Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, to conclude my argument thus far, and in reaction to the argument of the hon. member for Durban Point, I just want to point out that the hon. member touched on two matters in connection with which he and his party have reservations; more specifically in connection with the composition of the President’s Council. In this regard he also indicated that he had an amendment on the Order Paper aimed at providing for representation by Opposition parties on the President’s Council.

In the second place the hon. member proposed that when steps are taken in connection with provincial powers and functions, there should be consultation with the provinces themselves. I want to suggest that we reserve our reaction to these specific ideas until we get to the relevant clauses, when we can then debate this further.

Order! Before I put the question I just want to point out to hon. members that with the conclusion of the hon. the Minister’s speech I am hereby ending the concession I granted hon. members to discuss general matters before the amendments actually come up for discussion, and that therefore I shall henceforth expect hon. members to confine themselves solely to the particulars of the relevant amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, addressing myself to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister on restricting himself to such a short speech today after his marathons of yesterday. [Interjections.] The history of this particular amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, I must say, is quite interesting. It was initiated on 18 May this year when I had an amendment placed on the Order Paper suggesting the omission of the expression “own affairs” wherever it occurred and to substitute it by “group affairs”.

It was subsequently dealt with in the Select Committee by the hon. member for Sea Point. On that occasion it was rejected by the Select Committee. It is interesting to note now that the hon. member for Durban Point saw fit yesterday to move the original amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point rather than the one he had placed on the Order Paper suggesting the words “specific affairs” rather than “group affairs”. The hon. member also said that he thought “group affairs” was a better description of what it should really be. This, I believe, shows an attitude of mind amongst hon. members of the NRP that they are prepared to settle for second best amendments rather than to support the better amendment moved or suggested by the hon. member for Sea Point. [Interjections.] They could have done just that, Mr. Chairman. At the stage when the hon. member for Durban Point placed his amendment on the Order Paper he gave the reason as being that “group affairs” was already on the Order Paper. Therefore, Sir, he said he could not suggest that. [Interjections.]

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the PFP is against the concept of racially separated affairs. The concept is odious, and we do not actually wish to suggest an alternative description, which might then imply that we accept this basis of a racist system. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is now the Committee Stage, in which it is proper to move these amendments, Mr. Chairman. We find the term “own affairs” repugnant for two reasons; firstly because of its racist implications, and secondly because it is a desecration of the English language. It is absolutely and totally incorrect as English usage. I do not rely on my own knowledge when I make such a statement. I have taken the trouble to contact experts in the field, and from an associate professor of English of the University of Cape Town I received a letter, in which he states as follows—

Own windmill! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the associate professor goes on to say—

Mr. Chairman, I also took the trouble to contact a group involved in compiling English dictionaries, and they make exactly the same point, stating that in fact “own” should be preceded by a possessive. If one looks at dictionaries—and I have photostat copies of a couple of dictionary pages in front of me—the same thing becomes abundantly clear, It is clear that to talk about “own affairs” is grammatically incorrect.

What about own finance? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, in another letter I received the following statement is made, and I quote—

There are two minor usages in which “own” is permissible. One is “own brother”, and the other is “own goal”, and both the authorities I have consulted state that is not sufficient to justify the use of “own” in this particular concept.

We are aware that the Constitution Bill is the most important Bill in the history of any country. We have two of them displayed in the Gallery Hall of the Houses of Parliament, both bearing signatures testifying to their importance in our constitutional history. In the most important Bill we believe it is incorrect that the English language should be abused in this manner, as English happens to be one of the official languages of this country. It is being abused. There is no question about that. What is more, Mr. Chairman, I understand—and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is indeed true—that this was in fact brought up in his presence before the Bill was even tabled in this House. Was the use of this word “own” discussed with the hon. the Minister before the Bill came to this House? No reply, Mr. Chairman.

Secondly, I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this matter was indeed taken as far as the Cabinet, and that it became the subject of a Cabinet decision. I understand the Cabinet decided that the term “own affairs” should indeed be used in the English text of this particular Bill, as a direct translation of “eie sake”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the use of the expression “own affairs” was actually discussed by the Cabinet on any occasion. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has not replied and I will take that as a tacit admission that in fact it did go as far as being discussed by the Cabinet. Suffice it to say, therefore, that we shall vote against the use of this word “own” to describe “eie sake” because its use in this respect in English is totally wrong, grammatically. I also believe it is arrogant of the Government to try to introduce a new English phrase in a totally incorrect manner.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested to hear what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had to say because the truth of the matter is that representations were made to the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether other people made representations but in fact I personally made representations in this regard. I did so because, at first glance, it is, of course, ungrammatical for the reasons that the hon. member has already advanced.

I also am sympathetically disposed towards the hon. member for Durban Point in his motivation of his proposed amendment. This has been his point of view both in private conversations with me over the past month and also during the informal discussions that we had both in the Select Committee and outside. Both the hon. member and myself—as did, I presume, many other people both inside and outside of Parliament—consulted as many dictionaries and reference books as we could to try to find a suitable English translation for “eie” on the one hand or a more appropriate word in the Afrikaans which could then be translated more adequately into English. Whether the Cabinet discussed it or not—the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central seems to be more of an expert on the doings of the Cabinet than I am—is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is not entirely correct. Strictly, according to Webster, the rule should be that one should not have a noun following the pronoun “own”.

Read it carefully this time.

That hon. member does not even know what time of day it is let alone what century we are living in. [Interjections.] When we consult the Economic Dictionary of the Language Bureau, we do find that there are precedents for the use of “own” in the context that it is being used in this legislation. There are only three of these. The first is own capital—“eie kapitaal”; the second is own make—“eie fabrikaat”; and the third is own risk—“eie risiko”. The expression “own capital” is not only accepted in our country, it is internationally accepted as a financial term. Anybody who is in the insurance industry will confirm the fact that the remaining two expressions are also in constant use; the expression “own risk”, for example, to describe a particular policy is an expression in everyday use. Furthermore, if we take the expression “eie kapitaal” as an example, we find that the best translation of this expression may be “self-generated capital”, although this does not necessarily give it the meaning that one wishes to attach to it. It may be capital that one does not generate oneself but has been apportioned to one. That is why we use the expression “own capital”. In this respect the English language has taken an ungrammatical root.

As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central will know, the most conservative authorities on language use are dictionaries. The dictionaries themselves are most reluctant to accept new words particularly when they have ungrammatical roots such as this one. Nevertheless, Sir, we are not creating a precedent. This is an established precedent; it is a precedent that is used every day in our modern language. The reason that I personally prefer the term “own” to “group”, although “group” may have certain merits, is that the word “group” does carry with it, perhaps unjustifiably but true nevertheless, negative connotations on the South African scene in the English language. The proof of that is that in the Select Committee I posed a question to the hon. member for Sea Point. I asked him pointedly whether he thought that the word “group” had a negative connotation within South Africa politics. The hon. member said that it very definitely had such a connotation. I asked him why he wanted to introduce it while his point of view was that the word was the negative carrier, justifiably, or unjustifiably of certain concepts. He then replied that it was bad legislation and he did not mind whether it became worse. [Interjections.] The motivation of the hon. member for Sea Point is quite different from the motivation of the hon. member for Durban Point.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to take a question.

I have a deep regard for the hon. member for Durban Point because he is arguing from a grammatical point of view to improve the language of the Bill. The hon. members on that side of the House are not prepared to do that; they are attempting to damage the Bill by the use of a different word.

As far as I am concerned, we are dealing with a word which has an established dictionary use in the context we are using it. Where we are coming with a new constitution with a new arrangement, the new tricameral parliament, we do not want to carry anything which may or may not be negative from the past into that arrangement. We are starting afresh. We are starting with a new constitution, a new arrangement amongst the three communities and I think we want a fresh start without using words which may, rightly or wrongly, be totem words or carriers of feelings which may not be good as far as the Bill is concerned.

The English language is infinitely adaptable. Throughout the ages rules have been broken and usage has run contrary to logic because language is not always logically defensible. South Africa has contributed many words either through the Afrikaans root or new English words to the English language which either are used locally or have an international acceptance. We can take a word like “tacky” which is “plimsoll” in English, which is “sand-shoes” in Australia and which I think is “sneakers” in the USA. Fact is that South African English also in the best historic traditions of the English language does create words which are appropriate and peculiar to our particular circumstances. For this reason, while I have great sympathy for what the hon. member for Durban Point has said, and having looked at the alternatives, all of which I have weighed on balance, it is my view and the view of us in these benches that “own” most precisely reflects and most accurately describes that which we intend achieving with the legislation.

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

1. 3. To omit the expression “own affairs” wherever it occurs and to substitute “agency affairs”.

I feel that the terminology “own affairs” is completely misleading if it is compared with what is contained in the Bill. The concept “own affairs” implies that this is a matter on which the group may decide and deal with unrestrictedly. If one studies the Constitution Bill one sees that this is in actual fact not the case. For an own affair really to be an own affair, a requirement is that the group must be able to draft laws on that matter without their being subject to general laws. The second requirement that the group must have financial control which is not subject to general control. According to a statement by the hon. the Minister of National education in a previous debate it is quite clear that if a Chamber were to contemplate drafting a law to implement its policy, and that law were to be in conflict with a general law, the general law would take precedence and the group would be dominated by the general law. This therefore does not meet the requirement that the group must have control over the drafting of laws and the determining of policy.

Clause 98 also confirms this, because in clause 98 it is provided that with the implementation of this Constitution Bill all laws—including the laws administered by Ministers of Councils of Ministers—will be general laws and that the relevant Minister will only have authority as regards the implementation of a particular law. He will therefore be an ordinary agent implementing the law. In addition no provision is made in this Bill for a Chamber to have control over funds. In the constitution of Switzerland provision is made for the federal parliament to have certain sources of income, for example customs and excise, and for the cantons to have other sources of income, for example personal income tax. If this were the case here, the Chambers would have sources of income and would be able to decide how much tax should be levied for services they wanted to render. They do not, however, have that authority, because the form in which the budget is drawn up is a general affair. The Chambers therefore do not even have a say over the form of the budget they want to draw up. In the second place, in terms of Schedule 1 the Chambers may not even vote money for a purpose other than that for which it has been made available to them. A Chamber may therefore not even transfer funds from one Vote to another. There is consequently no question of financial control. In the third place, provision is only made for a Chamber to raise levies on services rendered and to receive donations, with the added proviso, however, that such donations may not amount to a supplementing of the amount allocated by Parliament as a whole. When a Chamber receives a donation it must, in other words, be careful that it is not too large a donation which may amount to an allocation. In addition the collecting of revenue for services rendered by the Chambers has to take place in accordance with the Exchequer and Audit Act. In terms of paragraph 11 (6) of Schedule 1 the levying of tax and the negotiating of loans is specifically excluded and this will not be a power which the Chambers will have.

In the Constitution Bill it is provided that a Chamber shall receive directives by way of general laws. It will be bound to those directives. It may not draft any laws of its own which are in conflict with general laws. It will also have to act within the restrictions laid down in the general laws. It therefore receives its directives and must act within those limitations. It also receives its funds from Parliament as a whole. The extent to which it may operate within the directives laid down is therefore also determined by Parliament as a whole, because if it does not have sources of income in that it may itself tax the people to whom it renders services and decide how much revenue it needs to meet its requirements, it has no say over its finances, and if that Chamber has no say when it comes to money, what can it achieve? It is of no use for such a Chamber to decide to build schools and universities if it does not have money at its disposal. This can only be done if the Chamber has control over funds. A Chamber will therefore have to act according to the directives received from Parliament as a whole. In the second place if will also be restricted in its actions, within the confines of its directives by the amount of funds made available to it. This entire system of own affairs and general affairs, as it is called, is therefore misleading, because there is not such thing as own affairs, and for that reason “agency affairs” is the best term to give expression to what appears in the rest of the Bill. I should also just like to add to this that it is obvious and clear in this Bill that there is a tremendous preponderance of general affairs, whereas own affairs are kept to a minimum. I want to repeat that if this year’s budget had applied in terms of the new dispensation, 80% of the budget would have been allocated to general affairs and only 20% to own affairs, an amount which would have had to be divided up amongst the three Chambers. In other words, only 7% of the budget would have been available for the own affairs of each separate Chamber, and these would not even have been affairs, but rather agency affairs.

