Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) That the hours of sitting on Thursday, 25 August 1983, shall be as follows:
   14h15 to 17h30;
2. (2) that the hours of sitting on Friday, 26 August 1983, shall be as follows:
   10h30 to 12h45
   14h15 to 22h30;
3. (3) that Saturday, 27 August 1983, shall be a sitting day and that the hours of sitting shall be as follows:
   09h00 to 12h00;
4. (4) that, if the Committee Stage of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill has not been disposed of by 12h00 on Saturday, 27 August 1983, the provisions of Standing Order No. 155 (1)(b) shall apply.

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition want to express the strongest possible objection to the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the House, the effect of which will be to limit the time for the discussion of the Committee Stage of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill by applying the so-called guillotine measure. That is what happens while we are discussing here the most important legislative measure to come before this House during our lifetime. This motion, I submit, is a desecration of democracy. It amounts to an infringement of the basic rights of minority groups. [Interjections.]

I must express our extreme shock, our disappointment and indeed our surprise at this sudden decision to bulldoze this most important piece of legislation in this particular manner. A further effect of this action will be that hon. members who want to take part in the debate and who try to voice the viewpoints of their respective political parties are now being gagged and muzzled. We have been given the assurance at all times that adequate time will be given to this House in order to enable hon. members to discuss the Bill in all its stages and with all its implications.

We are all shocked, Mr. Speaker, because, firstly, no prior consultation has taken place between the hon. the Leader of the House and the leader of our party, or even between the Whips of the various parties in respect of this action taken by the hon. the Leader of the House. One would have expected the hon. the Leader of the House at least to have approached the Opposition parties in connection with the duration of the Committee Stage if he had in any way decided to limit the time for the Committee Stage debate. As all hon. members in this House should know, there is normally no limit to the time allotted for the discussion of a Bill during Committee Stage.

Bulldozer Botha! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Leader of the House had wanted to impose a time limit on this Committee Stage, he would, I should imagine, have indicated his reasons for wanting to do so, and I believe he would also have sought some accord with the various parties as he has so often done in the past. This, however, has not been the case. The Government is now abusing the Standing Rules and Orders of the House in order to accomplish their aims. This is done by way of invoking the provisions of Standing Order No. 155 in order to interrupt the business during Committee Stage to put an end to the proceedings of this Committee.

The hon. the Leader of the House will be the first one to admit that the smooth working of the procedures is accomplished by way of reaching agreement and cooperation among the various parties through their Whips. That is the way in which this is normally done. To ignore the Whips of the parties amounts to a breach of the traditions of this House. It is also a breach of the faith that has existed between them, and it does serious damage to the good relationships which, I thought, existed among them in respect of the procedures of this House.

In this respect I should like to quote a few examples of utterings made by the hon. the Leader of the House in the past. Taking a random one, I refer to what he said here on 16 March 1983. On that occasion the hon. the Leader of the House said, referring to the business of the House, and I quote (Hansard, 1983, col. 3135)—

In the opinion of the hon. the Leader of the House these Bills were so important that he had to reach an agreement on them with the party Whips. When it comes to the Constitution Bill, however, he does nothing of the sort. He does not seek to reach any type of agreement with the Whips of the various parties. [Interjections.]

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding previous and persistent promises and undertakings given by the Government by way of statements uttered by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the House, and also the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is in charge of this Bill, they have merely ignored those undertakings and gone back on their word, and that while we are supposed to be discussing a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa. All their undertakings have been unceremoniously broken.

What value therefore can we in Parliament, or even the public outside, place on the words and undertakings of the Government?

None at all. [Interjections.]

What do all their promises mean, Mr. Speaker? Allow, me to remind hon. members of a few of those promises and undertakings on the part of the Government. As recently as 20 March this year the hon. the Prime Minister himself, making an announcement in connection with the referendum to be held in connection with the constitution, said the following here in the House (Hansard, 1983, col. 4284)—

That was an undertaking given by the hon. the Prime Minister. That undertaking was received by hon. members with loud “hear hears”. On Wednesday, 20 April this year, the hon. the Prime Minister, speaking during the discussion of his Vote, said the following (Hansard, 1983, col. 5148)—

The hon. the Prime Minister then goes on to say—

Speaking again under his Vote later the same day, the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say (col. 5150)—

On Wednesday, 8 June 1983, the hon. the Prime Minister made a special announcement. According to Hansard, col. 8901, he said the following—

On 10 August 1983, in a statement made to this House by the hon. the Leader of the House, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, he said the following (Hansard, col. 10968)—

The hon. the Minister then went on to move the necessary motion.

Notwithstanding this fact, the Minister in charge of the Bill, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, had this to say on Wednesday, 1 June 1983 (Hansard, col. 8431)—

On the next day, when it was suggested that the Bill was being bulldozed through the House and allegations were made against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the following (Hansard, col. 8436)—

What about these undertakings, Sir? What about the promises that have been made?

They forgot about the Nat congresses, you see.

In the third place, Sir, I want to point out that there are approximately 180 amendments on the Order Paper to various clauses in the Bill. Every hon. member in this House knows what is entailed in the preparation of an amendment to a Bill. He knows the sub-committee work that has taken place; he knows what midnight oil has been burnt; he knows the amount of thought that has gone into the amendments; he knows the expense that Parliament has gone to print the amendments and place them on the Order Paper. Now the Government is seeking to prevent our discussing those amendments that we have prepared so carefully in order to proceed with the Committee Stage of this particular Bill. [Interjections.]

I want to say in the fourth instance that we are shocked because where during the Committee Stage we get down to the nitty gritty, we get down to the details, we get down to an in-depth discussion of the constitution, this will be denied to us. It is no compensation to tell us that we have 10 hours for the Third Reading of this Bill. As every hon. member in this House knows—perhaps people outside know it as well—it is the details of the Bill that are discussed during the Committee Stage. Once we reach the Third Reading stage, we cannot change anything. We cannot move any further amendments. All we are permitted to do is to discuss the amendments that have perhaps been accepted but any discussion on the other proposed amendments will be excluded. What will be the purpose of having a 10 hour debate during which we can only talk about the effects that the Bill will have while having been denied the right and the privilege to deal in Committee with all of our proposed amendments?

I also express my surprise, Sir, that in the same motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the House provision is made for the adjournment of the House on Thursday at 17h30 instead of 18h00. Why? It is to enable those members who wish to, to attend a flower show. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister wants to open a flower show. In this particular case, I want to say that we were consulted in regard to an early adjournment at 17h30 on Thursday. We had no objection to this but at that stage we did not know that the half-hour that we were going to lose was going to come off our debating time during the Committee Stage. Why were we not told at that stage that it was intended to move this motion to guillotine the discussion on the Committee Stage of this Bill? I express my disappointment. I do now know, perhaps going to a flower show is more important than discussing the constitution. [Interjections.] I want to express a further disappointment.

We have had considerable discussion in regard to the freedom of religion. We have also had discussions in regard to the rights of minorities. We have had a discussion on a Bill of Rights. Yet, the proposal to sit on Friday night and Saturday morning is a desecration to the Sabbath day of the people who subscribe to the Old Testament. With great respect, it is an insult to all those people who subscribe to the Old Testament. It is furthermore my belief that the very action of the hon. the Minister in saying to this House that we must now sit on Friday night and Saturday morning is taken in the form of a punishment like the master wielding the big stick. This is the attitude of the Government: If this is the way you want it, then I am going to punish you; I am going to make you sit on Friday night and Saturday morning because I know that you will not like it.

Why did the hon. the Minister not make it Thursday night? No, this comes in the form of a punishment. The Government says: I shall take away your private time. Well, even if he had suggested Thursday night, we in the official Opposition would have opposed it because we have been given undertakings that ample opportunity will be afforded to us to discuss the new constitution. We have been given the undertaking by the hon. the Prime Minister himself that no longer will this House be subjected to an all-night sitting in order to complete legislation before the end of a session. To sit on Monday nights and Wednesday nights is the normal procedure which has applied to this session from 8 August, the date on which we have come back specially to discuss the constitution and to deal in the Committee Stage of the Bill with the recommendations submitted by the Select Committee in the form of amendments.

What about the referendum? Is this the sort of impression that the Government wishes to create in so far as the voting public of South Africa are concerned? Is this the climate they wish to create? They are guillotining the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill. Surely this will do their own cause a tremendous lot of harm if they disallow the Opposition the opportunity to discuss the Bill.

It has been suggested that there has been a considerable waste of time and that the discussion on the first clause has been lengthy. Surely the Government must have contemplated that the discussion on certain clauses would be time consuming. I think it was within the contemplation of every hon. member of the House that the Committee Stage would take a minimum of three weeks. Why should the Government now turn around and say that they want the Committee Stage to be dealt with in one week only? Up to this stage we have dealt with only seven clauses while the Bill contains 103 clauses.

It may be true that the CP, one of the Opposition parties, has been particularly active in discussing certain clauses, but surely the Government must have anticipated this. Surely the Government knows this is the very essence of the difference between the CP and the NP; this is the very reason why they broke away from the NP in order to form a new party. They are probably justifying their existence as a separate party, not that we agree with them. The Government must have known that this is the reason why the debates in the Committee Stage are time consuming, they should have realized that the debates would be acrimonious. The hon. members on the other side are experienced parliamentarians and they must have realized all this, but it seems to me they do not like the type of criticism levelled at them. When we started this debate, each party was allowed 10 minutes to outline its case. I have made an analysis of the time that has been spent in the Committee Stage up to this moment. As I say, when the debate commenced, each party was allowed 10 minutes to put its case. The leaders of the parties or their representatives took up 31 minutes, but the hon. the Minister then replied for 45 minutes. Who is then taking up the time? On clause 1 Opposition parties took up 83 minutes, of which the CP took up 48 minutes while the Government members and the hon. the Minister took up 50 minutes. On clause 2 the Opposition parties took up 126 minutes and the NP took up 100 minutes, of which the hon. the Minister took up 58 minutes. Clause 3 only took 22 minutes. Clause 4 only took 19 minutes. Clauses 5 only took 8 minutes. On clause 6 the Government took up 24 minutes out of 79 minutes. In regard to clause 7, with which we are still dealing, the state of play at this stage, as I see it, is that of the 254 minutes that we have taken up so far, the NP have taken up 120 minutes of which the hon. the Minister has taken up 63 minutes while the CP have taken up 57 minutes and the other Opposition parties 81 minutes.

At this early stage, when we have only reached clause 7, the Government comes with this motion. If we had already been at this for two or three weeks, perhaps one could understand it if we were approached and asked whether it would be possible to limit the debate. However, for the Government to come with this motion after we have discussed only seven clauses of the Bill is, in my opinion, disgusting and disgraceful. Surely the Government must realize what the effect is of imposing this guillotine measure if this motion should be carried and the Government cannot be persuaded to withdraw it. If at 12 o’clock on Saturday we are discussing clause 22 or 23, all the subsequent amendments will fall away and there will be no further discussion on the details of the Bill.

Different parties place emphasis on different portions of the Bill. I can understand the CP placing emphasis on “Almighty God”. I think we are entitled to speak about that for a day if we want to. Do you not agree, Sir?

Sure, he made it seven days.

If they want to emphasize the religious side or the flag, that is their right. If we want to emphasize the President’s Council, the financial aspects, Schedule 1 or the Preamble, that is our prerogative. If the NRP want to place emphasis on some other aspect, it is their prerogative. We are now to be denied the opportunity of talking about the details on which we want to place the emphasis.

It is common cause in the House that clauses 7, 14, 19, 20, 31, 34 and 37 are clauses involving principles with which one can deal on a wider basis. If we only get to clause 21 at 12 o’clock on Saturday, are we going to be deprived of the opportunity to talk about the other clauses involving principles? Are we going to be deprived of the opportunity to talk about the financial aspects, for example, which introduce a completely new concept into the constitution? Are we not going to be able to get down to the nitty-gritty of how the financial aspects are going to work? The President’s Council, the Schedule in relation to own affairs, and the Preamble are all matters we are going to be denied the opportunity to discuss.

I must therefore ask the hon. the Leader of the House the reason for this guillotine. Let him state clearly to the House whether he thinks the Opposition parties are talking too much as a result of which he now wants to muzzle and silence them, or guillotine them, or whether he wants to get ready for the NP congresses in the Free State on 6 September and in Transvaal on 13 September. Or does he want two months within which to announce the referendum so that it can be held before the Middelburg by-election on 26 October?

There is also an irresistible inference to be drawn from this motion. That inference is that the Government cannot handle the onslaught by the Opposition parties on the details contained in the clauses. They cannot face up to exposing the details so that the public outside, who will be called upon to vote in the referendum, will know the implications of the constitution.

I want to conclude by saying that the official Opposition, and I believe the voters of South Africa, wish to hold the Prime Minister, the Government and the Leader of the House to their word, to their undertaking, that ample opportunity will be given to discuss all stages of this Bill, and we oppose this motion tooth and nail.

Lasty, I believe it is an insult to Parliament and to South Africa that the guillotine is used on this important Bill and used by the governing party in terms of the Standing Order which was introduced to this House as long ago as 1963. The last time the guillotine was used, over 20 years ago, was in respect of the Liquor Amendment Bill. It has never been used in respect of any other Bill since. Here we have the most important Bill for South Africa in the eyes of the world and the voters of South Africa, and the Government chops it. Be it on their heads.

We call upon the hon. the Leader of the House and the Government to withdraw this motion here and now.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to three specific things the hon. member for Hillbrow said. Then I want to explain my approach to the whole matter. In that way I shall be dealing with the hon. member’s argument.

Firstly I want to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Hillbrow said that there are approximately 180 amendments on the Order Paper. It is, of course, convenient to be able to mention that with a view to creating a little atmosphere, but the fact of the matter is that a large number of those amendments are consequential amendments that lapse because other amendments have already been accepted by the House. If the hon. member had made a detailed analysis of the situation, he would have reached a completely different figure.

Secondly I want to say that I am disappointed at the hon. member’s speech in one specific respect. After having reached an agreement with the Whips on this side of the House in regard to the adjournment of the House on Thursday afternoon and Friday, he now wants to go back on that agreement and accuse the Government of all manner of mala fides as far as that is concerned. The fact is that additional time is being allocated and there is no question of half an hour being taken away and there being half an hour less available for discussion in the Committee Stage. I think the hon. member is being unreasonable as far as that is concerned.

Thirdly I want to tell the hon. member, in connection with his objection to sitting on a Friday and a Saturday, which is said to be contrary to the observance of the Sabbath by certain members of the House, that it is a great pity that this is how things are, but what bothers me is the fact that the House has, on many occasions, sat on a Friday and a Saturday, though this is the first time in the 13 years I have been here that I have heard that objection raised. Under the circumstances it sounds to me somewhat artificial.

The hon. member for Hillbrow quoted what the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, what the hon. the Minister of Manpower, the Leader of the House, said and what the hon. the Prime Minister said. He said that the Prime Minister had said that “sufficient time for reasonable discussion of the Bill” would be allowed. In the case of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, he said that the Minister had said that Parliament would sit for as long as was necessary for the essential elements of this Bill to be discussed. Against that background I want to say at once that the Government stands by each of the undertakings it gave. The Government’s standpoint is that all parties in this House must be given a reasonable opportunity to put their standpoint in regard to this Bill. That is a fundamental principle and accords with parliamentary tradition.

