Mr. Speaker, I move—

For the fourth time in five years we have today come to a day on which the Government of the Republic of South Africa is making one of its nations independent, a day on which this nation is receiving what many larger nations, as well as many smaller nations throughout the world, have aspired to and fought for over the centuries: its freedom—Uhuru, in Africa. This freedom is coming to pass without bloodshed and with the acclamation of both the giver and the receiver. This is indeed a day of fulfilment, a day to be proud of and grateful for, a day which also testifies to the rich constitutional dynamism of the South African Government, because the emancipation of this fourth nation and the acquisition of equal status, contributes to the bringing about of a richly promising confederation of the independent family States of South Africa. This nation is the Ciskei nation—-a proud nation.

†As the respected leader of the Ciskei nation, the Hon. Dr. L. L. Sebe puts in on 14 August 1981—

Ciskei is the sixth largest Black national group south of the Limpopo River. According to history the Black peoples gradually moved down the east coast of Africa in the 17th century with the Xhosa in front—the pioneers—and that shipwrecked persons observed a small group of the Xhosa people near the Buffalo River as far back as 1636.

The settlement of Gwali, Ntinde and Gqunukhwebe tribes in Ciskei in 1702 was the first significant migration of the Xhosa to Ciskei. They were followed 30 years later by the Danga and Mbalu tribes.

In the first half of the 18th century, Gcaleka attempted to take over the position of his father Phalo, who was paramount chief of the Xhosa. Gcaleka was opposed by his younger brother Rarabe. Although Rarabe emerged a victor from the struggle, he nevertheless decided to settle in the Ciskei where he was later followed by his father. The main Xhosa tribe thus become decidedly divided.

In 1770 White farmers travelling in an easterly direction came into contact with the Xhosa tribes in the vicinity of the Fish River. Both groups were stock-farmers and clashes over grazing were inevitable. The Cape Government entered into negotiations with the Xhosa in 1778 which lead to the determination of the Fish River as the boundary between the groups in 1780. The agreement was not adhered to and a century of clashes was to follow in which nine wars were waged. Interchange of land took place and other persons were allowed to settle amongst the Rarabe. Hostilities continued in the meantime and in 1846-’47, which marked the end of the seventh frontier war—the War of the Axe—the former neutral territory between the Fish and Keiskamma Rivers was annexed to the Cape Colony under Britain and the territory between the Keiskamma and Kei Rivers was proclaimed British Kaffraria. The Xhosa of the Ciskei had in fact lost all their land but their power was not to be broken. Sir George Grey took command of the British authority in the Cape in 1854. He followed a policy of assimilation which resulted in the disintegration of the tribal life of the Xhosa.

The boundaries of the Cape Colony were extended to the Kei River in 1866 with the annexation of British Kaffraria. After the ninth frontier war, 1877-’78, in which Sandile the Rarabe paramount chief was killed, his tribal land was distributed amongst White farmers and it appeared that the British policy to make the Xhosa British subjects had succeeded. The will to survive of this brave nation had, however, not been taken into consideration. Their members increased after the wars and an interest in their own constitutional development flickered up once again.

Local councils were established for each of the eight Ciskeian districts in terms of the Native Affairs Act, 1920 (Act No. 23 of 1920), and these councils, together with the Glen Grey District Council, were united to form the Ciskeian General Council in 1934. I should point out that this did not happen under an NP Government, but under another Government.

The further constitutional development was made possible by the adoption of the Black Authorities Act, 1951 (Act 68 of 1951), with the view to provide for Black forms of government based on traditional institutions. Tribal and community authorities were established for most of the tribes in the Ciskei between 1957 and 1959 in terms of the aforementioned legislation. The tribal system of the Ciskeians was therefore officially recognized approximately a century after attempts by Sir George Grey to persuade them to abandon the system. During 1961 the Ciskeian Territorial Authority was established in substitution of the Ciskeian General Council.

The territorial authority was raised to the status of legislative assembly in June 1971 in terms of the National States Constitution Act, 1971 (Act 21 of 1971). In August 1972 Ciskei was declared a self-governing territory with its own flag and national anthem and Xhosa as official language in addition to Afrikaans and English.

*The legislation before this House today, transfers the sovereignty of the Republic over the area of the future independent Ciskei to the Government of Ciskei as a fully sovereign and independent State. In this case as well history ran its normal course to its logical conclusion, over a period of more than two centuries. Whoever disregards this, is disregarding more important things than merely adopting a political standpoint in this country would seem to suggest. In this way the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Ciskeian voters and nation, who exercised their right to choose in a democratic way in the referendum of 4 December 1980, are being fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from a note delivered to the hon. the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa by the hon. Chief Minister, Dr. Sebe, on 20 February 1981. The note reads—

It is therefore not only the fulfilment of a wish; it is also the rising again of the Ciskeian nation precisely one century after what they consider to be the date on which this proud nation lost its freedom, and it is therefore of even greater significance to them.

The boundaries of the Ciskei, as defined in the Schedule to this Bill, could possibly lead to individual members of the nation, voters, members of the Legislative Assembly and/or even Cabinet members who live in rural areas, temporarily finding themselves outside the territorial limits of the Ciskei. Their position will not be affected by this and they will continue to exercise their vested rights as such voters and members in the future Ciskei.

It is appropriate to say a few words about the Ciskei as such. The de facto population of the Ciskei is 635 631, of whom 99,7% belong to the Xhosa ethnic group.

In the economic sphere the gross domestic product of the Ciskei increased on average by 18,8% per annum between 1970 and 1977. In real terms this means an average annual growth rate of 7,7%. This sustained high growth rate is a remarkable achievement for a developing country like the Ciskei.

Between 1970 and 1977 the gross national product of the Ciskei increased by an average of 19,9% per annum. In real terms this growth rate amounted to 8,8%. The gross national income per capita, which totalled R303 in 1977, increased by approximately the same high rate. Rapid progress is also taking place in the industrial field. There are approximately 36 factories in the Ciskei with an investment capital of close on R42 million and employment opportunities for 4 000 people. Investors are still showing an interest, and in this sphere the future really seems promising.

By 1978 the total number of trading and business licences issued in the Ciskei amounted to 774, as against only 432 in 1973. This rapid increase in the number of trading licences points to a solid expansion of the commercial sector in the Ciskei and to a nation that wants to make progress and will make progress.

The declaring of the East London-Berlin-King William’s Town-Dimbaza industrial area as a decentralized growth point with co-prosperity projects across territorial dividing lines also holds great possibilities for the Ciskei and its people.

Rainfall varies from less than 500 mm along the Fish River to over 2 000 mm in the Amatola mountains, and drops to 500 mm on the high-lying plains of northern Ciskei.

At present stock farming is the backbone of agriculture in the Ciskei, but considering the high rainfall in the Amatola mountains and the consequent run-off, large areas of the Ciskei could be placed under irrigation, which would lead to a great increase in agricultural production. At present approximately 1 787 ha of lands are under irrigation, while 33 485 ha of dry-land are cultivated. There are also great possibilities for afforestation.

In comparison with 10 small African States, the population density of Ciskei is lower than six of those Africa States and its gross national income in 1977 was higher than that of five of those States. The real growth rate in the gross national economy per capita for the period 1970-’77 was higher than the corresponding growth rate of nine of the 10 Africa States, who have full independence and are recognized by the UN. It is also important to know that African countries on an average receive R43 per capita development aid as against R116 in the case of the Ciskei, which is two to three times as much. Rapid progress has also been made in the field of education in the Ciskei. The number of schools increased from 494 in 1976 to 607 in 1980. The pupil-teacher ratio is constantly improving. In 1976 the ratio was 47, compared with 42 in 1980. Technical education, which is so essential for any developing country, is also receiving special attention. The recent completion of a centre in Alice confirms this.

The road to independence for the Ciskei followed a unique course. First a commission of inquiry, the Quail Commission, was appointed to investigate the possibility of independence and after it had reported, a referendum was held to test the will of the people. The people took part in the referendum in particularly impressive numbers with a percentage poll of about 60%. Of all the voters who voted, 98,5% voted in favour of independence. You will therefore note, Sir, how cautious they were, for only after they had received this powerful mandate from the people, did the Government of the Ciskei officially and specifically begin to negotiate with the South African Government on independence. Naturally there were constant discussions between us—and these took place in the very best and most cordial atmosphere—before, during and after the Quail Commission inquiry. The exceptional nature of their road to independence and their careful behaviour did not end there. The Ciskeian Government singled out particular matters on which they wanted to negotiate beforehand. Subsequently these matters became commonly known as the “package deal” and included very important matters, such as finance. In this regard they received a written minimum undertaking from the RSA, and the financial arrangements will be incorporated in legislation during the present session. In addition there were also negotiations on land and the two Governments reached an agreement on the boundaries, as specified in this Bill. Great progress was also made concerning the land to be incorporated in the Ciskei after independence and we are only waiting for the 1981 consolidation proposals of the Van der Walt Commission, which are in their final phase and will in any case be completed prior to 4 December 1981 when the Ciskei becomes independent, and these proposals will be included in an agreement with the Ciskei, and will then be submitted to Parliament for approval.

Another very important matter involved in the “package deal” was the retention of the content which South African citizenship has for Ciskeian citizens, and in this regard it was agreed at a bilateral convention between the two Governments that the following matters would be retained for citizens of both countries on a reciprocal basis between the two countries—

1. 1. The right of preference in respect of employment opportunities in the RSA over aliens was retained;
2. 2. certain residential rights;
3. 3. certain uniform and simplified procedures concerning movement across the future international frontiers;
4. 4. use of community facilities;
5. 5. social benefits; and
6. 6. any other right or privilege authorized by law or custom, as further agreed to on a reciprocal basis between the two countries.

Consequently, it is a pleasure for me to be able to announce what this convention entails.

†CONVENTION OR TREATY AS APPROVED BY THE RAATH COMMITTEE AND THE CABINETS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND OF CISKEI AN INDEPENDENCE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF CISKEI

Whereas Ciskei specifically desires independence within a confederation of States; and

Whereas Ciskei desires that its citizens, after independence, should continue to enjoy, on a reciprocal basis, rights and privileges that they presently enjoy in South Africa; and

Whereas Ciskei also specifically desires that its citizens, after independence, should continue to enjoy, on a reciprocal basis, rights and privileges relating to South African nationality; and

Whereas, after independence of Ciskei, that State will have its own nationals and citizens; and

Whereas the South African and Ciskeian Governments desire that all future participants in a confederation of States should co-operate on an equal basis; and

Whereas the said Governments declare that no arrangements should detract from or undermine the sovereignty and independence of future participants in a confederation of States; and

Whereas the South African Government is willing and prepared to entertain Ciskei’s aspirations as set out above;

Now, therefore, the South African and Ciskeian Governments agree as follows—

1. 1. That a bi-lateral agreement or convention be concluded between the Ciskeian and South African Governments in terms of which citizens of a future independent Ciskei will, on the basis of reciprocity, retain the following rights and privileges, viz. (a) and (b) hereunder, which arise out of their South African nationality and the other rights and privileges which they would have continued to enjoy but for independence, which amongst others are those mentioned under (c); it being understood that independence will necessitate certain new procedures and adaptations of existing procedures;
2. (a) In the event of the nationals of one party, as a result of circumstances beyond the control of such a party, finding it impossible to travel to certain other States on the travel documents issued by that party, the other party shall, in consultation with the first-mentioned party, issue its travel documents to such nationals of such other party as if they were nationals of the party issuing the travel documents, provided that such travel documents are accepted travel documents in such other States. Should it appear necessary to indicate the nationals of one party as nationals of the other party in the travel documents of the other party, it will be done;
3. (b) in the event that either party is not in a position to protect its nationals when they travel abroad, the other party shall accord such protection to such nationals, provided it is in a position to do so; and
4. (c) (i) preferential job opportunities, e.g. in the sense that Ciskeians will not be regarded or treated as aliens for purposes of employment;
5. (ii) residential rights;
6. (iii) uniform and uncomplicated procedures regarding movement across future international boundaries;
7. (iv) use of community facilities;
8. (v) social benefits; and
9. (vi) any other rights and privileges sanctioned by law or usage, as further agreed upon.
10. 2. The convention or agreement shall make provision for the necessary means of arbitration.
11. 3. The terms of the agreement must be incorporated in the national laws of the parties.
12. 4. It is agreed that the provisions of the proposed convention could be reflected or re-enacted in the convention which may become the constituent instrument or charter of the envisaged confederation of Southern African States.
13. 5. The convention shall provide for a formal consultative body which shall, on the basis of concensus, make recommendations to the two Governments.
14. 6. The abovementioned are merely examples, and it is agreed that other matters shall also be included on a mutually acceptable basis.

The most important advantage of this proposal stems from the fact that it is broadly based on the principles previously formulated and that the contracting parties will acquire certain rights and incur certain obligations vis à vis each other, which rights and obligations will derive from a legal agreement which is based on international law.

It is the standpoint of the two Governments that the agreement affords an opportunity to comply with the aspirations of the parties as set out herein and that it will greatly contribute towards the creation of a prosperous and peaceful Southern African region.

*The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has informed the Government that the TBV countries have been endeavouring to achieve the same privileges for their citizens for some time, and it therefore follows that the same privileges as those contained in this agreement are at the disposal of their citizens.

As a part of the “package deal” there were also negotiations on certain resettlement matters. The Wentzel Committee then investigated this matter and by agreement the proposals are being implemented as funds become available.

I said that the unique path to independence did not end with the referendum and I indicated why I said this. The Ciskeian Government continued throughout its negotiations to retain the nation’s sympathy and at repeated national assemblies at Ntaba KaNdoda the Ciskeian people were kept informed of the progress being made with the negotiations and time and again the agreement of the nation was obtained for the actions of its Government.

To date 70 agreements have already been approved by the joint working committee on independence, and of this number 33 agreements have already been approved by the joint Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. the Prime Minister. In addition, work is still in progress on approximately 12 agreements. One of the agreements being considered concerns the establishment of a future confederation.

It is therefore clear that the road to independence followed by the Ciskei, is a unique one, and it is therefore illogical to seek all these facts in this status Bill, because there is the knowledge that a whole series of agreements are being entered into in the course of their gaining their independence, by means of which many of these matters are being arranged, as I have indicated.

I welcome in anticipation this new State, which will come into existence in terms of this Bill, and I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to be the first to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Ciskeian people on their coming independence. The Government of the Republic of South Africa has the fervent desire to co-operate with the Ciskei in peace and goodwill to the benefit of all. In the words of the celebrated Ciskeian national poet, Loreate Mqhayi, I say to the Ciskeian people—

On behalf of the people of the RSA I wish the Ciskeian people God’s richest blessings for prosperity and happiness within the family States of South Africa.

May I live to see the States in the present South Africa issue a statement more or less to this effect—

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

This is a strong form of opposition and is in line with the opposition expressed by this side of the House to the First Reading of the Bill.

The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that the road to independence for Ciskei was unique. This may be so, but the question is whether the independence which Ciskei is to receive is going to be a unique independence compared with the other territories that have asked for independence. When we look at the Bill itself, the reason for my opposition in this case is contained in clauses 1 and 6. Clause 1(1) provides—

And these are the important words—

Clause 6(1) reads as follows—

And these are the important words—

These are the two aspects of the attainment of independence by Ciskei which have given rise to enormous problems and to dissatisfaction. There was a reaction to the First Reading which came after the Bill had been introduced in this House and I had adopted a standpoint which called forth a heated response from the hon. the Minister. The words attributed to me were the following, according to a report in The Argus of 16 September—

This may have caused confusion, and I think there was perhaps some confusion in the mind of the hon. the Minister about what exactly I had meant here. There was no implication on my part that the Government or the hon. the Minister had betrayed the people of Ciskei. If one reads that statement carefully, one will see that what I am saying is that given the expectations that had been aroused, given the processes that had preceded the announcement by Ciskei that they wanted their independence, confusion had arisen.

Who caused that confusion?

I should like to demonstrate who caused that confusion, and if the hon. member would listen to me, he will find out. I have some time, and if only he would be patient, he will find out. He can also rise and differ with me, and then I shall talk to him again.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that this Bill is a frustration of the promises and expectations that were made and created around the possible taking of independence by Ciskei. I want to motivate this statement. Unfortunately, Sir, the only way I can motivate it is to go back to the events that took place beforehand and actually to quote the formal statements on the part of the people involved in this very process. This will mean that I shall have to make these quotations for the purposes of having them on record.

In the first instance there was Chief Minister Sebe himself who appointed the Quail Commission. The Quail Commission consisted of internationally reputable and recognized academics and experts and that commission had a very clear mandate. It had to investigate what the benefits would be for Ciskei should it take independence. The commission did this very thoroughly. In fact, the hon. the Minister said during the debate on the introduction of this Bill that their party was the only party that had given evidence before the Quail Commission. That is not true. We went along to give evidence before the Quail Commission as well and we tried to explain to the commission why we thought there were difficulties involved. In any case, the Quail Commission duly published its report which was received by Mr. Sebe himself. As far as independence was concerned—obviously I do not have the time to deal with the whole of the Quail Commission’s report because hon. members who have read it will know that it is a very lengthy document—the following was recommended by the Quail Commission, and I quote from the commission itself—

1. (a) That majorities of Ciskeians inside and outside the Ciskei vote in favour of independence in a carefully supervised election on this issue;
2. (b) that citizenship on satisfactory terms is negotiated which gives non-resident Ciskeians the choice of either Ciskeian or South African status of both, and that the South African Government relinquishes its right to expel, deport or otherwise remove from the common area Ciskeians who have chosen South African status;
3. (c) that the rights of Ciskeians to seek work and remain employed in South Africa are explicitly preserved; and
4. (d) that South Africa agrees to provide equitable financial support.

Those were the four conditions laid down by the Quail Commission. The Quail Commission itself said—

The Quail Commission made this quite clear itself. In reacting to the Quail Commission’s report Chief Minister Sebe was quite blunt and straightforward himself. In fact, in a statement made at a press conference on 13 February 1980, after having received the report of the Quail Commission, he said the following—

He then went on to say—

That was Chief Minister Sebe’s own reaction to the recommendations of his own commission of inquiry. It was after that that the Chief Minister and the members of the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly called together a meeting of the nation, as they referred to it, at Ntaba KaNdoda. There they thrashed out what the package deal would have to be. That package deal was sent to the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development and the South African Government on 22 February last year and they had it until Mr. Sebe came and held a report-back meeting, not at Ntaba KaNdoda, but at Zwelitsha on 5 October last year. There he had to report progress on what had happened as far as the package deal was concerned.

On 27 May last year, in the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly the Quail Report was debated and the package deal was formulated. The proceedings and debate of the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly on the Quail Commission’s report is available to hon. members if they want to read it.

Here I must beg the patience of the House because I want to spell out exactly what this package deal said. This package deal, I want to reiterate, is not something that came from the Quail Commission, but it is an attempt of the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly to marry the recommendations of the Quail Commission to the aspirations and the needs of the people of Ciskei.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he, in terms of the newspaper report under the caption “People of Ciskei Betrayed”, is trying to make out a case that the Chief Minister and the Government of Ciskei betrayed the Ciskei nation?

No. I am saying …

Then what are you saying?

I wish the hon. the Minister would just be patient. What I am saying is that certain developments took place and in terms of those developments which occurred as far as the Quail Commission’s report, the first meeting at Ntaba KaNdoda, the discussion of the Quail Commission’s report in the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly and the drafting of the package deal were concerned, it would be extraordinarily difficult to persuade any rational human being that the aspirations and the attitudes and feelings which have been generated in Ciskei concerning independence are not being betrayed by this Bill. I am not saying the hon. the Minister or any particular individual is doing it.

Who is doing it then?

I am saying the events surrounding the whole taking of independence point to that, but I want to illustrate this. Let us look at the package deal. [Interjections.]

Order!

According to Mr. Sebe, what the Ciskei seeks in the package deal—this is Mr. Sebe speaking; it is not I speaking—is the following—

That is not I saying that; it is Mr. Sebe saying that—

Then they went ahead to formulate in terms of these two points of departure the package deal. And what does the package deal state?

[Interjections.] I am just giving the package deal. I shall discuss it later on—

This is important—

And this is another important point—

1. (d) The South African Government will undertake to solve the resettlement problems of Ntaba Themba, Zwelindinja, NdVada, Pottsdam, Silver City, Keiskammahoek and Oxton Manor with the provision of proper infrastructures, services, schooling and clinics. This is not the problem of the Ciskeian Government; this is the problem of the South African Government.
2. (e) The Republic of South Africa guarantees the Ciskei membership of the Rand Monetary Area in the South African Customs Union with the right to participate in the negotiations on adjustments of the formula upon which its benefits are calculated from time to time; and
3. (f) The negotiation of a formula for the provision of development aid on an indefinite basis.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the package deal. That package deal was drawn up by the Ciskei Legislative Assembly itself. That package deal was put at a number of meetings to the people, the nation of Ciskei. That package deal was debated in the Ciskei Legislative Assembly. I have the record of those debates. I will just mention one or two points from the speeches of members of the Ciskei Legislative Assembly on this package deal. The first speech I refer to is a speech of Dr. Sebe himself. He says on page 3 of the Record of Debates in the Ciskei Legislative Assembly on 27 May 1980—

Mr. Speaker, the “current blueprint” is in no way different from this piece of legislation we are considering here today. It is the same blueprint followed by Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda. Dr. Sebe says in his own Legislative Assembly—

Then he goes back to that meeting at Ntaba KaNdoda and he says the following, and these are very, very powerful words—

He ends his reply to the debate by saying, and this appears in bold type as he shouted it out—

That is Dr. Sebe speaking, not I. Then Mrs. Matiyasi, who I think at one stage was also Minister of Education in the Ciskei Legislative Assembly, says—

That is what these people themselves have said, not the official Opposition, not we who have taken this position on independence on a number of occasions before. These were the people themselves who argued like this. The meeting at Zwelitsha was one of those occasions at which Mr. Sebe had to report on the progress since May, on how far the Ciskei Government had got with the South African Government in trying to negotiate independence on the basis of the package deal. I have his complete reported speech. I am not going to read it to hon. members, but it is available. In this speech he maed it quite clear that the referendum that was going to be held was part and parcel of the package deal that would be put to people. The referendum was not some event completely independent of what had gone beforehand. Aspirations, expectations, feelings had been created particularly in Ciskei that somehow this independence would be different, would be, to use the hon. the Minister’s words, unique because it was different in terms of the Quail Commission recommendations and the package deal. Dr. Sebe had to come and report on the progress he had made as far as the package deal was concerned. He says—

On the land issue he says that it was agreed with the South African Government that all the 1975 land would be handed over by 31 December 1982, but that the other land, the land from the Stormberge to the Indian Ocean and from the Great Fish to the Great Kei, was still being negotiated. The recommendations on that had been put to the consolidation commission headed by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. On that negotiations were continuing. That is the state we are in at the moment. In other words, we are nowhere near what was envisaged in the package deal.

What is the position as regards the question of the confederation? The hon. the Minister has placed a great deal of significance on the idea of a confederation. However, Dr. Sebe at the report back meeting at Zwelitsha said the following—

He went on to say—

There is something I do not understand in this regard. The hon. the Prime Minister went to great lengths to explain to the hon. leader of the NRP what the difference was between a confederation and a federation. The hon. the Prime Minister made the point that a confederation simply “refers to the voluntary arrangements between autonomous States and the agreements entered upon by them in that relationship and that no binding decision could be taken by any member State over any other member State”. In other words, the whole nature of a confederation is that of a convention between two or more consenting countries, and whenever any particular country is not happy about it, it can withdraw from that confederation. I am therefore not denying the validity of the conventions agreed upon by the hon. the Minister. I am not denying that they were entered into in good faith, but they are not of a character that makes them legally binding. They cannot be enforced by a court of law in any one of the member States of the confederation, simply because that would fly in the face of the logic of what a confederation is all about.

That is agreed upon as between Parliament and Parliament.

I am not saying it is bad.

*The hon. the Minister’s good intentions are not being questioned, but he will not be the Minister of Co-operation and Development for ever, nor will he be in the Government for ever. Things are going to change, and once they start changing, we shall be in trouble. [Interjections.] Well, hon. members heard what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say about what was going to happen and what Government could succeed them. What would that Government do with such a confederal agreement?

What is the position when it comes to citizenship?

†What do we find was said about citizenship at that report-back meeting? On that we find total vagueness. There is no clarity on that. When Dr. Sebe addressed his own people on 5 October, all he said was—

There one has it. On those key issues at the last report-back meeting before the referendum everything was in the air, despite the clarity and the no-nonsense approach of the package deal. That is why I say that the referendum can in no way be seen as an unconditional support for independence. To present it as such, would be absolute nonsense. It cannot be seen as the same kind of support for the same kind of independence taken by Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana. On this I have no less an authority than Dr. Sebe himself. On 11 February 1980 at a dinner where the report of the Quail Commission was presented to the Government he said—

So he does not want the same one, otherwise he would not have appointed the commission. Then on the same occasion he went on to say, and this is important—

He said he had to hold a referendum. He went on—

There you have it, Sir. That referendum cannot be seen independently of the preceding negotiations and the so-called package deal which had been drawn up.