It is therefore misleading to refer to own affairs; it is a “misnomer” and does not give effect to what is stated in the Bill. A better description of the system which is to be implemented, and which would be a reflection of reality, would be to refer to agency affairs. This is all that a Chamber will be. It will be an ordinary agent, will not even have the power to draft laws which are in conflict with general laws and will have no control over finances.

Mr. Chairman, in his speech the hon. member for Lichtenburg concentrated on two points in particular. The first point, according to him, was that the concept “own affairs” essentially does not exist in the Bill. In the second place he discussed sources of revenue.

In this connection I should like to refer the hon. member to clause 82 of the Bill in which it is specifically stated that a distinction is drawn between (a) a State revenue account and (b) accounts in connection with the administration of own affairs. Within the framework of this Constitution Bill financial legislation is not excluded. This Constitution Bill creates the financial framework within which agreement can be reached. Financial arrangements will and must, of necessity, be made in regard to certain specific aspects. I want to put to the hon. member for Lichtenburg, for consideration, the argument that the Constitution Bill deals with the creation of a framework within which one can operate when the necessary financial legislation, which will probably have to be drafted on an annual basis, is at issue.

I now want to get to the other aspect, namely whether, fundamentally, there are own affairs or not. The hon. member has suggested that own affairs be referred to as “agency affairs”. I should like to go back in the history of own affairs. The hon. member denies this now, but I should just like to see whether it is correct to say that the concept has a right to exist. I do not want to take up too much time on this. When one refers to agency affairs, one is referring to a principal on the one hand and an agent on the other. The principal the hon. member has in mind is quite possibly the House of Assembly, and the agents are possibly some or other arrangement in connection with the Coloureds and the Asians. The meaning of agency intrinsically implies that the House of Assembly will dominate and that the domination will take place on a racial basis. This is precisely what this concept of the hon. member fundamentally involves. We on this side of the House cannot go along with the idea of a racial dictator in any form. In its own constitution the CP said the following—

This is just the point. A racial dictator is indeed intrinsic to the hon. member’s argument.

Nonsense.

If the hon. member does not understand what the hon. member for Lichtenburg’s instruction involves, I hope I have given him sufficient information about it.

It is not even an instruction.

Pardon me—the amendment, then. I should like to refer to the course this specific wording “own affairs” has taken.

I want to refer to what Mr. Vorster said during the 1977 election. It was under that very banner that hon. members of the CP were elected to this House. The then hon. Prime Minister said that it was the right of the Coloureds to decide on their own affairs. That is the first point. Own affairs therefore do exist. In the second place, the Coloureds have the right, not as agents of a principal, but as a principal in their own right to debate and decide their own affairs. The hon. the Prime Minister also went on to say that it was wrong for the Whites to decide, either expressly or by implication, for the Coloureds, as principal. I want to tell those hon. members of the CP that they have moved so far away from the historic pattern they themselves helped to weave that it is impossible to understand where they now stand.

I want to go further and refer to what the hon. member for Jeppe said yesterday. He said that he still stood where he stood in 1977 and 1981. In this specific pamphlet it is clearly stated that the exclusive right to decide on own affairs vests in each group in its own Parliament. Where does that hon. member stand today? [Interjections.]

I stand by that.

No, the hon. member does not stand by it. As far as I know, the hon. member has not moved any amendment for the creation of three Parliaments. A later amendment by the hon. member for Rissik refers to three Chambers.

Order! Unfortunately I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss amendments which are still to come up for discussion and which deal with three Chambers, etc. The hon. member must therefore confine himself to the content of the amendment before this Committee.

I was provoked. The fact of the matter is that the Coloureds have to be given political bodies which have a full say, but not as agents. In other words: The amendment of the hon. member is so far removed from the basis of own affairs that it is simply incomprehensible.

Let me go a step further. If we were to accept that hon. member’s amendment and replace “own affairs” with “agency affairs” throughout, just consider how strange some of the clauses would sound.

Now you have hit the nail on the head.

The fact of the matter is that this amendment was simply not drafted to fit into every clause. In the second place, it is in actual fact a question of running away from the real concept of own affairs.

In connection with the own affairs issue I should like to quote something from the 1981 election manifesto of the NP. There it is stated—

This is what is stated in the 1981 manifesto, and the hon. member for Lichtenburg endorsed this. In this manifesto it is stated that own affairs are acceptable. I am referring specifically to the argument that “own affairs” be replaced by “agency affairs”. I maintain that the hon. member cannot be serious about this, because in 1981 he endorsed exactly the opposite view, which we still stand by today.

The hon. member for Jeppe and other hon. members in the CP reason as if there would be large-scale unrest, but in actual fact they endorsed the fact that “own affairs”, which was a cardinal aspect at the 1981 election manifesto, was acceptable, it was in fact a “magic formula”.

Sir, I would very much have liked to discuss this in more detail and to have moved into the sphere of politics, but I shall confine myself strictly to the point under discussion. I therefore want to conclude by saying that the entire purpose of this amendment is to run away from the concept of own affairs, which was also the brainchild of hon. members of the CP. Agency affairs are not at issue in this legislation at all. The concept “principal” and the concept “agent” are not reflected in this legislation at all.

Mr. Chairman, it is rather unfortunate that even when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is fighting the right cause and is on the right side he must exhibit his mean and nasty spirit by making cheap political jibes. This is an occasion when for once there are a few words said by somebody on the PFP side that I can agree with.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible and even seemly for an hon. member to describe another hon. member as having a mean and nasty spirit in a discussion of the constitution of South Africa?

It is an understatement.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Umbilo referred to the “jibes” of the hon. member as being mean and nasty. [Interjections.] He referred to his mean and nasty “jibes”.

Order! The hon. member for Umbilo must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw them, but it does not enhance the hon. gentleman in my estimation …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I have.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I continue by saying that the gentleman is not very high in my estimation anyway. This is one of these strange cases in the use of the words “own affairs” in English where I believe hon. members on the other side should give serious consideration to our suggestion to change the word “own”. We who speak English as our home language are not the mad purists that, for example, the Frenchman is over his language. There is considerable latitude in the use of English, but where there is a word that is definitely and positively the wrong word in English, we believe that you will be making something of a laughing stock of yourselves to the English purists by using a word such as this. I accept—I am no person to judge this—that “eie sake” is the correct Afrikaans term to use. It gives the nuance of meaning you want. But there is no reason why—and there is a precedent for it elsewhere—the correct word cannot be used in English. It does rather worry us that you cannot make this concession to the more correct use of our language. I appreciate that as far as Afrikanerdom is concerned we would not have the temerity to start telling you what would be the correct word in your language for what you exactly want and what you exactly mean, but as far as the English people are concerned, many of them feel that their language is largely abused anyway and they do not feel that it should be abused in this sort of legislation.

In so far as the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is concerned as to the fact that we were prepared to take second best rather than to support the PFP, this is not so. We put the alternative in, the synonym, rather than use the amendment put forward subsequently by the hon. member for Sea Point because that was apparently the expression that he used in the Select Committee and the amendment he wanted in the Select Committee. Our member who was sitting on the Select Committee did not wish to poach his words. When I am further told that the hon. member for Sea Point did not like the word “group” and therefore withdrew it because he was quite happy in making a bad piece of legislation worse, one wonders why he put the amendment on the Order Paper in the first place. Mr. Chairman, I have had this information second-hand and not from the hon. member direct, but the hon. member has not denied anything; so I must assume that I am correct in putting it as I did.

As far as the use of the term “group affairs” is concerned, the hon. member for Maitland says it has a bad connotation. But may I suggest that if we replace it with “own affairs”, this in no time will also gain a bad reputation in the minds of those people, sitting over there, who do not understand what we are trying to achieve by amending our constitution. So, if we have to use a word which is going to have a bad connotation ultimately let us use the correct word with the bad reputation. Of course we still prefer to use the word “group”. If that cannot be accepted, however, surely it should not be beyond the ingenuity of the lexicographers available in South Africa to find a better term than “own affairs”.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to react to the hon. member for Umbilo because it seems to me there are two debates developing at the moment: One between the NRP and the PFP and another between the CP and the NP. That is why I want to refer at once to the hon. member for Pretoria West. That hon. member illustrated, once again, the lack of arguments on the opposite side of the House. He alleged that according to the CP’s standpoint the White House of Assembly would be the principal and the other two chambers the agents. But, Sir, the hon. member is altogether wrong on that score. Our standpoint is that there should be three principals, each one of them sovereign and autonomous. Each one will decide its own affairs, make laws in that connection and levy its own taxes. According to our policy none of these chambers will be subordinate to any of the others. All three will be equal, sovereign and free.

What about defence?

Why should each one not have its own defence force? What is wrong with that? Sir, sitting over there are the people who speak about love and respect for one’s neighbour. Are the Coloureds not good enough to have their own defence force? Hon. members are laughing. Why cannot the Coloureds levy their own taxes to finance their own defence force? But hon. members are laughing at this. If the hon. member for Pretoria West were to read this Constitution Bill as a lawyer would, he would see that the general Parliament is the principal, as far as the legislative power is concerned. The chambers are the agents. The general Parliament is going to be the principal. As far as the executive authority is concerned the Cabinet with the President as chairman, i.e. the macrocabinet, will be the principal and the other microcabinets, the agents. Consequently the hon. member is putting words into our mouth which are not true. Of course we do not want this thing. We do not want the agency system. We are merely presenting it to give a real version of what is stated in this Constitution Bill. We want something completely different. We want full sovereignty for each of the three population groups. All three are made agents.

The hon. member for Pretoria West said that we had been instrumental in the formulation of the concept of “own affairs” in 1981. I grant him that. Of course that is true. We were instrumental in formulating it. In this Bill, however, own affairs do not exist. Surely this Bill and the 1981 manifesto are not the same thing, Mr. Chairman. Surely the two things differ radically.

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

The hon. Minister may put his question later. I want to finish my argument first. If the two things are the same, why did the Government consult the people in 1981 by way of an election? The NP subsequently approached its congresses to get the same thing approved. They did this after the people had already given approval for it in an election. What logic is there, after the highest authority has given its approval for a policy, in consulting a lessor authority on the same policy?

Order! I am sorry but I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the policies of the parties now. The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment before this Committee.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I am talking about agency affairs and own affairs. I maintain that in the 1981 manifesto there was scope for own affairs, while in the Constitution Bill, as we now have it before us, no provision is being made for own affairs. Absolutely nothing is left of the concept of “own affairs”. This is a change which was introduced at the NP congresses in that they overturned the verdict of the voters in the 1981 election. [Interjections.] Of course they overturned it.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member for Lichtenburg tell us whether the own affairs for which provision was made in 1981 were to have existed in one country and in one territory for the three population groups, or whether they were to have existed in three separate countries?

Mr. Chairman, they were to have existed in three separate Parliaments, in which each…

No, answer my question now.

I shall explain the whole matter to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman. They were to have existed in three separate Parliaments; three separate Parliaments, without the danger existing that one Parliament would be subject to a general law, because there was no general law. [Interjections.]