Is it a general affair or an own affair?

Sir, the hon. member for Bryanston is trying out a new lifestyle. I have heard of people being able to sing in a chorus, but he is trying to shout in a chorus. The shouting is coming from his side.

It is also part of the democratic tradition that a fair and adequate opportunity be granted for the discussion of Bills in the House of Assembly. That tradition or principle is that much more applicable when we are dealing with the country’s constitution. It is also true, however, that democracy and democratic institutions can be abused. This is not unique to South Africa or South African democratic institutions, the fact being that we encounter this throughout the world. In the United States Senate there is a process well-known throughout the world, and here I am referring to the process of filibustering.

Probably Crocker that told you about that.

What the process of filibustering amounts to is that a minority in the Senate, which cannot succeed in making its influence felt, uses Senate procedure in an attempt to prevent a specific Bill from being passed by the Senate. Speeches of members or Senators in the United States Senate are not subject to any time limits. What this amounts to is that a member will stand up and just go on talking. In this way the ordinary democratic process in America is impeded.

In England we have the concept of stonewalling, where a minority group in the House of Assembly tries to paralyse Parliament as a whole. In Germany the same concept is referred to as “dauerreden”. In all these countries, in all the countries of the world where the possibility of filibustering or stonewalling exists, there are methods built in to the rules of Parliament to break up these delaying tactics. [Interjections.] I am not going to make any insinuations. Let me tell hon. members exactly what I am getting at.

In the USA there is rule 22 built into the Senate Standing Orders, a rule in terms of which the Senate can, with a two-thirds majority, put a stop to filibustering. This rule has been applied very often. In all those instances opposition members, those in the minority, had made the same kind of speech as the hon. member for Hillbrow made here this afternoon. Rule 22 has never been applied when speakers have not been using the same tactics as those used by the hon. member this afternoon.

In England this problem is also experienced, with debates being drawn out in an effort to bring the democratic process to a standstill. It is in England that the guillotine principle developed, a principle which was applied in England for the first time in 1881. Subsequently it has been implemented dozens of times to prevent long drawn-out debates. The guillotine principle is therefore a principle having its origins in the mother of Parliaments. It is also a principle that is applied throughout the civilized world, in all civilized Parliaments. It is true that the guillotine principle is used much less often in England today. The reason for this lies in the fact that the Standing Rules and Orders in England embody certain restrictions relating to debates.

What is involved here is the granting of a reasonable opportunity for discussing a Bill, and this does not mean an unrestricted opportunity, nor an unlimited or indeterminable opportunity. A reasonable opportunity means a reasonable opportunity. [Interjections.] In the South African Parliament there were, initially, few restrictions as far as debating was concerned. Over the years the guillotine has been used very frequently. The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the fact that it has been many years since the guillotine principle was last used in our country, but this is so because over the years certain restrictions have been built into the Standing Rules and Orders.

Not in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur is correct. There is only a slight restriction as far as the Committee Stage is concerned. These days we have far fewer restrictions and guillotine procedures in Parliament, specifically because South Africa has also built certain restrictions into the House’s rules of debate. I think it would perhaps be useful for us to look at what restrictions on debating do exist, and I should like to refer to the restrictions. The fact that a debate is restricted does not mean a violation of democracy. Restricting a debate forms part of the arrangements for ordering parliamentary procedure, something that simply must be done from time to time. If one looks at Standing Order No. 55(3), one sees that the debate for the introduction of a Bill is restricted to one hour. Standing Order No. 55(3) states further, that no speech shall exceed 10 minutes. So these are restrictions. If one looks at Standing Order No. 58, one sees a 12-hour restriction for the Second Reading of a Bill, a time limit that can be extended by Mr. Speaker under certain circumstances. If one looks at Standing Order No. 73, one sees that debates on Part Appropriation Bills are restricted on the following lines: In the case of the Central Government Part Appropriation Bill, 12 hours is allowed for the Second Reading and three hours for the Third Reading; in the case of the Railway and Harbour Part Appropriation Bill, 10 hours is allowed for the Second Reading and two hours for the Third Reading; and in the case of the Post Office Part Appropriation Bill four hours is allowed for the Second Reading and two hours for the Third Reading. We therefore see restrictions built in on numerous occasions and at numerous points, and specifically when it comes to the Third Reading of a Bill. Standing Order No. 69, for example, reads as follows—

In other words, not only as far as that is concerned, but also in other contexts, there are restrictions placed on debates. The half-hour adjournment rule is a restriction. In regard to adjournments in connection with certain urgent matters there is a restriction, and there are various restrictions placed on the actions of hon. members in this House. What does this mean? It means that the argument that a restriction placed on a debate is a violation of democratic rights and of the rights of the Opposition is, in my opinion, not a valid one. The principle of restricting debates is part of our parliamentary tradition, of that of all Parliaments throughout the world.

The point I want to make is that the mere fact of restrictions does not mean a curtailment of democracy. There are, however—and now I come to what the hon. member for Groote Schuur said—virtually no restrictions in regard to the Committee Stage. The only restriction that does exist is that which states that no hon. member may speak more than three times, and not for longer than 10 minutes at a time. The fact that there is no general restriction built into the rules in regard to the Committee Stage is based on practical considerations. It is impossible to lay down any objective criteria in regard to the Committee Stage of a Bill, and that is why the Standing Rules and Orders do not say anything about this. This opens the door to the use of delaying tactics, such tactics only being possible during the Committee Stage in our Parliament.

In this connection I specifically want to refer to the CP. The CP has 17 members, and theoretically, if each of those 17 hon. members were to talk on each clause—as they have already tried to do—each could speak for 50 hours and they could carry on in this way for more than 800 hours. They stand accused by the very way they are conducting themselves, and the motivation for their conduct … [Interjections.] To give the House some indication of the way they have been conducting themselves, I just want to point out that in the past three days the presiding officers have found it necessary to address members of the CP more than 50 times for having contravened the rules of debate. I am grateful to the hon. member for Losberg for this data. He collected it for me.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May we, in this debate, discuss the actions of the presiding officers?

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central mentioned only one figure in connection with his observations about the debate thus far.

Mr. Speaker, if in the discussion of only seven clauses in the debate, the CP members have had to be called to order more than 50 times for having disregarded the rules of debate, this could happen more than 800 times for 103 clauses. Is it therefore unreasonable for a responsible Government to say that this must stop? At one stage we saw the CP, unable to continue debating, resorting to whining. Their actions were those of …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are the present arguments being employed by the hon. member not an encroachment and reflection upon the dignity of our parliamentary presiding officers?

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central must withdraw the word “whining”.

I withdraw it, Sir. I want to point out that the only motivation for this measure, on the part of the Government, lies in the conduct of the Opposition. [Interjections.] If we cannot discuss the conduct of the Opposition in this debate, in this case the conduct of the CP in particular, it is difficult—problematic—to explain why the Government has come forward with this motion. The Government is not doing this wilfully, having come forward with the motion specifically because of the conduct of the CP during this debate. They have been adopting delaying tactics, and that is, after all, obstructionism. Their motives are not above suspicion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is using terms such as “delaying tactics”, “interfering with the democratic process”, “obstruction”, etc. My submission is that he is thereby casting a reflection on the Chair, because what he is saying implies that the Chair has permitted certain irregularities.

Order! I do not regard it as a reflection on the Chair. The hon. member for Pretoria Central is giving his opinion of how the debate has progressed thus far.

Sir, I am saying that in this connection the motives of the CP are not above suspicion. Their conduct has nothing to do with democracy.

The hon. member for Hillbrow made a great fuss about the action taken by the Government in this connection. Is the hon. member convinced, however, that members of the CP are not engaging in delaying tactics? What is the hon. member for Hill-brow’s opinion? Is it his standpoint that members of the CP are not engaging in delaying tactics? [Interjections.] I am not talking to the hon. member for Langlaagte now. I am trying to obtain the reaction of the hon. member for Hillbrow, but apparently I am not succeeding. I contend, nevertheless, that hon. members of the PFP will agree with me when I say that the members of the CP are engaging in delaying tactics. No Government would lightly resort to this step. [Interjections.] It is an expedient that is only resorted to in order to allow the parliamentary process to develop and be maintained in an orderly fashion and to allow democracy to work properly. [Interjections.]

What are the facts of the matter, Mr. Speaker? What are the facts relating to the time already taken up by the discussion of the Bill we are now dealing with? Firstly, 58 minutes were devoted to the introduction stage prior to First Reading. The Second Reading Stage took 16 hours and 47 minutes. The discussion in this House of the motions of instruction, which were both related to this legislation, took up 15 hours and 17 minutes, and the Committee Stage has thus far taken up 16 hours and 49 minutes. In total Parliament has therefore, give or take a few minutes, already spent 50 hours on the discussion of this Bill.

Is that too long for a discussion of a constitution?

If we go on discussing the Committee Stage from tomorrow until Saturday, this would give us another 20 hours for that discussion. [Interjections.]

Order!

Moreover, although the ordinary rules of debate provide for only two hours for the Third Reading stage of a Bill, in view of the fact that this Bill embodies definite differences in principle between the Government and the Opposition parties, the Government has decided to extend the Third Reading debate to ten hours, excluding the hon. the Minister’s reply. Surely that is evidence of a Government that is not trying to smother the debate. [Interjections.] Those are the actions of a Government trying to allow the debate to flow smoothly and to give each member an opportunity to put his case. [Interjections.]

Together with the hon. the Minister’s reply, the discussion of this Bill, in the House of Assembly alone, will have taken up more than 80 hours. In parliamentary time this is a full three weeks. In spite of these facts, however, the Select Committee on the Constitution, in which hon. members of all the Opposition parties and of the governing party were represented, sat for 17 days, having deliberated for a total of 65 hours and 28 minutes. The most important aspect, however, is that the Select Committee set aside an additional three days for the discussion of the Constitution Bill, time which was not used because the respective hon. members had nothing more to say at that stage. [Interjections.] That is, of course, an indication of the fact that sufficient time was made available for the discussion of the Bill and that all hon. members found this arrangement quite satisfactory. [Interjections.]

Order!

If we take all these facts into consideration, Mr. Speaker, we find that Parliament has spent more than 146 hours on the discussion of this specific Bill. As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is the longest discussion ever devoted to a single Bill since the advent of Republic in 1961.

The CP—and I say this with all due respect—wants to make a farce of the parliamentary process. It wants to keep the Government busy for months on end, because they know full well, of course, that the electorate must be asked to vote “yes” or “no” in the referendum. Hon. members of the CP are afraid of that referendum, and that is why they are doing this. [Interjections.] That is why they are filibustering this debate. They are filibustering the debate. They are filibusters engaged in delaying tactics.

Mr. Speaker, what does one call such people? One cannot call them marathon-speakers.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pretoria Central entitled to refer to hon. members of this House as “these people”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central must refer to hon. members of this House as “hon. members”.

Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly refer to hon. members as hon. members. If it will make the hon. member for Rissik feel any better, I shall apologize for having referred to hon. members of his party as people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister of Community Development say we are not people? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Minister of Community Development say hon. members of the CP are not people?

Mr. Speaker, I was in no way referring to those hon. members. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central may proceed.

When people are trying to champion a cause, one can call them marathon-speakers. The word “marathon” has a positive connotation, however, and therefore I think we should rather abandon the name “marathon-speakers”. In my view those hon. members are not “marathonners” (marathon-speakers), but rather “pratertonners” (long-winded speakers). When one is undertaking a long and difficult journey, they go on a “landloop” (cross-country run). One cannot, however, call them “landlopers” (cross-country runners), because that has a positive connotation. Perhaps one should refer to them as “babbellopers” (the long-winded prattlers).

When those hon. members are engaged in filibustering tactics, one can surely refer to them as filibusters. The point I want to make is that the action taken by the Government is aimed at those “babbellopers”, those “pratertonners” and those filibusters, and all because they are afraid of the voters of South Africa, afraid of going to the electorate and saying: Come as quickly as possible. Say what you have to say, say “yes” or “no”. That is the important question involved, and that is also what this debate is all about.

The “Stem van Suid-Afrika” is the confession of faith of the patriot, the patriotic South African who wants to give an undertaking as far as his country is concerned. The hon. member for Benoni focused my attention to the last two lines of the third verse, and I think that this is the patriot’s message to South Africa—

Mr. Speaker, today the hon. member for Pretoria Central tried to point out, by using all kinds of outlandish words such as “filibusters”, and so on, that the CP was engaged in delaying tactics, that we were the ones who were trying to stifle this debate. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow also pointed out that until now, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has spoken more than any of the Opposition parties. [Interjections.] As I was saying, the hon. member for Pretoria Central said that the CP, the 17 members of the CP, were engaged in delaying tactics, by the way they were acting during the Committee Stage of the Bill. I want to tell that hon. member that today he furnished the best proof of the concern in the Government party about the way in which the CP is conducting the battle in this House against the introduction of power-sharing and a mixed Government in South Africa. [Interjections.]

What I also find very odd about this debate, which would normally be a debate among the Whips of the various parties, is that the Government party is using the hon. member for Pretoria Central to state their case. He told us about the agreement that had been reached among the Whips. I should like to tell that hon. member, who quoted examples from America and England concerning the implementation of the guillotine mechanism, that it seems to me as if he knows more about America and England than he knows about what is going on in our own country. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow gave various examples to show how this House and the various parties had been promised that there would be an opportunity for an in-depth discussion of the Constitution Bill. At this stage, I should like to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House—

We are not moving a motion that paragraph (1) be omitted as well, since the CP is in favour of the House adjourning at 17h30 on Thursday evening, i.e. 30 minutes earlier than the normal time of adjournment. We reached that agreement during discussions among the Whips of the various parties. We agreed that we would adjourn a half-hour earlier on Thursday evening to enable hon. members to attend a flower show which is to be opened by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Concerning the question as to whether or not the House would sit on Friday morning, 12 August, after discussions among the Whips of the various parties, the CP supported the motion that the House would not sit. This was agreed to by the Whips of the four parties. I did not take it amiss of the hon. the Leader of the House, when he said that he had received requests from all four the parties that the House should not sit on Friday, since it was agreed that members should have the opportunity of preparing for the debate on the Constitution Bill which lay ahead.

The CP has been willing to co-operate in respect of the sitting hours of the House throughout. Why? Because the hon. the Leader of the House led us to believe that he and the Government were in no hurry, and that there would be sufficient time for the discussion of the Constitution Bill. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the House told the Whips that he did not deem it necessary to alter the hours of sitting.

Its Constitution Act is the most important law in the life of any people. The Constitutional Bill now being considered by this House is bringing about drastic changes which affect the Whites and their future. [Interjections.] The CP finds the attempt by the hon. the Leader of the House to steamroller the Committee Stage of the constitution Bill by his motion as contained in paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), is completely unacceptable.

