Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the Third Reading of this Bill. The Bill has two main provisions. The one makes provision for Community Councils to be able to raise loans, and then provision is also being made enabling money obtained in that way to be invested, both aspects in accordance with the conditions laid down by the hon. the Minister of Finance. As we indicated in the discussion of the Second Reading—and afterwards as well—we welcome this provision. Obviously there is a need for this facility to be made available to Community Councils and also, I take it, to their successors, the Black local authorities. Indeed, the facility which is now being made available here could make a material contribution to improving the quality of life of the Black urban inhabitants. For that reason we have no problem with this particular provision of the Bill, and we welcome it.

Our basic difficulty lies in the first provisions which provide that documents of the commission for Co-operation and Development may be kept secret. Regulations may be promulgated which provide that the confidential documents, as the hon. Minister said, may be classified as secret with a penal provision in cases of unauthorized disclosure of those documents. During the Committee Stage we pointed out the veritable Babel of confusion which we had encountered among speakers on the Government side as to why this measure was considered to be necessary. In his last speech the hon. the Minister tried to get away from that confusion by saying that what was primarily involved here was the preservation of the secrecy of reports of the commission that had been submitted to the Cabinet, reports on which the commission had reached finality but on which the Government had not yet given its decision. He also said that it was not the intention with this Bill to go any further than that. The hon. the Minister tried hard to persuade us that we ought to support the Bill, in view of the limited application of secrecy which he had explained here. Unfortunately, however, he destroyed his own case when he refused to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Greytown in this connection, for that amendment, in fact, sought to make it very clear that the preservation of secrecy was limited to the kind of document which, according to the Minister, was being contemplated in the Bill. In view of the hon. the Minister’s very clear statement of what he wanted to do with these powers, it is entirely incomprehensible to me that he was not prepared to accept that amendment, because that amendment reflected precisely what is being contemplated with this Bill according to the hon. the Minister.

Under these circumstances we have no alternative but to say, at the Third Reading as well, that we cannot accept the Bill in this form. The hon. the Minister omitted to tell us why the commission cannot exercise effective control over its own documents. He said that 44 people received those documents. However, it makes no difference how many people receive them. Those documents are the commission’s own creation. They are typed and duplicated by the officials in the employ of the commission. Why should there be the risk in the case of the commission, more than in the case of other Government departments, that these particular documents are not subject to such control that a measure of confidentiality can be maintained? The implication is therefore that the hon. the Minister either does not trust the members of the commission …

That is nonsense.

I maintain that the implication of this is either that he does not trust them, or that the people who receive those documents will not preserve the confidentiality of such documents …

That is also nonsense.

… or, thirdly, that the officials who work with the documents cannot be trusted.

That is also nonsense.

There is no other way in which confidential documents, which are considered by the commission itself to be such, can find their way into the hands of the Press or other parties. There is no other way. From the beginning I asked the hon. the Minister to explain to us how it was possible that that could happen in the process of reproducing documents, except in the three possible ways I sketched, i.e. that confidential documents could find their way into the hands of the wrong persons. I am still waiting for a reply.

What is really involved here is a wider principle. I indicated in my Second Reading speech that we have unfortunately gained the impression that the Government was relying to an every-increasing extent on keeping things secret which ought not to be kept secret, and was in that way trying to keep information to which the public was entitled away from them. The hon. the Minister tried to explain that the matters being dealt with here were contentious, for example consolidation, and that it was better to keep them secret until the Government had adopted a standpoint in regard to them. In reply to the arguments of other members the hon. the Minister said that it was possible that speculative rumours could begin circulating and that, on the basis of such rumours, people might do all kinds of things. Land speculation was possible, etc. What is essential in regard to a matter such as land, however, something which in the history of South Africa has always been and still is a burning issue, is that it is the primary duty of the Government to eliminate the possibility of speculative rumours and suspicion, and that can only happen if there is a relationship of open trust between the public and the Commission for Co-operation and Development.

That is what we are trying to achieve.

What the hon. the Minister is doing with this Bill, now, is to violate that relationship of trust. In other words, it is completely counter-productive in view of what the hon. the Minister wants to achieve here, for by trying to keep matters which are indeed contentious and important a secret, he is in fact promoting speculative rumours on what decision the commission had supposedly taken or had not taken. Consequently I wish to tell the hon. the Minister, in all honesty, that what he wants to achieve with this Bill is going to be counterproductive. He is in fact going to promote and reinforce suspicion and rumours with this attempt at preserving secrecy, instead of preventing such things. The hon. the Minister is now saying that because a specific matter is contentious, it would be better if the public knew nothing about it until the Government had taken a final decision. He implied that he did not want people to act merely on the grounds of the recommendations of the commission, in other words before the Government had adopted its final standpoint on the matter. But, Sir, reports on all kinds of matters are addressed to the Government virtually every day, but surely everyone knows that no one can react to such reports before the Government itself has adopted a standpoint. With regard to these important reports of the President’s Council on the constitutional future of South Africa, the Government has still not stated what it is going to do. Consequently we still do not know what it is going to do. Yet no one has so far involved the Government in any of these recommendations, because everyone is waiting for the Government to adopt a standpoint in regard to them. It will do no harm at all if the commission states that it has made certain recommendations to the Government in regard to consolidation, and if they put all their cards on the table. Surely, in the nature of things, it is the duty of the Government to take the final decision and until final decisions have been taken, it would be foolish for anyone else to react to the reports on the basis of recommendations made to the Cabinet. This is the normal attitude, and this is the procedure which all the commissions have adopted in the past. In the final instance it rests with the Government, and the Government then issues a White Paper in which it makes its decisions known.

How can you make a statement like that…

This is the procedure which the commission ought to adopt It should take the public into its confidence and say: This is our recommendation to the Government, but in the final instance it is up to the Cabinet to take the final decision. I am therefore sorry that the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill and in that way is in fact encouraging the possibility of speculative rumours and suspicion.

The hon. the Minister indicated that this was merely an enabling provision and that the regulations would provide precisely how far the preservation of secrecy would extend. We shall watch these regulations very carefully. I also wish to make it very clear that we reject the principle and that we shall keep the hon. the Minister to his word …

But why not help me instead.

To our way of thinking a principle is involved. However, we shall watch those regulations carefully to see whether they do not go further than the hon. the Minister has indicated here and are in fact reflected in the amendment moved by my hon. colleague. Under these circumstances, and as I have already indicated, we really have no choice but to oppose this Bill at the Third Reading as well.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for the positive part of the speech of the hon. member Prof. Olivier, where he intimated that he and his party supported the borrowing powers which are being granted to the Community Councils. Then, however, the hon. member, as he did in his Second Reading speech and as the other hon. members of the Opposition also did, again presented absolutely repetitive and wilful arguments concerning an extremely reasonable matter which the hon. the Minister explained very satisfactorily to us, viz. the necessity that certain matters ought to be kept secret owing to events which have occurred and leaks which have in fact taken place in the past and which caused the public financial loss, as well as the fact that the commission should be able to finalize its work in an impartial and peaceful way. Surely the hon. the Minister made it clear to the hon. member that this did not entail imposing secrecy on all the activities of the commission, but only on matters which still had to be deliberated and in respect of which there were decisions that still had to be taken by the Cabinet. Surely he made this very clear. Surely the hon. member knows that it is essential for a commission of this nature to be able to proceed unimpeded with its business. Imagine for yourself a situation in which we allowed the Press access to every commission or committee while it was engaged in its negotiations, while various standpoints were still being submitted and debated to be able to reach a final standpoint. If one thinks for example, of the President’s Council and what is happening there at present, would the positive results and the unanimous resolutions which are being adopted have been possible if one had, from the beginning, thrown open that council to the general public and to the Press? Surely it is a generally accepted fact that some people on a committee, on a commission and even in this House, like to play to the gallery and this can only cause conflict among the various commissioners, the departments and the people with whom they have to deal. It can also impede their activities. Surely the hon. the Minister said nothing else. In the past things did in fact happen which made the activities of the commission difficult. The hon. the Minister also made it clear that the commission is at present accelerating its activities and that they are entering an emotionally charged phase in which final boundaries have to be drawn. Consequently they should be allowed to be able to do this work unimpeded and without interference. Surely that is a fair request. The hon. the Minister explained that the membership of the commission had been expanded and that heavier burdens were being imposed on the commission. It is essential that the commission should reach a final decision on certain matters without being hampered in its activities by the Press or the public. It is also essential that the public should be protected against rumours or the creation of false expectations. It is not the case at all that greater secrecy is being advocated. There will be no secrecy after the commission’s recommendations have been published. The insinuation made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier was absolutely malicious. He alleged that Cabinet members or the commissioners, or officials might betray the confidentiality of the commission. It is disgraceful to make such a remark. Surely the hon. member knows that when the commission has submitted a certain recommendation to the Cabinet, the Cabinet may, after considering it, request the commission to reexamine the matter and to take other aspects into consideration. After all, no recommendation can be final before it has been approved by the Cabinet and before the activities have been finalized.

This morning certain news reports on Tha-ba ‘Nchu were broadcast. The newspapers are at liberty to speculate about something, but if they were to do so in regard to the standpoints of the commission, it could impede the activities of the commission. Only after visits to the area and after the persons concerned have been consulted can a final decision on these matters be reached.

If one examines these matters one may say by way of summary that various important points have to be taken into consideration. It is not the case at all that the commission is a secret organization or that it wishes to keep its activities secret. All we are asking for is protection of the public and to allow the commission to do its work. This is a fair request because leaks have in fact occurred in the past. We are only trying to find a means of preventing such leaks in future.

The hon. the Minister determined the penalties for contravention in terms of the legislation on a fair level. After representations have been made to him he agreed to lowering the fine payable for offences in terms of the legislation. Surely leaks of secret reports of the commission to the Press did occur in the past, and that is why it is necessary for penal provisions to apply. The Press is not being gagged by this measure in any way at all. On the contrary, the commission welcomes the fact that, after it has reached a final decision, the Press can assist the commission in conveying its findings to the public. The hon. the Minister said that only certain documents of the commission would be classified as secret and would be affected by this legislation. We want to prevent the creation of false expectations among the public and uncertainty arising. We want to protect the public and allow the commission to do its work in peace.

Speculation in regard to land is an emotional matter and one cannot toss these things about before the commission has reached finality, after an intensive investigation and negotiations with the persons concerned, and after the Cabinet has scrutinized the recommendations and reached a final decision on them. One cannot allow these things to find their way into the hands of the Press piecemeal, thus causing people to speculate about them. We know what the consequences of this on land prices are, for example. Consequently it is a great pleasure for me to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Vryheid. I think the official Opposition is reading motives into this Bill which cannot be read into it. The task of the Commission for Co-operation and Development is a formidable one; it is of a probing, investigatory and advisory nature. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Vryheid when I say that it is absolutely essential that the commission should be able to perform its task in an impartial and unprejudiced atmosphere.

We have had personal experience of the damage which absolutely wild rumours can cause people, whether individuals or communities, who may possibly be involved in the consolidation of Black national States, because such unfounded rumours were spread time and again in the past. For that reason I can find no fault whatsoever with the measure which will help to ensure that the proceedings and the recommendations of the commission will not be made public.

It was also my privilege to have served for a short while on the commission. I am of the opinion that the members of the commission are responsible hon. members of the House. The suggestion which the hon. member Prof. Olivier made that the hon. the Minister, by introducing this measure, was allegedly expressing a lack of confidence in the members of the commission, is in my opinion not worthy of this House.

It was not said.

It was suggested. It is not worthy of this House, and it ought not to be suggested here.

I want to express the hope that the commission, as in the past, will dispose of its important task with zeal and speed, in the interests of everyone in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up certain aspects that were raised by the hon. member for Barberton. At this Third Reading stage, I should just like to point out that there have been occasions when leaks have been highly advantageous in respect of the functions of the Commission. I can recall that certain recommendations were made by the commission which eventually found their way into the press. Subsequently, because of this fact and the pressures that followed on this leak of information, the commission reconsidered some of its recommendations. [Interjections.] This is a very important fact. In the light of the reconsideration of those recommendations, far better recommendations were eventually forthcoming. I think we must also accept the fact that there is a certain amount of justification for saying that information should not be disclosed. However, now that we have reached the Third Reading stage of this Bill, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that the strong reasons for his having introduced this Bill relative to the preservation of secrecy are minimized by making the recommendations of the commission available at the earliest possible opportunity.

We are very much aware of the letter which every member of Parliament has received during the past week from a Mr. Keartland. For anybody to read that letter and not be affected by its contents would, in my view, indicate a completely unsympathetic attitude. [Interjections.] This predicament has been caused as a result of information not being made available. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to give assurance that the provisions of this Bill will not be used as an excuse to prolong the finalization of the Government’s consolidation proposals.

Now you are talking nonsense.

No. We have seen that as a result of some of these recommendations communities have been held in absolute limbo.

We are aware of the Cabinet’s instructions to the Commission to finalize the consolidation recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I once again wish to draw attention to the urgency of finalizing this matter. I receive letters daily from my constituents who are being detrimently effected as a result of the Government consolidation proposals, and it is absolutely impossible for some of these people to continue in their present situation. I think it is therefore absolutely essential that ways and means be found whereby funds are made available to complete this aspect of Government policy.

In closing may I just say that I hope that certain aspects of this legislation will assist in bringing about a speedy conclusion to the problems that are being experienced at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I could not follow from the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River whether his party supports or opposes the Third Reading of this Bill. He hinted or insinuated that the acceptance of this Bill may cause a delay in finalizing the consolidation programme. But I fail to see how that deduction can be made.

*Sir, I should like to thank the hon. member for Barberton for his support for the Third Reading on behalf of his party. He was a member of the commission, and to me personally it was a great disappointment when he decided to leave the NP, and consequently the commission as well. [Interjections.] I am not trying to offend the hon. member when I say that although he is sitting in the CP with his heart in the right place, his intellect simply does not fit in there. I have great appreciation for what the hon. member did on the commission, and I should like to say this in public. [Interjections.]

The Bill, which is now in its final stage, seeks in effect to ensure protection against an unauthorized disclosure of the reports of the commission. However, this refers only to reports classified by the commission itself as confidential, and notice must be given by way of regulation of reports which shall be treated as confidential until the Cabinet has adopted a final standpoint.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Greytown is alleging that that is not true. I think, specifically when one takes note of the definition to be found in clause 1 of the Bill, that a distinction is being drawn between regulations which make provision for the procedure at meetings of the commission and regulations pertaining to the performance of its functions—mere regulations in that connection—on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the preservation of the secrecy of matters and of reports; not the preservation of the secrecy of proceedings, but of matters. However, a clear distinction is drawn between functions and proceedings on the one hand and matters on the other.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Randburg how he thinks it is in any way possible to keep a matter secret while the proceedings are open? Suppose, for example, the case of Kangwane, which has to be given to Swaziland, is being discussed. How can the matter then be kept secret if the proceedings are open?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has already on four occasions during the course of this debate— during the Second Reading as well as during the Committee Stage—tried to explain to hon. members of the Opposition that a distinction is being drawn between proceedings and matters. Proceedings are part of the process of deliberation, and the fact that these are discussed, is not related to what is being envisaged in regard to the preservation of secrecy. The specific recommendations, the matters, the memoranda that are submitted … [Interjections.]

He cannot understand it.

If the hon. member for Greytown cannot understand this …

Mr. Speaker, may I put another question to the hon. member for Randburg? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited. I cannot reply to any further questions. I would prefer to continue with my speech. [Interjections.]

There is a second aspect I wish to point out before I come back to the speech made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I am in full agreement with the argument of the hon. member Prof. Olivier that a free flow of information is the ideal situation. In fact I have on various occasions in this House argued in favour of that, I have even by implication accused the Government of its entire information effort not being adequate to make a free flow of information possible between the government and the media. I have advocated that the media should be flooded with information on what is really happening. In addition to that standpoint of mine there is, however, also merit for cases in which important matters, important memorandums, important reports are relevent, reports which are subject to a final decision, and which ought not to be disclosed. The hon. the Minister used the case of King William’s Town as an example here. The hon. member Prof. Olivier tried to draw a comparison between the report of the commission on King William’s Town and the recommendations of the President’s Council in regard to a new Constitution Act. He did this by way of a comparison. We do in fact have a very positive reaction to the recommendations of the President’s Council because no one has as yet accused the Government of adopting its own standpoint in connection with any of those recommendations, according to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. That is of course a valid argument. However, it is not a valid comparison. On the commission itself we in fact have other circumstances. The 12 members comprising the commission are themselves politicians as well, politicians who are members of the governing party. Consequently the commission not only has expert advice and technical contributions at its disposal, but has in a certain sense already discounted political decisions. The chances that a deviation is going to occur are therefore in the first place far fewer than the chance of a deviation in the Government’s reaction in a White Paper on a report from an outside commission, which does not form a specific part of the governing party. I believe that the hon. member will concede that I am correct on this score.

Having accepted that now, we must also admit that because this nexus between the report of the commission and the reaction of the Cabinet is so narrow, because these two things are in such close proximity, it is important that confusion should not arise, because great harm could result from that. When the hon. the Minister presented King William’s Town as an example and pointed out that the finding of the Cabinet differed from the recommendations of the commission, the hon. member Prof. Olivier stated that it was a pity. The hon. the Minister then said that we were not now deliberating on whether or not it was a pity, although that could nevertheless be true. However, the hon. the Minister made it clear that we were not discussing the merits of the decision now. I now want to argue purely on the basis of the point of departure of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Suppose it were indeed a pity—suppose therefore that the findings of the Government were wrong—I wish to contend that in the long run the Government took its decision not only on the basis of the report at its disposal but also on the strength of further contributions which it received.