Order!

There was provision at the time for three principals.

Yes, there were to have been three principals, but each with its own authority. [Interjections.] Each was to have had its own authority but only consultative machinery was created. No provision was made for an overarching authority which could make laws which could clash with the legislation of the respective Parliaments. [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs wish to allege that the Cabinet council was to have been able to make conflicting laws? It was not able to do so. The Cabinet Council would not have been able to make laws. It was not able to make conflicting laws. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs now wishes to know whether the three Parliaments were to have existed in one country or in three separate countries. I advise the hon. the Minister to consult the writings of his own party in this regard. Of course they would have existed in one country. In the writings of the NP, however, provision was very clearly made for certain powers to be exercised by the Coloured population within their own area, and the same applied to the Indian population. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs would do well to read the jubilee publication which appeared on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the NP. I wish to refer him to page 75 of that publication. There he will see what was said in connection with territories for the respective population groups.

He helped to write it. [Interjections.]

Recognition was given to this at the time. It was also said that provision should be made for each one to acquire a say within its own territory and develop further …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the question of territory now. We are now discussing “own affairs”.

Mr. Chairman, I am now referring to laws which were made, and will be made in regard to territory, and also in regard to taxes that would be levied there. In the NP publication to which I have just referred provision is clearly made for the Coloured and Indian population groups to be empowered within their own areas, to make laws for their own territory, and also to be able to levy taxes within their own territory, in such a way that they would not be dominated by the others.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Lichtenburg would have been more appropriate had they been used at a later stage in this debate. I also believe that he had received an adequate reply to what he said even before he began to speak. The hon. member for Pretoria West, I believe, replied quite aptly to all the points raised by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. It appear that, no matter what valid arguments are used in reply to hon. members of the CP, words, knowledge and reason make no impact upon them. They simply return with the same old arguments every time. How can one reason with people like those? It is an impossible situation, Mr. Chairman. We are supposed to sit in this House with open minds and to attempt to find each other. What kind of South Africans are we? Where do we find ourselves in the history of our country? We live in a country which is beleaguered. We live in a country which is threatened. We live in a country which has huge problems. We live in a country in which we have to find solutions …

Order! The hon. member should restrict himself to the matter of “own affairs” because that is what is contained in the amendment that is now before the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing very directly with “own affairs”. Nevertheless, I shall leave it there. We can debate that again later.

I should, however, like to react briefly to what the hon. member for Umbilo has said. I have the deepest sympathy with the hon. member. It is, however, not sufficient for him to say that our definition of the use of the term “own affairs” is wrong—and I do agree with him that there are problems with this usage of the term—and then to place the responsibility on us to find an alternative term. The fact is that we have tried. We have all tried. Even the law advisers have tried. The hon. leader of the NRP spent an enormous amount of time in this regard. I have telephoned universities on the subject and spoken to professors of English. Some of them have said to me that “own” falls comfortably upon the ear and others have said that they do not like the word at all. Forgetting about the grammar for the moment, the fact of the matter is that it is a word that translates well, it is a word that conjures up what we are trying to achieve, it is a new word that is not loaded, it is a word with no negative connotations, it is short and it is descriptive. At least it has those merits. There may well be problems in regard to grammar but the fact remains, as I have already told the hon. member, that we are not establishing a precedent. Quite honestly, if we were establishing a precedent, I would have been completely at one with the hon. member and I probably would have asked my Whips not to include me in this discussion. The fact of the matter is, as I say, that we do have authorities in this regard. I want once again to draw the hon. member’s attention to the authority that I have already mentioned namely the Economic Dictionary of the Language Bureau, in which at least three accepted English usages containing the word “own” appear. These are not South African English expressions. Let us go for a moment to the fountainhead, as it were, of the English language, London. On the floor of Lloyds any day of the week and any minute of the day one will find people talking to each other about “own risks”. This is a commonly accepted term. When we consider international financial arrangements, we find that this is a term that is commonly used and commonly accepted. The great tradition of the English language is bound up to a large extent in its vagaries—the way in which it has accepted all kinds of words and expressions, wrong grammatical roots on occasions, foreign words and so forth. It has enriched itself from many different languages and I do not see why we should stop that process now. Although the English language continues to be a European language, the fact remains that if it is exposed in Africa and in South Africa to our peculiar circumstances, the language itself must respond to the nuances and the problems that we have. Therefore, new words will and have indeed emerged. There are dictionaries of South African English in regard to words that are used only in South Africa. Why, therefore, should we be fearful of creating one more? I just cannot see the argument. If we already had an apt and appropriate term I would be the first to accept it. However, “specific affairs” is no good because it is too cold and clinical. In no way does it conjure up the kind of atmosphere that one is seeking to create. In no way does it describe what we are trying to achieve. If we want to be clinically correct then we should refer to “group-specific affairs”, because that is what I have come back to. I think the hon. member for Durban Point had the same experience. Wherever we went, when we consulted a purist, what did he say? When one described to him precisely what one was trying to achieve, he always came back to the expression “group-specific”. I say that if we are now going to force South Africans for the next 100 years or more to be labouring under the expression “group-specific”, I would prefer to use the non-grammatical route of “own”, and not inflict the expression “group-specific” on the people who are going to be living in this country for the next 100 years.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabour the argument. While I have the greatest sympathy for the sentiments expressed, I must support the expression as printed and therefore I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the debate unnecessarily but in order to put the record straight I must reply to a completely untrue claim that was made by, I think, the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition in an interjection while my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, was speaking. I want to place the true facts on record.

What did I say that was untrue?

The hon. member denied that the hon. member for Sea Point had moved the substitution of the expression “group affairs” for the expression “own affairs” …

No, I did not. [Interjections.]

Well, it sounded like a denial and I want to make the record clear. I want to make sure that the record is absolutely clear because there was that denial from those benches. [Interjections.] We shall check the Hansard. The facts are that I first submitted the word “community” as an alternative for “own”—“community affairs” referring to affairs peculiar to a community, but I was persuaded in the debate that there could be confusion between “communal” and “community” and that there would not be suitable differentiation. I therefore changed to the grammatical exact antonym of “general” which is “specific”. Subsequently the hon. member for Sea Point moved—it went to a vote—that “own affairs” be replaced by “group affairs”. I had no support for my amendment of “specific” and it was rejected. I then supported the hon. member for Sea Point and voted with him and the hon. members of the PFP for “group affairs”. Not being a plagiarist like certain other parties and members whom I can think of, I did not want to steal the idea of the hon. member for Sea Point. I left him to put his amendment on the Order Paper as it was moved in the Select Committee, which he promptly did. I have here before me—

But then the hon. member withdrew it. Then there was a gap which I took and the hon. members are now embarrassed because after the amendment having been moved in the Select Committee, it having been voted on in the Select Committee and it having been put on the Order Paper for this debate, the radicals in that party said: “Aikôna, you cannot talk about group affairs; this is racialism. Withdraw it.” So the hon. member for Sea Point withdrew it and I moved it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central proved by investigation what I felt by instinct that “own” is ungrammatical. He has justified changing it, and I am sure now that as a logical, honest, sincere party they will support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central found “own affairs” impossible because in his opinion they were racialistic. We cannot agree with that, for the simple reason that in a country like South Africa, in which various races find themselves and in which one has the principle of self-determination, these two concepts are not conflicting concepts. If I demand self-determination for my group, for my race, then this is not racialism towards another race. For that reason I cannot support the hon. member’s argument.

The hon. member for Maitland, in a very knowledgeable way, occupied himself with definitions, but it is not appropriate at this stage to have recourse to dictionaries. Over the years the NP has used words to which certain connotations were attached. It is no use going to a dictionary now for “own affairs” and “general affairs” and attaching the dictionary definition to those expressions. The meaning given to them over the years by the NP should be attached to them now. However, he says we should have an open mind and begin all over again. This substantiates the fact that the NP has departed from its principle of the past and that it has turned over a new leaf and is starting afresh.

The hon. member for Pretoria West said we were running away from the policy of own affairs. He is a surveyor and must therefore get his directions right. It is he who is running away. We are in fact running directly in the direction of own affairs which are full-fledged own affairs, he said that a financial framework had been created for a chamber within which it was necessary to operate. That is precisely our point. If a person is an agent, surely one must in fact have a framework and surely one’s principal says to one: “This is the framework, this is your mandate: Work accordingly.” If a person is a principal, he has no framework. That is why we say that sovereign, free and independent Parliament and an own territory for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are own affairs and not what the Government wishes to hold out to them here. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to tell the hon. member for Brits to be a little more careful with his interjections. We are still going to take him down a peg or two.

Your leader could not even win a motion at Brits!

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe may proceed.

Sir, that is just the way he is.

The principle involved in this matter is the principle of self-determination over own affairs and co-responsibility over general affairs. We cannot argue about this. Indeed, it has been approved. The NP alleges that they are in this way interpreting the permanent principles of the NP and that this is also based on the mandate which they received in the past.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the difference between “own affairs” and “agency affairs”.

That is what I am doing, Sir.

No. The hon. member cannot pursue his present line of argument.

Sir, there has been an historical prelude to this matter which was concerned with definitions, and this entire discussion deals with definitions. I cannot address you unless I deal with the historical prelude to this matter as far as the NP is concerned, because it is closely tied up with the matter.

Order! The hon. member may address the Committee only on the details of the amendment, and nothing else.

Sir, the principle under discussion emerges in “own affairs” …

Order! The hon. member cannot address me on any principle.

Sir, I am merely stating to you how I understand the principle.

The hon. member cannot address me on that matter.

The principle is that of “own affairs” and “general affairs” and that is what I wish to discuss. May I discuss it, Sir.

The hon. member cannot discuss “general affairs”. All that we have before us, is the motion …

Then I shall discuss “own affairs” only.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. The amendment of the hon. member for Lichtenburg reads that the expression “agency affairs” is to be substituted for the expression “own affairs” and the hon. member may only address me on the details of that motion and not on what “general affairs” are. The hon. member may proceed.

I want to tell you, Sir, that it is impossible to discuss only “own affairs” here while previous speakers have discussed “general affairs” … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman; on a point of order: When you give a ruling, we on this side of the House would like to accede to it. However, it has been our experience that the moment you give a ruling and an hon. member of this party proceeds with his speech, there is a constant stream of remarks from the opposite side of the House which makes it impossible for us to conduct a proper debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe may proceed.

Sir, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This question has a direct bearing on the concept of “own affairs”. I wish to make two short statements, and ask him whether he agrees with them. He is not in favour of separate development on the basis of Whites and Coloureds in separate parliamentary institutions. Is that correct?

Make your own speech.

The hon. the Minister does not wish to reply to me. I shall come back to this later though.

Our standpoint is that own affairs have a direct bearing on full self-determination and that what is considered to be own affairs in the Constitution Bill, is not own affairs but agency affairs. Own affairs means full self-determination in one’s own Parliament with one’s own territory and agency affairs are merely when three little Parliaments, three little chambers, are going to be the lackeys of some principal of other, namely the joint Parliament or the President. It is therefore not an expression of the true intention of the legislation. It is not own affairs; it is merely agency affairs. We advocate full-fledged own affairs and not agency affairs.

Mr. Chairman, there are indeed two debates in progress here. The one is an English and the other an Afrikaans debate. I should like to participate in the Afrikaans debate.

A Boer war and an English war.

That is correct.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg tried to motivate this construction which he is trying to introduce here on the ground of the argument that in terms of the provision of this Bill no such thing as truly own affairs really exist. One of the arguments he advanced was that approximately 80% of the budget pertained to general matters and only about 20% to matters which, according to him, would be own affairs. This is a distorted argument. In the first place I want to question whether one can quantify these things in terms of rands and cents, because the most important things that belong to me are things which one cannot place a value on in terms of rands and cents. There is another value as well, which comes first as far as we are concerned.

