Mr. Speaker, today we shall proceed with the Third Reading of the Status of the Transkei Bill, the Economic Affairs Vote and with legislation. Tomorrow we shall also proceed with legislation. Order of the Day No. 9 for today will be the first item on tomorrow’s Order Paper.

†On Monday we shall deal with the Mines and Labour Votes, and after that with the Votes of the Minister of Finance.

*After we have dealt with the Votes of the Minister of Finance we shall deal with his financial measures, of which there are two that still have to be introduced, one on customs and excise and one in connection with the Transkei. After that we shall deal with the legislation on the Order Paper, but shall not go beyond Order of the Day No. 17, plus the aforementioned legislation of the Minister of Finance. The other legislation will have to stand over. The idea is to deal with the legislation in a way which will allow us to dispose of the remaining Votes and the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill by the end of the session.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Clifford Meyer van Coller was born at Humansdorp, where he was educated before he proceeded to the S.A. College for further studies. He then qualified as an attorney and conveyancer and was elected president of the Cape Province Municipal Association in 1923 and was re-elected in 1924. During the years 1926 and 1927 he served as president of the congress of the divisional councils of the Cape Province. In 1929 he was elected member of Parliament for Cathcart, which constituency he represented until 1938, when he was elected as the member for Queenstown, a constituency which he represented for the rest of his parliamentary career. After serving as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees for the 1943 session, he was elected Speaker of the House of Assembly on 22 January 1944, an office which he occupied until 5 August 1948. During the period he held this high office, he acted at all times with dignity and impartiality and in accordance with the highest traditions of the Speakership. When he retired from Parliament on 3 March 1953, Clifford Meyer van Coller took with him the respect and gratitude of everyone for the outstanding merit which he had displayed throughout his private and public life and for the exceptionally distinguished service which he had rendered to his country. It will also be recalled that the Decoration for Meritorious Service was recently conferred on him by the State President.

*Mr. Speaker, it does not happen every day that a member who served in this House for years, over a longer or shorter period, reaches the age of 100 years. Therefore this is an opportunity for us as Parliamentarians to identify ourselves with this motion. I think it speaks volumes for the constitution of any person who presided for several years in this House if he still manages to attain the age of 100 years! It is also interesting for us as Parliamentarians to take note of the fact that it has happened three times already that a member of the House of Assembly for the constituency of Queenstown has been elected to the high office of Speaker. The first one was Sir Berry Bisset who was Speaker of the old Cape Parliament in the previous century and in the first years of this century. Then it was Mr. van Coller, and today this office is occupied by you, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, Mr. Van Coller is the second Parliamentarian to reach this milestone, the age of 100 years. As far as I know, the first one was the Hon. Col. Stallard. He also lived to this great old age. Unlike some other hon. members of this House, I did not have the privilege, unfortunately, of being in Parliament while Mr. Van Coller was here, but I did grow up in the constituency of Queenstown. Therefore I am able to say, and I think hon. members will agree with me, that that part of the world produces fine people. Not only are we delighted at the fact that this esteemed former Speaker and South African has attained the age of 100 years; we also share his joy at the fact that he is still in good health in spite of his 100 years, and that he does not only enjoy good health, but is still capable of some activity as well, that he can still make a good speech, as was proved at Queenstown recently, and I have also been very impressed by the neat handwriting in his letters which I have been receiving from him lately.

We convey our best wishes to him and we pray that God’s richest blessings may rest upon him in the years that may still be granted to him.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Van Coller has achieved, amongst other things, three firsts in his life. He was the first man from Humansdorp, where he was born, to pass matric; he was the first Speaker to be elected on a Saturday; and he was the first Speaker to attain 100 years of age. The hon. the Prime Minister has mentioned the fact that like you, Sir, he came from the Queenstown constituency. We hope that you will follow his example in other ways. When I say follow his example in other ways, I mean not only to reach a century, but also to have the same record in respect of maintenance of order in this House, because throughout his years in office he only once found it necessary to name a member, while his deputy found it necessary to suspend eight members in the same period.

Sir, reaching a 100 is an achievement. It is the quality of life that counts, and the quality of Mr. Van Coller’s life has certainly been outstanding. He was first connected with the Press, when he was a small boy in Humansdorp, and earned a tickey a week folding newspapers on Saturday mornings. By the time he was 14 years old, he was producing a column a week for the same newspaper, the Re-echo, and being paid 10 shillings a month. It is not surprising, therefore, that he brought to the Press Commission, on which he sat for 13 years, considerable experience in Press matters! Nor has he lost interest in the Press. Last year he was in communication with me to protest against a wrong report in one of the Sunday newspapers, a report affecting him. He asked me to refer it to the Press Council if it was not put right. It is noteworthy that those of us who had the privilege of serving here with him, will remember him always for his quiet dignity and the leadership he gave. In 1950 and 1951 he was leader of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations to New Zealand and to Ceylon. En route to Ceylon, he landed at Karachi and was fined 15 rupees for being a prohibited immigrant.

He took the matter up with the Speaker, and when he returned to Karachi was given red carpet treatment. That did not satisfy Mr. Van Coller, however. He claimed his 15 rupees back. It says much for his ingenuity that he got the 15 rupees back, less sixpence exchange. The hon. the Prime Minister has mentioned that Mr. Van Coller served on the Cape Municipal Association and was president of the divisional council congress. It is interesting to note that as far back as 1921—55 years ago—he was the first public figure to make a really important speech on the importance of soil conservation. It is also interesting to note that when he was president of the divisional council congress, he was one of the first to plead for home-ownership for the urban Bantu.

He has always had an interest in historical things and still has his first appointment as a justice of the peace in 1902. It is wonderful to know that he is loving his retirement, has a tremendous zest for life, does not live in the past and is intensely interested in everything that is going on around him, including his 11 great-grandchildren. He still walks five or six holes of the golf course every day with his dogs and recalls that when he was here in Parliament, at the age of 77, he had a golf handicap of nine.

That takes some doing!

He was a foundation member of the Cathcart Bowling Club, but says that he retired at the age of 93.

I think there is only one other thing one should mention. So impressed was the insurance company with which he had insured his life, that in anticipation of his 100th birthday that company has already paid him out in full—in cash! I am sure our very best wishes go to him for the second century, and coupled with them our good wishes to his daughter who has looked after him since his wife died many years ago.

I therefore second this motion.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches would like to be associated with the motion introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister. This is a notable occasion in the life of a distinguished South African citizen and also a unique occasion for this House. Mr. Van Coller has lived through turbulent times in South African history and I am sure that as he looks back on Sunday he will find fascination, excitement and achievement, and I am sure he will also try to look forward and wonder what the next 100 years will hold for him and his progeny.

Together with Colonel Stallard, who has also reached his 100th birthday, Mr. Van Coller has set a unique precedent for hon. members of this House. I am sure we all receive some degree of satisfaction from the fact that it is possible for politicians to live to be a hundred. [Interjections.] He has also set another very important precedent. He retired early enough to enjoy many years of retirement. Perhaps we as politicians must balance the two precedents set by Mr. Van Coller. The only people, I think, who must be concerned at this new trend which is developing amongst politicians in South Africa, are the gentlemen who have to work out the actuarial intricacies of the Parliamentary Pension Fund. I doubt whether they are going to enjoy Mr. Van Coller’s birthday quite as much as he and the rest of his family are.

In conveying our good wishes to him and his family, I would like to say at the same time in what high regard and esteem we hold him for the distinction of many years of service at all levels to the wider South African community, for the dignity with which he occupied the Chair and for his special personal charm in human relationships with whomever he came in contact.

We therefore wish him a happy birthday and hope that he and his family and the people of Queenstown will enjoy Sunday the 13th as a very special day and that they will also derive some measure of satisfaction from the fact that Mr. Van Coller has rendered service and lived on to reap the rewards of retirement and the appreciation of his fellow-citizens. Here I am referring to fellow-members of this House, the people of Queenstown, his family, his servants and all with whom he has come in contact. We wish him a happy birthday and many more to come.

I am pleased to be able to state that the motion has been accepted unanimously. I, too, wish to identify myself with the motion and with the good wishes and congratulations conveyed to Mr. Van Coller by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Sea Point.

The content of the motion will be communicated to Mr. Van Coller by telegram today and by letter as soon as possible.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, since we have now reached the Third Reading debate and have already conducted a very thorough discussion of the Bill in its previous stage, I should like to make a few remarks. It is undoubtedly true that many members of the general public have believed for many years that the concept “separate freedom” would never be given any tangible form. I am of the opinion that the public believed this for various reasons, and I want to mention the most important of these. In the first place it was for many years the approach of the NP that the Whites should retain absolute supremacy and control over the whole of South Africa. In the second place, the public believed that the concept “separate freedom” would never be given any tangible form because the Government believed in discrimination on the basis of colour. The public accepted that this was the point of departure of the Government. In the third place, the public never took seriously the NP’s policy of the liberation of nations. In fact, the Government itself never took that policy seriously. Often, on a number of occasions, we heard—the Leader of the Opposition has quoted this, and all of us who have sat in this House over the past 10 to 15 years know that this was the standpoint—that the Government denied that apartheid on a territorial level formed part of its philosophy. Another reason why the people of South Africa thought that the concept “separate freedom” would never be given tangible form, was that the dangers involved in fragmentation appeared too real, and because the economic interdependence of the various groups in this country had become too fundamental to be broken down. It must also be borne in mind that the separation in various communities at the local level received more attention from the Government than “big apartheid”.

One could also say that there was a total lack of confidence among the public in the Black man being able to administer himself without the intervention of the more advanced Whites with their years of experience of self-administration. The public believed that the Whites ought to be there, owing to their faith in the preservation of civilized standards. However, this era has vanished from South Africa for ever. The NP is now irrevocably on the road of—as they see it—the political liberation of the various peoples. And this is no easy road. The legislation, and the debate on it, too, gave us an indication that this was no easy road, nor would be in the future. But on various occasions the Government has in fact had the green light from the vast majority of the voters to carry out their policy of liberating people. That is why it is quite natural that hon. members on that side of the House should ask, as they have done in this debate, that we on this side should assist them in this. They would like to have assistance in these circumstances because this is a fantastic and major task. Furthermore, they probably also want it because at this stage they still cannot be sure whether this experiment, which could become a political monster, is going to be successful. If there is a lack of self-confidence opposite concerning the question whether separate freedom is going to be successful, this is a very natural attitude, an attitude which is not necessarily wrong. Under the circumstances it is perhaps as well that there should be some lack of self-confidence in regard to this matter, because it will result in the Government having to remain on its toes in order to be able to improve race relations in South Africa ceaselessly.

Consequently, in the time at my disposal, I should like to discuss the request that the UP should assist the Government in this regard. I also want to explain why we cannot give our unqualified support to separate freedom. This side of the House is committed to granting responsibilities and powers to group communities. Although this side of the House has always said that it wants to grant those responsibilities and powers to group communities, we had never yet given our blessing to the separation of such communities in free states. Therefore, this side of the House cannot be unfaithful to its own point of view, and furthermore it must be borne in mind that we too have substantial support among the voters for this philosophy. The thousands of voters who support this side of the House, are not integrationists. At the same time they are not disintegrationists, either.

What are they, then?

They want to grant every group in South Africa, including the Whites, the maximum constitutional freedom. They are uncompromisingly in favour of the retention of group identities and do not want to mix the diversity that exists in the country into a uniracial unitary State. They reject such mixing forcefully and unambiguously. But from these people we have also had the mandate to advocate the alternative to separate freedom, namely federation. How can that standpoint be repudiated without loss of face for our party? Just as the hon. members opposite have had the mandate to carry out their point of view, we too have a mandate with regard to our point of view. There is the temptation, and it is a very strong temptation, to support the second best when one’s own policy does not enjoy the support of the vast majority of voters, but as with all temptations one can be faced with, it is always best to give the benefit of the doubt to one’s own principles and approach. Only recently an election was held in an area which included a large section of the soon-to-be-independent Transkei.

†On that occasion we contrasted our policy of federation with the policies of all the other parties, including the policy of the NP, of separate freedoms. Although a NP candidate was not present, the NP’s policy received the necessary attention of the electorate. Mr. Speaker, who are better qualified to voice an opinion than the people who live in that area or adjacent to it? They unequivocally, through the ballot box, expressed the hope that the cup of separate freedom should rather pass their lips. In the parliamentary election two years ago, in 1974, and also in the general election of 1970, the member of Parliament for that area was elected unopposed. The NP was not even prepared to put its policy before those people who are intimately affected by their policy of separate freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, there may be an atmosphere of euphoria in certain circles, that independence for the Transkei is the answer for Black political expression. But, Sir, when it simultaneously ignores the presence of the urban Blacks, to what extent, can one ask, has the problem been solved? Just the physical presence of the Blacks in ever increasing numbers, whose needs and wants cannot be ignored, emphasizes to me at least, a continuous political issue. There was a time when Government spokesmen did not want to subject the Black man to luxurious urban living conditions. Then the city life of the White man’s area would have been too attractive. That was the statement made by the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee. But now, for the sake of concession, and to make up for the loss of South African citizenship, the Government will go out of its way to make the urban African even more permanent in our society. What they are apparently telling the Black man is this: “If you do not squeal about your Transkei citizenship and you want to come to the White man’s land, you will have the time of your life.” This is in effect what the Black man is being told.

Now you are talking nonsense. Surely that is untrue.

Of course it is true. Sir, they are going to make concessions with regard to the Black man who is staying here. Their own newspapers have said so. There is going to be greater freedom of movement, and concessions have already been made with regard to house ownership. They are therefore saying this.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to ask: Why does the Government not come clean with the people of South Africa on this issue? Under such conditions the issue of Transkeian citizenship will never be resolved and has at this moment not been resolved. I believe that the last word about the citizenship of the Blacks who are permanently in our urban areas has not yet been spoken. I want the hon. the Minister to answer this question: Will the Black citizen of the Transkei, living here for all time, never have a choice to adopt South African citizenship?

*Is that how he sees the matter? Will those people never have a choice in the future? Will he also say that in a political constellation, no provision for that Black man will ever be made for anything but a relationship with the homeland? I am convinced that the hon. the Minister cannot give that assurance, because he knows that the Schalk Pienaars of this world are right when they say that it is ridiculous to regard homeland independence as the answer for the urban Bantu. This legislation will not be the end of the matter. The Transkei still remains largely our responsibility, because out of a budget of R13 million this Government had to provide R93 million. It will have to go on in this way for years, because the viability of this territory is still minimal, and political independence does not therefore reduce the responsibility of the White man in this regard.

This territory will remain in our minds and in our dealings. What may be done in this connection? South Africa will never be able to withdraw its helping hand here, and for Chief Minister Matanzima, international recognition of his republic will be of cardinal importance. Of just as much importance will be the degree to which he will be able to inspire confidence that his country will maintain a free capitalist economy. He will need Western capital and entrepreneuring spirit for more rapid economic development. In this regard we shall never be able to withdraw our hand from the Transkei. Consequently we shall not be able to wipe the problem off our slate as a result of this legislation. The whole of South Africa will have to assist in this regard. Because this legislation does not furnish all the answers to these question, we can only move—

I do want to express the hope that peoples of goodwill will give the Transkei and Chief Minister Matanzima a chance, just as I believe all South Africans of goodwill are in fact prepared to give him a chance.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park disappointed me very much by alleging that the public of South Africa did not believe or had never believed that one of these homelands could become independent. Since 1959, when Dr. Verwoerd stated the policy in this House, we have never concealed this but have told everybody that the homelands will eventually become independent. Today, in the case of one homeland, we are on the threshold of such independence. How could the public of South Africa have been unaware of this or not have believed it? I think the only people who did not believe it were the UP and the PRP. The hon. member quoted the example of the election in Griqualand East and said that the people of Griqualand East, the constituency situated closest to the Transkei, voted unanimously for a federal policy in the provincial election. If this is so one may apply the same argument to Vryburg. Vryburg is situated in the heart-land of Bophuthatswana, but in Vryburg the NP took the seat with a large majority, in spite of the fact that everybody knew that Bophuthatswana was to become independent. Surely the same argument applies in the case of Vryburg. Later on in my speech, I shall refer to other remarks made by the hon. member for Newton Park in this regard.

We know that our policy is in direct conflict with the policies of the Opposition parties. After all, this legislation is the ultimate and logical consequence of our policy and proof that our policy is in fact succeeding. We had hoped that they would support the independence of the Transkei. However, they rejected it totally. In the process they did not even mind acting in an insulting and disparaging manner towards the Xhosa people. The hon. member for Newton Park, for instance, said that there was a lack of confidence in the ability of the Black to govern himself.

I said this was so in your party.

The hon. member said that was what the public of South Africa was thinking. It is nothing but an insult for the Xhosa people. The hon. member went further and said that the independence of the Transkei was an experiment in which the Government was engaged and that it might unshackle a political monster. These were the words of the hon. member. We, however, have the necessary confidence in those people to say that this will not happen. Not a single member of the UP actually expressed confidence in the Xhosa people in his speech. They are a people that want to become sovereignly independent of their own free will. As the hon. the Minister indicated, only two hon. members of the UP made feeble remarks about this in passing. The hon. member for Maitland said in passing that he wished them everything of the best. The hon. member for Griqualand East said in a very sombre voice that he would assist them in future and wished them every success for the future. Even the hon. the Leader of the UP did not congratulate this emergent nation on its independence, an attitude which would suggest that this nation was heading for its own destruction. Does the freedom of these peoples mean so little to the Opposition parties that no one even wants to share in the Transkeians’ joy at their independence?

The Opposition Press and the Opposition itself, however, lauded the granting of independence by England to the three Protectorates, which are much smaller than the Transkei, at the time. This was a magnificent deed on the part of England. A similar welcome greeted all States in Africa on their independence. In South Africa, however, this may not happen. A different yardstick is applied to South Africa by its own people, the Opposition. How naive can the UP be? Once again, as the hon. member for Newton Park did, they offer their federal solution. Seen from a basic point of view, they must realize that no homeland leader will lead his people into a federal constellation, a constellation in which they will obtain second-class franchise and second-class citizenship, and, in addition, be subject to a White Parliament as the umbrella body. On the other hand, under National Party policy, they have the choice to become independent. Surely it is obvious that they will opt for this. Surely an independent Transkei will never want to become part of a federal constellation if it knows that it will occupy a subservient position in that constellation.

As far as the Progress are concerned, I want to say that our view is, of course, diametrically opposed to theirs. We have always considered the policy of those people to be abhorrent, and the rest of South Africa, the majority of the voters, have always seen it in that light too. I do not want to be a prophet, and one need not be a prophet to predict that the qualified franchise of these people will have to disappear in the near future if they want their policy to gain any acceptance amongst the Blacks. And then the logical consequence is Black majority rule. Only one homeland leader supports the PRP and he thinks that he may be able to convince them to change their franchise qualifications in future. The Xhosa people have rejected them definitely and finally. As in the past, the Opposition has once again allowed a great opportunity to pass by not utilizing this event, and they will come to rue this in the future. I may recommend them to read the excellent editorial of Die Burger of 9 June. The article concludes with the following words—

Sir, at the Third Reading stage of the debate it is fitting for us to look at the future of this Republic: Transkei. A number of members, the Press and even the hon. member for Newton Park once again made the statement that this area was “not viable”. Once again we pose the question: Since when has viability been a prerequisite for independence? Nowhere in the world has it been a prerequisite. But in South Africa it is stated as a prerequisite. When the small protectorates became independent, it was not a prerequisite at the time. But when the Transkei becomes independent, it is stated as a prerequisite. A new Government came into power in South Africa in 1948, and when South Africa became a Republic outside the Commonwealth in 1961, South Africa was given to understand that it would not have viability and that its economy would collapse. Those prophecies of doom are being repeated with regard to the Transkei. Once again we want to say that viability is not economic independence. We have never alleged that the Transkei is economically independent, but that the Transkei has viability is definite. Viability means development potential. This is the only norm in terms of which this concept can be measured. Therefore we must look at the potential of the Transkei. We must look at the development of the past few years and then project this so as to see whether it has economic viability. I want to repeat that potential is not a prerequisite, but I am suggesting this merely to lift the veil to some extent on what the future holds for the Transkei. I do not want to detain this House by giving a whole lot of statistics, but there are things which should be mentioned nevertheless, certain figures which must be mentioned in respect of the Transkei and its future potential. If we look at the national accounts, we see that the gross domestic product in 1969-’70 was R84,5 million. This increased to R131,24 million in 1973-’74, a total increase of 55,3%. To this, agriculture was the biggest contributor, its contribution amounting to 34,8%. The national gross income of all Transkeian citizens, together with those temporarily absent, was R92 million in 1960 and R407 million in 1973, a total increase of 342,7%. The gross national income per capita, as stated by the hon. member for Lydenburg as well, was R58 per capita in 1960 and R175 in 1973, an increase of 201%. The gross fixed investment in the public sector in 1960 was R1,8 million; in 1973 this increased to R24,7 million. The S. A. Bantu Trust was the biggest investor up to 1970-’71 and then the Government of the Transkei became the biggest, with R7,5 million in 1971, i.e. 31% of the total. This increased to R12 million, or 49,1% of the total, in 1973.

Initially agriculture is the most important industry in a developing country. Today this holds good for the Transkei too. Moreover, this territory’s agricultural land is its most important natural resource, the source of the territory’s biggest potential. The Transkei has already been described as the future larder of South Africa, and it has been said that it may be able to feed 30 million people. Prior to the consolidation of 1975, the Transkei was 3 871 000 ha in extent. Of this 716 650 ha is suitable for dryland crops, 2 350 ha for irrigation, 199 690 ha for forestry and 2 952 000 ha for grazing. The entire territory is situated in a high rainfall zone and the rainfall varies from 600 mm in thorn-bush country in the west to 1 200 mm in the coastal area. A rainfall of 500 mm is considered to be a rainfall required for the effective cultivation of dryland crops. Soil conservation is being practised on a large scale and the settlement plan has been completed for more than 80%, and in 1975 62% of this had been physically implemented. This means that whereas people used to settle and farm on a haphazard basis, a pattern of settlement has been created for the Transkei as a whole through sound planning and encouragement. It has been established at what places towns are to be built, at what places farmlands are to be established and what areas are to be used for grazing. This pattern can be seen throughout the Transkei and the beneficial effects of this can already be seen because the phenomenon of soil erosion is already disappearing from large areas of the territory. As a further illustration of the potential of this territory in the agricultural sphere, I want to mention two more examples. In 1973-’74 the yield from crop farming was R10,6 million for field husbandry and R4,4 million for horticulture, a combined yield, therefore, of R15 million. If maize were to be planted on the 716 000 ha suitable for this purpose and if a yield of 15 bags per ha could be achieved—which is a low yield—the income, as far as the yield from maize was concerned, would increase to R53,7 million per annum as compared to the present income of R15 million.

As the next example, I want to mention the cattle turnover percentage. In the Republic of South Africa cattle turnover percentage during 1974 was 25,8% and that of the Transkei, 0,7%. If the turnover on the Transkei’s cattle population of 1,19 million were to increase to an annual turnover of 20%, it would yield an estimated income of R47 million as against the present R13,2 million. The XDC has already achieved enormous success with agricultural projects, and the extensions of programmes are continuing. The corporation has tea projects on 970 ha, phormium tenax on 1 779 ha, a coffee project on 210 ha as well as 1 600 macadamia trees. In addition the corporation has undertaken large irrigation projects at Qumata, 127 morgen at Poort, 110 morgen below the Xonxa Dam as well as 305 morgen below the Lubisi dam. This gives one a total of 1 092 morgen under irrigation today.

In the sphere of forestry the territory has tremendous potential as well. In 1968 the income from forestry was R506 000 and in 1974 this increased to R1,39 million. Four sawmills have already been erected. In this way I can go on mentioning further figures relating to development in the industrial sphere through the agencies of the XDC in respect of which an investment to the value of R11,7 million has already been made. Of this the industrialists themselves have provided R5,2 million. I can also refer to the undertakings established by the XDC itself at an investment of R25,5 million. As far as commercial undertakings run by the Blacks themselves in the Transkei are concerned, there is a total of 2 592 businesses, which vary from wholesalers, to dry cleaning concerns, hairdressing and even undertakers’ concerns. Another potential which can be developed for the Transkei is its tourism potential, which is estimated at a fairly high amount.