Then, too, I just wish to argue—quite theoretically, because I am not saying that this is a fact—that because that report was made public, there were pressure groups which began to say things. People had harsh things to say and kicked up a fuss, and the media played along. But what is the function of a government? Surely its function is to govern in the interests of the people. In that case it has to take cognizance of this as well. But what is its ability to really determine the validity of those inputs at this stage, when such a highly emotional situation is prevailing? When a minority group, a pressure group, reacts very sharply, it is possible that people who react to that—and I am not referring specifically to a government only now, but to any decision-making body—may take incorrect decisions. Consequently I want to agree that if a decision had been taken, and the same minority had been confronted with this as a fact, it would have found it far easier to reconcile itself to the new status quo than would have been the case if it had had the opportunity to kick up a terrible fuss, and people had afterwards adopted a standpoint opposed to the standpoint of the minority in any case. However, I do not wish to waste very much more time in this connection.

I just wish to deal with a few other matters, specifically those relating to clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. I am referring to the power to borrow and to lend money. I think that insufficient attention has been given to the importance of what is happening here. In a certain sense these provisions may be seen as a step which serves as a precursor to the Bill which was referred to the constitutional committee and which will subsequently be brought before this House again. In these two provisions we recognize the first steps towards the full autonomy of Black local authorities, because it affords them the opportunity of borrowing money themselves and of investing it for their own account. Up to now the administration boards have dealt with this function as agent for the community councils. I think it is also only fitting that we should on this occasion, with reference to the large loan which was recently negotiated, say something specific about Soweto—which I should consequently like to do. Mr. David Thebehali deserves far more praise, credit and recognition from this country than he is in fact receiving. I do not think he is probably, according to any criterion, the major, traditional politician as we would see a politician in this House, but it is my privilege to know him rather well, and he is pre-eminently a community leader, a man who renders a service, a man who is sincere and honest and who does everything for his people. Consequently I think that we must give him credit for that.

Put him in the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

Clauses 3 and 4 also open interesting doors in view of the recommendations of the President’s Council, which we shall probably be given an opportunity to discuss further at a later stage.

I hope that hon. members will therefore understand the importance of this measure, and give it the necessary support.

Mr. Speaker, in reaction to the last point made by the hon. member for Randburg, let me just say that I should like to associate myself with his remarks, and here I am referring particularly to the promise that is held out that the provisions in this legislation will bring about well-structured community councils with sufficient money to go about improving the quality of life of people, being involved in the efforts themselves and being able to encourage people to reach new heights by helping themselves. I should like to take this opportunity of just saying how very pleased people in my part of the world—myself in particular—were to hear of the appointment of Mr. Louis Rive to investigate and assist with the conditions in the Eastern Cape and in and around the border areas. If I may remark on that, let me say that I think that, while it may sound a little philanthropic, the surroundings and circumstances in which people live and their quality of life in fact have a great bearing on their lives. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will know that from the mouth of the Buffalo River right through to Alice one village follows upon another virtually without interruption. It is just one long session of communities and villages which have sprung up and developed and which require a considerable input to improve their quality of life. Whilst we, within our system and society somehow have the ability to improve our surroundings and circumstances, I feel certain that these people will benefit from the knowledge and abilities of Mr. Louis Rive to improve their circumstances.

I come now to the portion of the Bill which we in these benches are in effect opposing and our reasons for opposing the first clause which has to do with secrecy. I should just like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Randburg. I want to say that I cannot quite agree with his reasoning if one takes into account the sequence of events of what occurred in King William’s Town. That leak of information caused a reaction from the people there in connection with the incorporation of King William’s Town, a reaction which very likely influenced the Cabinet. To say, therefore, that the Cabinet went against the decision of the commission is correct but it is more than likely that the reaction of the people in that area had a bearing on the decision made. One therefore comes back to the point, which was also made by my colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, that, if people are informed about the circumstances, their reaction to something proposed by the commission may well affect the outcome of the proposals.

I think it is true to say that the fear in regard to the use of this secrecy is in fact that matters may progress to a point where the Cabinet can take decisions which are irreversible or where the opinion of the people concerned can no longer have a bearing on the outcome. The commission has to deal with very sensitive and very difficult problems. Do not let it be thought for a moment that we in these benches do not understand how important the matters are on which the commission must take decisions or the extent to which information must be collected from experts right across the board so that the commission will be well informed by the time it makes its decision. That is not in question. However, what should equally not be in question, is the opinion in which the commission is held and the results of the policy to date. Whatever decisions have been taken by commissions and whichever governing party they came from, I doubt very much whether the situation has ever been achieved that everyone liked the decisions that were taken. However, as a result of delays, pitifully inadequate budgeting and a torrent of words about something to which the same degree of action has not been applied in order to bring about finality or to ensure that people do not suffer, to a considerable extent a question-mark hangs over exactly how concerned the people involved in consolidation are about people’s circumstances. Against that background they are to be given this power. I must agree with the hon. member for Greytown, because if I read that clause it does not cover the description given by the hon. the Minister, what the hon. the Minister has explained it would be used for. The wording in the long title is to “make regulations providing for the preservation of secrecy in connection with matters dealt with by the Commission for Co-operation and Development.” That is a very wide area, and I believe, as has been said by the hon. member Prof. Olivier, that that sort of power will be counter-productive in the scenario which I am trying to describe. As I tried to explain there would be a certain amount of suspicion about the activities of any commission. That is human nature. When one looks at the record of consolidation I think it could not have been worse. I do not believe that the consolidation process, going back to the Van Vuuren Commission, which was the kick-off point in the 1960s, could have had a worse record. The consolidation process has done untold damage to farming, land-owners and to relations between Blacks and Whites because of the way in which it is being done, the slow rate of progress and the sometimes inexplicable delays which occurred in some circumstances. We are now in the stage, that vital stage, where all the evidence is being brought together and the decision-making process is on the go prior to its going to the Cabinet. What the hon. the Minister is demanding is a high level of discipline from the members of the commission and from the staff prior to the matter going to the Cabinet. But to put a clause like this forward to achieve that is, going to result in a negative opinion of the Commission and its activities, and is going to cause him great harm. I really feel that the hon. the Minister with his ability of persuading people and his ability to get his team around him, needs no more power to make certain that the commission approaches that stage of its deliberations with the utmost confidentiality and in a way which will in a reasonably short period result in the transmission of recommendations to the Cabinet. At the same time I want to repeat the plea I made during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister and link it up with what the hon. member for Mooi River has said, and that is that to say continually that there is not enough money is becoming a non-answer for the people out there. They are not interested in that as an answer any more, and it is a scandal that after 30 years that should be the only answer given to people whose lives are in tatters as a result of the suspension and the disruption

Which clause of the Bill is that?

It relates to secrecy in the commission.

But you are talking of the availability of money to buy the land.

I want to make the same plea to the hon. the Minister, namely that the commission should accelerate this work and that the Minister should put all his effort to bring about an improvement, especially in the manner in which these matters are being dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the Government is very sincere in trying to finalize the consolidation process and finding a formula for financing it as soon as it is humanly possible for the very reason we deal with the sort of problem the hon. member for King William’s Town has just highlighted ever so often again. We know by experience what the hardships are and we know about the hard luck cases. That is why the Government has decided that the final report must be submitted by the Van der Walt Commission not later than July this year. A real and sincere attempt is thus being made at finalizing the report. Coupled with that is the financial formula, and in this regard the hon. member for Parys is obviously 100% correct. The problem has always been that one can do the necessary spade work, but if one does not have the finances, one does have problems. It is the task of the commission and of the Department of Finance to see whether we Cannot arrive at a financial formula so that we can do the two things at the same time, and I think that we are making good progress although I do not want to make any promises. [Interjections.]

‘However, we are making good progress in the face of all these problems. After all, the hon. members are aware of this.

Further to what was said by the hon. member for Randburg and the hon. member for King William’s Town, I want to point out that clauses 3 and 4, which empower the Community Councils—which will be full-fledged Black local councils before long—to borrow money, were not given the attention they deserve in the debate on this Bill. What is happening here, is a very important and fine development. This matter has a long history. Consequently one is very grateful for the fact that we have progressed to that point in this country. I want to highlight this point by saying that I hope that proper notice will be taken of the fact that outstanding instruments have been created by means of an evolutionary process over the years for the Black people on the third level of government, instruments which will reach full maturity before the end of this session, when the Bill on Black Local Authorities has been piloted through this House, because the Select Committee has completed its business and the Bill will be tabled here before the end of this session. Therefore, the point I want to emphasize is that in contrast to the position of Coloureds and Asians, excellent instruments have already been created on the third level of government for the Blacks which are working well in practice and which will be further developed, in that ways and means are being created for Black people on the third level of government to enable them to develop their Black councils to a status absolutely equal to that of the Whites in the Republic of South Africa. Consequently I am grateful for the fact that this was emphasized by the hon. members.

One can also say very fine things indeed about Soweto. In this regard I should like to make one small point and that is that Oom Tienie Louw said a very true word at a large dinner given for him on his 80th birthday. He said that in looking back over his long years of service in South Africa, he saw that we had achieved much success in certain fields and less success in others. He went on to pose the question: To what is this attributable? In my opinion that was a very important question. To hear him speak with such maturity about this, made an indelible impression on me, and I hope it will make the same impression on this House. He said the answer, based on his experience in life, was essentially a very simple one. In the fields in which we had made excellent progress, we were able to do so because we had the man who rendered such progress possible, whereas in the fields in which we had not made progress, we did not have the man or the woman to render it possible. In my opinion this is a universal truth. I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for King William’s Town with reference to Mr. Louis Rive. Over the past two years Soweto has been developing admirably for this very reason. I may say in all modesty that I took two very good men there, and they are John Knoetze and Louis Rive. One need only look at the results. Of course, these two men received the assistance of other excellent officials, whose names I should have liked to mention if I had the time to do so. At the moment we have the same situation in the Eastern Cape and I honestly believe that we shall achieve success in the Eastern Cape as well in view of the fact that we have placed the right man in control to achieve results in conjunction with others.

Now I should like to reply briefly to the points made in the debate. I want to emphasize and I want to assure the hon. member for Mooi River that neither the commission nor the Government wishes to make the business of the commission even semi-con-fidential. Consequently I emphasize the fact that the proceedings of the commission will remain open. However, we have come up against a real problem and we have to try to rectify that problem. We hope that once this Bill has been passed—I had hoped that it would be possible to do so without having a division, but unfortunately we have been unable to convince some hon. members on the opposite side of this House—these will prove that what we are trying to do by means of this Bill is merely to obviate and deal with a problem effectively. In this regard I cannot give a more appropriate example than what happened only this morning. I nearly fell off my chair this morning when I heard over the radio that the commission had decided that Thaba ‘Nchu would be given to a Black State, I do not know which one. I honestly do not know to which one.

They said to Bophu-thatswana.

They said to a Black State.

The fact of the matter is that the Commission of Co-operation and Development has taken cognizance of the referendum held by the town council of Thaba ‘Nchu to assess the opinion of the White inhabitants as to the possible incorporation of the town into either Bophuthatswana or Qwaqwa. The town council of Thaba ‘Nchu submitted a memorandum in this regard to the commission. The commission is conducting its enquiry at the present time, and no final decision has been taken as yet. No submission whatsoever has been made to me as the responsible Minister up to this stage.

Nic, surely that proves the point.

[Inaudible.]

Just allow me to make my point. I say no submission has been made to me as yet; nor has the commission reached the stage when it can hear the evidence of the people concerned. However, the commission will pay a visit to the area in June. This morning, after the outbreak of this nonsense concerning Thaba ‘Nchu—it is like the measles; every now and again it breaks out somewhere—the commissioners could not even give me the assurance that they would be able to hear evidence in June when they visit the region. I know Thaba ‘Nchu very well. My wife comes from a place 16 miles from Thaba ‘Nchu, and therefore I know that part of the world like the back of my hand. I am also well acquainted with the history of Thaba ‘Nchu. I can imagine the uncertainty that was created by this morning’s report on the radio that Thaba ‘Nchu is to be incorporated in Bophuthatswana. People have been living there for generations. My wife’s family has been living there since 1834, and if I had the time I could tell hon. members very interesting things about that. [Interjections.] I can attest to the sound relationship that has existed between the Barolongs and the farmers in that region for more than 100 years. And now there is this report about the alleged incorporation of Thaba ‘Nchu into Bophuthatswana. This only bedevils relations, and I want to go through the roof if I so much as think about it. Some irresponsible person— Sir, if I could I should very much have liked to use a stronger word—went and distributed that report.

But would the Bill be able to prevent any such thing?

I am coming to that now. The leader of the National Party in the Free State took me aside in the lobby this morning and asked me what I was doing, whether I was giving away parts of the Free State without even notifying him about the matter! I had to go to a great deal of trouble to explain to him that no decision had yet been taken. What is the point I am trying to make? It is not our plan, in terms of this legislation, to put a stop to that kind of speculation that takes place. I have just made a statement in Parliament to rectify the situation in connection with Thaba ‘Nchu and the report in that regard. What is now going to happen is that those people will read what was said in this Parliament and that will reassure them. After all, the people know that the matter is being considered, and after my statement they know that it is being investigated. [Interjections.] If you would only be quiet, you might understand it. We do not want to put a stop to that. But when the commission has disposed of its activities and compiled its report, then that report is submitted to the Cabinet. At that stage, of course, the Cabinet has not yet decided on it. As the hon. member for Randburg said, after the commission has compiled its report and before the Cabinet has decided on it, other factors come to the fore which the Government must take into account. Therefore, in practice it happens that after that report, which is an official document signed by all the members of the commission, is submitted to the Cabinet, the Government may, as in the case of King William’s Town, come up with an entirely different decision, taking into account certain factors other than those recommended in the report. Therefore, if that had happened in the case of Thaba ‘Nchu and someone had laid hands on that report of the commission, he would have gone to tell the people there: “Whatever Piet Koomhof says in Parliament, and whatever anyone says, here I have the proof. This document was signed by the commission. Here is the map; that is what the plan looks like. I am telling you this place is going there.” [Interjections.] With great respect, that hon. member does not understand these things. The difference between what happened this morning and what is stated in a signed official report of the commission, is that it has caused the people there to accept that those are the facts and that that is what is going to happen, and—we already have bitter experience of this—that they then act in terms of that report, and that is not in their interests, nor in the interests of the relations between Black and White. This is the kind of thing we want to try and avert. I want hon. members to understand this. I have repeatedly said that it is not the intention of the commission to put a stop to speculation in this regard. I have used this example with the very aim of indicating this to hon. members. However, the State has an obligation when people are deceived, where they are in possession of a report, with a map and all that goes with it, a report that they accept—and they may also have reason to accept that it will really happen. This is what we wish to avert. I repeat: We do not wish to have the accusation flung at us that the Government wants to keep everything secret. We do not want to do that. Neither the department, nor the commission nor I wants to be accused of that. Therefore I say that if we are accused of that then that is unfair, and I hope our actions will prove it. However, we bear the responsibility of putting a stop to this kind of irresponsible action. Therefore, having taken a good look at the situation and giving careful consideration to everything, we shall deal with this matter in the most gentle manner possible. We are merely asking for this enabling legislation to enable us to act in this way. I hope that I have hereby replied to the question asked by the hon. member.

I want to emphasize most strongly that I have the fullest confidence in the members of the commission, and hon. members can also have confidence in them. I have the fullest confidence in the officials of the commission, and hon. members can share that confidence. I have the fullest confidence in the officials of the department, and hon. members can share that too. But have hon. members never heard of documents being stolen?

Surely in that case a criminal charge can be laid.

And if one does not know who stole them, what does one do then? [Interjections.] The hon. member says that I have not explained what happened, but one is still faced with the fact that they could have been stolen, or, due to the usual human weaknesses, found their way into the wrong hands. I am quite prepared to admit that I once almost had a heart attack when on one occasion, when I had confidential documents in my possession, I placed them on the roof of my car—with only the best intentions that they should remain confidential—and drove off, lost in thought.

But surely that is negligence.

Later, when I looked for those documents I had the greatest trouble finding them. Therefore there is such a thing as human oversight, and this kind of thing can happen to the best of us.

The fact of the matter is that we have found in practice that such reports find their way into the wrong hands, either by theft or due to human oversight. One need not draw the conclusion, as a result of that, that this is an issue of a lack of confidence in the officials. Not one of these officials who are in possession of such documents would willingly allow them to find their way into the wrong hands. There is no doubt on that score.

In spite of that we have found that they do find their way into the wrong hands. I say that even if we had a detective service equal to that of Agatha Christie, we could not yet have ascertained who had done this. If we could find the culprit, we would of course deal with him in terms of the powers we have at our disposal. We should not hesitate to do so for a moment, but thus far we have not been able to find the culprits in the cases that are known to us.

The issue here is not, therefore, that we want to maintain secrecy by making this a closed commission, as hon. members have incorrectly charged us with doing; the issue here is purely and simply that we are not evading the responsibility of the State in regard to an unpleasant situation that we have encountered. We come to this House with the sole intention of rectifying the matter and obtaining the necessary statutory powers to enable us to act when it is necessary to do so. When we have them, we shall act, and the result of this legislation will be very favourable because we believe that this legislation will effectively put a stop to these things.

I am quite unable to agree with the argument advanced by the hon. member Prof. Olivier to the effect that if we were to act in this way and obtain everyone’s co-operation, it would be counter-productive, and would increase speculation. Surely I explained the example of Thaba ‘Nchu in detail. Such speculation will continue, and we cannot and will not try to stop it by way of the Bill. Therefore I do not believe that the hon. member’s argument in this regard is well-founded.

I thank the hon. member for Vryheid for his positive contribution. The hon. member has a great deal of experience in this regard. He, too, serves on the commission. His argument is quite correct.

