Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the passing of the National Parks Act in 1962, which consolidated the laws relating to national parks, the effective control and management of our national parks have necessitated the Act being amended and supplemented several times. The amendments and additions in question affect virtually every section of the Act. Consequently it has become necessary once again to combine in one Act the provisions of the principal Act and the various amending Acts. The consolidation Bill which is now before this House, provides accordingly and does not contain any amendment to existing law. The State Law Advisers certified the manuscript to this effect.

Mr. Speaker, since this consolidation Bill merely is a recapitulation of matters we discussed before, I want to say on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House that we shall support its Second Reading. However, there is something which we find strange and which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am referring to clause 27 of the Bill, which deals with the powers of an officer or employee to arrest, search and seize. In the Afrikaans version of this clause it is provided that in the case of an employee who is a “Nieblanke”, these powers may be exercised only in respect of a “Nieblanke”. In the English version, however, the word “non-European” is used in this regard. This side of the House feels that since we are dealing with a consolidating measure, the wording ought to be in agreement with the Afrikaans version. In other words, the measure ought to refer to “non-Whites” instead of to “non-Europeans”. We believe that this would be the best translation under the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will support this consolidation Bill, which embodies the National Parks Act, No. 42 of 1962, and all subsequent amending legislation. It is obviously of advantage to simplify this legislation. I do, however, want to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the urgent need to take a further look at the first schedule of this Bill, which defines the areas of our existing national parks. It becomes more and more apparent every day that we do not have enough national parks in South Africa. We can take tremendous pride in what the Republic has achieved in the way of game conservation.

Order! May I point out to the hon. member that under a consolidating measure he may not discuss the merits of the various clauses or of the schedules.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. May I not discuss at all the need for enlarging the areas set out in the schedule?

Unfortunately not.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he can enlighten us on one point. In the definitions clause I notice that “animal” appears to be defined in a new way, in that it says “‘animal’ means, subject to the regulations, any member of the animal kingdom”. I cannot see, in the existing legislation, where animals are defined by regulation. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why this has come about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for his support. I am aware of the difference to which he referred, which is merely a linguistic difference, and we hope to rectify it in the Other Place. I cannot see that there will be any problems in this connection. Should there be any problems, I shall attend to it, but I want to say that I agree with him fully. As far as the question of the hon. member for Orange Grove is concerned, I want to say that because this measure is a consolidation Bill, and I did not think that there would actually be any discussion of it, I did not take such close note of the problems which could arise in this connection. I shall go into the matter raised by him, and see whether we are able to accommodate his request.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that I accept the explanation and the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to effect the amendment in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 1 (standing over):

Mr. Chairman, the point which the hon. the Deputy Minister raised in the Second Reading has exercised our minds and I am glad that I have the opportunity of raising it again now with the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely the amendment to the definition of “animal’-’ as it appears in this Bill. Reference to the Act will show that “animal” is defined as “any member of the animal kingdom”. However, we find in this consolidating measure an amendment to the definition of “animal”. “Animal” now means “subject to the regulations, any member of the animal kingdom”. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us why this has been brought about. Is it indeed his intention to amend the definition, and if so what will be the effect of this amendment?

Mr. Chairman, it was definitely not the idea to effect any changes to the Act. Indeed I was not aware of that change. I should like to tell the hon. member that we cannot allow an animal being defined as something belonging to the animal kingdom, because in that case we shall have to include him as well, and I certainly think humans are excluded in this case. If there is any point in what he said here, we can rectify it in the Other Place, but I do not think there is any problem.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister, it is all very well to have our jokes in the House, but I think this goes beyond the stage of a joke. A certificate has been tabled to the effect that this Bill does not amend the Act. That is why I have given the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to say to us that this amendment means nothing. However he does not say that and I wonder if we should not question the certificate which the hon. the Deputy Minister has tabled, because on the strength of that we have accepted in good faith that this Bill contains no amendment and is merely a consolidation of existing legislation. Here, however, is a point which shows that it is not merely a consolidation and that it does contain an amendment. I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman, as to what exactly the procedure would be to query such a certificate. It appears that there is at least one amendment in this Bill.

Order! The hon. member may table an amendment or the matter can be corrected in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, as far as this matter is concerned, I am in fact in the hands of the law advisers. Essentially there certainly is no difference, and I have to accept that this wording is better. This is the only explanation I can offer. I accepted the certificate submitted by the law adviser. If the hon. member has any objections to this definition, he may differ as of right. However, I do not believe, that essentially any change is being effected to the Act as such. I am saying this as a layman, however, and I do not wish to venture into the province of the legal men at all, although the hon. member does so very readily. However, he has to accept it like that.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Deputy Minister give us any reason at all for the introduction of the words “subject to the regulations”? There must have been some reason in the minds of the law advisers and members of the department. In the Bill, as it reads at present, the definition of “animal” is as follows:

What difference is the term “Subject to the regulations” going to make to that definition? There must be a reason for introducing those words and the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of the Bill must be able to tell us what the reason is. I now ask him to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I have said that I accepted this certification as being correct I did not even notice that there was any difference. I shall rectify it if there is any material difference and if the Opposition insists, but if this is a better provision because this is a better definition, and it does not make any material difference to the Act, I do not believe there can be any objection in principle to it. I think the hon. member should accept my explanation in that light.

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite right. We do not expect every one of the Ministers or Deputy Ministers on that side of the House to be legally qualified gentlemen who are in a position to examine every facet of a Bill that comes up. I must say right here and now that we accept the bona fides of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement that he accepted a certification from his law advisers. However, here I feel we do have a change in the definition of “animal”. I know that in the definitions clause of the Bill there is provision for the exclusion, by regulation, of certain animals from this definition, but that is not what the definition now states. The fact that an animal may, by regulation, be excluded from the provisions of this Act is not what the definition now states. The definition has now been altered to include only animals that may be included by regulation. For that reason, I now move—

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to introduce a consolidation Bill that contains an amendment of this nature? This is the point I raised in the Second Reading, as the hon. the Deputy Minister will remember.

Harry, you should not egg him on.

Order! I should like to refer the hon. member to Standing Order No. 83(4). That Standing Order implies that such amendments may in fact be effected to consolidation Bills.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this amendment before us does bring the Bill into conformity with existing law at all. It is something completely different. That is why I raised my point of order.

Order! The very object of the proposed amendment is to rectify the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I have already told the hon. member that I shall go into the matter. If there is any material difference, we shall rectify the matter. However, it was not the intention at all to effect any change to the existing Act with that. This was purely intended as a consolidating measure. I told the hon. member this in advance. His coming forward here with an amendment which has already been typed out, really looks suspicious. It seems to me as though the matter has been investigated in advance so that an objection may be raised here. I have promised him, however, that if there is a difference, we shall rectify it in the Other Place. This is how I am obliging him. If we are still at variance, that is how it will have to be.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The difficulty in which the hon. the Deputy Minister finds himself is that if he does not accept the amendment, he should not be allowed to proceed with the Bill. If he does accept the amendment, the issue arises as to whether the Bill should have been introduced at all. The problem, with respect, is that if this amendment is not accepted, then, in fact, the Bill is not a consolidating measure and therefore the ruling at the Second Reading that the Bill could not be debated is an incorrect one. In the circumstances I ask you to rule that this is not a consolidating Bill and therefore it is now open to full debate.

Order! A point of order such as this cannot be taken in the Committee Stage. It must be taken when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. May I with respect suggest that under the circumstances you use your prerogative to report progress and ask leave to sit again so that the matter can be considered in principle as to whether our procedures follow the rules of the House? After all, there is an important principle at stake which every hon. member would like to observe, namely that when a consolidating measure is introduced and certified as such, it is prima facie accepted as such.

Order! I cannot accept such a suggestion during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Are we competent to discuss in Committee a Bill which purports to be a consolidating measure, but in fact is not such a measure? It is a Bill which contains an amendment. I do not think we are at this stage competent to discuss the Bill.

Order! I rule that the Bill has been referred to the Committee by the House for consideration and consequently the Committee has to consider the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: As I understand the rules of the House, only a Minister can move that progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again. In the circumstances, where you have already indicated that a ruling should be given by Mr. Speaker, I should like through you to appeal to the hon. the Leader of the House to move that you report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Order! I have already drawn attention to Standing Order No. 83(4), which reads as follows—

Therefore the necessary competency does exist for the proposed amendment to be offered. I have given my ruling now, and hon. members must accept it. I put the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: We do not believe that the amendment does clearly bring the Bill into conformity with existing law at all. We have had no motivation from the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is so. It appears to be something completely different and as such the subsection which you quoted stipulates in effect that no amendments to the Bill may be offered unless they are clarifying the Bill a little more. This amendment does not do that. The hon. the Deputy Minister should …

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has moved an amendment in accordance with Standing Order No. 83(4). I now put the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I make the following submission to you? In the first place if, in fact, this amendment is necessary in order to bring the Bill into conformity with existing legislation, then the Bill is not a consolidating measure. The certificate is then Wrong and this Committee is at the moment considering a measure which is not a consolidating measure. When I raised this point earlier, you ruled that it was for Mr. Speaker to give such a ruling. With respect, either Mr. Speaker must be asked to give such a ruling before we proceed, or you must give such a ruling because the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that this is a consolidating measure when it is not and then at the same time refuse to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermarizburg South. He cannot have it both ways. It is either a consolidating measure or not. If it is not a consolidating measure, it should not have been certified as such.

Order! I repeat my ruling, and my final submission is that the relevant subsection in the Standing Rules and Orders provides explicitly that such an amendment may be offered. The amendment is before this Committee now.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether it is your ruling that the particular amendment is necessary in order that the Bill should be a consolidating measure?

Order! It is not for the Chair to decide whether or not it is necessary. It is for the Committee to consider whether or not it wants to agree to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the amendment is not necessary, it must be extraneous to the Bill as a consolidating measure, it must fall outside of what is a consolidating measure. Is that not so?

Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the definitions in clause 1, one sees that “animal” is defined as follows:

Then, when one looks at clause 29(1)(g), one reads there:

In other words, certain animals, like cats and dogs, may be excluded subject to the regulations. Therefore, there is nothing contradictory in this whole matter. The matter is perfectly in order. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister can accept the proposed amendment.

Order! I have already given my ruling.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I am deliberately moving the amendment in Afrikaans, because it has been drafted in Afrikaans and because, in my opinion, the amendment in Afrikaans reflects more faithfully what our actual intention with it is. We are not quite happy with the English translation of the Amendment, but that is a matter which may be thrashed out on another occasion.

†Our motive for moving this amendment does not involve any deep constitutional difference or any important question of principle. We believe that the purpose of the Bill is in fact to promote the self government or “selfbestuur” of the Rehoboth community.

But “self-government” means “selfregering”.

The hon. member for Middelland has raised an interesting point. I happen to have looked up these words in various dictionaries. In Bosnian, Van der Merwe and Hiemstra “selfregering” and “selfbestuur” are given as equivalents. That dictionary does not draw any constitutional distinction between the two. The reason why we have chosen “selfbestuur” is that it conveys an implication which is slightly different to that conveyed by “selfregering”. The reason why we have moved this amendment is that we are anxious that, in respect of constitutional government in South West Africa and our relations with the international community, there should be no misunderstanding as to what the intention is with this Bill. We entirely agree with the contention that the people of Rehoboth should be led towards local self-government. This we entirely support. We are anxious, however, that there should not be a misunderstanding by the international community that we are leading them somewhere else other than to local self-government. We are also concerned that at the Turnhalle in Windhoek, where there has been some unhappiness about this Bill, the misunderstanding should also be removed.