Firstly, I find the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House both odd and unacceptable. The hon. the Leader of the House summoned me yesterday at 13h40 and asked me whether I could give the undertaking on behalf of the CP that the committee Stage would be disposed of by Friday evening. As Chief Whip of the CP, I was unable to give the hon. the Leader of the House such an undertaking. The hon. the Leader asked us to assist in getting the Committee Stage finalized. In turn, I asked that a motion be submitted to the Chief whip of the Government so that the Whips of the various parties could discuss the matter. That is how matters among the various parties were regulated in the past. The Chief Whip of the Government has always co-operated well with us. I think the Whips of the various parties in the House co-operate well.

Instead of the hon. the Chief Whip of the Government putting forward a motion for discussion to the various Opposition Whips, the hon. the Leader of the House rose in this House yesterday afternoon and gave notice of the motion that appears on the Order Paper today without discussing with me, as Chief Whip of the CP, the contents of the motion, as it stands on the Order Paper.

Is this action by the hon. the Leader of the House just as impulsive as his challenge—which turned out to be catastrophic for the NP—to the hon. the Leader of the CP? Do his actions reflect the intolerance of the Government party towards members of other parties who may disagree with them? Do his actions reflect the dictatorial way in which the Government party wants to force its will upon this Parliament?

Why force a guillotine rule? It is common cause that forcing the guillotine rule could have dire consequences for the Government party. They have had to steel themselves in advance against the barrage of criticism from all possible quarters—from political quarters, academic quarters, people within their own ranks, from overseas, and all reasonable people. Despite that, this fatal step is still being taken. Why? What is behind this guillotine motion? There can only be one reason: Sheer panic. The Government’s constitutional house of cards is in the process of collapsing under the attacks by the CP. [Interjections.] The Government is trying to prevent the true facts about the new constitution coming to light.

Do you really believe that?

Forcing the guillotine rule is therefore nothing but a sophisticated cover-up, a cover-up of what the draft Constitution really means.

What events preceded this? The watchword in NP circles in discussing the proposed new constitutional dispensation has become: “There is plenty of time; we shall discuss this in detail at a later stage”. I am still hearing the refrain I heard when I was a member of that party. When the draft Bill of 1979 was laid upon the Table, the NP caucus gave the assurance that it would, in fact, be discussed in detail at a later stage. In this way, the NP’s concept of 1979 was presented to the world as being an NP proposal, but the truth is that it was never approved by the NP caucus. The reply was that it would be discussed in detail at a later stage.

I recall that before the 1981 election, when we asked what reply we should give if the voters asked us what the NP’s standpoint is in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians, we were told that the President’s Council was considering the proposals and that we should wait patiently until those proposals had been considered, after which there would be sufficient time to discuss them. Before there had been an opportunity of discussing them however, the caucus was expected to adopt a motion of confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister and to give its unqualified support to his interpretation of NP policy, which amounted to power-sharing and included a mixed Government. The same thing happened during the proceedings of the recent sitting of the Select Committee on the Constitution. Once again the watchword “We can debate this in detail at a later stage”, was used.

During the Committee Stage.

In this way, the proceedings of the Select Committee were also steamrollered.

That will be the day.

An ill-concealed attempt was made to steamroller proceedings one again during the Committee Stage. For example, the hon. member for Helderkruin said that the question of the S.A. Defence Force would, in fact, be discussed in depth at a later stage, he did not want to react to interjections on where that discussion would take place.

I now come to the guillotine rule. The implementation of the guillotine rule has now placed the seal on a long-standing strategy that the NP’s new constitutional dispensation should be kept under wraps. Nothing has come of the promises by the NP that they would, in fact, be discussed in detail at a later stage. These broken promises are only a few in a long line of broken promises by the present Government. This is nothing but political fraud and a violation of democracy.

What does one infer from this? One has no choice but to make the inevitable inference that there is a well-planned strategy in Government ranks to conceal the true implications of the new constitution. This, therefore, is a blatant cover-up of the integration and the inevitable dictatorship that are to follow. What is the Government trying to conceal? It is trying to conceal the fact that this Bill sounds the death knell for the self-determination of the Whites. It is trying to conceal the fact that, in fact, there are no own affairs, and that consequently there is no self-determination, since the only self-determination there could be, is dependent on the own affairs a people can decide on in its own Parliament. (Interjections.) Those hon. members can make snide remarks if they wish. They can curse and be abusive and make snide remarks about the CP if they wish, but I know that they are concerned that the implications of the constitution they approve of, and which they want to give South Africa …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: the hon. member for Kuruman says that there has been cursing and abuse here, it is my contention that is a reflection on the Chair.

The hon. member may proceed.

those hon. members are concerned that the true consequences of the constitution will be disclosed …

You have already said that.

The voters of that hon. member, who has only made interjections so far this year, and has not had the courage to put his case, will see to it that this constitution is sunk.

By this motion to impose a guillotine rule on the Committee Stage, the Government is preventing the discussion of Schedule 2, Part 1A, par. 2(b). The paragraph concerned reads: “By the substitution for the words ‘House of Assembly’, where they occur in subsection (3) of section 66, of the words ‘Houses of Parliament’”. The NP is trying to conceal this by curtailing the discussion of the these schedules, which should form part of the discussion during the Committee Stage, viz. that this House of Assembly, which is the sovereign White Parliament, and which can take decisions on every facet of the life of the Whites and affect their future, be replaced by a multiracial tricameral Parliament. That is what those hon. members are trying to conceal by putting a damper on this discussion. The Government is trying to conceal the fact that there is going to be a multiracial tricameral Parliament in which the self-determination of the Whites is going to be locked up with Coloureds and Indians, and the key thrown away, and that the Whites will only be able to get out with the approval of the Coloureds and the Indians. The NP is trying to conceal the fact that the self-determination of the Whites is not pure self-determination.

Order! For the sake of his argument, I have permitted the hon. member to expand somewhat on this point, but I want to point out to the hon. member that the motion before this House is quite clear, and I therefore ask the hon. member for confine himself to it.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, each of the consequences I am mentioning now is written into the clauses of this Bill which still have to be discussed, and which could remain undiscussed if this guillotine rule is implemented. I should therefore like to point out the consequences. Consequently, we want to ask the Government to withdraw the motion with regard to the guillotine rule on Saturday. We should like to discuss this Bill in the interests of South Africa. That is the reason I am referring to these matters.

I pointed out that the self-determination of the Whites in terms of this Bill is not pure self-determination. I should like to quote the hon. the Minister of National Education in this regard (Hansard, col. 9347, Tuesday, 14 June 1983)—

Order! I have already given my ruling, and I stand by it. The hon. member may address me on the merits of paragraphs 1 to 4 of the motion. I shall not permit him to quote any further examples.

Sir, I should have liked to have quoted some examples to you.

The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that we are opposed to this motion in that it seeks to curtail this debate. We are opposed to it because, firstly, we believe that if flies in the face of all the assurances given by the Government. Furthermore, we believe that this is a hasty and ill-considered move. Any move taken along these lines does one thing immediately; it creates suspicion. This move has already created suspicion in the minds of the people outside of this House.

We have before us the most important debate that I believe this House has had for many a long day. Now we are doing something that is going to preclude us from dealing with the detail of the Bill before us. By doing so we are going to preclude the public from being properly informed of what our attitudes are towards the detail of the Bill. A clause by clause debate, such as a Committee Stage, enables not only the Government to reconsider the details before it, but it also enables the Opposition to move for what it considers to be potential improvements to the Bill. It gives the Opposition a right. It gives the Opposition the right to tell the country how each party would have liked to see the Bill. It also gives the public, the people of South Africa, the right to know the different views of each party, not only those that are in favour or those that are against the Bill, but also those parties that have alternatives to each of the clauses of the Bill. It conveys that knowledge to the public.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central made much play—I think the terminology he used was “billike geleentheid”, which could be translated by “fair opportunity”—that the undertaking given by the Government had been met in that fair opportunity would be given and has been given to each party. I want to ask the hon. member, as well as all hon. members on the opposite side: How does one measure “fair”? Does one measure “fair” like “beauty”? Is it only in the eye of the beholder? I believe that the NP today is measuring “fair” and saying it is fair as long as it makes the rules. The people outside are not going to accept that as being fair. Failure to allow a full debate can only serve to create the impression that the Government could possibly be avoiding close scrutiny of the Bill. It saddens me to say this, but I cannot understand why there was not negotiation between the Whips of all parties and the hon. Leader of the House regarding this issue. The Whips of all the parties should have sat together with the hon. Leader of the House, as I believe has been customary. I am saddened by the fact that we were not given the opportunity of sitting around a table with the hon. Leader of the House before drastic action was decided upon. Another week’s grace could have been allowed quite easily.

I want to say quite honestly that I, unlike the hon. member for Hillbrow, am not afraid of saying that I believe that the CP is filibustering. I believe it and I will say it. However, they are filibustering within the rules of debate. They are employing delaying tactics. I will accept that. I will say it to them inside this House and also outside.

That is your opinion, Brian.

Yes, it is my opinion. I want to stress however, that they are doing this within the rules of the House.

Then it is not filibustering.

They are doing a pretty good job of it. We do not approve of these tactics. We do not approve of them at all.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central made another observation. He said that he believes that the Opposition is frightened of the voters outside and is frightened to say to them: “Come, let us hear your voice; let us have your decision.” I want to say that every single person in this House will have reason to be frightened of the voters outside if we do not give them the right to hear every argument on every clause in the Bill that will become their new constitution. Then we are all going to have reason to be frightened of the voters outside. We in this party would be happy to negotiate time allocations on each clause as long as it is understood that an opportunity is given for every clause to be debated in the Committee Stage. We would be happy to sit around and negotiate times for each clause. I see no reason why this could not have been done, but no, along comes this great big 16 pound hammer to swat a fly. This is the incredible attitude of this Government.

We do not intend prolonging this debate on the motion before us. Every single minute that we spend talking on this motion is costing us dearly because it is coming off the remaining time for the real debate. We have already spent an hour and nearly 20 minutes on this issue. I want to make an earnest appeal to the other Opposition parties. Let us collectively not further aggravate the disservice that is being done to the people of South Africa here this afternoon. Let us not continue with discussion on this issue because nothing can be gained in debating the motion before us as it is only going to serve to curtail, as I say, that most important discussion. The Government is determined that it is going to have this guillotine.

Why not lie down and accept it then?

Who lies down and accepts it?

You are.

It is not a matter of lying down and accepting it. It is a matter of saying to them: A plague on your house if you are going to have this guillotine. I remember the hon. John Vorster sitting in the Prime Minister’s bench when I first came to this House and saying to the then Leader of the Opposition when Sir de Villiers Graaff misjudged an opportunity: “Nou sit jy vir jou ’n lat in die pekel”. And now I say: “Nou het die agb. Eerste Minister vir hom ’n lat in die pekel gesit met hierdie ding”. Let them have their vote. I say to the Opposition parties: Let us have it over and done with, but then let us get on with the vital business at hand. Let us get on with debating the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and that is more important than anything else.

But you will not have the chance to do so.

We shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kuruman and we shall vote accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I have a measure of sympathy for the hon. member for Umhlanga.

Keep it to yourself.

The hon. member here makes a very rude remark; so whatever I wanted to say about the hon. member for Umhlanga I would rather not say. But I think the hon. member for Umhlanga must talk to the hon. member for King William’s Town.

You had better tell us what you were going to say

No, I am not going to. You must talk to you own members.

*The hon. member for Umhlanga made one very important point, and that is that the more time is wasted in discussing this motion, the longer it will take to get back to the Committee Stage.

Sit down then.

It is pointless adopting that standpoint, because we are here saddled with two Opposition parties that are out to waste time deliberately and to see how long they can keep us here in the Cape. Basically, three requirements are set every hon. member of this House. In the first place, he must be acquainted with the Standing Orders; in the second place, he must possess common sense and, in the third place, he must display self-discipline. Sir, I believe that all hon. members at least try to comply with these three basic requirements. If we do not comply with the provisions of the Standing Orders then we are deliberately abusing the rights granted by the Standing Orders of this House to its members.

I wish to ask hon. members, specifically members of the CP and the PFP, whether they recognize the authority of presiding officers. I ask this because I want to develop an argument in that regard. In particular I wish to ask the hon. member for Lichtenburg, the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Pietersburg, the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Jeppe whether they recognize the authority of the presiding officers of this House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The hon. member mentioned my name specifically. By doing so he is casting doubt on whether I recognize the authority of the presiding officers. The hon. member is not entitled to do that.

The hon. member for Turffontein may proceed.

Sir, I take it that all those hon. members will answer my question in the affirmative. In the second place I want to ask these hon. members the specific question whether they abide by the rulings of the presiding officers. To this question, too, I assume that they will reply in the affirmative. I took the trouble to go through Hansard from the day the Committee Stage of this Bill came up for discussion, viz. from 17 August, until the House adjourned last night. The period covered about four sitting days. As you know, Sir, in that time we were only able to dispose of 7 clauses of the Bill. Let us consider the number of times the presiding officers deemed it necessary to call members to order with the request that they confine themselves to the subject under discussion, let me begin with the hon. member for Jeppe. During his 11 turns to speak he had to be called to order 36 times by the presiding officers and asked to confine himself to the subject under discussion. In the case of the hon. member for Langlaagte, during his 10 turns to speak he had to be asked 32 times to confine himself to the subject. The hon. member for Pietersburg had 7 turns to speak and in the course of those speeches had to be asked 20 times to come back to the point. In the case of the hon. member for Rissik, a person who for years was a Whip in the NP and is now a Whip in the CP as well, in his five turns to speak he had to be called to order 11 times. In the case of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, a person who has been a Cabinet Minister, in his one turn to speak he had to be called to order 8 times. During his 3 turns to speak the hon. member for Kuruman had to be called to order seven times. One can go down the list. During the 47 turns to speak of the members of the CP and the PFP, the presiding officers were compelled to call them to order 138 times and asked them to come back to the subject under discussion. Those hon. members can work it out for themselves and see how much time has already been wasted in this way.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to indicate to us how many times hon. members on the other side were called to order?

I am very grateful for that question. Mr. Speaker, because I have worked that out too. Hon. members on this side of the House were only called to order on three occasions and requested to return to the point under discussion. [Interjections.] No, Sir, I am not prepared to take any further questions.

The hon. member for Hillbrow should tell us whether this is the type of debate that he wants to protect in this House. He must tell us whether this is the type of debate that he and his party would like to protect.

I leave that to the presiding officer.

At this rate, Mr. Speaker, it may happen that the presiding officers may have to call hon. members of the Opposition to order more than 2 000 times if we have to continue at this rate up to clause 103.

*Surely this is a farce, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is absurd; a mockery of the House of Assembly; surely that is cheap politics. After all, Sir, this is not a circus. We have been elected by the voters of South Africa to look after the interests of the people of South Africa and not to come and sit here and deliberately waste time. It is the convention that it is the duty of the governing party to maintain a quorum here. If the Opposition does not want to help, the governing party will have to see to it that the integrity of the body wielding the supreme authority in this country does not suffer. I have heard it said in the lobby that the hon. member for Rissik is supposed to have said that they will keep us here at least until the end of September.