I wish to convey my special appreciation to the hon. member for Barberton for his contribution this morning. I sit here with a sore heart when I think that he should really have stayed on this side. However, now he is sitting there. I hope that this situation will change at a later stage, because people can change sometimes. I thank him for his positive contribution. He spoke with authority. His contribution was a very sound one.

†I have already given the assurance to the hon. member for Mooi River that I agree with him. There are advantageous leaks, obviously. We are not going to stop that. Such leaks, however, can assist the commission in arriving at a conclusion. There is no intention whatever to stop that. Therefore I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall try to speed up matters as best and as fast as we possibly can. This Bill will certainly not be used for the purpose which the hon. member has spelt out, viz. either to cloak or to delay things or to use it as an excuse for either the commission or the Cabinet not arriving at firm decisions about the consolidation aspect. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that it is not the intention to use the Bill for those purposes. I want to say positively that I hope and trust that the Bill will assist us in speeding up matters and in enabling us to arrive at decisions as soon as possible because we are operating under an instruction by the Government to do precisely that.

*I believe I have now replied to all the questions and I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who have taken part in the debate for their contributions. I hope that this discussion has cast more light on what is intended in regard to this whole matter, and that we shall obtain the co-operation of hon. members and of the public as well in dealing with hyper-sensitive matters in a way that does credit to this House. I also trust that we shall have final decisions as soon as possible and that this House will vote the necessary funds for this.

Question put, Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, at the Third Reading of this Bill we are now compelled to consider the effect that this legislation is going to have in practice when it is applied in South Africa. I am convinced that this legislation is going to bring grave problems in its wake, definitely even more problems than those caused by its predecessor, the Official Secrets Act. In a certain sense the two pieces of legislation are of course comparable since many of the provisions in the Official Secrets Act have been included in the Bill under discussion. What is important, however, is that quite a number of the measures in the existing Official Secrets Act were not really applied at all strictly over the years. However, we also know that since the previous Act was placed on the Statute Book the NP Government has become increasingly conscious of it, keener to keep things secret which should not always be kept secret. We have just dealt with a Bill to which the official Opposition had that very same objection.

I believe that there is a greater awareness now, not only among the general public, but also among the Press, academics and others—also as a result of the report of the Rabie Commission of course—that we are dealing here with legislation which could act as a tremendous deterrent to the free flow of information in South Africa. This Bill is widely worded and a multitude of actions or potential actions important to the normal functioning of democracy is being made illegal in terms of this. The effect of this legislation is so wide and so ridiculous that it is really nothing but a motion of no-confidence in the ability of every person entrusted with sensitive matters to maintain any degree of confidentiality in regard to those matters. In its present form this legislation creates the impression that those who ought to be trusted with the handling of confidential or sensitive information in the final instance, cannot be trusted at all.

Particularly spies.

The hon. member Mr. Schutte mentions spies. Spies can in fact be dealt with. There are methods of doing this. We indicated during the Committee Stage that if certain amendments of this side of the House had been accepted spies could have been dealt with very effectively, for spies do not simply act by chance. There is no doubt about it that a spy acts to the detriment of the country against which his activities are aimed and to the benefit of the agency or country on behalf of which he is acting. If one were therefore to include the relevant safety valve, it would limit the effect of the legislation, but still make it possible to use it very effectively against spies. The hon. member knows what I am talking about, because this legislation is worded in such a way that it could affect people who have no evil intentions against South Africa at all.

Furthermore, this Bill treats every foreign State as an enemy of South Africa. In terms of this legislation every foreign State is considered to be an enemy of South Africa. This point would perhaps not have been so important were it not for the fact that the prohibitions written into the Act were so tremendously wide. This creates a problem for those people who want to discuss South Africa’s constitutional or international position with friends from abroad, whether it takes place in this country or abroad. Hon. members will know that there are hon. members on this side of the House and hon. members on that side of the House who often visit other countries where they have to discuss things, for example at symposiums. In Germany, for example, this happens very often, of course with the aid of our own Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. Consequently it can often happen that things are said which have a bearing on South Africa’s strategic position. However, if one looks at the wording of the Bill one sees that a thing like that could create many problems for the person concerned. They will have to be very careful what they say. However, this does not apply only to people who have confidential or sensitive information at their disposal. If we look at the wording of the legislation we see how easily those people could create problems for themselves. Journalists or academics will have to scrutinize any reports written by them in order to ensure that they do not create problems for themselves in terms of this legislation.

†This Bill will have an intimidating effect on the Press, in fact to a degree that I believe is intolerable in any State or country that calls itself a democracy. The very vagueness of the Bill will force journalists—any journalist—in any case of doubt, to refrain from reporting a matter rather than to simply go ahead and report it. What is more, the vagueness of this Bill will force journalists to ask the permission of the very people who may possibly be detrimentally affected by the disclosure of certain information. They would have to ask the permission of people who might not like the relevant information to be made public, perhaps for reasons totally unrelated to the security of the State, but having everything to do with possible political embarrassment. [Interjections.] In that sense it is a Bill that lays itself wide open to abuse, and I have no doubt that it will be abused. I believe, in fact, that this Bill is a blow to democracy. I do not think there is any doubt about that. It is a very bad piece of legislation, and a blow to democracy, because there is no doubt that the effect it will have on the Press will be a disastrous one and that the difficulties it will create for journalists will be grave indeed.

Let us just take the question of the reporting of detentions in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act and section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act, a matter that was dealt with in the Rabie report and in connection with which the Rabie report made certain recommendations. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal specifically with whether he actually agrees that it is most certainly included in the prohibitive effect of clause 4 of this Bill that it is prohibited to publish information about the detention of such people. That is how I read the Rabie Report and that is how I see the effect of clause 4 and I should like the hon. the Minister to clear that up. If he agrees that that is in fact prohibited, he must please give us some justification for this very grave step being taken. This is just one of the detrimental effects this Bill will have on the flow of information and of democratic discussion and discourse in this country. For those reasons we cannot support this Bill at all. In fact, we can hardly find words to describe the effect this can have.

I want to refer to the words in which another hon. member in the House described the Bill. I want to quote them, because since then certain rather unusual things have happened. I am referring to the hon. member for King William’s Town. I want to quote his words to him. I do so rather in sadness than in anger. Maybe the hon. member will have to deny that he used the following words—

Honestly, I could not have found better words to describe this Bill. What has happened to the hon. member since then heaven only knows, because the hon. member has opened his mouth no more than once during the entire Committee State discussion of the Bill. Not only has he backed the Bill and voted with the Government in favour of the Bill, but he has also not raised one objection, not even on details, in the course of the Committee Stage. I am sure that that will remain a dark secret of the NRP forever. I really do not know who forced the hon. member’s hand. I can only express my sympathy with the hon. member and hope that in future he will never ever find himself in this kind of embarrassing situation again.

With those words I just want to indicate that we shall also oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, having discussed this Bill during the Second Reading debate, as well as in the Committee Stage, there is one fact which has emerged very clearly, viz. that there is a basic difference in approach between us on this side of the House and hon. members of the official Opposition in respect of this legislation.

While we on this side of the House approach this Bill in a manner befitting responsible legislators, with the aim of protecting confidential information by preventing those who threaten the confidential nature of that information from doing so, and, where necessary, taking action against them, we find that the hon. members of the official Opposition have a quite different approach in respect of this legislation. Firstly, they show no understanding whatsoever of the meaning of responsibility. The hon. member for Green Point, who has just taken part in the debate, was a fine example of this when he made the statement that every foreign State is being treated as an enemy of South Africa by this legislation. I could hardly imagine a more irresponsible statement by an hon. member in this House than that statement made by the hon. member. The hon. member knows that this is not true. I challenge him to indicate where in this Bill any foreign State is treated as an enemy of South Africa or where it is proposed that action be taken against foreign States as if they were hostile towards South Africa. After all, this is not an issue of action against any foreign State. It concerns the actions of and against those who threaten the confidential nature of certain information. The hon. member would undoubtedly agree with me that to disclose sensitive information which is of major importance to South Africa, to foreign powers, is per se in conflict with the interests of South Africa. Therefore it is not only irresponsible; it is also devoid of all truth to say that any foreign State is treated as an enemy of South Africa. It is the actions of the person who discloses sensitive and confidential information which are affected by this legislation.

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

No, Sir. My time is very limited today. We can exchange ideas some other day, when I have more time.

I say the hon. members show no understanding of responsibility. Perhaps one should not judge the hon. members too harshly in this regard, however, for what do they know about responsibility? They have never been in a governing position in this country. They have never shouldered the responsibility for the orderly government of this country. They have always just taken pleasure in criticizing. However, it is quite a different situation when one has to shoulder the responsibility for orderly government. In fact, hon. members do not even govern their own party. According to reliable information at our disposal, their party is ruled by a secret clique. They therefore do not even rule their own party.

Who is in the clique?

The hon. member had better ask the reliable source to whom I referred.

Name your source.

If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central wants me to name the source, I will do so. It is the hon. member for Yeoville. Go and ask him.

*The hon. members even go further and try to use this legislation for party-political gain. I refer once again to what the hon. member for Green Point has just said, when he stated in what he thought was a dramatic way: “This Bill is a blow against democracy”. In a transparent fashion, these hon. members are pretending to be the great protectors of democracy, and they are pretending that a dreadful attack is being launched on democracy by this side of the House. This is nothing but a transparent, blatant effort to make political capital out of this measure.

I also accuse hon. members of not acting like responsible legislators, but rather, like advocates for the defence. The hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Pinetown whom I have also accused of this in a different context, apparently cannot detach themselves from their professional background. They cannot distinguish between the role of an advocate in court who is putting his client’s case and their role as legislators in this House. The hon. member’s approach is—and I am not trying to be bitter when I say this; I am simply trying to draw their attention to this—that they do not wish the legislation to be worded in such a way that the successful defence of an accused becomes impossible. They still want the defence to have a fair chance of succeeding.

Do you not also want that? Are you opposed to it?

This is the core of the problem of those hon. members. That, too, is why, in the case of this measure, they argued that the wording of the Bill was too vague. They want it to be more specific, for they know that the more the elements built into the offence by the legislation, the more elements there are for the State to prove, and the more the elements the State has to prove, the better the chances of the defence, in that the State may not succeed in proving a particular element with the result that an accused may be acquitted on a technical point.

It would be better than detaining him wrongfully.

I have perhaps allowed more accused to walk out of court as free men on technical points, that that hon. member will ever succeed in doing. He can tell me nothing about technical points. For this very reason, because I have had the experience in practice myself, as a responsible legislator. I know that I must see to it that loopholes are barred.

The same applies to the insistence of hon. members of the official Opposition that evil intent be set as a requirement in clause 3 of the Bill. They are aware of how difficult it is to prove evil intent. Once again this would present a golden opportunity of letting the guilty go free.

The hon. members possibly had a valid argument when they claimed that the unqualified power of the State President, in terms of clause 14, to declare prohibited places and hostile organizations by proclamation, is too wide. But the hon. the Minister eliminated this objection with the amendment he moved to limit and qualify the powers of the State President in this regard. I assume that that disposes of the Opposition’s arguments in this regard. These are the only possible valid objections to the legislation I could find.

I therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this measure, because I know that it is in the best interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said when he attacked two statements made by the hon. member for Green Point. In the first place, I associate myself with what he said when he reprimanded him on his statement that the provisions of this Bill treat every foreign State as an enemy of South Africa. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Mossel Bay by saying that it is an extremely irresponsible statement that the hon. member made. What the hon. member said was absolute nonsense. One can only come to the conclusion that South Africa’s enemies must be its friends.

The hon. member also made the statement that the legislation before this House was “a blow against democracy”. I honestly cannot understand the hon. member. His concept of democracy must differ a great deal from ours. To tell the truth, I can only draw one conclusion from the hon. member’s statement, and that is that he considers Swapo, the ANC and Samora Machel to be democrats. These are the democrats who have meaning for him. If this is the hon. member’s opinion of democracy, we agree with him that the legislation is “a blow against democracy”, but against that kind of democracy.

The hon. member for Green Point also said that the legislation was going to cause tremendous problems in practice. I do not agree with him. We in the CP support the legislation and we believe that there is general agreement in South Africa that our security legislation is producing good results. We are also of the opinion that this Bill, when it becomes law, will produce good results. If we consider the Official Secrets Act of 1956—which is to be replaced by the legislation before us—we note that over a very long period only three amendments were made to that Act, namely in 1965, 1969 and 1972, and those amendments were in fact made in the years when there was an increase in the incidence of terrorism, sabotage and espionage against our country. I think we must consider that Act to be an effective law. Although I concede that the fact that a law has seldom been amended is not necessarily an indication that it is a good law, we must nevertheless see it as a good law which has produced good results over the years. This is also the conclusion one must arrive at if one considers the findings of the Rabie Commission. The commission mentioned that there were no proposals before it for the present Act to be amended. In addition, the commission also pointed out that very few criminal proceedings had been instituted in terms of that Act. Surely these are all indications that it was an effetive law, and the legislation we are now considering is undoubtedly going to be effective legislation as well.

As terrorism, sabotage and espionage has increased during the past few years, existing legislation had to be intensified, amended and made more effective. As spies, terrorists and saboteurs began to act more effectively, they also had to be apprehended more effectively. It is strange that the more this was done, the more vehement the criticism against us became. Every time we took steps to clamp down on these enemies of South Africa, there was an increase in the vehemence of the criticism. This was particularly the case when the legislation now before us became known. There was an immediate increase in criticism against security legislation in general. We find that a campaign was then launched in which, inter alia, all kinds of complaints and allegations were made against our legislation and in particular against our security legislation. Special commissions were even appointed to consider the Bill before us in particular, and in fact denigratory methods were used to demonstrate against our country and our legislation. The old popular method of suspicionmongering re-emerged and it was, for example, alleged that the laws were too drastic, that they were confusing and violated the freedom of the individual. It was also said that the legislation was undemocratic, as we heard here again this morning, and that it was arousing tremendous resistance in South Africa. It is also being alleged that it is actually aimed at people of colour and that the non-Whites hate it. These are the popular indictments against South Africa which are now being blazoned abroad. The statement was also made that South Africans in general were now losing confidence in our security legislation.

I deplore behaviour of this kind, because from whatever source such allegations come it is extremely irresponsible to launch such a campaign against South Africa. What is more, I consider it irresponsible, because the same noises were also heard in this House during the past few weeks when our security legislation in general was being dealt with. I believe it is irresponsible because it impugns South Africa’s good name. It gives rise once again to the charge that South Africa is a police State, and this is done simply to harm our country. In addition, it also encourages resistance not only to security legislation, but to all other legislation in our country.

It is true that legislation cannot be faultless and perfect and must therefore be adjusted and rectified from time to time. Constant steps must be taken to adjust laws in order to make them more effective and to apply them effectively in practice. This is particularly the case when it comes to security legislation. We know that the ingenuity of the terrorist, the saboteur and the spy requires that the legislation with which we have to fight this type of offender must be of such a nature that it gives the executive arm that has to apply these laws, i.e. the S.A. Police and other security services, sufficient room for maneouvre within the legislation to be able to carry out their tasks.

I was therefore surprised and disappointed when the official Opposition objected so strenuously to specific clauses in the Bill. For example, they objected to the use of words such as “security of the State and the interests of the Republic of South Africa” and tried almost by means of far-fetched examples to shoot down this wording.

I believe that there must be strict and effective legislation, particularly when the security of South Africa and the interests of the Republic are at stake. In our opinion, our legislation is being improved and amended to such an extent by this Bill that South Africa’s security services will be able to succeed in combating the constantly changing threats, and for this reason we support it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for the support he pledged to this Bill.

It is a relatively short Bill of only 16 clauses, but many hours of discussion have already been spent on it and its provisions have been debated so exhaustively that it is difficult to raise new points. However, this does not mean that the official Opposition made any constructive contribution or argued the merits of the case. They indulged in long-winded generalizations of which we had another very good example here today. It was said for example that the Bill was a “blow against democracy”. Furthermore, we heard allegations that it would restrict the free flow of information” instead of saying that “it would restrict the free flow of sensitive information which is published with the purpose of prejudicing the security or the interests of the Republic”, If this had been said it would have been correct.

This side of the House has based all its arguments on references to well-known court decisions in the highest courts, not only in South Africa but also in Britain. In the case of Britain there was the Chandler decision and in the case of South Africa the cases State vs. Marais and State vs. Du Plessis, which were both Appeal Court decisions. Thus far we have no reply from that side of the House, specifically with regard to these arguments. The hon. members of the Opposition preferred to engage in long-winded generalizations. Obviously it is not their intention to win the argument, but rather to gain a great deal of publicity.

Most of the arguments were concerned with the meaning of the words “with the purpose of publishing certain information or documents prejudicial to the interests of the Republic”. The hon. member said those words were too general and vague, but this side of the House repeatedly pointed out to him that those words are taken almost verbatim from a British Act which has been on the British Statute Book since 1911 and has therefore been acceptable to various government in Britain. When our Government applies, however, it is simply not acceptable to hon. members in those benches; then our Government is acting too harshly and it is not in the interests of South Africa. I simply ask myself when hon. members in those benches are going to accuse this side of the House taking action which is too feeble to protect the interests and the security of this country.

I accept that every Government makes mistakes. Our Government must therefore also make mistakes by not taking strong enough action, but why do those hon. members never point this out to the Government? For the simple reason that they are too embarrassed to stand up for the interests and the security of the country.

This Bill, just like other security legislation that was before this House, has its origin in the Rabie report. This was in the first place a demonstration of the honest intention of the Government to subject its security legislation to a thorough and critical analysis so that it could be reconstructed in the fairest possible way. I also want to suggest that the wording of this Bill is a demonstration of two matters: In the first place that the Government will not hesitate to take action to protect the interests of the Republic when it comes to the protection of sensitive information, and therefore when people distribute such sensitive information with the purpose of prejudicing the Republic and the security of the Republic they will be punished. In the second place the wording is also a demonstration that such crimes will be interpreted and dealt with fairly. This is being done by leaving it entirely to the courts to decide when a person acted in a way prejudicial to the Republic—the objective test, the reasonable person test: in other words it must be a fair test.

