as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:

1. 1. The pension payable to O. Andresen in terms of item 8 of the Schedule to the Pensions (Supplementary) Act, 1974 (Act No. 78 of 1974), shall be increased to R2 400 per annum with effect from 1 October 1983 on compassionate grounds.
2. 2. On payment to the Government Service Pension Fund, on the conditions determined by the Director-General: Health and Welfare, of an amount of R9 107, 97, together with compound interest thereon at 5,5 per cent per annum with effect from 6 January 1982 up to and including the date on which the said amount is paid, the pensionable service of H. A. J. Burger, Inspector of Education, Department of National Education, shall, for the purpose of the laws governing the said Pension Fund, be deemed to be uninterrupted as from 24 January 1948.

J. P. GROBLER,
Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

23 August 1983.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:

1. 1. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitioners be entertained: Courtenay-Latimer, Marjorie E. D.; Greyvenstein, J. J. J.; Heyman, L.; Potgieter, G. N.; and Stormanns, H. H.
2. 2. That it has been unable to complete its inquiry into the petition of Nel, D. U., and recommends that it be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions at an early stage in the next session.

J. P. GROBLER,
Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

23 August 1983.

Report to be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

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 the hours of sitting on Tuesday, 30 August 1983, shall be as follows:
   14h15—18h30
   20h00—22h30;
5. (5) that, if the Committee Stage of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill has not been disposed of by 22h30 on Wednesday, 31 August 1983, the provisions of Standing Order No. 155(1)(b) shall apply.

By way of commencement, I just want to point out briefly to hon. members that this motion is being moved in the place of a motion which served before this House earlier this week, in terms of which this debate would have been terminated at 12 noon on Saturday. Therefore, the implication of the present motion is that additional time is being allowed for the Committee Stage of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill.

I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that if the debate were to have been terminated at 12 noon on Saturday, the Committee Stage alone will have lasted for 59 hours. If the present motion is approved, it will mean that more than 20 additional hours are being set aside for the Committee Stage of this particular Bill. Furthermore, I also want to point out that this motion is being introduced in addition to the Bill having been considered by a Select Committee. I believe it is reasonable, by any standards, that we will have spent approximately 158 hours on the Committee Stage of the Constitution Bill by that time—by next Wednesday at 22h30. This is equal to one and a half months’ normal sitting hours of the House, and that when the Bill has been considered by a Select Committee as well.

Since I am moving this motion, I should like to emphasize that this is a concession. I therefore want to emphasize that having made additional time available for this debate, the Government is appealing to hon. members—in the words of the hon. the Leader of the NRP—if we really want to conduct a meaningful debate, to argue positively, and not destructively. We shall achieve a great deal more in that way. Consequently, I am making this appeal to the House.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall deal with the points made by the hon. the Leader of the House. To begin with I want to point out though that the PFP will oppose this motion as it did oppose the previous motion. We do not intend to belabour the point and to take up the valuable time of the House, time that should in all fairness be spent on the Committee Stage of the Constitution Bill. We also do not intend to repeat all the arguments advanced in the discussion of the previous motion although they are all still relevant to this motion. We do ask, however, that those arguments—especially those advanced by the hon. member for Sandton and by the hon. member for Sea Point—be regarded as though they had been advanced in respect of this motion too. We shall therefore try to confine ourselves to one speaker in arguing this motion.

It is, however, necessary briefly to deal with the amended motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the House, and to place certain facts on record.

The motion now before the House differs from the previous one only in so far as it allows for extending the Committee Stage debate in respect of the Constitution Bill by 20 hours and 15 minutes; that is until 22h30 on Wednesday next week. The principle contained in the guillotine motion is merely extended and therefore still applies. In our view it remains a breach of the undertakings given by the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister is the head of the executive. He is the leader of the NP. That means that when he gives an undertaking he binds the Government and his party in terms of that undertaking. When he repeats an undertaking and also makes sure that undertaking is understood, he reaffirms the Government’s standpoint. When the hon. the Leader of the House makes a statement that statement binds all hon. members on the Government side, and when the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is in charge of this Bill, makes a statement in which he repeats the undertaking that has been given, he accepts that the legislation should be dealt with in terms of the said undertaking.

The undertaking given clearly states, as I mentioned on Tuesday—I also referred to several Hansard columns containing statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the House and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—that we are going to sit until the Constitution Bill is disposed of. The hon. the Prime Minister also said that we had to prepare for a winter session. He promised us that there would be an opportunity for thorough discussion of all the stages of the legislation because the introduction of this Bill was a very special occasion.

The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said we had created the impression that the Government wanted to bulldoze this legislation through Parliament. He was very angry about that. He criticized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for creating the impression that the Government wanted to bulldoze the legislation through Parliament without giving a proper chance for the discussion and the consideration of the whole measure. He also repeated the statement made earlier by the hon. the Prime Minister saying that we would sit as long as was necessary.

I want to know, in all humility and with all respect, whether this breach of the undertaking so solemnly given on so many occasions does not worry the Government. It does worry us, and it also worries the public of South Africa. It worries all those who will take part in the coming referendum. It worries all South Africans that the undertakings given by the Government cannot be trusted. It indeed worries everybody that the Government can simply ignore its own undertakings.

In most democratic countries senior Cabinet Ministers who give such undertakings as these, and who subsequently commit a breach of their undertakings, have to resign their positions forthwith. Be it as it may, I still have the impression that the Government is embarrassed by its own guillotine motion. What is the Government trying to do now? I believe it is trying to save face.

After a full day’s debate the original motion had to be withdrawn. In the process, however, a valuable day, a day that could have been spent on proceeding with the discussion of the Committee Stage of the Constitution Bill, was wasted because of the Government’s folly to introduce a motion which it knew would be bitterly opposed by hon. members of the Opposition parties; a step that ultimately turned out to be a blunder. The Government must therefore accept full responsibility for that wasted day. When the motion was introduced by the hon. the Leader of the House the Committee Stage debate on the Constitution Bill had only been in progress for one hour on the previous Wednesday evening, for a few short hours on Thursday and also a full sitting day on Friday. Yet on Monday the hon. the Leader of the House introduced his guillotine motion without giving any reasons for it. There had also been no consultation with the leaders of the various Opposition parties or with the Whips, as is normally the custom.

All Opposition members—to the best of my knowledge—were in the dark because they had been caught by surprise, and I believe that even hon. members on the Government side had also been caught by surprise in that instance. In our debate on the motion we suggested that their might be several reasons why the motion had been introduced. One of those reasons was that a referendum date would be announced. In that respect we proved to be correct except that we had said it would probably be on 26 October, and as we all know now, it will be only one week later, on 2 November.

We also suggested that because the Free State congress of the NP was due to begin on 6 September, and the Transvaal congress of that party on 13 September, that was another reason for the hon. the Leader of the House to decide to cut short the debate. Up to this moment, in spite of a full day’s debate, not one hon. member on the Government side has denied this allegation. We do not only know now that there is indeed going to be a referendum but we also know the date on which it is to be held, and we also know the question that will be put. The voters will be asked whether they are in favour of the execution of the Constitutional Act as approved by Parliament. Therefore, it is now more necessary than ever that the Committee consider the entire 103 clauses of the Bill, the Schedule and the Preamble, and not merely a limited number of clauses.

The country now knows the date and the question of the referendum. The hon. the Prime Minister has kept his promise of giving the country two months’ notice. What, then, is the problem? Why does he not keep the other promises that he made? Nevertheless, we now have plenty of time before 2 November to discuss the Committee Stage of this Bill as it should be discussed. Therefore, that reason falls away. Now that the country understands the implications of the Bill, they will be able to vote at the referendum. At least then we shall have the opportunity of discussing and explaining to the voters what budgetary process will be followed by the three Houses. We will also then be able to discuss the Schedule and the Preamble. Does the Government want to hold a referendum on the constitution when the voters know that the debate was curtailed by means of a guillotine motion and that the debate on the constitution of South Africa was conducted in the shadow of that guillotine motion and that because of this fact the debate was incomplete? I do not think the Government wants the referendum to succeed, but that will be their funeral. I am sure that is what some Government members want. We all thought that the Committee Stage of the Bill would take two to three months and we had prepared ourselves to sit here until the debate was completed and until we had had the opportunity to put our case and have our amendments debated. We cannot be accused of filibustering and no criticism has been levelled at us as to our handling of the Committee Stage. This is a right that we have which is prescribed by the Standing Orders and by the traditions and conventions of Parliament. Is there any reason to treat any of the other Opposition parties in this House any differently?

During the discussion of the first motion, it was alleged by Government speakers that too many points of order had been raised by hon. members of the CP during the initial discussion of the Bill, and that this had also been time-consuming. This reminds me of the headmaster of a school who feels that because there is one naughty boy in the school the whole school should be punished. Is this a school or is this the Parliament of South Africa debating its new constitution? I am not saying that anybody has been naughty. I am saying that I think everyone has been doing his best and exercising his democratic right to debate in this House.

The additional hours of sitting proposed in this motion, namely to sit on Friday night and on Saturday morning of this week and to sit on Tuesday night of next week, are going to impose a further strain upon members of this House. These additional sitting hours will certainly impose a great strain upon the already heavily burdened administrative staff and officers of Parliament, particularly the Hansard staff. The catering staff, the service officers and all the other people connected with Parliament will also suffer. The hon. the Prime Minister promised us that he would not repeat the imposition placed on members of Parliament at the end of the 1982 session when we sat right through Friday night into Saturday morning. Is that going to be another broken promise?

The hon. the Leader of the House gave us an undertaking that this session would proceed in the normal way without additional hours of sitting being required, and we hold him to that statement. This was said at the outset. We were told that as soon as the legislation was ready we would come back to Parliament in order to discuss it—another broken undertaking.

I find it inconsistent that the Government should see fit to extend the Third Reading debate to 10 hours on the one hand and, on the other hand, seek to impose a guillotine on the Committee Stage. What is the explanation for this?

If we get as far as clause 50, there will still be 64 amendments left on the Order Paper. Will we not be able to discuss them? The hon. the Minister himself has today placed 10 new amendments on the Order Paper. This shows the importance of the Committee Stage and the need to continue the discussion. What are we left with? We are left with a string of broken promises and undertakings and an unnecessary burden placed upon hon. members. There was no need for this motion. This motion should never have been moved in the House in the first place. It has done Parliament and the Government irreparable harm and it will also do the referendum harm.

There is no excuse known to us why we cannot proceed in the normal way and finish the Committee Stage as it should be finished. If there is any such reason, let the hon. the Leader of the House or hon. members on that side of the House get up and say so.

History will record that at the critical moment of discussion in the historical debate on the constitution of South Africa the guillotine fell at 22h00 on Wednesday, 31 August 1983, on clause number so-and-so, that all further debate stopped dead in the tracks and that all the amendments by the Opposition dropped. That is what the Government wants.

Because time is now valuable and we shall have to continue in the shadow of the guillotine, we shall not take up any further debating time. We shall vote against the motion with a message to the Government that we oppose it tooth and nail.