However, let us accept for the moment that argument of the hon. member for Lichtenburg that general affairs represent 80% and own affairs only 20%, and that there are consequently no own affairs, because own affairs do not pass the test. On those grounds one could say that in 1982 approximately 12% of the NP members walked out and established another party, and because 12% is far less than 88%, those people did not establish a party and consequently no such party exists. If one wishes to argue in that way, that is the kind of absurdity one arrives at. In this connection I wish to pay the CP a compliment. I should like to say that they are in fact a political party. However, they should not advance such fallacious arguments.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Are the things which the hon. member is now discussing concerned with own affairs or agency affairs?

I am listening carefully to the hon. member for Helderkruin. The hon. member may proceed.

In the discussion we are now having, it is rather difficult not to refer to amendments which are still going to be moved. I shall motivate my statement. What we are dealing with here is the substitution of a specific concept throughout the bill. In respect of clause 14 there is an amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Brakpan which deals specifically with own affairs. In it he gives a specific definition to the concept “own affairs”. If I am not ruled out of order I should like to quote it, because it gives substance to the concept which hon. members of the CP have of own affairs. It is stated—

This is the concept of “own affairs” with which the CP works. Consequently these are affairs which will be entrusted by the House of Assembly, as the principal, to the two other Houses. According to their own concept, that idea of agency matters would then be valid. According to our concept of the Bill, this is not in fact the case. What happens in reality? In regard to own affairs the specific House of the specific group, including the White group, makes its laws on certain matters in an autonomous way and these are not referred to the other Houses. There is full self-determination in respect of those matters. Hon. members of the CP can argue about how wide that field is or how narrow it is, but if one goes through the provisions of the Bill there can be no doubt about the fact that House alone has control of those matters. For that reason I cannot see why we need waste any more time at all on this subject. We do not wish to change the legislation in the direction in which the CP wishes to steer it with their amendment to clause 14, which is related to this general amendment which they are now moving here. We do not want to do that. We want to retain that self-determination which is inherent in the legislation as it is worded at present.

Mr. Chairman, the concept of “own affairs” is a concept which has existed in this country for many years. We find an elucidation in the Constitution Bill of what “own affairs” will be. There is a wide definition which is not subject to intervention on the part of the Supreme Court. Own affairs are set out in Schedule I. There are approximately 15 of them. This is the sum total of the own affairs of the Whites and also of the other population groups. Most of these affairs, however, are subject to general policy. Any person who wishes to allege today that education is in reality an own affairs has not read the legislation. Education is dealt with in paragraph 2 of Schedule I. According to that Schedule education is an own affair, wonderful! The parent is being told that his child’s school is an own affair which he will decide about himself. However, if one reads Schedule I one sees that there are three subdivisions of education which are not own affairs. These are finances, staff matters and curricula. If the money, teachers and curricula are removed from the educational profession, one is left with nothing at all. If one analyses this Schedule in this way, one ultimately arrives at the conclusion that in effect there are no own affairs. If one takes these few crumbs which remain and places them on one scale and one asks oneself what the Whites who have been in this country for three hundred years are entitled to when one says that they have self-determination, then I say that I want to be entitled to my own foreign policy. To my mind that is an own affair. To my mind my own affair is my own defence force, my own police force and my own budget. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those are own affairs [Interjections.]

Order! I do not want to prevent the hon. member from advancing important arguments, but as I understand the matter, the amendment entails a different definition of “own affairs”. In the legislation mention is made of “own affairs” and in his amendment the hon. member for Lichtenburg has moved that “agency affairs” be substituted for that expression. I do not wish to prevent the hon. member from motivating why he is of the opinion that it should be “agency affairs”, but he should not use such wide-ranging arguments and try to indicate what all the “own affairs” are. Then we are going too far. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to indicate what own affairs are in terms of this legislation. I say there are none. I am also trying to say what affairs ought to be own affairs if there were any substance to the concept of “own affairs”. Then all the important Government departments which I mentioned should also be included. I am coming to my point now. Those matters which are described as own affairs in the Bill, those crumbs, are nothing but agency affairs.

Why?

The hon. member for Helderkruin is asking: "Why?”. I have tried to indicate to the hon. member that own affairs are mentioned in Schedule I only, but that if one analyses them, one sees that one has a wolf in sheep’s clothing. In effect there are none.

Order! the hon. member may not discuss Schedule I now.

I want to conclude. [Interjections.] Own affairs, as described, are not really own affairs. There are a few crumbs and these comply with the definition of “agency affairs”. That is why the term “agency affairs” should rather be inserted in the Bill. When one refers to own affairs, one must give a people sovereign own affairs in their own Parliament and in their own territory.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to come at once to the point which I consider to be important. At the Second Reading we accepted that there were affairs on which the groups would each be able to take decisions separately. This definition is contained in the definitions clause, clause 100 of the Bill. The aspect which is now being considered is not concerned with the quantum of own affairs, group affairs or specific affairs; it is concerned with the description of the concept of the matters on which the group can decide for itself. We could conduct a very lengthy debate with one another about the quantum of these, their quantity or adequacy, but that is not relevant now, and I say this with all due respect. In my opinion, we shall be able, in discussing the clauses concerned—clauses 14 to 18, if I remember correctly—and the Schedules, to add to or take away from what we believe should be own or general affairs. What is relevant now, however, is one thing alone, and that is what terminology we are going to use to describe what we have already accepted. Therefore I should just like to reply to that.

†Let me come to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The hon. member for Sea Point—and I accept his view on this although I disagree with it—indicated in our discussion yesterday on this particular amendment that they as a party object to own, specific or group affairs and that they find the concept objectionable. I accept the point that the hon. member made. But it is quite obvious that this is also a recent invention, to the extent that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central himself had an amendment on the Order Paper to describe what he finds objectionable. Now, having withdrawn that, he blames somebody else because they put the same amendment on the Order Paper to describe this particular concept.

No one is blaming anyone.

He was blaming the hon. member for Durban Point. He said that he was changing something bad for something better. In other words, he blames him for withdrawing his amendment to move an amendment that the other hon. member had in fact moved before. But let us take the matter further.

We are going to support it.

What are we discussing now?

Do you not know?

I believe it has been adequately covered by the hon. member for Maitland and other hon. members.

*It is the English term for “eie sake”. “Eie sake” has acquired a specific definable meaning in everyday language. No-one wants to detract from that particular historic, substance-giving meaning of the concept of “eie sake”. The dilemma which the hon. members are discussing with one another is what the correct English term for “eie sake” would be. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is arguing that grammatically speaking, it is not really good English to use the term “own affairs”. In reply to that I want to say at once that what the hon. member says is not correct, because it is a fact—and the hon. member for Maitland underlined this—that the expression “own capital” is used all over the world. It has an established placed in the English terminology in this particular field. There are also instances of its use in the economic field, as the hon. member for Maitland indicated. We considered various possibilities. One of these was the term which the hon. member for Durban Point has now suggested. Eventually we came to the conclusion that in order to convey the particular meaning which we wished to convey, we should retain the Afrikaans term “eie sake”.

But does the English have to be a literal translation of the Afrikaans?

It is preferable that it should be.

I come now to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. He argues that we should not find another term. He argues that own affairs do not exist. If this is the motivation for his amendment, then with all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, his amendment is out of order and you should not allow it. Furthermore, the hon. member proceeds from false premises in his argument. What does he say? He says that legislation on own affairs will always be subordinate to legislation on general affairs. But surely this is not true. A Bill on own affairs that has been dealt with and passed in terms of clause 31 will have priority over legislation on general affairs, with one exception, namely those own affairs that have been made subject to the Schedule. Surely the hon. member is more intelligent than to expect to be able to bluff us on this side with such a specious argument.

The hon. member goes further and says that the respective Houses of Parliament are not allowed to re-allocate the funds paid into the State Revenue Account for specific services. But where does it say that, Mr. Chairman?

It says so in the Schedule.

No, Sir. What the hon. member does not realize is that the way in which this Parliament uses funds or makes funds available to the executive and the control exercised by Parliament over the utilization of those funds are not provided for in the constitution, but in other laws, such as the Exchequer and Audit Act. Furthermore, is it not a fact that all provinces deal with own affairs in respect of education? Is it not true that provincial funds are obtained in terms of the Financial Relations Act? Where does the hon. member get the idea that the provinces do not have the power at the moment to use the funds allocated to them by the central Government for the various services for which they are responsible? Sir, I can understand that we want to score political points, but all I ask is that we should do so outside the framework of the legislation which we are discussing.

Are you reflecting on the Chair?

Sir, you will recall that you are finding it quite difficult to keep the hon. member for Jeppe in order.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg referred in a derogatory way to the own affairs over which the respective Chambers will have jurisdiction. In his opinion, the scope of the matters on which each House will be able to decide for itself is decisive in answering the question of whether they should be own affairs. Another aspect which he regards as decisive is the source from which the authority is derived.

Chris, we have been here for two weeks and we have not reached clause 1 yet.

It is not my fault.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg argues that we should describe the chambers as agencies because there are so few own affairs and, secondly, because Parliament as a whole imposes restrictions on the powers of the various Houses. Let us examine the validity of this argument. In clause 26 of the Bill which was published after 1977, the term “own affairs” is also used and its origin is pointed out. The hon. member for Helderkruin referred to this. He referred to clause 26(1)(a)(i). I want to refer to paragraph (1)(a)(ii). The hon. member argues that the competence of the various Chambers when it comes to a decision on what is an own affair and what is not is derived from this Parliament. In clause 26(1)(a)(ii) of the 1977 Bill, it is said that if the Council of Cabinets believes that the legislative power in respect of any matter should rest with the House of Representatives or with the Chamber of Delegates, the said Council shall confer that power upon that body. Sir, that was acceptable to the hon. member.

Sir, the hon. member is not concerned with the term used to describe the affairs pertaining to each chamber. To him this is a little political argument.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal to say about own and general affairs myself, but I am keeping it until we come to clause 14. I understood that the present debate was actually concerned only with the semantics, i.e. whether or not the term “own affair” should be replaced by some other definition. But I am afraid that if we allow ourselves to be drawn at this stage into a general debate on what own and general affairs are, we shall be anticipating the debate on clause 14.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put the matter quite correctly. Therefore I request hon. members henceforth to confine themselves to the specific amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Chairman, I shall confine myself to my amendment, namely that the designation should be “agency affairs”. The hon. the Minister concluded his previous speech by alleging that we on this side were engaged in political point-scoring. But surely we are dealing here with a new constitution for South Africa. The hon. the Minister also said that I was proceeding from false premises in arguing that the Chambers would not be able on their own to transfer funds from one Vote to another. Paragraph 11 of schedule 1 of the Constitution Bill deals with finance in relation to own affairs …

Order! That is not relevant now.

It concerns the question of whether a chamber will have the power to transfer funds from one Vote to another.