Now it may be that that misunderstanding arises from a Bill which was introduced in this House two years ago, and I ask your forbearance to refer to that, Sir. I shall be very brief. The Bill was The Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South West Africa Amendment Bill. There was a White Paper which accompanied it and which said that with this Bill the Government reaffirmed inter alia its oft repeated assurance that it was “the firm and irrevocable intention of the Government as in the Republic also to lead individual nations in South West Africa and the Eastern Caprivi to self-government and independence”. In other words, the phrases “self-government” and “independence” are associated in the minds of people not only in South West Africa, but also in South Africa, and in the international community. It is purely for this reason and not because we wish to change the constitutional impact of this Bill, but to avoid misunderstanding, to avoid unnecessary hostility, that we are anxious that phrases should be used in this Bill which make its intentions perfectly plain, separate from any connotation of “self-government and independence” as one concept. That is why we have moved this particular amendment Sir, I do not need to say very much more. As I say, we do not wish to obstruct this Bill. We are in favour of local self-government for the Rehoboth people. The only reason why we have proposed the change in the nomenclature is to make it entirely clear that in supporting this Bill we support local self-government and do not wish it to be construed in the public mind, in the international mind, or in the minds of the people who are contributing to the constitutional development of South West Africa at the Turnhalle, that there is some intention other than what is actually intended by the phraseology of this Bill. That is why we have tried to move away from the old concept of self-government, which has this connotation of independence in the South African context and in the White Paper which I have mentioned, and we have used other words which we believe would move away from that connotation and make it clear to everybody that the purpose of this Bill is indeed local self-government for the people of Rehoboth as they themselves have asked, without independent sovereignty, so that they may move forward along these lines without any misunderstanding on the part of any person in this country or in South West Africa or in New York as to what the precise object of this Bill is. That is our only intention. There is no other constitutional difference between us.

On a point of order, Sir: I ask for your ruling as to whether the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis is in order. I raise this because it deals with changing the word “self-government” to the word “self-administration” in spite of the fact that the principle of the Bill quite clearly relates to self-government. It is contained in the long title of the Bill, in the short title and in the preamble. It is quite clear that the principle of this Bill, as stated in specific words, deals with self-government, and it therefore would appear to me that to start using the word “self-administration” would defeat the principle contained in the Bill.

Order! I discussed and considered this point in great detail beforehand and came to the conclusion that it is possible for this amendment to be moved. Therefore the hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member for Von Brandis made a statement here to the effect that there is practically no difference between “self-government” in English and “selfbestuur” or “selfregering” in Afrikaans. He admitted that “self-government”, which one can also translate as “selfregering”, is exactly the same. If it was not the same I would support the point made by the hon. member for Sea Point, namely that if there should be a change in the wording, in the meaning of self-government and self-administration, the Chair would not be able to allow the amendment which was moved, because it would be in conflict with the principle of the Bill and because there was no instruction on the Order Paper for it. But because you did allow it, you declared yourself prepared to go along with the standpoint stated by the hon. member for Von Brandis in his amendment, namely that in reality, in its constitutional form, there is no major difference between self-administration and self-government. Now I want to put the matter to you in the following way: He quoted from the Bill which was passed in 1973, in which provision is made for the self-government (selfbestuur) of the peoples of South West Africa, and it is advisable for us not to create the impression here that we, as they put it on the opposite side, want to create a Bantustan or a Colouredstan. In other words, we must return to the term which was used by the Rehoboth Basters themselves, and if the hon. member reads their memorandum in which the Rehoboth Basters exercised their right of self-determination by requesting that the paternal laws be applied to them, he will see that in the memorandum they ask for self-government, because the word “selfregering” is the only one which they know. They do not know the word “selfbestuur”. I should like to quote from the paternal laws. I want to quote from the constitution of 31 January 1872—

Here they refer to a provisional form of government. They refer to “regering” throughout and not to “bestuur”. They do not know the word “bestuur”. They are laying claim to government. During the Second Reading already we stated the standpoint that we are giving them what they are requesting. They have that inalienable right to self-determination to ask for their ancestral laws and now we are giving these to them, in the terms in which they stated them to us. I do not want hon. members to attach the incorrect connotation to it again and say that I am saying that self-determination must inevitably result in soveign independence. In fact, I never said that, but I see the UP newspaper in Windhoek had main headlines to this effect.

I want to appeal to hon. members not to discuss this question in too much detail since the principle has already been accepted.

With respect, Sir, I am discussing the question whether we should change this word to self-determination (selfbestuur) because there is an amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, referring to a subsequent part of the Preamble, which proposes that a similar change be effected, and therefore I should prefer us to deal with both those proposals at this early stage. Therefore I say that because we are simply giving them what they want, what they are asking for, namely the right of self-determination, we are giving them self-government, as they put it Since the hon. member for Von Brandis himself says that, as he looked it up in the dictionary, it is no different from the English word “self-government”, why should we change it? Why do we not give them self-government if there is no difference? Therefore I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should not accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, quite a number of amendments appear on the Order Paper under the names of members of the Opposition. As far as the amendments of a constitutional nature are concerned, the most important is the amendment which we propose in respect of the Preamble.

The Preamble is put later.

Yes, but I just want to mention that these amendments have a bearing on it. I am simply mentioning it for the sake of clarity. We are not now dealing with a clause now but with amendments which pertain to the whole Bill. We shall move a similar amendment as far as clause 1 is concerned, but the amendment does not as yet appear on the Order Paper. The other amendments of a constitutional nature are all connected with the amendment which we want to move in respect of the Preamble. However, it so happens that the Preamble is put right at the end. Therefore I should like to explain briefly to the hon. the Minister the background to and the motivation of the amendments which we wish to move at this stage. I just want to mention that the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper is connected with the one moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis. Unfortunately, the amendment did not appear on the Order Paper precisely as I drafted it. On the Order Paper is stated—

The words “the government of Rehoboth” should not have appeared on the Order Paper. I want to substitute these words. The altered amendment then reads as follows—

It has been correctly said that it is the wish of the people of Rehoboth that a form of local or regional government be granted to the Gebiet of Rehoboth. This is a reasonable request and is in accordance with the historical background of Rehoboth. We have no objection to it. We made it clear during the Second Reading debate that we fully supported the principle of local self-administration. The Rehoboth people themselves also made it clear that they did not with this Bill envisage sovereign indepence or separation from South West Africa. The autonomy which they desire is an internal autonomy, internal self-administration. They themselves do not want any misunderstanding about this, either inside or outside South West Africa. We on this side of the House consider it unfortunate that the hon. the Minister used terminology, throughout the Bill, which is associated with the constitution of a State which is, or is in the process of becoming, independent. With all the amendments which we are going to move, including the one before us, we intend to eliminate the wrong impression which is being created and to avoid any hostile propaganda which this may cause. This is the object of our amendment. I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that we naturally do not have any political interest in the matter; that is self-evident. As a result it is not our intention to conduct long debates on it and become excited about it. In our opinion this is quite unnecessary. We shall put our case concisely, and if the Government does not want to accept an amendment which we move, then it must simply proceed with what it is doing. It will then mean that we on this side of the House will not accept any responsibility for the form in which the Bill is cast and the consequences which may arise from it.

With the amendment before us we ask that the terms “government” wherever they occur in relation to Rehoboth, be substituted by the term “administration” in both its forms. In my Second Reading speech I said that, whenever the central Government of a country, the central authority, is referred to, the word “Government” is always written with a capital letter. Every day one sees in newspapers and official documents that the word “Government” is always spelled with a capital letter when the Government of South Africa is being referred to. Indeed, it is stated thus in this Bill as well. The hon. the Minister can see it in clause 25 of the Bill. It is correct that the word “Government” is written with a capital letter in this case. If South West Africa should become an independent State tomorrow, the Government of South West Africa would have to be referred to in the same way. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that there is only one body in a State which may be referred to as the Government, therefore with a capital letter. For example, the authority in the Transvaal is not referred to as the Government of Transvaal. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Middelland that it is in fact possible for the government of a region or a province to be referred to in a functional meaning. Then the word is written with a small “g” and it is always qualified. It is entirely correct to speak of local government, provincial government or regional government. Sometimes reference is even made to a municipal government. In such cases, however, there is the qualification that this is not “the Government”. In our opinion it is not advisable to refer to “the Government” of Rehoboth, especially when it occurs with a capital letter.

The hon. the Minister will see in the clause to which I have already referred, i.e. clause 25, that the Government of the Republic and the Government of Rehoboth—in both cases with a capital G—are referred to as though we were dealing with two central Governments and as though Rehoboth will become an independent State outside South West Africa, as the Republic of South Africa is. We are objecting to this terminology. We cannot see why the terminology of the Bill cannot be brought into line with what we are actually trying to do, i.e. to grant local government to Rehoboth. Therefore we suggest that when the word “government” in both its spellings is used to indicate the regional authority of Rehoboth, it should be substituted by the word “administration” and, where necessary, “Administration”. The hon. member for Middelland, when he replied to the hon. member for Von Brandis, said that there is no major difference between self-government and self-administration. There is no major difference, but there is nevertheless a difference. There is a difference in respect of emotional significance between the words self-administration and self-government.

The proposal which we are making, does not affect the powers which we want to give Rehoboth at all. The powers remain the same. However, it is made clear that, as far as the Bill is concerned, which is all we are dealing with at this stage—we have nothing to do with what happens in future—Rehoboth is not being set up as an independent State, but that we are granting it regional government and that, in respect of all powers which are not mentioned in the Schedule it is still subordinate to the Parliament of South Africa and in future will possibly be subordinate to a central Government of South West Africa.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis is concerned, I can only say that the word “self-administration” is far more satisfactory and that it will be far more in accordance with the nature of the powers which are being entrusted to the authority of Rehoboth. I noticed that the hon. the Minister himself, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, made certain that he used the correct terminology. In his speech he said—

This is the step forward as it is being taken in terms of the Bill. He continues—

The hon. the Minister therefore used the word “selfbestuur” himself. What is more, in the report of the Baster Advisory Council they use the words “bestuur” and “bestuursinstel-lings”. I should like to quote the portion of the first paragraph which is relevant here. It is not necessary to quote it in its entirety. It reads—

To return to the paternal laws which we are prepared to reinstate, I should like to quote from para. 3. It reads—

Have you looked at para. 13 yet?

Yes, but I just want to point out that they use the word “bestuur” themselves. “Selfbestuur” is obviously the correct word to use here.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Von Brandis, it is really important that the hon. the Minister should clarify the central principles of the Bill for us. I know that he explained them in his Second Reading speech. However, the test is not that circumstantial evidence should apply when one is dealing with legislation, but what the logical deduction from the contents of the Bill itself is. Under those circumstances I saw it as self-government, and it was specifically with clause 40 in mind that I put the question to the hon. member for Middelland—I am not discussing the clause now, but only illustrating the point—that if the Rehoboth council, for example, should ask for full independence, this would be possible in principle in terms of this Bill. I know that it is only a hypothetical possibility, but I am nevertheless stating it.

I did not accuse the hon. member for Middelland of saying that Rehoboth was going to become independent. The question of independence does not create any problems for me. What is involved, however, is the powers which will be entrusted to this council when it is established, as well as the power of this Parliament, in terms of this Bill, to make certain concessions. As I see the matter, it seems logical to me that the principle of independence does not constitute the central principle of this legislation, but what does is the principle of self-government within a specific constitutional structure, in terms of which the people of Rehoboth would be able to ask for certain developments in their own self-government. I know that considerable confusion prevails. There is even confusion in this House. It also appears from the memorandum that what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said during the Second Reading debate is true, namely that in para. 11 it is explicitly stated that the people of Rehoboth are not at present requesting sovereignty. However, if one reads para. 1, one sees that independence is mentioned.

It is therefore clear that there are contradictions in the memorandum, too, which may give rise to confusion. I therefore believe that, under the circumstances, it is very important that the hon. the Minister should provide us with an explanation with regard to this aspect in an unambiguous manner.

Mr. Chairman, further to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Von Brandis have said, I should like to add that it seems as though we are faced with a major problem here, a problem with respect to the formulation of the legislation. In this legislation we must try to reconcile three things. The first is what the Rehobothers themselves want. This is the result of long negotiatons which took place between the hon. the Minister and his department and the people of Rehoboth. Certain promises were made, the people of Rehoboth accepted a certain arrangement and a certain viewpoint is embodied in this proposed legislation, a viewpoint which is an interpretation of the agreement which was made, as well as of the feelings and of the background of the people of Rehoboth. One has reverence and respect for this.

The second problem is that, because the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa is piloting through this legislation, the true intention of the legislation has to be given clear expression in the formulation of the legislation itself. The third problem—the problem of reconciliation—is that we must state something here, something which, in the light of the sensitive position in which South West Africa finds itself, must not cause unnecessary problems for ourselves.

These are the three almost irreconcilable problems confronting us. In view of these problems we must try to find a middle course through these problems. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that this is not a matter in which there is party-political advantage for the one group or other, but that it is an attempt on our part to make a constructive contribution towards solving the problem. In substance it seems to me that we shall have to try to move away from creating the impression that what we are contemplating with this Bill may be interpreted as a simple continuation, a further implementation—I do not want to speak about the right or the wrong of it at this stage—of the Government’s homeland policy, to call it that. Such an impression would indeed be wrong. This Bill and the granting of the powers to Rehoboth, for which provision is being made in it, has a history of its own. It is completely divorced from what one could term the ideological legislation of the Government—I am not passing any judgment on this standpoint—with respect to the homelands. In the case of Rehoboth, this matter has its own history, a history which dates from earlier years, from 1872. The people of Rehoboth have travelled a long road since then.