Mr. Speaker, the CP is not totally opposed to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House. The CP is not opposed to extending the sitting hours of the House, but it is opposed to the guillotine proposed in paragraph (5). For that reason I move the following amendments on behalf of the CP—

1. (1) In paragraph (1), after “17h30;” to insert “20h00 to 22h30;”; and
2. (2) to omit paragraphs (3) and (5).

If the amendments are accepted, we shall, as was previously agreed, adjourn at 17h30 for the sake of those hon. members who want to attend the flower exhibition, then the House will resume business at 22h00 until 22h30. This also means that the House will not sit on Saturday and that the guillotine provision will not be applied.

The hon. the Leader of the House said that approximately 160 hours will have been made available for the Committee Stage by the time it is adjourned next Wednesday evening. This means approximately 80 minutes per clause, viz. eight speakers, each making a 10 minute speech per clause. If four hon. members from the Opposition parties each have one speech of 10 minutes and four hon. members of the Government Party have four speeches each, the eight speeches per clause are finished. If one takes into consideration how much time the hon. the Minister takes when he replies to the discussions, I want to know whether it is fair for the hon. the Leader of the House to say 160 hours is long enough.

He does not waste time like you do.

In my reaction to the previous motion of the hon. the Leader of the House, I said inter alia that the action taken by the hon. the Leader was indicative of the intolerance of the Government party towards hon. members of the Opposition Parties who disagreed with them. I also said that the action of the hon. the Leader was indicative of the dictatorial way in which the governing party wanted to impose its will on Parliament. I also said that the hon. Leader’s previous motion had been impulsive.

Today I want to repeat this. The action of the hon. the Leader of the House is indicative of the dictatorial way in which the Government party wants to impose its ill-considered, unplanned will on Parliament. The mere fact that after an entire day’s debate, the hon. the Leader withdrew his previous motion, is to my mind the best demonstration that his previous motion was ill-considered and extremely impulsive.

The Government party says the CP is employing delaying tactics. I heard the hon. member for Innesdal say we were wasting time. [Interjections.] I should like the hon. member for Innesdal to take congnizance of this: The hon. the Leader of the House allowed an entire day to elapse before he realized that his motion had been wrong in the first place. An entire day’s valuable time which could have been spent discussing the constitution was therefore wasted. I want the hon. members for Pretoria Central, Turffontein and Mossel Bay who supported the hon. the Leader of the House’s previous motion so enthusiastically, to read their speeches again. It would seem they were unable to convince the Leader of the House that his motion was correct.

You are talking nonsense.

Those hon. members were unable to argue convincingly that the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House was correct.

You have already said that.

I wonder whether that hon. member understood what I said. It would seem the hon. the Leader of the House had to give way to the onslaught of the Opposition Parties, and he now has this new motion before the House, a motion in which the extension of the time is acceptable to the CP, but not the guillotine.

I also said in the previous debate that the Government’s constitutional house of cards was collapsing. We have proof of this. Only yesterday the governing party said that by 12 o’clock on Saturday the Committee stage of the Constitution Bill had to be completed, a Constitution Bill on which more than 200 amendments have been moved. Those 200 amendments reveal the defects in the Constitution Bill. Only yesterday the Government said that the Committee Stage would have to be completed by Saturday, but today the Government says that if the Committee Stage is not completed by Wednesday the guillotine rule will be applied. [Interjections.] On today’s Order Paper eleven new amendments appear under the name of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. If, between yesterday and today, the hon. the Minister has discovered eleven new defects in the Constitution Bill, I want to tell him that between now and Wednesday he can find many more. We want to give him the assurance that between now and Wednesday the CP will assist him in finding many more defects in the Constitution Bill. The fact that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has moved eleven new amendments today after the NP, as the hon. the Minister is so fond of pointing out, has been working on the new dispensation since 1973, is all the proof I need that the hon. the Leader of the House must put away his axe. We want to ask him to put away his axe.

The constitution is the most important law in a people’s life. This legislation deserves to be considered and debated according to the tried and trusted rules and customs of this House. The CP is tired of the contempt the Government party shows for Parliament. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister announced a referendum in which the following question will be put—

Yesterday the hon. Prime Minister announced a referendum on legislation which is still to be approved by Parliament, but in actual fact the legislation is in the Committee Stage at the moment and the Government is going to apply the guillotine to end the Committee Stage on Wednesday. [Interjections.]

Order!

A referendum was announced in the House of Assembly yesterday afternoon in terms of a Referendums Bill which had been referred to a Select Committee which only completed its work yesterday. As far as I know its report has not been tabled in Parliament yet. The Referendums Bill is contentious legislation which the Select Committee only finished discussing yesterday. However, the Government has already announced a referendum. If this is not contempt, if this is not dictatorial steamrolling tactics to impose the will of the Government party on Parliament, then I do not know what is.

The CP is not afraid of longer sitting hours. For that reason we are agreeing with the Government on this. The CP is fit; we are prepared and we are full of fight. [Interjections.] Although the hon. the Prime Minister has already announced a referendum, we want this legislation to be debated fully. The day this hon. House adjourns, we are going to fight this constitution tooth and nail, this constitution which the Government wants to force on South Africa and which sounds the death knell for White self-determination. The CP is not afraid of longer sitting hours. We shall fight the Government from early in the morning till late at night. The CP is not opposed to longer sitting hours and that is why we have suggested that we adjourn this afternoon at 17h30 so that we can admire the beautiful Boland flowers with other hon. members and then return here this evening to continue to discuss this extremely important Bill now before us. For those hon. members who are unable to do so this evening, I should like to suggest that they be given Saturday off to go and look at the Boland flowers.

The CP refuses to accept the guillotine. We refuse to be silenced by a guillotine and we want to point out the dangers and defects in the Constitution Bill without the threat of the guillotine. The CP maintains that the Constitution Bill sounds the death knell for White self-determination. That is why this Parliament owes it to South Africa to discuss this Bill peacefully, thoroughly and at its leisure. That is why I moved my amendments.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Kuruman has ever proved his fitness, he proved it a moment ago when he was not even fit enough to bring his own amendment to the Table.

I shall not allow myself to be lured into reacting to everything the hon. member said, because I do not want to become totally irrelevant in the debate.

I cannot understand how the hon. member can kick up such a fuss about the so-called arrogance of the Government in stating, when it announced the referendum, what the question would be which would be asked in the referendum. This leaves the CP with one aspect less to gossip about. Does the hon. member now want to tell me that he doubts that the House will pass this legislation? The hon. member said they would fight this measure from early in the morning till late at night. I believe that. They will fight from early in the morning till late at night, but mainly late at night because their message cannot stand the light of day.

May I ask you a question?

No, Sir. The points of order raised and the questions put are merely a new delaying tactic being employed by those hon. members.

You and I can give our message from the same platform.

The hon. member has already had an opportunity to state his case.

I want to associate myself with the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House. Since last Tuesday the charge has been bandied about here indiscriminately that no consultation had taken place and that no attempt had been made to reach an agreement. The hon. Whip of the official Opposition accused the Prime Minister of not keeping his word. The hon. the Prime Minister is supposed to have promised that sufficient time would be available for the discussion of this Bill. But the Prime Minister, the Government, has kept its word and ensured that sufficient time was set aside for the discussion of the legislation. There is a vast difference between sufficient time and unlimited time, which is what that party would seem to have wanted in this case. It was indicated how many hours would be available for this legislation. I believe this is unequaled in respect of any debate to which the guillotine rule has ever been applied, except in respect of budget legislation, before rules were laid down which restricted the discussion of budget legislation.

It is true that there was no formal meeting of the Whips before the first motion was introduced. However, the Whips were informed and consulted before the motion was introduced. So when the hon. member for Hillbrow said that there was no communication, that was not the truth. It just so happened that the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition was unavailable and the hon. member for Hillbrow was informed. That is why he has seized this opportunity and cannot stop talking and making statements. It is clear that it will never be possible to find common ground for co-operation with most of the Opposition parties. That is why we had such unbridled statements here on Tuesday, in so far as these were within the limits of the rules. Even worse, the idea is being hypocritically cultivated here that an agreement really was possible. Only yesterday I held fairly thorough discussions with the Whips of all the parties in connection with a possible extension of time. Allow me to say at once that those discussions took place at any request.

But what did you offer?

The hon. member must not react so quickly; I am still getting around to that. I believe my relationship with Opposition Whips has always been of the best, and I believe that the converse also applies. If this is not so, the hon. Whips are free to say so.

What are we dealing with here? I now request the attention of the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition, who interrupted me so rudely. Can he tell me today in all honesty that he was or would have been prepared at any stage to reach an agreement or to negotiate in order to make a reasonable amount of time available for this debate?

No, I would not have been prepared to do it.

You see, Sir, he is quite honest. He says he would not have been prepared to reach an agreement. He is therefore not prepared to consult further. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow has been kicking up a fuss since Tuesday about why there had been no discussions on the matter and why there had been no consultation on the matter. The English Press groundlessly followed the line he adopted, namely that there had been no consultation. As if there had been any possibility of reaching an agreement. The hon. member is honest enough to say that he would not have negotiated.

Was the hon. member for Kuruman, the senior Whip of the CP, prepared to negotiate at any stage, so that a reasonable, limited time could be made available for this debate?

Initially I was prepared to do so, but when you came along with your guillotine story, I was no longer prepared to do so. [Interjections.] After all, you know what my standpoint was. We did discuss this.

The hon. member is not replying to my question.

Why did you not on Tuesday … [Interjections.]

Oh, shut up. The hon. member for Kuruman said he was initially prepared to do so, but I was present at the discussion which the hon. the Leader of the House … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for the hon. Chief Whip of the NP to say to the hon. member for Rissik: “Oh, shut up”?

I personally do not like that kind of language being used in this House, but it is not unparliamentary.

I personally do not like these irritations on the part of the hon. member for Rissik either, nor can I take much more of this.

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

No, Sir. His irritations are a blatant attempt to lead me away from the discussion which I am having with the hon. Senior Whip of the CP. The hon. Senior Whip said that he was initially prepared to discuss it. He also held discussions with the hon. the Leader of the House before the first motion was introduced. He also had the opportunity to say that if we did not introduce the guillotine, he would be prepared to discuss matters. He never at any time even …

There was no mention of a guillotine. You know that.

You were specifically …

I asked you yesterday … [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow this altercation here. If the hon. member wants to put a question, he must ask permission to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to reply to questions of the hon. member.

You cannot.

The hon. member indicated explicitly that he and his party do not wanted no part in applying any restrictive measures whatsoever in respect of this Committee Stage.

That was at our second discussion.

No, it was at the first discussion. That was his standpoint at the first discussion. He announced that his men wanted to speak, that they had worked on the measure for hours and that they did not … [Interjections.]

