Order! Before I call upon an hon. member to address the Committee, I must point out that the principles contained in the various clauses of and the schedules to this Bill were agreed to at the Second Reading. In accordance with the practice of this House, I shall accordingly permit only one member of each Opposition party to state the attitude of his party to each clause and the schedules and the Minister to reply thereto.

Further discussion will, in accordance with Standing Order No. 63, be strictly confined to details of the clauses and the schedules and the amendments to such details.

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which grants sovereign independence to the Transkei and abdicates the authority of the Republic over that territory. Naturally we as a federal party prefer a federal solution to the solution proposed in this clause, namely independence. We prefer a federal solution for political reasons, for economic reasons and for moral reasons. Politically we would prefer closer bonds than there will be between an independent Transkei and South Africa. Economically we feel that the granting of independence in a sense is an abdication of responsibility for assistance in the economic development of the territory concerned. Morally we feel that the granting of independence is an abdication of responsibility in respect of South African citizens.

Our first reason for opposing this clause is that we prefer federalism to independence. Our second reason for opposing this clause is that we are not satisfied that it is genuinely designed to serve the interests of the Xhosa people. We see it rather as an attempt to justify the right of a White minority in South africa to dominate the greater part of South Africa—to dominate it by getting rid of large numbers of people who are at present South African citizens and giving them political rights elsewhere, in an area where they can have no influence upon decisions taken in the rest of South Africa. Our third reason for being against this clause, is that we are not satisfied that this step is being taken as the result of an authentic act of self-determination. We feel that the decisions taken in the election in the Transkei, in the so-called testing of public opinion I shall not call it a referendum, because too few took part in it for it to be a referendum—was a choice between two alternatives, among which the alternative we should like to see before the people, viz. membership of a federal relationship with the rest of the Republic, was not included. Therefore, on those grounds, we do not see our way clear to supporting the clause.

There is also a fourth reason, viz. this clause cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be seen as part of a scheme, a scheme involving certain most objectionable features, features which, in our view, contaminate the central idea. Firstly, there is the objectionable feature in regard to citizenship. It is quite clear that so far as the leaders of the Transkei at the moment are concerned, their views concerning citizenship of the Transkei will not coincide with those of the South African Government. While the headlines in the paper this morning show Kaiser Matanzima saying that there is no conflict, I believe that when one sees their intentions and has regard to what the hon. the Minister said in the Second Reading debate, is quite clear that there is going to be an area of conflict, an area in respect of which people are to be recognized as Transkeian citizens by the South African Government, but will not be recognized as such by the Transkei Government, if it carries out its present intentions and if it acts in accordance with its present ideas on its constitution. That we see as an objectionable feature, particularly since those people who will be regarded as Transkeian citizens by the South African Government will lose their South African citizenship without any act of free will on their part. The second objectionable feature is that the property rights and other rights of people in the Transkei are not protected by this Bill. The argument of the hon. the Minister is that this is an enabling piece of legislation and that there are clauses in the Bill providing for protection. That protection is not spelt out. Then there is provision also for agreements to be not ratified, but, shall I say, observed and to have force and effect as a result of the provisions of the Bill, but those agreements are also in many cases not before the House.

We feel that for those four reasons we cannot accept this clause. Firstly, we prefer federalism to independence; secondly, we are not satisfied that this clause is genuinely designed to serve the interests of the Xhosa people; thirdly, we are not satisfied that it is the result of an authentic act of self-determination; and, fourthly, the clause cannot be viewed in isolation, but is part of a pattern, part of a scheme involving such objectionable features that it makes the principle of the clause unacceptable too. Therefore we shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister, during his Second Reading speech, called for a positive attitude by the Opposition to the future independence of the Transkei. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister of the very positive and the very constructive attitude which was adopted by the PRP, and suggest to him that the negative attitude in fact came from the hon. the Minister himself. In his reply to the Second Reading debate he proved to be either unwilling or unable to deal with the questions put to him, except in a very cynical and very superficial manner. The hon. the Minister will recall that the attitude of the PRP was stated very clearly by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Sea Point mentioned three prerequisites, namely a referendum in which all the people of the Transkei would take part, the right of the people who are presently South African citizens to choose to remain South African citizens if they so wish; and it was never suggested that a dual citizenship should apply, as the hon. the Minister said. I do not know where he got it from; he probably sucked it out of his thumb. Thirdly, it was suggested that the minority groups in the Transkei be afforded constitutional protection against discrimination.

If one analysis these three points, they are all points which are not only responsible but which are also necessary in the interest of a future independent Transkei. Without a referendum where the question of independence is the only issue, there will always be people who will bedevil the new Republic of the Transkei by claiming that it was not born by the self-determination of the people, but that it was thrust upon them unwillingly. The hon. the Minister suggested that the election, scheduled to be held in September, would suffice as a test of public opinion on this issue. I do not believe this is so. No test can replace a referendum. In fact, there is the possibility that the election may totally confuse the matter.

Imagine the situation if the majority of votes cast,’ were cast for candidates who do not favour independence. This in itself will not stop independence, as it will have no bearing on this Bill we are discussing; nor will it change the basic composition of the Government of the Transkei. What it would do, is to add weight to the argument that independence is not the wish of the people of the Transkei. Therefore, the refusal of the Government to consider a referendum will only serve to frustrate the efforts by the Transkei in the battle for recognition which lies ahead.

Secondly, as stated by the Transkei Government itself, their task of making a success of their independence, is not helped if the whole exercise is seen as a move, the object of which is not the independence of the Transkei per se but the arbitrary removal of South African citizenship from the Black people in order to give some credibility to the Government’s policy of permanent White political domination in the Republic of South Africa.

Thirdly, without dictating to the Transkei the nature of their constitution, the Republic could carry out its responsibility to minority groups in the Transkei by asking that those people be afforded satisfactory constitutional safeguards. Rightly or wrongly, there are minority groups in the Transkei, for example, members of the South Sotho community; people who fear discrimination after independence. This is a fact. The hon. the Minister is aware of it. In terms of this Bill those people cannot opt to retain their South African citizenship in case their fears are realized, which would enable them to seek protection within South Africa. Additionally they have absolutely no constitutional rights on which they can rely.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether those people who are Black members of minority groups, are going to be left to fend for themselves, or whether the Government is prepared to afford to them the same safeguards it has offered to those Whites who will still remain in the Transkei. Can those Black members of minority groups depend upon the Government to make good any loss they may suffer as a result of independence? Can those Black people move out of the Transkei into the Republic and retain their South African citizenship if they so wish? I give this one example. There are many others available, but time does not permit me to go into them. All these problems could be solved by accepting the three prerequisites which were mentioned by the hon. member for Sea Point.

In terms of Government policy the independence of the homelands is an essential prerequisite to ensuring White domination in the Republic for all times. However, will it achieve this? This is the question which we have to ask ourselves. Can a system survive in Africa—a continent of some 250 million Blacks—when that system is designed to bring about a racial feudal system, with a relatively small White aristocracy who will have all the wealth, will hold all the power, will exploit the working force of a vast Black proletariat? This Black proletariat will be technically foreigners, despite the fact that they will be permanently resident here in the Republic of South Africa. I want to ask whether this is not the worst form of racialism and if it is not very near colonialism in its worst manifestation. Have we not learned the lesson from France in 1789 or from Russia in 1918? I believe this policy is a myth and a real threat to the peace and stability in Southern Africa as it is presently executed. Separate development will have no moral base and has no chance of success unless the Government is prepared to negotiate on two fundamental fronts; citizenship and land. The present deal will mean that a vast majority of Blacks, deprived of their South African citizenship, will still be forced to live and to work in the Republic because of the lack of opportunity in their so-called ethnic States. For them it will be a matter of survival. There will be no other alternative for them. The fundamental question that we must all ask ourselves is: Are we as Whites prepared to give other groups a say in the decision-making machinery which will dictate their future and their destiny? By giving a man a vote in the Transkei, when his future is decided here in Cape Town, is absolutely unreal, cynical and dishonest. Unless we have a satisfactory answer to these questions and on the points that we have put forward, we in these benches will have no alternative but to vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I believe all of us can understand how the Opposition feels about this, because we have been arguing the matter for the past three days. I believe that we should not waste time unnecessarily in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that it is definitely not necessary for me to repeat all the arguments of the past three days. I am perfectly satisfied with what have been put on record during the past three days. I understand the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party, but in this regard we differ basically and fundamentally from one another for reasons which are well-known to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party. However, I take cognizance of the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and now I shall leave the matter at that.

In regard to the argument of the hon. member for Randburg, I should just like to say that what it amounts to is that we here in our Parliament, or I as the Minister, should apply methods, administrative or in whatever way, obliging the Transkei to follow certain procedures—be it elections or referendums or whatever—so as to gauge public opinion in the Transkei. This is totally in conflict with our approach, also in respect of all other homelands. It is for the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei to gauge their public opinion in their own way and to formulate their requests accordingly, requests which are then forwarded to us. They did do this in this regard. We have a difference of opinion here as to the procedure which was followed. I can well understand the PRP wishing this to be done from this Parliament, because they want representation for the Transkei in this Parliament. Therefore, there is a major difference in our fundamental approach to this matter. The Black minority groups referred to by the hon. member, have always existed and since the advent of self-government in the Transkei and the Ciskei, these minority groups have enjoyed recognition and had living space under the existing procedures and legislation. Therefore, we cannot place these Black minority groups, who have been citizens of the homelands up to now and can be citizens in future, in the same category as the White or Coloured minority group, to whom we have in fact given the assurance which has been the subject here of so much discussion.

Finally, I should like to tell the hon. member once again that I find it reprehensible that he has again dragged colonialism and Russia into his argument.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the reply of the hon. the Minister to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came as no surprise to me or to anybody on this side of the House. It was what we expected.

We are dealing here with a clause which creates a sovereign and independent State over which the Republic shall cease to have any dominion whatsoever. However, in the process the hon. the Minister is creating a situation where South African citizens are being affected. I believe that before the hon. the Minister asks us to approve of this clause, he should tell us what plans he and the Government have regarding those South African citizens who are going to find themselves in this independent State as a result of this Government’s action as opposed to a voluntary act on the part of the South African citizens concerned. I refer to those South African citizens who will be in the Transkei and not to those outside.

Order! I gave my ruling at the commencement of the proceedings. The hon. member may not discuss the principle of the clause any further.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling, because I am not discussing the principles of the clause. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do to protect them.

Order! The hon. member can do so very briefly, but I am not going to allow him to discuss the principle of the clause any further.

Thank you, Sir. The point is that there are South African citizens who, we hope, are going to retain their South African citizenship notwithstanding the fact that they will be in the Transkei. There is another Bill which deals with voting rights. However, so far the Government has been silent regarding the protection or retention of citizenship rights of South African citizens who find themselves in a foreign State. There is also the question of the protection of property rights of those South African citizens who will find themselves in a foreign State as well as the question of the compensation which should be paid to those South African citizens who wish to leave that foreign State. Will this compensation be paid by the Government and, if so, when? There is also the question of freedom of movement between that foreign State and the Republic. Are the South African citizens who now find themselves in the Transkei going to be compelled to hold South African passports? Will they have to go through passport control …

Order! I have given my ruling. If the hon. member does not abide by my ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member is not discussing the principles of the clause in detail. All he wants to know is what is to happen to people who now go into or find themselves in the independent State.

Order! I attended the discussions during the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. member discussed the matter of citizenship and all other matters relating to the principle of the clause during that debate.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect: I submit that there was no discussion about passports that might be necessary to go into the independent State.

Order! The hon. member may only discuss the details of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect: One of the details of the clause is the creation of an independent State. All I wish to establish from the hon. the Minister is the effect this is going to have on South African citizens. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us what the plans of the Government are to protect the rights of these citizens. A question also arises regarding customs agreements. I do not know whether there is a customs agreement which we can discuss under a later clause of the Bill and which covers South African citizens who wish to import articles, foodstuff or all other necessities into this independent State. What is going to be the situation in regard to South African citizens who bring their possessions out of the Transkei? What about those who have been trading up to now from the Transkei into the Republic? Are their rights going to be affected in any way? What is the position going to be here? If the hon. the Minister could reply now he could perhaps cut this debate short by giving some indication of what the Government intends doing to protect these rights of South African citizens, White and Coloured, who will find themselves in an independent State, as I said not through any fault of their own, not through a voluntary act on their part, but through the action of the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to come back to the hon. the Minister on two fundamental issues. Sir, in denying a referendum what the Government was in fact saying is that …

Order! I have given my ruling. I am not going to allow any discussion about any referendum. That has been raised and disposed of in the Second Reading.

The second question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is in regard to the position of the Black minority groups.

Order! That has been discussed in the Second Reading as well.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply in brief to the question put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South by pointing out that I dealt with those aspects in principle during my introductory speech to the Second Reading and did so subsequently as well, but I shall nevertheless refer back to them in brief. If the hon. member checks this, he will see that provision is being made in clause 5, which we are still to discuss, for the recognition and the implementation of agreements entered into. Now, we have an agreement with the Transkei Government on the property rights of the Whites in the Transkei to the effect that we shall go on with the position we have had up to now as regards buying out, paying out, compensation—everything on the same basis as before. As regards the customs matters mentioned by the hon. member, I should just like to say that it is the intention that the Transkei is to become a member of the existing customs union and that everything will be arranged in terms of that union. With regard to the movement of persons, the final point mentioned by the hon. member, the position is that the same rules which are applicable to a person who wants to move from here to the Transkei will be applicable to a South African citizen who is in the Transkei and who wants to move to the Republic, i.e. on the basis of ordinary identity documents. There are agreements for that as well.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—43: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; 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.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill. Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, it is common cause that the new State must start life with a body of law, but our submission from these benches is that such a body of law must emphatically not include statutes which are clearly oppressive and statutes which are racially discriminatory. Therefore we have the strongest reservations about clause 2 in its present form. We believe that it will saddle the Transkei with laws and regulations which really have no place in a society which aspires to be a modern democracy, and with laws and regulations which we believe are in conflict with the rule of law and which are racially discriminatory. Our argument is that the Republic should not hand over to a State which wants to be a democracy the tools of authoritarianism, and that is what we are in fact in danger of doing. In creating a new State in Africa, the Republic, which after all prides itself on its democratic traditions and attachments, should set an example of how these democratic processes ought to function. It ought also to show that it believes that discrimination which is based on race and colour has no place in a modern and civilized society. It is true that a few of the Republic’s worst discriminatory laws are to be repealed. I mention just a few of them, for example, the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, which incidentally are all measures which this Committee ought to realize are measures which could be used against the Whites of the Transkei should the authorities so wish.

Our argument is that if an independent Transkei wants legislation of this nature, which one sincerely hopes that it does not, then it should enact it anew and should not inherit it. However, some of the statutes which are left, some of the statutes which are not going to be repealed, include the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and, worst of all perhaps, the provisions of the Bantu Administration Act of 1927, which empower the Government to take the most far-reaching and arbitrary action against individuals and groups without any recourse to the courts, action which leaves the individual entirely at the mercy of the State. These are left and in fact are not going to be repealed. I take as an example the notorious—and I think that that is not too strong a word to use for it—proclamation R.400 which has been in force in the Transkei, incidentally, since just before Sharpeville. Under this proclamation all meetings of more than 10 persons are banned unless special authority is obtained, people can arbitrarily be prevented from entering or leaving the Transkei and people can be forced to move from one place to another. I believe that at the moment there are 26 or more persons under such removal orders. In addition, a chief can be granted powers of criminal jurisdiction to try and punish any African in his area who is accused under any of these regulations. Arrests can be made without any warrants in certain circumstances. A whole range of actions can be deemed to be subversive. I should like to quote some of them—

1. (a) to make any verbal or written statement or to do any act which is intended or likely to have the effect of interfering with the authority of the State;
2. (b) to organize or take part in the boycott of a meeting convened by a State official, a chief or a headman, or a boycott against any person with the object of causing him any loss or inconvenience. For an African to refuse to obey a lawful order issued by his chief or his headman or to treat the chief or the headman with disrespect …

These are actions which are deemed to be subversive. I argue that in terms of proclamation 400 normal, democratic life for any individual in the Transkei is impossible, and I cannot see how an election that will even border on the normal can take place in September while proclamation 400 remains in force. The whole thing will become farcical. This is perhaps the most compelling reason why proclamation 400 should be done away with. Fortunately there is some evidence that the Transkei feels sensitive about this matter. Only two years ago the Chief Minister was reported as having said that proclamation 400 would “probably” be repealed because—

But now it is to become a law of the Transkei. I believe, however, that as long as proclamation 400 remains, there will be a temptation to use it, and I think one can say this in the light of experience because no Government that possesses arbitrary powers can ever resist the temptation of using them and very seldom divests itself of these powers. There is probably no better example of this than the Republic itself. Therefore, by failing to repeal proclamation 400 before independence the Republic is, in fact, arming the new Transkei Government with draconian powers which will almost certainly prove to be counterproductive, and I argue that this is no way to start along the road towards full democracy. For these reasons we have the gravest reservations about clause 2.

Mr. Chairman, while we appreciate the fact that there must be a continuation of laws to avoid chaos, we indicated in the Second Reading debate, by moving an amendment, that we were opposed to this Bill. We shall accordingly oppose every clause. I do not agree with all the remarks of the hon. member for Parktown. I should like to point out to him that proclamation 400 was applied by the Transkei Government and is, in any event, in force in the Transkei. There is consequently nothing we can do here to repeal it because at present they have the power to make their own laws under the Transkei Constitution Act. In any event, we are going to oppose this clause in view of our attitude towards the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I take cognizance of the attitude of the hon. member for Griqualand East. What he said about proclamation 400, ought to be a very good indication to the hon. member for Parktown in my opinion. However, I do not accept the premises of the hon. member for Parktown right from the start. He speaks of discriminatory and suppressive laws, but as far as I am concerned, we do not have any laws of that nature. [Interjections.] To that hon. member and like-minded persons—for example, the hon. member for Houghton—virtually all our laws are of that nature. However, that is not acceptable to us. In adopting the attitude they do towards every clause of the Bill which is before us at the moment, they reveal what an hon. member the other day described as a kind of imperialistic approach. Their attitude is that we are to dictate the actions of the Transkei from here. It is a kind of “Herrenvolk” mentality which we do not have. However, I do not know whether that hon. member is suffering from that disease. Why are we to decide what laws the Transkei does not require? Here we are providing very clearly that the Transkei may decide for itself. In other words, we are providing for our laws to be transferred to them, but they have the right to amend laws or to repeal them altogether. If that hon. member would only take the trouble to look at the draft Constitution of the Transkei, he would see for himself that Schedule 11 contains a long list of laws which they will not keep in operation or which they will repeal immediately. They may, of course, repeal a great many more if they want to do so and they may make new laws to replace them. They have the right to repeal those laws. Therefore, they obviously have the right to do what they like with proclamation 400 as well. That hon. member may see for himself that they have not included proclamation 400 in Schedule 11 for repeal. Other proclamations are mentioned in Schedule 11, but not that one. Surely that hon. member should be able to understand this. Our approach is that those laws are at their disposal, as they have been since 1963. They have been able to employ those laws as well as amend some. That is also the position with regard to their becoming independent.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—106: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; 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.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, while clause 1 effectively hands over the sovereignty of the State to the State of the Transkei, clause 3 hands over effective sovereign, absolute, political power to the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. As we indicated at the Second Reading, we believe that in any parliamentary society and especially in a plural, heterogeneous society it is necessary to provide for protection of minority rights or of the rights of the individual. We believe that this can best be done by some form of bill of rights. The hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading dismissed this, not on the merits of the arguments but by saying that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei had decided that it did not want such a Bill of rights. One must concede that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei has rejected this by a majority vote, but the very purpose of a Bill of rights is not necessarily to agree with the total power of the majority, but to protect the minority.

The fact that there is a minority, the fact that it is a plural society, indicates to us that, before we relinquish our sovereignty, our power and our control over a number of citizens who are at this moment South Africans, we should see that the new constitution will contain some limitation on the power of the majority. There is no doubt that wherever there are plural societies in this world, where there are different ethnic, cultural or linguistic groups, there is a risk to the minority. Also, where there are weak constitutions and there is not a separation of power between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, there is always the risk of authoritarianism and of abuse of power by those people in whose hands the power is concentrated. In the case of the Transkei we have these two conditions. It is a plural society which contains two major ethnic groups and a number of sub-groups. There are also Whites, Coloureds, Sotho and some Zulus living there. It is a plural society, the risk is there. Secondly, the Transkei has an exceptionally weak constitution in that the constitutional power is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. I think that one should look at how this Assembly is composed and how its decision was arrived at. We are not handing over power to the people as a whole. In fact, we are handing over power to a Chamber of some 125 people.

The decision so far has been a decision of the legislative assembly, not of a sovereign State. It has been a decision of a legislative assembly operating under the authority and under the powers given it by this Government. As I indicated earlier, it is not a popularly elected assembly. It is at this moment still dominated at a tune of 60 to 45 by the Chiefs. [Interjections.] These are the facts, Mr. Chairman. However, the fact is that the draft constitution and the powers which we give the Transkei Legislative Assembly, will mean that the courts will no longer have any power to check the Assembly, and to protect the individual against arbitrary actions by the Government. In this constitution and in the evolution of the constitution to date, there has not been a national convention of the people of the Transkei, because it has been the instrument of a legislative body which is not elected for the purpose of drafting a constitution. It was a legislative body elected for the purpose of governing a self-governing territory under the constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

There has not been a referendum to test the extent of support. In the election for the Legislative Assembly the percentage poll was only 42,8%, of which the Transkei National Independence Party obtained 55% of the votes. In fact, less than 25% of the citizens of the Transkei have supported independence in these terms. We believe that, prior to independence, prior to sovereign authority being handed to a particular body—not to the State of the Transkei, but to a particular legislative assembly—prior to us abandoning our sovereignty over citizens, abandoning our stewardship over their rights, prior to us handing over authority to an Assembly which will be all powerful in relation to the individual citizens, that a Bill of Rights or something of that nature, should be incorporated in the constitution.

That is “Blankebaasskap”!

“Baasskap?” Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says “baasskap”. South Africa did exactly the same thing. Our Republican constitution has exactly the same thing. For the purpose of language rights there is a specific protection. It is not all that effective, but nevertheless, there is a specific protection. And the reason for this was that at that time, before South Africa had developed as a unit and had developed in on-going momentum in respect of language rights, it was deemed necessary to provide protections for the minority groups in the language sense, and also for their voting rights. Whether those protections were absolute or not, is beside the point. However, in our constitution—both the Union constitution of 1910, and the Republican constitution of 1961—we incorporated certain protections. If one looks at the constitution of a neighbouring State, like Botswana, one sees that specific provisions are made for the protection of individuals against abuse of power by the central Government.

We believe, taking the circumstances of the evolution of the Transkei until this stage, the fact that it has a plural society, and the fact that at this moment we are about to transfer total sovereign power to the Legislative Assembly, this clause should not be passed in its present form, unless some provision is included for the protection of minorities and for the protection of the basic liberties of individuals.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that my reply will always have to be a refrain to the refrain that comes from the other side of the House, from the hon. members of the PRP. Here again we have the one-track thinking of the PRP. The hon. member for Piketberg rightly referred to it as the “baasskap” thinking of the PRP. [Interjections.] If the Government were to include one single provision in this Bill that would amount to instruction to the Transkei on how, say, agriculture or education or citizenship should be tackled, I am sure there would be a chorus of protest from the PRP. They would immediately accuse us of prescribing to the Blacks in a paternalistic, “baasskap” manner. The PRP, however, argues that a Bill of Rights should be incorporated into this Bill; as if that would not amount to prescribing to the Transkei. It is clear that those hon. members have a one-track way of thinking. Everything they propose, is holy and right in their eyes. The Transkei has the right to legislate. They can afford protection to people, they can afford people exemption in respect of that legislation they are able to make, regardless of whether they call it a Bill of Rights or anything else. However it is beyond me why we should demand this here, except perhaps if one realizes that the hon. members have a few conceptions that they absolutely idolize. We are now to introduce these, and then everything will be fine, according to them. However, if we were to do so with regard to other subjects, then we would be wrong. Therefore I am quite unable to agree with the hon. member.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—104: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux J. P. C.; Le Roux Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; 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.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, looking at clause 4, one finds that one can discuss the contents of the clause without any reference to the main principles of the Bill. Indeed, it is very largely immaterial to the argument whether one is in favour of the main principles or not. What one has to look at here is the set of relationships existing between South Africa and a number of other States, or international organizations, and what the position of the Transkei will be after the Bill has been passed. It is quite clear that over the years the South African Government has entered into a number of treaties, conventions and agreements with Governments of other countries with a view to regulating relationships between South Africa and those countries, or with certain organizations. In all these agreements up to the present the Transkei has, of course, been included and any such contracts, agreements or treaties entered into by South Africa have included the Transkei and its people in that commitment. These are international commitments. The question which arises now, is what the position of the Transkei will be in relation to those commitments in relation to those foreign countries. The purpose of clause 4 is an attempt to regulate or to anticipate what those new relations will be.

It is my contention that the attempt, made in clause 4 is in fact ineffective and unrealistic if it is trying to anticipate or to intervene unilaterally in matters which are essentially of a bilateral or a multilateral nature between countries. These will depend for their future effect essentially on the relationships which a number of foreign countries develop towards South Africa as it will be without the Transkei, and the other relationships which they will develop towards the Transkei itself. These arguments are of a diverse nature. There are many of them, and they have been entered into over many years. There are agreements which affect relationships between the Governments concerned—that is to say, the South African Government and the Governments of other countries. There are also agreements between those Governments which regulate the position of the individual members of the various States concerned. For example, in the case of double taxation agreements it is possible for the Government, as has been done, to regulate whether or not citizens of South Africa will pay double taxation in other countries and whether citizens of those countries will pay double taxation in South Africa. One of the points, and a rather interesting one, is that while this Bill deals in other clauses with the citizenship of people, citizenship is a term which denotes the relationship between an individual and his State, i.e. his domestic relationship with his own Government or his own State, whereas his nationality, which is a term which denotes the way in which a citizen of a particular State is regarded by other States—in other words, his international status—is not dealt with at all in this Bill. That is one of the points which has to be looked at very carefully, in the sense that nationality, being an international term, is one which is determined to some extent by the attitude of other States and not entirely by the attitude of the State of which the individual is a member.

Let us now look at this clause from the point of view, first of all, of those foreign countries which will recognize the independence of the Transkei. It is a moot point at this stage whether other countries will or will not do so. We believe that there are certain other provisions in this Bill on account of which a number of other countries will not recognize the independence of the Transkei. But there are some which may, and it is most desirable, since the principle of the Transkei’s independence has been accepted, for the effective conduct of the business of the Transkei in the international community and for its success as an independent country that it should in fact be recognized. This is my view. It is almost of cardinal importance that the Transkei should be recognized by other countries. But the fact is that it may not be recognized by a great many other countries. Therefore we have to look at the effectiveness of clause 4 in the light of that possibility.

Now, let us assume that a number of countries do recognize the Transkei and then look at clause 4. That clause states that if they recognize the Transkei, all treaties, agreements and conventions binding on the Republic immediately prior to the commencement of this legislation and capable of being applied to the Transkei, shall be binding on the Transkei. But if they recognize the Transkei, then they will have accepted the Transkei as an independent nation, and the commitment they have entered into with South Africa over the past years need not necessarily apply between them and the Transkei as a newly independent State. In other words, the decision will depend very largely on the foreign States, whether or not they wish to enter into a similar set of agreements with thus new State which has been created. It is therefore not for the South African Government to determine what the relations of a foreign Government will be with the Transkei, but for that foreign Government which recognizes the Transkei—because it recognizes the Transkei, because it sees it as a new independent State—it is for that Government to determine whether the commitments it has entered into over the past years with South Africa should be extended also to this new State. These commitments could be of a very grave nature. They could embrace all kinds of things. It may well be that a country which has entered into a treaty or obligation with South Africa which it no longer desires, but which it feels obliged to maintain because of precedents, because of commitments, because of reciprocity, may not feel obliged to extend this kind of treaty commitment to a new State. This is the case of a country which has actually recognized the Transkei. By virtue of the fact that it recognized the Transkei, it clearly has the right to determine whether the new independent State which it recognizes should in fact be the subject of a treaty which applies to South Africa, it may or may not seem this desirable in the case of the Transkei. From that point of view it is clearly not a matter for South Africa to decide unilaterally. South Africa cannot dictate to a foreign State what relationship it must take with the Transkei when the Transkei itself has become independent and is recognized as such.

Let us now look at the other case. Let us assume that there will be some countries which do not recognize the Transkei. This also is a possibility. What then is the position? Let us look at clause 4 again, in the light of those countries which do not recognize the Transkei. The clause reads as follows—

That is what it is desired to impose on countries who do not recognize the Transkei. The clause further provides—

What is the real position of countries which do not recognize the independence of the Transkei? They may immediately say: When we entered into the agreement with South Africa, we contemplated the whole of South Africa, including the Transkei and the people who live there. We believe if we have an extradition treaty or a double taxation agreement, it should apply to people in the Transkei as well. We would expect our rights to be enforced as far as double taxation and extradition are concerned or in respect of all the other things which are subject to treaties with the Transkei, because that is included in the area contemplated when we entered into the agreement. The fact that the South African Government now purports to have separated the Transkei into a separate State, we, as a foreign nation, do not accept.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, has covered most of the points I was going to make. As far as we on these benches are concerned, the clause is completely worthless and not worth the paper it is written on. Its purpose is to bind, unilaterally, the Transkei with other countries, and as the hon. member has pointed out, they may well be countries which in the first instance do not even recognize the Transkei or, in the second instance, if they do recognize it, will have no desire to continue treaties which have been made with the Republic of South Africa.