Are you saying…

Sir, the hon. the Minister has unlimited time when he replies to the debate.

Your arrogance is unbelievable.

Sir, I have not even expressed an opinion so far. I have been expressing the opinion of the Quail Commission and of the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly.

You think you know better than Sebe and his Government.

I am not saying that. I am simply quoting Dr. Sebe’s own words. [Interjections.] Let me quote another example.

They should take their independence like a man. [Interjections.]

Later, during the post-referendum period, Dr. Sebe himself admitted that the key conditions of the package deal had not been met. In this respect I should like to quote what he was reported to have said. My quote comes from The Sunday Tribune of 29 March 1981. Dr. Sebe said—

That is what Dr. Sebe said. According to him it is frustrating in the extreme. This was the very essence of the package deal and of the recommendations of the Quail Commission, and to renege on them is, in Dr. Sebe’s own words, to participate in an exercise which spells death—he said so; I am not saying so—and one becomes equally guilty, according to Dr. Sebe. Or, as Mrs. Matiyase said—

Therefore the Ciskei, in terms of this Bill, is getting substantially the same independence as Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda.

Yes, exactly.

Dr. Sebe is also on record as saying—

That means Dr. Sebe would call me a clown because I am saying this is exactly the same type of independence as that of the others. [Interjections.]

And I agree with him. [Interjections.]

I say it is the same kind of independence. Now, if that is the case, four things follow. Firstly, the referendum is of no consequence in this matter. Secondly, the mandate of Ntaba KaNdoda has been ignored and even flatly contradicted by this Bill. Thirdly, the Quail Commission’s recommendations regarding independence have been swept aside and, fourthly, in Chief Sebe’s own words, he had deviated from the package deal. What I am saying is that the matter should not be judged in terms of the known attitude of the PFP on independence. It should be judged in terms of these key events that took place before the referendum was held. Let any reasonable person go through it, and he will see that one can come to no other conclusion than that the aspirations of the people of the Ciskei are being frustrated by this Bill. It is as simple as that.

*What is the true motivation for this independence? The moment the hon. the Minister rose, I knew. Right at the outset of his speech he said: “We give people their independence; we make them free.” That is the true motivation. It also echoes what the hon. member for Klip River is so fond of saying, namely that it is the national will of the Ciskeian people that is compelling them to wish to be free. This is not a question of opinion either. It is a question of available evidence. What evidence is there on which we can base our conclusions? Research has been conducted into this matter. It has been fully researched. Regarding the question of the will of the people, for example, the Quail Commission says on page 218 of its report—

On page 243 of the same report the commission says the following—

These are the conclusions drawn from research that has been conducted. Why is that minority in Ciskei—and it is a minority group—prepared to accept independence on the old pattern? Why are they prepared to do it?

It is not true.

Well, it is, according to the facts available to me. The reason why they are prepared to accept it is that it would enable them to get away from apartheid and discrimination. That is frequently the finding of the Quail Commission. The commission says the following about this—

Then the commission goes on to say—

They are the ones who say this. This getting away from apartheid is not unique to Ciskei. It is the same motivation that was given by the President of the present Bophuthatswana. In Lucas Mangope’s book A place for all he says—

This is said on page 21. A little further on he says—

That was the motivation. It is the same motivation that is given by this small minority within Ciskei. Why else do they say that they are prepared to accept it? But what is the true initial motivation for the Government’s policy of granting independence to territories? There are two reasons: To yield to pressure from abroad and to perpetuate White rule in the rest of the Republic of South Africa.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister says it is not true.

I say there are other very important reasons as well.

But I say that these are the reasons. May I read them to the hon. the Minister? Surely the architect of the policy of independence was Dr. Verwoerd. We all accept that he formulated it in this House.

[Inaudible.]

That does not matter. I am now talking about this policy. In column 4191 of Hansard, 10 April 1961, the then hon. Prime Minister said, and the hon. member can reject it if he no longer believes in it—

Further on, in column 4193, it says very clearly—

Does the hon. member for Langlaagte agree with this?

He does not know what it is all about.

Was that the initial motivation for the policy?

It is the logical thinking of a great thinker.

All I wanted to say was that this was the initial motivation. The hon. member for Langlaagte says it is the logical thinking of a great thinker. The hon. the Minister, on the other hand, says it is not true that the motivation…

There are other reasons that must be added to those.

But why would Dr. Verwoerd spell out those two reasons if they were not the motivation? So this is what it is all about. If this was the initial motivation, the simple question arises: Have we perpetuated White rule outside the national States? Are we any safer today? Has our right to self-determination been guaranteed as a result of this policy? [Interjections.] I now wish to quote the standpoint of a homeland leader who has not yet accepted independence. He made this speech before the ASB in July this year.

[Inaudible.]

I should be glad if the hon. member would show it to me, because I like to read reports in Rapport in which he is quoted. Chief Buthelezi said the following at the ASB congress—

Yet he is one of the slow thinkers!

Chief Buthelezi went on to say—

These are very important words, Sir—

I am telling the hon. member that this man is one of those who must try to work out a safe future for South Africa, and this is his evaluation of this policy, and I believe that to a large extent he is right. When we look at the latest events and the problems in connection with Transkei, I believe that he is right. However, we must avoid that situation.

The basic question, therefore, is whether this has solved any of the problems of our life in this country. Have we in any sense achieved greater security for us all by taking these steps? If we examine realistically what is going to happen in South Africa over the next few years—and we have already done so in this House during this session—we shall come to the conclusion that we are going to be faced with an urbanized South Africa in which enormous problems are going to arise with regard to housing, education, community development, and so forth. Are we going to find peace and co-operation between the various groups in the cities?

I was a guest of President Lucas Mangope in Bophuthatswana last year, and one evening he arranged a discussion group which was attended by about 1 000 Tswanas. On that occasion President Mangope asked me whether I believed that he had taken the right decision. It was a difficult question, for after all, I could not adopt a negative attitude in the presence of my host. So I answered him as follows: “It would be discourteous of me to pronounce a moral judgment on my host, but there is one thing I must say, and that is that I have never been in the position you were in of escaping apartheid in this way,” because that was what he himself had said. I went on to tell him: “Even though you took that decision, Mr. President, I want to tell you that it made no difference to the problems of living in the rest of South Africa which I share with all my fellow Whites and the rest of the people who live there; we still have to find a solution to those problems.”

This Bill offers no solution to those problems. Because it presents only the appearance of constitutional change, we have no other choice than to oppose it. We do not wish to deny other people the right to be free. [Interjections.] But we argue that this Bill is not creating freedom, but is only increasing dependence on the central authority in South Africa. We all know that this is true, so it is no use arguing about it. I am just as anxious as any hon. member on the other side to bring about peace and security in South Africa, but that cannot be accomplished by means of this Bill, and therefore we cannot support it in its present form.

We could examine the various perspectives of independence. We could look at the question of economic viability to which the hon. the Minister referred and we could try to find out what is necessary to bring about development there. This has to be done, of course, whether or not they take their independence. There must be economic development in those territories. We could look at the whole question of the rights of the Ciskeians after they have become independent. What is the legal status of such rights? How will they help the Ciskeians? Do they safeguard their position there? Are they more dependent on South Africa or are they less dependent? These questions become important if we want to find out how to get along with the two-thirds of the population that does not live in Ciskei, but in South Africa. Then we could also look at independence from the point of view of the effect it is going to have on the so-called Xhosas outside Ciskei. Of course, we could also discuss the referendum in detail. We could ask whether this referendum did anything to clarify the matter. All these aspects will be dealt with by my colleagues in this debate, so I am not going to give any attention to them now, except …

Except for throwing a spanner in the works.

… except for saying that no matter how much we extol this measure as a constitutional measure, we shall have to examine it realistically and objectively and to ask ourselves: Are measures such as these relevant to the real constitutional problems of South Africa? Are we not bluffing ourselves? [Interjections.] If we really think that this type of process will in any way reduce the problems which our children are going to be faced with in the next 15 or 20 years, we are bluffing ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, if I had not been sitting in this Parliament this afternoon, I would have thought that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was involved in a debate as the leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei. [Interjections.] I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has adopted that direction in connection with this matter. I think I shall be forced to dwell on it and therefore deviate a little from what I originally wanted to say.

The desire of the Ciskei to discuss independence dates not only from last year. It is a process that was set in motion in the Ciskei and gradually, by way of a natural progression, reached the stage where the Ciskei discussed independence. I want to leave the content of the so-called package deal at that for a moment. However, I just want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I am not calling his chronological exposition of events and facts into question, but if things are in fact as he says they are and the Ciskei held a referendum on independence as recently as December last year, at a stage when nothing of the package deal remained—at least according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—then surely I was right in what I said to the hon. the leader during the First Reading debate. Surely this is exactly what I said during the First Reading debate. If nothing had remained of that package deal, surely the Ciskei did not vote for a package deal. Then surely they voted for independence. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

What rubbish.

One must at least try to argue about this whole matter in a logical way. [Interjections.] Those hon. members must not shake their heads. Show me anyone who can disagree with my logic. For arguments’ sake, if I were arguing with someone about independence and I had eight points on which I wanted that man to concede, and if I could not convince him to concede on one of those eight points, but nevertheless held a referendum and asked my people whether they wanted to become independent or not and they said that they wanted to become independent, do hon. members want to tell me that those people still voted for the eight points that no longer exist? It is as simple as that. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to prove here today, viz. that nothing remained of the package deal. However, the people of the Ciskei nevertheless voted for independence.

[Inaudible.]

I am coming to the hon. the Minister’s package deal once again. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot hold it against the Government if the Ciskeian citizens vote on something that Dr. Sebe decided is good enough to submit to them. On two occasions he informed the people about the matter and gave them the opportunity to vote on it. Let us look at what Dr. Sebe submitted to the Ciskeian people. The first thing that he submitted to them, was the question, in pursuance of the findings of the Quail Commission: Should we accept independence or not? The Quail Commission made several recommendations. Amongst others, it recommended that the White corridor between the Ciskei and the Transkei should form part of an area with regard to which a type of Turnhalle situation should be formed. However, the Ciskei did not accept that recommendation. Neither the Government nor the people of the Ciskei accepted it. The Whites were not consulted on this question of a so-called Turnhalle situation, and there are more than 200 000 Whites in that area. There are also 26 000 Coloureds in the area. That situation was not accepted.

The Quail Commission also recommended that that entire area be developed as a type of grey area, which is still spoken of in the Eastern Province today as “co-prosperity zones”. The Ciskeian Government did not accept that recommendation either. The Quail Commission made other recommendations too. The most important thing that the Quail Commission said in connection with citizenship, is that the significance of South African citizenship and the benefits that it entails, should be retained for the people of the Ciskei, but at the same time that they should not forfeit their Ciskeian citizenship. This is a recommendation of the Quail Commission that Dr. Sebe and his Government have accepted. That specific point regarding citizenship, i.e. the maintenance of the privileges that South African citizenship grants to their people, but the maintenance of Ciskeian citizenship as well, was accepted by the Ciskei. This is exactly what we are giving the Ciskei today. If this was one of the points with regard to which Dr. Sebe went to the people, it was on that basis. The Ciskeian people voted in favour of it. This is how simple it is. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect in saying that this legislation gives people the wrong impression. The Ciskeian people did in fact vote for what the Quail Commission said they should vote. We could argue a great deal about the question of citizenship. We could look at the legislation regarding Bophuthatswana, which made arrangements regarding citizenship, and so on. The fact remains—and the NP will stand or fall by this—that the Government is committed to leading the Black peoples to independence. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the Chief Minister of the Ciskei today to raise an argument and in doing so to tell the world that the Ciskei should not be given independence because the Ciskeian people did not know what they were voting for. I have been dealing with matters relating to Black people for a number of years already. These people have a way of conveying things to one another which we as Whites could learn from them. This is something that we simply cannot do. They do this straightforwardly but we Whites are inclined to add something and to initiate gossiping. However, these people have a way of conveying things to one another. We must not think that they do not know what it is all about when we are dealing with a matter like this. I believe today that the Ciskeian people know exactly what it is all about. I do not think it is a good thing—I am putting it mildly—for the official Opposition to make these statements in a very difficult situation today. The things that they have told us in the past, are not acceptable to them when any of these Black States become independent. Practically all of it has been recognized by the NP and the NP is now following the procedure. I told this to the hon. member for Berea during the debate on the introduction of this Bill. They said they had no objection to these Black territories becoming independent if they wish to do so and if their people are in favour of it. Last year when we debated the independence of Venda, the fact that an election had been held on the matter was not good enough for them. They then asked for a referendum. A referendum then had to be held. As far as the Ciskei is concerned, a referendum was in fact held and the people decided. 60% of 2,1 million Ciskeians decided in a referendum and of that 60%, 98% voted in favour of independence. I think that in terms of any Africa State, any Third World State, a percentage poll like this one is a high percentage poll. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition party accepted practically the same percentage poll for the Whites when a referendum was held in connection with King William’s Town. They had a lower percentage poll than this too. They accepted this, but when the Ciskeians vote then the Opposition party does not want to accept it. In other words, we complied with the one requirement—that if a Black nation asks for independence, it should do so by way of a referendum and then it may become independent. This is the one condition that was laid down.

The second requirement that was laid down in the past, was that the territory of such a Black State should not be a frag mented territory. In the case of the Ciskei we have had an unfragmented territory since the 1975 proposals. The major portion of the territory of the Ciskei has been consolidated into one single block of land or in any event will be consolidated after the 1975 proposals have been implemented.

The second prerequisite that was laid down, was that such a territory should be economically viable. We were not told on what basis such a territory should be economically viable. The hon. the Minister gave us certain figures and we can give more figures too, but if I turn my attention to that now I may be putting a spoke in the wheel of what I want to say now and I should like to settle this illogical argument and come to the factual situation. Although the Ciskei has problems with unemployment, it is one of the areas in South Africa which has an absolute advantage due to its position. The Ciskei has the largest percentage of commuters of any Black State; 36 800 people commute daily from the Ciskei to the White area, earn their money there and bring their money back to the Ciskei. [Interjections.] Please give me a chance. 36 800 workers from the Ciskei earn their income as commuters in the area. There is no other Black State in South Africa that has that basic economic potential with regard to its labour force, whereby the worker can remain in his fatherland and work outside his fatherland and still have the privilege of being at home with his family every day.

I am definitely not an advocate of development not taking place within the Black States, but we can look at what development is already under way in the Ciskei. We can also look at the potential of that development. We are not ashamed to say—indeed, we admit it—that we have problems. The commission and the Cabinet have accepted—not because we or other people were so clever—that the entire Border area from East London to Queenstown should receive attention, not only for the sake of the Whites in that territory, but also for the sake of the Black people within the Ciskei. We can pump in all the money and develop all the sources of development within the Ciskei, but then one would nevertheless be bankrupting the entire White corridor from East London to Queenstown unless an economic climate were to be created in that area to uplift the entire economy—not only that of the White corridor, or that of the Ciskei or the Transkei—and we will have to deal with tremendous problems in that area of the country in future. There is no doubt about this fact. That is why it is so essential and it has already been pointed out that that specific area will receive special attention.

It is true that one could possibly become a little impatient and would like these things to be announced, but I think that things are happening. There will be a settlement before the end of the year and the area will know where its borders lie. Before the end of the year we will know what incentives can be given in that area in order to stimulate the economic development of the area. I also foresee that we will be in a position to tackle very fine projects within the Ciskei. We shall recommend to the Cabinet that at least five co-prosperity projects be tackled within the Ciskei, which could mean a great deal for the Ciskei.

I think it is generally accepted today—I do not think we should make a secret of it—that the commission will recommend that the Ciskei be given more land. Then we come to the situation that we are also complying with the point that hon. members opposite always laid down as a condition which had to be complied with before a State could become independent.

We went further and did what the hon. members were always asking us to do. We did this deliberately and today we are making recommendations with regard to co-prosperity projects. Therefore, it amounts to the fact that White capital can be used within Black areas. This is one of the points that hon. members always held against us. Today we are going so far as to say that we are encouraging White farmers to settle in those areas. We are encouraging the capitalist system in those Black areas.

After having gone to all this trouble, I am amazed today that hon. members opposite can argue as they are in fact doing. After all, it is very clear that the hon. members have no reply to the reply that the NP has now given to the questions that they put to the NP in the past. This is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—he is not here at the moment, but he asked to be excused and said that he had to leave—is using statements today by certain leaders and other people to try to tell us something in this House instead of stating his party’s policy in regard to the matter.

We are dealing with an important debate here. The Ciskei is the fourth State to obtain its independence from South Africa. I believe that there are other States too that will also ask for independence from South Africa. But we are also conducting this debate in a political climate in South Africa, in which I believe we have to count our words and have to display our best dispositions to one another. In conclusion I want to say that the negotiations that I was privileged to conduct with the Ciskei, made a few things very clear to me. Not only are the Ciskeians a proud nation; the Ciskei also forms part of Southern Africa. Not only does the Ciskei share the concern of the Whites of South Africa, but that of other Black nations of South Africa too, when it comes to communism. The Ciskei is not simply rendering lip-service to the combating of communism in its area, but it is taking purposeful action. Such an independent State that we are in a position to establish—hon. members can examine all the contracts that are being signed; the developmental aid is there—if we can help it to find its feet economically, to maintain its national pride, to establish the capitalist system amongst its people, such a State is an ally of South Africa and can never become an enemy of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I would have been a very happy person if I could have stood up this afternoon to support this measure before us because it would have meant that the philosophy for which this party stands, its concept of the South and Southern Africa of the future, would have taken a major step forward. We supported the introduction of this Bill so that we could gauge for ourselves the extent to which there has been movement along the road towards a confederation and the extent to which what we regard and consider the essential prerequisites for its successful functioning have been achieved at this stage. The hon. the Minister said last year that he heralded this as a break-through. A report in Oosterlig in this regard reads as follows—

It was against this background that we looked forward to seeing the measure and the agreements which went with it. We had in due course the Bill before the House and, unfortunately, only this weekend the agreements. There were 33 of these which had been accepted by the two Governments jointly, 37 which had been accepted by the working committee only and 12 which had not been considered at all. From this Bill and those agreements accepted and in the process of negotiation, we had to determine our attitude towards the objective and the contents of the Bill before the House. We had to judge whether the prerequisite as regards the referendum which had been held and the package deal to which it was linked, had been met in good faith. Had the package deal in fact been implemented or was it part of the euphoric good intentions of 1980 which had not been translated into material fact? Good intentions are, as everyone knows, what the road to hell is paved with. Good intentions are not enough. We can only judge by the facts which are before us. This Bill with its contents, as it is printed, the agreements that have been accepted and those being negotiated and today for the first time a new agreement are what we have before us. I shall come to the new agreement in a moment. On what we had up to 14h20 today, viz. the agreements and the Bill itself, we had to judge. We had to measure that against the package deal.

I do not intend to repeat what has been quoted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but perhaps I should add one or two quotations. He quoted various statements concerning the contents of the package deal, but there is a very clear summary of it which was issued by way of a Press statement in this document. Here it is set out in very clear terms. The introduction states—

This refers to citizenship. I read further—

I am quoting Chief Minister Sebe—

Then it continues—

Paragraph (g) reads—

Finally, paragraph (h), which is also an important one, reads—

It then continues with monetary matters and other matters of that nature. This was the deal as it was seen by Ciskei itself. The hon. the Minister cannot query that, because we have it set out by that Government. The hon. the Minister himself has also referred to the package deal and I do not intend to quote him in detail.

What then are the fundamental prerequisites to the meeting of this package deal? The first one is confederation. Let us look at the document made available today. This talks of the intention to have a confederation of States. It says—

Then it goes on with the agreement. Let us measure this agreement against the prerequisite, the fundamental requirement, for the establishment of a confederation.

This new agreement provides not for a confederal citizenship, not for a joint citizenship, but that the Republic can grant the Ciskei, and vice versa, passports or travel documents for their citizens if they are unable to travel on their own documents. To me this provision contains an incredible statement—

What are we saying here? We are telling the world that we are going to lie in our passports, in our travel documents, by indicating the national of one State as a national of another State. The clear understanding was that there should be a confederal citizenship which would cover all citizens of the confederation. … It looked as though the hon. the Minister wants to interrupt me? … It is clear, however, quite clear, that the first point of this agreement deals with the issue of passports.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. member that the word “passport” appears nowhere in that document?

Well, it does not. The hon. the Minister is quite correct. I used the word “passport” because that was the word used in the Ciskeian document. However, this is what it states—

Well, this means travel documents which enable people to travel abroad. It says further—

In other words, it does apply to foreign travel, to travel abroad. It is specifically stated in this document. The basic foundation, the crux of the package deal, was a confederation with a common nationality. It was nevertheless conceded that there was a difference between nationality and citizenship, and that there would be a common “nationality”, including nationality as applying to travel documents and passports, for the confederation, and “citizenship” for the elements of which it consisted. This part that I have quoted deals only with travel documents. The third point dealt with here concerns preferential job opportunities in the sense that Ciskeians would not be regarded or treated as aliens for purposes of employment.

In these other agreements there is also an agreement on citizenship, an agreement which makes of any Ciskeian an alien. It is contained in the Bill itself. There is provision for the settlement of disputes that might arise in respect of citizenship, and there is also another specific agreement in connection with travel, which says—

Our own law is clear and specific. It is therefore absolutely clear that at this stage there is no free movement intended. Now, for the first time, we have reference to security of employment, residential rights, etc. These are not contained in the bound agreements, however. They appear for the first time today, but are still not set out as a clear agreement. I quote again from this new document—

It is therefore only an intent to incorporate it into law. It then deals with the cornerstone on which confederation hinges. It states—

It “could” be reflected, it “may” become the constituent instrument …

But you are not dealing with one party …

It then goes on to state—

It is therefore clear what is intended by this confederation, a confederation which “may” be brought about, which “could” be reflected in this convention, which “may” become the instrument of the confederation. When that has happened and the “coulds” and “mays” are turned to reality what one will then have is bilateral formal consultation. It will be something far, far short of what we see as an effective confederal relationship where matters of joint concern are dealt with on a multilaterial basis between all the constituent elements of that confederation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to concede that this agreement, in terms of the practices existing with regard to conventions, does make provision for other parties to become part of such a convention as well?

This agreement reads—

A subheading follows—

In other words, agreement has been reached. Consequently there is no need for further discussions. It is stated here. But why is it so vague? Why is it not clear and unequivocal?

†We want to test the meaning of this convention and we accordingly intend to move an amendment in the Committee Stage to omit the present preamble and to substitute another. This amendment will be placed on the Order Paper and will seek to insert into the measure as a preamble the intention which this agreement sets up, viz. the intention to form a confederation.

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

No, I am not prepared to accept any questions from that hon. member. Sir, by putting that preamble into the Bill one then specifies in the legislation the objective, the intent and the commitment of this Government. As we intend moving this amendment only in the Committee Stage, I shall let the hon. the Minister have a copy of it so that he will be able to study it at his leisure. This is merely a first step and I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us in his reply whether he will accept that first step. However, it is the exact content, the format of the confederation, that will ultimately determine its nature and effectiveness.

That is not in the amendment.

That is correct, because there are prerequisites to its working. The one is land, which the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt dealt with to an extent, and naturally the asking price was set high by Ciskei. However, there is a minimum starting point, and that is the 1975 land settlement agreement. That was six years ago, and has not yet been implemented. Surely, if one is taking a step as fundamental as this six years after the 1975 proposals were accepted by this Parliament then these proposals should have been implemented.

In passing, let me deal for a moment with what we regard as the positive aspects of this issue. On two occasions the principle of self-determination and local option was exercised, once in the referendum held by Ciskei of their own volition and, similarly, by the community of King William’s Town, which exercised its own self-determination. We believe that these are two of the essential elements for peaceful co-existence, namely the elements of community options which are on the credit side in the events leading up to the situation that we face today in the Bill before us.

In the spirit of self-determination we believe there is a tremendous future for that area, because geographically the situation of Ciskei and the White occupied border area, as it is in kwaZulu, makes an economically fair and equitable and mutually acceptable partition of land quite unrealistic. It is only by a co-operative and a confederal relationship that a realistic answer can be found; a confederal relationship with full opportunity and access to a common economy within that confederation. We have spelt this out time and time again; so I do not have to do it again.

It is against those prerequisites, land, a confederation and finance—with which I am not going to deal today at any length—that this measure was drawn up and against which the Ciskei acted and held its referendum. Chief Minister Sebe himself spoke of “Ciskei restlessly seeking a reconstitution of the Ciskei nation”. That is the one requirement to be accommodated. The other is that White South Africans have their own rights and aspirations. These are to live together in peace and harmony, as communities with access for everyone to the riches of South Africa, but with each group enjoying the security of its intimate community culture and life. This is what one should be striving for. Why then do we run away from it? Why do we come here with a measure and at the last moment produce an incomplete, unsatisfactory and a largely “possible” rather than positive …

That has been agreed months ago.