Order! I can well understand that the hon. member for Kuruman wants to put his case, but he must give his information to the next speaker and give the hon. Chief Whip a chance to complete his argument now. The hon. Chief Whip may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I have demonstrated is that this hypocritical claim which has been made here that if it had not been for such an unfair Government, there would have been an opportunity to reach an agreement, is just as untrue as their charges turned out to be. There never has been and there never will be any intention on the part of the two Opposition parties to co-operate at all, so that the Committee Stage can be completed within a reasonable period of time.

That is not true.

When we refer to sufficient time, we do not mean unlimited time. I shall not repeat what the hon. members had to say, because you, Mr. Speaker, probably suffered just as much as we did in having to listen to it. If, for example, one looks at last Friday’s unrevised Hansard report of the hon. member for Language in speeches and one considers the quality of his contribution, one shudders. Must this Parliament be subjected to this for months on end?

You do not understand these things in any case.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that hon. member told us about severed arms and the like in a debate on the constitution.

That was where your religion originated.

Now the hon. member for Kuruman comes along and says that since yesterday alone …

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

No, I want to finish now.

I also want to finish now. I want to continue with the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Kuruman said that since yesterday a further 11 defects have been found in the Bill. However, these amendments almost arose from the CP amendment which was accepted, where the word “President” was replaced by the words “State President”. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. the leader of the CP, and the hon. member for Yeoville must not get ants in his pants now. Why did he not speak to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who cannot stop talking at all?

Let us see what statement the hon. the leader of the CP made after the announcement of the referendum by the hon. the Prime Minister. According to his unrevised Hansard, he said—

Then the hon. the leader went on to say—

Is this the leader of a party which is pretending to be interested in meaningful debate? He said here expressly that it did not make much difference what amendments were eventually accepted. The principles of the Bill have already been accepted and these principles are unacceptable to him. But, Sir, these principles have already been debated during the First Reading and again during the Second Reading.

We do not want your mixed government.

Mr. Speaker, since that hon. member left the NP, I have become particular as to who I mix with. Really, Sir, I am not prepared to mix with that hon. member any more.

As I said, surely these principles were debated without a guillotine being applied. It is therefore simply not true to come along and say that they still want to make a meaningful contribution in the Committee Stage of the Constitution Bill. After all, the hon. the leader said that it did not matter to him what amendments were accepted. He will not accept them. He said they would fight them with every means at their disposal. And, Sir, we have already seen what every means entails. We have already seen this in this House, whether it be obstruction, whether it be excessive delay. There were boasts from that side that they would show us that they could keep Parliament here until October. But, Mr. Speaker, the general public are not stupid. Therefore, coming here and making a fuss about agreements and consultations is so much verbiage.

The question to be put to the voters has a material effect on this motion because it joins the PFP and the CP together in their negative opposition. The leader of the CP said he welcomed the simplicity and the clarity of the question. But what else did he expect? Of course, other stories about the question are doing the rounds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his television interview that it was creating a problem for the Government because his party’s “no” and the CP’s “no” were now being joined together. No, I do not think it is creating a dilemma for the Government. On the contrary. At least we now have all the clergymen in the same camp. There is, for example, the hon. the leader of the CP, the hon. member for Pine-lands, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Dr. Alan Boesak …

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

Sir, I shall comply with your request, but just allow me to say that in addition to that combination, there is another flea in that bed. They have a new bedfellow in the form of the newly established UDF which now also has Nelson Mandela and Oscar Mpetha … [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. the leader of the CP said that he was not interested in amendments which could lead to a longer debate. He said he preferred to fight the legislation under discussion with every means at his disposal. He prefers to join forces with Helen Joseph and Beyers Naude because he can use them as tools in that struggle. However, I have now said more than enough about that party which has cloaked itself in hypocrisy. [Interjections.] I do not think they will pass the test of truth in this struggle. For that reason I now want to turn to the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition again.

I know the hon. member for Groote Schuur well enough to know that he will never be placed in a position to negotiate. That power clique in his caucus will never allow him to do so. That is the reason why the hon. member for Hillbrow had to take the lead here right from the start, had to make every statement, had to make every speech, almost like a person with apricot sickness—once he starts he simply cannot stop. [Interjections.]

Why kick up a fuss here about negotiations if the possibility of an agreement had been excluded in advance? Hon. members of the official Opposition must simply accept the fact that they are indissolubly associated with the UDF and the CP.

Order! I have already asked the hon. member for Tygervallei to confine himself to the motion before this House. I am not going to allow the hon. member to continue with his speech if he does not abide by my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now confine myself to the motion before this House.

Today we shall therefore test the Opposition parties in this House in order to ascertain how much value we can attach to their word and how they are going to use these additional 20 hours which has been placed at their disposal. How they use them will be an indication to the public how valuable their arguments are. We are not here to waste time, and in the words of the hon. member for Kuruman we are now inviting hon. members of the official Opposition and of the CP to help us to dispose of this debate so that we can go into the field and give those two parties the worst hiding they have ever had—the CP, the Progs and the communists, the whole lot of them together. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think I must concede to the hon. Chief Whip of the NP this afternoon that he had a great time playing politics here. [Interjections.] I must add, however, that I, too, did enjoy it somewhat now and then. [Interjections.]

†As I said on Tuesday, we cannot in any way find ourselves in support of the guillotine motion because we believe it goes against the very things we should be doing in this Parliament. That is to debate in full every clause of the Bill before us.

I want to place on record, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are pleased that the Government has seen fit to introduce a different motion from the original one. We are pleased too that we now have an additional 20 hours in which to debate the Bill at Committee Stage. We do, however, stand by our point of view that it is a great shame and a great pity that we as Whips of the parties, with the hon. the Leader of the House, are not able to negotiate and to come to an agreement, even at this late stage, in terms of which every clause of the Constitution Bill can be debated.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Chief Government Whip has done, I also want to place something on record this afternoon. I want to place on record this party’s attitude towards this issue. Firstly I should want to ask the hon. the Leader of the House whether it is not true that when he and I first met on this issue I asked him whether it was not possible for us to find consensus. Did I not ask him whether we could not discuss this issue around a table in an attempt to find each other? I see the hon. the Leader of the House agrees with me that this is indeed true. I believe that the hon. the Chief Whip on the Government side will also acknowledge that I discussed this matter with him immediately thereafter, and that at the meeting yesterday, to which he has referred in his speech, representing the NRP, I appealed to him and offered my support in finding consensus in respect of this issue. I am sure the hon. the Chief Whip will agree with what I say now. I therefore want this to be placed on record. The NRP has at all times been prepared, and would still like to be able to sit down and negotiate the possibility of our debating every clause of this Bill.

I also make an appeal to the other two Opposition parties to assist us in this matter. I appeal to their good sense. It is important, Sir, that the view of each party should be heard and should be reported, even if only in Hansard. It should, however, be heard and reported in respect of each of the 103 clauses of the Constitution Bill. It is vital to our future and to our history that the viewpoint of each party is given. There are many clauses in regard to which we have no difference of opinion. You know, Sir, I think it is a great shame, when I hear from my hon. leader that the first six clauses of the Bill were agreed to unanimously in the Select Committee, that we spent days debating those same six clauses in this House. Surely to goodness we can find each other. Surely we can agree. Why must there be this thespian attitude towards this matter? Why this play-acting? If clauses were agreed to uanimously on the Select Committee why cannot we agree unanimously to those clauses in this House? Let each one of us as individual political parties be permitted to put our points of view and then let the country judge us on what we are doing and what we are trying to do and, in fact, what we are not doing. I think that this is only right and fair at this vital moment in our history.

We are opposed to this guillotine motion but, unfortunately, the guillotine is going to fall. However, from now until 22h30 next Wednesday I say that it behoves every single hon. member in this House not to indulge in any way in time wasting. There must be no time wasting whatsoever.

I want to say that I agree with the hon. Chief Government Whip in regard to the taxpayer. The people outside are not going to be taken in by all this. The eyes of the voters of South Africa are on us at this moment and those voters are also the tax payers. Believe you me, Sir, taxpayers are not going to take kindly to it if we are seen here to be indulging in deliberate filibuster or delaying tactics. Once again, I want to repeat the appeal I made the day before yesterday. Please let us not delay any longer. Please let us get on with the job in hand and let us try seriously to debate every clause.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to reply as briefly as possible, since I think all of us on this side of the House are aware that while we continue to argue about this issue, an issue which has been discussed in a very short period of time, we are taking up some of the remaining time for the Committee Stage of this Bill. Therefore, the sooner we can continue with that work, the better.

By way of commencement, I should like to say that I did not discuss the first motion that was moved yesterday, and I want to make a few remarks in consequence of that debate now. I just want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria Central, the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Mossel Bay most sincerely for quoting very effectively the relevant figures, and for establishing the direction of this debate thus far. I do not want to repeat those arguments, but I want to thank them for that.

I do not think anyone would believe that people who keep a debate in progress for this long are serious when they say that they want to discuss the constitution. Perhaps they can content themselves by saying that, but they will not satisfy the public that they are really in earnest.

I now come back to the accusation levelled at the hon. the Prime Minister—and at me as well—for saying that sufficient time would be set aside for this. Of course there is sufficient time, and I want to argue that point now. I was also reproached for not going to the trouble of meeting the Whips and consulting with them. I should like to inform this House about that. The fact is that the hon. the Whip of the NRP, as he said this afternoon, did, in fact, have a point, and he asked whether we could not meet to discuss the matter, and I intended doing so. The hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition is aware that I went to a great deal of trouble to try and get hold of him.

When?

On that particular day when we were discussing this.

At what time?

I tried to find the hon. the Chief Whip. His secretary was to tell him that I tried to get hold of him two hours before the commencement of the debate.

Half past twelve.

The hon. member for Kuruman came to my office as well. When I tried to determine whether we were going to get anywhere in debating the times with one another, the hon. member replied that there was no question of that. Those hon. members must not try to pretend that they would perhaps have been helpful if I had been accommodating, but that I did not give them the opportunity. No, hon. members were not prepared to discuss that. I was prepared to reach a compromise. I think we should get the record straight in this regard. The hon. the Chief Whip on this side was present when that discussion took place. It is therefore no use hon. members presenting the matter in this way.

It is very clear that this debate, too, has been used to lay the foundations for a huge scandal in the outside world. That is why certain words were uttered here for the purposes of being recorded in Hansard, words that have never been used in that context in this House before.

Never before?

I shall tell you what this is all about. The hon. member for Lichtenburg spoke about errors when amendments are effected in the Committee. Were those errors in the hon. member’s legislation when he was a Minister who effected amendments to rectify what he had overlooked?

I corrected the errors.

The hon. member for Kuruman spoke about shortcomings. That statement was premediated, since they want to go and tell the outside world that we have introduced a defective Bill full of errors, and that we did not give them the opportunity to assist in rectifying them. This is what they want to go and peddle to the outside world, as they do with everything.

Is there a mistake in the blue booklet? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Leader of the House the opportunity to make his speech.

The question arises as to whether it is reasonable to expect that the House dispose of the Committee Stage in 80 hours.

No, it is not.

