laid upon the Table—

1. (1) Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) [B 73—86 (HA)]—(Minister of the Budget).
2. (2) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

Mr Speaker, in addressing the House yesterday afternoon, I was in the process of explaining that the most positive features of this Bill were, firstly, the objective to establish alternative sentences to those of imprisonment. I said then that this objective was a laudable one and that it represented an effort to serve the interests of the community as well as to prevent first offenders from being brought into direct contact with hardened criminals. Sir, what is wrong with that? It is indeed a laudable objective.

The imposition of a fine is already a viable alternative to imprisonment, and only last year we amended the Criminal Procedure Act in order to facilitate the method of payment of fines. The particular amendments were effected following recommendations by a departmental group investigating the overcrowding of our prisons. That group or committee, headed by Mr Krugel, the President of the Regional Court of Transvaal, is to be commended for submitting these recommendations. That group is, however, still engaged in performing its task. Although not active at the moment, the group is to be commended for what it has done up to now. In the meanwhile the group also recommended that very, very urgent steps should be taken to streamline community service as a viable alternative penalty to that of imprisonment.

This Bill, Sir, removes virtually the last stumbling-blocks in respect of many aspects in relation to proper alternative penalties. One of those aspects is of course the question of who is to bear the liability for damage committed by a convict in the course of carrying out his community service sentence. In this regard I pointed out the possibility of someone who, while performing community service in a hospital, committed a delict by injuring a person while pushing a trolley, for instance.

No one objects to any of that!

Well, Sir, the point is that this is all part of a single package.

No, do not talk nonsense!

Of course, Sir, it is very important that this committee or group …

One rotten apple can spoil the whole crop!

I wish the hon member for Houghton would just listen to what I am saying, Sir. It is very important to take note of what this committee has recommended in the first instance.

*They said it was of no avail for one by implication to place all these provisions on the Statute Book, while nothing happened on the part of the public. It is of no avail for the public to tell us that we must keep the prisons empty, and it is of no avail for them to ask us what we are doing in regard to the application of our laws, if they do not co-operate. That is why this committee, this working group under Mr Krugel, recommends that in order to make the entire introduction of community punishment feasible, the general public must be motivated and educated to participate in community service.

By this they did not mean that everyone should now push patient trollies around in the hospitals—that was not the idea—but that the general public should be mentally geared to accepting co-responsibility for the criminal element in society. There is also a person who cannot be regarded as a criminal. He is a first-time offender and a person who committed a crime because he acted on the spur of the moment. Such a person is now being afforded an opportunity to serve out his punishment in the community instead of coming into contact with hardened criminals. In this connection I wish to refer once again to the man who was responsible for a fire on Table Mountain, and who had to go and work in Kirstenbosch.

What do we mean by community involvement in this kind of punishment? There are a large number of organisations which involve themselves in the rehabilitation of criminals and people sentenced in our courts. I could mention Nicro and 16 or 17 similar bodies. We are helping them in the further extension of this process, a very important task. Consequently our appeal to the public is that they should accept co-responsibility towards those elements in society that end up in our courts and are sentenced. Give the first-time offender a chance. These are still alternatives to imprisonment. There is the fine, community punishment and also the element of weekend punishment which is being streamlined in this Bill—the purpose of all these things is to keep people out of prison.

To give hon members an idea—they must please allow me to spend some time on this—this committee, this working group, went on to say that in due course a general infrastructure should come into existence which would make provision on a local level for the appointment of State functionaries dealing with matters of this kind. The general infrastructure should also make provision for the extension of probationary services to all population groups, in the recruiting of organisations to which these people may be referred as an alternative to imprisonment. Provision must also be made for the recruiting of volunteer helpers and supervisors, and for the selection of community service projects. I am making a special point of mentioning this, because one becomes sick and tired of all the criticism one gets from universities and institutes. There are many universities and institutions which are doing valuable work, but I am now referring to the armchair critics, the writers and the people who even submit reports to the UN on conditions in this country. It is they to whom I am referring.

People should heed the appeal of this working group and become involved in a positive way. They must not lay every crime at the door of the State and ask that the State alone must find all the solutions.

This working group recommends manuals for functionaries and so on. In conclusion they also recommend the amendment of existing legislation. This step is a first step in this direction, but now the organisations must do the rest. We and they must co-operate to give further concrete shape to these recommendations. That is the issue here.

What I find astounding is that the hon member for Houghton referred to Nicro’s standpoint on a few matters, but on this matter the hon member omitted to say anything.

The hon member for Sandton referred to a single aspect only to which he could attach a negative interpretation. This was an ideal opportunity for him to rectify the major faux pas which he committed last year in regard to alternative punishments. The hon member had a wonderful opportunity to do that. He will recall that he debated strongly last year about punishments that had been imposed by a certain judge in the Transvaal.

†The hon member for Sandton will recall that he reproached me and the judicial officers and he criticised the system for discriminating between and among race groups. He related his criticism to an article that had appeared in the Cape Times on June 3 1985. The article illustrates that the perception of Black people of justice in South Africa is biased. According to the report and according to what the hon member told us here in Parliament, a certain judge—I am not going to mention his name—must have thought—

The writer concludes:

The article then goes on to tell us what the sentences were. In fact, it mentions that the sentences were postponed on condition that, for the next year, in other words, for 52 consecutive Saturdays, the boys reported for work to the superintendent of the Rob Ferreira Hospital in Nelspruit. [Interjections.] I then reacted to the hon member, asking him whether he had also taken cognisance of another sentence that had been handed down by the learned judge. I challenged him to deny that this sentence was a most enlightened one in that it presented the possibility of a viable alternative to imprisonment, namely community service. I challenged the hon member to do that. I also demonstrated that the application of community service as an alternative sentence did not amount to discrimination. I pointed out that the same judge handed down a judgement on June 3, 1985 at Witbank in which he postponed the sentence on a Black youth, Christopher Mathebula, aged 19, after the youth had been convicted of culpable homicide on a charge of murder. The sentence was postponed for one year on certain conditions.

Let us look at those conditions. Firstly, he had to be of good behaviour during that year. Furthermore, he had to subject himself to the supervision of a welfare officer and to report for 26 consecutive Saturdays to the Government mortuary to do such work as might be decided between the hours of 08h00 to 16h00.

Subsequently, I read a report in one of the newspapers which analysed the feelings of this young gentleman. It appeared that at first he was horrified at the idea of working in a mortuary. Then it struck him, however, that this was the way to be made sensitive to and to respect the lives of others. The point is that there was no discrimination. The point is that the judge in question applied the principle of alternative sentencing, namely imposing a sentence of community service.

At the risk of boring hon members of this House, I should also like to raise the issue of the gentleman who shot his third wife after having taken out an insurance policy. Not only had she slandered him, but she had also virtually rejected his tangible and other tokens of love. The judge accepted the fact that his emotions had been rather disturbed and sentenced him, as in the other example, to community service. One would no doubt be loath to recommend this type of escape from matrimonial troubles. I would not dare to suggest that another judge would show the same leniency towards offenders shooting their third wives!

It is important—because we are really making history here—that we appreciate that a judge of the calibre of Mr Justice Goldstone gave us certain guidelines in a leading case—Kumalo, 1984, page 642—as to the application of community service as a viable sentence.

For the sake of the record I wish to mention that in this particular case the judge sentenced the accused to two years imprisonment or, alternatively, to render service for 1 000 hours over a period of 30 months for Nicro, to the benefit of the community, under the control and supervision of Miss Penny Nealon or any other person nominated as supervisor.

I should not like to recommend that people challenge the authorities in the hope of being sentenced to community service under the supervision of some nice and attractive supervisor. That may not actually be the feature of each and every one of these sentences. The point, however, is that this judge also made it possible for someone to negotiate if there existed the slightest possibility of his being prejudiced in his normal daily service and duty. Therefore we are opening up vast new possibilities.

*It is in this spirit that we must look at corporal punishment. We must see in what ways we can prevent people from ending up in prison, and in what way first-time offenders can be prevented from coming into contact with hardened criminals. It is in this spirit that this matter should be assessed. The working committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Krugel, to which I referred, went to a great deal of trouble before taking a decision in this regard. They did not arrive at it lightly. They first offered country-wide seminars, issued questionnaires to hundreds of people and gave thorough consideration to the reactions received. Only after they were sure that the vast majority of the people were still in favour of the imposition of corporal punishment as an alternative form of punishment did they make this recommendation.

It is true that judges expressed a diversity of views. Some of them expressed themselves utterly opposed to the adjustments. Others expressed different views. There were judges who said that we should introduce these amendments, for they were not at present able to impose proper sentences which included the possibility of corporal punishment. One judge told an accused that if the Department of Justice had already introduced these measures, he would have been able to have sent him home, but now he was compelled to send him to prison; it was the department’s fault, the judge said!

If one hears such justified opinions and if a judge says it would expand the ambit of possible punishments available to him considerably, one decides to offer measures in regard to this punishment as a package, particularly if one is certain that judges are being given a considered opportunity to impose corporal punishment at their discretion. This of course happens as the hon member Mr Theunissen pointed out yesterday, under proper supervision and with proper controls. The fact remains that it is not compulsory; it is a discretionary punishment.

What is more, we effected an amendment which was a deviation from the committee’s recommendations. We said that such corporal punishment may not be imposed if it runs concurrently with imprisonment. Consequently it must either run concurrently with a suspended sentence of imprisonment, or be an alternative to it.

This demonstrates that we have a positive approach in regard to corporal punishment after we had, as I said, undertaken the necessary research throughout the whole of South Africa. I consequently think that the approach of hon members that this was negatively inspired and was an extension of corporal punishment is completely inappropriate.

I come back to the entire question of community service. We are of the opinion that the courts must be given an opportunity to decide for themselves on the maximum number of hours of community service. The legislation makes provision for a limit of 500 hours. If one counts the number of hours in a year one finds that it is far more than 500. I mentioned the leading case of Mr Justice Goldstone, in which a sentence of 1 000 hours was imposed. Consequently we intend to request that the House go into Committee in order to amend clause 20 so as to omit the words “and not more than 500 hours” so that it will be left to the discretion of the court to decide what period may be imposed. This Bill must therefore be seen as a step forward in the whole process of the imposition of punishment.

A comprehensive package is being offered to our judicial officers; it is positively inspired and it ought to usher in a new era to exempt people from imprisonment.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister if he does not think that the positive aspects he has related this afternoon would have been reinforced if he had removed from the offences which can carry the penalty of whipping all those offences which are not related to violence—like receiving a stolen motorcar and other stolen property—as well as the other sections presently in the law which allow a whipping as a penalty?

It is a view to which the hon member for Houghton is entitled, of course, but it is still a matter of fact that the new provisions relate to corporal punishment when there was indeed an element of violence …

There is nothing of that nature in the law.

But it is the implication. What we have removed are sexual offences or offences of a sexual nature which did not involve violence. That is what we have actually removed. Take sodomy for instance. If it also involves assault, the assault will definitely be a charge that will be subject to punishment by whipping. That makes the point.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 20:

Mr Chairman, in the course of my reply to the Second Reading debate I said, after representations had been made to us and after we had gone into the matter ourselves, that we had considered it desirable that a discretion be left to the courts to decide what maximum punishment they could impose in the form of hours, weekends, and so on. I therefore move as an amendment:

1. 1. On page 15, from line 21, to omit “and not more than 500 hours”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The provisions of the Administration of Estates Act, Act 66 of 1965, contain certain restrictions regarding the receipt of movable property by the natural guardian of a minor from a deceased estate or from the Guardian’s Fund. These restrictions result in guardians and others who manage the affairs of third parties not always being in a position to act in those parties’ best interests. This amending Bill is aimed at easing these restrictions.

This is done by extending existing provisions in such a manner that in the future a guardian may also, on behalf of a minor, receive movable property or money, as the case may be, which may accrue to such a minor from, amongst other things, an insolvent deceased estate or the Guardian’s Fund.

There is also a provision dealing with the following: Neither the Administration of Estates Act of 1965, nor the Expropriation Act, Act 63 of 1975, makes provision for the Master paying out money from the Guardian’s Fund to a usufructuary or fiduciary—this actually means “hereditary tenure”—or to his guardian if he is a minor, or to his curator if he is under curator ship, when such money has been obtained as a result of the expropriation of property which was burdened with a usufruct or fideicommissum and which was paid into the Guardian’s Fund in terms of the Expropriation Act, 1975.

Clause 3 of the amending Bill envisages the insertion of section 90A into the Administration of Estates Act, 1965, with a view to making provision for the payment of such moneys against the furnishing of adequate security.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, this is a very brief Bill. Its provisions ease the restrictions on the guardians of minors to receive movable assets and moneys on behalf of such minors. These amendments cause us no difficulty at all, and we will consequently allow the Bill to pass without objection.

Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to hear that the hon member for Sandton pledged his support to the Bill in question. I should also like to support the Bill, since the amendments contained in it appear to be desirable and in practice will facilitate action in favour of minors by those acting as their guardians or curators.

I should therefore like to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, we should also like to support the amending Bill in question. As you, Sir, probably remember from the days when you still practised as an attorney, a lot of money is caught up in the guardian’s fund. I do not think I would be exaggerating if I said the guardian’s fund probably contains millions of rands.

That is money which belongs to minors and/or money which usufructuaries or fiduciaries or persons who have been placed under curator ship are entitled to. A lot of that money is there as a result of bequests or legacies. A lot of that money ends up in the guardian’s fund, however, as a result of expropriations and/or insolvency sales and as a result of other transactions. As the hon members know, the guardians of minors or the usufructuary or the fiduciary or curator or someone under curator ship may not touch money that has reached the guardian’s fund in this way. This is often to the great detriment of people who are entitled to the interim use and benefits of the money.

As we all know, those millions of rands caught up in the guardian’s fund earn much lower interest than is available elsewhere in the business world. The result was that so-called minors or usufructuaries or fiduciaries could not enjoy even nearly the maximum benefit of such money. Some of that money can be made available from the guardian’s fund, however, but as the hon members know, always upon application to the Supreme Court, which can give permission for this.

The amendments that are being introduced by this legislation and which we find in clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill—in particular the addition of the proposed new section 90A as contained in clause 3—obviate this problem. The Master can now pay out such money to guardians of minors or to usufructuaries or to fiduciaries with the proviso that certain conditions set by the Master are complied with. One of the most important conditions is that one must have the necessary security when the payment is done. There are other provisions of the Administration of Estates Act which have to be complied with as well before such payments can be made.

These new provisions are widely welcomed. The CP also welcomes the amendments and we should like to support this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, as in the standing committee where all the parties were unanimous in their acceptance of these amendments we have pleasure in supporting the amending Bill. The easing of any difficulties in respect of minors and the facilitating of the process of the administration of estates in general is to be welcomed. There was a case recently involving consolidation. It created an incredibly difficult situation as a result of some of the provisions of the existing Act.

We on these benches welcome the amendments and we support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, all that remains is for me to thank the hon members for their insight into this matter and for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In terms of section 2 of the Justices of Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, Act 16 of 1963, any suitable person may be appointed as justice of the peace for a magisterial district. Some of the most important powers conferred upon a justice of the peace are the powers to issue warrants in respect of arrest, search and seizure. A justice of the peace is moreover authorised to take down confessions which may eventually form part of the evidence before a court of law. These powers are of a judicial nature and cannot be reconciled with the powers and duties of members of the legislature.

In view of the aforesaid it is, inter alia, proposed in the Bill that members of Parliament and of provincial councils may not hold the office of justice of the peace, and that any person who has been nominated as a candidate for a division contemplated in section 1 of the Electoral Act, Act 45 of 1979, may not, while he is thus nominated, exercise or carry out any of the powers or duties attaching to the office of justice of the peace.

It must, however, be emphasised that the office of Commissioner of Oaths which hon members hold ex officio, remains intact.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, this Bill is short, sharp and to the point. I share the hon the Minister’s view that the office of Justice of the Peace does not fit happily together with the public office of parliamentarian or provincial councillor. This Bill eliminates that possibility, and accordingly we support it.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member for Sandton for his support. There are a few points I want to make.