Now I come to one of the important points and that is, to be specific, the development of human potential in the Transkei. In 1970 there were 395 600 children in primary schools in the Transkei as against 455 300 children in 1974, an increase of 60 600 children in the space of those few years. For secondary education and teachers’ training the numbers were 25 842 in 1971 and 32 490 in 1974, an increase of 6 600. This is also the case as far as students at universities in the Transkei are concerned. In 1971 the number was 250 and in 1974 the number was 344. Therefore the people of the Transkei are receiving training and are eager to undergo training. For that reason we are convinced of the fact that in future the human material of that country will be able to utilize the development potential of the country to its fullest extent.

We have great confidence in the future of the future Republic of the Transkei. We say this, firstly, because there is confidence in their people; secondly, because the potential exists for a vigorous and viable country, thirdly, because they have a democratic form of government, and, fourthly, because they have a strong and stable Government which inspires confidence and will attract investment, as has recently been proved.

In March 1961 the late Dr. Verwoerd said the following in London after we had left the Commonwealth—

Our present Prime Minister has often held out the prospect of the establishment of a future commonwealth of nations. When we became a Republic in 1961, South Africa was forced to leave the Commonwealth. With the advent of a Southern African commonwealth—and we are certain that this will come—the Republic of South Africa will gladly welcome the Republic of the Transkei to that commonwealth for the promotion of joint and common interests. The people of the Transkei is a proud people. It is a people with a long and colourful history, with a language of its own and with a fine culture. It is a particular privilege to the Republic of South Africa, and especially to the National Party Government of South Africa, to lead them to maturity and the highest rung of nationhood and to cause them to take their rightful place amongst the free nations of the world. Above all we are pleased and grateful that it has been possible to take this step in so peaceful and evolutionary a manner. We congratulate the future Republic most heartily on its coming into being. We also wish it every success. May its blessings be many and may our great friendship become closer. May it also be a champion of the democratic philosophy of life always. We know we are dependent on each other and therefore we must bear with one another as friends do.

In conclusion, allow me to express a few words of gratitude. I think it is necessary to pay tribute specifically to the man who considered nothing too much trouble to bring us to this point where we are today, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He became Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in 1966. We commemorated that occurrence not long ago. For ten years he has been occupying the portfolio of Bantu Administration and Development and we want to pay tribute to him for the work he has done and for the way in which he has done that work. We know that he has been the driving force behind the events we are experiencing today. We know that he is the good friend of the Black man in South Africa, but, because of that friendship, also the good friend of the White man of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could echo the words of the hon. member for Vryburg in praising the hon. the Minister and in welcoming this Bill, but I am afraid I am unable to do so. We on these benches will be supporting the amendment that has been moved, i.e. the amendment that this Bill be read a third time this day six months. We shall continue our opposition to this Bill to the end. There have been no amendments of any importance, not even in the Committee Stage of this Bill. In fact, as I recollect, the only amendment that was accepted at all was the somewhat reluctant amendment of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, who then attempted to withdraw his amendment but was not allowed to do so. That amendment had to do with the postponement of the date of independence, or rather the removal of a specific date.

Not a postponement.

No, all right. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is going to introduce it even sooner than we think. Let me rephrase my statement. That hon. member’s amendment had to do with the removal of a specific date for independence. We all have our own suspicions about why that is so.

The hon. member for Vryburg gave us a long discourse about the economic potential of the Transkei and pointed out that economic viability was, in any case, not a prerequisite for independence. That is so, of course, since we know that in Africa and elsewhere in the world there are independent States that are not economically viable. There are, however, two points I want to make.

Firstly, this State, which is now to be excised from South Africa, was part of a flourishing Republic, and the excision of this State is going to mean that it will be denied what we believe is its fair share of the joint wealth which the Transkeian citizens have helped to produce and accumulate in South Africa. That is the first point.

The other point involves the economic potential, and in that connection I want to point out to that hon. member that in spite of all the fine figures he has produced this morning, he must remember that the number of jobs that are being created outside of agriculture falls far short of the minimum number which the Tomlinson Commission urgently recommended when it reported 20 years ago. In all, less than 16 000 jobs outside of agriculture have been created in the Transkei, but the Tomlinson Commission asked for far more than that. I want to point out that there are 17 000 able-bodied men only, let alone the women, who come on to the labour market in the Transkei each year, but jobs are not available to them. I want to point out that two-thirds of the income of the Transkei came from moneys voted by this Parliament last year. I also want to point out that between 70% and 80%—the figures vary—of the gross national income of the Transkei comes indeed from the 350 000-odd migrant workers who earn their living in the White areas of South Africa.

This demonstrates interdependence.

It is more than interdependence; it is utter dependence. It will be grossly dishonest of us not to recognize that fact. That is what I should like to say about the speech of the hon. member for Vryburg.

However, I should like to point out to the House that I have found it quite extraordinary that right throughout the proceedings which began at the beginning of this week there has been not a single Black face sitting in the galleries listening to the proceedings. Is it not extraordinary?

They do not want to listen to you.

But they should come to listen to the hon. member. They may not want to listen to me, but they surely would like to come to listen to hon. members on the Government side who are telling them what a wonderful future lies ahead for them. Is it not extraordinary that here we are, as member after member on the Government benches has pointed out to us, passing an historic piece of legislation, an astonishing piece of legislation, and yet of the people most concerned, the Transkeians, those either living in the Transkei or living right here, not more than fifteen miles from this House in Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu, not one of them has bothered to come to view these proceedings—this joyous, historic occasion. One would have thought that Chief Matanzima would have appeared on the scene or, if he himself could not put in a personal appearance, that some of his emissaries would have been sent to sit in the gallery of the House to observe this historic occasion.

To come and listen to you?

Sir, I have spoken but twice during the entire course of this Bill. Hon. members have been talking their heads off telling us about all the great advantages and I find it utterly extraordinary that instead of rejoicing Xhosas sitting in the gallery, this entire debate has been marked by the presence of not one single Black face throughout these historic proceedings.

They need not be here to know what it is all about.

There is very little more one can add at this stage of the proceedings after what has already been said about the Status of the Transkei Bill. It has been most exhaustively debated, analysed, criticized or defended, depending on which side of the House the speech came from. As I have said, there have been no amendments of any importance. However, there are still a number of questions which have not been answered and one would hope that during the Third Reading debate perhaps the hon. the Minister will do something about giving us replies to the unanswered questions. We still are completely in the dark on the whole issue of citizenship, on the whole issue of the obvious conflict between the draft Constitution Bill, as amended by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, and the Bill which we are passing through this House today.

Mr. Matanzima is not in the dark.

We all know that the draft Constitution Bill of the Transkei was amended as far as its citizenship provision is concerned so as to get an option for people living outside the Transkei as to whether or not they wish to take out Transkeian citizenship. The Bill we are passing allows for no options whatsoever. It states that all manner of persons who have any remote connection whatsoever with the Transkei, through language, culture, birth or in any other way, have got to take out Transkeian citizenship and are thereby deprived of their South African citizenship. The “crunch” issue is, of course, the deprivation of citizenship of persons who formerly held South African citizenship. The hon. the Minister says that such people will automatically become Transkeian citizens. It is interesting that, despite this, he desperately wants them to give evidence that they accept the situation. He is insisting that they apply for certificates of citizenship. Why, one wonders, should this be necessary? The hon. the Minister is insisting on this and he has told the House and has made statements to the Press to the effect that much pressure is going to be brought to bear on those Transkeians, viz. Xhosa people and Sotho people of Transkeian origin, who are living and working in South Africa where they have been for decades and even generations. Pressure is going to be brought to bear on them to take out certificates of citizenship. He has hinted darkly that, if they do not take out such certificates, they will not be allowed to keep their jobs, to attain 30 year leases or even to retain the tenancy of houses on monthly leases. In addition traders and professionals, when their licences lapse on 31 December each year, will have the greatest difficulty to have those renewed.

Who said so?

The hon. the Minister has said so.

He never said so. You are misinterpreting what he said.

I can quote from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech on this Bill and also from other speeches he has made to this effect. Ominous as that was, there was also the speech of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, who suggested that the rights of urban Africans in terms of section 10(1) may be removed. This whole situation is fraught with complications, and then not only national complications. There are many questions which have not been answered. What will happen, for instance, to a Xhosa, who was born in South Africa and has not taken out his citizenship certificate, who travels to Umtata on a visit? Will he be able to re-enter the Republic of South Africa, in which he was born? What is going to happen to Xhosa citizens if in fact the international community does not recognize the independent Transkei? On what passport will such people be able to travel? The whole question of the international complications of statelessness has not been answered in this House.

Answers have been given to all the questions.

Not at all. The hon. the Minister has brushed aside the whole concept of statelessness. I want to tell him again that, should people be rendered stateless by virtue of their being deprived of their South African citizenship and by Transkei’s independence not being recognized, there are international conventions which take such a matter very seriously indeed. All these things are going to be taken into consideration. The whole question of the deprivation of citizenship is going to be taken into consideration when the various States sit down to consider whether or not they are going to give official recognition to the Transkei.

While I am on the question of citizenship, I want to remind the hon. the Minister that when the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 was under discussion in this House, the hon. the Minister stated (Hansard, 23 February 1970, col. 1787)—

What is the position now? Does the Government still abide by what it said? Is the Government still prepared to give protection to Transkeians in the event of their independence not being recognized outside the country? How much credence can Africans be expected to give to the saving provision in clause 6(3) which says—

If the hon. the Minister tampers with any of the existing rights of Africans living in South Africa who have become Transkeian citizens, he will be betraying a trust which has been placed upon him by virtue of this clause in the Bill, and people will be watching very carefully to see that that does not happen. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that normally citizenship is highly prized. Individuals have to fulfil certain specific conditions relating, for instance, to residence, birth, domicile, descent or naturalization by application, before they can acquire the valuable rights of citizenship. They certainly do not normally get citizenship by coercion, as they are getting in terms of this Bill. In terms of this Bill citizenship is being thrust upon people whether they like it or not. At the same time all the detribalized Blacks, even if resident in the White areas for generations, even if they have intermarried with people of other ethnic groups and have lost all connection with their homeland, and even if their children fulfil the most stringent provision of citizenship that is laid down in our own South African Citizenship Act, namely to be born in South Africa, are nevertheless to be deprived of their South African citizenship. They will, of course, graciously be allowed to remain here in order to render service to the economy of South Africa.

We want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the treatment of these Transkeian citizens living within South Africa is going to be better or worse, say, than in the case of White foreigners living in South Africa. I have in mind, for instance, people who have come from Italy or Germany and who have settled in this country, but who have not taken out South African citizenship. Are the conditions which will apply to the Transkeians, these former South African citizens, to be better or worse than in the case of other Black foreigners in South Africa, people for instance from Rhodesia or Malawi or Mozambique, or Lesotho, for that matter? How will the treatment of Transkeian citizens compare with that of South African Blacks who have homeland identification but whose homeland is not yet independent? That, of course, applies to all the ethnic groups outside of the Transkei. What will be the treatment of all these people in comparison with other groups as far as jobs, housing, hospitalization, schooling, etc., is concerned? What is going to happen if Chief Matanz ma carries out his threats in this regard? He says even today that he will resolve the citizenship issue by allowing his people to opt for citizenship, and the hon. the Minister has resolved it by saying that he is going to give no option whatsoever. That is the most extraordinary resolution of a difference of opinion.

There are other matters which were raised during the debate which the hon. the Minister has brushed aside and which we hope he will reply to. One of those is the question of territorial waters, which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, and to which he has not replied at all. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us whether he contemplates labour treaties with the Transkei à la the treaty that we have with Mozambique. Is he going to allow a certain number of workers in each year? Are they going to come in on the call-in card system, or are they going to come in on specific contracts? How is he going to treat the labour situation of the Transkei once it becomes independent?

While I was doing research into this Bill, I quite accidentally turned to the latest report of the South African Law Commission on the codification of the common law relating to crimes against the State. What did I find there, to my interest? In a draft Bill to codify the law relating to common law crimes of high treason, sedition and public violence, I found this interesting proposal for the Bill. Clause 2(2) of this draft Bill reads as follows—

That is exactly what this Parliament is doing today. We are acting in concert—or at least all the members opposite are—in agreeing to the proposals of the Status of the Transkei Bill.

It refers to violent secession.

No, it does not refer to violence. That is referred to in other clauses. The third paragraph of this proposed clause says nothing about violence. I am going to read it again, because the hon. the Deputy Minister did not listen. This is all it says—

I want to know what hon. members on the Government side have got to say to that. Here they are, busy passing a Bill which is causing a part of the Republic to secede. That is all it is.

But surely Parliament is sovereign?

The hon. ex-Chief Whip says that Parliament is sovereign … [Interjections.] It can chop off my head tomorrow if it wishes to; we know that, but the learned judges who have been appointed by this supreme and sovereign Parliament to recommend changes in the law of South Africa have actually suggested that it is high treason to concert with others to persuade any part of the Republic to secede. [Interjections.] I accuse this Government of committing high treason and we in these benches are going to have nothing to do with this dreadful act against the security of South Africa and the State. We are going to vote against this Bill and I repeat that my hon. leader gave the reasons why we cannot support the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of the Third Reading debate on this Bill and I think it is right to consider what some of its consequences may be and what effects will flow from it. Quite clearly, it can be the hinge of our future race relations in this country. It can be the cause of changes in attitudes in race relations in this country and elsewhere in the world. It is indeed a most important Bill, for it may well be vital to our relations not only within this country, but also to our relations with Africa and our foreign relations in general. The UP has opposed this Bill. It is the view of the official Opposition that this Bill is bad policy, and that we were therefore right to oppose it. However, we also recognize that we, together with the rest of South Africa, will suffer the consequences of this Bill and will enjoy any benefits that may flow from it. We certainly may dissociate ourselves from the Bill, but we cannot dissociate ourselves from the consequences.

I should like to deal particularly with some of those consequences, with special regard to the international consequences of what we are doing today. If we look at the situation in South Africa and the whole question of our race relations and the policy of the Government in that regard, the crux of the matter surely is the relationship between the land and the people. It is the South African Government’s policy to remove Black people, or their rights, or both, from White South Africa, and to justify this by giving the Black people rights in their own separate lands.

What is wrong with that?

I shall come to that. Therefore, the question which is actually before the House, is not really Transkeian independence. That is incidental to the main purpose, which is the systematic creation of a White majority in White South Africa. Hon. members on that side of the House and my friend to the left of me have all endorsed that this is in fact the basic purpose of what they are doing. It has been more strongly stated by some of the Black homeland leaders, for example, Minister George Matanzima, who recently stated in London that the purpose of separate homelands is to serve the interests of White South Africa by depriving the largest number of Blacks of their rights in South Africa for the least cost in land. Various homeland leaders have made statements to the effect that they will accept independence only if enough land is made available to accommodate all the additional people who will have to flow to those homelands. Alternatively, Chief Minister Mangope put it in a different way only last week when he said that the Blacks must gain independence in order to insist as equals on a fairer division of the land. Paramount Chief Kaiser Matanzima has said also very recently that if South Africa ejected unwilling Xhosa and Sotho people from South Africa into the Transkei, this would—

It is also clear from his election manifesto that he envisages not only independence by itself, a new status, but also a re-adjustment of the land boundaries in order that he may be able to accommodate such additional people as may be necessary.

The time has come for this House to judge honestly whether this Bill will relieve the land/people conflict. Will it make it better or will it make it worse? The hon. the Minister who is in charge of the Bill has made it clear that the Government will not provide land beyond the provisions of the 1936 Act as implemented by various consolidation proposals. The homeland leaders, on their side, have made it clear that they will either use independence to get more land, or refuse independence if they do not get more land. This is an inevitable reaction to the policies of the Government. If one puts the emphasis on land, on territorial division, it is inevitable that the Black homeland leaders will demand sufficient land not only to accommodate the present Black population for which they are or may become responsible, but also for those unborn millions of Black people who will be products of the population explosion which is now being predicted for South Africa before the year 2000.

Can you give us a definition of “sufficient land”?

I will come to that. The potential for conflict will therefore grow—and this is where I answer the hon. member—in proportion to the population growth, in proportion to the economic needs and in proportion to the degree of unemployment in the Transkei. That is the rate at which the necessity for land will grow and the rate at which demands will be stepped up.

The hon. the Minister cannot, in fact, go on giving land, and I agree with him that it is impossible to go on giving land in proportion to the projected population growth. He will, therefore, have to create greater opportunities for permanent employment and permanent settlement in other parts of South Africa.

Why cannot he go on giving land? I have referred to the population explosion. By the year 2000 we are expected to have 50 million people in the country, of whom nearly 40 million will be Black. That will not be the end of the matter; the population will go on growing. Only 12% of South Africa is arable. These are official statistics. Seventy-five per cent of our water resources arise within the homeland areas. Twenty-eight per cent of the cultivable land is in the homeland areas. If we continue to grow at the present rate, and if the demands on our resources continue to grow at the present rate, then we will have to use every available inch of land in this country to produce food for our people. Cultivable land, wherever it is, will have to be put to use by efficient farmers whoever they are, whatever their colour is, wherever they are, and they will have to be educated, capital-endowed, technically qualified people. It will not be a question of colour, or of division of land according to colour, but of the use of land in the most efficient way possible.

If we persist in the attempt to solve South Africa’s political problems on territorial lines, the division of land will have to follow the population trends according to the ethnic and not the economic considerations. But if the Government nevertheless persists with this policy, while ignoring this trend, they have a certain formula, an unbeatable formula, for unrest, for violence and eventually for the total and utter world rejection of apartheid. That, Sir, is the land side of the equation.

I come now to the other side, that of the people. Can we compel a reluctant people to abandon their present rights in South Africa in exchange for other rights? This is an important question, and I leave aside, for the purposes of the argument, those who are in the Transkei and who are willingly there. The Minister has said that the Xhosa and Sotho people outside the Transkei who reject Transkei citizenship will suffer disabilities or a loss of preference regarding jobs, housing, dependants, free movement, hospitalization, transport, schools, sport and so forth, and he went on to say that if a homeland after independence refuses citizenship to or deprives of citizenship, certain people “the Government will be forced to consider whether people from such a homeland are welcome in our country so that they may not be rendered stateless through the actions of their own homeland”. Now, Sir, this definition of statelessness is without precedent in international law. That is to say, if you deprive a citizen of his citizenship and another country fails to give him another citizenship, then it is that latter country which is the cause of his statelessness. The hon. the Minister’s attitude—I hope I have quoted him correctly; I have taken this quotation from him—raises major problems of conflict which can do not only grave local harm but very substantial international harm. The Transkei independence situation depends essentially on international recognition. It is one of the cardinal necessities in the successful development of the policy.

Sir, there are four major problems which I should like to refer to briefly because my time is limited. There are, firstly, those outside the Transkei who fail to accept its citizenship but are regarded as Transkeians by the Transkei Government. Such people are entitled to the protection of their own Government in terms of international law. There is the example of South Africans in Mozambique. However they may regard themselves, if their property rights are infringed by the Government of Mozambique, then the South African Government has a right and a duty to intercede on their behalf. The South African Government is making certain provisions for White people in the Transkei, to protect their rights. It must be remembered that the Transkei Government will have equal rights in international law to insist on fair treatment of their people when they are in South Africa. They will have the right to insist that there should be no undue discrimination against their own people by virtue of their foreign status in South Africa.

Then there is another category. There are those who fail to accept Transkei citizenship and are not regarded as citizens by the Transkei Government. In international law they are still South African citizens, but the hon. the Minister has said quite frankly that he intends to discriminate against them. In Germany, in 1941, there was a decree which deprived German Jews of their citizenship without their consent. That decree has been looked at on numerous occasions by international lawyers and by the courts of various countries. I would like to quote very briefly what was said. The West German courts—that was after the new Federation of Western Germany had been created—reviewed this decree of 1941 and came to the conclusion that it violated fundamental principles. They said: “It is so intolerable and to such a degree irreconcilable with justice that it must be considered to be null and void ex tunc." In other words, the decree was to be regarded as never having been valid. In Britain Lord Jennings, then Chief Justice, passed judgment in a case in 1972 which related to the same matter and he stated—

He then described the decree as “an objectional and atrocious law”. There are other jurists of international repute who have described this kind of treatment as inconsistent with the tenants of humanity and morality. These are the problems we face. It is proposed to do certain things which fly in the face of international law. We are on a collision course in regard to these matters and I wish to give the hon. the Minister due warning, not as a warning from this side of the House to that side, but as a warning that he, on behalf of South Africa, must think again before he puts us on this course of collision with the rest of the civilized world. If these things happen he will put in jeopardy all the protestations of sincerity in regard to the ultimate purpose of his homelands policy.

If people are neither South Africans nor Transkeians, they are either aliens to both countries or they are stateless. If they aliens, I want to quote another jurist, Dr. Roth, in a book entitles The Minimum Standards of International Law Applied to Aliens—

A fourth example is that if people are made stateless by the original act of the South African Government, we are in conflict with a very large body of international law. It has been built up over the years in response to the dispossession of citizenship of people of the nations of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini. Large numbers of people were rendered stateless by the acts of those governments and there grew up in resistance to this hardship, a body of international law.

Do you want to compare us with Germany?

The hon. member must listen carefully …

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

I have very little time and I will answer the hon. member’s question because I know what he wants to ask.

If you are sensible, you will know.

The feeling against this statelessness and the hardships it caused was so strong that international protocols were dawn up at the Hague. I would like that hon. member to listen carefully. I am proud to say that South Africa participated as a signatory to those international protocols. The protocol was signed for South Africa in 1930 by Charles Lansdowne, whose name is famous in South African law. The Prime Minister at that time was none other than Gen. J. B. M. Hertzog. At the time he was Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs.

In all these cases, if we proceed on this basis, we are in for serious conflict with international law and with the international community. What are the consequences and conclusions which we must draw from this? Firstly, if we insist on dividing the land as the basis of policy, we face the impossibility of meeting the just and growing demands of Black people for more and more land as their population grows and as their needs arise.

What do you regard as sufficient land?

Our failure to do this will convince the international world, The outside community, of the injustice and unreality of South African policies. Whether that is correct or not, that is the conclusion that will be drawn.

Secondly, if we are obliged to give space and employment to the Blacks in White South Africa because of their growing numbers and their growing needs, but we deny them citizenship and the protection that is due to their nationality, or we discriminate against certain classes of them, we again face the condemnation of international society. The conclusion is that Government policy can neither solve the internal problems of our plural society by this policy of territorial separation, nor can it relieve the international tensions which will grow in opposition to such a policy. This is a clear conclusion we must draw from what has happened and what has been said in this House this week and what we know to be true of the international community if we consult precedent and international law. We are on a collision course and we are heading for a clash and I believe that we will see in the ensuing years that this policy, far from giving South Africa international respectability and far from resolving our internal problems, will lead to growing friction within South Africa and will lead to the growing reluctance on the part of our neighbouring States and the other States of Black Africa to accept or respect our policies. It will lead, eventually, to a total breakdown, an even greater breakdown than at present, in our relations with the rest of the civilized world. I say these things with no pleasure, because as a South African I am, like every other South African in this House, deeply concerned about the future of our country, about the peace and progress of our country, about our future relations with the rest of the world, all of which are essential to the survival of South Africa within the modem world. All these things are vital to us. I believe that the Bill does nothing to help us on the road to achieving these things, and that is why it is with a sense of grief and disillusionment that I have to say that I intend to support the amendment that this Bill be read “this day six months”.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Von Brandis tried to assist the Transkei in their endeavours towards international recognition, I think he failed miserably. He dealt with three issues. The first was the question of land division in South Africa; secondly, with the question of citizenship; and thirdly, with the rights of the Bantu people in urban South Africa. In regard to these three issues he stated that our policy and the coming to independence of the Transkei did not solve the problems and in fact created more problems for the Transkei in its endeavours to gain international recognition. I shall return to the hon. member in the course of my speech.

*In her speech today the hon. member for Houghton referred to the issue of citizenship. I can well understand the PRP, and the UP, too, being so sensitive about the issue of citizenship. What we in this House are experiencing in the passing of the Status of the Transkei Bill is in fact not just the birth of a new State, not just the birth of a new southern Africa, but an event which will have consequences for our future in every conceivable sphere—in the political sphere, in the economic sphere, in the social sphere—whether hon. members like it or not. In fact, what we have here—and this is the problem facing the hon. members of the Opposition—is the death knell of the policy of the PRP and the death knell of the policy of the UP. The hon. member for Von Brandis is quite right: What is happening here today is historically irrevocable. They will never in their lives be able to revoke the consequences of what has happened here. The PRP will have to face the consequences of what is happening here. To try to exploit the citizenship is not going to undo the realities of what is being done by way of this legislation. I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton, and I should like to say it in English: “You and your party and the Official Opposition have belittled the people of the Transkei in every respect. You have concentrated on one issue solely, namely the question of citizenship, and you did so for the purpose of political gain only.”