It is my contention that it is fair and reasonable to expect that, but now hon. members are arguing as though all the clauses that contain contentious issues and all the highlights and great moments are being debated for the first time. Surely that is not true. We cannot see this legislation in isolation in these debates. A long history spanning many years has preceded this. Debates on precisely the same subject have been conducted in this House over the years. It is not as though the public at large is uninformed. It is not as though hon. members on both sides of the House have not yet debated these points. We are not dealing with new arguments. It is not a situation this House is being faced with for the first time.

What is the history of this legislation? The history is that as far back as 1976, in-depth discussions began in this country as a result of proposals the Government party had submitted to the country with regard to constitutional reform. That debate was publicized by the media. It took place on platforms and culminated in debates in this House. The debate was initiated by the then Prime Minister in this House during the discussion of his Vote, the normal debates on the budget and in debates on motions of no confidence. The subjects being discussed now were therefore discussed as far back as that.

What became of all this? Proposals were then submitted by way of legislation. That legislation was first referred to a Select Committee. That Select Committee later became a commission of inquiry. They asked for comment on the proposals. The entire country submitted comments. The entire country could avail themselves of that opportunity. What was the result? The result was a proposal that an instrument be created which could take this matter further. That instrument, the President’s Council, was established.

That was the first occasion the issue that is before us today in the form of legislation was discussed in its entirety by such a body. That body did not only consist of Whites; it was a body in which Whites, Coloureds and Asians served in order to discuss this issue. There are hon. members opposite who are reproaching us for being undemocratic, but what was their attitude when they had the opportunity of making an input? They boycotted it! They did not participate [Interjections.] Of course hon. members of the PFP boycotted that body. I maintain that the hon. members of the official Opposition did not take advantage of the long discussions that took place. Theirs is the only party which is unqualified to participate in this debate today.

What did you do with their proposals? You threw them aside.

They are sitting here as an unqualified party. They did not take advantage of the long discussions which took place in the President’s Council.

What happened after that? After these proposals had been discussed in the President’s Council, they were discussed in depth here. They were discussed in all the important debates. After 1976, not a single discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote went by without this issue being discussed. Not a single discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister who later became the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, went by without a great deal of time being spent on it.

There was no legislation then.

This was discussed in every no-confidence debate.

When was the legislation tabled?

How many symposia have not been held, how many articles and books have not been written and how many study documents on this topic have not appeared. [Interjections.] That is why I am saying that the debate we are conducting today is not a new debate, but a very old one indeed.

It was then referred to a Select Committee. Parliament even adjourned to give the Select Committee an opportunity to dispose of its work. The Select Committee even had to report that it had time in hand which hon. members did not avail themselves of. I therefore ask: Is it fair to claim that 80 hours is not enough time to go through this process?

No, it is not enough.

I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point, since he adopted the correct attitude towards the other Opposition parties. He said that he did not like this either, but he added that he had noticed a great deal of wilfulness in this debate. He said that if the debate had been conducted in a meaningful way, in that we had been positive and not so negative, we could already have made a great deal of progress.

You never tried.

Of course we have tried.

It is therefore my contention that on its part, the Government has given everyone ample opportunity. It has made an exceptional amount of time available for the Committee Stage. If hon. members were to make a calculation, they would see that it is the equivalent of three weeks’ debating time in this House, three weeks for the Committee Stage only, after the entire process had been gone through. Hon. members should therefore not waste time and try to convince the country that they are serious in saying that the hon. the Prime Minister and I are guilty of trying to bulldoze this matter through. I think the hon. the Prime Minister was quite correct. He as Prime Minister, and all of us as members of this House, would be irresponsible if we were to use the time of this House recklessly and waste it and not confine ourselves to the legislation. Consequently, I think we should conclude this debate and continue with the work before this House.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not try to sum up the argument I was dealing with last evening, since there is very little time left. The only point I still want to make, is that the hon. member for Sea Point stated as part of his argument that the convention in terms of which the Ministers should also enjoy the support of Parliament, was not being retained in this Constitution Bill and that this changed the whole picture in respect of the President. It is my contention that is not the case. Although it is true that there is a rule that the President can appoint people who are not members of any of the Houses as Ministers, it is provided in a later clause that motions of no confidence in the Cabinet can be introduced. In effect, the Cabinet still has to have the confidence of Parliament, and therefore this does not alter the position of the President. Consequently, we are adhering very closely to the existing convention with the present rule.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring another matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention. It has nothing to do with the amendment. I am referring the hon. the Minister to subsection (3)(a) on page 10 of the Bill. The issue here is a rule of procedure in which—so it would appear to me—there is a discrepancy. When one reads this subsection, it appears that when the State President is removed from office on the ground of misconduct or inability to perform efficiently the duties of his office, before such a step can be taken, a House first has to address a petition to the Speaker—and he must obtain the co-operation of the other two Houses—since it states here that not less than half of the members of each House has to support this request. Only once this has been obtained, can a joint committee be appointed in terms of section 64, which can then go into the matter. After that report has been published and all three the Houses have supported it by way of a majority vote, the three Houses can request that an electoral college be constituted, which will then go into the question as to whether or not the State President should be dismissed. Now it seems to me that when the three Houses have decided by way of a majority vote and appointed an electoral college, there is a discrepancy in that the electoral college has the right to decide again by way of a majority vote. Supposing the three Houses have all decided by way of a majority vote, and the electoral college has been constituted. Then I would assume that the electoral college is really only supposed to implement the majority decisions of the three Houses. The possibility therefore exists that if the electoral college does not decide by way of majority that the President should be removed from office due to the reasons the three Houses have agreed on, he will consequently not be removed from his post. Now I am asking the hon. the Minister whether the words “a majority of” in line 12 of (3)(a) should not be deleted, so that the electoral college can meet only to carry out the task it was entrusted with by the various Houses, viz. to remove the President from his office and to elect a new President immediately after that. I am not moving an amendment in this regard. I am merely bringing it to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I should like him to tell me whether he does not think that there is a built-in discrepancy here.

Mr. Chairman, before I react to the further points which the hon. members raised there is another aspect which I first want to dispose of. It is that hon. members, and more specifically members of the CP, must say whether they want me to reply to their arguments. If they give me an indication that they do not, I shall accept that with the greatest pleasure and ignore them from now on.

For what reason?

I do not wish to start a debate with the hon. member for Kuruman now. The fact of the matter is, however, that hon. member, in a previous debate …

What does that have to do with this debate.

Mr. Chairman, either the hon. member behaves himself … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must not try to keep up a continuous conversation from his seat. I ask the hon. member to co-operate.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for Kuruman said that we on this side and I, specifically were spending time replying to their arguments. All I am saying now is that if they do not want replies, I am quite prepared to comply with their wishes. This will mean of course that a lot of half-truths will be recorded in Hansard. I shall leave it at that now.

I come next to the hon. member for Constantia. That hon. member referred to the powers of the President and to what would happen if motions of no confidence in him were moved. In this connection the hon. member said that the proposals we had here in the Constitution Bill reminded him of the system that applied in Soviet Russia. I must admit at once, Sir, that the hon. member for Constantia can speak with greater authority than I can about Soviet Russia and the policy which is being applied there. That also explains other actions of the hon. member, particularly his presence in a hall in Mitchell’s Plain. Consequently, if the hon. member accuses other people of revealing tendencies which remind him of Soviet Russia, all he need do is analyse his own actions. Let me put it to the hon. member, and he can react to this, that the President’s Council deliberated on the constitutional proposals over a long period, but I do not think the hon. member attended one session to see what came of those deliberations. But this of course was in keeping with the hon. member’s actions. He feels more at home as an observer in company where people such as Mandela are elected as patron. [Interjections.] I am sick and tired, Sir… [Interjections.] I am reacting to the hon. member’s arguments. In his arguments, and the hon. member for Sea Point associated himself with this, the hon. member …

The Minister is cracking up.

Order!

Why were you not there, Horace?

They do not admit “Vuil-uile” (shifty characters).

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Members of the PFP adopted certain standpoints in their argumentation of this matter and I want to deal with those standpoints.

What has Nelson Mandela to do with this debate?

Because he is a prisoner in a prison from which those members pleaded for his release. That is what he has to do with it.

Your Government locked Allan Hendrickse up too.

Order!

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I am in the process of replying to hon. members. [Interjections.]

Order! The arguments the hon. the Minister is advancing are in reaction to arguments which came from the official Opposition. I read the speeches made by hon. members on clause 9.

†The hon. member for Constantia did not refer to Mandela but he did refer to the UDF.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Would you indicate to us whether it is permissible, in terms of your ruling now, to react to an argument which is not in order in terms of the clause being discussed? As I understand the position, we are restricted to dealing with the clause before us. If a member therefore uses an argument which is outside the clause, it would be perfectly proper, for example, for the hon. member for Constantia to get up and to defend his position whether he was or was not at Mitchell’s Plain. Sir, the moment you allow a reply of this nature, then you would have to allow him to reply although it is strictly outside the ambit of the clause. So what I am asking you to rule is that in the reply of a Minister to the argument of an hon. member he must be in order. Otherwise the whole debate is going to become a shambles. That is why I suggest, with great respect, Sir, that the Minister should restrict himself to the clause. Because unless you keep the Minister within the clause we are going to have a spate of answers from this side in response to his remarks.

Order! The point which the hon. member for Yeoville is making here, is a valid one and I agree with him. All hon. members will from now on be allowed to speak only on the provisions of the clause before us. I shall not allow a single hon. member to say a single word that is not within the ambit of the provisions of the clause. I hope that is very clear to all hon. members. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I take it, Mr. Chairman …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: With reference to the ruling you have just given, could you give us an indication of what we are to do if we discuss a clause which is linked to another clause? In that case, may we not refer to the other clause either?

The same applies in that case.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to point out in reaction to your ruling, which I accept, that I believe it is fair that when a person replies to a debate on a specific day, he will have to reply to the arguments used earlier in the debate. I believe that is also in accordance with your ruling.

But then it must be the arguments themselves, and not the distorted interpretation of those arguments of the hon. member who is replying. [Interjections.]

I really did not think the hon. member for Greytown was the Chairman, Sir.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I now first state the allegations which the hon. members made, and then reply to them?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The first allegation which was made was that “the President can continue to govern with all the trimmings, etc.” That was the statement made by the hon. member for Sea Point. He also said “those trimmings are considerable and include the privileges, the patronage, access to the media, etc.” At present it is, after all, the position that a government in which a motion of no confidence has been passed, can continue to govern until an election takes place. Surely the hon. member for Sea Point is not so ignorant that he does not know that. Moreover, there have never been any objections to such an arrangement; not during the term of office of this Government, nor during the time its predecessors were in power. Nor has there ever been any objection to the fact that the members of such a government, who remain in power until an election takes place, can make use of the same privileges as they normally have at their disposal. You see, Mr. Chairman, the real problem of the hon. member for Sea Point is that he has never formed part of a government, and does not have a chance of ever doing so either. [Interjections.] Anyone who governs …

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

No, I do not have time to reply to any questions now.