In looking at this matter in principle, it is correct for this amending Bill to prevent a clash of interests taking place—the hon member rightly pointed this out—between the office of justice of the peace and the function he can exercise as justice of the peace and election candidate. In the second place it is important for there to be a division between the executive, the judicial and the legislative functions; and this amending Bill confirms this.

The office of justice of the peace has an interesting, long history. In reality it does not belong only to the past, since the future holds interesting possibilities. Justices of the peace can make the population more aware, for example, of the administration of justice. In this connection the hon the Minister has expressed the idea in the past that he wants to expand the responsibility for and the involvement in the administration of justice to the public by appointing more justices of the peace. This is an excellent initiative. I repeat: The intention is to expand responsibility for the administration of justice to the public, and also to encourage all population groups to become involved.

The hon the Minister’s idea of developing the content of the office of justice of the peace is connected to this. I should like to hear from the hon the Minister what advantages a step of this nature can hold if we think it may lighten the burden of our courts and also further the process of decriminalization of certain offences. I should also like to hear from the hon the Minister how he intends to develop this office.

Mr Speaker, we should like to support this amending Bill. Its effect, if we pass it now, is that members of the House of Assembly and provincial councillors can no longer be appointed to that office in future.

It was interesting to try to determine how many members of the House of Assembly are still justices of the peace. The only member I could place as a justice of the peace is the hon member for Roodeplaat. I do not know whether or not there are any more. [Interjections.] The hon member for Middelburg is over there. He is one too. I think he should have taken part in this debate and told us how difficult it is for him to execute the office of justice of the peace together with his other duties as MP.

I also get the idea the hon the Minister should have waited a bit with the piloting of this legislation, since there are so few members of the House of Assembly who are still justices of the peace and besides, neither of them is going to return after the next election. They will no longer be justices of the peace then in any case. [Interjections.] I therefore believe the hon the Minister was a bit overhasty as far as this legislation is concerned, since the provincial councillors are disappearing in any case.

I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Bloemfontein East as far as the duties of the justice of the peace are concerned. I shall be pleased if the hon the Minister will spell out briefly to us the norms he applies in appointing a justice of the peace. As I say, it is an office which is not generally known, and we should like to have a bit more light on that aspect. We should like to support this measure.

Mr Speaker, we too support this amendment. It removes any possible conflict between the issues of law making and law enactment. Law enactment, of course, carries with it a legislative and therefore a political content. We welcome the fact that there will be this clear division. It is good in law and it removes any possible confusion in the minds of the public. We support the amending legislation.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the statement of the hon member Mr Theunissen, I want to say immediately there is definitely more than one hon member of this House who is a justice of the peace. I hope they are all still aware that they may retain the post. After considering the numerous duties of a justice of the peace, I think they could have been entrusted with this on a full-time basis. They should be grateful that mercifully we did not see this even sooner, since then they could have been employed in other capacities as well.

A justice of the peace has to preserve the peace and order in his district in more than one respect. He has to render assistance in repressing disorder or unrest. He has to perform any duties and exert any authority imposed upon him. We could, for example, have made a few of the hon members do border duty. Besides this, a justice of the peace has the authority to have someone arrested, and to grant warrants for arrest, search warrants, etcetera. Concerning marriages, births and deaths, he had only the duty of registration. Fortunately it was not necessary to do more than that.

In olden times justices of the peace in the Free State and the Cape Province had impounding authority. Justices of the peace therefore have a very wide range of powers. Justices of the peace also have powers in connection with the Electoral Act which were perhaps not desirable for execution by a member of Parliament, particularly as far as his own election was concerned. In fact, I think this would have caused problems.

That is why I thank the hon members who have given this amending Bill such ready support.

There was serious and in-depth discussion on this matter in one of the other Houses. I found it gratifying and encouraging that some of the hon members told me how highly they regarded this office and what status it had given them in their communities. This view is not held only in those Houses. There are hon members in this House who also attribute a particular importance to the justices of the peace in their constituencies. They regard their justices of the peace as people who are committed to and involved in the administration of justice. They are therefore highly esteemed. I want to encourage and praise that approach.

Once again I want to invite hon members to look around them in their constituencies and to make recommendations concerning persons they think will qualify. Naturally such recommendations go through a further process. The people are not appointed summarily. Their discretion, status in the community and ability to co-operate with the magistrate, for example, are taken into account. Once again, I want to address this invitation.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East asked me what the road ahead looks like and what we have in mind. This subject definitely opens up possibilities, particularly if we see it in connection with the small claims courts in which we get justiciaries from the community and in which quick adjudication of contentious civil cases will take place. Is it not possible to develop the office of justice of the peace to a stage where quick adjudication of small criminal cases can take place? Perhaps we can deal with cases, such as traffic cases for example, in an almost administratively judicial way. This matter is not clear yet, but the department is working on proposals which they will submit to me in this connection. The fact remains that the department and I have developed enthusiasm for the possibilities inherent in this.

We do not want to dismiss the magistrates’ courts, for one will never be able to succeed completely in doing that, but we do at least want to enable them to have more time for larger and more important cases. It is the case in Johannesburg at present that a number of courts are busy with only traffic cases every day. This is untenable, and a lot of thought is being given to possibilities. The office of justice of the peace can be important here, particularly if we look at its history.

There was a time when a justice of the peace had punitive jurisdiction of £10 or imprisonment of no more than three months. As I said, he could even have someone arrested, etcetera. His jurisdiction included the following cases for example: Dog-tax, drunkenness, grass and veld fires, which were just as important then as they are today, and also the control and combating of animal diseases. The crime of cruelty to animals fell under his jurisdiction too and that is a matter which I believe should be adjudicated quickly. It should be adjudicated virtually on the spot instead of one’s having to wait for days to collect evidence to prove such a case. Is it not true that immediate action should be taken when an animal is ill-treated? Concerning the protection of fauna and flora, a wonderful task can be entrusted to these representatives of the legal concept in a community. Only the protection of the fauna and flora, of the ecology of rare animal, wild life and plant species …

We are totally convinced.

Oh, the hon member is totally convinced.

The fact is that I should like the hon member for Sandton to be enthusiastic. He referred to this Bill with far too little enthusiasm. That is what it is all about. As a result I find it encouraging that the other hon members share my enthusiasm, in spirit at least.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Professional Land Surveyors’ and Technical Surveyors’ Act, 1984, provides for the establishment of a South African Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors and empowers this body in matters concerning, inter alia, the registration, training and discipline of professional land surveyors and technical surveyors.

Since the Act became operative on 10 September 1984 the registration of the various categories of professional land surveyors and technical surveyors has been a most important task of the council and in this regard certain problems which could not be foreseen at the time of the drafting of the Act cropped up.

*Firstly, it has been found that the period of one year from the commencement of the Act within which persons with particular qualifications and practical experience may apply for registration under the Act, is insufficient and imposes an unnecessarily stringent restriction on candidates. The period will now be extended to two years and in certain circumstances it may even be extended further.

Secondly, it came to light that there are persons with lower qualifications than the standard required by the Act who should also be considered for registration as these persons are acceptable for registration in all other respects and are in possession of acceptable alternative qualifications presently not recognised by the Act. It is proposed to give the council greater authority over the recognition of qualifications. The council is after all in a better position to judge whether the qualifications of an applicant meet with its requirements. Thirdly, it appears that the Act does not provide for the Minister to appoint a substitute should a member of the Education Advisory Committee die or vacate his office before the expiration of his term of office. An amendment of the Act to remove this shortcoming is proposed.

Finally, the Bill also provides for the repeal of certain obsolete laws which regulated the establishment of various institutes for land surveyors. It also replaces various outdated designations in the Act. The proposed amendments carry the approval of the South African Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors that, in fact, requested the amendments in the first place.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, quite some time has elapsed since the hon the Minister delivered his Second Reading speech on this Bill. This Bill relates to an Act which was assented to fairly recently—I think it was on 10 September 1984. Hon members will recall that when the South African Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors was established their main task was to deal with the registration, training and discipline of the profession which involved both the professional land surveyors and the technical surveyors. It appears, however, as if they have run into specifically two difficulties since that time.

The first difficulty has to do with the time laid down for the land surveyors and surveyor technicians to register with the council, which was one year as from 10 September 1984. Since that period elapsed on 10 September 1985, we are actually in a position at the moment where there is a hiatus between 10 September 1985 and now. The Bill before us provides for an extension of the period for a further year. Therefore, if I understand it correctly, the new date before which they must be registered will be 10 September 1986. There are therefore not many months left for them in which to register. I take it, therefore, that since there is a period during which the law was not operative, the people who were registered during this period will not be penalised in any particular way.

The second difficulty that they apparently encountered related to the qualifications laid down in section 22 of the Act. It appears now that some of these people had the practical experience in order to be registered but did not comply with the standards that had been laid down. Although they perhaps do not have a matriculation pass of exactly the required standard, it is necessary for them to be able to be registered because of their long experience and practical training.

As far as the filling of a vacancy on the Education Advisory Committee is concerned, that obviously was a shortcoming in the initial Act. Obviously, if a person dies before the expiration of his term of office, provision must exist to fill the vacancy.

The other amendments are really technical and serve merely to do away with legislation which no longer applies.

I want to conclude by saying that we support this Bill. Both the land surveyors and surveyor technicians play a very important role in South Africa, particularly with regard to housing, which is probably the biggest problem we face. In view of the information which hon Ministers gave only recently in this House, it would appear that, at the moment, there are approximately two million Blacks who do not have accommodation. Many of them are living under substandard conditions at the moment. It would appear that there is a shortage of 390 790 homes. Last year, the State, the provinces, the local authorities and the private sector were together only responsible for providing 16 613 homes. It would appear also from information placed before this House that in the homelands there is a shortage of some 200 000 homes of which half are in the Durban area and, as far as the non-homelands are concerned, there is a shortage of 221 572.

It is most important that the members of this profession get themselves in order and that they devote themselves to the important task of land-surveying in order that townships can be laid out, particularly with regard to the townships in Black areas where the Government has approved to the best of my knowledge that they can now get freehold property. In order to get freehold property the land must be surveyed and a proper freehold title be made available to them. Similarly within the existing areas, even as far as the Whites are concerned, I think it is common cause at the moment that there are many homes on areas of ground that could be subdivided. A subdivision in terms of an original town planning scheme can be made by a landsurveyor and this then can result in more homes being built. With those few words we approve the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Hillbrow devoted the second part of his speech to the housing shortage, for which there is enough time for discussion in other debates. In the first part of his speech he dealt with each clause of the Bill so thoroughly that nothing more can be said about it. Like the hon member for Hill-brow’s party, we also support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, clause 3 which seeks to amend section 13 of the principal Act, is one of a few less important amendments. In fact it deals with the filling of vacancies. Clause 2 deals with the designation of office in that the powers of one Minister are being transferred to another.

Clause 4 which deals with the amendment of section 22 is important, however. It deals with a situation in which a person with lower academic qualifications than matric, or an equivalent qualification, may also be admitted to the land surveyor’s profession. History teaches us that an office can be occupied by someone having a certain number of years’ experience and that he can be permitted to continue to occupy that office. Difficulties arise the moment when a certain given standard is allowed to drop in that members of the general public are allowed to serve in the same capacity. When one allows that to happen, one is definitely looking for trouble. At the present juncture the Government has tried to find a method to solve the problem of poorly demarcated Black areas by making provision for the appointment of untrained land surveyors.

Today I should like to suggest that the Government should rather try to solve the problem in another way. I know this is a major problem. In America for example the practice exists in which people in certain areas insure their property. If that property should subsequently turn out to be bigger or smaller than it was intended to be, they are in fact insured and the whole matter can be dealt with properly according to the law. But what is the practice in this country today, particularly in Black areas? A land surveyor allows half-trained land surveyors to survey a site there, and it is done quite incorrectly. What are the consequences of this in practice? It could of course cause tremendous problems. That is why we must not try to adopt temporary measures to solve a problem of this nature. We may find out later that this has only caused immense problems. The problem is of course that towns and townships—Soweto may serve here as a prime example—were planned and laid out long ago. Roads were laid out and houses built, without the properties having been marked out by land surveyors.

Freehold title!

Do not start with freehold title—that is another matter—because I do not want to take issue with a good friend.

*We in South Africa are known for being the best in the world when it comes to transfer of land, rights of title, one’s security and the rights pertaining to one’s land. But I foresee great problems with the process we are presently occupied with, involving the use of unskilled land surveyors. The problem is a major one and it does not seem as if we have any other solution. Although we therefore support this measure I would like to issue a warning. This is not the correct method and the Bill we are supporting today is perhaps going to cause us considerable problems later. I do not believe that it is going to be in our interests in future to admit half-trained people to positions which they are not entirely able to cope with. Nevertheless we support this measure, and I hope that the land surveyors themselves will be able to solve this problem.

Mr Speaker, the NRP too support this legislation. I have a different view to the view of the hon member for Langlaagte. Whereas land surveyors and technical surveyors now enjoy statutory status, we all realise that the statutory status of a profession is jealously guarded. Professional people not only guard the status aspect of their professions but they also have a keen eye as to the entry of people into their professions in order that it should not become oversubscribed and, by so doing, perhaps affect their ability to make a living. The interesting point is that these professional people, the surveyors and technical surveyors now see their way clear in the interests of their profession to amend their system of acceptance of qualifications to include people who do not necessarily have the prescribed educational qualifications but in fact acceptable alternative qualifications. I think what we have here is a very practical solution to the problem which does relate to experience and standard.

I now want to say something on a slightly different tack but I am sure it is within terms of the House’s rules. The Bill before us deals with land surveyors but I want to say something about marine surveying.

If one looks at the great marine surveyors throughout the ages one will find that some of the charts used at sea and some of the very detailed information about very remote parts…

It was never an individual right!

I am talking about the actual surveying, not whether one can own anything or not. I was saying that some of the information about very remote parts of the world was acquired under incredibly difficult circumstances where they had to survey coastlines under very difficult conditions and with very rudimentary equipment, and these charts stand to this day as works of art in the field of marine surveying.

South Africa has a very proud record as far as its surveying cadre and personnel are concerned. In many instances the personnel who did the old marine surveying were far from being qualified in the formal sense but they had had a wealth of experience at sea and of the needs of mariners. Those factors made them absolutely invaluable persons to others who plied the seas and depended entirely upon the accuracy and wisdom of these surveyors.

I believe we have a similarity here in that the professional land surveyors acknowledge the usefulness of these other people who can provide a great service if they are allowed into the profession. At the moment they are prevented from doing so by a technicality in the Act.

I was not on the standing committee that dealt with this. However, I now want to read to the House what my colleague the hon member for Umhlanga, who unfortunately could not be here, has to say, namely:

Mr Speaker, while we support this Bill we should like to point out that there appear to be a few misnomers on the part of the hon members for Langlaagte and King William’s Town. The reason is that two groups of people constitute the institute as such.

First of all, there are the professional land surveyors who actually have to have a university qualification. To assist them, they have technical surveyors. This particular clause, namely clause 4, revolves around a question of principle and applies solely and wholly to the technical surveyors. The technical surveyors are the people who assist the land surveyors to carry out their job; in other words, the technical surveyors can go out and do the measuring and the surveying. In the end, however, the professional land surveyor who has to sign the document, bears the responsibility.

There are a large number of these people who are mainly older people who have been doing this particular type of work for many years. They are not in possession of matriculation certificates but have probably passed Standard 8. They may be people of over 50 years of age who left school more than 30 years ago. The institute now feels that these people should be allowed to be registered because from a technical point of view they are well suited …

If he could not obtain matric within 30 years, he should not have a job as a surveyor.

During this time he has been earning a living for his wife, children and himself, and he has earned it very well indeed. He has also had to spend many hours either surveying townships or surveying farms.

I believe that one can quite easily leave it to the institute itself to ensure that those technical surveyors who do not possess a standard 10 certificate or its equivalent, do in fact have sufficient education and training to do the job and that this will not interfere with the professional nature of the job. I do agree, however—and I will come to this later—with one remark made by the hon member for Langlaagte. We must be careful to ensure that people are not allowed to perform or sign for a survey unless they are qualified professional land surveyors; in other words, there must be a system. However, I shall deal with that later.