Since it is virtually correct that this measure stands on its own—and this is also my answer to the hon. member for Rondebosch—and does not form a component part of another policy, good or bad, it seems essential to me for us to create the impression that we are dealing with unique legislation here. We must do this in order to prevent erroneous conclusions being drawn elsewhere. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already reacted to some of the remarks by the hon. member for Middelland in connection with “government”. I do not want to repeat them, but I want to refer you to the memorandum from the Baster Advisory Council. In this you will notice that “bestuursinstellings” are mentioned in para. 2. In para. 3, to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred, “bestuur” is mentioned.

In para. 2 reference is made to the existing “bestuursinstellings”.

That is correct, but I assume that the memorandum was drawn up by the people themselves. They used the term “bestuur”. This is actually the only point to which I want to draw attention. We also find it in para. 3, where “georganiseerde bestuur” is mentioned, and at the end of the same paragraph we once again find the word “bestuurinstellings”. In para. 4 reference is made to “selfbestuur”. I should like to read it to you. It reads as follows—

We find this in various other places, including para. 7, on page 2, where reference is made to “selfbesturende regering”. In other words, they use both terms. I am not trying to imply that they only use one. In the very first sentence, on page 3 of the ancestral laws, reference is made to “bestuurder” and “op-perste bestuurder”. This is the Kaptein. In para. 6, on page 3, it reads:“De Kapteinsraad kan ter ieder tyd in zaken van het bestuur van den Kaptein geroepen word,” and so it continues. We also find it in several other places. On page 8, for example, the term “regering” is used, instead of “bestuur”.

It therefore seems to me as though the word “bestuur” or “selfbestuur” is indeed not strange to the people of Rehoboth. It is because of this, as has also been properly motivated, that we feel that the word “selfbestuur” is nevertheless preferable under these circumstances to the word “selfregering”. In answer to the problems which were put by the hon. member for Rondebosch, I simply want to say that one cannot forbid anyone from asking for something. The powers of the administration of Rehoboth are however defined in the Schedule to the Bill. They cannot exceed the provisions of the Schedule. They can therefore not make laws outside the scope of the Schedule, and the Schedule does not make provision for independence or anything of that nature. It therefore means that this Parliament will have to decide about that itself. In any event this Parliament has the power to decide on matters of such a nature. I therefore want to associate myself with the amendments which were moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and by the hon. member for Von Brandis.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the positive manner in which hon. members participated in this discussion. I greatly appreciate the motive behind the amendments of the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as they have explained it. I have much understanding and sympathy for it Their motive is to avoid any misunderstanding outside. I even sympathize with the point of order of the hon. member for Sea Point. If we look at the portion of the long title, which reads “To grant self-government in accordance with the Paternal Law of 1872 to the citizens of the ‘Rehoboth Gebiet’ ”, then it seems to me as though the principle of self-government for the Rehoboth Gebiet in accordance with the Paternal Law has already been approved during the Second Reading of the Bill. I say this with respect for your ruling, Sir, and even before I deal with the amendments of the hon. members. Therefore I have a degree of sympathy for the point of order raised by the hon. member. But I do not want to argue with you because you are a jurist and I am not.

Perhaps I should first deal with the hon. member for Rondebosch’s remarks, and I want to do so briefly by repeating what I said during the Second Reading debate. And this is that, all in all, this legislation has nothing to do with any further constitutional development for the people of Rehoboth. This is simply a reinstatement of what they had, from where they themselves can decide how they want to progress. This Bill does not comment on this aspect at all.

While I said that I have understanding and appreciation for the motive behind the two amendments as stated here, and also as amended by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I cannot, to my regret, accept the amendments. The hon. member for Von Brandis himself raised the point, or rather he referred to the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South West Africa Act, 1973, where self-government (selfbestuur) is referred to, while self-government (selfregering) is referred to here within a certain context. Here self-government, and further on, government— with a small as well as a capital letter, is referred to. We shall deal with this aspect in a moment. This is because these expressions are part of the terminology to which the people of Rehoboth are accustomed and which they also use in their Paternal Law of 1872. My argument against the hon. member for Von Brandis is the following: In order to avoid any misunderstanding as though this legislation were parallel to the legislation for the homelands in which case reference is made to the development of self-government (selfbestuur) we are in fact keeping in the case of this Bill to the word “self-government” (selfregering) as is known in the terminology of the Rehoboth people and to the word “government” (regering) as it appears in their Paternal Law.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Edenvale, have just referred to the fact that different appellations are used in different places in the memorandum. I do not think we should be deterred by this. The hon. member even went so far as to indicate that I myself had made a mistake in my reply by using the word “selfbestuur”. This was not the intention; it was perhaps in a reply given to the hon. member for Houghton. My original words were aimed at correcting her and perhaps I concentrated on that point to such an extent that I used the wrong terminology. In the terminology which is customary and traditional for the people of Rehoboth and which can be traced back to the time of the Paternal Law of 1872, the word “government” (regering) is used and it was consequently decided to use the word “self-government” (selfregering), as it appears in this legislation, as a result of pressure by the people of Rehoboth. During my Second Reading speech I said that those people were sensitive about the inviolability of the Paternal Law of 1872. The persons who conducted the negotiations which finally led to this legislation, testify to and emphasize—the magistrate of Rehoboth, i.e. the Kaptein of Rehoboth, and the chief official of my department—that the Advisory Council considered other appellations and precisely as a result of the pressure of the people of Rehoboth requested that the word “self-government” (selfregering) should appear in the legislation. Although the word “selfbestuur” appears in the memorandum, it is not considered to be a term which is familiar to the Basters of Rehoboth, and if we were to use it, it would indeed be an indication to them of inferior status on a paralled basis with the legislation in respect of certain Bantu areas of South West Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that if I do not see my way clear to accepting the amendment, the Government will have to bear the responsibility in this connection alone. The Government is not afraid of accepting that responsibility in view of the co-responsibility and the request of the people of Rehoboth themselves. The Government is not afraid to accept that responsibility because we know that we are acting according to the wishes of the majority of the people of Rehoboth. I do not think that with the statement he made, he meant that he and his party were not prepared to accept co-responsibility and I trust—in fact, I know that they will not do so—that they will not participate in incorrect interpretations of what is being contemplated with the legislation.

As far as the appellation “government” and “Government of Rehoboth” is concerned—I believe that one spells Government with a capital letter if you refer to the supreme authority of a specific area—I also pointed out to the hon. member during the Second Reading that the word “Legislative Council” (Volksraad), which may appear strange to him, is part of the terminology of the people of Rehoboth. In the Republic we also have a “Volksraad”. I cannot see what confusion it can therefore cause if one speaks of the Government of Rehoboth and in another sense of the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Edenvale referred to the three points which we should try to reconcile and presented a very good case in this respect. The object of the legislation also became very clearly apparent from the discussion, i.e. that we know that South West Africa finds itself in an international situation, and the same applies to Rehoboth which comprises a part of it. Eventually it seems that the most important of the three points is what the wishes and desires of the people of Rehoboth are. I do not want the Government to be reproached with having, contrary to their desire as expressed by the Advisory Council, and as agreed to after long negotiations, gone its own way because it wanted to imply that it knew better than they how to arrange their affairs there. Therefore I regret that I am unable to accept the two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to one or two things which the hon. the Minister said. I cannot see how he can say that it would be an indication of an inferior status should another formulation be adopted. What is important to the people of Rehoboth, is the contents of the Bill. We are not arguing about that. The powers are not affected. However, Parliament has a duty to furnish them with guidance. Indeed, the Government should have furnished them with that guidance at that time already in order to relate the terminology of the Bill to their powers. To return to the paternal laws, why, in the very first paragraph on page 3 of the memorandum, is there a reference to the “opperste Bestuurder van die burgers”? The word “Bestuur-der” is used traditionally.

What other word could have been used there?

Any other word could have been used, but the point which I want to make, is that it becomes very clearly apparent here that the word “bestuur” and for the Kaptein, the term “Bestuurder”, is of the upmost importance and is traditional. It also refers to a “volksraad”. We all know that the term “volksraad”, when it refers to the volksraad of Rehoboth, with its six members, is not the same as the one used for this House of Assembly. It does not have the same content at all. Hon. members need only look at the English. Can the hon. member explain to me why in the English translation of “volksraad”, the words “legislative council” are used and not “house of assembly”? Everyone knows what the status of a legislative council is. If the hon. the Minister wants to argue about status, I can tell him that a legislative council in the old British colonies was of considerably lower status than a legislative assembly. The Bill does not even translate “volksraad” as “legislative assembly”, to say nothing of “house of assembly”. Why is this the case? It is because we accept that we want to use the traditional term “volksraad” there. However, I still think, that we should follow the ancestral laws and use the term “bestuur” instead of “regering”. In any event, we know that there is a difference of opinion in this connection, and we shall cause our standpoint in that regard to be placed on record.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked me why “bestuur” would give these people an inferior status. The hon. members argued that “bestuur” and “regering” have the same meaning on certain levels, but I think that in general “bestuur” in Southern Africa has the meaning of a local government in the form of a local authority. Therefore the people of Rehoboth would consider the word “bestuur” as though it gave them an inferior status. At the same time I want to refer to the fact that they would also perhaps consider it in the same light as the Development of self-government for Native Nations in South West Africa Act of 1973, which from their point of view they would perhaps consider as inferior. In this Bill we are in fact making provision for more powers than exist in the case of the other areas.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of his last remark, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. How can the people of Rehoboth consider the legislation in connection with the Native Nations as inferior if it is clearly the policy of the Government that those Black areas are destined to receive full independence? Whether or not that policy is going to be put into operation in future, is of course another matter. Nevertheless the Government also uses the word “selfbestuur” there in respect of the initial status of those areas. Why should the Rehobothers now consider this to be inferior?

Mr. Chairman, I need not reply any further to this. Surely the hon. member knows better than I do how wilful people in South West Africa are bandying the terms “Bantustan” and “Bantu homelands” about in connection with Rehoboth. After all, I argued that matter out with the hon. member the other day. It is precisely in order to move away from such tendencies of wilful people, that I believe that the people of Rehoboth prefer the terms “regering” and “selfregering” to “bestuur”.

Amendment moved by Mr. I. F. A. de Villiers negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss clause 1 and in general terms. I want to relate it to our amendment on the Second Reading. You will recall that one of our basic objections to the Second Reading was that this Bill is in conflict with the official policy that all the population groups of South West Africa should jointly deliberate on the future of the various population groups. I am actually rising to raise an objection, and I am using clause 1 to express a general objection, instead of rising every time in respect of every clause to do so. We are of the opinion that it is not correct, in terms of the official standpoint, for this Parliament to negotiate unilaterally with a particular population group in South West Africa on their constitutional future. We think this task should be fulfilled by something similar to the constitutional conference which is taking place at the moment, or by an ultimate legislative body which will exist in South West Africa for all its people. For that reason I am just rising to raise our objection to clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, I am not impressed by the objection raised by the hon. member. The hon. member wants to move in the direction of the South West Africa constitutional conference which has nothing to do with this Bill and where the population groups of South West Africa are taking decisions on their own future. Paragraph 6 of the Declaration of Intent of the constitutional conference was quoted from the other day, and from that it is clear that not one of the individual groups should be hindered in making the progress in the meantime they want to make in terms of their own self-government. If the hon. member were familiar with the arrangement which had applied since the end of the 1960s he would know that such progress should be enacted by means of legislation in this Parliament. For that reason I am unable to accept his objection.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment on clause 1. We have just decided that the terms “self-government” and “self-governing territory” as they appear in the clause, will remain. For that reason I should like to move the following amendment—

In other words, we should like the words “self-governing territory” to be qualified by the addition of the words “within and as an integral part of the territory of South West Africa”. This is the same amendment which we are going to move in respect of the Preamble and which is printed on the Order Paper. Since the term “self-government” is being retained, we feel that it is essential that it should be stated clearly in the Bill itself that this entails self-government for Rehoboth within and as an integral part of the Territory of South West Africa. The amendment is completely self-explanatory. I think we have motivated this sufficiently. This is in complete agreement with the wishes of the people of Rehoboth, as stated in para. 11 of their memorandum. The hon. the Minister will know that, after we had disposed of the Second Reading debate, the leaders of Rehoboth once again stated clearly in Windhoek where they stand. They are at present participating in constitutional talks with other population groups where they are drafting a constitution for South West as a whole. All the parties of Rehoboth are being represented at this constitutional conference. They indicated repeatedly that they would not like to create the impression that they would want unilateral separation. In his reply, the hon. the Minister expressed himself in no uncertain terms, on this matter. I quote—

This is strong language. He does not even want there to be any suggestion of going any further than local self-government. Our contention is that this Bill which the Government is introducing, contains that very suggestion, unless he states this quite clearly, if he wants to use the term “self-government” as has now been decided, that it is self-government within South West Africa. Hon. members know that there is a study committee at the UNO which scrutinizes every Act which this Parliament passes and affects South West Africa. When they study such an Act, they do not necessarily have the speech of the hon. the Minister or another hon. member’s speech with them—if they want it, they will possibly get hold of it—but they consider the Act as a whole and the terminology in which it is drafted. There is no doubt in my mind that if we do not state it clearly that the intention here is self-government within South West, this will lead to hostile propaganda. Why should we place another stick and more ammunition in the hands of our opponents and enemies? The discussions which have taken place in this House up to now, have already evoked a fairly strong reaction in Windhoek. I have here a statement by Mr. Khrone, one of the leaders of Rehoboth, who is, incidentally, also participating in the constitutional conference. He said that they are concerned about the “confusion and negative impact …”

Is this a Coloured or a Rehobother you are referring to?