I now come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He spoke here about the time taken up by the various parties. But let us just consider two aspects in this regard. In the first place, let us look at the time spent on the two instructions moved by members of the PFP. You, Sir, ruled that the instructions may be discussed separately, and that is what we did. However, I believe that debate could just as well have been conducted either in the President’s Council or during the Second Reading debate on the Constitution Bill. The Opposition is suggesting that the Government do not want to give them a chance to speak, but in the case of these two instructions, altogether 18 members of the Opposition had an opportunity to participate in the discussion. Let us consider the time spent on the instruction of the hon. member for Yeoville. Opposition speakers took up a total of 304 minutes, as against 226 minutes taken by members of the Government, including the hon. the Minister. In the case of the instruction of the hon. member for Sandton, Opposition speakers took up 183 minutes as against the 163 minutes by Government speakers, including the hon. the Minister. The Opposition as a whole comprise only 29% of the members of this House. Therefore they cannot complain that they were given insufficient opportunity to debate matters.

Let us consider what has happened in the Committee Stage thus far. Altogether 22 members of the Opposition spoke on amendments 1 and 5 that were moved before clause 1 came up for discussion, as against six Government members. Four members of the Opposition spoke to clause 1, as against one Government member; on clause 2, 16 Opposition members spoke as against five Government members and nine Opposition speakers, as against three from the Government, spoke on the new clause moved by the hon. member for Langlaagte to follow clause 2. On clause 7, 17 Opposition speakers have spoken thus far as against six Government members.

You are unable to participate in the debate because you do not know what is stated in the Bill.

Sir, if I were the hon. member for Barberton I should remain silent. He is still one of those decent members who abides by the rules of this House, but he is sitting there among a group of people of whom I would be ashamed if I were he.

Order! The hon. member must not speak about “people”, but about “hon. members”.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make one more statement.

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

No, I am not going to answer another question now. The hon. member has had ample time in which to state his case. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP, was conspicuous by his absence throughout. During the debate in the Committee Stage he has been conspicuous by his absence. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I was watching what was happening. The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition was present in this House almost all the time.

Where was your Prime Minister?

Just a moment, please. The hon. the Leader of the NRP was present here all the time. I want to put it to the hon. member for Rissik that the hon. the Prime Minister was in this House far more than the hon. member for Waterberg. I can assure the hon. member of that.

For how long was the hon. the Prime Minister sitting here? Did you time him with a stopwatch? [Interjections.]

Whatever the case, the hon. member for Waterberg was constantly conspicuous by his absence. [Interjections.]

I now wish to know why hon. members of the CP did not participate constructively in the deliberations of the Select Committee. I contend that they did not take part in the proceedings there because there was no gallery for them to play to. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the motion before the House.

Mr. Speaker, this morning …

Now you, too, are being called to order. [Interjections.]

This morning there was a report in The Argus entitled “Shock Government move to bulldoze through Constitution Bill”. A similar report appeared in The Cape Times under the heading “The Government is to axe the debate on change”. It seemed from the way this was done as if they wanted to create the impression that this was a totally bureaucratic Government. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the Opposition had four days in which to prove their sincerity in this House as regards their will to make a positive contribution.

†I want to tell hon. members of the Opposition that we simply cannot make Parliament the laughing stock of the outside world. We do have a certain responsibility to the voting public by whom we have been elected to represent them here in this House.

*The principle of limitation of time during a Committee Stage is by no means a new principle. There is one specific principle to which I wish to refer. It is that when we deal with the various Votes in committee, 100 hours is specifically allocated for that. It is then for the various political parties to discipline themselves within the confines of that period made available to them. I contend that if hon. members of the Opposition had displayed a decent amount of self-discipline since the beginning of this Committee Stage. They would have made a far more constructive contribution to the debate. In conclusion, I just wish to point out once again that every minute wasted means a minute less for constructive debating that could have taken place in this Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. the Leader of the House and the hon. the Prime Minister should be embarrassed today. They should be embarrassed because the step which they are taking is a step which is palpably calculated to avoid debate on what is perhaps one of the most important issues that has come before this House in several years.

Oh, really, Alf Widman has already said that, man. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Turffontein made a few points, none of which gripped my fancy. He wanted to know where the hon. member for Waterberg had been throughout the Committee Stage debate so far. I want to ask the hon. member for Turffontein where the hon. the Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning is now, during this debate. [Interjections.] This is a debate which concerns the portfolio of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He is in charge of this debate, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] All right, allow me to correct myself, Mr. Speaker. Technically the hon. the Leader of the House is in charge of this specific debate. [Interjections.] This debate, however, concerns directly the passing of the Constitution Bill through this Parliament. My question is why is the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning displaying such a lack of interest in this debate that he is not even here now. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member where he was most of the time during the discussion of his instruction. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I treat that question with the contempt it deserves. The hon. member for Turffontein said that the Opposition has had four days in which to prove its sincerity in debating this action. I want to ask the hon. member this: According to whose judgment must the Opposition prove its sincerity? It is according to his jaundiced, biased judgment or the judgment of the electorate of South Africa? I say that our duty, whether it be the PFP, the NRP or the CP, is to put the views of our respective parties in this Parliament, and it is not for the hon. member for Turffontein to judge whether our efforts are sincere, productive or otherwise. If that hon. member is interested in constitutional development in this country, it is his duty to listen to those arguments and to reply to them in due course. It is not his duty to close down those arguments because they strike a chord which is not to his liking.

May I ask a question?

No, you may not. I want to put this point to the hon. member for Turffontein. Ons of the problems of the younger members of the NP is that they have never been out of power in their lifetimes and do not know what a true democracy is. They do not know that a true democracy is a country or a State in which the views of other people are tolerated, in which those views are listened to and in which one lends an ear to views with which one may disagree. In such a democracy there are times when governments have even been persuaded to adopt another view.

A constitution is not just any Bill. It is a very special Bill in the history of any country. It is a very special Bill particularly in the history of this country which has in the past been ruled entirely by one group. Because of the changes that have been proposed, whether we agree with them or not, because the changes that are being proposed are radical, it is a time to seek consensus with great determination. It is a time in which that consensus can only be achieved by negotiation, by discussion, by public debate. All of this—and I have the hon. the Prime Minister as a witness—has been promised to this House and to South Africa by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. As usual, however, he was not telling the truth when he promised it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

No, I am making my point. I say perhaps he was unwittingly not telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

What must I withdraw, Sir?

The statement that the hon. the Prime Minister was not telling the truth as usual.

I withdraw the words “as usual”, Sir. However, I say that he was not at that time speaking the truth, because we are not being allowed a full opportunity of negotiation, of discussion and public debate. The hon. the Prime Minister has gone back on the undertaking that he gave this country in public, and he continues to do so despite the fact that this has been drawn to his attention.

In the early stages of the making of the constitution there was no negotiation, certainly not with the PFP. There has been no negotiation with my party. There has been no negotiation with the CP either or with the NRP. There has been no proper negotiation with the NRP. It is being proposed today to pass a constitution in respect of which there has not been any negotiation with any significant leaders of the Coloured and Indian communities. This did not even take place in the very early stages. It was the NP congresses, not Parliament and not the people that made the decisions. I say that there was no negotiation and that is true. This is a constitution introduced without negotiation, without even an attempt at negotiation.

Negotiation is one thing; however, the stifling of discussion, the stifling of debate, is another. I want to ask a question of the hon. the Leader of the House: Why is the Government avoiding a full debate on the constitution? Let us look at the process so far. We held a Second Reading debate. This was a major political debate in which only a few of the hon. members could take part, perhaps with 20 minutes’ speaking turns each. Some were granted 25 minutes and some a little less. Only the very broadest principles of the constitution were able to be debated during that debate. An amendment was put by one of the parties in the House—not by my party—to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading. This would have allowed a broader debate and a much greater understanding of the Bill by members across the table from each other. This was refused, it was denied, it was voted down. An opportunity to obtain that consensus which I spoke of earlier was thrown away.

There was a second stage to this, and that was when it was asked that the television be used in order to enlighten the peoples of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister does not have the courage to face my leader on television. He does not even have the courage to look at me while I speak to him. [Interjections.] The SABC slavishly avoid making any arrangement to create any debate in so far as this constitution is concerned.

You must be a member of Sabra to do it.

Then we went into a Select Committee. I went in there with some trepidation because there have been many heavy debates on major issues during the past two years between myself and that hon. Minister who was in charge of the Select Committee. I was worried about going on to his Select Committee. I want to say that my worries in that respect were allayed and were unfounded. I was determined in going into that Select Committee to do my best, to try within the framework of the limitations placed upon us to help achieve some sort of improvement in the Bill, and I did try. Evidence of what was tried by me and my few colleagues can be found in the minutes contained in the report. I was determined not to be accused of wasting time, not to be accused of filibustering in the Select Committee. I was determined to put a point of view succinctly, clearly, to have a contra point of view put to me and then to have the issue decided, but what happened? There was little debate in the Select Committee. There was a period of two or three days when some limited amount of evidence was heard from a very few persons or bodies. Then we went into a stage of which I shall call informal discussion. There was informal discussion of the various clauses. Whenever we hit a clause over which there was disagreement, the hon. the Minister who was the chairman and who I thought was procedurally correct, said that we would leave it on one side and we would come back to it later; and in the meantime go on to the clauses where we could find agreement. So we went through the constitution clause by clause in an informal manner trying to arrive at consensus on the easy matters.

Did you object to it?

No, I thought that was a good system. I thought it was the correct way of doing it. I think it is correct that one discusses the matter informally. One comes to areas where there is disagreement and then it is decided that those matters be put on one side and later they can be discussed again. The approach is that one must see how much further one can get with the Bill. The hon. the Minister did that and I thought that was the correct procedure.

Those clauses over which there were disagreement were passed over on the understanding, I thought, that once we had got through that section, we would come back to the clauses of disagreement. Well, we did eventually, and we spent in all in the whole time of the whole Committee, perhaps an hour in the informal sessions discussing the “omstrede” clauses.

Were there any attempts from your side to arrive at consensus?

I shall come to that.

What happened in that committee was that when we found that we could not agree, the chairman would say that we would deal with that in the next stage; let us agree—these were not his exact words, but the essence of what he said—let us agree to disagree and let us go on to the next stage. In my view there was no real attempt—although I want to tell you there was a willingness …

Order! The hon. member for Rissik and the hon. Chief Whip of the NP must end their altercation now. Do they not feel that they owe the Chair an apology?

Sir, I apologize for allowing myself to be provoked.

I apologize, Sir.

The hon. member for Sandton may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The Select Committee then passed on to for formal stage of its proceedings. The way in which the formal stage was handled was that the clauses were put seriatim from the first clause. The Preamble was put last. This then could be called the formal aspect of the Committee’s work, clause by clause. Here there was very little question of debate. It was a question of voting. That is what happened. Time and again the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member Prof. Olivier, I myself and hon. members of the other two Opposition parties—I shall not mention them by name—would put a point of view on a particular issue. The chairman would say …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is this detailed discussion of the proceedings of the Select Committee relevant?

I have already taken cognizance of that. I shall permit the hon. member to proceed for the sake of the argument which he is developing but I ask him to return to the motion after having done so.

Sir, I shall try to be brief. Time and again a point of view would be put. The chairman would ask the members: “Any discussion?” That was the correct thing for him to do. About that there can be no argument. What would then happen? There would be no discussion. Nobody would say anything. On one or two occasions I asked: “Well, is there no answer to this point that has been put?” Then someone would in the space of about 10 seconds advance a reason or say that would be discussed in open committee. Then the chairman would once again ask: “Any discussion?” Nobody would say anything and the chairman would then, correctly, put the matter to the vote.

Let me give some examples of this. The question as to whether there should be a Vice-President was never debated properly in that committee. There were no more than the arguments put by the Opposition and there was no discussion. Nothing was forthcoming from the other side. The matter was then put to the vote. Occasionally we were able to embarrass a member on the Government side sufficiently for him to say something. On the question of the appointment of a delimitation commission we had strong views. The chairman asked “Any discussion?” and, when there was no discussion, it was put to the vote and we were voted down. Then there was the question whether members of the President’s Council should be subject to the legal provisions relating to offices of profit. Again the chairman asked: “Any discussion?” When there was no discussion, I would say: “But is there not somebody who has some reason for telling me why members of the President’s Council should not be subject to the provisions relating to offices of profit as applied to members of Parliament?” The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs would then within 10 or 15 seconds advance some small argument, after which the chairman would ask: “Any further discussion?” When there was no further discussion, it would be voted upon and we would again be voted down. Then there was the question of how to appoint judges. Exactly the same happened. There was no discussion and the matter was put to the vote. I would appeal to the Minister of Justice to say something in rebuttal of my arguments and he would reply that he was waiting for the Hoexter Commission to report. That was then the end of that.

Very often—and this is where this links up with this proposal—we were told—

That was what was put to us in the Select Committee—

Thereby debate in the Select Committee did not take place. A number of members sat there with their mouth’s full of teeth and said nothing the whole day. That was their response to our putting cogent arguments in an attempt to improve this constitution. I therefore felt that, starting on 8 August, the Opposition would at last have the opportunity to put its detailed arguments both to the Government and to the public of South Africa through the Parliament of this country. Now we come to the Committee Stage, and what do we see? We have had two and a half days of debate relating to the clauses of this Bill, no more, no less. From Wednesday evening through to Thursday and Friday we have had debate on the first three clauses of the Bill. When Parliament convened on Monday the hon. the Leader of the House stood up, with the air of an angel, saying that they were now regretfully going to apply the guillotine. The hon. member for Pretoria Central then gave us a history of filibustering. I ask him with tears in my eyes what he knows about filibustering. In the United States I have witnessed filibusters who have taken three to four months to reach their end. But the quality of democracy in some Western countries other than ours is such that the Government, even over a period of time, is prepared to listen to what the Opposition says even if it does not agree. Only then, after months, are these sort of actions taken. That sort of democracy is unknown to the NP.

If this step is to be taken as any sort of guideline, I fear for South Africa under a new constitution. I fear, because this is no more than a prelude to the stifling of free speech, a prelude to executive dictatorship, which will not allow any but the most timid opposition voices to be heard.

What will we not discuss as a result of this motion which is before us today? What will in fact not even come up before the Committee of this House? I will give a few examples of what will not be able to be discussed. The schedules, which are the last sections of this Bill, will not be discussed. In the schedules are defined what are own affairs and what are general affairs. These schedules contain many controversial provisions, such as education, which is declared to be an own affair. The Opposition has incredibly strong views on that. We believe that education should be a matter for all the people of South Africa, decided upon by the Parliament of this country and not along rigid racial lines. But as a result of this motion, we will not be entitled to discuss that aspect in this Committee.

The transitional powers of the President will not come up for discussion. They are wide powers, giving the new President the power to make all sorts of arrangements and decisions transitional to the new arrangements taking over. We will not be allowed to discuss them. It has been suggested that the South African Government has excluded the Chinese community from this constitution, and it has. There are amendments on the Order Paper to clauses which come very much later in this Bill, in order to bring the Chinese people within the scope of this constitution. Those amendments will drop and will not be debated unless they are resuscitated by the hon. the Minister himself.