Why was it then tabled this afternoon for the first time? Why was it not included in these documents in order to refute the clear, specific provisions in the agreement about travel, citizenship, movement of people—and the question of employment that has not been dealt with? This is one of the agreements that has not been dealt with. Up to this afternoon …

Pleasant surprise!

… this was not part of it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is a compromise that has been arrived at at the last minute.

I said it was agreed to months ago.

Why was it then not incorporated into the agreements? [Interjections.] Why did the hon. the Minister and the rest of the Government keep secret the most fundamental part of the package deal, the idea of a confederation? [Interjections.] I am not talking solely on the basis of words that are on paper. We have held consultations and tried to find out what people have been thinking. The hon. member for King William’s Town and myself have consulted with the Chief Minister of Ciskei himself, and I have consulted with others involved in the run-up process, and that was not long ago. It was only last week. So it seems strange that nowhere was there any mention made of this concept of federation that was “accepted long ago.” This morning I spoke to somebody intimately involved in the constitutional aspects and asked specifically where the confederation idea came in. He said there was no provision made for it, and that was somebody who should know.

Read my speech and you will see that there are other things which will also be agreed to.

The hon. the Minister says “will be”. [Interjections.] He could have come to this House, however, with all those aspects tied up and said to this Parliament: Here is our agreement. He is asking this Parliament, however, on the basis of this vague convention, to pass a measure which, once passed, is irreversible, and he is doing this without the other provisions of the package deal being entrenched in firm agreements. Even in the EEC, the European Economic Community, which is not yet a confederation—it is, in fact only an embryo-confederation—there is free movement and access to employment. This Bill, however, and the agreement contained in these documents, certainly does not provide for such free movement and access to employment. That is only now going to be negotiated. We cannot be expected to accept on trust agreements which have had more than a year to negotiate and have not yet been finalized. One finds the published agreements on citizenship to be virtually identical to those of Transkei. As far as the Bill is concerned, the position is certainly inferior to that of Bophuthatswana, because the right to abrogate citizenship, which Bophuthatswana had, is not provided for in this Bill. No, we have not yet travelled nearly far enough along the road.

I want to conclude by saying that this was, and perhaps remains, one of the greatest opportunities South Africa has yet had. I am glad we have had a chance to look at the “binnegoed”, to look at what is contained in this measure, because I still believe that this is the road to South Africa’s future, that of a confederal solution. [Interjections.] Then, however, it must be a real confederation. It must be powerful and strong enough to provide an alternative to the Westminster system in order to relieve the pressure for representation in this Parliament, because unless there is an alternative to the Westminster system, the unitary system, which is not just one of consultative, bilateral agreement, but something which is real, something which has a life of its own, a dynamism all of its own to sweep the homelands along into a new future, those people are going to turn back to unitary concepts. They will then look back to this Parliament as the end of the road and pressures will start to mount up. This is the best opportunity we have ever had. If the Government had taken the gap and had created and presented to the House the confederal package as it was visualized by Ciskei, they could have taken Ciskei with them enthusiastically and cheering, instead of taking it with them now, as they will do, but with reservations. Those reservations will weaken the strength of this step as a counter-attraction to the unitary system and majority rule. We in this party therefore believe that there is not enough clarity, content or formal structure in what is being offered this afternoon for us to be able to support the measure. We shall be obliged to oppose it, but we hope that we will yet see the vision that we have for South Africa, fully achieved and translated into reality on the road ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition placed emphasis on the so-called package deal, which I think the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt dealt with very effectively by showing that it had been part of the negotiation process in order to stipulate for the maximum with a view to independence. However, he also pointed out that in that process reciprocal concessions could also, most certainly, be made. How can one then accuse a person of having had a package deal which was not adhered to if in the process that person voluntarily agreed that the conditions of the agreement could be amended? Surely it is completely illogical and unheard of to keep harping on a so-called package deal which Chief Sebe felt would be the most advantageous for him. The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to an agreement between the RSA and the Ciskei, which, as he put it, was tabled at the eleventh hour. He said the agreement made provision for possibilities, and he said it was very vague. Therefore he was unable to support it. Surely an agreement may make provision for possibilities. Surely there are matters one can foresee, and then one can say: “If this should happen, we shall take the following action.” I wish to mention one example. If the international community were to recognize Ciskeian passports, why should we then assist in the issuing of documents? However, we are making provision for being of assistance to the Ciskei if the international community does not recognize such travel documents. This is how simple the agreement is. I wish to tell both hon. members who have spoken thus far, the Leader of the official Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point, that if we attach value to the separate freedom of the various nations in Southern Africa—and this side of the House does place a high premium on this—we may not hesitate to exclude a nation which asks for its independence—its freedom—and the territory which must form that nation’s future sovereign state, from the control and jurisdiction of this Parliament. Surely history has taught us that in the past these various Black nations had their separate freedom within their own historic geographical area. If it had not been for Mother England’s desire to expand, its imperialistic and colonial desire to expand, the future of these Black nations may very well have been completely different and in all probability it would not have been necessary for us to try to unravel these entwined nations. The official Opposition is not prepared to exclude these nations and their territory from the control and the jurisdiction of this Parliament merely because they do not wish, for the sake of their own petty political gain, to do so. The policy of “one man, one vote” in an undivided State which must form that party’s power base in future, must be served under all circumstances and the numerical strength of the Black people must be used against the White people who are not prepared to vote for a policy of “one man, one vote” in an undivided State. This is what the PFP has in mind and not its so-called concern about the economic welfare and other political or constitutional development of the Black people. Sir, if you read the Hansard of the hon. member for Berea of 15 September you will see that this is what is at issue for the PFP—the retention of the system of “one man, one vote” in an undivided State.

This brings me to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech during the debate on the introduction of this Bill which also took place on 15 September. In Hansard, col. 3795, he said the following—

Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again placed emphasis on this. He said the test for his party’s support for this Bill or for independence was whether it would alleviate the relations problems in South Africa or whether they were going to be more effectively dealt with as a result. What sort of superficial and arbitrary test is this? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attach no value to a nation’s desire for its own nationalism, freedom, independence and sovereign State? Surely that is primarily what is at issue. What is at issue here is the endeavour of a nation to gain its own nationalism, its independence, its freedom and its own sovereign State. That is why this Government …

That is why they are flocking back to the Ciskei.

That hon. member at the back does not know what is at issue here. I say that this is what is at issue and this is why the Government is prepared to grant the Ciskei its independence.

When we are dealing with this aspiration of nations the hon. member for Berea agreed with me, if I understood him correctly, when he was still the hon. member for Musgrave. He was also the chief spokesman of the official Opposition during the discussion of the Status of Venda Bill on 4 June 1979. I should like to quote him in this connection. On that occasion the hon. member for Berea, at that stage the hon. member for Musgrave, said the following—

I shall have more to say about this in a moment—

The aspirations of a nation are surely those which deal with a desire for its own nationalism, independence, freedom and its own sovereign State. How does the hon. the leader come by this arbitrary and frivolous test he stated to us? I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it was totally unworthy of him as a person, and of his party, especially since we are dealing with such an important matter as the independence of a Black nation.

Allow me to dwell for a moment on this quotation from what the hon. member for Berea said on 4 June 1979, to which I have referred, because I think it is again relevant today. The hon. member said, and I quote—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted Dr. Verwoerd from Hansard when he referred to fragmentation. Dr. Verwoerd did not reject it; he visualized it. In his far-sightedness he realized that this is what would eventually happen in South Africa. This is precisely where the difference lies between our party and the official Opposition: They reject it.

I wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether it was fragmentation when Mother England excluded the former Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland from the territory of the Union of South Africa and gave them their own sovereign States. Are the nations of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland chosen nations, chosen by Mother England to be granted independence while the Ciskei must remain forever subservient, if the official Opposition has its way?

The hon. member for Berea, formerly for Musgrave, spoke about the fragmentation of South Africa’s territory. Who gives the hon. member the right to state, contrary to the decision of Mother England, that if a nation desires its separate freedom, it cannot also have its own separate territory? As a matter of fact, I want to point out to the hon. member that these nations demand their own separate territories and the hon. member should see the demands of these nations as the Commission for Co-operation and Development sees them and as they are submitted to it, to realize that these people are extremely sensitive about their own territory.

This, then, brings me to the reasons which the official Opposition have advanced to motivate their not being able to support the Bill before us, nor support the independence of the Ciskei. I wish to lay the reasons of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on one side for the time being—I shall return to them in a moment—and again draw the attention of this House to what the hon. member for Berea, formerly for Musgrave, said on 4 June 1979 (Hansard, 1979, col. 7653)—

He is referring to the desire for independence—

At the time the hon. member for Berea placed his party’s credibility at stake when he said that they would recognize independence subject to the fulfilment of certain very definite and very important criteria. If I may have his attention, I shall ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with me that the hon. member for Berea placed his party’s credibility at stake when he said that they would recognize independence subject to the fulfilment of very important and basic criteria. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agree that I may say this?

Yes.

My deduction was therefore correct. Let us consider what the conditions were to which the hon. member for Berea was referring when he said that. He indicated the conditions. In the first place he said it had to be demonstrated by means of a special referendum that the majority of the people concerned wanted that kind of independence. That was his first requirement.

This has been complied with. [Interjections.] A referendum was held in the Ciskei—the hon. members cannot deny this—in which 60% of the people inside and outside the Ciskei voted on nothing else and on no other concept but independence. No other concept was relevant at that stage.

The hon. member said that secondly, it had to be granted subject to the boundaries of such areas being determined to the mutual satisfaction of South Africa and the people in the territories concerned; that the boundaries had to be determined to the satisfaction of the two States. At this stage there is no dispute between this Government and the Ciskeian Government over land which will compel them to refuse to accept independence on 4 December. Today the hon. the Minister confirmed what has been said repeatedly, viz. that the territory of the Ciskei will be indicated prior to independence on 4 December. Surely this indicates that in respect of this matter serious discussion took place and that there is a degree of agreement. That does not mean to say that in the future there will never again be any demands in respect of land from the Ciskei or any other Black State. These may arise, but at the moment there is no such dispute which would prevent the Ciskei from accepting its independence. Thirdly, he said, and this is very important, no South African citizens should on account of that independence be deprived of their South African citizenship without their consent. The mere fact that a referendum was held on independence which involved citizenship—citizenship is involved if one votes for independence—was a sign that the Ciskeian nation took into consideration the fact that they would have Ciskeian citizenship and they would have to give up their South African citizenship. This is a logical consequence when people vote for independence.

I have just been referring to the three conditions which the hon. member for Berea stated at the time to be the basis on which they would recognize independence, and I wish to compare them with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. I reiterate that the requirements stated by the hon. member for Berea have to a large extent been complied with. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is also placing his party’s credibility at stake, since he is now the chief spokesman on this matter. The hon. member for Berea was the chief spokesman on this matter at the time, but he no longer has that honour. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition laid down other conditions. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt referred during the debate on the introduction of this measure to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition having tried to water down the conditions which have already been complied with. He referred to the reasons why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had refused independence and also the grounds on which they would recognize it. The first was the inevitable loss of South African citizenship or nationality. There is a great difference here. The hon. member for Berea said that the people could not be deprived of their citizenship without their consent and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said they could not accept the inevitable loss of citizenship.

The word used in English was involuntary.

I am referring to the Afrikaans Hansard and it states “die noodwendige verlies van burgerskap”. If a nation votes for its independence in a referendum, and it accepts independence, this is inevitably accompanied by loss of citizenship. Even if they consent, and the Ciskeian nation did consent by means of a referendum, this is accompanied by the inevitable loss of South African citizenship, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this was unacceptable to him. What new conditions will they think up next time? He said the second reason was the lack of economic potential and viability of the territory concerned. The hon. member for Berea did not refer to this in his three conditions, but let us accept it as a new condition. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that the Government has also considered this aspect of Black development, as is proved by the establishment of the Development Bank, the Small Business Development Corporation and also the investigation referred to in respect of co-prosperity projects between White RSA and Black national or independent States. The Government has therefore given attention to this aspect as well, i.e. the economic viability Black States.

I conclude by referring to the last point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that their third reason was the lack of proper consultation with the people involved in the accepting of independence. This Government and the Ciskeian Government were in constant consultation. With whom should consultation be held? If the hon. the leader says that there was no consultation with the Ciskeian nation, I can tell him that a referendum was held. There was consultation between the Governments in every possible way. The people were consulted by means of a referendum. In what way must there be further consultation? When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advances these frivolous arguments, I say that he is placing his party’s credibility at stake by opposing this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, arising out of what the hon. member for Parys has just said, I want to put the validity of Ciskeian independence to the test by asking him a very simple question: Will a Ciskeian foreigner in South Africa have the same status as, let us say, a West German foreigner in South Africa? Yes or no?

Why not?

Why not? In other words, Sir, the hon. member says “Yes”. Well, Sir, I can tell him that the people of Guguletu, Langa and the rest will be very interested to hear that because that lets them out of a lot of discriminatory legislation in this country. I hope the hon. the Minister agrees with that answer by the hon. member for Parys.

The hon. member for Parys and the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt have said that, even if the terms of the package deal had not been met or had in fact been changed, and the Ciskeians despite this voted in favour of the question put to them in the referendum, then they were entitled to do so, it was their right and privilege to do so, and it was an indication of their urge for independence. That is, however, not the point. The terms of the package deal were, firstly, not negotiable and, secondly, as far as the Ciskeians were concerned, they were broken after the referendum and not before it. That is reflected in the Bill before us this afternoon. It seems as though there is a desire on the part of the Government and its supporters to dispute the validity of this package deal, and the part it played in the Ciskeian negotiations and the subsequent referendum. That is understandable since they have a vested interest in playing down the terms of the package deal, but neither its existence nor its importance can be denied.

On 13 February 1980 Chief Minister Sebe held his celebrated Press conference. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already referred to this, but I should like to repeat the relevant words because they are so important—

One of the most important aspects of that package deal was the land issue. This is not surprising, since, with a rural population density of 67 people per square kilometre, it is one of the most densely populated territories on earth. For this reason Chief Minister Sebe has consistently laid claim to more land and has made this claim one of his non-negotiable principles for independence. This is a crucial point in my argument and I shall come back to it.

First I must deal very briefly with the background to the Ciskeian land problem. There is confusion about the total area of Ciskei. Up until 1975 it has been variously given at between 776 000 ha and 942 000 ha. Then in 1975 some 430 000 ha or roughly 45% of this total area was ceded to Transkei. I refer to the districts of Glen Grey and Herschel. At this time, according to the report of the Quail Commission, the total area stood at some 530 000 ha with a further 300 000 ha to be added. This gives an area of some 830 000 ha which, as we shall see—and this is important—is about one-third of the total area claimed by Ciskei. In terms of the Bill before us, incidentally, only seven districts of Ciskei are mentioned and these do not even include the 1975 proposals. This constitutes a land area even smaller than one-third of the total area claimed.

Since then, the Van der Walt Commission has busied itself preparing a final report, which has yet to be tabled. As far as can be determined, negotiations are still being carried out in the Stockenström and Queenstown districts. This serves to indicate that from the side of the South African Government no finality has yet been reached about its final proposals and its final boundaries. From the Ciskeian side, however, the picture is much clearer. Here we are dealing with specific claims, and it is on these claims and the response of the South African Government to them that the main leg of my argument stands. Minister Sebe’s first important land claim was made in February 1979, I quote—

Then, in December 1979, he specified for the first time the extent of the additional land he wanted. He linked this claim with the independence issue. I quote again—

One cannot state it very much clearer than this. This is a condition which is not negotiable. Later, still during 1979, a meeting of the Ciskei Legislative Assembly was held at Ntaba KaNdoda. The purpose of this meeting was to determine a mandate under which Ciskei would consider asking for independence. A document entitled “Ciskei’s independence within the Republic of South Africa” was drawn up as a result of that meeting. That document later became known as “the package deal for independence.”

The mandate which, Chief Sebe claims, was endorsed by the nation at Ntaba KaNdoda made the following claim for land, I should like to quote it in detail because it is extremely important.

Firstly, the land in terms of the 1975 proposal was to be purchased before 31 December 1981. Secondly—and this is crucial—simultaneously with the Ciskei obtaining independence the South African Government would include within the boundaries of Ciskei all the land between the Stormberg Mountains and the Indian Ocean and between the Great Fish River and the Great Kei River.

It is stated specifically here. It could not possibly be clearer than that. It was these claims which were to become one of the most important features of the referendum.

The next time the package deal was referred to in public before the referendum was on 27 May 1980, during a debate devoted to it in the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly. During that debate Chief Sebe made it quite clear where he stood. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted from the speech made by Chief Minister Sebe on that occasion. It was when he said “What is dead is dead, and to participate in an exercise which spells death one becomes equally guilty.” What he was saying in very plain language was that he would have nothing to do with any proposals which deviated from the package deal, which was the mandate given to him by the people at Ntaba KaNdoda.

This is the kind of commitment that Chief Sebe made in respect of the package deal. But perhaps the most important reference to the land claims was made at the so-called “Meeting of the Nation”, held at Zwelitsha stadium on 5 October 1980. This reference was made before a crowd of some 7 000 Ciskeian citizens. The purpose of the meeting was to report back to the people on the negotiations which had been held with the South African Government over the package deal. Chief Sebe reported on the land claim as follows, and I should like hon. members to listen carefully—

He then goes on to explain that in the light of the undertaking given by the Republic of South Africa with regard to the purchase and transfer of land, Ciskei’s request is that the transfer of this land should take place before independence and that the 1975 proposals should be completed by 31 December 1981, but it was agreed that steps would be taken to complete the 1975 programme by December 1982.

What is important about this is that it is quite clear that two claims have been made. The first is the claim for the compensatory land in terms of the 1975 proposals and the second is a large-scale claim for a “Greater Ciskei” in terms of the Quail Commission proposals. That is, for all the land between the Stormberg and the sea. Both of these claims were an integral part of the package deal. There is no denying it.

At the same meeting Chief Sebe quoted a note from the hon. the Prime Minister in which it was said that the Government wished to deal with the consolidation of Ciskei, in terms of the package deal, as priority number one.

From this point on events started moving fairly rapidly. A meeting between the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and Chief Sebe was held to discuss the package deal, but no statement was made on this meeting. On 1 November the Van der Walt Commission agreed to a part of the package deal claim by proposing the incorporation of King William’s Town into Ciskei. At this stage there were still some 100 000 ha of land to be acquired in terms of the 1975 proposals and a further 137 000 ha were recommended. The cost of these purchases was quite considerable, namely R80 million for the 1975 proposals and a further R109 million for the balance. Then on 15 December the nation went to the polls, buoyed up by Chief Sebe’s claims and assurances. The result is history, but the real story behind the land deals is now only just beginning.

On 21 February 1981 Chief Sebe signed the independence agreement with the hon. the Prime Minister in Cape Town and announced the date for independence, namely 4 December 1981. At a Press conference after this meeting with the hon. the Prime Minister, Chief Sebe said that the conditions laid down by the Ciskei Government for independence had been met, but he did not disclose any details of either the financial arrangements or of the final boundaries. However—and this is equally important—both he and his Minister of Agriculture, Rev. W. A. Xaba, stressed that historically the territory of the homeland stretched between the Fish and the Kei, between the Stormberg and the sea and included King William’s Town, Queenstown and East London.

Chief Sebe went on to give certain assurances to Whites living in this area and he claimed that negotiations on land would continue after independence. He also stressed “that the question of land is never static; it is an on-going thing.” In other words, Ciskei is to be launched as an independent State with one of the most crucial issues, namely that of an acceptable international boundary, undecided.

Both sides have got the worst of both worlds. Who is worse off. One wonders? Is it the Ciskeians who have voted for independence in the belief that they were voting for a Ciskei which was going to stretch from the Stormberg to the sea, and from the Kei to the Fish, or is it the Whites who now live in that territory and do not know whether the “on-going” land claim will “go on” until it has gobbled them all up as well. The Government is asking us to sign a blank cheque by voting for independence for Ciskei without telling us how much land is going to be made over to it ultimately.

How are we in the Border region going to answer our constituents when we report back to them and when we are questioned by them? Are we to tell them that we do not know how much land will eventually, in the fullness of time, be claimed, and whether or not they will be taken over, but that we voted for independence just the same? What do the other hon. members with Border constituencies say? I know the hon. member for King William’s Town for one is not going to support this measure.

This situation of massive insecurity which has been created and maintained by the Government must not be allowed to continue and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister some specific questions in this regard. Firstly, does he agree with Chief Sebe that East London is living on borrowed time and that it is inevitable that it will be incorporated into Ciskei?

He will never answer that.

Secondly, what was the nature of the report on the package deal land proposals by the Van der Walt Commission referred to by Chief Sebe? That was at the meeting of the nation on 5 October. Thirdly, I should like to know what the Cabinet’s response to this report was. These are crucial questions, Sir, because if Chief Sebe was told that there was no way in which the Government could meet those demands for a greater Ciskei, and that the 1980-’81 proposals currently being negotiated in Queenstown and Stockenström by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt were fixed and final, then we should like to know why Chief Sebe did not go back to his people and tell them so. If he neglected to do this, he would stand guilty of having broken the solemn mandate given to him by his people at Ntaba KaNdoda and Zwelitsha.

Furthermore, he would have taken his people into the referendum, promising them a Greater Ciskei, while knowing that this had been denied him.

If, however, during the negotiations the hon. the Minister had allowed Chief Sebe to believe that land claims were an on-going thing and that eventually all the non-negotiable land claimed by Chief Sebe for the greater Ciskei under the package deal would, in the fullness of time, be made over to him, then it is the hon. the Minister who has some explaining to do. He owes it to the tens of thousands of Whites living in the cities, towns and farms in the Border region which forms the greater Ciskei to tell them where they stand and why he has been playing fast and loose with their future and security. For any two Governments to seek to take or to give sovereign independence without first having determined to the last inch what the final boundary is going to be, is the height of irresponsibility.

Hear, hear!

Such an undefined boundary will be a festering sore for the rest of time. Is there even a precedent for it in history?

We owe it to both the Whites in the area claimed for the Greater Ciskei and to the Ciskeians themselves who gave Chief Sebe a non-negotiable mandate, to oppose this Bill until the true facts have been exposed.

However, it is the hon. the Minister who must come out into the open. It is the hon. the Minister who must stop hiding behind Chief Sebe’s coat-tails. It is not Chief Sebe who has refused to disclose his hand, but the hon. the Minister. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister specifically whether it is his intention to honour Chief Sebe’s non-negotiable claim to all the land between the Fish and the Kei Rivers, the Stormberg and the sea, yes or no? This is the question. Who has done the fancy footwork in this deal? Is it Chief Sebe or is it the hon. the Minister? That is what we are all waiting to hear, and until we hear that we cannot support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany has centred his opposition to this Bill on the land claims of Chief Sebe. What I would like to know is whether the hon. member for Albany, coming from the Border, is in favour of Ciskei independence on condition that the land claims of Chief Sebe are granted. He has based his opposition to this Bill on the fact that the non-negotiable land claims of Chief Sebe have not been met. It is interesting to note, Sir, that on the question of the inclusion of King William’s Town the PFP joined forces with the HNP to oppose it. On public platforms the PFP and the HNP jointly opposed the inclusion of land that could have improved the economy of Ciskei. Consequently, if the PFP is serious in its attitude, then it must decide sooner or later on what side it stands. Either they are in favour of the independence of Ciskei on condition that they get more land or they are opposed per se to the possible independence of Ciskei.

The PFP speak continually of being in favour of a federation, but they do not mean a federation; they mean a unitary system based on “one man, one vote”. They speak of a federation, however, to allay the fears of their supporters amongst the Whites.

So you know better?

So the PFP is completely inconsistent in its attitude.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition adopted the attitude that the package deal had not been agreed to and that Ciskeian independence was nevertheless being proceeded with. Let me quote from the preamble of the Bill—

Be it therefore enacted …

What I should like to know from the hon. Leader of the Opposition is whether he believes that this preamble is false. Does he believe that the hon. Chief Sebe has, on behalf of his people, his Government, gone back on his desire for independence for Ciskei? Only if the hon. Leader of the Opposition is of the opinion that this preamble is false, that this is a lie, can his argument have any justification. I say this because only if the hon. Chief Lennox Sebe has withdrawn his request, on behalf of his Government, his people, for the independence of Ciskei to be proceeded with, is that hon. member’s argument valid and justified. I believe, however, that he thinks he knows better. Yet the Ciskeian citizens know that the official Opposition is merely putting forth a sham argument against independence for Ciskei.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition also spoke about certain aspects in the package deal relating to common citizenship. I should like to deal with this aspect of the possibility of common citizenship. I am prepared to suggest that the concept of common citizenship, in a multinational situation like that in Southern Africa, has different meanings for different people. If there was discussion of the question of common citizenship in the negotiated package deal, I would say that that common citizenship included the right to share in economic benefits, the right to share in the benefits of employment opportunities, whilst improving the employment opportunities in Ciskei, and the right to enjoy opportunities of contact with the international community so as to improve the status, the benefits and the quality of life of Ciskei and the people of Ciskei. I am convinced, however, that the concept of common citizenship, in so far as Ciskeians believe they want to share in it, does not necessarily include the desire to have a vote on a common voters’ roll, nor the desire or right to determine the future of the Whites, nor the intention of the Ciskeian citizens to chase the Whites into the sea or to make the Whites subservient to a Black majority, nor the desire to destabilize the economy or the security of the Whites in the RSA, nor the desire to determine the standard of living, the standard of education or the quality of life of the Whites.