Order! The hon. member will have sufficient opportunity to discuss this matter under the relevant clause. The hon. member has already advanced these arguments and the hon. the Minister has reacted to them. He may not repeat them now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said—I just want this matter clarified—that I had proceeded from a false premise in this House in alleging that funds could not be transferred from one Vote to another. In the first place, I want to know whether I may reply to that, Mr. Chairman, May I reply to the accusation made by the hon. the Minister that I had advanced a specious argument? In the second place, Mr. Chairman, I submit that there is a difference between own affairs and agency affairs. In the case of own affairs, money can in fact be transferred from one Vote to another, but in the case of agency affairs, this cannot be done; in that case it is laid down whether or not this may be done. I submit that it is provided in the Bill—specifically in Schedule 1—that a Chamber is not allowed to transfer money from one Vote to another. I should also like to read that provision to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to react at this stage to the hon. the Minister’s allegation concerning the so-called false premises on which the hon. member’s argument is based.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Hon. members must please bear with me now. The hon. member for Lichtenburg has asked me to give a ruling, and I should like to say what my ruling is. The hon. member for Lichtenburg cannot react at this stage to what the hon. the Minister said. Later in the debate, when the clauses concerned come up for discussion, the hon. member will have sufficient opportunity to pursue the matter. I also wish to refer the hon. member once again to the contents of his own amendment. He wants the term “own affairs”, wherever it occurs, to be omitted and replaced by “agency affairs”. We were under the impression, therefore, that it was merely concerned with the question of whether the term “own affairs” or “agency affairs” should be applicable. However, the hon. member for Lichtenburg has given a completely different interpretation to it. As a result, we now find ourselves in deep waters. I therefore request the hon. member to confine himself to a discussion of the term “own affairs” or “agency affairs” in order to prevent any further problems from arising.

The hon. the Minister has accused me of proceeding from a false premise in my argument. Am I to leave the matter permanently unresolved? Shall I only be able to react to it on a later occasion, or do I have no right at all to defend myself in this respect?

Order! The hon. member will have sufficient opportunity to discuss the matter when the relevant clause is being debated. He will have another opportunity to do so when Schedule 1 comes up for discussion. He will then be able to discuss the matter in full.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to know in that case is why the hon. the Minister should not also be required to wait until we reach that stage before making his accusation against me. Why is he allowed to do so now, while I may only talk about it later? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member will concede that the hon. the Minister was reacting to the motivation given by the hon. member for his amendment.

And then the hon. the Minister made his accusation at the same time. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that it had been accepted at Second Reading that there would be decision-making by the respective groups. I agree with that. However, my argument is that there are different kinds of decision-making. There is a difference in the quality of the various forms of decision-making. In the first place I may put it as follows. The one kind of decision-making by a group …

Order! I really regret that I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue this line of argument. I am anxious to ensure that all arguments for and against this legislation are discussed in this Committee. I also wish hon. members to be able to advance all permissible arguments here. After all, this is also in the interests of the people outside, who listen to what is happening here. However, since I have ruled that we are only concerned here with the use of the term “own affairs” or “agency affairs”, the hon. member must not persist in putting a certain construction on the matter.

Mr. Chairman, decision-making with regard to own affairs is decision-making of one specific quality. Decision-making with regard to agency affairs is decision-making of a different quality. That is what I am trying to explain to hon. members. We are dealing here with two concepts—own affairs and agency affairs. The kind of decision-making which is provided for in this legislation is described as “own affairs”. In my humble opinion, however, these are not own affairs; they are agency affairs, because their quality corresponds to decision-making by an agency.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: What is at issue here is not the quality either of the decision-making or of the substance of the subject. What is at issue, as you have ruled, Mr. Chairman, is concepts. When clauses 14 to 18 and the schedules are put, hon. members can debate them ad nauseam. Then they can debate the question of whether, in their opinion, they are adequate or inadequate, and whether the quality is good or bad. I submit, with respect, that we cannot do so now.

Order! I agree with the hon. the Minister, and I have given my ruling accordingly. I therefore request the hon. member for Lichtenburg to obey my ruling. The hon. member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

I just want to repeat that “own affairs” and “agency affairs” also imply that an own affair would have provided for an own law to have priority over a general law. However, there is no provision for anything of the kind. The hon. the Minister of National Education has already said, and it is laid down in the legislation …

It seems that the hon. member does not wish to obey my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: When the hon. member for Lichtenburg wishes to point out to hon. members that the term “own affairs” is not the right description, and that is should rather be “agency affairs”, and he wishes to quote examples from the Constitution Bill to indicate that it is in actual fact not an own affair but an agency affair, we want to ask you to allow the hon. member for Lichtenburg to quote those examples.

Order! I understand the standpoint of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. His interpretation of “own affairs” and “agency affairs” differs from that of the governing party. However, that is not relevant. All that is relevant here is that the term “own affairs”, wherever it occurs, be replaced by “agency affairs”. As the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members have argued, what is at issue here is whether the terminology is correct. That is how I understand it. The hon. member for Lichtenburg wishes to give a certain interpretation to “own affairs” and “agency affairs”. There are clauses in the Bill under which the hon. member for Lichtenburg will be able to debate that point fully. I now ask hon. members to obey my ruling.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude by saying that if “agency affairs” is substituted for “own affairs”, it will be a much better description of what is dealt with in the legislation than the present wording which is contained in the measure.

Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said. We must examine all the references to “own affairs” throughout this Bill and we must ascertain whether, in the light of the provisions of the Bill, these are really own affairs. If they are not, then “own” is a misnomer. Then it should be “agency affairs”. “Own” has the connotation of self-determination. It is wrong in English and it is wrong in Afrikaans, because it implies self-determination. It has propagandist value.

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Lichtenburg referred to clause 98, to which the hon. the Minister did not reply. I just want to read a part of this clause to the hon. the Minister, because it is very important. In the light of the provisions of the Bill we must ascertain whether “own affairs” is the correct designation for what is contained in the Bill, yes or no. This clause refers to own affairs and it also refers to clause 14. It reads, inter alia as follows—

That is an own affair—

Order! The hon. member will have ample opportunity to discuss clause 14 as well as clause 98. However, the hon. member cannot take his argument any further in connection with the amendment which is before the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I put this point to you: In trying to define own affairs as own affairs or as agency affairs, it is obviously essential to consider the legislation as a whole in so far as it refers to this matter, in order to see what it means. When we consider clause 98, it is quite clear that own affairs can only be agency affairs in the light of clause 98 in particular. The hon. the Minister did not reply to this. He preferred to refer to a Bill which was still being discussed in the caucus and which had not been approved by the caucus, but referred to a Select Committee of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make only one remark. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Lichtenburg in respect of the definition would be correct if all the amendments to the Constitution Bill were accepted, for then the House of Assembly would be the sole legislative authority, as the hon. member for Helderkruin rightly indicated.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that hon. members on the Government side want to turn the Bill into a farce and do not want us to improve it. Listening to them, one cannot come to any other conclusion. We have a Bill before us, and I believe the intention in the Committee Stage is that we should try to improve every clause, even the wording of the clauses.

The hon. the Minister should therefore give consideration to this matter, because the term “own affairs” is not as descriptive as “agency affairs”. The term “agency affairs” is much closer to the truth. When one pays a visit to a farmer on his farm, he does not tell one that he is going to take a bucket to go and milk a thing or an affair; he says he has to milk the cow. One wants to use the right designation. I submit that “agency affairs” is appropriate in every context when one examines the Bill clause by clause. We in the CP have considered this matter carefully, much more carefully than the hon. members opposite, because it does not interest them. Many of them do not know what it is about. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider this matter. The term “agency affairs” is certainly much closer to the true meaning of each clause. We could point this out during the discussion of every clause.

I think the hon. the Minister should accede to our request at this stage. I am sure the hon. the Minister certainly wants us to improve the legislation, and that is what we wish to do. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider and to accept the amendment.

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

1. 4. To omit the word “President” wherever it occurs and to substitute “State President”.

I submit that we have become accustomed in South Africa to the term “State President”. It is of cultural and historical significance that we should refer to the State President in South Africa by that name, especially since he will now occupy the position of Prime Minister as well. We all know that the Head of State of the Republic of the Orange Free State was called “the State President”. We know that the same applied in the old Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek. We specifically chose this designation in 1961, when South Africa became a Republic. It was the designation we gave to our Head of State at that time. We do not speak of “His Honour”, “His Highness”, “His Majesty” or “His Excellency”. We refer to him as “Mr. State President”. The term has acquired a special meaning in the speech of ordinary people. The way the Bill reads at the moment, reference is made only to “President”. In South Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the term “president” has no particular significance. One speaks of the “president” of the Chamber of Commerce, of the “president” of an organization and of the “president” of a sporting club, and so on. There are several cases where the chairman is called “president”. This reminds me of the story about the lady who boasted to her friend that her husband had just been appointed president of the export division of his firm. The neighbour replied: “But that is nothing to be proud of. At the hypermarket around the corner there is a president of the fruit department.” The lady was deeply shocked by this information. She phoned the hypermarket and asked to speak to the president of the fruit department. The switchboard operator asked: Of the dried fruit or of the fresh fruit department?

However, let us confine ourselves to France and the USA and ask whether we should follow their example. [Interjections.] Since those hon. members are so anxious to give up their identity, let them accept the French or American identity. When that hon. member was still a good Nationalist, he spoke of “State President”. It was not the designation “President” which had an emotional connotation. The argument is now being used that in the international circles in which our Head of State is going to move, it would not be appropriate for him to be called “State President”. Surely that is not an argument. The position is that one country has a king; another has a president; another has an emperor; and yet another country has an ayatollah.

We shall have the whole lot in one man.

Every country has its own tradition and cultural history, and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will agree with me. A particular objection to the recommendations of the President’s Council is that until recently, no historian served on the President’s Council. I just want to read to hon. members what a well-known historian has said about this matter, about the recommendations of the President’s Council, and I say this in the context of the cultural-historical meaning of the designation “State President”. He says—

He goes on to say—

Mr. Chairman, I am saying these things because my argument is based on the fact that the cultural-historical importance of …

Who is that fellow?

I shall give the hon. the Minister his name in confidence.

Is it not Floors van Jaarsveld?

No, it will definitely not be Floors van Jaarsveld. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, let us recognize our historical ties, and let us refer to this very important office in South African public life as that of “State President”.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member. [Interjections.]

And what is to become now of all the speeches we have prepared? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, we have received no notice of the Government’s intention to change its mind. We ought, I believe, to tell the Government that they are indeed wrong “Staatspresident” is the title of a head of State. The State President is the head of State. The President, however, in terms of this Bill, is not only the “Staatshoof”; he is the executive head of State as well. To call the person who is the head of a Cabinet also a “Staatshoof” is a contradiction in terms.

We will not agree to the man who is going to be head of a Cabinet and also perhaps the head of the NP, also being known as the “Staatshoof”. [Interjections.] We will certainly not support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brakpan and accepted by the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I do sympathise with the standpoint of the hon. member for Sea Point. Unfortunately, we cannot get away from the factual situation. This is that if this proposed legislation comes into operation—when the Third Reading has been passed—the President will also be the head of State. Although he will be the Prime Minister as well, this does not detract from his specific role as State President. That is why I am quite prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Brakpan, as I have already indicated.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for having accepted this amendment. At the same time, I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that the title of State President is now obviously the title which he is going to acquire when the new dispensation comes into operation.

Order! That has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment.

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

1. 5. To omit the words “House” and “Houses” wherever they occur and to substitute “Chamber” and “Chambers”, respectively.

The hon. member for Pretoria West referred to the amendment as it is printed on the Order Paper and as it has now been moved. I just want to make it clear that we are obviously opposed to the Bill, but in moving the amendment, there are a few considerations which one may mention. In the first place, one is looking for a word which is more appropriate, a word which is more descriptive, or a word which is probably closer to the underlying principle of the legislation.

When the guidelines of the governing party were published last year subsequent to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech on 30 July 1982, the governing party formulated its own proposals by saying, with regard to Parliament—

It goes on to say—

Under “The President”—this will now become “State President”—it says the following—

Furthermore, dealing with “The Cabinet”—

The question is asked—this is the second leg of my argument—

The answer is—

It goes on to say—

The 1979 proposal, which was embodied in the Bill referred to the President’s Council, also provided that the third chamber or third house was to be that of the Asians with 13 members. It was to have been the Chamber of Delegates.