In the final instance I should like to thank and congratulate Mr. Mike van Rensburg of the Law Advisers Division who was responsible for the drafting of the Bill. I want to tell him that the Bill is very well constructed, that it is a neat piece of legislation and that it should give few problems in practice.

It gives me pleasure to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Schutte will understand if I do not follow directly on what he had to say because it will only be repeating what has already been said so many times. However, I want to say that the hon. member for Green Point has done me a favour by saying what he did about the objections to this Bill which I raised previously. He was quite correct in saying that my initial reaction to this legislation was not a very favourable one, and members in these benches were led by me to adopt a standpoint where we would not be supporting it. However, as a result of lengthy research and a great deal of discussion with the law advisers, most of our objections have been ameliorated and we are now able to see the other point of view quite clearly.

We raised a certain number of doubts in regard to this legislation during the debate on the Second Reading concerning the question of detainees and the question of reporting on their whereabouts. There was also the question of presumption and the fact that clause 14 was too widely framed. There were also the generally broad terms of the legislation itself. To return again to the matter raised by the hon. member for Green Point, I want to say that I actually went to the extent of discussing with the correspondent concerned the situation in which we found ourselves in that we felt that we had put him in the position where he had reported us in one way and that we were now changing our decision. For the record, therefore, I am glad to have the opportunity to mention this. Right up to the Committee Stage we had doubts regarding the presumptive clauses which I discussed in detail with my Chief Whip. He had certain advice to offer in this regard and we took certain other advice which brought to light the fact that the same provisions in regard to presumption exist in the Official Secrets Act of Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand and the other Commonwealth countries. Our objections in this regard were, therefore, objections which one naturally has in respect of matters of this nature but since they were not irrefutable objections and are commonly used in legislation of this nature, we felt that those objections had been resolved.

I think it is important for us to consider how one approaches legislation of this nature. One may consider it to be legislation which the State wishes to use against people with ulterior motives or one can see it as legislation by means of which the State is seeking to protect itself. If we see it as legislation which the State wants to use against people with ulterior motives then one can read all kinds of things into it. I would say that the question of freely giving away a detainee’s whereabouts which may bedevil certain follow-up operations is more than adequate explanation for the State’s retaining the right to release such information but, of course, subject to it not being abused.

As far as the question of security matters being classified is concerned, I think that there is adequate evidence in the Rabie Commission report in this regard. In fact, there is a fair amount in the report on this matter and one paragraph in particular which is quite contradictory and which serves to show how difficult the circumstances are. This particular portion reads as follows—

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I was quoting from the Rabie Commission report. I want to refer again to paragraph 12.2 of that report, where it is indicated that according to opinion certain stipulations contained in the Official Secrets Act were so widely drafted that they were not above criticism. The report states that the critics of this legislation could be divided into two groups. On the one hand there are those who say that the Official Secrets Act is vague and cumbersome and cannot readily be used for successful criminal prosecution while, on the other hand, there are those who criticize the Act for its all-embracing and catch-all nature. To my mind these are two completely opposing points of view. In the one case it is said that the Act cannot be used with a view to a successful prosecution, while on the other hand, it is stated that the aim is to cover every possible event, although prosecution would also not be successful. The doubt in connection with the broadness of phraseology and terminology used in the Act, has therefore very definite grounds.

The Rabie Commission in its report states that where a system is designed for the handling of such information the publication thereof could seriously prejudice and harm the State, and that the unauthorized disclosure of such information should be made punishable in order to remove much uncertainty and doubt in connection with the application of the measure. This is in fact the line taken by the NRP in its deliberations with the law advisers. We tried to devise a way in which to formulate the legal terminology applicable here in such a manner that it would leave no doubt about the secrecy of certain information. The commission also mentioned in its report that the term “official secret” appears nowhere in the Act, and nowhere in our legislation is there a comprehensive definition of what official secret is. The dilemma therefore is quite obviously that to cover the intended field by the use of accepted terminology will defeat the purpose of this legislation, which is of course the granting of sufficient protection to information.

In connection with the title of the Bill, I believe, we still have certain reservations. The Official Secrets Act of 1911 has been known to the public over the years. It has been used for a long time. People associate it in their minds with a field of forbidden and very controlled matters affecting the State. The title “Protection of Information” is, we believe, a title which will indeed weaken the effect of this legislation. There is, however, a precedent for this type of title. In this respect the Rabie Commission refers to similar legislation in Canada, and also makes mention of the revision of the Canadian Official Secrets Act by the Royal Commission on Security. I must point out though that in Canada that legislation has not yet been promulgated. It is however aimed at serving the same purpose as this particular legislation with which we are dealing now. The commission points out that the word “secret” in the Canadian legislation also does not correctly define the object of the particular legislation. This is particularly owing to the fact that the information to which the legislation relates is of a far more wide-ranging nature, and also affects the interests of the State much more.

The nub of this Bill is the protection of information which would harm or prejudice the interests of the State and the security of the State if it were to be made known. One should understand that the whole intention of this legislation is to protect the State, the country, against the very sophisticated and insidious war that is being waged against it. It is being waged under cover and has already made great advances by using the media and all manners of persuasion, something which makes one realize that one is dealing here with a phenomenon which is beyond the bounds of normal legislation. One therefore naturally has to be able to cover the field of activities those people would be likely to employ. Here I think one has a very good example in the fact that the official Opposition found difficulty in accepting the word “neighbourhood”. Yet as that matter was being debated, it was very clear that espionage involving high-powered lenses in cameras and telescopes could well be undertaken in the neighbourhood of a prohibited area. This is possible by using the developments of modem technology. That is merely one small example of the reason for inserting words that have to be used in an endeavour to cover the entire field.

On the basis of our research, our careful consideration of the intention of this Bill, and with a view to the security of the State, we have no difficulty in supporting the intention of this Bill, especially when viewed in the fight of the fact that the final decision …

I think you were right the first time.

… about whether a person being prosecuted has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the State would rest with the courts. It will always be a case of the State prosecuting such a person and the judiciary ensuring that such a person gets the best possible hearing within the ambit of these very broad terms that we must, of necessity, use in order to cover all aspects. [Interjections.]

Accordingly the NRP will be supporting this legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react to what was said by the hon. member for King William’s Town by thanking him for initially offering very staunch opposition to this Bill and thereby drawing attention to certain shortcomings that were subsequently thrashed out in discussions that were held. I want to place on record that clause 14 was, in fact, improved after negotiations between the law advisers and the hon. member for King William’s Town. [Interjections.] I want to place that on record. The hon. member for Green Point took that hon. member to task for changing his views. That is not, however, true. That hon. member did not come to this House with any amendment which he did not succeed in having accepted. He did not fail to make his motives known, nor did he fail to have his amendments accepted.

What amendments are you talking about?

What I am referring to, is the fact that the hon. member for Pinetown had an amendment on the Order Paper that endeavoured to improve the definition of “agent”. It was, however, a very ill-advised amendment and, as such, was dropped. How does the hon. member explain that? I find it quite inexplicable, unless of course it was a question of common sense prevailing, which I submit was the case.

Let me, however, mention another case in point. The hon. member had an amendment on the Order Paper involving an improvement to the expression “the interests of the State”. Those hon. members wanted that phrase to be improved or, at most, done away with altogether. The fact of the matter is, however, that after they were defeated they did not raise the matter again, accepting the arguments that were put forward by this side of the House.

That is not true. We were ruled out of order.

They did accept it. [Interjections.] I am on record as having asked the hon. member for Green Point whether he accepted the arguments of this side of the House in connection with the Chandler case.

No.

That is why I am saying that the hon. member for King William’s Town did his duty as a responsible member of the Opposition. He indicated that he did not like certain facets, and improvements were made. I want to place on record that as far as I am concerned, that hon. member did not give way under pressure at all, but that common sense prevailed in his case. In that way he helped us to a certain extent.

This brings me to hon. members on this side of the House who all made useful contributions and gave such full replies that it is hardly necessary for me to deal with every point the hon. members of the Opposition made here. As regards the accusation by the hon. member for Green Point that this Bill is a blow to democracy, I wish to say to him that that is absolute nonsense. If what he said were true, what, then, is the position in Britain? Does the hon. member want to tell us that democracy is dead in Britain? Could we hear the hon. member nodding his head again? Now he is completely silent. That country has had similar legislation on its Statute Book since 1911.

In what other country is information about people who are being detained prohibited?

I shall deal with that. The fact is that the Frank Commission dealt with that same matter very thoroughly and also found that information had to be protected in respect of certain security matters, for example the combating of terrorism. It is a firm principle there. I can further state that countries such as France and Germany have comparable legislation. Does the hon. member now want to argue that democracy is dead in those countries? The fact is that the very reason why we come to the House with this legislation is to make it very clear to the Press that there is a clear distinction between information that is and is not worthy of being protected, and we have effected certain changes in this regard.

The hon. member also asked me about the effect of clause 4 in respect of detentions, for example. I acknowledge that chapter 12 of the Rabie Report does not make the position very clear. However, if he looks at chapter 8 of that report he will see that it motivates very clearly why this is so. The hon. member for King William’s Town dealt with it. The motivation is in fact that it is necessary to ensure that the activities of the police in this regard are not publicized. For this reason section 27C of the Police Act has been amended to cover all police matters. Moreover, in terms of an amending Bill we have already dealt with, we made it possible for all police matters to be kept secret. But the Rabie Commission has now recommended that that be deleted and that reference be made only to security matters and matters related to the combating of terrorism, i.e. operational matters. Does the hon. member deny that?

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

Let me just say first that in clause 41 mention is made of—

1. (a) any secret official code or password; or
2. (b) any document … (or) article … which … relates to … a security matter or the prevention or combating of terrorism.

The hon. member may now ask his question.

Does that mean that the Press is not allowed to report on the detention of a person in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act or section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act, unless they received permission to do so? Is this included in the prohibition? That is what I should like to know.

Its meaning is very clear. Information which has already been released and which is generally known will not give rise to a prosecution. This was pointed out in the Jaap Marais case, and it was pointed out repeatedly as part of the motivation for the change recommended in the Rabie Report, viz. to ensure that information which is generally known will not give rise to a prosecution. I have pointed out to the hon. member that it could be the person’s family who announce that the person has been arrested. It is also possible that the information could be released in some other manner. It could be debated in this House. The police could issue a statement. In other words, in these circumstances it is not prosecutable. However, when there is a clearance with the police and the police say that the information should not be published, then that information is definitely covered by this legislation. I also wish to point out that even though it were to happen that such information were published, there is always the attorney-general who could contribute a particular input and highlight particular points of view either to prosecute or not to prosecute. That is my answer to the hon. member’s question.

I want to mention the example of a follow-up operation which was known to us and which the newspapers were in fact informed about, but were asked not to publish it. However, it was in fact published, but fortunately the terrorists did not see it and the follow-up operation was therefore not futile. This is just the kind of situation this legislation seeks to prevent. This is why we are making it possible for information to be protected in these circumstances. However, the fact remains that we are dealing here with a detention which must be related to the prevention or combating of terrorism. This does not cover any other kind of detention. Surely that is logical. That is my reply to the hon. member’s question. So, as far as this clause is concerned, I cannot see why the hon. member should disapprove of this. The hon. member is not prepared to say to us that we need this clause. To prevent what? To prevent State documents which should be protected from being dealt with in an improper fashion with the result that leaks occur. What is the difference between information getting into the hands of the enemy due to espionage or by way of a leak? There is no difference. The damage is the same. The hon. member cannot deny it. What is the difference between people carelessly allowing documents to lie around and allowing them to get into the hands of the enemy, and espionage?

That is why we need the provisions contained in clause 4. Hon. members voted against clause 4 as a whole. In fact, they proposed that clause 4 be deleted. In other words, there is only one conclusion, viz. that those hon. members really wanted this Bill to be emasculated so that the Government would have no control over information, documents and so forth relating to the security and the interests of the State.

I think I have now answered more or less all the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, last night when the debate was adjourned I was referring to the possibility that the various voters of the various groups could place their ballots in the same ballot-box. When we read clause 8 and clause 36(1) and the definition of the word “constituency” or “division”, which is the word used in the legislation, it becomes quite clear that these are the constituencies as they have been delimited for the House of Assembly, the CRC and the South African Indian Council. It is also said that voters only vote in the constituency where they are registered. In other words, it is quite clear that there is no question of everyone voting in the same polling stations or using the same ballot-boxes. Moreover it is also clear from clause 44(1) that the result will be announced for each constituency; in other words, the results in respect of the constituencies for the House of Assembly will be announced, and similarly the results in respect of the constituencies for the CRC will be announced. There is therefore no doubt that each group is going to vote separately on the matter. This is the clear difference between the NP’s concept of a joint say and the PFP’s concept of power-sharing.

It is still joint decision-making.

It is joint decision-making, but in this case we are dealing with a say; we are not dealing with decision-making here. As far as this legislation is concerned, we are specifically dealing with a say. [Interjections.] No, Sir, in this case it is not decision-making, because the voters are only consulted and there is therefore no question of decision-making. I am not shying away from joint decision-making; I am not shying away from a joint say and joint responsibility, but this legislation does not embody the concepts of a joint say, joint decision-making or joint responsibility. This legislation concerns consultation and this was stated quite clearly in the NP’s 1981 election manifesto in which it was stated that we must co-operate with the Coloureds and Indians on a system of consultation and co-responsibility as regards matters of common concern.

The hon. member for Pietersburg said that the Coloureds would now have a say in the constitutional affairs of the Whites.

Most definitely.

However, the hon. member will concede that the provisions of the constitution intimately affect the Coloureds to the same extent. The hon. member now wants to refuse the Coloureds a say in this matter. The hon. member wants to refuse the Coloureds a say in constitutional affairs which profoundly affect them. [Interjections.] All this amounts to is White “baasskap”.

There is another aspect I want to raise here. In his speech yesterday the hon. member for Pietersburg said, inter alia—

As far as I can remember, the President’s Council did not hear representations after December 1981. I should therefore like to know by whom and when the policy of the CP on the Coloureds was submitted to the President’s Council. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if the CP’s policy existed before the CP itself did. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member referred to pages 38 and 39 of the report of the President’s Council (P.R. 3/1982) on which, according to him, the CP’s policy is rejected in a single paragraph. The report refers to—

This is the only sentence I can construe as being the policy of the CP. It is quite clear to me that as far as Coloured policy is concerned, the CP first moved back from 1982 to 1981, then back to 1980, then back to 1979, then back to 1977 and now they are back to 1966.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for Helderkruin will excuse me if I do not follow on his line of debate. I am almost getting bored with having to say this, because it seems that every time I stand up to speak I am sandwiched between an argument between the CP and the NP. I shall probably go down in history sometime as a peacemaker somewhere. [Interjections.]

I am happy to say that we shall support the Bill. I thought on this occasion I should put the hon. the Minister out of his agony at the beginning of my speech instead of putting him into it at the end of my speech, as I did on a previous occasion.

The Bill is generally a very comprehensive one and it is rather more important than I think many people appreciate. It is important, I believe, because it seems to indicate that virtually for the first time since the NP came into power, they have accepted the fact that it is necessary or may well be necessary on a broad front to consult on major issues with other population groups. This has never been possible before because there has not been a proper voters’ register which could be used in a referendum in respect of other race groups. This is, as I say, virtually a milestone in the history of the NP governing South Africa, and for this we are indeed grateful.

I am sorry, however, that the hon. the Minister did not make this a complete Referendums Bill. I know that the hon. the Minister has raised the issue in respect of the Black States and the Black communities generally in that if a referendum is required to be held in respect of the various homelands, they have voters’ rolls which can be used.

But they do not have them here …

The point that I am trying to make, however, is that the design of this Referendums Bill is such that it would have been very easy to have inserted them without making any material difference to the operation of a referendum. There could have been some provision to cover the Blacks in the non-independent homelands and another provision to cover those not in homelands at all, and there are many who are not in the homelands. Certainly I am not going to make a big issue of this; I believe it is rather unfortunate that, if one is going to have a Referendums Bill, it is not sufficiently comprehensive to cover all people who may at some stage or another have to be involved in a referendum. I cannot help but feel that at some stage an amendment will have to be made to this Bill to bring in members of the Black community, those Blacks in the non-independent homelands and/or those who are not homeland citizens.

One of the biggest problems that I feel is likely to emanate from the operation of this Referendums Bill is in respect of clause 58 that deals with the referendum expenses. There are doubtless still many hon. members in this House who in 1960 had some experience of the Republic referendum campaign. I was involved in that and I have a pretty shrewd idea how it operates.

Were you for or against it?

I was the anti-republican referendum agent for Umbilo. [Interjections.] I am at least consistent. I am still in the same constituency. However, there do seem to be certain omissions here in that the expenses that will be legally allowed do not cover all aspects. For example, the R400 allowed for miscellaneous expenses will not be enough to compensate for food and refreshments for the workers over a period, particularly in a large constituency. There is also no provision for expenses that may be incurred in putting up tents and hiring furniture. Referendum expenses for the hiring of halls etc. are allowed, but as is the case with an ordinary general election, one will have to give consideration to the additional aspects involved at many of these election points. Having examined the conditions carefully, I just do not see how, within the parameters set down, one can cover these additional expenses. I may have overlooked something and if I have done so perhaps the hon. the Minister will advise me accordingly.

Another aspect in respect of expenses that is going to be a little intriguing—particularly as this is being spread across a very broad spectrum involving the Coloured and the Indian communities as well—is that apart from the expenses that are met by the Government, it is going to be very expensive for political parties if they are going to run a campaign.

It always is.