Someone has to govern, after all—and the hon. member knows this, too—unitl an election takes place. The only way in which this can be done, and in which stability can be maintained in the process of government, is for the Government to continue as acting government—as caretaker government, if I may use this term—until the result of the election is known. If that Government should then lose the election, another government is formed.

The hon. member’s further objection to clause 9—in my opinion a completely erroneous one—was that the State President could not be compelled to resign after a motion of no confidence in him had been passed. During the debate it was made very clear to the hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members that under the specific circumstances the State President could not do nothing, but that he either had to resign his office himself, or dissolve Parliament with a view to a general election. The convention which would normally apply if a motion of no confidence were to be passed in a head of government is consequently being confirmed. Now, however, hon. members on the opposite side are spreading stories and rumours to the effect that the Constitution Bill contains nothing which obliges the State President to call an election after Parliament has been dissolved, and that he can also continue to govern …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that was the argument which hon. members of the CP advanced.

[Inaudible.]

But I am replying to the arguments of all the hon. members. Should I refer only to the hon. member for Sea Point now?

I thought the hon. the Minister was referring to me.

No, I am referring to hon. members of the Opposition in general.

There is nothing of this nature in the provisions of the present constitution. There is nothing in the present constitution of this nature which is now being identified as a defect. It is customary that the election date is announced simultaneously with or as soon as possible after the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament. This is the convention which has applied all these years in our country.

The hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Constantia alleged that the State President, after Parliament had been dissolved, could govern for 13 months after motions of no confidence in him had been passed.

I did not say a word about that.

Yes, but the hon. member for Constantia did say that. Of course, it is theoretically possible, but in view of the convention to which I referred previously, we did not deem it necessary and if my memory serves me well, no hon. member deemed it necessary on the Select Committee to insert a specific provision that an election should be held within a specified period after the announcement of dissolution. Hon. members will agree with me that there was no such motion. However, there is nothing sinister about the fact that there is no such provision. As I have already said, it also applies now. To allay the fears of hon. members, however, and in particular to put an end to the scandalous allegation that even after the announcement of dissolution a State President can govern for a long time without holding an election, I am quite prepared to effect an appropriate amendment to the appropriate clause to the effect that an election shall be held within a minimum period after the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament. I am not doing this, Sir, because there is no existing convention which covers this, I am doing this simply and solely to satisfy the objections in the first place and to put an end to the malicious gossip which is being spread in that connection. Consequently I shall effect such an amendment to the appropriate clause—which I will not be able to discuss now in terms of your ruling, Sir, and do not want to discuss in any case. At this stage I just want to say that through my own department I held consultations with other departments and, more specifically, the Department of Internal Affairs in respect of the time necessary in order to prepare for and hold elections.

†Mr. Chairman, I should like to say in conclusion that the reaction of hon. members to the proposed clause 9 is in all fairness a continuation of the tactics inside and outside this House, and also inside and outside South Africa, to bring the Government into disrepute on the basis of the following arguments. People are persuaded to believe that the Government lusts for power; that it does not tolerate opposition; that it is constantly moving in the direction of a dictatorship—this has been stated repeatedly during the discussion of this clause; and that it wants to hand over power to an executive President like a Soviet Praesidium, according to the hon. member for Constantia.

Including the guillotine. It is all part of it.

Sir, I do not think we should use a guillotine on the hon. member for Berea. He should be hanged. It is not difficult to predict that this will be the tenor of the argument in regard to the clauses we will have to discuss. It is not too difficult to understand and accept the fact that this will also be the tenor of the argument at the referendum. As this debate proceeds, I believe that we will hear this being said louder and louder because, in the light of the significant step which I believe we are taking in the constitutional process in this country, the sowing of suspicion by means of half-truths will remain the only defence. However, I want to say that I do not believe that is going to work on this occasion. I believe that the implementation of this clause and of this Bill will receive far greater support than those hon. members imagine.

Mr. Chairman, your very commendable ruling earlier today has brought order to the House and has reduced my speech by about 90%, something for which the Committee and I are grateful.

The events in this House over the past couple of days remind me of the saying that people who like sausages and respect the law should not see how either is made. I have the opportunity of offering assistance to the Government. I have the opportunity of offering the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government some very sound and helpful advice which will assist them in making the constitution which they are proposing a more workable one. It will also assist the State President to carry out his job more efficiently.

The hon. the Prime Minister is in the House at the moment and he will agree that the envisaged job of the State President as set out in this Bill is going to be a very difficult, if not impossible, task to fulfil. The load that is going to rest on the shoulders of the envisaged State President is going to be an incredibly heavy load of work. Not only will the State President be the executive head of government, he will also be the head of State. He will in fact have to do two jobs that are at the moment being done by two different people—two full-time, very demanding and very important jobs. Those two positions are now going to be rolled into one and one person will have to carry out all the responsibilities of those two jobs. However, it is going to be even more difficult than that because to date the State President and the Prime Minister of South Africa have dealt with a White system of Government. The Bill envisages a situation where the State President is in fact going to be responsible for three different structures of Government, namely a structure for the Whites, a structure for the Coloureds and a structure for the Indians. The job of State President is going to be incredibly difficult, time-consuming and complex. I think everybody will agree with that. The designation “State President” has been accepted and we are now proposing that he should have a Vice State President to assist him with his task because of the very difficult and comprehensive nature of his work. The State President is going to have to deal with four Cabinets, not just one Cabinet. He is going to have a super Cabinet and also three other Cabinets to deal with. He is going to have a President’s Council, all the President’s men, the fellows who are there to support whatever decision he wishes to have supported. He is going to have three Chambers. I cannot think of another President in the world who has to deal with three Chambers. If he wants a motion passed he has to have it passed in each of the three Chambers, and in the same form in each of the three Chambers. If he cannot, he has to go to the President’s Council to have it passed there. What I am saying is that we are dealing here with a State President who is going to have an incredibly difficult and comprehensive task. It is justified that he should have a Vice State President to assist him with these tasks. Therefore, I should like to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 10.(1) There shall be a Vice State President.
2. (2) The provisions of sections 7, 8 and 9 apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the election, qualification, period of office and removal from office of the Vice State President.

I want to support this amendment also by saying that there are certain principles involved in the need for a Vice State President. There is the principle of continuity. The present hon. Prime Minister has very kindly stated that he will be prepared to do the job. For that we thank him. I do not think there are many people who will be prepared to tackle that job. We are thankful that there is somebody in South Africa who is prepared to do it.

Order! The hon. member must return to his amendment.

This deals with my amendment. [Interjections.]

You are talking about the Vice-Presidency so you need your volunteer for this.

My hon. colleague says we need a volunteer for the Vice-Presidency.

Order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray.

I said we have a volunteer for the position of State President, and that it is a very difficult task.

Order! That has nothing to do with the hon. member’s amendment.

The Vice State President is going to help the State President.

Let me come back to the principle of continuity. The principle of continuity is that if anything happens to the State President then it is advisable and desirable that there should be a person already elected who can immediately and automatically take over the reins of the position of State President. There should not be a situation where, if something happens to the State President, whatever that may be, constitutional machinery has to appoint or nominate somebody to act as the State President. This could be dangerous and certainly it is inadvisable and undesirable to have a gap in the control of the State at a time of crisis or emergency. The principle of continuity is a sound principle. We should provide in our constitution that there will be a person already elected to take over the reins of the position of State President immediately and automatically.

The principle of democracy is also tremendously important. Sir, mechanisms are set out in the Bill—because of your ruling I cannot talk about them now—for nominating an Acting President. That does not conform with the requirements of democracy. It is clumsy and undemocratic. We would obviously prefer the Vice State President to be elected by the people of South Africa as a whole so that he has the confidence of South Africa and so that he can state with confidence that he is democratically elected. I believe if that is not possible then at least he should be elected in the way in which the State President is elected. In other words, he should be elected by the same electoral college created in this legislation for the election of the State President. The Vice State President should be elected at the same time.

Then there is another principle which is very important indeed. We are dealing with a constitution that is going to provide for the inclusion of Coloureds and Indians in the Government of South Africa, in the legislative and the executive governmental structures of South Africa. If we provided for a Vice State President we would have an ideal opportunity to give effect to the Government’s sincere and genuine desire for healthy power-sharing. The Government could by way of a Vice State President elect a Coloured or an Indian, and if they elected a Coloured or an Indian they would demonstrate their sincerity in providing for joint decision-making and joint responsibility. I believe the Government must be very embarrassed by the fact that it will always be a White State President who will be elected in South Africa. It obviously must be a very embarrassing situation for the Government.

Order! That last remark has nothing to do with the amendment which the hon. member moved.

I am trying to help the Government, Mr. Chairman.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to his amendment.

I am just saying that in this respect the Government can in fact convince South Africa and the world and all the other race groups of its bona fides by providing for a Vice State President and by making it possible for a Coloured or an Indian to be elected to such a position. They will be able then to give the impression of a multiracial Government. The Government wants a multiracial Cabinet, they want a multiracial Parliament and in this way they can also have a multiracial situation in respect of the head of state and the chief executive. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government does not grab with both hands this fantastic opportunity of demonstrating multiracialism. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston commenced his speech by saying that he wanted to give the Government very sound advice today. Right from the outset, I thought that it was too good to be true. I have said before that hon. member has never had good intentions with the race group or people to which he belongs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I shall come back to the clause. If one looks at his argument in respect of this clause, the hon. member has performed a complete about-face today as far as his fundamental approach is concerned. The attitude of that hon. member and his side of the House has always been consistent in the past, viz. that if Black people are not included in the parliamentary system according to the recipe of those hon. members, they are by no means willing to participate in establishing a President or a Vice President or a constitution of any nature.

That is not true. We are trying to improve your clumsy plan a little.

That is why I find it so odd that the hon. member said today that they wanted to assist in “improving” this constitution by way of this office. It was clear to me that there was a catch somewhere. I had no doubt about that. The hon. member does not genuinely want to assist this side of the House, the Government, in building something positive. He sees this as the Government’s Achilles’ heel and now he wants to see whether he cannot fan racial friction further by proposing that there be a Vice President.

Order! That, too, has nothing to do with the clause we are discussing now.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to deal with the hon. member’s argument. He said that in the new dispensation the State President would have such a tremendous responsibility, that it would be useful for him to have an acting State President—virtually a caretaker—someone who can step in immediately if the State President himself cannot continue with his normal duties due to problems or a possible disqualification. Once again, one wondered what the catch was here. After all, from my argument thus far it has become very clear that the so-called assistance that hon. member wants to offer, is not really assistance, but merely an attempt to cause discord once again. [Interjections.]

The State President, who will also be Chairman of the Cabinet, will have an entire Cabinet at his disposal, and he will consult with his Cabinet on a regular basis. After all, he will meet with members of his Cabinet regularly, and they will therefore continually be informed of what is going on.

Supposing the Cabinet is still no better than the present one? [Interjections.]