I have examined the history of the Westminster system, the British Parliament, in an attempt to discover where the term “House” actually originated. In the Bill which is before us, the term “House” is used. I get the impression that we have uncritically adopted the terms “House” of Lords and “House” of Commons used under the Westminster system. I do not know whether there is an hon. member in this House who could enlighten me on this, but I have been quite unable to discover why Britain speaks of a “House of Lords” and a “House of Commons” in its parliamentary system. I have not been able to discover that anywhere, except if I have to draw my own inferences. When we examine the history of the Westminster Parliament, we find the following—

Since the Government says that it wishes to move away from the Westminster system, and the third house or chamber was in fact called a chamber in the 1979 proposals; since the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of chambers in the proposal he made after the recommendations of the President’s Council had been dealt with; and since the governing party decided on the term “chamber” in the well-known blue booklet containing its constitutional guidelines, I think that, having regard to the principles of this Bill, it might be a much better description if we spoke of “chambers” instead of “houses”. Elsewhere in the Western World, too, there are Parliaments, the various houses of which are called “chambers”. I am thinking, for example, of the Dutch Parliament. A large part of our White population originally came from that country. Therefore it would not be so inappropriate to speak of “chambers”.

To sum up, I want to say that I think that under the dispensation which the governing party is proposing, “chamber” would give a better indication of the place, for in actual fact it is merely a place where the three respective population groups will meet. Since we wish to move away from the Westminster system, and the Government itself has used the term “chamber”, it might be better to use the term “chamber” instead of the term “house” in the proposed new dispensation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik read out a long quotation which did not really support his argument, since his reference to the term used by British Parliament really contradicts his argument in favour of “Chamber”.

The hon. member says we are moving away from the Westminster system.

You yourself say so.

It is true that we are moving away from the Westminster style of government in certain respects, away from the “winner takes all” style of government. However, it is also true that we are retaining important elements of the Westminster system. In fact, it is expressly stated in the Constitution Bill that the conventions that apply at present, will continue to apply.

Subject to the law.

Yes, subject to the law, but that is not the issue now. The hon. member is making inferences. The fact I am trying to emphasize is that we are still pursuing the Westminster model in certain important respects. The term “House” has not suddenly become a swear-word simply because the Westminster system also speaks of a “House”.

I do not understand the standpoint of the hon. member for Rissik either, bearing in mind the argument the hon. member for Brakpan has just raised in support of his own amendment. He argued that the term “State President” has a certain cultural-historic background, that it has become ingrained and that our people have become accustomed to this term. Apparently his argument was so well-founded, that the hon. the Minister accepted his amendment. However, now the hon. member for Rissik is saying that we should discard the old terms. What applied in the case of the amendment of the hon. member for Brakpan, applies equally here. The term “Chamber” has never been part of parliamentary terminology in South Africa. We have always used the term “House”. The “House of Assembly” is one concept, but we have always spoken of “die Parlementshuis” in Afrikaans and the “House of Assembly” in English.

The hon. member for Rissik put forward certain arguments in support of his amendment which, as I have just tried to indicate, are not valid. However, towards the end of his speech he indicated what the real motive for his amendment is, viz. that he wants to minimize the importance of the three Houses. That is in accordance with his party’s standpoint that people are going to assemble here in dark little rooms.

Order! The hon. member cannot proceed with that argument.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize that the concluding remark the hon. member made as to why the word “Chamber” would fit in better with what is proposed in the Bill then the word “House”, is the real motive for this amendment. It has nothing to do with being in accordance, or not, with the Westminster system. Nor does it have anything do with previous terms. The amendment simply fits in with the general attitude of those hon. members. Consequently, we cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we would like to make our own position on the amendment before the Committee quite clear. We will not be supporting the amendment. We do not believe that the case that has been made out is good enough. We think that the word “House” is more appropriate.

However, I can understand, when one listens to the argument of the CP and some of those who have spoken for them, that the Coloured and Indian Houses were in their judgement regarded to be permanently inferior. Prof. Boshoff was one of those people.

Order! I will not allow the hon. member to continue with that argument.

I would not dream of it, Sir.

The hon. member must come back to the amendment.

I am simply making the point that if they had made out a different case we could have listened to them and we may even have been persuaded to support them. Their case would then have to be that there should be one House and two Chambers. However, they did not advance that argument and so we simply cannot support them.

The second reason why we cannot support this amendment is that if you look at the English, it reads—

This word “Chamber” or “Chambers” in English has other connotations. One could think in terms of my lady’s chamber, and one would not want this to be restricted only to ladies, or one could think of “chambers” in the sense that the whole thing was going to pot! [Interjections.] We would also prefer not to develop this line of argument and for these two reasons we cannot support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay raised the argument that we should not discard old terms. The term “Chamber” is a very old one in our Parliamentary system. Originally, there were two “Chambers” in the South African Parliament. Later it became one “Chamber”, and then the idea originated of a tricameral Parliament in which Coloureds, Indians and Whites had to have representation. During this argument, reference has been made throughout to the “Chambers” of this Parliament. One now asks oneself what the motive is for calling it a “House”. I maintain that this is aimed at ostensibly giving the term “House” more substance.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: With respect, that is essentially the same argument I wanted to use and which was ruled out of order.

Order! The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed, but I shall watch him carefully.

All I want to say, therefore, is that a tricameral Parliamentary system is a more precise description of what is really being envisaged in this system.

Order! That is not the issue.

In conclusion, I just want to reiterate that the term “Chamber” meets all the requirements of the description of the system being envisaged.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay said that the CP had moved this amendment because we wanted to disparage the three Houses. I want to tell the hon. member that I think that they want to inflate the importance of the three Houses by presenting it in this way. Initially, the NP came forward with the term three Parliaments as regards the terminology for the new dispensation. I think the hon. the Prime Minister had very good intentions when he later came forward with the term three Chambers. The terminology in the legislation is different from that used by the Prime Minister and in the blue booklet. Does the hon. member for Mossel Bay now want to intimate that the hon. the Prime Minister was using terminology that had not been carefully considered when he used the term “Chamber”? [Interjections.] Were those hon. members concerned that the people who would fill the three Chambers (“Kamers”) would possibly refer to one another as “comrades” (“kamerade”)? [Interjections.] Does the Governing party want to alter the term “Chamber” to “House” because of question 20 in this blue booklet?

If you drop out, you will be leaving the Chamber (“kamerverlaters”). [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Innesdal entitled to make that vile insinuation?

Mr. Chairman, I was only joking.

The hon. member for Kuruman may proceed.

I should like to ask the next NP speaker to give us an indication of whether the NP has decided to alter the term “Chamber” to “House” because of question 20 in the blue booklet, which I read out. Will the Coloureds and Indians therefore be able to participate in resolving …

Order! That has nothing to do with the amendment before this Committee.

I should like to set out the history of this as it evolved, viz. three Parliaments with three Chambers, which is now to become three Houses. Now I want to know, once the differences have been resolved, whether it is not eventually going to be one House.

Mr. Chairman, I really think we can reassure the hon. members of the CP that there are absolutely no ulterior motives behind this change in terminology. It is true that there are historic and cultural precedents for both “Huis” and “Kamer” in Afrikaans, and that is why it was easy to use the term “Kamer” in the beginning, but the term “Chamber” as a part of Parliament is not really used in English, and it did not sound quite right. That, basically, is what convinced us to change over to two similar-sounding words in Afrikaans in order to make more sense in English. That is the basic motive for this. The only other consideration is that “Chamber” is a single concept, whereas “House” is really a more complex institution. Committee rooms, and so on, are also included in the concept “Chamber”. This all forms part of the term “House”. Consequently, the term “House” is a little more acceptable. The use of the word “House” is firmly established in Constitutional Law and in history. I could just add that by speaking of a bicameral or tricameral system, for example—that is still a technical term one could use, even if one uses the term “Houses”—one can still speak of a tricameral Parliament (“driekamerparlement”). In any case, that is the term being used. Consequently, there is nothing sinister about it.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to advance an argument based purely on semantic considerations. It is an argument which I believe will enrich and not impoverish the language. I am convinced that particularly recently, the word “House” has become synonymous with Parliament, and that the public at large sees Parliament as a “House”. I do not want to drag the term “House of Assembly” into it, since this could confuse the issue, but the fact of the matter is that Parliament has become synonymous with “House”.

I do not think that is correct.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central would do well to keep quiet and open his ears. I said that I was trying to be semantically constructive. I am not trying to make a political point. No, it is my contention that Parliament is really the all-important, embracing element. It is therefore equivalent to a House. If we were to call the subdivisions of Parliament Houses, I think our language and terminology would be impoverished, whereas if we were to call these subdivisions of the House Chambers, it would enrich our language. It would make for better and clearer expression. It is not confusing. It means that each Chamber, seen on its own, as a Chamber, is not synonymous with Parliament and House but that the three together are synonymous.

I therefore honestly believe that we are effecting an improvement here, in the sense that is going to be more easily distinguishable linguistically, and that it is also going to enrich the language, whilst at the same time being terms which will be more easily understood by the public at large, those who have become accustomed to specific terminology with regard to Parliament and House, since they will also be able to distinguish better what each term really means.

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to confine myself firstly to the adroit argument, which, although not mentioned by the hon. member for Rissik, is mentioned in respect of the use of the word “Chambers” in the blue booklet containing the guidelines. The fact is that with regard to the proposed composition of Parliament, we said that it would consist of three components. It was therefore described as a “driekamerparlement”—“tricameral Parliament” in English—without linking the term “Chamber” to the separate units of Parliament. Let us see whether I am wrong.

Of course you are wrong.

Of course, I am not trying to convince the hon. member for Jeppe, Mr. Chairman. That would mean that I would have to sink to his level. In any case, I would not get there, because that is too low. [Interjections.]

What are the facts of the matter? It was stated in the 1977 proposals, which, as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Jeppe accepted—in the guidelines of those proposals—that there would be three Parliaments. When the legislation that would give substance to the three Parliaments was formulated, the following terminology was used. There would be a House of Assembly for the Whites. There would be a House of Representatives for the Coloureds, and a House of Delegates for the Indians. That was the terminology that was used. We did not speak of a White Parliament, a Coloured Parliament, and an Indian or Asian Parliament. We therefore used different terms to describe the components or elements of the legislative authority.

“Chamber” was used consistently.

Surely that is not true, Mr. Chairman. I really do not want to argue with the hon. member for Jeppe, however.

I am also a member of this House.

One would not say so. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to argue with the hon. member for Rissik in the same spirit in which the hon. member for Koedoespoort argued. However, it is really not correct that a House is the equivalent of Parliament. It is not true in view of the course of our history.

The House of Parliament.

It is a “House of Parliament”, yes. It is not Parliament, however. The hon. member for De Aar should rather keep out of this. [Interjections.] We speak of a “House of Assembly”, but we translate this into Afrikaans with the term “Volksraad”. In our present dispensation the legislative authority, which is Parliament, consists of only one House. Surely that is correct. When our Parliament consisted of the Senate and the House of Assembly, we spoke of the two Houses. Therefore, the use of the word “House” to describe the composite elements of what we call the legislative authority, which is Parliament, is traditional and unique to our country’s history.

Is a “House” not defined by what is in it?