What does it include?

It includes the desire to share in the economic benefits and in the general improvement of the quality of life. What is being offered in terms of this constitutional step is a continued desire, by the Ciskei and by the RSA, to let there be joint development and joint improvement of the quality of life and of the economy of all the people concerned, both in Ciskei and in the RSA. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted from a recent speech by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi from kwaZulu. I also wish to quote some statements by Chief Buthelezi.

You will embarrass him. You’re no friend of his.

In 1974, at an Alfred and Winifred Hoernlé memorial lecture, Chief Buthelezi spoke on the theme “White and Black nationalism, ethnicity and the future of the homelands”. This was a learned address, and a well-considered statement that he made. He said—

He spoke out of his heart, as a person does when he doodles on some paper. He spoke from the innermost of his heart in a well prepared lecture in 1974.

Do you think doodling is a matter of the heart?

That is when the innermost psychology of a person is put on paper. First of all, let me state that in 1974 neither Transkei, nor Bophuthatswana, nor Venda were independent. In other words, the pattern of independence had not yet become crystallized. Four years before Transkei gained its independence, Chief Buthelezi said—

Hon. members must note this point—

That is exactly what is happening today. He continued—

Those were well-considered words spoken by Chief Buthelezi in 1974, some seven years ago.

*I also want to react to a quotation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition from the speech made by Dr. Verwoerd in discussing these matters in 1961. He quoted from Dr. Verwoerd’s speech on 10 April 1961, when he said—

Then he added, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition omitted this—

In other words, Dr. Verwoerd did not intend to have White rule over everybody. We must remember that in 1961, the process of independence in Africa had not even been completed yet; it was still in progress and there were still many reservations about its desirability. He said that if we could, we would have preferred not to do so, if we could have continued to rule over everybody, but we had to take account of the new circumstances, and for that reason he proposed that we should lead them to autonomy, to sovereignty and independence. So the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was being a little perverse and quite unfair to Dr. Verwoerd with the selective quotation he made. Dr. Verwoerd also expressly stated that economic interdependence would continue when he spoke about a commonwealth of Southern African States. Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should apologize to Dr. Verwoerd for his erroneous presentation of a quotation from a speech by Dr. Verwoerd.

However, let us be clear about one aspect. The independence of Ciskei is concerned mainly with the national independence of the people. They are getting a territory with which that national independence can be connected. At the same time, it means that the citizens of Ciskei who live outside that territory will participate in the politics of Ciskei because the Government of Ciskei will be able, by virtue of its sovereign independent status, to negotiate and conduct a dialogue with the sovereign Government of the RSA at an international and bilateral level.

On a previous occasion I referred to the fact that in a country such as Italy, in which an election was held in 1976, for example, more than 500 000 Italians who work in Germany and who are resident there with their families voted in Germany for the national parliament of Italy. Last year there was an election in Germany, and German citizens all over the world, if they had a German passport, and irrespective of how long they had been living abroad, were able to vote for the sovereign national parliament of Germany. The same applies to the election which was held in France this year. The concept of the diaspora, the scattering of the members of a people, but the political connection of that people with a sovereign national parliament, has therefore been internationally accepted, and for this reason we also accept that in the confederation of Southern African States, there will be bilateral or multi-lateral co-operation on a voluntary basis to our mutual advantage.

This is what the independence of Ciskei is all about; it is not an attempt to place people in a humiliating position. It is an attempt to find a concept of co-operation in Southern Africa which can be put into effect in our fatherland in the interests of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down is very good at founding a whole argument on a totally false premise. There are two questions that I want to ask him. First of all he quoted Chief Gatsha Buthelezi at length, but he did not tell the House what the conclusion of Chief Buthelezi was regarding independence for the people of his country, the people of kwaZulu. I want to ask that hon. member whether Chief Buthelezi did not actually say on one occasion that he would not take independence because he was not going to be a party to taking his people out of the main stream of South African politics. I believe that this is actually what Chief Buthelezi said. He said that he would not take independence because he would not take his people out of the main stream of South African politics.

I will debate that with you at any time.

Secondly, the hon. member mentioned to us a number of countries in Western Europe whose citizens are entitled to vote in their own elections even though they live outside those countries and have done so for a considerable period of time. However, what he omitted to tell us was that those citizens had been born in those countries in which they were ultimately going to vote …

Not necessarily.

… and had lived there. Certainly, Sir, what he omitted to tell us was that the people of the TBV countries were first citizens of the country in which they now live and that then their citizenship was forcibly taken away from them—over which they had no say whatsoever—and they were forced to revert to the citizenship of the state from which their forefathers had come. This is what is happening. That is what this Bill is all about. I shall refer to more of these false premises in due course.

I want now to take this House back to 7 February 1978. On that occasion, from a front bench right opposite me, the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made a speech. That Minister was speaking during the discussion of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Amendment Bill. I want to quote from column 579 of Hansard where the Minister had this to say—

That, Mr. Speaker, is what this Bill which is now before this House today is all about. It is the pursuance of a pipe dream, an impossible dream. That is the real reason for this Bill, not all the verbiage that has been given to this matter by hon. Ministers on that side, not self-determination, not freedom of peoples, not liberation. These are fictions behind which the Government wishes to hide. Connie Mulder spelt out the real reason in 1978 and what a price is having to be paid by the people of this country for the attempt to bring about this impossible pipe dream! Both Black and White people are having to pay this price. One such case has just come to my attention. I want to tell the hon. the Minister about this case. He is aware of it but I want to remind him of it and I can best do this by quoting from a letter to the hon. the Minister dated 20 March 1979. This was written by a man living in kwaZakhele in Port Elizabeth. This is what he wrote to that hon. Minister—

I am writing this letter on behalf of my people originally from the area of Humansdorp, namely Snyklip, Witklipbos, Palmietvlei, etc. We are the families that were moved by force by armed policemen and soldiers to Keiskammahoek where we are now dying with hunger and starvation.

Later on in this letter he says—

This, Sir, a letter written in 1979. These people appealed to me only last weekend. Why were they there? They were apparently granted the land by Sir George Grey in the early days of the last century. They were granted this land for services rendered. They are Fingo’s. They were self-sufficient where they lived and they are now destitute. 400 of them still work at or in the vicinity of Boskor in the Tsitsikamma area. They are contract labourers. Their families used to be at Tsitsikamma, but they are no longer there. They have been moved to Keiskammahoek. Their livestock did not long survive the move. They were put in tents and then, in their own words, they were put in plank homes. Their toilets are right outside the front door. Their words to me on 19 September this year were: “Our people are dying”. That is what this is all about. That is one of the realities of the policy being pursued by this Government. Another reality we saw only last month when bus loads of Blacks were transported back to the Transkei and dumped there. They were being treated as non-citizens by this country. It was that very law dealing with non-citizenship that was invoked to send them back to the Transkei. They were even likened by an hon. Minister on that side to wetbacks. But what a different situation really applies there. It was suggested that we were treating them as the United States of America treats its wetbacks. What was however omitted to be mentioned was that many of these people were born and bred here within South Africa. They have never been to the Transkei. They do not know the people there. That is another reality. I should like to say to Chief Sebe: You had better build bus stations on your borders to receive back your people, because it will happen. People will be sent back as aliens from the land of their birth, their home for generations.

Let us now look at the financial implications. Let us look at the money required to purchase land for consolidation and to purchase White-owned business. In this year’s budget the figure is R67 million, down from R73 million last year. This is but a drop in the bucket. There are still land and businesses in Transkei to be bought out, there are still millions to be spent there, and that country became independent five years ago. Still there are people waiting to be bought out. Let me quote what the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said on this matter. He said in this very House on 29 January 1981, when he was talking about the amount of money necessary for consolidation (Hansard, col. 376)—

Indeed, by doing this, one may even have made the economic situation worse. I, for one, have seen highly productive farms handed over and laid waste because too many people are put on too little land to eke out an existence. What sort of an existence do these people have? Let us have a look at this. The output per person of the Ciskei farm population is only R40 per year. The per capita income, in terms of the Benso Report, was R262 in 1976. If I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister himself said in the Second Reading debate that in 1977 it had risen to R303. I do not have the latest figures, but in 1976 there was only one country with a lower figure, namely Qwaqwa.

I gave you the comparative figures for 10 African States.

What does that help? If my neighbour’s wife dies of cancer, how does that help me?

You can compare the latest figures with those of other States in South Africa too.

I shall come back to the States the hon. the Minister is drawing comparisons with. The conclusion one inevitably has to reach is that an independent Ciskei would be a very poor country indeed.

There has to be an equitable sharing of the welfare costs. Ciskei has a higher proportion of dependants because of the whole migratory labour system. That is where we start differing from the other countries in Africa the hon. the Minister mentioned. Of the gross national product of Ciskei in 1975 65% was earned in South Africa either by commuters or sent back by people with section 10 rights. Thus South Africa benefits from the labour services, but does it have to pay the social costs of supporting the dependants of those people? No, that falls on the homeland. That is something I believe we have to look at very, very closely. I believe that Pretoria must accept responsibility for the welfare of all of those who have worked most of their lives in South Africa as well as their dependants.

In addition to this, the 65% of foreign earnings of Ciskei means that economically Ciskei is and will always be economically dependent on South Africa. Ciskei will therefore always be subject to economic force or economic coercion applied for political or any other purposes.

Why do you not say the opposite, viz. that South Africa will always continue to be dependent on Ciskei?

That is perfectly correct. For labour we will, but South Africa can manage without the labour of Ciskei while Ciskei cannot manage without the inputs of South Africa. That is the difference. It is like trying to achieve a balance by weighing an elephant against a flea. As I have said, Sir, Ciskei will always be subject to that economic force. Of the gross domestic product, 58% is from commuter earnings of which the bulk is from East London and King William’s Town. This ratio is likely to increase and not diminish. What is the reason for that? It is the Mdantsane/Berlin complex. As I have said to the hon. the Minister before, there are 20 000 houses at Mdantsane and approximately 200 000 people live there, or one-third of the resident Ciskeian population. Potsdam, which is to be built neighbouring Mdantsane, is to have 30 000 houses. There will probably be half a million people living in this complex in due course. Yet within Ciskei itself no provision has been made for work opportunities for the people at Mdantsane and Potsdam. There is chronic unemployment in that area with its attendant deprivations. I have told the hon. the Minister this before.

I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the Quail Commission’s report. There it is noted that marasmus and kwashiorkor are endemic in Ciskei with rates in the 6 to 23 months age group as high as 4,5% for marasmus and 27% for kwashiorkor.

We have created 12 000 employment opportunities there. What have you done? What have you done except sucking poison?

Who has the money? Who takes the money from the South African taxpayer? That side of the House does. Let me quote further from the Quail Commission’s report—

Further, an editorial in the S.A. Medical Journal in 1979 said that in South Africa half of all the Blacks who die are less than five years old, compared with 7% for Whites.

With a population of 200 000, the question is where these people can work. The logical answer is Berlin which is an industrial area in which the infrastructure has already been created but which has been a disaster in terms of development to date. In 1979, more than two years ago, I suggested three possible solutions to the hon. the Minister. The third solution I offered was that the Berlin industrial area be sold to Ciskei. In that event homeland concessions would apply and perhaps we would attract industry to the area. In addition, the Ciskei National Development Corporation would then be able to market the area and that would be a distinct advantage. I said that I believed it would make a material difference. In that debate—it was in a Standing Committee in the Senate Chamber—the hon. the Minister said in reply—

That is two and a half years ago.

Much has flowed from it.

What has flowed from it? How much development has taken place in Berlin from that date up till now? I know the answer to that and so does the hon. the Minister. Extremely little has taken place, the job opportunities have not been created and we are still waiting in that whole area for this wonderful new plan to come out. We have been waiting for years now and it is about time that we were told what is going to happen. Since then the Van der Walt Commission has recommended that the Berlin industrial area be included in Ciskei. A decision was taken by the Van der Walt Commission, and this same hon. Minister, with his tail between his legs because of the outcry over King William’s Town, rejected the commission’s recommendation, and the NP still did not win the King William’s Town constituency as a result of that. This was a decision clearly taken out of political expediency, a decision taken with the best interests of the NP in mind and not the best interests of Ciskei. We also hope that the Berlin industrial area will be a success and that job opportunities will be created there. However, if they are, then the commuter income of Ciskei—and this is the point that I want to get back to—will, proportionately, be even greater. From 58% it is likely to go up by a material amount and the economic coercion available to South Africa will consequently be considerably greater.

I want now to repeat what I said during a previous debate this session, i.e. one cannot totally separate economics and politics. An economic captive has no true freedom of political manoeuver. This is one of the problems that we have with this Status of Ciskei Bill that is before us today. My next question is the following: What is the cost to the South African taxpayer of pursuing this impossible dream? This year a grand total of R968 million will be spent. R271 million will be spent on the development of Black areas towards self-determination. R434 990 000 will be provided for assistance to governments of self-governing national States. R218 million is a direct charge on the State Revenue Fund. Ciskei itself will receive R120 million, which is up from R74 million last year. This is nothing but a R46 million inducement to take independence. But all this is just money. The cost in human relationships is the true cost of all this madness. The 1,4 million Ciskei Xhosas suddenly find themselves foreigners in the land in which they live and in which most of them were born. Then there are the hundreds of thousands who have been uprooted from their ancestral homes and dumped in strange surroundings. Why? Because they are Black. We see the confusion of the old, the bewilderment of the young and the anger of the men. Then there are still those to be moved. In the corridor there are still thousands of them at Mgwali, Mooiplaats, Kwelera and other places. I put a question on the Order Paper during this session asking the hon. the Minister about these people and he does not even know how many of them there are. He says that he will only establish how many there are shortly before they are to be moved. If their numbers are not known until shortly before, how can the move be properly planned? I want to put this pertinently to the hon. Minister: How is he going to plan and move these people properly if he does not know how many people there are? How can he provide the right amount of land and housing? How can he calculate and provide this? To cap all this, we are told that this is being done in the name of better relationships between groups. It is sad but it is a fact that these actions will leave a scar that will take at least a century to remove. And why? What is the real reason? The real reason was spelt out by Dr. Connie Mulder in this House on 7 February 1978, and that reason is to ensure that there are no Black South Africans. I therefore support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, it would seem that on the one hand he is complaining because too much is being spent on the Black people, while on the other hand, and almost in the same breath, he is alleging that nothing is being spent on them and no job opportunities are being created for them. I contend that history will bear witness to the tremendous achievements of the NP in bringing four homelands to voluntary independence within the space of only five years. If we look back in time and see what happened with regard to the Transkei from the very beginning, we note that the official Opposition has always been violently opposed to the independence of States and nations in South Africa. However, their arguments have become more and more watered down, until now they can only occupy themselves with small talk. They are concerning themselves with trivialities, and have totally given up the overall picture. However, they have already lost the struggle. The waves have already engulfed them. I do not know where they come by it, but no one was forced to accept independence. Four peoples voluntarily became independent within the space of five years. This is an achievement to the credit of the NP in South Africa.

Today I wish to hazard a forecast as regards the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He spoke about nations and leaders who refuse to accept independence. He referred, inter alia, to the leader of the Zulus, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. I come from a part of the world which borders on kwaZulu and today I want to put it to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and his colleagues that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and his people will accept independence at some stage. They will do so voluntarily. I am convinced that his people will force him to accept independence. He is in any case a realist. I want to forecast that the Zulus will ask for independence as quickly as the other nations did. They certainly do not intend to remain behind in South Africa. They also want to share in this wave of prosperity. After all, they have also seen what prosperity can do for a nation. They have seen what happens when you bring the members of a nation together, when you form a team. When they have all been brought together, they realize that they now have what they were seeking: nationalism. [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the Opposition raise all manner of petty arguments and try to debate them. I find it interesting to read what the hon. member for Houghton said in this House in 1979 on the occasion of the debate on the Bill in terms of which Venda became independent. On that occasion the hon. member for Houghton made a confession here and said that she wanted to make it quite clear that her party’s main objection to the independence of Venda was the fact that the people of Venda were not consulted in the matter. She pointed out forcefully that there was no consultation, and no proper referendum. That was the PFP’s argument at that stage. What argument are they raising here today?

I visited the Ciskei a short while ago. The main thing that struck me was the great enthusiasm with which the people of the Ciskei are approaching their future independence. This is the case in spite of the arguments raised by the hon. members of the Opposition as to what has and has not been done. Hon. members of the Opposition are now alleging that we have not satisfied the expectations of the people of the Ciskei. They also alleged that we did not grant the total amount of land to which the people of Ciskei lay claim. However, if we were to meet all the demands for land made by all the Black States in South Africa, there would be total chaos. Surely it would even lead to confrontation, not only confrontation between the Black States and ourselves, but also confrontation among the Black States themselves. It could even happen that they would demand each other’s territories. If the South African Government were to meet the requirements of Transkei or Ciskei, those two States could end up confronting one another. The same would apply in the case of the Zulus or the Swazis, and in the case of every other Black people.

In South Africa there is a process under way similar to a process which occurred in Europe. However, what hon. members of the Opposition refuse to understand is that people elect to order their own affairs on a voluntary basis, as occurred in Europe at the time when the Roman Empire still controlled the whole of Europe. By means of wars people gave effect to their heartfelt desires. In that way they obtained their own territory, a territory to which they were bound as separate peoples. The same process is under way at the present moment in South Africa. The NP is the buffer between the various peoples. It is the NP that ensures that the territory of each separate people is allocated in an evolutionary and just way, and that fair borders are drawn for each. This is what the NP is doing at the moment. Fair borders are being drawn for the peoples of South Africa. It is impossible to allow each to demand his own territory without considering the other. Let us take the Zulus as an example. If one were to ask a Zulu what he wants, he would tell one that he wants the whole of Natal and the Eastern Transvaal.

The Eastern Transvaal? Never!

This is obviously an impossible situation.

The hon. member referred to the squatting at Nyanga. I knew he would rake that up again. He spoke about job opportunities we were creating, and in this connection I wish to refer to Bophuthatswana. At one stage the economic development of that country was almost stagnating, but what has happened recently? A fantastic development process is under way in Bophuthatswana today. The hon. member says there is no development in the Ciskei, but this will come in due course as a result of the co-operation between the Republic and that State and the national pride which will grow there. Development will also take place because the Government of the RSA is aware that a nation cannot be independent if it is not economically independent to a certain extent, and money and effort is being put into accomplishing this.

The hon. member has questioned our attempts in this connection and asked what the people have said about these steps. As a matter of fact the people gave their verdict recently in the election. The people said we must continue; they approved these steps. This is in fact a tremendous mandate that we have received.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that if we were to do everything offered in the package deal, he would be in favour of independence for the Ciskei. Unfortunately he is not present now, but I should like to know whether his party will support the independence of the Ciskei if all these requirements are met. No, Sir, that will not happen.

As regards the proposed independence of the Ciskei, the will of the population is being expressed. Another hon. member has already referred to this, but I want to emphasize it by quoting from a report which appeared recently in Oosterlig. The report reads—

Ciskei se kiesers het vanoggend geesdriftig in die onafhanklikheidsreferendum begin stem. Honderde mense het van vroeg vanoggend af saamgedrom en lang toue gevorm om te stem. Singende vroue het groot baniere rondgeswaai en die geesdrif met sang aangeblaas. Klein seuntjies het ook met plakkate van die regerende Nasionale Onafhanklikheidsparty rondgeloop.

This describes the enthusiasm in the Ciskei at that stage and it is still to be found there in spite of the problems facing them. In the case of Bophuthatswana it has however been proved that things are going better and more development will take place in the industrial, commercial and agricultural sectors after independence, and that the people are beginning to share in its own development. As a matter of fact, only after independence does a nation begin to uplift itself.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the fantastic percentage of votes cast. Approximately 99% of the population voted in favour of independence. What more does one want? The hon. the Minister said he looked forward to the day when the Ciskei could become part of a confederation and a constellation of states in Southern Africa as an independent and equal state. What more could one want? This is indeed a fantastic percentage vote in the Ciskei. It is a clear “yes” for the fourth people and also “yes” for further peoples who must decide about this important matter in the near future, a matter which will affect our peaceful existence.

What happens to a state after independence? The spotlight for development falls on that state. A national desire for togetherness and an enthusiastic team spirit begin to develop. I should like to quote from a document which I found extremely striking. On the independence of Venda the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

Just as the Scotch say today “We are now feeling more Scottish and less British than at any time since 1946”, so are the Vendas. The Vendas are seeking their own national identity, which is the goal of every ethnic group of the world as a whole, whether that group is in Southern Africa or in France or in the United Kingdom or in Canada or in Switzerland or in Cyprus. The various homelands that are busy advocating federation, do they not hear that overall clamour for national identity and independence?

This was said by a Black man, and one can hear his feeling for his own people and his own area bubbling out. People who do not demand self-determination for themselves, begrudge it to others. I also want to say this about the hon. members of the Opposition. People who are not proud of themselves, who do not want to identify themselves, cannot identify other people. This step paves the way for the equal co-existence of peoples. Of course it does not remove all problems, but it does create a state in which mutual problems can be solved more easily.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. Opposition has run out of wind.

You are nothing but a wind-bag!

The principles involved in this Bill are the principles of the right of self-determination, and of independence. However, if one listens to the hon. members of the official Opposition and to hon. members of the NRP, one realizes how irrelevant those people have become in the process of the constitutional development of a constitutional structure in South Africa. Surely it is a fact that dreams and ideals of only 10 years ago are …

Becoming nightmares.

… becoming a reality in South Africa.

I am one of those people who have to confess that I never in my wildest dreams, when I was a member of the Opposition, thought that this policy would work. [Interjections.] I am asking those hon. members how long one must swim against the stream before one realizes that the water is flowing in the opposite direction. [Interjections.] That is the problem with the hon. members on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

Today they bandied the name of Dr. Verwoerd about in this House. I remember the days in the Opposition when we spoke disparagingly of the Government’s Bantustan policy. We reviled it as being unrealistic and unacceptable to the Black man, as being incapable of allowing economic development and as being dangerous. We even spoke of the Bantustans being springboards for communism. However, have those people not learnt the lessons of the reality in South Africa?

The hon. member for Durban Point was a member of the party in those days when the party’s leader, Sir De Villiers Graaff, recognized and accepted the principle of independence. He said that if the people came and asked for independence, we would have to grant it.

What do you say now, Vause?

Within a confederation.

But what do we get from the hon. member for Durban Point? He sought refuge behind the so-called “package deal” and the so-called “confederation”. He reminds me of the old days and of a certain swain who was returning home on horseback. He was afraid of ghosts, however, and when he passed the graveyard gate and saw a ghost inside, he dismounted and allowed his horse to precede him while he walked hunched over behind it so that the ghost would think that he was the horse’s foal. That is the problem with that hon. member.

Then one comes to the hon. members of the official Opposition. It is a pity that the hon. members for Yeoville and Bryanston are not present here, because they were with us when we jointly accepted the principle of independence for the Black homelands. However, they will probably tell us again that that part of the policy was also forced upon them. Despite the opposition, the disparaging criticism, the contempt and the suspicion-mongering of the prophets of doom in South Africa, I want to state today that if there has ever been a tale of success told as far as evolution in South Africa is concerned, it is the tale recounted here today by the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development. Let us consider the standpoint of the PFP. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is not present here. After all, he is the father of the Opposition. The hon. members of the party of the hon. member for Durban Point also accepted these principles. Their party was established on those same principles. How does standpoint 12 of the policy of the PFP read? It reads as follows—

Then the following is said—

This is the basis of the policy of hon. members on that side of the House. Apart from the “package deal” which they are taking refuge behind today, surely a referendum was also held. Surely independence is not being forced upon the Ciskei. Those people asked for their independence, and the Government is keeping the promise which it made to the Black people of South Africa. I want to repeat what is stated in their policy—

I want to ask those hon. members what became of this standpoint of theirs. What else has happened except that the Ciskei “elect(ed) to proceed towards self-determination”? It goes on to state—

Today those hon. members have displayed utter contempt, not only for their own party’s standpoints, but also contempt for the people of the Ciskei who asked for independence. Let us see how their statement of policy continues. Point 5.6.1 reads—

Then they state—

These are the PFP’s stated policy decisions. I am quoting these standpoints of policy to establish why the legislation is suddenly and so drastically being opposed by the Opposition.