Why?

Because they may very well not wish to do so. Let me give the hon. member an example. We do know that there is an extradition agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa. It may very well be that the USA do not wish to continue an extradition treaty with an independent Transkei.

Why not?

Because that may constitute recognition; that is why. It is very likely that there are several countries that are not going to recognize the Transkei. In fact, I believe the OAU countries have already stated this. If that is the case it is very unlikely that the United Nations will recognize the Transkei. What is the point in putting in this Bill a clause which is a unilateral clause, which provides that the Transkei may denounce treaties which the Republic of South Africa has made with other countries, but it does not appear to take any cognizance of the fact that other countries may not recognize the Transkei or, if they do recognize it, may want to have nothing whatsoever to do with that particular treaty which was concluded with the Republic of South Africa. If anything, this clause may well put the Transkei in a worse position than it would have been had this clause not been in the Bill, for the simple reason that if the clause had not been incorporated in the Bill, the general rule of international law would have applied in terms of which the Transkei would succeed to some, although not all, of South Africa’s treaties, depending upon the nature of the treaties. This, however, is a unilateral attempt to bind other countries to the treaties made with the Republic of South Africa and to transfer those treaties to the Transkei when it becomes independent. As far as we on these benches are concerned, this is an absolutely worthless clause.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I wish to complete my argument. I referred to the two cases, the one in respect of countries which actually recognize the Transkei and its position in relation to the Transkei after independence. I have also discussed the position of those countries which do not recognize the Transkei and the difficulties that they have. In both these cases it is going to be a matter for decision of the countries concerned, what attitude they will take up, and it cannot be dictated to them in advance by a clause in a Bill of this nature.

I should like to raise a third possibility, which I believe could be a very real possibility against which we must guard. It would be possible for countries which have treaties with South Africa which commit them to certain obligations in respect of South Africa to use the independence of the Transkei as a reason for denouncing those treaties. It would be arguable, at least, for country X, which has entered into certain treaty commitments with South Africa which are perhaps no longer welcome or desirable or considered to be worth continuing in that country, but which must continue to exist for the advantage of South Africa and which that country cannot easily repudiate, to do so. Such agreement could, for example, relate to membership of international organizations. It could relate to such things as transit rights or to the protection of South African citizens. If we take the position of a country which feels committed to such a treaty obligation with South Africa, which operates to South Africa’s advantage, but which is in fact under pressure to denounce such a treaty, a heaven-sent opportunity would then arise. It could be argued by that country that it entered into this agreement with South Africa as a whole, as constituted at that time and including the Transkei, but that South Africa has now excised from its territory a substantial part of South Africa which the other country contemplated when it entered into that agreement. A foreign State could therefore claim the right to renegotiate that treaty with South Africa if so desired. This may sound a bit far-fetched, but it is nevertheless an arguable case. It could arise at the United Nations or other international organizations that certain countries may say that the membership of South Africa as admitted 10 or 20 years ago, was in contemplation of certain boundaries, a certain citizenship and a certain group of people in a certain context. The people have been changed, the boundaries have been changed …

That argument is really far-fetched.

I would concede this. I am merely warning that this kind of argument may be used by countries which have the desire to serve South Africa’s relations with other countries and with international organizations. I do not claim that this is a valid argument, but I am saying that it is one of the difficulties that could arise. My real point—and I come back to it—is that this clause 4 is totally ineffective. You cannot unilaterally predict or predetermine what your relations with other countries are going to be, nor what the relations of an independent country like the Transkei are going to be with other foreign countries. This clause is not worth the paper it is written on. It is something which should be determined by international agreements or not at all.

Mr. Chairman, the questions have been asked whether we can bind the Transkei and whether we can bind any other Government. I believe that the answers in both cases are in the negative, as has been said by speakers who have preceded me. They have dealt with agreements, conventions and treaties which are binding between another Government and the Government of the Republic of South Africa. This clause now purports to apply them to the Transkei in so far as they are capable of being applied. There are, however, other conventions and agreements which also must be considered when we deal with this particular clause. I refer to agreements between industrialists and the Xhosa Development Corporation.

No.

The hon. the Minister says “No”. I want to tell the hon. the Minister why it applies.

That arises under the next clause.

The next clause, with respect to the hon. the Minister, if he reads it, deals with “treaties, conventions and agreements entered into between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei”. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an agreement between an industrialist and the XDC where certain obligations are assumed by the Republican Government to guarantee the rights of that third party or to guarantee the obligations of the XDC. I see the hon. the Minister is now taking counsel on this question and I submit that it is in order for me to deal with this particular subject because it appears to be covered by the provisions of this clause. I refer to the “agency” agreements—the word which the hon. the Minister coined—agreements on the “agency basis”, in terms of which people were persuaded to go into the Transkei to invest there and to undertake certain operations in the Transkei. There are agreements with the Mining Corporations which are guaranteed by this Republican Government. What is therefore the intention of the hon. the Minister and the Government in terms of this clause? Is it their intention to say that they can be applied to the Transkei and that the Transkei Government must therefore take over the responsibility of the Government of the Republic in that regard? I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an answer to that question, because I believe it is important.

I shall.

Thank you. I do not believe it is possible for this Parliament to bind the Transkeian Government to accept that responsibility. If it forms part of a treaty which is covered by the next clause, the hon. the Minister must tell us, but I want to know how binding and how legally enforceable that treaty is. Will the rights of the relevant third party—the industrialist who has gone in on an agency basis, the mining company which is there exploiting the mining resources of the Transkei or any other entrepreneur who has gone in on this basis—be protected simply in terms of this clause whereby the Government of the Republic attempts to abrogate its responsibilities towards the third party in terms of those agreements and to pass that responsibility over to the Transkeian Government.

I consequently wish to move—

I do so because clause 1 of the Transkei Constitution Act, No. 48 of 1963, reads as follows—

In all our laws in the Republic the phrase “the Transkei” is accepted as meaning that territory, i.e. the territory constituted in terms of this Act. After 26 October, however, we are going to have a new entity. It is no longer going to be “the Transkei” as constituted in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963. It is going to be, we assume from the draft constitution which was published in the Transkei Gazette, “the Republic of Transkei” because the short title of that Bill reads: “To constitute the Republic of Transkei.” There are certain rights and obligations which pertain to the Transkei as constituted in terms of the 1963 Act, and this Bill we are passing now cannot purport to bind the Republic of Transkei, which will be constituted in terms of the Constitution that will be passed on or after 26 October 1976. For that reason I believe that the hon. the Minister should, wherever the phrase “the Transkei” is used in this Bill, substitute the words “the Republic of Transkei”.

Mr. Chairman, I begin with the hon. member for Von Brandis. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Von Brandis spoke very knowledgeably about these matters. We know that in his time he himself gained a great deal of experience in this connection. For this reason, too, the hon. member for Von Brandis will perhaps have more understanding than any other hon. member on that side for the answer which I am going to provide. There are of course a large number of such agreements. Hon. members must please just not ask me to mention all of them. However, I just want to point out to hon. members what a thick pile of existing agreements there are between South Africa and other countries. There is an extremely thick pile. It is also very interesting to note how old some of those agreements are. Hon. members may perhaps be amazed to hear that some of these amendments are up to 300 years old. Indeed, I hope that the agreements still exist and that the interested parties know whereabouts they are kept. There are all sorts of agreements. The hon. member for Von Brandis himself referred to certain examples. Both he and the hon. member for Houghton spoke about certain extradition treaties, and mention was also made of treaties relating to double taxation, etc. Many of these agreements are of great importance in practice, as far as the everyday lives of people and States are concerned. However, I do not want to go into the details now, because it is really unnecessary for me to do so.

I really do not believe that the hon. member for Von Brandis was entitled to maintain that the clause was ineffective. Both the hon. member and the hon. member for Houghton, as one could have expected, linked the arguments they advanced to the issue of recognition of States. There are various answers to this which one could furnish, but the one answer which I want to furnish, is that had it been the case that countries wanted to terminate agreements like this or did not want to apply them with respect to the Transkei, two situations would immediately develop as a result. The first situation is that South Africa, due to its close relations with the Transkei, would have to see to matters itself in so far as the matter which the treaty involved, affected the Transkei. If necessary, the Republic would then have to make the necessary arrangements with the Transkei. I now come to the second situation, and I believe that the hon. member for Von Brandis will agree with me more readily in this regard than will the hon. member for Houghton. If, after its independence, a foreign power does not want to recognize the Transkei as an independent entity, there is only one alternative: That power must continue to consider the Transkei as part of the Republic. After all, it is obvious that if they do not consider the Transkei as a separate State, they will still accept it as part of the Republic. However, we shall not treat the Transkei as part of South Africa, but as an independent country because we recognize it as such. This is why we need this clause.

What will happen if such a power repudiates a treaty?

Treaties can be repudiated. The fact that another country may terminate a treaty, is a point which the hon. member also raised at the end of his speech, and I may just as well deal with it now. If the country wants to cancel or repudiate a treaty, it does not have to do so merely on the grounds that the Transkei is becoming independent. After all, a country like this could have cancelled that treaty last year. Many of the treaties which exists at present, may be cancelled at this very moment. After all, provision has been made that a treaty can be cancelled. It is true that the argument the hon. member raised, is an academic and theoretical argument, but it is not one that holds water simply because the Transkei is becoming independent, because it also applies today. If a foreign power cancels its treaty with us, we shall have to make another plan, but that power itself would also have to make another plan, because we must not lose sight of the fact that the treaties which are concluded, are not concluded for our advantage alone; the treaties also contain certain advantages for the other power. The treaties are, therefore, not simply unilateral for the most part; they are bilateral, and sometimes even tri- or multilateral. If a treaty with us is terminated by another power, it is possible that it is not only we who will be put to disadvantage by the termination. The other power could itself be prejudiced by the termination too.

It is therefore not so easy simply to refer to cancellation, and therefore I say that the approach of the two hon. members is rather academic and theoretical. However, there is still a very major difference in the approach of the two hon. members, because the hon. member for Von Brandis approached the matter from a practical point of view and I immediately grant him the bona fides of his argument. This does not apply to the hon. member for Houghton, because she did not speak of realities which she foresaw; she spoke about desires which she cherished. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis also admitted that there was such a thing as de jureand de facto recognition. We have examples of this in the present time. There are many countries which have not been recognized legally or de jure for a long time, while in practice things nevertheless continue. The train runs, and trade continues, no matter along what lines. This also applies to postage. There are, for instance, postal agreements between various countries and South Africa. Then too, there is also such a thing as a total silent acceptance. Countries may pretend that it is denied de jure and de facto, while matters are carried on quietly. It goes without saying that people have to live, and economic and other progress is at stake. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis when he says that the clause, as it is at present, is ineffective. The clause has its value. Thereby I have also replied to the hon. member for Houghton, because she covered the same field.

Now I come to the discussion of this clause by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I want to maintain that the matters which he raised, actually belong under clause 5 rather than under clause 4. Clause 4 does use the word “agreements”, but the legal interpretation, as it has been explained to me, in connection with expressions such as those, is that where mention is made of “treaties, conventions and agreements”, matters of a similar nature are being referred to. The “treaties” and “conventions” refer without doubt to agreements with Governments of other countries and therefore this also applies in respect of “agreements”. As I tried to explain a moment ago without result, by means of an interjection, the issue in clause 4 is one of agreements with countries. The points which the hon. member raised, concerns, for instance, the relations of the XDC. This will be dealt with in the next clause. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you expect of me rather to reply to the points which the hon. member raised under clause 4, under clause 5. I shall therefore do this in a moment.

The hon. member also moved an amendment that wherever the word “Transkei” is used, it should be deleted and the term “Republic of Transkei” substituted. This is actually a legal technical matter. The hon. member must understand that we had better allow ourselves to be guided by the legal advisers. I know that the hon. member has some legal knowledge, but I am afraid that, as in my case, he does not have enough to argue with trained legal advisers about these matters. The position is that the Transkei is not yet an independent State at this stage. We are not quite sure today of the form which the independent State will take. At this stage, the Transkei proposes to become a republic according to its Constitution, but that republic does not yet exist today. Therefore the legal advisers feel—it has been explained to me that they have in fact argued about this matter among themselves—that it is safer simply to say “the Transkei”, than to say the “Republic of Transkei”. What if it becomes a kingdom, just to use a wild example to illustrate the idea? What then? I therefore want to content myself with the fact that the matter, as it stands at the moment—and this also holds for other amendments of which notice has already been given—should rather remain as it is. At first glance it seemed to me that I should be able to accommodate hon. members by accepting the amendment. However, seen from a legal technical point of view, I am afraid we shall have to leave the matter as it is.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the hon. the Minister—with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South—that there is a slight difference between the Afrikaans and the English versions of clause 4. In the Afrikaans version it is said—

That is in the present tense. The English version reads—

That is in the future tense. I submit that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is dealing with the future tense. It deals with the situation after independence of the Transkei has been achieved.

*There definitely is a difference between “is bindend” and “shall be binding”.

Mr. Chairman, once again this is proof of the subtlety of language. The hon. member is wrong. I am sorry to have to point this out to him. A translation is not always a literal rendition. As a professor once told us: ‘ ‘Language is not mathematical. ” From both a linguistic and a legal point of view, the translation here is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. the Minister and I have been wondering exactly what he has been talking about. However, I do agree with him that, perhaps to refer to the Transkei after October 26, as “the Republic of the Transkei”, would be a bit premature. I must bow to the superior knowledge of his legal advisers, and I, therefore, withdraw the amendment, with the permission of the Committee.

However, I wish to put this point to the hon. the Minister with the request that it be referred again to his legal advisers with a view to making, what I consider, a necessary amendment, when this Bill goes to the Other Place. I believe that the hon. the Minister and his advisers will accept that there are two distinct legal entities involved. The one is the Transkei as constituted under the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963, and the other is the Transkei which will be constituted under its own Constitution Act on October 26. I believe that we somehow have to differentiate in this Bill between those two bodies, because the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963,—so far as I can assume having regard to present legislation—will continue after October 26. It is not to be repealed in the Republic on that date. Therefore, we are going to have two parallel Acts dealing with the same place, and I believe that the hon. the Minister will have to attend to this when the Bill goes to the Other Place.

With regard to the treaties, the conventions and the agreements with other parties through the SDC, through the BIC, through the mining corporations and so forth, I submit that this is the clause under which they must be discussed. If I may briefly refer to clause 5, I want to point out that clause 5 refers only to treaties, conventions and agreements “entered into between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei” prior to the commencement of this legislation. That is all. It does not deal with any agreements between the Republican Government and any third parties. If it is the hon. the Minister’s submission that “treaties, conventions and agreements” is a phase which refers to international treaties—which I am prepared to accept—I believe that there is a shortcoming in this Bill; that once again we have a situation where the rights of persons, of companies and of organizations are not being protected by the Government. This Republican Government has certain rights and obligations to those third parties. The hon. the Minister will concede that point. That is the position in terms of these agreements, through the agency arrangements which I have mentioned. Those rights also have to be protected, and I believe that there must be clarity as to what can happen under clause 5. There must be clarity regarding what will be the obligation—what will remain the obligation—of the Republican Government, and what will become the obligation of the Transkeian Government, in terms of those agreements with the third parties. I do believe that this Committee has an obligation to the persons concerned, to see that something is done about protecting their rights. Because we cannot do it now—it is not competent for us to move such an amendment now—I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will give attention to this matter when he takes the Bill to the Other Place.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I shall institute an inquiry as regards a possible amendment in the Other Place, but I want to remind the hon. member that according to our legislation the Transkei constitution continues to exist for us. According to the draft constitution of the Transkei, however, the Transkeian constitution falls away.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—98: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. 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.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, clause 5 deals with all treaties, conventions and agreements entered into between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei. First of all, I want to express our disapproval of the way these agreements have been handled. We received only three batches on Friday for distribution amongst all our members. My main objection to it is that, included on the second page, under paragraph (b), is some of the most important agreements which, however, are still under consideration. We have no details at all of what has been included in those agreements. During the Second Reading debate yesterday I referred to No. 38 in particular which deals with the employment of the citizens of the Transkei in South Africa. That is a most important agreement. Chief Kaiser Matanzima delivered a speech at Lady Frere last weekend, and the matter he dealt with there was the employment of Transkeian citizens. He said he was not going to brook any interference and that these employees should be allowed to move freely. We should have that agreement before even thinking of granting independence to the Transkei.

The same applies to the agreement relating to financial arrangements. The basis on which the calculation is to be made of our contribution towards the Transkei administration’s expenses is of the utmost importance. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some detail of this. During the Second Reading debate and before, when I raised the matter under the hon. the Minister’s Vote, I was told that the hon. the Minister of Finance would introduce a Bill. However, we have not seen the Bill yet and we therefore do not know what is involved in the matter. Surely we are entitled to know, before we embark on passing a Bill to give independence to the Transkei, what the financial commitments are going to be and how they are going to manage. I hope the Minister will deal fully with these agreements under consideration so that we will know what is involved.

In regard to the agreements which we have received, I want to deal first with No. 14, which relates to the buying of White properties. The Government lays great store by the White Paper, No. CC—’64 and the basis of this agreement is that White Paper. But in terms of this agreement with the Transkei Government, all that is arranged is that the Bantu Trust shall purchase the property, which will be transferred to the Transkei Government. Sir, there is no time-table and that is our complaint. If there was provision that it would be dealt with in a certain period, we could perhaps consider accepting it. I also want to point out that under article 4, this agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement by the exchange of diplomatic notes. This gives no protection at all to the South African citizens who will still be living in the Transkei after independence. They want an undertaking by the Government to them, making this Government responsible to them. They do not want an agreement between the Transkei Government and the Government of the Republic. They want their own agreement. But in any case this agreement does not take us anywhere.

Then I want to refer to some of the other agreements. There is No. 6, dealing with survey services. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what the intention is. In the case of surveys, there is usually the establishment of a survey office and a deeds office. We have had no intimation from the Minister at all in any of the discussions in the Second Reading as to what is envisaged for the Transkei in this regard. Will there be a survey office established there, will there be a separate deeds office, and how will it affect the deeds registered in the Deeds Office in Cape Town and in King William’s Town? Then we also have an agreement in regard to judges. I would have expected the Minister to have told us what is going to be the position in regard to attorneys and barristers practising there. Will they still come under the jurisdiction and control of the Cape Law Society as at present, or what is going to happen to them? South African citizens will be foreigners in the Transkei. What protection is there for them so far as their tax is concerned? I hope the Minister will deal with that and enlighten us there also. There are other agreements here which other hon. members will deal with, and I will speak again after I have heard the hon. the Minister’s reply.

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the hon. member for Griqualand East that it is very difficult to expect us to vote on a clause of this nature when we do not even know the terms of some of the agreements which are being discussed at present between the Republican Government and the Government of the Transkei. I would like to say that when we consider this matter of treaties, conventions and agreements, I think this clause more than any other underlines the fact that the Government has failed totally in its responsibilities towards the building of a new independent State. We have heard many highflown and fine-sounding words from the other side during the course of this debate, but one only has to look beneath the surface to realize what the Government has not done as a prerequisite for independence, and these agreements emphasize it. In any normal modern State one expects to find in that State the sort of infrastructure operating which would enable it to be reasonably self-sufficient. One expects normal infrastructure items such as ports on the sea coast, power stations to provide power, decent roads, adequate railways, a properly constituted transport network, postal and telecommunication services and, in fact, all the necessities to enable a modern State to function and to prosper. Now, I have always believed that one of the cardinal principles of the policy of separate development was the principle of “separate but equal”.

One only has to look at the infrastructure development in the Transkei in comparison with so-called White South Africa to realize just how unequal this development has been. Nothing emphasizes this more strongly than these agreements mentioned in this clause. For virtually every need to run that country the Transkei Government is going to have to rely on the Republican Government to keep it going, because it is from the infrastructure of so-called White South Africa, which has been built up over the years, that this assistance has to come. What price “separate but equal” when it is patently obvious that the building up of infrastructure has been anything but equal? Nor was private enterprise allowed to do what the Government was not prepared to do. The hon. the Minister has strongly denied that there is any taint of colonialism in the way this culmination of the policy of separate development has been carried out. Independence under these circumstances, with the necessity for these agreements, emphasizes the worst aspect of a colonial hand-over because South Africa has not carried out her responsibility. We have innumerable treaties, agreements and conventions and I believe that there are many more to come when we look at the list which is before us. This merely serves to stress that we have served the Transkei as badly as any of the colonial powers when they ran away from their responsibilities. I believe that we have run away from our responsibilities in that we have not built up an adequate infrastructure. As far as training is concerned, we have not given adequate opportunity for the training of staff, in particular senior staff, to provide the manpower to run the infrastructure which is in existence.

These treaties, agreements and conventions are a monument to the failure of the Government to provide for real independence, because for a long time the Transkei will be totally dependent in many ways on the Republic. I have mentioned that there is no sea port. The hon. member for Yeoville raised the matter in regard to the coastal waters of the Transkei during the Second Reading. It was a constitutional point which the hon. the Minister ignored. What exactly is the position in regard to the coastal waters of the Transkei? Can I ask the hon. the Minister whether a further agreement with the Transkeian Government is pending on this matter, or does the hon. the Minister intend to legislate with regard to the provisions of the Territorial Waters Act, No. 87 of 1963? Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us. Perhaps its omission from this Bill is another example of the sloppy draftsmanship which is a characteristic of the Bill as it is now before us. We would, however, like to have an answer in regard to this point. It is even stranger to note that the provisions which are made in the treaties almost constitute a State within a State. Examples of this are the private hospitals of Umtata and Butterworth, the residential accommodation for officials and the establishment and maintenance of schools in the Transkei which are not for the benefit of the citizens of the Transkei. These measures can only be looked at somewhat askance by the outside world as being part and parcel of a dependence rather than an independence. We on these benches will therefore vote against this clause because we regard it with the same repugnance as we do the rest of the Bill.

Before I call upon the hon. member for Green Point to make his speech on clause 5, I must point out that I gave a ruling this morning that I would allow one member of each party briefly to put his case as far as the principles of the clause are concerned. We are dealing here with treaties, conventions and agreements. The hon. member for Griqualand East referred to certain treaties, conventions and agreements. I am not going to allow a discussion of the details of those agreements. The hon. member for Green Point may, however, do so very briefly because in terms of my ruling he may discuss the details of the clause but not the details of agreements themselves. Any hon. member may, however, do so under the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I am sorry, but I must make the strongest objection to your ruling. The details of these agreements are vital. I should, for instance, like to deal with agreement No. 1. We are supposed to be passing these agreements. How else can we deal with them? The only opportunity that we have to deal with the details is now. We do not wish to deal with the principle, but with the detail of each agreement.

Order! I have no details of agreements in front of me. I only have the Bill dealing with the status of the Transkei before me. Clause 5 deals with the treaties, conventions and agreements entered into between the Republic and the Transkei, and not with the details of those agreements. However, I shall allow the hon. member to deal with this matter very briefly.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I want to address you on the question of your ruling. During the Second Reading of this Bill, when the question was raised as to where these treaties and agreements were, the hon. the Minister said that they were available to members of Parliament to see. For what purpose are they available to us? It is that we should be cognizant of the conditions and proposed conditions which we are authorizing in terms of this clause. I believe that to curtail discussion of these agreements is asking us to give a blank cheque to the hon. the Minister.

I said that I would allow the hon. member to discuss that matter very briefly. He can however, deal with this matter adequately in the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on your ruling? We are being asked here to accept that the treaties, conventions and agreements entered into shall remain in force, but should we not be permitted to discuss now what those treaties and agreements should perhaps contain? If your ruling is that we may not discuss what they do in fact contain, should the Committee not be allowed to discuss what they should contain in order to carry out the provisions of this particular clause? To comply with the provisions of this clause those treaties must contain certain provisions. May we not discuss those provisions and what we believe they should contain?

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on your ruling? We are being asked in terms of this clause to vote for the ratification of certain treaties and agreements. When we do not have details of those and are not allowed to discuss the details of that ratification, how possibly can we be asked to decide on this clause?

Order! We are not dealing with specific treaties, conventions and agreements. That is the point.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I raised with the hon. the Minister the question of the control of movement of citizens between the Transkei and the Republic. The hon. the Minister replied very briefly to that point, but I believe that that particular aspect is a matter which is fundamental to the efficient application of this Act in any meaningful way. I raise this matter under the treaties and agreements because this is one of those agreements which the hon. the Minister was good enough to make available to us. I raised this matter in the Second Reading and obviously it was a matter which could be further discussed during the Committee Stage. I raised with the hon. the Minister the provisions which are in this agreement relating to the actual movement of individuals and to the fact that there are to be some 61 additional ports of entry as far as the international boundaries of South Africa are concerned. The hon. the Minister said that that did not really matter, and that we could get those developed in time and have them staffed in due course. That was the gist of his reply to me in the Second Reading. I want to know from the hon. the Minister, as far as the treaties, conventions and agreements are concerned, what principle he is going to apply with regard to movements through the ports of entry. The draft agreement which he has given to us makes elaborate provision for travel documents and for the checking of these documents, which would need a Transkeian and a Republican representative at every one of these 61 ports of entry. Does the hon. the Minister really believe that that is going to operate and that we are going to function with 61 ports of entry? He said that passport control personnel would not initially be established at all ports of entry, or passport control officers stationed at these ports. How then is there going to be any effective control in so far as the movement of the citizens of the Republic and the citizens of the Transkei are concerned?

I now want to come to another matter that is also of some interest as far as this agreement is concerned. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to article 6 of agreement No. 12. Article 6 reads as follows—

For example, his travel documents, identity documents, etc.—

Am I to understand that what we are being asked to condone in supporting clause 5 is that the whole relationship of the Xhosa employment in the Republic of South Africa will now be dictated or regulated by an international agreement between South Africa and the Republic of Transkei? If that is so—because that is in this clause—how does the hon. the Minister envisage the powers we are granting him to deal with matters such as conditions of employment, wages, leave and the remittance, in part, of wages to the Transkei—in the form of gold or otherwise—from the Republic of South Africa? In the light of this draft agreement, it would seem that in passing this clause what we are doing is saying to the work force of at least 1 500 000 in South Africa that it is to become subject, not to the conditions of employment laid down in the Republic of South Africa, but subject to the conditions of employment negotiated between the Government of this country and the Government of the Transkei. That is what the agreement states. That brings me to our great difficulty in dealing with this clause. We are being asked to say that all agreements entered into with the Government will be in order and that they can simply carry on. When these matters are raised, however, we are told this is not the time to raise them. These agreements are not subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. They are agreements entered into by the hon. the Minister, and in terms of this Bill they do not even have to be tabled in this House if he does not want to do so. That is the situation in which we find ourselves.

If the hon. the Minister is not going to deal with the issues raised in the Second Reading and those raised now, there is no point in our debating this clause and we shall simply have to vote against it and seek ways and means of dealing with the agreements if and when they arise in the future. However, then the Bill will already have been passed. Are hon. members opposite prepared to sit here and give the hon. the Minister, on behalf of the industrial and the economic life of South Africa, a blank cheque to go ahead and negotiate whatever agreements he wishes in regard to the employment of these people?

Order! If the hon. the Minister replies to this, he must please discuss the matter very briefly, because I have already given my ruling on this.

Yes, very briefly, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Green Point put a question about the policy and principles. However, the hon. member must not state the matter too broadly. After all, the policy and principles do not go so far as to cover matters like conditions of service, salaries and similar matters. They concern the movement of the people and matters which are directly involved in this. I dealt yesterday with the effective control of posts where there was no staff, when I said that the necessary would be done at the district of departure and that the necessary would also be done at the district of arrival on the other side as long as the post was not manned by control staff. I put this clearly.

The hon. member for Griqualand East and the hon. member for Green Point also referred to the agreements. The hon. member for Orange Grove, naturally, has a completely wrong approach in this connection. The hon. member for Griqualand East must listen now, otherwise he will ask me the same question again tomorrow. The agreements have been raised here, not because Parliament has to approve or ratify the agreements, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said.

Why not?

All the hundreds of agreements to which I referred a moment ago, were never laid before Parliament. However, those agreements concern important matters which affected many people, and therefore I drew up a list of such agreements and even brought many of the agreements themselves here to show members that we had not forgotten about all those matters which are of importance to individuals in South Africa. We deal with those matters as a Government and conclude agreements in that connection as a Government. Those agreements were not brought here for hon. members to discuss their content or ratify those agreements. However, it was done in order to prove to hon. members that we are not ignoring those matters entirely but that we are in fact covering them by means of agreements. The system of agreements is confirmed by means of this legislation so that the procedure will be a legal procedure. The survey office and the deeds office have been established in Umtata in advance in terms of the present legislation and will afterwards be transferred to the Transkeian Government.

At the moment, the Department of Justice is dealing with the question of the law society with a view to normalizing that matter, too, because we do not want to create any problems in connection with those professions in the Transkei.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Does the hon. member wish to address me on the point of order?

No, Sir, I want to speak on clause 5.