Let me say that the institute is very jealous of its high vocational standard in respect of land surveying and the decision should be left to them entirely.

I feel it is essential, however, to discuss the enormous task which the State has entrusted to the land surveying profession in respect of both leasehold and freehold title in Black townships. The House is aware that when Black housing was developed by the Department of Co-operation and Development and its predecessors, no attention whatsoever was paid to the possibility of Blacks ever getting leasehold or freehold rights. In other words, townships were laid out simply to provide housing and it was assumed that those houses would merely be rented out for ever on the basis that Blacks were temporary sojourners in the White man’s areas. Let me say, however, that it is to the credit of the present Government that they were wise to change the policy—and they did so tentatively—firstly to leasehold and now firmly to freehold rights for Blacks. I think that what is required in this country, and particularly in our townships, is stability of ownership. After all, there is an old statement to the effect that a man’s home is his castle. Moreover, if that castle belongs to him, he will defend it. In view of the present unrest, I think that the granting of freehold rights is a very important aspect and one which augurs well for the future. I will deal with that again at a later stage.

The land surveying profession was given the gigantic task of surveying the Black townships throughout South Africa and I am pleased to say that for the most part this work has now been completed. In effect, what was to have been a five-year undertaking was completed in 2½ years despite the difficulty of access to townships, particularly during the past 18 months. Again the Surveyor-General’s office has been finalising the diagrams with as little delay as would be expected for any ordinary application by any member of the public, and that is to their credit as well.

However, the problem that faces South Africa at this stage is that the sale and transfer of these homes to actual Black buyers is being delayed, principally because of the poor relationship between the development boards and the Black community. Although it is not the task of this hon Minister to go into this particular matter, I think it is a problem that the Government as such should tackle in order to ensure that this transfer takes place as quickly as possible. There has also been the impossibility, over the past year in particular, of free access to Black townships.

The only area in which the survey work has not been completed, to the best of my knowledge, is the Western Cape. The reason for this is that this area was a Coloured preference area until a short while ago, and therefore leasehold and freehold rights were not granted to Blacks. However, this has now been changed in the past 12 months. Surveying has been completed in Khayelitsha, but Guguletu, Langa and Nyanga are still in the course of preparation. These areas are presenting certain problems.

Unfortunately, land surveyors have to have the co-operation of the dwellers and virtually have to live in the townships. This applies in particular to semi-detached and terraced homes where the surveyors must enter the homes to establish the position of the party walls—that is where walls actually become the boundary between one stand and the next—because these are the real boundaries between the dwellings. That piece of land needs to be incorporated in the survey as well. This problem applies only in the case of semi-detached houses.

This is where a dilemma has arisen. If the surveyor goes into the township under police protection, the credibility of the survey unfortunately becomes at stake in the eyes of the dwellers of the township, and even though the professionality of the registered land surveyor cannot be called into question, there is the suspicion that he is not doing his survey correctly and that he is doing it under duress. Such loss of credibility would place the profession in disrepute.

I want now to give attention to the point raised by the hon member for Langlaagte, namely that of people who do not necessarily have the professional qualification. I have reason to believe that there are persons in high places in the Government and State administration who want to consider the use of technical surveyors who are not registered as professional land surveyors to do survey in Black townships and Coloured townships only. I would like to hear a denial of this rumour from the hon the Minister. I believe that if people other than registered professional land surveyors with university qualifications were not allowed to continue doing this survey work, there would be a lowering of professionality in the land survey profession. This would place our whole land tenure system in jeopardy. I do not believe that there is an hon member in this House who is not proud of the fact that we probably have one of the finest land tenure systems in the world. We are justly proud of having an almost perfect system of land tenure here in South Africa. The whole question of land for property ownership in South Africa is determined by the possession of pieces of paper carrying title deeds and survey maps. We do not want to destroy what has taken generations to develop as the current system of proving ownership.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister again to try to accelerate the system by which these homes are transferred to private Black ownership. The sooner we start providing for transfer, the better it will be for employment. Black estate agents will start to flourish and small builders will have work. However, something will have to be done about the legislation governing estate agents in order to ensure that Black estate agents are able to operate properly. I think that the present requirements may be too rigid. As soon as a man possesses a home, he wants alterations done. This will provide a great avenue of employment for our Black citizens who suffer from the highest degree of unemployment in the townships. We on this side support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, at this stage I should like to thank the hon members for Hillbrow, Hercules, King William’s Town, Langlaagte and Bezuidenhout very sincerely for their support for this Bill, and also for certain inputs which were made in an earlier stage and for the discussions which then took place.

Because this is the first occasion today that we are discussing this matter since the establishment of the council in question, I want to make use of this opportunity to thank the gentlemen who serve on the council for the services they are rendering to society as a whole. We are not concerned only with the professional land surveyors and the technical surveyors, but also with the broader community which can benefit from their services. We ought to convey a very special word of thanks to these people.

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Bezuidenhout said—this is something which has been mentioned several times in this House—namely that the work done by land surveyors and the Deeds Office in connection with title deeds and everything associated with such matters is of the highest standard and quality in the world. We are proud of that fact, but we must maintain these standards at all costs, and ensure that this will remain the case in future as well.

A specific question asked by the hon member for Bezuidenhout relates to this matter. It is being said that unqualified persons are being used in the surveying of certain sites and the registration of title deeds. I want to deny that this has ever happened and that the Government intends to allow it to happen in future.

I should like to reply to a few specific questions that have been put to me. The hon member for Hillbrow asked whether people who have only been practising since September last year, will qualify for registration when the legislation under discussion comes into operation. They will in fact be able to qualify, and will not be eliminated. The only condition is that they should apply in time for the unexpired period.

The hon member for Hillbrow referred to the Std 10 qualification. The hon member for Langlaagte, however, raised specific objections to the principle because in his opinion it would jeopardise the standard of services. The hon member for Bezuidenhout, inter alia, replied to that, but we must make certain that there is no misunderstanding or lack of clarity in this regard. It has been said that the services concerned will be rendered by untrained people. It is not correct to describe these people as untrained. Our train of thought in this regard is as follows: The period of article ship of a professional surveyor during which he acquires knowledge of his subject is not being changed by this Bill. All that is being changed by this Bill is the prerequisites that are at present being set in respect of school education. At school subjects such as history, Afrikaans, English, etc, are taken in any case, and that is why a Std 8 certificate or another qualification which the council accepts, is sufficient. The person’s knowledge of the area in which he is working is not affected by this.

It is the point of departure of the council and of this profession that there are people who are rendering excellent service in the area in which they are working, but do not necessarily have the necessary schooling in order to qualify. It is their opinion that we can accommodate a large number of these people to render service in this process.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is not true that land surveyors’ work entails working with figures? It has a great deal to do with calculations, and a person who cannot do these well, experience very great problems with surveying. Poor calculations can cause tremendous problems.

The hon member is correct in the formulation of his argument, but he is erring in this respect that one need not necessarily take arithmetical subjects at school in order to obtain that qualification. Consequently he nullifies his own argument. It is the point of departure of the profession as well as of the Government that the people who are going to qualify should not render poorer service. The hon member also agrees with that.

I want to make the additional point—I think another hon member also singled out this aspect—that a professional land surveyor who has to give his approval to a project and bear responsibility for it must still have a matriculation certificate with university entrance. He must also have a university degree in surveying, which includes all those subjects. Consequently the standard of services being rendered will not decline. I think we must make that very clear here, so that there is no misunderstanding about this.

Other points were also raised. The hon members for Hillbrow and Bezuidenhout referred in part to the aspect of the surveying of sites in Black residential areas, the shortage of sites there and the buying and selling of these sites, as well as the question of making them available to the Black community as a whole. Right at the outset I want to say that strictly speaking those arguments are not applicable to this department, but apply in reality to the Department of Development Aid. I can say, however, that the Government has accepted in principle that this should be done, and that the services there should be of an outstanding quality.

We must also express our thanks to the land surveyor’s profession, which gave its cooperation and disposed of the matter in a shorter period than we had originally planned.

Another aspect which is also relevant here is the selling campaign after the surveying has been disposed of. The Department of Development Aid is making every effort to expedite the sales and the registration as far as possible.

To illustrate the co-operation between the two departments, I want to say that in respect of the Port Elizabeth-Eastern Cape area measures have in fact been taken to make people available who are able to do the work there and transmit it to the deeds office here in Cape Town. In that way the service is being rendered on the spot there, where the work is actually done, and it is then channelled through in a practical way to the Cape Deeds Office. There were quite a number of problems with the implementation, but at this stage we are making good progress with the other departments in regard to shortages which existed, and also in regard to the disposal of this matter.

The importance of this—this is something to which the hon member for Bezuidenhout referred—is that it has to do with “the stability of the household by registration of this ownership.”

†I can state here that never has a truer word been spoken. That is why the Government is prepared to assist everybody, not only with regard to sales but also with regard to financing in an effort to include all the private interests to be of help to the community as a whole by enabling them to buy these freehold stands from whoever handles them. [Interjections.]

*There is another aspect which emerges very prominently, and that is in disposing of this matter in future we shall continually have to make use of the service of land surveyors, since sites in these Black residential areas will have to be surveyed. In view of the circumstances under which this is being done, I think they deserve a word of thanks.

I want to thank hon members who participated in this debate very sincerely for supporting the Bill. We hope that in future all will go well with this council.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

As the Bill contains proposals for amendments covering a wide range of subjects dealt with in the Close Corporations Act, I shall single out and explain the most important aspects of these amendments. I should at this point say that the amendments are of a technical nature and that few, if any, important principles are involved.

In the first instance the Act is amended to provide for the lodging of founding statements in triplicate instead of in duplicate, as is the case at present. The purpose of this measure is to enable the Registrar to also notify the Receiver of Revenue of the existence of the new legal personal concerned.

Section 14 of the Act provides that a certificate of incorporation will upon its mere production, be conclusive evidence that the requirements of the Act have been duly complied with, and that the close corporation is duly incorporated. This section is amended to give the same status to a copy of the certificate.

As sections 15 and 49 of the Act are presently worded it is not clear whether a close corporation is compelled to lodge an amended founding statement with the Registrar when an order of court adds to or alters a founding statement. An amendment of section 15 will make it clear that an amended founding statement should, in fact, be lodged. Section 26(5) of the Act presently provides that persons who were members of the close corporation at any stage in the past may, upon the deregistration of that corporation, be held liable for outstanding debts incurred whilst they were members.

The present situation may lead to an injustice to former members as the corporation may be deregistered through no fault of their own. This liability, imposed on former members, is unnecessary as efficient protection for creditors is to be found in various other provisions of the Act. The amendment will have the effect that former members will not automatically be liable for certain debts and liabilities of the close corporation upon its deregistration.

The consent, in writing, of 75% of the members of the close corporation is in terms of section 46(b) required for certain acts such as a change in the principal business carried on by the corporation or the disposal of the whole or substantially the whole of the undertaking of the corporation. Although an association agreement may provide otherwise, this could, in the absence of any other agreement, as the Act provides for, lead to a very unsatisfactory situation where, for instance, a member holding 90% of the interest is outvoted by three or more other members who hold in aggregate only 10% of the interest in the corporation. This is clearly unfair. The amended provision will now provide that the consent of members who, in the aggregate hold not less than 75% of the members’ interest in the close corporation will be required for these acts in question.

Section 48 of the Act is the only section dealing with meetings and it provides that an association agreement may vary certain provisions thereof. The Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law found that there is no provision at all relating to voting at meetings in respect of those cases where no association agreements exist or where the association agreements do not make any provision with regard to voting. The Standing Advisory Committee therefore, in view of the fact that an association agreement may provide otherwise, recommended that the basic system be kept as simple as possible and that only members present in person may vote at meetings.

At present, a difference of opinion exists with regard to whether an audit should be conducted in order to determine whether the annual financial statements are in agreement with the accounting records of a corporation. As this was never the intention of the legislature, the Standing Advisory Committee recommended that it be made clear that an audit is not required.

Other duties of accounting officers are more clearly defined in section 62. I quote from the memorandum to the Bill:

This time limit of seven days is too short and only gives rise to practical difficulties. It is accordingly being extended to 21 days.

Mr Speaker, I am glad that the Chief Whip of Parliament is here because I am going to ask for danger pay since I think I have become something of a political guerilla! One sits in meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance and then has to rush in to say a few words in this House.

However, I want to come back to the Close Corporations Act which was in fact only passed last year. When one looks at the statistics on the registration of new close corporations, one sees that there was obviously a need for this legislation. My own experience in dealing with officials in this regard has been that the system seems to be working relatively well.

One of the issues which were the cause of a good deal of debate in the professional journals, was what the exact responsibility of the accounting officer was. The hon the Deputy Minister will know, from having followed some of the articles that have appeared, that there was a body of opinion which said that the accounting officer could, in fact, only fulfil his duties if he carried out an audit. However, one of the main objectives behind the passing of the Close Corporations Act was to obviate the need for an audit in a small proprietory company. Therefore, I think the clearer definition of the duties of an accounting officer in this Bill will be welcomed. We in this party certainly welcome it.

People who were advising others on whether they should go the close corporation route or not, often did not advise them to do so because, as the Act stands at present, before this amending legislation, past members of a close corporation could, for many years into the future, be held liable for debts incurred by the close corporation while they were members, even if they had left that close corporation. Such debts had been incurred as a result of no fault of their own but, as the law stands at present, they could be held liable for them. That discouraged many people from going the close corporation route. I think, with the change that this Bill will bring about, they will no longer be automatically liable for such debts. This is to be welcomed and I believe it will encourage even more people to form close corporations.

The last amendment that this Bill seeks to bring about has to do with the anomaly that a person who owned 90% of the close corporation while three members owned 10% could be outvoted by them. Obviously we want to protect the rights of minorities. I think this is essential, but one can go overboard on this particular issue. One sometimes has to accept, particularly in finance, that majorities have rights also. I think this amendment is a logical one and will generally be welcomed by the accounting and the legal professions.

With those few words we will be supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Edenvale for his support. The principal Act was passed in 1984 and brought many new concepts to light. The most important of these was reduced regulation, especially as far as the small businessman was concerned. It is therefore understandable that the practice would indicate problems requiring change, as we saw from the evidence before the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. The statutory amendments we are dealing with today are of course the result of the recommendations made by the standing advisory committee.

Most of the amendments have been brought to light in practice and are of a technical nature. I am not going to dwell on this. Furthermore there are improved definitions which are conducive to legal certainty and which spell out more clearly the intention of the legislative. Certain ambiguities are also being removed. As the hon member for Edenvale indicated, the auditing position is now being set out more clearly. This is very welcome because as I said at the beginning, the concept behind the legislation was one of reducing regulation, especially in regard to the smaller businessman.

Clause 6 of the Bill, which amends section 26, includes the relaxation of many an unnecessary measure—as was also indicated by the hon member for Edenvale—which could have nullified the aims of the close corporation in the sense that former members could be absolutely liable for the debts of the corporation. As the hon member for Edenvale said, this would not so much have led to the close corporation not being used as an instrument, but the result, because it is a close corporation, would rather have been to prevent people from easily transferring their interests to subsequent members, because members would be unwilling to run that risk.

Several stringent measures are contained in the Act, such as sections 51, 52, 63, 64 and 65 which protect the members of the public who deal with a close corporation by making members personally liable. Should requirements not be fulfilled in certain circumstances there is nevertheless the right of recourse against members of the corporation. The provision that former members be held absolutely liable for the losses of the corporation is a great improvement. Therefore we gladly support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House also support the legislation, but once again it is very clear that we are making too hasty a decision on legislation of this nature. It is something new on the menu; one can say since 1983. This has not been reflected upon enough, which means that one will subsequently have to effect amendments.

Something which still remains a problem for me today is the question of who will receive a majority control in this company. The right to retain controlling rights with only 75% does not, in my opinion, seem to be right. I believe that this should rather link up with the Companies Act, in terms of which a 51% share is the determining factor. If one reads the Act superficially I think it can be understood to mean that a 75% share must be held in order to have control.