†These are stated policy decisions: “Self-governing federal States will be entitled to decide on their own form of Government and their own system of franchise and they will take into account the existence of certain semi-autonomous areas.” Surely one can deduct from these two statements that Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and now also Ciskei qualify for the so-called semi-autonomous status that the PFP is talking about. Furthermore, one can surely deduct from these statements from the Opposition side that the status of the tribes’ headmen qualifies them when they talk about people “being entitled to decide on their own franchise and their own system of Government”. This is basic to any worthwhile discussion in the House.

We hear arguments from the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Houghton about the independence of Venda. Let us, just for argument’s sake, have a look at the situation in Venda. Those hon. members say the Opposition in Venda won the election. That may be true, but we also know that the Opposition Leader in Venda calls his party the Venda Independence Party and supported the application for independence from South Africa. That is a fact. If in a geographic area a “semi-autonomous” body, as it is called by the Opposition, decide how that body should be constituted, viz. by a certain number of members being elected and the other members being the existing tribesmen, surely it is their right to make that decision. Therefore, if the Government loses an election but they have existing tribesmen sitting as nominated members on that body, surely the Opposition must respect the wishes of those people.

Tell them that Mr. Mudau lived in Soweto for more than 20 years.

That is quite correct, Sir. I was also told yesterday that Mr. Mudau has moved from Soweto and is living in Venda. He has moved back to Venda to participate in the process of democracy in that country.

One swallow does not make independence.

Mr. Speaker, I accuse the Opposition of blatant, liberal paternalism because they show a total disregard and disrespect for the wishes of the people of Ciskei. Furthermore, Sir, one must read the small print in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s policy statement.

But he is a racist.

This document states, inter alia—

First of all, Sir, they say that we must have respect for the right of those people to decide for themselves how they want to form their Government. However, when we read the small print in their policy we find that they start telling the people exactly how their geographic area should be constituted.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up but I wish to make one final observation. What is important in this Bill is the principle of self-determination because when it comes to the details of the policy we can discuss those details in Committee. I say that the Opposition owe South Africa and the Black people an explanation as to why they are opposing this question of self-determination and the right of those Black people to make these decisions for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to try to explain to this House why I think that this little piece of paper which is called the Status of Ciskei Bill is a scandalous document. It is a case of the blind leading the blind and is a request for a blank cheque to carry out an undefined and unquantified project with no attempt to plumb its implications. It is as if the promoters of Rondalia Bank, for example, having lost their shareholders’ money, returned to the market and said: “We now have another idea, another scheme. It will be big and successful. You must invest your money in it. We will not tell you how much or for how long or what your risks are or what your profits are likely to be. We will not even issue a prospectus. We will have an agreement with the other party but we will not tell you and we will not even tell him what it is. Just invest your money with us and shut up!”

Mr. Speaker, it has become fashionable to talk about private enterprise in this House. Almost every word that is uttered on this subject indicates a profound lack of knowledge of this particular subject. However, I will say that if a managing director were to put a proposal such as is before us today to any board of directors in the country, he would lose his job the same day. [Interjections.] Either because of ignorance or because of arrogance the normal requirements to make a major decision have not been given to us, and I speak of that side of the House as much as of this side. We are here either to make judicious, objective contributions in which case we need certain information or we are here simply as rubber stamps in which case the whole situation is a complete farce and the quicker we stop wasting the taxpayers’ money and go home, the better. Have any hon. members seen a long-term, medium-term or short-term viability study for an independent Ciskei? Have they seen projections of the economy of Ciskei and growth rates which are bad, medium or good for five, 10 or 15 years ahead? Have they been shown what the on-going implications of this step will be for the Republic of South Africa? Have they seen the figures placed against the demographic projection of that country or of its citizens outside that country? Let me ask the hon. the Minister whether he has seen such a medium and long-term project?

Of what?

Of the economic future of Ciskei and to what it amounts.

He does not even know the boundaries.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur is totally out of his depth.

If the hon. the Minister has not, then it is a scandalous and irresponsible thing to ask this House to approve a major step like this and if he has seen it, then it is a scandalous contempt of all hon. members of this House that he has not made the information available to them when they are asked to support such a far-reaching proposal.

Hon. members should be aware that the Department of Co-operation and Development does not even know how many Ciskeians there are; they do not know that within a wide margin. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt confirmed this in January last year in this House and the Quail Commission, expecting to find 1,4 million Ciskeians there, eventually found what they believe to be 2,1 million. This is an indication of the quality of the background information which the Government is using to make a decision of watershed significance.

Information from many sources shows clearly that the proposed Ciskei is not a viable economic unit. Its estimated internal population of 660 000 is likely to be 1,2 million in only 19 years. Its estimated external population is 1,4 million and it is likely to be 2,5 million in 19 years. The area of a consolidated Ciskei is only 8 300 square km and that would give one a population of 145 people per square km in the year 2000. The South African Geographic Journal describes the country as—

Extensive dry-land stock farming requires conditions which cannot be fulfilled by an unsophisticated peasantry that crawl like ants over the limited land, but if deterioration of the dry-land areas is not stopped, it will threaten the irrigation lands that have been established at great cost. The Ciskei commission of 1980 reports that the per capita value of agricultural production including subsistence needs of the farm population as R40 per annum. From 1971 to 1976 the average growth in gross value of agricultural production increased by an average of only 3,5% at a time when inflation was probably running at an average of 10%. The country is totally unable to feed itself.

What about the rest of the economy? In 1979-’80 only 23% of the total revenue was derived purely from local sources. 55% of the total income of Blacks in Ciskei comes from continually absent citizens. Of 59 000 workers in Ciskei 40 000 are commuters, 14 000 are teachers and civil servants and that leaves 5 000 engaged in trades, services and industry. Where then will the wealth come from as there is no burgeoning entrepreneurial drive, no significant skill, work ethic or natural resource? Smith states—

Cook states—

Why then will industry go to Ciskei? It must be bribed to go there. On business principles that is not where it is most advantageously located. People forget what a delicate plant a business is. If it has a 2% disadvantage it can be wiped right out of existence. The Government must tell us not only what it is going to do to influence industry to move to that place but also what this will cost and for how long this cost will continue. Anybody who doubts what I say must stop and consider the examples of East London and Port Elizabeth. Here we have towns with large White populations, towns with a managerial class, with skilled industrial labour and an infrastructure of ports, housing, hospitals, roads and railways, water and communications, yet industrial sites lie empty there. They are both regions into which the tourist industry injects millions of rands each year and which are trade centres for export and import, they serve large agriculture hinterlands but they are barely viable. Both need Government assistance now. Port Elizabeth had a negative growth rate between 1971 and 1979. Both are established industrial structures with well-developed linkage that the new deconcentration regions could not equal in decades and possibly ever. Both are well-situated to supply the citizens of Transkei and Ciskei with labour.

In the light of the information put at our disposal, would it not be irresponsible for us to approve the Bill before this House? The Government is behaving with the lack of sophistication of an emergent Black State and with none of its excuses.

We must very carefully examine the reasons for the establishment of Ciskei as an independent State. There are four approaches. Have the Whites promoted Ciskei for moral reasons, because they feel that all people must be able to exercise citizenship rights somewhere? If this is so, it is an ill-conceived scheme without a chance of success. In 18 years’ time there will be 20% more Ciskeians outside Ciskei than there are presently inside and outside Ciskei combined. The bulk of them will never have seen Ciskei and will probably be disinterested in Ciskei. Should they, however, exercise their vote, they would overwhelm the local Ciskeians who would revolt rather than allow a number of uncommitted expatriates to order the domestic affairs of Ciskei. So, let us not delude ourselves that by this irretrievable and foolish action we have solved any moral commitment.

The next possibility is that we are promoting Ciskei independence for reasons highly suspect on ethical grounds. We can then tell the world that the Ciskeians have full citizenship rights, but these are meaningless to all but a small oligarchy who rule over an impoverished and overcrowded territory which has a claim to some of South Africa’s revenues—a sort of territorial remittance man paid to keep out of sight, a magic carpet under which we can sweep limitless dust. This will not work either. Ciskei has consistently claimed three times the territory that the Republic of South Africa has ever suggested handing over. Its claims to extra territories and towns will only be strengthened through the years as the numbers of its expatriate citizens grow in an area where the numbers of Whites are static. The moral claim that derives from numbers, from sheer existence, will be enhanced by rising Black expectations and become irresistable. Ciskei will develop into South Africa’s running sore.

Thirdly, do Blacks feel the situation is so intolerable that they have opted in desperation for anything that is put to them as offering relief and freedom? We must admit that this is highly probable. If the Ciskeian who shares one water tap with 1 800 others in Port Elizabeth and who lives at the whim of a bureaucratic rule that would make the Russians in some respects look liberal, is asked whether he would want independence, one must admit that he is likely to say yes.

Fourthly—and this is the crunch question—what are the faults of the Ciskeian leaders? There are two possibilities. Firstly, they could be thinking, short-term and selfishly, that an independent Ciskei gives them autocratic control of a tiny state with a financial conduit to the South African Treasury. A regular but varying supply of finance would flow through to them and its allocation and the control of the administration would mean increased living standards and responsibilities for an elite group of supporters of that Government. The second alternative—and I think this more likely—is that the Ciskeian leaders could be wise, farsighted patriots who are thinking and planning far more long-term than our Government and its officials. Such people would be aware that the establishment of a Black independent state establishes once and for all a clear principle, viz. the principle that South Africa is not to be shared but that it is to be Black or White. It virtually does not matter how small the territory is that is made independent: Once it has happened, the principle is established. From there on each Black claim is for additional territory to add to the independent State. Its claim to adjoining territories becomes stronger through the years with the disproportionate growth of its own people occupying those territories. It ends up as an irresistible argument both on moral and physical grounds.

The trap of apartheid is then complete. It is sold as an attractive scheme in terms of which we occupy those areas of the economy and geography we choose, banishing Blacks to unfavourable areas; but revealed as a process that inevitably paints the White man into a corner, apartheid is a policy of withdrawal and becomes only a moral solution when the White man occupies “Orangia” stuck somewhere between Prieska and Verwoerd Dam. People in Sabra know this. They mix honesty and objectivity with their fanaticism and prejudice. Consider for a moment the words of Professor Boshoff, chairman of the Broederbond and of Sabra, words uttered only this time last year—

The day we decided to back-track and not hand King William’s Town to Ciskei will one day be known as the moment of truth for apartheid. That was the day on which the leaders looked over the edge and saw that apartheid is inevitably a policy of withdrawal. What we now see happening territorially, is a process many of us have watched over many years in industry. Whites refused to share occupations, so they withdrew. They withdrew from the shoe trade and the building industry. We have seen them withdraw from a whole series of trades because they would not share them. I have always told my people that if we share those trades there will be no part of our inheritance we abandon and there will be no part of this land we usurp.

This whole exercise to make Ciskei independent is a grand delusion. The State is a fiction. It is unviable. An attempt to keep the fiction alive will involve the continuation of present measures which invariably must suck communism into this country. Do not let us beat about the bush. We all know what creates the vacuum for communism in this country: It is the denial of rights to Blacks in the land of their birth on the basis of skin colour. It is the oppression which is part and parcel of the policy of discrimination. It will set afoot a process of withdrawal from which there is no escape.

This Ciskei Bill establishes Black nationalism in a political and physical structure in which it can be as damaging to this country as White nationalism has been. I ask this House to realize that in this country we share trades, we share sports fields, towns, transport systems and toilets. We share places of education and build a political structure which we can share without fear of who is dominating whom. Or, for a few more years of selfish privilege we sell the birthright of our children, their right to play their rightful part in a South Africa of 21st century.

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

Order! The hon. member has already resumed his seat.

Lucky for him. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the most pessimistic speech I have heard in this House for a very long time. The hon. member for Walmer tried to tell us that nothing was happening in the Ciskei. According to him the agricultural potential there is low. He also said that the human potential there was low. He went on to allege that there were no entrepreneurs, that just about nothing was happening. [Interjections.] Surely these are exactly the same arguments which were raised by the official Opposition in the past in regard to Bophuthatswana, the Transkei and Venda. The only difference is that the former official Opposition did it better than the hon. member for Walmer did today. [Interjections.]

However, one need not listen to what the hon. member says. Let us see what the Black leaders themselves say. Let us see what a man like President Lucas Mangope says. After all, President Mangope’s country has been independent for a number of years now. What does he say in connection with what independence has meant to him? For the sake of the pessimistic hon. member for Walmer in particular, I want to quote what President Mangope said in this connection. On 20 June of this year he said—

The hon. member for Walmer said they could not become self-sufficient. They have nothing. Here President Mangope said that independence had made his people more self-sufficient. If this could have happened in the case of Bophuthatswana and its people, how is it then possible that this cannot also happen in future in the case of the Ciskei. President Mangope went on to say—

Surely we have here an example of what can happen in the case of a country which became independent a few years ago, a country about which almost everyone in South Africa had doubts. This year, however, Bophuthatswana had one of the best maize crops which that area has had in its entire history.

Bophuthatswana is now even becoming a maize exporting country.

Precisely. Bophuthatswana is now a maize exporting country. Yet the hon. member for Walmer claims that the Ciskei has no potential. [Interjections.] In this debate it has already been alleged repeatedly that the people of the Ciskei have actually been cheated, that they have been betrayed as far as this so-called independence of theirs is concerned. It has even been alleged that the referendum, too, was a farce. What does the future Prime Minister of the Ciskei himself say? On 20 April of this year he said—

However, those hon. members come here and say that they cannot rely on what has happened to the Ciskei thus far. Chief Lennox Sebe is actually the man who was deceived in this process. Even before he attains his independence later this year, he maintained that this was the greatest step he would ever take. He also said—

This is the language of a nationalist, a patriot, and not the kind of language used by those hon. members opposite to whom we have had to listen for the past 33 years, and they have still not been able to turn the tide. Today it gives me great pleasure to look at another milestone on the road to better race relations in South Africa, viz. by setting the seal on the final independence of the Ciskei. Any sympathetic, well-meaning and benevolent person in South Africa ought to welcome this development. No one is denying that at the moment the Ciskei is not exactly the most prosperous State on the African continent. Yet there is nothing, as I have already said, to prevent them from making large-scale progress in future. Today I am disappointed because both neither of the two Opposition parties are prepared to help in developing this new State in South Africa. I believe it will not go unnoticed that it is a National Party Government that, unperturbed and with determination, will continue the process of emancipating nations in South Africa. As far as I am concerned this is another example that the “baasskap” approach is gone forever in South Africa. This is another example of the creation of equality for citizens, even if they belong to different ethnic groups. What is important to me is that the White man has kept his word. He is leading others to maturity and is cultivating leadership amongst them on a basis of absolute equality so that they can consult and negotiate with their White and other counterparts. The pattern of multinationalism is also being promoted to an ever-increasing extent in South Africa. South Africa is still on the move, and nothing is going to stop us, or cause us to revert to the previous course of domination, whether it be by the Blacks or the Whites. That is why I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reply directly to the speech made by the hon. member for De Kuilen. I would however like to remark on something mentioned by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. It concerns the remark he made about the Ciskeian people who, in contrast to the Whites, have a way of communicating with one another and knowing what is going on. He said that they were well aware of everything that is involved in the whole question of independence. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that, Sir, because it is incorrect. It can be said that the method of communication among the Xhosa people is indeed remarkable and that by word of mouth information does get about at a remarkable pace. That these people entirely understand the implications of independence and that their attitudes are in relation to the realities of what is taking place as a result of the taking of independence, is however another matter entirely. Living among them as I do, I must indicate that that is, in fact, not the situation at all. In many cases they are very bewildered by the situation and they are led by the community leaders in the area and those who can best explain it.

The whole question of Ciskeian citizenship appears to me to be one on which the Government seems to be taking a very firm stand whilst the Ciskeians have made themselves very, very plain on this subject. The Ciskeians regard themselves as South Africans, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in fact he agrees with that and whether it is not so, that, in the broad context of the word, the Ciskeians would like to have a South African relationship. Whilst nationalism seeks to unite people as a nation who honour the battles fought by their forefathers, those people also believe in the existence of a total South African culture and the inter-relationship between all South African peoples. Ciskeians do not want to lose that which identifies them in the broader context as South Africans. I should like the hon. the Minister to answer that question because I believe that that is a very simple and straightforward question that cannot be merely denied by lengthy speeches on the question of how good nationalism is, what it builds up for a people, etc. There can be no doubt that nationalism is an irrepressible emotion within people but the fact that the Ciskeians would like to remain linked with South Africa and be known as South Africans, is equally one that cannot be denied.

The question of South Africanism embodies their legitimate claim to a share in the wealth of South Africa for which they fought and died in wars, side by side with White South Africans, against a common enemy. There already exists a common history and a common love for the country, however imperfect that country might seem to them at present. This Bill, as its name implies, does change the status of the Ciskeian. The Bill itself says so. This status that is changing does in fact result in something being taken away from them. I should like to know why it was that the hon. the Minister in his deliberations with the Ciskeian people rejected the requirement by the Ciskeians that they remain South Africans.

With the status of these South Africans changing, they have to cease to acknowledge that they have a share in the whole of South Africa. Have they gained or lost by such an action? Also, have we in South Africa gained or lost by such an action? I think the answer to that is very clear. We cannot simply create another State which is economically dependent on South Africa by taking advantage of Ciskeian nationalism, by exploiting and misusing it …

Who is doing that?

… in order to absolve ourselves from the responsibility for the Ciskeian people. The Ciskeian part cannot be greater than the South African whole, and nationalism as a replacement for South Africanism is, I believe, an issue that is cardinal to this whole question. It is a vital issue, and quite rightly so much of the discussion today has centred on this question of citizenship and the question of belonging to the whole and not being divorced from it. Nationalism, as I have said, is an irrepressible force—of that there can be no doubt—and the right to self-determination is an undeniable fact enshrined in the articles of the 1966 International Covenant of Human Rights which states that all peoples have the right to self-determination. The question here, of course, is whether Ciskeians are a South African people or not. We on this side of the House believe that they are and that if it is their wish to remain so, their wish should be accommodated. Territorial considerations must, of course, be met in this question of self-determination, and I believe that the larger territorial consideration of South Africa is, in fact, at stake here. The territory in which a vast number of Ciskeians will earn their living, seek a future for their children and therefore be prepared to fight for, is beyond the confined borders of Ciskei. The problem, as I see it, will now be found to be in two places because the projections for the year 2000 indicate that by that time the Whites will represent only 13% of the total population of South Africa. Even in the White areas the Whites will be outnumbered four to one by the Blacks. By that time the total Coloured population will equal our population in numbers. If that is therefore the sort of scenario for only 19 years hence—the Whites being only 13% of the total population, the Blacks outnumbering the Whites four to one and the Coloureds equalling the Whites in numbers—the Ciskeians are quite obviously going to be spread throughout the country. They are going to be involved in every walk of life. As we have heard during this session, we are going to have to develop many very special professional, management and technical skills among our Black and Brown South Africans and they are going to be spread throughout the South African economy. If they are to participate in that economy and if they are to have a stake in it, they are going to have to have ownership rights and participate fully in that economy. The only way one can, of course, participate fully in free enterprise is to have ownership rights and to have a say over those ownership rights in the economy. On that basis we in these benches cannot see how the constitutional change that is being proposed in terms of this Bill is anywhere near the final act. We do not believe for one moment that this is, in fact, the final act as far as Ciskei is concerned. In fact, we acknowledge that in the absence of the negotiable options—which we have heard in the House today and which I repeat is a confederal structural arrangement in South Africa—Ciskei is forced to take the present action as a means of achieving its goal. They are using this as a platform. The hon. member for Walmer put it very well when he spoke about this as being one of the options which in future will only be used as a means to receive a far greater share. It will be used as a lever to obtain more land. This is one of the areas where we in these benches believe that the question of land should be removed entirely from the cauldron of political settlement and the adoption of new borders. Our land is far too precious to be used in any way other than for agricultural production.

You do not want the Black people to have land.

I am coming to that. For the hon. member’s benefit, I want to say we believe that those who can use the land properly, should be allowed to farm it, whether they are Black, White, Brown or whatever. In a confederal arrangement in the country, there will be no barriers to the movement of people in the economic sphere. As far as we are concerned, farming is the heart of the economy of the country and the land will have to be used properly. In time only those who do use the land properly will have the opportunity to do so. That will apply to those who fall into that category.

The rich should be able to buy out the poor. The poor should not be able to get anything.

If the hon. member for Pretoria Central thinks it is a good thing for land to be used entirely for settlement purposes, where people live cheek by jowl and cannot produce, will need more and more assistance and will always be looking over the fence at pastures which look greener on the other side, then I am afraid he is going to find himself up a creek.

That is a racialistic remark. [Interjections.]

There is no question about it; this is not the final enactment concerning the future of Ciskei. Ciskei will eventually have to have additional rights and have a say in the economic aspirations of its people who will be spread throughout the country. We oppose the Bill on the basis of its being a non-solution for Ciskei as well as for the South African people. It is an economically impoverished state with extremely limited resources and an inadequate infrastructure in the sense of attracting investment on a large scale. We heard tonight from the hon. member for Walmer once again the point which the hon. the Minister did not like very much, viz. the fact that the entrepreneur in the private sector does not invest there. That is a fact and it is no good running away from it. When an investor considers where he is going to put his business, he looks to see whether things will work when he presses a button, whether there are railways and whether things run smoothly, whether there is a competitive situation and whether there is a general situation of stability and security for his operation which in many cases is very sensitive and brittle during the initial years. These are the situations which are unsatisfactory at present. So often the private sector gets blamed for not investing in situations in which it would be terribly risky for it to invest. The Government wants the private sector to take the risk but in many cases the Government itself does not want to take the risk.

If people in this House denigrate it and run it down so much, as we have seen this afternoon, what else do you expect?

A case can be made out for making investment more attractive. There is no question about that. The present situation certainly does not make it attractive for investors and that is the only reason why investment has not got off the ground in that area.

In our opposition to this Bill there is no question of our opposing it for the sake of opposition. We simply do not see a future for the Ciskeian people that will be adequate to meet their future aspirations. We do not see that the situation which is going to be brought about will be conducive to establishing a stable situation for the border farmer in the corridor who will still think in terms of being bought out as a result. The relationship between these people is a prime factor in bringing about the stability which the hon. the Minister requires so much for Ciskei to be successful. Accordingly, without any question of doubt, our proposed amendment to the Preamble and our suggestion of a formal, structured confederation of Southern African states is the answer to this.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, all constitutional development in a country takes place against the background of what the population structure of that country is. If we want to judge what is happening here today, we must have an understanding of the population structure of South Africa. The population structure of South Africa is such that it can be described as one of the most heterogeneous populations in the world. We have a deeply divided population structure. Anyone who knows anything about politics will know that to bring about unity and unanimity in such a population is much more difficult than is the case in a homogeneous population. It is a very difficult task to reach agreement between the people in a country which is heterogeneous.

This side of the House has the ideal for the people of South Africa, and that ideal is for a confederation of South African States to evolve here. The PFP also has an ideal. They speak of a federation they want to establish here. To bring about this ideal, the people of the country must agree to it. In the case of the Opposition it is their official policy that they want to bring about this agreement between the various constituent sections by means of a national convention. At some time they want to bring together around a table everyone who is involved, place the constitution of the Republic of South Africa on the table and say that they must come to an agreement as to what the constitution must be in the future. We have no doubt that as a practical possibility, a national convention is stillborn.

Like in South West?

In contrast, the NP is building its confederation. We must look at what is happening here today and we must try to put our finger on the central theme of what has been put before this House today. It is that White and Black are entering into an agreement with one another. When the Transkei became independent, that independence was embodied in a variety of contracts. There were about 70 such contracts. This was an important consensus arrived at between White and Black in South Africa. The contents of those contracts were published in the Government Gazette of the Republic of South Africa and everyone is entitled to look at them and to say whether the contracts were wrong. However, those contracts have stood the test of time and have seldom if ever been criticized. I am not aware that their contents have ever been criticized.

The independence of the Transkei is the result of consensus between White and Black. Then came Bophuthatswana, and the consensus between White and Black grew. Later came Venda, and the consensus between White and Black, that agreement, that contract between White people and Black people, grew.

We are now on the eve of the independence of the Ciskei and again the crux of the matter today is that White people and Black people must come to agreement on the cardinal aspects of their lives. This is not just any agreement. In his speech today the hon. the Minister gave particulars as to how many contracts were entered into. He said there were 70 agreements approved by the joint working committee and 33 agreements which had already been approved by the joint Cabinet Committee. This is what the agreements look like—I am holding them in my hand. They consist of two documents almost 5 cm thick. They represent a contract between White people and Black people in South Africa, and were brought about by the labour and work of the Government. This represents an important step in the constitutional development of South Africa, because it is a contract between the White people of South Africa and a large number of Black people of South Africa. This afternoon the hon. the Minister also gave notice of a particular contract. The title of that contract is “The independence convention between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Ciskei.” This contract came into being after various Ministers of the South African Government had worked on it and had sat around a table with Black leaders. The result was that this agreement was reached. I want to take this opportunity today to say to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development: “Esteemed doctor, heartiest congratulations on the agreement you have reached on behalf of the White people of South Africa with the Black people of the Ciskei.” [Interjections.] The following appears in that contract—

It continues—

The details to which the hon. the Minister referred, are then set out.