Then we come to the entrenched clauses. They will not be discussed. In any constitution the most important provisions of that constitution are the provisions which are entrenched. As we know, there are several forms of entrenchment. There are the entrenchments relating to the language and then there are the entrenchments relating to the constitution itself whereby those provisions cannot be changed except by certain overall majorities of each House voting in a certain manner. These provisions are vital to the future of this country, but because of this motion before us, those entrenchments will not even be discussed in detail in this House.

The administration of Black affairs is wiped off the table. 70% of the population of South Africa are wiped off the table by this motion, even in so far as debate is concerned.

The financial provisions relating to the passing of the budget are not even going to be discussed. We are not even going to discuss how a budget is going to be passed, and yet this is probably the most important law that is passed by any Parliament in each year. Let me give another example. The President’s Council, a new body, a body which has a controversial composition, with a high number of nominated members with controversial powers which many of us feel are going to spell domination of groups, exercised by the President through that council, cannot be discussed as a result of this motion. The administration of justice cannot be discussed because the relevant clauses, clauses 68 and 69, will not be reached. The exclusion of the role of the judiciary, the question of the electoral process and the composition of Parliament itself will probably not be discussed. Sir, even the appointment of a Speaker may not be discussed because of this motion before us. The question of the franchise, the question of delimitation of constituencies and, most important, the role of the Opposition in the procedure to be adopted in passing laws, cannot be discussed.

And the preamble.

Yes, the preamble will most certainly not be discussed.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central said that the only reason for this proposal was the action of the CP. We may not agree with what hon. members of the CP have to say, but we defend their right to say it. We defend their right to say it just as we defend our right to say it, just as we defend the right of any Opposition to have its full say in this Parliament.

What the hon. member for Pretoria Central is in fact saying—I want to quote him in parody—is that they, the NP, are prepared to hear the Opposition as long as it says things according to their rules. However, if the Opposition does not debate according to the rules of the NP then it is a scandal and that they will have to put an end to it. Then the hon. the Prime Minister steps in and gives instructions to the hon. the Leader of the House to bring down that axe, that guillotine. I say this Government is drunk with the pinotage of power! That is what they are. They will not negotiate, they will not discuss in a Select Committee and they will not debate in open house, They just want to vote, knowing that they have the majority, knowing that by doing that they are going to get their way with the least amount of fuss and with the least amount of adverse publicity. I say: So it will be when the new constitution comes into being. This debate started in a shambles, it developed into acrimony and it is ending in ignominy. It is a “kitskonstitusie”. That is what the Government is trying to produce. The Government is trying to produce instant solutions and an instant constitution. If the Government does it this way, the Constitution will go as easily as it comes. This debate may close, the hon. the Prime Minister may use his debating axe, he may bulldoze this Bill through the House, he may close this phase of the process, the may silence his critics, he may refuse to debate on television, but the truth will prevail in the end.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to the hon. member for Sandton in a moment. We in the CP have today been accused of resorting to delaying tactics.

Filibustering.

Yes, all those things. Let us put the truth of this statement to the test. If the hon. the Leader of the House were to give us an indication now that he has accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman, I should immediately resume my seat and no one else on this side of the House would have anything further to say. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the House will not do this because he wants to gag us. We are therefore prepared to save time. I shall resume my seat now so that we can return to the constitution. However, the hon. the Minister will not do that.

In this extraordinary session I believe we are engaged in the most important debate ever conducted in this history of this Parliament, because it deals, inter alia, with the abolition of this Parliament in its present form as a sovereign parliamentary institution over the Whites. No more important matter than this can be discussed. No more important matter can be discussed by a White Parliament representing Whites than the termination of the sovereignty of the Whites. That is why this Parliament has been specially convened to discuss the constitution. But after clause 2 had been dealt with in the Committee Stage the hon. the Leader of the House came along and said that we were talking too much and that he wanted us to stop talking. The question I want to ask today is this: What are we concerned with here while we are discussing the constitution of South Africa? What are the circumstances? After the Second Reading of this Constitution Bill had been accepted, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. We have heard from the hon. member for Sandton that there was not really an extremely thorough and serious discussion there every day. The Select Committee on the Constitution sat for nine days and what do we find? The Select Committee moved 140 amendments and that was after the discussions were not all that serious, according to the hon. member for Sandton. The Select Committee found no less than 140 mistakes in the Constitution Bill as passed at Second Reading.

I have here the original Constitution Bill and the list of amendments. The original Constitution Bill comprises 71 pages and the Select Committee amendments 35 pages. In other words, the Select Committee rewrote half of the Bill. Does it prove that this constitution had been carefully considered and met with the approval of everyone if, within the space of a few days, the Select Committee found 140 mistakes in it.

Surely that is not true.

Of course it is true. The Select Committee moved 140 amendments.

They are not mistakes.

I am asking the hon. member: How many amendments did the Select Committee move?

I say they are not mistakes.

I say they are. Why did the Select Committee move the amendments then? Surely it was to improve the Constitution Bill. What is more, after those amendments had been moved by the Select Committee, the Government itself moved a further 20 amendments. In other words, the Government was admitting that the Select Committee did not find all the mistakes. The Government itself moved a further 20 amendments. In addition to the Government’s 20 amendments, the Opposition Parties have thus far moved 174 amendments, only ten of which have been disposed of. Only one of these has been accepted. One CP amendment has been accepted. In other words, we have made a contribution to improving the constitution. Although 140 mistakes were discovered by the Select Committee and a further 20 by the Government, the Government now maintains that Parliament should be eliminated. It may no longer try to improve this constitution. It only has until Saturday to do so and if it cannot do so it does not matter. Today I want to tell those hon. members that they do not care whether this is a good constitution or a bad one. They are not interested. [Interjections.] We are voting against this Constitution Bill on principle. We are not in favour of it. We want different dispensation in South Africa. However, those hon. members are not interested whether it is a good Act or a bad Act that they are making.

That is rubbish.

It is not rubbish. When the hon. member for Pretoria Central was speaking, he confirmed our standpoint. He mentioned all the restrictions, and in addition to those restrictions they are introducing a further restriction.

You are engaged in obstruction tactics and you know it.

The argument of the hon. member for Pretoria Central confirms our standpoint that this Parliament is now being eliminated, it is being gagged, it is being silenced so that it cannot make further improvements to that Bill of theirs. It is not our Bill; it is their Bill. However, because we are good patriots and also good democrats, we did our homework in spite of the fact that we disagreed with the provisions of the Bill. We have already had an amendment accepted here in order to improve the legislation. We are also prepared to move further amendments, and also to debate matters further. However, I wonder whether one of the reasons why this guillotine tactic has been resorted to, is not that the Government cannot drum up further support among its own members to keep on defending this legislation. [Interjections.] What a pathetic phenomenon we witnessed here today, Mr. Speaker. The Government came up with the drastic step of the guillotine. However, only two speakers on the Government side defended their case. [Interjections.] Surely this is an action which is going to cause the Government problems and criticism in the country at large. [Interjections.] One would therefore expect Government speakers to defend this action of the Government fervently and zealously. But one does not see any fervour among them. Why not? [Interjections.] They had to fall back on the hon. member for Pretoria Central, a man who never says “no” when he can get a turn to speak. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they had to fall back on him. They cannot get people to defend their case. However, I can understand that. No one will ever be interested in defending such a case. [Interjections.]

However, I want to point out that in the Committee Stage, during the discussion up to this point, the lack of enthusiasm among hon. members on the Government side has been obvious. Where is the fervour among members of the Government to defend their proposed constitution enthusiastically and zealously and to convey it to the people? Where is the fervour with which they must go out and tell the people about the wonderful utopia awaiting South Africa? No, it no longer exists. The Government no longer has people who want to defend its case. That is also why the unfortunate hon. Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has to use more than half of the time allotted to hon. members on the Government side to defend the legislation under discussion. It is because there is no one else on that side who wants to do so. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether a lack of support is not one of the reasons for this action. [Interjections.]

Up to this stage 174 amendments have already been moved by Opposition parties, of which 10 have been disposed of. There are 20 amendments of hon. members on the Government side on the Order Paper, of which one has already been dealt with. Therefore 183 amendments still remain on the Order Paper. We have now been told that we have to be finished by Saturday. If we divide the time left until Saturday by 183, this leaves exactly seven minutes per amendment. This is an example of democracy; a wonderful, outstanding example of democracy—an average of seven minutes oer amendment. We have only an average of seven minutes per amendment divided among four parties here in this House, and then we must still allow for divisions, which last a minimum of four minutes each. This means that the Government is prepared to allow approximately three minutes of discussion time per amendment, and a further four minutes to vote on each amendment. And then I wonder what the hon. the Minister will do; this hon. Minister who has such a need to talk, and who has no support from other hon. members in his party. [Interjections.]

I have now referred to the time available for the discussion of the remaining amendments. However, the remaining clauses have not been taken into account. No time is therefore being set aside for discussing the clauses. [Interjections.] Now I want to know from hon. members on the Government side if this is an example of the democracy we are heading for in this new dispensation of the Government. I am asking them whether this is a model of how the consensus style of politics, for which this Constitution Bill makes provision, will be practised. [Interjections.] Is this how things are going to be done in future? [Interjections.]

All you want to do is delay matters.

No, we do not want to delay matters. We merely want to improve the proposed constitution, and to succeed in doing this we need time. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we need time, because we are speaking to people it is very difficult to get through to. For that reason alone we need time to put our case. [Interjections.] The question now arises why the Government is so purposefully engaged in bulldozing this entire new constitutional dispensation in South Africa through in this way. From the very outset—since last year when the “smash” took place in the NP caucus—this bulldozing tactic has been employed. The NP split within a period of 90 minutes. Since then even the party’s congresses have been bulldozed. Bulldozing tactics were used wherever possible.

Surely that is not correct.

Of course it is correct. [Interjections.] There was bulldozing from beginning to end. [Interjections.]

Order!

They are bulldozing everything, Mr. Speaker. Now we have reached the Committee Stage, the stage that was always held out to us as the time in which we could speak to our heart’s content. Now we have reached the Committee Stage and the guillotine descends. The question is why this should be the case. Why should this happen? Apart from the fact that hon. members of the NP themselves are no longer enthusiastic about putting their case here, there is of course another very important reason for this. This is the by-election in Middelburg that will take place on 26 October. [Interjections.] To be able to comply with all the statements and promises, that referendum has to be announced this weekend if it is not to be held after 26 October. Everyone realizes that the Government cannot afford to have the Middelburg election take place before the referendum because it would be the greatest blow the Government has ever suffered if it were to lose Middelburg on 26 October, and then have to hold a referendum in November. [Interjections.] For that reason the referendum has to be held on 26 October. It cannot be held a day later. In order to do this, it has to be announced by 26 August at the latest. By then the Constitution Bill must have reached a certain stage. Let us suppose that by 26 August—that is Saturday—we have reached clause 10 and the hon. the Prime Minister announces the referendum. If we wanted to we could then resort to delaying tactics which would mean that the Bill will not be law by 26 October. That is why the Government has to introduce this measure to ensure that it can hold a referendum by 26 October to avoid the results of the Middelburg by-election.

Those hon. members say we are resorting to delaying tactics. Hon. members of the Opposition parties have already mentioned that there are clauses which took only eight minutes to discuss. If we had wanted to, we could have designated only one speaker to speak for 10 minutes. However, these are not delaying tactics. We want to discuss this matter thoroughly, because we know it is wrong. We already have the admission that it contains mistakes. We are in a minefield of mistakes here and we say they can only be rectified if this Parliament discusses matters thoroughly. If this is done those mistakes can be rectified.

There is another reason why the Government does not want this legislation to be discussed, and it is an important one. It is that as far as the voters of South Africa are concerned, who have to reach a decision, the less they are informed about the details of this legislation the better it is for the Government. I say this because the Government knows that the more details of this legislation that the voters get to know about the more people are going to turn against the Government and vote against it in the referendum.

The little blue book! [Interjections.]

The little blue book has done its work and the outcome of the referendum will prove the part it played. The fact remains that a thorough discussion of this Bill, allowing the people to ascertain its details, is going to have exactly the same effect as the little blue book. In the clauses which still have to be discussed there are radical amendments and deviations and changes which are foreign to South Africa, and for that reason the Government does not want them to be discussed. They appear towards the end of the legislation in particular, and those are the clauses that are not going to be discussed. In this regard we can start with the Schedule in which reference is made to the very important matter of own affairs and general affairs. If the voters of South Africa actually realized what the so-called own affairs were, they would reject this Constitution Bill. If the Whites realized that they were no longer going to have any control over their own finances, absolutely no control at all—this is stated in the Schedule—then the voters of South Africa would reject this Constitution Bill.

I also want to refer to certain of the clauses. There is clause 102 which extends the life of this Parliament by five years. This is a violation of democracy and the more this fact comes to the attention of the people the more they are going to realize what we are doing here in South Africa. There is also clause 98(3)(i) which gives the President the power to amend and modify laws by way of proclamation. Is that democracy? I can understand that the Government does not want that clause to be discussed, because if that clause were to be discussed for three hours during the Committee Stage, the people of South Africa would realize that in the new dispensation the President will have the powers of a Parliament. There are also clauses 79 to 86 which deal with finance. If those details were to come to people’s attention, they would reject them. The same applies to the entrenchments. They occur in clause 99, and that is towards the end of the Bill. The voters of South Africa are then going to realize that this constitution is finally putting an end to separate development; self-determination is finally being eradicated. They are going to realize that it is entrenched in the Bill that it is impossible to return to self-determination, but that the road to integration has been left open. Once the voters of South Africa realize this, they are going to reject the constitution, and this is one of the important reasons why the Government does not want to allow a discussion of the Constitution Bill to take place. That is why they are ensuring that the State media—the radio and the television-are making one-sided propaganda for the constitution and why they are not giving Opposition parties a full and fair amount of time to comment and state their alternatives in the State media as well, as is done in an ordinary real democracy.

We have no doubt at all that the constitution cannot survive the test of the referendum. We are prepared to oppose it, here, outside, everywhere. Those hon. members can say whatever they like, whether the referendum is held tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or next year, we are going to oppose it with all the strength at our disposal, because we know that it is diabolical for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, let me state frankly that it is with enthusiasm that I rise to participate in the debate on behalf of this House and to support the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House. The hon. member for Lichtenburg referred to the fact that only two speakers on this side of the House had taken part in the debate before I stood up. The debate has not ended yet and it is not for the hon. member for Lichtenburg to tell this side of the House how many speakers from this side of the House should take part in the debate. He must wait and see.

I wish to point out to the hon. member for Lichtenburg that when a similar motion was debated in this House in 1952, only two members on this side of the House participated in the debate. That was a debate which was conducted virtually exclusively by Opposition speakers. The number of members taking part is therefore no criterion; it is the quality of the contributions that is important.

That makes your case so much weaker.

Allow me to say here and now that I do not like the motion before the House.

Why, then, are you enthusiastic about it?

