems facing the people of South West, that we, the South African Parliament, should conclude a constitutional agreement with one specific population group. This does not mean that we are in any way opposed to a greater degree of local management or that we are in any respect opposed to a greater degree of decentralization of power. On the contrary. It is our policy, too, that this should occur. That decentralization and greater local management can be effected quite conveniently without having a national anthem, a Government of one’s own and—here I am really reacting to the standpoint of the UP—without one necessarily having to settle issues of citizenship. Where the issue is a specific group with a strong urge towards independence, which feels that it wants to maintain itself as a separate community in South West Africa, then one can make administrative arrangements in this connection. One can introduce those things in South West Africa, but then they do not carry the stamp of the South African Government guiding a specific population group there to full independence. To conclude, I want to come back to the standpoint of the hon. member for Middelland. Does the hon. member for Middelland agree with the statement by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the effect that the Government of South Africa does not foresee that specific population groups will acquire full independence in South West Africa? I quoted it here.

Which Minister of Foreign Affairs is that?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the South African Government.

I asked which Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Dr. Hilgard Muller—if I may mention him by name. I can only tell hon. members that the following was very clearly stated—

What Hansard is that?

It is in the Year Book and was stated in April 1973. The following is stated—

Among other things, the following is stated—

[Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members will have sufficient opportunity to take part in the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of time and they can speak if they want to.

The other standpoint of the hon. member for Middelland is expressed in his statement that it is the exclusive aim of this legislation …

No, you are wrong.

Then I should like to repeat the hon. member’s standpoint here. I reacted as follows to the hon. member—

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether I did not say that the Rehoboth citizens had a right of self-determination and whether the hon. member did not himself admit that the right of self-determination included the right to acquire absolute sovereignty.

There are a number of points at stake here. But I admit that if, within the framework of a specific geographic unity—like South West Africa—the people of South West Africa negotiate with each other and have an establishment or structure such as that which is now being created in an embryonic form at the Turnhalle, and if they were to address a request to those people and, after mutual consideration, give independence to a specific group, then it could work. However, what is happening here is that this Parliament is deciding in regard to a specific population group in South West Africa without sufficient cognizance being taken—in my opinion—of the attitude and standpoint of the other population groups. That is the principle of the matter. One cannot object if a specific population group does this with the approval of the other population groups within South West Africa. Here, however, we have what I call a unilateral constitutional development. For these reasons we feel that we cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not find it strange that the hon. member for Rondebosch does not support this legislation. I listened to him very attentively, and I can infer where in South West Africa he obtained his information, because the attitude of his informants is about the same as that adopted by the hon. member’s party over there. I can understand why he is opposed to the legislation. On the request of the Advisory Council, the Rehoboth Basters asked that the rights which they already possessed previously to a very large extent, be returned to them. Through a majority of votes they asked that the old Paternal Laws which they have had since 1872, be returned to them. To a large extent this law is unchanged today. One could say, if one wanted to argue that way, that it was like a bee which came to a flower and extracted honey from it, and a spider which come to the same flower and extracted poison. One could argue that way here, too, but that is not the point. What I find strange in the argument of the hon. member for Rondebosch, is that to him it should be unusual that self-government should be granted to certain people in South West Africa. The Ovambos already have a degree of self-government—the Okavangos too. Why not the Rehobothers as well? They have certainly had it before. If this was something out of the blue, I should have said nothing.

He also states that not all the people of Rehoboth agreed. I want to ask him how many people there are still in South Africa today who are not yet in favour of a republican form of Government for South Africa. Where in the world can one find a country where all the people agree with each other? After all, even here we differ every day on matters of fundamental importance.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North is still not in favour of a Republic.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North still has one foot in Scotland, although he is sitting in this Parliament.

I am pleased that this legislation has now been introduced. Earlier, in the sixties, similar legislation was drafted, but it was not accepted. It would be a pity if there were to be people now, and I am referring specifically to White people, who tried to sow discord among these people. I say that it would be a pity, because it would be to the detriment of the Rehoboth Basters if this were to happen. There are such people. I do not say there are any in this House, but I know that in South West Africa there are people who tried to do this. I know this very well, because I know South West Africa. We do not simply go there for the sake of debating associations or when symposiums are held there; we live there and we know what goes on there. We have not left there or fled; we live there. I have known these people since 1937 and since the delimitation of 1955 the whole Rehoboth district has fallen within my constituency. We therefore know what we are talking about when we discuss those people and that region. I say that I am pleased that this legislation has now been introduced, and if it had occurred ten years earlier, Rehoboth would have been much better off economically than it is today. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when he said that he did not agree with the Odendaal Report. If the Odendaal Report had appeared earlier, Rehoboth would also have been much better off. I shall indicate in a moment in what respect the Rehoboth Gebiet is today much better off economically as a result of the recommendations of the Odendaal Report.

I was referring to the political part of it.

If this had not been the case, the South West Administration would not have been able to do for Rehoboth what has been done for Rehoboth since 1 September 1961. I should like to hear whether the hon. members agree that money was invested in Rehoboth. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that through the years their policy has been a federal policy. I could not help thinking about this. I have known the hon. member for 30 years now, and in that time he has belonged to 5½ parties, and some of those parties have had more than one policy in the time that he has belonged to them. He has omitted to tell us what policy he was talking about because over the last few years the parties, both there and here, have had divergent policies with regard to these aspects. Therefore, it was not clear to me which policy he was referring to.

You just stay stupid, don’t you, Piet?

The most stupid thing I have ever done was to organize for him to win an election. The second most stupid thing I have ever done was to save him from a beating one evening. Those are political sins which I shall never be forgiven. But apart from that I was fortunately not present when Dagga Strydom dealt with him, because at that time he was still a United Party supporter. I should like to say what the acceptance of the Odendaal Report meant to Rehoboth. I repeat that I am very pleased that the people are now giving us their co-operation, something they have not done in past years. There has always been the problem, as regards the Rehoboth people, that they have been hostile towards the South West Administration and towards the Government of the Republic through the years.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself have been Minister of Coloured Affairs and you are aware, therefore, of the attitude which existed.

Consequently it is unnecessary for me to tell you. The Leader of the House, the hon. the Minister of Defence, has also been Minister of Coloured Affairs, as has the President of the Other Place. The people gave no co-operation whatsoever. In 1961 an Act was piloted through this Parliament in terms of which Rehoboth received a development corporation. There was a great deal of opposition to that, too. The principle of that legislation was not supported. There was a great deal of opposition on the part of the people themselves. They had to apply in a roundabout way so that the people would not know about it. Let us consider the position today as regards the Act which was promulgated on 1 September 1961. That Act provided that the share capital of the corporation would be R500 000, and this was increased, when the need arose, to R1 million, then to R1,5 million and subsequently to R2 million. At the moment, the share capital amounts to R3 million. This was to comply with the applications received from the citizens of Rehoboth. The Baster Council of Rehoboth also applied for representation on the board of directors. This request of theirs was complied with and they will shortly have two directors on the board of the fund, when two of the White directors retire.

R400 000 was granted during the financial year 1973-’74 and R460 000 in the financial year 1974-’75. The amount for the financial 1975-’76 has not yet been voted. However, that is not all. After the appearance of the Odendaal Report, the Administration repurchased certain farms in the Rehoboth Gebiet from Whites and made them over to the Baster Council free of charge. These farms comprised a total of 74 000 ha. On one of these farms, the farm Tsumis, a breeding station has been established where rams are bred. The Rehobothers can buy rams there without competition from Whites. The farm is well run. Up to 31 March 1975, more than 430 000 metres jackalproof fencing was erected. Up to the same date, 220 770 metres of fencing was erected around cattle camps, 27 200 metres of pipe-line was laid and 77 water troughs installed. The Karakul breeding station in the same farm has already made such progress that 300 rams can be delivered annually to farmers in the Rehoboth area. These rams are sold to the farmers at auctions, and there, too, the Whites do not have the right to compete with them.

The Tsumis breeding station also concentrates on the breeding of upgraded boerbok rams and Afrikaner bulls. Short agricultural courses are also regularly offered for young Rehoboth farmers. This is usually done under the guidance of White agricultural technicians. Previously the town Rehoboth was always in a very dilapidated condition. However, I must state with gratitude that the Magistrate of Rehoboth went out of his way to do something about this. Previously, however, he never received the necessary co-operation, and consequently it was not possible to go ahead with the replanning of the town. Now it is encouraging to be able to say that the replanning of the town Rehoboth has already been virtually completed. As the hon. the Minister has already mentioned, the town’s water supply plant has also been completed. Despite the fact that there is no soil conservation act, the farms are planned in consultation with the council, and addition a subsidy is paid in regard to improvements effected on farms. All these things show that these people are better off today than they were before they were given assistance. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he was opposed to the political aspects of the Odendaal plan, but in my opinion the inhabitants of Rehoboth have come to know substantial prosperity and progress under the present dispensation. I repeat that I am delighted about the fact that this Bill has reached a stage at which it can be considered by the House. This has occurred despite the opposition of the other side of the House. One does not, of course, expect them to support such a Bill because they have their own point of view as regards this matter. Finally I should like to make the request that in these times—because South West Africa is the first country in the world which is discussing its problems in this way—we should not …

Where do you get that from?

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member very well. I myself do not know what he is trying to do now. However, I want to quote from the Suidwes-Afrikaner, a newspaper published in Windhoek, in which there is a report about a recent United Party symposium. People from here were invited to take part in that symposium. Whatever the case may be, I appeal to all Whites in South Africa to refrain from this kind of thing. According to the Suidwes-Afrikaner of 27 February this year, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who was also one of the speakers at the symposium, said the following—

Later he states—

[Interjections.]

Order! I want the hon. member to consider this: If I were to allow him to deal with points which have no direct bearing on the Bill, then I shall have to afford other hon. members the opportunity of replying to them. This could eventually result in our conducting a debate here about the conference, something which is not relevant.

Mr. Speaker, then I shall conclude by saying that I am in earnest when I appeal to people not to overstep the mark in these things. It could do South West Africa and all its people incalculable harm. It would not only be Whites who would suffer as a result, but all the people in South West Africa—White and non-White. There are more than enough other things which one can argue about. If, therefore, a symposium is held in South West Africa, it is advisable not to interfere with their constitutional affairs.

The hon. member can concentrate on that point during the budget debate.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so. Suffice it to say that I regard it as a great privilege to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I expected the hon. member for Mariental to have reached the end of his speech 20 minutes ago. Although I listened to him with great interest, I must say that he did not deal with the Bill itself at any stage.

As far as the contribution by the hon. member for Rondebosch is concerned, I simply want to say that in the course of my speech, I shall answer some of the arguments which were raised by him. The difference between our approach and their’s at this stage is—as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout indicated—that we shall support this Bill at the Second Reading stage, while our friends to our left have decided to oppose the Bill. I shall indicate once more why we shall support the Bill at the Second Reading stage, and I shall also state our reservations clearly. Naturally, in this case we cannot be guided by interpretations placed on the Bill, not even by speakers on the Government side.

What we have before us here, is a Bill, one which we must judge on its merits. After judging it on its merits, we decided that we shall support the Bill at the Second Reading stage. However, I want to add that I am not in complete agreement with the interpretation placed by the hon. member for Rondebosch on clauses 10, 17 and 40 of the Bill. However, we shall go into this fully during the Committee Stage. His reference to the Kaptein having a number of votes equal to one-tenth of the total number of votes cast, as presently contained in the Bill, only applies in the particular case when legislation is not accepted by the Rehoboth Legislative Council, and when the joint meeting of members of the Kaptein’s Council and of the Legislative Council is unable to come to a decision. I accept that this, as far as this provision is concerned, is once again a facet which has its origin in the old paternal laws. However, we shall deal with that later. I listened with particular interest to the survey which the hon. member for Middelland gave here the other day of the history of the people of Rehoboth. It was interesting and enlightening and it is very clear that the hon. member for Middelland knows the history of South West Africa and of its people very well. However, I want to admit immediately: “I have come to bury Ceasar not to praise him. ” The hon. member for Middelland referred to the marriage of Eva and Pieter van Meerhof. This marriage must actually be seen as a political union; hence the involvement of the authorities at the Cape in this matter. Eva was a cousin of Captain Harry who played such an important role in those early years.

Captain Harry!