This is also, for example, the case of a person who was previously a member being held liable for debts long after his membership had been terminated. If this principal Act had not been amended, great difficulties could have arisen for many people. The question then arises whether we as a legislature are not here to make an absolutely thorough scrutiny of legislation before it is placed on the Statute Book. We could for example support this measure entirely in its present form but once again, as I have said already, there are a few aspects which could cause greater difficulties in practice. Therefore attention will subsequently have to be given to this legislation again.

I realise that as a result of our First and Third World situation, we often bend over backwards in order to satisfy people. The difficulty, however, arises the moment we have to deal with human rights. In such cases making concessions simply does not work. Nevertheless we support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Langlaagte for the support which he and his party pledged to the present legislation. I should like to point out to him however that we on this side of the House are aware of the fact that laws are made, but that it is sometimes becomes necessary to amend laws as circumstances change and necessitate such amendments. For that reason we shall constantly be dealing with laws which have to be amended. I believe that when the moment arises many of the statutory amendments which are being introduced here today will have to be trimmed and pruned once more. Whenever it becomes necessary to do so it will simply have to be done.

When the Close Corporations Act was passed in this House in 1984 it was essential and was welcomed as completely timeous legislation. It was a valuable piece of legislation for large but more particularly for small enterprises. Today we are simply being asked to prune and trim this legislation where necessary. The Department of Trade and Industry’s newsletter No 1 of 21 November 1985 provides the following interesting statistics. During the period—as is stated here in the said newsletter—2 January 1985 to 25 October 1985, 4 887 companies were converted into close corporations, which brought the total number of close corporations for 1985 to 12 726. That, Mr Speaker, indicates undeniably that this form of enterprise which was created mainly for the small entrepreneur businessman was indeed essential.

With the passage of time it became clear that this complex Companies Act, with its 443 sections and many schedules, was simply not able to bring about a suitable form of enterprise for the large, as well as the small businessman any more. The name “close corporation” is also an indication of its importance—indeed its most important—characteristic, namely the intimate relationship which exists between the members and the legal persona of this mutual body.

The most important advantage of a close corporation is probably the uncomplicated registration process and its easy incorporation. The Close Corporations Act facilitates the administrative side of his enterprise as well as making it cheaper and more comprehensible. The registration requirements are simple and the costs associated with the acquisition and maintenance of the close corporation are very favourable. The other advantages are that there are no compulsory meetings nor auditing, and that the annual financial statements are simply and relate more to the nature of the corporation and its business.

The Close Corporations Amendment Bill is welcomed by all of us because the necessary technical amendments are being effected now that the principal Act has been tested in practice. The existing shortcomings are all being eliminated by means of these amendments. These amendments are essential and I believe—in fact it has been proved here today—they are acceptable because they do not present any prejudicial new and difficult decisions in principle.

Mr Speaker, with these few words I should like to indicate that we on the National Party side support this Bill and I should also like to congratulate the hon the Minister on introducing it. I should also like to place on record our satisfaction as regards the timeous introduction of the present legislation.

In view of the lateness of the hour, Mr Speaker, I consequently move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I believe this question, this matter of “own affairs” in our Constitution, must certainly be one of the most important aspects of the problematic nature of constitutions and relations among peoples in South Africa. I think the importance of the debate on this matter cannot be overemphasised. I am well aware that, if we discuss this subject in the manner in which I have formulated it here, it affects the essence of the Constitution; it impinges upon the vital core of the current constitutional dispensation. Let us be honest: If we were to remove the concept of “own affairs” from the Constitution, the need for a tricameral Parliament as laid down in the current Constitution would fall away to a great degree so we cannot doubt the importance of this debate. I welcome the opportunity for sober reflection on this matter as it affects the future of not only this House but that of our entire country and all our people.

If I interpret Government policy correctly, it is based chiefly on two fundamental principles. The first principle this constitutional policy purports to embody is the fact that the South African population comprises a diversity of groups. This is stated repeatedly by the State President and all other hon members on the Government side. As the South African population consists of a diversity of groups, the further principle is deduced from this that those groups should participate in the political process as groups and that the individual may participate in this process only via the group to which he belongs. The implication and the inevitable consequence of this is obviously that there can be no free political association. This also naturally emphasises why it is essential to have an Act like the Population Registration Act in the light of that concept. Without such a measure it would be impossible to determine the composition of these groups and who would belong to them. This is how I understand Government policy in this regard.

Before pausing at the second principle, I wish to repeat something I said on a previous occasion. If one acknowledges the existence of the multiplicity of groups—whatever comprises the basis of this multiplicity—it is not a necessity for those groups to participate in the political process as groups. This is not essential; it is not the law of the Medes and Persians. This is an interpretation we have attached to it in this House but there are numerous multiple population groups in the world in which groups do not participate in the political process as groups.

In addition I wish to say the moment we speak of group participation in politics, based on an Act like the Population Registration Act, this creates an enforced membership for the people of a group. As I have already said, someone may participate in the political process only as a member of a group.

I assume hon members of this House have made a comprehensive study of the HSRC report on intergroup relations in South Africa. It contains very clear indications that the core of the problem in South Africa lies in the enforced membership of groups in terms of the current dispensation and the Population Registration Act. I am prepared to discuss the merits of that investigation with hon members of this House at any time. To my mind the merits of the HSRC findings cannot be doubted by any thinking person.

This naturally raises the problem of what we should understand by the term “group”. The State President spoke of the multicultural composition of the South African population. There is constant talk across the floor of this House about the identity of groups and that the political system is and should be directed at the proper maintenance and protection of the identity of these groups.

In discussing this matter, we should examine the composition of our own population. We have a White population consisting of various cultural groups: There is the Afrikaans-speaking cultural group, the English-speaking cultural group and other minority groups within the structure of the White population. There are people who speak Greek or Portuguese for instance and there are those with divergent religious views.

It has never been said within the White group that separate identities or ethnicity within the group is a reason for the various groups to participate in the political process as groups; we have never said this. As regards the Whites, our entire approach to the Constitution contradicts the opinion that, because groups exist, they have to participate in the political process as groups. As an individual, I may participate in the political process only via the group to which I belong—as classified by the Population Registration Act.

Allow me to repeat what I said previously. I do not think it arguable that the concept of “group” has a purely racial or colour connotation within this framework in South Africa. This is also as it is reflected in the Population Registration Act. This Act does not take colour, culture or other forms of identity as a criterion in the classification of groups. Only a purely racial or colour differentiation is used as a criterion for the definitions in the Population Registration Act.

Let us be honest with ourselves. In speaking of groups, we should not speak of multicultural groups nor of any other ethnic principles as a basis for the political dispensation. A racial or colour concept forms the basis of this Act.

Only that? Are we arguing that this stands alone?

I am getting to that. The hon the Minister must pardon me for saying the Population Registration Act has only that criterion. It does not refer to language or culture therefore there is no criterion other than that of race and colour according to the Population Registration Act. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister should not ask me whether there are more criteria because that is the only criterion in terms of the legal definition of groups.

That is not a good argument! [Interjections.]

The second leg of Government policy, as I interpret it, is that a distinction should be drawn between general affairs and own affairs. In the case of general affairs there is co-responsibility—to use the old terminology—or power-sharing—to use the new. At this stage I do not wish to pursue the question whether we really have power-sharing according to the current political dispensation. If we are honest, we will admit that this co-responsibility, this power-sharing, actually comes down to the fact that Whites, as represented in this House and according to the composition of the President’s Council, hold a position of domination or pre-eminence but I do not wish to debate this now.

As regards own affairs, the Government recognises the principle that there should be self-determination on the intimate affairs of a group—as we have been told frequently. The reason for this principle is that each group has the right to the protection and maintenance of its own identity which automatically leads to the question: What are we to understand by the concept “identity”? This is the crux of the matter. What do we understand by these matters which have to be regarded as “intimate affairs” and which go hand in hand with the maintenance of an “own identity” unless we use meaningless words in this House? The first question arising from this is whether we may understand an identity according to race or colour by the concept of “identity”. Is this what we are to understand by it?

Not necessarily.

Oh no, the hon member should not say “not necessarily” to me because then we are really evading the issue.

The question is whether we imply an identity of race or colour by the concept of “identity”. In speaking of a racial identity, our words are totally irrational because within a racial composition one may find all kinds of cultures and whatever cutting across racial or colour barriers which in no way affect the identity of a person in that sense. Surely we know that! Let us be honest. Are we speaking of a racial identity?

I wish to put a further question: If we recognise the racial or colour element as the distinctive characteristic of identity, whom or what can this threaten? In theory there are only two possibilities which may cause the disappearance of a racial group. The one is that it is totally annihilated physically and the second is that it loses its identity of race or colour by a process of intermarriage and intermingling. In the latter case it is naturally the group’s own choice; it depends on the group’s personal desire. If one then speaks of race or colour as an identity, to my mind there is no necessity whatever to say legally or in any other way that we have to protect a particular identity. Surely there is nothing else which can threaten the racial identity of a group other than the group itself.

It has nothing to do with the question of the maintenance of political rights. Whether a racial group has political rights or not and whether it participates in the political process or not surely has nothing to do with the survival of the group as a racial entity.

Let us take the bald facts of South Africa. Over the years the Indian group—to cite a single example—was excluded from active participation in the political process just as the Black group is excluded from this process for all practical and effective purposes. Not in his wildest dreams has anyone ever thought this a threat to the Indian or Black group in its existence or continuance as a separate identity—whether as a racial identity or whatever.

In arriving at the question of ethnic identity, I wish to repeat that ethnic identity in essence has nothing to do with participation in or exclusion from politics. I wish to quote the examples again. There was reference to the Whites but I do not wish to repeat that, although certain people are excluded from politics, this has made no difference to their ethnicity. Even absolute exclusion from politics therefore poses no threat to the ethnic identity of a specific group.

In consequence, if we speak of the maintenance of identity, we should ask what that identity comprises. I contend it simply cannot be race. One can rebut this and say the only identity to which a group may lay claim—also as regards its maintenance and continuation—is what one may call its ethnic or cultural identity. In essence this means its cultural identity in the broadest sense including its culture as well as its language, religion or church affiliation and such matters. If a group therefore wishes to maintain its identity, if it desires a political system by which it may maintain its identity, I wish to tell hon members it is easy enough for that group to say to another: “Look, people, I should like to maintain my own cultural identity.”

This is what happens in Belgium. I regret not having the time to submit relevant provisions of the Belgian constitution to the House. In Belgium the various groups—the Dutch or Flemish-speaking and the French-speaking groups—agreed as regards the maintenance of the distinctive cultural identity of those groups. Political heterogeneousness was not involved but cultural identity.

What does this mean? If we say we wish to maintain that identity because that is the most important aspect, I wish to state I think a group has the right to request that special provision be made in that sphere to maintain its identity. Having said this, it means it cannot say it wishes to remain in its separate residential area, neither can it claim separate group areas as these have nothing to do with the maintenance of its identity—these have nothing whatsoever to do with its own intimate affairs. Then it cannot say it wishes to practise its sports—either on school premises or wherever—on its own. This has nothing to do with its identity. It cannot say, as in the Schedule to the Constitution, that it wants its own health services, neither can it claim its own agricultural industry or its own water supply. It cannot demand its own housing or its own local authorities. These have nothing to do with the maintenance of identity.

I wish to add immediately that, if a specific group wishes to maintain its own identity in that process, it does not have the right to force its concepts down the throats of other groups. Surely that is fundamentally what we have done.

This emerges very clearly from what we have seen over the past two years, even as regards the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Members of the parties in those two Houses were prepared to be included in the new dispensation. Why? Because they thought it would give them co-responsibility in the decision-making process. That is why they came in and not because they believed in own affairs.

In consequence I say perpetual and increasing conflict will arise because what do those own affairs mean? They mean nothing other than the maintenance of apartheid. Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, this Constitution has constitutionalized the apartheid policy; that is what it has done. [Interjections.]

All the matters I have mentioned here which appear in the schedule are the actual matters those people felt to be discriminatory, which they accepted as discrimination and which they regarded as apartheid. Allow me to add immediately that, while we have a Constitution based on that foundation, we shall never be able to strive for peace and harmony in South Africa. If we wish to do so, the first essential is for us to remove the entire concept of own affairs from the Constitution.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member Prof Olivier motivates this motion by taking the stand that we have one country and are one nation consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, his arguments about the NP policy are very valid. According to the NP policy, there is acceptance in principle that South Africa is one country, with one government and one nation. The CP differs from the NP and the PFP on this point. We do not say there are separate groups in South Africa which do not have to be accommodated in one country with one government. The CP says there is a large number of Blacks in South Africa who are grouped into ten separate peoples which differ in respect of language, culture and traditions. [Interjections.] The CP says the Coloureds arid the Indians are here as separate peoples, who have an own future destination in their own right. [Interjections.] I see the hon the Minister is writing … [Interjections.] No, he is welcome to take down notes. As recently as 1981 the NP was still saying the Coloureds were a people. [Interjections.]

The CP says we have a variety of peoples who should each have self-determination and authority in their own right over what is their own. [Interjections.]

The CP cannot support the motion of the PFP in its request that the references to “own affairs” be deleted from the Constitution. That does not mean, however, that we are satisfied with what are described as “own affairs” in the Constitution; on the contrary, since the CP’s inception it has fought this Constitution, particularly since the Whites have had to sacrifice their self-determination in the new constitutional dispensation.

While I am on this topic, I want to draw it to hon members’ attention that the CP was founded four years ago today in the Skilpadsaal, when the NP left the course of separate development and partition and exchanged it for the course of political integration. Four years ago the CP was established to fight for the Whites in order, at some future stage, to win back their freedom, which was signed away in a Constitution in a multiracial bicameral Parliament. Today I can say that after four years the CP is doing very well. [Interjections.] Last night at Phalaborwa, in the constituency of the hon the Minister of Manpower, there was a municipal by-election. The result was that the CP polled 197 votes and the NP 76. The NP’s candidate is a great friend of the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] Apparently that is the power base of the NP in the Lydenburg constituency. [Interjections.]

I understand a school committee election was held at the Hoër Volkskool in Heidelberg (Transvaal). All eight committee members were NP members. Today all eight are members of the CP. [Interjections.] The hon member for Swellendam is making a noise, but during the referendum I established a branch of the CP in Bredasdorp with 10 members. The chairman of the CP branch informed me the other day that that branch now has more than 300 registered members, while another 120 people in Bredasdorp who have not yet filled in their cards, support the CP with contributions. [Interjections.]

The chairman is a former United Party member.

The hon member for Swellendam is an old Sap himself! [Interjections.] Does he still remember how he ate peaches with Phillip Myburgh when the latter registered himself as a member of the United Party? [Interjections.]

Order! The eating of peaches may be an own affair, but its relevance at present is not very clear to me. The hon member must return to the matter in question.

I want to tell hon members today this is a proud CP which is on the road to victory. [Interjections.] When you go to bed tonight, Sir, you will worry about how many members have left the NP today. The CP is growing by the day. [Interjections.] When the CP wins the majority in the House of Assembly in the next general election, it will use that very section of the Constitution which spells out “own affairs” to end the multiracial tricameral Parliament and to place each of the presently participating peoples on the course of true self-determination. [Interjections.]

What does the CP mean by self-determination? [Interjections.] The CP says self-determination is a people’s right to decide by itself, without interference, on every facet of its existence. The CP accepts as its point of departure that the peaceful coexistence of peoples and orderly co-operation between them can best be served by the full realisation of each one’s right to self-determination. [Interjections.] In addition the CP says the Whites of South Africa have an inalienable right to self-determination. We grant the same right to the Coloured, Indian and Black peoples.

Do they want it?