I do not like the motion at present before the House, nor do I believe that the hon. the Leader of the House who introduced it likes moving such a motion. I also believe that there is not a single hon. member on this side of the House who likes it. However, the fact is that a Government has a certain responsibility. Unfortunately a Government party cannot always do just as it likes. Often a governing party has to do what is necessary, even though it does not like doing it.

Therefore my answer to the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition is this: My enthusiasm in supporting this motion arises from the fact that a sense of responsibility compels me to support the motion with enthusiasm, even though I personally do not like it.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he implicates the official Opposition of irresponsibility or only one of the other parties?

It will become clear as my argument develops to what extent I hold the official Opposition responsible and to what extent I hold the CP responsible.

*I say that it is not always possible for the governing party only to do what it likes. The governing party has a certain responsibility, so much the more when it is saddled with Opposition parties that display a total lack of responsibility, since it is saddled with an Opposition party—I am now referring in particular to the CP—that does not hesitate to make a farce of a debate in this House for the sake of scoring a paltry political point, that does not hesitate to trample underfoot the dignity of this House and that does not hesitate to perpetrate blatant obstruction in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that the CP tramples the dignity of this House underfoot?

Order! Particularly as far as the latter remarks of the hon. member for Mossel Bay are concerned, I wish to say to him that he must choose his words more carefully.

As you please, Sir. I ask: What else have the hon. members of the CP been doing over the past few days?

Teaching you a lesson about the constitution. [Interjections.]

It became more than obvious that there was no sense whatsoever in this debate. There is no sense in this debate, because no real effort is being made by the hon. members of the CP to improve the details of the Constitution Bill. The hon. members are not in the slightest concerned about that. All they are doing is attacking the principles of the Constitution Bill that were agreed to at Second Reading. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Turffontein pointed out how the Chairman had to call them to order repeatedly. I say that this debate has become a futile exercise. It is not a debate on merit. It is impossible to conduct a debate on merit on the details of the Constitution Bill with people who are not prepared to argue with one on the merits of the matter.

That is a charge against you.

I say that it has become a mere political game on the part of the hon. members of the CP. Therefore we cannot continue indefinitely with this political farce in this hon. House.

The dignity of this hon. House must be protected at all times. We cannot tolerate a repetition of the debate we conducted here on Friday. Friday’s debate did the Almighty, the subject of the debate, no credit. I challenge any hon. member in this hon. House to prove the contrary. Friday’s debate did the Almighty, the subject of the debate, no credit. We dare not permit a debate at that level in this House.

The hon. members of the CP were constantly in confrontation with the Chairman of the Committee. I do not wish to repeat what the hon. member for Turffontein has already pointed out very effectively this afternoon. I am merely stating the fact once again. The hon. members of the CP were constantly out to challenge the authority of the Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member to say that the CP was constantly out to challenge the authority of the Chair? [Interjections.]

What does the hon. member mean by that?

I mean by that after the Chairman of the Committee had given a ruling, the hon. members of the CP had constantly to be called to order by him and he had to point out to them that they were circumventing his rulings or that they were not prepared to accept his rulings. Therefore I say that they were challenging the authority of the Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member contends that the CP was out to defy the rulings of the Chair.

I asked the hon. member what he meant and he gave me a satisfactory answer. The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. members of the CP were constantly trying to circumvent or ignore the Chairman’s rulings. We cannot carry on indefinitely in this way in this House. Surely, at one time or another, limits must be set to this kind of conduct. If this motion of the hon. the Leader of the House does not succeed in bringing this home to hon. members of the CP, then I fear that nothing will bring it home to them.

Hon. members of the CP have been guilty of an outrageous waste of time and have come forward with the most ridiculous arguments. The hon. member for Langlaagte has been the main culprit in this regard. The other hon. members of his party were so embarrassed while the hon. member was speaking that they did not know where to look.

You are talking nonsense, man.

The arguments advanced by the hon. members of the CP were irrelevant throughout. Time and again they were guilty of repetition, to such an extent, in fact, that the Chairman had to point out to them repeatedly that they were not allowed to repeat themselves.

Even in regard to clauses of the Bill about which there was no real difference of opinion, lengthy arguments were advanced by those hon. members. Provisions which have appeared in the Constitution of the Republic for years and which have never been questioned were seized upon by those hon. members in order to waste time. Hon. members of the CP became involved in endless arguments with the Chairman and raised endless points of order, as they are doing now. Is it not true that there is ample evidence of the fact that hon. members of the CP are out to waste time?

Nor were hon. members of the PFP innocent in this regard. The hon. member for Hillbrow provided an analysis of the time spent on the debate. What he did not say, however, was that about 15 hours, almost as much as the entire Second Reading was spent, discussing proposed instructions.

Were they not valuable enough to debate?

Of the seven instructions that hon. members of the PFP wanted to move, only two were acceptable for discussion.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member prepared to take a question.

Yes, if it is relevant.

Is the hon. member suggesting seriously that the debate on the two instructions was not an extremely valuable debate?

The fact I am trying to stress is that in the process of debating the instructions, 15 hours were spent.

So what?

The hon. member asks: What about it? Is it fair to give an analysis of time and then only to mention the time taken up by hon. members of the CP and hon. members on this side of the House without also referring to the time spent debating the instructions of the PFP?

The hon. member for Sandton contended that there was very little debate in the Select Committee and that the assumption was that the points in question would be debated here. I deny that categorically! We debated at length in the Select Committee. The reason for referring a measure to a Select Committee is specifically to attempt to achieve consensus. Moreover the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who was Chairman of the Select Committee, did his very best to achieve consensus. The hon. member for Sandton also conceded that by implication. However, we were not even able to achieve consensus on uncontentious matters. It became evident that the effort made by the Select Committee to achieve consensus was a futile exercise because we did not obtain the necessary cooperation from hon. members of the official Opposition and from hon. members of the CP to achieve consensus.

We then simply voted.

We did not simply vote then, as the hon. member contends, but what did happen was that the discussion was brief because it was obvious that there was no sense in continuing to argue, whereas it was quite obvious that we would never reach consensus with people who did not want consensus. They did not want consensus and their conduct in the Committee confirmed that. They were and are merely applying delaying tactics. That was so both in the Select Committee and in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member prepared to take a question?

No, my time is limited.

You have ample time.

I have my own Whip.

*I now wish to refer to the hon. member for Kuruman, the Chief Whip of a minority party. This is a new office which, previously, I was not acquainted with.

Is that what you call him?

No, that is what he calls himself. He intimated that the clauses which will fall victim to the acceptance of this motion are important clauses. I wish to state categorically that it was unnecessary for any clause to fall victim. The hon. member need only have been aware that they could not take up 10¾ hours discussing two clauses. The hon. member is now complaining that more time is not being made available. But whose fault is it that more time is not being made available?

The guillotine.

The hon. member for Langlaagte cannot get away from the fact that it is he and his party, with their endless arguments about matters like the national anthem and the flag, about which there was no dispute whatsoever, that wasted time, resulting in its being necessary to introduce a motion to cut this debate short.

It cannot be suggested that this side of the House is not prepared to debate the merits of the Constitution Bill. Evidence of this is the fact that the hon. the Leader of the House himself moved that the Third Reading of the Bill be extended to 10 hours. Is that the action of a party that is not prepared to debate the merits of a measure? The extension of the Third Reading debate is an unprecedented step. If the hon. members want to take the trouble to peruse the debates on measures of which the Committee Stage has been limited, they will note that there has not been a single case in which so much time has been allocated for a Third Reading debate. Indeed, we shall have spent a total of approximately 80 hours on this measure, apart from the time spent on it by the Select Committee. I contend that this is the longest time ever spent in this House on a measure of which the Committee Stage was limited.

The allegation that this side of the House is trying to curtail the debate because it does not wish to debate the measure is therefore devoid of all truth.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay said at the beginning of his speech that he was participating in this particular debate with enthusiasm. I found that interesting. He is participating with enthusiasm in a debate about the use of the guillotine to cut short the debate on the subject which is before the House. I would have thought that the hon. member for Mossel Bay would have shown greater enthusiasm for a lengthy debate on the merits of the clauses of the Bill which should be under discussion. When we were serving on the Select Committee, my colleagues and I tried to draw the members of the Government side into a discussion of the merits of the clauses. The hon. member for Mossel Bay in particular said repeatedly that he did not want to waste time and that we should wait until the Committee Stage. That was the hon. member’s attitude. He said that we should not discuss the Bill there, but that we should wait until we got to the Committee Stage. But now that we have got to the Committee Stage …

Did I say that on the Select Committee?

Yes.

That is untrue.

That is the gist of what was said there. The hon. member said that we should wait until we got to the Committee Stage.

I never said that. It is a blatant untruth.

The fact remains that the hon. member says that if it had not been for the Opposition, there would have been plenty of time for the discussion of this Bill. Let us examine that statement. When the discussion comes to an end on Saturday, it will have amounted to 50 hours’ debate on 103 clauses and two schedules. In addition, there are the 20 amendments, not amendments moved by the Opposition, but amendments moved by the Government. Furthermore, there are quite a number of reasonable amendments that are being moved by the Opposition. When one examines this, it amounts to less than half an hour’s discussion per clause, including all amendments and divisions. But the hon. member says that there is plenty of time for the discussion of the clauses. In making allegations of that kind, he is really turning the debates in this House into a farce.

The hon. member also has the temerity to say that not all hon. members are debating the merits of the case. What gives him the right to say that hon. members are not debating the merits? What gives him the right to say that hon. members are not discussing the merits of the case? After all, every man sees the merits of the case from his own point of view. Therefore the hon. member for Mossel Bay cannot dictate to other hon. members what the merits or demerits of a particular approach are. Furthermore, the hon. member alleges that 15 hours have been devoted to a debate concerning a Bill of Rights, and also to a debate about the institution of a constitutional court. I ask the hon. member in all fairness whether 15 hours in the existence of a Parliament is really important when the drafting of a new constitution has been discussed for years. Is it really worth mentioning if 15 hours have been devoted to a debate on a Bill of Rights and a constitutional court?

In any event, it is not the fault of the Opposition parties in this House that this debate is taking place at this stage. The motions for the two debates in connection with instructions to the Committee of this House appeared on the Order Paper in June. There was enough time for that discussion, but the hon. member for Mossel Bay and his leaders saw to it that debate never took place. When the time was available to conduct that debate, they placed the motions concerned right at the bottom of the Orders of the Day on the Order Paper. Now that time has to be found for this debate in terms of the Standing Orders, they blame the Opposition for this and they accuse us of wasting the time of this House.

†No, Mr. Speaker, they really cannot have it both ways. [Interjections.] They simply cannot have it both ways.

Be it as it may, however, I should like to continue by summarizing the attitude of the Opposition towards this particular debate and this particular motion.

We are not really considering now what is going to happen at Third Reading, when there will be a general debate. We are also not concerned now with what happened at Second Reading, when there was a debate on the principles of the legislation. We are concerned now with the question of whether sufficient time has been set aside for this Parliament to analyse the merits of the clauses contained in this Bill. I submit that the more one analyses the merits the more one becomes aware of the defects inherent in the various clauses. I say without any reservation that whatever other time has been available for other general debates, the Opposition and this Parliament have been denied the opportunity of having a decent and thorough discussion of the clauses of this Bill. [Interjections.] When looking for the motive behind this whole move, the only conclusion to which I can come—we must remember that we are moving here in the field of politics—is that the Government is putting the interests of the NP before the interests of the country by resorting to this guillotine measure. [Interjections.]

That is nothing new, of course.

The whole history of the debate on this bill bears witness to the fact that the Government has been trying throughout to prevent a proper debate on the details of the Bill. When we tried to discuss the details of the constitutional proposals we were told that we could discuss the guidelines but that the details were still being awaited. We were told about the numerous problems being experienced by the legal advisers on account of the fact that it was an involved and extremely detailed measure, a Bill that could not be produced in an “abracadabra” way. Suddenly, after the legal advisers had carried on week after week, hour after hour, working on this Bill, it was produced, and within ten days we had to have the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Minister was aware that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I had repeatedly asked the Government not to try to bulldoze this Bill through Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is after all not the toy of the NP. It is the constitution to be for the Republic of South Africa. Let us be given a decent opportunity of properly analysing it. No matter what the NP have done in their secret conclaves or what the legal advisers have done, let the people of South Africa see that a thorough debate takes place on this Bill; on the future constitution of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the Second Reading debate was extended by one extra hour, which gave us thirteen hours in toto. That debate was concluded with a 2¼-hour marathon by the hon. the Minister himself. [Interjections.] Then we went to the Select Committee, and pressure was exerted on the Government to allow that Select Committee to sit and to listen to evidence. In the end the Government accepted the advice of the Opposition on this, and it did adjourn Parliament. It also allowed that evidence be heard, and it allowed too for that Select Committee to sit outside of the normal sitting hours of this House.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Sandton has indicated, we are not in any position—nor do we wish to do so—to reproach the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for the way in which he was required to conduct those particular proceedings. I think that, within the time frame the hon. the Prime Minister allowed him, he conducted those proceedings with great skill. I believe he handled the proceedings with great skill and also with considerable fairness. We do not therefore complain about the way in which he discharged his mandate or his brief. He will, however, be the first one to admit that pressure-cooker type of activity to which that Select Committee had to resort is not the type of activity which creates good constitutional machinery. One cannot work in that fashion, and then presume that as a result of that a good and effective piece of legislation is going to be accomplished.

What I find particularly distressing is that while there was an attempt during the early stages to accomplish a meeting of minds, to try to discuss the merits of the separate clauses, even though we were not allowed to discuss the principle of the legislation—we discussed the merits of individual clauses irrespective of the principle—we found that suddenly during the weekend of 23 and 24 July something happened to the NP. The whip must have cracked. There was no more discussion and we spent two days after that weekend just lifting our hands left, right and centre voting for or against the separate clauses. The last two days were in fact a veritable shambles as far as constitution-making was concerned. Time and time again it was said: Wait until we get to the House. We can have the debate there. Now that we have come to the House, we find a guillotine motion being moved. I just want to give hon. members a picture of what went on the Select Committee because I want to relate it to this debate and to this legislation. In two days, from lunchtime on the Monday to lunchtime on the Wednesday, we voted on over 340 amendments and 103 clauses with mini-debates in between while trying to consider at the gallop no fewer than 11 memoranda that had been produced by the hon. the Minister’s own department and which in fact were never considered or discussed. They may have been considered privately but they certainly were not discussed in detail in order to see whether consensus could be reached.

I want to say this to the hon. the Minister. This guillotine motion would have been bad enough had we been discussing an ordinary piece of legislation. However, I am sure the hon. the Leader of the House will agree with me that this is not an ordinary Bill. In this Bill we are considering the new constitution that is going to affect all of us in South Africa. It contains important new concepts and new processes, and it also makes provision for some new and most unusual structures. I want to emphasize the fact that not only are we creating these new concepts, processes and structures but that when this Bill is passed by this House most of those processes and structures will also be entrenched in the constitution and it will not be the right of this House to change its mind. It will not be the right of any one or two Houses to try to amend that constitution. Once this Bill has been passed by this House we will not be free to amend that constitution again. Once we have passed the Bill we will be locked into the constitution, and so it becomes all the more necessary not only that we should consider the principles at Second Reading but also that we should consider the details during the Committee Stage.