The hon. member for Yeoville is not all that old! It was hoped that it would be possible to avoid the threatening conflict between the colonists and the Hottentot tribes through Eva’s marriage to Van Meerhof. Shortly after the marriage of Eva and Pieter van Meerhof, he left on a sea journey to Mauritius and Madagascar and shortly afterwards, on his way there, he was apparently murdered by the natives and Eva lived on in considerable irresponsibility and revelry at the Cape. On several occasions she was also exiled to Robben Island. This went on until she eventually died. She was given a kind of State funeral because of her marriage to Pieter van Meerhof. What is important, is that this is actually the only recorded instance of a marriage between a colonist and a Hottentot girl. However, the marriage could only be solemnized after Eva had been christened.

No, there are also other cases in the archives.

Thank you very much; I should like to hear about them. A marriage could naturally only be solemnized after the persons had been christened, as in her case, because she was taken into Van Riebeek’s home as a young child, where she naturally learned the Dutch language and was also taught the Christian religion. It is known, of course, that long before that time, and also after that, marriages between White colonists and children of mixed descent, the children of freed slaves, were an everyday occurrence.

Before coming to the Bill, I should first like to express my disappointment in the strongest terms at the irresponsible, unfounded and unpleasant attack which the hon. member for Middelland made on members of the Opposition and on the Opposition as a whole. With reference to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout the hon. member for Middelland said, and I quote from the unrevised edition of his speech (p. A. A. 6/7)—

These are very strong words. Towards the end of his speech, the hon. member said the following with reference to self-determination (p. D.D.3)—

The British are in Mafeking now.

In the short time in which I have been in practical politics, I have never in the circles in which I move—for example the UP caucus and other meetings— seen any ghosts of Kitchener or Milner. The only ghosts I have ever come across, are the ghosts of Kitchener and Milner amongst the members on the opposite side of the House.

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

No, rather do so a little later. I want to say at once that frankly I was very upset and even wanted to become angry about these irresponsible statements of the hon. member for Middelland, but then I thought: The hon. member for Middelland is a strong, powerful speaker and he was probably carried away by the enthusiasm of his own rhetoric. Therefore it seems to me that we should perhaps not take these remarks of his too seriously. At the end of his speech the hon. member addressed an appeal to the Opposition not to try and misuse this legislation in order to cause the constitutional conference which is in progress in Windhoek at the moment, to fail. Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling in this regard and consequently I do not want to speak at any length about this conference. I do hope, however, that you will allow me, Sir, to reply to this point with reference to the hon. member’s remark. It is surely not necessary for me to say that the UP has always approached that conference at the Turnhalle in a constructive spirit. Our well-founded objections are that the bodies or persons involved in the conference, are not sufficiently representative of all interest groups and parties who have an interest in the future of South West Africa. Therefore this side of the House has expressed the fear that a possibility exists of any constitutional agreement which may be reached there, not enjoying the support which could otherwise have been the case. If the Opposition were less responsible, this disappointing attack by the hon. member for Middelland would have provided the Opposition with sufficient reason to deal with the Government’s handling of the whole South West Africa issue in much stronger language than I am using at this stage. I repeat that our approach to that conference is indeed positive and constructive.

We shall move certain amendments because we do not see this Bill as paving the way for the independence of Rehoboth. I shall come back to this later. However, during the Committee Stage we shall come forward with proposals for the amendment of this Bill in the light of our views, and our action during the Third Reading debate will naturally depend upon the reaction we have from the hon. the Minister to the amendments which we are going to move. We shall motivate the amendments properly.

Any impartial observer will be able to testify to the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated the standpoint of this side of the House in an extremely responsible and balanced manner when he dealt with this Bill the day before yesterday. He indicated why we were prepared to support the Bill at the Second Reading and why, in the light of the particularly sensitive position in which South West Africa found itself, and in order to avoid wrong impressions and criticism in the interest of South West Africa and the Republic, we would move certain amendments. We did not expect that speech to evoke such a disappointing reaction. But I shall return later to certain other aspects of the speech of the hon. member for Middelland.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, four points come to the fore very clearly. Firstly: The principles underlying this Bill, do at least voice the feelings of the majority of the people resident in the Rehoboth area. This is according to information at our disposal. Secondly—I am speaking about the principles and not the details, it is in agreement with the old paternal laws for which, seen from an historical point of view, they have a great and understandable love and respect. Thirdly, it is clear that the present administrative machinery does not have the confidence of the people of Rehoboth, as a result of which co-operation between the authorities and the people of Rehoboth is impossible or at least subject to severe strain, especially since 1923, as we have seen from history, which handicaps the very essential progress of the community. Fourthly: The people of Rehoboth clearly do not see the machinery which is being created here as being in its final form, but as an instrument of their own by means of which they will then be able to bring about the necessary further changes and adaptations.

On the basis of these four clear principles, surely we have no alternative but to say that, although we differ as far as certain statements, explanations and certain details are concerned, we support this Bill in principle at the Second Reading. One can in fact voice misgivings in respect of the machinery being created by this Bill, but in this regard, too, it seems to me, one must adopt the attitude that this is what the people of Rehoboth want at this stage and consequently we cannot, not in principle in any event, adopt a negative attitude towards the Bill. Therefore we cannot be guided by incidental interpretations which I, or any other member, may place on the Bill either.

We on this side of the House have emphasized on more than one occasion that before steps are taken which affect population groups which are not represented here, those population groups must be properly consulted. In the light of the fact, as it has been put to us by the hon. the Minister, that the community of Rehoboth has indeed been consulted in a representative manner and has requested the reinstitution of a form of local government in accordance with their paternal laws, one can naturally, judging from this point of view, not oppose the proposed granting of a form of local self-government to the inhabitants of Rehoboth.

Added to this there is, in my opinion, the extremely important consideration that, in view of further deliberations on the constitutional development and future of South West, it is essential that the inhabitants of Rehoboth have their own institutionalized authority which can represent them at these deliberations and which will have the power to speak for them, in other words, their own representative authoritative body able to speak on behalf of the people of Rehoboth. In the last instance it seems to me that the institution of this machinery, in view of the future of South West Africa, can make a special contribution.

This brings me back to the problem which has developed with regard to the situation in South West Africa. As you will see, Mr. Speaker, I shall respect your ruling. What I actually want to get at is the point made here by the hon. member for Middelland with regard to the question of all options being open and the question of the right of self-determination. My introductory remarks will lead up to that and I hope that you will allow me to make them, although I realize that I may possibly move very close to the limits you have imposed in this regard. The historic course of events, which resulted in South Africa’s presence in South West being declared illegal by the Security Council, is well known to all of us. In connection with the further constitutional development of South West Africa, there are three principles in particular which regularly come to the fore. Firstly there is the political independence of South West Africa …

Order! I am sorry, but I cannot allow a discussion of South West Africa’s constitutional and international past and future. In the light of the legislation before this House, I can only allow references to it, but I cannot allow a discussion of it.

Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling. I simply wanted to say that as far as the question of independence for South West Africa is concerned, the whole point at issue is the question of all options being open and the question of the right of self-determination of individual groups within South West. This is the point which the hon. member for Middelland actually touched on. In the light of your ruling I should simply like to say that it seems to me as though there is a basic contradiction or conflict between independence for South West Africa with its territorial integrity being maintained and the independence of individual groups or peoples within South West. It seems to me as though the Government has created many major and unnecessary problems for itself in this connection in that it speaks of the principle of self-determination and independence for individual peoples with reference to this Bill. This places it immediately in a category—now I am referring to the speech of the hon. member for Middelland …

Self-determination need not necessarily lead to independence.

I will accept that readily. I am grateful to the hon. member for Middelland for having clarified it now, because there has in fact been some confusion about the answer which the hon. member for Middelland gave to the question of the hon. member for Rondebosch.

The Bill does not say that.

That is correct, but you must nevertheless allow me to reply to what was said by the hon. member who, but for the hon. the Minister, is the chief spokesman on the Government side on this Bill. After all, it is important for us on the Opposition side to know exactly what interpretation the Government side places on this Bill.

Are you satisfied now?

Thank you. I do want to put it very clearly though that in paragraph 11 of the memorandum, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also pointed out, the people of Rehoboth put their case very clearly. In that paragraph they said:

It is in the light of this that we interpret this Bill and this is why we support this Bill at the Second Reading. It continues—

This is the intention and motivation of this Bill as we see it. I understand that Dr. Africa, with reference to the somewhat unfortunate reply which the hon. member for Middelland gave to the question of the hon. member for Rondebosch, has issued a statement in which he once again states very clearly that they do not envisage sovereignty and independence for Rehoboth with this proposal of theirs and that the machinery which will be created by means of this Bill, will easily be able to fit into the constitutional proposals submitted to the conference by Chief Kapuuo.

Sir, you will allow me to express a few thoughts on the concept of self-determination in this connection, since the hon. member for Middelland said that it was the summum bonum of all groups under all circumstances, the highest good to which a group or a people could aspire. Apart from the question whether the ethnic principles as applied by the Government, are acceptable to the non-Whites of South West in their full extent, it is nevertheless very clear that the concept of political self-determination is subject to serious limitations. If my interpretation of the standpoint of the hon. member for Middelland is correct, there is nothing preventing the Whites of South West from saying, “We want self-determination” and on the basis of his earlier remark, which he has apparently amended in the meantime, independence as well. But I assume that if self-determination is seen as the highest good, then it must surely lead to political independence eventually.

Not necessarily.

No, not necessarily. In any event, I mean in its fullest form. Now it is very clear that in any territory in which there is a plural society, as in South Africa, the concepts of self-determination is one which must of necessity be defined very closely. The English-speaking section of the South African people cannot have the right of self-determination. The Coloureds and the Asiatics in South Africa cannot have the right of self-determination. They do have a degree of self-government, but they cannot have the right of self-determination. On the other hand it is possible to give the Bantu in the homelands the right of political self-determination, but then we are still saddled with the problem of the permanent urban Bantu. It is not possible to give them self-determination either as long as they are resident in this area.

Will the hon. member be so kind as to answer this question? Will you give us the difference between political self-determination and national self-determination?

For all practical purposes I equate the two. I do want to tell the hon. member for Middelland that the concept of self-determination in a plural society is subject to serious limitations, and therefore I prefer not to use the term self-determination in respect of this Bill, because it can so easily give rise to incorrect interpretations by people who are not well-disposed towards South West and the Republic. Therefore I want to express the hope that where we are going to move amendments on the basis that we see this measure as a form of decentralization of powers, as a form of local self-government for the people of Rehoboth in their own territory in agreement with their own paternal laws, the Minister will give serious attention to the amendments in that spirit and in the light of that interpretation of the Bill, and will indeed find it possible to accept those amendments and in so doing make it possible for us to vote in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are again experiencing the classic methods of the United Party here today, viz. the “yes, but” story. You know, Sir, something may be as good as it possibly can, but there is always a “yes, but”; they are always looking for a way to get at the National Party. But we have nevertheless made a particular break-through here, Sir. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, apart from his “yes, but”, said the following—

This means on that side of the House …

The policy of that party is sharing of power.

Division of power.

The hon. member spoke about the “division” of power within South West Africa. I say that we have nevertheless made a break-through as far as this is concerned. Something else which strikes me, is the degree of discord between the two parties on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made great play about the five of them who had such important matters to discuss in Windhoek and spoke to the leaders there, inter alia, the leaders of the Baster people. But the hon. member for Rondebosch was there as well. Did they not deliberate together? Why do they differ about it today?

Sir, it is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Rehoboth Gebiet is approximately 14 182 sq km in extent, and that it already accepted the paternal laws on 3 January 1872. It is interesting to note that this was six years before the annexation of the Walvis Bay area by England, 12 years before the annexation of South West Africa by Germany, and 18 years before the foundation of the city of Windhoek. There was therefore a long period in between in which little development took place. In spite of onslaughts, wars and raids over the years, this small nation continued to exist as a people. According to the 1970 census there were 16 500 people. According to the hon. member for Middelland, there are 19 000 people at the moment. It is therefore a people small in number, but proud and jealous of the things which are sacred and dear to them. I think that in our present-day terms, we may even classify them as a bigoted people, as being so narrow-minded in their outlook and way of living that they do not even want to be grouped together with the Coloureds and that even the portfolio of the hon. the Minister had to be changed in order to accommodate them If we look at the report of the Baster Advisory Council in connection with the constitutional development of the Rehoboth Gebiet, two things in particular become clear to us. The first is that two previous attempts to establish a constitution, failed as a result of their sacred appreciation of the laws of their ancestors. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout thought it proper to quote from this report, but only paragraph II I should like to start at the beginning, and in order to contradict the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I should like to quote to you paragraph 1—

Not sovereign independence.