Is Mr. Khrone a Coloured person?

Yes.

Very well, I shall accept it as such. He issued a statement together with Mr. Hartung. The actual point I want to make, is that they are participating in the constitutional conference and are judging what is happening here. They expressed their concern about the “confusion and negative impact externally, internally and with the Conference caused by actions from outside, such as the constitutional development of Rehoboth”.

Surely, Hartung said so when you were at the O’Linn conference with him.

That is correct, but here he is saying so again. If a Coloured person in South West, even at this stage, speaks in terms of confusion and a negative impact—and he is a member of the constitutional conference—how much more is this state of affairs not going to prevail outside South West? This is the point of my argument. It makes no difference whether or not it is a Rehobother; what is more important, is that we are dealing here with a man who is participating in the constitutional conference. We feel we can not allow such confusion to exist. The amendment I moved will prevent this from happening. It will state reality as it is and as the people of Rehoboth want it to be, and does not in the least detract from the powers which are being given to Rehoboth.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the UNO scrutinizes closely all legislation passed by this Parliament in respect of South West Africa as well as South Africa itself. However, I want to tell the hon. member that the Hansard of this Parliament is scrutinized just as closely. If the hon. member would care to look, he would see that more United Party members are quoted …

That is not true.

I shall furnish the hon. member with the evidence.

What is particularly quoted, are the speeches which appear in newspapers—let alone those made here in Parliament—and this is where the United Party causes us to land into trouble. I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should not accept this amendment. As a matter of fact, there are people in Windhoek and at the constitutional conference—and I do not even want us to discuss the conference as such—who are opposed to the self-determination Rehoboth is asking for, being granted them. There are, for instance, the 3 000 Damaras, living in Rehoboth, who are opposed to it. Therefore, they do not want it. The Damaras in Damaraland could, of course, come along tomorrow and ask for similar legislation. It would then be the duty of this Parliament to comply with their right to self-determination and to grant it to them. However, I want to quote from the Declaration of Intent of the Conference itself. In para. 6 the following is stated—

Not “as ’n geheel”, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said a moment ago! I want him to take note of this. The hon. Leader of the Opposition made the same mistake when addressing the United Party congress in Windhoek and translated the phrase in English as “as a whole”, which is quite wrong.

How do you translate it?

The English translation of it is “in its entirety”. I quote further—

And now the hon. member should listen carefully—

Remember this. It is not the people of Rehoboth who are asking for this; it is the entire conference who has asked for this unanimously: The people of Rehoboth, the Coloured people, the Damaras—all of them! In other words, this legislation, as it reads at present, is not interfering in any way with the Declaration of Intent which has been passed uanimously by the constitutional conference. For heaven’s sake, let us therefore not drag the conference into this debate by the hair to try and encourage those people to abandon this Declaration of Intent. I say this because I am aware of it. I addressed a meeting at Gobabis the day before yesterday where I challenged the leader of the Federal Party there to tell us whether his party and his spokesman are not deliberately trying to cause the constitutional conference in South West Africa to break down. I also want the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to tell us this today.

Mr. Chairman, there is no point in the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Middelland ignoring the “be-raad” situation. Whatever the merits or demerits of this legislation may be it cannot be seen separately from the “beraad”. The fact is that the “beraad” is taking place. When the hon. member says that it was a general consensus of the “beraad” that each section of the community should have self-determination, this still has to be seen not against the background, not of what they want on their own, but against the background of how that relates to the other communities of South West Africa. The “beraad” never said that each community could go out on its own and do whatever it wished to do within the confines of South West Africa. The situation in South West Africa has changed; it has changed from separate determination to common determination, and no one section of the community can make decisions on its own and make those decisions binding on the total South West African community or the “beraad”. However, this is what this legislation will do. It is, in a sense, a private arrangement between a section of the Rehoboth community and the South African Government. I say a section of the Rehoboth community, because when we come to discuss the preamble to this Bill we will, in fact, show that only a minority of the Rehoboth Basters have opted for this legislation. I do not want to argue about whether or not, at a given moment in time, there was a four to three majority in the “Baster-adviesraad”. However, when one views the total history of the consultations, the decision-making and the various elections that have taken place, one sees that right at this given moment in time there is no permanent, decisive majority of Basters in favour of this piece of legislation. We shall be coming to the attitude of the Basters per se, an attitude which is relevant but which is not the total story. The rest of the story is what the attitude of the other communities is.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far now.

But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelland referred to the fact that 3 000 Damaras are living in the Rehoboth Gebiet. These people were brom there! They have live lived there all their lives!

How do you know?

I know it out of the mouths of the people themselves and I know it from the newspaper that supports the hon. member, Die Suidwester. In this newspaper it is stated:“Damaras brom oor Rehoboth.”

But they were not born there.

That is what the paper says. I quote the following—

Here, then, is the situation. There are 3 000 out of the 20 000 people living in that area who were born there and are living there permanently, and yet they have not been consulted. The newspaper refers to the fact that “Damaras brom oor Rehoboth”. They reject the whole argument that it is being done with the co-operation of the local people. Therefore, leaving aside the Rehoboth people, we find that the Damaras who were born there and are living there permanently, have not been consulted.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue in this vein. The principle of self-government has been approved in the Second Reading. I therefore cannot allow any further discussion on that issue.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to clause 1 of the Bill which reads as follows—

In my view this is the critical clause. What is more, the hon. member referred to the Damaras. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that this was not “teenstrydig met die hele atmosfeer van die beraad”. I want to confine myself to the arguments as to why we should vote against clause 1. Mr. Chairman, I shall observe your ruling and be careful not to range too far. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that this conformed with the general attitude of the “beraad”. I believe that the hon. the Minister has already been partly repudiated by Dr. Africa, because Dr. Africa got in touch with the hon. the Minister, apparently by telephone, after his address in this House and after the SABC had reported on his address. What Dr. Africa now says does not accord with what the hon. the Minister says because Dr. Africa says the following, and I am now dealing with clause 1 in connection with the “ Rehoboth Gebiet” becoming a self-determining territory—

We are now being asked to pass a Bill which states that the “Rehoboth Gebiet” will become a self-governing territory, and the key witness on behalf of the Government, Dr. Africa, who represents the Baster majority in the Baster Advisory Council, says that this will not become legislation until the new “raad”, which has not yet been formed, gives it its approval. He also says that this will not become legislation until we take into account the developments in the “beraad” at the Turnhalle. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether this is correct. Is this a delayed action measure? Is the hon. the Minister asking us to pass clause 1 on the basis that it will not be implemented until—as Dr. Africa says, and he had discussions over the telephone with the hon. the Minister—the new “Basterraad” approves it and until the Turnhalle talks are taken into account and their final conclusion is seen? I raise this because Dr. Africa goes further. He says that this particular piece of legislation could fit into the proposals of Mr. Clemens Kapuuo. He says, in fact, that these proposals could fit into the “one mane, one vote”, two Parliaments and Bill of Rights proposals of Mr. Clemens Kapuuo. I believe the hon. the Minister should tell us: Are we passing actual legislation, or are we passing draft legislation only, legislation which will stand in the wings for a while, until there have been further discussions at the Turnhalle, until it can be seen whether this fits in with the proposals of Mr. Clemens Kapuuo and until a new “Basterraad” has approved of it?

All the evidence before us at this stage points to the fact that there is not a majority, because the Baster people as individual citizens have not been consulted. The evidence indicates that there is division amongst their ranks and that the Bill is rejected by the 3 000 Damaras who live in the Gebiet referred to in clause 1. It is also rejected by a significant part of the Coloured community. Dr. Africa himself, who is the leader of the majority in the “Adviesraad”, now says that he has consulted with the hon. the Minister, that the SABC is wrong in the way it has reported the Minister and that this should not become legislation until the Turnhalle discussions have been taken into account. I believe this House is entitled to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is correct that the implementation of the legislation is going to depend on the outcome of the Turnhalle talks or whether in fact the Bill is going to be implemented irrespective of the outcome of those talks.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the statement by the hon. member for Middelland to the effect that UNO which makes a study of our Hansard, quotes the UP more than it does the Government side.

You are out of order now.

No, we cannot leave at that, because I want to tell him that his allegation is devoid of all truth. I make a very thorough study of what takes place in UNO concerning South West and South Africa. It is true that there are committees which study our Hansard, but I shall challenge the hon. member, if he wants to see it in that light, or invite him to appear with me on a public platform. He can state where and when. We can then debate this point and I shall prove to him that this side is virtually never quoted. [Interjections.] We are not in power and no one is going to evaluate what is happening in South Africa on the basis of what we do or say.

Order! The hon. member must not take that point too far.

Very well, Sir. I just want to make the point that the hon. member really cannot make an allegation of this kind without my being permitted to reply to it I say that his allegation is devoid of all truth and that what is happening in South Africa is evaluated on the basis of what the Government does and says. I can prove this in a very clear way.

The hon. member for Middelland also stated that we should not have a debate on the Windhoek conference now, but should refrain from discussing it. Then, however, he started doing so, made a long speech about it and quoted from the Declaration of Intent He quoted from it, but in doing so placed it in entirely the wrong context. He himself quoted the fact that the declaration of intent mentioned a striving for the “Greatest possible” degree of self-administration. No one is objecting to the granting of the greatest possible degree of local administration to every population group within South West. I do not know, therefore, what the hon. member is trying to prove. For the rest he played with words. He drew a distinction between “South West in its entirety” and “South West as a whole”, but there is no difference whatsoever between these terms.

There is a vast difference.

Of course there is no difference. The point remains that the hon. the Minister, of Foreign Affairs gave a guarantee in UNO that the integrity of South West would be preserved. That guarantee still holds good. These are the few points to which I wished to reply, because in my opinion they demanded a reply. In the light of the confusion which has once again become evident, we consider it absolutely essential that we make it clear that the self-government which Rehoboth will acquire in terms of the Bill is within South West.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot let the whole argument of the hon. member for Sea Point pass without comment. If the hon. member had been at his place in this House last week, he would have heard what happened in terms of a radio report which was supposed to be incorrect. However, the hon. member was not present and must I now go through it all again, in order to explain it once more? Dr. Africa contacted me telephonically, not with reference to a radio report which he himself had heard but, as he told me:“Mr. Minister, people here are now saying that the radio said this.” I then took the trouble to obtain a transcript from the broadcasting corporation, which I read to the House. It contained no mistakes. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, too, quoted two persons, namely Mr. Khrone and Mr. Hartung. They are two Coloureds who said nothing about the affairs of Rehoboth itself. My information from South West Africa is that when, on the occasion of the O’Linn conference, Mr. Hartung expressed the opinion that this Bill was supposedly a kind of Bantustan bill, he had never seen the Bill. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, too, was present at the O’Linn conference. People are therefore arrogating to themselves the right to discuss matters about which they know nothing.

Dr. Africa was present as well.