Order! I think under the circumstances I must first elaborate on my ruling earlier this morning. I have given further consideration to the scope of debate on this clause. I must refer hon. members to May’s Parliamentary Practice (18th Edition), page 494, where he says—

For that reason, I did not allow discussion of the details of the agreements. It is clear that the terms and details of conventions and agreements entered into or to be entered into between the Transkeian and South African Governments are not contained in the Bill and are therefore not before the Committee. The argument that Parliament has not been consulted or should be informed of the terms of such conventions and agreements, etc., or should have an opportunity of discussing such conventions, etc., is a valid argument for refusing to read the Bill a Second or Third Time, but it is not a matter which this Committee can discuss. I have, in fact, allowed such a discussion, but I must reaffirm my previous ruling that discussion must now be confined to the details of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance. In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister made certain allegations against me, one of which flowed directly from clause 5 and from questions I had asked and criticism which I had expressed in regard to one of the fields of co-operation between South Africa and the Transkei which is covered by this specific clause. I refer to the question of a mutual non-aggression pact which I raised both in regard to what I claimed were deficiencies and in regard to what I claimed were areas on which we required information before we as a House could approve of a clause stating—

That includes this particular agreement—

If we pass this clause, then the specific one on which the hon. the Minister attacked me and made allegations against me to which I want to reply, will have been passed by the Committee.

Order! I am prepared to allow the hon. member one speech to put his point across.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister accused me of making “Swart gevaar” propaganda when I queried the deficiencies and effectiveness of the nonaggression pact which it is proposed to enter into between the Republic and the Transkei. What I said was that this was only a non-aggression pact and that it failed to provide the necessary mechanism to give effective security either to the Transkei or to South Africa. It was not a question of frightening anyone, or of “Swart gevaar”; it was a question of the interests of both the Transkei including the Black people of the Transkei, and of South Africans, White, Black and of other races. The hon. the Minister failed entirely to answer my criticism which was that, although the two countries agreed not to attack each other or to harbour any enemies who would attack either country, there was no provision whatsoever for South Africa to enter the Transkei to meet an enemy attacking the Transkei. There is no provision for either bases or right of access to deal with an enemy. This, to my mind, is a serious omission which makes it difficult to agree that we should pass a Bill which leaves that gap open. I am most resentful that the hon. the Minister accused me of using the argument of “Swart gevaar” when I was trying to put the interests of South Africa, her people and her security, before the House with no other object than to ensure that, when this measure is passed, as it will be passed, we shall have the best security possible.

The hon. the Minister went further and accused me in regard to another matter which, Sir, you will not allow me to deal with now. Therefore I shall not deal with it, but you will allow me, Sir, in reply to the hon. the Minister’s challenge, to ask him to look at pages 17 and 51 of the book out of which he quoted Gen. Smuts and then to tell me whether I was right or wrong.

You were wrong.

I shall take it no further. I have given the references. I have the book with me. If you would allow me to quote from it, Mr. Chairman, I would do so.

The hon. member may do so.

The hon. the Minister said that I was incorrect, that Gen. Smuts had not referred to overall participation in one South Africa.

No, that was not my point.

I did say it was two pages further on, but in fact it is on the preceding page.

Yes, and that was wrong.

It is on the preceding page and not two pages further on but in the same speech where Gen. Smuts said specifically—

In other words, Sir, he was talking of incorporation in and not splitting away from the Union. In reply to the attack on myself I wish to place those two references on record.

Mr. Chairman, in view of your ruling that we cannot discuss the agreements to which we are to give approval, I move as an amendment to this clause—

The effect of my amendment is that the clause would then read—

I move this as the only procedural way in which we in this House can debate the contents of the multitude of agreements of which we have been advised and of which we have been given various copies. The principle of the clause is not affected. The relevant treaties will be in force, but this prerequisite should be accepted by the House.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite impossible for me to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point.

Oh, why not?

If the hon. member wants to know why not he must please just give me a chance. The hon. member said that he moved the amendment in order to discuss the content of the agreements. This morning I collected a huge pack of agreements here. They are agreements which have existed for years. Not one of them was even submitted to this House. Anything of the kind is simply not in accordance with the procedure. The concluding of agreements of this nature, agreements in connection with matters between countries, about matters concerning the movement of people, etc., are matters of an executive nature between Governments. They are not submitted to the Parliament of a country. I simply cannot see why this should now be submitted to this Parliament, when it affects the Transkei. It is quite unnecessary and quite unthinkable. It would therefore mean that the Department of Foreign Affairs and other departments concerned would create a new precedent, create a new procedure, by means of which all such agreements would have to be submitted to Parliament in future. We have a very longstanding tradition in this Parliament—from as far back as 1910—not to do such things. Why we should do so now, is simply beyond me. It is simply not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the agreements which are now being concluded, under the present dispensation, will be published. For instance, are they published in the Government Gazette?Otherwise how does the public know about them?

This is not done. None of these agreements are published. The public does gradually get to know about them, chiefly due to personal experience. This is also the case in respect of all the other agreements which exist. There may well be enquiries when the votes of the Minister concerned are discussed here. They may come under discussion in this way, but they are not published or laid upon the table, nor are they referred to Parliament for ratification.

Are not many of the foreign agreements concluded published in the Government Gazette?

Order! This time I shall not allow the question to be answered. If he wishes, the hon. member may in fact make a speech.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has been on his feet three times since I spoke. The question that I asked about the territorial waters adjoining the Transkei, has still not been answered. I request that the hon. the Minister now give an answer.

I shall answer the question now with pleasure, but in terms of the hon. Chairman’s ruling, I am not allowed to do so. If the hon. Chairman will allow me to do so, I shall answer the question briefly.

Order! I shall allow the hon. the Minister to answer the question very briefly. Strictly speaking it is not really relevant.

You will see how briefly I will in fact answer it, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member put two questions to me. The first was about the “coastal sea board”, as he put it. These are the territorial waters of the Transkei. When the Transkei becomes an independent State, its territorial waters become part of its property. As such the seaboard and the territorial waters there therefore belong to the Transkei.

The other question the hon. member raised, concerned the infrastructure in the Transkei. He argued that it should be the same as the infrastructure here. This is an absurd argument. To command this Government, when it gives a state its independence, to see to it that the infrastructure there is the same as that in South Africa, is ludicrous. The infrastructure of Cape Town is not even the same as that of Pretoria. It differs from place to place in the country. I cannot, therefore, understand why the Government should equate the two infrastructures.

Mr. Chairman, during his reply to the Second Reading yesterday, the hon. the Minister reacted to a question I put to him about municipal employees. I asked him about the details of the pensions arrangements they had made with the Provincial Council. Mr. Chairman, you may remember that there was some confusion as to what the exact position was, and you then said this could be discussed further during the Committee Stage. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he could now tell me what the position is in connection with those pensions arrangements.

Mr. Chairman, there are two agreements which relate to municipal employees. The hon. member has received copies of them. Legislation is being considered, too, and the position

[Inaudible.]

Yes, there will be legislation. I think it is on the Order Paper. It is legislation in connection with the provincial relations between these people.

The position is that in terms of a ruling which also affects the Provinces, those employees will be allowed to switch over to the pension fund of the Public Service, if they choose to go to the Public Service. Such officials will then also be allowed, for example, to leave the municipality of Umtata or Butterworth and join the staff of the municipality of, say, Beaufort West. If posts can be created for such people, then the switchover between the various municipalities of the Cape and those of local authorities elsewhere outside the Transkei, can take place. Provision is being made in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the amendment which I have moved, as well as with the hon. the Minister’s reply. The hon. the Minister is quite correct that certain negotiations take place between South Africa, America, France and other States elsewhere. In the circumstances of the legislation which is before us today and according to the words of the hon. the Minister himself, we are abdicating sovereignty over a portion of the Republic of South Africa. We are abdicating responsibility towards 3 million South African citizens in terms of this Bill. The situation as to what is to happen to them, in terms of treaties and agreements, is most vital to this Parliament, to the Government and to the country. It is vital to know in what way that portion of the geographic body of South Africa, and that specific portion of our population, is being dealt with. It is for that reason I believe that these treaties and agreements, which are contemplated and which have been entered into have become material for discussion in this House and cannot therefore be equated with the agreements of the type which the hon. the Minister referred to in dealing with my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will be attentive to your ruling and want to deal with one point which I believe falls within the definition by Erskine May which you quoted. Before I come to it, I would like to confirm one point. When we were discussing clause 4, some reference was made to agreements with private enterprise, mining houses, etc. I think you then ruled that we should only discuss international agreements with foreign nations under clause 4. The hon. the Minister said that he would prefer to have other agreements discussed under clause 5.

As a matter of fact, I did not give my ruling about it. However, the hon. member may proceed.

I myself desisted from discussing such agreements, because I confined myself to the international types of agreement.

With your permission, Sir, I should like very briefly to refer, under clause 5, to the existence of certain agreements between the Transkei and, for example, mining houses which might have undertakings to mine in those areas, or the Rembrandt Corporation or other such organizations. Clause 5 does in fact refer only to agreements between the Government of South Africa and the Government of the Transkei. If these two Governments agree to do certain things together, they can also agree, after the independence of the Transkei, to continue to do those things together. However, in the case of private organizations, as in the case of foreign States, I do not believe that the Government of South Africa can claim to bind them.

In this regard I should like to refer to the decolonization of some other countries, for example of Ghana by the United Kingdom. The country which liberated a colony saw it as its duty and its obligation to enter into new agreements on behalf of the country that was to be made independent, before independence took place. In other words, if one wishes to make a country, for which one is responsible, independent, then you go to all the countries with which you have treaties and ask them whether they would agree to those treaties applying also to the country which is to be freed. When these treaties have been agreed to, one hands them over to the new state. The same applies to contracts and agreements. If one has a contract with a mining house to mine in the Transkei, then one has to negotiate with that mining house before independence and ask whether when the Transkei changes its status, they will agree that the agreement shall be continued with the Transkei. It is then for that mining house to agree to the handing over of a valid contract to the Transkei. It is my contention that the Government has not done any of those things, or if they have, they have not said so. What they have done instead, is simply to introduce a Bill which states that these agreements shall be valid. However, this is not good enough. The Government might speak for itself, but it cannot speak for foreign countries and it cannot speak for private organizations. It should contract with those foreign countries or with those private organizations and make valid contracts which would extend into the period of independence of that country, so that one can hand over to the country, before independence, the assurance that you have made the necessary contracts or agreements.

I believe that this clause as it stands—and I believe I may say so in terms of Erskine May—is inadequate to cover that type of thing. I believe it is not right to hand a country over to independence merely on this basis of a unilateral law passed in this Parliament, a law which gives no guarantee that either a foreign State or a private enterprise will in fact carry out the terms of a previous agreement after the country has become independent. We are therefore obliged to oppose the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is vital that where agreements affecting the interests of people are made between States, they should be published somewhere. Not only the people affected, but Parliament, too, must be able to take cognizance of them. If it is the rule that they do not necessarily have to appear before Parliament to be approved here first, then surely they should be published in the Gazette so that both the public and Parliament may take cognizance of them. An agreement does not really differ greatly from legislation, and it is essential for it to be known. I know of no modern country in the world where agreements between States are not duly published in some public document or in the Government Gazette.

Oh no, Japie!

Definitely. Show me one modern State where this is not done.

Mention one which has in fact done it.

I could mention many examples …

Mention one which has in fact done it.

Let us be practical. I want to tell hon. members that I can furnish proof of all the cases I have in mind. [Interjections.] What do those hon. members who are making such a noise on the other side know? They only say “Oh” because they have nothing else to do. How on earth must Parliament, which is interested in what is happening in the public sector and in the interests of the public, know what the content of agreements between the Government and another government involves if it is not published anywhere but kept secret? How is it ever to be criticized here in the House? How can questions be asked about this if hon. members are not even aware of it? It is vital that we should at least receive an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that, when an agreement is concluded, it will at least appear in the Gazette for Parliament and the public to take cognizance of it, even though it is not submitted to Parliament for advance approval.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and myself are speaking at cross purposes in connection with this matter. The hon. member for Green Point moved an amendment which binds us by law to publish everything.

I am not speaking about the amendment.

Yes, but for that very reason I say that we are speaking at cross purposes. I spoke about it. The hon. member must listen to me. I shall answer him in a moment. I told the hon. member for Green Point that his amendment was not acceptable. We cannot be bound by law to publish everything because this would create an impossible precedent for the Government and for all its departments. It is quite obvious that, if a particular Minister or department is of the opinion that many people are concerned with a particular agreement, the agreement will then be published in the Gazette, in the Press, or wherever the case may be. However, we cannot place ourselves under the obligation to do so in all cases. We cannot do this. In this case we may in fact do so in future. However, we cannot publish it now, at this early stage, because everything has not yet been finalized. However, we are not forbidden to do so if the Minister or Government department in question deems it necessary to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for clarification of the position of the Transkei Development Corporation, until recently the Xhosa Development Corporation. I am asking this in relation to clause 5(1). I see that some 80% of the corporation has recently moved their headquarters from East London to Umtata where their expertise is going to be used in the development of the Transkei. Where do they stand in terms of clause 5(1)? Is this an indefinite secondment? What timetable has been assessed?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if it is necessary for me to answer the question. The point is that the Xhosa Development Corporation is being converted into two corporations; one for the Transkei and one for the Ciskei. After the Transkei becomes independent, it will definitely pass legislation in this connection. Until such time as this happens, the existing legislation may be used. Then there will be a corporation which may serve the Transkei as an independent state.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Green Point, that the agreements, treaties and conventions entered into between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei prior to the commencement of this Act should be tabled in this House and should be approved by both Houses. If we look at subsection (2) we find that the provisions of subsection (1) are extended for the purposes of the implementation of any treaty, agreement of convention entered into “at any time” between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei. This to my mind implies any treaty which might be entered into even after the date of independence. Then it goes further to provide that for the purpose of the implementation of that treaty, any department of State or any person who receives financial assistance from the State may perform any function outside the Republic which he would be capable of performing therein. From the clause it is quite apparent that it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to empower the Railway Administration, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the various provincial administrations and any other State department together, I submit, with corporations such as the BIC, the Mining Corporation and others to continue to provide in the Transkei the services which they have provided in the past. I would suggest that this clause also implies that these departments, these persons and these organizations may be able to go to the Transkei to provide training for the people of the Transkei. Now, this is all very laudable. But the point I am trying to make is that under this clause I believe that we can discuss, and I am in fact discussing, the provisions and the conditions of the agreement which the hon. the Minister has entered into.

Order! I have already given my ruling on that issue.

The point I am putting to the hon. the Minister, am asking the Minister, is that this subsection refers to “at any time”, that for the purpose of the implementation of any treaty entered into “at any time”. Should this not be subject to subsection (1) which refers only to agreements which may be entered into before the date of independence? Is it his intention to use this clause for agreements entered into after independence?

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. 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.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

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

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton. Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the question of citizenship and I believe that questions of citizenship are essentially matters which fall under the sphere of responsibility of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. During the debate so far, the hon. the Minister of the Interior has been entirely silent on the whole aspect of citizenship, so this afternoon, in dealing with this particular clause, I have to look to his previous contributions indebates in this House on the question of dual citizenship of the Bantu, on the status and standing of both aspects of that dual citizenship, and on the process of abandonment of one or the other of those dual citizenships by the persons concerned. I would like to remind the Committee of the words of the hon. the Minister of the Interior on 3 October 1974, after all aspects of dual citizenship had been decided by this House. I quote from Hansard, Vol 51, column 4420, where the hon. the Minister of the Interior said the following—

The hon. the Minister stated further in col. 4420—

I then stated the fact to the hon. the Minister of the Interior that at present the Bantu found themselves in the position that they had dual citizenship. I quote the hon. the Minister’s reply—

Then he went on to say that this was precisely what had happened as far as South African citizenship and dual citizenship were concerned. The hon. the Minister stated further in col. 4421—

The attitude of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, which I believe is consistent with the laws and attitudes towards citizenship in this country, is that the person to be deprived of the citizenship is the person who has to make the decision in that connection. That is not being done in this Bill. The decision is being made here by us as a Parliament without the voice of the persons concerned being heard in this Parliament. The principle of deprivation of South African citizenship has been approved at the Second Reading. This is a step that was totally rejected by this side of the House at Second Reading, and it is equally unacceptable in the case of this clause today. The rights of citizenship are real and so far as South African citizenship is concerned—and it is enjoyed by the Xhosa people—we all regard it as something which should be jealously guarded and for the Bantu it is of no less value. It was suggested that they do not have full citizenship after all because they do not have the vote, but the women in South Africa did not have the vote until 1930. Their citizenship as South African citizens was a valued and real right which they possessed even although they, the women, did not then have the vote. It is for this very reason that South African citizenship is guarded by restrictive and circumcised … I mean circumscribed provisions. [Interjections.] Perhaps the operation is now being performed by the hon. the Minister. It is guarded by provisions defining precisely under what circumstances citizenship is lost by the actions of a person who is a citizen, under what circumstances it may be withdrawn because of certain actions on the part of an individual who is at present a citizen or under what circumstances it may be renounced by the person holding that citizenship. None of these aspects, however, are covered by the principles contained in this Bill. I now want to raise two specific matters with the hon. the Minister.

The value of Transkei citizenship will depend on international recognition of the independence of the Transkei. We hope that when this Bill has been passed and the Transkei must go its way as an independent State, it will receive that recognition, but that recognition is not yet assured. If it is, not assured, in other words if the Transkei’s independence is not recognized internationally, could the hon. the Minister tell me how any citizen of the Transkei will be able to travel beyond the limits of the Transkei? I ask this because once we have said that South African citizenship no longer applies to them, we cannot issue them with travel documents or passports, and that is the result of what this Bill is doing. We are placing the Transkei citizen in a situation such that his movement in the world, for which the prerequisite is the issuing of a passport, may be restricted completely, except to such countries as recognize the Transkei’s independence. The steps being taken in this Bill are final and absolute. South African citizenship will cease, and with all the goodwill in the world the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development can never legally issue travel documents to a Transkei citizen once this legislation becomes effective.

There is, however, another aspect of the present law in South Africa that I want to deal with, and that is the question of a child born in South Africa of Xhosa parents who are legally in this country. Here I am referring to such an event after this Act has been passed. In terms of the South African Citizenship Act we cannot deny the fact that that child becomes a South African citizen. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to section 3 of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949. Section 3(1) states—

Section 3(2) merely excludes people who enjoy diplomatic immunity or persons who have not been lawfully admitted to the Union for permanent residence and whose mothers are not South African citizens. However, once one has Xhosa people lawfully in South Africa, the children of those Xhosa people become South African citizens in terms of our own law. Does the hon. the Minister want to take that away from them as well? I ask this because no provision is made to prevent this in this legislation.

I have mentioned these two points to highlight to the hon. the Minister the hasty and ill-considered provisions contained in this generalized, sweeping clause as far as the questions of citizenship are concerned. These are matters of international import, matters that cannot be regularized merely by agreements he may choose to enter into with the Government of the Transkei at some future date.

Mr. Chairman, this clause taken together with the schedule has with justification been the focus of opposition throughout the Second Reading debate and we will oppose this clause as strongly as well. Subsection (1) states without qualification that every person falling in any of the categories of persons defined in schedule B shall be a citizen of the Transkei and shall cease to be a South African citizen. Schedule B is extremely far-reaching, but we shall return to that a little later on.

The major effect of subsection (1) is to legislate people into one form of citizenship and out of another citizenship. We say from these benches as strongly as we can that citizenship is a priceless right which must not be removed by legislation, that citizenship is a privilege which can only be cheapened when it is automatically conferred on someone who has no say in the matter. In other words, the element of choice is missing both in the conferring of automatic Transkeian citizenship and in the summary withdrawal of South African citizenship. The amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper seeks to introduce that essential element of choice which is absent in the Bill as it stands.

The proposed subsection (1)(a) refers to those domiciled and resident in the districts mentioned in schedule A with the strong qualification that if such a resident so chooses by the end of 1977, he can remain a South African citizen and is not compelled to accept Transkeian citizenship.

The proposed subsection (1)(b) refers to schedule B and there the choice is either to opt for Transkeian citizenship or South African citizenship, again by the end of 1977. If the choice is not explicitly made by that date, the person concerned remains a South African citizen.

It is a fact that the two Acts which were the forerunners of this Bill contain specific provisions enshrining citizenship of the Republic for Blacks. I refer now to section 7(3) of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, and section 2(4) of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970, but as my time is restricted, I shall only read section 2(4) of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act—

These two Acts give point to the amendment and if this Bill is accepted and this clause is passed as it now reads, then the charge that the Government is dealing dishonestly with the Blacks will be sustained. If clause 6 remains as it stands, those guilty are charged with a breach of faith. They are arbitrarily removing the right of citizenship which was once conferred on hundreds of thousands, indeed, millions of people. Even the much maligned Black States, when they reached their independence, gave this choice.

If we look at this whole aspect of citizenship, then I think we must say three things about it. Firstly I believe that this is nothing short of an act of expediency by this Government. What this debate is about, is not really the independence of the Transkei, but the first major step to implement—if you like—the self-determination or independence of White South Africa. The real point that we have been discussing all week is White survival. This is paramount. If it is expedient that in order to achieve this, countless Blacks are to be deprived of South African citizenship, then, of course, it is just too bad. The act of expediency is an echo of the words of a man called Caiaphas who once said that it is expedient that one man should die for the nation in order to preserve that nation. Of course, there is nothing wrong—to answer to that point—with the maintenance of identity, of rights or even of survival, but when that is done at the expense of hundreds of thousands or millions of other people, that survival is questionable.

Secondly, I believe that the whole provision relating to citizenship is an act of extreme provocation. The hon. member for Stilfontein told us in very lyrical terms that on the day on which we became a Republic, he sat on his stop watching the sun rise. On 26 October the hon. member will probably once again sit on his stop and watch the sun rise. I suggest that for urban Blacks in particular on that day the sun will set.

Nonsense!

Yes, I mean that. However, we must never forget that there will be another dawn that will follow that dark night and the sight will be terrifying for all of us if the Government persists with its wicked device. I want to refer to the words of a Black man who spoke on this very subject. He said—

I am quoting from a newspaper report, an article by Dean Tutu. What I am saying is that, as one of the prophets once put it, the day of 26 October will not be a day of light, but a day of darkness for hundreds of thousands of Black people who are now enjoying South African citizenship but from whom it will be removed.

Finally, I want to say that this act is nothing short of an act of betrayal and then not only of the people we have been talking about. I believe that the Nationalist Government has always emphasized that their policy of separate development has a moral base, even a religious base. I want to quote from a book by W. A. de Klerk called The Puritan in Africa,which is not a very popular book, I grant you. In that book he says—

We have heard thanksgiving and we have heard psalms, but I believe that there is a betrayal of the very heritage of the Nationalist Afrikaner in this act.

What has that got to do with the clause?

It has everything to do with the clause, because they are not worshipping the true God, but false gods. Instead of the divine right of kings, they are talking now of the divine right of Whites which enables them to take away the rights of Black citizens of this country. If we want to retain a religious and moral basis to the policies of this country—I believe we ought to do that—we must remember the words of One who said: “In as much as you do it unto the least of these my brethren, you do it unto Me.” If the roles were reversed and Blacks were in power, how many of us would enjoy being told that our only citizenship rights are in the Netherlands or in Great Britain? [Interjections.] Nobody would. The members of the Government are forsaking their very religious heritage and therefore it is an act of betrayal not merely of Blacks but also of the very moral and religious basis which has once been declared as being the very groundwork of separate development.

Mr. Chairman, we are now, as the hon. member for Green Point has put it, at a clause which affects the personal rights of millions of people. To this clause I wish to move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) Every person who at the commencement of this Act is a citizen of the Transkei in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963 (Act No. 48 of 1963), and is domiciled or permanently resident in the Republic of Transkei, shall be recognized as a citizen of the Republic of Transkei and shall cease to be a South African citizen on that date.
2. (2) Any South African citizen who voluntarily becomes a citizen of the Republic of Transkei shall thereupon cease to be a South African citizen.

The hon. member for Green Point has pointed out to the Committee that we believe that in terms of section 3 of the South African Citizenship Act everyone of these Transkeians is a citizen of the Republic of South Africa, and that that citizenship bestowed upon him certain rights and required of him certain obligations. In this clause we are being asked—in terms of subsection (1) of clause 6—to take away from those millions of people—3,8 million, I think is the number given by the hon. the Minister—the rights which they enjoyed in terms of the South African Citizenship Act. We are now being asked to bestow upon them citizenship of the Transkei. According to the philosophy of the UP, citizenship is something which is a right which a person gains when he is born, and that right applies in so far as birth and domicile or permanent residence are concerned. The citizenship of parents of a child and the place of his birth are the two factors which determine his citizenship. They can be taken separately, but more generally they are taken together.

We also believe that this is a right which should never be taken away from any person. It is for that reason that I have moved the first amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The UP does this in the belief that every person who, at the commencement of this legislation—which is October 26, the date of independence of the Transkei—is domiciled or permanently resident in the Transkei, shall be recognized as a citizen of the Republic of the Transkei, and shall cease to be a South African citizen on that date. Of course, we believe that the fact of his domicile and his permanent residence in the Transkei should allow him to obtain citizenship of that new State. It is for that reason that this amendment is very clearly phrased. We are dealing in this Committee this afternoon with the Republic of South Africa, and I believe it is incompetent for this Committee or for this Parliament to legislate in regard to the Transkei after independence. I believe it is wrong in law; both basic South African law as well as constitutional law, and also international law, that we should be asked to approve of the fact that this House shall decide who shall be a citizen of the Transkei. It is for that reason that this amendment is so carefully worded, that we shall recognize those persons who are domiciled in the Transkei, and who have the citizenship of the Transkei which was bestowed upon them in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963, as being citizens of the new State.

The last part of this amendment is—

It is, I believe, in accordance with our philosophy that the person who takes the citizenship of another State, should lose the citizenship of the Republic. When I say this, I must add this rider: This is, we believe, where citizenship is taken voluntarily; not where it happens by an act of government. Because we believe that it should only happen when that citizenship is obtained by a voluntary act on the part of the citizen, I have added subsection (2), which reads—

The question can be asked why I have included in these two amendments the phrase “and shall cease to be a South African citizen”. The reason for that is a practical one. In terms of section 19bis of the South African Citizenship Act the hon. the Minister of the Interior may—it is not mandatory—deprive a South African citizen who obtains citizenship of another country of his South African citizenship.

The implication of that is that the hon. the Minister must physically issue an order or document, to deprive that citizen of his citizenship. We are dealing here with millions of people and I believe it would be impracticable to ask the hon. the Minister physically to issue such an order in respect of each of those 2,2 million who are living in the Transkei at the moment and the other million people who possibly will take citizenship of the Transkei. In relation to the question of citizenship as a whole, I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that what I am proposing here is not dual citizenship. During his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister tried to impute to speakers on this side of the House that they had pleaded for dual citizenship. I want to make it very clear that we have never asked for dual citizenship. Not one of our speakers has done so. We accept that these Transkeian citizens could be accepted in South Africa on the basis of the old Commonwealth citizenship. In other words, they would not be considered as aliens. However, I do not believe it is the best way in which this matter can be handled in practice. I believe a strict line should be drawn between those persons who will be citizens of the new State of the Transkei and those persons who will be citizens of the Republic of South Africa. If we are going to introduce a third category of people, people who have residence within the Republic of South Africa as it is anticipated in the Bill at the moment, then we are only going to look for trouble. I say this because at the moment there are Black people who are citizens of the Republic of South Africa, who have certain rights and privileges and who suffer under certain disabilities.

The situation with Black aliens, when they enter this country, is that they suffer none of the disabilities or indignities which the Black South African suffers. For instance, he has free access to hotels, to all amenities in the country and to all modes of public transport. He has the same access as White South African citizen. If we are going to create out of the Transkeian citizen something in between the two, then we are looking for trouble with the 1,6 million Transkeians who will be left in the Republic of South Africa. Similarly, if we are going to make aliens out of those 1,6 million Transkeians and allow them free access to all the amenities and other privileges which other Black aliens who visit our country receive, then we are going to look for trouble with our own African people. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has thought this over before he put these provisions in the Bill. The hon. the Minister might think that he has here a political and legal solution which is very neatly sealed, signed and delivered, but it is not necessarily acceptable to anthropologists and to sociologists. What is even more important, is that I do not believe that this political and legal solution which he has found and written into this clause, is going to be satisfactory for and acceptable to the people concerned, namely the Black South Africans who are today enjoying South African citizenship and who, if this clause is accepted, will be deprived of their South African citizenship on 26 October. I do not believe that what we are saying here today, is going to be the last word in regard to the question of citizenship for the urban African. I believe the question of their citizenship will remain in contention for many years to come. The Transkei is in a situation which is not enjoyed by many of the other homelands. The fact is that it has more than half of its people resident within the Transkei and prepared to take Transkeian citizenship today. Only a minority of their people are living outside the Transkei. What is the situation in regard to Bophuthatswana? We are led to believe that it is the next homeland for which we shall be legislating in this House. Only 35% of their people live in the homeland. 65% of them fall into the grey area for which we are now trying to legislate. [Time expired.]

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

1. (1) On page 5, in line 23, to omit “doubt” and to substitute “any dispute”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 24, after the second “any” to insert “aggrieved person or any”.