The hon member asks if they want it. It does not matter to me whether or not they want it. The Whites of South Africa want complete self-determination. [Interjections.] That is why I move as an amendment:

When I read the amendment, hon members of the NP should have no problems. They should accept the amendment. I read from a communiqué compiled by the present hon Minister of National Education, as follows:

These are the Coloureds—on a “volksbasis” (ethnic basis). I continue:

That is why I do not think the NP ought to differ from me. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister says the Whites already have self-determination. This means the Whites have an own Parliament, in which they can take decisions on every facet that affects the Whites’ future. This was the case until 1984.

The hon the Minister of National Education also says in the communiqué before me that the Black peoples are obtaining self-determination by means of independent states. This means that every people gets sole authority over every facet of its life, over every affair which is its own, within an own father-land. Surely that is what it means and that is the road to complete freedom for the various peoples and to true self-determination over all the affairs that are its own.

I should like to read what the present State President said at the 1981 NP congress. He said the following:

Listen to this:

The State President describes the independence of four Black peoples as a constitutional wonder. [Interjections.] Do hon members agree with that?

Yes.

The hon member for Ladybrand says he agrees with that and I thank him for doing so. In addition the State President says one people after another is being freed without bloodshed and with economic co-operation. [Interjections.] These are true words spoken by the State President, and I want to ask the hon member for Randburg whether or not he agrees with them.

What you read now?

Yes.

Yes.

He says he agrees with that. I also agree with what the State President said. I agree with it 100%, and since the hon member for Randburg agrees with it too, I assume he will support this amendment when we vote on it this afternoon, since it is exactly what the State President said. [Interjections.]

It is true, after all, that the Tswana people is receiving true freedom and full self-determination … [Interjections.]

Order! There may be hon members here who think that what they are saying is very witty, but in reality it does not make the debate any more interesting.

It is true that…

Order! Did the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke make a remark about the hon member?

Mr Chairman, I did not say anything.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

It is true, after all, that the Tswana people is receiving true freedom and full self-determination over all the affairs that are its own, within its own father-land. Within Bophuthatswana, the Tswana people and its rulers no longer need to ask the State President or Rev Hendrickse or Chief Minister Buthelezi what they may or may not do. In Bophuthatswana the Tswana people’s rulers are in full control of those affairs which are the own affairs of that people. They are also in control of their own fatherland. Now I want to ask the hon member if he agrees with me on this too. Does the hon member for Randburg agree with me on this too?

I am sorry, I was not listening.

No, he was not listening. [Interjections.] He was not listening to this. In the Transkei the Xhosa people and their rulers are in full control of all the affairs which are the own affairs of the Xhosa people. The finest and highest ideal a people can cherish, viz that of being truly free, was given to the Xhosa, the Venda and the Tswana peoples by means of a policy of partition and territorial separation by the NP. The State President described it as a constitutional wonder which was taking place in South Africa.

And they all agree with it.

They agree with it now. He said that one people after another was being freed, without bloodshed and with economic co-operation.

In accordance with the policy of partition, Black peoples who had no representation or inferior representation in South Africa’s Parliament, received full political control over all affairs which were their own—within an own fatherland. That is why President Matanzima could say recently he thanked the Government of 1948 for its policy of apartheid which gave his people freedom. He was grateful that this policy of separate development, of partition, had given the Xhosa people true freedom and control over everything that was their own. [Interjections.] The Ndebele people will ask for freedom in this Parliament this year and I accept the NP will give them freedom too if they ask for it.

Of course.

I think the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said “of course”. The CP will give its wholehearted permission for the territory of the Ndebele people to be excised from the territory of the Republic of South Africa. The excised territory will be the own homeland of the Ndebele people. I now want to ask the hon the Minister a question, but he is joking with the hon member for Randburg while we are busy with serious matters. [Interjections.] If the State President says the NP has opened the constitutional road to freedom for the Blacks, does he agree with me that the Whites of South Africa have the same right to choose the course of freedom in their own right that the Tswanas, the Xhosas, the Vendas and the Ndebeles have? I ask the hon the Minister whether or not he agrees with me. If the Tswanas have the right to freedom, do the Whites have that right as well? [Interjections.] No, the talkative Minister has nothing to say now. He cannot open his mouth. [Interjections.] I want to ask him whether the Whites have the right to govern themselves fully within an own fatherland. Do the Whites have that right? [Interjections.] The NP says they do not. Do the Whites have the right, like the Tswanas, to demand to deal with everything as own affairs in an own fatherland? Now the NP members are as quiet as mice. [Interjections.]

They helped by means of this Parliament to give own fatherlands to the Black peoples. If the Ndebele people were to ask for an own fatherland, it would not be refused them. [Interjections.] I ask today why the Government denies the Whites this same freedom. [Interjections.] Why does the Government refuse to give the Whites the same freedom it is giving the Tswanas, the Vendas and the Ndebeles? [Interjections.] Why does it take exception if the CP says the Whites in South Africa have the right to strive for full self-determination within an own fatherland?

Where is this fatherland?

They do not even know where their fatherland is!

That hon member is identifying a fatherland for the Ndebeles, but is not capable of identifying a fatherland for the White man in this country. [Interjections.] That is why the voters of South Africa are rejecting that party. [Interjections.]

Why is the NP continuing on a course which leads to the Whites in South Africa being further enslaved in one communal fatherland, one communal, multiracial Parliament and one communal South African nation in which the Whites are described as a minority group? Why do they continue to let the White’s right of self-determination be dwarfed and destroyed in this multi-racial Parliament under the concept “own affairs”? I want to make a statement that the Whites in this Parliament have no self-determination. On 27 May last year the Appropriation in respect of Whites’ own affairs was approved in the Coloured House.

Can you believe it!

On 22 May it was approved in the Indian House. The Coloureds and Indians had to say yes in respect of the bit of money made available for White own affairs. Where is the so-called self-determination in the NP? The NP signed it away in a multiracial Parliament. [Interjections.] I do not want to agree to their appropriations. I should like them to decide on it themselves. [Interjections.] Last year 104 Bills were piloted through this Parliament. Of these, 97 were general Bills and four were Bills on own affairs; four dealt with economic affairs.

I want to go further. The Constitution defines the own affairs of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. In 1981 the State President, who was Prime Minister then, said: that separate freedoms for the various peoples are a constitutional wonder which have placed the peoples on the road to freedom. Now, however, the State President says the following:

The State President also writes:

According to the Constitution the State President has enormous authority in respect of own affairs. Blacks are now being given a say up to the very highest level—also in the Government of the country. There will be equal treatment and justice for all. Under the present Constitution the electoral college which elects the State President is composed in a ratio of 4:2:1. This ratio is based on population figures.

The NP says a Coloured or an Indian can become State President. Then, however, in the little house meetings they have, they say voters need not be concerned; our NP will not elect a Coloured or an Indian State President. [Interjections.] If Blacks receive authority, the question is whether the 10 million Blacks outside the Black states plus the 5 million Zulus who are being involved in this dispensation, will also receive sitting in the electoral college to appoint the State President in a fair and just way, like the Coloureds and Indians. The Government must tell us that. [Interjections.]

We say the Black man will not get it; he gets his own political rights in his own fatherland.

Where is it?

The area for the father-land of the Zulus and each of the other Black peoples has been pointed out already.

Is the NP going to amend the Constitution? Are Blacks also going to receive participation in the election of a State President? The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already said it is only logical that according to this system a Black man can become State President.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning told me that according to law a Black man can also become chairman of a regional services council if he becomes a member of it. If he can become the chairman of a regional services council, it is a logical consequence that he can also become State President. If a Black man can become State President, I ask the hon the Minister what course he is taking with South Africa.

That is why the CP says we can never take this course. We want to take the road of separate freedoms for the various peoples so that each one can have sole self-determination over everything that belongs to it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, before I respond to the motion of the hon member Prof Olivier, I should like to react briefly to the arguments of the hon member for Kuruman and the amendment as moved by him.

Apparently the hon member for Kuruman has a problem in distinguishing between the concepts of identity, self-determination, domination and sovereignty.

I did not use the terms identity or domination.

The content given by the hon member to the concepts of identity and self-determination, which he did use, make it very clear that in using them he actually means domination. I shall return to this later.

A while ago we debated the concept of partition here in the House. During the course of that debate we made the standpoint of this side of the House very clear: That partition is an element of the policy of this side of the House, but that partition per se does not provide the answer to South Africa’s problems since partition per se does not provide for the accommodation of all the population groups of our country.

The statement of the hon member for Kuruman that the independent Black states do indeed comprise a form of partition, is correct. It is correct, but the hon member made no effort to explain how partition can accommodate the justified political aspirations of the millions of Blacks outside those so-called fatherlands of the Black peoples. [Interjections.] Nor did the hon member make any effort to explain how partition should accommodate the justified political aspirations of the Coloureds and the Indians in this country. For that reason it is impossible for us to support the amendment of the hon member for Kuruman.

The Constitution Act, Act 110 of 1983, comprises the culmination of the work of successive Governments and a process which began in the early ’seventies, when hon members who are now sitting in the CP benches were still part of the NP. According to page 60 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1983, a publication issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information in October 1983, Part IV of the Constitution Act—Own and General Affairs—is a basic point of departure of the envisaged—the present now, of course—constitutional dispensation. The distinction made there between own and general or communal affairs forms a basic point of departure for this constitutional dispensation. I quote the following from the publication:

The hon member Prof Olivier’s motion therefore implies the dismantling of the present constitutional dispensation. In fact, he conceded this in his argument. When the present constitutional dispensation is reviewed, no matter how critically, …

And it is reviewed very critically!

… it must be conceded that at the least the tricameral Parliament is a widening of the basis of democracy in South Africa. Besides, it is true that in fact own affairs is the one side of the coin of which the other side is co-partnership in respect of affairs of communal interest. I therefore suggest that we cannot have the one side without the other—not in our given situation.

The motion of the hon member Prof Olivier is also directly contradictory to the principle of the preservation of the identity of the separate population communities of South Africa. This motion is also definitely not acceptable to the greater majority of the White voters of South Africa. The hon members of the PFP do not mind that too much, since they have never really bothered with the White voters. From their point of view it is a fact, however, that the acceptance and application of this motion would not be in the interests of the non-White population groups in the country, on whose behalf they pretend to speak. It is a fact, after all, that the preservation of White initiative, the preservation of White leadership in certain respects and cases, and the contribution of the White section of the population in the cultural and other spheres is indispensable for the freedom, the peace, the security and the prosperity of the other population groups here as well.

It is not possible for Whites to enjoy freedom, security, peace and prosperity in this country at the expense of the other population groups who inhabit this country with them. The reverse is as true, however. In the same way it is not possible for those population groups to enjoy freedom, peace, security and prosperity in this country at the expense of the White section of the population.

In addition, the hon member Prof Olivier’s motion cannot be evaluated in isolation. The question arises as to what the factual position would be if this motion were to be accepted and implemented. The South African community would still be a plural community. We would still not be a homogeneous community. Ethnic differences would still exist; they will not disappear overnight. The South African community would still be a community of minorities. Ethnicity and the variety of peoples, as well as the associated distinctive differences, would still exist. The challenge of escaping from domination of one population group over another population group or groups in this population composition, would still exist.

Of course, this challenge holds no problem for the CP since their policy is that the Whites should dominate the other population groups.

That is completely untrue and you know it!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Jeppe say to the hon member for Mossel Bay: “That is untrue and you know it”?

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. It remains untrue!

I repeat the statement that the CP’s policy is blatant domination of non-Whites by Whites in this country.

It is untrue!

We can debate that on another occasion when I have time. [Interjections.] I do not have the time to give any further attention to it now. [Interjections.]

Is this policy morally and ethically justifiable? In addition, domination must of necessity lead to confrontation and conflict which will be counterproductive and eventually self-destructive to the interests and the rights of the White population group. Ultimately domination cannot be maintained—it has never been possible to maintain it indefinitely anywhere in the world—and a definite danger exists that White domination will lead precisely to the domination of the Whites by other population groups.

The hon members of the PFP do pay lip-service to the preservation of identity these days. There was a time when things were different and when it was strongly held against the hon member for Yeoville that in a series of articles in the Sunday Times he had acknowledged the plurality of the South African population community. These days, as the hon member Prof Olivier has today, they do admit to the plurality of the South African community, however.

We have always done so!

They add, however, that this plurality should play no role in the expression of political rights or the participation in politics. That is the basis of the hon member Prof Olivier’s motion.

Do not discriminate.

They therefore advocate, as politically and constitutionally, an open society or so-called “free association”. The question I want to put to the hon member Prof Olivier in this connection, is where on the African continent, where efforts have been made to establish a political dispensation disregarding ethnicity or variety of peoples, such efforts have ever succeeded.

Do not denigrate our policy. You will be proclaiming it next year.

Did it succeed in Nigeria? Did it succeed in Uganda? Did it succeed in Zimbabwe? Can the hon member give us an example of where it has succeeded?

Where has own affairs succeeded?

In South Africa the PFP’s policy must necessarily lead to Black government; not necessarily government by the majority of the Blacks, but government by a certain group of Blacks.

In the final instance, however, the concern is not a power struggle between Black and White in South Africa, but the preservation of certain principles, norms, values and standards—not race. [Interjections.] This is why—unfortunately I do not have time to go into more detail on this—there is indeed talk of a “White identity” in South Africa, despite the fact that, as the hon member Prof Olivier rightly indicated, the White section of the population consists of various culture groups. Despite this there is indeed talk of “a White identity” because the Whites are representative of certain principles, norms, standards, ways of life, traditions, customs and so forth.

It is impossible for us on this side of the House, therefore, to support the motion of the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Chairman, I hardly need to say that this party will oppose both the motion of the hon member prof Olivier and the amendment which has been moved by the CP since both are totally in conflict with the basic philosophy of the NRP.

Because I do not want to spend much time on it, I will deal firstly with the amendment. It is the same basic argument that we had in the former debate on partition. I believe it was debated very thoroughly at that time and one does not need to waste any time today on repetition. To our minds it is pie in the sky and totally unrealistic and dangerous to think in terms of partitioning this country into independent states with independent governments, armies and everything else operating within a patchwork of different groups and interests.

But we did get three times your number of votes in Port Natal!

I believe one of the tragedies is that the CP plays on the emotions and fears of the people for no other reason than to panic them into voting for them. That party does not give a tinker’s curse for the future peace and stability of South Africa as long as they can burgle a few votes by driving fear into the hearts and minds of people. [Interjections.] I leave them at that. I have only 10 minutes and I do not want to waste it on a pipedream except to point out the danger of that pipedream.

Five hundred and fifty votes for you!

I now want to turn to the motion itself and say it is obvious that we cannot support this because the philosophy of this party is and has always been the recognition of self-identified groups in South Africa’s heterogeneous population. We recognise the right of those groups to deal themselves with, and to themselves to control the things intimate to each group alone.

We believe the character of a residential neighbourhood should be determined by those who live there and should not be imposed by central government. Having determined it to be exclusive, there must be a free alternative created by the establishment of other open areas. If a neighbourhood opts for exclusive occupation by one group only there should then be open areas established for those who wish to live together so that one does not impose either segregation or integration. One grants communities the option to determine the character of the neighbourhood in which they live. They then have a two-way option: Either they can opt for integration or they can opt for differentiation, in which case the neighbourhood remains exclusive. That is the basic difference between us and the Official Opposition, the PFP. They have a one-way option, namely the right to associate. However, they reject the right to disassociate.

This motion has once again placed clearly on record the PFP’s rejection of the group as the basis for any political rights.

Racial groups.

Any racial group. We are talking about South Africa where there are self-identified groups. The fact that that self-identification is based largely on race is not a matter of political policy. It is a matter of historic fact. There are communities which do not identify themselves. Basically, however, most South Africans identify themselves—and they do not do so because of a population register. Rather, they identify themselves with the communities from which they have sprung and to which they see themselves as belonging.

In this motion the PFP specifically—this is what the proposer of the motion said—rejects the group as a political base for any constitutional system.

Racial group.

All right then, any racial group. The PFP rejects the right of a racial group to be an entity within the constitutional system. They insist that there should be a non-racial, common voters’ roll system. Can the hon members of the PFP tell me whether I am wrong?

You are right.