You made great play of it that this is not meant at all, and I have now quoted to you paragraph 1 of that report. These aspirations of the Baster people are our aspirations too, i.e. self-preservation, the right to be oneself, to be governed by one’s own people. This is completely in accordance with Government policy. The hon. member said this was in accordance with “our” policy. I do not know whether the hon. member was referring to their policy here in this House or whether he was referring to the policy of the Federal Party in South West Africa, because he has a finger in so many pies that one does not know where one will find him next.

I was referring to the federal policy, but you will not understand it in any case. [Interjections.]

I appreciate that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout thinks but little of us. I see that he is making it known everywhere that they have already forgotten about the representatives of South West Africa in this House of Assembly. I simply want to say this to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: My father used to teach me from a very early age that if someone looks very small to you, it can only mean one thing—he is more than one up on you! Therefore, if we look small to the hon. member, it may indeed be that we are more than one up on him. The hon. member for Mariental referred to the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is always looking for trouble. The hon. member’s burning hatred of the National Party forces him to destroy and min, even if it means his own downfall. This is nothing less than treason against the Whites.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “treason against the Whites”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Mariental referred to the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a man of many political parties. He has many holes—he is actually a fox with four holes. First he had a United National Party hole, then a National Party hole, after that a National Union hole and now a United Party hole. Therefore, when the hon. member puts his head out of one of these holes, and sees that we look small to him, it may be that he is looking at his own tail. [Interjections.]

Your father did not teach you very well.

The preservation of one’s own identity is the right and privilege of every people. This forms an integral part of the policy of the National Party. This is a right we demand for ourselves, this right we allow and any nation which considers itself called upon to defend the things which are of value to it, those things which are sacred to it: Its territory, its customs, its way of life, its ancestral laws. When a small nation like this comes strongly to the fore and says: “Even though it may take long, even though it retards material well-being, we are returning to the laws of our ancestors; we are aware of our shortcomings and we know that we will have to bring about changes, but the most important comes first, i.e. the consolidation of our nation so that we may advance united”, we have no right to differ with them. No, then we must welcome it with acclamation, especially bearing in mind the words of the great Afrikaner, President Kruger: “Neem uit die verlede van u volk dit wat goed en reg is en bou daarop utoekoms.” Since this Bill now makes provision for the Rehoboth nation to build upon their past, to take from it what is good and right, we can only express the hope that it will lead to growth and progress for that area which has been handicapped for so long. We wish Dr. Africa and his nation success and prosperity on this road.

When did you prepare that speech? After all, we support the Bill.

Dr. Africa is a balanced and dedicated leader, a leader who puts the interests of his nation first. He is also the leader of the Baster delegation at the constitutional conference in Windhoek. He is also chairman of the first committee of the constitutional conference. The fact that this committee’s report has been accepted by the whole conference, a conference at which consensus has to be reached, redounds to the honour of Dr. Africa and his committee. This is the person with whom we are dealing— stable, balanced! Dr. Africa was also present on the occasion which was referred to by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and of which he made such great play because he had had discussions there. Dr. Africa’s point of view is regional representation.

He also attended the symposium.

Yes, he also attended the symposium with the hon. member, and the hon. member therefore knows that this is what he said. The hon. member then tried to persuade horn to adopt various other points of view. The hon. member interferes with the wishes of the other population groups. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member tells us here—

I agree with this, because he says we have to be very careful not to anticipate the conference, but what more does the hon. member say? He says—

He even says it makes no difference what the conference decides, became an army, which accepts Swapo, is standing ready. This is disgraceful. He put the White man in the pillory. This is what he went to do in Windhoek. The United Party has no business there any longer. They ran away from South West Africa.

I shall reply to that.

I wish you would.

Order! I told other hon. members to come back to the Bill. Therefore I think that the hon. member, too, should confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling. With respect, I was merely referring to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said and compared it with what he said in Windhoek. The fact remains the regional representation, as Dr. Africa said, is consistent with the declared policy countersigned by Dr. Escher and the hon. the Prime Minister. It is consistent with the desire of the Baster people to return to their ancestral laws and with the right of every population group to have as much say as possible in its own affairs. It is a constructive contribution. I can refer to the contributions made by other leaders, but I shall not be allowed to do so. Since these standpoints and the policy of the Government are consistent with what is before the House, I feel that, with the goodwill of all the people and provided the Whites refrain from trying to dictate to these nations what they should do, we shall succeed in allowing the Rehoboth Gebiet to develop to the well-being and prosperity of its own people.

Order! Did the hon. member say that a member of this House wanted to put the White man in the pillory, or was he simply speaking in general?

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a member of the House.

Then the hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw the words, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, we have approached this Bill in as constructive a manner as we think is its due. We believe that the developments taking place in South West Africa are of the utmost importance to the future, not only of South West Africa, but of the whole of the sub-continent. We are, therefore, most concerned that any development that takes place constitutionally or otherwise within the sub-continent should enjoy the greatest care and concern of this House in ensuring that we do what is right, not only now, but for the future.

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we should not go into the broader constitutional implications of this matter. I certainly feel very strongly that this is not the place for us to go into our relationship with the United Nations and the broader constitutional questions affecting the future of South West Africa, but to relate our discussion of the Bill to the extent that is necessary to those particular implications which are, in fact strictly relevant to the Bill. What we believe is strictly relevant to the Bill, excluding all the other considerations I have mentioned, is whether in fact the Bill is consistent with the true purpose and the public obligations of the South African Government in respect of the future of South West Africa. If I may narrow it to that extent, this is really the key issue with which we are concerned, apart from the internal merits of the Bill itself.

I would say that on the face of it the declarations made by members of the Government, in their relations with the United Nations, give a degree of assurance that the contents of this Bill as well as its purpose cannot and will not be in conflict with our international obligations. It is only because of one or two statements that have been made by members on the other side of this House that this question has again been cast into doubt. I refer most particularly to the hon. member for Middelland. When the hon. member for Middelland speaks on the question of the self-determination of people, he speaks with force and with some learning, but at the same time, I suggest, he walks through a looking-glass and enters a strange other world in which, in the twilight, one sees strange figures of fantasy, living in a Verwoerdian world of strange logic where self-determination means the right of every people, not just States and countries, to determine their own destinies, provided that the choice falls within the terms of Nationalist policy. It has been suggested by the hon. member that French speakers in Canada can seek their own destiny. I hope I quote him correctly.

I did not say that. I said the Russian deputy used that argument when they discussed the Charter.

Yes, I think the hon. member quoted him with approval in support of his argument. French speakers in Canada can seek their own destiny, but English speakers in South Africa obviously cannot.

They are South Africans.

And the French Canadians are Canadians. The Bantu people of South Africa can have independence in areas and on the conditions defined by the Nationalist Government, but if the Coloured people desire political integration with the Whites as an act of self-determination, with Whites with whom they have lived intimately for many centuries, this is not within the terms of self-determination. Black citizens of South Africa may not be represented in this House, because they are destined for separate independence. However, White citizens of South West Africa, who are in fact also destined for independence, may sit here. Therefore, all options are open, in a famous phrase, but some options are more open than others.

I think the hon. member has made his point.

I want to make a further point, namely that the United Nations also seem to have many options, some being more open than others. For example, they refer to—and the hon. member for Middelland mentioned it—the self-determination of peoples. If one looks at some of the resolutions of the United Nations, one will find that they pick and choose. When they refer to Namibia, they say “the self-determination of people”. In other words, they deliberately use words to suit their own intentions, but I shall leave it at that.

So that is in contrast with the Charter.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

When the hon. member for Middelland therefore accuses us on this side of the House of creating suspicion about the Bill or indeed of prejudicing the constitutional talks in Windhoek, I think he must bear in mind that it is statements such as his which call into question what exactly we mean when we talk about self-determination, and which can in fact cause graver jeopardy and damage to the South African cause in negotiations with the international community, than anything we on this side of the House have said. I shall come back to one or two other points in due course. It is not our words so much, but the words he used on Monday that will receive the close attention and scrutiny of the members of the United Nations. He must not blame us for undermining the Turnhalle either, because it is his words that can be shown to contradict the spirit and reality of what underlies the talks there. We must look at what the actual expressed intentions of the Government are and I would like to refer to one or two of them. In April 1973 the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and I quote—

The main meaning of this sentence is perfectly clear. The hon. the Minister was in fact giving an assurance to the United Nations and was seeking to allay suspicion at the United Nations. Members on the other side of the House this afternoon have interpreted this particular phrase by putting special emphasis on the word “suddenly”. They have held that up as the key word in the sentence and they have tried to put a special emphasis on that part of the sentence in order to defend their thesis that, in effect, the people of Rehoboth are destined possibly for eventual independence. By giving this sort of interpretation, I believe that they are putting the Minister’s position in jeopardy. If he had wished to emphasize the word “suddenly” and make that the key word in his sentence, he would have had a very different reception at the United Nations from that which he has had. The Prime Minister made a speech in Windhoek on 25 May last year and this was quoted by the ambassador to the United Nations in a letter to the Secretary-General dated 27 January 1976. The hon. the Prime minister referred to the OAU and said—

Order! The hon. member is not abiding by my ruling. He is discussing the territory of South West Africa. May I point out that this Bill does not in any way deal with independence for the Rehoboth area.

Very well, Sir, I will obey your ruling. My point is—and I will leave it at that—that in considering this Bill we are most concerned that the Bill should not either by intent or by implication create difficulties in our international relations in respect of the question of South West Africa. In looking at this Bill, we have quite rightly, I think, had regard to that particular consideration.

I now want to come to the arguments of the hon. member for Rondebosch. As I have already indicated, we feel an equal concern about the implications of this Bill and the possible unfortunate impression that it may make on the international community and in respect of our relations with the United Nations. The hon. member has said that he reads this debate and the contents of the Bill as providing evidence that the intention of this Bill is in fact to produce self-government, leading to independence of the Rehoboth people. We see a good deal of evidence in the Bill that it is the intention that these people should enjoy self-government in the proper sense of the word. We cannot find evidence, other than the random statements which we have picked up across the floor of the House, that there is any intention to give independent self-government to a small group of people, numbering about 19 000, inhabiting a single township with its surrounding districts, nor any suggestion that this will be a practical proposition.

You do not know what you are talking about. [Interjections.]

We have anxiously considered this question. We have looked at it very seriously because much hangs thereby, but we cannot believe that it is a serious proposition to consider that this territory is in fact destined for independence. If one looks at the evidence, there is, firstly, the statement which I have quoted by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

There is the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister. There is also the statement made in the declaration of intent, and this I think is an important one because the declaration of intent was made by the people who are attending the talks at the Turnhalle. I read this because I think it is very indicative of their own intentions—

This is a statement to which the Rehoboth delegates subscribed.

It is also consistent with the Rehoboth memorandum in which they have specifically stated—in paragraph 11, which I will not read, because it has already been quoted in this House—that it is not their intention to move towards independence and separate sovereignty.

Nobody said so!

I am saying that they said it was not their intention. However, when my hon. friend the member for Edenvale quoted this, the hon. member for Omaruru immediately rushed to paragraph 1 and found a reference to independence—“onafhanklikheid”—and quoted that against the hon. member for Edenvale. My complaint is not that we have any doubts about the good intentions of the Government in this matter. We believe they have made adequate statements to indicate what their true intentions are, but it is the statement made by that hon. member, and subsequently by the hon. member for Omaruru, which caused him to question the very words, statements and declarations that proved the good intent of the Government. [Interjections.] That is our complaint; that is our difficulty. Nevertheless, in spite of these random remarks we believe that the intentions and the facts are so clear that one cannot doubt that the purpose of this Bill is to put the people of Rehoboth, by their own wish, on the road to self-government so that they may participate as members of the greater territory of South West Africa. This is what they declared; this is what has materialized from their activities at the Turnhalle. It is also made quite clear in the statement they have made.

That is why we support the Bill.

So what are you fighting about?

For this reason, we believe …

He is fighting with the Progs! [Interjections.]