In regard to clause 6(2), as it stands at present, if there is any doubt about whether a person falls into any of the seven categories, then any authority in the Republic or the Transkei may refer the matter to the board. I urge upon the hon. the Minister that the test should not, in the first place, be “doubt”, but that it should be if a matter is in dispute. I want to give an example. The hon. member for Albany said a day or two ago that, if a person speaks one of the languages of the Xhosa or Sotho group, then there is no doubt that in terms of the clear language, he must have his South African citizenship taken away. While there may not be doubt, he may well wish to dispute it. In addition, paragraph (g) of schedule B states that the same will apply to any people who are associated with him in any way. That, obviously, would include people in this very House. I submit that while there may be no doubt that they should have their South African citizenship taken away, they may wish to dispute it.

This brings me to the second part of my amendment. The affected party should have the right to place his case before the board. As it stands at the moment, he has no right at all. Only an authority can place his case before the board. The affected person should have some locus standi before the board. It is not sufficient for an authority to do it. In any event, as it stands, the authority is not obliged, but is only empowered to bring this before the board. It would be intolerable for a citizen of South Africa to be deprived of so fundamental and valuable a right as citizenship of the Republic without any locus standi to dispute that deprivation. Ours is a system of law that is deeply rooted in the Rome of 2 000 years ago. The right of a man to protect and to pursue his rights must not be forfeited lightly. We are proud of our system of law in this country which gives every man the right, the locus standi in judicio, when he disputes the taking away of his rights. This Act merely takes them away without giving him any right to protect his rights.

I have referred to Rome, but even in the Bible one sees how precious a right Roman citizenship was regarded by St. Paul. I suggest that we would not in this House want to pass a law which deprives a man even of the right to take his case up with the board. This is particularly so in the case of the termination of a right which exists for every man from the very first moment he draws breath on this earth, namely the right of citizenship, which occurs at the very moment of birth. This legislation provides for the obligatory termination of that right. I should like to point out that the hon. the Minister said yesterday, on the question of “burgerskap”, that it was “die kern van die saak”. The hon. the Minister is quite right. He is 100% right. This is the very essence of the debate. The reality of the situation is that nearly two million people who do not form part of the geography of the new State are to be deprived of their right to citizenship. This is the very first step in a process which will occur in regard to nine million people. We have, therefore, to be sure that the clause which provides for the establishment of citizenship must give a right to people to protect that right.

Are you pleading for the White man now, or for whom are you pleading?

I am pleading for anyone.

†The clause does not, in fact, talk about White people or Black people. That is the interesting thing. If a White man speaks Xhosa, it also applies to him. In South Africa we are trying to avoid conflict and the pressures that give rise to conflict. It is a lesson of history that the dangerous pressures that give rise to conflict come not from people with full rights but from people without full rights.

By not giving ultimately 9 million and now nearly 2 million people in our State full rights to protect their rights, we are creating the very people from whom the pressures of inevitable conflict will flow. If we do not create a right here in this subsection, in clause 6(2), in order to enable them to dispute the deprivation of their rights, we are creating the fiction that nearly 2 million people are not here as citizens legally, but that they are simply ghosts without any legal rights in this respect. The reality is that they are here and that they will continue to be here without citizenship rights and without the right to challenge the deprivation of their citizenship. So we suggest very strongly that the people themselves must not be deprived of their right to resist the deprivation of their citizenship, even if it is only before a board, because the principle of the Bill of course is already decided, and so we submit that the people affected must be entitled to initiate proceedings before the board themselves, and they must be entitled to pursue those claims.

Mr. Chairman, I was saying that I had moved the first amendment which stands in my name, namely to omit subsections (1) and (2) of this clause and to substitute two other subsections. Just in conclusion, on that argument, I must mention that in Die Vaderland of 8 June two questions were asked by the editor in his editorial. The first is whether it is practicable to find some accommodation for certain Blacks within the Republic, and secondly, how can we do this without committing political suicide. I would like to quote the conclusion he reached—

Sir, I quote that simply to illustrate two points. The first point is that it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister and the Government have embarked upon this course for the purpose of getting rid of their responsibility of looking after 3,8 million Blacks. But more important than all this is the warning contained in this conclusion, namely that the Black people will choose South African citizenship if given a choice. I believe that the hon. the Minister must not put himself in the position where he is going to force these Black people to have no choice whatsoever. I believe he must leave them in the position where they can choose, and I want to issue this as a challenge to him, to prove the sincerity of his policy and its acceptability by the Black people. Why not put those 1,6 million Black people who belong to the Transkei, according to his thinking, and who are in the Republic of South Africa, in a position where they can voluntarily choose to join the Transkei, instead of putting them in the position where their South African citizenship is taken away and they are forced to take citizenship of the Transkei?

Subsection (3) of this clause has similar provisions to those contained in the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963. These are to the effect that any citizen of the Transkei shall not be deprived of any benefits except as regards citizenship by reason only of the fact of the other provisions of this Act, in other words simply by reason of the independence of the Transkei. Now I submit that the term “citizen of the Transkei”, in line 31 on page 5, is a term which is defined by the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963, it is a citizen of the territory of the Transkei, which was established in terms of that Act in 1963. But what we are dealing with here is citizens of the State which will exist after 26 October, because if we look at clause 7, we find it says that this Act shall come into operation on 26 October 1976. I submit that we are there dealing with some other entity, not the legal entity which was created in terms of the 1963 Act but an independent State. If we refer to clause 1 of this Bill, it says that the territory known as the Transkei consisting of the districts mentioned in schedule A “is hereby declared to be a sovereign and independent State”. It will be a different entity from the Transkei as we know it today. For that reason I believe that because those persons are today South African citizens; and because they will be deprived of their South African citizenship; and because they will be deprived of all the rights and privileges within the Republic which go with that South African citizenship; we should, as a gesture, say to those people that once the Transkei becomes independent, once they—through the act of independence—lose their citizenship of the Republic of South Africa, they may still come here and enjoy all the benefits, rights and privileges to which they were entitled before that day. For that reason I wish to move the following amendment—

The effect of this amendment will be that, if accepted, subsection (3) will then read—

Whilst I move this amendment I feel that I must say to the hon. the Minister that he must be very wary in the way he applies these provisions. The hon. the Minister is on record as having said, during his introduction to the Second Reading of this Bill, that citizens of the Transkei will be more welcome here than other persons. He went on to say that they will qualify for all sorts of privileges and rights, which other people will not be able to do. I wish to reiterate to him that in this way he is going to create more problems than he thinks he solves, because we are going to have the situation that these people, who will be created aliens by his own legislation, will come here and will have advantages over and above those which the South African Black people will have. He is going to create bitterness and ill-feeling, and if he is now going to blackmail the businessman, the professional man, the home-owner and the job-seeker by saying to them that they may not come to do any of these things in the Republic unless they obtain the citizenship of the Transkei, then he is really going to look for trouble.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to support the amendments moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. However, before I come to this, I want to react to what the hon. member for Pinelands said. I have not had a clergyman’s training, nor do I have the status of a clergyman, and although I can understand the moral indignation of the hon. member for Pinelands, I take exception to the manner in which, if I understand him correctly, he assailed the religious sense of the Afrikaner.

You understood him quite correctly.

However, I know the hon. member did not mean it like that …

He did mean it like that.

I do not want to put myself forward as a Christian of the first rank, nor can I arrogate to myself the right to speak on behalf of the Almighty, but I do want to say that as far as religion is concerned, the Afrikaner is probably not better or worse than any other nation on earth. In that sense I should like to dissociate myself from the spirit which seemed to me to form the basis of the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that through the proposed provision in clause 6, a very great mistake is being made in South Africa. The fact is that at the moment we have dual citizenship for the people concerned here, because it is very clear, too, that at this stage those people are still South African citizens. Only this Parliament has the right to take citizenship away from people, except when someone does it himself on the grounds of his own actions. Therefore I am convinced that the statement which the hon. Minister made in his speech, which I want to read now, does not correctly represent the situation. The Minister said—

Let us at least be honest with ourselves. No other country may render a South African citizen stateless. Only this Parliament can do so. We cannot, by means of some indirect trick or other, hold another country responsible for taking away the citizenship of South Africans, because this Parliament alone can do so. This is what we want to do by means of clause 6. Whatever may be stated in the Transkei’s draft constitution concerning citizenship, is not the issue at this point. The Transkeian Legislative Assembly—the Transkeian Parliament, when they are independent, does not have—the power to deprive anyone of their South African citizenship. Let us be honest and say it is our action which creates those legal consequences. I want to add that citizenship certainly does not mean franchise. It has been intimated that since the Blacks do not have the franchise, citizenship means nothing to them. I am amazed that this argument has really been advanced because, as the hon. member for Green Point indicated, White women only received the franchise in 1930. However, at that time they were already full citizens. Over the years, since 1910, the Blacks outside the Cape Province were also full citizens in spite of the fact that, in contrast to the Bantu in the Cape Province, they had no franchise either. I want to point out, furthermore, that the Bantu representation in 1959 was removed from this Parliament. Hon. members will remember that the Bantu were placed on separate voters’ rolls in 1936. Was it said at that time that those Bantu had also thereby lost their citizenship? Must we now say that on the basis of the fact that the Coloureds do not have the franchise in this Parliament—they were deprived of that franchise in 1956—that we thereby deprived them of their citizenship as well? We must not come up with specious arguments of this type in order to justify what we cannot justify.

It is very clear that in the amendment of my hon. colleagues we are dealing with two categories of people. The one category consists of those persons who are in fact permanently resident in the Transkei. In that connection we adopt the merely reasonable and logical standpoint that since we are now granting independence to the Transkei, those people will automatically become citizens of the independent State of the Transkei. That principle is quite natural and acceptable.

However, now I come to the second category of people—those who were living permanently outside the Transkei for a short or long period. It has often been said here that there are many of those people who actually feel, psychologically and emotionally, that they belong in the homelands and indeed, have never renounced their link with the homelands. Very often, however, we make the mistake of putting forward a broad ethnic relationship, a linguistic relationship in particular as being equivalent to political loyalty. However, they are two totally different concepts. There are many Afrikaners in Rhodesia who are Rhodesian citizens, but have retained their cultural and linguistic ties as Afrikaners. Surely this does not make them any less Rhodesian citizens.

[Inaudible.]

No. We must not confuse those two concepts. Let us now find out what people say who have made a study of these matters. I now want to quote what Dr. Durand said about this matter in his book Swartman, Stad en Toekoms. Unfortunately, I cannot quote extensively, but he says the following—

On the other hand the Amagoduka are those people who will return to their homes. He goes on to say that that distinction is not even adequate to determine how urbanized the people are. I quote—

The question which he put to his experimental subjects was not, therefore, whether they considered themselves an iranuga or an igoduka. The question which he put was: Where is your ikhaya, in other words, where is your home? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall begin my discussion of this clause by referring to the hon. member for Green Point who is unfortunately not here at the moment. He is probably now …

Here I am.

Oh he is here. At his post! The hon. member for Green Point said quite a number of things here to which I want to reply. He spoke of this Parliament which now wants to determine the “terms” of citizenship for the Transkeians. He intimated, however, that they were the people who should do this themselves. In my opinion, however, it is a question of parallel legislation.

I know that.

Yes, the hon. member knows it very well. I know that he knows it. The Transkeian draft constitution already contains their own provisions concerning Transkeian citizenship, and it is simply a question of parallel provisions which have therefore also to be passed here. It is not the case that we are simply issuing decrees in connection with this matter.

The hon. member asked what the position would be should the independence of the Transkei not be recognized, and how they would manage to travel abroad. I am informed that there have been many cases in the past—if there have not been many cases, there have at least been some cases—of countries that were not recognized, but whose passports could in fact be used by people in order to travel.

To which examples are you referring?

Secondly I want to tell the hon. member that should something of the kind happen to the Transkei, it would naturally be a matter to which the Transkei could attend to together with us. We as a Republic which has very close ties with the Transkei as far as these matters are concerned and which, as I said, would like to support the Transkei in all problems which may be experienced in future, and will want to help it by means of development, will be only too willing to support the Transkei in cases like this, too. Whether it will mean that they will make use of our passport facilities, is an open question for the future.

But such use would be illegal.

Well, whether they will in fact make use of our passport facilities, is a matter on which I do not want to bind myself now. Whatever the case may be, South Africa can assist the Transkei.

The hon. member for Green Point asked me whether a Xhosa child who is born in the Republic of South Africa in the future, will be a South African citizen. The hon. member intimated that this would in fact be so, but I think he must look up the position once again, because I have been assured that a person like this may only become a citizen of the Republic if he is born of a person who is a citizen of the Republic or who has permanent residence here.

No.

I say this is so, but the hon. member says it is not so. The hon. member must look up the position and I shall do so too. What I said, is according to the information I received after the position has been looked up.

I also looked it up. What about taking a bet?

One cannot make bets in this place.

I am now between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand I am advised that one may not take bets here, but on the other hand I hear a soft voice: “Take the bet.” However, I do not want to make money out of the situation and the hon. member and myself will have to settle the matter between us in another way.

Before I react to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands, I want to identify myself with the serious admonition from the hon. member for Edenvale concerning the unsavoury, unacceptable, objectionable manner in which the hon. member for Pinelands spoke and dragged in religion. That one should experience this from someone who himself wore the garb of a clergyman in his time! The hon. member spoke of a “breach of faith” in connection with clause 6. This is in terms of that hon. member’s ideas.

No.

The hon. member must not shout “no” at me now. What do the people concerned—that is to say, the Transkeians—receive in exchange for an incomplete South African citizenship which they have had so far? They receive complete citizenship of their own homeland and retain all the rights which they had in White South Africa …

Well, give them a choice.

… plus further privileges above others who do not want to recognize homeland citizens. These are the advantages. I repeat what I said previously: What they are receiving has a very much higher net value than what they have here today. In his extremist vocabulary the hon. member also spoke of an “act of betrayal”. I want to tell the hon. member once again that he and his kindred spirits in that party must stop expressing themselves on these matters in such extravagant terms, because in this way they are simply saying things in order to give Blacks in South Africa false impressions and incite false expectations amongst them. What is more, what they are saying is driving the Blacks to irresponsibility. While other people are being driven to irresponsibilities, that hon. member sits in this House with privilege to protect him so that he will not be affected.

I quoted from somebody else’s speech.

The example of Holland which he used, is totally false in this context.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asked that we should not make foreigners of the Transkeians. The hon. member simply echoed me by saying this. He simply repeated the words which I used in my introductory speech. I am very glad that he became a convert so soon, because, as subsection (3) of clause 6 testifies, it is specifically our intention and our policy that, as I put it in my speech, people with Transkeian citizenship should not be known as foreigners as we have made foreigners of citizens of other African States. I said that we should give the citizens of the Transkei more privileges than those enjoyed by citizens of other African States.

Let me deal with the amendments of the hon. member right away. I am afraid that I cannot accept them. The drift of his first amendment only concerns the Transkeians within the homeland. It does not include the Transkeians outside the homeland. The hon. member has been in this House long enough to know what our policy is in this connection. We cannot therefore allow the exclusion of a large number of people and therefore the first leg of the amendment, as he called it, cannot be accepted. It deprives those Transkeians who are at present citizens of the present Transkei of that citizenship by not making it possible for them to become citizens of the independent Transkei. Then the hon. member moved a second amendment, an amendment to an amendment to which he referred yesterday. This is a completely superfluous amendment, because our citizenship legislation already contains a provision that people who voluntarily accept citizenship of another country, lose their South African citizenship. Therefore the hon. member’s amendment is unnecessary and can fall away. In a later speech the hon. member moved his third amendment, which is once again a correction of alterations of an amendment to which he referred yesterday. In it he now speaks of “the independent State of the Transkei” and no longer of “the Republic of the Transkei”. It is, as an old man said, “the same difference”. It is the same matter put differently. I am afraid that the hon. member has not improved his original amendment at all.

†Above all, it is also inconsistent with clause 1 of the Bill. In view of this amendment, he should have moved as an amendment to clause 1 that “the Transkei” be replaced by “the Republic of the Transkei” or “the independent State of the Transkei”. We must be consistent from one clause to the next.

Sir, I now come to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban North. I am sorry, but I cannot accept those amendments and I can put my objections to them in a nutshell. What it boils down to is that I am not at all in favour of blowing up a matter of doubt, as the clause now provides, to make of it a matter of dispute. It is not a question of developing a case involving “doubt” to a case involving “dispute” before it can be resolved in the manner provided for in the clause. Secondly, in respect of the amendment to insert “aggrieved person”, I wish to point out that it is not for the aggrieved person to go to the other authority, viz. South Africa or the Transkei, depending on the merits of the case, but that he should in the first place go directly to the authority concerned in the matter. The solution of the problem will then depend on negotiations between the two Governments and not between an aggrieved person and a foreign Government. That is the correct procedure as it is laid down.

He can go to the board.

The hon. member for Durban North must not sit there and shout. He is a young member. He must learn the correct procedure as soon as possible.

†I also wish to say to the hon. member that he is quite wrong in referring to Transkeians as ghosts without rights. If he reads subsection (3) and bears in mind what I have said in reply to other hon. members’ questions, he should appreciate that those Transkeian citizens will enjoy preference and will enjoy enshrined rights, as is stated in subsection (3) of this clause.

*Now I want to address myself to the hon. member for Edenvale. All I can say to him, is that my hon. old friend missed the point completely. He tried to correct me by saying that one country cannot dispose of the citizenship of another country. He quoted from my speech. However, this is not the point. I said that should the Government of a homeland want to deprive one of its own citizens of his citizenship, that citizen would become stateless. It is not this Government which is depriving him of his citizenship. However, a person only becomes stateless once the Government of his homeland—despite the express provisions in the legislation under discussion—deprives him of his citizenship after this legislation comes into operation. Therefore a person’s statelessness arised due to the action of the latter body. In this case this will not arise as a result of action on the part of the Government. The hon. member did not understand the matter correctly. I recommend that he re-read what I said.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Firstly, I would just like to say that I find it very strange and unacceptable that the Opposition should be accused of using excessive language, while members on the Government benches, including the hon. the Minister, can with impunity launch into tirades of invective, which the Opposition is supposed to accept meekly.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I do withdraw them. I support this amendment, because clause 6, as it stands, is the most contentious provision in this Bill. It is the most destructive argument against the Government’s claim of self-determination, because it artificially creates Transkeian citizenship. They do not have the choice to determine for themselves. In fact, by the stroke of a pen some one million people are suddenly attached to, and made the responsibility of, the Transkei. Even the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Mr. Matanzima, has objected. He sees that the Transkei cannot carry this additional load of people. His shaky economy will be placed under an impossible duress, and he feels that those urban qualifiers in terms of this Bill should be given the choice.

The strange thing is that this Government will not give them that choice, despite the fact that for years people from the Transkei have been voting with their feet. They would rather live in those pulsating megapolises than in the Transkei. This is where life counts to them. They would rather be without political rights than vice versa, and the Government knows it.

The hon. the Minister has just said that those who will opt for Transkei citizenship in the urban areas, will be given preferences. In fact, it is like some sort of ultimatum which has been issued. If they take up homeland citizenship, they will not lose their livelihood. The hon. the Minister said that they will have preferences in terms of housing, services and job protection. The comment by Mr. Mani Mulder, chairman of the West Rand Administration Board, was this—

But what do people in Soweto say? Dr. Harrison Motlana’s comment was this—

Mr. Shimane Khumalo, who is a social worker in Soweto, said—

I call it “ball and chain” self-determination. As a result, I will support the amendment by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, because it does provide those people with a choice.

Mr. Chairman, before I return to the amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper, which I have not yet moved—and I think you will know why I have not yet moved it, Sir—I hope you will give me a minute—and I mean quite literally a minute—to respond to what the hon. the Minister has said.

Order! Perhaps I must give the hon. member an indication that I am unable to accept his amendment, as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time. On account of that, he cannot discuss it.

I move the amendment formally but I shall obey your ruling and not discuss it—

1. (1)
   1. (a) Every person domiciled and resident in the districts mentioned in Schedule A shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law contained, be a citizen of the Transkei and cease to be a South African citizen, unless he elects on or before 31 December 1977 to remain a South African citizen.
   2. (b) Every person falling in any of the categories of persons defined in Schedule B shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law contained, be entitled to elect on or before 31 December 1977 to be a South African citizen or a citizen of the Transkei. Upon election to be a citizen of the Transkei such person shall cease to be a South African citizen, and should any person fail to make an election, he shall thereupon be a South African citizen.

I am not surprised that the hon. the Minister responded somewhat strongly to the words I spoke a little earlier. However, I am a little surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Edenvale, who probably did not understand what I was saying. The point I wish to make, in half a minute if I may, in order to clarify the issue, is that as far as I understand it, after private and public conversation with members on the other side of the House, at the basis of separate development there is a moral and religious foundation. What I am trying to say is that if one summarily withdraws citizenship, without any choice, from hundreds and thousands of people, then I believe it cannot be defended morally or religiously. If the hon. member for Edenvale thinks it can be done, then he is at liberty to do so.

That is not what you said just now.

That is exactly what I said and I stand by those words.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister seems to have misunderstood both subsection (2) and what I have said. Subsection (2) states that if there is any doubt, then any authority can go to the board. There is no question of anyone going to an authority, because the subsection states that any authority can go to the board. I am now asking the hon. the Minister to allow the aggrieved person to go to the board, and not to go to the Transkeian or to the Republican authorities, I am asking that such a person be allowed to initiate proceedings before the board. The position is that this board possesses more power than any court in South Africa. There is no court in South Africa which can deprive one of one’s citizenship, but this board can. Therefore, at the very least, a person ought to have some right to initiate proceedings to protect the most fundamental right he has in the State before that board. He should not be forced to ask that perhaps some other authority—which is not obliged to, but is merely empowered to do so—should take his case up before the board. If they do not do it, then he loses that fundamental right. Therefore, I am asking that such a person be allowed to initiate and pursue such a course of action before the board.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place the board is a joint organization on the level of the two Governments. The hon. member also misses the point that the board has no executive power. It only frames an opinion, which the Government concerned must execute.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. the Minister’s reaction on the question of statelessness. Statelessness can only arise on grounds of the fact that in clause 6 we deprive people of their South African citizenship. Without the provision in clause 6, in terms of which citizenship is specifically taken away, these people cannot be made stateless. Therefore I want to say, in all humility, that it is through our doing—as a result of the possibility which clause 6 creates—that people are made stateless. If we do not deprive these people of their South African citizenship, they cannot be made stateless. It is very simple. As far as the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the second part of the amendment is concerned, I want to say that it is very clear that the hon. the Minister’s analysis in this connection was correct. The first part deals specifically with people who are resident in the Transkei. The second part deals with people who are resident outside the Transkei. It is very clear that, in the second part of the amendment, the purpose is to give a choice to the Blacks who live outside the Transkei. It is pointless for the hon. the Minister to tell me that this is part of the party’s policy. This may be so. However, I want to say once again that I am convinced of the fact—I shall return to this in a moment—that we are doing a highly undesirable thing here. Therefore it cannot be expected of me as a thinking Afrikaner to support this clause. Indeed, I am deeply convinced that we are making a big mistake here. However, I shall return to this.

In connection with the second amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South I just want to say that the change made with respect to the term “republic” is the reaction to what the hon. the Minister said earlier, namely that at this stage we cannot in fact say that the Transkei will indeed be a Republic and that it may even be a kingdom. We are forced at least to retain the concept of a different type of Transkei after 26 October 1976 than the Transkei of today. This is why we refer to the independent state of the Transkei which then indicates the Transkei, the new constitutional entity which will come into being after 26 October 1976.

I was in the process of indicating that the position in respect of compulsory deprivation of citizenship of the people is unsound and that there are some Blacks who have no links with the homelands any more. I quoted from the work of Dr. Durand, a book entitled Swart-man, Stad en Toekoms. I stopped where he said that the test which he put to them was the question—

The test was carried out on the subjects on the basis of that definition of where their homes were. The author of the book discovered that out of a total of 250 there were 71—this is in Port Elizabeth which borders on the Ciskei and the Transkei and not in Johannesburg—who still considered the homelands as their home. A further 74 accepted the city as their home, but still retained certain ties with the homeland. There were 105 who, to use the author’s term, were “geheel en al stadgeneigd” (entirely city-orientated).

These are also the statements which Mr. Justice Snyman made in his report on the University of the North.

That is not in the same context.

I know that it is not in connection with the issue of citizenship. I want to talk about some of the students who come from the cities. This is stated in the report and I can read it to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Here it is, for the information of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Mr. Justice Snyman said—

I want to go further and say that in his inquiry into the attitude of matric students in Soweto, Edelstein, too, came across the same phenomenon. Let us now accept the fact, then we need not argue about it any longer, that there is a considerable proportion of the Blacks living outside the homeland who have no longer any ties with the homelands; in other words, who do not in fact belong philosophically or emotionally in the homelands.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that I have already heard that argument at least four times.

Thank you, Sir. But after all, this is still of importance. It is against people of that kind that an injustice is committed if they are not given the choice. But I want to go further. I said that on the basis of the figures of the last election, no more than 5% of the people outside the Transkei—I am not referring to migrant labourers now—participated in the election and that it cannot therefore be deduced from that that those people supported either the independence of the Transkei, or the question of taking away their citizenship, because the latter was not put to them. To this the hon. the Minister said that there was at least a possibility that they did not want to vote against it, because if they wanted to vote against it, they surely had the opportunity to do so. I just want to say that there is already the implicit admission on the part of the hon. the Minister that there was at least a possibility that it was for other reasons that they did not vote. One obvious explanation is that there are people who want nothing to do with the Transkei. They have been away from it for generations; they have never even been there and know nobody there. Why, then, should they go and vote?

These are taunts. I know the facts better than you do.

I provided the facts. I say that the admission is implicit in the words of the hon. the Minister that there are considerable numbers of people who do not in fact have those ties any more. But I want to go further. If it is the case, as has been announced here, that all those people would like to be linked to the Transkei, why, then, can we not give those people the choice? Surely they will then take out citizenship themselves if they have the choice; surely then, we do not have to be afraid. In that connection I want to ask that we do not make a mistake. The Transkei is not a single nation and I am amazed that people in this House who ought to know better link Transkeian independence to national development time and time again. Sir, there are at least two large ethnic groups the Sotho and the Xhosa-speaking groups, and furthermore, as far as the Xhosa-speaking people are concerned, I just want to say that those Xhosa-speaking people in the Transkei have never in their entire history formed a single political unit. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister when he replied to the debate on this clause so far, said that we on this side of the House were aware of the attitude of the Government towards Transkeians who are resident and domiciled outside the Transkei. He went further and said that the amendments I moved here had the effect of removing the right of citizenship from those Transkeian citizens who were resident outside the Transkei. It is quite clear that the hon. the Minister has not understood the amendment which I have moved. If the hon. the Minister would have a look at the words which I proposed to substitute for subsection (1) of clause 6, he will see that reference is made to citizens of the Transkei in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Edenvale, there are two categories of those citizens. There are those who are resident in the Transkei and those who are resident outside the Transkei.

Do you exclude the others?

Yes, I do. Let us first deal with those who are in the Transkei. With regard to those who are within the Transkei I propose that this Parliament should say to them: “We will recognize you as citizens of the new State of Transkei which is going to be created. Because of that you will lose your right to citizenship within the Republic. ” That is what the new subsection (1) provides. Regarding those citizens who are domiciled outside the Transkei, my amendment is silent. It is silent because we, firstly, do not believe that these people should be compelled by this Parliament to take Transkeian citizenship. Secondly, we believe that it is incompetent for this Parliament to confer upon these people the citizenship of the independent State of Transkei. Thirdly, we believe that their South African citizenship should not be removed from them by an Act of this Parliament. For that reason my amendment is silent on the Transkeians who are resident outside the Transkei. It is an accepted fact that those persons, at any time, provided they comply with any regulations the Transkeian Government may make, will be free to apply for and to obtain citizenship of the Transkei. The proposed amendment of clause 6(2) provides for those people who voluntarily take citizenship of the independent State of the Transkei after it comes into being on 26 October. The proposed clause provides that if they do voluntarily take citizenship of the Transkei, they shall cease to be South African citizens.

When one looks at the second amendment that I have moved, it will be noted that it provides that these people who so obtain citizenship of the Transkei, shall not be considered to be aliens in the Republic, but shall continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges and rights which they had before the coming into being of the State of Transkei. This question must be looked at as a whole. I believe this is perfectly reasonable and fair, just and honourable to all the people concerned. I would urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider and to look at the question as a whole, because if he does so, he shall have to accept these amendments.

On amendment (1) moved by Mr. W. T. Webber,

Question put: That the subsections stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—100: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, 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.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. 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.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. S. A. Pitman negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. S. A. Pitman put and the Committee divided:

AYES—41: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

NOES—100: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, 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.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G, C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. 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.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—100: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, 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.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.(Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. 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.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven, (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton. Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this clause reads—

I move as amendment—

If one looks at clause 2 and takes special note of the provisions of subsection (2) thereof, read in conjunction with clause 7, one can imagine, merely for administrative and practical reasons, problems such as those I experienced in my constituency at the beginning of the year. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs experienced those problems with me. If we determine a date merely on administrative grounds upon which a certain action must take place, we may experience problems if owing to circumstances beyond our control, that action cannot be performed. It so happened that due to excessive rain it was impossible for me and the two hon. Ministers to reach Delareyville by aircraft and hold a specific meeting there.