Looking at what hon. members have said, and at the large number of people in the Transkei who are intimately affected by this Bill… Let us argue for a moment that all the people outside the Transkei—and surely this is a ridiculous argument; hon. members themselves concede this—want nothing to do with this, then there are still 1 600 000 citizens in the Transkei who physically live within the Transkei.

That is right.

What has the hon. member for Houghton done with regard to those people? She has disparaged them here. She said that two-thirds of the Transkeian budget came from South Africa.

That is true.

She said that a large percentage of the gross national income of those people came from South Africa by way of migrant labourers.

That is also true.

She is right; it is true. But by saying it as she said it and as the hon. members of the Opposition have referred to this matter, they have done one thing and one thing only: They have not only underestimated the abilities of the people of the Transkei, and by implication the abilities, too, of other peoples who are also going to follow this road to uplift themselves economically and socially. They have done so in such a way that they will reap the fruits of this in the future.

You are talking nonsense!

After all, she referred to citizenship. Is she perhaps under the impression that a leader like the Chief Minister of the Transkei—in spite of certain arguments with the Government which the hon. the Minister has indicated will be solved mutually—will seize on the issue of citizenship for his people if he thinks that this is happening in such a way as to cause injustice to his people and if he thinks that his people—to Xhosas of the Transkei and his citizens in South Africa—will be prejudiced? She said today that on independence they would not share in the wealth of South Africa. I shall come back to this point in a moment and show her that it is a false argument. I shall point out that she is quite wrong and that the Transkei will share fully in the wealth of South Africa in the southern African situation which is now developing. I support the argument of the UP and the PRP. After all, they say that we in South Africa must move closer to a “sharing of wealth”. That is true. We in South Africa must move closer to the sharing of wealth. However it must not be a sharing of wealth in accordance with their pattern, because what is their pattern for the sharing of wealth? I shall come back to this in a moment and refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

I just want to digress for a moment and refer to the shameful speech made yesterday in this House by the hon. member for Pinelands. Those people must remember that the international recognition of the Transkei, the striving of a nation-in-embryo—however insignificant and however small it may be—and the momentum of development, is affected by everything they say in this House. However, what did the hon. member for Pinelands say? He referred disparagingly to Transkeian citizenship. He referred, too, to the citizenship of Blacks in the urban areas. I quote—

He referred to the speech by the hon. member for Stilfontein. He goes on—

This is the night after the Transkei gets its independence.

No, the taking away of their citizenship.

I quote further—

He goes on to say—

He then, referring to the urban Blacks, uses words which have the greatest significance for every Christian in South Africa. He states—

How can you use this kind of language with reference to us, a party which professes the Christian faith and which is led by a man who is not ashamed to say in public that he is a Christian? If he uses this kind of language to undermined us, he is becoming a travelling ambassador for Moscow in South Africa. [Interjections.] They can say that this is far-fetched language.

Order! The hon. member said it and I do not think the hon. member should say it in those terms.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could only withdraw the reference to “travelling”.

Order! No, the hon. member must withdraw everything.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw everything. However, I ask myself whether there are not people in South Africa who are using the independence of the Transkei—as if possessed by a political devil—to enter the country and stir up the feelings of Black people in the urban complexes who may be affected.

The hon. member for Houghton states that these people “will be deprived of their citizenship”. However, what is to happen after 26 October in terms of this legislation with regard to these people, viz. the Black people who are citizens of the Transkei?

They are no longer South African citizens.

The hon. the Minister said that agreement would be reached in regard to problem cases. The hon. the Minister stated in the clearest possible terms that those people would not be deprived of any rights whatsoever. The Black man living in Soweto would not all of a sudden find himself in the position of no longer being allowed to have a house under the 30 year lease scheme. He will not find himself in the position of not having employment. Looking at the development of the economy of South Africa and considering how many people from the homelands are accommodated in the economy in such a way that they, too, can come into their own in the economic sphere, one surely realizes that it is a false argument to say that those people will all of a sudden be deprived of their rights. The hon. member for Houghton knows this as well as I do. Only the other day I read that from 1951 to 1970, the number of Blacks in the professional and technical professions rose from 29 000 to 96 000.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he has read the regulations which are going to apply to those professional people and traders when they apply for their licences when they lapse at the end of this year? Certificates of citizenship will be required.

Because it is part of the essence of this party’s policy towards the non-White peoples, I am totally convinced that not one of the people about whom she is so concerned will be deprived of their rights.

She is talking absolute nonsense. She is quoting false propaganda. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to point out to the hon. member that in terms of the NP’s policy, not a single Xhosa-speaking citizen living in Soweto or in any other Bantu urban residential area will be deprived of his rights to trade there. Not a single Xhosa-speaking citizen will be deprived of his residential rights.

However, I want to ask a counter-question. It is said that we are depriving those people of their South African citizenship. Surely the citizenship they offered those people was nothing but a fraudulent citizenship.

Is South African citizenship for Blacks a fraudulent citizenship? This is a fraudulent government.

I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston—he is the best politician in the PRP as long as he never speaks …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it admissible in Parliament for an hon. member to say that the Government is a fraudulent government?

No, it is not admissible. Which hon. member said that?

Mr. Speaker, I said it and I withdraw the remark.

I want to address myself specifically to the hon. member for Houghton, but perhaps I should address myself to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana at the same time. The hon. members complain about the citizenship of which the Transkeian citizens are being deprived, but what kind of citizenship did they offer those people in public? Did the hon. member for Houghton and her party intimate to the Xhosa-speaking citizens living in White South Africa in urban areas, on black and white, that it was the policy of the PRP that they could, for example, live where they liked as full-fledged citizens.

We did.

Was this said in public?

Yes.

Is it the policy of the PRP that the Black citizens of the Transkei, of whom it is said that we are depriving them of their citizenship, may go and purchase property for themselves in Bryanston?

It is.

I want to ask the hon. members for Houghton and Bryanston whether it is the policy of the PRP that citizens who, it is said, are being deprived of their citizenship, can live where they like in White South Africa? Apparently the hon. members have already replied to that in the affirmative. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Rondebosch whether it is the policy of the PRP that those people of whom it is said that we are depriving them of their citizenship, will be able to vote in South Africa just like a White person.

Yes.

Just like a White person?

Yes.

But in Pinelands those people cannot even walk where they want to.

I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana whether the citizenship which the UP offers these people—I am now referring to those people who are being deprived of their citizenship in South Africa by us—is a full-fledged citizenship and whether it is a qualified citizenship. This year the hon. member for Edenvale introduced a motion that we should do away with all the legislation relating to discrimination. In accordance with the standpoint of the UP that we must give full citizenship in White South Africa to the Xhosas who cannot fit into the Xhosa pattern, I want to ask the hon. member for Edenvale whether it is also their policy that those people, as full citizens, can live just where they want to? For example, can they live in Edenvale? I do not want to be unpleasant towards the hon. member. I am asking him this in a nice way. Let me ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana whether a full-fledged Black citizen of South Africa—I do not want to make political capital out of this—can live in any suburb in Durban. The hon. members do not want to answer me. You see, Sir, this is the truth behind the fraudulent citizenship being offered. That is why I say that the citizenship we are offering these people affords them opportunities in White South Africa in accordance with the rights they have at present, but with a link with the Transkei by way of political citizenship.

The Transkei is ushering in an era in South Africa in the economic sphere which we shall never again be able to escape. In our programme of economic development and physical development for the future we shall have to take account of the reality of the Transkei. The independence of the Transkei involves the Government of the Transkei having a say—the Opposition is correct in this regard, but it seemed as if they were afraid of it—in the economic sphere, in the economic life of South Africa, in regard to the rights of its citizens in White South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton would do well to bear that in mind. It will most certainly happen in the days that lie ahead that the Government of the Transkei will consult with the Government of South Africa with regard to the position of Transkeian citizens in the economy of White South Africa. Surely it is right and good that this should be so. We are not afraid of that. One of the members of the UP said that we were giving a foreign country a say in our economic system. Is that not a kind of baasskap argument? Is it not proof that fear underlies the standpoint of the UP? I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton and her party that they must ask the hon. member for Rondebosch, a man, I am tempted to say, with a sociological intellect, to analyse carefully for them the psychological background of their own policy. On the one hand it is an absolute fear, and on the other hand it is the fact that they regard the non-Whites whom they want to take along with them, as inferior. In another debate yesterday, when the hon. member for Johannesburg North was not present, I referred to economic inter-dependence. There is one aspect of reality which the Transkei has illustrated more vividly than any other, and that is the economic realities of Southern Africa. When one considers how dependent the Transkei is on South Africa in the context of economic co-operation—and I readily concede this to hon. members opposite—then one realizes how necessary it is that everyone in Southern Africa should co-operate to achieve success. Even though the Transkei had not become independent, we should still have been faced with the realities of a Transkei which still has to develop so that employment opportunities may be created for the people there. Surely it would be the utmost folly simply to neglect states like the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and other homelands economically because we would then have the problem that their people would all come to White South Africa, which would in turn result in the overdeveloped urban complexes being beset by increasing socio-economic problems, for example with regard to housing, schools, etc. Surely it is logical—and the hon. member for Johannesburg North ought to know this—that we should not use all the money we have to pump into the infrastructure in South Africa at the moment in the concentrated complexes. Surely it is right that we should allow some of that money to flow to the homelands, and in this case to the Transkei, to assist in building up the infrastructure there so that we may assist those people and provide them with employment opportunities. However, it is not only the Transkei which is now illustrating this economic dilemma to us afresh. The other countries around us are also doing so. In Lesotho more than 10 000 Blacks enter the labour market annually. They do not have a hope of providing those people with employment. In Rhodesia 45 000 people enter the labour market every year. Surely they cannot provide those people with employment. We could continue in this vein. In 1970, 83 000, or just half, of the school-going children in Botswana were in low school. They only had room for 6 000 children in high school. In Botswana they cannot even create employment opportunities for 2 000 people per annum in their economy. The Transkei illustrates the economic realities of Southern Africa, and it is our task and our responsibility to assist the Transkei so that we can make that homeland economically viable and so that we can uplift and develop those people along the road of national development. The hon. member for Houghton is correct; she pointed out a moment ago that 17 000 people, and a total of 23 600 workers, enter the labour market in the Transkei every year. She is right; employment opportunities do not exist at the moment for all those people. In the years 1971 to 1973, as a result of our total economic decentralization effort, we provided employment for 26 400 people in South Africa. The goal was 39 000, and that goal represents a mere 22% of all the Blacks in the homelands who enter the labour market. This is a reality; the population explosion in Southern Africa is a reality we cannot get away from, and which we shall now have to face with the development of the Transkei.

There is a political reality, too, which we shall have to face and those hon. members can debate about it as much as they want to. The Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana said that they were on this road towards autonomy. We as Whites must assist these people. I believe that the hon. member for Von Brandis was correct when he said that the Transkei opened up a new dimension in national relations. I believe that the independence of the Transkei will usher in a new era of relations between White and Black in Southern Africa and in South Africa as well. To a far greater degree than those hon. members want to concede—and, as far as I am concerned, to the utmost degree—we are escaping the political dilemma they would like to exploit, not to the advantage of the Black people, but to the advantage of their own political philosophy. Their standpoint with regard to the urban Blacks is expedient for their political philosophy. To the hon. member for Johannesburg North I want to say that the purchasing power of the Black people in South Africa was R3 725 million last year, R890 million of it in the homelands. I realize—and the hon. member ought to realize—that the greater part of that purchasing power is in the White area. The hon. member must now tell me whether, economically speaking, this does not constitute the grossest form of discrimination, inherent in their policy? It constitutes economic exploitation that the Whites want to use the sum total of that purchasing power and the sum total of developed and trained Black people in one economy only. The reality is that millions of Blacks will be employed in the economy of White South Africa. It is as well that we should use them well, but it is in the interests of national harmony that in the light of what is now going to happen in regard to the Transkei, we should train those people on the largest possible scale for the sake of the development of the various nations.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke in disparaging terms about the whole concept of identity. However, the Transkei is ushering in a new era with regard to national relations, an era in which we must retain a sense a perspective and which will give people a sense of perspective with regard to the concept of identity, that concept which embraces the sum total of the culture of mankind, all those things which a people creates from its own resources in all spheres, things which it brings forth of itself, the sum total of the creative efforts of man. Identity is also a feeling, and the hon. member ought to know this because she, too, experiences this as a member of a nation, together with many other people in the world. And yet she has no thought of ever ending up in Israel. As far as the issue of language is concerned, in my opinion there is a greater love and a greater potential feeling of identity involved in this aspect than the hon. member wants to suggest. But we must also keep in perspective the concept of “integration”. As far as national relations in South Africa are concerned, the independence of the Transkei is going to bring us closer to a point at which, in terms of our policy of righteousness and justice, we shall be able to get away from those things which the Black people regard as discriminatory. Opportunities are being created for them within their own national context. The independence of the Transkei also gets us further away from the ideals of the PRP and the UP concerning an integrationist South Africa. One cannot build identities on the one hand and, on the other hand, have a policy of integration. We must have a sense of perspective—on the basis of what is happening in Southern Africa at the moment—with regard to the concept of human dignity.

I think that there is now an opportunity for Whites and Blacks in South Africa to meet each other on an equal footing as citizens of States—as far as the Transkei is concerned, a State in embryo at the moment—in the future. We shall then be able to move away from all the ridiculous and petty arguments concerning separation measures, etc., which these people hold out to the non-Whites as discriminatory. We shall reach the point at which the non-Whites in our urban complexes, too, will grow to greater maturity within the national context and will experience human dignity as members of a nation in embryo which the NP is helping to build. However, I want to concede to the Opposition their minor argument that one cannot tell other people to be proud of something they are not proud of. Pride is something which comes from within. If this is so, and Kaiser Matanzima has said that he wants to allow that pride to grow and flourish, why should we disparage the pride which they want to allow to grow and flourish, the deed which represents the evolutionary goal of our own efforts? Hundreds of officials have worked day in and day out for years. The Minister has worked unflaggingly, day in and day out, together with his Deputy Ministers, some of whom are Ministers today, to assist in realizing, in a fine and practical form, the aspirations of a people. Why should we disparage this? Why should we destroy the whole concept of sound human relations by trying to smother at birth the national growth which has now reached maturity? What are we achieving? I want to say that we must use the Transkei and all the States which will follow it, we must use the people of the States, to allow justice to be done to everyone in Southern Africa in the political, economic and social spheres, in order to create a pattern of sound coexistence, a pattern of decent human relations, a pattern of the recognition of human dignity, a pattern of getting away from discrimination. I am convinced that if we do so, the futile arguments concerning rights of Blacks who live outside the homelands and who represent a socio-economic problem, will disappear like the morning mist, not only for White South Africa, but also for the future of those peoples.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, my time for the reply to the Third Reading debate is restricted in terms of the Standing Orders. Therefore hon. members will understand that after the debate which has lasted four days, there are certain things which I consider to be essential things and which I want to state on this last appropriate occasion in this House. For that reason I am going to begin with these matters. There are not many of them, but nevertheless I want to start with them, because generally speaking, there is really not a single point which has been raised by the Opposition today which I have not already answered or dealt with either by way of introduction or by way of reaction. In the time remaining for the Third Reading reply, I shall be able to reply to certain members in any event.

†With the Third Reading of this Bill, we have reached not only a moment for calm meditation, but also the moment of the unmistakable reality that the Transkei is going to become independent. We have so often heard in the past that our policy was unreal, that it was fantasy; in fact we were told it was all sorts of other things. Now, however, we have reached the moment of reality. It will not be possible to undo the independence of the Transkei later. It will not be possible. If, in future, there will be efforts to undo the independence of the Transkei, I want to warn and predict that such efforts will only end in chaos. I therefore request everyone in the House and in the country to accept as a reality what is now going to take place. Yes, to accept it—as I have said in one of the other stages of the debate on this Bill—as the opposition to the referendum, the hundreds of thousands of “No” voters of 1960, thereafter accepted the advent of the Republic of South Africa. I wish the same would be true of the Transkei’s independence.

As everyone accepted the Union as well.

Yes, that is another example. I also request the Opposition here in Parliament, for the sake of South Africa, and not for the sake of a particular party, and for the sake of the Transkei, our neighbour, to accept this unavoidable reality.

*And, Sir, in saying this, I should like to refer specifically to the members of the Progressive Party and to ask them, and this is nothing but a request, please to stop interfering in the politics of the Transkei as far as this matter is concerned. Sir, I know what I am talking about, and the great tragedy is that I am not aware of everything that has happened, but that I am in fact aware of quite a good deal of what has happened. I ask the hon. members of the Progressive Party to stop their interference in the politics of the Transkei, whether by way of speeches, whether by way of dialogue or by way of a flood of telegrams—please do not ask me from where, because I can even give the names of the post offices. My request is that that kind of political interference should be ceased now, ceased in the interests of South Africa. We are dealing now with South Africa and with the Transkei, not with the interests of any political party.

Sir, this occasion will be the last one in this House, and therefore the most suitable one, for addressing a few words of appreciation to people outside. I said something to the hon. members of this House during the Second Reading Stage, and now I should like to have my appreciation recorded here towards everyone—and there are many people—who contributed in so many ways to the realization of the moment when the Bill will be passed. Firstly there are the hundreds of thousands of supporters of the Government—I do not say of the National Party, because there is a broader support for the Government—who have carried us over the years to this hour. I express appreciation to the people of the Transkei as well for their co-operation and for the support they gave in the past as well to the development of the policy and of their own homelands, and for not leaving it to us alone, as, in the old colonial times and subsequently during a certain period after Union, it was left to this Government, to the trustee—if I may term it so—to develop the homelands by itself. I express my appreciation to the active, energetic self-interest they showed in developing their own affairs as well.

In this connection I also want to express a word of appreciation to the Chief Minister and the other leaders in the Transkei who distinguished themselves in connection with these matters in the past; also in respect of the many talks we had with the Chief Minister and others on various levels, on the level of the officialdom and on higher levels, up to the hon. the Prime Minister, who conducted negotiations about this very matter together with me and several times on his own as well. I express my appreciation for this and I just want to say that those good relations and the way in which we discussed these urgent and important matters auger very well for the future in regard to the other negotiations which will naturally have to take place on easy as well as on difficult matters. Sir, the negotiations are not concerned only with easy matters; they are concerned with difficult ones as well. But I see only a light shining on the road ahead; I see no darkness.

Furthermore, I want to express my thanks to the two commissioners-general in the Transkei for the task they performed. The first commissioner-general whose name I want to mention here, Mr. Abraham, spent a very long time there, the longest time spent by a commissioner-general in any homeland. He made a major contribution and I want to mention his name, as well as the name of the present commissioner-general there, and I want to thank them for what they did to promote good relations. They promoted the development of the territory to such an extent that it has been possible to reach the stage we are entering today. They were always assisted by a large number of officials, so large that I cannot mention any names. There are the officials whom the Government seconded to that Government, as well as officials of other departments who were not seconded to that Government, but who performed their work in such a way that their departments can now be transferred to the new Government which will be formed. Had it not been for the dedicated service of the officials of the Republic of South Africa, the Government could not have proceeded with the work. Firm foundations have been laid upon which the new State will be able to build with confidence.

However, I want to move closer to the present day and to the work we are dealing with here, and in this connection I want to convey my especial thanks to the seven members of the Transkeian constitutional works committee, a number of whom are present in the officials’ benches. To them, too, I want to express my very sincere thanks, because they had to find new ways, untrodden ways, through rough unconstitutional bush and because they performed a giant task. In particular, they performed a giant task under the leadership, and I say this with pride, of the indefatigable and ever-enthusiastic chairman of the committee, namely the head of my department, Mr. Van Onselen. I want to single out his name. The Government had a large number of backroom boys who performed a giant task behind the scenes, unsung work, and I am glad that I have an opportunity today of singing the praises of that work, and of saying that it is appreciated in the very highest circles of the Government and, I take it, by everyone in this hon. House. I hope I am able to say this today.

Now I want to say nothing more about appreciation, etc., nor do I want to look back any more. I now want to take a brief look at the future. This occasion forces us to take a look at the future. In looking at the future, we must try to see the horizon and we must not try to see the potholes, the blind alleys and the petty problems which lie ahead. We know that life is full of these. We must try to form a vision of the future and we must try to see the matters ahead in the right perspective. This applies to everyone in this hon. House. If one looks at the future in this way and one reflects on it, there are certain crucial concepts which force themselves upon one’s attention, crucial concepts we must remember on the road ahead, because they can always give light where it may seem to some people that there is darkness.

The first concept, one I have used so often in my speech and which I want to repeat now, is that what we are about to witness today is nothing but a universally prevalent natural phenomenon. It is not unique; it is not strange; it is not a freak of politics, but a universal, natural phenomenon for a homogeneous group of people, which wants to consolidate itself, to seek to express itself as a nation and to attain independence. This has been a universal process through the centuries and this is what is happening in the Transkei as well. We must always realize this, whether or not we are opposed to the political views of the Government: This is a natural event which is taking place here, and it is universal. We must honour the new status which the territory is receiving, because it is equal to ours. Therefore I am grateful that the hon. member for Innesdal has also referred to this aspect.

Another concept we have to consider in the future, and without this we cannot proceed—and this was referred to by many hon. members in the previous stages and by the hon. member for Vryburg again today—is that interdependence is a corner-stone, a corner-stone for the co-existence of nations here in Southern Africa. Whether or not we like the proximity of nations here, we cannot follow any other course. As far as that is concerned, we are in the same position as Martin Luther when he said: “Here I stand, God help me, for there is nothing else I can do.” There is nothing else we can do. I have often said, and I am coming to believe it more and more, that the interdependence of nations is our greatest security in South Africa, for both, Black and White, for if we have to live together, because we have to be dependent upon each other, we have to put up with each other and we have to come to an agreement with each other and we have to settle our differences peaceably and not fight them out. It is a situation of security which we are now entering in relation to the Transkei, more so, perhaps, than has ever been the case with any of our other homelands, because in their case the constitutional situation was different. I hope that hon. members will agree with me on this point, as the hon. member for Newton Park obviously does. I just hope he will not make a superficial little joke of this.

I do agree.

The hon. member does agree. I am grateful for that. I hope it is the general feeling on the other side. With interdependence—it is virtually its twin brother, its companion—is associated the concept of good neighbourship. South Africa and the Transkei are neighbours whose territories adjoin, just as we are the neighbours of other territories, including other independent States to whose independence we contributed little or nothing. This is also a hard reality to us. Our geographical involvement is not something which has come upon us unexpectedly. It is not something which has burst upon us in recent times. It is something which has developed through the years. To us as believers it is a destiny which has been allotted to us by the Almighty. For this reason we must accept that we shall always have to live next to one another as good neighbours. That we must bear with one another—the expression is bear with and not hate; co-operate is the word, not oppose—is inherent in good neighbourship. We must respect one another’s interests.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether ambassadors will immediately be exchanged between the two States?

That is the intention. The hon. member must just remember that one cannot apply for an ambassadorship; the person for such a post is hand-picked.

Mr. Speaker, the last concept I want to mention here—I suppose there are others as well which are important, but this is the last one I wish to mention in the short time available to me—is the very important one of honouring obligations. Good neighbours, people who are interdependent, people who live together the way we do here, must realize that there is such a thing as honouring one’s obligations. It follows from these concepts I have just expounded to hon. members that both the neighbouring nations will have to honour their obligations they have towards each other. It should go without saying that all the sides—because we have more neighbours than just the one—must honour their obligations to one another as neighbours. But here we shall have to look to ourselves in the first place, because we can do something about ourselves, while we can do very little about the other neighbours, except for one thing, and that one thing in connection with the honouring of obligations is precisely the thing we have to do first ourselves. This is to conduct ourselves in such a way, with honour and dignity, as always to fulfil our obligations, so that the others can also realize: This is the way things should be done; our obligations must be honoured with dignity. An obligation is not something which can be broken and which can be smashed at the first opportunity that presents itself. This matter is a difficult one. This one realizes, because one is only human. One is inclined to act unwisely if one finds oneself in a difficult position, but this is one of the disciplines we shall have to exercise.