I am right. The PFP reject the group as a basis and insist on a common roll system. A common roll system, whether one calls it federal or unitary, means that the majority within whatever unit one delimits will govern. [Interjections.] In other words, it amounts to majority rule. [Interjections.] I am not engaged in a high school debate here; I am dealing with the facts of South Africa. The hon members of the PFP can go and play high school debating if they want to. They have opted for a system according to which the majority will rule in each of the units and in the overall structure within South Africa. In other words, they reject consociation.

There are, after all, only two forms of government we can have here. One is consociation—ie. government by consensus and agreement among groups, and the other is majority rule. The PFP reject consociation. [Interjections.] That is the significant element of this motion. [Interjections.] Consociation requires three elements. Firstly, there is the element of the groups which actually reach consensus and upon which consociation is based. It is not the individuals who reach consensus, but the defined elements within the consociation. Secondly, those defined elements, whether they be a racial group or any other sort of group, have rights peculiar to that group. Thirdly, those rights are protected.

I do not have time to expand upon the argument, but the choice is a simple one. [Interjections.] Either one opts for consociation between the defined elements within a constitutional structure, or one opts for a system with one voters’ roll, and the majority vote on that roll then governs. One can have as many fancy safeguards as one likes, but in terms of PFP policy only the individual’s rights will be protected and not the rights of the group to which that individual belongs.

We believe that the group, be it a self-identified group or an otherwise identified group, also has rights. Therefore, we are fundamentally at odds with the PFP. [Interjections.] We are fundamentally at odds because they reject the group as an element in the constitutional structure. They say that they accept voluntary association. Their concept of voluntary association, however, does not give any group the right to deal with the intimate affairs of that community. [Interjections.] We believe in the right of a group to deal with the intimate affairs of the community. I am not picking those hon members out about it. It is their right to stand for that policy. It is their right. Why, then, are they squealing like a lot of dogs that have had their tails stamped on? [Interjections.] Do they not like their policy? Do they not want the public to know about their policy? [Interjections.]

Order! I think the interjections have now gone far enough. The hon member may proceed.

I think they are afraid that the people will know what their policy is. I am trying to help them to state their policy clearly to the people and they all stand there squealing and yelling about it! [Interjections.] There is a clear difference in philosophy and we therefore reject their motion as well as the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to spend too much time on the hon member for Durban Point. I will say, however, that although he may or may not understand our policy, he obviously does not understand the present Constitution. I say this because in terms of the Constitution, own affairs does not permit of local option. It does not permit of local option and therefore, if one believes in local option, then one should in fact support the motion of the hon member to delete own affairs. It is a rigid constitutional matter which does not allow for local option. [Interjections.] That is my first point.

Secondly, I agree that groups do identify themselves and that some of those identifications may become established. When one takes the South African society, however, one finds that people of various races identify themselves across the race line in a number of different aspects.

Once upon a time, in Dr Verwoerd’s day, it was said that race had to be the identifying factor in sport. Today, that is no more. People identify in sport irrespective of race. People identify in church and religion irrespective of race. People identify in educational and cultural matters irrespective of race, as well as in commerce, industry, trade and labour matters. Why suddenly, when it comes to the political mechanisms for looking after these various functions, is the only basis on which they must be recognised that of race? I will deal with this matter at greater length in due course.

As for the hon member for Mossel Bay, I found one phrase which he used towards the end of his speech quite interesting. If I understood him correctly, he said:

In the final instance.

In the final instance, yes. If this is the case, why has the Government entrenched race as the only factor of importance in the Constitution of South Africa? It is a fact. No other factor has been incorporated into the Constitution. The race factor was incorporated in order to build the structure on which the Constitution is based.

With regard to the Rip van Winkel member—the hon member for Kuruman—for how long must we still listen to speeches based on what members of the NP said in the old days? [Interjections.] What on earth does it have to do with the South Africa of today or of the future? Day after day though, we hear speeches by that hon member and his colleagues on what happened in the past. The only interest it holds for me is the influence it has on the hon members of the NP. They are divided into two groups. The first group consists of those who in fact escaped from the Verwoerdian philosophy—the so-called “verligtes”—those with the broad smiles. However, the other group sits there with grim faces while the hon member for Kuruman reads to them. I should still like to see all the hon members of the NP laughing at that hon member one of these days. They must not sit there with grim faces while the hon member reads to them from what Daniel Malan or Verwoerd or somebody else said in the past. [Interjections.] While I was listening to that hon member, my mind went back to 1960, when I shared a bench in this House with the SAP member, the hon member for De Kuilen. I closed my eyes for a second and what I heard was an NP speech from the days of Dr Verwoerd. It had exactly the same character, the same philosophy and the same evasion of the realities of South Africa.

Whether the hon member likes it or not, he must accept the realities. There are people, there are groups, there are races and there is diversity. We live in one country though. We are one nation, whether the hon member likes it or not. We have one economy. Within the framework of those realities we must search for and find our future salvation.

†We cannot escape from that. I really do hope that these Rip van Winkels will go right out of here and return to the past and let the rest of us get on with discussing the future South Africa. [Interjections.]

In a sense there has been progress over the years. If this debate had taken place in the time of Dr Verwoerd when all this nonsense and escapism started in South Africa, we would not have this debate on what constitutes a group. In those days everybody in South Africa knew his place. He knew whether he could go to a certain cinema or not, and he knew whether he could get into a taxi or not. He knew to which group he belonged because Dr Verwoerd absolutized the concept of group in virtually every sphere of life in South Africa. The debate has changed in the sense that it is more wholesome today. Gradually there has grown an awareness that even if there are groups, we have to find a way of reconciling the differences and the problems between and among groups, and that we have to find a way of living together in one country within one economy.

One must reconcile the groups, not destroy them.

We will talk of how to reconcile them. I promise you, Sir, that if I can get hold of the speeches the hon member for Durban-Point made in those days we will find that he was saying then that there should be apartheid in sport because we were irreconcilable. [Interjections.] He would say that there should be apartheid in trade unions because we were irreconcilable. [Interjections.] He has also shifted away from his old viewpoints, and I am quite sure that if he stays here long enough, he will shift still further. [Interjections.]

Once the Prime Minister, the leader of the NP, in February 1982—hon members will recall this—used the words “power sharing”—even if it was “gesonde magsdeling”—it changed the nature of the debate in South Africa. We accept the concept of power sharing. The very expression “power sharing” involves the two concepts, namely that there is power and that we all have to get involved in it, and the fact that we are sharing indicates that there are different entities. That is what power sharing is all about. In Great Britain nobody talks about “power sharing”, but in South Africa we talk about “power sharing” because it involves recognising both the fact of power and the reality of the diversity of South Africa. For that reason the change in the debate is a healthy one and the debate is proceeding as it should in the sense that it is more relevant when it comes to constitutional matters to ask what groups are, how they should be identified and how they should be accommodated in the constitutional structure. I think that part of the debate is a healthy one.

I want to congratulate the hon member Prof Nic Olivier for his introduction and his thoughtful analysis of the whole group concept and its relevance in the constitutional situation. I want to take his arguments further and look at the Constitution of today and at the issue of own affairs or “eie sake” in a practical way because we believe own affairs should be scrapped.

The hon the Minister who is going to participate in this debate said when he was dealing with the own affairs provision, section 14 of the Constitution that this went right to the heart of the philosophy and the policy of the NP. Own affairs in its relevance to the constitutional system does go to the heart of the NP philosophy and it goes right to the heart of its constitutional policy. I maintain that if one looks at that concept in the way it is worked into the present Constitution, that concept points to the fatal flaw in the Government’s present Constitution. We argue that it is a fatal flaw which is prejudicing the whole process of negotiation on a new constitution, and it is a fatal flaw that can bring peace and stability to an end in this country. Indeed it is interesting that when one looks at the graphs and scale of violence and conflict in this society over the past two years, one finds it actually coincides very much with the introduction of this Constitution with its concept of apartheid and own affairs. There is a direct correlation between the two. As the hon member Prof Olivier pointed out, the Government still adheres to the view that the foundation on which a constitutional system must be built is a series of separate racial structures based on compulsory membership of a particular race group.

There are two concepts—separate racial structures and compulsory membership of the race group which determines those structures. We in the PFP reject that as a basis for constitution-making in the South Africa of today and tomorrow. We believe that the concept of absolutizing race as the factor for determining constitutional structures is dangerous not only for South Africa but also for the very groups that system purports to seek to protect.

We believe that South Africa’s Constitution should be based on functional and regional structures. The hon member for Durban Point will realise that groups vary from time to time depending on what the issue is at a particular moment. There is a difference. When such groups form, whether they are based on ethnicity, race, religion, culture, language or regional and economic interests, they should be identified and catered for on the basis of freedom of association or freedom of choice. We do not deny that they exist but we disagree on the way in which they should be identified and how they should be catered for in South Africa’s constitutional system.

Simple illustrations can be provided from other countries. Great Britain does not need formal compartmentalisation to identify a Scotsman or a Welshman. There is no separate voters’ roll, identity tag or compulsion to call oneself that. One simply is that, and this is accommodated on the basis of free association within constitutional structures.

Black Americans do not run away from the fact that they are Black Americans. They are that because that is what they want to be, not because it is written into their constitution. This fact does not form the basis of the constitutional structures in that society.

I think the hon the Minister will concede that groups can vary from time to time. There are different factors which can identify groups on particular issues at particular times. What concerns us is that the Government takes only one of those factors, namely race, as the only, paramount and fundamental factor. It is the fundamental criterion on which not one but all identifications of groups are based. It is the one which the Government regards as being of prime importance and has written into the Constitution.

We believe that the individual South African, as opposed to the race group, is the touchstone of value in our society. Groups are not abstract concepts; they consist of individuals. Even when discrimination takes place, it is perpetrated against the individuals who are members of groups. We therefore see the individual irrespective of his group identification as the touchstone of value in our society. The diverse groups which exist should not be codified in terms of the law or the products of the Constitution, but should be the result of individual citizens exercising their right of freedom of choice and freedom of association. That is what we mean by “groups” in South Africa.

We believe that concepts such as parliamentary democracy, civilised values, civil liberty, minority protection and individual initiative in the business and other fields can be secured in a constitution based on freedom of choice. We believe that they will be in danger and even destroyed by a constitution based on compulsory race group membership or, to call it by its correct name, apartheid. That is, in fact, what it is.

In the course of my preparation for this address, I read the speeches of the various hon Ministers who took part in the constitutional debates as recently as 1983. They should read their speeches again. Although they were delivered only three years ago, it is quite fascinating how quickly times have changed. The arguments and tortured logic which were put forward as serious arguments at that time now sound almost as weird and old-fashioned as those used by Dr Verwoerd, Daan de Wet Nel and M C Botha when they were advancing their weird policies some time ago. Those hon Ministers should read them to see how far in fact we have shifted even since then.

However, let us look at own affairs as it has been written into the Constitution of 1983 and the way in which it is evolving in practice. The Government argues that the concept of own affairs first of all has to do with the right of self-determination of groups—I see the hon member over there agrees. However, we want to argue that in fact this Constitution has little or nothing to do with the question of self-determination of groups. I shall show this just now.

Secondly, the Government says that it has to do with the protection of minorities or minority rights. When one has a look at it, one will find in a minute that it has little if anything to do with the protection of minorities. That is the reality of how it is going to work in practice. So, own affairs in the Government’s constitutional plan, stripped of all those other arguments, is in fact really a form of old-fashioned apartheid applied in certain areas of Government, applied moreover with a little touch of “baasskap.” It is designed to create—quite artificially in some instances—a number of separate limited power bases founded on the concept of compulsory group membership which will actually reinforce the philosophy of race separation.

The hon the Minister should read his own speech in which he said that as far as the Coloured people were concerned, for the first time we had identified the special role for them in this society. He should read the speech of the hon the Minister of National Education in which he said that this was going to reinforce the group concept, or the speech of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid in which he said this was in fact going to strengthen voluntary association because the law was going to make it possible for that to take place as it was strengthening the group concept. I believe it is designed in many ways to strengthen the group and the race concept instead of moving away from it.

These group structures are designed so that the dominant party within the White group in that constitutional system can keep its hands on the levers of power, particularly in general affairs. Once these race groups have been “kraaled” off into their separate racial Houses to deal with their own separate affairs, these separate own affair Houses are then also used as the basis for getting together on matters concerning general affairs. It is done in such a way that the dominant group in the White House in fact always has the majority in that situation.

Therefore, this actually extends the concept of apartheid or separation and still leaves a considerable amount of White “baasskap” in that system. It is designed to do those two things. The Government by its insistence on writing own affairs into the structures and functions of government—I should like to put this to the hon the Minister in the context of those 14 items in Schedule 1 which I call apartheid items—has done a disservice to the concept of Parliament. I believe that in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the people in this country, the own affairs element of apartheid, the enforced racial structures which are part of this Constitution, together with the exclusion of Blacks have done untold damage to the concept of Parliament. Indeed, the system has discredited the very concept of parliamentary Government in South Africa and, in doing so, has done a disservice to the whole process of peaceful constitutional reform in this country.

As if doing damage to Parliament is not enough, this Government is now in a logical way taking own affairs into the whole field of local government. It is now insisting that local government should be redelimited around South Africa on the basis of separate racial entities. [Interjections.] This is being done regardless of the wishes of individuals, communities and, in certain instances, the race groups themselves.

In exactly the same way, regional services councils are running into the same major problems, even before they are established. That is because regional services councils which have to deal with general affairs derive their base from separate local authorities which are elected for the purposes of own affairs. If one wants to get onto a regional services council, the only way to do so is by first identifying oneself with and making apartheid work at local government level. If anybody wants to come into this House, the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates, and wants to get into the Government, he first has to become an agent of apartheid. He has to make apartheid work in the fields of own affairs in order to qualify to be able to participate in matters of general policy and general affairs of this society.

I want to say to the hon the Minister that this form of racial coercion of telling people that they can have a say in general affairs but, in order to get there, they have to go the apartheid route and first identify with and make own affairs work, is going to be resisted by the majority of the citizens of our country. When it comes to regional services councils, and people are told that they are non-racial bodies but in order to serve on them they have to make separate racial local authorities work, I say that this form of coercion is going to be resisted by the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. It is going to mean that the RSCs are going to collapse in yet another constitutional shambles.

With due deference, I believe that if the RSCs had not been founded on separate apartheid structures, they would have made a positive contribution. However, as long as one says that the route to the RSCs is via the apartheid structures, one is going to find massive resistance among the people of South Africa.

One can go on at length about this but what concerns me is that where the hon the Minister talks of self-determination, one will find, in practice and in fact in almost every one of those instances, that self-determination is qualified by a general law. Therefore, even self-determination is not real. Self-determination without access to funds is not real. Self-determination involves also financial resources; it does not involve handouts from another dominant group. What concerns us, is that protection is lacking in respect of many of the things where there should be protection. Look at the miserable things for which we have provided protection in terms of the Constitution. Look at those 14 things that include, for example, water affairs. However, when one comes to education, hospital services or local authorities, there are qualifications. I think the area of protection is miserable. [Interjections.]

If people really needed protection, they would need protection in much more important areas. Let me identify a few such areas. I believe that one can be discriminated against and dominated to a much greater extent in the field of general affairs than in the field of own affairs. Areas of protection in own affairs include access to and employment and promotion in the Public Service. Surely this is an area in which there should be no group domination or group discrimination. What protection is there in the Constitution against that? [Interjections.] What right do certain people have to be appointed on merit to Government boards? Such appointments take place at the whim of the Government. There is no protection for minority groups. What protection is there for minorities of any kind with regard to the question of the allocation of land for occupation? Does the hon the Minister not know the Group Areas Act and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act? There is a disproportion and a discriminatory allocation of land under the laws governing general affairs. Then there are the questions of equal ownership of property and equality before the law. Surely these are the kinds of things which should be protected! People should have access to equal education. Surely this is also a right which should be protected in our Constitution.

We believe that these are the areas in which people should be protected against discrimination. This is not achieved by building racial compartments and racial structures. We commend to the Government that it consider protection in these areas. This can be achieved in a constitution for South Africa combining such factors as federalism, decentralisation and proportional representation—including the concept of a Bill of Rights and, on certain issues, a minority veto—functioning not on a compulsory race basis but on the basis of group membership founded on freedom of association.