It may happen for one reason or other that the Transkei will not become independent on 26 October, but in terms of the provisions of clause 2 our laws will remain in force there after 26 October, except as far as they are amended by the proper authority in the Transkei. If the Transkei does not become independent on 26 October, it will be essential for our laws to remain in force there. We may have the situation that the President of the Transkei may be unable to sign the Constitution of the Transkei on that day for some reason or other. In that case the laws within the Transkei cannot be administered, because the measure concerned also lays down that our officials cannot proceed to administer those laws. This Bill also lays down that it will be the President of the Transkei who will sign the new constitution and not our State President. If we look at normal legislation, we find that a specific date is laid down only in very exceptional cases. Normally legislation lays down that the date will be promulgated by the State President in the Government Gazette. In my legal opinion it also means that it will be legal-technically correct to accept my amendment as I have moved it here. If we do this, it cannot create any problems for us should administrative or other problems arise.

Mr. Chairman, I take the amendment moved by the hon. member as a compliment to the Opposition. Our arguments have been so effective that hon. members opposite are obviously having misgivings. We shall support the amendment because it means that this measure need never be applied.

Mr. Chairman, I see this amendment in a slightly different light from the hon. member for Griqualand East. I take this amendment to mean that perhaps, after all, the Government is beginning to take seriously the criticisms offered by the Chief Minister of the Transkei and by the Minister of Justice of the Transkei. Perhaps the Government have found that these are not just figments of the imagination of journalists who have decided that there is some problem over the citizenship issue. It is just possible that the words which were quoted in the House yesterday had some really deep significance and that this matter is not going to be disposed of as easily as the hon. the Minister and his supporters suggested yesterday. We shall support the amendment as well. We shall do so in the hope that this critical issue will be resolved.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment was sprung on me rather unexpectedly. [Interjections.] Wait a minute! The hon. member told me about it today during the Committee State. I have a copy here of his amendment. I believe the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has made out a very sound case from a legal-technical point of view, as he put it. I believe that a great deal can be said in favour of that. If the hon. member is satisfied with that, I should like to say that the first impression I gained of his amendment was that it should be accepted. However, we are now in the fortunate position that I am able to consider the matter calmly and then give effect to it in the Other Place, if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances I ask leave of the hon. Committee to withdraw my amendment. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to record the objection of my party to the withdrawal of that amendment. [Interjections.]

Mr.

Chairman, if that is the assistance the hon. member wants to give me, I shall immediately clinch the matter and say that I accept the amendment. [Interjections.]

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—100: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. 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.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft) R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I shall speak to amendments (3) and (4). During the last four days, in both the Second Reading debate, speeches and in the debate on other clauses in the Committee Stage the principle of citizenship of the new State to be created, i.e. citizenship by birth, by relationship or by choice, as opposed to citizenship by unilateral parliamentary decree, has been debated ad nauseam. To me it is interesting and, at the same time puzzling, that the hon. the Minister has not really deigned to answer the Opposition’s main arguments in this regard at all. I believe—and I say it somewhat sadly—that the hon. the Minister has to an extent treated the arguments of the Opposition in regard to the citizenship of this new State contemptuously. It is rather like the second-rate rugby player who is a little bit unfit, a little bit long in the tooth and perhaps over the hill and who is playing the man rather than the ball. In the process, the Government’s intransigent attitude has become very clear.

The amendments that have been proposed by the Opposition up to this point have not been accepted, and it is clear to us that it is to be citizenship not by choice, but rather citizenship by coercion. This is then no longer the simple matter of people exercising their right of self-determination. I say this because the hon. the Minister’s attitude denudes the Bill of any pretence of true self-determination. There is no question of choice at all. That principle having been decided, it is a question now, in the schedules, of looking to see what sections of the communities concerned are by virtue of these schedules to be coerced into citizenship of a new, and what will become a foreign, State.

A peremptory glance at paragraphs (0 and (g) of schedule B convinces any objective reader of these paragraphs that the net of enforced citizenship is cast very wide indeed, wider even, I think, than in the dream-world normally inhabited by members of the Government. Let us look at the relevant portion of paragraph (f)—

The words “speaks a language” do not imply that it has even to be the home language or the first language. There is an amendment in the name of the hon. member for Albany on the Order Paper and I hope the hon. the Minister will, when it is moved, give attention to it. Without that, the paragraph, in fact, makes very little sense. It could affect almost any of thousands of Blacks in South Africa who are bilingual, or better. Most Whites in South Africa speak two languages, English and Afrikaans. Some speak one language. However, the Blacks of South Africa are very often not only bilingual, but trilingual in the South African sense and even more than that, sometimes speaking three and four languages. I should like to quote an example. My employee in Johannesburg who, as far as I know, is not at this moment a citizen of any territory within the borders of the Republic, whose family have been urbanized and have intermarried over generations, and who speaks English, Afrikaans, Zulu, and, I think, Sotho and probably also a smattering of Xhosa, automatically will become a citizen of the Transkei, a territory with which he, to my knowledge, has no ties or affinity. Furthermore, in terms of the decision of the hon. the Minister in a previous clause, he now not even has the right of appeal should he believe that is an aggrieved person in regard to his citizenship. He must await a decision of a board if he is a doubtful case, a board which he cannot himself approach if he feels aggrieved.

Let me read only the relevant portion of paragraph (g) of schedule B—

The drafting of this is mind-boggling. It is mind blowing in its sloppiness, in its breadth. If I could use an Afrikaans word or, perhaps, even coin one, I would say it is “kopblasend”. In terms of the words “related to any member”, it might be a distant relation and not a close relation at all. One may find that a Black man has relations who are Xhosa as also who, perhaps, through marriage, are Zulu and belong to other tribes. What is meant by the words “identifies himself with”? What does the Black man have to do to “identify himself with”? Who is to make a decision in this regard? What right has he to give evidence if he himself is aggrieved by a decision of the board which is created? Take the words “culturally associated”. I, and many members on both sides of the House are by birth, by family and by friends, culturally associated with Afrikaans-speaking people. I am Culturally associated by ancestry with Scottish people. I am also culturally associated by language with Americans, New Zealanders and Australians. But, Sir, I am none of these. I am in fact, like all of us here, a South African. I would say that to use the words “culturally or otherwise” goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. When you take the words “Or otherwise associated”, which are totally undefined, you find the whole situation vaguer and more opaque than ever before. What does this “or otherwise” mean? Does it mean a business association? Does it perhaps mean a political association, an empathy in terms of a political viewpoint? Is there a form of definition which is intended by the legislature, or is it so vague as to be embarrassing? For, in casting the net so wide, in not defining precisely what we are meaning, the whole concept becomes unreal for the legislature, later for the judiciary and certainly for the people themselves concerned.

Finally I want to say that if we want the Transkei Republic to be a success, we must help to bring together those people who want to be together. If this Parliament locks into the Transkeian Republic a mass of unwilling citizens, are we not looking for trouble in the Republic of South Africa? Are we not burdening the Government of the Transkei with a large block of unwilling, dissident and potentially dangerous citizens, which augur ill for the future of that State? Sir, I move amendments (3) and (4) standing in my name, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in lines 16 to 22, to omit paragraph (f);
2. (2) on page 7, in lines 23 to 30, to omit paragraph (g).

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

1. (a) Every person who at the commencement of this Act is a citizen of the Transkei in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963 (Act No. 48 of 1963), and is domiciled or permanently resident in the Republic of the Transkei;
2. (b) every South African citizen who voluntarily acquires citizenship of the Republic of Transkei, with effect from the date of such acquisition.

In the light of the explanation which has been given here, I shall not move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper. Sir, we have already covered this field. The fact that virtually the same amendment was negatived in respect of clause 6, means that it does not really have much sense to occupy the time of this Committee by repeating the arguments. I should just like to say that when we deprive people of their citizenship without giving them any choice, we are not solving anything at all.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment as it is substantially the same as an amendment previously negatived by the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

This matter has been fully canvassed both during the Second Reading by myself and now in the Committee Stage by the hon. member for Sandton, but I do believe that it is necessary to have another look at this. I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept this amendment because as this paragraph reads at the moment the words “speaks a language” or “en ’n taal praat” are very wide when read with clause 6(1) and especially when read with paragraph (g) of the schedule. The amendment makes it clear that the criterion should be the home language of the person concerned. I believe that it is a closer definition which will make the position much clearer than it is at present.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany has moved what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable amendment. I believe that it is not only perfectly reasonable, but also absolutely imperative that this Committee should accept that amendment. I want, in all seriousness, to register the protest, not only of myself, but also of the hon. member for Albany and the hon. member for Umhlanga, because we find ourselves sitting here divesting ourselves of our South African citizenship. The three of us are all capable of speaking and do speak Xhosa.

In terms of paragraph (f) of schedule B, we find that with effect from the date which the State President proclaims this Bill to be an Act, we shall cease to be South African citizens. [Interjections.] I hear a lot of “Hear, hears” on the other side and I know that there are many members on that side of the House who would dearly love to see the three of us disappear out of this House because we have been an embarrassment on a number of occasions.

I was talking to my old friend, Fukut’ iHamba the other day, when he asked me what this Bill was all about. I had to say to him—

What I was saying to him was this: “The Government is taking me, simply because of the fact that I speak Xhosa, and making me no longer a South African citizen, but a citizen of Matanzima, a citizen of the Transkei.” I had to say more to my old friend, Fukut’ iHamba. I had to say—

[Interjections.]

Order! It is very difficult to follow the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I will translate so that you can follow me. I had to say to him that not only am I affected, but simply because of the relationship that I have with my wife and my children, they also will become citizens of the Transkei and cease to be citizens of the Republic of South Africa. I believe that paragraphs (f) and (g) of schedule B make a complete mockery of this. I do not believe that it was the intention of the hon. the Minister when the Bill was drawn up to phrase these paragraphs in that way. We have heard comment from hon. members regarding the sloppy and slipshod draftsmanship which has been used in the drafting of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendments of the hon. member for Albany to put right the injustice which I believe is being done to him, the hon. member for Albany, the hon. member for Umhlanga as well as to myself and many thousands of other South Africans.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the amendments of the hon. member for Sandton are concerned, I regret that I am unable to accept his amendments calling for the omission of paragraphs (f) and (g) of Schedule B. Paragraphs (f) and (g) of Schedule B refer to persons who have a cultural or other tie with the Transkei. There are many such people. I admit that people falling into those two categories may perhaps be people who may give rise to problems, but they are the very people whose cases may be considered by the board to which the hon. members referred. I do not think the hon. member is doing the people falling into that category any service by leaving them out of any category whatsoever. Consequently I am unable to accept the amendment, as the effect thereof will be unfair.

As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany is concerned, I read what a journalist wrote in the Press prior to the weekend. The hon. member also read that article and that is why he made the speech here the other day in which he ridiculed himself. The reference he made to himself and his wife in the other debate, is not relevant at all and is quite wrong. To try and remedy the position by the substitution of the words moved by the hon. member, however, i.e. to introduce the concept of home language will rather give rise to more difficulties than offer any solutions. The hon. member knows, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also knows, that there are people who have more than one home language. I have been wondering this afternoon whether that hon. member does not have more than one home language.

I have more than one home language.

Yes, it seems to me the hon. member has three or four home languages. That is the difficulty. What would happen if he were to be asked what home language he used? Which of the three or four home languages used by him would be the home language to be used as the criterion? In a Xhosa family one may have the case of a man who is a Xhosa and who speaks a Xhosa language being married possibly to a Pedi woman who speaks the Pedi language, or perhaps to a South Sotho who speaks the South Sotho language. Which of the two languages is to be the home language which is to be the decisive factor? There may perhaps be other languages as well.

May I ask a question?

I shall give the hon. member an opportunity to put a question in a moment. Therefore I do not think the hon. member is facilitating the matter by introducing the words “home language’ ’ in this regard and I would rather not have the matter made more involved. Consequently I am unable to accept his amendment. Had it been a more reasonable amendment. I could have considered it. Now the hon. member may put his question.

Mr. Chairman, if you do not use the words “home language”, but the words “first language”, would that not solve the problem?

No, the one person will want to have one language as his first language, and the other one will regard another language as being his first language. This merely gives rise to dispute. If one introduces the concept of “first language” or “home language”, the concept will have to be defined so as to circumscribe exactly what one means.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has mentioned certain difficulties here as far as a multi-language family is concerned. But are these factors not covered by paragraphs (b) and (c) of schedule B? These read as follows—

1. (b) Every person born in the Transkei of parents one or both of whom were citizens of the Transkei at the time of his birth;
2. (c) Every person born outside the Transkei whose father was a citizen of the Transkei at the time of his birth.

Even persons born out of wedlock are covered in paragraph (d) of schedule B. Are these difficulties not largely covered by these paragraphs? I believe we can overcome this situation, and I would make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister that if he is unable to accept this amendment now, he should give it his earnest consideration and think of drafting an amendment to this clause before he goes to the Other Place with this Bill. If this clause goes through as it stands at present, we are definitely going to have problems, and I do not think he can argue it away, because legally as the clause stands now, it does in fact make me and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs a citizen of the Transkei at the commencement of this Act. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give his serious attention to this and to move some other amendment when he takes this Bill to the Other Place.

Very well, I shall look at it, if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. the Minister to help him in his consideration of this before he takes this Bill to the Other Place, that the example that he gave is covered by (a), (b), (c) and (d), but (f) does not apply to those people. If the hon. the Minister looks at (f), he will see that it refers to a South African citizen who is not a citizen of a homeland, and the Venda or Pedi father would be a citizen of a homeland although not a citizen of the Transkei. The mother would be a citizen of the Transkei. So it does not apply in that case. I believe that he must give very serious consideration to this point, particularly on the grounds raised by the hon. member for Albany.

On amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling,

Question put: That all the words from “(f)” in line 16 up to and including “and” in line 19 stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J. Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Barlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosch, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer. Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. H. D. Deacon negatived.

On amendment (2) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling,

Question put: That the paragraph stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft) R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Schedule put and the Committee divided:

AYES—98: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—41: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G.

F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; 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 Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the PRP will be opposing the adoption of the First Report of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs. This deals with a land exchange. It has nothing to do with the 1936 Land Act, with the acquisition of land to fill the necessary quota. It is a simple exchange of land between one area and another; an exchange of land which was occupied by Africans in the Rooijantjiesfontein Bantu Reserve, in the District of Lichtenburg with an area elsewhere.

As far as I could understand from the deliberations during the Select Committee proceedings, the land to which the Africans are to be moved is further away from Lichtenburg, where a considerable number of them work. It was mentioned, though, that most of them were engaged in farming activities. Another reason why we oppose this is because there was no evidence that there had been agreement by the vast majority of the people concerned to this exchange of land, although there were consultations. For those reasons we will oppose this exchange of land.

Mr. Speaker, as will be seen from the report, the members of the Select Committee from this side of the House did not oppose the resolution in regard to the land in question. The resolution dealt with two things. It dealt with the acquisition as scheduled Bantu area of certain farms which are set out in paragraph 4 of the explanatory memorandum, and to that extent I do not agree with the exposition of the hon. member for Houghton. To the other extent it does of course deal with an exchange of detached land. An isolated pocket is to be exchanged for land—the farms that I have just mentioned—adjacent to the Bantu Reserve, to the west of Sannieshof.

The evidence before the Select Committee, which led us to adopt the attitude which we did, was, firstly, that the tribe had been consulted. Both the tribal chief and the council agreed to the exchange. There was evidence to the effect that a small group in the tribe had had second thoughts as to the move. Nevertheless, the evidence remains that there has been consultation with the chief, his council and the tribe, and that the great majority agreed to the move. It will be recalled that the attitude of this side of the House, when we were dealing with the question of the acquisition of land and the exchange of land and with the movement of communities of Bantu people at the time of the consolidation proposals, was consistent throughout in that we supported the resolutions where the evidence was that there had been proper consultation and that the majority of the people concerned had agreed. Be they Black or White, that was our standpoint. Where that was shown, we supported it. Where that was not shown, we voted against it. We have applied exactly the same criterion here. As I have said, the evidence is that there was proper consultation and that the great majority of those concerned agreed. The standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton reveals the bundle of inconsistencies which that party is. The House will recall that at the time of the consolidation proposals, when we had concrete evidence that there had not been proper consultation and that in those areas where there had been consultation, the people strongly opposed being moved, the PRP nevertheless voted with the Government in favour of the resolutions. The House will remember that. But now that there has been proper consultation …

That land had to be acquired under the 1936 Act.

That is quite all right; it is exactly the same principle and procedure. Now, on this occasion, where there has been proper consultation and when the people agreed to be moved, they are voting against it. However, we propose to support the resolution, as we did in the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, the removal of the people of Rooijantjiesfontein is taking place after proper consultation with the people concerned. There was consent to this removal, and one can understand why that was the case. The area which the tribe occupies at present is 8 789 ha in extent, while they are receiving 12 217 ha as compensatory land. In other words, they are now receiving a far larger area.

[Inaudible.]

Since the hon. member has made that interjection, I just want to say that the area to which these people are now moving is approximately 10 miles from Delareyville, where there are border area benefits. They will be approximately 20 miles from Sannieshof. In addition a major road will run right through the area—as the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke can testify. For this reason these people will be far more favourably situated than they were before. The land which they are now going to obtain, is also far better. Of the land which they now possess, 60% of the 8 700 ha is tillable and has been converted into fields, while 60% of the 12 200 ha which they are now going to receive is also tillable, which means that these people now have a far larger area on which they can produce field crops. In effect this means that these people are going to have almost 4 000 ha of land more where they are now going, as they have where they are now.

What is also important is the fact that the area to which they are now going has already been planned. Already there are five residential areas, with a total of 1 825 plots. Already there are two schools, as well as two clinics, while there were no clinics at Rooijantjiesfontein. In addition there are already 20 business sites. Another important fact is that this poorly situated and isolated Bantu area has to be moved so that it will fall within a Bantu area. In other words, it will be far better situated than before. The hon. member for Houghton always claims to be democratic, she always maintains that people have to be consulted, and that heed should be paid to the majority vote. The hon. member is fully aware that according to the evidence before the Select Committee the tribe is almost a 100% prepared to move …

That is not true.

The hon. member must listen carefully to me now. Evidence was submitted to the Select Committee that virtually the entire tribe was prepared to move. The hon. member is now saying that this is not true. The hon. member did not listen carefully to what went on in the Select Committee, for that evidence was indeed submitted to the committee. Recently, however—so it is said—negative influences have been discernible. Now, I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton was perhaps moving around in that vicinity, or whether the hon. member for Pinelands has perhaps been there. If those hon. members have perhaps been there, I shall readily assume that a strongly negative influence was exerted. At the same time, however, I must also say that if the two hon. members were there, the extent of the negative influence, the effect of it, would have been very slight, for they will not be very effective with those people.

Just as their influence here in the Parliament is also very slight.

As is the case in Parliament, as the hon. the Minister said, they will not be able to achieve much there. What I want to know from the hon. member for Houghton is on what basis she can oppose the removal, for she has no evidence that the majority of the people of Rooijantjiesfontein do not want to move. That is the point. There may perhaps be a few agitators. I shall readily concede that; I shall make her a present of that argument; perhaps she and the hon. member for Pinelands did upset matters a little. However, she has no evidence that the majority of the people do not want to move. But there is evidence that the majority of the people do want to move because they will be occupying better land with a larger area. I want to support his removal very strongly.

Mr. Speaker, I must now enter the debate to make peace like a dignified elder between the two groups opposite. [Interjections.]

We do not want peace; we want war. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana dealt very harshly with the hon. member for Houghton, and I can understand his doing so. I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that I appreciate the attitude of the Opposition as well as the recognition which they accorded for the consultation with the Bantu people which took place; and I also appreciate the realistic approach.

To the hon. member for Houghton I want to say that she need not be concerned that the people will be unemployed or anything of that nature. She referred to the fact that they will perhaps be a little further from Lichtenburg. The hon. member for Lydenburg, the chairman of the Select Committee, dealt effectively with that statement. The hon. member for Houghton, as a member of the Select Committee, had the information in front of her.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton is only interested in the hon. member for Lichtenburg now, and has no interest in me. And what is worse, this is the case while I am reacting to her speech. I want to tell the hon. member she ought to realize that with more land, there are greater opportunities for these people in the new areas to which they are moving than in the areas from which they come, greater opportunities, too, in the sense that they are now being consolidated with their own homelands. Where they were, they were completely isolated, in a White area, and did not have the same space to move about in as they now have, adjoining as they do their own Bantu homeland, and where they may be developed to far better effect by their own Governments, in conjunction with the other community. The facilities are there. I want to predict that we will never again hear about Deelpan after these people have been moved, just as we never, not even from the hon. member for Houghton, hear anything further about Madukwe and Morsgat. We no longer hear anything about those places, because those areas have become properly established and well developed, and some of the critics who attacked the move at the time now praise it in their writings. We shall have the same experience here in future.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of the amendments as contained in clause 1 of the Bill is, inter alia, to make the re-insurance which the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund is authorized to undertake in terms of section 7(1 )(a) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1972 (Act 56 of 1972) applicable as well to risks which competent insurers accept when motor vehicles insured by them are used in countries outside the Republic in which the insurance of the Republic is recognized.

Perhaps it would be appropriate if I first explained to hon. members how it came about that the insurance of the Republic is, in certain cases, recognized outside the Republic. After our third party legislation came into operation in 1946, an agreement was reached between the Government of the Republic—at that time the Union—and the High Commissioner of the former protectorates of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland that if legislation similar to that which was applicable in the Republic were introduced in those areas, mutual recognition would be accorded to the insurance issued in terms of the legislation in question, so that it would not be necessary for motorists who travelled frequently from the one area to the other to take out third party insurance at the borders on each occasion.

However, there was a condition attached to this arrangement, viz. that the insurers issuing such insurance in the areas concerned had to furnish the respective Governments with an undertaking that when a motor vehicle that had been insured in the one area caused an accident in the other area, the insurer concerned would pay compensation in terms of the legislation of the territory in which the accident occurred. In 1948 such an undertaking was jointly furnished by the insurers concerned. All compensation thus paid out was for the own account of the insurer concerned, but with the establishment of the consortium this position changed as far as members of the consortium were concerned in that risks in respect of insurance issued in the Republic were re-insured from that date with the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund, which was also established then.

Since the premiums collected by the members of the consortium are paid over to the fund, minus their commission of course, it was accepted that the re-insurance by the fund also covered the risks in respect of the undertakings which the members of the consortium furnished during 1948 to the Governments of the then Protectorates. However, doubt has now arisen as to whether this is in fact the case, and in order to place the matter beyond any doubt, the amendment of section 7(1) of the Act, as contained in the Bill, is being proposed, with retrospective effect as from 16 January 1965.

For the information of hon. members it ought to be explained here that although the consortium was established with effect from 1 May 1965, an agreement was reached with members of the consortium to pay over the premiums, less commission, collected by them before that date in respect of motor dealers’ vehicles and in respect of which the insurance year extended at the time from 16 January in the one year to 15 January in the ensuing year, to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund, and that the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund would also re-insure the risk arising out of such insurance.

In view of the coming independence of the Transkei, and the possible future independence of other areas which form part of the Republic, it is necessary to amend the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act in such a way that interim measures may be adopted in those States which have not yet, with independence, introduced the necessary measures for the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles. Hence it is also being provided in clause 1 that the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund may, subject to an agreement between the Governments of the Republic and the independent State, employ its funds for the payment of damages in respect of damage caused by uninsured and unidentified motor vehicles in such a State after independence. Such a measure is deemed to be justified since insurance issued in such an area prior to independence in terms of the Republic Act will, as will be observed from the provisions of clause 2 of the Bill, remain in force after independence until the end of the relevant insurance period. In addition, competent insurers in the Republic will, subject to the said agreement, still be able to issue insurance in that State. Since the premiums in respect of such insurance will be received by the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund in the Republic the risks arising from the driving of uninsured and unidentified motor vehicles should also be accepted by the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund.

To ensure that everything functions smoothly, section 21 of Act 56 of 1972 is first being amended by clause 2 to provide, as I have already mentioned, that insurance issued prior to the independence of a territory which previously formed part of the Republic, will remain in force until the end of the insurance year in question. This arrangement is deemed necessary to prevent motorists having to obtain new insurance on the date of independence and having to return existing insurance tokens to competent insurers for repayment of a pro-rata portion of the premium. It will also ensure that the number of uninsured motor vehicles will be limited to the minimum, since many motorists will not become aware overnight of the new requirements in regard to third party insurance.

Secondly, the proposed amendment of section 21 of Act 56 of 1972 seeks to provide that competent insurers within the Republic of South Africa are empowered, after such a territory has become independent, to continue to issue third party insurance within the new State until the end of the insurance year during which such independence was gained, or until the end of such period as may be determined by agreement between the Governments of the States concerned.

In addition it is also being provided that insurance entered into by virtue of such an agreement in the State in question, will be in force in the Republic as though the insurance were in terms of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. the Minister has made this matter clear, particularly as far as it affects Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, for there was in fact a measure of doubt in that regard. I am pleased the hon. the Minister has cleared up the position. Of course there are other countries, situated close to our borders, that are also involved. In fact, I wondered why a similar arrangement could not also be made in respect of Rhodesia, for example, and I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister would, for the sake of interest, inform members about this.

As I understand the position it means that if the Transkei were to become independent on 26 October, the legislation with regard to motor insurance would no longer be valid there. The Bill is now providing that such insurance will remain valid until the present insurance period expires on 30 April of next year. After that the new position applies, and it is being provided in the legislation that if an agreement is concluded between the Transkei and the Republic the insurance will apply to both areas. Members of the Official Opposition have no objection to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to express the attitude of members on these benches to this legislation. As we see it, this legislation is purely consequential to the introduction to the Status of the Transkei Bill. We have no quarrel with the Bill and therefore support it.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much to reply to. The hon. member for Maitland merely referred to Rhodesia. Naturally the circumstances which prevailed in respect of the former protectorate as far as the old arrangement was concerned were different to those in the case of Rhodesia. As far as the new arrangement is concerned, there are circumstances which arose in the interior which compelled the Government to introduce this amendment so that it could be provided that there would always be third party insurance. I assume that it is possible to make such arrangements in respect of Rhodesia as well, but I do not think that that is relevant to this discussion.

What happened in the case of Mozambique?

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, by way of interjection, during the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister what the position in Mozambique is and he rather laughed the matter off. We had a similar agreement that if one went in with South African third party insurance, one filled in the necessary forms at the border and one was then covered while in Mozambique. Is the hon. the Minister able to tell the House what has happened since the collapse of Portugal? With the withdrawal of Portugal is there any sort of cover for a motorist going to Maputo, and what will happen to any claims which may be pending under the old agreement which existed?

Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that in the case of both Mozambique and Rhodesia third party insurance is taken out on the borders, as one might have expected in the case of Mozambique. Consequently there are no other similar arrangements such as those which we are now making in respect of the Transkei.

Who is going to pay?

The person who wants the third party insurance.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of the proposed amendment, as contained in clause 1 of the Bill, is to make provision for the power to conclude an agreement with the Transkeian Government in regard to the conveyance of persons and/or goods from one part of the Transkei to the other over the territory of the Republic of South Africa.

I can explain the necessity for the proposed amendment to hon. members by means of a brief explanation of the background to the matter.

The functions of the Local Road Transportation Board, Umtata, were transferred to the Transkeian Government with effect from 1 July 1972. This resulted in the Transkeian Road Transportation Board having jurisdiction only within the borders of the Transkei, and similarly that the various road transportation boards of the Republic of South Africa having no jurisdiction over motor carrier transportation matters within the Transkei.

However, to make it possible for road carriers to travel over the territories of the Republic of South Africa and the Transkei without unnecessary hindrance a mutual agreement was reached at the time between our Government and the Government of the Transkei on an informal basis that if no persons or goods were loaded or unloaded such conveyance could take place without road transportation authorization.

The working committee which deals with matters relating to the Transkeian independence has, however, arrived at the conclusion that it would be preferable to prepare a more formal document in which the existing informal arrangements may be laid down by way of agreement.

There is no provision in the existing legislation for the conclusion of such an agreement, and therefore it is necessary for such provision to be made now.

In the Transkeian Road Transportation Act similar provision will have to be made for such through-conveyance from point to another point in the Republic of South Africa over Transkeian territory.

After this Bill was read a First Time, the Government law advisers felt that possible uncertainty could arise over the precise place at which the relevant paragraph (q) should be inserted.

Although it is clearly apparent from clause 1, read in conjunction with the long title, that this paragraph should be inserted in the definition of “motor carrier transportation”, it will be desirable, for technical reasons, to rectify the position, and I shall move the necessary amendment in this regard during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a direct bearing on the independence of the Transkei on 26 October, and naturally, for that reason, one has no objection to it. However, it is interesting to see that we are dealing here with a term “Republic of Transkei”. This is of course a concept which does not exist, and I have just asked my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point, where this Republic is. So far he has been unable to tell me. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that, an hour or so ago in this House, a heated argument arose on the question as to whether one may in fact refer to the Republic of Transkei. I am afraid we lost the argument, for there is no such State as the Republic of Transkei. It seems to me the hon. gentleman will have to rectify the matter. I wonder whether he will not give the undertaking to rectify this in the Other Place, for only an hour ago the House decided not to accept the term “Republic of Transkei” at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the impending independence of the Transkei makes the introduction of this Bill necessary.