No, as far as I know, it is not defined by what is in it. When we speak of the “House of Commons”, we do not mean that the people who sit in it are “common”! [Interjections.] The use of the word “Huis” corresponds better with the English word “House”, and “Raad” is not suitable. We often argue incorrectly that what we are trying to do is to break away completely from the Westminster dispensation. Surely we do not want to break away completely from it. In all fairness, I want to say that no-one has ever claimed that is the case. We have never said that we are exchanging this particular system for another academic model. Hon. members will recall that the President’s Council recommended a consociation-al democracy in this regard. We did not accept that. We accepted elements of a new system, and retained elements of the old system. I think hon. members would concede that since we all began with this—and I am not saying this to be reproachful—not one of us who has been part of the constitutional reform process in an investigative capacity has bound ourselves to a particular title for a particular institution. That is true. This also applies to hon. members of the CP. If we want to argue that we have to be slavishly bound to particular terminology in respect of the description of the composite institutions that form Parliament, we have not made any progress at all. I wish to suggest that we retain the existing terms. There are still a number of provisions in this Bill, concerning which we have deep-seated differences, which we have to discuss with one another, and for that reason the hon. member’s amendment is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that the hon. the Minister replied in that vein. There are two aspects I want to discuss. I have never been able to ascertain why the British historically divide their Parliament into a House of Lords and a House of Commons. Historically, I have found this to be a scientific-academic problem. I could not understand why they use the term “House”, except that at that time the building was a palace in which people lived. I asked myself, if we have to decide on terms, how we would explain the terminology historically if we are moving away from the Westminster system. However, I can well understand that we do not want to substitute all the terminology. In my opinion, the hon. member for Helderkruin came closest to an explanation, viz. that the President’s Council made certain recommendations, and after the Government had accepted those recommendations, they referred to the three components as Chambers. Those are the three components that constitute Parliament as a whole. The hon. member for Helderkruin said that the reason for changing the term to “Huis”, is that the English translation for “Kamer” does not sound quite right. I have not looked at it again, but I think I have come across the term “Chamber” in various places, referring to the various Houses of British Parliament. I could be wrong, but …

I think you are wrong.

The hon. the Minister says that he thinks I am wrong. We can discuss that later.

But the acceptable term in the case of British Parliament is “House”.

I concede that.

I must just refer for a moment to clause 41, since these components also have other names in terms of that clause, and they will therefore not only be known as the three Houses of Parliament. One of the Houses will be known as the House of Assembly, the others will be referred to as the House of Representatives, and the third will be referred to as the House of Delegates. When we discuss that clause, we shall say why we want to use the term “Chamber”. It would be easier to use the term “Chamber” in a definition of the three components, and to use the name of the particular population group as an adjective for the definition of that particular Chamber. That is a debate that will take place at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has already told us not to argue about words; we can raise deep-rooted matters of principle in the debate that lies ahead. We can argue about more fundamental matters. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his decision and accept the word “Chamber”. Perhaps a House is larger and entails more than merely the Chamber, as the hon. the Minister put it. If this system does not work, and the three groups go their separate ways, partition would be the solution, as the Coloureds have said. If, in view of this, one thinks that “House” is a better term, I will accept that. Nevertheless, I think the hon. the Minister must reconsider using the term “Chamber”.

A House is subdivided into Chambers. I cannot accept the term “Chambers”.

Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. the Minister earlier what in the legislation indicated whether it is a Chamber or a House. What are these three Houses subject to? They are subject to one President. Are they three Houses, or is it a case of a “greater Assembly”? Should we perhaps refer to them, as was previously referred to the House of Assembly and the Senate, as “the other place”?

Order! I cannot permit the hon. member to speak about who is going to be in the different Houses.

With respect, Sir …

Order! The hon. member must afford me the opportunity of giving my ruling. I cannot permit the hon. member to speak about who sits in the Chambers or the Houses. The terminology is at issue here. The other hon. members argued about this, and if the hon. member has an argument to put forward on that score, I am giving him the opportunity of doing so.

I accept your ruling, Sir, but I want to point out that a Minister sits in a House. If this concerns terminology, it is true that every Minister sits in a House, even if there are 48 of them.

Order! What has that got to do with the amendment before the Committee?

Sir, I want to speak about the terminology. Should it be “House” or “Chamber”?

But one sleeps in a chamber.

Order!

I want to make a point. Let us go back to the term. It is only in places like Mongolia, Singapore, and so on, that one finds “tricameral chambers”. [Interjections.] There are multiple Chambers, tricameral Chambers, which do not constitute a House. Not one of these qualifies for the definition as we use it, where “House” is now being substituted for “Chamber”. I find the substitution of the term “Chamber” by the term “House” less definitive. One does not know precisely what is meant by the word “House”. The draftsman of the Constitution Bill spoke of “Chamber” for a long time. The hon. the Prime Minister has been speaking of “Chamber” in his speeches all the time. Now I want to know whether these people are confused about the difference between “House” and “Chamber”, or whether this is a new term being used to give a different connotation to the same content.

Mr. Chairman, the following question is asked in the well-known blue booklet—

The reply given, is—

Order! The hon. member cannot use that argument again. This concerns the terminology, and the hon. member must confine himself to that now.

Sir, I am coming to the terminology. It is stated here—

On occasion, the hon. the Minister said that we have one Parliament under one roof. Since the Governing party speaks of “one country, one government”, I find it logical, in view of the symbolic meaning of “one Parliament under one roof” that the three components be referred to as “Chambers” since one can have three Chambers under the same roof. Since this is to be altered to “Houses”, it seems to me as though the Government is moving away from its idea of having three Chambers as part of one Parliament, since the three Houses cannot be part of the same building. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as the term “House” is concerned, I want to say that a house usually stands on its own plot and the owner of that house has his own title deed. If that is the intention of the Government, if the house has its own plot … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the issue here is not the intention of the Government, but what is written in the Bill. There is a motion before this Committee that “Chamber” be substituted for “House”. The intention of the Government is not the issue at all. The hon. member can only address me on the terminology, and on nothing else.

Mr. Chairman, since we are speaking about the term “Chamber”, it is my contention that a chamber is part of a house under the same roof.

Order! That hon. member has already used that argument. I ask the hon. member to advance a new argument now, otherwise he must resume his seat. [Interjections.] Order! The Chair, and not hon. members, will decide when the hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, in presenting an argument, I shall simply use one sentence to complete it. I therefore politely request that you give me the opportunity of doing so. I said that with a view to the symbolic meaning of “one Parliament under one roof”, it is more descriptive to speak of the three “Chambers” of such a unit than the three “Houses”, since three “Houses” means three plots with proprietary rights for the various houses.

Mr. Chairman, I shall refrain from reacting to the hon. member.

Why do you not suggest “flats”?

Really, Sir, that hon. member would probably even be satisfied with the term “location”. [Interjections.] What are the facts, Sir? Just look at how absurd the argument of the hon. member for Kuruman really is. A Parliamentary building physically exists. Earlier, Parliament consisted of two Chambers, until the Senate was abolished. The two Chambers were housed under one roof. The name of the institution we are sitting in, was the “Volksraad”, the “House of Assembly” in English. What kind of nonsensical argument is the hon. member engaged in?

Mr. Chairman, I intend moving that the clause be negatived. In the discussion that follows, I shall try not to stoop to the level of the hon. the Minister.

Order!

A country’s constitution is pre-eminently that law which ought to be painfully clear and precise. It is the law that affects the weal and woe of all citizens of the State. There must be no room in that law for the least misunderstanding or lack of clarity. No one can doubt this point of departure, viz. that the constitution is pre-eminently that law which ought to be precisely and correctly worded.

There is a special reason why clarity of intention is particularly important in clause 1. Clause 1 deals with the territory of the Republic of South Africa. It describes the territory over which authority will be exercised under the new constitution. Therefore it goes without saying that it is imperative that this clause should be entirely correct and unambiguous. There must be no doubt about exactly what territory is to be governed.

The intention of the legislator in clause 1 with regard to the territorial basis of the Republic of South Africa, viz. the territory it governs, is not clearly enunciated in the Constitution Bill. The position is that the territorial basis of the Republic does in fact remain unchanged. That is the intention.

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I just wish to point out to him that he cannot at this stage discuss the amendment that a new clause be inserted. He may only discuss the existing clause in the Bill. His motion that a new clause be inserted, can only come up for discussion after the clause in the Bill has been negatived. Therefore I just wish to point out to the hon. member that he cannot at this point argue in favour of the insertion of a new clause.

Must I, then, only motivate the deletion of this one?

That is correct.

That is exactly what I am doing. The intention behind the existing wording is that the territorial basis of the Republic of South Africa should remain unchanged. However, the question is whether that wording renders that intention unambiquous. My standpoint is that there is some slight doubt in this regard—and I stress the word “slight”—created by the wording of the clause. This is my criticism of the clause. There is doubt as to the intention of the legislator. For that reason I have moved an amendment to clarify the intention. My amendment removed the existing doubt as regards the wording of the clause.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss his amendment now. He must confine himself to the motion that the clause be negatived.

The existing clause reads—

I emphasize the words “consisting of”. Therefore, in terms of the rules of the interpretation of laws, a restrictive interpretation applies, specifically because the components are mentioned. Therefore the clause cannot be interpreted to signify more than the four provinces. I think that is definite. My problem, and my criticism of clause 1, is that the way it is worded creates doubt as to whether precisely the same territorial basis as the existing territorial basis is envisaged in the Constitution Bill. The reason for this is that the wording of clause 1 differs from the corresponding section in the Constitution Bill tabled in 1979, which was not proceeded with. That Constitution Bill read as follows—

This wording gave effect to a situation which already existed. My question is why the sound wording in the 1979 Constitution Bill is not being followed in the present Bill? That is not clear to me. The reply to the question as to what in fact constitutes the territory of the Republic of South Africa is clear. “It is exactly the same as at present.” If we word it in this way, we shall not be leaving any room for doubt.

I foresee that a dispute may arise due to the definition of the territory of the Republic of South Africa as expounded in clause 1.

In an academic document submitted to the Select Committee the University of South Africa said that as far as clause 1 was concerned, a problem could arise as regards, for example, the independent national Black States that form part of the Republic, but that no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the province. They go on to mention that the Prince Edward Islands form part of the Republic, but not part of a province. Then, in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, various proposals were made. Let me quote to hon. members an abbreviated version of one proposal—

Another one read as follows—

Mr. Chairman, you will note that, as is clear from that evidence, all that was done on that occasion was to confirm the existing situation.

Let us take the case of Walvis Bay. There can be no doubt that Walvis Bay forms part of the Cape Province, and therefore of the Republic of South Africa as well. However, there an international woolliness to be detected in the political claims to Walvis Bay. Then, too, of course, there are the national States that have become independent and no longer form part of the territory of the Republic. There are also self-governing States that have certain constitutional claims with regard to parts of the territory of South Africa. Moreover, there are group areas that comprise large parts of the territory of South Africa and, of course, the Coloured rural areas, areas that, in the opinion of the CP, must form the basis of the establishment of the own national States of the Coloureds and the Indians.

Therefore it is my standpoint, Mr. Chairman, that in the light of the debates, the turmoil and even the international claims to, for example, Walvis Bay, it is better simply to confirm the existing territory of the Republic of South Africa, as is done in terms of the draft legislation of 1979. Merely to mention the four provinces again, as is done in the Bill at present before this House, is only to revert to the past; a repetition of the existing constitution of South Africa, which came into effect as long ago as 1961. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since our present constitution came into effect in 1961, and moreover, several changes have occurred with regard to the territory of South Africa. However, the status quo cannot be disputed. I therefore suggest that the slight doubt that does exist as regards the wording—and I suggest that doubt does exist—must be eliminated. This ought to be done by merely confirming the status quo, which has persisted for the past 22 years.