This agreement, and the various contracts to which I referred, represent and embody the achievement of a great ideal. The people who entered into this contract, were contractually authorized to enter into it. They were able to enter into the contract and were ad idem. They agreed with each other and were able to conclude the contract because there was goodwill and courtesy between the various parties. However, what was the behaviour of that side of the House? The behaviour of that side of the House was to scorn the earnest and deep-felt aspirations of two groups of people, the White people and the Black people, as embodied in a contract on which they had negotiated for some time. On what grounds are the hon. members on that side entitled to scorn the will of the people of the Ciskei and the will of the White people? We must bear in mind at all times that the people who entered into this contract were authorized and empowered to enter into it, and therefore this is an achievement. We again come to the ideal of a confederation. The ideal of a confederation means that we must have consensus in South Africa. The Government believes it is not possible to achieve that union of minds in a single day by getting everyone to sit around a table, but that one has to build up that union of minds step by step. This is a large building that we want to erect, and every contract entered into with the Black people, is a brick to be laid in the great confederation between the Republic of South Africa and the other States.

The foundations are built on sand.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member says the foundations are built on sand. However, I want to tell the hon. member that the foundations on which this confederation rests, are built on the will and the desire of nations to be free from oppression, free from the poverty that holds our people captive and free from overseas interference and other unnecessary pressure. In fact, this building is founded on the basis of consensus between the White people and the Black people. It is founded on the expression of the will of people who desire such consensus in this country.

I wish to conclude by saying that the task of the Opposition is to try to prevent this contract from being concluded in the future. What they are doing in practice, is to try to undermine the goodwill existing between the Government and the various Black nations of South Africa, to try to create distrust and to say that the actions of the Government are mala fides. They are trying to create mistrust among the Black people to prevent them from entering into contracts with the White people.

They are undermining consensus.

If one listened to the speech made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today, one would have to say that it was aimed at creating mistrust among the White people of South Africa concerning the bona fides of the Black people of South Africa. The Opposition’s attitude is negative, the Opposition’s attitude is not in the best interests of South Africa, but irrespective of what they do, the NP will continue along its chosen path of bringing about the greatest degree of agreement between White and Black ever achieved in the history of Africa, in the best interests of everyone in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we listened attentively to the winged words of the hon. member, but among them there was one phrase which made me prick up my ears, and that was when he said that one of the reasons why Ciskeians wanted independence, was that they wanted to escape oppression. That was what he said, and that is indeed the gist of the choice. The hon. member said that the Ciskeians and the White Government of South Africa concluded a contract.

I was referring to the oppression brought about by poverty.

However, the hon. member knows that no contract is valid if that contract has been concluded under pressure.

†The hon. member said that one of the reasons why the Ciskeians opted for independence was that they wanted freedom from oppression.

The oppression brought about by poverty.

The hon. member must not get excited. He has let the cat out of the bag.

And it is a very fat one.

It has nothing to do with self-determination. It is, as he said, in order to get freedom from oppression. I want to ask him whether those people are being oppressed. If they are not being oppressed, why do they want freedom from oppression?

Not oppression by the Government.

Before I come to the burden of my speech, I want to put two simple questions to the hon. the Minister in order to clear the air on certain important issues. A lot has been said about this being a free choice of the people of Ciskei—“hul eie vrye wil”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in charge of this debate what alternative the Ciskeians had. If, as the hon. member for Pretoria Central has said, they wanted to escape from oppression, what option did they have in their referendum? What alternatives were put to them? I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who is now writing so industriously, whether they had any alternative.

They could have said “no”.

Were they given the option of freedom and independence in Ciskei or, as the hon. member said, continued oppression in the rest of South Africa? Was that the option? Or were they given the option of freedom in the whole of South Africa? Did they have the option of no discrimination in the whole of South Africa, or was this free choice of theirs limited to freedom in that little part called Ciskei which was allocated to them by a White Government, or in fact enduring discrimination and oppression, again as the hon. member said, in the rest of South Africa?

Have you never heard of the Ciskei nation? You are talking as if you have never heard of it.

Were they given any option?

You are denying their history.

Let us accept that there is a Ciskei nation. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister …

I shall reply to you.

In this free choice…

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

I am afraid I have no time. [Interjections.] In this free choice the Ciskei nation had, what were the options? I put it to the hon. the Minister that it was either this or nothing at all. That was the extent of the freedom of their option. So the next point is that no contract …

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

No, I have no time to answer questions. It is not a matter of my not being prepared to answer questions. If I am given more time by hon. Whips opposite I shall answer questions right through the night. [Interjections.] The other point is that no contract is valid unless the terms of that contract are clearly understood by the contracting partners. The hon. member for Pretoria Central knows that. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the meaning is of clause 6(3) of the Bill, where it is stated as follows—

I put it to the hon. the Minister because over the last few weeks he has been involved in the removal of Transkeian squatters from the Cape Peninsula. There is one thing I should like to know from the hon. the Minister. Had those people been Ciskeians, would he have been able, in terms of this legislation, to take the same action against those Ciskeians in the Cape Peninsula that he took against the Transkeians in the Cape Peninsula? Will he do that? He said that no rights would be lost.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. the Minister should just relax. I want to know from him whether he will, once this Bill has been passed, be able to do to the Ciskeians in the Peninsula who are homeless the same that he did to the Transkeians who were homeless in the Peninsula. He could not do that to the Ciskeians before. He could not kick the Ciskeians out before. This is what I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister, and a simple yes or no will be sufficient.

If it is in the interest of maintaining law and order in South Africa I shall do it. [Interjections.]

The position at the moment is that the Ciskeians have a fundamental right. Before taking independence the Ciskeians have a basic right to be in South Africa, and there is no law in South Africa that forbids them. The only legal stipulation is that Black people cannot be in an urban area for more than 72 hours without permission. There is no law, however, at the moment which states that Ciskeians can be dumped in the Ciskei in the way in which the hon. the Minister dumped the Transkeians in the Transkei. [Interjections.] I should want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he has admitted that the Ciskeians are going to lose very substantial rights if this Bill goes through, and because there is doubt about this whole question of the contract …

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is no use the hon. the Minister becoming all uptight now about this. He has been found out. [Interjections.] He has been found out. He has now shown that his guarantee contained in clause 6 of the Bill is an absolute sham. It means nothing. It means that he, together with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation, can load Ciskeians on trucks and in taxis and dump them at the customs gates of the new Ciskei. That is what they can do. [Interjections.]

I ask these questions to the hon. the Minister because there will be clashing views on this Bill. Hon. members opposite have contrary views to ours on this Bill. We on this side, however, want to state clearly that what has been done to the Ciskei people in terms of this Bill, and especially on the basis of the Bill and the agreements and the lack of agreements, is one of the shabbiest and most cynical actions that has been perpetrated in the political history of South Africa. The hon. the Minister must understand that. What is more, is that it is made even worse because it is perpetrated by a group that is economically strong and politically powerful against a group of fellow South Africans who are poor, weak and powerless. The hon. the Minister should be ashamed of himself. He should be ashamed of himself. He says the Ciskeians want self-determination. He says they want the right to govern themselves as a nation.

Let us be quite frank. We in this House will not be able to gauge with any degree of accuracy the existence or the extent to which separate nationalism is a factor with Ciskeian South Africans. However from all our personal knowledge, from all our reading of history, from all our analyses of statements made by Ciskeian leaders themselves, it is clear that any urge that there may be for identification on an ethnic, tribal or nation basis is always secondary to the over-riding urge to be part of South Africa, to identify with other fellow South Africans, to identify with South Africa and to share in its opportunities. That is the dominant urge.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he wants the Coloured people to have the right of self-determination. Does the hon. the Minister want the Coloured people to have the right of self-determination?

We are talking about Ciskei now. The Coloured people are not in the picture at all now.

I raise this point because in spite of the fact that the NP will concede that certain people have the right to self-determination, the hon. the Minister also concedes that it is possible to have self-determination and yet to be an integral part of the South African nation. If it applies to one section of the community, it can apply to the other.

The hon. the Minister says that the Government’s attitude is reinforced by the holding of a referendum. My colleagues who have spoken before me have stated that they have doubts as to what meaning one should place on the particular referendum—on the numbers outside of Ciskei who were not registered and who did not vote, on aspects of the conducting of the referendum, on the question of the package deal and on the question of alternatives that were put. Much has been said in this debate about the fact that what the Ciskeians voted for was for freedom, but I want to ask: Freedom from what? Is it freedom from apartheid? Is it freedom from “verdrukking”, as the hon. member says? Do they want freedom from the body of South Africa? We do not believe this. We believe they want freedom, that they want freedom from oppression and discrimination but not that they want to cut themselves off from the body politic of South Africa.

When the referendum was put to those people from Ciskei, how many of them realized that in that act they would be renouncing South African citizenship? How many of them realized that they would be renouncing any claim to a share in the resources or the wealth of the opportunities of South Africa? How many of them realized that they were renouncing a fundamental right to work in South Africa? How many of them realized that they could in fact as a result of this legislation be confined to Ciskei, be prisoners in Ciskei and only be allowed out of Ciskei when the South African Government agreed that they should be let out? That is the effect of this legislation. This is no exercise in self-determination. This is no liberation from discrimination or from “verdrukking”. This is a cynical act of coercion designed to reinforce White political control in South Africa. That is how we see it. We see it in fundamentally different terms. The NP holds Ciskeian South Africans as it does other Black South Africans as hostages in apartheid South Africa. I am saying that they hold them as hostages. They say to Ciskei: We shall release you from apartheid, we shall release you from discrimination and we shall release you from bondage but there is a price that you have to pay. What is the ransom that they have to pay? The ransom that they have to pay to be released from domination and apartheid in this country is that they have to renounce their South African citizenship. They have to renounce their claim to that which is South Africa. There is another condition. The Government does not say that it will free them from apartheid throughout South Africa. The second condition is that they will only be freed from day to day apartheid in that small enclave which was part of South Africa and which has been designated as the territory for Ciskei by the White people in South Africa. Those are the conditions under which they can have it. They can have it provided they renounce their South African citizenship and provided that they accept the small enclave of a territory in which it will take place. They are also told that they can grapple with their own problems within that territory. They are told that they can endure the misery of their own poverty. They are told that they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps if they can and that they will get assistance from time to time from the South African Government on the terms that the South African Government determines.

We in the official Opposition do not suggest that it is going to be easy to find an answer to South Africa’s race problems given the legacy that we have inherited from the past, given the heterogeneous nature of our population, given the process of urbanization and given the degree to which our internal problems have as a result of the NP’s policies assumed international overtones. These are all problems. We realize that a solution is difficult to find and we would have moved a long way to meet the Government if we had believed that in this Bill or in any other measure that it brought to this House there was the prospect of finding some solution to the problem of an inter-racial political dispensation in South Africa.

I want to put the following question to the hon. the Minister in very serious terms. To what extent does the hon. the Minister believe that this type of legislation is going to solve the problems of South Africa? Does the hon. the Minister in charge of this debate really believe that he will solve the social problems of South Africa by confining millions of citizens to these overcrowded and impoverished homelands?

Much better than your policy.

Does he really believe that it will solve the social problems? Does he believe that it will ease social tensions or reduce social dislocation? Does he think that it will reduce the amount of disease or malnutrition or that it will reduce the infant mortality rate in South Africa? Does the hon. the Minister believe that this move is going to solve either the housing or the squatter problem in South Africa? Does he believe that it will solve any of the social problems in South Africa? Does the hon. the Minister realize that by separating an area like Ciskei from South Africa constitutionally, it will make the process of transition of people from the Third World to the First World more difficult? Or is the hon. the Minister bringing this Bill to the House so that the Government can wash its hands of any moral responsibility towards the upliftment of the people of Ciskei? [Interjections.] Is that what he is trying to do? Sir, I am saying this very deliberately. I put the economic consequences of this policy to the hon. the Minister.

Renegade.

If that man over there said “renegade”, he is just a rat.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “renegade”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Sea Point called that hon. member a rat.

Did the hon. member say that?

Mr. Speaker, I said if the hon. member said “renegade”, then he is a rat.

The hon. member has withdrawn the word. The hon. member for Sea Point must now withdraw the word “rat”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to answer questions.

I want to put the economic problems of South Africa to the hon. the Minister. Do the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House honestly believe that this Bill is going to make any contribution towards solving the economic problems of South Africa? [Interjections.] Do they not realize that this will lead to a widening of the gap between the have’s and the have-not’s in South Africa? Does the hon. the Minister not realize that he is going to extend the imbalance of the economic development that we already have in South Africa and that it is going to be entrenched on a regional basis? The hon. the Minister was proud to say that Ciskei was among the 10 poorest nations in Africa …

They were.

He is very proud of it. I make it even poorer than that. I make it one of the poorest together with the eight homeland regions. However, Sir, what is the richest nation in Africa? White South Africa. Now the hon. the Minister is going to separate White South Africa, the richest nation in Africa, from one of the poorest nations in Africa, Ciskei. Does he believe that that is in the interests of economic stability in Southern Africa? Does he believe that by drawing new political frontiers on the map of South Africa he is going to push back the frontiers of poverty in this country?

About two years ago, the hon. the Prime Minister in the Carlton Centre announced certain concepts for the political and particularly the economic development of Africa. He spoke of regional economic development projects and of a Southern Africa Development Bank. He talked of private sector involvement in the homeland development. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister what has happened to these three things over the past two years? What development has taken place in this regard? Does the hon. the Minister not realize that as these States become independent, it is going to be more difficult to get private sector involvement? It is going to be more difficult to get regional economic development. Does he not realize that from an economic point of view this is going to set back rather than advance the clock of Africa?

Finally, because this is a political concept, does the hon. the Minister really believe that he is going to solve the political problems of Southern Africa by restricting the sovereign political rights of 2,1 million Ciskeian South Africans to a Ciskei that is dependent upon South Africa for its very existence? Does he really believe that that is going to solve the political problems of Southern Africa?

We hold that the constitutional independence for Ciskei as envisaged in this Bill and by the hon. the Minister is going to add to the frustration and the bitterness of the 2,1 million Ciskeians. In Ciskei itself, people will soon come to realize that the illusion of sovereignty and self-determination is going to be overtaken by the reality of international ostracism and control by a White dominated South Africa. Outside Ciskei, Blacks living there will be allowed a modicum of social and economic advancement in the rest of South Africa, but at the same time, because they are going to be cut off from an effective political say, they are in fact going to become a new source of instability in South Africa. Far from finding a solution to our political problems—and it is a severe problem—this Government is playing with fire. It is trying to delude White South Africans into believing that by cutting Black South Africans off from the formal political process in South Africa, White South Africa will be secure. We say there is nothing that can be further from the truth. Resistance develops and revolutions take place, not when people are given a say in the political structure of a country. These things happen when people, in spite of their advancement in the socio-economic fields, in spite of the increase in their sophistication and their ability to organize, are cut off from a direct and influential say in the Government of that part of the country in which they live.

This Bill is therefore going to further destabilize what we can call White South Africa for the purpose of the Government’s argument, by this Government excising Ciskei from the formal body politic and giving impetus to destabilization right throughout South Africa. I do not say this lightly or with any sense of pleasure because after all we are all in South Africa and we are all going to get caught up in the maelstrom of events.

You are in it but not of it.

I must say, however, that by doing what it is doing, by giving independence and political status of this kind to a State that is overcrowded and impoverished, which around it has the powerful White South Africa, the Government is going to extend the area of instability to the rural and homeland areas of South Africa for the first time. Then our instability is not only going to be in the urban areas but also in the rural areas of South Africa. Unfortunately one has to look at the last five years of development in Transkei. It had better possibilities for independence than Ciskei. It had a larger territory and a more settled population. Yet what have we seen over the past five years? In the Transkei we have seen less rather than more economic development, a reduction in the per capita income, more overcrowding, more unemployment, more social tensions, more coercion, more bannings, more imprisonments, more restrictions and more oppressions. [Interjections.] Those are the factors. There has, however, also been more frustration with South Africa because, whilst South Africa gives those people the illusion of sovereign independence, it keeps its hold firmly on Transkei’s economic windpipe. So we see these destabilizing features, which are already endemic to the Eastern Cape, starting to generate themselves in Ciskei itself. I can quote chilling words of warning from many people who have studied this particular problem, but I think I should just conclude with a quotation from the hon. the Prime Minister himself. He said—

We believe that the effect of this Bill will be that for many people real freedom, in the South African sense, the freedom to aspire to be a citizen of this great country of ours, is going to be meaningless. We believe that the sea of poverty is going to be extended to reach right into Ciskei. That is why we say that this Bill is not only indefensible but also objectionable.

The problem facing all of us in this House, all of us in South Africa, if we want peace and stability, order and progress in this country—in fact, the challenge facing this generation of South Africans—is not to find systems for living apart but to find a system in which Black, Brown and White South Africans can sit down together and fashion together, whether they like it or not, a system of living together, of deciding together, on a future in which we will inextricably be bound up together.

Mr. Speaker, if I had not been following the debate here personally today, particularly the speech of the last speaker, I would not have believed that it was possible to hear remarks like those that were made here in a South African Parliament.

He is speaking for the outside world.

When one uses words, the meaning does, of course, also depend on how the words are used and what the approach or spirit is in which the words are said. When words like “oppression”, “scandalous”, “irresponsible” and “objectionable” are used here …

“Impoverished”.

… in the spirit in which they were used here tonight, it cannot serve South Africa at all, particularly if one considers those words against the background of our modern life. In South Africa we have reached the point where we are starting to have independent States, but of course this began a long time ago. In the ’fifties, when the self-governing States were established—I am saying this against the background of the hon. member for Sea Point’s reference to history—this matter came up for discussion.

That was before he phoned McHenry.

There was tremendous resistance to these matters by the Opposition of that time. There was resistance amongst other population groups also. With his far-sighted vision, however, Dr. Verwoerd had a political vision of South Africa which started to take shape. It started to take shape in a dispensation that is being brought to fulfillment today. Now the hon. member for Sea Point comes along and tries to prove the contrary by whipping up emotions and feelings in the country and trying to find one guilty party, viz. the NP.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Parktown says “hear, hear”. In doing so he is indicating that he agrees. What was the effect of Dr. Verwoerd’s vision? We have self-governing States where the nation concerned—whether those hon. members agree with it or not—decide on their own initiative to conduct discussions with the Government of the country, viz. the NP, and to consult on how their political future is going to be achieved. The Government that is ruling that particular country at this stage, is the responsible Government, and those hon. members cannot do anything about this. They are not the spokesmen of that nation. They see themselves as their spokesmen here in the White Parliament, but they have a Parliament of their own in which they can decide which, in their opinion, is the correct way for their nation to go about things. During these discussions and negotiations that took place, it transpired that the nation concerned decided in their wisdom—whether those hon. members agree with it or not—that they should make an agreement with this Government to accept political independence. It is the nation’s free right to decide on this, and it does so. Such a nation is free to decide on this matter, and they can decide against it too.

They have no choice.

The hon. member for Green Point is now displaying the spirit and disposition that the hon. member for Sea Point displayed. It is not a question of freedom of choice. What are their options? I now want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point: What are the options that the Opposition can offer those people?

Full citizenship.

Full citizenship? In one Parliament?

One man, one vote.

This is what they say: A full say and one man, one vote in this Parliament.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member said so.

No.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says “no”. The hon. member for Greytown said so, however.

[Inaudible.]

Let us accept that those hon. members are divided on that point. However, it is still true that if they want freedom of options—and what kind of options do they have—they must say what options they are going to give those people. The NP’s standpoint with regard to political division of power is that consideration must be given to whether those people are going to accept independence, by means of consultation and the capacity to convince and persuade. This is exactly where the NP has already achieved success at this stage. Three Black States have already received their independence, and the fourth one has accepted it.

However, I want to come to another point, and this is that there were two parties to the contract, viz. firstly the NP, and the Government of the country, and secondly in this case, the Ciskeian Government. However, there are other factions too that are involved. I wonder whether the behaviour of each individual in Parliament does not contribute towards the emotions of all people in the country as a whole. Who are they? One has the anarchists and the revolutionaries who are actively involved in South Africa as a whole in undermining the Governments of those countries that are becoming independent and subduing them by way of revolution. After all, every action that corresponds with the type of words that are used here, is playing into the hands of those people in order to incite the general public, the Black public of the Ciskei and to tell them to what extent the Government of the Ciskei is collaborating in order to suppress them. Surely this is exactly what is happening and exactly what can happen à propos of what the hon. member for Sea Point said.

However, there is another point too. After all, in this country we also have people who try to whip up the feelings of the Whites with regard to how much is being given to the Black people. On the basis of this they try to whip up the emotions of the Whites against these things and it is not conducive to clear thinking.

Rather be quiet Ben; in a moment you might say the wrong thing.

There are two other alternatives. If we look at the alternatives that are being brought about—in whipping up the feelings of the Whites or of the Blacks in an emotional fashion—surely we cannot make a decision based on clear thinking which will be to the benefit of everyone in the country.

The hon. members of the official Opposition talk about the economic problems that are going to prevail in the homelands. I want to ask hon. members of which economic rights those people are being deprived. Of which economic rights are they being deprived? In actual fact they may be gaining many advantages.

I want to say quite honestly and correctly that there are considerable problems with regard to White farmers in border areas when it comes to the consolidation of land. This is true. We cannot argue it away. With the consolidation of the homelands, as it is taking shape, there will be economic advantages for the Black communities if they want to make use of them. It depends on the entrepreneurship of those people.

When the hon. member for Sea Point speaks so disparagingly about how they are going to suffer in the homelands, he is in actual fact aiming a blow at the entrepreneurship of the Black man. [Interjections.] The hon. members may go ahead and laugh; it is true, because the hon. member for Sea Point has no confidence in the entrepreneurship of the Black man bringing about the development of the Black areas. We want to accept that a great task lies ahead of us in giving guidance to them. We shall have to do so in future. Similarly, we accept that the road will not be an easy one. This is something that everyone must accept. The challenge that exists in the light of the benefits for those people as a whole, politically and economically, will be to the advantage of all.

I shall say why I am making this allegation. The hon. members of the official Opposition say they are suffering. One of the hon. members there spoke about the under-feeding and the malnutrition prevailing there. The hon. member opposite—he is a medical doctor—has spoken about it in previous debates too. However, what is the truth? After all, we know that mealie meal is the staple food of the Black man. Surely this is true. What is the inherent characteristic of mealie meal? It has a lycine deficiency. Lycine is a vitamin component and if there is a deficiency, it gives rise to kwashiorkor. Research has been carried out by the maize industry with a view to introducing lycine as an inherent property through cultivation. Furthermore, the industry has also included an additive in mealie meal in order to supplement the deficiency and combat malnutrition.

The spirit in which this was referred to today, aims at creating the impression that it is the fault of the NP, or rather that it will be their fault if under-feeding and malnutrition prevail in the Ciskei because the NP now want to grant independence to that homeland. Surely this is not true; it is a misrepresentation. If the people know that it is a misrepresentation why are they doing so deliberately? Surely it is not to the benefit of the country as a whole.

Therefore I say that if we look at behaviour as a whole, with regard to the legislation, we must respect the will of the Black peoples in terms of the institution that they have created for expressing their national will. We must respect it and adapt it within our Parliamentary context so that it suits us and them by way of agreement. This is what the hon. member for Pretoria Central tried to spell out with reference to the contracts. This is what the hon. member for Sea Point tried to disparage. Nothing will prevent this party from working out a path for ourselves which was spelled out during the ’fifties by Dr. Verwoerd, by way of co-operation with the Black peoples and by way of conviction and persuasion, and which is now being brought to fulfilment by our hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister here, by means of granting independence to States like the Ciskei.

I want to conclude by confirming what the hon. member for Vryheid said. This is the start, the start of others that are yet to follow. The successes that have been achieved in Bophuthatswana and other States will contribute towards other Black peoples seeing what the benefits are. It will become a mighty current that will drag the PFP along so that they will have no say in the future and will be proved wrong by history.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the words “deliberate misrepresentation” are un-parliamentary and that he must withdraw the words.

Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of having said that but I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Ventersdorp and in the course of my speech I shall react to several of the points raised by him. A few of the statements he made are subject to correction. He spoke of the institutions which those Black nations had established themselves and in which they had expressed their views. That is obviously incorrect. The institutions, which exist there are those which were created by this Parliament and this Government.

At whose request?

I just want to make a correction. The hon. member spoke about the choice of words and the questioning of motives. However, my impression was that it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and the hon. member should start with his own people when it comes to the question of ascribing motives to other people. We may then be able to make progress in this sphere.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Sea Point said when he referred to options. Let us be quite frank now.

You can do better than to associate yourself with him.