Let me now deal very briefly with the second argument of the hon. member for Rondebosch. He says he does not see sufficient evidence of the fact that the particular Bill is being passed at the request and with the consent of the people of Rehoboth. Now, Sir, he has referred to a certain election which took place there. This election was not a referendum on this particular Bill. Certainly, the Bill was involved. It was one of the factors considered. However, according to our information, and there is a great deal of it—in fact, a good deal of history is available on this matter—we believe it is the intention of the people of Rehoboth to resume a form of local constitution which will be consistent with the “Vaderlike Wette”. I believe that there is very little evidence, if any, to contradict that it is in fact their desire that this should be done.

Therefore, the two main arguments mf the hon. member for Rondebosch, in rejecting this Bill, fall through. There is no evidence in this Bill, either implied or explicit, to show that there is any intention to take Rehoboth to independent sovereignty outside South West Africa. There is no such thing.

Secondly, there is a clear indication that this Bill has been brought by the wish of the people of Rehoboth themselves, by their own act of political self-determination, if one wishes, so as to have a form of constitution which will suit their local conditions and their traditions. In the face of these two facts we feel that we must give this Bill our support. Nevertheless, there is a very important “but”.

You always have a “but”!

We believe that because this Bill can give rise to some doubt, such as that genuinely displayed by the hon. member for Rondebosch, it will give rise to even greater doubts in the international community. There are people who will read things into this Bill which it is not in the interest of the Government or anyone in South Africa or South West Africa to have read into this Bill. That can do very great harm. We believe, however, that this Bill can be improved without altering its fundamental purpose of giving the people of Rehoboth a local constitution of their own. We believe that certain things can be said by way of preamble or clarified in the text to make it perfectly clear that what is envisaged is local self-government, at the request of the people of Rehoboth, and that there is no ulterior motive or other design to break faith with the United Nations. This could be done by the addition of a few simple words. If this is done our objections, which I have tried to voice, would be very largely neutralized. We believe that the people of Rehoboth do want this Bill. There is evidence to suggest this. We also believe that local self-government would enable them to participate better in the constitutional development which is going on in South West Africa through the “beraad” and other forms of consultation. We believe, moreover, that they will be better represented if they had a stronger constitution. For all these reasons, therefore, we believe there is merit in this Bill, but we also believe there are demerits of an international kind which should be looked at, and we sincerely hope that when we move amendments in the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister will not treat our objections or proposals as having some ulterior motive. We genuinely believe that this Bill can do good in South West Africa for the Rehoboth people, but we also believe that the disadvantages implicit in it, and the misunderstandings which can rise from it, should in fact be put right so that the Bill can have all the advantages without any of the disadvantages.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech on Monday afternoon the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—

These are presumably the hon. members of the official Opposition—

our policy for South West Africa.

It is therefore no wonder that he reached certain far-fetched conclusions. I shall come back to that later.

This Bill basically concerned the principle of the right to self-determination of nations, and self-government. I should therefore like to approach this Bill objectively and put it to certain tests in order to ascertain whether it has sufficient merit to claim support. I do not want to disobey your ruling in any way, Sir, and I shall therefore not discuss the international status of South West Africa as such. However, Mr. Speaker, I trust in referring to it is passing, I shall remain within limits of what you have indicated.

As early as 8 January 1918 the late President Woodrow Wilson summarized his programme for world peace before the American Congress in the now famous Fourteen Points. He also emphasized, among others, the right to self-determination of nations. During the Paris Peace Conference Gen. Smuts, in his The League of Nations: A Practical Suggestion, also described the right to self-determination of nations as a fundamental principle. He called the mandate system “a temporary expedient”, which he regarded as “a stepping stone towards self-government and self-determination”. On a closer analysis it is evident that the right to self-determination and ultimate self-government was implied and envisaged in the mandate system, as embodied in Article 22 of the Charter of the League of Nations and in the South West Africa mandate. Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing the mandate system now. I am merely stating it as a fact that the right to self-determination forms an integral part of this mandate system.

Order! The hon. member must not be too long in coming to the point.

I shall try not to make it too long, Sir. When looking at the report of the Baster Advisory Council in connection with the Constitutional Development of Rehoboth, we find in the very first paragraph, a paragraph which has already been referred to, the following—

and I think we should take cognizance here of the word “uiteindelik” (ultimately). We should not think in terms of an immediate objective. I quote further—

In other words, independence is not the immediate objective. Nor is it said that this shall or has to be the immediate objective, but that progress could eventually be made towards independence. It is in view of this that the Advisory Council asks that—

However, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout came to the House on Monday and interpreted the Bill in question as merely a granting of greater local governing powers to the people of Rehoboth. He was supported on that score by the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Von Brandis. Furthermore, he suggested that the people of Rehoboth had assured him in personal talks that they, in fact, desired nothing more than that.

He has just issued another statement.

One cannot help wondering what the hon. member and his fellow-travellers tried to delude the good people of Rehoboth into believing in the course of these discussions. But I am saying this merely in passing.

Yes, very much in passing.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in this respect, referred to part 11 of the Advisory Council’s report and said he wanted to quote the paragraph in full. But what did he then do? He went further and first quoted the paragraph incorrectly, and not in full either. I have the Hansard of the hon. member’s speech here, and I am, therefore, able to discuss the matter with him in detail. In doing so he is creating a distorted picture of what appears in the report concerned. Paragraph 11 of the report, in full, reads as follows—

I have already said that this is not its immediate objective of the Council. However, this may possibly be achieved eventually.

What is your objective?

I quote further—

This is paragraph 11 in full. To behave in this way is hardly conducive to one’s credibility. Nowhere in para. 11 or anywhere in the report is there any indication whatsoever that what the people of Rehoboth are concerned about is merely a degree of local governing powers, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to suggest. When one considers the powers envisaged in para. 14 of the report by the Advisory Council, it is evident that far more than local governing powers are envisaged. No, the Advisory Council …

That is independence.

No one said it was independence. The hon. member puts up his own target and then shoots at it. The Advisory Council merely emphasizes in para. 11 of the report that the re-enactment of the Paternal Law of 1872 as such will not bring about self-dependence or independence. However, it is clear that the Council does in fact regard the re-enactment of the Paternal Law as a recognition of the right to self-determination of the people of Rehoboth, and as an important step towards self-government. Since the Bill concerned is, in fact, aimed at giving effect to this point of view, it seems to be completely in accordance with the principles of the mandate system, as embodied in Article 22 of the Charter of the League of Nations.

I should like to apply a second test to this Bill, whether it is in accordance with the prevailing world opinion and views on political rights of developing nations.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20hl5.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the second test I want to apply in judging this Bill, is the question as to whether it is consistent with current world opinion and views on political rights for developing nations. On Monday afternoon the hon. member for Middelland pointed out that the principle of the right to self-determination of nations was accepted at Dumbarton Oaks and forms an integral part of the Charter of UNO. When referring to the Charter of UNO and when considering the so-called “Trusteeship System”, one finds the following in Article 76—

Therefore, it is evident that the objective of the trusteeship system of UNO is inter alia, to guide the inhabitants of trust territories towards self-government or independence, that recognition be given to the fact that the particular circumstances of the various trust territories do, in fact, differ and that these differences should be taken into consideration in their progress towards self-government. Finally, the right to self-determination—which is the basic concern of this Bill—of the peoples concerned, is confirmed.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that we are not dealing here with a trust territory. In this Bill no principles concerning international law are at stake, and consequently hon. members are not allowed to advance arguments concerning international law.

With respect, Sir, I am merely referring to the fact that the right to self-determination of smaller nations is also being recognized in the trustee system of UNO. I read in this a confirmation of the fact that the right to self-determination of a people such as, inter alia, the people of Rehoboth, is also accepted and recognized by the organized world community. I do not want to elaborate on the trusteeship system or international status. What I am saying, is that the fact that mention is made in this regard of “each territory and its peoples”—in the plural—and of the “freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”, is further confirmation of the fact that more than one people or ethnic group may be living in a particular trust territory, and that each one has a separate claim to self-determination. Therefore, the Bill which is being discussed at present does not seem to be in any way inconsistent with the current international views of the political rights of developing peoples as expressed in the Charter of UNO.

The third test is whether the Bill fits in with the Government’s general policy concerning South West Africa, and a great play has been made of this by hon. members opposite. The Government’s policy concerning South West Africa has been stated repeatedly by, among others, the Prime Minister in recent times. In a statement issued to UNO, dated 12 December 1973, this policy was also stated by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have had various quotations from correspondence here, but I think this is the crux of the whole matter. The Minister stated unequivocally—

The Government’s policy concerning South West Africa therefore unequivocally testifies to confidence in the principle of the right to self-determination of peoples.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now. The hon. member is making it difficult for the Chair. It has been ruled that hon. members are not allowed to discuss the the constitutional or international future of South West Africa.

As you please, Sir. Therefore, the Bill which is serving before this House now fits in well with the declared policy of the Government concerning South West Africa, also as it is manifesting itself in the constitutional talks in Windhoek. But I am not going to say anything more about it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout now says that the Bill also fits in with the United Party’s federation policy because the Bill recognizes the principle of the division of power. The hon. member for Omaruru referred to this matter earlier this evening, but I want to ask the hon. members of the offical Oppositions again: Since when has the division of power been the United Party policy? Their policy, at least in so far as they have a determinable policy, is, in fact, a sharing of power as against a division of power, which is the policy of the National Party. Sir, It is true that there have been considerable talks lately of hon. members of the official Opposition who are allegedly considering joining the National Party. [Interjections.] But honestly, Sir, I have never suspected that anyone, let alone the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would be considering a step of this nature.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

The fourth test which I want to apply to the Bill is whether it complies with the present-day political requirements for a constitution. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

The authority on constitutional law, H. J. May, in his book The South African Constitution (1949 edition), has the following to say about this on page 14.

Constitutional law consists of that law which governs the exercise of powers by the Government and institutions of the State.

He stated further—

It has been suggested that we are supposed to have an incomplete constitution in this Bill as well. In this connection I am referring to what May had to say about the Constitution of the United States. He said—

In para. 9 of the Report of the Advisory Council this Council also acknowledges the inadequacy of the Paternal Law of 1872 as a constitution. It reads—

Therefore, according to para. 10 of the Report, the Council is—

However, the Paternal Law of 1872 did, in fact, provide for the basic organs and State machinery required for the government of the Gebiet and the people of Rehoboth. The Kaptein who was elected and nominated by the people of Rehoboth from their ranks remained the head of the government for life. In the execution of his office he was assisted by a Kaptein’s Council consisting of two members and appointed by the Kaptein for as long as it pleases him. Legislation was enacted by the Kaptein and his council and decisions were also taken by them. However, in order also to give the people a share in the government, the Paternal Law provided for a Legislative Council consisting of three members to be elected every year from their own ranks. The wishes and desires of the people were then submitted to the Legislative Council, which submitted these wishes and desires to the Kaptein and his council with a view to legislation or such other steps that may be required at the discretion of the Kaptein and his council. Legislation and decisions of the Kaptein and his council were put in writing and then submitted to the Legislative Council for approval. However, if the Legislative Council does not want to accept the legislation or decision of the Kaptein and his council, the Kaptein and his council had to meet the Legislative Council for a discussion of and voting on the measure or matter. Furthermore, the Paternal Law also contained provisions concerning citizenship and the franchise for the Kapteinskap and the Legislative Council. Therefore the Paternal Law of 1872 did, in fact, contain the fundamental characteristics of a constitution and after the reinstitution thereof the organs will, in fact, exist which will, where necessary, be adjusted and supplemented by this constitution.

In the Report of the Advisory Council it is also envisaged that more extensive powers and authorities would gradually be granted to the Government of Rehoboth. In this way the Government of Rehoboth would be able to develop to self-government or independence gradually. I say “would be able to”, because it is not a matter of its being the policy of this side of the House, but of things of the future. Among other things, it was also envisaged that the Baster court, which administers justice in consideration of the Paternal Law, would eventually develop into a fully-fledged supreme court, while public service organization of its own was being envisaged in due course.

When looking at the Bill before us, we find that it not only provides for self-government for the people of Rehoboth by the reenactment of the Paternal Law of 1872, but that it is also casting the provisions thereof into a more sophisticated mould. A few amendments are also being effected to bring the provisions of the Paternal Law more in line with current political views and practices. For instance, the Kaptein will be elected for a term of office of five years and not for life. The Legislative Council will consist of six members instead of three. The functioning of the various organs and related matters are also being defined in greater detail. The powers and authorities of the Kaptein, the Kaptein’s council and the Legislative Council are set out in detail in the Schedule to the Bill. It appears that various powers and authorities envisaged in the Report of the Advisory Council are already being implemented by the Bill.