Not so “impending” any more.

It is made necessary in view of the fact that the national road, for example, coming from the north crosses the Transkei border two or three times, if I remember correctly. This means that any vehicle proceeding from one section of the Transkei to another will be in Republican territory two or three times unless the roads themselves are altered to remain within the territory of the Transkei. This is merely a piece of legislation that has to be passed in view of the pending acceptance of the legislation on the status of the Transkei. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the comment of the hon. member for Maitland, I just want to point out that clause 2 provides that this legislation will only come into operation when the Transkei receives its independence. I shall nevertheless undertake to discuss the matter which he raised with the legal experts, and if necessary I shall propose the required amendment in the Other Place.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that amendment, but I myself wish to move—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 8, to omit “Republic of”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 10, to omit “Republic of”;
3. (3) on page 3, in lines 16 and 17, to omit “Republic of”.

I think I am doing the hon. the Minister a service. I am, of course, always pleased to assist this hon. Minister, and since I know how the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development reacts when he is dealing with naughty children who do not toe the line, I would hate that to happen to the hon. the Minister. After what he said when we tried to use the term “Republic of Transkei” in an amendment, it would be most unfortunate if the hon. the Minister of Transport were also subjected to such castigation. I therefore move this amendment to remove any possible embarrassment for the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in order not to embarrass the hon. member for Durban Point, I shall accept his amendment.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of the Railways and Harbours Pensions for non-Whites Act, 1974 (Act No. 43 of 1974), a foreign Bantu—i.e. a Bantu who was not born in the Republic of South Africa or the territory of South West Africa—does not qualify for membership of the Pension Fund established under the Act. A foreign Bantu is also not entitled to an annuity under the provisions of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Amendment Act, 1941 (Act No. 26 of 1941).

Transkeian Bantu in the employ of the South African Railways will be regarded as foreign Bantu when the Transkei becomes independent later this year, and as they will then not be entitled to the benefits they presently enjoy in terms of Act 26 of 1941 or Act 43 of 1974, it is proposed by means of this Bill to provide for the payment of pension benefits to Bantu employees born in an independent State which prior to attaining independence formed part of the Republic or of South West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as in the case of the previous measure, this side of the House has no objection to the Bill. It seems to us to be a logical consequence of the independence of the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches have no quarrel with this Bill which is purely consequential as a result of Transkeian independence.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill provides for the construction of two new railway lines, namely a guaranteed single line from Thabazimbi to a terminal point at the farm Naauw Ontkomen near Ellisras in the north-western Transvaal and a guaranteed single line from Nseleni station on the Natal north coast to a terminal point on a farm known as K 44, No. 13587, north of Richards Bay.

The Railways and Harbours Board has investigated both proposals and recommended the construction of the lines. Full particulars concerning the proposed schemes are furnished in the report of the board which has already been tabled.

The need for a railway line between Thabazimbi and Naauw Ontkomen arises from the decision taken by Iscor to exploit the corporation’s coal fields in the vicinity of Ellisras. The intention is to produce between 3,6 million and 4 million tons of coal at the mine every year, the bulk of which will at first be railed to Vanderbijlpark. The line will be guaranteed against possible operating losses and the term of the agreement concluded with Iscor in this connection extends over 30 years. The capital expenditure on the line, including interest, will be recovered within the guarantee period by means of levying a special surcharge on all outgoing traffic, which will also be used for indemnifying the Administration against operating losses during the guarantee period.

The railway line, which will be electrified, will be approximately 113 km long—or approximately 146 km with the necessary loop facilities—and the terminal station will be built about 17 km west of Ellisras. The terminal station, which will provide for the handling of goods and passenger traffic, will serve a private siding of approximately 15 km to the coal fields.

Because a new block load yard with a length of 1 350 metres and a gradient of one on 800 is required, and the geography of the terrain at the existing Thabazimbi station does not lend itself to this, the intention is to build a new station about 5 km from the existing station where a suitable location is available alongside the proposed new line. The existing station will be closed down and all goods and passenger facilities will be provided at the new station.

The construction cost of the proposed Thabazimbi/Naauw Ontkomen line is estimated at R41 million.

†As indicated in the board’s report, the companies Richards Bay Iron and Titanium (Pty.) Ltd. and Tisand (Pty.) Ltd. approached the Administration through the Industrial Development Corporation in regard to the construction of a railway line between Nseleni and the farm K 44, No. 13587. The line is required in connection with a project involving the reclamation by Tisand (Pty.) Ltd. of the minerals ilmenite, rutile and zircon in an area stretching over a distance of 17 km to the north of Richards Bay, and the establishment by Richards Bay Iron and Titanium (Pty.) Ltd. of smelting facilities in proximity of the ore body. The heavy mineral concentrate will be conveyed by road from the reclamation area to the smelter approximately 12 km to the north of Richards Bay, where it will be separated, and the ilmenite upgraded to high-grade titanium slag and low-grade manganese iron. The bulk of the product is to be exported through Richards Bay harbour.

As difficulties were foreseen in obtaining the necessary rights of way for the line, the companies formally requested the Administration to acquire the land at their cost. The companies have undertaken to finance the line and to construct it and the associated facilities to departmental standards, and on completion thereof, to hand these over to the Administration who will then exploit the line under guarantee conditions. This offer is acceptable to the Administration, especially as it will not be called upon to invest any capital in the construction of the line.

The guarantee agreement will extend over a period of twenty years. The companies will not receive any compensation when the line is taken over by the Administration, but the capital investment of the companies will be recovered during the term of the agreement. As the Railways will also be indemnified against operating losses during the guarantee period, provision is being made in the agreement for the payment of a special surcharge which will be used to defray any losses which may be sustained in the working of the line during the guarantee period, and to refund the companies their capital investment. The special surcharge which the companies will be required to pay in respect of the capital investment will be credited monthly to their ledger accounts, so that they will, in effect, not pay any surcharge in so far as capital redemption is concerned. The surcharge which may be collected from other consignors will, together with any surpluses from the operation of the line, be utilized annually for the redemption of the capital invested by the companies. The Administration will, therefore, not gain financially from the exploitation of the line until such time as the capital investment of the companies has been fully accounted for. The proposed line will be approximately 6,72 km long and the cost of construction is estimated to be of the order of R2 352 000.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, this Bill deals with the construction of two railway lines. These are two lines which have both been investigated and approved by the Railways and Harbours Board. There are only a few questions left which I should like to ask, especially in view of the fact that both are guaranteed lines and that the Railways Administration will therefore not be running the risk of suffering any losses.

The first point that interests me is the question of the construction cost per mile in regard to the two lines. Now I notice that in the case of the line to be built by the Railways, the construction cost per mile amounts to approximately R365 000, while the cost is just over R330 000 in the case of the line to be constructed by a private concern. One realizes that topographical circumstances vary from place to place, and that therefore it is difficult to compare costs of this nature. What interests me, however, is the fact that there must surely be some basis on which comparisons can be made.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give any indication of what it cost Iscor to build the railway line between Sishen and Saldanha Bay. I am referring now to the cost per mile. I take it that in the case of the latter line, they encountered just about all the topographical circumstances imaginable. It must be remembered that the line extends over more than 800 km. Therefore it may be a very interesting indication of the comparative building costs of the Railways and of a private concern.

Surely it is a very easy route.

No, Sir, that route is quite expensive. Another matter to which I should like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention—and now I am referring to the Iscor line in particular—is the extremely complicated way in which the so-called special surcharge will be calculated; the “spesiale ekstrakoste”.

Glancing through the agreement, it seems to me that Iscor will be held responsible for obtaining the tariff revenue, a revenue which will have to be used for defraying the operating expenditure on the one hand and which will have to cover interest and capital redemption on the other hand. These seem to me to be two cost factors with which one will be concerned over a period of 30 years. Now I imagine that the simplest way in which this can be done is to exploit the line for one year, to draw up a budget at the end of the year, to calculate all costs—expenditure and revenue—and then to inform Iscor of the loss suffered by the Railways in operating the undertaking. Let Iscor then simply make good the loss. I do not know why this extremely complicated procedure is being followed. There are two clauses which both deal with the calculation of costs, and each of those clauses consists of quite a number of paragraphs. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not try to find a simpler method for calculating these costs.

I have the privilege—perhaps it is not a privilege at all—of having a railway line built through my constituency at this very moment. The hon. the Minister should have a letter in his possession in which I complain about circumstances which are being created by the construction of this railway line. The environment has been spoilt by the construction of the line. I do not want to stand in the way of progress, but I do want the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that as far as these two lines are concerned, especially since the one will run along the beautiful Natal coast, the construction of these lines will not interfere with the beauty of the environment. This is an important factor, so I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do his best in this connection to ensure that as little damage as possible will be done to the scenery there. For the rest, this side of the House supports the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Maitland, I am not lucky enough to have a railroad running through my constituency, but I feel equally strongly about the environmental aspect when any railway is built. We in these benches shall support the Bill. However, I have one comment to make in the form of a question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister. It appears to me that Iscor is getting a considerable good deal out of this. Obviously, I think it is in the interests of the country that this line be built, in the interest of building up an infrastructure for Iscor. However, looking at the agreement about how the Railways are to be reimbursed by Iscor for the construction of this line, we find that in the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister he says that the Administration is guaranteed against possible running losses. Looking at clause 6 of the agreement, page 9, I see that the cost of the capital invested in the railway will not be taken into account in determining operating loss. Obviously, the recovery of capital and interest charges over a period of a year must apply to a specific interest charge. There appears to be some sort of confusion as the result of clause 6(1)(a) and (b). It is not quite clear where we stand as far as interest charges are concerned. Are we assured that the interest we shall be paid by Iscor, is going to be the same as that capital cost us? Obviously, if the Railways is providing the capital, it is going to come from loan capital, which is very expensive indeed at present. I should like to have the assurance of the hon. the Minister that the Railways are going to be reimbursed for that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland referred in the first place to the cost of the railway lines per kilometre and asked whether this could be related to the railway line built by Iscor from Sishen to Saldanha Bay. From the nature of the case, this question is affected by several factors. The hon. member said quite rightly that the topography, i.e. the environment, plays a very important role. The hon. member said that in building the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha, they probably worked under all kinds of circumstances. I do not think that is quite correct, for I doubt whether one could very easily build a railway line of 850 km under more favourable conditions than were experienced by them in building that one. They had to cross only two big rivers, i.e. the Orange River and the Elephants River. For the rest, that railway line runs over very level terrain. The area has a low rainfall, so there has not been much erosion of the soil. For this reason, they did not encounter so many gulleys, rivers and problems as they could have. However, there are other factors as well which obviously play a part when a railway line is being constructed. The second important factor is probably the standard of the line. The higher the standard of the line, the heavier the sleepers that are used and the stronger the foundations of the line have to be, etc. For this reason, it would not be wise just to divide the capital cost by the number of kilometres in an attempt to make a comparison. There are many other facets one must take into consideration to arrive at any kind of conclusion.

The hon. member then spoke of the surcharge that was being imposed. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the type of agreement we have in this case, especially with regard to the surcharge as it appears in clause 6(1) of the Iscor agreement and in clause 6(2) of the other agreement, is the standard agreement which is followed. The same type of procedure is followed in the construction of many other railway lines. In the case of the line from Thabazimbi to Ellisras, the capital is provided by the Railways itself. Therefore the Railways has to borrow the capital. Now I want to reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove straight away. The cost of the capital will be covered completely, not only the capital, therefore, but also what it costs the Railways in terms of interest. All this will be covered by the surcharge which is imposed upon Iscor in respect of the transportation of goods. As I have said, in the case of Iscor, the capital is provided by the Railways. The line is built by the Railways. Then the expenditure in terms of capital and interest, plus the cost of operating the line, are taken into consideration in determining the levy.

In the other case, the position is somewhat different, for in that case it is not the responsibility of the Railways to provide the capital. The line is built by the companies themselves. The usual tariffs are levied and then there is a surcharge which is to provide for the additional things. In the case of the Ellisras-Thabazimbi line, the surcharge is intended for capital redemption by the Railways; in the case of the other railway line, it is intended for capital redemption by the companies. So a surcharge is imposed on the tariffs, in the first place, to provide for the redemption of capital plus interest, and in the second place, to have a fund which will indemnify the Railways against possible losses. The amounts will be paid into the fund. As regards the Natal line, the line to Richards Bay, the amount which is obtained by means of this surcharge will be paid over to the company from time to time for the redemption of the capital cost. It is not such a complicated system as the hon. member gave out to us. It has been in operation for years. The system is very flexible, as I shall explain. From time to time, as circumstances change, the surcharge can be raised or lowered. On every occasion when the surcharge is to be raised or lowered, it is submitted to me as the responsible Minister, for my approval. This is a procedure which has proved to be practicable, because we have used it successfully in the past. Now we are using it here as well, as we have used it in other agreements of this nature. I do not think there is anything else to which I have to reply.

What about the spoiling of the scenery?

Oh, yes. The hon. member also spoke of the scenery. He was referring in particular to the railway line through Maitland, his constituency. Someone then asked by way of interjection where the scenery in Maitland was.

Well?

I do not wish to offend the hon. member’s constituency; perhaps the scenery is there. However that may be, I should like to assure the hon. member that we shall do everything in our power, in constructing the railway line, to restrict to a minimum the damage to the environment, in so far as there has to be any damage—sometimes it is unavoidable.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Right at the outset I want to say that it has been agreed that I should avail myself of this opportunity to furnish an elucidation of this Bill because it has already been found that there is great public interest in the Bill. Since I am aware that the Bill will evoke considerable discussion, I shall simply present my introductory speech to elucidate the Bill, after which it will be moved that the debate be adjourned. I consider it important to explain in broad outline at this stage what is being envisaged with this Bill.

The Urban Transport Bill, 1976, has its origin in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Urban Transport Facilities in the Republic—the Driessen Report—and the accompanying White Paper, which were both tabled here and in the Other Place during the 1975 session.

I accept that hon. members are thoroughly aware of the recommendations contained in this Report and White Paper, and consequently I am not going to repeat them. Pursuant to the alarming facts disclosed in the Driessen Report concerning the urban transport situation in the Republic, the Government accepted it as axiomatic that the entire urban transport question should be tackled on a national basis by expanding the functions of the National Transport Commission to include the formulation of urban transport policies and the general supervision over and co-ordination of all matters concerning urban transport in the Republic.

Having regard to the object of the commission as contained in the Transport (Coordination) Act, 1948 (Act No. 44 of 1948), viz. “to promote and encourage the development of transport in the Republic and, where necessary, to co-ordinate various phases of transport in order to achieve the maximum benefit and economy of transport service to the public” it is not fortuitous that the new functions are being entrusted to the National Transport Commission.

For that reason the Government has decided that the membership of the commission be increased from eight to 11 members, and a Transport (Co-ordination) Amendment Bill, 1976, to this effect has already been tabled in this House and read a First Time.

It is common knowledge that the Driessen Report and the said White Paper have been greeted with great acclamation from almost all quarters and in the Press, despite the restrictive nature of some of the measures thus contemplated—truly an encouraging reaction which is indicative of the concern with which the average member of the public, and in particular the urban dweller, regards the increasing congestion of traffic in our metropolitan areas.

The large cities in our country are precious national assets, and it has become quite clear that the urban transport problems can no longer be regarded solely as the responsibility of the cities. It is in the national interests that there should be a co-ordinating authority to assist the major cities with the traffic problems with which they are faced. It is essential that individual local authorities in a metropolitan area be combined in a metropolitan area without losing their identity, to facilitate and to ensure joint and co-ordinated action on the part of all the interested bodies.

It was gratifying to receive the full and unqualified support and co-operation of all concerned to promote the matter in its entirety and on a well-considered basis, and consequently I wish to express my sincere gratitude to everyone for their cordial cooperation, which contributed to the formulation of the Bill which you have before you today.

After the original publication of the Bill interest on the part of both the public and private sectors of the community in the matter flared up to such an extent that both my department and I have been literally overwhelmed with work and representations for the amendment or supplementation of the provisions of the Bill.

Once again these representations testified throughout to the spirit of willing co-operation to which I referred a moment ago, and the fact that I found it necessary to request this House to withdraw the Bill which was originally introduced, and subsequently tabled a new Bill, testifies to the particular value which I attached to several of the amendments or additions which were suggested by a variety of bodies.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended for the supper adjournment I was indicating the interest that has been expressed in the proposals contained in the Driessen Report, and the way in which the recommendations have been accepted with acclamation by various bodies.

As far as the Bill as such is concerned, its outstanding feature is undoubtedly the establishment of a co-ordinating authority and the linking together of the various government levels, each in its own sphere, into a powerful organization to tackle and overcome the urban transport problems systematically and in an organized manner.

In the framework of the Bill powers are consequently being conferred upon and functions prescribed for, inter alia, the National Transport Commission, the Provincial Administrations, the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards and Core Cities which have to be established and designated, respectively, and for the local authorities in so far as their areas of jurisdiction will form part of declared metropolitan areas.

Hon. members will appreciate that I will not be able, within the scope of this speech, to go into all the powers and/or functions, but I nevertheless want to indicate the most important of these in order to indicate the connection between and the function task of each of the bodies or components involved.

In terms of clauses 4 and 5 the National Transport Commission is designated as the directive and co-ordinating body for the achievement of the objects of the proposed legislation.

Clause 4 provides for the functions which the commission shall perform, while clause 5 grants powers to the commission which may be exercised in the discretion of the commission.

The most important functions of the commission, which may be performed only with the approval of the Minister of Transport, are the formulation, application and control of an urban transport policy in any metropolitan area and the determination of the functions of any body involved in the implementation of such policy.

Inter alia the commission shall also by itself, or in collaboration with or through the agency of the National Institute for Transport and Road Research of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, do research or cause research to be done in regard to urban transport matters as well as co-ordinate and ensure that persons undertaking public urban transport apply effective management practices to protect the interests of the travelling public.

As far as the powers of the commission are concerned, the emphasis undoubtedly falls on the consideration and approval, with or without changes, of transport plans in connection with a metropolitan area submitted to it by the Administrator in question. In the event of the commission and an Administrator not being able to reach an agreement on such a transport plan, the final decision rests with the responsible Minister.

To perform these functions and exercise these powers naturally requires funds, and consequently provision is being made for the establishment of an Urban Transport Fund and a Metropolitan Transport Fund. It is necessary to draw a clear distinction between the two funds, since the National Transport Commission exercises control over the Urban Transport Fund and the Core City administers the Metropolitan Transport Fund. In addition the sources and the application of the funds differ from one another.

The sources of the Urban Transport Fund and the Metropolitan Transport Fund, respectively, are set out in full in clauses 7 and 17.

Although the funds are primarily strengthened from the above-mentioned sources, clause 20(2)(a) and (b) provides that levies in terms of clause 20(1)(a) and (b) shall be paid into the Urban Transport Fund and the Metropolitan Transport Fund, respectively.

The levy and permit system to which reference is made in clause 20(1)(a) is primarily aimed at discouraging traffic in specific areas where traffic congestion occurs, by means of the levying of entrance fees. This is a very flexible system since it will be based on supply and demand. If the levy is too high and too many motor vehicles are discouraged from entering the area concerned, it may be reduced or, if the position is reversed, the levy may be increased until a sound balance is struck. In addition the levy may only be put into operation for certain times of the day.

Since this is a drastic procedure it will be put into operation with great circumspection, and will begin on a small scale and be proceeded with by stages.

Moneys expended out of the Urban Transport Fund, to which I referred previously, will consist primarily of allocations to an Administrator or a local authority to defray a specific part of the costs incurred in the conducting or preparation of a transport study, investigation or project, as well as allocations in partial defrayal of relevant costs incurred in regard to the purchase of road building equipment, traffic control equipment and the replacement or improvement of bus facilities, the operation of a public urban passenger transportation service, and so.

It is therefore clear, Mr. Speaker, that the task of the National Transport Commission in the sphere of urban transport will be of an extremely comprehensive nature, as a result of which the necessary professional, administrative and other auxiliary staff will have to be placed at the disposal of the commission. Consequently the necessary preparatory work in this regard has already been done by the department of Transport.

I come now to the second level of government in the functional structure, as set out in the Bill, namely the Provincial Administrations, or rather the Administrators.

The Bill is interspersed with provisions dealing with the functions and powers of an Administrator in achieving the envisaged objects, and it would, in my opinion, be correct to say that the most fundamental of these is the liaison function between the commission and the other constituent elements, particularly in so far as the submission of transport projects is concerned.

In point of fact the Administrator, supported by the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board, is the pivot around which everything turns, as appears from the fact that a metropolitan area or a Core City may only be declared or designated after consultation with him in terms of clauses 2(1) and 3 respectively; that he may, after consultation with the commission, conduct or prepare a study or project, or cause such study or project relating to transport to be conducted or prepared in respect of the jurisdiction of one or more local authorities with a view to the establishment of a metropolitan area; and that he has to appoint the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Council—to mention only a few of his functions.

Just as in the case of the National Transport Commission it is necessary for staff to be at the disposal of an Administrator and the Metropolitan Advisory Council to take charge of the administration in a particular sphere, and consequently clause 10 makes provision for the designation of a Director of Metropolitan Transport in each Provincial Administration, and for making officers of the Administrations available to assist the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards.

The provisions of clauses 11 and 12 for the appointment and composition of Metropolitan Advisory Boards are of particular importance in that representatives of all the interested governmental bodies—central, provincial and local—as well as representatives of organized commerce and industries, and such other interested parties as an Administrator may deem fit, are brought together in one board to give consideration to urban transport matters, to inform or to advise an Administrator in that regard, and to promote co-operation among local authorities for the preparation of an effective transport project.

Hon. members will undoubtedly agree with me that an extremely important breakthrough is being made here in this way to co-ordinate urban transport planning and the provision of adequate urban transport facilities in a meaningful and organized manner, to the benefit of the service organizations as well as the public as a whole.

In future local authorities whose areas of jurisdiction fall completely or partially within a declared metropolitan area will only be able to implement urban projects in respect of the aforementioned areas of jurisdiction after such projects have been approved by the National Transport Commission.

In addition such local authorities will, in terms of clause 20(1)(b), be able to impose certain levies, determined or approved from time to time in accordance with an approved transport project by the commission after consultation with the Administrator, on certain land, buildings, parking places and loading zones in their areas of jurisdiction, which shall every month be paid into a Consolidated Metropolitan Transport Fund established for each of the declared metropolitan areas in terms of the proposed legislation.

As has already been explained earlier, the administration of this fund vests, in accordance with the provisions of clause 16, in a Core City, which city will, in accordance with clause 3, be designated for a metropolitan area by the Minister at the request of the commission after consultation with the Administrator concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has tempted fate by introducing such a far-reaching measure on this calm, peaceful, Thursday evening. It is a matter of such deep significance to South Africa that I think it should be fairly thoroughly debated. Although I shall not use the privilege of the hour, which I could have requested under these circumstances, I think I must refer to the Bill which the hon. the Minister has just proposed.

In a way it is unfortunate that the procedure we are adopting has had to be adopted because this problem of urban strangulation is an urgent problem and we would therefore have liked to see the matter tackled immediately. On the other hand, there is merit in delaying consideration of this measure because there will now be a recess during which interested parties can study the measure, study the hon. the Minister’s speech and make representations both to the Government and to the Opposition so that when we meet to discuss this measure next year, we will perhaps be better informed than we are at the moment about some of the implications as far as local authorities and municipalities are concerned.

I shall consequently not be taking this matter any further at this stage other than to make an appeal to all who are concerned or interested in this subject to study it very carefully during the recess.

*Finally, I should like to associate myself with the good wishes extended by the hon. the Minister to the retiring Secretary of Transport. I think Mr. Driessen and I have something in common. I suppose there are people who do not regard either of us as being their “blueeyed boys”. Both of us have perhaps experienced in our careers that there were people who supported us and others who, although they were not really hostile towards us, were not exactly well-disposed towards us. We should like to wish Mr. Driessen well on his retirement and express the wish that his retirement will be a long, happy and healthy one. We hope that he and his good lady will be able to enjoy the fruits of their many years’ of service in the public service of South Africa.

To Mr. Eksteen, his successor, our best wishes. We shall trouble him when it is necessary to do so. We shall look for problems and do our job, but we shall afford him the same recognition we afford all public servants as the people who really keep the wheels turning. We wish him everything of the best in the responsibility he has taken upon himself. We congratulate him on his promotion.

Therefore, I shall not embark on my hour-long speech on urban transport now, but even at this stage I reserve the opportunity to do so in next year’s debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is also not my intention this evening to discuss the Urban Transport Bill at any length except to say that it certainly is a Bill of considerable importance to the life of our cities. The acceptance by the Government of the principle that it has a responsibility towards transportation systems in our cities is a very significant one.

This leads me to what I really intended saying this evening. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban Point concerning the Secretary for Transport, Mr. Driessen, who, after more than 40 years in the Public Service, is going to retire towards the end of this year. We must express our appreciation for the work he has done and wish both him and Mrs. Driessen happiness in retirement. If, in retirement, they should be living in a city, I hope that it is going to be a city with very few traffic problems as a result of the considerable task that he has done in producing a report such as this which has resulted in the Bill before us.

At the same time I should like to offer my congratulations to Mr. Eksteen, the incoming Secretary for Transport. With these few remarks I move—

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to say a few words with regard to Mr. Driessen on behalf of our side of the House …

I am sorry, but in terms of the rules of this House I am unable to allow the hon. member to speak now.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Mr. Chairman, before the proceedings were interrupted last night, the hon. member for South Coast concluded his speech, a speech which attested to deep concern about the welfare of the consumer in our country. I do not intend to go into the speech but in the course of my speech I shall, however, return to certain matters to which the hon. member referred.

However, I want to address a few words to the hon. the Minister in connection with three matters. As hon. members will know, all good things come in threes. I should like to refer to the consumer in South Africa and to the role of the Consumer Council in the life of the South African consumer. Thirdly I want to make a small request to the hon. the Minister.

The exploitation of the consumer is often laid at the wrong door. Too often, negative solutions are sought for that problem. Therefore I rather want to try and suggest possible solutions for the problems which are experienced, in a positive way. I think I can best do this by referring to the role which the South African Co-ordinating Consumer Council can play and has played so far in order to be of assistance to the consumer in South Africa. In the previous annual report of the Consumer Council the functions of the council are very clearly set out. I shall not have time tonight to outline these once again. Suffice it to say that the Consumer Council attempts to eliminate problems in a positive way and in this way to serve both consumer and producer and continue to bring together the two parties with an interest in this matter, to the welfare of both and of South Africa as well. If people would only accept this there would be very much fewer problems for the consumer.

When one speaks about the consumer and his problems, one must also look at who the consumer is and whether the consumer should not search his own heart a little. In the beginning I said that the problem is too often laid at the wrong door. I want to quote the Consumer Council once again, a body which, in my opinion, can be quoted as an authority in this sphere. The Consumer Council distinguishes between various sorts of consumer. They say there is a good consumer and a bad consumer, too. To be a bad consumer means, in point of fact, to waste money. The bad consumer is usually the person who makes the most fuss about the rising cost of living and the unfair treatment meted out to the public, while he never thinks of the fact that he is one of the factors which help to cause it or that he himself can do something about it. The good consumer, on the other hand, is the person who plans. He draws up a monthly, or even better, a weekly budget of everything which he and his family spend and then considers how he can save. He plans ahead and sets limits for himself and remains within those limits.

As I said, when one speaks about the consumer and his problems one must also look, of course, at the role played by the consumer. I realize that there are certain problems experienced by the consumer. I want to refer to a few of the important problems. A factor which, according to the Consumer Council, gives rise to unproductive consumer decisions is the fact that more and more men and children make the household purchases these days. Whether we want to admit it or not: men are incompetent purchasers. This is what the Consumer Council says. The second problem is that nowadays, the average supermarket has between 7 000 and 12 000 articles upon its shelves. This leads to confusion. It is no longer possible for the consumer to calculate the value of each article and choose the right one. These are the problems which are experienced by the consumer and to which attention will have to be given. However, this cannot be rectified merely by protective legislation. The hon. the Minister has always acted positively and, when necessary, made provision for legislation. However, there are other ways in which the problem can be solved, and one of the best, in my opinion, is education. The consumer must be educated. In this country it is the Consumer Council that is best equipped to undertake the task of education.

I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister this evening, if possible, to institute an inquiry into the possibility of the Consumer Council extending its activities in such a way as to educate the future consumer from an early age and make a good consumer of him and to go about this in a dynamic way and by planning over the long term, especially in our schools. In order to make this possible for the Consumer Council, it will mean that more money will have to be put at its disposal. However, I am convinced that an investment of this nature will not be in vain.

There is another request which I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. Together with the problems of the consumer and the problems which the consumer causes, there is the question of the immense wastage which takes place. A year or so ago the hon. the Minister of Agriculture said in this House that in agriculture alone, an annual wastage of approximately R500 million takes place in South Africa. This is an immense figure, especially if one bears in mind that the provision of food to mankind of tomorrow has become an urgent and burning question. However, not only is a wastage of food taking place. There is enormous wastage in a number of other spheres as well. Therefore, this is also a sphere in which education work is extremely necessary. However, before it can be tackled, its extent will have to be determined. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister—in conjunction with other instructions he has already had carried out with respect to the reclaiming of waste—if possible, to appoint a departmental committee during the recess in order to make a thorough inquiry into the whole question of wastage in all its aspects. The hon. the Minister may even, depending on the outcome of such an inquiry, consider the possibility of creating a directorate which could guard against wastage. I am sorry to have to put it in this way, because it sounds very negative. Naturally, a positive designation and approach may be sought.