Let us be quite honest: The point which the hon. member for Sea Point made was that no other options were offered to those people. The hon. member for Ventersdorp asked which options we had offered them. There is no opportunity now for me to tell him what options we are offering, but in any event he knows or ought to know what they are. As a good politician he ought to know what options this party is offering the people of South Africa. He knows there are options. [Interjections.]

However, let us come back to the debate. It is very clear that there are three fundamental elements in the relations between Whites and Blacks—this is what is at issue in this debate—if we want peace in this country. One is the land issue and as all of us in this House know that that issue goes back a long way. It is interwoven into the whole historical course of events in South Africa as far as the relations between Whites and Blacks are concerned. I shall come back to that in a moment.

The second element is the position of the Blacks in the political structure of South Africa. That elements has three components. The first component is the participation or non-participation in the political structure. The second is the question of the citizenship of these people in the political structure which we have created. The third is the whole question of the absence of discrimination.

The third element to which I want to refer is the recognition of the human dignity of the people of South Africa. I shall come back to that as well.

What do we see in this Bill and what is the Government’s approach? The Government has stated that it wishes to liberate the Black nations so that we may evade this problem. The creation of independent States out of the homelands is consequently the Government’s reply to the dilemma in which we in South Africa find ourselves. Let us analyse to what extent this policy, as reflected in this legislation, is going to offer us a solution to this fundamental issue which is facing us.

Let us in the first place consider the question of land. I think that the hon. member for Albany indicated very clearly to us that, as far as the land problem is concerned, this Bill and the arrangements which were made do not in fact offer a solution to the problem. All of us know this. The hon. the Minister, as he is sitting there, knows as well as I do that this is a lingering problem which is no closer to a solution. We are now in the year 1981 and even now we have not kept the promises made in 1936. If the hon. the Minister could convince me that we shall by 31 December 1982 have bought out and transferred to the Ciskei that 300 000 morgen of land which was promised to it, I shall very gladly offer him my apologies.

Then you will have to do so!

In that case I shall do so gladly.

To which Minister would that be?

I am now referring to the land which will have been transferred to the Ciskei at that stage. In addition there is the substitute land for Herschel and Glen Grey …

What is involved here is the 1975 proposals on which there is an agreement.

The 1936 Act was also an agreement. It was a sacred agreement and after 45 years we have not yet implemented it. Consequently the hon. the Minister must not speak of agreements. The problem does not lie in agreements. It does not help us to run away from the problem. It is a fingering problem, and the measures which are being taken here do not offer the Ciskei a solution, just as similar measures did not offer the Transkei or Bophuthatswana a solution either. Neither of those countries have abandoned their land claims. All of us know that, even if the land for which provision was made were to be purchased by 31 December 1982, the land claims of the Ciskeian Government would not in that way have been disposed of.

You understand nothing of the matter.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister in all honesty that I think that I know just as much as he does about the problem of land allocation in South Africa and land distribution between White and Black.

We are referring to the 1975 proposals which will have been finalized by the end of 1982.

I want to say in all honesty that, even if we have transferred all that land by the end of next year, it is absurd to think that the problem of land distribution in South Africa, even between Ciskei and the Republic, will in that way have been disposed of. It will not.

Let us consider to what extent this arrangement offers a solution to the political problems.

What does that have to do with independence?

My goodness me, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister is asking me what it has to do with independence. The hon. the Minister, like every speaker on Government side, said that what we were concerned with here was the emancipation of nations. This is a political concept. Let me continue. The Government’s standpoint on the Blacks—the hon. members opposite will not differ with me on this matter—is that there shall be no sharing of power. That is correct, not so? The Government states that we should seek a solution to the political issue of the relations between Whites and Blacks by way of the so-called emancipation of nations. Let us examine what the Bill entails in that sense. Let us first ask what the concept “nation” (volk) is. We argued about that the other day and on that occasion I gave my definition of it, viz. that it is a cultural-historical entity which in the course of time becomes a political …

Ah!

Correct. Now, I want to say in the first place that Transkei, for example, was never a political entity.

But it is one now.

It was never a political entity. We cannot speak of the people of the Transkei as constituting a single nation (volk). They have never been one in their history. Consequently hon. members must not tell me that they want to liberate nations (volkere) and then refer to the Transkei. What about the Ciskei? We have two nations (volkere) there, i.e. the Xhosa and the Nfengu. There are two separate nations (volkere) who have never formed one cultural-historical or political entity.

What are your sources?

Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, which one of those two nations (volkere) is being emancipated by the Government by way of this legislation? If it is in fact the Government’s attitude that it does not emancipate countries, but nations (volkere), I want to know which one of those two nations (volkere) is being liberated. This is after all what the hon. the Minister keeps on saying. Now I want to know from him what freedom is now being given to the Mfengu. What freedom is being given to the Mfengu in terms of the present legislation. I want the hon. the Minister to reply to my question. He must not sit there shaking his head now. What freedom is being given to the Mfengu in terms of this measure? [Interjections.]

Allow me to continue. Let us spend some time in looking at the people outside Ciskei. I want to make it very clear that there is a measure of uncertainty with regard to the number of Ciskeian citizens. However, the Quail Commission made its calculations and, in Annexure 1 of its report, came to the conclusion that there are at least 2,1 million Ciskeian citizens, of whom 660 000 are living in the Ciskei itself. This means that two-thirds of that population is living outside the Ciskei. My goodness me, even if we were to say that we were emancipating that one-third—let us suppose that we are emancipating that one-third in the Ciskei—what then? If we really want to say that the idea here is to emancipate nations (volke), yes. If this is the intention, and if the effect of this measure is that we bring together all the Ciskeians in their own independent territory and tell them there that they may exercise full political control in that territory, I would say that that is in fact freedom.

That is nowhere near to it.

However, to speak of freedom while two-thirds of those people are living outside the territory, to speak of freedom when we know that two-thirds of those people are going to live outside that territory for all time to come—that is to say, the majority of them—and even if we were to do what we have done in other urban areas, viz. to allocate a 99-year leasehold term to those people—the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation may shake his head if he likes—I nevertheless ask: My goodness, what are we trying to do? We ourselves concede that a large proportion of those people are going to be settled here permanently, and not in the Ciskei, for all time to come. Now I ask again—and this is what the hon. the Minister must tell us—what freedom are we giving to those people? After all, those people are still subject to the legislation of this Parliament. Those people remain subservient to this Parliament, to South Africa’s provincial administration, to the Administration Boards. The lives of those people are being regulated and controlled by what we decide in this Parliament and not by what is decided in the Ciskeian Parliament. In no way is the Ciskeian Parliament capable or empowered to regulate the lives of those people as an independent State. Not at all. It simply cannot. After all, this Parliament would not allow any foreign State—whether it is a friendly State or not—to prescribe to it how to act towards its people who are living in this State, in the Republic of South Africa. All that amounts to, therefore, is that this concept of freedom which we are discussing, freedom for those people, is a farce. We are making a farce of the concept of freedom. [Interjections.] I regret having to say this, but if this is the way we interpret freedom, we are making a farce of it. [Interjections.]

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Education and Training, as well as to the hon. the Minister of State Administration—who is not here this evening—that if we were able to succeed in bringing all those people together in the Ciskei, it would in fact be possible to speak of freedom for them. As far as freedom is concerned, I, as well as hon. members opposite, know that this is not going to happen. All that this amounts to, therefore, is that if we interpret and apply freedom in this way, we are making a farce of the concept of freedom. [Interjections.]

Allow me to use another example. When India and Pakistan were freed from colonial domination in 1948, from British domination, did we at that stage say that the Indians of South Africa had become free? Did we say so at that stage? No, we did not. [Interjections.] Surely we know that it would be absurd to say a thing like that. It was precisely because of the position of the Indians in South Africa that we had one indictment after another against us in the UN. The freedom of India and Pakistan did not mean freedom for the Indians of South Africa; just as the so-called freedom of the Ciskei does not mean freedom for those who are living permanently outside the Ciskei. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

It surprises me that a former professor can argue so superficially.

The hon. the Minister is now referring to the former professor. He knows very well that as I stand here this evening, I protested for many years against the Government’s policy with regard to the refusal of development aid to the homelands. I just want to correct the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance in this regard. He said on Friday that we had objected to the development of the homelands. The hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know that there was a difference in principle between us and the former Prime Minister, dr. Verwoerd, who refused to implement the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission on the economic development of the homelands. That time has passed. If the Government had at that stage, in 1955-’56, implemented the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, then this country would have been in a different position today. If we examine the position of the people outside the Ciskei, there is a simple question I want to put. Can hon. members opposite mention one single respect in which the position of the citizens of Transkei, Venda or Bophuthatswana, who are living outside those territories, has improved here in the Republic of South Africa after those States became independent?

Mention one example of where they are worse off.

That is not the question. The hon. member for Ventersdorp spoke of freedom, but can he mention one single respect to me in which, as a result of the independence of Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda, the position of the Black citizens of those States have since improved here in the Republic of South Africa?

In all respects.

Not in a single respect. The fact of the matter is that as a result of the system in which we are living those people are experiencing the worst degree of bondage. We can say that this is primarily for the sake of our continued existence, or whatever, but we cannot argue away the fact that this is so.

This brings me to the question of citizenship. The question of citizenship is something which has great emotional significance. It is very clear from all the evidence before us that the Blacks in the Ciskei, too, had and still have very serious objections to being deprived of their citizenship as a result of the independence of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. This is very clear. Let us have no illusions about this. This automatic deprival of citizenship has a highly emotional connotation. If there is something which creates alienation between Whites and Blacks in South Africa, it is the withdrawal of that citizenship. If there is really something which could give rise to a tremendous explosion, it is the fact that there is a large number of people in the Republic of South Africa who know that their only political future lies here and not in the Ciskei, Transkei or Bophuthatswana, but now we are telling them that they can never ever be citizens of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, if there were ever something which threatened your and my security, the security of all of us in Africa, it is the view, the statement and the policy that for whatever length of time a person and his children after him may live in a state, we are telling them in advance that they will never become citizens of that State and will never be able to exercise civil rights in that State. Can hon. members realize that under those circumstances a measure of this nature cannot solve anything. It may solve the problem for a few hundred thousand people who are living in the Ciskei and who may be enjoying a measure of self-government. Let us concede this theoretically, whatever the economic conditions, but this does not solve the problem in respect of all those thousands of people who are living elsewhere irrespective of whether they come from the Ciskei, Transkei or Bophuthatswana. In fact this aggravates the problem, for it creates alienation, dissatisfaction and hatred between Whites and Blacks, and this is the last thing we can afford in our society at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member prof. Olivier has just delivered a whole tirade on the word “freedom”. It is true that his hair is longer than mine, but it is not really whiter than mine. I, too, have travelled through South Africa, and I do not know of a single person in South Africa who is not free, unless he is a criminal. Then, too, the hon. member tried to link freedom with the amount of land we supposedly want to give Ciskei.

†I was very pleased when you announced me as the member for Queenstown, and I think the Opposition parties should take cognizance of it that I represent Queenstown and that this town is in the midst of these two independent states, especially in regard to the boundary of Ciskei. I am aware of what is going on there, because I have received 15 registered letters from that area, written by English-speaking people who belong to those two Opposition parties. In their letters they beg me to put their case to the Van der Walt Commission and to tell the commission that they do not want to sacrifice more ground to the Blacks between Tarkastad and Queenstown. However, these hon. members have said here tonight that we do not grant enough ground to the Blacks, yet they are the people who refuse ground to the Blacks. That is a fact.

I am a new member in this House, but I have followed every debate since the beginning of the session and I am very keen for this Session to be adjourned because I want to go home in a hurry. I still have the marks of the latest election on my body because I had to fight against the NRP, the PFP and the HNP, and now I am in a hurry to go and tell those people in Queenstown that their party in Parliament opposed the Cooperatives Bill, they opposed orderly marketing and our control board system, and they opposed the Status of Ciskei Bill that deals with the independence of Ciskei. I want to go and tell the constituents of Queenstown that, and the Opposition can await the results.

*The people of my constituency are undoubtedly very grateful that the independence of the Ciskei can now eventually be put into effect through the introduction of this legislation. When I speak about the people of my constituency I do not have in mind only the White voters, but also all the other race groups. For many years there has been a feeling of deep insecurity in that region, and at times it has almost reached breaking point. This was due to a Prog and NRP spectre that haunted Queenstown, making people uncertain about the future and sowing doubt as to everything the NP Government was trying to do. This evening I should like to thank the Ministry of Cooperation and Development, and also the Government as a whole, for the fact that this important step has now been taken, so that there may again be security and stability in that region. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt spelt out very clearly this afternoon that we wish to bring about economic stability there as well. We must not expect to be able to create a Utopia for everyone there overnight. This effort of ours will have its growing pains, and we shall have to be patient in order to ensure that everything goes well in the years that lie ahead. This will involve sacrifices on both sides. However, I wish to state bluntly this evening that the success of this new State will depend on the maintenance of good mutual relations, not on paper but in practice.

I do not wish to discuss complicated political relations which must be incorporated in the independence agreement. These are matters for the learned people to deliberate about. However, I wish to state the case of the people on the border, particularly the border farmers, to the hon. the Minister. If is of vital importance to these people that the independence agreement should entrench mutual interests. Once again I emphasize that my plea on behalf of these people, within the guidelines of the Government’s policy, is not a plea for one group only, but for the people on both sides of the border as we are now going to determine it. The fundamental requirement for good neighbourliness is, in the first place, a good border with a good border fence. I do not wish to elaborate on the nature of such a fence this evening, but if the hon. the Minister does not know, he can ask the farmers. We shall tell him. To make such a border effective, the border posts must be controlled on both sides. There must be proper control of the border posts. There are hundreds of footpaths and minor access roads in that region which will unfortunately have to be closed if peace is to be maintained in that region. It will have to be done meaningfully, because these through roads are often there for the benefit of fanners who farm on both sides of the Black State and who, unfortunately, have to trek across Black territory with their cattle in order to farm on a practical basis. Consideration will have to be given to a proper agreement in this regard.

Then there is another matter of great importance to those farmers, and that is the combating of crime across the borders. We should like to see strong police stations on both sides of the border, and there ought to be a clearly worded extradition agreement between ourselves and the new State. The police on both sides must have the right to carry out hot pursuit operations when they are seeking a criminal. This must apply on both sides of the border.

The security of people living near the border is another matter which I should like to raise. If a farmer is willing to farm on the border of a Black State, if he can speak the language of the Black people, is acquainted with their traditions, is willing to go and stay there and make a living in spite of everything, and be there as a buffer and measure of security for us, then I regard that fanner as a precious jewel, and in my opinion the authorities must show great compassion in considering the needs of that farmer. I am not asking for any excessive concessions for those people, but it is a pity when a man’s creditworthiness at the financial institutions is affected because he farms near the border. I ask that the creditworthiness of these people and the value of their land be entrenched and protected for the farmers in terms of this agreement.

I have another problem, viz. that in the planning of this new State, consideration must be given to the construction and development of large Black cities. It may be necessary for these people to build large Black cities in that area. I want to ask that such Black cities should not extend to the border of the White area. Every hon. member can imagine what the position of a farmer will be if he has to live and farm just across the border from a Black city. This would result in an untenable situation. It is quite possible, too, that Queenstown could develop into a very major growth point with major industrial development, and that we could have commuters from the Ciskei travelling to work in Queenstown. It may then happen that those commuters would demand that a railway line be built from the Black territory to Queenstown. I want to ask that the railway line—when it reached the planning stage—would not be planned to pass through the White territory, but through the Black territory directly to the town where the commuters want to be.

I also shudder when I see that the planners in Ciskei itself are planning major sewerage works right along the border next to a White farmer’s farmstead. I ask, too, that compassion be shown in considering such cases in the agreement between the White and Black parties.

I also wish to ask that control be exercised in the independence agreement in regard to the spreading of diseases, particularly livestock diseases, and here I have in mind in particular sheep scab, which has become a danger in these times. I ask for this as well.

I should also like to make a plea for the wonderful sponge areas that are going to fall within the new Ciskeian territory. These are water run-off areas that give rise to streams that are dammed in their lower reaches and used to provide East London with water. My plea is that these run-off areas will be protected in the agreement, and the yellowwood trees to the value of millions of rands that are growing against the slopes and have been protected by us for many years, will also be protected in the agreement we shall enter into with Ciskei.

The Whip has just come to tell me that I must conclude. We should like to hand over this wonderful gift to Ciskei, and by doing so bring about stability both for Ciskei and for the White corridor and the White area around Ciskei. I predict this evening that once this matter has been finalized the fine agricultural land there will be among the most expensive agricultural land in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I should like to deal with the aspect of the Ciskeian referendum as such, but before I come to that, I want to point out that I have heard that the main supposition of the legislation before the House is to grant self-determination to the people of the Ciskei or rather to the Ciskeian nation. Surely self-determination in the democratic sense of the word means that individuals should have political representation in the structures that have a direct bearing on their living conditions; i.e. economic and social self-determination is not possible if one does not have representation in the structures that determine this. We know where these economic and social living conditions are determined in South Africa. Here I am referring to the economic power in particular because it also determines the social power. This is determined here in the central Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. Before all South Africans are represented here, there will be no question of the self-determination of individuals with regard to their own fate.

It amounts to one man, one vote.

However, we also know what national will applies here and we also know that that national will does not have much to do with the self-determination of other nations, but merely with self-preservation, and this is the maintenance of the position of power and privilege which has been historically placed in the hands of a certain group of people. We also know that the Government is committed to the solution of the problem of the self-preservation of White power as formulated by Dr. Verwoerd, viz. a solution which has separate development as its foundation.

A solution usually means that it is the answer to a problem. Another meaning is that one can dissolve one substance in another so that the one apparently disappears. In this way dangerous substances appear to disappear and can be stored in a safe form on a shelf for long periods, but woe betide the day when the solvent has evaporated and the original appears again.

What do your voters say about that?

The Bill gives the impression that political representation for a further 2 million South Africans can be solved by the law and it is now almost ready to be stored on the shelf together with the other solutions which, I notice, are being called the TBV countries these days.

However, has it really solved the problem of a political say for those 2 million South Africans? It is only approximately a mere third of these 2 million who are being included in the so-called solution and it is a very small, fragile container, called the Ciskei. The other two-thirds or approximately 1,4 million Ciskeians are still to be found in the cities and towns of so-called White South Africa, and their living conditions will be determined there, as well as those of their children and their children’s children, whilst the political structure of South Africa will continue to be seen as the ultimate goal for the determination of their fate in life.

Is it their choice or whose is it?

I shall come to that; just wait a moment.

Much is being made of the fact that the people of the Ciskei decided on their own initiative to seek their self-determination along the path of independence. Hon. members opposite have spoken about the fact that as much as upward of 90% of the people of the Ciskei are in favour of independence and that the referendum gave expression to a national will. However, what do the facts say? Firstly, a mere 503 000 people registered as voters. The provisional census figures of 1980 say that there are approximately 950 000 Ciskeian adults who are not registered as Xhosas in the Transkei and are therefore Ciskeians. This therefore means that only a little over half of the people showed any interest whatsoever in the referendum and registered in order to be able to vote. However, approximately 450 000 refused even to register. These people definitely did not refuse to register because they are not interested in political rights. The Electoral Act provided that they should first register as citizens of the Ciskei before they could vote. Surely it is clear that the election dealt with the question of whether there should be separate citizenship for the Ciskei or not but, this is the very thing that was being put to voters before they could be registered.

As far as the referendum itself is concerned, it is true that a referendum is foreign to the residents of the Ciskei.

How do you know that?

If the hon. member does not want to believe me, he can listen to the statement by Chief Minister Sebe, because he said the following at Zwelitsha on 4 December 1980—

Therefore, he says that a referendum is totally foreign to the people. However, we know that the Black rural community is still fairly unsophisticated, politically speaking, and that intimidation takes place even within the form of the power structure. In saying this I am referring to the authority that controls the daily comings and goings of the residents, the authority that provides employment, that has to stamp their books and give them their homes and pensions. Therefore, if someone in a position of authority says that blue stands for the Ciskeian flag and that red means trouble I do not think that this would give the people themselves a choice of what to vote for.

Are you now saying that there was intimidation?

There were other complaints during the election too, for instance the procedure with regard to illiterate voters who could not vote in secret, election forms that had already been completed when people received them, late registration of voters who wanted to vote, etc. There were a number of such complaints. But let us concede that in spite of these anomalies the people who ultimately went to vote, were in fact able to exercise freedom of choice because the election was attended by as many as four foreign visitors after Chief Minister Sebe had extended an invitation to the entire world to attend the election.

Thirdly, it was a very one-sided referendum because the standpoint of the Government of Ciskei was regularly, extensively and clearly broadcast by Radio Xhosa. Furthermore, we also know that there was no question of a true Opposition in the Black ranks after the systematic prosecution of their leaders in terms of the laws of this Government. Bannings and prosecutions also took place over a long period, and we know that it is only necessary to remove a few leaders from a political movement in order to cripple such a movement completely, particularly in a developing political dispensation. Furthermore, the choice was also offered in a very romantic fashion. It was a choice in favour of or against freedom. Dr. Sebe said—

Was he not entitled to encourage his people?

No. He could encourage them as much as he wished, and he succeeded in doing so too.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with it. I simply said that the entire matter was presented in an emotional fashion. [Interjections.] These people were not told what the outcome of this matter would be. Were they told that their South African citizenship would definitely be taken away from them? No, this was not said.

What are your alternatives?

We are talking about the election now. That side of the House is aware of our alternatives—everyone in South Africa is a full citizen of this country. In any event, I am not going into the package deal any further. This is exactly what the election was about, but I think it has already been well covered by hon. members on this side of the House. It was pointed out exactly what the people thought they would be voting on but to which no attention was given prior to the referendum. Therefore, the referendum anticipated the agreements that still had to be concluded.

What did the final outcome look like? Approximately 296 000 people voted, out of a total of 503 000 people that registered. In Johannesburg only 120 voted out of the approximately 30 000 who live there. In Durban not a single one of the 400 who took the trouble to register voted, out of the approximately 4 000 who are resident there. In Cape Town a mere 5 000 out of 17 000 registered voters did in fact vote, whilst we know that there may be approximately 180 000 Ciskeians in Cape Town.

How do you know that?

It is a figure that was received from the other side the other day.

From whom?

In Port Elizabeth 74% of the 29 000 registered voters did at least vote, but there is a population of nearly a quarter of a million who did not even attempt to register. Therefore, in the end approximately 57% of the registered voters did in fact vote, and if we look at the total nation of the Ciskei, we see that only a third of them voted in favour of independence.

How many people voted in Greytown?

We have very few Xhosas there. [Interjections.]

What was the polling percentage in Greytown during the general election?

Is this the national will that we are continually hearing about here if one-third of the people can decide on a single occasion, in comparison with two-thirds that did not want it, where they, their children and their children’s children will have to exercise their political rights forever?

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

No, Sir. When I speak in Rissik again the hon. member can ask his questions. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pretoria Central said that the nation that is represented here, knows what self-determination is and that it is this nation that wants to give it to the Blacks too.

To what nation do you belong?

Let me just say what gratitude we receive from them. There was talk of the true leaders. I can say that you do not know who the true leaders are.

Are you the true leader?

There are a number of true leaders. A survey was conducted in Mdantsane in 1976 which showed the following: “6% of the people relate chiefly to their tribe, 37% to Ciskei and 44% to a united South Africa.” This is usually the national will …

Where was that?

It was in Mdantsane itself.

What do the people in Soweto say? They say that …

Who are “they”?

Was that also in a referendum?

No, it is simply another survey, a survey that was conducted by UNISA in Soweto. [Interjections.] I quote—

The 10 million Black people who find themselves in White South Africa, do not thank the Afrikaner nation for the opportunities that they are being offered to express their political freedom in the Ciskei! Who do those people see as their leaders?

Anyone but a Prog.

They consider their leaders to be Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress—that is their party—Dr. Motlana, Bishop Desmond Tutu and only then David Thebehali. In connection with David Thebehali it is said in the survey—

These are the facts.

What about Dave Dalling?

These are the facts that hon. members on the other side prefer to forget when we talk about the national will or about the will of people in South Africa.

To what nation do you belong? [Interjections.]

I shall sell the hon. member for Verwoerdburg my family tree if he is interested. [Interjections.] Now if we take note of who could possibly benefit by a referendum, we can understand why the voting took place as it did. The small group of people in the Ciskei itself, who are now apparently to receive a prize for good behaviour, did in fact express a positive vote in the referendum. It was merely because as foreigners they could now suddenly have what they could never have when they lived in their own country. They could possibly benefit by such a referendum. That is also why they made the choice.

Then this legislation possibly offers a solution to some hon. members on the other side in the sense that it soothes their consciences somewhat and possibly also allays their feeling of anxiety to a certain extent. Earlier today someone quoted a national poet here, a poet belonging to that small group of people in the Ciskei and sang their praises. However, let us hear what another national poet has to say about members opposite. I quote—

Last but not least, there is of course also the power structure in the Ciskei itself. Those leaders of the Ciskeian people are, people who have never been able to serve their people within the structures that mattered, people who tried for many years and who often said very clearly that the true result of their struggle for rights is to be represented here. Freedom mattered to them too and they also benefit by it. They have their traditional freedom stadiums, traditional Xhosa Mercedeses, traditional Xhosa holiday homes, etc. Therefore, it is in fact to their benefit on the short term.