This Bill is no retrogressive step back to the past. On the contrary. It is a progressive deed which testifies to confidence in the people of Rehoboth and which promises and creates for them wonderful new visions of self-realization. Therefore, it is a privilege for me to have been able to take part in the discussion on this Bill and to support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, it does not happen every day that we discuss, in this House, a Bill of this nature which really induces a profound feeling of sympathy with the people of Rehoboth if one considers it closely. In fact one is astonished that legislation of this nature should be before this House in the year 1976. However, it is something which is better understood if one tries to gain an insight into the lives and circumstances of the population group we are now discussing.

It astonishes me that there are hon. members on that side of the House who question our attitude on this Bill. There is, for example, the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who has just resumed his seat, and who wanted to know since when it was the policy of this side of the House to advocate division of power. The hon. member always believed that the policy of the United Party was solely one of sharing of power. But the hon. member never took the trouble to make a proper study of the United Party’s approach. We have always said that it is our policy to give every population group in South Africa the maximum responsibility and the maximum authority, and only when those powers cannot be divided because they are indivisible are we prepared to share those responsibilities and powers with all the population groups of South Africa in a federal body.

You therefore want to divide and share.

That is the policy of the United Party.

†I believe that we on this side have taken up an attitude which is realistic. I believe, however, that the hon. member for Mossel Bay and also some other hon. members on that side have taken up an unrealistic attitude. The same applies to my hon. friends on my left, the members of the PRP, because they regard this piece of legislation as legislation aimed at independence. We, on the other hand, believe that this legislation is not aimed at independence for the population group of Rehoboth. I am sorry to say that I believe that some of the hon. members who have taken up that attitude, have embarrassed the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations because he has made it quite plain that this legislation is in line with the wishes of the people of Rehoboth and that independence and sovereignty for the Rehoboth people is not at issue at the moment.

*The hon. members for Mossel Bay and Middelland, as well as the hon. members of the PRP, went to meet trouble half way, for we are nowhere near that situation. Our attitude on this side of the House is quite simple, but is in my opinion a very practical approach. The territory of Rehoboth came into being more than 100 years ago. It is a territory which originated as a result of the fact that people settled there. How they settled there is not relevant now. It is a territory which belongs to them, and it is recognized as such. It is an area which, if they were to buy out the land in question or exchange it with certain Whites, would be 1 400 000 ha in extent. This is not an area which was created by the State. Nor was the area created by the Odendaal Commission. The area is simply there. These people quite simply asked for a form of self-government to be granted to them. This side of the House admits that every ethnic group in South Africa is entitled to control its own affairs in accordance with its own views.

Since when?

It is our view that an ethnic group is entitled to preserve its own identity. Since this is our approach, we on this side of the House will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

†There are a few points I should like to raise in connection with this legislation before us. I believe that in spite of the fact that we are going to give these people the trimmings of self-government, in spite of the fact that we are going to give them a “volksraad” and a kapteins council, I believe that their land will never be able to be developed unless the people who are now to be put in charge, i.e. the “volksraad” and the kapteins council— which will form a sort of Cabinet—are prepared to pay attention to the economic development of the area. We all know that that area is poor. The people there are entirely dependent on stock farming. The irrigation farming in that area is infinitesimal. In fact, if irrigation fanning is to be carried on there in the future—no irrigation farming has been undertaken there yet—according to the Odendaal Commission no more than about 1 000 ha will be able to be put under irrigation in that particular area.

Is that all?

Yes, that is all according to the Odendaal report. The Rehoboth River will have to be dammed up and everything possible will have to be done to develop that area. One of the reasons why we on this side believe that this move does not mean independence, is that the South African authorities for many years to come will have to lend a helping hand to this particular population group in Rehoboth. Irrigation schemes will have to be developed in that area. At present we have a situation there that the majority of the so-called farmers are not actively farming, but are living in Rehoboth itself. What are they doing? They are renting out their land to Whites and others. They themselves are not doing very much to develop that particular area. This can only be achieved by giving them the right type of technical advice so that they will learn to farm properly in that area. Agriculture is their primary industry. At the moment no-one can talk of secondary industries of any consequence there. It just does not exist, and it will not come into being for some time to come, unless of course water can be brought down to this area and large-scale industrial development can be promoted there. As I see it, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is perfectly right when he said that industrial development there was impossible in the prevailing circumstances.

What about mining?

I am quite prepared to admit that the area has mining potential, but even then assistance on a large scale will have to be given to these people. Otherwise all the trimmings of self-government will not help anyone. I am prepared to say that, if the government is willing and more than willing to push agricultural development in that area, I believe something worthwhile can be done for that population group.

*Lastly, I want to say that in spite of all the arguments in regard to the international situation of South West Africa and the question of whether or not this could lead to independence, it is our bounden duty in this House, whenever a population group asks us to support them, not to question what those people are asking for. It astonishes me that the Progressive Party is able to come to this House with this absolutely meaningless amendment. They are usually the people who advocate the furtherance of human rights and who say that we should pay attention to what population groups want. But in spite of that they come forward with an amendment, which reads inter alia—

Do you agree?

Of course I agree with the hon. members when it comes to the future of South West Africa as a whole, but this has nothing to do with the interests of South West Africa as a whole. They go on to say in their amendment—

Where do they get this from?

Do you agree?

What evidence have they got that the other population groups in South West Africa do not agree with this Bill? If the other population groups in South West Africa did not agree, I am certain we would have heard that from the beraad already. Let me tell you, Sir, why the hon. members are opposed to this legislation.

They are the neo-verkramptes.

They are not only neo-verkramptes. They are opposed to this Bill in the first place because they are not in favour of the preservation of the identity of specific groups in South Africa and in the second because there are no other population groups in that area which allow them to make the policy of integration which they contemplate applicable throughout there. That is why those hon. members are opposed to this— because the idea of self-government for a specific group does not suit their political philosophy for South Africa. They do not realize that it has already been fundamentally accepted in South Africa that one will leave the maximum political say, the maximum degree of say over their own affairs, to a specific group. We support the legislation because we think that it will place this population group on the road to development, and that it will bring them more than they had in the past. We support it in the last place because, however simple it may sound to the hon. member for Rondebosch, it is in accordance with what the people themselves want and is therefore not a policy which is being forced upon them. For that reason we support the legislation at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in rather a difficult position because I cannot differ with the hon. member for Newton Park. He made such a good speech that I am considering inviting him to my constituency for the next political meeting. I am very pleased to have heard from the hon. member tonight that his party stands for people having the right to manage their own affairs and to maintain their identity. I simply hope that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout agrees with him and also endorses this standpoint whole-heartedly. I shall leave the UP at that. I just hope that they are not going to do an about-face during the Committee Stage, for it seems to me that they are planning a transparent strategy because, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, they will move amendments during the Committee Stage, and if they have no success there, they may vote against the Bill at the Third Reading. However, let us leave them at that. We shall see whether they follow the right path.

I would like to confine myself to the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch. In this amendment the hon. member said that the creation of self-government for Rehoboth by the South African Parliament contradicts the declared policy, that all the inhabitants of South Africa should decide on the future of South West. This is our policy. As far back as 23 October 1974, the hon. the Prime Minister made this very clear in the Other Place. I want to tell the hon. member for Rondebosch that the Bill before the House does not involve any intervention in South West Africa’s affairs. The hon. member and the other members of his party must remember one thing, and that is that while the conference in South West Africa is in progress—and we all hope that the conference will be successful—life goes on in South West, life goes on for the people in that area. It is the duty of the Government to co-operate with the people to develop the area and to give the people there more living space. I maintain that the fact that Rehoboth is taking part in the conference proves very clearly to us that they do not consider the Bill as one which gives them total independence of which cuts them off completely from other nations of South West Africa and from participation in the conference. The fact that they are indeed taking part emphasizes their desire to co-operate in finding a solution for South West Africa.

In his amendment the hon. member also says that there is insufficient evidence that the Bill is acceptable to the inhabitants of Rehoboth. The hon. member provided figures in this respect. However, I want to tell the hon. member that there was an election and that an opinion was expressed in this election. In any election, even one vote constitutes a majority. Although the percentage of votes, as the hon. member said, was only 37%, it was nevertheless a majority which voted in favour of the Bill. We can do nothing about the fact that the people of Rehoboth are divided into three different parties. The Bill was put to them, and although only 37% voted in favour of it, the party concerned obtained a majority. I know that it was not a referendum. However, an election was held concerning this matter, and the result was in favour of the Bill. Therefore I maintain that the inhabitants of Rehoboth desired it.

The hon. member went on to say in his amendment that other population groups of South West Africa did not approve of it either. I want to make the statement that one population group in South West Africa cannot dictate to another what to do at this stage. The people are in conference and are trying to find a solution to their problems. I want to repeat that the Bill will not present any obstacle to the conference. We must be careful not to confuse self-government with independence. There is no question in the Bill of total independence for Rehoboth. I think that this is what the hon. member for Rondebosch and his party are so afraid of. This Bill is concerned with self-government. There is no question here of a homeland or of total independence. This Bill is only concerned with people being able to manage their own affairs in their own area as laid down in terms of the Bill.

I would like to refer to our municipal system, which in my opinion is essentially a form of self-government too. After all a municipality has the right to impose taxes within its area and to rule the people in that area. As voter in the municipal area of Oudtshoorn I cannot vote in the municipal area of Cape Town. This is what self-government means. I want to repeat that there is no question here of independence as the hon. members of the PRP maintain. Without any fear of contradiction, I want to describe the Bill which is before the House as a forward step in the interests of a certain area and in the interests of a certain group of people.

The hon. the Minister outlined the history of the area very clearly in his speech. This made one thing very obvious to me, and this is that the people of Rehoboth placed a very high premium upon their national or group identity—call it what you will—as far back as 1870. They felt so strongly about the matter that they broke away and by means of negotiations obtained their own area in which to live. So we are here dealing with the desire for self-determination. No one amongst us can disregard the desire for self-determination.

Who of us in this House dare say tonight that those people are not equipped to rule themselves or to determine their own destiny? This is actually what the Progressive Reform Party is trying to suggest, namely that these people are not able to rule themselves or to determine their own destiny. The people of Rehoboth have succeeded in remaining themselves for more than a century, in preserving their own traditions. They did this in an orderly manner. When we refer to Rehoboth, we can rightly speak of an ordered civilization which is modelled on self-determination. In this connection it behoves the House to have only the greatest admiration and respect for the people of Rehoboth.

I have already said that this Bill is a forward step, and I would like to name two reasons for seeing it as such. In my opinion, two things are going to be achieved by means of this Bill, and I consider these as constituting the chief aim of the Bill. In my view, people are merely being stubborn if they read other things into the Bill. In the first place I see that there is going to be better planning and progress of the area as a result of this legislation. The emphasis immediately falls upon development, the chief component of the policy of the NP, namely to create opportunities for development for all people and for all groups in the country. The hon. the Minister referred to the proper planning of the Rehoboth territory, something which is apparently lacking at the moment. He said that it can be reached by means of co-operation after the Bill has been accepted.

Reference was made to an electricity scheme, a water scheme and also to the fact that there will be co-operation in the existing Rehoboth Development Corporation. The Bill therefore aims at the further development and expansion of the Rehoboth area. This is a step forward because it aims at better co-operation. Once again we are dealing with the basic principle in the policy of the National Party, namely co-operation to the advantage of all people. We have established that there has been practically no co-operation between Rehoboth and other authorities over the past 50 years. The hon. the Minister spoke about the distrust, stagnation and antagonism which prevail there. It is clear that no nation can achieve anything with these things. It cannot serve the interests of that area and its people and cannot benefit them in any way. Because discussions were held with these people, because they were given opportunity to speak about these things and because they announced their willingness to accept this Bill, I foresee that there will now be co-operation between Rehoboth, its leaders and the other authorities. This area and its people can only gain as a result of that co-operation.