When one considers the enormous implications of border disputes and differences, at the tremendous consequences they could have, it is all the more vital to eliminate even the slightest doubt which may exist. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that a border dispute of this nature did arise between the Republic and the Transkei. South Africa had a strong case, but despite that, diplomatic relations were broken off and inter-State relations soured. Moreover, border disputes also cost money, cause a great deal of trouble, and tend to escalate from pure unfriendliness to boycotts and even to some of the bloodiest of wars, as is very clear from the long history of mankind.

I therefore request that we act in pursuance of the commendable wording of the draft legislation of 1979 to ensure that the little doubt that, as I have already indicated, does exist, may be eliminated. By doing that we should also place beyond all doubt the legal situation as regards what constitutes the territorial basis of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the statement of the hon. member for Jeppe is concerned, I want to concede at the outset that it is, in fact, necessary that the constitution for our State should be absolutely clear and contain precise definitions. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member on that score.

What I disagree with the hon. member about, however, is his argument that the present clause does not fulfil those requirements. I maintain that the present wording of this clause fulfils to a much greater extent the requirements laid down by the hon. member for Jeppe, and I want to support my argument briefly as follows.

Clause 1 deals with the continued existence of the Republic of South Africa as a State, and there are two important reasons why a clause of this nature must be included is a country’s constitution, and why we must begin with this very clause. The first reason in that, in a certain way, clause 1 contains a definition of the Republic of South Africa as a State. We could even say that this is a declaration, an introduction to the citizens of the Republic itself, as well as to the world at large, to the State we live in. If someone should ask us who and what this State is, where it is situated and what it entails, we must be able to produce the constitution and read the contents of clause 1. The wording of this clause must supply the three answers to every such questioner.

What if he asks you to whom Walvis Bay belongs?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte is asking what about Walvis Bay. Walvis Bay has been part of the Cape of Good Hope, which is one of the four provinces of the Republic of South Africa today, since 1884.

I just wanted to know what you have to say about this so that we can have it placed on record in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member for Langlaagte accepts what I have told him. I therefore assume that he will have no further problems with Walvis Bay.

Yes, I accept it. However, the Americans tell me that negotiations on Walvis Bay are in progress.

Yes, but I want to continue. The hon. member for Langlaagte can make his own speech in a moment.

I was saying that if someone should ask: Who and what is this State, and where is it?, clause 1 ought to furnish the answer. This clause—and I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Jeppe on that score—must finish unequivocal and clear answers to those questions. It is therefore essential that these three elements—the who, the where and the what—be contained in this definition or declaration. It therefore follows that this clause must refer pertinently and clearly to the name of the State we are dealing with, the territory of that State and the status and character of that State. As it stands before the Committee at present, the clause fulfils those three requirements. It contains all three these essential elements and our standpoint is that the clause should consequently remain unaltered. Clause 1 expressly stipulates that the name of the State is—The Republic of South Africa: it stipulates what the territory of the State is—it consists of the four provinces, which are mentioned by name; and it also expressly stipulates what the status and the character of the State is, viz. that it is a Republic.

Another fundamental reason for clause 1 being included in the Constitution Bill, is that, in the context of international law, it once again makes it clear to the citizens of this State and the world at large that the State, after having spelt out the who, the where and the what, the State we are dealing with at present, that entity as it exists at present, the State we are living in now, and as we know it now, will continue to exist unchanged when the new constitution comes into operation. Seen in the context of international law, it is therefore necessary for the citizens of the RSA and the world at large to be told clearly that a new or different kind of entity in the context of international law will not be established after the new constitution comes into operation, but that it is the same State as it has existed from 1961 until now, that will continue to exist, with the same name, the same territory and the same status and character.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Jeppe that these three essential elements I have already mentioned are contained in section 1 of our existing constitution. It is not necessary for me to read it to him, since I see he agrees with me. The hon. member also raised a number of arguments. The first argument I want to deal with is his argument about the islands and the self-governing non-independent States. The islands he referred to, do not form part of the territory of the Republic. They are the property of the Republic, but they do not form part of its territory, just as South Africa House, which is situated in Trafalgar Place in London, does not form part of the territory of the Republic of South Africa. It is our property and we own it, but it does not form part of our territory. I want to tell the hon. member that aspect cannot cause a judicial problem, or other problem as regards constitutional law.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask the hon. member—I have not studied that aspect very well—what his standpoint is on Robben Island? If the Prince Edward Islands do not form part of the territory of the Republic, does Robben Island fall into the same category, and I hope I am not on my way there?

The same argument which applies to all the other islands, which are the property of the Republic, applies to Robben Island. They are not part of its territory, however. Just as the British Embassy in Parliament Street, which is the property of the British Government, is not part of the territory of the United Kingdom, the islands are not part of the territory of the Republic of South Africa.

I now come back to another aspect the hon. member raised—that of the self-governing States. Surely he does not mean to say that those States are not part of the territory of the RSA at present. If he argues that they are not part of the territory of the RSA at present, he must tell us whose territory those States are part of. I think the hon. member would concede that argument is no reason why he should have any objection to the formulation of clause 1, as it reads at present. For that reason—there are various other reasons, too—we cannot accept the argument of the hon. member for Jeppe, nor can we accept his amendment. If they force a division, we shall have to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman. I should just like to react briefly. The hon. member for Ermelo understood my intention very clearly, which is that I just want there to be clarity as to exactly what the extent of the territory is. While the hon. member states that there is no uncertainty in this regard, he did not reply effectively to the arguments I advanced.

A memorandum was submitted to the Select Committee by the University of South Africa, and the points of view of other people who submitted evidence were also available. In view of that evidence I said that there was some degree of doubt. I did not say that the position was very doubtful. The uncertain situation that I was trying to indicate concerns the self-governing Black States, the group areas and the islands. The hon. member refers to Robben Island, and I have difficulty understanding his argument that Robben Island does not form part of the territory of the Republic, since because it is our property it forms part of our territory. For that reason, and in view of other arguments as well, I feel that when the 1979 Bill was drawn up, the law advisers showed great skill and zeal in determining a wording. Were they wrong? Well, I think they were right. My standpoint is still that there is some small degree of uncertainty concerning …

This one is better.

I do not believe it is better.

I therefore suggest that the minor uncertainty that does exist would be best eliminated by way of the new wording that I propose.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance we cannot accept the request of the hon. member that the clause be negatived. I should like the hon. member to consider the clause. Not only does the clause describe the territory of the Republic; another element, too, is referred to, i.e. the Republic as a State. The present wording seems to indicate clearly, in the first place, that although we are accepting a new constitution, the Republic continues to exist as a state—that is why it is stated that it will continue to exist “as such”. Therefore we are concerned with the Republic as a state or institution, as the state. The second element is one to which the hon. member for Jeppe referred. It is the geographical area over which we in this State have jurisdiction. I think that is the element the hon. member was debating. He argues that there is some small degree of uncertainty as regards determining the geographical or territorial comprising the RSA. Now, you have ruled, Sir, that we cannot argue the alternative proposed by the hon. member at this stage because it is not before the Committee before the first one has been negatived. The fact is that in the existing constitution, the geographical or territorial area of the Republic is described in exactly the same way as it has been specified in this clause. There has never been any uncertainty as to what constitutes that geographical area. Nor do I believe that the definition and the description can be deleted and replaced by anything that defines or describes it better.

The hon. member has asked certain questions with regard to aspects which, he feels, could entail uncertainties, and arguments to this effect have been advanced by academics as well. Let us just consider the first. The hon. member for Ermelo also referred to this. For example, people could argue about Walvis Bay. However, what are the facts? The hon. member also referred to the Prince Edward Islands, for example. There is no uncertainty about the fact that due to annexation, Walvis Bay forms part of the Cape Province. In other words, the description in the clause to the effect that the Republic of South Africa comprises the Cape Province and the other provinces accordingly includes the geographical area of Walvis Bay. Therefore there is no uncertainty whatsoever in that regard. As far as the Prince Edward Islands are concerned, the hon. member will be aware that in the Prince Edward Islands Act, No. 43 of 1948—this is important—it is confirmed that the islands have been annexed and form part of the Republic of South Africa. The Act further provides that the common law as applied in the Cape Province is the common law of that territory. Therefore, on that basis we cannot say that it forms part of the Cape Province. Accordingly, as the hon. member also said, it is a possession of the Republic itself. There is no legal uncertainty in this regard. In terms of clause 1 of the Constitution Bill the Republic will continue to exist as it is and in terms of clause 87—the hon. member could just look at that—all existing laws remain in force. This includes the Prince Edward Islands Act of 1948. Therefore the islands remain a possession, as the hon. member also argued, of the Republic of South Africa, despite the fact that in clause 1 reference is only made to the provinces. In other words, the present wording of clause 1, except for the words “as such”, have been taken from the existing 1961 constitution and no uncertainty, practical or theoretical, has yet arisen concerning the surface area or geographical area that constitutes the Republic. I therefore request that we do not reject this.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make one point. The hon. the Minister discussed my standpoint with regard to the slight uncertainty. In my opinion, he cold eliminate that slight uncertainty by inserting one word. Therefore I should like to move that the word “unaltered” be inserted after the word “exist”, so that the clause would read—

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to bandy arguments with the hon. member now, but as soon as we say “as such”, then that is precisely the concept propagated by the hon. member.

Where do the words “as such” appear?

The Select Committee amended the original wording “shall as such continue to exist” to read “shall continue to exist as a republic under that name” in order to ensure the continuity of the Republic itself as a State, and to eliminate any doubt in that regard.

Are you in favour of the wording “as such”?

No, I am not in favour of it. Initially we had the wording “as such”, but we amended the wording in the Select Committee because in our opinion the description of the provinces adequately defined the geographical area of the Republic. We included the words “shall continue to exist as a republic under that name” in order to describe the continuity of the State effectively and unambiguously.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister referred to the 1948 legislation on the Prince Edward Islands and said that those islands would be administered in terms of the common law of the Cape Province, but that they did not comprise part of the Cape Province. Would the hon. the Minister not concede that could create uncertainty? Instead of saying that these islands are a possession, it could be said that they form part of the territory of South Africa. Surely that would be far better.

I just want to refer, for the sake of clarity, to the alternative definition that is proposed. Note the assumption that uncertainty could exist and note the assumption that we want to improve the definition. What would be the point of inserting the words “as it existed at the inception of this Act”?

It would result in greater certainty as regards the legal position.

It does not achieve that at all, because it does not answer the question that the hon. member for Brakpan put to me. What is there in the proposed definition that creates certainty as regards the legal position of Walvis Bay or the Prince Edward Islands? The unambiguous legal status of Walvis Bay is due to its having been annexed and to its being recognized that it forms part of the Cape Province. The existing definition covers this and the alternative definition would also do so. The Prince Edward Islands are covered by a separate Act. There is no uncertainty in law as regards the fact that these islands are South African possessions. Although the islands do not form part of any province, they are South African possessions. Once again, the proposed definition would not achieve greater certainty than exists at present.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring one aspect to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The constitutions of many countries contains the words “whether by accession or otherwise” when referring to the territory of those countries. I am concerned about Walvis Bay. Is this definition not more comprehensive? [Interjections.] In the constitutions of many countries, e.g. that of Pakistan, the following words appear in the definition of the territory—

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that this clause does not refer to areas that may belong to South Africa in the future. It only refers to the four provinces: The Cape of Good Hope, Natal, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. Therefore there can be no debate as to which areas may be incorporated in the territory in future. I therefore rule that the hon. member is out of order.

I am merely making a suggestion. The hon. the Minister can amend the clause if he thinks I have given a good example. I was merely giving an example.

Order! There is no uncertainty whatsoever in law as regards that aspect in South Africa.

Clause agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.