I say that we must try to steer away from such incorrect statements and if this is a responsible House, we must try to guide people in the right direction. I hope the hon. member for Sea Point now understands what the situation is in connection with the so-called incorrect radio report. Dr. Africa did not discuss anything with me concerning the say of the conference in Rehoboth’s legislation. He asked me when the legislation would be implemented, and in reply I stated that my department and I would negotiate with the Baster Advisory Council. As a result of this I intend to move an amendment to clause 43, the short title, but we are still coming to that.

To come back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I want to repeat that I understand and appreciate the hon. member’s motivation in attempting to amend it in this way. A colleague of the hon. member has contacted me in this regard. This does not apply to his amendment to clause 1, but the same principle is involved in the amendment about which he contacted me. After a thorough study of the situation, however, I find that the hon. member’s amendment is unnecessary. Looking at the long title of the Bill, one reads—

There is therefore a clear definition. If one then looks at clause 6, one reads—

Thus we have no difficulties as regards what is intended, because it is clearly stated that the territory of Rehoboth forms part of the territory of South West Africa. This is to be found in the long title and in clause 6 of the Bill. I regret that I am therefore unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister raised two points. In the first place he quoted as follows from the long title of the Bill—

It is my opinion that these words can also be interpreted as simply a reference to where the territory of Rehoboth is situated, the words not conveying the intention that self-government is to be exercised in the territory as an integral part of South West Africa. In all humility, therefore, I must intimate that in this connection I am unable to agree with the hon. the Minister’s interpretation of that provision of the Bill. The same applies to his reference to the definition of the territory of Rehoboth. There must surely be a definition of the territory of Rehoboth, but to infer from that definition as it is stated in the Bill, that what we want to have stated clearly is in fact stated clearly, is in my opinion incorrect.

Once again I want to try to state the real problem simply. The point at issue here is the way in which the Bill could possible be interpreted. With the provisions of the Bill as they are at present we are running the risk that it could be maintained by people ill-disposed to South West Africa and our country that what the legislation envisages is the fragmentation of South West Africa into a number of separate and independent territories. They can maintain this on the basis of the stated policy adopted within the Republic. It is in order to avoid that interpretation that we request that our amendment be accepted. After all, no one could lose as a result. The people of Rehoboth cannot object to it, nor is it in conflict with the stated intentions of the Government. On the contrary. It merely confirms what the hon. the Minister himself has said. We want to ask the hon. the Minister to place the matter beyond any doubt, because the point at issue here is the granting of self-government to the territory of Rehoboth within and as an integral part of South West Africa. If this is stated as such in the Bill, then we shall have lost nothing thereby. I want to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his standpoint.

Mr. Chairman, there is a point I should like to have clarified: Did I understand the hon. the Minister to say that he would introduce an amendment to the effect that this would only become law after further negotiations with the Baster Advisory Council?

The hon. member must wait until we are discussing the clause in question before asking that, because we can discuss the matter then.

Is the amendment on the Order Paper?

Yes, it is.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Edenvale. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister’s argument that the long title clarifies the matter, holds water. The long title and clause 6 only concern the situation of the territory and what it consists of. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider the matter, because if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, we shall have to call for a division.

Mr. Chairman, I have given very thorough consideration to the way in which it is described in the long title. After all, when one reads a Bill one begins with the long title. The long title begins as follows—

I repeat: “in the territory of South West Africa”. It is therefore clearly defined and I do not believe that anyone who understands the two official languages could harbour any doubt on this score.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—38: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven, (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

NOES—83: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H. Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment negatived.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—85: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M.C; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES— 38: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. Du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Schwartz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton. Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

I am prepared to accept both of the amendments on the Order Paper in their present form as printed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 14, after “the” to insert “enfranchised”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 25, after “the” to insert “enfranchised”.

I thank the hon. the Minister for accepting these amendments. May I ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with clause 2? I note that provision is not made in this clause for the payment of remuneration to the Kaptein and the members of the Kaptein’s Council. Is it the intention that they will receive remuneration, and if so, under what legal authorization?

It is the intention that the Kaptein and the members of the Kaptein’s Council will be remunerated. Clause 39 provides for this. I do not think that we could expect of anyone who had to carry out such a task that they do so without remuneration.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment to this clause printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Edenvale.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

May I repeat, in this instance the question I put to the hon. the Minister a moment ago in connection with members of the Kaptein’s Council and the Kaptein? Here provision is not being made for remuneration for members of the Legislative Council. Is it the intention that they receive remuneration? Does clause 39 provide for this too? I am not sure about this. My second point is that there is no provision in the Bill for the filling of vancancies in the Legislative Council. Can the hon. the Minister furnish us with further information in this regard?

As far as the remuneration of these people is concerned: Apart from the provision I have already mentioned to the hon. member, if he looks at para. 8 of the schedule he will see that it is determined in consultation with the Minister. Therefore provision is made for this.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I understand that the Minister will give this amendment his favourable consideration. All this really means is that when a Bill is rejected by the Legislative Council of Rehoboth, this Bill makes provision for a joint meeting. I just want to omit the word “shall” on page 7 in line 22 and substitute the word “may” so that if the Kaptein and the Kaptein’s Council decide, on the basis of the nature of the opposition in the House of Assembly, that they do not want to continue with the Bill, they are then free not to convene the meeting.

I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

I should just like to know where the flag is to be registered in terms of clause 7.

The custom is that anything of this kind is registered with the Bureau of Heraldry, and this will apply in this instance too.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, to omit all the words after “Rehoboth,” in line 31 up to and including “Act” in line 34;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 36, to omit ‘thirty” and to substitute “forty-two”;
3. (3) on page 9, to omit para, (a) of subsection (4) and to substitute the following paragraph:

1. (a) Elections shall take place by secret ballot and every male and every female citizen of Rehoboth over the age of 21 years shall have the vote.

1. (4) on page 9, to omit para. (b) of subsection (4);
2. (5) on page 11, in line 11, to omit “thirty” and to substitute “forty-two”;
3. (6) on page 11, to omit subsection (7).

To explain: My first amendment seeks to delete the following words in clause 10(1): “ … and elections thereafter shall take place at such places and times and in such manner as may be determined by the Kaptein’s Council, subject to the other provisions of this Act …”. My argument in this connection is that clause 10 does in fact concern, and is regarded as concerning, the first election only. Now to me it does not seem right that provision should also be made in this clause for elections taking place at other times, because with reference to the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister in regard to my previous point, surely this is a matter to be arranged by the Legislative Authority of Rehoboth itself, as the Minister indicated in the context of the schedule. At a later stage I am going to move an amendment in which I want to state clearly that this matter, too, falls within the province of the Legislative Authority of Rehoboth. It seems to me that it should be deleted here and that provision should rather be made in the schedule for the Legislative Authority to pass its own legislation relating to these matters. That is my first amendment in this regard. My second amendment concerns the period of 30 days. It is in connection with the 30 days mentioned in line 34, clause 10(1); it also concerns the 30 days mentioned in clause 10(2) and, as will be evident later from my other amendment, the 30 days in clause 10(6). Actually, the point at issue is only that a date can be laid down for the election and that the date on which the Kaptein is elected must be 30 days before the election of members of the Legislative Council. Provision is also made in subsection (2) that the nomination of candidates for the post of Kaptein should take place at least 30 days before the election itself. In subsection (6) it is provided that the date on which any publications are published in connection with an election must be at least 30 days before the election date. All I envisage with my amendment is that a period of 12 days should elapse after the election has been proclaimed and also 12 days after the right to nominate candidates has been acquired. The 12 days are arbitrary. If the hon. the Minister wants to provide that the period should be 60 days, then I would be satisfield with that. It is merely a question of one period or another. However, I feel that in both cases a period of 30 days is not acceptable and that it could give rise to misconceptions.

My reason for having moved the third amendment is obvious. The words “provision shall be made” in a Bill look very clumsy to me. The statement does not appear to me to be correct. The kind of statement that must be made here must be positive and to the effect that elections must be by secret ballot Furthermore, in clause 10(4)(a) the words “every adult citizen of Rehoboth, whether male or female” are used. The term “adult” is not defined in the Bill. In my amendment I propose an age of 21 years. However, I understand that among the Rehobothers, adulthood is regarded as the attainment of the age of 18 years. This however is not the point; the point is a specific definition of the term “adult”. If the hon. the Minister thinks that the age of 21 years should be substituted by the age of 18 years, he need only say so. As I have said, I understand that the Rehobothers regard adulthood as the attainment of the age of 18 years. In para. (b) of the same subsection, the concept “full citizenship rights” is used. This concept, too, is not defined in the Bill; in fact it appears nowhere else in the Bill. It is not at all clear whether we are here dealing with various categories of people, for example citizens, enfrachized citizens, voters—for which the word “stemgeregtigdes” is used in the Afrikaans text—and people with full citizenship rights. For example, do full citizenship rights consist of anything other than the right to vote at elections? It is in view of the difficulties I have experienced with regard to the formulation of the paragraph that I have moved the amendment.

In the fourth amendment I have proposed the deletion of clause 10(4)(b), because provision is made elsewhere in the Bill for the way in which a person can obtain citizenship, viz. either through birth or through a person marrying a citizen of Rehoboth. As hon. members know, a special procedure is adopted when a person is known to members of the Kaptein’s Council or not. Machinery exists whereby citizenship may be granted to a person, and it therefore appears to me that para, (b) is quite unnecessary. That is why I propose the deletion of the paragraph.

I have already dealt with the principle contained in my fifth amendment.

I moved the final amendment because I felt that subsection (7) did not relate to a first election and because I felt that an election should really take place under legislation adopted by the Legislative Authority by Rehoboth and not by way of legislation passed by the Parliament of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I think I can assist the hon. member by indicating immediately which of the amendments he proposed, I am prepared to accept. I am prepared to accept amendments Nos. 2 and 5, but I have difficulties with regard to the other amendments. Unfortunately I am unable to accept the hon. member’s first amendment because it is clearly stated in the clause that the Minister only arranges the first election and the Kaptein’s Council all subsequent elections. The amendment moved by the hon. member necessitates consequential amendments. However, I am convinced that the provision made here in the clause only concerns the Minister’s power with regard to the first election and that at all other elections the power rests with the Kaptein’s Council. It is clear that the Minister only arranges the first election and that as indicated, subsequent elections are arranged by the Kaptein’s Council.

I want to refer to amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 4 which is in conjunction with it. As far as the issue of full citizenship rights are concerned—although it is a concept which is perhaps foreign to hon. members here in terms of the people of Rehoboth—I should like to say that there is no doubt among the people concerned as to the meaning of this term. It is a term in general use in Rehoboth itself. There is a register of citizens who possess full citizenship rights. The term “full citizenship rights” has already been used at previous elections, and there have been no problems whatsoever in this regard. It would be possible to give a definition of the term “full citizenship rights” in regard to Rehoboth. However, one would then come up against the fact that when one defined it, one would simply have to say that “a person with full citizenship rights was a person to whom full citizenship rights had been granted by the Advisory Council”.

And what does that mean?

This would bring no one any closer to the meaning of a concept which is generally accepted in Rehoboth itself. Unfortunately I am unable to accept amendment No. 6 either. The Baster Advisory Council itself requested that a safety valve be retained. It sometimes happens in Africa that a person who occupies an important position lets this fact go to his head. I do not want to say that this is the case in Rehoboth. However, I think that this is a provision coming from the people of Rehoboth which is the result of common sense and which provides that a Kaptein—it is the highest position in their society—will be prevented from causing his position to become an autocratic one. That is why the provision has been included to serve as a safety valve so that a Kaptein may not abuse his powers.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister does not want to accept those amendments because we must avoid the possibility of litigation. I should not want a situation to develop in which someone could say that he was not a full citizen. Nowhere in the Bill does it state what full citizenship means. I want to emphasize once again that to me it appears to be essential that if we use the term “citizenship” and the term “shall have the vote” in legislation of this nature, then the term “full citizenship rights” must also be included and defined in some way. This must be done, even if it were to be defined by way of the statement the hon. the Minister made, viz. that it means “a person whose name appears in the register”, because then there would in fact be a definition. However, I want to point out that we are also faced with the problem that in the ancestral laws—in para. 5—the following statement is made: “Tot kapteinskiesing is iedere burger geregtig die het volle burgerrecht bezit.” However, in para. 14, on page 10, the following is stated: “Stemgerechtigt is ieder burger die belasting betaald.” The hon. the Minister said that there was no difficulty. According to him the determining factor consists of the names appearing on the register, but if a man pays his tax, the question remains whether he is in fact, in terms of this clause, a full citizen or not. Can he therefore vote or not? I do believe that in these circumstances the hon. the Minister should give consideration to defining the term “adult” somewhere. What does “adult” mean? Surely we cannot get by with the term being used here.