I should like to refer to some of the matters that we shall not be able to change next year or the year after that. The Government has drawn up a schedule of own affairs in which all the matters that are own affairs are listed. That is an entrenched clause. Once that schedule has been passed by this House, this House will never again be able to alter it. You will appreciate, Sir, the gravity of this fact. However, the Government knows in passing this legislation that every Coloured organization that gave evidence has rejected that schedule. Therefore, we shall be entrenching in the new constitution a schedule that has been rejected in advance even by the Coloured people who are going to participate in this system. Then we have hon. members on that side saying that 50 hours for the discussion of 103 clauses and a schedule is long enough. I say that we are entrenching in a constitution a schedule that has been rejected by the Coloured people, and this House will no longer be able to alter it.

May I ask you a question?

No, Sir. I do not have the time now, perhaps later on. We are entrenching the White majority situation in the electoral college for the election of the President. We are entrenching the minority White representation, and we are not going to be able to alter that. No single House is going to be able to alter that fact in the future. We are entrenching the composition of the executive. We are entrenching the right of the President to declare matters to be own affairs. We are entrenching the numbers in this House. I want to tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay what he is doing because I do not think he realizes it. [Interjections.] In this new constitution he is actually entrenching not only the number of elected MPs but also the number of members whom the President can nominate as extra MPs in this House. I do not believe that the majority of hon. members on that side of the House do agree with this. The majority of hon. members on that side of the House do not like the concept of nominated MPs. However, that is being written and entrenched into the constitution. Once this Bill has been passed, there is no way in which this House will be able to remove that clause from the constitution. I say, therefore, that more time should have been set aside for this discussion. Hon. members on the other side have stated repeatedly how disruptive and how filibustering the hon. members of the CP have been. In their accusations there was the suggestion that the Chairman was not able to maintain his authority. I believe it is incumbent upon the Chairman to decide whether or not they are trifling with the House and whether or not they are discussing the clauses. It is not for the hon. member to decide whether they are trifling with the House. I believe it is incumbent on the Chairman to decide whether hon. members are dealing with the clauses and it is not for the hon. member to suggest that the Chairman failed to do that.

I want to look at the next point. We came across a number of clauses which were amended by the Government on its own and some with the co-operation of the Opposition. There is going to be no time to debate the changes. The changes which took place in the Select Committee will not be able to be debated in this House.

Whose fault is that? [Interjections.]

I want to give the hon. member another illustration. In the course of the discussions that took place, the effect was that the department was asked to produce a number of memoranda on very important issues. I have with me all those memoranda. They deal with “politieke ampsontheffing van die President”, “alternatiew stappe voordat ’n geskil vir beslissing verwys word”, “alternatiewe beslegtingsmeganismes in die plek van die Presi-dentsraad”, “representation of Opposition parties on joint standing committees” and “description of common law conventions in the Constitution Bill”. All of these moranda are available for members for debate. However, we are not going to debate them because the hon. members on that side of the House do not want to debate them.

It is quite obvious that the Government does not want the detail of this Bill discussed in public because it knows that every time one draws attention to the detail of the Bill, the more it points to the “baasskap” and dictatorship features of the new constitution.

A constitution does not only rest on concepts; a constitution rests on the structures that are being created. The Government wants to talk in generalities, but it does not want a careful analysis of the constitution before us.

Although hon. members will ask whether it was necessary, I believe this debate on the guillotine motion has been of great importance. The significance of the Government’s action in trying to guillotine the debate on the constitution and to gag the Opposition in Parliament goes far beyond the activities and the behaviour of this House, important though that is. The Government’s action reveals, I believe, a fundamental intolerance towards opposition and self-centred arrogance towards the whole process of constitution-making. The Government does not see the Opposition as an essential part of a democratic process. If it did see the Opposition as a part of the democratic process, it would not exclude them from the electoral college which will elect the State President. It does not see the Opposition as an integral part of the democratic process in South Africa.

You will have to swallow your words.

The Government shows time and time again that it sees the Opposition as an irritating obstacle in the way of the NP when it wants to impose its views and its plans on its authority upon South Africa.

The second point which emerges is that the Government does not see the new constitution as the possession, the proud possession of all the people of South Africa. It should be a constitution which is respected and loved because it was fashioned through negotiation and compromise among the recognized leaders of the various groups of our society, but it is quite clear from the debate today, let alone the debates which preceded it, that the Government sees the constitution of South Africa as the creation of the NP. It sees it as its brain child. It sees it as its property. It is going to impose that constitution upon the people of South Africa whether they like it or not.

There are some people—I think the hon. member for Durban Point has gone on record recently saying the same—who are of the opinion that the Government should not call it the NP’s constitution; it must be the national constitution. The hon. the Prime Minister was very clear on this. In the course of the discussions on his Vote he said—

So this constitution is the NP’s guidelines in legislative form. That is what it is.

What is happening now? We now have a time-factor developing. One sees more and more concern verging on panic on the part of hon. members on the other side. As the opposition to the monstrous provisions of the new constitution grows in size and in significance, the Government, instead of taking heed, the Government instead of noticing that the opposition to the Bill is growing and saying “For heaven’s sake we must think again”, is intensifying its efforts to push through and rush ahead with the Bill regardless of the consequences to South Africa. One thing is clear: If the arrogant disdain which the NP Government is showing towards the rights of the Opposition under the present constitution is continued under the new constitution, there will be no hope either for democracy or for consensus government under that new constitutional dispensation. By clamping down on opposition by the introduction of this motion, this Government is already stamping the hallmark of Nationalist intolerance and authoritarianism on the new constitutional dispensation for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have now listened to three hon. members of the official Opposition, one of whom was a Whip, as is fitting in a debate such as this. The other two members were also members of the Select Committee concerned. On the part of the NRP, we have listened to their Whip. I think it is important that this should in part be a debate among Whips.

What gives you that idea?

The hon. Chief Whip of the NP must leave me alone. I shall make my own speech in my own way and according to my own view of matters. I do not need the help or the advice of the hon. Chief Whip. I stated a certain factuality. [Interjections.] I want to say that I endorse the view stated by the hon. members of the official Opposition who were also members of the Select Committee. The experiences they had there were also my experiences and observations as member of the Select Committee. I also agree with the view which the Whips of the other two Opposition parties stated in their speeches. I think that the hon. Whip of the NRP also made a sensible contribution.

The principle that the guillotine rule is applied in Parliament, a principle which we are discussing here today, is an institution of Parliament with which we wholeheartedly agree. In the history of the guillotine rule as an institution in this Parliament one finds it being applied in two ways. On the one hand the Whips of the respective parties are summoned and the Leader of the House discuss specific important matters with them. The Whips—this is one of their functions—listen to the proposals of the Leader of the House as far as the application of the guillotine rule is concerned. When, on the other hand, discussions have been precluded and there is no dialogue between the parties, the governing party can apply the guillotine rule by means of the Leader of the House.

I agree that there should be a guillotine rule—and I do so for several reasons. The one is that it is part of the preservation of good order in parliamentary discussions. As regards the preservation of good order, one can say that there are certain matters of very urgent nature which the Government would very much like to place on the Statute Book. Such matters could be of a financial nature. They could be certain security matters. During the Second World War the guillotine was applied on certain occasions owing to the prevailing war-time conditions. I can also see that there could be certain internal and external matters that would make it essential for the Government to apply the guillotine rule.

One can also accept that there are certain sensitive matters which crop up very suddenly in a country and in connection with which a government wishes to pilot through specific legislation very quickly and in respect of which it can come forward with such a motion either before or after the break-down of a discussion among the Whips. The fact that there is a First, a Second and a Third Reading in terms of the Westminster system is largely attributable to the fact that there were delaying tactics which were applied by opposition parties. Before people were able to read it happened that members rose and requested as many as 30 times that a Bill be read. It was then decided that a limit had to be placed on this and it was then provided that there would be a First, a Second and a Third Reading. I accept that an opposition party can, for specific reasons, use the stages not only to delay the debate but in order to hold prolonged discussions on a matter. Of course there are various reasons for this.

For these reasons, therefore, it is possible to apply the guillotine, and it is perfectly normal that this can happen. I think it is within the rules of the House and it is a method of preserving good order.

Yet there is a reverse side of the coin. I have now been talking about Opposition parties that can delay the course of business, but a government can also come forward with a guillotine motion for certain other reasons. It can be misused by a government. After a government has done everything in its power to tire out an opposition party by sitting long hours or holding long discussions, it can, if it has not succeeded, apply the guillotine. A second reason why a government can come forward with a motion such as the one moved by the hon. the Leader of the House is that it is afraid of a debate and does not want a debate on a specific matter to take place. A government can have various motives in regard to specific legislation and does not therefore want a discussion. It is one of the tasks and functions of an Opposition party to analyse Government proposals in detail during all the stages of legislation and to criticize those proposals as it perceives them on the basis of its principles and policy.

So there are two sides to the coin in respect of this matter. I went to look at the annexure which is available on the matters in respect of which a guillotine has been applied since the ’forties. This is the first time today that a guillotine motion has been moved in respect of the constitution.

If we look at the Hansard report of the debates which took place in regard to this matter, we see that there were a few wise men who discussed this issue. In particular I want to refer to the debate that was held on this issue in 1952. At the time Dr. Malan expressed an opinion on the application of elements the guillotine motion and on the more detailed regulation of the debate. He said at the time (Hansard, col. 9182, 24 June 1952)—

These is the criteria laid down by the late Dr. Malan. In col. 9182 he said—

This is the standpoint stated by Dr. Malan when he discussed this motion in 1952. As far as the CP is concerned, this is the background against which the application of a guillotine motion should be seen. The application of the guillotine in this case will have the result that most of the Constitution Bill will not be discussed in the Committee Stage.

It was planned.

The CP opposed the First Reading of this Bill according to the rules and regulations of this House. The principle was discussed during the Second Reading. We utilized the time allocated to us to the full and opposed the principles during the Second Reading. Today we are being told that the Third Reading will in fact be extended. At Third Reading one has to discuss the consequences of the principles. In other words, the principles are disposed of during the Second Reading, and during the Third Reading the consequences of the legislation are discussed. We appreciate the fact that the Government moved that the Third Reading be extended so that we would receive additional time to discuss the consequences of this legislation. The prelude to this legislation was a long and laborious effort on the part of all political parties in the country, also on the part of those who are present in this House today, to find a solution to one of the most difficult problems in the country, the population problem, in particular the Coloured and Indian problem. There was not one of us, least of all those of us in the CP, who did not, prior to the standpoint of the Erica Theron Commission and also afterwards, very thoroughly devote our attention and energy and whatever modicum of talent we might have to finding a solution to this very delicate problem. We continuously made use of every opportunity to discuss these matters.

There is one further point I wish to make in this connection, and this is of very great importance to us in the CP. The rift in the NP, when some of us were suspended from the party and others expelled, came about as a result of the interpretation of the proposals which gave rise to this legislation. [Interjections.] Sir, you will concede that I am correct when I say that this legislation is among the most topical we have to discuss. Although this also applies to other parties, it applies to us in particular. During the Second Reading and also during the Committee Stage it was necessary for us, in the nature of things, to obtain historic depth in respect of the discussion of this legislation. Time and again, while they were still in the NP, hon. members of the CP were informed that there would be plenty of time to discuss these matters. [Interjections.] I have been a member of the NP caucus for 15 or 16 years and some of these matters were discussed between eleven o’clock in the morning and twelve thirty in the afternoon. I was deprived of my own membership after that short discussion.

A Select Committee was subsequently appointed to investigate these matters and we of the CP served on it. We attended all of the meetings to the best of our ability, sometimes under very difficult circumstances.

I now wish to associate myself with my hon. colleagues of the PFP.

As usual.

I accept hon. members of the PFP as hon. members of this Parliament. As such they are my colleagues. They have a right to be here. I shall listen to them and when I agree with them I shall do so and when I differ with them I shall do that as well. [Interjections.] At one of the first meetings of the Select Committee the hon. member for Sandton, I think it was, asked the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, whether he could not give us an indication of what were the principles and what the details of what was contained in the legislation. If I remember correctly, the reply of the chairman of the Select Committee was that it was not possible for him to tell us before the time what were principles and what was details.

That is not the whole truth. Surely you know that is not correct.

I do not have the time to repeat every word that the hon. the Minister said. The hon. the Minister himself can say what happened there. However, there was a request before the Select Committee that the hon. the Minister should single out the principles of the Bill. That is true, after all, and the hon. the Minister as chairman gave a specific ruling in that regard. We discussed the ruling and we accepted the Chairman’s standpoint. That is all I want to say. That is what was at issue there. From the Opposition side on that Select Committee we asked what was principle and what was not principle, so that there was no need for us to waste time unnecessarily or hold long discussions of matters which were not applicable.

Today I want to say that the hon. members of the CP, like the hon. members of the other Opposition parties, participated in the proceedings of the Select Committee with the best will in the world. We did not try to delay matters in any way at all. On the contrary, we went along with the Chairman’s rulings. In respect of a number of the clauses of the Bill which we discussed on the Select Committee the hon. the Minister said to us: Colleagues, many of the arguments which you now wish to raise are political arguments, arguments which you can debate at your leisure and at your convenience when the Committee Stage is being discussed in Parliament.

The hon. the Minister is denying it now.

Nevertheless it is true, and on that basis we accepted that the Select Committees was not intended to be the forum for our political arguments with one another. As chairman of the Select Committee the hon. the Minister told us that we would be given sufficient opportunity in this House to discuss the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was not the Opposition Parties who adjourned the session in June and said that we would have to convene again later. It was a motion moved by the Government, and we agreed to it. At that stage the CP had already made a considerable number of other arrangements. For example there were congresses we were going to hold. However, we did not complain about that. We accepted it. We played our part. When we convened at the beginning of the year, at the very first meeting of the Whips, the hon. the Leader of the House, without the other Whips having discussed the matter with him, said to the hon. member for Kuruman, our senior Whip and the other Whips: “Gentlemen, we are now entering upon this debate and the Government [I am using my own words] is in no hurry. We are not going to rush matters. We are not simply going to change the times. We are going to afford you the opportunity of discussing this matter at leisure.” When that meeting was over I said to my hon. colleague that I was grateful that we were going to have sufficient opportunity to discuss this burning issue.

I want to take this argument even further. If the hon. the Leader of the House, or if you, Mr. Speaker, or any of the other presiding officers, felt at any time that the hon. members of the CP were not behaving themselves well or were wasting the time of this House, I would at least have expected you to call us in and to tell us so. May I just say that we have great respect for you as a person, as we also have for the two chairmen, and also for the position which you occupy. We would have expected, if the debate had been of that nature, to have been called in by you, and to be told where we were at fault. Then we could have given attention to the matter.