This is all I want to say in general. Now I come to some of the matters which were raised by members during the Third Reading debate.

Firstly, I want to say something about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park, that this Bill be read this day six months. It is a pity that I have to speak to him in this way now. He behaved so well a short while ago when he co-operated with me by way of interjection.

I like your attitude.

But I did not like the attitude which the hon. member displayed in explaining his amendment. Almost in one breath he mentioned two matters which are really two extremes, which are poles apart. The hon. member moved that this legislation be cancelled, because we know that this is what such an amendment means. In almost the same breath he asked us to give the Chief Minister of the Transkei a chance to perform his task.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that.

Yes, but then the hon. member should not have moved that amendment, for that amendment does not give the Transkei a chance to have the universal experience of attaining independence. I am sure the hon. member did not mean it that way, but he must understand that to us and to any other person who looks at this matter objectively, it is difficult to reconcile these two attitudes. This is literally a case where the two cannot be reconciled. It is a case of the two poles which cannot meet. However, there is one point mentioned by the hon. member which I must correct. Before explaining his amendment, he said that apartheid on the territorial level was still being denied by the National Party. That statement of his is not correct.

It was denied at a certain stage.

Now the hon. member qualifies his statement by saying that it was denied “at a certain stage”. In all the debates of the past, this matter was perhaps stated most clearly in that speech of Dr. Verwoerd from which, unfortunately, lack of time prevents me from quoting. He said that the ideal—like a star shining ahead of us—was total territorial apartheid. However, our policy was designed with this as a beacon which lay far into the future, but is was not the practical politics of the day. Mr. Strijdom and Dr. Malan also said so clearly. Mr. Strijdom said that every generation must do those things, step by step, which the next generation will be able to continue. He also said that if there were to be a generation in the distant future which might be able to implement total territorial apartheid, the preceding generations—in other words, we—must not have made it impossible for them through our actions. That was stated very clearly.

Dr. Malan said …

Oh no, I say again to the hon. member what I said to him yesterday. He must not try to tell me what Dr. Malan said. Really, not he! No Opposition member must try to tell us what our beloved Dr. Malan said. We know what his views were. There are many quotations to indicate that he stated the view of the NP as I am stating it here at this moment.

They can go and learn from him.

Yes, they would do well to learn from him. They should read him more and speak about him less.

I am not going to reply again to all the little arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton. I replied to her remarks and to those of others earlier in the debate. However, I just want to point out that she is speaking once again—even after what Chief Matanzima said in Johannesburg a day or two ago—of the great conflict which exists between this Government and the Transkeian Government about the question of citizenship.

But that is what you say.

I repeat that it is not such a great conflict at all. The matter does not even concern the 1,3 million Transkeians they speak of. Our Bill and the draft constitution of the Transkei have largely the same effect. The hon. member keeps making the mistake of saying that I do not satisfy her with my replies. She says this merely because I do not say exactly what she wants me to. However, when I state the facts she is never satisfied. But that is nothing to go by. I am sure that no one on earth—not even the members of her own party—will be able to satisfy her, least of all the hon. member for Yeoville.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes still available to me I just want to deal with one or two other small matters raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Houghton was undoubtedly making a political joke, and a rather unintelligent one at that, I should say, when she referred to the so-called high treason which was being committed towards South Africa by this side of the House in terms of what she read out. Surely the hon. member should know that when this Parliament deals with a matter there can be no question of high treason, for how can the State commit treason against itself in Parliament?

Further to the speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis I should like to make a few remarks before I resume my seat. The hon. member spoke, amongst other things, of the land position in South Africa, with specific reference to the Bantu territories. He said quite a lot with which I can agree, but unfortunately I cannot agree with everything. During the previous stages of the Bill, and especially in the Second Reading debate, he also discussed the land position. As far as the land position in general is concerned, I should like to say that I agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis that it will not always be possible gradually to review and to extend the land allocated to the Bantu homelands in accordance with the increase in the numbers of the Bantu. There can be no question of this. However, there is another aspect as well, one which has often been emphasized, but which I should like to underline in red. I am referring to the very efficient and better use which will have to be made of the soil by all Bantu homelands.

The hon. member for Vryburg gave a very interesting, reasoned exposition of how big the potential is which the Transkei, for example, possesses. The other Bantu homelands, too, can be said to have a very great potential. I think we all agree that the soil must be utilized to the utmost. If this is done, our soil will be able to support many people.

Like other hon. members, the hon. member for Von Brandis referred to citizenship again and quite a number of examples were mentioned in which, I may say, our troubles were met half-way. He foresaw many difficulties. However, in my opinion the hon. member disregarded two things in giving his exposition. In the first place the hon. member disregarded the fact that when the Transkei becomes independent, it will not have to start from scratch as far as citizens are concerned. It will not have to start at zero, therefore. The Bill before the House as well as the draft constitution of the Transkei is very clear on this point, and as I said before lunch, they largely agree with one another in the sense that the vast majority of people who are going to become Transkeian citizens will not apply for citizenship. If the hon. member looks at clause 57 of the draft constitution of the Transkei he will see that it contains a provision—which appears in the Bill as well—which means that the citizenship of many people under the present dispensation will to a very large extent be retained even when the Transkei has become independent. I think the hon. member based his whole argument on the supposition that the Bantu of the independent State of Transkei should also be citizens of the Republic. This seemed to me to be his premise throughout his speech. He did not distinguish clearly between the independent Republic of South Africa and the pending new independent State of Transkei, the people of which will receive their own citizenship, as a result of which their South African citizenship will lapse, while they will nevertheless retain all the other benefits set out by us. I do not think I need say anything more about this. I conclude by expressing my appreciation once again for the contributions of everyone in this series of debate.

Question put: That the word ‘ ‘now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, P. C. Roux, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned last night, I was in the process of asking whether the management corps of South Africa were equal to the task of complying with the ever-increasing demand for higher productivity. We are dealing here with standards of ability and skill, and the essence of this is the standards of training of the management corps on the one hand, as against those of the labour corps on the other. We must accept that there is much room for improvement, but the standards of our labour crop compare very favourably with those abroad.

Order! Hon. members must please refrain from conversing loudly in the House while the hon. member is delivering his speech.

These standards of training of our labour corps, especially on the higher levels, compare very well with those abroad. I say this because I know something about these matters. Unfortunately, the standards of training of our management corps are not comparable, and there is still an immense backlog. The standards of training of our labour corps are in many cases on a higher level than the standards of training of our management corps. Is this gap not one of the direct causes of our lower production? Is the problem not perhaps that the management corps of South Africa do not always have the ability to organize their businesses in such a way as to create opportunities for the labour corps to utilize their abilities to the maximum?

I conclude by saying that we must take note of the contribution which our labour corps has made and is still making towards this anti-inflation campaign. I want to address an earnest appeal to the private sector as well as to the government bodies to investigate their managerial ability urgently and improve it, because it is one of the cardinal solutions if we want to achieve higher productivity in South Africa. This could be the greatest contribution towards our anti-inflation campaign on the part of the management corps in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I think the House would agree that one the most important problems facing South Africa, as it does most other civilized industrial countries of the world, is the problem of energy supplies. In the 10 minutes available to me, I should like to give some attention to this problem.

It is a fact that South Africa was one of the first countries in the world to employ electricity. In the year 1882, only three years after electricity had been introduced for the first time in New York City by Edison, electric lighting was introduced in the city of Kimberley. This early development in South Africa led in due course, through the creation of Escom, to the fact that South Africa is today one of the most highly electrified countries pro rata in the entire world. I need hardly add that this wise measure was taken in 1922 under the protection and with the support of a UP Government. However, the fact is that when one speaks of energy or of coal resources today, one speaks very largely about electricity, because it is the carrier of the energy in its usable form into our homes and factories. A great deal of the responsibility in this regard falls upon the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Previously in this House I have argued about the great need to co-ordinate our various sources of energy supply with the electricity or energy needs of this country. Invariably, I have been told that there is a committee sitting somewhere, at Cabinet or administrative level, which looks after this perfectly well. However, I shall not pursue this argument; I shall pursue it on other occasions, until eventually I am satisfied we are doing what has to be done.

I should like this afternoon to refer quite briefly to the report of the Petrick Commission on the coal resources of South Africa. The report of the Petrick Commission is one of the most important reports in connection with the future industrial development of South Africa that has ever been produced in this country. It deals not with industry itself, but with the means, the resources from which our industry will grow in South Africa. Some of the recommendations in the Petrick Commission’s report, although directed primarily to the Minister of Mines who has to look at new methods of providing coal, new methods of mining coal and new conditions in which coal can be mined or conserved in South Africa, are recommendations which apply directly to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Some of these recommendations—and there are various ones in the summary and in the conclusion of the Petrick Report—relate in fact to the point I have just mentioned, which is the need to co-ordinate our energy resources. I will read just one or two in order to emphasize the point, and I will not take up the time of the House any further on that matter. I quote—

We said the same thing a week ago. I know on which page it is.

I continue—

I say that it is still too apparent in this country as well.

Now I come to another aspect which is I believe, of direct interest and concern to the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of price control with regard to coal. If the hon. member for Carletonville will be patient with me, I shall quote from the Petrick Report in this regard as well—

Now, quite obviously, not all the aspects of this recommendation fall under the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. However, price control is certainly one of the things he is going to have to have a hard look at.

There is one further recommendation in this regard I should like to read—

These do, indeed, fall under the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—

There are further recommendations in this regard, but I have no doubt that they have been brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

There are further recommendations which relate to the fuelling policies or the resources policies of State corporations such as Escom and Sasol. Again I want to make just one quotation to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister what it is that I am asking him about. I quote—

The matter is obviously not entirely in the hands of the Minister of Mines or indeed of the coal-mining industry. The matter is also in the hands, because it takes two to tango, of Escom and Sasol, who would have to agree to the development of a new policy which, while it might deprive them of certain short-term advantages which lie in a captive colliery policy, should nevertheless be prepared to look to their long-term advantages and the possibility of developing, in partnership with the coal-mining industry, policies of fuel supply which will be to the benefit not only of themselves but of the industrial development of South Africa as a whole.

There are various other matters to which I could draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. One minor recommendation, if you wish, but one which can be quite important, and which I think I have raised here before, is the question of the recycling of lubricating oil. There is a recommendation to this effect in the Petrick Commission’s report—

We have accepted that principle.

I am delighted to hear from the hon. the Minister that it has been accepted, because this after all is a very important part of the whole of our oil import problem. In Germany, as the hon. the Minister will know, there has been set in motion systematically a method whereby used lubricating oil is in fact returned to the supplier, returned by him again to a purifying plant and recycled through the economy. This had led, in the case of Germany, to enormous savings in the import of oil.

In certain respects the commission has again endorsed or recommended the endorsement of policies which I believe the hon. the Minister is already following. One such is the policy of building up the maximum possible storage reserve of petroleum, this highly important raw material. With that we have no quarrel. I believe that the policy is still being pursued. I would, however like to know from the hon. the Minister what his Department’s position is in regard to further prospecting for oil around our coasts. One reads from time to time in reports which are more or less reliable … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as the last speaker in the debate, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat must excuse me if I do not follow him specifically. I want to refer to another form of power supply. The very recent announcement by Escom of South Africa’s first nuclear project on the West Coast of our country, was, I think, exciting news for the whole country. South Africa is actually entering a whole new era as regards the provision of power in the future. Most important of all is that the application of this nuclear project reflects a level of development and technological sophistication which only a handful of countries in the world today has achieved. It is indeed a project on a vast scale and one to which we are looking forward with excitement. But now, with all this excitement, this announcement also mentioned that besides the White staff, a staff of approximately 2 500 Bantu would immediately be employed in this particular area; that is, if this report was correct. Let me say at once that in my opinion, this is an unfortunate situation. In this specific area in Duynefontein, where the nuclear project will be situated, we are still engaged at this stage in totally new creative work. We are working on the Atlantis project and we are working on the Mamre project, and the Minister’s department has awarded border area benefits to the Darling area. In fact we are creating a totally new world, and what is the true essence of what we are doing here? It is a situation in which White and Brown will complement one another like good partners, and if there are people who do not like the word “partners”, then I shall simply call it good neighbours. This is the spirit which we are creating here, but now there is talk of 2 500 Blacks in connection with this project. I assume that these are single Blacks, and I think that this is a totally wrong situation, which goes against the spirit of the creative work which we are carrying out in this particular area. Therefore I want to address a request to the hon. the Minister to look at the situation once again.

In the first instance there is concern amongst the Whites and the Brown people, not only in this particular region, but also in the Greater Boland, about any form of Black penetration. Our point of departure is that in this area we are creating a world in which White and Brown may complement one another and where Blacks cannot be involved on a large scale.

In the second instance the Coloureds who are living in the area—many of whom who have spoken to me and expressed their concern about the situation—are concerned about the process of Africanization which may arise in the area. The Whites are protected by the Immorality Act, but what is the situation as far as Coloureds and Blacks are concerned? Thousands upon thousands of Blacks are allowed to enter the Cape metropolitan area. These people, who live in Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu, are constantly integrating with the Coloureds. The same situation is going to arise in this area, and the Coloureds are concerned about what may happen in this area. Therefore, I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister, and ask whether it will not be possible to look at the situation once again. I know that there are persons who will immediately tell me two things. Firstly they will ask: “Where are the Coloureds? Are there enough Coloureds to do the work?” In the second place it will be said that there is work shyness among the Coloureds and that they are not going to do this work. However, there is already a fine example in the area of Saldanha today, and I want to pat the hon. the Minister, his department and Iscor upon the back for this. A guide plan has been completed for this particular area. Do hon. members know what the outstanding characteristic of that plan was? The outstanding characteristic of this plan is that large-scale provision has not been made for large numbers of Blacks in that area. Iscor made a start here, under the leadership of the hon. the Minister and his department, and what did they do? Iscor laid out a neat housing scheme and employed Coloureds. The results are there today for all to see. The absenteeism rate is less than 2%, which is better than the normal figure in South Africa. The number of Bantu employed there, are only there for contract work in a temporary capacity, and, as the contract work is being completed, Iscor is drastically reducing the number of Bantu in the area in question.

Secondly, I want to emphasize that Coloureds are present in the necessary numbers, and Iscor testified to this in the Saldanha area. Many hundreds of Coloureds apply to Iscor for employment on the new project from time to time. In the Cape metropolitan area there are approximately 160 000 Coloured squatters, who want to penetrate the metropolitan area. This must be stopped. With the projects which are being tackled by Escom and Iscor, the two semi-State institutions, over which the State has control, the Government has an opportunity here to set an example, and I do not doubt the attitude of the hon. the Minister in this connection. All that is necessary, is a little training, as was done at Saldanha Bay, and these people provide the results.

However, I want to concede that there is one problem, and this is that at this stage, before the processing unit is in operation at Saldanha, the numbers do not allow for the possibility of large-scale training. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether since Escom is going to employ this large number of people, it would not be possible for Iscor and Escom both to look at an elementary form of training, which could be adapted to these two outstanding future projects. We Bolanders have a natural aversion to Black penetration. This underlies our whole outlook here, and it is in respect of this underlying philosophy that I ask the hon. the Minister today to consider timeously the dilemma which is being created here, and to carry out the appropriate planning in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, during the course of the past three days we have listened to 30 speeches on the Commerce and Industries Votes. I think I must begin by saying that perhaps we are not always able, under the circumstances of the times in which we find ourselves, to see the importance of a sound economy and economic development in our country in perspective. It is easy to call up people to a visible struggle. It is very easy to call up people to a military struggle in order to avert those threats. But it is difficult to inspire people to display a patriotism in respect of the material things, which is essential in the times in which we are living. By way of introduction I want to tell hon. members that, apart from whatever political standpoint we adopt in respect of the solutions to the problems of our country, apart from the political standpoints which we adopt in respect of the solution to the relations problems of our country, the fact remains that whether the solutions which this side offers or whether those which hon. members opposite offer will eventually materialize, also depend in the first place on the economic ability of our country.

If hon. members agree with me on this fundamental standpoint, there is a second which I think is valid and which I should like to state. It is that our ability to defend ourselves in the military sphere depends primarily on our economic ability. Whether we are going to succeed in making our people capable of holding their own even in the sphere of education, is also going to depend on our economic ability. It means therefore that the total preparations in the various spheres of our lives is going to depend on our economic ability. But it also means far more than that. It means that we will clear up for ourselves, that each individual will clarify his own views in respect of the economy of his country. What are my personal views, and then, too, our collective views on what we want to achieve via and through the economy? No one is more aware than I am of the fact that, in general terms, the future resources and strength of our fatherland is going to be determined by the collective strength of all its people, that the future strength and position which this country will occupy on this continent and in the world is to a large extent going to depend on the collective effort on the part of all the people living here.

It is in this spirit that I should like to try to deal in general with the various facets of our economic activities, facets which were subjected to a close scrutiny by hon. members in the course of the debate. I can safely say that hon. members subjected the broad spectrum of our economic life to a close scrutiny. Many did so critically and others, again, did so constructively, but in most cases, however, I felt that they were in earnest about the economic life in South Africa, and that is understandable because the economy has to serve the other objectives to which I referred at the outset. I shall try, in the course of my reply, to deal with these matters in general. If time allows, I shall also try to refer to the contributions made by specific members.

However, I first want to convey my personal thanks to the hon. member for Paarl for the many years he has made a contribution as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and also as leader of our economic group on this side. I have great appreciation for his insight and balanced views on this matter. Then, too, I want to congratulate his successor, the hon. member for Germiston District, on his contribution to this debate, but also on his contribution to the group.

Hon. members will recall that in his Budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance presented a full survey of the course of the economic conditions during the past year. He also presented a survey of those factors and circumstances which exercised an influence in this specific regard. I do not intend repeating this afternoon what he has already said. In my opinion it is, however, important for us perhaps to refer very cursorily to certain basic features of our kind of economic system. I think this is necessary because, in the first place, there seems to be a great deal of ignorance in this regard, and in the second, because in these times of emotional tension demands can frequently be made and standpoints can frequently be adopted which could in the long term violate and subvert the system.

The fact of the matter is that I have to deal with the criticism of hon. members opposite—i.e. that the Government is responsible for the economic recession. Of course, their criticism stems from their view of matters, and therefore it is only fair that I deal with the main factors which led to the present recessionary conditions which, economically speaking, we are experiencing in South Africa. It is only fair, too, that I re-emphasize the motivation for the policy objectives which the Government endorses in this specific regard.

Hon. members are aware that the economic growth rate in our country—in fact, in any other country with a similar system—is determined by its natural resources, the intellectual and physical abilities of its people and their willingness to utilize those abilities. It is also determined by its capital resources. It remains a fact that no capitalistic-orientated economy has ever succeeded in the long run in maintaining a higher rate than what is attainable through the joint application of these three key production factors to which I have referred. It does happen, as has also happened in our country, that there are times when the economic growth rate of a country is higher or lower, as the case may be, than the level which the country is reasonably capable of achieving on the basis of its production factors. That is why we have cyclical movements in the growth rates of all capitalistic national economies, and no government has ever succeeded in entirely eliminating those movements. I think hon. members will agree with me that the best which Governments have so far been able to achieve in such economic systems was to try to level off the intensity of cyclical fluctuations in the economic growth rate of their various countries with the aid of their monetary, fiscal and other instruments of policy.

In South Africa, as much as in these other countries to which I have referred, we also experience these ups and downs or cyclical fluctuations in the growth rate of our national economy. I think hon. members opposite will concede that we even experienced these in the time when they were in office.

In 1974 we achieved an exceptionally high growth rate. What is important is that this happened at a juncture when various other Western countries had to contend with relatively low growth rates and even with recessionary conditions. In that year, in fact, the South Africa economy grew at a far more rapid pace than had been foreseen in its economic development programme, and far more rapidly than the production factors to which I referred could justify in the long term. At that stage all the experts were agreed that, with the available means, we would not be able to maintain that growth rate during 1975. Consequently, by the second half of that year, everyone predicted that 1975 would see a far lower growth rate being maintained than had previously been the case. In all fairness it must be pointed out that the exceptionally low growth rate of 2,2% in real terms in the Republic last year was a unique event in the modern history of South Africa—something which I do not welcome. The low growth rate must be attributed primarily to the fact that Western countries had since 1974 already, and even earlier, been experiencing serious economic recessionary conditions, the most serious since the Second World War.

This general recession in these countries were primarily the result of the international energy crisis. Our memories are so short that we have already forgotten what happened in 1973. The international energy crisis, in its turn, led to a dramatic rise in prices in the countries concerned, and it brought about monetary instability—no less the product of the higher oil prices. No one can consider South Africa and its economy objectively without being aware of the particular sensitivity of South Africa to events abroad. As a result of this set of circumstances, the Governments of many of these countries were to an increasing extent compelled to resort to direct economic control measures which, on the one hand, were aimed inter alia at disciplining the labour groups in those countries as far as their demands were concerned, or, on the other hand, at complying with their perpetual demands for protection against rising prices. Other measures of this nature, such as those to which the socialistically-inclined Western Governments resorted, even went so far as the nationalization of certain undertakings or at least the imposing of restrictions on the activities of groups of private entrepreneurs in an attempt to keep profits and prices within reasonable limits. The end result of all these events was a general recession by which both the Western industrialized countries as well as the primary producing countries—including ourselves—were hard hit, and which led to a drop in the physical volume of world trade. The Republic is an exporter of industrial raw materials and semi-manufactured goods. On the other hand the Republic is to an equal extent an important importer of a large variety of essential commodities. The decrease in the international commodity prices owing to the recessionary conditions to which I have referred directly affected our export earnings, while on the other hand the high inflation rate in other countries and the sharp rise in exports to South Africa of their manufactured products and industrial materials resulted in an increase in our foreign spending on these imports. The current account of the South African balance of payments therefore came under very heavy pressure last year in these two ways, while the increased costs of our imports contributed to the high inflation rates which we experienced during 1974 and the first half of last year in particular.

We must realize that this pressure on our balance of payments was intensified considerably by our increased foreign spending on armaments on the one hand, and on crude oil on the other, as well as by the drop in the gold price caused by overseas factors and circumstances. I submit that as far as the decrease in the gold price is concerned, hon. members opposite will readily concede that the events or factors that caused it were not predictable at that stage. As a result of this the Government was compelled to devalue the rand twice last year. Of course these inevitable devaluations of last year—let there be no doubt about this—resulted in increased import costs, costs which were already high as a result of the other reasons to which I have referred. That is why it is important that the policy priorities of the Government should be examined against the background of this set of circumstances. Seen as a whole, 1975 was characterized for us in the economic sphere by a relatively low level of private consumer spending, owing to the high prices of most commodities; a relatively low level of physical volume of manufactured goods, particularly during the first quarter of the year; a drop in trade turnovers; a relatively low capacity utilization in various sectors of our industry; a generally inadequate demand, and relatively larger quantities stocks in proportion to expected sales; a high inflation rate, accompanied by a lower economic growth rate and an increase in unemployment among the non-White population groups; and a general lowering of the profit expectations of entrepreneurs. I am sorry the hon. member for Jeppe is not present at the moment. When I listened to him yesterday I gained the impression that his tirade against profits did not take what was happening in practice, and the facts, into consideration.

Despite the strong influences of the overseas factors, including the higher oil prices during 1974 and a large part of 1975, on our inflation rate, the rate of increase in our consumer price index, on a seasonally adjusted basis, has been showing a downward tendency since as long ago as the fourth quarter of 1974. This tendency continued during 1975 and through to the first quarter of this year, 1976. As we could have expected—in all fairness I want to concede this point to hon. members—the consumer price index once again began to show an upward tendency during the beginning of the second quarter this year, after the increased costs of our imports had worked through to the consumer price index after the September devaluation. But let us have no doubt about it, Sir, that the wage and price disciplines of the anti-inflation programme which were put into operation on 7 October of last year, and which were extended for a further period of six months as from 1 April this year, contributed to a large extent to keeping price increases and the inflation rate in check. In addition let me just say on this note that I am grateful for the fact that so many divergent interests, so many divergent disciplines in our country, were able to display this measure of self-discipline, in order, for the sake of achieving the greater objectives to which I referred, to meet one another in the formulation of an agreement. It is unique in history that it was possible to launch a voluntary programme of this nature, which implicitly entails equilibrium, self-control and patriotism. Naturally there are other factors which caused the pressure on our balance of payment to continue, but I believe in all sincerity that there are other factors, and that there are grounds for believing that this pressure could reach a turning point within a matter of months. These are the fiscal measures, as announced in the Budget, which I believe will exert an influence in the second half of the year already. In view of these circumstances the Government believed that it would be unwise to apply measures at this stage, measures aimed at the direct stimulation of the economy. Such a stimulus, with the aid of fiscal and other measures, would inevitably cause the country’s foreign spending to increase considerably, which would in turn exert further pressure on the balance of payments.