South Africa cannot afford to have wastage continue at the present rate. If something can be done about it, it will really constitute a major contribution towards the welfare of South Africa and its people in the future. Last but not least, a word of sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for what they have already done in respect of reclaiming waste material in South Africa. However, the fact is that there is still a great deal of unrealized potential as far as this matter is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned the fact that I believed that there was a fair degree of exploitation of the consumer taking place—and I spoke about that during the no-confidence debate, at the beginning of this session—the reaction from the opposite side of the House was that I had mentioned a dirty subject. The reaction was very unfavourable. Now, it would appear to me, from the times that the question has been mentioned during this debate, that it has now become a subject we are allowed to talk about. [Interjections.] I believe that is right, and I also believe that the Consumers Council can play a part in combating any exploitation of the consumer that may be taking place. I want to approach the subject from a different angle. During this session, and particularly during this debate, we have heard a lot about two particular economic subjects. One is the question of private enterprise and the extent to which the State is encroaching into the domain of private enterprise. The other is the question of inflation and the rising cost of living. I do not propose this evening to discuss either of these two subjects directly. I wish to discuss another subject, but one which has a very direct bearing upon both of these subjects. It is a subject which has not been discussed to any extent either in this debate or during this session.

The hon. member for Florida, who is not in the House at the moment, is a member for whose opinions and ability on economic affairs I have a high respect. I think he is one of the Government’s more able young men on this subject. The hon. member touched on the subject by putting his finger on the problem, but without giving any answers to what I regard as the problem. I want to talk about competition, because I regard it as an absolute essential element of the private enterprise system. The private enterprise system means nothing unless it is a free competitive private enterprise system. I regard competition as being one of the best weapons that we have available to us in the fight against inflation, as being essential for the protection of the consumer and as being an essential element for ensuring that the consumer gets the best deal price-wise, quality-wise and service-wise. I also regard competition as being an element which ensures that entrepreneurs keep on their toes, keep efficient, that they keep productive, that they innovate, that they invent and that they produce new ideas. Competition leads to the survival of the fittest, the survival of the most efficient and if there is insufficient competition, then the less fit, the less efficient and the more costly are kept alive with the result that costs and prices are higher than they should be.

It is an unfortunate fact that there is an absence of competition in certain fields and an insufficiency of it in others. I submit that the Government is not doing sufficient in this area. The Government seems to rely on price control, or on threatening with price control, to try to keep prices down. I get the impression that the hon. Minister has abandoned the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, and that he is awaiting the result of the commission which is investigating monopolistic conditions in the hope that it is going to produce something better. Price control is no substitute for competition. It has unfortunate side-effects. It depresses profits and it depresses the ability to invest. It has the effect that, because it puts a ceiling on prices, it also puts a floor under them and therefore it tends to keep prices up rather than down. It is much better to have a situation where competition thrives than to use price control. Price control should really only be used when one has a monopolistic situation where one cannot induce competition or where there is a real shortage of merchandise for any particular reason.

I should now like to mention some actual practical examples where I think something could or should have been done. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why he allows the price fixing of petrol. If price fixing of petrol were disallowed, petrol no doubt would be discounted and consumers would be able to buy it at a lower price. I admit that if this were to happen some petrol stations would go out of business. But which is better: To have a few petrol stations going out of business and to be able to buy petrol at a lower price or to have those petrol stations still in business while we continue to pay the present price? Another point is: Why does the hon. the Minister continue to allow retail price maintenance on tyres? If there were no retail price maintenance on tyres, no doubt tyres would be discounted. We now a have a ridiculous situation where a consumer who buys hundreds of tyres a year has to pay the same price as an ordinary consumer, like me, who buys one or two a year. Also, why does the hon. the Minister continue to allow commercial banks to get together and fix their ledger fees, commission charges, their borrowing and lending rates and even fix their hours of opening for business? Under the Monopolistic Conditions Act the hon. the Minister has the power to put a stop to this. The profits of banks indicate that their charges are, if anything, on the high side. Their efficiency and service to the public would certainly improve if they had to fight to stay in business. Then, why does the hon. the Minister allow newspapers to get together and fix a standard price of 10 cents for all dailies? Does he think all the newspapers offer the same value in the way of quality, in the way of volume and in the way of interest or—I hate to have to say it—in the way of accuracy? Why does the hon. the Minister allow newsprint manufacturers to have interlocking shareholdings and fix a standard price for newsprint and, in the year which has just gone by, one which has been a difficult year for the paper industry, still allows the main paper manufacturing company to make a profit of 29% on its shareholders’ funds? Further: Why does the hon. the Minister allow a closed shop for the manufacturers of TV sets? He should have allowed competition to sort our the men from the boys. Instead, today one has a situation in this country where one manufacturer’s profits in the year when TV sets first came out, rose from 25% of shareholders’ funds to 117% of shareholders’ funds. Their dividend rose from 2,5 cents to 23 cents. I should also like to know what the hon. the Minister is doing about the monopoly or the near monopoly in the pottery industry, an industry which is heavily protected by customs tariffs, an industry by which recently the price of an ordinary cup used in the hotel trade was increased from 36 cents to 62 cents? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia asked a great many questions.

He asked many good questions.

Yes, I do not want to argue about that. Some of them were good questions and I know that the hon. the Minister is very keen to reply to many of these questions.

Rather talk about the price of wine.

Yes, I shall come to the price of wine in a moment. The hon. member for Constantia raised a matter which is of great importance. Last Friday, during the debate on the agriculture vote, I spoke on the same subject. At the time I also referred to free competition and said that we on this side of the House—and I referred in particular to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—believed in free competition. After all, it is obvious that we would believe in it. We are in favour of free competition, but as the hon. member for Constantia has just pointed out, competition in certain cases may also give rise to monopolistic conditions. This is the point I made last Friday. The hon. Minister for Economic Affairs has already spoken about price control on several occasions. He has done so on several" occasions already, and there is no doubt as to where he stands on price control. Competition may also lead to abuses. Last Friday I quoted examples of this and I do not want to do so again. The basic economic principle is that one must pay for what one purchases. There is no getting out of that. In earlier times it was perhaps more difficult to buy without paying, i.e. to pay on the never-never, as the old people said. Today it has perhaps become very much easier to buy on credit and on hire purchase, and in this way, in fact, to negotiate the future.

However, what is also important to us in these times, is that one cannot always purchase those things for which one can pay. One has to buy what one can afford, and there is a big difference between what one can pay and what one can afford. I am afraid that many of our problems arise out of this very fact, namely that we often buy what we can pay for, but what we cannot afford. Nor does this only apply to the individual; it also applies to our country as a whole. During the past few years South Africa has lived very well. We are still living well, even too well. However, troubles are on the way, and it is time that we should say this and settle the matter with ourselves.

In today’s Die Burger it is reported that the country’s reserves have dropped by another R23 million—

I do not know whether these figures are correct. If they are, there are problems facing us, because after all, we cannot continue in this way. The country cannot, after all, continue to spend more than it earns. The reserves are dropping and as a result of the vitality of the South African economy, and because the country is still developing, the country has to carry out large-scale projects over the long term, projects which will involve immense advantages for the country in the future. The country has to see to its defence.

It is pointless for Parliament to allot money for defence if the country does not have the foreign currency to pay for it. The country cannot carry out the major projects which Escom, Iscor and the S.A. Railways are engaged in as well as the irrigation projects and major projects in which private industries are engaged for the purpose of promoting exports, if the situation is not carefully watched. The country cannot go on in this way. But the question is: What is the solution? Only one of two solutions may be adopted: We must either sell more abroad, i.e. the country must produce and sell more abroad, or we must buy less. In order to increase our sales abroad, and therefore export, too, is not something which one can boast drastically over the short term. We all know this. Any person with a little knowledge of the economy, will know that it demands long-term planning and that it is a long-term project. A large portion of the country’s exports consists of agricultural products, a sector in which we are dependent upon weather conditions. The country’s trading partners abroad are often not yet ready to receive the export products as a result of their own economic problems. The export promotion programme of the country is basically a long-term programme. As I have already said, a large portion of the country’s export is agriculturally orientated and subject to weather conditions. In other words, the country will not be able to do anything drastic over the short term in order to promote its exports. The other alternative which I mentioned to hon. members, namely to limit imports, is not so easy either. Where the normal monetary and fiscal measures have not had the necessary limiting effect, import restrictions have been imposed in the past. However, in my opinion, import control must always be regarded as a crisis measure. The country is bound by agreements concluded in the past.

Section 12 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade bound the country, and the Republic became known over the years as a member which kept to its agreements, whether national or international, and in terms of section 12 of this agreement, import control is only permitted when a country experiences serious pressure on its reserves. The usual seasonal balance of payment problems probably must not be considered as crises. In view of the present economic conditions, it is perhaps difficult to say whether the country is now in a seasonal phase or whether it is faced with a more permanent phenomenon. Whatever the case may be, import control causes many problems. But I do not have time now to go into all the specific problems of import control. One could mention a few, for instance that import control necessarily protects one’s local industries. It is not a wrong principle to protect local industries. In a time of high inflation, however, this will necessarily create a higher demand for production factors and this will promote inflation. Abnormal growth may be the result. Plants which grow in the shade, develop weak shoots, and industries which grow under constant protection are also inclined to be ineffective, resulting in low productivity. This, again, stimulates the inflation situation. There are many more problems involved in import control. The flow of goods is immediately reduced and if the demand remains constant, this must necessarily lead to price increases in a free market mechanism, and this once again promotes inflation. This in turn demands price control mechanisms with all the disadvantages they involve. In order to control imports effectively, it is of course better to do so by means of tariff increases. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to what the hon. member for Malmesbury had to say. There is a point with regard to hire-purchase which my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville, will no doubt deal with in his second speech. The hon. member said that he was a believer in free competition, in the free enterprise system. This is what I would like to come back to. I would like to mention that last night I was accused of being negative in my analysis of the situation. I hope the hon. the Minister will understand that I am trying to be constructive tonight, even though he may put a different emphasis on it. We hear endlessly from hon. Ministers and those who sit on the Government benches of the virtues of private enterprise and their commitment to it. We are delighted to hear it, though it sits very oddly with the realities of their actions, and I mean those of this Government in two particular ways. Firstly, while we certainly accept, and I am sure the hon. the Minister and those who sit on the Government benches will agree with us that our economy is a mixed one in the sense that the Government and the public sector, together with the private sector, both participate in it, it is also true, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me, that the colour of the mixture—if one can call it that—has constantly been changing over the years in that the mixture has been moving in favour of the public sector and at the expense of the private sector. It is worth remembering, simply to get this matter into context, the figures for Government expenditure. These are very revealing.

Hon. members will remember that in 1970-’71 the extent of Government expenditure was R2 707 million, that by 1975-’76 it had risen to R6 816 million and that it is projected to rise as a result of this year’s budget to R7 574 million. In brief, the Government’s expenditure has risen by well over two and a half times in the last five years, leaving aside this year. The other figure which is important to remember is that total public spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product has risen from 21,9% to 28,8% in 1975. All it means is that the Government has simply annexed those resources from the private sector and put them to less productive use. Call it whatever you will, Sir, the fact remains that it sits very oddly with the paeans of praise and the dedication to the system of private enterprise and nor, unfortunately, is it likely to improve in the future—indeed, rather the reverse when one takes into account the huge financial requirements for projects which have already been announced.

The basic and fundamental question which we want to address to the hon. the Minister, and we want to try from our point of view to be constructive in this respect, is the key question as to whether the free enterprise system in our country will survive or not. The answer to this question simply depends primarily on whether a large proportion of the people in South Africa, and particularly those who are or will become its leaders, see it as providing or offering to them, and indeed to all the peoples of our land, more than they would get or enjoy from the alternative. This feeling or experience must come from them and it must have nothing to do with colour. It must be arrived at voluntarily by the vast majority of the people who live in our country, whether they are Black, Brown or White, and more particularly by the leaders. It is no use for the Government to try to force people, particularly the Black and Brown, to accept that free enterprise is the best system if that belief does not equate in practice with their exposure to it. To my mind it is therefore useless for those who sit on the Government benches to extol the virtues of free enterprise for the Whites when this Government has erected a wall, a barrier, to prevent Black and Brown people within our land from participating in its benefits, except to a limited and regulated degree.

What worries me more than anything else during this session of Parliament, is that, far from seeing the light, the Government appears to be moving, if it is possible, in the direction of denying the opportunity even more for the Black and Brown people to earn for themselves the benefits that they otherwise could. Here I should like to refer to Government Gazette No. 5108 of 7 May 1976 as an example of what I mean about the Government moving rapidly backwards. I want to refer to paragraph 4(1), which reads as follows—

1. (i) in the case of a person, such person shall be in possession of a citizenship certificate;
2. (ii) in the case of a partnership, all the partners shall be in possession of citizenship certificates, and
3. (iii) in the case of a company, all the shareholders shall be in possession of citizenship certificates.

Subparagraph (c) continues by stating—and this is equally important—

What does that actually mean? That means that no Black or Brown person can run a chain of stores or more than one laundry or pharmacy, and that is simply to deny to the Black and Brown people the possibility of the emergence of a Black Anton Rupert. Indeed, it is to deny them the possibility of putting together a viable business of a size which can take advantage of the economies of scale in the same way as those of their White counterparts. Secondly, it is do deny to the Black and Brown people in the urban areas the opportunity to put together a commercial and industrial infrastructure. Thirdly, leaving aside for the moment that the other restrictions will preclude the development of a business—save in exceptional circumstances—the restriction on all shareholders simply kills any possibility of developing a business to the point where it would be possible to consider raising money from the public. This is discrimination of the worst kind. No such requirement is made of White corporations, and that is understandable because to do so would be both impracticable, highly undesirable and counter to the national interest. I assume that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is in favour of economic growth and the preservation and ownership of the assets which have been, and will in the future be, developed within our country. If that is correct, let him ponder the fact that if the Government refuses to allow Black and Brown people to amass wealth for themselves by their own efforts and abilities, and to own property and businesses, there can be only one result when numbers inevitably tell. If we force, or rather constrain, the Black and Brown people into a minimal role, with all the jam going to the Whites of this country, and if we deny them the opportunity of establishing and developing businesses in a manner similar to Anton Rupert or Jan Marais, those Black and Brown people—despite their huge contribution to consumption in this country—will have no choice—as hon. members on those benches know—but to turn socialist and that, in time, will not only place the system of free enterprise in jeopardy, but will also jeopardize the present and future ownership of assets in this country. We repeat what we have said before. If this Government will not allow the development of an entrepreneurial and management class amongst the Brown and Black people, and if they will not grant them the necessary degree of permanency, with comcomitants such as home ownership, hon. members on those benches are jeopardizing all that the Whites have contributed to this country, have earned, own and will earn from the development of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North this evening. Having sat here for some years—and I have been here since he entered this House—I have often gained the impression that he actually holds views on financial matters which are completely different to the view he expressed this evening. In point of fact, I think his very existence depends upon an entirely different attitude of mind. To tell the truth, it is high time the hon. member for Johannesburg North had a chat with the hon. member for Yeoville, because I think they would find a vast measure of difference as far as their basic philosophy in respect of financial matters is concerned.

I agree with what he said.

I accept that. The hon. member for Yeoville last night actually said that, in view of the gradual downfall of capitalism elsewhere in the world, certain changes would have to be made for it to survive. He said that that would have to be done in order to propagate the free enterprise system amongst the Blacks and the workers and to make it more acceptable in order to counteract socialism. I agree with him. In fact, Mr. Chairman, last year I expressed the very same opinion in this House. I refer the hon. member to column 4776 of last year’s Hansard. But, Mr. Chairman, for the hon. members for Johannesburg North and Yeoville to say that the Government is to blame for this state of affairs is very far-fetched indeed. Is it not the Government which continuously re affirms the free enterprise system in this country?

For Whites.

No, for all people. It was the Government which this session re-introduced the Trade Practices Bill to protect the consumer in this country. It is the Government which time and again has to stand against the Opposition when they attempt to put pressure on the Government to socialize the system to a greater extent, in spite of the fact that we are not always in possession of the necessary funds to do what they ask. [Interjections.] Is it not this Government and this Minister who have put the pressure on the State corporations to restrict their activities to strategic matters so as not to compete with private enterprise? It is also this Government which formed the investment corporations to make capital available to every national group in this country. This is the very point the hon. member for Yeoville referred to last night. Every national group in this country can qualify for capital from the development corporations created by this Government, and that is completely contrary to what the hon. member said tonight. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the development corporations were not created only to foster development in South Africa, but also as a means to make adaptions to the capitalist system in order to give the man who has less opportunity the chance to obtain capital.

Tell me the minimum amount that the IDC lends to a White entrepreneur. [Interjections.]

I regret that I do not have the time to reply to questions this evening. Mr. Chairman, I can give you the assurance that although the new Bill dealing with credit control, which was to be introduced during this session of Parliament, will probably not be dealt with this year due to pressure of work, it is certainly a matter which will come before us in future. The position is that this Government cannot be blamed for not doing its duty. I think the hon. member will grant us that a certain amount of State interference is certainly necessary. The hon. members should rather assist us to combat the tendency towards socialism in this country instead of blaming us for it.

*There is always a tendency during the Committee Stage of a debate of this nature, to deal with certain problems concerning the department or to make certain representations to the Minister in connection with the constituency of the hon. member concerned. This evening I want to leave the matter of special representations to one side because I should like to deal positively with the tremendous achievements and potential of our economy, especially in the light of the pessimism we have had to endure in recent times. We cannot ignore the fact that pessimism with regard to our economy is absolutely fatal to the future of South Africa. We can possibly understand there being some pessimism in view of our having a high rate of inflation and our growth rate not being as high as we should like to see it, and, of course, in view of the drop in the gold price. However, there are two things which are as clear as daylight in South Africa. We cannot afford to have a weak economy in South Africa. A strong economy is essential, in the first instance, for the implementation of our policy and for sound race relations and, secondly, it is essential in view of threatening communism and the military threat on our borders. Therefore it is necessary for us to look positively at this. Indeed, we have complied with these requirements to a large extent.

What does South Africa’s potential for the future look like? In the case of political factors, leading economists in the world will tell us that political stability is the most important factor in respect of considering investing in any country. Since the advent of the present dispensation in South Africa in 1910 we have only had seven Prime Ministers. I think even the Opposition will concede that during the 28 years in which this Government has been in power, there have been no serious disturbances of the peace or serious strikes. I believe this political stability is closely bound up with the success of the programme of socio-economic upliftment which this Government has been advancing by means of its policy in respect of the under-developed people in South Africa. Let me say that on socio-economic upliftment we in South Africa spend twice as much as the mighty UNO does throughout the whole world. Let me quote a few figures. Over a certain period South Africa spent $722 million as against the UN’s $386 million. Indeed, at the moment South Africa spends approximately R500 million per annum on the socio-economic upliftment of its people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not here at the moment.

He is not interested!

Yes, he ought to be pleased that he has left the House, but nevertheless, for the record, I want to rectify one matter here. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Johannesburg North is abusive towards the Government and hurls accusations to the effect that the Government is exploiting the Blacks. Why does he not tell this House how many Black and Coloured people serve with him on all the boards of directors of which he is a member? He cannot mention one to us. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Yeoville must please not be so loudmouthed. In connection with Wesbank, I want to know whether any Coloured or Black person serves on the board of that bank. I am sure that there is not one.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Those hon. members want to accuse the Government of all sorts of things, but not a single Coloured or Black serves on the boards of directors on which they serve. [Interjections.] … and in the meanwhile they are exploiting the Blacks. [Interjections.]

I have nothing to do with Wesbank!

You were there!

I only worked for Wesbank. The bank did not belong to me.

Order!

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order!

Don’t sit and moan there now …

You, too, did work for the bank.

Order! Order!

I did not exploit them!

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order!

At that time I was not here yet …

[Inaudible.]

Order! I ask the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to give the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark a chance to continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that, if I were he, I would be so ashamed of myself that I would cover myself with that skin and go home. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

However, Mr. Chairman, I now want to broach another subject.

[Inaudible.]

I shall return to the hon. member for Johannesburg North in a moment. He must please just wait a little. The subject about which I actually want to speak, is that unavoidable nuisance in the life of every man. However, I hasten to say that I am not speaking about women. I believe that we are all very fond of women. The unavoidable nuisance to which I want to refer, is that heir which a man provides for himself; the most expensive heir which anyone can have. This is a car. There are more than 3 million motor vehicles in South Africa. The hon. member for Germiston District made mention of this. Now, it is true that it has become a custom or a matter of status today for every man to possess two motor cars. He must have a large and a small one; or possibly a bakkie. After all, it is a sort of status symbol. I say frankly that in my opinion, it is unnecessary for so many families to possess two motor cars. It has become nothing more than a status symbol, and is definitely not a necessity.

Whereas we have to live surrounded by inflation these days, and especially since the motorist also does his best to combat inflation, it is a widespread phenomenon today for people to maintain their own vehicles. Many people even have their own home workshop in their backyard. However, what causes me a great deal of concern, is the immense variation in the price of one and the same spare part.

I know of cases of people in Vanderbijlpark who bought parts in Johannesburg, people who paid different prices at different dealers for the same part. A well-known touring club recently carried out an experiment in Pretoria. They sent people to buy a specific spare part from various spare-part dealers. The investigation was in respect of average parts. I am not referring to expensive parts now. They concentrated on the prices of parts such as oil filters, air filters, rotors, spark plugs, distributors and coils. These are normal, minor parts. What was the result? It was found that the price of a rotor—and a rotor is a small part of a distributor …

And the price of a “Heunismobile”?

Yes, I shall come to you too. You are one of the exploiters. At one specific dealer the price of a rotor was R5,80, while another dealer asked 80 cents for the same part. At an unattached dealer the price of that small part was R1,16. So the price of a rotor fluctuated between 80 cents and R5,80.

A certain dealer asked R11,50 for a coil. A coil of the same make cost R 15,98 at the next dealer, while the unattached dealer, who, it is true, did not provide the genuine part—although it was a part of the same quality as the other—asked R5,50 for it. This is a phenomenon which I cannot accept.

One of my hon. friends in this House recently had to replace a small pane in the front window of his car. That pane cost him R66. After all, this is terrible! I can mention many more examples. However, I want to add that not all dealers are exploiters. I hope that my hon. friend on the other side, who is also a motor dealer, is not an exploiter. The fact remains that there are many exploiters. I want to address an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to act against such exploiters with might and main. I am convinced that the public is being exploited unnecessarily. I make an earnest plea to the hon. the Minister to inquire into this once again.

Another thing that bothers me, is the fact that in April, more than 16 000 motor cars were sold in South Africa. I do not want to maintain that all those vehicles were South African models manufactured by 14 manufacturers in South Africa. I took the trouble to find out that of those 16 000 vehicles sold, there were 79 different models and makes. I really believe that we cannot afford that variety. It is unfortunately the case that just as every woman desires a beautiful dress, every motorist has his choice, one wants a low-slung car, the other wants a sports model and the other wants everyone to hear the car roar when he puts his foot down—stones must fly when he pulls away. I really do not think that we can afford all these luxuries. I agree with the policy that we determine the South African content, and I agree that the manufacturers spend enormous amounts of money on the manufacture of the South African model. I think that they will first have to put their own affairs in order, by effecting a certain standardization. I do not think that we in South Africa, with our small population, can afford the luxury of the large number of models, for much longer. If countries like France, Germany and Italy, which are highly industrialized countries, have begun to standardize their vehicles, I believe that South Africa can do so too. I think we must appoint a technical advisory board to advise the manufacturers. Perhaps we can design standard engine blocks or standard exhaust systems. One of my friends once said to me that he had R1 000 worth of fan belts, but that if my car’s fan belt broke, he would be unable to help me because his fan belts did not fit my model of car. Those people have to invest large amounts of capital and this contributes towards greater expenditure. In connection with the recent demand for an increase in the petrol price, I should like to know whether the luxury filling stations in South Africa are indeed necessary. They are like a group of five-star hotels competing against one another—there are Shell, B.P., Caltex, etc. In Europe the pump is situated on the side of the street, one stops, fills one’s car with petrol and drives on. I think that we should once again take a closer look at the policy of luxury filling stations because I am also convinced that this is one of the factors which contributes towards the high price of petrol.

The motorist, too may just as well make a contribution and in this connection I have in mind in particular the second vehicle which is sometimes unnecessary. Motorists must buy less luxuriously, must keep to the speed limits and travel less. If motorists comply with these requirements, they may also make a legitimate contribution towards combating inflation. I shall leave it at that.

I now return to the hon. member for Johannesburg North and I should like to ask him to tell us how many Coloureds and Bantu serve on the same boards of directors as he does. The PRP still has a chance to speak and the hon. member can tell us then. It is pointless for the hon. member to stand up here in the House and blame everyone left and right, while he himself is guilty. I also want to ask the hon. member why they do not pay all mine-workers equal wages. It is because they realize that they will not get an equal quality of work there. The hon. member had a great deal to say here, but he himself has not yet done anything about the matter. A good example of their double-talk is the Union Hotel, with which the hon. member for Houghton is involved, and where action had to be taken in respect of the low wages paid to employees. That party must “practise what you preach”. We can no longer put up with their nonsense. If circumstances in South Africa do not suit the hon. member for Johannesburg North, he must pack his bags and go back where he came from.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to enter the private war which is raging between the hon. member who has just sat down and the hon. member for Johannesburg North. However, I should like to take my cue from the body of his speech, a subject on which he feels very warmly and on which he addressed the hon. the Minister directly. I think the time has come—and I hope the hon. the Minister will find time in the course of the debate on this vote to deal with the question of the action campaign which he and his department initiated against the inflationary situation in the country. I think the hon. the Minister owes a statement to the House as to why it appears that that particular campaign is virtually collapsing. It has been said that it is almost in tatters and I accept this description, because there is a confrontation between not only industry and commerce and the hon. the Minister, but also between organized labour and the hon. the Minister. Even at the most recent annual congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, which was held only last month, the chairman was constrained to say that the Handelsinstituut and its members were not prepared to support the anti-inflation manifesto in its present form.

That is not so.

This has never been denied, but has been repeated even in their own report.

It was denied in a statement issued by the president of the institute himself.

I am satisfied that this is the feeling going round. I used this as one example and I have not seen it denied. I want the hon. the Minister to quote where it has been denied. Will the hon. the Minister deny that organized labour has taken up cudgels against him?

I now want to direct my main attention to the wage earner in the country, the average salaried man who has become, even in terms of the Government’s own little pamphlet of recent days, virtually the whipping boy in this entire campaign. There is no question that with the R½ million which has been spent on publicity and activity on the part of the department and the couple of hundred thousand rand which has been added onto the budget figures for the coming year and which they probably will find they will have to exceed, it has apparently not had the important effect it should have had in curbing the rise in prices. The hon. the Minister is going to tell us that the consumer price index has only risen by about 11% or 11,5%, but he does not realize that this could only take place during the last year because, as far as foodstuffs were concerned, there has been perhaps the greatest restraint of all. However, unfortunately even that has broken the barriers. In this particular period this is going to continue to push the consumer price index up at an alarming rate. Let us have a look at the percentage by which things have risen. I do not have the exact details, but I would like to quote some figures. The price of electricity has risen by over 25%, private transport by well over 20% and public transport by well over 20%. The price of petrol has also risen. The price of every item important to the consumer is rising. Even the price of food has risen, for example the price of fish, meat, mealie meal—one of the staple diets of a certain section of the community—butter, eggs and bread. The price of every staple item of food is rising at a rapid rate. All this has to be met by the worker who has been enjoined to try to control his demand for an increase in wages. In spite of this he has to meet the higher costs. Unfortunately he cannot do it, because there is not enough money to do it. He has to use his private savings and the thrift he has built up over the years is destroyed. Those who unfortunately do not have it, cannot even save on certain things, because they are confined principally to use their money for the basic foods and requirements of their household. I think this is an important issue and that the hon. the Minister has to satisfy the House and the country.

What does this particular pamphlet say? Listen very carefully to what it says—

That is all very well. Unfortunately, however, the worker is the whipping boy. He is the person who bears the brunt of all this.

Have a look at all the financial reports that have been issued over the last six months. I want to challenge the hon. the Minister to show me more than three or four companies where profits have not risen and where predictions in regard to turnover and profit for the coming year have not been projected in some cases up to 25% and 30%. It is a very important factor. I do not decry the efforts

I shall take you up on that.

I do not decry the efforts that are being made. However, I want to say that one cannot restrain the worker with a 10% increase and expect him to meet what is happening in the country today unless one devises some method and unless one gets some form of co-operation which will enable him to survive on the small increase. One cannot withhold, as the hon. the Minister has suggested, the flow of moneys into the economy, because one does not want to bring about an artificial recession. One has to see to it therefore that things move consistently so that, if prices move up, if turnover moves up, if the economy is developing, the worker must develop as well.