For that very reason there should not be any problems at all. If necessary, a member of the Cabinet could be appointed to act as Vice State President. In the present dispensation, the hon. the Prime Minister—someone who also carries tremendous responsibilities—is also able to appoint a member of the Cabinet as acting Prime Minister when, for example, he goes overseas or is indisposed, or for whatever reason. After all, it has been the convention until now that such a person is appointed in a specific way. I believe that, to a large extent, the same convention will continue to apply. The hon. the Minister could possibly …

Order! No, the hon. member is now discussing the details of clause 10.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister could clarify the situation for us in that respect.

Furthermore, the hon. member argued with regard to the question of particular principles that come to the fore, and whereby the opportunity is created …

Order!

The hon. member also referred to the question of continuity, something about which I have already advanced a number of arguments. I do not think it is necessary to discuss this any further. After all, a member of the Cabinet who will serve with the State President in the same Cabinet in the new dispensation, will be so well-informed, that I do not think it will be necessary to appoint a Vice State President. In the past, those hon. members have also argued that in view of the fact that he would act Chairman of the President’s Council, a Vice State President is simply appointed without the members of the President’s Council having a choice in the matter. According to those hon. members, the members of the President’s Council do not even have a say in the nomination of their own Chairman. Now I wonder what the argument of those hon. members is with regard to a Vice State President in the new dispensation. Do they want the proposed Vice President to be Chairman of the President’s Council, or what do they really want in this regard? I wonder whether they could not give us more details with regard to the specific tasks their proposed Vice President will have to perform.

Furthermore, those hon. members claim that democracy is supposedly being served, in that everyone will have a share in the election of such a Vice State President. Now one wonders what has happened to the democracy that has been served in the past by those hon. members, who are always saying that Black people have no say, and that consequently they are unable to participate…

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

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling.

The sting that hon. member was clearly presenting—that a Coloured or an Indian could be appointed at the Vice State President by the present State President, in terms of his reasoning—is an argument I just want to discuss briefly. Once again, this is clearly an attempt on the part of that hon. member not to try to assist, but to cause polarization. If one considers the proposals of the Government in this regard, one sees that there is, in fact, a Cabinet in which all groups will be involved and from which the State President will make his appointment if he sees fit to do so. However, I accept your ruling in this regard that matter falls under clause 10 and I do not want to discuss it any further now.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Yeoville would not like to give us his view on this Vice State Presidency, since it was clear that he tried to shelter behind the embarrassment the hon. member for Bryanston was trying to cause. However, I really do not think that he shares the view of the hon. member for Bryanston.

Mr. Chairman, a proposed new clause identical with the proposed new clause moved by the hon. member for Bryanston, appears in my name on the Order Paper. We placed this proposed amendment on the Order Paper in the vain hope that our amendments to clauses 7, 8 and 9 would be considered and accepted by sensible people. Unfortunately we misjudged the intelligence of the decision of this Committee because our amendments were not accepted. In view of this I shall not support the motion any further. However, you will allow me to point out briefly that we do have a Vice-President at present; we also have a State President and a Prime Minister. In the new dispensation the Government is now going to try to have the functions which are at present performed by these three people performed by one person. There is an analogous case in the USA which has an executive President. Over the years they have found it practical and necessary to have the position of a Vice-President under those specific circumstances. We also reasoned in this way. On our part, however, we wanted to ensure that the Vice-State President would be elected by the White House of Assembly. This is no longer possible and for that reason we are no longer interested in arguing this matter any further.

Mr. Chairman, we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston although we shall be doing so in a different spirit. He seemed to treat this matter as something of a joke. He made fun of it. However, we treat it as a serious amendment and we will support it because we believe it is necessary to have a clear chain of responsibility. The need for this is demonstrated by the rather complicated procedures and alternatives—the various options—should the State President not be able to perform his duties. Firstly, there is the appointment of somebody by the President himself, failing which, the appointment of an acting President by the Cabinet. Eventually, if all these fail or the person who has been nominated or appointed cannot act, then Mr. Speaker will act as State President. We think that it would be a much better form of constitution-making to have a clear chain of responsibility. There is enough work to allocate specific duties as is done in the USA where in effect the Vice-President is the roving President who concentrates on international relationships and contacts over and above the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We think there is more than enough work which could be allocated to a Vice State President who would then always be available in a clear chain of seniority. One could then make provision for him not being available without the procedures which are now laid down.

He could open flower shows too.

Yes, he could even do that. If a Prime Minister can open a flower show, why not the Vice State President? I think I shall probably find my colleague there at the flower show. I am sure he would want to be there to grace it with his presence which of course will be a very great honour for the flower show. I am sure he will make that point obvious too.

I shall see you among the daffodils later.

I shall not waste the time of the Committee. We shall support the amendment because …

Vause, you are a very little petunia in an onion patch.

Order!

I am not a stinking cabbage anyway. [Interjections.] We shall vote for the insertion of the new clause.

Mr. Chairman, I would prefer not to react specifically to the compliments which have been exchanged during the past few minutes.

As far as the contribution of the hon. member for Barberton is concerned, I would like to express my appreciation that he has stated that as the Bill reads at present, the amendment in the form in which the CP wanted it is irreconcilable with the principle of the Bill, and he has accordingly withdrawn the amendment. I think this was a sensible thing to do and in my opinion this is how a debate should be conducted. I do not want to discuss the CP concept any further, because the hon. member did not move that amendment.

I want to return to the amendments of the hon. member for Bryanston and in the process also reply to some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. I agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort that the assistance the hon. member for Bryanston wants to offer, is simply an effort to help the Government out of the frying pan into the fire. However, I shall not elaborate on that point either.

Stoffel, surely you know I would never do that.

I have never known that hon. member to try to do anything else.

Basically there were four points on which the hon. member argued. The first was the so-called overburdening of the State President, and then there were the three so-called principles, namely continuity, the preservation of democracy, and power-sharing. As far as the so-called overburdening of the future State President is concerned, it is of course true that this will be a very important post. One could argue on this basis, but the proposed structure provides for sufficient people in the form of Cabinet Ministers with or without portfolio to whom the State President may entrust all manner of duties in order to lighten his burden. It is not necessary for him to have a Vice-State President to assist him. There are sufficient possibilities for him to find people in other ways to assist him in carrying out his duties. I therefore do not believe this is a real problem, although this was the only argument the hon. member for Bryanston raised which was in fact worth considering.

If one considers the argument of continuity which he raised—he said there should in fact be a constant replacement for the State President—this undoubtedly reminds one of the American model. Reference was also made to this and it was said that the American Vice-President received specific tasks. If one looks at American history one finds that more often than not the Administration was actually at a bit of a loss as regards the Vice-President in the sense that some Vice-Presidents succeeded in making something of the position whereas other Vice-Presidents did nothing because the position they occupied and in which they in reality had to be a mere shadow of the President did not leave them free to act as they wished. This placed them in a very uncomfortable position. It is actually a very delicate task to set aside tasks suited to the specific status of that person. It is far easier to make out a case for Cabinet Ministers to be allowed to assist the State President in carrying out his task.

It is also true, as the American experience has taught us, that one binds oneself in the sense that when the State President is temporarily or permanently unavailable this specific person who may have been elected three or four years ago, has to take the place of the State President. Whereas the person concerned may have been a suitable person when he was elected, it may happen that he is no longer suitable at a later stage.

Mention an example.

We have the example of Vice-President Agnew who was President Nixon’s Vice-President.

What about Truman or Ford?

When the question of succession cropped up, Vice-President Agnew was such an embarrassment that he was President Nixon’s greatest insurance policy, because Congress could not afford to get rid of Nixon because Agnew would then have become President. What they eventually had to do was to get rid of Agnew first before they could afford to relieve Nixon of his post.

Was he the Connie Mulder of America?

Yes, that sounds like a very appropriate interjection to me. The appointment of a Vice-State President is therefore fraught with specific problems and dangers, while if one does not have a Vice-State President and one keeps to the present arrangement, the State President, or, in his absence, the Cabinet can deal with the requirements of the moment.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing clause 11. That clause deals with the Acting President.

Sir, I accept that. What I wanted to suggest was that as far as the successionary function was concerned, for which the Vice-State President would actually have been appointed, better arrangements have been made in the present Constitution Bill. I shall not pursue this matter.

As regards the preservation of democracy I want to make it clear that any acting function will in fact by means of the proposals moved by the PFP on the Select Committee, be restricted to a maximum of 60 days, after which an acting or a new President has to be appointed by way of the electoral college. The continuity of democracy is therefore maintained.

As regards the power-sharing aspect. I want to agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort that the obvious motive of the hon. member for Bryanston was to represent this matter as an embarrassment.

Oh no!

Let me put it this way: If there were to be a State President and a Vice-State President, and one were to be specifically from one group and the other from another group, then the mutual definition of functions and the determining of which functions would be those of the State President and which would be those allocated to the Vice-State President would assume absolutely critical dimensions. This would be the problem if one wanted to ensure a balance by means of appointing two persons from different groups. The actual co-responsibility, the joint decision-making, would in fact be implemented by the way in which the State President exercised his power, and not by appointing various people. There would be a more balanced joint control of power if it were dealt with by one person with due allowance for and consultation with the other groups. I therefore want to suggest that even on that point the present dispensation without the Vice-State President would lead to a better exercising of power than there would be if we agreed to this amendment. The idea of a Vice-State President was considered at length by the Government, but after all these considerations had been taken into account, the conclusion they came to was that this system would work better without a Vice-President than with one. Therefore I am not in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in consequence of the introductory remarks of the hon. member for Bryanston that your ruling that he had to confine himself to the clause reduced his speech by 90%, I want to say that even in 10% of the speech which he did give, he was out of order on several occasions. I do not know how many times he would have been out of order if he had made the rest of his speech as well.

If you would just follow my example, hon. members would be very happy.

I shall do so. I am not even going to speak for 10 minutes, because I do not think the hon. member raised sufficient arguments to keep me talking for longer than 10 minutes.

As far as the hon. member’s amendments are concerned, I want to point out to him that the onus of proving that his amendment is a good one rests with him and not with me. The hon. member said he was concerned about the workload and I want to admit at once that the hon. member cannot imagine what the workload of such a person is, because he has never experienced this himself. The hon. member said that we were now assigning to one man the duties of three. That is not factually correct. The hon. member knows that under the present dispensation the responsibility of the Vice-President lies mainly in the President’s Council. In the new system those duties will no longer exist. I think the hon. member will grant me that. It is also a fact that thus far it has not yet been necessary for us to have a deputy premier. The workload to which the hon. member referred related to the work of the State President as the head of Government. His entire argument was concentrated on the three Houses, of which the State President will be the head. There is no reason why the State President in his executive capacity need carry out all these functions himself. As a matter of fact, as far as the duties of our present Prime Minister are concerned, many of them are transferred and delegated to other people. As far as the State President’s ceremonial duties are concerned, there are a limited number of these functions which he has to perform himself, namely welcoming of ambassadors, opening Parliament and chairing meetings of the Executive Council when certain matters are discussed. In other words, the rest of the functions entrusted to the State President in terms of the new dispensation, could be performed just as well by other people. The argument of the hon. member in connection with the workload therefore does not hold water.