Consequently the policy considerations of the Government, in order of priority, are as follows: Strengthening of the ability of the country to defend itself, the combating of inflation, and the restoration of a sound balance of payments position. This does not mean that the object of renewed economic growth has been overlooked. It simply means that it determines the success of the former three objects and is a condition for economic growth. There are gratifying signs of a recovery in the Western industrialized countries, and as the pace of the economic recovery there accelerates, their demand for imported goods from South Africa will increase. Therefore, the Government believes that the economic growth which we should like to have, could be export-generated growth, and that this is an object which deserves high priority, as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens rightly emphasized.

†Mr. Chairman, the low economic growth rate in the country is characterized by, among other things, unused capacity in various sectors of our economy as well as a measure of unemployment amongst sections of the labour force. I believe there is an urgent need for the fuller use of these inadequately employed resources in order to enable the country to produce more goods and services for export. For example, many of our manufacturers could well use their surplus capacity in order to increase their production to the fullest possible extent without additional investment in plant and machinery. It could also embark on a more purposeful export drive so as to enable them to dispose of this increased production on markets overseas. By doing so, I sincerely believe that this would facilitate the re-employment of workers who are presently unemployed. Our unemployment rate is still one of the lowest in the world, but it is, for obvious reasons I submit, essential that we should take every possible action to provide additional employment opportunities for all our people, especially to facilitate the early re-employment of workers who are at present without employment. In conclusion: I am convinced that the prospects for an export orientated economic recovery in South Africa are now improving at an encouraging rate. In this regard I briefly want to refer to an article on the subject which appeared in the Financial Mail of 28 May 1976. The writer of this article expressed himself as follows on his assessment of the country’s export prospects—

The author concludes that export earnings are at present 22% higher than a year ago despite last year’s two devaluations. This rise in export earnings, as measured in terms of foreign currency, is admittedly considerably smaller. The author added the following and this is very important—

*The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, in his contribution to the debate, stated that “South Africa must export or bust”. I think the hon. member raised a very important matter here. As I see it increased imports are indispensable to the economic welfare of our country. I do not think that our dependence on an influx of capital into South Africa and the high gold price should be the only foundations on which we maintain a sound balance of payments.

The hon. member for Malmesbury, in his very excellent contribution said that a reduction of our imports was not something which could be achieved in the short term. If one adds that 85% of our imports are of necessity capital goods, plant and materials required by the various sectors of the economy to continue and expand their production activities hon. members will understand how limited our ability is to be able to reduce our imports. I believe, however, that there is an ample margin for entrepreneurs to make use of capital goods of South African origin. It is essential that South Africa should make an intensive effort to reduce the deficits on the current accounts of its balance of payments by exporting more goods and services to overseas markets on a consistent basis. That is why the Government has increased the incentives and concessions in this specific regard considerably—as hon. members are aware. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to the export achievement award scheme which was recently put into operation for the first time and which has to serve as an additional incentive to our exporters.

†The hon. member asked me to give him an indication as to the criteria which had been applied in the allocation or awards. I wonder if I could send it to him, thereby obviating delay by not reading all these items out.

*Having given my views on the economic conditions, I think that there are a few questions to which we must reply. I think we must begin with questions which ought to be replied to in the Western countries.

It is axiomatic that all Western countries expect the following from their economic system: A relative price stability, in other words no price increases, consistently high growth rates, an even balance of payments and exchange rate stability, and rising standards of living for all layers of the population. In effect this means that all classes and all interest groups expect their relative position in regard to their real standard of living to be improved, and that group is willing to surrender or lose any ground vis-à-vis any other group. Consequently a relentless struggle is taking place in those countries on the economic and political levels around the distribution of the national product. It is expected that income and property will be eliminated. It is also expected that the State will establish more and better social services, inter alia education, health and welfare services, and that this will be done in spite of constant appeals for lower taxes. It is expected of all Western countries, and from us as well, to maintain the system of private enterprise—and how many pleas have not been made in that regard in this debate! We are expected to maintain the institutions of freedom and property and build up a defence force which will hold the communist threat at bay. Each of these expectations in itself is a very commendable expectation. However, I want to ask the question which arises this afternoon: Are all these expectations, collectively, not too many? Does the problem of double figure inflation rates in the midst of relative stagnation not have its origin in the fact that too much has been expected of economies for too long? The revolution of rising expectations has led to far more having to be accomplished in a short time.

In several Western countries we have a position in which the Governments concerned no longer have the political capacity to resist the multiplicity of claims and demands. In several of these countries Governments no longer have the political strength, capacity or ability to apply the medicine or remedies required to bring about the recovery of the economies, as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens expects us to do. The inability of these Governments to regulate and discipline economic and frequently uneconomic demands, has assumed alarming proportions. Sir, I have tried to indicate what we expect and what has happened in these countries, in spite of their expectations. Instead of full employment there are 15 million unemployed people in the OECD countries. Instead of price stability, which we are seeking, there are rising prices throughout. Instead of growth rates, there is stagnation in many countries. Instead of exchange rate stability, there are floating and unstable exchange rates. Instead of rising expectations and standards of living, there are diminishing standards of living for many groups. Instead of a more equal division of income, there is, under these circumstances, a more unequal division. Instead of better social services, there is a crisis in the so-called social programmes. Take New York as an example. Instead of an expansion—and this is the most important of all—of a system of private enterprise and freedom, there is a deterioration of the system, while in many countries there is an unwillingness to make enough money available for defence.

With reference to these facts I would be failing in my duty if I did not issue a few warnings in this House and to our people outside. I want to issue the warning that we should not, like other Western countries, entertain excessive expectations of and make heavy demands on our economy. I want to make a plea to hon. members here and to our people outside to apply self-restraint instead and maintain an equilibrium. I am doing this with all the earnestness at my disposal. I am asking for an understanding on our part for the fact that our economic objectives are frequently in a conflicting juxtaposition to one another, and that a greater realization of the one goal, for example increased price stability—which everyone expects—can frequently be achieved only at the expense of other objectives, for example at the expense of growth. I am asking for an understanding of the limitations to which I have referred, of the international problems to which I have referred, and also of the political instability which these things have brought in their wake. Against this background I want to ask whether it would be unreasonable of us if we were to make an appeal to the effect that our approach should not be: What is the maximum which we can obtain from our economy. It should rather be: What can we in all fairness expect.

In the first place we can only expect rising standards of living if all of us are prepared to produce more, to increase our productivity. The hon. member for Wonderboom is right: This is frequently the responsibility of management rather than that of labour. In fact, our investigations prove it. Sir, I want to ask, at the risk of criticism and reproach, whether the standard of living of a large section of our population, both in terms of their particular spending as well as in terms of the services with which the Government has to provide them, is not already too high in proportion to their achievements and their contribution towards South Africa’s prosperity. Do we really deserve the standards of living to which we lay claim? All of us must reply to this question. The question which occurs to me is whether we are reading the signs of the times correctly. Are we not simply carrying on regardless with what I want to call our “swing”, regardless of inflation, regardless of our defence position and requirements, regardless of our lower growth rate? The question arises whether each one of us, in the little world in which we live, is not asking too much and is not terribly unwilling to give South Africa something in return. To what extent have our people become victims of the revolution of rising expectations in respect of the standard of living and to what extent are we, as representatives, responsible for this tendency? What can you and I, who will have to reply to this question, do to compel our people towards more modest standards of living and to stir them to greater efforts in view of the other priorities which have to be served? In the second place we can most certainly demand of the national economy that it should make sufficient means available, and release sufficient means, so that the authorities are able to preserve our way of living and the security of the country against the threat which has recently developed.

Priority has to be given to this demand, but then it must be realized in all levelheadedness—and I am advocating this—that if greater priority has to be given to security and defence matters, such action will inevitably result in our having to make sacrifices in other spheres. I want to indicate what these sacrifices are to hon. members as well as to the general public, so that there can be no illusions about them. We shall have to work more efficiently and we shall have to lower our standard of living if we do not do so. If not, the State will have to reduce its expenditure in respect of services. Perhaps all three measures will have to be applied. The choice is in our hands. What I find disturbing, however, is the fact that unemployment has far greater implications for South Africa than for any other country. Unemployment penetrates to the core of the country’s social, political and constitutional structure. And now no appeal should be made, here or elsewhere, for people to work fewer days. The opinion should be expressed from this Parliament that if necessary there will have to be six working days. At present Parliament is already sitting six days a week. [Interjections.] I shall still come to the hon. member for Jeppe, if I have time. Let us oppose one another here in the political sphere, and let us have political differences, but in heaven’s name let us not quarrel with one another about this matter for the sake of petty political gain. South Africa’s interests are too important for that. If hon. members wish to accuse me of being melodramatic, I shall bear with that accusation because I believe that what I have said is fundamental to the survival of all the people in this country.

Hon. members have referred to inflation, and of course, the responsibility of making a report in that regard is mine. I do not intend evading or avoiding that responsibility. However, there must be an understanding of the fact that inflation is one of the most serious problems which our country and the world has ever been faced with in their history. We must realize that it is not only a complicated problem in regard to the continuation of our particular kind of economic system, but that the maintenance—and this I want to emphasize—of our peaceful social relations are threatened by it. It is, however, a problem which has unleashed tremendous emotional reactions among people during the past few years. These emotional reactions have to a large extent been unleashed by the great degree of prominence which some news media give to price increases, without keeping abreast in their reporting of the extent of individual price increases, or of the nature of the product or services.

The hon. member for Jeppe is a good friend of mine.

I hope I shall remain a good friend.

The hon. member must pardon me, but when I was listening to him yesterday evening, to his unrestrained and, I say this with all due respect, unbalanced tirade on rising prices, and particularly when he said that we want to make a “whipping boy” of the worker, I asked myself: What substance is there in his argument?

He bears that burden.

If we wanted to succeed the burden will have to be borne by all the sectors. Do I have to give the hon. member an account of the drop in company profits? Do I have to tell the hon. member about the increasing numbers of Black unemployed? Do I have to tell him of the dangers if we continue unabated in this way? The hon. member professed to be quoting from a report of the president of the Handelsinstituut in which it was alleged that the inflation programme had collapsed. He did not, however, say that the president of the Handelsinstituut, Mr. Marais, had issued a statement in which he denied the report. The hon. member is nodding his head; so he knows about it. Now, I want to ask the hon. member this question: If he conforms to the fine and commendable objectives to which I referred, why did he quote it in that manner?

The discussion took place.

The statement was issued afterwards. He referred to the trade unions which were allegedly withdrawing from the programme. Surely that is not true.

What about the trade unions?

I am coming to that. Here is the letter, and I shall read it to the hon. members. I want to ask the hon. member this: Why does he do such things? I received a letter from the secretary to the Confederation of Labour, and I want to quote the relevant portion from it. He said—

He then concludes with this very important point—

That makes our position impossible. Here I have a letter from Mr. Marais of the Handelsinstituut. I am quoting what he said—

He said that there were members who were going to withdraw.

No, Sir. I quote further—

What else did the president say? I quote—

Sir, this is not an easy task. Let us therefore approach it in a rational way. In every community there is a group of people which approaches the inflation problem purely from its own point of view. When prices rise—and I am not levelling any reproaches now—it is unavoidable that many wrong impressions in regard to this complicated problem are created among a large sector of the public, wrong impressions which make finding a solution to the problem even more difficult. The high inflation rate, of course, reduces the buying power of earnings. People are now trying to compensate for the inevitable lowering of their standards of living, which this brings about, by increasing their earnings without any additional input. In this regard let me say again: No country which takes more out of its economy than it puts in, can remain solvent in the long run. The groups of people who have to suffer the real privations in the process, are the lower income groups that have no method of improving their position. Do we not then owe them something? Do we not owe it to them to make this fight against inflation as a joint undertaking the task of this House? We should not all sit down in our own corners and reproach one another with the responsibility for or the lack of solutions. I am saying this because all of us are involved in this matter. The solution to this problem requires natural, rational reflection.

The problem simply cannot be correctly understood by people who approach this matter in a spirit of emotionalism, and here we come again to that hon. friend of mine. That is what he did last night. We have now reached a stage—and I am saying this deliberately and with total conviction—in which it has become essential that each individual should approach this problem with the greatest measure of self-restraint. Nor must he allow himself to be influenced by the kind of misconceptions which are so generally created in our community in regard to this problem. One of these misconceptions is that every price increase is exploitation. A second misconception is that the Government is insensible to the diminishing buying power of the consumer’s money. Is that not true? There are other examples as well of similar misconceptions, for example the misconception that the problems experienced with price increases could easily be rectified by the Government by simply controlling the prices over a broad spectrum and limiting the profits of business enterprises. In other words, hon. members opposite are advocating drastic Government intervention in the economic life of South Africa as the only solution to the problem of inflation, and on top of that they advance pleas for a system of free enterprise.

I want to repeat today that this is not an answer. There are others who for their own reasons—perhaps political prejudice or economic ignorance—say that the problem can only be laid at the door of the Government. Cannot we do something to eliminate these misconceptions? Of course the Government is aware that various forms of exploitation occur in our society. However, this Government has a record in this specific regard. After all, we passed legislation last year and this year, with the support of members on both sides of this House, legislation to protect people against exploitation. For the most part, however, these are negative measures. There is a strong correlation between the degree of Government intervention in the economy of a country and the socialization of that country. I pan say with total conviction that I am not an apologist for that, nor am I prepared to do so. The only countries that I know of that do in fact apply such intervention—and their names have virtually been equated with profanities—are the communist countries. Next year I could introduce legislation here on the extension of credit. We could apply the legislation in respect of undesirable practices drastically. I could, without doubt, apply all the Acts dealing with these matters drastically. However, we must not see this as the final answer in the long term. In the long term the answer lies in a new disposition among our people. In the long term the answer lies in a new perception among our people in respect of the role which each one of our people, White, Brown, Black and Yellow, can play in order to make our country strong.

Hon. members on the opposite side referred to dwindling confidence in the programme. I want to state candidly that I accept that there could be dwindling confidence, but to the extent to which it does exist, it must be attributed to the constant price increases which are still taking place despite the programme. When did anyone ever say, however, that the programme implied the freezing of prices or the freezing of wages and salaries? It was never intended to imply that.

The workers complained

Order!

The hon. member must please not interrupt me; my time is extremely limited.

If we were to adopt the course of price freezing, we would also have to do what follows from it, namely to freeze profits and interest as well, but what then of the fact that we expect, under the present circumstances, a negative growth rate in real terms this year, and what would the implications be as regards the services which the State has to provide?

The inflation rate has taken a turn for the better. Hon. members are aware of that, and I need not furnish the details now. The inflation rate rose at a considerably lower rate during the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year, in spite of the prejudicial effect of the unavoidable devaluation.

Are hon. members aware of what is having an increasingly detrimental effect on the inflation rate in our country? The deplorable malpractices which are being perpetrated by some importers in South Africa in the form of the re-invoicing of the prices of imported goods as a means of evading the country’s exchange control regulations. These people are, by means of this method, channelling funds abroad in an illegal way. However, that is not all. Their actions consist of their ensuring, in collaboration with their overseas suppliers, that the prices which they invoice for imported goods are far higher than the prices which they actually pay for them. The difference in the prices is deposited in a bank. This action also has a side-effect, however, because the profit margins on the local market are now being determined on inflated purchase prices.

I am asking the apologists who advocate absolute freedom in our system to express their opinions in regard to these people who are in this way not only exploiting the consumers, but are also harming South Africa. They deserve our collective condemnation. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is sitting there—I almost said how. He kicked up a great fuss about rising prices. He said there are endless cases of price increases which we announce from time to time.

His policy has a built-in ceiling.

From his accusations I have to deduce …

His policy and his party have built-in ceilings.

Order!

From his accusations I have to deduce that the Government is to blame for the price increases.

The hon. member has a built-in ceiling.

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must contain himself.

Does the hon. member for Johannesburg North want the Government to eliminate price increases by means of price control?

The built-in ceiling of the hon. member …

Order! I have already called the hon. member for Carletonville to order. He must not make any further interjections.

The hon. member for Virginia, in contrast to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, made valuable suggestions in regard to practical steps which the consumer himself can take to cut down on his expenditure. I want to congratulate him on his positive contribution.

The hon. member for Worcester apologized for not being able to be here. He referred to the fixing of the prices for the producer by the KWV after 30% of the costs had been absorbed. In this regard I want to be very brief. The hon. member pointed out that the wholesalers raised their prices by a far greater percentage. I want to tell him that the cost increase with which the liquor wholesaler is faced is not only the increase inherent in the producer’s price, but other costs, as well, such as those of bottling, delivery, etc. In this regard the hon. member raised a very important point. He also referred, inter alia, to the unfavourable trend in our balance of payments. He asked whether it was not possible to embark on a scheme whereby we could ask for import deposits. At this stage I want to tell him that the hon. member for Malmesbury made a very important contribution in this regard. Although we have various instruments for protecting the balance of payments, I think that we could accept that, while a favourable situation is prevailing at the moment, we also have this means, which is a monetary means, at our disposal and may employ it when it becomes necessary.

The hon. member for South Coast asked me whether we could not effect a saving by means of standardization.

†I subscribe to that statement in general terms, but it is not an easy exercise or undertaking in practice. According to the experts, it is a very complex problem because of the link between the commodity and, for instance, its mass and the contents of the container, as well as the quality of the material of which it is made. Obviously, it is not even possible to ensure, in laying down standard specifications, that the standard and quality of packing materials as far as imported goods are concerned will conform to the prescribed norms. However, I should like to assure the hon. member that endeavours are being made on a national as well as an international level to rationalize the dimensions of containers; but let me add immediately that in that respect there is still a long road to be travelled.

*The hon. member referred to the money spent on advertisements. I do not want to say very much about this. I want to content myself with saying that the spending of South African entrepreneurs on advertisements, expressed as a percentage of our gross domestic product, is 1,05%—among the lowest in the world. In this regard we must bear in mind that increased sales lead to increased production, and that this results in lower unit prices. Therefore we must not regard it as an evil per se. The same applies in respect to the advertisements at sports meetings.

I have dealt with all the points raised by the hon. member for Jeppe. I want to give him the assurance that the programme has not really collapsed. I want to tell him that I think I can give him the assurance that the steps in question, apart from the others that were taken previously, enabled us to curb the increase in the rate considerably. If the hon. member bears in mind that we have since devaluated as a result of the reasons mentioned by my colleague, and which was inevitable, and that this is also working through to our economy—some people calculate it at 4%—I think that we have succeeded. However, I want to say—and I am coupling this with a plea—that the degree to which we succeed on the road ahead, will also depend on our discipline in regard to statements.

†The hon. member for Constantia referred to various fields of economic activity in our country in which free competition was being stifled according to him. I cannot deal with all the examples he mentioned. The hon. member referred to price maintenance in respect of petrol, newsprint and tyres. I wonder whether in view of the time factor I could give him a written answer. I would like to give that to him now, but it would take some time. Let me assure him immediately that just to deal with the question of petrol, would take me the best part of the afternoon.

*Perhaps I should just tell him, Sir, that my predecessor issued a statement in August 1970 by means of which the Government reconfirmed the decision to allow fuel price maintenance. I just want to say that there is no doubt about South Africa’s sensitivity in respect of the provision of fuel.

Secondly, there is also no doubt at all that the oil companies operating here have done their duty towards South Africa.

Thirdly, Sir, there is only one reason why people, under world circumstances and with the sensitivity surrounding the supplying of this commodity to South Africa, will be prepared to keep on supplying South Africa, and that is order in the market and the existence of proper distribution points.

Fourthly, I want to inform the hon. member that my responsibility in this specific regard does not only lie in my having to supply the high-density urban population areas with fuel, but also that I have to do so at the most uneconomic points, and that I have to force the oil companies to do this.

Fifthly, I want to tell him that the turnovers of many of those filling stations are far below average, yet they are forced to remain in operation there.

Sixthly, I want to tell him, Sir, that if we were to consider the filling station industry in the country, of which many people are critical, one would find that although the number of vehicles on our roads has risen from 2 million to 3 million, the filling stations have increased by 307 over the same period. The sales in 1960 averaged 37 000 litres. The monthly sales at filling stations at present average 82 000 litres.

At filling stations?

Yes. I do not want to take it any further, except just to say, in all fairness, that fuel is not a commodity like sugar which one can sell across the counter. It is linked to the rendering of services. We have ensured that this is the case. This rationalization programme began in 1960. What I do want to say is that I am negotiating with the motor companies to extend the rationalization programme which was to have terminated at the end of next year, up to 1980 without a further increase in the number of filling stations.

Is it not a fact that the Board of Trade and Industries undertook an investigation into the distribution of petrol prior to the decision of the Government in 1970 and that the recommendation of the Board of Trade was that price maintenance on petrol should be dispensed with? Is it not also a fact that a similar recommendation was made in respect of tyres?

Mr. Chairman, the reply to the first question is that it is in fact that the Board of Trade recommended that price maintenance should be banned, but notwithstanding that and in view of the considerations which I have given, my predecessor announced in August 1970 that irrespective of that recommendation, and for the reasons which I have enunciated, we would allow the maintenance of price of petrol.

But let me say this in all fairness. At that particular stage in time, nobody in this House debated this measure; everybody accepted it. It was only when one particular retailer cut prices—I do not want to go into that—that this matter, with due respect, was raised. I shall still reply to the hon. member on the question of tyres.

*Sir, many hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Yeoville, referred to alleged increasing Government intervention in our national economy. The hon. member for Florida presented a well-founded plea for the free market situation, while the hon. member for Yeoville proposed that an acceptable economic system should be found as an alternative to socialism, and that all the people in our country should be made conscious of the benefits which this free market system would constitute for us. In this regard I agree with the hon. member. We are still the only country in Africa in which a free enterprise system is still flourishing. I agree with the hon. member that the real threat to our economic life and system is not the creeping socialism of which people have nowadays made a contemporary subject for discussion simply because they have nothing else to talk about. Plain and unvarnished socialism is being applied in other States, with prejudicial consequences. The Government attaches great value to the retention of our traditional free market economic system. The Government admits that a sound and responsible pursuit of the profit motive is an essential requirement, not only for the maintenance of economic growth in our country, but also for the creation of work opportunities for our growing population. However, it is not only the Government’s task to ensure that the free market system is retained in our country. It is not the task of the Government alone to propagate the benefits which it constitutes. The private entrepreneur, the consumer, the Press, we in this House, all have in our respective spheres the bounden responsibility of guarding against conditions in our national economy developing in such a way that it leads to the demise of the system of private enterprise and the pursuit of a sound profit motive. It is essential, and private entrepreneurs will realize that, apart from the pursuit of the profit motive, they also have a responsibility to the community as a whole, and that they, in their turn, must do everything in their power to eliminate the communication gap which has arisen between them and the consumers, and which is assuming proportions which I do not want to visualize. The consumer—we are all consumers—will, in his turn, have to realize that the true pursuit of the profit motive is important to the economic life of our country. Therefore they must not make profit-making a term of abuse. The only countries in which profit-making is considered a crime, is the communist countries. The consumer will have to begin to realize that the social services and all the other services that the State has to render, are only renderable if there are people who are making a profit from which they are able to pay tax. Another consideration which the consumers have to take into account, is that however effective measures are which I can adopt to protect their interests, I cannot protect their interests to the full. However, I shall do my best to inform them of how they can do this themselves, but then we must all do this together. The measure of Government intervention in the private sector does not take place without justification. Nor does it take place if it does not fill a need which has arisen on the part of the private entrepreneur or consumer. I challenge hon. members to mention one example to me of any Government intervention during the past two years which did not take place at the request of the private sector or of the consumer.

They were the greatest socializers in our politics.