I want to conclude by saying that this Bill underlines another two important aspects for me. In the first place there is the preservation of an identity of one’s own. This is what the Progressive Reform Party does not want to accept and admit. I want to allege that if we in South Africa could accept this as a foundation for our co-existence in this country, we would be able to advance much further and much more quickly in many fields. There is talk of moving away from discrimination on grounds of colour. I want to tell you that this can indeed be done in South Africa. It can be done in all fields, but then we must bear in mind what we have here in Rehoboth, namely that these people are proud of their own identity, that they want to maintain this identity, that they do not want to be a threat to anyone else nor do they want any other people to be a threat to them. We can progress very far in South Africa on that foundation.

I also see respect for tradition in this Bill. The hon. member for Rondebosch referred to the patriarchal laws which have been modernized in this Bill. I want to concede that changes have taken place as a result of discussions. However, I want to say that the changes were in the interests of these people and the territory. It was not to their disadvantage, after all; we want to serve them. I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that we must develop the agriculture and everything else within our power, because we must give all people in South Africa, irrespective of colour, race or religion, space in which to live. We must also have respect for tradition and for history. Since I find these things in the Bill, I would like to support it whole-heartedly and I believe that it will hold only positive things for Rehoboth in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. He has made a comparison between the municipality of Oudtshoorn and the provisions of this Bill. He says he can see no reason why anybody should imagine there is anything purporting towards independence in this self-government Bill for the Rehoboth people. I am very interested in that and I would like to ask the hon. member for Oudtshoorn whether Oudtshoorn has its own flag. Presumably it has its own flag with an ostrich on it and presumably the ostrich has its head well buried in the ground. I also want to ask the hon. member whether Oudtshoorn has provision for its own national anthem as well, because this Bill contains a provision for a flag and for a national anthem. I should say that those are the hall-marks of independence which certainly go far beyond anything we may find in the municipality of Oudtshoorn. I should also like to ask the hon. member how it is that the Rehoboth people have maintained their separate identity all these years, for well over a century at least, without a Bill introducing self-government. He seems to imagine that it is only when one has a Bill introduced in this Parliament that the Rehoboth people can maintain their own identity. I put it to him that they have managed very well all these years without such a Bill.

Originally I did not intend entering this debate, but as the hours went by and I listened to speech after speech, it has become irresistible. Two things have manifested themselves. The first one is that there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst Government members on the intent of this Bill, to which I shall return a little later. On the other hand, the United Party, as so often happens, finds itself in a serious dilemma. [Interjections.] Never mind the mirthless laughter I hear on my right. It is more than obvious to anybody who has been listening to the speeches that were made by the hon. members for Bezuidenhout, Von Brandis, Edenvale and Newton Park, that the United Party is very nervous about this Bill. It is nervous about the stand it has taken on this Bill, and rightly so, because as so often happens, it has taken the wrong stand. The intelligence—I shall not say of all the members, because they are not all intelligent—of those members who have it, tells them that they ought to oppose this Bill. That is what their intelligence tells them, and the speeches, expressing considerable misgivings which were made by the hon. members for Bezuidenhout, Von Brandis and Edenvale, displayed in no uncertain manner that they really believe basically that they ought to be opposing this Bill. They all made speeches against this Bill although they all ended up by saying that they were going to support it. Their dilemma is that their intelligence conflicts with expediency, as often happens in the United Party.

You will have to try harder for Durban North.

I wonder if the large, noisy member … [Interjections.] Expediency on the other hand dictates that they support the Bill. Expediency tells the United Party that there should be only, no matter what the circumstances are, a bilateral approach to foreign affairs. It is a sort of spurious patriotism that permeates the United Party: “My mother, drunk or sober; my Government right or wrong,” as far as foreign policy is concerned. It does not matter to them if the Government is doing something which is palpably bad for South Africa, they still feel that as far as foreign policy is concerned, they must support the Government.

May I use one of your expressions and say “rubbish”?

By all means; be my guest.

Rubbish!

By all means; be my guest. [Interjections.] These hon. members found themselves in this dilemma and while all their speeches, except that made by the hon. member for Newton Park, told us they were supporting the Bill, the contents of the speeches opposed the principles of the Bill. [Interjections.]

The two main explanations which the United Party has advanced in telling us why it is in fact supporting the Bill, although as I say, the major arguments have been against it, are first of all, that it is in keeping with their federal policy, because it is a Bill which introduces decentralization, and secondly that the Bill has the support of the majority of the Rehoboth people. I am afraid both those explanations are not correct; they do not hold any water. This Bill in no way advances the United Party’s race federation scheme. This Bill has a geographic content and is not a race federation Bill. Secondly, even if it were in any way advancing decentralization, it is utterly devoid of any overall federal parliament which would govern South West Africa. There is nothing in this Bill which makes any allowance whatever for a federal parliament, so how the hon. member for Bezuidenout can tell us that this Bill is in keeping with the United Party’s race federation plan …

The word is not “race” federation.

But the United Party’s policy is a race federation. Does the hon. member now tell me that the United Party has changed that policy as well? That is also changed; there is no longer a race federation plan. Up to the time of the last election there was a race federation plan. Of course it is quite possible that the United Party has changed its policy again, but if it has changed it, it would be very nice if they would inform not only this House, but the country as well.

Secondly, the explanation is that this Bill has the support of the majority of the Rehoboth people. What evidence is there of that? There is no evidence whatsoever because it has never been put to the test; that is my evidence. Nobody can say with any certainty that the contents of this Bill have the support of the majority of the Rehoboth people because it has never been put to them. The election that was held was not held on this issue; it was an election for a new council, because some of the members had resigned. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether the actual contents of this Bill were actually put to the Rehoboth people? I believe there is no evidence of that whatsoever. [Interjections.]

Your policy was not clear to the people at the last election.

Of course it was. What nonsense! Pamphlet after pamphlet set out our policy and as a result we won six additional seats. The hon. member for Rondebosch demonstrated quite clearly in his speech that the contents of this Bill had never been put to the Reo Rehoboth people. The United Party is worried about this Bill, as I say, and it realizes that it should not be supporting this Bill. Of course, it is not too late to change. They can still vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch.

I have said that there is a big difference of opinion in the ranks of the Government members as well. Some of them have stated clearly, unequivocally, and with a considerable degree of enthusiasm, that there is no doubt whatsoever that this Bill could be a first step towards independence. They do not say it will be, but they say it could be. Other members, like the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, deny this. He says that this Bill is just giving powers which are similar to the powers of a municipal authority, similar to the powers enjoyed by the municipality of Oudtshoorn. There are members here, the hon. member for Omaruru, the hon. member for Mossel Bay, and of course most eloquently of all, the hon. member for Middelland, who made it very clear yesterday that this Bill could indeed be a first step towards independence.

I said self-determination.

Shall I read out the hon. member’s exact words? Let us not have any confusion on this score, Sir. The hon. member for Rondebosch asked him a question.

Just read what I said before he asked me the question.

I will read before and I will read afterwards and I will read the actual answer as well. What the hon. member for Rondebosch asked was this. He asked the hon. member for Middelland—

“Onafhanklik”, not self-determination, and the hon. member answered: “Baie beslis, ja. ”

That is their right to self-determination.

The hon. member used the word “onafhanklik” which, as far as I know, means “independent” and the hon. member said, “Baie beslis, ja.” He then went on to say that—

The hon. member has very eloquently told us that as far as he is concerned, the possibilities are that this Bill … [Interjections.] I do not think that the hon. member for Middelland can deny that he replied to a question which dealt not with self-determination only but had also to do with independence. Other members there have said the same thing …

No.

Oh yes, absolutely. The hon. member for Omaruru certainly said so and I do not think that he will deny it. He said …

I did not say that.

Is that so? He knows it and I will get his Hansard tomorrow anyway. There are other members on the Government side who are anxious not to have the label of independence pinned on to this Bill, and for very good reason because there is no doubt whatsoever, as the hon. member for Rondebosch has pointed out in his amendment, that the idea of independence runs contrary to the undertakings which were given by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Secretary-General in April 1973. He said—

“The whole population of the territory.” So what? If this little Bill is the first step to independence of the Rehoboth people in their area, then the Government is not respecting the wishes of the whole population of South West Africa, because if one area breaks away and becomes independent, it affects the future of the entire territory. [Interjections.] I do not say that it is breaking away now. I say that members on that side have stated unequivocally that this could lead to independence. We therefore say that there is considerable danger that this will be interpreted in that way and that the Government will be accused of not honouring its obligations in respect of South West Africa. That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout sees only too clearly and it is what the hon. member for Von Brandis sees only too clearly. That is why their speeches were in complete opposition to this Bill. We say that this whole question of independence is an absurdity in respect of the Rehoboth people. This we say in view of the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the area has a population of 16 000 people, I think the hon. member said.

19 000 people.

Let us call it 19 000 people.

Order! I am one of the people in this House who should know what the hon. member is saying, but I find it difficult, very difficult, to follow her because hon. members are conversing too loudly. The hon. member may proceed.

The mind boggles at the dream of the hon. member for Middelland, envisaging independence for an area which has a population of 19 000 people. My own constituency has about 16 000 people and it is probably more viable than Rehoboth.

What about the population of some of the members of the United Nations?

16 000 …

But look at the membership of the United Nations.

I have looked …

Order! The hon. member for Houghton has had a fair opportunity to reply to the independence argument. She has dealt with it amply. The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

Sir, the hon. member for Rondebosch has said that there is insufficient evidence, and I agree entirely with him, that this Bill is acceptable to the other population groups of South West Africa. I would therefore like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he could give us—which he certainly has not—some explanation …

Which Deputy Minister?

I am very sorry, I mean the hon. the Minister. I beg your pardon. It has been such a rapid promotion that I have not yet become used to it. [Interjections.] I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would tell us what the urgency is about this Bill. Why is he introducing it at this particular moment in time?

Did you not listen to my Second Reading speech?

I listened, but the hon. the Minister did not give us an explanation as to why it had to be introduced now, while the conference is being held in Windhoek. [Interjections.] The conference is adjourned at the moment, but presumably it is going to be resumed shortly. What is the point of it? Why does he not wait and see whether or not the conference adopts something which is quite different from what he is suggesting in the Bill? The conference is at the present moment considering the Herero plan for South West Africa, which is presumably going to include the area occupied by the Rehoboth people. So what is the point of introducing this Bill at this moment in time? The hon. the Minister has given us no explanation at all.

Secondly, I wonder if he would tell us too, when he replies to this debate, just exactly what the Government hopes to achieve by this measure. What contribution does he think it can make to solving the South West Africa problem? Does he honestly believe that a Bill of this kind is going to make any contribution to solving the South West Africa problem? We have had two previous measures in this House dealing with self-government in South West Africa. There was the original Bill which was introduced in 1968, the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South West Africa Act, and there was an amending Bill which was introduced in 1973. Those measures dealt with people other than the Rehoboth people. Can the hon. the Minister honestly say that those measures have solved the problem as far as South West Africa is concerned?

This is a futile effort. The Government would be well advised to withdraw this Bill, and not to proceed any further with it. The timing is most unfortunate, it is provocative and misleading, and I believe the Government ought to withdraw this Bill at this moment in time. What indeed the Government should concentrate on are two things. The one is a continuation of the plan which was started more than 10 years ago, and which has in fact achieved a great deal, although a great deal still remains to be achieved. That is the economic development of the territory, which was started in all earnestness in 1964, after the Odendaal plan was published. The Government very wisely, at that stage, decided to leave the political recommendations of the Odendaal plan to one side.

The second thing that the Government ought to be doing, rather than to be going ahead with a measure of this kind at this moment in time, is to remove the race discriminatory measures inside the territory of South West Africa as quickly as possible, because when all is said and done, when all these measures are considered and passed …

I am so sick and tired of that argument now that I could die! [Interjections.]

Far be it from me, Sir, to deter the hon. member.

It means nothing! [Interjections.]

I must tell the hon. member that, if he is sick and tired of this, the people of South West Africa are sicker and tireder of it. [Interjections.] They are sick and tired of this, but they have no intention of dying like the hon. member for Carletonville. Sir, if the Government wants to contribute something to the solution of the South West Africa problem, it will not be doing so by continuing with this Bill. It should continue with economic development of the territory on the one hand, and on the other hand with the rapid removal of racially discriminatory practices inside South West Africa.

Sir, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch with all the enthusiasm at my command.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one good reason why this step forward has to be taken in respect of self-government for the people of Rehoboth within the territory which has traditionally been theirs and has so been recognized by all Governments, it is this unsavoury political game between two Opposition parties of scoring off one another politically at the expense of the affairs of the people of Rehoboth. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I was waiting for the hon. member for Maitland to participate in the debate. I was surprised that he did not participate in the debate, and that he left it to other hon. members.