It is anyone above the age of 18 years.

If the hon. the Minister were prepared to insert this in the Bill by way of a definition, that problem would be solved. However, how is one going to prevent a person from voting if the term “adult” is not clearly defined? I therefore want to insist, with respect, that the concept “adult” and the concept “full citizenship rights” be clearly defined in the Bill. In view of this I withdraw Amendment (3) with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment (3), with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I now move—

1. (3) on page 9, to omit para. (a) of subsection (4) and to substitute the following paragraph:

1. (a) Elections shall take place by secret ballot and every male and every female citizen of Rehoboth over the age of 18 years shall have the vote.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Edenvale with reference to section 14 of the ancestral laws, the section he quoted. At that stage there was much doubt about who were Rehoboth citizens and who were not. I think he knows the history as well as I do. At one stage many of the Rehobothers were called Griquas, and as a result there was doubt on this score. Consequently there were also people who intentionally tried to evade tax. As a result, as a punitive measure for tax evasion they were forbidden to take part in the election of the Kaptein’s Council. If the provision in section 14 had not been introduced, the problem would have arisen that everyone could have refused to pay tax, but that everyone could in fact vote in an election. That is why this provision has been introduced, and that is why it is in fact unnecessary to stipulate it accordingly in legislation today. Today it would create an entirely different situation.

A person is a citizen when, as the hon. member quite rightly stated, he is declared a citizen by the council or if he is born a citizen. However, the hon. member should not forget that there are also hundreds of people in Rehoboth who are not citizens of Rehoboth. There are teachers and so on, who are not citizens of Rehoboth. They are only Coloureds. That is why it is provided that only citizens will have the franchise and that only their names will appear on the voters’ roll. As regards clause 10(7), which the hon. member wants deleted in terms of his proposed amendment, I want to tell him that Rehoboth has a long history of conflict between the various groups. This is something which one has to take into account, with all respect to those people. You are aware of the events of 1923 to which I have already referred, when the majority group refused to take part in the election and consequently only the minority group voted. Subsequently the majority group, without any legal authorization, held their own elections and accordingly maintained that they were the lawful government. Apart from the situation sketched by the hon. the Minister it may occur that a Kaptein can decide to call an election. This can occur for various reasons. In fact it has occurred in our system.

If the hon. member knows the history of Britain, he will know that Charles II did not convene Parliament for 17 years. That is why it is as well that if a dispute should arise between the groups—and I believe that we should not take it amiss of them if disputes do arise, because disputes arise between us, too—the hon. the Minister will indeed have the power to arrange the necessary elections in order to assure voting in terms of democratic rights which, I believe, is the will of the majority of the population of Rehoboth.

Mr. Chairman, if it would be of assistance to the hon. member, I am prepared to try to define the terms “full citizenship rights” and “adult citizen”. According to information I have obtained from my legal advisers, an attempt to define “full citizenship rights” in terms of the meaning of the term in Rehoboth, would amount to the definition of a person to whom full citizenship rights had been granted by the Advisory Council. However, I am prepared to look into this and to try to find a definition of both concepts, in accordance with which I shall adjust the Bill accordingly in the Other Place.

Amendment (1) negatived.

Amendment (2) agreed to.

Amendment (3) negatived and amendment (4) dropped.

Amendment (5) agreed to.

Amendment (6) negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 13, to omit all the words after “Rehoboth” in line 29 up to the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1);
2. (2) on page 13, to omit all the words after the first “Rehoboth” in line 46 up to and including “laws,” in line 48.

The reasons for these amendments will, I believe, be quite obvious to this House. We recognize that the authority of the captain and the legislative authority of Rehoboth should run as widely as may be necessary for the purposes of good administration. However, in both the subsections to which I have moved amendments, there is provision for that jurisdiction to run wider than the jurisdictional area, the territorial area, of Rehoboth. Firstly, it extends that jurisdiction to any citizen of Rehoboth, whether such citizen is or is resident within or outside of Rehoboth, but within the territory of South West Africa. Later, in subsection (3), if I may deal with them simultaneously, there is a similar provision in relation to citizens who live outside Rehoboth.

We believe that any legislature may try to extend its jurisdiction to whatever matter it finds good and proper. The question arises, however, whether such a law is practical. If we look at our own international relations, we find that, if a particular country wishes to extend its jurisdiction or the validity of its laws, beyond its own frontiers, beyond its own territory, it can only do so in co-operation with the other countries concerned. If, for example, a South African citizen were to move from here to the United States of America or to Britain or France, we could ensure that the effect of certain laws was carried into the jurisdiction of those territories only if the Governments of those territories were prepared to co-operate with us in making that jurisdiction effective. There are familiar cases which one deals with every day, such as the enforcement of alimony in divorce settlements and so forth, where by treaty or by agreement South Africa can gain the co-operation of other countries to make sure that the laws, decrees or court orders of this country are carried out in those other countries. For a country to attempt, by a constitutional provision, unilaterally to say that its jurisdiction will extend beyond its borders, is to make an ass of the law. It is not practical, it is not efficacious for a country, unilaterally, to declare that the law shall run beyond its own borders. While one would have no objection if, at a later stage, the people of Rehoboth, or their council, in co-operation with other legislative assemblies or other authorities in South West Africa, should agree with each other that the validity of their laws should extend into each other’s territory in respect of certain matters, that would be a matter of mutual agreement. The laws of Rehoboth will then be applicable to citizens of Rehoboth living in other areas, and vice versa. This would be done by mutual agreement and by mutual co-operation because, without that, you cannot enforce these laws and you cannot make them valid. This kind of thing has now more place in this constitution than it has in the constitution of South Africa. You do not find such things in our Constitution, because we do these things by mutual agreement and by convention. The principle is certainly not repugnant to us, because it is sometimes done between sovereign countries and we see no reason why, if it is acceptable to the various groups in South West Africa, it should not be done there. We do not believe that it is practical to do it by each one unilaterally writing out a constitution and saying: We, unilaterally, impose on our citizens living in other parts of South West Africa, in other territories outside our jurisdiction, laws which we cannot enforce effectively. Whilst, therefore, not raising any major objection of principle in regard to the attempt to grant to the people of Rehoboth jurisdiction outside their territory, I believe that it cannot be done by a unilateral constitutional instrument, and that we shall have to wait for reciprocal agreements which will make this possible for them, as indeed we do in our relations with other countries of equal sovereignty.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis has shown once again that he does not know South West Africa and the Rehoboth Territory. There are approximately 10 000 citizens of the Rehoboth Baster territory who live outside Rehoboth. They live in Otjiwarongo, in Gobabis, in Grootfontein and all over South West Africa. For the purpose of tax evasion, of course, these people may decide not to return to the Rehoboth territory, because if Rehoboth does not have jurisdiction over them, the territory is not authorized to recall them in order to force them to pay tax.

But there are Scots who live in Australia.

Yes, but let me get to my point. I want to mention an example and say that it happens in respect of the Ovambos, who have to pay a poll tax even though they live outside Wambo. They have to pay the poll tax in spite of this, and the Wambo Government has jurisdiction to force them to pay that poll tax, as it is called. All that is being done here is to give the same power to the Rehoboth Baster community as well, so that they can make the necessary legislation, concerning income tax and any related matters, applicable to their citizens who do not live in Rehoboth, but elsewhere. Of course, there are very good reasons for the fact that many of them live outside Rehoboth. There are, for example, many more employment opportunities for them outside Rehoboth at this stage and one may take it that the Rehoboth Basters have specifically requested us to comply with their wishes by creating the necessary jurisdiction. I want to concede to the hon. member for Von Brandis that a country normally has no jurisdiction beyond its borders, that is, beyond its territorial waters. But by means of negotiations, it can obtain further jurisdiction. This also holds for one of its citizens in another territory over whom it can obtain control, for instance by means of treaties. This legislation does not exclude such treaties at all. It can be done, but the fact remains that the legislation provides that they will have jurisdiction over citizens of Rehoboth who reside elsewhere in South West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am naturally aware of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member for Middelland. The fact is that although in Owambo, for example, a poll tax is payable by the citizens of Owambo who reside outside the area, it is nevertheless not done by the Government of Owambo. It is true that there is a law in Owambo which levies such a tax, namely the poll tax, but this law is enforced with the co-operation of the administration concerned outside Owambo. The Government of Owambo cannot send its own police to the southern part of the territory so that the tax may be collected. This is done with the co-operation of the other administrations. This was actually the point which I made. In the second instance the hon. member said that when a State, like South Africa, enters into a treaty with another state, it can extend its jurisdiction to that other state in this way,

For example, the extradition of people.

Yes, but this is not an extension of jurisdiction. The jurisdictions remain apart; all that is done by the treaty is that co-operation takes place by means of which the jurisdiction of the befriended state is used on behalf of the State which requested it. This does not entail the extension of jurisdiction across the borders to another state. It is precisely because of this that I want to state that it is not possible for a State to declare unilaterally that it will have jurisdiction over its own citizens wherever they may be, unless it is in its own territory where it does indeed have jurisdiction. It is much more practical and realistic to omit a provision like this from the constitution and to leave it to the authority concerned to make arrangements of this kind in its further relations with other states.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot accept these amendments. I think that the hon. member is carrying the argument a little too far and that the provision is proof indeed that we are not trying in this legislation to do anything other than what is really meant. The position is that the power of the Government of Rehoboth to make laws in respect of citizens which are outside Rehoboth, elsewhere in South West Africa or at any other place, is limited, in the schedule to the Bill itself, to only two matters, namely taxes and elections. As far as elections are concerned, this aspect presents no problems in the Southern African set-up, because the citizens of a country, no matter where they are, may vote by post, and this is what is going to happen in this case. As far as taxes are concerned, this arrangement exists already; for this reason the request came from the Rehoboth people themselves that this aspect be laid down in the legislation. As the matter stands at the moment, they claim taxes from people outside Rehoboth, and the people who do not fulfil their tax obligations lose certain privileges in the process.

But who collects the taxes?

Their own people collect them. Possibly some state department will assist in collecting them.

What happens to a Rehobother who goes to live in Windhoek permanently? Will he also be subject to these provisions?

Yes, he will still have to pay his poll tax in Rehoboth. This depends on whether he renounces his Rehoboth citizenship, but the hon. member knows the traditions of these people; they will not do so easily.

Mr. Chairman, we are concerned here with a principle which we cannot simply let slide. There is a difference. The hon. member for Middelland spoke of the case of an Ovambo. If an Ovambo goes to work outside Owambo, he does not receive right of occupation outside Owambo; but the situation is different in the case of a Rehobother. A Rehobother can settle in another area. The hon. the Minister mentioned two points. The one deals with elections and the other with taxes. As far as elections are concerned, there cannot really be any objections; a situation may arise where a territory may give the citizens of another territory the right to vote in that territory, while they have the franchise in their own territory as well. For instance, we give the White citizens of South West the right to sit in this Parliament. Allow me to say immediately that there is nothing wrong with an authority saying to a person:“I am granting you the favour of enabling you to vote here as well.” In other words, it is something extra. However, it is another matter if a territory with self-government has the right to impose a tax on a person who lives in another territory. Take, for example, the case of our provinces. We are not dealing with states here in the Bill; essentially we are dealing here with provincial situations. A citizen of South Africa can have a house in two or three provinces; he can have a house everywhere. However, it is eventually decided in which province he is permanently resident, and in that province in which he is permanently resident he has to pay his tax. The other provinces in which he also has houses cannot impose another personal tax upon him. We feel that it must be stated very clearly here that when a citizen is permanently resident outside Rehoboth, he cannot be assessed personally, and that it is then the task of that territory to do so. I think that the provision in the clause is also in conflict with the Declaration of Intent, which will give the highest degree of self-government to every unit which may develop in South West. This means that every territory has self-government in respect of the people who live in that territory. How can we deprive a territory of the right to impose tax upon an inhabitant, while he uses the facilities of that territory, such as the roads, schools, etc. While he is doing so, another territory is imposing a tax upon him. I am sorry; we feel that a principle is at stake here which we cannot accept at all.