I want to state the following fundamental standpoint, i.e. that the Government has not moved into the private sector out of any desire to undermine the form of private enterprise, but that it is doing so purely because it has been forced to do so by the actions of certain groups of entrepreneurs, and that it became necessary, for that reason, for me to request statutory powers in order to protect the rest of the community against the exploitation and malpractices of a certain limited number of groups of entrepreneurs in this country. I am making no apology for that, but shall do it again if it is necessary. I shall do so to an increasing extent, for if ever there was an executioner of a system then it is the abuser of that system. The Government is taking action in specific cases. In the first place the Government measures which are regarded as intervention are aimed at promoting our economic growth and stability. That is my responsibility. In the second place there are the regulatory measures to which I referred, and which the Government is applying to protect certain groups. Finally there are the Government activities on the entrepreneurial level. In this regard I have stated repeatedly that we are committed to the free market system, but that we also have a responsibility to promote economic stability and growth, to protect the interests of minority groups that find themselves in an unequal bargaining situation—to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred—and to provide certain strategic goods and render certain strategic services. I want hon. members to take cognizance of the fact, so that there can be no doubt about this, that owing to the complex population structure of this country and our socio-economic circumstances, the Government had to take policy decisions in the past which, seen from a purely theoretical, financial and economic point of view, could be interpreted as intervention in our system. However, I want to inform hon. members that I nevertheless intend to go on taking such decisions in future to the extent to which I consider them essential and important for our society in South Africa as a whole, and I have no intention of making any apology for that.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the exclusion of Black and Brown people from the benefits of the private enterprise system, while the hon. member for Yeoville made a strong plea for these people to be given opportunities to get to the top of the private enterprise system. It sounds strange coming from those hon. gentlemen. There is nothing in any law that I know of that prohibits the hon. member for Johannesburg North to appoint a Black or Coloured on the board of directors of his company. But I should like to point out that he has no Black or Coloured person on his company’s board of directors.

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

I just want to finish making this point. The hon. member can ask me a question afterwards. The hon. member for Newcastle replied adequately and efficiently to these statements, but I should like to react in regard to one aspect, and that is that through the establishment of the Bantu Development Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation and the Coloured Development Corporation new avenues and new horizons were opened up by this Government for the people for whom the hon. members opposite are now pleading.

150 000 jobs in 10 years?

I am not talking about jobs, but about trying to get to the top of the enterprise system.

*I want to ask the hon. member what progress was made in the time of his spiritual compatriots with the educational and economic upliftment of the non-Whites. They were only important every five years, when they could be used to advantage for political purposes. I say that this cloak of morality hangs awkwardly on the shoulders of that hon. member. [Interjections.]

†The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the small entrepreneur and he said that he should be encouraged. I share that view with him, but I would suggest—I do not have time to give all the facts—that this is what in fact is happening. The IDC classifies a small industry as one with assets up to R500 000 and which applies for financing in amounts not exceeding R150 000. Applications for loans and at interest rates somewhat more favourable than normally, are granted. Efforts to assist these small industrialists at a personal level, especially with the completion of feasibility studies and project studies, are continually being increased by the IDC. [Interjections.] I am giving you the figures now. Cannot the hon. member for Yeoville sit quiet for a moment? Naturally all these applications cannot be met and entertained. Loans to the aggregate of R3,2 million were authorized during the year in respect of 60 small industrialists. [Interjections.] This amount compares with R1,3 million that was granted to small industrialists in the first 10 years of the existence of the IDC. The financial year 1975 represents a record both in respect of the total amount authorized and the number of applications approved. The number of factory stands made available to a number of these small industrialists in the decentralized growth points and in the country towns, has been increased by 22 in the past financial year, while another 60 were authorized. When these are completed the total number will be 210, available in 17 different settlements. In addition, the corporation made available out of its own funds the amount of R2,7 million for the establishment of 24 factory stands each of 600 sq. metres in Chatsworth, Durban, for the Indian people. What is more, I have approved of an industrial corporation for the Indian people and I hope to implement that by an Act of Parliament next year when we meet.

*But, Sir, it is important to know that the total amount which was made available in regard to these small industrialists as at June 1975 totals R18,2 million.

Now they are looking a little sick.

The hon. member for Karas mentioned a very important aspect of our fishing industry, in regard to which I agree with him, i.e. the danger which foreign ships constitute to our fishing resources. In the case of stockfish alone, the catch made by those countries around our coasts was 913 000 tons in 1973 and 733 000 tons in 1974. Compared to this, South Africa caught 120 000 tons in 1973 and 135 000 tons in 1974, 13,1% and 18,1% respectively of the total. But in recent years conferences have already been held in an effort to find a solution to the problem concerning the exploitation of the oceans, in general, throughout the world, and more specifically the problems arising as a result of the over-exploitation of the world’s fishing resources. [Interjections.] Several countries have already taken unilateral steps. Several South American countries have already declared a 200 mile fishing zone, and all of us are aware of the discord between Britain and Iceland over catches. I think the time has arrived for South Africa to take stock of its own position, particularly since there are still countries that are casting covetous glances at our fishing resources, and my object is to take stock of this matter during the recess.

I have been advocating this for years now.

The hon. member for Sasolburg …

Better late than never!

It is like the Chinese proverb: the drip of water wears away the stone. I am pleased the hon. member for Sasolburg mentioned the problem which would arise when natural rubber is no longer available to us. The development of a substitute, which he calls polyisoprene, will be promoted as far as possible. I agree with that. I am convinced that the local fertilizer and rubber manufacturers will consider the matter, and I shall ensure that this happens. The hon. member proceeded to make constructive proposals, firstly as regards the creation of a fund for the establishment of industries to manufacture synthetic goods. He referred, secondly, to a country with which it is possible to co-operate with a view to the manufacture of a flotation substance called Xanthate. I shall investigate these ideas during the recess.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the collection of excise tax. His argument is that the motor trade was in fact subsidizing the manufacturers. He will understand that this is a matter which falls within the purview of the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance and I can hardly comment favourably or otherwise on his statement. However, I give him the undertaking that I will refer the matter to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

*The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to the prices of motor spares. This is a disturbing question, but last year I made an arrangement with the motor industry, as well as with the components manufacturers, through the office of the Price Controller, for rational action in regard to the prices of motor spares from the factory to the retailer. I have no doubt that they will adhere to the agreement. As far as the standardization of motor spares is concerned, the hon. member will understand there are many problems in this regard. Many of the components have to be imported, and therefore these components cannot be standardized. A representative committee has for several years already been trying to find a basis, but no appreciable results have been obtained. To my mind it seems as though the reply is to be found in another sphere, which is that the number of models and variations of models should be reduced. I am negotiating with the motor industry in order to establish what can accomplished in this regard.

†I would like to make it perfectly clear to the hon. member for Constantia that as much as I would like to establish a fully competitive position in each industry—we are in fact making every effort to do that—the hon. member must understand that it is up to the industry to achieve this. But I do not think it is desirable to regulate against interlocking directorships. I think the hon. member will agree with me that if in a completely monopolistic position—and there are such cases and in most of them their position is not being abused—they do abuse their position, I would suggest that it should be dealt with by other regulatory measures. The hon. member also knows that I have appointed a commission of inquiry into monopolistic conditions and I think we must just wait until we get that report.

The hon. member has referred to closed shops among the television manufacturers. I would like to say this, and I hope it is the last word that I have to say about it, that from a purely manufacturing economic point of view, there is room in this country for not more than one or two television manufacturers, according to the size of the market. The Government has, in fact, permitted six television manufacturers in order to induce the maximum extent of competition. Two others will be operating out of neighbouring countries. It was to be expected that during the period of peak demand competition would not be so strong so as to lead to price cutting. It is, however, perfectly clear that the demand will start to decline in the coming months, in fact it is already declining. This will lead to more intense competition. I have no knowledge of cartel arrangements, but I have alleged instances of retail price maintenance at present under investigation, and hon. members will get the report of that in a moment.

Sir, my time has expired. I would just like to say, in reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis, that I shall send him a written reply if he does not mind. I shall do the same in the case of other hon. members.

*I just want to tell the hon. member for Moorreesburg in conclusion that his concern over the employment of Bantu at Escom’s power station at Duynefontein will not materialize. Bantu will in fact be used in the initial stages of the construction of the power station. They will be accommodated in a separate housing project under a full-time White superintendent, but after completion of the project that area, as it ought to be, will be the traditional work area of the Brown people of the Western Cape. I thank hon. members for their co-operation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to the matter I raised about the questions on the Order Paper. I think it is most important.

Mr. Chairman, I do so gladly. In the first place I want to say that I find it a great pity that the hon. member for Wynberg, in his customary after-dinner session, acted as the champion for the hon. member for Walmer.

He has left!

I know he has left. That is why he made his speech on Thursday. He knows he can then say what he likes. However, I want to say with all due respect, that both hon. members were misled. I regret having to say this now. I did not intend doing so because the hon. member for Walmer is not present here. The fact of the matter is that the question appeared on the Order Paper for the first time on 4 June. At that stage I requested that the question stand over because I was unable to furnish a reply. The question appeared for the first time on 8 June. At that stage I was not able to reply to the question either. The hon. member for Constantia came to me and asked me personally whether I could tell him when I expected the next issue of permits to take place. I said to him that it was a delicate matter and that I was prepared to explain the circumstances to him in confidence, as a colleague whom I trusted. He indicated that, under the circumstances, I should rather not do so. After I had requested on 8 June that the question should stand over, the hon. member for Walmer came to me and said that he would not be here on Friday when the question would appear on the Order Paper again. I told him that I was on my way to a meeting to discuss the matter with the other organizations involved, and that I might issue a statement in that regard that same day.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is not going to comment on the matter of the return on capital for the sugar industry.

Mr. Chairman, I have indicated that my time has expired …

There is no time limit.

I shall give the hon. member a written reply to the question. I should like to repeat that I have indicated that if I did not have the time to reply to all members, I would post written answers to them.

Votes agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act and of the Post Office Service Act, no person may be appointed in a permanent capacity, to a post classified in the various divisions of the Public Service and of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, unless such a person is, inter alia, a South African citizen.

As a result of the fact that certain South African citizens will become citizens of independent States, which at present form part of the Republic, the Government has decided to submit the amending legislation contained in this Bill in order to provide that citizens of such independent States will continue to qualify for permanent appointment in the Public Service and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications.

The position of serving officers and employees who become citizens of the independent States concerned, will in no way be affected by their acceptance of citizenship of these independent States.

Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill contain the necessary provision in the above mentioned regard, while clause 3 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, obviously we must view this Bill in the light of the Status of the Transkei Bill which has already had its third reading. The hon. the Minister has explained the purpose of this Bill which is, in fact, obvious from the contents of the Bill itself. I think one must look at this legislation before us rather like the curate’s egg. It is correct that we should make provision for the retention of the services of Transkei citizens who are at present in the Public Service or in permanent positions in the Post Office. There is, however, another aspect involved. This is a measure which can be utilized to exercise a degree of compulsion in cases where persons choose not to take out Transkei citizenship or in the cases of persons who are being deprived of such citizenship because of the definition of citizenship in the Status of the Transkei Bill. Obviously we cannot and will not oppose this Bill, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that that aspect of the matter be preferably left to other bodies to decide rather than having pressure brought to bear on people who may already be employed or may be seeking employment in the Public Service. I see the hon. the Minister is nodding his head. I am grateful to him for giving me that assurance because this Bill can be employed as a means of pressuring certain individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. the Minister will be very pleased to hear that I intend saying only that we shall support this Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members for their support. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that the question of citizenship must be decided on quite a different level. In this case we shall accept the position according to the law when such persons come before us. Therefore we shall not place the onus on people to decide whether they want to accept citizenship here or somewhere else. Therefore I agree with the recommendation of the hon. member. I should like to thank the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Sandton for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

I do not wish to say anything more about the legislation itself, except to thank hon. members for their support.

I think, however, that I should take this opportunity of saying a few words with regard to the retirement of three Public Service Commissioners on 31 July and the appointment of a new Public Service Commission as from 1 August of this year. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity because it is the last time this session that the Public Service as such will be discussed.

The three commissioners who are retiring on 31 July of this year are the chairman, Mr. Van Zyl, and two members, Mr. Wouter van der Merwe and Mr. Malherbe. These three officials have a very long record in the Public Service. I should like to talk about the two members first.

Mr. Van der Merwe is retiring after 45 years in the Department of Agriculture and the Public Service Commission. He had served as Senior Deputy Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services before he came to the Public Service Commission on 1 August last year. Mr. Malherbe had served in the Public Service for 39 years before he retired on 1 December 1974 as Secretary for Forestry. Afterwards he served as a member of the Public Service Commission from 1 May 1975. On 31 July this year he will retire from the Public Service Commission. I should like to thank both these officials for their very pleasant co-operation and for excellent services rendered to the Public Service Commission while we were making changes to the Public Service Commission and considering certain changes with regard to legislation.

I should especially like to express a word of appreciation to the retiring Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Johan van Zyl. Mr. Van Zyl is retiring after 43 years of service during which he progressed literally from the lowest to the highest position in the Public Service. In October 1933—I am now speaking about the time of the Depression—Mr. Van Zyl started to work as a labourer in the Department of Water Affairs on the Vaalharts Scheme. He was promoted after working there for six weeks. He subsequently served in various departments, such as Mines, Social Welfare and Pensions, Commerce and Industry and Forestry, etc., until he became a member of the Public Service Commission in March 1965. In May 1971 he became vice-chairman and in May 1975 he became chairman of the Public Service Commission. I should like to convey to Mr. Van Zyl the gratitude, not only of this House, but also of the officialdom and the Government for an outstanding career of service to the State and to South Africa. I should like to thank him in my personal capacity for the fact that as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, he co-operated very cordially with me as the responsible Minister recently while we were considering drastic changes in the Public Service and were deciding on them. He is a man who did his job without saying very much and he has shown once more that a man can progress in the Public Service from the lowest to the very highest position if he has the necessary interest and shows the necessary diligence. Where these three officials are now retiring, it is my sincere desire not only to thank them, but also to wish them an agreeable retirement with the assurance that we shall remember their services.

Subsequently I should like to say something about the three new members. Two of them are in the service already and the third one will commence duty on 1 August of this year. As from 1 August this year, Dr. P. S. Rautenbach will be the new chairman of the Public Service Commission. He has already been designated for this position. Dr. Rautenbach is a person of whom we expect a great deal. He is highly qualified and he is a member of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship and a fulltime member of the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. He has also served as Chairman of the Planning Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, and he has been a member of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Prime Minister. In my opinion, he is a person who is very well qualified to represent the various facets of the Public Service and all the different aspects of officialdom in an efficient manner.

The second member who has already been appointed is Mr. W. G. Schickerling, the former Secretary of Inland Revenue. He, too, is an official who had a career in various departments and eventually became Secretary for Inland Revenue, a position he has held with great distinction. We believe that he will be a very great asset to us in the commission. We are looking forward to good co-operation.

Furthermore, I am able to announce that it has pleased the Cabinet to recommend to the State President—and the State President has approved it—that the third member of the Public Service Commission who will commence his duties on 1 August will be the former Secretary for Indian Affairs, Mr. H. A. Prinsloo. I shall make a statement on Mr. Prinsloo’s career available to the Press immediately afterwards.

I wish to express my gratitude to the retiring members and I wish to tell the new members that we welcome them and look forward to continuing with them the good work of the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate the official Opposition with the hon. the Minister’s words of thanks to the retiring members of the Public Service Commission and with his congratulations to the new members.

†We were most interested in the new composition of the Public Service Commission. Mr. Van Zyl’s career has indicated the great value of having people with experience of all aspects of the Public Service to serve on the commission. That experience contributed greatly to the service which Mr. Van Zyl has been able to render not only to the public servants, but to the State.

If I look at the composition of the new commission, I find myself very pleased with the wide field of previous experience that is covered. After all, the commissioners are there to look after the various problems of public servants and their needs and requirements from time to time. To have a gentleman with the experience of planning of Dr. Rautenbach, whom I find mentioned to me not only in South Africa, but also when I visit other countries and meet people who know him and his abilities, is very satisfying. I am sure that the question of the income and financial trials of the civil servants will be fully understood by Mr. Schickerling who is now on the board. I am sure that with his experience as a collector he will be able to understand the pain and suffering of civil servants who have been at the receiving end of the collectors in this country. I think it is also of great significance that Mr. Prinsloo, too, will now serve on the commission in view of his experience of dealing with the non-White community and particularly the Indian community in our country. The knowledge he will have of the members of our non-White community in the employ of the State will obviously be of value. Finally, I wish to support the hon. the Minister’s good wishes to the new commission for the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I hasten to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. the Minister in regard to the retirement of Mr. Van Zyl. I think that Mr. Van Zyl’s long career in itself is in fact a record of a devotion to service which has become known to many people both in and outside of the Public Service. Indeed, I think his is a record of which very few people in South Africa can boast. I am sure that, during his career, the chairman of the Public Service Commission has seen vast changes take place over the years and particularly in the latter years when he was a very senior member of the Public Service Commission. He will have seen changes in the Public Service itself, in its size and its scope. I think many of us will be aware that the chairman has, certainly in the latter years, played a very real role in coping with, combating and trying to overcome the very real problems the Public Service has been beset with in its modernization and with regard to staff difficulties and the like. I wish Mr. Van Zyl a very happy retirement.

I should also like to welcome the new members of the commission. Although they are not known to us, I am quite sure they will in the course of the years that lie ahead become known to us. I am quite certain, too, that they will uphold and maintain the high standards we have come to expect from the commission in the past. I look forward to co-operating with them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, further to the words expressed by the hon. the Minister, I should also like to express from our side of the House, and in particular on behalf of those members who have worked in close co-operation with the Public Service Commission during the past few years, a word of heart-felt gratitude to the members who are now retiring. I think that all the political parties and especially the governing party realize that a modern State is totally unable to prosper or show stability if it does not have a firm and stable Public Service. I should like to tell the members who are retiring that we on this side of the House, too, are very grateful that their lives and health have been spared to enable them to devote their energy to the service of their fatherland for so many years. We should like to thank them most sincerely for the service they have rendered and we trust that there are many more years ahead of them and that our fatherland and our people will still be able to make ample use of their brain power and of their labour. We trust that a peaceful time is in store for them

Then I should also like to extend a cordial welcome to the new members on behalf of this side of the House. All of them are members who made their mark in our community while still quite young. They are men we shall rely on for advice and, when we are not actively dealing with the Public Service, we shall know that those at the top will be doing their jobs well.

To Dr. Rautenbach I should like to say that if my information is correct, at least three members—one on the side of the PRP, one on the side of the UP and I myself—will be on the same side tomorrow and will be cheering on the same team. I am not sure, however, what the position is in respect of the other members. [Interjections.] I say that just in passing. I should like to wish the new members many years of pleasant co-operation. We are grateful for having such men and we know that all will be well for the Public Service in the future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We have had such splendid co-operation with the previous Bill that I hope I shall receive the same splendid co-operation as far as this Bill is concerned.

†The Bill I am introducing is designed to regulate the position of South African citizens who are White voters and who reside in the Transkei and who will be residing in other Bantu homelands when such homelands become independent.

The principle underlying the Bill is that such voters who have their homes in independent States, which were former Bantu homelands, (a) may be registered in certain electoral divisions in the Republic; and (b) may vote in the election of members of the House of Assembly and provincial councils as special voters. Arrangements already exist whereby voters of the Bantu homelands now registered at addresses in the Republic can vote in the Republic in elections of the homelands.

The Bill contains two main provisions, the first of which is contained in clause 5 by which three new subsections are inserted in section 13 of the electoral act. Here I wish to explain that I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage of the Bill which will be to the effect to delete the words “along the shortest practical route by road” in the proposed new subsection 13 (4A) and to substitute therefore the words “as the crow flies”.

The concept “as the crow flies” is more dependable for the reasons that roads often fall into disuse, are sometimes redirected and mainly because what may be a practical road for one person may not be so for another person. This concept, I may add, appears in the Oxford Dictionary and is a well known and acceptable grammatical expression in English. It can however not be literally translated into Afrikaans and therefore the concept will be translated into Afrikaans as “gemeet in ’n reguit lyn”. I shall therefore in explaining the relevant clauses of this Bill make use of the concept “as the crow flies”.

By the new subsection (4A) it is provided that any person who may qualify as a voter and who makes his home in an independent State, on or after the date of independence of that State, shall be registered as a voter in the electoral division in which is situated in the magistrate’s office in the Republic which is the nearest to his home as the crow flies. For example, a White South African, 18 years or older, who takes up permanent residence in Cofimvaba in the Transkei on or after the date of independence of the Transkei, may register as a voter in the Queenstown electoral division since the Queenstown magistrate’s office is the nearest as the crow flies to Cofimvaba in the Transkei.

The new subsection (4B) regulates the position of those voters who are registered in electoral divisions which on the date of independence of the independent States were wholly or partly situated in that State. It is provided that these voters shall remain registered as voters in the division in which they were registered as voters on the date of independence of the State in question and that they will remain so registered until immediately before the date on which the voters’ lists referred to in section 27(2) comes into operation. These voters’ lists are those that are complied after a delimitation of electoral divisions and which are used for the first general election after such delimitation of electoral divisions. For example, voter X is permanently resident at Cofimvaba in the Transkei and thus registered in the Griqualand East electoral division on the date on which the Transkei becomes independent. This voter will remain registered in the Griqualand east electoral division until after the next delimitation of electoral divisions.

The position of these South African voters whose registration as voters in the Republic is kept effective notwithstanding the independence of the State in which they have their homes, must be further regulated to provide that after the next delimitation of electoral divisions, they shall be registered in the electoral division in which are situated the magistrate’s offices of the Republic which are the nearest to their homes in the relevant independent States as the crow flies. This is done by the new proposed section (4C). Thus, to take the example of voter X residing permanently at Cofimvaba in the Transkei a step further: Under the new proposed section (4C) his registration as a voter will be changed from the former Griqualand East electoral division to the electoral division in which the magistrate’s offices of Queenstown will be situated after the next delimitation.

However, it is also necessary that the registration of these voters shall be identified by the magistrate’s offices in the Republic nearest to their homes in the independent States for purposes of a delimitation of electoral divisions. These adjustments will be made administratively immediately before the delimitation commission commences with its work and it will only for purposes of providing the commission with complete statistical data.

By the new subsections (4A) and (4B) a distinction is made between (a) persons taking up permanent residence in an independent State on or after the date of independence of such State; and (b) persons who are permanently resident and registered as voters at addresses in an independent State on the date of independence of such State.

The reason for this is that should it be provided that voters registered at addresses in the Bantu homelands on the date of independence of such homelands, be immediately transferred to the electoral divisions in which are situated the magistrate’s offices nearest to their homes in the independent states—i.e. before the next delimitation of electoral divisions—it might well happen in the case of an electoral division such as Griqualand East that very few voters are left over in such a division. In the case of this particular division no fewer than 26 of a total of 32 following districts will disappear on the Transkei becoming independent. Such an imbalance in parliamentary representation can only be rectified at the next delimitation of electoral divisions.

The second main provision of the Bill is contained in clauses 10 and 11 whereby sections 42 and 71ter of the Electoral Laws Act are amended. By these amendments it is provided that voters permanently residing in independent states will be able to vote as special voters provided that they will throughout the hours of polling on polling day be outside the Republic.

It may happen that these voters do not vote as special voters before polling day, but that on polling day they are in the Republic and within the electoral division in respect of which they are registered.

In the case of the voters referred to in the new subsections 13(4A) and (4C) they will be able to vote at the polling station in the polling district in which is situated the magistrate’s office with which their registration is identified or by declaration at any other polling station in the electoral division.

In the case of the voters referred to in the new subsection 13(4B) they will be able to vote by declaration at any polling station in the electoral division. For this provision is made in clause 12 by which section 74(3)(a) of the Electoral Laws Act is amended. The amendment is necessary because the registration of the voters referred to in the new section 13(4B) is not identified with a magistrate’s office in the Republic and because their names appear in a separate part of the voter’s list for the division concerned.

*There remain a number of consequential amendments to the Electoral Act, the most important of which I shall elucidate briefly. In terms of clause 1 certain definitions are being inserted in section 1 of the Electoral Act while others are being amplified. It is being provided that the concept “date of independence” and “independent State” respectively shall mean the date on which a territory which formed part of the Republic became an independent State. The definitions “competent witness”, “magistrate” and “presiding officer for votes of special voters” are being amplified to mean, in the case of an independent state, a judicial officer—magistrate—of such an independent state or any officer acting on the instructions and under the control of such a judicial officer.