The hon. member for Houghton, towards the end, took this game to extremes. The only interest which she appears to have in the people of Rehoboth is to use them as a political football with which she scores off the United Party. I want to say at the very outset that the little game which they tried to play by making accusations to the effect that we on this side of the House ostensibly have other intentions than those which are clearly apparent from the Bill—which are stated in it unambiguously and in good English and Afrikaans—is also something I want to deal with summarily. This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with sovereign independence. Nothing like that is stated anywhere in the Bill. It is not to be read anywhere in the Bill, and anyone who tries to suggest anything of the kind, is committing a crime against the people of Rehoboth.

Many haphazard arguments and statements on the meaning of self-determination and whether it could lead to independence, were bandied about here. This is something one could hold long debates about, but it is by no means the issue in this debate. It is only being used as an argument to distract attention from the real issue.

To whom are you preaching now?

I am preaching to that hon. member who sometimes dreams and sees visions. Mr. Speaker, when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill, I said that we were dealing here with a unique piece of legislation, legislation the like of which we had probably not had in this House before. I said this because this legislation deals with a particular population group in South West Africa which has for more than a 100 years maintained their own laws and norms, laws and norms which were recognized by the authorities. However, if any doubt still exists as to the real objects of this legislation, I shall once again make them clear here.

It is not necessary for hon. members to quote long passages here from correspondence with the Secretary-General of UNO and others. Two years ago the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South West Africa Amendment Bill was before this House. As far as the contents of that Bill is concerned—this is something I want to make very clear—it was in no way comparable with the present Bill. It was entirely different, and it was also intended for completely different population groups. On that occasion the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—and I am referring to the talks which he held with Dr. Escher of UNO on the future of South West Africa (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 949)—

The “hon. friend” in this case was the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that it was not our decision either, or a decision of UNO, it was in fact a decision of the people of South West Africa. I think this is also applicable to this legislation. The same can be said of this.

They have no right at all to speak here on behalf of those people.

Nor have you.

Since the hon. members on the opposite side argued up in the air over the question of independence, I want to point out to them how easily it is possible to play with the words in this memorandum as well, the report of the Baster Advisory Council in regard to the constitutional development of Rehoboth. In para. 1 it is stated—

But now listen to what follows—

They say this in their memorandum, but it is not stated in this Bill, as the hon. member for Rondebosch reproached the Government with. It is not stated anywhere in this Bill.

What does the hon. member for Middelland say?

I referred to self-determination.

Therefore I now have to repeat that any person here, or anywhere outside, who comes to the conclusion that this Bill deals with independence for the people of Rehoboth, now or in the future, does not know what he is talking about. This Bill has nothing to say on that subject. The people of South West Africa are deciding for themselves what they want to do.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who was the main speaker of the official Opposition, the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Houghton, who has just resumed her seat, were unanimous in their criticism that the time for this Bill had been wrongly chosen. Therefore I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to refer in addition to the argument, which was advanced from both sides, that these people had not been consulted, or that the majority had not been in favour of it. I concede that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not argue this point very strongly. He merely intimated that the Bill had not been submitted verbatim to every citizen. He did not express an opinion on this matter as strongly as did the hon. members of the Progressive Party. Therefore I am now going to skech the background to the origins of this Bill. In 1961 the Advisory Council called in an attorney from Windhoek to draw up a constitution for Rehoboth. The hon. member for Houghton should listen to this now.

I am listening.

It is therefore the will of the people of Rehoboth. However, the final product was not acceptable to the people of Rehoboth. They are a proud people, with their own tradition, and what others offer them is not always acceptable. In a referendum which was then held, it was rejected. The reason was that it did not take into consideration the traditions and the old institutions of the Paternal Law. In 1963 another attempt was made to give them a say over their own affairs, and it was then agreed to embody the 1923 agreement, in terms of which Rehoboth was granted a local government, in an ordinance. It was even placed on the Statute Book. For the same reasons, however, the people of Rehoboth were not satisfied with that, and it was then dropped. In 1969 the hon. the Prime Minister had talks with the Advisory Council and he then requested them—and I want the hon. members of the Progressive Party to listen carefully now—to draw up a constitution themselves, and I emphasize the word “themselves”. A committee was convened to work on this, but it did not make very much progress. In 1972 the council made another request for progress on the road to constitutional development. I must emphasize that these things have nothing to do with sovereign independence. It culminated in a series of meetings during the ensuing year under the chairmanship of the present magistrate of Rehoboth. It is a privilege for us to have Magistrate Visagie here in our midst this evening in the official’s bench of this House. Under his chairmanship a series of meetings was held by the people of Rehoboth. There were intensive discussions on the kind of constitution which they wanted. The majority of the people felt on that occasion that they wanted the re-enactment of the Paternal Law of 1872. After that the Advisory Council came forward with a memorandum in which this wish was expressed, and hon. members have already seen this memorandum. I find it a pity the hon. member for Bezuidenhout reproached me for not having had a memorandum published and made available to everyone. But at least the hon. member for Rondebosch was fair enough to express his thanks for the co-operation he had received from my department. It was my instruction to the department that they should be of assistance to hon. members. The hon. member for Walmer will be able to tell that hon. member what transpired during the time he was not here. My department went to some trouble to keep their study group properly informed.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member need not ask me. That memorandum then appeared and on the basis of that memorandum a draft constitution was drawn up and was made available during the Council election of 1974 to Council members and other candidates—to tell the truth, to everyone involved in the election. The matter was explained to the voters. I now want to concede to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that it is unlikely that every voter saw precisely what was stated in it. However, the hon. member will also admit that not all his voters are likely to know precisely what is stated in the Bills which are passed by this Parliament. However, the candidates of all parties had the Bill at their disposal, and after the election they went away to elucidate the Bill and to speak for or against the Bill. This is consequently what they did. Subsequently, when the Council was elected and convened last year, we were ready—and I said so in my introductory speech—to introduce this legislation in this House. The Bill was ready. Hon. members who know the people of Rehoboth, know what a slow process it is to obtain the co-operation of everyone, but now that so much progress has been made with these matters, I take it amiss of hon. members of the Progressive Party for now implying that the people were not properly consulted. Some Council members also implied last year that the people had not yet been adequately consulted. This is the argument which is also being advanced from the opposite side of this House. A number of Council members then resigned and once again, because this was the major argument, a by-election was held. Fundamentally, this Bill was the issue involved in the election. The Rehoboth-volksparty was the only party opposed to the legislation. I am pointing out that the hon. member for Rondebosch did not act very academically this afternoon because he did not do his homework. His figures were incorrect. He alleged that a genuine majority in the election had not been achieved.

No, I did not say that.

Yes, you did say it.

No.

Then the hon. member implied it.

No, I did not do that either.

Then, surely, the hon. member’s argument falls away.

There were three parties.

Very well. Is the hon. member aware that two of the parties, those that made the strongest showing in the election, were fully in favour of this Bill?

No, not this Bill.

I am now going to furnish the hon. member with proof. The Rehoboth-Bastervereniging of Dr. Africa and the Rehoboth-bevrydingsparty of Mr. Diergaardt differ with one another on other points, but not on the draft constitution. They received almost 70% of the votes. Apparently the hon. member was not aware of the standpoint of Mr. Diergaardt’s party. Therefore I now want to enlighten him. Owing to the request last year that the matter should once again be submitted to the people, the Government did not proceed with the legislation. A petition was then presented to the department. The petition contained over 1 000 signatures. The hon. member may come and take a look at it if he likes. The petition was presented by Mr. Diergaardt’s party. The petition read as follows—

This is the Advisory Council of Rehoboth—

This was in 1975.

I think the hon. member has learned something now about the composition of the parties there. The visits he paid to that area were a little too brief to have enabled him to learn this. The question which is now being asked—and the hon. member for Houghton is also levelling this reproach at me—is why this is being done at this juncture. The hon. member learned from that petition that this matter has been dragging on for 13 years now, and these people want the legislation. It is nothing peculiar or strange, as hon. members opposite tried to imply. It is legislation which will establish machinery which will set the development programme which I sketched the other day in motion. This is also my reply to the hon. member for Newton Park, who asked quite justifiably for agricultural and other developments. All these developments are on the point of starting up, but there has to be machinery to carry them through— administrative and other machinery.

But he is on another wavelength.

That is why the Government is presenting this legislation at the earliest opportunity. I said the other day that the viewpoint on the part of the conference is that the development of various population groups should not lag behind. This afternoon the hon. member for Bezuidenhout implied by way of an interjection that an incorrect report had been broadcast over the radio about what I had supposedly said. I was also in contact with people in Windhoek who allegedly heard such incorrect reports, or had heard people so interpreting it, and that is why I am now going to take the trouble—and I hope the hon. member will agree with me—and I think it is necessary, to clarify this here. I received a copy of this particular news item from the SABC and it reads as follows—

The hon. member for Von Brandis, I think, this afternoon quoted paragraph 6 of the declaration of intent of the conference, from which it is clear that everything is in order. But I am mentioning this here to indicate to you that we are living in times in which wilful people completely misinterpret what is being said and done. While on this point, Sir, I do not want to refer to the conference, but to a mini-conference which was to have been held about 14 days ago in Windhoek, the O’Lynn conference. Some of the hon. members were there, and I do not take it amiss of them. But I heard sounds emanating from it, insinuations which were being made that the Rehoboth people were now getting a Bantustan, with everything that attaches to that, to make the people afraid of the legislation which is coming. Sir, I am sorry, but I have to say now that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout himself …

Who said that, Kapuuo?

It does not matter who said it. I am referring to misinterpretations which people are giving. Sir, I am sorry that I have to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout himself. He said this in his speech here on Monday—

He was referring to the memorandum—

Sir, where does the hon. member read the words “a kind of homeland independence” in that memorandum? The hon. member fell victim to the people with whom he held a symposium there. He was also speaking that kind of language here, and further publicity is in turn given to it. Therefore I want to appeal to the hon. member to ensure that we are fair when we discuss these matters.

I was referring to the Coloureds and the Hereros.

The hon. member used the words “as an endeavour to achieve a kind of homeland independence.” You implied that you were quoting from that memorandum, paragraph 11, but this is not stated therein.

Not in the memorandum, but in the discussions. I was referring to the Coloureds and the Hereros.

I shall begin now with the hon. member, because he was the main speaker of the United Party. The other day he tried to make an entire point around the question of terminology. He referred to the fact that we speak of a “Government” for Rehoboth and objected to it being spelt with a capital “G”. But if the hon. member would look at the Bill he would see that it happens to be spelt with a small letter in some other places. Perhaps the one place where he saw it with a capital letter was at the beginning of a sentence. [Interjections.] Very well, then, it may differ. I have not yet seen the revised copy of the Hansard version of his speech, but I should like to see whether the hon. member, when he edited his speech, changed the word “Government”—therefore with a capital letter—to “government”. However, I do not think this is something to have an argument about. The hon. member remarked that there could after all not be a “Government” in Rehoboth and a “Government” here in the Republic. I then asked the hon. member by way of interjection …

There cannot, after all, be two Governments in one country. You should look at clause 25 again.

Yes, both are spelt with a capital letter.

How does the English text read?

The English text refers to “Government”. I want to know from the hon. member what real difference it makes now. On Monday I asked him by way of an interjection whether he was certain that the people of Rehoboth did not want it in this way. The hon. member then said something which I did not find very pleasant, and I am quoting as follows from the unrevised Hansard—

Did you make certain whether that was not their wish?

I am not interested in their wishes.

The hon. member is not interested in their wishes, and that is virtually the same attitude which the hon. member for Rondebosch also adopted this afternoon. He addressed the plea to me that if the Government wishes to act as the foster-mother to help people make progress, the Government should at least ensure that those people do not have such backward laws. In all fairness I must at least say that the hon. member did not use the word “backward”, but the overall impression which the hon. member created in his argument was one of disparagement of the people of Rehoboth and their traditions. It is the wish of those people that the paternal laws should be restored as a starting point, and then to carry on from there.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout promised his support for the Bill, and I am very glad of that. During the Committee Stage we can discuss certain matters further, but I have to concede at once that he was right on one point, before I level a little further criticism at him. He referred to clause 33, which provides that if a person is detained in a prison in Rehoboth, he may be transferred to a prison under the control of the Republic. Therefore he may also be transferred to a prison under the control of the Department of Prisons within South West Africa. However, if the prisoner is a White person he has to be transferred in terms of the provisions of subsection (2). I think the hon. member then went a little too far by alleging that this was a sign of race discrimination. The reason for the word “White” appearing there stems from two practical considerations, for there are as yet no prison facilities in Rehoboth. When the Bill was drafted two years ago we felt that it was desirable to include such a provision. To please the hon. member and to prevent any problem from arising I now give the undertaking that I shall propose in the Committee Stage that the words “if he is a White person” be deleted. I think we now understand one another completely.