The hon. member also argued that for the sake of continuity, a Vice-President was essential. This relates once again to the function he has to perform as head of Government. My impression was that it was not problematic or necessary for there to be continuity as far as his ceremonial duties were concerned. However, I cannot understand why the hon. member raised an argument in favour of continuity while it was his party’s standpoint that this system would perpetuate an NP Government. This would be in direct conflict with what his party would have liked to have had.

The hon. member’s third argument is that this would give us the opportunity to appoint a Coloured person. I think this is the hon. member’s real motive for the amendment. He is not really very interested in the workload or, as a member of the PFP, in the continuity of the NP Government. The third reason is the real reason, and in this connection the hon. members for Roodepoort and Helderkruin were quite right. The hon. member wanted to see whether he could introduce a further element in a conflict situation. The hon. member wants the Vice-State President to be elected in the same way as the State President. Yesterday, however, they argued that a conflict situation existed within that electoral college. The hon. member therefore wants to aggravate this alleged conflict situation in order to heighten the tension. The hon. member’s amendment is therefore unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react to a point made by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Helderkruin. I simply cannot understand how the hon. the Minister can claim that it will create conflict if a Coloured or an Indian were to occupy the position of Vice State President in South Africa.

I did not say it would. [Interjections.]

That is what the hon. the Minister said.

I did not say that. That is untrue.

The hon. the Minister said that if an Indian or a Coloured were to occupy the position of Vice-State President it would be a conflict-creating step.

That is not true. I did not say that.

Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Helderkruin said that. That is exactly what they said. If this is supposedly a conflict-creating step, how can the Government justify coming forward with a constitution which establishes a mixed Cabinet and a mixed Government? I do not agree with the Government. I do not believe that it would be a conflict-creating step. I believe that it would give an added dimension to this constitution which is to be offered to South Africa, which would make it more acceptable to the Coloureds and the Indians.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Bryanston put certain words into the mouth of the hon. the Minister, words that he really did not use?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

The hon. the Minister said that there would be greater conflict. Surely that is then a conflict-creating situation which is going to be created. In any event, I think it was unwise of the hon. the Minister to state that as his standpoint. I also think that the Coloureds and Indians will take cognizance of the Government’s standpoint that it will under no circumstances make provision for the possibility of there being an Indian or Coloured Vice-State President in South Africa. The Government considers this to be an undesirable, unnecessary, superfluous and conflict-creating step. I think if the Coloureds and the Indians of South Africa take cognizance of that, it will not be in the interests of race relations or of this constitution.

Mr. Chairman, the rules of this House do not allow me to say truthfully what the hon. member for Bryanston has just done. I therefore content myself with the general statement that he told an untruth.

It was worse than that.

I intend to say that.

What did you say?

I said it seemed strange that the hon. members had argued that the composition of the electoral college for the election of the State President was conflict-creating on the basis of its composition and the dominant position, according to their argument, of the Whites in that body. If that argument is true, the hon. member wants to go further and repeat this for the election of a Vice-State President, because he said that the electoral college had to be the same. I say that no hon. member has the right to distort the truth as much as the hon. member has just done.

New Clause negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, following on the discussion that has just taken place with regard to the advisability of providing for the election of a Vice State President, one will see that in clause 10(1), (2) and (3) provision is made for what can only be described as a clumsy and undemocratic procedure for the nomination of an acting President to take the place of the President if for any reasons whatsoever the President is not in a position to continue with his work. Clause 10 reads, inter alia, as follows—

The argument that I want to raise is simply that it is inadvisable that the President should have the prerogative, the President who in any case is not a popularly elected President but a person elected by an electoral college of indirectly elected people, of electing or appointing an acting President. If for any reason such a person is not appointed or a person who is appointed cannot serve, then the Cabinet has the right of nominating an acting President. According to subsection (3), if those procedures fail, then the electoral college has to be brought together to elect an acting President. Of course, if that fails then the Speaker of Parliament shall serve in that capacity. In the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper we ask for the following: Firstly, on page 12, in line 8 after “President” to insert “, Vice President”. This has obviously now fallen away since the proposed new clause was acceptable to the Committee. Then we ask for this procedure, for the nomination of an acting President, either by the existing State President or by the Cabinet, to fall away and that only the section that applies to the provision that the Speaker of Parliament acts in that position should remain. The reason we do so is very simply the following. In the first place, we say that it is an incredibly clumsy procedure which does not provide for a person who is ready and waiting to fill the position of President or to act for the President if he should be unable to carry out his duties. It is a procedure which is only put into effect once the President is no longer able to carry out his duties and which will allow for a time during which the country will not have a President. This could be in a time of crisis or emergency and that would be a dangerous and undesirable situation to have. Our objection also rests on the fact that it is undemocratic in the extreme that either the President should have the prerogative of nominating an acting President or that the Cabinet should nominate an acting President. For those reasons we believe that those provisions should be deleted from clause 10. I accordingly move amendments 2 and 3 printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 2. On page 10, in lines 40 to 52, to omit subsection (2).
2. 3. On page 10, in lines 53 to 67, and on page 12, in lines 1 to 4, to omit subsection (3).

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston elaborated at length on his argument with regard to the previous clause; the new clause that he proposed. His principal objection in this regard is once again that the appointment of the State President as prescribed in clause 10 of this Bill is clumsy and unwieldy. He refers to it as “clumsy and undemocratic”. However, in all honesty, I must say that I fail to understand why the hon. member for Bryanston advances the argument of clumsiness. After all, what happens in the existing system is exactly the same as what is being proposed here.

But that still does not mean that it is not clumsy.

Therefore I fail to understand the hon. member’s argument in that regard. If we look at what is the practice throughout the world in this regard it becomes evident that it is by no means an unusual practice for a State President or a Prime Minister to designate a temporary substitute to act in his place when he himself cannot be available to perform his official duties.

One also finds that due to the diverse ways in which Governments function throughout the world, even in the case of a monarchy, the Head of State nevertheless has the right to nominate specific people to act on his behalf. This is the case in several systems throughout the world. In at least six cases of countries in which an electoral college designates a Prime Minister or a State President—and that represents the number of cases I was able to find—the existing procedure is that the occupant of that post designates his successor. The procedure in terms of which this happens is even specified in the constitution of the country in question. I therefore fail to understand how the hon. member for Bryanston can say that this is a clumsy and unwieldy procedure.

The hon. member went on to argue that it was an undemocratic procedure. I am unable to agree with him in that regard either. After all, in cases where someone has to deputise, the State President will take due account of the conventions that have applied up to that point when appointing an Acting State President, and his designation is constitutional and democratic. In the light of the above I am unable to understand how the hon. member for Bryanston can advance this argument.

Mr. Chairman, the CP is also unable to support this clause and the amendment because, in the first instance, we question the whole way in which an Acting State President is designated. We note here that when the State President is unable to designate an Acting State President, a member of the Cabinet may be designated by the remaining members thereof as Acting State President.

Of course, it is also clear that this will be a mixed Cabinet; a mixed Cabinet that will decide jointly on who the Acting State President will be. We certainly cannot associate ourselves with that.

This brings me to a further aspect to which I wish to react. Clause 10(3)(a) of the Bill reads as follows—

Therefore the Speaker must at any time be of the opinion that the President or the Acting State President will no longer be able to resume the duties of his office within 60 days from the date on which his incapacity set in. What a tremendous burden is here being placed on the Speaker. He has to decide within 60 days whether the President or the Acting President is not in a position to resume his duties. How is he going to exercise that discretion he has? As far as the CP is concerned, this is an impossible burden that is being imposed on the Speaker as well as an unreasonable and unjustified one, and for that reason we are unable to vote either for the clause or for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we would have preferred a Vice State President but, that having been rejected, we cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston. However, as we did in the Select Committee, we shall support the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, if we compare the clause we are considering now with the clause as initially agreed to at Second Reading, it will be seen that four amendments to the existing clause have been effected. It is also of interest that in this specific regard to the official Opposition voted in favour of those very amendments that the hon. member for Bryanston now wants deleted. The amendment to which I want to make specific reference is the insertion of the new subsection (3), which the hon. member for Bryanston now regards as clumsy, and probably inelegant as well. This arose from objections advanced by the official Opposition to the idea that the Cabinet itself could designate an Acting President for an indeterminate period. In the Select Committee the official Opposition convinced us that an amendment along the lines of the new subsection (3) had to be effected, an amendment that it now wants to have deleted in terms of its third amendment. I cannot understand the hon. member describing as clumsy a provision that was inserted at their insistence. The hon. members of the official Opposition voted in favour of those amendments. The fact is that these specific amendments, and the clause as it now stands, ensure that an Acting President cannot be appointed by the President for an indeterminate period. We must also bear in mind that as far as the present position is concerned, there are other office-bearers in the place of the State President if he himself is unable to perform his duties. The office-bearers that have thus fallen far into this class were appropriate because the State President is a Head of State and is therefore responsible for the ceremonial duties that do not fall within the ambit of politics and the political decision-making process. For that reason we were unable to make use of that same procedure, and therefore the hon. member’s party and ourselves agreed to effect the amendments to the clause that they are now objecting to.

The hon. member for Brakpan announced on behalf of his party that they would not proceed with the amendments they have placed on the Order Paper, and therefore I shall not debate that further. Once again, since we had to insert a clause—the hon. member is aware of this and we can differ about it; it does not matter—to the effect that it should not be the case that anyone chosen by the State President or designated by the Cabinet, should deputize in this important position for an indeterminate period, specific provision has been made that within 60 days, if the Speaker deems it necessary, certain steps must be taken. The hon. member will of course understand that someone has to take that decision. In all fairness, I do wish to suggest that the circumstances would be such that it would not be a decision about which there would be any real doubt or which would place the Speaker in a difficult position. I take cognizance of the fact that the hon. member will vote against both the amendment and the clause.

Amendments 2 and 3 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper obviously now fall away since the Committee has decided not to accept the amendments which make provision for a Vice State President. The amendments which I have on the Order Paper will therefore not be moved.

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

1. 6. In the Afrikaans text, on page 13, in line 27, to omit “So help my God” and to substitute “Mag God my daartoe help”.

This is purely a linguistic matter. The point at issue is an expression which, it could perhaps be argued, has become a stereotyped term and which one is constantly encountering, in the courts in particular, when oaths are made. One also encounters it outside the courts in the making of oaths.

When one reads the oath that the State President and the Acting State President have to make, one notes that it ends with an appeal to the Lord for guidance, help and support. In making the oath relating to the responsibility which the maker of the oath takes upon himself, it is accepted that the Lord will give him the strength to bear the responsibility.