We want to say to the Government that now that it has actually discovered that apartheid is outdated, it should stop trying to update, modernise and humanise it. It must stop fighting the fact that it is outdated and stop writing it into the Constitution of South Africa. Scrap apartheid. The abolition of apartheid also means the scrapping of own affairs and separate racial structures based on compulsory group membership—their total scrapping from the Constitution of South Africa.

This is not just a theoretical argument used by a private member. The Government is aware that it is grappling with the problem of trying to get yet another constitutional development going, a new constitutional development which must include Blacks as well. That has to happen in South Africa. However, it is not going to happen as long as this tricameral system with its built-in racialism and with its built-in compulsory membership is one of the elements.

We say to the Government: Do not only abolish own affairs; also scrap this shabby tricameral system of Parliament. [Interjections.] Scrap it and replace it with something in which all South Africans can participate. In relation to the time factor we say: Do not wait until it is too late. Do not dare have another election under this Constitution. It will be a disaster for South Africa because it will reinforce the prejudices and the attitudes which are built into this Constitution. We say: Scrap own affairs, scrap this tricameral system well before the next election and let us have a Constitution in which all South Africans can participate.

Mr Chairman, for 17 years the NP has been moving away from apartheid, and the purpose of the motion by the hon member Prof Olivier is to appeal to the NP and the hon the Minister to change the Constitution so drastically that the NP can give a big new shove to the left.

The hon the Minister and his party have said repeatedly they are in favour of a one man one vote system, but not in a unitary state. Where in the world does one find a state which is not a unitary state? All the federations are unitary states too—the USA, Australia and Germany. Can the hon the Minister point out a state in the world today—or in history—which is not a unitary state, so that we can get an indication of how a one man one vote system of is to function in the kind of state he must have in mind.

The hon the Minister and the Government have said repeatedly there is no talk of a fourth Chamber for the Blacks. They have said there is no talk of that. They reassure their people and tell the voters there is no talk of a fourth Chamber for Blacks. How is the hon the Minister going to accommodate the Blacks then, particularly in view of what Dr Koornhof said in London last night? He addressed an illustrious meeting there, and said: “It was time that the international community assisted South Africa in extending the existing democratic institutions to include all people.” Piet Koornhof speaks on behalf of the Government, and is saying abroad: “Scrap the existing institutions”, change them at least “to include all people”—and this refers to Blacks.

The hon the Minister must tell us today what he thinks Dr Koornhof’s motive is. Did the hon the Minister authorise Dr Koornhof to make that statement in London last night?

In addition, the hon the Minister and the Government say they are in favour of a one man one vote system, but then the one group must not govern the other. If no group governs any other group, who will govern? Who is going to govern that state the hon the Minister has in mind? Is he going to ask all the parties to throw themselves open so that they can all canvass support in all the groups? As far as I know, that is not the NP’s policy. Is the hon the Minister heading for a situation in which all the individual groups will send representatives to a federal or whatever kind of government? I do not know. The question is whether the hon the Minister knows. Does the hon the Minister know what he is going to tell the voters—in a next election, when the NP has to take a further step to the left—and can he give us an indication of this this afternoon? When this Government finds itself in similar situations at public meetings, it nearly always seeks its escape in asserting very quickly that negotiation will take place. If the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning intends to negotiate, however, what proposals is he himself bringing to the negotiation table?

He will simply say the matter is sensitive!

I have an idea what these will be. I have a newspaper cutting here which indicates what Rev Hendrickse will probably bring to the conference table. I am interested in knowing, however, what proposals this hon Minister will bring to the conference table. For 16, 17 years now, he has been moving away from discrimination. He should therefore know by this time, Sir. He should know very well, and if he does not say what he will bring to that table, he is not being candid towards the White people and all the other peoples in South Africa. We are experiencing a crisis, Sir. There is unrest. There is war. There is depression. The people are worried. They are afraid. We receive calls from people in our constituencies expressing their deep anxiety, an anxiety in which, naturally, we share. We are all, as we sit here today, anxious about the future of South Africa, although we see this from different points of view. We are all deeply anxious. [Interjections.]

Now, however, I actually want to address a word of warning to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He will have to hurry up with his proposal, the proposal he is taking to the Indians, the Coloureds and the Blacks, since all kinds of things are already on the go at this stage. The Press is already reporting that a trial national convention will be held in London next week. The African National Congress will be represented inter alia at that trial national convention. Now we know there have already been businessmen in Lusaka to hold discussions there. Churchmen have been there too. There were other people who wanted to go, people who were not permitted by the Government to go there. The Managing Director of Nasionale Pers, Mr Ton Vosloo, said in Beeld on occasion, the day will come when the Government will sit around the table of negotiation together with representatives of the African National Congress.

Where else is Stoffel van der Merwe at this moment?

Yesterday the Cape Times reported that the hon member for Helderkruin will also be present inter alia at this conference in London. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will have to reply to us today and tell us what he is going to do in this situation. Does that conference in London, which the hon member for Helderkruin will attend, meet with his approval, and what proposals is he going to bring to whatever conference is going to be held when further progress has to be made in moving away from discrimination?

Mr Chairman, I can honestly say that I find it virtually impossible to argue with the hon member for Sasolburg on a rational basis.

Of course not. He does not know what logic is!

Mr Chairman, I shall illustrate with one single example how irrationally he really argues. He asks the question: If one group does not rule over another, then who rules? I recommend that the hon member for Sasolburg should go and read the new Constitution. If he would do it to start off with, we could possibly talk to each other again later. However, at the moment he is just wasting our time.

He doesn’t even know where to look for it!

Mr Chairman, within the framework of any constitution which has to accommodate a diversity of peoples organised in a variety of bodies politic it is inevitable that some form of differentiation in decision-making will have to be accommodated. Listening again today to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member prof Olivier I became even more convinced that this motion was but yet another attempt by the PFP to keep apartheid alive. [Interjections.] By holding out the basis of the present Constitution of own and general affairs as institutionalised apartheid, Sir, they are doing exactly that. [Interjections.] I should, however, like to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his hon colleagues that they do not impress anybody. In fact, Sir, I suggest to them that they should go and read this morning’s edition of Business Day. Business Day, by the way, Sir, is the successor to the old Rand Daily Mail. In this morning’s edition of Business Day the following is said, inter alia, and I quote:

With what does this writer conclude, Sir? He says:

Mr Chairman, I should like to put it to those hon members that they can go on expounding their arguments to their hearts’ delight; they do not make any impression on the South African political scene. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked this afternoon that the system be scrapped, that the whole constitutional dispensation be scrapped. I want to tell him he should scrap the PFP. That party is not worth it! I want to tell the PFP that the National Party will continue to deal with the realities of South African politics.

I want to challenge the PFP, however, this afternoon. Perhaps the hon member Prof Olivier will explain to this House whether or not any provision exists within the PFP’s constitutional proposals for own affairs if their policy, as printed, should be applied in South Africa. I deliberately ask this question because I want to place on record what the PFP in fact provide in their policy. I want to quote from a booklet on the PFP’s policy:

Secondly it says that in the process of establishing the boundaries of these federal states a commission—which incidentally will be appointed by their National Convention:

1. (a) Community of interests of the population in the area;
2. (b) The desirability of a high degree of homogeneity;

However, most important is point 12 of the Kowie Marais Commission Report which says:

Note now what they say—

That is the PFP—

According to the PFP policy which I have just quoted they want strong, self-governing federal states with boundaries desirably with a high degree of homogeneity and the right to self-determination. Can the hon member Prof Olivier tell this House whether own affairs can form part of this self-determination of such homogeneous, strong, self-governing states? If so, I would like to say to them that that is just eyewash and it is apartheid in disguise because that is what they are telling us on this side of the House. They are telling us that we are just constitutionalizing apartheid in the new Constitution. If their accusation is true, they are also propagating a form of apartheid, a form of differentiation. [Interjections.]

The PFP has again today used cheap, liberal jargon in the mould of colonial paternalism, and that is the difficulty I have with that party. This was another attempt to keep the concept of apartheid alive by perpetuating the concept of own and general affairs as just another form of apartheid.

I say to the PFP and the hon member Prof Olivier that nobody, not even the PFP, can deny the multicultural composition and the diversity of South Africa’s peoples. The question is, however, how to accommodate the political aspirations of this variety in such a way that there is protection and security for minorities. This is the crux of the question. I will tell you what the realities are although I do not see the need for us to continue debating this because it is common knowledge. However, the hon members of the PFP continually come back to this.

The NP has accepted, firstly, that there is one South African nation made up of identifiable minorities. Secondly, we believe that the participation by this diversity up to the highest level in political decision-making in South Africa is necessary. These two principles are accepted by the NP. Now we may debate the definition by which we identify this variety of bodies politic. Presently it is done by the application of the Population Registration Act. The hon member Prof Olivier has again today said the Population Registration Act is required by the NP to determine the group membership of the individual. That is so. However, there is also the argument—and the hon member repeated it today—that this particular Act is an apartheid mechanism. All we on this side of the House say is that some meaningful arrangement is essential to tie the individual to the group within which he is expected to express his political views. If this can be achieved practically by any other means than the Population Registration Act then we invite hon members to come forward with positive alternatives. They can come and tell us but to date there has been no positive alternative which the Government can seriously consider.

If one’s motive is to grant political rights to individuals within a group situation in order to provide meaningful protection for minorities, one must define the individual’s relationship to that particular group. The PFP talks of voluntary association. I believe this is a recipe for chaos. We must have order in whatever political dispensation we have in mind for South Africa. [Interjections.] Surely the idea of creating a non-racial society out of a multicultural situation is a non-event, and I think hon members should start to realise that.

How does one undo a reality? That is a question that the hon PFP members should ask themselves. We cannot change the factual composition of South Africa but what we can do is to adapt the method of political accommodation. Apartheid was never intended as an end in itself; it was merely a means to an end.

What end? [Interjections.]

I would like to tell hon members that. The end is the following: Equal opportunity and equality as far as political, economic and social facilities are concerned. That is the end target that the NP has in mind. [Interjections.]

If we have this variety of bodies politic established in South Africa there is no way in which one can deny them the right of control over matters of intimate concern, inter alia, their own community life, their own residential areas, their own schools and their own culture. If there are other communities in South Africa which have no regard for these intimate affairs then at least let them respect the wishes of among others the White community in South Africa which would like to retain that position.

The hon member Prof Olivier then went on to say that there was no necessity to make statutory provision for political participation if one acknowledged the existence of groups in South Africa. I believe, however, that the hon member will accept that there are good examples worldwide where no provision is made for group participation and where serious difficulties are being experienced. I want to put forward three examples if the time allows me.

The first one is the position of Northern Ireland. What is the crux of the problem in Northern Ireland? There are two distinct religious groups—the Protestants who are in the majority and the Catholics who are in the minority. In the Republic of Ireland which is an independent state, the Catholics are in the majority. In Britain the Protestants are in the majority. What is therefore the whole argument in Northern Ireland? The minority Catholics in Northern Ireland want to join up with the majority Catholics in the Republic of Ireland whilst the majority Protestants in Northern Ireland want to retain their links with Britain. The reason for this is that people want to be part of the majority because there is no workable solution for that area.

My second example is Israel. I sat in the Knesset listening to a debate between Mr Menachim Begin and Mr Shimon Peres. They were having an argument about the incorporation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Mr Peres told Mr Begin that he could accept that for militarily strategic reasons Mr Begin would like to incorporate those areas as well as for historical, biblical reasons. Mr Peres went on to warn Mr Begin that if he wanted to take those areas he had to take the people; if he took the people he had to grant them political rights, and if he granted them political rights he had to bear in mind that the majority of them were Arabs.

Why did he say that? The reason is that there is no provision made in Israel for the identification of groups and the granting of political rights to groups. They have a universal franchise which is becoming a danger to them.

They have seven directly elected members in the Knesset!

Let us come nearer home to the northern boundaries of South Africa, namely Zimbabwe. There one has the Shona majority of Mr Mugabe and the Matabele minority of Mr Nkomo. Hon members know what the facts are. The Matabele regard themselves as superior to the Shona people. What happened, however, when a free election was held? The 15 Matabele seats went to the Matabele and the 65 Shona seats went to the Shona people. So what we have, in effect, is a universal franchise with one large majority dominating a minority—to such an extent that that minority now has to bow to that majority and accept a one-party state! Really, Sir, the PFP ought to start thinking. [Interjections.]

I should like to conclude by saying that, in order to provide South Africa with an orderly political dispensation, the NP is committed to control by every population group over matters of intimate concern—which is generally known as own affairs—and participation by all population groups in matters of common concern—which is generally known as general affairs. We thus reject the motion of the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Chairman, we have just witnessed the very interesting spectacle of a member of the NP actually speaking as if he were defending the position of the CP. [Interjections.] All the examples the hon member cited point to this.

He spoke of Israel and told us that the Opposition leader in the Knesset warned the Prime Minister of Israel not to incorporate certain areas because the groups from those areas would then dominate. [Interjections.] Does the hon member not realise that this debate concerns own affairs? Is he actually suggesting by his example that the implementation of a system of own affairs to represent the Arab interests in that part of the world would solve the problems of the Middle East? Is that what the hon member is suggesting? [Interjections.] He is talking rubbish, Sir! [Interjections.]

Let us consider the example he cited in regard to the Irish. I say once again, we are talking about own affairs. Is that hon member really suggesting that the creation of a system of own affairs—a system such as the one we have created in our Constitution—to serve Catholic and Protestant interests will make any difference to that part of the world? It would be absolutely crazy to suggest that! [Interjections.]

The hon member then advanced a further argument. He argued that apartheid was not an end in itself but a means to an end. He contended that the purpose of apartheid, that is, the end to which apartheid was actually leading, was the creation of equal opportunities and equal rights for everybody in this country. It was very nice indeed to hear that there is still somebody in this country who stands up for apartheid and who tells us that apartheid is going to deliver the goods and is going to create a wonderful situation in this country. Is that why the Government is trying to get away from apartheid? Is that why half the hon member’s colleagues tell us that apartheid is dead? Do they tell us that because apartheid will lead to equal opportunities? Sir, that hon member talks such rubbish that the louder he talks the more one should realise that he has not even thought about what he is going to tell one. [Interjections.]

*To revert to the subject, elements of human coexistence which are supposed to form the philosophic basis of own affairs are those which emerge spontaneously from people. Characteristics such as culture, tradition, language, lifestyle and so on are significant only when they are the product of people’s free choice, their opinions and judgements. It is ironic that, in spite of the spontaneous nature of the subject of so-called own affairs, the Constitution forces administrations for own affairs on people and in so doing any suggestion of free choice is scattered to the winds.

Legislation provides what comprises own affairs and whose own affairs specific matters are. In this respect it is interesting to read what section 14 of the Constitution of 1983 provides. Section 14(1) provides:

I should say that definition is more or less acceptable. Viewed in a broader sense it relates to own interests of a certain group in a cultural sphere. I shall quote further. Section 14(2) provides:

That is an absolute contradiction and it is actually here that legal provision is made on what own affairs really comprise. There is no acknowledgment of the meaning of subsection (1), which is that people may associate themselves naturally with certain cultural interests and that they may also become alienated from them in a natural way. There is no acknowledgment of that.

Read in conjunction with the First Schedule, section 14(2) creates an inflexible ruling which provides what will be own affairs whereas other similar inflexible legislation identifies groups to which own affairs should supposedly afford protection. No mechanism is created for the need which may exist among a group of people for sharing matters which are now branded as own affairs.

Any serious analysis of this orientation toward own affairs of the Constitution will indicate that it has hardly any protective effect in practice—certainly not in the cultural sphere. Has this narrow Governmental approach which forms the basis of thinking on own affairs ever done anything, for instance, to protect or promote the interests of the Afrikaans language and all it represents? No, it has not done so. It has had the opposite effect: It has created a constricting situation. It has created an oppressive situation and ultimately a position in which Afrikaans as a language—and much of what it represents—is isolated. It finds itself in the state of siege in which people sometimes designate it as “the language of the oppressed”. [Interjections.] That is the result of the narrow approach of the Government in this respect.