I do not want to elaborate now on the dispute between the two Opposition parties as to why the one supports the Bill and the other not. In the course of his speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that I had termed the Bill a starting point and then asked me to indicate in my reply how I saw the terminal point. If the hon. member refers reproachfully to the contribution of hon. members on this side, why does he raise in such a debate as this the question of how I see the terminal point? What does it have to do with the Bill?

He made the terminal point which he envisaged clear.

No, the hon. member was merely playing with the policy of his party. He wants me to say what we envisaged the terminal point to be, but my standpoint and that of the Government is that the people of South West Africa are at present deciding their own future themselves. As far as the people of Rehoboth are concerned, this Bill is a starting point. Surely it is nothing but sheer wilfulness on the part of the hon. member if he now wants to commence a dialogue which could in future create problems for us on other points. That is why the hon. member wants me to say what I see as the terminal point for the people of Rehoboth. Surely it goes without saying that “self-determination” means that the people themselves will decide this, and not I, the hon. member or other people.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Rondebosch. I do not think I need say very much about his speech, for in my opinion be became entangled in his own arguments. He said that the Bill would mar relations between South Africa and South West Africa. I cannot agree with him. I hope the hon. member is now beginning to understand that this Bill contains the expression of the wish, the heart-felt desires, of the people of Rehoboth. I concede that there are people in Rehoboth who do not share this feeling, but the majority of them do. How can the Bill then mar relations between South Africa and South West Africa or Rehoboth, to call the “Gebiet” by its name, if a system is being created by means of this Bill which entails that instead of the magistrate being the Kaptein the entire nation will elect its Kaptein according to the traditional dispensation, and the Kaptein will appoint his cabinet or Kaptein’s Council and the people will elect their Legislative Council every year, the very motive being that the authorities should maintain contact with the people? How can the hon. member say that we are in this way marring relations with South West Africa? The hon. member also referred to the nature of self-government. I do not really think that that is relevant. I have already referred to the fact that the hon. member expressed doubt in his speech as to whether the Paternal Law, which is included as constitution in the Bill, meets the needs of modem times. If the hon. member were to study the documents he would see that this is a point of departure for the people so that they may decide for themselves, when they have an elected Legislative Council, in what way they want to move forward and modernize their own State machinery. The hon. member also expressed concern about the measure of acceptance, but I think I have already replied adequately to that question.

I am not going to dwell any further on what was said here. I want to thank the hon. members on this side who participated in the debate. They did so very effectively. They spoke from knowledge and experience. The hon. member for Middelland is acquainted with the history of the people of that part of the world. The hon. member for Mariental, within whose constituency this area falls, clearly set out what development may take place there if this machinery is put into operation. Unfortunately the hon. member for Newton Park was not here then. Then, too, there was the contribution made by the hon. member for Omaruru. The hon. member for Mossel Bay discussed this matter with great knowledge. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn also made a substantial contribution.

I want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that I found his speech to be the most straightforward of all the speeches on the Opposition side. He said why he was in favour of the legislation and spelt it out clearly on the basis of the expert knowledge he possessed. I could also see that the hon. member had acquainted himself with the circumstances of the people of Rehoboth and with their satisfaction with and insistence on the legislation. I want to congratulate him on his contribution.

The same applies to the hon. member for Newton Park, who made an interesting speech on the agricultural aspect.

In conclusion I want to say that the legislation gives expression to the wish, the heart-felt desires, of the people of Rehoboth. I am proud and grateful that it has been possible for me, after the spadework that had been done by my predecessor and by my departmental head, who spent two weeks there and held negotiations with these people, to have been involved in the introduction of this Bill.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House for long. We on this side of the House offer our co-operation in regard to the general application of this legislation. We believe that the Abattoir Commission will have an important task to fulfil in future. In addition we believe that the corporation, which is now being established for the first time, will have an even more important task to fulfil than the commission. However, the corporation will be in the fortunate position that a sound foundation has already been laid by the commission, which has been in existence since 1967. It is the wish of this side of the House that the good work which has been done by this commission during the past nine years, may be continued.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the gross income from our slaughterings during the financial year 1973-’74, amounted to approximately R420 million. Future projections indicate that we shall have to more than double our slaughterings during the following 25 years in order to meet the requirements and demand of the times. It may also be pointed out that our livestock in South Africa is steadily increasing in number. Recently our livestock, including our cattle and sheep, again increased in number. For that reason one can accept that the commission and the corporation will have to give attention to the facilities which will have to be established in order to ensure that adequate facilities are provided. For that reason we say that the functions and the activities of the commission as well as those of the corporation will become increasingly important.

But, Sir, having said this, I cannot refrain from saying that we are nevertheless disappointed with the attitude of the hon. the Minister and the hon. members opposite because they are unable to appreciate our argument with regard to the levy. Arguments have been advanced to the effect that this levy will form an integral part of the floor price which is paid. For that reason the argument has been advanced by that side of the House that this amount will, in fact, find its way back to the producer of South Africa. Sir, even if this levy were to be incorporated ten times over in the floor price which the farmer of South Africa is going to receive, our argument from this side of the House still holds i.e. that the producer will have to pay for it. Our argument was not to the effect that the farmer should receive recognition for the levy he has to pay, or that it has to be an integral part of his floor price. Our argument was that, in view of the fact that a body is now being established for the well-being of everyone in South Africa, it is therefore an amount which should come out of the tax-payer’s pocket.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture argued that the farmer is in a position to pay this amount. He wanted to know whether the Minister of Finance could be expected to make millions of rands available while, as he put it in his inimitable way, the farmers of South Africa pay “sweet blow-all”. I want to ask the hon. gentleman whether he has discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance—I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Finance is not here at the moment. Did the hon. the Minister ask him whether it was possible for this amount to be made available from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as well? The hon. gentleman said that the hon. the Minister of Finance makes available millions of rands every year for grain elevators, abattoirs, and so on.

This is correct, of course, but the Minister of Finance does not make these amounts available for nothing. For example, the money which is made available by the Land Bank for the construction of grain elevators, is repaid. Those items become the property of the various control boards in South Africa. For that reason the farmer is prepared to make his contribution. The hon. gentleman cannot say that the Minister of Finance is already doing so much that we cannot expect him to have to do this as well. Apart from the control boards which are rendering a service to the farmers and for which the farmers themselves are paying, there is-not one statutory body or board in South Africa which renders a general service to South Africa—whether it is a board dealing with education, or a board dealing with publications—the expenditure of which is not usually covered by money appropriated by this Parliament. In that respect this body will perform exactly the same function. If the hon. the Minister of Finance were to make money available—I know he is going to do so—to the Abattoir Corporation to make the establishment of new abattoirs possible or to take over old abattoirs, these would also become the property of the State. The Abattoir Commission becomes the property of the State and not the property of the farmer of South Africa. For that reason we say we are disappointed with the fact that the hon. gentleman was unable to appreciate that argument. The amount in question may be small at present, but when one considers the future, when one considers the development which will follow, the enormous population increase and the enormous demands which will subsequently be made upon our agricultural industry, there will undoubtedly have to be a constant increase in this amount to be able to pay for this service the Abattoir Commission—I am not referring to the Corporation now—will have to render to the whole of South Africa. In spite of this, the advantage to be gained by passing the Third Reading of this Bill and establishing the commission and the corporation is so over-whelming that we want to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall support this legislation and that we trust that it will come up to our expectations in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, I have followed the argument advanced by the hon. member. I think we on this side of the House want to persist in our standpoint that we want to see the abattoir industry in South Africa develop independently of the Treasury as far as possible. We appreciate that the commission will have to provide the corporation with the initial capital, but that the industry will gradually become more and more independent as the abattoir industry develops. There are quite a number of sectors involved in this industry, and it is for the Minister to determine, through his commission, which of the various sectors—whether it is the producer, the consumer, or the wholesale slaughterer—has the predominant interest in a particular aspect of the industry. On that basis the hon. the Minister will be able to determine the policy through his commission. These are all things which may develop from this process.

I should like to say that this Bill ushers in a new phase in the abattoir industry in South Africa. In the first place, we can expect the abattoir business in South Africa to become far more specialized. The result will be that the product we shall obtain from the modernized abattoirs, is going to be of a particularly high quality. There is also the aspect of hygiene. We could expect some improvement in this regard because the Act which has to be read in conjunction with the legislation now before this House, i.e. the Animal Slaughter and Hygiene Act, will also lead to improved control and consequently to improved abattoirs in South Africa. There is another aspect I should like to mention. This relates to a matter which, to my mind, has great potential after this legislation has been implemented successfully. I am referring to the possibility of the development of abattoirs in the production areas of South Africa. During the past number of decades the abattoir industry in South Africa was for the most part confined to the urban areas where the markets are. We have also had, if I may call it this, a transportation subsidy in South Africa which made it easier and cheaper for us to convey animals on the hoof to the markets where these animals were slaughtered. However, with the upward trend in transportation costs, it is becoming increasingly essential for us to develop our abattoirs in the production areas.

Under the prevailing circumstances this will hold great advantages for us, and I should like to mention a few of them here. South Africa is a vast country and for that reason animals have to be conveyed over long distances to the abattoirs in urban areas. Consequently, the quality of the meat is not as good as it should be, because the animals get bruised and suffer from exhaustion. Since we now have this legislation and it is possible to develop abattoirs in the production areas, and since the possibility of capital development is far greater, one would be able to establish larger abattoirs in the production areas. It will be possible to slaughter large numbers of animals there at a low unit cost. If the scheme permits the meat could be brought to the marketing areas through a process of the marketing of meat in portions. This will be of considerable advantage to the livestock industry. We hope that this Bill will achieve all these possibilities for the livestock industry.

Mr. Speaker, I have now been listening for almost 10 years to speeches made by the hon. member for Newton Park. This evening he made his best speech ever. However, I should like to correct him on one point. He referred to our livestock population. The hon. member for Bethal raised the possibility of the construction of abattoirs in our production areas. We have already constructed abattoirs in the controlled urban areas. However, hon. members know that in this kind of industry one does not do the one thing and omit to do the other. The hon. member for Newton Park said that, if the normal tendency continues, our livestock population will increase to 900 million in five years’ time. During the past five years the slaughtering of broilers in the country increased from 65 million to 126 million. This is equal to 1 million beef carcasses. Why is this so? It is because we subsidized the price of maize in order to keep it as low as possible.

That time is past now.

That is why I say one should not do one thing and omit to do the other.

I should also like to set the hon. member for Newton Park straight on another point. I am referring to the grain silos to which the hon. member referred, and the levy he feels so unhappy about. I told the hon. member that he should rather help me in respect of the railway tariffs which is the main concern of the farmer and not the levy of 15 cents on one head of cattle. In this respect we speak the same language, but the hon. member keeps on asking whether I have discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Finance is becoming quite despondent about the amount of money I am always asking him for. However, the hon. member should view our national economy in its entirety. When a grain silo is erected, every farmer pays 10 to 15 cents per bag out of his own pocket in order to pay for the silo. The silo never becomes the property of the control board, but that of the corporation, which is the property of the farmer himself. Seventy percent of the grain and maize which is being stored in bulk, is being stored in silos for which the farmers pay out of their own pockets so that it is their property today. This is a facility created by the farmer for the city dweller so that grain can be stored for him. For that reason I am so proud of our farmers.

The farmer is being paid for it.

He is being paid for it …

The city dweller pays for it.

The hon. member is wasting my time. If the hon. member would only appreciate that the maize porridge he had for breakfast this morning … The export profits of the Maize Board …

The tax-payer pays for it.

Maize is being exported at R96 per ton, but you get it at R50 per ton.

Who subsidizes it?

Who subsidizes who? If all the maize were to be exported, the farmers would make twice as much money as they are making now.

The farmers of South Africa have been playing a socio-economic role for long enough.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.