Quite obviously there is no provision in the Bill in this regard. It so happens that certain of the political parties—I should imagine especially the NP—are extremely wealthy, and they can possibly finance a campaign. I am also sure that the PFP is extremely wealthy and they too can perhaps finance a campaign. [Interjections.] However, a new party such as the CP might not by quite so wealthy, or even an old party like ours which spent most of its money during the last referendum …

You are just broke, that is all. [Interjections.]

… does not have that much money. [Interjections.] There are therefore going to be certain problems in this regard even among Whites. However, what will happen when one tries to run an effective referendum campaign with the Indian or the Coloured community? I think one will have to make some sort of provision in order to enable someone to run the show. These people do not have political parties of quite the same style and certainly not with the same experience as the White community has. I feel therefore that one will have to give some consideration to that aspect.

I am sorry that the hon. member Mr. Van Staden is not here this afternoon because when he addressed this House he chose to exhibit his rather peculiar sense of humour in having a go at Mr. Douglas Mitchell and the United Party when he referred to the period of the referendum in 1960. He thought it was excruciatingly funny that Mr. Mitchell was going to stand on his head and wiggle his toes and take Natal out but that when it was all over he did not do so. Well, I should like to place on record—since I cannot put it directly to the hon. member—that as far as we are concerned, with our particular philosophy, when we enter a fight and lose, we are honourable enough to accept the outcome. That is the point that the hon. member must have overlooked. [Interjections.] When people make heated statements in a political debate, I think they must be excused for doing so. I therefore think that the hon. member was somewhat remiss in bringing up that old bogey.

It was never said, anyway.

No. But be that as it may, the point is that the hon. member Mr. Van Staden made that statement here. He also thinks it very funny that we, who are anti-Republican, should group ourselves into a party called the New Republic Party. Let me, however, just make a singular point. We called ourselves the “New” Republic Party, not the Republic Party, the reason being that we believed that the NP had made such a mess of running the first Republic that we felt we should be the “voorlopers” of the “New” Republic. [Interjections.] That was the reason for the party being called the New Republic Party. [Interjections.] Let me, however, take the matter one step further. I believe that we have proved our point … [Interjections.] … because the very legislation that is being considered now is legislation aimed at bringing into being the sort of new republic that we envisaged when this party came into being. [Interjections.] I therefore hope the time has passed when we derive pleasure, or think we could derive any profit, from snide comments about past misdeeds. I do not make a habit of doing this. I only raised the issue because, as I said, the hon. member felt that he should exercise his weird sense of humour.

I only have one further point that I wish to cover, and that relates to clause 72. I am referring to the question of opinion polls during a referendum. I am very pleased to see that that provision has been inserted. I know that there are certain people who object to this clause in the Electoral Act, but I believe that if one allows this sort of opinion poll, it could create a sort of bandwagon effect that could militate against getting at the truth, i.e. what the public really wants.

So in conclusion let me just say that we welcome this legislation and are happy to support it.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much left to say about this legislation … [Interjections] … because the vast majority of positive things concerning this legislation have already been said. It is interesting that there are still 10 members in this House who were involved in the discussion of the legislation providing for the referendum which was held in 1960. It is interesting to note that at that stage, the hon. member for Noordrand was in favour of a referendum being held, but now he is voting against it, whereas the hon. member for De Kuilen opposed it then, but is now going to vote in favour of it.

I think that as early as 1976-’77, after the publication of the Erika Theron Commission report, we all accepted that we would have to depart from the Westminster system in our country. Everyone took cognizance of this. Everyone agreed on this. An interesting thing happened, however, There has never really been a debate on this matter. I also want to contend that I believe that our people stopped thinking about this matter. Particularly when the President’s Council was first established, we simply left the responsibility for the change in the system of Government to that council.

However, the moment of truth has now arrived, and we must not run away from what we created and gave the responsibility to do our thinking for us, and we must not allow ourselves to be confused by terms and concepts like power-sharing. Nor must we try to link such terms to this specific Bill, which has absolutely nothing to do with power-sharing as such. The concept of power-sharing can certainly not be linked to this piece of legislation. [Interjections.]

What does this Bill provide? It provides that the various population groups in South Africa, excluding the Black people, can be consulted by means of a referendum. This will happen by means of separate voter’s rolls, and a referendum on a specific issue can be held simultaneously or on separate dates. Under the present circumstances the matter on which a decision must be reached is the constitution of the country, a matter concerning which there has not even been a proposal yet. Therefore, what is happening by way of the legislation under discussion is that the machinery is being created to make these things possible—the machinery for the holding of a referendum. The whys and the wherefores of the entire matter are not yet even open to discussion. I therefore cannot understand why objections are being raised or why this matter is being opposed. In any event, the legislation under discussion can be used for many other purposes besides as a referendum in connection with the constitution.

The CP can even vote for a White homeland by means of this legislation.

Yes, of course!

And now they have already voted against it! [Interjections.]

In any event, the policy of White “baasskap” has not even been announced yet. Nor has the policy of a White homeland been announced yet. Even a Coloured homeland has not yet been announced. However, we must accept that this legislation specifically makes provision for such decisions. With the aid of this legislation we can ascertain the view of the Coloureds as to whether they want a homeland or not.

Why would they want their own homeland if they can live together with you? [Interjections.]

No, this is in fact to the advantage of the CP. This legislation can only benefit them. [Interjections.] If hon. members of the CP had been sitting on this side of the House … [Interjections.] … they could have used this legislation to ascertain the views of Coloureds and to ascertain whether they were in favour of a Coloured homeland or not. In addition, in terms of the legislation under discussion— in terms of the Sabra policy laid down for the CP—the Whites can be asked whether they are in favour of a White homeland or not.

An Afrikaner homeland!

Yes, an Afrikaner homeland, near the Verwoerd Dam.

Yes, an Afrikaner homeland.

Yes, that is correct, an Afrikaner homeland.

I should like that place! [Interjections.]

In their programme of principles, which are actually the principles of the NP which they have watered down, at one point the CP used the term negotiation, as we find it in clause 7 of the programme. Does testing the opinions of the separate population groups not constitute consultation on a specific matter? Or do hon. members of the CP, just like the HNP, no longer want to speak to anyone who is not an Afrikaner and who does not speak Afrikaans?

After all, they are actually HNP! [Interjections.]

Yes, of course a few of them are HNP.

All of them.

No, not all of them; but some of them are. Now what Dr. Verwoerd said in the debate of 11 March 1960 is being dragged in and reference is being made to why Dr. Verwoerd refused to allow the Coloureds to participate in the 1960 referendum, whereas the Government now wants to involve the Coloureds in such a referendum on a separate voter’s roll. I think this was a reprehensible thing to do. That specific act was introduced by the then Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, now the Prime Minister, and the debate that day concerned this very issue of the participation of the Coloureds. What was the reply of the former Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs? It was that the Coloureds—at that stage there were 24 000 Coloureds on the voter’s roll—would not be involved in the political debate on the constitutional future of the country and that they would no longer be made the political football of the Whites as they had been in the past.

That is still the case.

That is just the point; it is different now. That is where the whole difference lies.

Why is it different now?

Because the Coloureds as a people are being asked their opinion.

As a people?

No, not as a people; I mean as a group, as a population group. The hon. member opposite referred in his speech to a White people in this country, and that is not true either.

Is there not one?

No, there is not one. There is an Afrikaner people in this country. [Interjections.] We can debate this some other time.

Allow me to say what I consider to be the most ridiculous aspect of the opposition to this Bill. If one listens to the statements and looks at the little newspapers which have appeared recently—I am not referring to the photographs now, because these give a double image of their support—and if one looks at the newspaper reports in some “knock and drop” newspapers one gets, one sees and hears it stated that if we were to hold an election now the CP would come into power. That party ought therefore to welcome the referendum. After all, if we hold a referendum the CP will win it and the people will then reject this entire matter. What, then, is their problem?

When is the election in Germiston to be held?

Sir, I think that the CP must reconsider their opposition to this Bill and must also think seriously about the future of this country and all its people.

Mr. Speaker, I think that in the course of my speech I may refer to some of the points raised by the hon. member. This is a Second Reading debate, so it is the debate in which we are given the opportunity of discussing the principles of the Bill. The new principles which the Government wishes to introduce by means of this Bill are the following. The first is that a referendum is now being incorporated into the legislative process of South Africa. The second principle is that the primary rule in the referendum …

That first statement of yours is false!

My first statement is quite correct. A referendum is being incorporated into the decision-making process of this country. [Interjections.]

But you know that is nonsense! [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon. the Minister of Community Development understands what it is all about. Therefore I shall not react to that any further. [Interjections.] Secondly, the primary rule of the referendum is that Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese are going to participate on an integrated, mixed, power-sharing basis. [Interjections.]

Why are you shouting the man down? Give him a chance! [Interjections.]

The exception to the primary rule is that one or more of the population groups in the Republic or in a particular region can participate in the referendum. The first rule, as contained in this Bill, is for the Coloureds, the Whites and the Indians together, and then provision can be made additionally for various groups in various regions.

That is typical of the HNP!

The third principle, which one has to read with the Electoral Act Amendment Bill … [Interjections.] … is that higher franchise qualifications are being required of the Whites, inter alia, than of the Indians and Chinese.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sunnyside allowed to say that an hon. member on this side of the House is an ANC?

Did the hon. member for Sunnyside say that?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said I was an HNP. So I told him he was an ANC. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sunnyside must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but then that hon. member must withdraw his words as well. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The arrogance of the Government with regard to such serious legislation is very clear from the spirit which obviously prevails on that side of the House. [Interjections.] The third principle which one has to read with the Electoral Act Amendment Bill is the fact that higher franchise qualifications are being required of the Whites, inter alia, than of the Indians and Chinese. In order to take part in a referendum, a White person must be a citizen of South Africa. For a person who immigrates to South Africa with a permanent residence permit, it can take quite a few years to become a citizen of South Africa. I think it is a minimum of approximately two years. However, an Indian or a Chinese does not have to be a citizen to be able to vote. All that is required of him is permanent residence. Most people who immigrate to South Africa enter the country with permanent residence rights. In other words, a German, a Frenchman or an Englishman who immigrates to South Africa and comes to live in this country with a permanent residence permit—and there are thousands of them—and who does not yet have citizenship is being denied the right to participate in a referendum. However, the Indians and Chinese who are permanently resident in South Africa, who can become permanent residents if they have a permanent residence permit upon entry, can register and vote in the first referendum after their entry.

That is quite right.

The official Opposition agrees with this. [Interjections.] So they agree that this is discrimination against the Whites. White non-citizens of South Africa, with certain qualificaitons, cannot vote, but Indians or Chinese who are not citizens, with the same qualifications, can in fact vote. Where on earth would one find a more blatant example of discrimination based on colour? It is very clear that the Government is moving further and further away from White support in this country. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the first point. Referendums are now being made a part of the legislative or decision-making process in South Africa. At the moment this is not the case. One exception, however, was when we became a Republic. The reason why a referendum was held before we became a Republic was that the NP had been saying since the days of Dr. Malan that South Africa would become a Republic if the nation as a whole was in favour of this. The referendum was the only honourable method which the NP, under the leadership of Dr. Verwoerd, could use to ascertain the will of the people. For that, and for that alone, an Act was passed. The Act was passed to ascertain the will of the people with regard to becoming a Republic as against remaining a part of the monarchy. That referendum is not a precedent for introducing general referendums into a general decision-making process. Referendums are alien to the South African system. The citizens of South Africa are not used to them. What the citizens of South Africa were used to was a strong NP Government, which had a programme of principles that was clearly spelt out, and which for that reason had a policy which it could fearlessly present to the people. Under the leadership of Dr. Malan, the NP clearly told the people that if it was voted into power, it would govern South Africa according to certain principles. The same applied to the referendum about becoming a Republic, when the various parties involved fearlessly adopted their standpoints regarding the desirability or otherwise of becoming a Republic.

The present system in South Africa is different. Under the present system, a Government goes to its party congress, and the party adopts a standpoint in terms of its programme of principles and tells its representatives what to do. Then the party goes to the country in an election and asks for a mandate. When it has received the mandate, it implements its policy by way of legislation. In this way the NP, under the leadership of Dr. Malan, Adv. Strijdom, Dr. Dönges, Adv. Swart and Mr. Havenga, placed on the Statute Book every Act which helped to bring about racial peace and order in the country and to ensure White survival and security and Christian values and norms, and to stimulate financial, economic and industrial stability and growth. In this way, the Government of Dr. Malan passed the Population Registration Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act, the Group Areas Act, the South African Citizenship Act, the Flag Act, the amendment of the Electoral Act to place the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll, the Suppression of Communism Act, and many others. In this way, Dr. Malan prevented the Indians from getting the vote together with the Whites after the 1948 election. In this way separate development was established in South Africa, which placed the Afrikaner people and the other Whites, as well as all the other peoples and population groups in the country, on the road to prosperity, welfare and stability: Under Dr. Malan and Adv. Strydom, the NP had a parliamentary majority. They did not have a majority among the electorate. If referendums had been held at that time to determine the desirability of one or more or all of the Acts I have just mentioned, those Acts would never have been placed on the Statute Book, and there would have been no security in this country. Then this NP of the hon. the Prime Minister would not have inherited the powerful position that it did.

Where does this referendum idea come from? To me this is the important question. In the 1977 election, the NP said: We are going to implement our proposals without a referendum. Those were the proposals of the Cabinet Committee of which the present hon. Prime Minister was the Chairman. In Pro Nat of November 1977—this is the hon. the Prime Minister’s mouthpiece here in the Cape—the question was asked—

The reply to that was—

Why was a referendum subsequently decided on? That plan of 1977—and the people voted on that—provided for three Parliaments, three Prime Ministers, three Cabinets and a State President without dictatorial powers, but not for power-sharing. That was what the people gave the Government the mandate for in 1977.

May I ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the hon. member, but I really do not have time. Why this about-face? [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs have other plans for South Africa than the 1977 proposals, such as a mixed Government, such as one Parliament for all population groups, however it is composed. [Interjections.] They knew this and also knew that they could not get this past the NP congresses before the expulsion. [Interjections.] In particular, they knew that they would not get it past the Transvaal NP, with an Andries Treurnicht and a Ferdie Hartzenberg and others. In particular, they also knew that they would not get it past the Afrikaner people who were the heart and soul of the NP, because the grass-roots support and the grass-roots power of the NP was among conservative Afrikaners. They thought that with the support of the PFP and the NRP and with the support of those liberalized Afrikaners and Nats, they could get past the traditional support of the NP. [Interjections.] There are such Afrikaners and Nats in the NP. Some Afrikaners of this kind, such as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, have long since joined the PFP, for whatever reason, but many who are Progs in their hearts have latched on to the NP, for to them, the NP is the vehicle which will get them into this place. To them the call of the green benches is stronger than the call of political ideology. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member is digressing a little too far from the Bill now.

Some of them wrote these in England in which they proposed one man, one vote, and they became Nationalists. The fathers of some of them were interned with the previous Prime Minister. That is why they are sitting here as Nats, but in their hearts they are Progs.

Order! I have just pointed out to the hon. member that I believe he is digressing too far from the Bill. I do not know whether he is still developing his argument…

Sir, I have come back to the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, may I address you on this? I am talking about a referendum and the votes one can muster in a referendum outside the party context.

Order! I believed that the hon. member had already completed the argument as to what he believed the reasons would be for a referendum, and for that reason I told him that I thought he was digressing too far.

Because it was fashionable to be a Nationalist, and because the NP was so powerful, one had the situation that many people inside and outside the party context latched on to the NP without really believing in the NP policy. There are such people outside this House as well, and they, plus the PFP, plus the NRP, are the people on whom the hon. the Prime Minister is pinning his hopes of destroying the Afrikaner’s political power in this country. [Interjections.]

You know you are lying.

Order!

You need not take any notice of that hon. member, Sir, he need not withdraw what he said to me.

Order! The hon. member for Brits must withdraw the words “You know you are lying”.

I withdraw them, Sir.

The hon. member for Waterkloof may proceed.

Sir, that hon. member is such a nonentity that what he says really does not bother me.

Order!

With regard to the use of the votes of non-Afrikaners to plough the Afrikaner under in this country. I want to conclude by quoting the hon. the Prime Minister’s mentor, Dr. D. F. Malan. I read from page 235 of his book Afrikanervolks-eenheid—

I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will meditate on this in the days to come.

As far as the principles of a referendum per se are concerned, we therefore oppose the legislation because it is aimed at destroying the traditional Afrikaner’s political power in South Africa and everything which has been accomplished by means of it, and in particular the fruit of separate development.

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

If I have any time left at the end of my speech, I shall allow the hon. the Minister to ask me a question.

The second principle I have identified is the fact that the Bill primarily provides for a mixed referendum—joint decision-making— and in such a referendum one will in fact have one man, one vote. [Interjections.]

Order!

Clause 7 of the Bill also gives effect to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement that relatively speaking, for political purposes, Whites, Coloureds and Indians are …[Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, certain people once said, listening to the noise that was being made by some other people: Just listen to those dogs howling. [Interjections.]

I was saying that clause 7 gives effect to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement that relatively speaking, for political purposes, the Whites, Coloureds and Indians are one nation. That is what their boss, Harry Oppenheimer, wants. [Interjections.] That is what someone whom they call “Oom Wassie” wants. That is what international liberalism wants. That is what Moscow wants. [Interjections.] All of these want to include the Black nations as well, and the hon. the Minister promised this by implication in his speech yesterday. He kept the door open so that the Blacks could also come in. As Hitler said, one should not reveal one’s ultimate purpose to one’s people all at once; one should lead them towards it step by step— show them a little at a time. [Interjections.] Section 7 of the Bill contains the most dangerous principle for White survival in this country. We have a specific political balance of power among the Whites in this country, with, on the one hand, the largely traditional and conservative Afrikaner majority, which up to 1981 generally supported the NP. In the last few years in particular, this Afrikaner power has been reinforced by conservative English-speaking people to whom it has become clear that White unity and political power must be consolidated, otherwise things will go wrong. They credulously voted for the NP. As against this, one has always had an insignificant number of liberals and leftists, as is reflected—I do not think they will blame me for saying this—in the representation of the PFP in this House.