Mr. Chairman, I did originally accept the statement that this matter deals with clauses 10 and 20 only, but now I find that a problem exists in respect of item 39 of the schedule, namely the imposition of punishment and forfeitures for enforcing laws made by the Legislative Authority of Rehoboth, and also in respect of item 52, where the Rehoboth territory is not mentioned at all. Item 52 deals with the maintenance of law and order, the investigation of offences or alleged offences and the prevention of crime, and the Rehoboth area is not mentioned at all in that particular item. I presume that this is a lapse, as far as this item is concerned. It seems to me that it would be irregular for the Legislative Authority of Rehoboth to make measures concerning the maintenance of law and order applicable to its citizens outside Rehoboth. We also find that, in terms of clause 16, any law of Rehoboth invalidates any other law of this Parliament or of any other legislative authority. It seems to me as if this is a lapse which took place in the formulation of item 52 of the schedule. This is one of the reasons why we feel that these provisions of clause 16 cannot remain as they are. I want to add that if this matter only concerns clauses 10 and 20, then it seems to me rather pointless to add a protection like this especially in respect of clause 16. It does not concern the poll tax only. In the case of poll tax I can still understand it, because this is a personal tax which one carries wherever one goes. However, when it comes to something like income tax, it is a different matter. A Rehobother, for example, may work in Windhoek; he lives there, he works there and he earns his income there. Suppose the South West African Administration, or the legislative authority of the territory in which he lives, has an income tax law. This means then that in terms of this provision that legislative authority cannot levy taxes on the income which that citizen of Rehoboth earns in that territory. Under these circumstances it seems to me that this provision cannot remain as it is. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his standpoint in the light of these points.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is reading things into this provision which do not exist. A Rehobother who lives and works outside Rehoboth only pays his poll tax, and his site tax or farm tax if he owns property. Many of these people who live and work outside Rehoboth still own property there. Such a person must then pay that tax in respect of the Rehoboth territory, but it is obvious that he will not pay any other tax imposed by the Rehoboth government if he is living in Windhoek or elsewhere, because he is then subject to the taxes of the South West African Administration.

The hon. member referred to item 52 of the schedule. I shall look at this again. I am not sure whether the hon. member’s interpretation in this connection is entirely correct, but I shall look at it, and if there was an oversight, we will try and rectify it in the Other Place.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

It is just a linguistic change. I propose that the word “but” be replaced by the word “and” because this provision actually deals with a right which the people have in any case.

That is quite right. Since it involves only a linguistic consideration, I do not think it makes any basic difference, and therefore I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:

I should like to ask the Minister whether the concept of “interest in land” should not be defined. Take the renting of a house in Rehoboth for example. This is an interest in land, something which is prohibited to persons who are not citizens of Rehoboth.

I am quite prepared to consider it and to include a definition of “interest in land” as well.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 17, in line 61, to omit “Consolidated” and to substitute “State”;
2. (2) on page 17, in line 64, to omit “Controller and”;
3. (3) on page 19, in line 8 to omit “Consolidated” and to substitute “State”;
4. (4) on page 19, in line 18, to omit “Consolidated” and to substitute “State”.

I may just mention that this is related to the commencement on 1 April this year of the Exchequer and Audit Act, and where we have the opportunity in this legislation of providing for the application of that particular Act, we have now done so.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28:

Mr. Chairman, I should be happy if the hon. the Minister could just explain to us why this particular amount of R200 000 has been mentioned here and what percentage it will form of the expected total budget of the Rehoboth Gebiet. That is my first question. My second question is the following: Subsection (2) provides that the total amount which the Kaptein may handle in terms of subsection (1) shall not exceed R200 000, and the relative expenditure shall be submitted to the Kaptein’s Council and the Legislative Council for appropriation at the next ensuing several sessions. But just above that, in subsection (1), it says that this special appropriation, the special warrant the Kaptein exercises, may only be exercised with the approval of the Kaptein’s Council. Is it necessary, then, to provide in subsection (2) that he is to submit that thing again at the next ensuing meeting of the Kaptein’s Council? If it had been the Legislative Council, I could have understood it, but it seems to me to be totally tautological to say he has to submit it again to the Kaptein’s Council. He is unable to do it in any case before having consulted the Kaptein’s Council about the matter. I hope the Minister will explain it.

In reply to the hon. member, I should like to say that this amount of R200 000 has, according to my information, been calculated arbitrarily, more or less on the basis of a percentage of the budget, which will be determined in the future, depending on the expenditure and how it will increase in future.

It might just as well have been R199 000.

Yes. The point is that it is an arbitrary amount. Concerning the hon. member’s question as to why it has to be submitted again at the following session of the Kaptein’s Council, I do not have precise information. I assume that it is just a question of procedure that it should be submitted to the Legislative Council by way of the Kaptein’s Council.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 21, in line 12, to omit “Controller and”;
2. (2) on page 21, in lines 18 to 20, to omit “1956 (Act No. 23 of 1956), and the orders, rules and regulations in terms of section 10 or section 61” and to substitute:

1. (3) on page 21, to omit all the words after “Act:” in line 22 up to and including “orders” in line 27 and to substitute:

It relates to the same reason I gave under clause 25.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

As far as I can remember, the term “Basterhof” is used in this clause for the first time. What I should like to know is whether this Basterhof forms an inferior court in the hierarchy of courts, and if it is a court which is to be invested with power in terms of this legislation, is it not necessary to give a definition of what is meant by the “Basterhof”?

The clause includes a provision to the effect that at the coming into being of the Government of Rehoboth, the control and administration of the magistrate’s court and the Basterhof of Rehoboth shall vest in the Kaptein’s Council. It may be mentioned that the Basterhof is regarded as a prestige institution by the Basters. Acknowledgment was given to the Basterhof by section 2 of Government Notice No. 1 of 1930, of the territory of South West Africa. It is the civil court and it has virtually unlimited jurisdiction in civil cases. The citizens of Rehoboth all make use of the Basterhof. The court also has a cheap and simple procedure for conducting cases. I do not think there are many lawyers. They will probably complain if they are not used enough. In cases where the causa debendi has originated outside Rehoboth, the magistrate’s court is used. It is interesting, however, to mention that the Basterhof handles far more civil cases than the magistrate’s court. I hope this background will acquaint the hon. member with the facts.

May I ask whether the term “Basterhof” should not be defined in the legislation?

I have told the hon. member that it is a court which has already been established in terms of a Government Notice, haven’t I? It is therefore unnecessary to define it any further.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

As you will remember, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout brought this matter to my attention and I am grateful to him for having done so. I said in my reply to the Second Reading debate why it was still printed like that in the Bill and I now take pleasure in moving this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This particular clause deals with the exercise of executive powers by the Minister in order to bring this legislation into operation. The last part of this particular subsection gives the Minister the power, apparently, to exercise all executive powers at any time in order to ensure the continuation of the administration of Rehoboth. One does not want to conjure up spectres unnecessarily, for it could easily be said that this is a situation which cannot be foreseen. But we received an indication earlier on that problems could indeed arise in Rehoboth, because the people are perhaps inclined to be unnecessarily argumentative and quarrelsome. The intention of my amendment is to make it clear that those powers of the Minister may only be exercised in the interim period, because after the interim period the territory will have its own legislative authority, a continuous executive authority in the person of Kaptein and the Kaptein’s council. Seen from that point of view, it seems highly improbable to me that a situation could arise which would necessitate intervention of this nature by the Minister. In passing—it is not really relevant here—I do want to point out the sort of problems which arose because of comprehensive powers which the Minister had in respect of the Coloured Representative Council. I should not like to see that situation repeating itself in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I am unable to accept this amendment. This clause, too, was specially included with the approval of the Advisory Council. Circumstances may arise which would oblige the Minister to intervene in order to prevent chaos and ensure the continuation of the administration. I should like to assure the hon. member that this provision has been included at the request and with the approval of the Advisory Council itself. Therefore I am not prepared to detract from this. It is difficult to determine the circumstances which could lead to something of this nature. We are giving the people more responsibility at the moment and I trust that the hon. member will accept it.

Let us give them what they want.

Mr. Chairman, I expected that the hon. the Minister would give me that answer. I request permission to withdraw the amendment I have moved.

Agreed to.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Instead of that, I should like to move two other amendments, as follows—

1. (1) On page 27, in lines 45 to 47, to omit “and, if necessary, for ensuring the continuation of the administration of Rehoboth in terms of this Act”;
2. (2) on page 28, to add the following subsection at the end of the Clause:
3. (3) The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette when he deems it necessary grant full authority to the Minister, or to such other person as the State President may deem fit, to exercise, for the period determined in such proclamation or in any subsequent proclamation, all such executive powers, authorities and functions as are necessary for ensuring the continuation of the administration of Rehoboth in terms of this Act.

If we accept, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, that it could sometimes be necessary to intervene and that, because of the fact that Parliament is in session for only six months of the year, it would be difficult for the Minister to come back to Parliament in order to make the necessary legal amendments if the administration should collapse there in spite of the fact that the Kaptein and the Kaptein’s Council have been elected, it does seem to me that we would then be faced with the sort of situation which would require the serious attention of the Cabinet itself. Because we do not wish the Government to be powerless to act in such a case—for, after all, salaries have to be paid, etc.,—I move in my amendment that the executive authority should indeed have the necessary powers, but that it should happen by way of a proclamation by the President in the Gazette. Then the whole question of the wasting of time will not be relevant. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would consider accepting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I shall not be able to accept this amendment either, for the procedure which is envisaged here is really very cumbersome. It would take longer, too, to have a proclamation published in the Gazette first.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 40:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 29, to insert the following paragraph after paragraph (b) of subsection (1):

1. (c) make provisions for the periods of office of the Kaptein, other members of the Kaptein’s Council and members of the Legislative Council, and the filling of casual vacancies which may occur.

1. (2) on page 29, to omit subsection (2).

The object of the provision that a proclamation may be issued by the President in terms of clause 40, is obviously not to have to come back to Parliament, but to be able to deal with the matter by means of proclamation. In all modesty, I think clause 40 actually contradicts the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister a moment ago, i.e. the argument that cumbersome procedure should be avoided. Clause 40 is supposed to cause this very cumbersome procedure. If it is possible to deal with problems by means of a proclamation in the Government Gazette without it being necessary to come back to Parliament to amend the Act, it seems to me that para. (c) of subsection (2) should also be inserted in subsection (1), because a para. (c) relates to the bind of matters which are already being mentioned in subsection (1), i.e. the period of office of the Kaptein, other members of the Kaptein’s Council and members of the Legislative Council. This is why I am moving this particular amendment. Therefore, I suggest that it be made possible, by means of a proclamation in the Government Gazette, to provide for that which is being mentioned in para. (c) of subsection (2).

In my second amendment I move that subsection (2) be deleted, because all the matters which are mentioned there, can be dealt with by means of laws which the Legislative Council of Rehoboth will be able to enact in terms of the schedule. The matters referred to in paras (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) are, after all, matters which normally fall within the jurisdiction of the Legislative Council, just as similar matters in South Africa fall under the jurisdiction of Parliament. It seems obvious to me that these matters should be dealt with by the Legislative Council of Rehoboth itself by means of laws which they are able to enact in this regard. As you will see, Mr. Chairman, I provide, in my amendment, to the schedule, for these powers to be transferred to the Legislative Council of Rehoboth.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am again unable to accept these amendments of the hon. member. I think the hon. member does not quite understand the situation. The Minister is only able to take steps here after consultation with or at the request of the Kaptein’s Council and the Legislative Council. The machinery which has been created here to effect essential adjustments in a limited sphere seems to me to be the most suitable to deal with a situation of this nature in the easiest way. I think the hon. member should again consider carefully the specific circumstances under which the Minister is able to take steps in this regard.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment relates to the reasons I furnished when clause 25 was under discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

It seems to me the hon. member for Sea Point is not here now, although I have hoped he would give attention to this matter. The reason why the Bill will not come into operation immediately, is that a Deeds Registries Bill for Rehoboth relating to this legislation, will be introduced during this session. Therefore, as I told the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon, I gave Dr. Africa the assurance that before the legislation is promulgated by the State President, consultations will be held between myself, my department and the leaders of Rehoboth on the most suitable time to implement this legislation. The bill does not contain a provision that such consultation should take place, but discussions will be held in view of what I have already said.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that my amendments to clause 40 have not been accepted, it seems to me that there will be no sense in moving the first amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. The first amendment deals with item 10 of the schedule. In spite of the fact that we have already discussed the principle embodied in the second amendment, I feel I should once again make the point quite clearly that we adopt the attitude that a legislative authority should not have the right to enact laws which are binding on people who are permanently resident in another area. To us this is a matter of principle and for that reason I move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment moved by the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Preamble:

Mr. Chairman, before moving the amendments that are printed in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to clarify a small matter about which we had something of a disagreement during the Second Reading debate. I am referring to the Rehoboth report which I said the hon. the Minister should have submitted to Parliament.