Section 6 of the Electoral Act is being amended by clause 2 to provide that persons in independent States who (1) convicted of treason, murder or an offence under an Act which has as its object the combating of communism or terrorism; or (2) have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine, or are being detained; or (3) have been declared to be of unsound mind or are being detained by reason thereof or (4) are being detained in a reform school, shall, as in the case of persons in the Republic under similar circumstances, not be entitled to be registered as voters or to vote in elections in the Republic.

Section 8 of the Electoral Act is being amended by clause 3 to ensure that, in the case of a general registration of voters, the names of voters registered at places in the said independent States at the date of independence, shall be included in the voters’ lists which have to be compiled for voters after a general election.

In terms of clause 6 a new subsection (3B) is being inserted in section 15 of the Electoral Act in terms of which provision is being made for the names of voters registered at addresses in such an independent state on the date of independence to appear in a separate part of such voters’ list.

It is essential that the registration of these voters should not until the following delimitation of electoral divisions, be associated with a magistrate’s office in the Republic but shall be retained in the voters’ list in which their names have appeared on the date of independence of such State.

I should like to take the example I have already used further and mention that the polling station at Cofimvaba in the Griqualand East electoral division will disappear on the date of independence of the Transkei, but in terms of the proposed new subsection (3B) of section 15 of the Electoral Act the names of the voters in the Cofimvaba electoral division will appear in a separate part of the voters’ list for Griqualand East until after the following delimitation of electoral divisions.

Section 17 of the Electoral Act is being amended by clause 7 to provide that the Government of the Republic may enter into an agreement with the government of an independent State by virtue of which the chief electoral officer shall be informed of the deaths and of certain convictions of offences such as treason, murder and so on, in independent States in the case of White South African citizens of 18 years or older in order that the names of these persons may be deleted from the voters’ lists in question.

In terms of the new subsection (3) which is being inserted in section 42 of the Electoral Act by clause 10(3) a similar agreement may be entered into in terms of which a judicial officer of the said independent State or any officer acting on the instructions and under the control of such a judicial officer may exercise all the powers and carry out all the functions which a presiding officer for special voters in the Republic is entitled to exercise and carry out.

In terms of the proviso which is being inserted in section 27(1) of the Electoral Act by clause 9 it is being arranged that the voters referred to in the new section 13(4B) shall, after the first delimitation of electoral divisions following upon the date of independence of such State, be transferred to the electoral divisions in which the magistrate’s office in the Republic are situated which is the nearest to their permanent place of residence in the said independent States as the crow flies. To use again the example of voter X who is resident in Cofimvaba on the date of the Transkei becoming independent, these provisions may be explained as follows: Up to the following delimitation of electoral divisions voter X remains in the Griqualand East electoral division, but after the delimitation he will be transferred to such electoral division in which the Queenstown magistrate’s office will be situated after delimitation.

I want to emphasize that this Bill is aimed solely at regulating the registration of and voting by voters who are permanently resident in independent States which previously formed part of the Republic and I trust that the opposite side of the House will see their way clear to supporting this Bill as they did the previous one.

Mr. Speaker, it is correct, as indicated by the hon. the Minister and by the title of the Bill before us, that this Bill is intended to regulate, firstly, the registration of voters and, secondly, the method of voting by such voters who have qualified in terms of our electoral laws for registration and thus for the right to vote, but who find themselves outside the Republic. Section 9 of the Electoral Act provides for certain basic requirements, namely that to be a voter, a person must be firstly a White person, secondly a South African national, and thirdly over the age of 18 years. Fourthly, he must reside in or have his home within an electoral division of the Republic. By reason of the provisions of a Bill such as the Status of the Transkei Bill, a person otherwise qualified at the present time, or at the coming into effect of that Bill, will after the date of independence no longer fulfil the residence or domicile requirements of our law. He will, as a result of the abdication of sovereignty by the Republic over a portion of its territory—these are the words used by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—find that he is himself resident and domiciled in a foreign State. We have obviously therefore to consider the effect upon voters so resident or domiciled at the time of independence, and upon voters who take up such residence or domicile after the date of independence. The rights of voters in that category, who are in such foreign States in the service of the Republic, the diplomatic service or any other service, are already protected in terms of the Electoral Act and retain their rights as voters in the Republic. Civil servants or others who may be seconded are not affected because they take up neither residence nor domicile within the meaning of the Act because of the exclusions contained in the electoral laws. We accept that fundamental principles make it necessary that the rights which exist at the date of independence be preserved and protected, and to the extent that that is provided for in this Bill, we support the relevant provisions relating to persons who have qualified as voters, whether they are registered or not at the time of independence, and who are resident or domiciled as South African citizens in the new independent States.

But, Sir, as to those voters who after the date of independence abandon their residence or domicile in the Republic for residence or domicile in an independent State, we believe that vastly different considerations arise. Such a person will disqualify himself from registration under our electoral laws, as they now apply, by his own voluntary act, his own voluntary act in taking up residence or domicile in an independent State, just as he will forfeit his right to vote in South Africa if, as the law now stands, he takes up residence in France, Britain or anywhere else and he is domiciled there. Now the Bill provides for the preservation of the rights of such a voter in the Republic, and with that provision we have considerable difficulty. The reasons are obvious as to why a citizen who takes up residence and domicile in a foreign State but retains his citizenship should lose his voting rights. It is a principle which has been accepted in this country over the years. The reason is that his interests and responsibilities become located in that foreign country in which he is permanently resident or domiciled. Therefore, as I say, if by his own voluntary act he has transferred himself, his allegiance, his interests and his permanency in so far as residence is concerned to that foreign State, we can see no valid reason why such a person should be able to retain his vote in the Republic. Sir, we appreciate why this provision is in the Bill, of course. It is put into this Bill in order to reciprocate in so far as White South Africans are concerned the provisions in the Transkei Status Bill which attach the urban Bantu to a homeland. We on this side have expressed our views on that concept. The Minister now wants us to accept the position that a White South African will remain attached to South Africa when he goes to take up permanent residence in the Transkei, and he goes there to spend, for all intents and purposes, the rest of his days. I do not think the hon. the Minister, when he introduced this Bill, really expected us to accept such a principle after what he has heard or has read of what has been said during this week in this House in regard to that particular principle. It is to us merely a constitutional manoeuvre which we cannot accept. We believe that if a man relinquishes domicile and residence in South Africa, then there is only one thing to be done with his name so far as the voters’ roll is concerned and that is to have it deleted.

You want to chase them away.

The hon. member says I want to chase them away. I have said that it is done when a man assumes residence and domicile, and the only person who can choose residence and domicile is the man himself. There is no compulsion. The hon. member is not compelled to go and live in the Transkei but if he decides that it is a good proposition for business purposes, and he goes to live there and is domiciled there, what further interest does he have to justify his having a vote in South Africa? This is a political manoeuvre, a constitutional manoeuvre, which we on this side of the House cannot support.

The provisions which we on this side of the House are unable to support are contained in clause 5 of this Bill and we have already placed on the Order Paper certain amendments which we will move during the Committee Stage. Therefore I do not think I need elaborate on them at the present stage in dealing with this particular situation.

The Bill also provides, quite correctly, for the adjustment of the disqualification of voters for various reasons. These voters are to have protected rights or continued rights when they are in the Transkei. These adjustments are referred to in clause 2 of this Bill. In terms of our Electoral Act, a voter who has been convicted in our courts, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, of murder, treason, offences under the Suppression of Communism Act, the Terrorism Act or the Drugs Act or the abuse of liquor, shall be disqualified as a voter in the Republic. That is the law as it is applied now. That follows conviction in the courts of the Republic. If such person is resident and domiciled in the Transkei, he may well have to face prosecution in regard to similar offences in that country because of happenings in that country over which our courts have no jurisdiction. There is a provision in the Bill before us which provides that similar consequences will follow if a person is convicted in that independent State. The conviction of such a voter by a court of law in such State, as I understand the Bill, will have the same effect as a conviction by a court of law in the Republic.

It must be remembered, and this is important, that in terms of the Status of the Transkei Bill, which we have dealt with, the relevant laws in terms of which a person may now be convicted in the Transkei, may well be the very laws and the very provisions of the Act that apply in the Republic at the present moment, because we have said that these will be of continuing effect in the Transkei. The only issue, then, is that they shall be of continuing effect until amended by the Transkei. I say this because I believe that we have to look at the situation in this context. It is no argument to say that these measures may not be applied in the future because the time may come in the future when the laws are so altered and the crimes so defined that they are totally unacceptable to us as reasons for disqualification, because we could then amend the Electoral Act. We on this side of the House have no difficulty with this because, as I have said, the offences and crimes referred to in the Bill before us, other than murder and treason, are crimes which can result in conviction in the independent State under our Republican Suppression of Communism Act or Terrorism Act or any State law which is added for the combating of communism or terrorism. We find no difficulty with this provision. On the contrary, we approve of this provision and we support it as we, the official Opposition, are totally opposed to communism and terrorism. Secondly, there is the question of a conviction in the State of a contravention of a Republican Act or any State law having as its object the combating of the abuse of dependence-producing drugs and alcoholic liquor. Again, we on this side of the House support that provision. In passing, I want to mention that there is a printing error in line 56 on page 5, where “and” should read “of”.

Thirdly, there is the question of the detention of a mentally ill person and, fourthly, the detention in a reform school. We are in full agreement with all these matters. It has therefore surprised me considerably, when one analyses this Bill, to find on the Order Paper the amendments of the PRP, adopting a view diametrically opposed to the attitude of the official Opposition. As it is well known, the United Party has always opposed executive action, without safeguards, as provided for in the Suppression of Communism Act and the Terrorism Act. We have always been prepared to accept the conviction by a court of law of any person charged with the contravention of those laws. If one looks at the amendments which are now proposed by the PRP, it will mean that as far as the Bill before us is concerned, there will be no change whatsoever to section 6 of the principal Act. The person who may be convicted of murder or treason must be convicted in the Republic of South Africa in order to be removed. If he is convicted of murder in the Transkei, we cannot take him off the voters’ roll in South Africa. That is how I interpret the effect. What is more, if he is convicted under the Suppression of Communism Act or for the contravention of laws combating terrorism in the Transkei, we must retain him on the voters’ roll because he is a South African citizen falling within this group.

So one goes on to the other provisions of these amendments. The amendment means that a voter may retain his vote in the Republic if he is convicted of murder or treason in that State by the courts of that State, or if he should violate any of the penal provisions of our Communism Act, our Terrorism Act, as long as it applies in the Transkei, or provisions to combat drug abuse, or alcoholism or being convicted of any of those violations. I am well aware that the PRP opposed the Drugs Act when it came before this House, contrary to the attitude which we adopted. When the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has suggested on occasions in this House that the PRP are soft on security, communism and terrorism, they protested their innocence to high heaven. However, what do we have before us on the Order Paper today? It is they who have placed the amendments on the Order Paper and there are no accusations coining from any of us. On their own words—they are not ours which appear on the Order Paper—we must judge what their attitude will be with regard to this matter. It is no good arguing that our Acts of Parliament which are now to be transferred and become effective in the independent States, may be amended by the independent States, because if they are, contrary to our approach with regard to the combating of communism, terrorism or any of these other matters, we are well able to amend the Electoral Act to make provision for that eventuality. If the PRP professes to be opposed to the continued electoral rights by such convicted persons whilst they are convicted in the Republic, then the purported intent of their amendments can only mean that a similar conviction in the independent States must not be given the same credence. What does that mean? Does it mean that they are not prepared to accept the judicial integrity of the independent State, that they have no confidence in the administration of justice and in the fact that there will be such a thing as a fair trial in the courts in the Transkei? There can be no other conclusions drawn from the amendments on the Order Paper. It is because of our confidence in those Black people who will administer the Transkei, and our belief that they can accept greater responsibilities, that we advocate our federal policy in terms of which we are prepared to give them greater responsibility and accept them into positions of management and control in this country of ours—for the benefit of the Republic as a whole. That is why we believe that what we have been debating this week is an unfortunate step constitutionally. It is with all solemnity that I say today, in dealing with this matter, that I hope South Africa will take cognizance of the attitudes which appear from the amendments placed on the Order Paper by the PRP. Since they have been unwise enough to have placed such amendments on the Order Paper without sufficient thought, let me appeal to them, in the interests of this Parliament of ours, to see to it that such amendments do not appear, in connection with any other issues, on the Order Paper of this Parliament.

There is another aspect of the Bill that we do not approve of. The fundamental principle of delimitation, as the hon. the Minister will know, is to keep together persons who have a community interest. That community interest cannot be more real than it will be for the voters who are in the Transkei and will be retained on the voters’ roll, in terms of the proposed new section 13 (4A), after the independence of that State. I believe that the provisions of the proposed new section 13(4A), whether it refers to “by the shortest distance” or “as the crow flies”, violate the principle enshrined in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, i.e. that one of the primary matters to be considered in determining or selecting the boundaries of divisions is the community of interest of the voters. That community of interest will be dissipated, by what is proposed in this Bill, into three, four or more constituencies. Does the hon. the Minister not realize the significance of these provisions? It is for that reason that we have indicated that we shall move certain amendments.

Surely, that would not apply to Green Point.

That is an interesting point the hon. member has mentioned. In terms of the Bill before us, if 10 of my voters from Green Point decide to leave South Africa and take up permanent residence in Umtata—the hon. the Minister will note that I choose a place whose name I can pronounce—in terms of this Bill their names cannot be deleted as voters in Green Point and they will remain as Green Point voters for the next delimitation. For all times they will be voters in Green Point without any interests whatsoever in Green Point. The hon. the Minister is shaking his head, but that is the position. We shall deal with that matter in the Committee Stage but that is, in fact, the position.

Why?

The hon. the Minister must realize that the position is such that if a person leaves the country permanently to take up residence in a foreign country, his name must be deleted from the voters’ roll, but this Bill makes an exception of persons taking up that residence in an independent State.

But surely that can happen to others?

No, that applies to those who go off year after year but stay on the roll. The same sort of person will be involved in future instances. This matter will be dealt with in greater detail by the hon. member for Griqualand East, but in order to put on record our attitude, in this regard as I have tried to explain it to the hon. the Minister, I move—

1. (1) that voters who voluntarily leave the Republic after such date of independence and settle permanently in an independent State shall retain their voting rights in the Republic; and
2. (2) that voters whose rights are to be preserved are to be registered in various electoral divisions in such a manner that consideration is not given to the community of interests of such voters.”.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Green Point referred chiefly to three aspects. The first two were the two principles contained in the legislation, namely the provision made for (a) the retention of the voters who are at present on the voters’ roll in the Transkei and (b) the position of those who will subsequently go to the Transkei on a voluntary basis. With respect to the first group under (a) as mentioned above, he agrees with us that we must retain those voters, but with respect to those under (b) as mentioned above, the hon. member and the official Opposition differ from us.

The third aspect which the hon. member raised, was the question of the attitude of the PRP as is apparent from the amendments they placed upon the Order Paper. In so far as the hon. member for Green Point dealt with the amendments of the PRP, it was very interesting for me to watch the attitude of the PRP. I think the hon. member for Sandton felt very uncomfortable while the hon. member for Green Point was speaking.

I notice that the PRP are holding a caucus at this very moment about what they should do.

It seems to me that the amendment which was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Sandton is a very unconsidered one and that he never realized its full implications. This is what happens when one tries to make political capital out of everything submitted to the House. I do not want to go into the matter further except to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the statements by the hon. member for Green Point in this connection. Other speakers who will speak after me—I assume the hon. member for Sandton will present his party’s unconsidered case—will react to the amendment of the PRP in greater detail.

They have just sent someone to call Harry so that he can tell them what they must do. [Interjections.]

Maybe the hon. member for Yeoville is not even here.

I want to deal very briefly with the one aspect of the Bill about which the official Opposition differs with us. They differ with us on the question whether the citizens of the Republic of South Africa who, after the independence of the Black homeland, establish themselves voluntarily in such a homeland, should retain their franchise in the Republic of South Africa. Before I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point, I want to point out that I believe that hon. members will agree with me that we in the Republic of South Africa have a very special situation, a unique situation which has developed here in South Africa over generations and has unfolded in an evolutionary way. As a result of this, a special relationship arose between ourselves and the homelands within the borders of the Republic. We should like to perpetuate the unique situation which has arisen here. The Blacks among us, in so far as they come to White South Africa after the independence of Black States, will be here on a voluntary basis, just as our people will go to the Bantu States on a voluntary basis. In South Africa they will be treated as full members of a particular nation, as citizens of a particular country within the original borders of the Republic of South Africa. As I said, this special relationship has arisen over generations and developed in an evolutionary way. As far as their franchise is concerned we gave it to them and they were exercising it there long before independence. Until this moment they made effective use of it on a large scale. That right, too, is being entrenched and perpetuated after independence. Citizens in an independent state—a state which was previously part of the Republic—who find themselves amongst us, become citizens of such an independent state and, as far as we are concerned, continue to exercise their franchise in that state, as long as it suits that state for them to exercise their franchise there while remaining in White South Africa. In other words, as far as we are concerned, as far as this Parliament is concerned, as far as White South Africa is concerned, the status quo is being maintained in respect of the Black citizens of an independent state.

In addition there will probably always be White citizens of the Republic of South Africa in Black states which will become independent in the future in terms of our policy. On the basis of the principle of reciprocity—this is the essence of the matter, this is what the hon. member is arguing with us about—citizens of the Republic remain voters of the Republic as long as they are in the homeland and remain citizens of the Republic, provided they comply with the qualifications and requirements set under our electoral laws. The consequential changes necessary to perpetuate those qualifications while they are in the homelands as well, are consequently also spelt out very clearly in this Bill. I want to concede to the hon. member that this is a foreign principle, because this does not apply in the case of other states except, as he put it, in respect of officials who are seconded to those other states and work in our embassies, etc. Otherwise this does not apply to South African citizens in other states. Although this may be a strange principle to us, there is nothing which prevents us from adopting a measure such as this and piloting legislation through Parliament in this connection.

As far as our position vis-á-vis the independent homelands is concerned, we consider it a sui generis situation and we want to keep it this way. It is a unique situation. The highest civil right which one can have in a democratic state is the franchise. To determine how and by whom a person wants to be governed, is fundamental to the concept of a free democracy. But it is precisely because it is such a valuable privilege that it is also a right which the State, as the protector of the rights of its citizens, guards jealously.

The popular cry of our time: “One man, one vote”, can be taken out of context under certain circumstances. It remains the responsibility and duty of the State to determine to whom it will grant that right. We in South Africa deal with this principle of “one man, one vote” according to the requirements of our particular, unique situation. We want to maintain this principle within the framework of separate development and of nation-building and in accordance with the demands set by the maintenance and development of a separate identity. In this way alone do we grant that right to every person in order to preserve this particular African situation which is unique to us, and to accommodate the principles of true nationalism.

Mr. Speaker, we in South Africa have developed our own South African pattern, the pattern of co-existence and inter-dependence. As I have already said, it is a very special and unique situation, and we should like to perpetuate it. We have a system of political self-determination and we also have a system of economic and other inter-dependence. That aspect was very fully debated during a previous debate in this House in connection with the status of the Transkei and I do not therefore want to enter that sphere once again. It is for this reason that we want to perpetuate this particular situation, in spite of the fact that independent states are going to come into being within the original borders of our Republic.

Two principles are now at stake here. The first is that those who are at present on the voters’ roll in the constituency of the hon. member for Griqualand East, will remain there until the next delimitation, whenever this may take place. This is in order and furthermore is accepted as such.

And nothing will happen if he does not die.

The hon. member for Green Point now moves an amendment that the House refuse to agree to the Second Reading, inter alia because the voters who leave the Republic voluntarily after such date of independence and settle permanently in an independent state, retain their franchise in the Republic. I have already dealt with this aspect.

Then there is his second point, namely that voters whose franchise is to be retained, are to be registered in the various electoral divisions in such a way that the community of interests of such voters will not be taken into consideration.

I now want to tell the hon. member in all fairness that our constitution makes provision for the community of interests of voters among other things, to be taken into consideration where possible on delimitation. But after all, Sir, this is not a principle which can always be applied, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, in a situation like ours.

It cannot be applied in any constituency.

The Act does not state “where possible” at all.

Very well, I do not want to argue about the words. I am not sure of the precise words.

I now want to ask the hon. member for Griqualand East whether he can tell me that the 26 polling districts, and the 5 000 voters who, I am told, are involved in this situation—as far as I remember he has an area constituency, a huge constituency—that all the voters, as distributed over a vast area, all have a community of interests in those 26 polling districts.

Most of them are only UP supporters. That is the only community of interest.

The only community of interests which they all have is the fact that they are all in a particular geographically definable area, which we are going to call the independent state of the Transkei from now on. That is all. The question of community of interests is really so irrelevant here and it is becomes still more irrelevant if we bear in mind that after independence, as the hon. member rightly said, these White voters of South Africa are going to have no local interest as regards the exercising of their franchise. Where he lives in the Transkei, he does not have a local interest for his franchise. He votes here in the Republic of South Africa because as a South African citizen he has a particular interest here in a broad context. This is all we want to perpetuate.

With all respect, I therefore think that the argument the hon. member is advancing in connection with the question of community of interests, is not really very cogent.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that I am particularly grateful that the hon. the Minister introduced the amendment in connection with the distance as the crow flies instead of the shortest practicable route, for understandable reasons. However, I want to suggest here that either during the Committee Stage or possibly in the Other Place, the hon. the Minister considers adding a further amendment to clause 5(b) in respect of the proposed subsection (4A). In my opinion, it is understandable not only in theory, but also in practice that two lines drawn from one’s permanent place of residence to two magistrate’s offices may be of precisely equal length and a dispute may arise as to where one should register. I want to suggest that in a case where the two lines are of precisely equal length, the chief electoral officer may decide, possibly on grounds such as those which the hon. member for Mooi River has just suggested. It is a pleasure for me to support, in these few words, the motion of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I find it most difficult to agree with the hon. member for Koedoespoort when he says that a constituency has no community of interest. In fact, I think that the factor “community of interest” is set out in the Constitution and Electoral Acts and that it is one of the major factors which any delimitation takes into account when setting up constituencies. I was interested to see that the hon. member was somewhat amused, as Government members always are, when members of the Opposition fall out among themselves. He seemed to think that I was uncomfortable in my bench. I can tell the hon. member that I was not at all uncomfortable, but I was definitely considerably angry with the hon. member for Green Point in regard to the words he used today. As the hon. member for Green Point was speaking, I wondered what the functions of the Opposition and what the functions of Opposition parties really are. The functions of Opposition parties are, inter alia, to oppose the Government, to expose malpractices, to explain and provide alternative policies, to offer alternatives and to show the Government and South Africa what is wrong with government proposals. That is the task of an Opposition. What is happening here in this Parliament, is that there are members of the Opposition who spend more time attacking their colleagues on Opposition benches, than they do attacking members of the Government. [Interjections.]

What colleagues?

I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Umhlanga who, as we all know, makes more interjections than speeches, seems to be making a tremendous noise. In all honesty, if the hon. member for Umhlanga will allow me, I want to say to the hon. member for Green Point personally that I thought his speech was unnecessarily nasty. I do not think he needed to ascribe the motives to us or to me personally who drafted these amendments, that he in fact ascribed. I thought it was unnecessary to doubt our bona fides and I want to deal with his words in the course of what I have to say here this afternoon. These rather decrepit accusations which were levelled at the PRP will never go any way at all in resurrecting that rather decrepit party in the eyes of the members of the public of South Africa.

I shall not delay the House too long in reacting to this debate, but I think the content does raise several issues which have to be debated. I believe it is correct that South African citizens who, as at the date of independence of the Transkei or any other homeland, who find themselves resident in the Transkei or any other independent state, should not, by virtue of an Act of this Parliament be deprived of their right to vote as South Africans in a Republican election from time to time. I do not think it is necessary to motivate that principle, because I think that principle is provided for in the Bill and it appears to have general acceptance in this House. In fact, if that was all the Bill encompassed and if the machinery provided for in the Bill were completely acceptable, we would have no difficulty in supporting this measure. However, the Bill goes further than what we believe is necessary to protect the rights of South African citizens who find themselves involuntarily expatriated and, accordingly, despite my anger with the hon. member for Green Point we shall support the amendment that has been moved.

As far as we are concerned, there are broadly three matters which I should like to raise and on which I should like to address the House. The first matter of consequence is set out in clause 2. This was mentioned in an unfortunate manner by a previous speaker. It has the effect of depriving South African citizens of the right to vote or to be registered as voters in the Republic in the event of such citizens being convicted in the homeland State concerned in terms of certain laws pertaining to that State. That is the effect of clause 2. I do not know, and I say genuinely that I do not know, if there is any international precedent for this sort of provision at all. However, I do not think it is correct or right in principle that the franchise extended to the citizen of one country should be dependent upon the adherence of that person to the laws of another country.