I wish to say that, if constitutional thought underlying own affairs had been incorporated in the Constitution in the twenties and thirties, not even the Afrikaner and the English-speaking would ever have found each other. That is the divisive effect of own affairs. I think, to be honest, one should admit that own affairs have nothing to do with cultural interests. They represent a racial concept which merely involves the exercise of power. It is only when one accepts this that one realises what own affairs are really about and especially when one sees how these matters are identified.

Let us examine the Population Registration Act which provides that, notwithstanding provisions to the contrary, someone is classified as a White if one’s natural parents are both classified as Whites. Further one is classified as a person of colour if one’s natural parents are both people of colour but one is not classified as a White if one of one’s natural parents is not a White. Where does the culture come in there? Where is the so-called exalted interest? Nothing but naked racism is written in there. [Interjections.]

In the identification of own affairs in Schedule 1 we find the same situation.

What about association and acceptance? [Interjections.]

It is interesting that the hon member speaks in a most defensive manner of association on the basis of acceptance. A Government official, namely the Minister, determines under racial classification whether one is acceptable or not. The hon member had better not try to tell me anything about racial classification. I work with it more than do any of my colleagues. A Government official or the Minister can determine whether a person should be reclassified on the basis of acceptance and association. The individual has no choice in this regard; the Population Registration Act does not permit him this. Similarly group areas draw that same distinction in applying own affairs as regards housing, water supply and so on.

In the final instance own affairs are political folly. Not only are they ludicrous in practice, they are political folly. In conclusion I wish to make the point that, if any Black, Coloured or Indian South African wished to share my political values, I would be insane to erect a political barrier between that man and me. In the final analysis that is what own affairs and this Constitution come down to. Consequently I have no reservation in supporting the hon member Prof Olivier’s motion.

Mr Chairman, permit me to say immediately that I believe this debate is important. I believe the theme of the debate is of equal import as it provides us with the opportunity of putting our respective standpoints to one another. Consequently I wish to thank hon members for their participation in the debate although I hold a different view.

I wish to open with a few general remarks in response to certain factual statements made which I think cannot withstand the test of accuracy. I wish to start with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech. He said apartheid had been institutionalised for the first time in the Constitution of the country in the 1983 Constitution. That remark does not reflect the facts. If the hon member were to examine the Constitution of 1909, the South Africa Act, he would find section 44 provided that the qualifications for a member of Parliament were that he should be of “European descent” …

[Inaudible.]

Wait a bit, I did not interrupt the hon Leader of the Official Opposition.

A member of Parliament had to be of European descent and have Union nationality. In terms of section 26 someone qualified as a senator inter alia on grounds of the fact that he was of “European descent”. Further it was provided in section 35(2), as amended in 1936, as follows:

I therefore wish to contend that the Constitution of 1909 and many other Acts predating the NP Government defined constitutional rights on the basis of race and people. I am not condoning it; I am merely recording the facts.

The professor will deal with that.

Wait a bit, the professor can deal with what he pleases.

The second point I wish to put to the hon leader is that in the Constitution of 1983 we did not define the final rights of all people to political participation. The 1983 Constitution is certainly not the only statutory provision defining people’s political rights and comprehensively describing the institutions in which they exercise them. Surely there is a series of Acts in this specific regard.

Let us at least attempt to attain unanimity on my third statement. We are debating on how the conflict in South Africa can be regulated; that is the essence of our debate and the underlying fundamental problem we are struggling with. For this reason each alternative we proffer has to be able to withstand one test. As the hon member for Durban Point said, it is of no avail for us to conduct a high-school debate in this House. Each model we wish to formulate should find practical application in the reality of society. One has to state this to oneself repeatedly.

I have always argued—and I am doing so again today—that apartheid, separate development or separate freedoms—call it what you will—was not and is not an ideology; it was an instrument through which we wished to regulate the conflict.

You are bluffing yourself.

I wish to react to the hon member for Sandton. He should give me a chance to debate as I do not want to fight him. A study carried out on world conflict indicated that there were 164 cases of armed conflict in the world over the period of 1958 to 1966. In only 15 of the cases it was between two or more countries; in all other cases it was within the borders of the same country and the causae belli were race, ethnicity, religion, language and traditions. In other words, we should address the substance of the problem in our argument at least.

I wish to make a second statement which is that I have not argued—and nobody has argued—that the 1983 Constitution represents finality as regards the constitutional development of South Africa. Not one of us sitting here accepts it as such, neither does any party sitting opposite me. All hon members on the other side of the House who participated in the debate wanted this Constitution replaced by or changed into something else. Let us concede this and not argue about it. The predecessor of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition said himself that he had participated in dialogue with me and the remainder of the committee involved in constitutional development on possibilities in the search for alternatives. After his interview with the State President and on the State President’s recommendation, he held a discussion with me on 2 December.

Did you tape that conversation?

Oh, that is a foolish question! [Interjections.] I requested the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s predecessor to give me the benefit of his proposals in writing so that they could be considered. I am still waiting for them. Instead of that, however, we are conducting an academic debate which totally ignores the realities we are discussing.

This afternoon there were basically two alternatives proffered as possible solutions for South Africa. I wish to respond to these briefly as it is my responsibility to do so. I think one of the greatest problems we shall experience in this country in the debate ahead is the question of terminology. We use terms without defining them closely and they have different meanings to different people which leads to confusion in discussion. I shall get to this in my reply to the hon member for Kuruman.

I defined mine very clearly.

I shall begin by referring to the alternative proposed by the hon member for Kuruman. He advocated an alternative of partition for a White people but I wish to ask him now whether the hon Leader of the Official Opposition belongs to the White people he mentioned.

The State President can answer that.

Forget about the State President for the time being; surely the hon member rejects him.

Yes, naturally we reject him. [Interjections.]

Well then, why do hon members quote him?

Because we should like to get rid of him.

I wish to complete the point by asking whether the hon member for Hillbrow belongs to the people defined by the hon member for Kuruman. I am not at present referring to what the State President says. I am replying to the hon member for Kuruman; not to the State President. [Interjections.]

Let us take it further. The hon member for Kuruman said—hon members should listen to his motion carefully—that partition was the only way to self-determination for this people and other peoples which means that he absolutises partition. He sees it as the only element in a solution to achieve self-determination. If this is a reasonable alternative, it should be capable of being tested solely against and brought into account with the realities of our country as it has implications. The hon member’s standpoint has a specific implication which is that somewhere in South Africa there is a fatherland where Whites form the majority. If that is not the implication, it means a majority has to be dominated by a White minority—there is no other alternative.

What are the facts? We must record them for the last time in this debate. The White population of the Transvaal, under which I include the self-governing states, comprised 28,2% of the total population of that province in 1980—a minority as against the rest. In the Cape Province it was 24,8%—similarly a minority. The White population of the Orange Free State was 16,8%—also a minority—and that of Natal 20,9%—again a minority.

There are also more Black people than White people on my farm. [Interjections.]

The hon member is proving my point precisely! I wish to take it further and say there is not one farm known to the hon member on which there are not more people of colour than Whites. [Interjections.]

Yes, but I am the master on my farm. [Interjections.]

Yes, and that is most interesting. The hon member is the master on his farm. What is the implication of the hon member’s standpoint? When the hon member for Mossel Bay accused the hon member for Kuruman of preaching domination, he denied it. Nevertheless he preaches blatant domination in saying the fatherland he desires for the Whites can resemble his farm where he is the master. [Interjections.] Let us take it further.

That is an Aunt Sally.

If that is so, the hon member should be so good as to have the hon member for Kuruman’s head examined.

Yes, and you too.

I shall examine him. I went to the assistance of the hon member for Kuruman and I also analysed statistical details for the development regions. The results are precisely the same. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir, my time is too limited.

In the entire country there are six magisterial districts with a White majority.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Mr Speaker gave a ruling on the entire question of “hok toe”. Mr Speaker warned hon members very seriously. Now the hon member for Vryheid has said with gestures: “Gaan … hiernatoe.” [Interjections.] Mr Speaker spoke so seriously on this that I suggest you request the hon member to withdraw from the House.

Order! I do not think that was a point of order. I merely wish to state that it is absolutely unnecessary to make signs at one another in this House. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, let us put the facts and conclude this. According to all statistics, Whites would have to fall under the authority of one coloured group or another in every province or development region if numbers were to determine who was to rule a specific area. To combat this problem, large-scale relocation of Whites as well as of all the other groups would be necessary to make a province or region in which Whites formed a preponderant majority. I ask the hon member in all seriousness: Where is that province and where is that region?

Prior to 1978 and before you chose the path of integration it was just the same.

Yes, it was and that taught us that facts damn partition as the absolute answer. [Interjections.] Yes, that is so. That is why partition forms an element of the answer but it does not represent its entirety.

The hon member Prof Olivier’s motion deals basically with a constitutional alternative for South Africa. The problem lying at the core of this country is certainly how we may give substance to the democratic ideal in South Africa in the light of the realities of the composition of its population, the reality of its population distribution—I have referred to that—and also in the light of the reality of the absence of a set of values acceptable to the majority of the population. In addition there is the reality of the various levels of development and the reality of the modern and the traditional in juxtaposition to each other in our country. Actually we are a microcosm of a world in which we could not solve the problem of a country like ours along the lines of democratic models we know.

[Inaudible.]

That may be so but I am always prepared to tell the hon member for Houghton that, however impossible it may be, I shall strain every fibre to bring it about if it is feasible. [Interjections.]

In our reflection on constitutional formulas and discussions on alternatives, I wish to contend that we shall have to do it on the basis of existing realities. Let us debate on this instead and stop trying to score political points off one another.

I now wish to associate myself with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. Not one of us can change the past except by remembering it and learning lessons arising from it. [Interjections.] In addition we should learn the lessons in such a way as to avoid past mistakes.

I do not claim that the party to which I belong has governed perfectly over the years. Nevertheless I wish to say that, under the given circumstances of the day, my party judged what was best in existing circumstances. Consequently I do not apologise for taking a stand in this year of our Lord 1986 according to the demands of today. I think it would be a flaw if this party were incapable of formulating a standpoint of principle in step with 1986 and not 1910. [Interjections.]

Surely the demands we encounter are different; the circumstances we encounter are different. Let us examine the following point in all fairness: If we did not have a heterogeneous population and if the diversity which I mentioned were not the dominant factor, we would not be debating alternatives with one another today. We would not be seeking models to suit the configuration of South Africa; we could merely have adopted a model from those known in writings.

Except for the reality of diversity, there is a further reality that politics basically involve one matter—power. That is part of the reality. There is an economic dimension attached to this, which is the power to collect and distribute money; more specifically the power to collect one person’s money and distribute it to the next.

It is also a reality that in a society like ours it involves the basic fact that groups as groups may compete for that power. In saying that, I am not condoning it; I do not approve of it. I should be a naive fool, however, if I were not to take it into account in my political argument on acceptable, useful alternatives. [Interjections.] In all fairness, is that not true? Surely South Africa is a First World and a Third World country. Its economic systems do not have a common denominator. Democratic systems do not share common values. If this were not taken into account, surely we would be unable to find solutions. Once again I concede the point: Not only do these differences exist among groups but they also exist within groups. This makes the problem even more complex—even more difficult. [Interjections.] I wish to contend that, if we do not take these realities into account, we shall not find acceptable solutions.

I wish to make a general statement today. It is a figment of the imagination that South Africa could succeed in establishing a peoples’ democracy on the basis of one-man-one-vote for the same institution within the same state. We do not want to be told that that type of democracy is an invention of the twentieth century and that it existed—with one exception to my knowledge—only in the industrial countries of the world when their economic capabilities far exceeded those of South Africa. If we do not take that limitation into account, we arrive at the theoretical model which, when applied in similar circumstances, destroys everything including the economic capability of those countries.

A further reality, if the hon member agrees with me—is that the danger of group domination exists here. The question of the protection of minorities is therefore essential and fundamental to our debate. Let us put the hon member Prof Olivier’s arguments to the test. I hope the hon member will not regard this in a personal light.

We are being presented with a non-racial, geographic federation. I find a problem in such a federation, however, as society is not non-racial. I do not condone racism but I should not discount such a danger.

Let us see whether we may find an alternative answer for what we are propagating by means of a non-racial geographic federation. “Federation” implies geographic division. I concede immediately that in world constitutional literature the concept of a federation arose in an attempt to meet the question of heterogeneousness and multiplicity. Surely that is true. Nevertheless, if one applies it to South African circumstances without adjustment, do hon members know what will happen? Then there will not be a geographically federated state which does not reflect problems existing at national level. I mentioned facts and figures to the hon member a few moments ago. In other words it comes down to our compounding the national problem—and it is a difficult one in truth—from which we wish to escape by means of a federation by the number of states within that federation. Surely we cannot then force a multiracial society into the straitjacket of what we dub a non-racial system. The constitution of a country should certainly reflect and serve its society. I wish to tell the hon member Prof Olivier that no system—a federation, a unitary system or whatever—can change the reality of group character. The question is whether we can develop and maintain a democracy in South Africa. That question should receive not only our theoretical but practical attention daily.

Mr Chairman, I wish to express my thanks for the quality of debating exhibited and the spirit in which it was conducted in general. I obviously wish to express my exceptional appreciation to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Green Point but I also thank other hon members who participated in the debate.

In conclusion I have a few comments. The hon the Minister and the hon member for Mossel Bay spoke of realities. What eludes me is that the reality has not yet penetrated that the vast majority of the people of this country rejects the concept of own affairs. I challenge the hon the Minister to constitute a standing committee.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it is not a fact that 10 million Black people find themselves in a system of self-determination—independent and self-governing?

Thank you very much, but I contend that even the sober fact that the concept of own affairs is the basis of the Constitution is rejected by the majority of the people of South Africa. That is as much of a reality as any reality the hon the Minister can mention. Neither can I understand our unwillingness to accept and recognise that reality. Like the CP members with their chimera of partition, we cling to our illusion that this pattern or Constitution we have created is acceptable to the majority of the people in South Africa. That is as much of an illusion and, as long as we do not realise this, we shall not solve the problems of our country. [Interjections.] It is as simple as that.

†As far as the hon member for Durban Point is concerned, let me just say in all honesty to him that I really think that he has no understanding of what the concept of consociation means. I should like to suggest to him, in regard to the question of compulsory group membership, that he should again make a study of that report of the HSRC.

*As regards the hon member for Turffontein, I think the hon member for Green Point dealt with him.

I wish to make one further comment. The hon member for Mossel Bay said the White was a bearer of values and lifestyles and consequently there were own affairs. The logic of this eludes me because the lifestyle of Whites is based on civilised Western norms but surely the hon member is not trying to tell me that not one of the other racial groups shares those values. [Interjections.] Those are the implications of what the hon member for Mossel Bay said. He said the Whites were there and for that reason were entitled to act and participate as a group and to move the other groups out. If the system of values is the criterion, the hon member for Mossel Bay cannot condone the concept of own affairs in this Constitution as he will then have to say all who share those values have to be enabled to participate jointly in the political process.

I merely wish to say this was not an academic debate and I want to emphasise the sober fact that this tricameral system is causing misery in our country. I wish to say this in consequence of the hon the Minister’s remark to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. That previous Constitution …

When apartheid still existed.

Yes, that Constitution was not unblemished. In terms of that Constitution any policy could be pursued without abrogating or nullifying the Constitution. We have seen how “Black representation” has been changed and how “Coloured representation” has been abolished within the framework of that Constitution.

Yes.

If apartheid is to be abolished, this Constitution should be abrogated. That is the tragedy of the situation. If we wish to remove apartheid from South Africa, this Constitution must be destroyed.

I thought you said we should remove only “own affairs”. Surely that does not mean the abrogation of the Constitution.

I wish to repeat that, if we wish to rid ourselves of apartheid, this Constitution as such should be destroyed. That is the tragedy for South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr Chairman, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.