You are referring to the memorandum, are you not?

Yes. The hon. the Minister will recall that he felt somewhat hurt about the fact that I had criticized him for not having submitted the memorandum to Parliament.

No, I did not feel hurt.

I think the hon. the Minister misunderstood me, because he will notice that reference is made in the second paragraph of the preamble to the “basis of the proposals” submitted to the Government by the Baster Advisory Council. My point was that reference was made in the legislation to proposals which had never officially been submitted to Parliament. Only a few hon. members obtained those proposals from the hon. the Minister by way of a favour. It is obvious, therefore, that if in future someone should want to investigate the history of this legislation, and to view the parliamentary documents as well, he would not be able to look up these proposals anywhere. That is why I criticized the hon. the Minister. It was because he had not submitted the proposals to Parliament. I think he must bear this in mind in the future. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in the second line, after “self-government” to insert:

1. (2) on page 3, to add the following objective at the end of the preamble:

There are two amendments. The first one I need not argue again. We have already advanced our arguments here. Nowhere in the Bill is it emphasized that the measure is concerned with self-government within South West Africa. I think this should at least be said in the preamble. The second amendment speaks for itself. We should like it to be pointed out that by means of the local authority which is being granted to it, Rehoboth is being enabled to establish a really authoritative body which will be able to negotiate with other sections of the population in the rest of South West Africa about the future of the territory. This part of the amendment is self-explanatory.

The first part of the amendment cannot be accepted because it is substantially the same as an amendment which was negatived by the Committee earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, does it not make any difference that this amendment refers to the preamble, while the previous amendment referred to a clause.

No. The purport of the two amendments is the same and for that reason this one cannot be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the first and third paragraphs of the preamble. I want to refer to the phrase “the desire of the citizens” in the first paragraph which reads:—

The third paragraph reads as follows—

Hon. members will recall that in the Second Reading debate, I objected to the legislation on the grounds that there was not satisfactory evidence, in our opinion, to prove that all the inhabitants of Rehoboth and the other population groups of South West Africa are in favour of the Bill. We did not say that there was no evidence. We only doubted whether the evidence was satisfactory. I think there may have been some misunderstanding between me and the hon. the Minister in this connection. I was not ignorant of the fact that the Rehoboth-bevrydingsbeweging, too, had more or less adopted the standpoint of Dr. Africa. Nor did I ever deny that there had been an election. In fact, I did not deny either that this Bill was one of the factors which had given rise to the election, in the sense that it was said that the people had not been consulted, that the Advisory Council had resigned, etc. Nor did I deny that there had been a majority in that by-election, but I emphatically deny that a by-election is a satisfactory measure for deciding about the constitutional future of a population group. That is in fact what it was. It was the result of the resignation of seven of the members, to begin with, but later of five—two withdrew their resignations.

Why do I consider this to be an unsatisfactory measure? Because political parties are involved which naturally have their own particular interests, and also because personalities are involved. The people are not only persuaded to vote for a central principle or idea; several political and policy aspects are also involved. It is very difficult to say in such a situation that the population of Rehoboth has been confronted with a yes/no situation. A yes/no situation is what we are concerned with here. The people must be asked whether they are in favour of a form of self-government as embodied in the principle of the Bill. The reply to that is either yes or no. On such a question one does not expect that 30% will give a certain reply, that another 30% will give a different reply, while yet another 30% will give yet another reply. What would that really mean? A similar case would be when the population or voters of the White population in South Africa are asked whether they are in favour of becoming a Republic—yes or no. It would be senseless after that to produce a result consisting of a certain percentage of votes for the United Party and a certain percentage for the Liberal Party, or any other party. We are not concerned with that, but with a central question, i.e. the constitutional framework within which certain political parties may operate. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he would have any objection to this. I do not think the hon. the Minister has any objection, but why did he not try to arrange a referendum on this question? In this way it would have been possible to confront the population of Rehoboth with the question of self-government. To this they could then have replied “yes”, or “no” In fact, as the hon. the Minister said himself, there was a referendum on a Bill in 1961. The hon. the Minister referred to it in his reply to the Second Reading. The population of Rehoboth rejected the Bill by way of the referendum at that time, because they did not like it.

It seems to me that one had the ideal opportunity in this case of confronting 3 646 voters with the consequences of the Bill, of informing them and of asking them to reflect properly without clouding the issue with party political quarrels or personal quarrels. It could have been done in an afternoon, and one would have had an unequivocal reply from the people themselves. In fact, this is what the hon. the Minister would have preferred, after all, i.e. an unequivocal reply to the question of whether the Bill and the principles embodied in it are completely accepted by the majority of the people of Rehoboth. Under the present circumstances, given the quarrels and the conflict which preceded it and the factions that broke away from the Volksparty, personalities which became involved and the fact that a by-election was afterwards held by means of which a new council had to be constituted, we on this side of the House are unable to accept this as satisfactory evidence of the acceptability of the Bill concerned to the people of Rehoboth.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the hon. member for Rondebosch has the wrong contacts in Rehoboth. It is obvious that his contacts are the Opposition members in Rehoboth. It has been quite clear throughout the discussion that he did not receive his information from the majority in the Advisory Council, but from the minority.

I want to ask the hon. member to suppose that there has been an election to fill a vacancy in the Advisory Council and that the person who has been elected is not acceptable to the Government. The Government now has to indicate that it is unable to accept the elected person and that a referendum has to be held. This would mean that every time a by-election is held, a referendum would have to be held in terms of the constitution. Sir, we believe that these things should take place according to the democratic processes. I want to tell the hon. member what happened in the former Tanganyika. The Government there won by one seat after it had taken the seat of Chake-Chake by a majority of only one vote. This gave the government a majority of one vote in parliament. In spite of this, the government had been legally elected, because it had in fact attracted the majority of the votes. This is exactly what could happen here. It would be foolish of us, for example, to have a referendum because there is shortly to be a by-election in Durban North. With all respect, I believe the hon. member has confused the issue.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he means to imply that it was wrong to hold a referendum about the question of becoming a Republic?

That was a different matter.

What is the difference? There we confronted the voters with a clear choice. It was no party-political game. It concerned a central question to which the voters had to reply “yes” or “no”. What is the difference?

The hon. member must not use that type of argument. We said at the time that we wanted a republic and that we were going to have a referendum about it. The question was put to all the voters and not to Parliament, because, with all respect towards the other side of the House, the majority of the voters in South Africa did not have the majority in Parliament. For that reason we held a referendum, so that the people could decide about it. In this case, however, matters are different. A vacancy arose in the Advisory Council and it had to be filled in the normal way. The process by which this took place was quite democratic.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether you ruled that amendment (1) moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was out of order because the principle had already been accepted?

Yes.

As far as amendment (2) is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that I realize why he wants to make the amendment. However, I have other problems. Once again the sensitivity of the people of Rehoboth is involved. I should like to do it the way the hon. member has suggested in his amendment. However, I want to repeat that the sensitivity of the people of Rehoboth is involved. The way the preamble would read with the proposed amendment, certain members of the Advisory Council of Rehoboth now representing the territory at the South West conference may get the impression that we are trying to work them out of the conference. For this reason I am very reluctant to accept the amendment as it stands. However, I shall have another close look at the amendment, and if it appears to be necessary, I shall be prepared to raise the matter in the Other Place so that the intention of this can be made quite clear.

In the circumstances, I withdraw the amendment with leave of the Committee.

Amendment (2), with leave, withdrawn.

The hon. member for Rondebosch simply cannot accept that his friends—I shall put it to him like this—with whom he alone talks have been defeated. I want to be quite frank with the hon. member. He attended the symposium of Mr. O’Linn in Windhoek, which was also attended by people from Rehoboth. The great majority of them were members of the Rehoboth-Volksparty who still cannot accept that they have suffered a defeat. These are the hon. member’s informants. The hon. member for Middelland was right when he said that. The hon. member now alleges that a by-election was not a proper test. Does the hon. member realize, however, that a by-election under the present dispensation in Rehoboth does not mean an election in certain wards only? Here it meant a general election in respect of five of the seven members. Those who resigned, did so because they felt that the people had not been sufficiently consulted about the constitution. The point at issue was not whether they were really opposed to the constitution. Then every candidate, of whatever party, went to the voters with the draft constitution in his hand.

When the hon. member now asks me why a referendum was not held, I want to say that it was not held because the people had the right to decide whether they wanted a referendum or not. With the resignations they were able to turn the election into a test. I spelt out to the hon. member the other day that there were parties involved in it which did not agree with one another on other things, but which did in fact agree on the draft constitution. I pointed out that more than 1 000 signatures had come from the Rehoboth-bevrydingsparty. They insisted on the Bill being passed as early as last year. If the hon. member still does not want to believe or accept that the great majority of Rehoboth citizens want this legislation, I think there is something wrong with the hon. member. I think he has enough sense to accept facts. Hon. members probably know that it is a little game which the hon. member is playing. I have here a cutting from the Sunday Times of yesterday in which a certain Alf Wannenburgh writes the following under the heading “Basters are split on constitution”—

This man is so well informed that he does not even know that it was taken last week—

Can hon. members see where it is leading?

Is that hon. member also impressed by such reporting? What does the conference have to do with the request of the people of Rehoboth for a constitution of their own? Leaders of all the parties are taking part in the conference and if five of them are no longer there, this fact is connected with other problems encountered by them in the course of the conference. However, it has no connection whatsoever with the representations for and insistence on a constitution of its own for Rehoboth. I read this quotation because it is symptomatic of a process which is going on and in which that hon. member is taking part, i.e. to question the expressed will of the people of Rehoboth. I am sorry that I have to reprove the hon. member in this connection, but he will have to make a better study of these people, who are so sensitive about their own traditions and their desire for advancement, before he comes to reproach us with not having provided a satisfactory test.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I just want to point out to hon. members that the principle of this Bill is self-government for the Rehoboth Gebiet. I have already allowed a fairly wide discussion this afternoon in order to enable each party to state its point of view once again. Hon. members will have another opportunity in the Third Reading stage to conduct a general debate on this matter, and for this reason I want to appeal to hon. members not to discuss the principle of self-government any further.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. In terms of the preamble there is specific reference to—

“Rehoboth Gebiet”

This is a collective statement. Later on it says: “at the request of the said people” and I wonder why it does not say “at the request of the majority of the people”. It is a collective situation. The hon. member for Middelland says the democratic process is important, but when one is reshaping a constitution, when one is giving people a flag, an anthem and citizenship, then one does not want the democratic process to work on the chance majority of a single by-election. The history is that until 1974 there was unanimous rejection of this by the Baster-Adviesraad. It was only in 1975 at a by-election that a majority of four to three was created in favour of this constitution. We do not deny that there is a majority in the present Baster-Adviesraad, but is it correct for the preamble to say that the citizens, the people of the “Gebiet” have asked for this?

I argue that the only test, as stated in the preamble, is a test of the individual citizens on this issue. I think it is of vital importance, because I believe that the Government is doing a disservice to the people of Rehoboth if they proceed without testing the attitudes of the people collectively on this issue and without testing it by way of referendum. The hon. the Minister has responded to a request from Dr. Africa, namely that the measure would not be implemented until there has been further discussion with the Baster Adviesraad. I should like the hon. the Minister to say that, prior to this measure being implemented, there will be a genuine test of the people by the way of a referendum. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is so determined to write these words into the draft legislation without first testing the people. This is to be in the law; it has now been agreed, but we say to the hon. the Minister once again that if he wants an important constitutional measure involving citizenship, flags and territory, then the real will of the people must be tested. All the evidence is that the by-election was held under a most abnormal set of circumstances.

It was at a time when Rehoboth was making its decision while it still had a White man as a Kaptein. I think it is an unusual set of circumstances that a decision about their future can be made when the people of the territory are not falling under the authority of people of their own citizenship. Now that it has been agreed that this measure should go through, we ask that this preamble be given effect to and that where it says “whereas it is the desire of the citizens of the Rehoboth Gebiet” and where it says “at the request of the said people”, the view of the citizens and attitude of the people of Rehoboth be tested by referendum before it is placed on the Statute Book.

Preamble put and the Committee divided:

AYES—84: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, N. F. Treumicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill,W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer.

Preamble agreed to.

Long Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept this amendment, as the Bill has not been so altered as to necessitate the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—