It may be argued that the laws involved are in effect—and it was argued by the hon. member for Green Point—only laws at this stage passed by this Parliament and carried over at independence into the Statute Book of the newly independent State. As such, it is argued there should be no objection to their applying as a criterion in, say the Transkei, in the qualification for a vote as they do here. In my view this is a fallacious argument for several good reasons. I should like to refer to the laws concerned in clause 2(a), that is the Suppression of Communism Act and the Terrorism Act. These laws were not supported in toto by the entire Opposition in the form that they are now recorded. We do not support the extension of those very laws, as they are, to the new States.

But they exist in South Africa in exactly the same form.

They exist in South Africa, but I am saying that we do not support their extension in their present form to the newly independent State. Therefore, we do not support the disqualification of a person for the breaking of those laws in a foreign State.

In any event, this Bill goes a good deal further than merely allowing for the contravention of present laws to be a factor in the deprivation of the vote. Provision is made for future laws enacted by such independent States to have the same bearing. Let us look, for example, at clause 2(a) on page 5 of the Bill—

I now skip a few lines—

Let us have a look at clause 2(b), at line 53—

If one takes these two quotations, and in particular the first one, not only will the Suppression of Communism Act and the Terrorism Act apply, but also any further new security legislation enacted from time to time by the new Government in the independent States, legislation which may or may not be acceptable to South Africa and over which legislation we will not have, nor will we wish to have, any control at all. It is easy to say that if we do not like the laws of an independent State, we can always change the law here in Parliament. However, the position is this: If the Government’s policy is successful in years to come, there may pertain a situation where one has two, three or perhaps more independent States in existence with entire legal systems of their own. Is it then the intention for this Parliament to set up a complete new department of the Public Service to study the laws which are made and enacted by Parliaments of independent States within southern Africa, and then decide ourselves whether we should allow those laws to apply in respect of our own electoral laws? What sort of process are we trying to establish when in fact the very principle about which we are speaking, is incorrect. Surely it is a wrong principle. Laws passed by a foreign body may not be to our liking at all, and while South African citizens living in a foreign State may well be bound by those laws, those South Africans’ rights in the Republic of South Africa should not be adversely affected as a result of convictions in a foreign country under foreign laws. That is my belief, that is the principle and that is the motivation for it.

In the second example I quoted it seems to me that the scope is even further broadened, i.e. the one relating to the abuse of dependence-producing drugs and alcoholic liquor. It is further broadened by including possible legislation in the Transkei, for instance, relating to the combating of the abuse of liquor. This provision is in my view too vague and too broad to solicit our support. These are laws which are not even on the Statute Book of the State concerned at the present time, and I want to put this point to the hon. the Minister. I am certain that in years gone by the laws of Portugal as they applied, let us say, to Mozambique, would at least have had a certain legal standing, an independence and findings under those laws could possibly have been made orders of court in South Africa. But I want to know, would we take into cognizance in our law in any way the rehabilitation laws of President Samora Machel in Mozambique? Now I am not saying, and I want to make it absolutely clear, that that is going to pertain in the Transkei. I am trying to deal with the matter on a question of principle. What I am saying is that you cannot link your own legal system and the rights of your own citizens to the laws of a foreign country. That is all there is to it. It is quite unnecessary—I am afraid I was rather hurt by the comments of the hon. member for Green Point earlier—in the light of that motivation to ascribe the motives to this party such as he ascribed to us.

Thirdly, I should like to put another question. We in the Republic can vouch for the integrity of our Bench and we can vouch for the impartiality and for the reasonable efficiency of our judicial process. But it is not our task to be a watchdog of the legal processes of foreign countries. Standards in months—and I am not saying this will happen—let alone years to come, may in fact differ; they may be better or they may be worse, but one thing is certain; they will be different. They will not be the same as the standards are in this country; they will have a different set of standards and a different set of values and in many cases a different interpretation, for instance, of the defunction of terrorism or the definition of communism. All these are matters of dispute. They are matters of dispute among people in South Africa, and we may well find foreign States taking a different viewpoint. So, while it is not our function to interfere in the affairs of other States, it should equally not be our goal to penalize South African citizens for sins committed in a foreign country which may not even be sins in our own country or which under our legal system might have been dealt with in a different way. Sir, you may find that an offence, let us say, in the new State of the Transkei, is a very serious offence under one of their security laws, and you may find that a similar type of offence in South Africa is a trivial matter according to the laws of South Africa. But in the ambit of this definition, of this clause of this Act, we have a situation that according to the standards of that State South African citizens will be deprived of the vote if they commit an offence in terms of the legislation of that country.

Combating communism.

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point will not let that point alone. He mentions combating communism. [Interjections.] Over the years the United Party has been accused, and we in these benches have been accused, of being the “handlangers” of communism. We find that the Government has constantly called liberals communists and has in many ways related communism to opposition to the State. Now who is to say that the definition of the combating of communism in the Transkei in five years’ time will be the same as the definition of the combating of communism as we see it in South Africa? [Interjections.] That is the point I am trying to make.

The second important noteworthy problem which is raised in this Bill is to be located in clause 5. While we feel that there is justification for protecting the voting rights of South African citizens living in a homeland at the date of independence, we cannot see the logic or the consistency of extending this right to private citizens who move into those states of their own volition after independence. Public servants are already protected as they are when serving in other states in the service of our country abroad. If our law has to be consistent, however, and that is what I am asking by arguing this point, this type of provision should be introduced to cover all South African citizens living, for whatever reason, in foreign countries, as for instance, in Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana or Rhodesia and, at a stretch of the imagination, even in the United Kingdom or America. I cannot concede that this provision which allows people who at a later stage emigrate from South Africa to a homeland state to exercise in the homeland concerned their South African voting rights, is a proper or even consistent development.

The third point relates to the machinery of this Bill and the method in which the voters are apportioned to constituencies within the borders of South Africa. Clause 5 and subsequent clauses are relevant in this regard. I believe that voters who register subsequent to independence should be allocated, at least until the next delimitation, to the constituencies which previously covered their residential addresses. After the next delimitation, homeland South African voters will, as has been announced and as it is fairly clear, although not quite clear, from the Bill, will be incorporated as presently envisaged in the Bill. At that time, I understand, provision will be made for these voters when the boundaries are redrawn by the delimitation commission. Two problems arise, however. The first problem is in my view, that it is not inconceivable that provincial boundaries will no longer be inviolable in so far as voter distribution is concerned. Some persons who may register as voters in the Transkei after independence may find themselves in Griqualand East while other voters may find themselves in the Natal South Coast constituency while yet others may find themselves in East London or other Eastern Cape constituencies. In my view this could upset the provisions of our legislation pertaining to the loading and de-loading of seats. In particular it will possibly affect seats which are already allowed that special 38% de-load.

This action is neither fair in the overall nor in the particular and I believe it is in conflict with the decisions taken at the time of the sitting of the delimitation commission. This action may well in some manner prejudice future elections in the areas concerned. The balance in each province, as has always happened over the years, has been in favour of the country districts, and I do not think any member will dispute this. This provision could well in the Cape Province in some respects tip the scales even further in an unwarranted way. This House is therefore acting as a sort of arbitrary delimitation commission. That is what the House is doing. This is at a time when the circumstances, in my view, call for the appointment, at least in the Cape, of a new delimitation commission which, in a judicial and impartial manner, could look at the new circumstances and the new boundaries and could apportion Transkeian voters accordingly. Politicians should not tamper with the boundaries and with the voters of their own constituencies, nor should Parliament legislate on a process which in fact is a judicial function. Having said that, and while being more than willing, and in fact even eager, to protect South African citizens in their voting rights as a result of the creation of the new independent State, we cannot support this Bill in the form we find it, and shall vote accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton raised three matters. In the first place, he made it clear that the PRP agrees with the provision in the legislation that those White voters who are in an independent State should be able to exercise the choice of where and by whom and in which Parliament they want representation. He mentioned another matter to which I shall return later on in my speech. In my opinion, this cast a very serious reflection upon the rule of law and the juridical integrity of an independent State which will come into being by proclamation by the state President.

I first want to deal with general matters with respect to the Bill before the House. This Bill which is before the House at present is the last link in an historic process which will culminate in the independence of the Transkei. I do not want to say anything about the historic importance of the event at this stage. The Status of the Transkei Bill has been fully debated. However, it is a unique process for a State in Africa to obtain its independence in this way and it is understandable and only to be expected that certain steps will be taken between the Republic and the independent State in order to protect and promote mutual interests. This is precisely what this legislation is attempting to do. The underlying principle—and it is essential that I point this out with a view to the development of my argument—of the whole legislation is the full constitutional independence of a country, the Transkei, but with inter-state connections. This question of inter-state connection covers many levels, from the educational level to the guardianship level as far as the legislative assemblies are concerned. If ever a motion of no confidence has been moved in an independent State, it has been moved by the accusations which the hon. member for Sandton made.

In section 6 of the Electoral Act there are certain provisions which declare a person unqualified to register as a voter. These include, inter alia, the provisions which the hon. member mentioned to us. Now this Bill makes provision for the rule of law and judicial integrity of a competent court in an independent homeland to honour these same provisions. Conviction by a court in the Republic and conviction by a competent court in an independent State have equal legal validity. This Bill is a test for the motives of this Government. The hon. member for Sandton suggests that a competent court in an independent homeland does not have the same jurisdiction to declare a person an unqualified voter as is the case here in the Republic. I say that this is motion of no confidence in the rule of law and the judicial integrity of an independent homeland. This cannot be allowed to pass without comment, and as in the debate on the Status of the Transkei Bill, the real feelings of the PRP are once again exposed with this type of statement. With these few words, in the short time available to me, I should like to support the Bill which is now before us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton asked what the function of the Opposition is. He suggested that the only function of the Opposition is to oppose the Government.

I said “inter alia”.

Well, in view of the “alia” we can also attack the other Opposition. He has some amendments on the Order Paper and we have to react to those amendments. We have to say whether or not we are going to vote for them or not. We have indicated that we do not support those amendments, and surely we must give our reasons for not supporting them. He said the speech of the hon. member for Green Point was a nasty speech, but we have sat in this House and heard much nastier and cattier speeches from those hon. members—not necessarily from him—attacking us for our attitude towards security. We have had the Schlebusch Commission rammed down our throats, and have also been attached on the 90-day detention clause. He has heard those attacks. They have never hesitated, at every opportunity, to attack us on security. Now, however, when we hit back we get these squeals. I must admit I expected that from some of those hon. members but not from him.

He made me very cross.

He has also attacked the particular clauses—which he is opposing—on the grounds that the legislation may not be ours; the independent states can introduce their own legislation and we will then have to abide by that legislation. He said we could change our laws. Of course we can. It does not matter in how many independent states the laws apply; if we do not like the laws as they are applied there, we can change them in the same way as they will change our laws that apply to them.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort has asked me certain questions and I shall answer them as I go along.

I must repeat that I am the only person in this House affected by this measure. It affects me and my constituents—in truth, only half of my constituents, not all of them—as it affects no one else. When independence was first mooted by Dr. Verwoerd, I asked him what would happen to the voters in the Transkei and he gave me the assurance then that they would always enjoy political rights in this Parliament. There is no doubt that in pursuance of the promise he made then, the Government is now introducing this measure. It is a unique bit of legislation, as Government members have mentioned. It is also unique, however, in the sense that it is going to give people who are permanently resident outside the country a vote inside South Africa. It is only right, of course, that those who are permanently resident and domiciled there, and who have established themselves there before independence, should retain their political rights. After all, there is nowhere else they can vote. They are domiciled in the Transkei, and if this Bill were not to give them special rights, they would have no vote at all. I do not agree, however, that those who come in after independence should be given the vote. I do not think the vote should be given to those who go to live permanently in the Transkei—or in any of those independent states—after independence, because they are going there of their own free will. However, many of the people living there now cannot leave even if they want to and therefore it is only right that they should have their rights protected. In terms of the provisions of this legislation before us, the hon. the Minister proposes to alter the situation in respect of where the voters should vote.

I was always under the impression that the voters living in the Transkei—the Transkei is the territory which is now being affected—would be able to vote as a body as they do now. Before I came to Parliament in 1948, the people in the Transkei voted in two constituencies, but the voters numbered much less than they do now. The two constituencies were East Griqualand and Tembuland. In 1948 they were combined to form the Transkei constituency but two districts in the Bantu homelands fell under Queenstown. Eventually Kokstad and Matatiele, two White areas in East Griqualand, were excised and incorporated into the Aliwal constituency. The Transkei then became a solid bloc.

I feel strongly that those people should be left in one constituency. They will be left there until the next delimitation, but I submit that it should be an instruction to future delimitation commissions not to cut them up and put them into certain areas. In terms of the law they will be put in areas “to the nearest magistracy as the crow flies” and therefore the delimitation commission will have no say in the matter, no discretion at all. I say that the delimitation commission should have a discretion in this respect and the voters should all be left in one constituency.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked whether my constituents all have a common interest. They do not all have a common interest in the strict sense, but they have this in common: They are neighbours and they depend on one another. Whatever happens in the Transkei affects the people across the Transkei and my constituents have that common interest that they are very much interested in what happens in the Transkei and in the area bordering on the Transkei.

If the Bill is passed as it stands, it will mean that the voters will be diffused into several constituencies. As the position is at the moment, I can see that they will definitely be diffused into three constituencies and perhaps even four because I am not certain whether, when the Bill is passed, Umzimkulu, for instance, will not go to Ixopo which is in Natal but which certainly is the nearest magistracy. The Bill does not stipulate that all the areas should fall in constituencies of the same province.

The hon. the Minister should heed my request that the voters remain in one constituency because if they are diffused, it will mean that many of them will go to Aliwal and Queenstown with the result that after the next election the NP will have two fewer seats. Sir, this may affect you very much and also the hon. member for Aliwal.

The voters themselves would prefer remaining in one constituency. Their interests are quite different from those of the voters of other constituencies. Putting them into Queenstown or Aliwal is not going to satisfy them. They will not be able to exercise any pressure if they are cut up and put into different constituencies. I submit that because of what is happening to them—willy-nilly they will be left in the Transkei—they should be able to act as a pressure group and they will only be able to do that if they are all left in the same constituency. I therefore appeal once again to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the provisions of the Bill. I was under the impression all along that it was the intention to have them in one constituency.

As far as the provision “as the crow flies” is concerned, I should like to point out that there will be a very difficult situation. Take Port St. Johns and Lusikisiki for instance. Some of the people in those areas may be put into Harding, which may be the nearest magistracy—I am not quite certain of the position because I do not have a map available—whilst others will probably be put into the Aliwal constituency. Those who fall under Harding will of course be voters in the South Coast constituency. Whatever happens, they will be far away from people who have any interest in them. I therefore make this strong appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Opposition supports a part of the Bill. They support the principle that people with South African citizenship who are at present in the Transkei should retain their citizenship and franchise unless they voluntarily accept Transkeian citizenship. I am pleased that there is no difference about this and that the PRP also agrees. Consequently we need not argue about that part of the Bill at all.

The argument, therefore, basically concerns two points. Firstly there is the question of the persons who, after the independence of the Transkei, leave the Republic of South Africa and settle in the Transkei. Both parties object to the retention by these people of their franchise in South Africa. Seen from our point of view, the matter is very clear. Although the Transkei is attaining sovereign independence and, as we see it, will be as independent as any State may be, there will always be a special relationship between the independent States which are the former homelands of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of South Africa itself. It will be a community of nations in which certain privileges and concessions will be mutually applicable which do not usually hold for totally independent and sovereign States like Malawi, Swaziland or Nigeria. The example which I want to give—I immediately want to say that it does not involve the same pattern, but the same principle—is the old Commonwealth of the British Empire which originally consisted of former British territories which had eventually become independent. Nevertheless there was preferential treatment within the Commonwealth with respect to a whole number of matters between the former territories which had become independent States and Britain itself. There was preferential treatment regarding visas and passports, regarding admission to Britain or otherwise, etc.

The very Opposition members who are now objecting to this aspect of the Bill were the ones who made a great fuss at that time about the fact that although it was part of the Commonwealth, South Africa had become totally independent. They are the people who placed a very high premium upon membership of the Commonwealth and who wanted to remain in the Commonwealth at any price. As I have indicated, the two principles are not irreconcilable. According to their standpoint they are not irreconcilable, and according to our standpoint they are not irreconcilable either. A country may have total sovereign independence and nevertheless receive preferential treatment within a community of nations as was the case in the British Commonwealth.

It did not hold for the franchise.

No, but the countries concerned enjoyed certain privileges. In precisely the same way we foresee that, with the creation of independent Bantu States from the Republic, a community of nations should come into being here. Although the separate States will have total sovereign independence both politically and constitutionally, there will be mutual interdependence in the economic and various other spheres and there will be certain privileges and advantages which will be mutually applicable between us and them, privileges and advantages which do not exist between us and other States which do not constitute part of the Republic at present. This is the concept behind this. For that reason and for that reason alone is the provision being added here to which both Opposition parties are objecting, namely that even if people leave South Africa and go to settle in the Transkei, after it has become independent they will retain their franchise in the Republic of South Africa, provided that they are not disqualified for some reason, just as, reciprocally—the hon. member for Green Point rightly pointed this out—the citizens of the Transkei who live here in South Africa or who move here for reasons for employment after the independence of the Transkei will retain their political rights in the Transkei. It is a perfectly reciprocal situation in a community of nations which are related to one another. This is my answer to the whole argument; this is what it is all about, and this is the manner in which we are going to deal with it.

I now come to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Sandton. It is very interesting to note that the PRP is now advancing the argument—and it does not matter how the hon. member tries to camouflage it—that they do not have any confidence in the ability of an independent Transkei to maintain the same legal standpoints and legal standards which are at present being maintained in South Africa. [Interjections.] This was precisely the premise of the hon. member.

That is quite incorrect. No country in the world entrusts its own citizens to the laws of another country. [Interjections.]

The hon. member says that no country in the world entrusts its citizens to laws which are in force in another country.

As far as their rights are concerned …

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the argument further immediately. The fact which is hidden behind this amendment—and it does not matter how it is camouflaged—is a degree of doubt about the ability of the Transkei as an independent state to maintain the legal principles which will be acceptable to the hon. member and his party.

No.

Yes, that is precisely the position. If that is not the argument, then I return to the argument of the hon. member for Green Point, because that is then the argument which is concealed behind it. I am trying to help the hon. member. The hon. member is denying it now, but then I take the standpoint which the hon. member for Green Point took, because then that standpoint is 100% correct. If this is the case, then those hon. members are concerned about the strong action against communism, against terrorism and against drugs. There can be no other argument.

You did not listen.

I listened with great attention. Sir, the hon. member for Sandton jumped about from one subject to another. He reminds me of somebody who has put his foot in it and is now cleaning his foot on the grass. This is the impression which I gain. He has put his foot in it and the conclusions which may logically be drawn, by the hon. member for Green Point and myself, must now be denied in one way or another. I want to make this very clear to the hon. member. The hon. member said that one did not allow oneself to be dictated to by the laws of another country and that this was not done anywhere. Let me mention a few examples of where it is done. In terms of the Aliens Act of South Africa the entry of people into South Africa is regulated and it is determined whether a person may become a permanent immigrant. If such a person has a criminal record in his country of origin, no matter what the standard of the laws there—because we do not check the standard of those laws—and if he applies for immigration to South Africa, that application is not granted. [Interjections.] No, I am now referring to the hon. member’s argument that the laws of other countries cannot be decisive for us. The law with respect to entry is exactly the same. If a person has committed a crime in terms of the laws of another country, no matter how small or unimportant that country may be, it disqualifies him for entry to South Africa. This is very clearly the position.

That is an example, but what I want to know, is whether the Minister knows of any precedent in the world where the vote of a citizen in one country is dependent upon a conviction under the laws of another country.

I do not know of such an example, and I do not think it is necessary for me to find one. I do not have to look for an example, because I have just explained to the hon. member here that we are dealing with a situation in which we are going to form a community of nations in which we will have certain relationships towards one another. Our standpoint is very clear here, namely that a man must obey the laws of the country in which he lives in order to qualify for franchise in his country. If this holds for my country, then it also holds for the Transkei. If a man commits one of the following crimes, such as communism, terrorism, drugs, etc., while he is in that country, then I feel that we in South Africa cannot ignore it and pretend it does not exist. I therefore feel that we cannot allow such a person to retain his franchise in South Africa no matter what he does, because this would constitute contempt of that country and its whole legal system. The hon. member for Green Point is correct, because at the moment our set of laws is being applied to the Transkei as is. If my information is not incorrect, then the highest appeal court of the Transkei will ultimately remain the appeal court in Bloemfontein. In other words, it is as clear as daylight that the standard will be maintained on this basis and we trust that it will work out like this. If it does not work out for some reason, then we will be able to amend this electoral law, if it causes embarrassment for us, and there will be enough time to do so. However, these people astound me, because they doubt the ability of these people to rule their country well and to make laws for their country themselves, but the same people who call the abilities of the Transkeians into question want the Transkeians to sit in this Parliament and make laws for South Africa and all its people. This is the premise of hon. members. These people are not qualified to make their own laws, but the hon. member for Sandton wants them to make laws in this Parliament for the whole of South Africa, of which they will then be a part. The ambivalence of this party is proved once again.

[Inaudible.]

I can tell what the hon. member put his foot in by the look on his face. He need not be concerned about it. I just want to refer briefly to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, namely his suggestion in case there should be uncertainty about which magistrate’s office is closest to the residence of the voter. This matter has been cleared up in anticipation with the surveyor-general, because they are able, by means of instruments, to determine a distance down to metres and therefore it is very improbable that there will be any uncertainty about the distances.

As far as the arguments of the hon. member for Green Point are concerned, I want to say that Green Point voters who have to move to Umtata will not be able to remain on the voters’ roll for Green Point forever, even after the next delimitation. This will automatically fall away at a general registration. We are also empowered by sections 30 and 30 bis of the Electoral Act to take action in this connection. If ten Green Point voters move to Umtata and do not register there, then the following is possible in terms of section 30bis(1) of the Electoral Consolidation Act—

Section 30bis (2) provides the following—

In other words, we do have the ability to rectify the position.

Is this an exception?

No. We can discuss this again in the Committee Stage. We do have the powers in terms of section 30 and section 30bis to rectify the position. The hon. member for Green Point need not worry about it.

I now come to the last suggestion which was made. The hon. member for Griqualand East as well as the hon. member for Green Point requested that the Transkei voters should be kept together as a communal group. However, the problem is that this would mean in practice that even after independence, we would still be considering the Transkei to be part of the Republic for the purposes of delimitation, i.e. theoretically part of the Republic. This is what it will amount to in practice. Now let us look at the picture in itself. After independence the Transkei will be excluded from the Republic of South Africa. The borders will then be different. In order to keep those people in one block and to accommodate them in one electoral division, wherever it may be—the number of voters in the Transkei will not be sufficient for a full electoral division—will mean that for all practical purposes we shall have to ignore the independence of the Transkei completely and take it into consideration as we do at present with a view to delimitation. In my opinion, this is unrealistic. We may be criticized abroad by people saying that the Transkei is not truly independent. Therefore I want to make it very clear that these people still have interests in South Africa and that they are and remain South African citizens. They have common interests and ties with South African citizens in South Africa and they will probably also have ties with those people in the neighbouring areas of the Republic of South Africa. This is why we want to introduce the idea of “as the crow flies”.

What happens if the crow makes a detour?

He may make a detour and he may fly far away. The fact remains that the citizens in the Transkei will be incorporated into the nearest electoral division of the Republic of South Africa. We cannot take the territory of the Transkei into consideration in the event of delimitation. Therefore we have tried to do the best we can and for this reason these voters will be placed upon an alphabetic list. They will not have to go to a ballot box personally. We consider that this will be the easiest way and that the minimum of confusion will be created by taking the shortest distance from the voter’s home to the nearest electoral division in the Republic. We need not concern ourselves about the roads, except in cases where confusion may exist. The people are not being asked to travel to the nearest electoral division in order to vote. They will vote by means of a special vote at their homes or in the presence of the nearest electoral official. For this reason I want to say that I naturally cannot accept the amendments.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treuruicht, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.