Until recently, we all believed that the PFP or a party like the PFP would never be voted into power by the Whites in this country. However, if one combines in a referendum the PFP and their spritual associates in the NP, who are few in number but very influential, plus the Coloureds, the Indians and the Chinese, one is creating the possibility of ploughing under the conservative White majority in this country, and then this country will be going only one way, and that is the way Rhodesia and Portugal went. [Interjections.] This is also the way to majority rule in this country, and for that reason, I believe, the PFP will support it, because it is “a step in the right direction”. But it will also be the way of confrontation.

The hon. member for Helderkruin tried to veil this implication with high-sounding words last night by saying that the NP was creating a consultative mechanism here and not a constitutional decision-making mechanism. Why did he not tell us—and I am putting the question to him now—what the effect at the national as well as the international level would be if the Government consulted people and then failed to give effect to the answers it got? Why does he not tell us what pressure there would be at the international level as well to utilize this mechanism after it had been created?

This brings me to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] During the discussion of his Vote, I put certain pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member answer a question? [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister promised to answer my questions in this debate, and I hope he will do so. I just want to repeat the questions which I put to the hon. the Minister.

You need not repeat them.

I want to repeat them for the purposes of the record.

They are already on record.

The hon. the Minister may think nothing of them, but I should like to have them recorded. Suppose the Whites said yes and one or both of the other two groups said no, what would the Government do then? That was my first question. My second question was: Suppose a minority of the Whites said yes, but when they were added to the Coloureds and the Indians, a majority of those who had the vote said yes, would the Government then proceed; in this particular case, would the Government proceed with the implementation of some of the recommendations of the President’s Council? [Interjections.] The final question was: Suppose two of the groups said yes and one group said no—whatever the combination: the hon. the Minister can work out the various combinations for himself—what would the Government do then? [Interjections.]

Suppose all three said yes, what would you do then? [Interjections.]

Order!

This joint referendum … [Interjections.] Of course it is going to be a joint referendum. We need have no more illusions about that. [Interjections.]

Where do you read that?

Order!

It is going to have chilling consequences for White self-determination in this country, and that is why my party and I are fighting it.

Is this one of your nightmares, too?

I have already discussed the third principle, namely the blatant discrimination against Whites as far as their franchise qualifications are concerned, so I shall not say any more about this. [Interjections.]

Order!

You are talking the biggest lot of nonsense you have ever talked in your sleep! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs talk about sleep. Of course, many people have a variety of problems. Some have an elbow problem. Others have problems with promises of allegiance they have made.

Order! Is the hon. member for Waterkloof discussing the Bill?

No, Mr. Speaker. I am replying to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, who has cast a personal reflection on me. [Interjections.]

I did not cast any personal reflection on you; I simply made a jocular interjection!

Some people in the community beat their wives. Others have financial problems or all kinds of other problems. [Interjections.]

Order!

When I was in the NP, I had a sleeping problem. I sat there fast asleep amongst the hares. Now that I am in the CP …

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof must please confine himself to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to my sleeping habits. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs that we in this party could also refer to weaknesses of hon. members in the NP. They are always asleep in their benches. Sleeping in their benches is a problem which hon. members of the NP have. I remember how one of them sat fast asleep behind the hon. the Prime Minister until his elbow slid off his desk. That was while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking. [Interjections.] However, I want to make it clear to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs that since I left the NP, I have no more reason for falling asleep. I am awake now to warn my country and my people against the NP. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, just like the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, the Indian Council Amendment Bill and the Coloured Persons Representative Council Amendment Bill, this Bill is a measure which must be seen in the light of the recommendations of the President’s Council. We shall debate those later. At this stage, however, I just want to point out that in the recommendations of the President’s Council … [Time expired.]

Personally, mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof really disappoints me. Since he left the NP, and has been co-responsible for the establishment of the CP

He has apparently woken up!

… it has become very clear that for him the issue was not one of a difference in policy, but in fact a growing embitteredness. [Interjections.] This kind of bitterness on the part of the hon. member for Waterkloof certainly does not do him credit as an individual.

Why should I be embittered?

The hon. member’s speech a moment ago, smacked partly of bitterness. [Interjections.] This is what makes the whole thing such a great pity. His remark about the use of the non-Afrikaner voting power to plough the Afrikaner under…

It is true.

… is, in my opinion, a sign that as one of the senior spokesmen of the CP, he is primarily or exclusively interested in the Afrikaner standpoint in South Africa.

Nonsense.

I say this because he mentioned the use of the non-Afrikaner voting power to plough the Afrikaner under. [Interjections.] I have heard that kind of language coming from the HNP. This is also the kind of language one is always hearing from the AWB. However, it is not the kind of language one hears from responsible politicians in South Africa, because in South Africa politicians do not only represent Afrikaners or English-speaking people; they represent the interests of South Africa as a whole. [Interjections.] A former Cabinet Minister, Mr. Paul Sauer, was once asked what the greatest virtue was which a politician could display. His reply was: “Balance”. Balance is indeed one of the greatest virtues a politician can display, but there is not the slightest indication of a balanced view on standpoints to be detected in this kind of action. [Interjections.] The surest way of ploughing under the Whites or Afrikaners as such in South Africa, is through the bitterness and imbalance displayed by people who call themselves conservative, but who are really a caricature of conservatism. Conservatism does not mean bitterness, nor does it mean one-sidedness. In fact, it means balance, a love of one’s own values.

Get back to the Bill.

However, one’s own values can only be preserved if one respects the values of other people, other groups, other national and other language groups, and respecting other people’s values means that one takes them seriously, and if one takes them seriously, one does not act offensively towards them. Then one does not make the kind of insinuation which was made in the speech of the hon. member for Waterkloof.

I spoke about “ploughing under the Whites” … [Interjections.]

I wrote the words down when the hon. member used them. [Interjections.] He spoke about the use of the non-Afrikaner voting power to plough under the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] If he now wishes to claim that he did not use those words, then in future I can attach even less importance to the words he does, in fact, use. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

There is really a lot of insulting going on in this corner.

Oh, you are just a “blerrie huurling” (bloody hireling).

The fact that not much value can be attached to the meaning of his words, became apparent early on, when he said at the commencement of his speech that the referendum was now being introduced …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member refer to an hon. member in this House, the hon. member for Krugersdorp, as “‘n blêrrie huurling”?

Order! Which hon. member said that?

I did.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the adjective.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The fact that the hon. member for Waterkloof apparently does not attach much value to the real meaning of words, became apparent when he stated at the very outset of his speech that the referendum was being introduced now for utilization in the legislative process. When the hon. the Minister of Community Development pointed out to him that it was not correct that the referendum being envisaged in this Bill would be used in the legislative process, he added: “in the decision-making process”. A referendum is held to assess the opinion of peoples and sections of the population in South Africa. Nor is any provision made in this Bill for holding a referendum on a basis of one man, one vote. Provision has very clearly been made that, in conjunction with the separate voters’ rolls which exist for the White voters, the Indian voters and the Coloured voters respectively—provision is also made for the Chinese to be registered as voters—referendums may be held to assess opinions as to certain issues that are being considered with a view to the legislative process of South Africa. The only legislative body which will consider this is, however, the already established legislative assembly of the present Parliament. Until such time as other legislative assemblies are introduced, this Parliament is the only body which can pass laws.

It is also nonsense to state in general terms, without definition, that this is a beginning of the process introducing the power-sharing basis. The word “power-sharing” is being abused far too frequently in an effort to sow confusion. A very clear distinction has been drawn, by the hon. the Prime Minister as well, between the kind of interpretation attached to the word “power-sharing” by the PFP, and what the hon. the Prime Minister described as a healthy aspect of deliberation, co-responsibility and joint decision-making, but not on the basis proposed by the PFP, viz. the single decision-making process which the PFP advocates. Surely there is a very clear difference between the two. However, the CP will continue to make out that it is one and the same thing. It is here that the process of confusion is being wilfully perpetuated, with the object of trying to mislead many voters. Apparently it has become a virtue to mislead, if one considers certain speeches made by the CP.

Then the hon. member for Waterkloof asked where the idea of a referendum came from. He referred to the proposals of 1977 and he quoted from the periodical Pro Nat in which it was stated, during the election of 1977, that a referendum was not necessary, since the election of 1977 clearly concerned the basis proposed by the NP. The hon. member for Waterkloof is surely aware that those proposals were embodied in draft legislation, and that that draft legislation was then referred to the Schlebusch Commission. Two of the hon. members of the CP served on the Schlebusch Commission at that time. After all, the Schlebusch Commission did investigate those proposals and they unanimously found that the proposals, as contained in the draft legislation, had to be investigated further, that they could not be accepted in full as they stood, and that amendments had to be effected. This, then, was the unanimous finding. Two hon. members of the CP did, in fact, serve as members of the Schlebusch Commission and they were therefore co-responsible for the 1977 proposals not being accepted as ideal and being referred to the President’s Council for further investigation. Because the original 1977 proposals were renounced, and also because the Schlebusch Commission, two members of which are members of the CP at present, decided that those proposals had to be revised, the hon. the Prime Minister stated at a public meeting at Ladysmith that those proposals of the President’s Council would be submitted to the Cabinet so that the Cabinet could adopt a standpoint on them, after which the standpoint of the Cabinet would be submitted to the congresses, and that if the congresses approved them, but they still deviated in essence from the original 1977 proposals, he would deem it advisable to hold a referendum on them.

Did he say all that at Ladysmith?

At Ladysmith he spoke for the first time about the concept of a referendum to assess this situation by sounding the opinion of the people. [Interjections.]

After all, the situation is clear. In 1960, Dr. Verwoerd introduced the concept—supposedly an alien one, according to the CP— of a referendum, and he made provision for the holding of a referendum on an important constitutional development, viz. on the question of whether we wanted a Republic or not. The concept was therefore introduced by Dr. Verwoerd in 1960. If we are now approaching a situation where constitutional matters are once again being discussed, and where important decisions have to be taken, decisions which are more than a mere electoral decision and where many issues are at stake, it is not an alien concept to make provision for the possibility of assessing the opinions of the various population groups once again, not by way of a mere opinion poll as is often done by various bodies, but by means of a properly organized referendum, in which all those involved in the issue being investigated, may put their standpoint.

After all, no definite standpoint has been adopted to the effect that the Government necessarily regards itself as being bound by any outcome of a referendum, but the referendum is the correct way of obtaining a true reflection of the standpoint of the peoples registered on their various voters’ rolls and who may adopt a standpoint on the important issues at stake. That is why this legislation, which purely and simply introduces the possibility of the holding of referendums to determine the views of the various population groups, each on its own voters’ roll, makes provision for the correct and fair way of doing this.

In conclusion, I just wish to tell the hon. member for Waterkloof that he will definitely not be a credit to his party if he persists in adopting the kind of unbalanced standpoints he advanced in this House today.

Mr. Speaker, if one considers this debate today and recalls the 1960 referendum, one issue emerges immediately and that is that the issue concerning the referendum was discussed months in advance. What was the issue? The issue was: Should South Africa become a Republic? That issue was the subject of discussion from 1910 to 1960. That issue was the cause of people changing parties and joining one another. English-speaking people joined the NP and vice versa. People’s feelings on the issue were assessed in advance. What is the issue we are going to vote on here? Do not ask me whether a referendum is a good thing or not. Surely the issue is the matter at stake. Before the hon. the Minister tells us what the issue is all about, one cannot really assess whether it is a sound measure or not. [Interjections.] The issue could be whether the Press in South Africa should be restricted. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not laugh; we know who controls the Press today.

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that what we are concerned with here is the principle of the possible introduction of referendums and not about issues on which referendums may be held.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the issue to which I referred, emerges very clearly in certain clauses of the Bill. The issue must be raised, and I should like to discuss it. If the point at issue in this measure should be to restrict the Press, it could happen that the entire Press could be restricted by way of a referendum. When one consults a nation, one does not consult it merely to determine its feelings. The feelings of a nation become legislation.

No, why?

That is true. One cannot consult a nation and then ignore it afterwards. [Interjections.] If we have people today who believe that one can consult the nation and then ignore it afterwards, they are indulging in children’s games. We are discussing a very profound matter in this House today.

Is that why you left?

I just wish to tell the hon. member for Pretoria Central that I do not take so much notice of him that I am going to reply to his interjection.

Why do you simply not continue with your speech?

The hon. member is involved in a conversation in which he is not quite at home.

The 1960 issue was the whole axis around which the referendum revolved. I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that no issue will be put before the nation before it has been discussed in Parliament. An issue should not be put before the nation on the advice of some or other council or body, but should first be discussed fully by Parliament. This is important in the interests of sound legislation. We ask the hon. the Minister please to clarify that point. The 1960 referendum arose out of that issue. We have no choice but to be gravely concerned about this matter.

Let us suppose the issue is whether or not separate residential areas should be abolished. Suppose two-thirds of the Whites vote in favour of the retention of separate residential areas, the minority of Whites against, and the Indians and Coloureds, jointly opposed to it. Could South Africa, internationally, afford to accept the vote of the minority of Whites? [Interjections.] It is said that South Africa is a political problem to the world, and with this measure, points of conflict are being introduced to a much greater extent than hon. members realize. It contains points of conflict. [Interjections.] I just wish to say that we should discuss this legislation. I do not wish to fight with hon. members. This is my country and my people who are going to experience certain problems as a result of these referendums. I wish to emphasize once again that when we investigate this matter, we find that when we consult a nation, it becomes legislation. I wish to ask hon. members to reflect on that. One cannot consult a nation in one breath, and ignore its reply in the other. The reply of the nation becomes law. I would say that one could govern with referendums. One could govern without elections. If the issue is not brought to Parliament, the situation could arise where the nation at large is asked: Should we hold an election every five years in future? The reply would be no.

Hear, hear!

I like that. The hon. member for Krugersdorp is a man in the inner circles. [Interjections.] The hon. member says “hear, hear”. That means that he is not in favour of elections. [Interjections.] He is a well-informed man. I wish to get back to the issue by putting this question: Should elections be held every five years? The reply must simply be yes or no. There could be people who think that they should only be held every three years. In this connection we could get a completely wrong answer for South Africa as far as a referendum is concerned. A country could be governed by referendums without holding elections. A Government which does not wish to put this question, could govern by way of referendums. [Interjections.] We should consider this matter very carefully. The clause which deals with the question of citizenship, voting and permanent residence, is one which is causing problems. We are opening doors for Black people as far as our South African dispensation is concerned, and if this is an objective, one should say so.

Where does that appear in this Bill?

No, the hon. the Minister is correct. It does not appear in this legislation. However, I want to say this. If an Indian, who is not a South African citizen, has permanent residence here, he may vote. He has the right to vote because he is resident here. [Interjections.] The legislation provides that they will get the franchise on the basis of permanent residence. The Coloureds will get the franchise on the basis of citizenship. The Black man in South Africa has constitutional citizenship as well as residence. How then, does one prevent them from voting? I say that we are creating great problems for ourselves with this legislation. We cannot get away from this. I must say that I pity the hon. the Minister to a great extent, and I mean this in all honesty.

The hon. member need not pity me.

No, but I do pity him. After all, one sympathizes with one’s fellow man. The point I wish to make, is that this legislation is very difficult in the country in which we live, considering the problems we have. I now ask the hon. members—I think they are all still my friends … [Interjections.]—only one question. Did South Africa have the problems it has today during the 1981 election? Was the Coloured and Indian situation as urgent then as it is today? Of course we had the same problems then, and of course those situations were just as urgent as they are today, but why did we not tell this to the nation at large during the election? Why did we not tell them that the problem in South Africa is of such a nature that we cannot continue with the present system?

What system?

The present system. Look, we are introducing new reforms, but why did we not tell the voter that we would have to introduce reforms?

We said that as long ago as 1977, and so did you.

The point is this: In 1981 we told the nation that the twelvepoint plan was the steps of the ladder we were using to climb with, and separate development was spelt out in point 4. I find that I have to return to my constituency today and repeat to those people the statements I made in the 1981 elections on separate development, which was NP policy—one of the hon. Ministers has given me letters in this very regard. It is policy which, according to present NP policy, I really do not dare return and proclaim to the voters as NP policy. [Interjections.]

Look, if one fights an election 18 months before one’s great reform ideas, one should at least take certain things into account. Hon. members who did not listen to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information on television last night should please do so. They should really try to get hold of a cassette. He is a man who is not fearful; who is not afraid. [Interjections.] If reforms have to be made, why do you not say so?

We do say so!

Very well, but why does the Government not say so? [Interjections.] Prof. Huntington had this to say—

This is true. If I were to translate this, I would say “skelm hervorming werk nie.”

Are you quoting Thys Human?

I am quoting anyone, as long as it is not an ex-UP man.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Very well, Sir. The fact of the matter is that we should be careful that we do not misread certain concepts in the Bill. We should not, out of loyalty to a party—I am now speaking to the hon. members over there—fail to see statements which ought to be questioned.

What about us in these benches?

I think the PFP agrees with the Government. The PFP says that the Blacks should take part in our political dispensation, they should take part in this process. One knows where one stands with the PFP. However, the standpoint of the PFP is completely incorrect if they should support the Bill without insisting on the issue. This should be asked and this House should be consulted about this.