Allow me to conclude by quoting another great national poet, Milton, who says the following about those people—

Mr. Speaker …

Tackle him.

Do not encourage me. I want to give some good advice to the hon. member for Greytown who has just resumed his seat. In the first place, he must please confine himself to the truth in future. Secondly, he must not try to win arguments by insulting other people. His whole speech amounted to disparagement of the leaders of Ciskei. He also disparaged the referendum. On a previous occasion, when we had a similar piece of legislation before this House, it was his party that accused us of not having arranged a referendum for these people. Now, when a referendum has been held, they contend that the people were intimidated. In my opinion that is a scandalous allegation, coming from a young hon. member who is not even aware of the facts. He made statements here which he got from goodness knows where. Nevertheless, he makes these statements as if they are the Gospel truth. Surely we cannot conduct a debate in this way. Surely we cannot allow Black people with whom we try to cultivate good relations, to be insulted and disparaged in that way.

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

No, sit down. [Interjections.]

You are afraid.

The example was set him by the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Berea during the First Reading debate …

Order! The hon. member for Parktown must withdraw the words that the hon. the Deputy Minister is afraid.

I withdraw them, Sir.

I would really be failing in my duty if I did not refer to the speech of the hon. member for Berea in the First Reading debate, a speech that was punctuated by insults, half-truths and distortions of fact.

That is very exciting.

It is quite true, and I shall prove it to the hon. member in just a minute. The view of the official Opposition of independence for any nation is completely irrelevant to the issue.

*They only consider the material aspects. The spiritual aspect of a people that wants to be free, means nothing to them.

†They do not care a tinker’s cuss, as an hon. member has said, about the spiritual content of independence and what goes with it. The speech of the hon. member for Berea was moulded in the terms of the real old classical liberalism with its paternal undertones. It was full of clichés and generalizations; it had no meaning and was totally irrelevant to the issue at stake. I shall quote a few of these to hon. members. The hon. member said (Hansard, 15 September 1981, col. 3799)—

He says the NP is afraid to face up to these realities. He went on to say—

How the hon. member reconciles these untruths and generalizations in regard to “baasskap” with what we are busy doing now, i.e. giving independence to Ciskei, I fail to understand. Where does “baasskap” come in?

Whether it wants to or not.

That hon. member must not sit and laugh at me now. He has again just hurled a gross insult at Dr. Sebe. According to him, we seized Dr. Sebe by the scruff of the neck and forced him to accept independence. That is a blatant untruth. It is a blatant insult and coming from that hon. member, it is even worse.

You are so absurd you do not even understand.

I can only say that it boggles the mind to listen to such arrant nonsense as we had to listen to from the hon. member during the First Reading debate. South African is a multi-national country, and no amount of ranting or raving is going to alter that fact.

Really!

There are at least 10 different peoples in this country. If the hon. member does not realize it by this time, he will never realize it.

The hon. member also made the following remark: “This is merely another move in the sordid piecemeal fragmentation of South Africa by the NP.” According to my dictionary “sordid” means “laag, gemeen, vuil, walglik, smerig, inhalig,” etc. That is the type of language that is being used by that party to describe what the NP is doing. However, how much notice can one take of a party that is on record as not being able to guarantee the rights of minorities, unless the Black people in its constitutional set-up give them the right to do so? One cannot believe a single word uttered by that party, Sir.

You guarantee chaos.

The introduction of this legislation today is undoubtedly one of the moments of success in the history of the NP. This Bill once again emphasizes our belief in the realities of South Africa, viz. that it is a multinational country and that even the Black people here do not form a single homogeneous mass. This legislation gives effect to that idea.

What about the Jews?

Yes, I have been wanting to put that question to the Opposition. After all, they are so fond of emphasizing that not even a third of the Ciskeians live in the Ciskei. What percentage of Jews live in Israel? Does that mean that Israel is less independent? [Interjections.] We are finding to an increasing extent that the Black man wants to be linked to his own national culture. He is also to an increasing extent demanding his political rights within the cadre of his own people and culture, among his own people and in his own territory. Since the Second World War the Black man has become increasingly aware of his human dignity and also of his distinctiveness vis-à-vis the other Black people in this country, and he has become aware—and proud—of cherishing a feeling of nationalism.

The liberation of a people or country is not something that can be measured in economic terms. It is not measured in terms of the size of the country or the number of people who voted in favour of or against independence. Orderly liberation, as it occurs in regard to the national States of the Republic of South Africa, is evolutionary. It is an ongoing process and does not cease on independence. Only when independence is gained does that people begin to realize the responsibilities it has to bear. Only then do they display a will to make their people economically and culturally independent. Because they then realize that they are serving themselves and their country, they do it with greater inspiration and far greater courage. Emotions which were virtually overwhelming in the moment of liberation must now make way for a sober, deliberate consideration of the future of the country.

Because I know the Ciskeian people and its leaders I support this legislation wholeheartedly and without hesitation. The people and leaders of Ciskei have showed that they will be able to meet the responsibilities which independence places on their shoulders of them with grace and skill.

The Bantu Authorities Act provided for the establishment of tribal, district and regional authorities in the so-called reserves. This was only the prelude to what is happening today, the granting of sovereign independence to that country. The development of the Ciskei up to the stage we have reached today, and the development of the other independent Black States, has been a process of evolution and sustained progress on the road to self-realization. It is notable that three States have already become free in South Africa and a fourth is on the point of becoming free. However, not a single shot has yet been fired to bring about that independence. This country, which creates the opportunity for Black peoples to achieve their freedom, is nevertheless abused as the polecat of the world in the council chambers of the world.

Long before Macmillan’s speech on the winds of change, the NP and its leaders realized that Black Africa was awakening and that it would demand its rights, that it would seek to realize its human dignity and, within a national or ethnic context, would wish to give expression to its nationalism by demanding its freedom. As far back as 1917 General Smuts said the following at the Savoy Hotel—

Dr. Malan, too, stated—

These ideas and viewpoints in regard to the Black people of South Africa were expressed as long ago as in the election of 1948 in the manifesto of the NP, a manifesto which spelt out with almost prophetic skill and vision what the future path of development would be for the various peoples, and particularly the Black peoples in this country. The cry of “Uhuru” was heard loud and clear by the leaders of the NP long before other colonial powers had realized it. [Interjections.] The striving for political rights of the Black man, his consciousness of his own identity, his attachment to his culture, traditions and customs, his awareness of his own human dignity and everything that involves, did not escape the leaders of the NP, and channels and structures were created at an early stage to give form and effect to this striving on the part of the Black man.

†Yet we are the people who do not realize the reality of South Africa, at least according to the hon. member for Berea.

*The policy of separate development as it was spelt out in 1948, a policy which was given dynamic form and effect by Dr. Verwoerd, incorporated the inherent characteristic that it guaranteed the right of self-determination of the separate Black peoples of South Africa.

And the separate White peoples?

Sir, must I really reply to interjections made by hon. members who want to make fools of themselves here in public?

What language does the White people speak?

Secondly, this amounted to the decolonization of the Black man—to the extent that this existed. It recognizes the political rights of the Black man and guarantees their permanence. It recognizes and confirms his human dignity. Through this policy, his ethnic grouping and distinctive nationalism have acquired form and content. To prove this statement I should just like to quote from that manifesto—

When was that?

That was the NP’s 1948 manifesto.

Would he ever have heard of it?

Where was that hon. member then? I have said before that to me, that hon. member seems to be a “babe in the wood”. He does not know what has happened in the country. According to this manifesto we could move in two directions only: Either we are to follow the path of equalization and eventually grant equal political, economic and social rights to the non-Whites, which in the long term would mean national suicide for the White race, and for the non-White race groups, destruction of their distinctive identity, or we have to take the road of apartheid, in terms of which the future and character of each race is protected and secured within its own territory and by means of which every race is accorded full opportunity for development within its own territory in order to be assured of the inalienable right to self-determination and the conduct of its own affairs.

Nic Olivier agreed with that.

This was done without the interests of one group conflicting with the interests of another and without one regarding the existence and development of the other as an undermining factor or a threat to itself. Any middle way or compromise is at best of a temporary nature and is merely patchwork.

He wrote books about it. [Interjections.]

I think the hon. member Prof. Olivier did not only agree with it; he also wrote part of it himself. [Interjections.] The Black man is not only satisfied to have a roof over his head. He is not only satisfied to have a full stomach every day and to work. As a person of culture he also has other urges and longings of which we as Whites and as a people must take full cognizance. Like the Whites, he wants to express his humanity in the full sense of the word, and political rights are an important element of that humanity. Like the White man, the Black man is a gregarious creature. He wants to belong to a group and a specific race. He wants a full say and wants to exercise it in promoting the welfare of his people and his country. He is aware of his otherness, his distinctive background and morals and customs, viz. his characteristic culture. He wants the opportunity to express, maintain and develop it in his own way and among his own people and in his own country. These things are not cold philosophical theories. That hon. member should just shake his head a little more gently, because the noise makes it difficult for me to speak. These are true, hard facts of life, and those who deny them have lost contact with reality entirely.

†That is exactly what has happened to the hon. member for Berea. He has lost all contact with reality. He says South Africa consists of a nation of 25 million people. Just imagine that!

I do not know why you do not like me.

The NP took these realities and apparently irreconcilable standpoints and endeavours into account as long ago as the 1940s, as I have already mentioned. It took cognizance of the Black man’s urge to conduct his own affairs and develop and cultivate a national feeling of his own, his awareness of his own identity and his wish to maintain it. We have also taken cognizance of the fact that the Black man also wants to give this longing and endeavour a geographic content; that is the basis of our policy of consolidation. The success or otherwise of an independent State is intimately bound up with its economic viability and the infrastructure of that country, but if we overlook the fact that the will to survive, attitude, motivation, patriotism, etc. of the people of the country play an equally important role, then we are short-sighted. Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Quail Commission, the Ciskei nevertheless decided to accept independence. That referendum provided crystal-clear evidence that the people of Ciskei wished to be independent.

I wish to conclude with the prayer that the blessing of the Almighty be upon this youngest republic in Africa and that they will always be conscious of it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has surprised me in this debate is that so few hon. members on that side of the House appear to have very much inspiration for this latest development of their policy. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just spoken illustrated this fact well. He went through his speech in a perfectly satisfactory way but without giving one the impression that he was inspired or excited in any way about what he was offering to this House or to the people of South Africa today.

When I look at the Opposition, how can I possibly be inspired?

Mr. Speaker, there we have another choice contribution from the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister was clearly most at home when he was quoting from the 1948 manifesto of the NP.

He is living in the past.

I am sure that that was the era to which he and his policies are best suited. I also think that would fit the bill in respect of all the people supporting the HNP throughout the country. I am sure that there are not many points in that Manifesto to which the HNP would object today. The hon. the Deputy Minister seems to imagine that what is contained in that Manifesto is the reality of today. Perhaps he will tell us whether he was one of the hon. members on that side who believed that in 1978 the Black people would stop coming to the urban areas and that those in the urban areas would start returning to the homelands. Was he one of those who believed that that was the reality of South Africa?

Does that make of a Zulu something other than a Zulu?

Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to find a suitable retort to such a devastating answer!

Besides quoting from the Manifesto, the hon. the Deputy Minister resorted to numerous rather childish personal remarks about hon. members on this side of the House and in regard to things they had said without really attempting to refute their arguments. We know that even before he starts he does not like the PFP and what it stands for. However, merely saying so does not contribute much to the debate. The hon. the Deputy Minister criticized the hon. member for Greytown because of the remarks he made in regard to the referendum that was held. He said that he did not know where the hon. member had obtained his figures and that he had talked a lot of nonsense. However, he did not actually suggest alternative figures or tell us what the real figures were in relation to the total number of people who could have been eligible.

I did not accuse him because he used those figures. I accused him because he was insulting.

Tell us the real figures.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister is now trying to suggest that he did not criticize the figures. Among many other things, he certainly did criticize the figures.

It had nothing to do with the referendum at all.

Do you accept the figures?

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister accept those figures? Does he accept the figures given by the hon. member for Greytown?

I shall reply to those figures tomorrow.

No, Sir. I am putting this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he says that he did not object to those figures, does he accept them?

You are the last person in this House to accuse anybody of using the argument …

He does not want to answer the question.

He is a very good member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not hear when he chooses not to hear. That is typical of hon. members on that side of the House in regard to both their conduct inside this House and facing up to what is happening in South Africa.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also criticized the statement about “baasskap”. Our objection to that political party is that we believe that it stands for White “baasskap” over 85% of South Africa, and that remains our view. About the only substantial and identifiable point he made vis à vis the PFP and hon. members on this side was that we said that we could not guarantee the rights of minorities without reservations. Well, Sir, anybody who thinks that in a country with 85% …

You have the quotation completely wrong, my boy.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is now suggesting that he did not criticize us for saying that we could not guarantee the rights of minorities.

But you did not use the right quotation. You quoted me wrongly.

Tell us the right one then.

Mr. Speaker, I really do not see that there is much point in dwelling on the remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am not a shorthand writer, but certainly those were the things he was saying. If he does not want a response to his remarks, he need not have it.

I want to focus some more attention on the question of Ciskeians who do not happen to live in Ciskei. When we talk of these people, we are talking of two-thirds of the population. There has been a great deal of discussion about Ciskei, about its economic development, about various things that have gone on inside Ciskei.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does The Cape Times already have the hon. member’s speech?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Tygervallei that jealousy will get him nowhere. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague suggests that he should warn Die Burger too.

Two-thirds of the Ciskeians do not live in Ciskei. This is a fact that has been mentioned before and I think we need to focus a little more attention on the effect that this will have. What contribution will the independence of Ciskei make towards resolving South Africa’s problems in a greater context? I think the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned this as well this evening. I should like to quote something that Dr. Verwoerd said when he was Prime Minister. On 20 May 1959 he said (Hansard, col. 6227)—

He then went on to analyse that and said that because it was White it would control the army, defence, the police and so on. Dr. Dönges, when he was Minister of Finance, said on 23 May 1959—

That is what this is all about. That is what this Status of Ciskei Bill is all about. It has nothing to do with spiritual freedom for some group that wants to become an identifiable nation. It is all about power. That is what we are talking about. It is not about the hon. the Minister’s poetry and fine phrases which he uttered this afternoon. It is not about the interminable “whereases” and statements of intent that we had this afternoon. It is a straightforward power play, it is a straightforward question of divide and rule as best you can.

Those were the words of 1959 which I was quoting, the words in the days when, I am sure, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister believed in the idea of the Black people flowing back to the homelands leaving this White State to be run by the Whites for the Whites. Despite that party’s having ignored the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, despite that party’s having spent less in the first 10 years after the Tomlinson report than the Tomlinson report said it should spend in one year, the greedy White Nationalists wanted to have their cake and eat it, just like the HNP today.

That was 1959. What is the reality of 1981? White South Africa, as those hon. members refer to it, is three-quarters Black and is getting Blacker. By the year 2000 White South Africa will be more than 80% Black and will be inhabited by Black foreigners. What sort of country is there in the world in which more than 80% of its residents are foreigners? What kind of place is that? I suggest that the Nats are turning South Africa into a real-life Goon Show. Furthermore, it would be a joke if it were not so serious in its implications for the people of this country. No society can survive denying political rights to more than 80% of the population where they live and always have lived. It is a recipe not for peace and prosperity but for conflict.

I should like to go back to the first debate on independent homelands, the one on Transkei in 1976. In that debate the then hon. member for Marico, Mr. M. S. F. Grobler, said (Hansard, 7 April 1976, col. 4781)—

That is what was said by an hon. member on that side of the House in 1976, and that is exactly where we are heading because the Government is not attempting to resolve those real problems and is instead talking about homelands as if they are going to solve the problem of race relationships in South Africa. Clearly, the Status of Ciskei Bill that we are talking about today, the independence of Ciskei and, for that matter, the independence of other homelands that may come about in the future, are not going to solve the urban Black problem of South Africa.

We are not going to solve that by giving Ciskei independence or by giving any other homeland independence. In fact, I would suggest that it is not only not actually contributing towards solving the problem but it is also making the problem worse and more difficult to solve in this country. It will increase insecurity in the urban areas among Ciskeians. It will increase their frustration and it will reduce their commitment to South Africa and to peace and stability in this country. I should like to quote briefly from the report of the Cillié Commission of Inquiry into the Riots at Soweto and elsewhere. In analysing the causes of the riots, the commission dealt in chapter 7 of its report with the homeland system. It referred to the policy and the system and then under the heading “Acceptance of the policy” it said the following (Chapter 7.3.1, p. 587)—

Further on the commission went on to say—

Then finally in the summary the commission said (Chapter 7.5.1)—

That is not what somebody from the PFP is saying. That is what the Cillié Commission, appointed by the Government, said about the homelands policy and Black independence. That is the contribution, the negative contribution, the Government is making to the rest of South Africa.

It is hardly surprising though that the Ciskeians are concerned. If one goes back again to what was promised to Transkei and looks at what the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said in this House on Monday, 7 June 1976, it is not surprising at all. I should point out that it is ominous to note that that debate took place only 10 days prior to the Soweto riots. I quote (Hansard, vol. 63, col. 8318)—

That is what the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said at that time. Those were his words. Those were the fancy phrases, the poetry used. What has actually happened, Mr. Speaker? Since then we have had the deportations and all the rest. In this respect I should like to quote from a paper on independent homelands read by Prof. Dugard. Under the heading “Deportation of Aliens” he says—

That is what the law says. What did we witness here in the Cape Peninsula only last month? On 19 August there was a raid on Nyanga, and in a written reply to a question put to him by me the hon. the Minister of Police said on 15 September 1981 (Question 304, col. 407)—

Those who were charged were people from Ciskei and those who were deported were the privileged people from Transkei.

A week later, on 26 August, in terms of the same Acts, 18 men, 37 women and 14 minors were charged. Those were also people from Ciskei. 95 men, 151 women and 103 minors, all privileged to be Transkeian citizens, were deported without any trial, without any charges brought against them, without any opportunity of their providing any defence, without any opportunity of consulting with their lawyers in order to establish that the law was being properly executed. In many cases bail was granted, bail for which other people had to scramble to get back. That is what Transkeians were given after those grand words of the hon. the Minister in 1976.

You do not even know that you are talking absolute nonsense.

Of course, it is not an unusual quality for people not to know that they talk absolute nonsense.

In any agreement people will be accepted, regardless of whether there is work or not. I have never heard such nonsense? You are propagating disorder. Are you stupid?

The hon. the Minister must remember that he is not on television at the moment and that I have not given him the questions in advance. If he wants to ask me a question he does not have to give it to me in advance. He merely has to stand up and ask me a question and I shall answer him.

I have answered you. I am just pointing out that you make one sick by making such statements in this House.

I am glad that together with hundreds of thousands of Ciskeians the hon. the Minister is also feeling sick.

Do you always get cross when you get sick?

How does the hon. the Minister expect the Ciskeians to take seriously the convention or treaty that he waved around and read to us today with all his “whereases” which in law are not worth the paper on which they are written? He knows that very well. They are exactly the same sort of vague promises that were made by the hon. the Minister in 1976. No Ciskeian can expect that to mean anything until it is entrenched in law and the hon. the Minister need hardly be surprised about that.

Urban Ciskeians do not want independence. If one looks at the Quail Commission’s findings one will see—

Further on it states—

Like Transkeians who have been so privileged to be deported!

The anti-independence stance appears not to be popular ideology fostered by activists, but appears as grassroots common sense.

This is hardly surprising. During the referendum that was held, there were 133 000 people who voted outside Ciskei. It has been estimated that that is about 18% of those people who could have been eligible if they had wanted to register and if they had wanted to vote. On that basis I could have won Cape Town Gardens even more easily. I would have needed only 1 395 votes to win. And hon. members on that side of the House call it a mandate! The hon. member for Greytown quoted the example of Uitenhage where only 12,5% of those eligible voted. In Johannesburg the figure was only 0,43% and in Durban it was 0%. That was the support for Ciskeian independence in the urban areas. They are not interested. This is not some fringe group; this is two-thirds of the de jure population of Ciskei. They have given no indication whatsoever of wanting independence. All evidence is to the contrary.

It is about time we started facing some facts, whether we like them or not. If we are going to solve the problems in this country, we need to stop living in a fool’s paradise. The hon. member for Greytown quoted a survey that was held last week which showed that the most popular leader among Black people in major urban areas was Nelson Mandela who received a 76% rating as being liked by people. The other day the hon. member for Klip River when speaking about the Indian people said that we must deal with the real leaders even if they are radical and we do not like them. In Cape Town, where other than Transkeians we have virtually only Ciskeians, 28% of the people said that the ANC was their first choice, 13% said the PAC was their first choice, 5% said that Inkatha was their first choice and 4% said that Azapo was their first choice. Those are some of the facts of life and, whether we like it or not, we have got to face up to them. Therefore my appeal to the Government is to stop playing games and to stop wasting whatever precious time we have to solve our problems. By all means develop homelands economically, but have the guts to tackle the problems of power sharing by including Blacks in the rest of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the irritating aspect of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is his predictability. Even before he begins, one knows that he is going to be negative and cynical. He reminds one of what Schiller said, viz. “Against stupidity even the gods battle in vain”. For me as a mere human it is an impossible task to attempt to cure the hon. member of his specific complaint, and I am not even going to attempt to do so. However, I want to remind him of an anecdote from which he may do well to learn a lesson. I told it to one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Constantia, when we served on the provincial council together. It is the story of a lion who caught a bull and ate it, and then he felt so good that he roared and made a lot of noise. A hunter in the area heard the noise, trained his sights on the lion and shot it dead. The lesson that the hon. member must learn from this is: “If you are full of bull, shut up!” However, I shall leave the hon. member at that, because he is past redemption in any event.

The striving for self-determination is inherent in any nation, and the fulfilment thereof is the inalienable right of every nation. To ignore this, is to deny the truth. Woodrow Wilson, the President of the USA during the First World War, said as early as in 1918 that this was the right for which the Allies were fighting. He went on to say—

It shows you in what era you are living.

We may perhaps differ on the exact content of this right, but it is unquestionable that each nation is entitled to exercise self-determination, and the Ciskeian nation is also entitled to do so. Therefore, it was with increasing amazement that one listened to the Opposition, in their ignoring of this basic right of the Ciskeian people. The derogatory way in which they insulted the Ciskeian nation—the hon. member for Greytown in particular—is a disgrace for which they will be held accountable for a long time to come, particularly if one takes into account the fact that this nation and its leaders are people who have done more and are going to do more for the peaceful development of Southern Africa than the Opposition will ever be able to do, and fortunately more than the Opposition could break down with its negativism and negative criticism. The only value of their contradictory criticism—and we once again had the débâcle where hon. members rose to their feet after one another in the same debate and used the same facts to draw a totally different conclusion—is that it displayed their total lack of understanding for and their ignoring of the right to self-determination for the Black peoples of Southern Africa. The smoke-screen that they are trying to produce, as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has just tried to do, by means of their continual lip-service to the human rights of Blacks, stands exposed as the dishonest politics which it in fact is, and the Black peoples take note of this.

In an attempt to gloss over this ignoring of the right to self-determination of the Black peoples, they made a tremendous fuss here to the effect that what the Ciskei is receiving, is not true independence because the Ciskei is still ostensibly economically linked to South Africa.

Furthermore, they also made a great deal of fuss here to the effect that by accepting independence, the Ciskei is being put in a weaker position for protecting the rights of its citizens. The fact is that independence is an important facet in the political fulfilment of a nation, which then makes it possible for that nation to share in the reality of its environment on an equal political basis and in equal national dignity with its neighbours. Indeed, after independence such a nation does not exist in a vacuum. The reality remains there, and we and the Ciskei will have to take that reality into account. In this way the developmental requirements of the Ciskei will continue to exist, and they will have to continue to take steps to combat unemployment, but this does not detract from the sovereignty of the Ciskei. Where is there a state that does not have its own problems? If unemployment is being harped upon to such an extent, should one then accept—according to the Opposition’s definition of how sovereignty is composed—that Britain too is no longer sovereign?

In addition, the fact that the Republic and the Ciskei are interdependent and that the Ciskei for instance, is still dependent on Republican economic support, surely does not detract from the sovereignty of the Ciskei. If this is to be the test, viz. that in order to be sovereign a nation must be completely economically independent, there would be a few States in Africa—indeed, few States in the world—who would pass this test.

Exactly 20 years ago, on 25 September 1961, John F. Kennedy put it as follows—

Since the means are now being put at the disposal of the Ciskei, since it is being given hope for the future, since South Africa is giving substance to the independence of the Ciskei by means of developmental aid, the very thing which is going to set them free, is now being seized upon the Opposition as ostensibly detracting from the sovereignty of the Ciskei.