The hon. the Leader of the House did not do so, however. My hon. colleague has pointed this out. During the supper break yesterday—a very difficult time for us all—and at a rather late stage too, I must say—the hon. the Leader of the House summoned the hon. member for Kuruman. The Whips of the other Opposition parties were not present. The Leader of the House then asked for certain undertakings from the hon. Chief Whip of this party.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to make it very clear and final that every clause of the Bill under discussion is of the utmost importance to us in the CP. There is not a single clause in this Bill which to us is of lesser importance than any other. In fact, we hold very strong standpoints in regard to this Constitution Bill. In fact we feel so strongly about this Constitution Bill that we were prepared to stand up in the caucus of the NP and tell the hon. the Prime Minister that we had no confidence in him. Surely that is not something that one finds easy to do. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister will grant me that. That is definitely not something one finds easy to do. [Interjections.] The entire issue of the establishment of the CP revolved around this matter. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the NP can make as much noise as they like now, but I put it to them now that I also sat among them at one stage. That is why I believe I can address a special word of warning to them today. They should please not allow themselves to be forced into accepting things in regard to which the reproach will be hurled at them in three, four or five years’ time that they no longer agree with what they formerly accepted and approved. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that for too long now hon. members have not stood up in the caucus of the NP to really substantiate their material objections or doubts in regard to these matters with arguments. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this House can be certain of one thing, and that is that if the hon. the Leader of the House does not withdraw this motion of his, we shall continue in the normal way to debate every clause of the Bill under discussion in accordance with the way in which we studied it, and also in accordance with the standpoint which we adopted on it in our caucus. Within the limitations of the rules and regulations of this House, we shall continue in the normal way to state our standpoint in regard to each separate clause. We shall continue to do this until twelve o’clock on Saturday. After that we shall begin our campaign in connection with the coming referendum. Those of us who are members of the CP here, as well as our tens of thousands of supporters outside, will argue and debate these matters. We shall do so on every platform in this country. [Interjections.] This Constitution Bill affects the continued existence of my people intimately. It affects the continued existence of the Whites in this country intimately. We adopt a very strong standpoint in this regard. This Constitution Bill also affects the continued existence of sound relations in this country intimately. In this regard, too, we adopt just as strong a standpoint. For that reason I want to make it clear today that the CP will not allow itself to be intimidated. No one will browbeat us. We shall not allow ourselves to be gagged. [Interjections.] We shall continue to talk about these matters until there is no breath left in a single member or supporter of the CP in this country of ours. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the late Dr. D. F. Malan once said—he was then Leader of the Opposition—to the former Government, when they also resorted to a guillotine motion, that they were moving a criminal motion (rampokkermosie). [Interjections.] Mr. Speaer, this is not even a term or a concept which one of my hon. colleagues in this House used. The late Dr. Malan told the Government of Gen. Smuts, when they resorted to a guillotine motion, that it was a criminal motion. Naturally I do not want to say this today in connection with the motion under discussion. [Interjections.] All I want to say is that we in the CP, in spite of this quillotine motion of the Government, will continue to state our standpoints. We shall do so from one platform to another throughout this country. [Interjections.]

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I pledge my full support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kuruman. I find it a great pity that the NP could have committed such a grave blunder. Shortly after the establishment of the CP, the hon. member for Lichtenburg said that there were two things which were of importance to us in our struggle against the NP. The one thing was the question of whose breath was going to last the longest, and the second was the question of who were going to drop the fewest balls, and we must not mind if the Government party inflicts an injustice upon us. [Interjections.] Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say one last thing. The NP is doing the CP a great favour by coming to this House with this motion. In the process, however, the NP is doing democracy and the splendid history of that party itself a great disservice. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in one respect the hon. member for Rissik is right in his argument, and in that respect I want to support him. I agree that a fine spirit of cooperation and goodwill prevailed in the Select Committee. The members of the Select Committee also showed a clear wish to perform that task incumbent upon them in the best possible manner. As an example, Sir, I wish to mention that in respect of the first six clauses which have already been dealt with, after we had proposed amendments and after we had stated our case and after we had voted on the amendments—we have been dealing with them since last Wednesday—the four parties in this House voted unanimously on each of them. In the Select Committee we also stated our case and had our differences, but there, too, we voted unanimously on those six clauses as in the case of a whole series of clauses that I have noted here. For that reason I am very sorry that the Government has now come forward with this guillotine proposal, because I consider it a grave error of judgment. We now have this guillotine proposal, instead of our trying to prolong that spirit of co-operation which we had in the Select Committee.

†Mr. Speaker, we are totally opposed to this motion. Not only do we believe that it is an error of judgment but also that it is damaging the credibility of what we are trying to achieve in South Africa in the form of a new constitution. I think that a very good case can be made out for opposing this motion as far as all the Opposition parties are concerned. I do not believe that case is strengthened by going overboard or by exaggerating, by going beyond what I regard to be the strict accuracy of the arguments used in opposition to this guillotine motion. Out of a sense of plain justice, Sir, I want to say that in the Select Committee we covered this whole Bill clause by clause and in detail. I cannot agree that there was any stage at which we were gagged or where we were not given an opportunity to state our case. I agree with the hon. member for Sea Point or Sandton who made the point that there were instances where an Opposition member would move an amendment and motivate it and there would be no reply so debate died. That did happen quite often. However, at no stage was any member of that Select Committee prevented from putting his case. I think it is going too far to use that argument here in respect of this debate on the guillotine motion. I have always regarded proceedings in a Select Committee as being confidential to the members on the committee. What emanates from that committee is the report in which the findings of the committee are dealt with. We did have memoranda handed to us at a late stage, sometimes very late indeed. It was hard work. In fact, I told the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who was the chairman of that Select Committee that he had driven us very hard indeed, and he had. He had driven us very hard indeed. He pushed us and urged us along as much as he could, but I think we were all willing to make the effort in the interests of trying to improve the Bill according to our lights. Therefore I do not want to allow unchallenged claims that there was not an opportunity for the Opposition to put its case to go on record. I would say that we could have used more time. We could have used it very usefully and we could have set down additional days on which we could have sat. In fact, we did set down additional days and those days were agreed upon amongst us, but we finished without using those extra days. What I regret is that we have not in the House been able to achieve the same spirit and the same approach that we achieved there.

Seeing that we are now talking about what happened in the Select Committee. I want to say that the official Opposition having put their views on principles and having moved their instructions which were either ruled out of order or voted down, then proceeded to make a constructive contribution with proposals many of which were accepted. I think they had amendments to 11 clauses accepted. I believe the NRP too made a positive contribution. We had amendments to 15 clauses accepted. There was no obstructionism. The CP was totally opposed to the whole concept of the Bill and therefore its amendments sought to block it becoming effective, but in making their stand clear and in trying to block any form of power sharing or extension of political power to the other groups, they acted in a responsible spirit.

When we came to the House—when we had to pick up debate from that point—something went wrong. I am making myself guilty of it now because I am using up some time which we could be using debating the Bill, but I believe there is a joint guilt responsibility. While I blame the Government for introducing this guillotine motion—we shall vote against it—I believe that the other Opposition parties are jointly guilty of using time which we should have been using on the Bill itself.

How can you say that?

Yes, because firstly we spent 15 hours on discussing instructions which involved principles we had discussed and debated ad nauseam at Second Reading and in the Select Committee. The point I want to make in this regard is that I regret that my participation in this debate now is also using up time which I believe could have been far more effectively …

Who asked you to speak?

I am participating in this debate because I believe in justice and fairness and in fairness to the Select Committee and all its members I want to dispel any idea that it was not a genuine Select Committee which tried to achieve results.

What I regret is that out of the 69 hours available—I think I have the total number of hours correct—so much of the time has been spent on discussions which preceded clause I and in dealing with matters which we all accepted in the Select Committee in the end and on which we all agreed, as the record will show. We would not have been in this position now, I believe, if from the start of the discussions on Monday last we had dealt with the matter as we dealt with it in the Select Committee. We should have gone for improvements, debated on a constructive basis, and we should have promoted the amendments which we sought to achieve. Instead of that, I believe that this Bill is going to suffer, that its impact on South Africa is going to suffer, and I believe that the Government has added to that by this debate which has caused another whole day to be wasted instead of being spent on the measure itself.

In conclusion I want to say that I hope that in the time left to us all parties will proceed to get down to the essence of as many clauses as possible in a constructive way rather than in an obstructive, filibustering way. That does not limit the responsibility, the guilt and, I believe, the foolishness of the Government in moving a guillotine motion when a round-table conference, as the Whip of the NRP suggested, a discussion, an attempt to find an agreement on clauses and times might have made it possible to have dealt with this whole measure with far greater attention being given to possible improvements and amendments. Instead of that, we have had head-on confrontation and I believe we have not served South Africa.

Therefore we are opposed to a limitation and I would appeal that even at this stage the Government should consider getting the four parties together in a last attempt to reach an agreement, in an attempt to get the Opposition to adopt the approach of “Right, we have so much time remaining and we of the Opposition will guarantee that we will deal with this on a responsible basis”. Failing that, and in any case when this motion is put, we will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I hasten to assure the hon. member for Durban Point and the House that we agree with him that there was a spirit of co-operation and of goodwill in that Select Committee. About that there is no doubt. During the first few days on which that Select Committee sat there was a very pleasant atmosphere of discussion and of shaping of minds, but in the last three days that was not the case. I further want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point that he then proceeded to answer to an imagined allegation made by this side of the House. We never said that we were gagged. We never said that there was no opportunity for the Opposition to put their case, but something happened after the sixth day. When we came together and put our amendments and started to motivate our cases, there was no reply from the other side. I agree completely and unconditionally with the utterances made by the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Sea Point. There was a non-debate during the last three days. The hon. member for Durban Point cannot disagree with that.

But there were no restrictions.

Quite right, there were no restrictions, but one cannot put one’s amendments and motivate them and start a debate and then get no response whatsoever. If one then insisted and asked whether the Government members were not going to reply to what one had said, one of them would reluctantly respond shortly to the motivation.

*The hon. member also said that there was sufficient time and that memorandums had been submitted. I just want to point to a few other matters. I proposed, for example, that the closing date for the submission of memorandums should be advanced by seven days. That was voted down. Quite a few people who submitted memorandums felt aggrieved at the fact that in regard to such an important matter they had not had enough time to prepare themselves fully. Only certain witnesses were called. For example, from the private sector only Assocom was called, whilst a memorandum had also been received from FCI.

Sir, may I ask the hon. member whether he, or any other member of the Select Committee, proposed calling any specific witness and whether the Select Committee then decided not to do so?

Yes. On more than one occasion the hon. member for Sandton, for example, asked for Prof. Dean to be called upon to give evidence. The chairman then said that if we called upon one professor to do so, we would have to call upon all the other professors, too. It was said that we would also have to call Prof. Boshof and Prof. Kleynhans.

Was there a specific motion requesting a certain witness be called and, if so, was such a motion voted down?

The hon. the Minister is now hiding behind a technicality. He knows that the idea was raised there and that it was then shot down in flames. What would then have been the object of pursuing the matter any further? That is what happened there.

What kind of memorandums were submitted? There was not only a memorandum from Assocom. Eventually Coloured and Indian representatives, representatives of Coloured and Indian management committees, came along, but not the management committees of White municipalities, not the Rapportryers’ Federation, not Sabra, not certain other people who felt very strongly about this matter. This motion of the hon. the Leader of the House …

Why are you telling such untruths?

The hon. the Minister has the opportunity to tell me what untruths I am telling.

You know, do you not, that there was no motion.

Is the hon. the Minister of Law and Order now also going to hide behind a technicality? He is well aware of the fact that the matter was discussed very thoroughly in the Select Committee and that it was decided not to call A, because then one would also have to call B, C and D. Let me ask the hon. the Minister of Law and Order whether this is an untruth. Am I lying now? [Interjections.]

This motion on the part of the hon. Leader of the House is typical of the intolerant arrogance of the Government. No single Government speaker has denied that this motion, of which notice was given yesterday afternoon at 14h15, had not been discussed with any of the Whips. If that is not arrogance, if that is not intolerance, I should like to know what it is. The normal procedure, in the face of a positive attitude existing between the Leader of the House and the Whips of the respective parties, was not adopted here. In regard to an extremely important Bill which, according to the learned professors of Stellenbosch, is the most important event since 1910, the Whips of the various Opposition parties—believe it or not!—are not even consulted. What did the late Dr. Malan say in that speech the hon. member for Rissik quoted? He said (Hansard, col. 9182, 24 June 1952)—

Here there was not even any attempt at agreement. The hon. member for Umhlanga came to light with a very sensible idea. He said—and the hon. member for Sea Point quoted this—that we should get together and See whether we could not reach some compromise. Hon. members of the NP, however, are not even prepared to reach a compromise with us on the question of the various clauses.

I now want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. He said that there are 180 amendments and that the majority of them are consequential amendments. That is not true. Not even 10% of the amendments are consequential amendments. 90% of the amendments get right down to the roots of the respective clauses.

The second thing he said was that the hon. member for Hillbrow had gone back on an agreement in regard to Thursday afternoon. He said that half-hour had not been lost, because further time was being allocated. The rest of the time, which should be allowed to us in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders, is being denied us.

You are wasting time.

It has been said repeatedly, by the hon. member for Turffontein and also by other hon. members, that fillibustering is taking place here. Never once, however, has the presiding officer asked an hon. member to resume his seat.

He has. [Interjections.]

On each occasion he has listened to the argument of the hon. member he has called to order and given him an opportunity to continue with his speech. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pretoria Central says that certain provisions of the Standing Rules and Orders restrict debates. That is quite correct. There is also a Standing Order dealing with the Committee Stage. That Standing Order provides that each speaker shall have three turns to speak and that no speech shall be longer than 10 minutes. The length of the Committee Stage therefore depends on the length of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware of the fact that even if this were the only restriction, this debate would last 878 hours if only the CP spoke and no one else? [Interjections.]

Theoretically that is possible, but that did not happen in regard to the first three clauses. The hon. member for Pretoria Central can surely remember that in 1973 and 1977 we discussed the Criminal Procedure Bill here. He will remember that in the late Minister Pelser’s day, when he was Minister of Justice, we spent weeks debating the Committee Stage of the Criminal Procedure Bill here. That Bill was subsequently withdrawn, and on a subsequent occasion, in 1977, when Minister Jimmy Kruger was Minister of Justice, it was reintroduced. It was a very important Bill, but not nearly as important as this one, and at the time the Committee Stage lasted from 11 March to 25 March. It is true that other legislation was also discussed during that period, but the discussions nevertheless took up 336 columns in Hansard. The Bill before the House at present, however, a Bill that is so important and is going to affect us all in the future, a Bill that is leading us into the darkness of that unknown future, in the sense that we do not know what lies ahead for us, is being made subject to the guillotine rule. [Interjections.]

You people do not know the rules.

There the hon. member is again saying that we do not know the rules. That is a reflection on the Chair. There is nothing preventing us from expressing certain ideas about a clause in this Committee. To put forward certain ideas about a clause dealing with the National Anthem or the National Flag is quite within the rules of the House and has rightly been permitted by the Chairman. There is no doubt about the fact that we are dealing here with the most important legislation since South Africa gained its independence in 1910.