When one comes to the announcement in the Gazette—provision is made for this in clauses 45 to 48—it is essential that the results of the referendums among the various population groups be published separately. However, this poses problems on both sides. If they are not published separately, there is the problem that the Whites will have no self-determination and will derive no benefit from their vote. That is if they are published jointly. If we were to publish them separately, we would have a point of conflict between Whites, Coloureds and Indians which would grow worse by the day. External pressure will be exerted on us, because it could then be authentically proved that we discriminate. That is why I say that we should clarify this matter. Nowhere in the Bill is it prohibited that such a referendum may be held on the same day, at the same building.

If you say that it is not prohibited, that does not imply that it is going to happen.

The hon. the Minister must allow me to attach my own interpretation to this. After all, if there are two advocates and a judge, each one has his own opinion on a case. This legislation refers to the boundaries of electoral divisions and to voters’ lists and hon. members on that side of the House have said, inter alia, that the costs would be far less if the referendum is held on one day. In consequence of what I read in the Bill, and what hon. members on that side have said, I must therefore assume that the referendum may take place on one day.

[Inaudible.]

Is the hon. the Minister saying that objections have been raised to voting with the Coloureds on the same day?

I said that it does not state in the Bill that this has to take place.

Is the hon. the Minister saying, however, that this will not take place?

That is what he intends to do!

I shall reply to that.

Very well. I shall ask once again that we do not equate the 1960 referendum with this referendum, since the 1960 referendum dealt with an important issue which had a bearing on the period between 1910 and 1960, and the overriding issue in that referendum was: Should we become a Republic?

Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the hon. member for Langlaagte is a good point, viz. what would happen if, for example, the minority of Whites should vote for a certain choice, while the majority of votes against it consisted of White, Coloured and Indian votes.

We on this side of the House have already stated that we support the legislation in principle. The mechanics of this legislation are basically the same as that of an election, and therefore the clauses concerned are the same as those in the Electoral Act. One therefore does not have to give much attention to them now, but one would be able to put questions during the Committee Stage, for example whether only one question will appear on the ballot paper, and whether there will be more than one ballot paper to reply to a number of questions in one referendum, and so on. However, we shall discuss this again during the Committee Stage.

Of course, there are certain advantages attached to the holding of a referendum, particularly for the Government, but I believe that the country as a whole will benefit from this. In times of change, when certain steps have to be taken, I think it is preferable, to hold a referendum, rather than to hold a general election every time. One very clear question may be put in a referendum, instead of a whole series, as is the case in a general election.

Secondly, the Government, which is perhaps not familiar with the feelings of the other population groups at this stage, since they have been excluded from the political process for so long, can gauge their opinions in a referendum. Furthermore, it is also a step forward in so far as it is now in fact possible to conduct politics across the colour bar. This means that one may at least talk about the same matters across the colour bar. Because structures do not yet exist by means of which such talks may take place, a referendum therefore performs an extremely positive function.

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden claimed that the Opposition had at least made progress, since we opposed the holding of a referendum in 1960, but we were now supporting a referendum. However, I want to suggest that it is not the Opposition which has made progress, but, in fact, the Government itself. The other population groups were excluded from the 1960 referendum, and now, this measure is, after all, concerned with the inclusion of the other population groups in a referendum. Of course, that is also the reason why the CP are opposing it. According to them, people of colour now have a say in what is going to happen in regard to the consitutional future of the Whites. That is why they are opposing this legislation. Of course, we say that it is high time that this consultation takes place. In this respect, we can only agree with the hon. member for Brits, who said that there could only be one government in one country. I hope this will be implemented without the rider which the hon. the Minister added when he said in Bloemfontein that there could only be one government in one country “for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians.”

What was the rider which I added?

In his speech at Bloemfontein, the hon. the Minister added this rider. He said that he believed that there could only be one government in one country “for Whites, Coloureds and Indians”. Of course, we also include the Blacks!

What is the rider you are now reproaching me for?

I am referring to the statement of the hon. the Minister that this only applied to Whites, Coloureds and Indians. As I have said, we believe that Blacks should also be included in this. The hon. the Minister at least stated in his Second Reading speech that if it should, however, seem necessary that the Black people should also be consulted in a referendum, it would be possible to do so by means of other structures. I think that he left a very good opening there, and we welcome it. I believe that it is indeed necessary that the Black people be consulted at some stage or another, particularly in view of the fact that they will apparently be excluded for all time, according to the deliberations of the President’s Council.

The other day I discovered an extremely interesting document in my postbox, from which I wish to quote a few sentences to this House. I quote—

Furthermore, it stated—

I think this is perhaps a reference to the words of the late Dr. Verwoerd. I quote further—

To me, these sound very much like the words which the hon. the Prime Minister used in his speeches at Oudtshoorn and Springbok with regard to the Coloureds. However, the words which I quoted, refer to the Black people. It therefore seems as if there are people in this country who see the necessity for us to keep a door open for the Black people. I also quote the concluding words in the document to which I have just referred—

This was not a PFP speaker, a leftist liberal, and by no means a radical Black who was speaking. In fact, it was the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—or rather, the Deputy Minister—who said this at Stellenbosch. I am therefore pleased about the opening there seems to be.

Of course, there are a few disadvantages attached to referendums. Firstly, it is, of course, expensive to hold a referendum and referendums should therefore be used sparingly. One cannot consult the nation every few months to determine what they want. One should therefore obtain the maximum amount of information from the question one poses. I think it would therefore be a waste of time and money at this stage if we interfere too much with the steps, while we do not know what the end result will be. Supposing the question is: Do you believe that Whites will still be able to decide in 100 years’ time where Blacks should live, work and play, and that they should vote for a representative in a homeland where their great-grandfather last lived?

I think very few people would reply that they thought that this would still be the case in 100 years’ time. However, one could put the question in another way, for example: Would you like it if Whites could still decide in 100 years’ time where Blacks should live, work and play and still have to vote in a homeland where their great-grandfather last lived? Then the reply could perhaps be “yes”, but what could one do with the reply? In my opinion, it is wishful thinking to think that that will, in fact, still be the case.

However, there is a further disadvantage. By consulting the nation, instead giving guidance, one could end up in a kind of irreversible situation on the road to confrontation. Political leaders are supposed to have greater vision and to be able to see further than their followers, and the nation does not always make the best long-term choice. For example, we saw this in the old Rhodesia. Originally, their leader consulted the nation regularly. Originally he said that they would “never” give way, and then it was not in a “thousand years”, then there was talk of “not in our lifetime”, and then suddenly it was “now we have to”. In that whole process of wishful thinking, they wasted time. However, we in South Africa cannot afford to waste our time by giving too much attention to people’s present fears and prejudices. What I therefore wish to say, is that referendums should not be used as an alternative for sound and firm leadership. One should not give in every time to what people “want”. More attention should be given to what the people “should” do.

Because referendums are expensive, they cannot be held often. That is why it must be possible to give a reasonable reply to the question which is posed. In fact, there are a few prerequisites for such a question. Firstly, it ought to be a simple question. For example, on becoming a Republic, a simple question was put to the people: Do you want a Republic for the Union? This was a reasonably uncomplicated question to which a simple reply could be given. However, constitutional change is complicated, and one cannot embody the entire plan in one single question.

Secondly, the problem is that it could also be in the form of a package. Suppose the question was: Do you believe in a constitutional model based on partition and conso-ciational democracy, with segmented autonomy and a supra-ethnic, indirectly elected executive?

I promise that as long as I am here, I shall not do it that way.

To that question, one could, of course, reply: “Constitutional democracy, yes; partition, no; executive power, yes; but, no, if, for example it is not covered by the legislative assembly.” If the question is posed in such a manner, the package could offer one a kind of Hobson’s choice. If, for example, the Coloureds and Indians were to reply “yes” to the question whether they want the franchise, they are also voting to fight on the border. In terms of the present proposals, or as I understand the proposals of the President’s Council, the Coloureds may, for example, have a Minister of Education, but he would have to wait until the White Parliament has voted money for that purpose. They could also have a Minister of Housing, but he would have to live in his own group area. Therefore even if they reply “yes” to the question of having their own Ministers, it still remains Hobson’s choice.

Thirdly, the question could also be entirely misleading. In the case of the question which I indicated, “partition” presupposes a reasonable division in terms of the normal interpretation. For example, President Kruger could have implemented a partition on the basis of “you divide and I choose”. If we are quite satisfied that this is what is being proposed by “partition”, people could perhaps say that partition was good enough. However, if it does not take place on that basis, it is one-sided and misleading to include it in the question. In the case of “con-sociational democracy”, people could accept it in terms of the recognized academic concept, but if people accept the interpretation which the President’s Council attaches to it, the question would definitely be misleading.

As far as holding a referendum is concerned, there are a few other prerequisites I wish to point out in conclusion. Firstly, people should be informed. Information should be available to people. If the Government, on its part, abuses the mass media, and television in particular, by stating only its standpoint, it would not be a fair referendum. There is no such thing as proportionate logic. For example, to tell the leader of the Opposition that he may only have two minutes because he only represents 2% of the people is completely contrary to the concept of information. During the past three weeks, the Government has probably taken up several hours to promote the matter with the help of favourably disposed people. Nevertheless, I am certain that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition only needs 20 minutes to put his side of the case.

Order! The hon. member is digressing very far from the Bill.

There should also be fair participation in a referendum. For example, certain people perhaps do not have the funds to propagate their standpoint. Perhaps one could consider assisting people in this regard. Finally, the referendum aims at uniting people, and I think it would be extremely ironic if the Prohibition of Political Interference Act is not abolished while the proposed referendum is taking place.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greytown and his party support the legislation, and we are grateful for that. It seems to me, however, that there is considerable confusion in their ranks. In his contribution the hon. member for Green Point expressed his concern as to what the issue would be in the referendum. This is the issue (“vraagpunt”) about which the hon. member for Langlaagte spoke at such great length. I have reached the conclusion that those hon. members have become so used to voting “no” to everything the Government proposes that they would like the Government to put the (“vraagpunt”)—to use the terminology of the hon. member for Langlaagte—in such a way as to allow them to say “no” when in fact it would mean “yes”. I do not think there should be any doubt about the clarity of the issue in a referendum. If one is looking for a lack of clarity in that regard, I believe one could find it with the hon. member for Constantia when he holds referendums in Constantia.

Referendums are not often held in South Africa. Referendums usually take place on matters of national importance. The mere fact that referendums are rare phenomena in South Africa confirms the fact that South Africa has had an exceptionally stable political pattern in the past. The need to provide, in terms of this legislation for the holding of referendums furnishes confirmation of the imminence of a definite change in the constitutional pattern of South Africa. For the edification of the hon. member for Langlaagte, he had better take note of the fact that change is on the way. The hon. member need not be concerned about it. This is a process which has come a long way in the last few years since the Theron Commission was appointed in 1973. This is a process which could make it necessary for the opinion of those concerned to be obtained. A customary way of doing that is to hold a referendum. Hence this Bill. Hence the right to hold a referendum in South Africa.

Referendums have other advantages too, over and above their objectives of sounding the opinion of the citizenry. Referendums are a way of testing scientifically the opinions of the various population groups in respect of political matters. Various population groups are afforded the opportunity of expressing their attitude on political matters. One of the most important features of this Bill is precisely that for the first time in the history of South Africa it is now being made possible to obtain the opinion of all the population groups in South Africa, except for the Black man, on political development in this country. That is why I am amazed when hon. members of the CP raised very diverse objections. Apart from their “issue” problems, their sleeping sickness, etc., they are worried because all the population groups can vote on the same day. They are also worried because the various population groups can vote on ballot papers of the same colour. I am tempted to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg whether he would support the Bill if we were to give the Brown people brown ballot papers. Perhaps that would go some way towards satisfying him. They are worried about these petty little things which could be taken care of were any problems to arise. Surely that is no reason for opposing legislation. Why did the hon. members move an amendment that this Bill be read this day six months. Why did they use the most drastic method of opposition to this Bill? Surely the principle is at issue here. May we, therefore, put the following question to them? If they were to come to power in future, would they make no provision at all for the Coloured man to be afforded the opportunity, by means of a referendum, to say what he wants to say?

Not together with the White people.

But surely, it is not together with the White people; it is on separate voters’ lists. Surely, one cannot conclude that it will be together with Whites. This is not a referendum for everyone on the basis of a common voters’ roll. I find it amazing that the CP is adopting this attitude and is rejecting the principle of talking together, planning together, living together in a country and sharing common interests, and is highlighting petty matters like the colour of ballot papers, voting on the same day, etc. It is really ridiculous; indeed, it is inexplicable.

One is shocked to see what the Leader of the CP said before he left the NP. According to Beeld of 9 March 1981, under the heading “PW op Verwoerd-pad”, Dr. Treurnicht made certain statements in glaring contrast to what is happening at the moment. According to the report Dr. Treurnicht said that Whites do not want to retain their “baasskap” over Black people—I take it this applies to the Coloured people as well. One could only ask the CP to be consistent in their process of political development.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House cannot be discussed in isolation. At the beginning of his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs pointed out that this Bill was introduced in this House specifically in view of certain constitutional changes that the Government wants to effect in South Africa. For that reason, as far as this is concerned, this Bill cannot be discussed as if it bears no relation to the constitutional reforms which this Government wants to bring about in the country.

Secondly, this Bill can also not be dealt with in isolation without referring to the Electoral Act and other existing acts which have a bearing on the franchise of the Coloureds and the Indians. The Government has decided not to carry on, not even to the Second Reading stage, with the discussion of the Electoral Amendment Act as well as two other related Acts, but instead to refer it to a Select Committee of Parliament. The Bill under discussion is being proceeded with, however, and this is somewhat premature and inappropriate. Time and again reference is made in this Bill—the Bill is landed with such references—to Coloured voters, White voters and Indian voters and their franchise qualifications as determined by either the Electoral Act as it is to be amended, or by existing legislation. It is interesting that not one hon. speaker on the Government side has tried to reply to our argument that in terms of existing legislation, citizenship is not a qualification for the right to vote for the Indian Council. It is not a qualification. Section 3 of Act No. 122 of 1977 specifically provides that permanent residence is the qualification in the case of the Indian. For that reason we are now awaiting, and looking forward with interest to, the arguments of the hon. the Minister as to why this distinction has to be made between the Indian who is not a citizen of this country, and the Coloured or Brown man, who does have to be a citizen of South Africa. Furthermore, I consider it impossible to discuss and consider this Bill without—and one cannot do otherwise—bearing in mind, as I have already said, the possible and likely constitutional proposals which the Government is considering.

I have on one occasion said in this hon. House that healthy power-sharing was the engagement ring which the NP had offered the NRP. After listening to the Second Reading speech by the hon. the Minister, it now seems to me as if he offered the possibility of a referendum among the Blacks as a little engagement ring to the official Opposition. [Interjections.] Actually I find it remarkable that the official Opposition, who would not have anything to do with the setting up of the President’s Council because it was a matter of principle to them that any constitutional reform in South Africa should involve the Black people of South Africa too, are today acceding to a measure from which, in terms of the provisions of the Bill, the Black people of South Africa are specifically excluded. I find it amazing that the official Opposition could adopt such an attitude. Or is the little engagement ring of possible referendums among the Black people, which, as I said, the hon. the Minister offered the official Opposition, sufficient for the official Opposition?

But you are living in sin with the HNP. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am not going to indulge in that kind of language. I believe that the furthest that I would go, would be to say that there is at present a shy courtship between the Government and the official Opposition. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question? Will the hon. member tell us whether this Bill contains any provision at all for Black people to take part in a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member to read his Minister’s Second Reading speech. Apparently he did not take note of it.

What did the hon. the Minister say? Answer the question.

The hon. member can read it himself. I do not want to waste my time on it now. [Interjections.] The hon. member is welcome to go and read it himself. The hon. the Minister said that if it should become necessary to hold referendums among the Black people there is adequate machinery to provide for that. That is what he said.

That does not appear in this Bill. Provision has been made for that elsewhere.

Of course, yes. [Interjections.] Oh, Sir, I believe the hon. member has more problems in Parys than he has here. [Interjections.] That is why I call it the little engagement ring which has been offered to the PFP, and the shy courtship with the PFP which is now in progress.

What does that have to do with this legislation?

The terminology of the former NP has gradually changed over the years. There was a time when we called the Coloureds a nation in the making. That was generally accepted terminology used by the NP. Since then, that terminology has changed, and it was said that the Coloured people are no longer a nation in the making, but, in fact, a population group.

What do you call them?

I have already said in the past that I am not going to decide for them what they are; they are not part of my people.

In this Bill, too, I now find a change in the terminology. In clause 7 the Whites, too, are referred to as merely a population group. The Whites, too, have now merely become a population group in South Africa. And this is in accordance with the new philosophy of the governing party that we are not dealing with separate peoples in South Africa.

Where do you get that from? [Interjections.]

My time is running out. I want to repeat and warn. I want to warn that we dare not carry out dangerous experiments in South Africa in so far as constitutional reform is concerned.

You are closing your practice, because people will consider you a stupid attorney.

One should not carry dangerous experiments if one knows beforehand what risks one is running by carrying out those experiments.

And the people will be right, too, if they do not support you.

Order!

We heard from the Government side that the referendum would merely be an opinion survey and nothing more. Legally this may be correct, but can any responsible person in public life tell me that a referendum in South Africa would merely be a test of public opinion without real consequences? Surely that is unimaginable.

That is consultation.

Call it what you like. If one has consulted them and they have given a certain verdict, then every democrat—I hope the hon. members still are democrats—will of necessity feel himself bound by the result of such a referendum.

The hon. the Minister must now reply to this, because in the South Eastern Transvaal there are party organizers of the NP going round—they have a great deal of work at the moment—telling our people that the referendum on the constitution will only be held among the Whites. There is even a representative of the NP—he is not an MP, but an MPC—who is telling his people that a referendum on the constitution will only be held among the Whites.

What are you telling your people?