In the Afrikaans text, that word “so” before “help” is not really a proper translation into Afrikaans of the English expression. “So” should be “daartoe”. That is what is at issue here: One makes an oath and asks the Lord to give one the strength to perform what one is undertaking. For that reason the expression “so” is wrong in Afrikaans and the correct expression is “daartoe”, but then it would read “Daartoe help God my”. However, that is poor Afrikaans, too, and therefore the best Afrikaans expression in this regard is “Mag God my daartoe help”. Purely on a grammatical basis—this is all that is at issue—I have moved the amendment for the hon. the Minister’s favourable consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the exposition by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. We share the attitude reflected in his amendment. However, I wish to enter into debate with the hon. member on a linguistic basis in order to determine whether we can accommodate one another in this regard. We have a problem with the verb form in Afrikaans. In German, in the Celtic languages and in Latin, the imperative form is expressed in the termination of the verb or by way of Wechsel, that is to say, a change in the stem vowel within the verb. In that way one can determine the meaning of the verb. In the same way we have another change in the stem for the expression of a wish and another termination, so that one can clearly determine the intention in the form of the verb. In Afrikaans the stem of the verb remains broad in the active and imperative forms and in expressing a wish.

Thus we have to analyse the words in the clause as they stand. Nor can they be read out of context. The final idea in the oath reads—

That is the conclusion of the idea which is read to one or which one says aloud and then says in one’s heart. Now, I want to say to the hon. member for Koedoespoort that as far as I am concerned, the “so” refers to the contents that are put to me, or that which I have said in my heart or allowed. To me the “so” refers to that.

For the rest I do not differ with him, except for two things. To me, the oath that is made relates to a decision I have taken, as is the case with an oath in court. In that case I want to say what I have done. What I want to say in that case relates to the past, and in that instance I appeal to the Almighty to guide me in that regard. In contrast, the Afrikaans word “mag” refers expressly to the future. It is an expression of desire relating to what I am going to do in the future. I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member in this regard except to say that we should understand this matter correctly. I have taken a decision and I express the wish, viz. “May the Almighty God guide me in this.” I appeal to him, as it were, with reference to the decision I have taken and accordingly say in Afrikaans “Help my God”. If this is not a prayer—apart from what I mean thereby or from what one could infer from it—if, in this critical moment, this is not a prayer in which I appeal directly to the Almighty and say that I rely on his help and his power in what I am going to do in accordance with a decision I have taken, then I should prefer not to utter these words.

It looks to me like an Anglicism, because it sounds like the English version and looks as if it has been translated directly from the English, and this causes us problems. In fact, the true avowed Calvinist who takes his religion seriously has difficulty saying these words when he bears in mind his frailty, the fact that he may make a mistake. Also in view of history, and the fact that we have used these words over the years and, I think, used them with the right attitude, I do not believe that we should tamper with this now. Let us leave it as it stands. I think it reads correctly as it stands. As far as the intention is concerned, it sounds right to me and the spirit is right as well. I agree with the hon. member, but I think we should leave the wording as it stands here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brentwood does not really differ with me. He has now advanced the argument that the oath has already been made and is therefore in the past. Very well, the undertaking has already been given. The person says: “I am prepared to undertake the following in the interests of the Republic of South Africa”. He then comes to the point at which he is confronted with his own weakness, his own insignificance and his own incompetence. He now realizes his own insignificance. He has now accepted an undertaking that he will have to abide by in the future. From that point onwards he needs the help of the Almighty to support him in carrying out the undertaking he has given. To be able to do this, he is in fact saying a prayer. He is really praying: May God help me, and enable me to carry out this undertaking I have taken upon myself in the future. Fundamentally, therefore, it is a prayer which the person addresses to the Lord in a sense of his own weakness, in the realization of the tremendous task he is taking upon himself. Therefore one thing and one thing only is at issue here, viz. how one is to say this in Afrikaans in the most correct grammatical way. I am fully aware of the stereotyped customary terminology, but it has been wrong all these years. It is grammatically wrong because that “so” should be “daartoe”. It is for that and no other reason that I move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me say here and now that I do not question the motives of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I therefore hope that he will accept it if I react in the same spirit. If the hon. member looks at the clause itself he will find that the person who makes the oath, utters the following words in the penultimate sentence of the oath. He addresses the person who is swearing him in, as follows—

The Afrikaans wording “So help my God” is not merely a linguistic issue, but something more than that. By using this terminology—the hon. member for Brentwood was right when he said it had a historical place in our constitution and in our legislation—in contrast to the words “Mag die Almagtige God in sy genade my lei … ”, in which he addresses the person swearing him in—he is addressing Almighty God. In other words, he is addressing the Creator himself and asking for his help, whereas in the previous sentence he was addressing the person swearing him in and expressing the hope that God would help him. By saying “So help my God” he is, however, asking God to enable him to carry out this undertaking he is signing, an undertaking he is giving his country and the nation.

I should be obliged if the hon. member would accept it as such. I do not think we should quarrel with one another about this. Let us leave the wording as it stands. It will not detract from the perception of any one here of our own dependence on God or from our perception that anyone who becomes a member of Parliament needs help from Above to perform his task.

Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that I am right, but I do not intend allowing this matter to develop into a dispute, because that was at no stage my intention. On that basis I should now like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is perhaps one of the major clauses of the whole Bill. Sir, we have progressed a little faster than some of us thought because the first speaker on our side would have been the hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, I think he will speak in a moment. I will therefore let my speech stand over to allow my hon. leader to carry on first.

Mr. Chairman, we are now at clause 14, and we have reached this clause at a tremendous speed. However, Sir, I find myself in something of an embarrassing position due to an earlier ruling of yours which I sincerely do not wish to disregard. However, clause 14 is one of those clauses that one can hardly discuss without at least referring to other clauses. I do now wish to discuss the other clauses.

Were you looking for the handicap?

No. Sir, you will understand that clause 14 is intimately bound up with the schedule and that it also makes specific reference to clause 16. I do not intend discussing the schedule or clause 16. I do, of course, share the concern initially expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville, because that is valid. I shall of course abide by the Chair’s ruling in this regard, but I do want to ask that some leeway be given when we discuss this clause. Sir, may I perhaps have your ruling in this connection?

I appreciate the problem experienced by hon. members as regards referring to other clauses. I am not going to be rigid about the matter, but one thing must be clear. We must not again have the situation we were faced with before I gave the ruling, in that we must not discuss all kinds of clauses right, left and centre, and by doing so waste the time of the Committee.

Particularly not left.

I was not referring to the party context. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will realize that I cannot permit too wide-ranging a discussion.

This clause relates to the distinction drawn in the Constitution Bill between own and general affairs. As in the case of a previous clause that I discussed, this is a fundamental clause of the Bill. Indeed, one can say that without this distinction it is barely possible to see how the proposed constitution could work in accordance with the Government’s logic. This distinction is based on the assumption that the various communities involved, the three Houses of the envisaged Parliament, have own affairs and also share general affairs. Nothing illustrates the Government’s efforts to draw a distinction between own and general affairs better than its false notion as to the concept of ethnicity as linked to a minority. I do not seek to deny for a moment that the Coloureds and Asians, for population purposes, constitute minorities in South African politics, but I do wish to deny with the utmost vehemence that they are ethnic minorities in the way that concept is used in the literature on the subject. If we look at scientific literature on ethnicity and ethnic groupings and minorities that are able to identify themselves as such, it is clear that this concept refers to a grouping of people who, due to historic circumstances, have developed an identity of their own that is characterized by common cultural characteristics, sometimes racial characteristics—although not necessarily—and sometimes, too, by a common language, history, etc. However, that is not enough. It is not even a question of their being identified as such by others. They voluntarily identify themselves as such a group. Therefore one can usually perceive in an ethnic grouping what the particular characteristics are that, as it were, voluntarily distinguish them from other groups on an ethnic basis. Here I have in mind, for example, the Jews. One has no difficulty identifying the Jews in terms of a common tradition, a common religion and even a common language. Therefore one can identify the Jews in this way. The same applies to the Afrikaner in the South African context, the Zulus, Xhosa’s, etc.

When one specifically considers the two minority groups, and particularly the Coloureds, that are involved in the Constitution Bill, it is quite clear that they do not comply with this definition. There is no self-identification on the basis of religion, culture, etc.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is talking about minority groups. I should like to know how he identifies them.

This is the cardinal aspect of the Bill. Identification of these minority groups is a compulsive identification. It is in consequence of a Bill passed by the White Parliament, namely the Population Registration Act, in terms of which these people have been categorized. The issue here is the nature of the categorization, because due to that categorization it is possible for the authorities to identify them. In the nature of the matter the categorization is carried out in terms of the Population Registration Act. That identification leads, in terms of the Population Registration Act, to a category of persons being set aside, as it were, for specific purposes of government. Therefore, what then happens is that on the basis of race—and no other criterion applies here—a distinction is drawn by the Government as regards to provision of certain facilities, e.g. residential plots, residential areas, education facilities, parks, community facilities. The Separate Amenities Act specifies clearly that they should be set aside on the basis of race. Therefore, in the nature of the matter, it is not difficult to say where the Coloureds find themselves. Nor is it difficult to see what facilities are available to them. Equally, it is impossible to say that there is one common Coloured religion or common Coloured tradition or culture with regard to education, for example, or with regard to the type of characteristics that distinguish other ethnic groups. We are unable to do that. All we can do is say that this distinction is drawn on a basis of race. What is interesting here is that there is a division between the Government and the CP which is unleashing a whole new debate. Originally the Government used the same kind of argument as the CP, viz. that the Coloureds were a nation in the making, or that due to tradition and history, there was sense of community, a sense of identity, etc. When the Government came forward with a tricameral system, it moved away from the “nation in the making” argument, since this placed it in a somewhat embarrassing position as regards the ethnic concepts it uses with regard to the Blacks, because surely they cannot advocate separate homelands for the Blacks, but not for the Coloureds who are a nation in the making. Therefore the Government is increasingly beginning to refer to the Coloureds as minority groups. They do not constitute a people. The hon. the Prime Minister said that some of them spoke Afrikaans, attended the same church as we do, etc. Whence, then, comes this idea of making them a nation in the making? The moment the Government did that it denied itself the entire logic of ethnic minorities. That is why the Government is faced with something of a dilemma in this regard. One can refer to the Coloureds as a race categorization, because that is, in fact, what it is. But one cannot refer to them as an ethnic group in the sense that one refers to the Xhosas, for example, as an ethnic group. For that reason the basis of the distinction is, quite simply, racial.

It is on the basis of these assumptions and points of departure that the Government is now trying to make a political group out of a race category and expecting that political group to identify themselves, with regard to own affairs, to the same degree and with the same conviction as—for example—the Jewish group, the Afrikaner group or the Xhosa group. But in fact those own affairs do not exist, because those own affairs are the creation of the White Parliament. The White Parliament has stipulated that this category be set apart because they may not share the same facilities as the Whites, not because they have own affairs, but for the simple reason that they have a different skin colour and have been identified as Coloureds. Therein lies the philosophical bankruptcy of this whole system. When we discuss the schedule we shall consider precisely how ridiculous this distinction between own and general affairs is in this regard.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.