This restraint is, in my opinion, artificial, foolish, unfair and unjustified. What has happened recently in regard to municipal workers? What has happened in regard to the engineering trade, the Seifsa organization? Seifsa has increased their salaries and wages recently by 10,5% at the lowest level and rising to 25%. Municipal workers have received increases ranging from 22,5% to 25%. These organizations realize realistically, that they cannot maintain satisfactory relations with workers’ organizations or keep stable and contented workers unless they remove from the shoulders of the worker the nagging problem of having to meet the rising cost of living. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be factual and realistic. Let us not bluff ourselves. The Government is quite happy and content because it is holding back increased expenditure. The Government believes that its capital requirements have increased by only 10% over last year’s figures. It has, however, not even reduced last year’s capital expenditure. The Government only allows for an increase of 10% because they feel that is the natural rise in expenditure. However, the Government wants to play its part. The private sector also wants to play its part to enable the economy to progress. Why must it be done at the expense of the worker, the wage-earner? That, I believe, is a vital factor. This is not an emotional appeal and is not motivated by anything other than the interests of the man in the street from whom one receives complaints daily. A domestic servant, for instance, buys a kilogram of mealie meal and finds that the price has risen by 100% over the last eight or 10 months. That is a very big increase, and that is only one example. There is no purpose even to illustrate to the hon. the Minister in detail what is taking place, because he knows it. Even the price of reading matter and stationery has risen by 25% to 30%. The price of education has also gone up. Every possible item required by the average person today has gone up despite the so-called efforts to control it.

Many examples were given of artificial interference by the hon. the Minister himself, as was illustrated by the hon. member for Constantia, a very simple illustration. But I do not believe that we have yet reached the stage where the hon. the Minister is really fully aware and makes efforts far beyond employing a firm of experts in advertising and other forms of expertise and leaves the matter entirely in their hands. The hon. members on the hon. the Minister’s side, for example the hon. member who has just spoken, has asked the hon. the Minister to appoint a technical organization to deal with the using costs of spare parts for motor-cars. Of course this is an important matter, and he has also asked the hon. the Minister to go into the question of motor-car repairs. The hon. member wants the hon. the Minister to find a solution, because these matters also contribute to the increased cost of living. Even the middle-class man who possesses a motor-car cannot afford to have repairs done. The hon. the Minister’s own people cry out for these measures, and it is no use, therefore, saying that members on this side of the House are trying to criticize the hon. the Minister in order to expose shortcomings. This is true, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if hon. members on his side of the House are open with him they will say that this campaign, in which members on this side of the House went along with the hon. the Minister and in which we helped to fight and support the campaign and to explain it to the public in a genuine effort to bring about some relief, has brought about no relief, and unfortunately the one “sucker” who is bearing the brunt of it is the wage-earner, the average worker, the man in the street and the housewife with the limited pay-packet, the pensioner who gets very little more, the weekly worker and even the salaried man in the Civil Service.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up on the line of thought of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because I really want to discuss a subject which has not yet been given urgent attention in the course of the debate. I think the hon. the Minister will take pleasure in replying to some of the accusations levelled by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I can see that the hon. the Minister has effective answers ready. The hon. member also made an unjustified attempt, in passing, to drag in the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, but I am convinced that this attempt will backfire.

I want to discuss a subject which causes me a degree of concern. We are living in a very difficult and uncertain world, as we all know. This applies to South Africa in particular, owing to the special anti-South African climate which prevails in certain countries of the world. It is true that in such circumstances one has to take cognizance of the boycott with which the country is constantly being threatened, because such threats can be realized in practice. Consequently certain plans have to be devised to safeguard the country against such boycotts if they are realized in practice, so that the country will not be defenceless against this danger. Fortunately the country has a government which is strong enough, realistic enough and far-sighted enough to take such steps. One of those steps is the stockpiling of certain strategic material so that the country has an adequate supply at hand when problems are experienced with boycotts.

However, I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister this evening concerning a specific strategic material in the case of which insufficient provisions is made for such contingencies, and this is the question of rubber. I am referring to natural rubber which the country has to import because it is needed for the tyre industry. Perhaps it would be safer and cheaper to manufacture some of these materials—rubber being one of them—here ourselves.

I want to refer specifically to polyisoprene, the so-called artificially manufactured natural rubber which is, in passing, a very sound substitute for the natural product. The country must take cognizance of the fact that most of the world’s natural rubber comes from Malaysia and its surrounding areas, an area which falls within the immediate sphere of influence of communist China. This is a matter for concern in this world of today in which dramatic and drastic changes sometimes occur overnight. A factor which has also come to my attention and which I find particularly provocative is the fact that Russia is constructing installations there for the manufacture of polyisoprene at a faster rate, installations which will make that country the biggest producer of this product in the world. One asks oneself: What do these people know or suspect which we do not yet know or suspect? Fifty-two per cent of natural rubber and 48% of artificial rubber is used in the manufacture of tyres, and as the weight of the vehicle increases, the content of natural rubber in the tyres increases in order to make the tyres truly efficient. This implies that the majority of military vehicles require a reasonably high content of natural rubber in their tyres. I want to make the statement that a vehicle without rubber tyres is as immobile as a vehicle without fuel in its tank. I do not think this statement can be contested. We in South Africa are fortunate enough to have an advanced coal production, in fact the most advanced in the world, and we are fortunate in that this process, through its byproducts, furnishes us with all the components necessary for the manufacture of polyisoprene, or artificially manufactured natural rubber, except for titanium, which is, in any event, used in such small quantities that one can store a year’s supply in an ordinary room. There is therefore no stockpiling problem in this regard, nor any financial problems. In passing, it has come to my attention that we have just started exploiting slag with a titanium content at Richards Bay, and possibly we shall therefore be in a position to extract our own titanium shortly.

When Sasol 2 is established we shall have unlimited supplies of these by-products for the manufacture of polyisoprene. We also have the knowledge to manufacture this product in accordance with the Italian process. At the moment the bottleneck is the price ratio. At the moment the price of polyisoprene is R850 per ton as against R730 per ton for the natural product. This is not a very significant difference. The prices of the natural products sometimes vary tremendously, and when they reach too low a level this can make the manufacture of polyisoprene very risky for any enterprise. I have come to the conclusion from discussions with people involved that if a business enterprise could obtain a “Soft” loan of R35 million to R45 million, they would in fact be in a position to manufacture polyisoprene on a competitive basis, even at this stage. We must consider perfecting a South African process which, when the evil day breaks, could simply be amplified to provide us with all the polyisoprene we would require. At the moment we have a national supply procurement fund and I take it that a similar project such as this could in fact be financed from this fund, but I should like to have a far greater degree of certainty about this. What I really want to appeal to the hon. the Minister about this evening, is that he should consider the establishment of a special fund for strategic investment, in consultation with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance. Even though this project could be financed from the national supply procurement fund, there is another use for which a strategic fund could in fact be implemented. It is a well-known fact that as the economies of countries become integrated with each other, and they become dependent on each other, their mutual relations also become better and more normal than would otherwise be the case. It is indisputable that mutual dependence also ensures mutual attachment towards each other. To the north of us there are two African states whose economies are virtually exclusively dependent on copper production. One of the bottlenecks in the production of copper is the refining process. It is an expensive process.

One of the important components in the refining of copper, namely xanthate, is manufactured in South Africa, and we have already perfected the process completely. We possess all the raw materials with which to manufacture xanthate, a large proportion of which is obtained from the byproducts of the coal-refining process. The potential market in these two states is in the region of 8 000 tons, which is very substantial. It has come to my attention that even before détente a South African firm initiated negotiations with one of these countries with regard to the establishment of a factory for the manufacture of xanthate in that African state on a partnership basis. It is understandable that a firm which has to tackle the enterprise alone will take into account the risk involved in such an enterprise, and that is why a little assistance from the State could help a great deal. The amount involved here is more or less R3½ million to R4 million, which is not really a very large sum if one bears in mind that we can amplify this kind of process in these countries if we can integrate ourselves positively with their economies and in that way entirely normalize our relations with African states around us in Southern Africa and also in the greater African complex. After all, we are the technological leaders in Africa. Surely there is no doubt on that score. If we can convert this fact into practical implementation and allow South Africa really to come into its own in the greater African complex, such an amount is a minimal amount to spend on the true normalization of the relations and for the building of better relations and, eventually, in order to bring about the creation of a Southern African economic community. If we were in fact to implement this policy on a very sound foundation, and one anticipates the effect of this, such an enterprise, even though fairly risky, would surely be worth the trouble.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow up on the plea of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He discussed his own subject and I want to go on with mine. Looking at the ordinary course of our lives, it seems that the campaign against inflation has not penetrated to the ordinary man in the street at all. There are many such examples, if we only want to open our eyes. On the roads one finds that it is only oneself who travels at 90 km per hour. The other motorists pass one by. One finds, too, that most of the time the roads are congested with traffic and that the high price of petrol has not, therefore, had any noticeable influence on the consumption of our fuel. I could mention further such examples. When one pays a visit to the chain stores on a Saturday morning and sees what takes place there, one sees many astonishing things. We of the older generation have not grown up with the younger generation. After all, they have grown up in the golden years of our country. From the Second World War up to the present our younger generation has not known hardship. Their parents overcame all their difficulties by dint of hard work and trouble. However, I do not blame the present generation; they are not responsible for that. We who educated them are largely responsible for this. Mr. Chairman, you will be able to remember from your childhood years how much money you received when you asked your parents for money, and you know, too, how much you give your children today when they ask you for money.

Those were the days of the United Party when money was still worth something.

Unfortunately it is not only a question of money. I do not think that we in this country view our position in a serious enough light, and I am not speaking to the younger people only now. I am now speaking to everyone. We do not see this campaign of ours in a serious enough light. It seems that it cannot penetrate to our people that we have a problem which must be solved. It is always the fault of the other man, never one’s own fault. That is the trouble. When Noah had almost finished building the ark, there were still some who danced around it happily and enthusiastically. They only took fright when it began to rain. However, we must not wait so long. We all love our country and our people. Why, then, can we not all share in this campaign? Perhaps we do not bring the campaign to the attention of members of the public to a sufficient extent. Perhaps we must give more attention to providing the housewife with information about this campaign. There are many ways of doing so. One only has to call to mind all the associations we have. There are farmers’ associations, women’s associations, debating societies and various similar associations. I just do not want to involve the church in this matter as well. Many of those bodies are sometimes at a loss as to how to fill their agendas. There are many members of those organizations who are particularly well informed. They can furnish this information to everyone so that we may all know in what respect we should cut down.

During the war the Government of the day sent round one man in my part of the world—just one man. He drove from place to place, had the community called together and addressed them. I shall never forget the pictures he painted; I still remember them. He taught the children and the adults what it was to save.

Today one can use television.

However, the word “save” no longer forms part of our vocabulary. It has simply disappeared.

This brings me to the next point. We could stress savings and thrift far more. We must tackle this campaign far more seriously, so that every individual may devote more and more attention to the matter. I remember the days when we changed over to the metric system. Early in the morning when one got up one heard the jingle, and when one went to sleep one still heard the same jingle.

Decimal Dan.

Yes, the jingle about Decimal Dan. We have so many means of communication today that we have no difficulty in conveying knowledge to our people. However, let me now leave the matter at that because I want to devote some attention to my own region. I want to point out that the economy of South West is based, for the most part, on three pillars, namely its farming, its mines and its fishing resources. I should like to say a few things about two of them. As we all know, we farmers in the remote parts have been very hard hit as regards the transport of our livestock. However, that is not all that has resulted from this. The well-off farmers there have purchased heavy trucks for themselves at great expense and now they transport their cattle from the far north to the markets. Now as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman, such an unorganized business will never pay. But what does all this give rise to? Those farmers are on the road for almost a week, and in that period they are not employed. Furthermore, they take labourers along, too, to assist them. One comes across those trucks on the roads in convoys. When one drives on the main roads in the northern parts of South West today, one finds convoys of cattle trucks in front of one. The roads are being ruined to such an extent that within a year they have to be tarred again. Furthermore, those trucks are a deadly menace on the road. If one does not want to travel all day at 60 km an hour, one sometimes has to pass three or four of these trucks, and this is not always possible. We shall have to give very urgent attention to this state of affairs in order to see whether we are not able to find a solution to it.

In the limited time at my disposal I want to refer to a second pillar of the economy of South West, namely the fishing industry. Now it is true that one arm of that industry is flourishing; that is the golden calf. The other arm of the industry, however, is not faring so well. A vast amount of our resources is carried off by the many foreign boats off our coasts. Just to give you an indication, I want to point out that it is conservatively estimated that the catches off our coasts over a period of three years have been worth about R270 million. Of this we get only 12%. The remaining part of the catch goes to our enemies who are always telling us that we do not treat our people properly. It would be difficult to protect those resources of ours properly. The only solution would be if we could extend our economic zone much further. We hope that the day will come when other countries will join us in helping to preserve that important and valuable resource for all nations, because it cannot simply be exploited; it must also be preserved for posterity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Karas has just told us that when he was a child things were rather different to what they are today. I agree with him. When I was a child I was able to buy a pocketful of sweets for a penny. If one gives one’s child a cent to go and buy sweets with today, he will get very little for it. Nevertheless, the hon. member referred to savings. How on earth is it possible for his poor child to save if nothing remains of the cent with which he was supposed to buy sweets? Apparently the hon. member forgets that this country has been under a NP Government for the past 28 years. During those 28 years the value of money has steadily diminished as a result of the economic policy of this Government. That is why it is happening, and the hon. the Minister is the biggest culprit. That is why the poor child is no longer able to buy himself a bag of sweets today. If the poor child goes to a shop with a cent in his pocket today, he comes back with an empty pocket and he will quite probably be a cent poorer because a poor beggar who needs the cent is waiting outside.

It is in fact a very important matter we are dealing with here, but before going further, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I have a bone to pick with him. It concerns the manner in which the hon. the Minister ignored a question on the Order Paper.

†On 4 June the hon. member for Walmer placed a question on the Order Paper. It appears on page 750 of the Question Paper. In this question he asked the Minister of Economic Affairs—

This question was for oral reply. On the day when this question came up for oral reply, the hon. the Minister stood up and said he wanted the matter to stand over, so it stood over. It stood over until the next occasion when questions would be answered, viz. on 7 June. When the question was put on that particular occasion, the hon. the Minister again said he would like the matter to stand over. One appreciates the fact that sometimes the hon. the Minister does not have this sort of information at his finger-tips and has to do a little investigation to find it. However, what is strange about this matter is that, while the hon. the Minister said on 7 June that he could not answer the question and that it would have to stand over, on the very next day he issued a very lengthy statement on this very subject.

It was on the same day. The hon. member only read about it the next day.

Well, Sir, according to a copy of the statement I have here, it was issued by the Department of Information at the request of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Cape Town. This is dated 8 June and it says “for immediate release”. As I have indicated, this statement deals with the answer to the question of the hon. member. On the very next day, 9 June, a Press report appeared dealing with this very matter. If one were to look at the Order Paper, one would find that this question is still unanswered. Indeed, it is due to be answered tomorrow. I believe the hon. the Minister has shown that he does not care at all about parliamentary procedure. I believe he has been most discourteous and I also believe that he has demonstrated an attitude which, I think, we could well do without in this House. I believe the hon. the Minister should apologize most abjectly to the hon. member for Walmer for not having replied to his question while he did take the steps I have just outlined. I do not know what possessed the hon. the Minister to do it. I can only think that he did it because he thought he would derive some sort of benefit for himself or for the Nationalist Party by doing it in that way. I want the hon. the Minister to know that we on this side of the House deprecate that type of attitude. We do not like that type of attitude. The fact that the hon. the Minister is Minister of Economic Affairs does not mean that he can do as he pleases. I think that, while he sits in this House, he should try to answer the questions put to him by hon. members on this side of the House and that he should not demonstrate the type of attitude I have just outlined.

I wonder whether this is not the reason why the Anti-Inflation Campaign has gone wrong; whether it is not the same underlying reason that I have just outlined. The hon. the Minister strutted about very importantly with this document—the collective campaign against inflation—and the hon. the Minister said in that document that he was going to do certain things in regard to the economy, which he felt would call a halt to the inflation, something which might improve the position considerably. One of the things that the hon. the Minister promised—and that was a promise—was to curtail current and capital expenditure which bears no relation to the creation of productive capacity and infrastructure. In explaining this to the people of South Africa, to the industrialists and the commercial people, as well as to the ordinary man in the street, the hon. the Minister did it in such a way that they were inclined to accept the fact that that was exactly what he was going to do. He was going to curtail that expenditure. Because they believed that the hon. the Minister was in fact going to do so, they played ball with him. I am now talking only of the private sector, because I believe that if there has been any success, however limited, in curtailing inflation, it has come solely from the private sector. Nothing has come from the public sector at all. [Interjections.] I believe that the hon. the Minister is to blame for that attitude. I rather think that is because he regards the private sector in exactly the same light as he regards hon. members on this side of the House. I think that the hon. the Minister should now mend his ways.

To make a big song and dance and to say that he, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, is going to curtail current and capital expenditure which bears no relation to the creation of productive capacity and infrastructure, and then to allow the provisions of the Physical Planning Act to continue as if nothing had happened, I believe, is absolutely criminal. In doing so, the hon. the Minister is allowing unnecessary infrastructure to be built and he is allowing all sorts of things to be done in the economy, things which do not produce at all.

Let us look at what is happening. At this time, people who are conducting industries in a perfectly profitable way, contributing a great deal to the domestic product of the country, are being told that, because they want to expand—and that is to increase production—they cannot do so where they are; they have to move to some other area, simply because the labour force they use is not a labour force which the Government cares for. For that reason … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Wynberg. He sketched the problem of inflation with great verbosity. Now, we can acknowledge that inflation is a problem. We acknowledge, too, that sugar from which sweets are made has become more expensive. That is generally acceptable. We know that this is so.

However for some minutes the hon. member for Wynberg did nothing but try to malign the hon. the Minister. However I can assure the hon. member that if he examines the matter closely he will find out that the reply was in fact furnished on the same day that a question was asked. It could perhaps have been an hour or two later. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, it is a fact that if there is one hon. Minister who reacts politely at all times and does his best to furnish replies to all questions, then it is this same hon. Minister of Economic Affairs. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, it is shameful that the hon. member for Wynberg should attack him in this way.

Hit Jack with the iron fist!

It ought to be mentioned that Government saving in the public sector amounts to at least R800 million and that the officials have gone without an increase in salary for a long time. However, the thanks they have had for this is an accusation by the hon. member for Wynberg that those people have no interest in trying to combat inflation and that they have sacrificed absolutely nothing.

I now want to give attention to the idea of a Southern African common market. This was mentioned by Dr. Verwoerd in Pretoria as long ago as 1963 when, with reference to the British High Commission areas, he said the following—

We are now engaged in doing that. He adds—

At the Cape NP congress in 1964, Dr. Verwoerd expressed the same idea. On 4 February 1974 our present Prime Minister made mention of the fact that he foresaw an economic power bloc of free, associated and independent States here in Southern Africa. On the eve of the independence of the Transkei it is clear that another step is being taken in the direction of the establishment of such an economic power bloc. We realize that this will have to happen eventually and the question we must now ask ourselves is how the Republic of South Africa can expedite the establishment of such an economic power bloc, and how, after it has come about, it can stabilize it. I believe that the relaxation of tightly-drawn bow strings and of springs in the catch of a rifle may be effected in the economic sphere when a power bloc of this kind comes into being here in Southern Africa.

What, then, is the requirement of Southern Africa in this connection? The developing States and States-in-embryo in Africa—in the nature of the matter they are for the most part Black States—have an exceptionally high rate of population increase. Unfortunately this is not always accompanied by the necessary economic growth which ensures satisfactory employment of this increase. This therefore creates a potential danger. There is also a growing urbanization of the once-rural population. The following percentages indicate the population increase in the urban areas, and this takes place at the expense of the rural areas: In Botswana the percentage is 5,3%; in Malawi, 10,7%; in Tanzania, 6%; in Zambia, 6,6%, whereas 3% is the average natural increase of these countries. It is clear, therefore, that the economic bottlenecks of these States is to be found in this very aspect, viz. the creation of employment opportunities in the cities. I believe that if this bottleneck can be solved, peace and prosperity will be ensured here in Southern Africa and that this is the best way in which we can ensure this. I believe that the solution of this bottleneck is the responsibility of the Republic of South Africa, which is at present the leader in the sphere of détente in Africa. When one suggests that these solutions be sought, then one must bear in mind that the psychological attitude of the Black man to industrial labour, his rate of work, his skills and his mental speed is that of the man of Africa. There is therefore a special approach to be adopted in regard to the man of Africa and this is not necessarily a Western approach. The solution of the problem can have many levels, but I just want to mention one level this evening and concentrate on that. It is a level at which we in South Africa have already achieved success, a level which we can implement and give to Africa in order to apply in their territories.

Mindful of the aforegoing, I just want to mention three points briefly. In the first place: The developing countries find it difficult to acquire capital with which to promote industrial growth. The second aspect I want to mention is that industrialization is in fact the only solution for high urban employment. The third fact is that the manufactured products of the developing countries have to compete on the open market with the products manufactured by other countries with a mature economy and a highly industrialized technology. I want to maintain that the solution lies along the path we found when we decided to decentralize in certain areas. We developed technologies there geared to the nature of the Black man, the man of Africa. We developed the techniques there which are geared to his rate of work and his degree of training, and it is now necessary for us to build further on this basis and persuade Africa to accept the technology we have developed here and apply it in their territories as well. I believe that the industrialists of South Africa, the entrepreneurs, can make a vital contribution in this regard to the détente policy of Africa, the relaxation of tension in Africa, by gearing the technology of production to the man of Africa to an increasing extent, rather than trying to adapt the man of Africa to a Western method of work, a Western technology. I believe that when we have set in operation the developed African technology and this has been accepted by the countries of Africa, South Africa will have fulfilled its calling. It will then have become a catalyst by which the establishment of a common market is promoted. The day this happens, southern Africa will become a powerful factor in the economic world, in the political world, and I believe that the peace and prosperity of the Republic and of Africa are intimately bound up with the technology of Africa and its implementation in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the concept the hon. member for Pretoria West has spoken about, that is of an economic community for southern Africa, is one that has been debated before. It is a concept we support and a most desirable thing to seek to achieve. We shall, of course, have to solve some of the political problems in southern Africa before we can achieve this objective. However, the objective the hon. member has indicated we should strive for, is one we obviously support and one we should like to see realized.

I think the debate has been dominated up to now by two main features. The first is the issue of inflation and the problems inflation has created for the community at large. The second is the issue of, if I may use the term, capitalism, private enterprise and socialism. I should like to return to this particular subject, to where I finished when I first spoke in the House during the course of the debate. I then put forward the concept that, in my view, we should from now on no longer refer to capitalism in seeking to project it, but that we should refer to free enterprise. The second submission I would like to make, is that we need to market free enterprise. One can only market something if what you seek to market is a marketable commodity, and we must see to it that free enterprise is a marketable commodity. No one can say that there are aspects of the system which are in all respects desirable. Quite clearly, there are undesirable aspects in the system. It is our job to remove the ugliness from it, to remove the exploitation from it and to remove the inequalities of opportunity which exist in the system, in order to make it a marketable commodity. One can use all the marketing techniques in the world; in the end you will find that, if a consumer has bought one’s product and it is no good, he will never buy it again. So, if one is going to market free enterprise, it has to be something that, when the consumer accepts it, he shall find it an acceptable commodity.

In a society where a certain amount of ugliness is attached to a system, one either gets people seeking to overthrow it and to substitute it with another system or, when there are people who are dissatisfied with the system and who actually approve of it, they will seek to reform it. One of the symptoms of reform in the free enterprise system is consumerism. I want to say that consumerism is a healthy symptom of a free enterprise system. In fact, it is an integral part of a free enterprise system. Those who are often at the suffering end of a system and who, in fact, reject socialism and prefer free enterprise, will turn to consumerism in order to seek to protect their rights. I think it is part of our duty to see to it that those rights are protected and that the correct mechanism is there for that.

I want to submit here tonight that I believe consumerism in South Africa needs to be institutionalized and canalized into the right direction. In my view, whatever good work the Co-ordinating Consumer Council is doing in respect of this matter, it has neither the money, nor the staff or the terms of reference to do the job. The submission I should like to make tonight is that the Government should create a department of consumer affairs. In fact, there should be a Minister of Consumer Affairs, in exactly the same way as there is a Minister of Labour. The argument is often used that, in so far as consumer interests are concerned, these are identical to public interest. I want to point out that this argument has been used elsewhere in the world, but without any success. It is a fallacy, because consumer interests are particular interests of a particular direction, and it is not correct that in all interests the true aspects are identical in the manner in which they may be projected.

I wish to read what a member of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, Mary Gardiner Jones, has said on this issue—

In exactly the same way as we have a Minister of Labour so should there by a Minister of Consumer Affairs.

There are many things that still need to be done in our society. There is the question of the articles which are sold to us every day and the safety measures which are not taken in respect of these articles. There is the question of labelling in South Africa which still leaves much to be desired. There is also the question of the ingredients and quality of products. All of these are matters needing attention. The maxim that what is good for business is automatically good for the consumer, is not correct in all respects; there are many aspects relating to this maxim which are incorrect. The other matter which we need to look at and which should be looked into by a ministry such as this, is the issue of advertising. I do not only refer to advertising in its falsity, but also the impact of advertising, the use of advertising techniques, the structure of advertising in the social system, the ability to exercise decisions on the part of the consumer to use his faculties to meet the force of advertising, an extremely powerful force and an extremely difficult force to handle. If I may turn here to the United States, where this matter has also received attention, I wish to quote from a proposal which Senator Moss has put forward, a proposal to create a national institute of advertising, marketing and society. The functions of this, in terms of the Bill which he put forward in the Senate of the United States, were—

Another matter which I believe such a ministry could undertake is to deal with educating the public in respect of the private enterprise system. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look at what is being done to teach school children in South Africa, not only the evils of communism or the evils of socialism, but what is being taught to them what free enterprise means and the advantages which the free enterprise system offers. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister in view of the fact he has a co-ordinating programme in order to fight inflation, where material is issued in order to demonstrate to the public what inflation is and how it is to be fought, should there not also be material available for both ordinary education and adult education in our community to show what free enterprise is, what its advantages are and how you participate in it so that the concept of free enterprise may be propagated to a far greater extent.

Something should also be done to promote the real image of what free enterprise is, namely the prospect it offers the small man to get to the top. The whole image of free enterprise is that there should be no limit to what one can achieve, the concept of the millionaire who started selling newspapers. I do not believe we are doing enough in South Africa to encourage that aspect of free enterprise, the encouragement of the small businessman. The hon. member for Newcastle referred to the work of the IDC. Perhaps the IDC does not really help the small man. That corporation is not really geared to help that individual. The Institute for Small Business at Potchefstroom University has done a tremendous amount of good work through Prof. Swart. However, small businesses should be encouraged, the small man who may not always succeed. However, every now and then one gets a person who becomes another Henry Ford, a man who comes from nothing and who builds up something magnificent.

Mr. Chairman, the two political parties opposite are really political economic rarities. This evening hon. members again heard them making a big fuss about the free economy. However, now that there is talk that the Government is not going to finance St. Croix, they are protesting loudly. Now the entrepreneurs are unable to obtain the funds to finance the St. Croix installations at Port Elizabeth. When a Bill was passed in this House a few days ago which established a department or a section for the control of the film industry, those two parties complained loudly about the greater power which the Government was supposedly arrogating to itself. This evening the hon. member for Yeoville rose and asked for a Department of Consumer Affairs. I get the impression that the members of those parties do not really know which direction to follow in order to thwart or obstruct the Government in its activities. Hon. members once again heard the old refrain that the Government was responsible for the economic problems in the country, that the Government was responsible for inflation and that the Government was doing nothing to combat it. Possibly this is true, but it is not as simple as that. The Government has power to control and influence the financial climate of the country by way of fiscal measures and by means of its budget structure in such a way as to damp the inflation spiral entirely. However, the consequences would disrupt the economic pattern of the country entirely over the long term. One calls to mind, for example, the negative growth which this could cause, and infrastructure stagnation and the unemployment which could arise from this. However, to place the burden of the economic problems of the day on the shoulders of the Government alone, is done with the sole aim of making cheap political capital.

The task of the Government is to establish an economic climate by means of its fiscal policy, with the absolute minimum of control measures, in which it will be possible for the economic entities of the country to maintain realistic growth, stabilize prices, realize profits and form capital. The Government only forms a part of the economic picture, and I should like to dwell for a few moments on the other economic entities, the other economic parts of the picture. When one looks at this, the keyword is “productivity”, the increasing of productivity. In this lies the contribution of all undertakings, private and State undertakings, to the economic picture and to the campaign against inflation. What it amounts to is that the undertakings must plan to do two things: Firstly, to make their own burdens lighter, and secondly, to strengthen their own assets. Many factors are involved in this and perhaps one has to single out a few basic factors. The first is the product and the market for that product. The second is the production material and its sources. The third is capital; the fourth, managerial ability and management organization; and the fifth, labour potential and ability. I should like to dwell on the last two for a few moments. As regards the last two factors, one again has a refrain which one hears ad nauseam, and this is “work harder” and “work still harder”. The Creator has equipped every person with a specific physical ability and the essence of high productivity is not harder work but the maximum utilization of that limited physical ability. Now, one can ask oneself a few questions. The first question one can ask oneself is whether the labour force of South Africa is permitted to utilize its physical ability to the optimum extent. The second question is whether there is no lack of management planning at the top management levels. The third question, one which links up with this, is whether our management levels are equal to the high demands of higher productivity.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.