From that interjection by the hon. member for Smithfield I gather that he is prepared to associate himself with those allegations of that MPC. Apparently he is capable of hoodwinking his people. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister a straight question. I believe that it is a fair question.

This Bill has, after all specifically been designed with a view to constitutional change in South Africa. Since up to this afternoon not one of the hon. members opposite has wanted to tell the people of South Africa what the standpoint of the Government is in so far as the proposals of the President’s Council are concerned, the hon. the Minister could at least tell us—and I do not believe that this is such a difficult question—whether all three groups, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians—will be consulted on the proposals which the Government will put forward. I want to repeat that. I think this is a dangerous experiment, which endangers not only the Whites but the other peoples in South Africa as well. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hercules said today that the people of South Africa apparently for some period of time stopped thinking about these matters. If I remember his words correctly, he said that the President’s Council was appointed to think for us. In that respect I beg to differ very strongly with the hon. member. I do not believe that the people of South Africa stopped thinking. As a matter of fact, since the founding of the CP, the people of South Africa are thinking as they have never done before. [Interjections.] The moment of truth has come.

Yes, for you!

Yes, for us all. [Interjections.] I do not fear the verdict of my people, and whatever that verdict is eventually going to be, we as true democrats will accept it. That does not prevent me, however, from putting my viewpoint, too, to my people.

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

No, I am sorry, but I have to conclude.

To some people, the highest criterion is what they believe they can get their people to do. It is important to take into account what one can get one’s people to do, but that could never be one’s criterion. In the final analysis, one’s criterion must always be: Where do I wish to lead my people? So we are waiting for the Government, and for the young hon. leader of the Transvaal, to tell us where they want to lead the people in this regard. To date there has not been a single hon. member on that side of the House who has been prepared to express a personal opinion on the proposals of the President’s Council.

Now there are no more leaks from the caucus, not so?

That was a mean insinuation. [Interjections.] However, I shall tell the House why no hon. member opposite is prepared to venture even a personal opinion any more. We on this side of the House have experienced what happens to one in the NP if one is prepared to take a stand. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rather pleasant experience to be able to speak in support of a measure that the Government has introduced. [Interjections.] It was very interesting to listen to hon. members of the CP, but it is still not clear what their particular problem is with regard to putting questions to the people of South Africa. One thing, however, they have not said, and it would be interesting to know if they would be prepared to say it. If this Bill should become law and a referendum is called the CP would have the option of asking their followers to say “Yes” or “No”.

[Inaudible.]

They will also have a third option, and that would be to abstain and to tell their followers that because the referendum is tainted by the presence of other groups, they should have nothing to do with it.

We will go down fighting. [Interjections.]

You will not abstain therefore?

No, we will go down fighting. I have already said that. [Interjections.]

Fine. They have a third option, which is to abstain. That is why I have asked the CP whether they would participate or whether they would abstain. They replied that they would not abstain, that they would participate and go down fighting. That is fair enough. That is an option they have.

The hon. member for Barberton also said he found it strange that the PFP was supporting this measure while it was opposed to the President’s Council. There is, however, a vast difference between the President’s Council, which, in principle, excludes Blacks—and we were told during the discussion of the Bill on the President’s Council that the Blacks were finally on a separate constitutional road—and this measure now before the House, the object of which is quite clearly to provide for the holding of referendums in order to ascertain the view of voters in the Republic or any part thereof as to any matter. Of course, voters in the Republic, we believe, also include Blacks. [Interjections.] Of course, it does include Blacks. It is our very strong view that it is a step forward to consult people in important matters. We would be more than happy if this could be achieved. In fact, I want to appeal to the Government today to amend this enabling legislation …

Why do you not move an amendment then?

We will consider that during the Committee Stage. We actually hope the hon. the Minister will move such an amendment himself, an amendment which will provide for the possibility of consulting all the people in South Africa.

The hon. member for Swellendam said this measure was a step forward because it now made it possible to consult all the people in South Africa except, of course, the Black people. He said that by way of a sort of passing comment, as though it was a minor problem. [Interjections.]

This Bill does not provide for the participation of Black people in a referendum, and I said so.

As it stands this Bill does not make that provision. That is why we are appealing to the hon. the Minister to go ahead and include the Black people. After all, Black people represent 70% of our population, and it is not fair, as the hon. member for Swellendam said, that this should be passed off as a minor “except”. It is, I believe, a very major “except”.

There is another aspect, too, which I should like to mention. I express the hope again that the hon. the Minister will consider amending this measure during the Committee Stage in order to provide for other units to be tested. As it stands now the Bill only provides for the testing of units as specified on three voters’ rolls. What about voters’ rolls that are prepared by local authorities in terms of provincial ordinances? Then there is also the possibility of using rates rolls, for example. I have had personal experience of this particular issue. The hon. the Prime Minister personally raised the question at the Cape congress of the NP last year of testing the opinion of property owners in a particular area in connection with whether they wanted their suburb to be mixed. As it happened in the Constantia area it was not ascertainable from the parliamentary voters’ roll or even from the local author8035ity’s voters’ roll who those property owners were. It was only ascertainable from the rates roll. If one were to make examples throughout South Africa one could conjecture various circumstances in which it would be useful to test the opinions of people in a particular area. On such occasions it may not always be possible to test the opinions of people in a given area purely by reference to the parliamentary voters’ roll or any other voters’ roll presently specified in the Bill. We think therefore it would be very useful to include in the Bill other possibilities as well, merely in order to widen the scope of possibilities that can be tested in terms of this measure.

There are two other points I should like to mention very briefly. Firstly there is the question of postal votes. We find it strange that there should be no provision of postal votes in this Bill. It is an obvious mechanism that is available to people who vote in an election, and there seems to be no sound reason to exclude this in the case of a referendum. We therefore urge the hon. the Minister to include the provisions of the Electoral Act in this respect in the Bill.

This brings me to one final aspect. I do not think one should hold referendums too often, but if one does hold a referendum, I believe that there is a moral obligation on the authority that called for the referendum to abide by the results.

Yes, you are absolutely right.

I think that is a moral principle that should be accepted in advance. In passing I just want to slip in the point that a small referendum was recently held in my constituency. In that referendum a clear opinion was expressed and, there too, I believe that there is a moral pressure on the Government to honour the expression of opinion that was obtained on that occasion. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have said before that if there is one thing which this country cannot afford, it is extremist thinking on any side of the political spectrum. I want to repeat that statement today, for we have once again had examples today of what such conduct can mean or imply for this country and its people. The basis of the thinking of hon. members of the CP is uncontrolled emotion. [Interjections.] Please allow me to speak. After all, I listened to you. It is uncontrolled emotion which completely ignores or rules out the possibility of reasonableness, fairness or justice. I shall prove this to the House on the basis of the hon. members’ speeches. Just see how these led to a distortion of the facts, including the facts of the legislation which is before us today, but also to a distortion of the standpoints which those hon. members adopted in the past and those which they are adopting today. I want to warn hon. members that this is causing the credibility of people in this House to be completely destroyed or questioned.

You do not have to lecture us.

I am not lecturing you, colleague. I am replying to you. [Interjections.] However, I want to concede at once that the record of the hon. member for Waterkloof is such that there would not be much point in lecturing him. [Interjections.] I want to say again today that the demands of the times and the demands of the future in this country—I believe that this is obvious to us all—make it essential that a reconciliation be brought about between individual demands on the one hand and group demands on the other, as well as between extremism and reasonableness. When I listen to what is being said, however, I begin to feel desperate and I wonder whether we have the ability in this House to do this. [Interjections.] No one can deny that this reconciliation is necessary if we want to avoid group domination in this country and if we want to ensure that this country will not be counted as one of the failures which was unable to find a constitutional solution to the circumstances of the country. I submit that more than ever before, all South Africans, of whatever colour, language or tradition, are faced with a struggle for survival, not only physical survival, but also the preservation of justice and civilized Christian values, the first and foremost of which is justice. This is going to require more of us than just military preparedness. It is going to require more of us than just economic strength. It is going to require of us a dynamic approach and a certain philosophy of life. Whether we can resolve the problems of the country will depend on our ability to meet these demands. However, we shall not accomplish this if this Place is not a place where the attitudes are prevalent which are necessary for the solutions outside.

I wonder whether the hon. members of the CP realize that they represent despair to all the people in this country who are not White and that their standpoints represent the destruction of the hope of the White people whom they profess to represent.

That is only your opinion.

It is interesting to see that a few hon. members of the CP are not here. There is a certain significance to be derived from their absence. I am referring specifically to the hon. members for Water-berg, Lichtenburg and Rissik.

They are busy.

They are always busy.

Where are all the Ministers?

I am also referring to the hon. member for Brakpan.

I want to begin with the hon. member for Pietersburg, the great exponent of morality. [Interjections.] I can understand that he should feel uneasy about this.

You are being presumptuous.

The hon. member is their chief spokesman on this particular subject and he said that the mere fact that the PFP was voting with the Government for legislation …

In this particular case.

No, the hon. member did not say that. He can read his speech again. He should choose his words carefully. He said that the mere fact that the PFP and the Government agreed implied a principle in legislation which was not acceptable to the CP. How many times has the CP voted with the PFP during this session and how many principles have they violated in this process. [Interjections.] This is according to the definition of the hon. member for Pietersburg, not mine.

Your newspapers crowed about it.

Let us see what the accusation is which the hon. member for Pietersburg is making against the absent members of his own party today—it is important. He does not understand that in condemning the legislation which is before us and what he infers from the legislation, he is actually condemning the members of his party who are absent. In the first place, he said that this Bill contained power-sharing. I do not want to discuss the definition of “power-sharing” with the hon. member. I want to argue with him on the basis of his own conclusion. Looking at the hon. member’s speech, it is very important in this connection. He said that this Bill implied that the NP had deviated from its programme of principles. He then quoted what he believed to be the relevant clauses of the Bill. He does not understand that, in the second place, he is accusing his colleagues who are not here of having deviated from their party principles. However, let us examine the facts. The hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg were members of the Cabinet at one stage. Or have the hon. members forgotten that? After all, those hon. members know that the legislation which is introduced in this House is introduced after it has been approved by the Cabinet. What are the facts, then? This legislation, which implies power-sharing, in terms of the standpoint of the hon. member for Pietersburg, this legislation, which implies a rejection of NP principles, in terms of the standpoint of the hon. member for Pietersburg, went through the same process as all other legislation goes through before it comes to this House. And what are the facts in this particular connection? On 20 October 1981, the Cabinet Committee on Internal Affairs unanimously approved the principles contained in this legislation.

Just the principles, not the contents! [Interjections.]

I shall come to that shortly. Those hon. members should rather ask the hon. member for Langlaagte to keep quiet, because he is not helping them at all. The Cabinet Committee approved the principles of this legislation, and the hon. the leader of the CP supported it, silently as always. What is interesting is that a week later, on 27 October, the recommendation came …

You probably did not give him a chance.

No, he was scheming and intriguing with you. On 27 October, the hon. the leader of the CP, together with the hon. member for Lichtenburg, approved these principles without discussion in the Cabinet. Now the hon. member Mr. Theunissen is extremely sensitive when I inform him of this standpoint. Now I ask him: Does this not also cast doubt on the political morality of people?

Absolutely!

I am putting the question directly to the hon. member. [Interjections.] I am asking those members: Did those hon. members who are leading that party and who are sitting in front of me violate their conscience in approving the principles of this legislation?

Where was your morality when you accepted power-sharing? [Interjections.]

A very interesting question indeed! I should like to reply to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen on this. The hon. member for Pietersburg says that this legislation amounts to power-sharing. However, his leader approves of the legislation. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member when his leader relinquished the concept of the acceptance of power-sharing. I want to ask those hon. members, and they can reply to my question: What do they say about a man who has rejected the principles of his party? What do they say about such a man? I assume that they would do what I would do. I would reject him. What did the hon. members do, however? They chose the man who had violated the principles of his party as their leader. [Interjections.] And do hon. members know what they did with the second in command? They made him their deputy leader. [Interjections.]

We do not have a deputy leader.

I can understand why the CP does not have a deputy leader. [Interjections.] I would also be most reluctant to be that.

Connie Mulder is their deputy leader!

Let us look at what the hon. member for Pietersburg does. If this is not blatant racism, I should like to know what it is. What did the hon. member for Pietersburg and the hon. member for Waterkloof do today? They spoke about using other people to subvert and undermine the power and position of the Afrikaner. In other words, those hon. members are not only driving apart the Whites, Coloured people and Asians, they are also dividing the White population of the country. In terms of this, the English-speaking people in the country have to stand on the side-lines and observe what goes on in the country. No responsible person can agree with this.

I want to go further: Two other hon. members are also absent. They are the two hon. members who served on the Select Committee on the Constitution.

Daan and Frank, I suppose.

It is interesting that there is no one who does not agree that referendums are a mechanism by means of which people can be consulted. No one denies that it is a method for discovering the standpoints of people.

Yes, and for converting them into legislation.

I am coming to that.

There is not a single hon. member in this House who did not agree at some stage that people who are to be affected by constitutional change should be consulted. I repeat: There is not a single hon. member in this House who did not at some stage agree with the policy that the people who are to be affected by constitutional reform should be consulted about it. I want to point out to hon. members what happened in this particular connection. In 1977, all parties were represented on a Select Committee on the Constitutional Proposals. Two hon. members of the CP also served on that committee, only in a different capacity. Let us see what happened there. The first finding of that Select Committee represented a unanimous standpoint endorsed by every member of the committee and consequently by every party represented in the House of Assembly. What was it?

In the first place, it was that we agreed that constitutional changes had to be brought about in the country and that we agreed that constitionally speaking, the status quo could not be retained. Anyone who denies this is a liar. In the second place, that Select Committee unanimously found that in order to enhance the acceptability of any constitutional proposals among the population groups whose lives would be affected by them, all the population groups, all races, had to be consulted. The hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Rissik put their signatures to this. [Interjections.] They put their signatures to the statement that there should be consultation. However, that was not all they put their signatures to. They also put their signatures to what form the instrument should take through which the consultative process should take place. They are the father of the President’s Council, and this was established so that different population groups could meet in an orderly manner to consult with one another and then, if possible, to advise the Government of the day jointly and collectively. I now want to ask the hon. member for Waterkloof whether the creation of the President’s Council for the purpose of advising the Government was power-sharing.

No.

The hon. member says no, it was not. Why, then, does consultation in a different way amount to power-sharing?

Because it becomes a part of the legislative machinery. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterkloof says it becomes a part of the legislative machinery. Let us examine that statement. Surely this is arguing by way of misrepresentation, and I say this advisedly. Where is the legislative authority of the country vested? In the House of Assembly. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterkloof where it is provided in this legislation …

May I ask a question?

I just want to complete my argument. The hon. member can ask me a question when I have completed it. Where in this legislation is the process of consultation elevated to a process of legislation?

What are you going to do …

I am coming to that. That is not the point. What I am going to do when I have tested it is a process which will have to be considered by this House. The hon. member knows that. Why do he and his colleagues misrepresent matters by suggesting that this process of consultation …

We are not misrepresenting matters.

Sir, it is a misrepresentation. [Interjection’s.] An argument can only be based on facts, and the facts which we have are contained in the Bill which is before us. Only a malicious person or a political vulture could read anything resembling a legislative process into this Bill. The hon. members’ problem is the fact that they have to provide justification in this House for what they have told other people outside this House and even in the dark. That is their problem.

We do not hold closed meetings like the NP.

Sir, the hon. member says that they do not hold closed meetings. I am very glad he gave me that opening. He says they do not hold closed meetings.

Unlike the NP.

I want to quote a notice to the hon. member for Waterkloof. It reads as follows—

Do you know by whom, Sir? By the leader of the party which does not believe in closed meetings!

Are you opposed to churchmen. [Interjections.]

It goes on to say—

It says where, but the following is a real gem—

But this has to be done in the dark. [Interjections.]

Who sent out that thing?

What matters is not who sent it out, but who turned up at the meeting.

We take cognizance of it. [Interjections.]

Go on now and say who arranged the meeting—whether it was my party.

No, it was not the party, but that is not what is at issue.

It is.

But I was pointing out that they said they did not attend closed meetings.

So that is a point to score.

No, but I should like to know whether the party repudiated the people who arranged the meeting and whether it told them: We do not want to attend such a meeting.

Why would one not want to attend it with the churchmen?

I do want to point out to the hon. member for Langlaagte that this meeting was not arranged for the clergy only, but for teachers as well.

Yes, for teachers as well—for believers.

Oh, the hon. member for Waterkloof is aware of it?

Yes, I was there. I was the chairman at the meeting. [Interjections.]

It really is curious to hear the truth about this. I want to tell the hon. member for Waterkloof that if there is an expert at the chairing of closed meetings, then his name is the hon. member for Waterkloof.

When he stays awake, that is. [Interjections.]

Order!

I agree with the hon. members; all professions in the country are entitled to be informed—churchmen and teachers—but those who most need to be informed are the hon. members of the CP and their followers.

Now you are wasting time.

The hon. member for Waterkloof spoke for half an hour and all he did was to make misrepresentations but, I am coming to that. The hon. member will have to remain seated.

The hon. member for Pietersburg says that the possibility is being created for Indians, Chinese and Coloureds to be given a joint say over Whites. Does he reject this?

Yes.

The hon. member says he rejects it. If that is so, why did he remain in the NP when members of his party instructed Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese to give constitutional advice affecting Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese?

There was no question of joint decision-making.

The hon. member has reacted; I am glad. He says there was no question of joint decision-making, but what were the people in that assembly supposed to do then? Were they supposed to take decisions separately? [Interjections.] What absolute nonsense is the hon. member talking now? He is telling me, in effect: They may talk, but they may not take decisions. I do not know how they can advise if they are not allowed to take decisions.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. the Minister. I should like to wish hon. members a pleasant weekend and to tell them that the House will now be adjourned.